[aron]

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low? Did he suggest that Peter should "get in line" behind him or anyone else? Did Peter ever indicate that people should get in line behind Paul, and that Paul now had primacy? The case Paul recounted in Galatians 2, where "some came from James", indicates James' influence, not Paul's. Paul resisted James' influence, but didn't assert his own.

Did Paul ever indicate that only some of the OT scriptures were profitable to mine for revelation of Christ, while others were revealing only the fallen natures of the writers? Where, in all his recommendations of scripture, are his accompanying dis-recommendations? If not, why or how should we infer this? If we do so, then are our own judgments become superior to the scriptures, to Paul, and to Peter, and to the writer of Hebrews?

Why didn't John, in his Revelation, indicate the primacy of an apostle? Who was the apostle of the age, after Paul had gone? Was this office somehow irrelevant to John, who with his brother James had requested the right and left hands of Jesus in the kingdom? I would say, hardly. So where is the apostle of the age indicated, in John's apocalypse? No where, that is where. The apostle isn't even indicated; it is the prophet pointing to Christ. So what happened to the apostle of the age? The closest I can see in the apocalypse is the "two witnesses" account. But that is hardly "God's man of the hour". There are two of them.

WL would stress that "the whole view of scripture" indicates this narrative, or that. But I don't see his narrative emerging from the whole view of scripture at all. I think he's superimposing it upon scripture, and subsequently for his narrative to stand, and retain coherence, you have to ignore a lot of scripture.