First of all – it’s painfully evident that you don’t understand how debates work.
It doesn’t matter how many denials you post – they are NOT evidence. Without some actual Scriptural, historical and linguistic proof for your claims – your argument is DEAD on arrival. This is the case with EVERYTHING you just posted – which I will no obliterate, point by point . . .
In Matt. 16:18, Jesus told Simon “And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
BOTH instances of “ROCK” apply to Simon Peter because Jesus wasn’t speaking Greek – He spoke ARAMAIC. In Aramaic, there is only ONE word for Rock and that is “Kepha”. In the Greek – John HAD to call Simon “Petros” because he is a MAN – and “Petra” is a FEMININE noun.
What Jesus actually said was:
“And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
This is why St. Peter is referred to as “Cephas” in many of St. Paul’s letters, because Cephas is the closest Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, Kepha.
Jesus clearly appointed St. Peter as earthly head of the Church and Chief Apostle here in Matthew’s Gospel as well as Luke 22:31-32, where he told Peter that he prayed for him ALONE to strengthen the other Apostles in his absence.
In John 21:15-19, Jesus confronts Peter 3 times, which mirrors the 3 times Peter denied Him. However, Jesus not only asks Peter of he loves Him – He tells Peter 3 times to feed His lambs, tend his sheep and to feed His sheep. Jesus doesn’t give this instruction to any other Apostle.
You anti-Catholics believe Peter is NOT the Rock but that the Rock refers to his confession of faith. This violates the hermeneutical principle known as the “Granville Sharp’s Rule”, which states:
`When the copulative KAI connects two nouns of the same case, if the article HO or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a further description of the first-named person.'" (A Manual Of The Greek New Testament, Dana & Mantey, p. 147)
MOST anti-Catholics adhere to this Protestant hermeneutical rule – EXCEPT in the case of Matt. 16:18.
Gee – I wonder WHY that is . . .
Regarding your asinine claim that Jesus was talking to ALL the Apostles and not just Peter – even a 2nd grader can see that he was speaking ONLY to Peter:
Matt. 16:15-18
15 He said to THEM (plural), “But who do YOU (plural) say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to HIM (singular) in reply, “Blessed are YOU (singular), Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU (singular), but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to YOU (singular), YOU (singular) are Peter (singular), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give YOU (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU (singular) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU (singular) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Couldn’t be ANY CLEARER that from verses 16-18, Jesus is talking to Peter – and Peter ALONE.
As for Acts 1:20 – this is in reference to Judas’s OFFICE of Bishop (Episkopoi).
It shows that it was a SUCCESSIVE office.
As to your final moronic claim that there is “not a single reference or deferral to Peter in all the bible” – this is complete hogwash, as I have already listed SEVERAL.
Here’s ONE more:
In Matt. 10:2 – Peter is listed as the FIRST Apostle (Protos) – even though he was NOT the first Apostle chosen.
Gee – I WONDER why that is . . .
You LOSE because you refuse to do your homework.
It’s no WONDER your forum is dying . . .