Built On The Wrong Apostle

[FHII]

Folks...

PETER WAS NOT THE LEADER OF THE APOSTLES! JESUS WAS!

Not ONCE does the Bible say Peter was their leader! Not ONCE did Jesus ever say Peter was the greatest of them, to follow Peter's decisions or had supremacy. Not ONCE does the Bible say Peter was head of the Church at any time! He never even was head of ANY local Church that the Bible indicates.

What Peter did was speak up and become the alpha dog at many times.He had those qualities. This is why I can with confidence call him the unofficial spokesman of the Apostles. He got in trouble MANY times for it, but Jesus did recognize his qualities. Even so, he never appointed Peter the leader.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Besides... I am not a protestant.

Sure you are - IF you're a Christian, that is.

A Protestant, by definition id a Christian who does not belong to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a Protestant as:
Definition of protestant
Prot·es·tant
ˈprädəstənt/
A member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

Funny how some Protestants try to deny this fact . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Folks...
PETER WAS NOT THE LEADER OF THE APOSTLES! JESUS WAS!

Not ONCE does the Bible say Peter was their leader! Not ONCE did Jesus ever say Peter was the greatest of them, to follow Peter's decisions or had supremacy. Not ONCE does the Bible say Peter was head of the Church at any time! He never even was head of ANY local Church that the Bible indicates.

What Peter did was speak up and become the alpha dog at many times.He had those qualities. This is why I can with confidence call him the unofficial spokesman of the Apostles. He got in trouble MANY times for it, but Jesus did recognize his qualities. Even so, he never appointed Peter the leader.

Oh, really?

- Was Peter referred to as "Protos" (first) in Matt. 10:2 due to his "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

- Did Jesus give Peter and Peter ALONE the Keys to the Kingdom because he liked his "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

- Did Jesus pray for Peter and Peter ALONE to strengthen the rest of the Apostles (Luke 22:31-32) due to his "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

- Did Jesus ask Peter and Peter ALONE at the Garden of Gethsemane why they ALL had fallen asleep (Matt. 26:40, Mark 14:37) because he considered him the "Alpha Dog" or because he was the chief Apostle?

- Did Jesus tell Peter and Peter ALONE to feed His sheep and tend His flock (John 21:15-19) because he had some "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, pal . . .

 

[FHII]

Sure you are - IF you're a Christian, that is.

A Protestant, by definition id a Christian who does not belong to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a Protestant as:
Definition of protestant
Prot·es·tant
ˈprädəstənt/
A member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

Funny how some Protestants try to deny this fact . . .

Neither myself nor my Church is a denomination. So right there I am excluded.

Second, a am not protesting anything other than false doctrine. Ley your pope be your leader!

Third, yes I like many of the principles the reformers laid down. Not all of them. They have their leaven too.

Now then... Didn't Pope Benedict say that the Catholic Church is still the mother church... Even for protestantsm

I am not part of any of that! I reject it all! I don't hate Catholics or Protestants. I will amen them when the get it right! But to Catholics.. Protestants are hust disobient catholics. The ONLY thing about that definition (which isn't God's) is that I believe in the Bible--the words of God, his prophets and his apostles is supreme.

If you want to say that doesn't make me a Christian... Fine. But if so, you can take your definitions and opinions elsewhere. I really don't care and nneither does Jesus.

 

[Nomad]

WRONG.
At the Council of Jerusalem, James REITERATES what Peter has ALREADY said. In other words - he agreed with Peter.

Once again, James speaking at the end of the proceedings says,

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God...

Pay attention here. Whose judgement??? That's right, James' judgement. Peter didn't seem to realize that he was the first Pope.

Nope - hands down, Peter is the leader, as testif.ied UNANIMOUSLY by the Early Church Fathers and by Scripture.

Peter was a leader, not the leader. He was one among many with the power to bind and loose.

*Again see my comment regarding the Council of Jerusalem above.

As for Paul's admonishment of Peter in Gal. 2 - so what?? Peter is the leader but he is STILL just a human being capable of making errors in personal judgement. Peter wasn't practicing what he preached - he didn't preach what he wasn't practicing . . .

We should expect a higher standard from the very first vicar of Christ. I suppose his preaching was ex cathedra, but his conduct was not. He even had to be corrected by a lesser apostle. I don't envy you. The notion that Peter was the head honcho -- the very first pope, is a hard sell to those who are paying attention. Sorry.

 

[FHII]

Oh, really?

Yes. Really.

- Was Peter referred to as "Protos" (first) in Matt. 10:2 due to his "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

The verse doesn't say he was the chief apostle. He absolutely at the time was the most predominate. But it doesn't say he was the chief.

- Did Jesus give Peter and Peter ALONE the Keys to the Kingdom because he liked his "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

And where did it say he got them alone?

What did these keys do? They allowed him to loose and bind stuff... Did Peter alone have that power?

Did Jesus pray for Peter and Peter ALONE to strengthen the rest of the Apostles (Luke 22:31-32) due to his "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

I've already covered that. Peter was the weak one at the moment and in need of prayer. Its not a point in his favor. And it comes after Jesus shut down the notion that someone was greater tham the other.

- Did Jesus ask Peter and Peter ALONE at the Garden of Gethsemane why they ALL had fallen asleep (Matt. 26:40, Mark 14:37) because he considered him the "Alpha Dog" or because he was the chief Apostle?

Really? That was a good thing? That was a point in his favor? He screwed up too. Next thing you will be claiming is a good thing is that Peter alone was called Satan.

Did Jesus tell Peter and Peter ALONE to feed His sheep and tend His flock (John 21:15-19) because he had some "Alpha Dog" qualities or because he was the chief Apostle?

Again... Not a point his favor. Have you even read rhe account or are you just touting party line?

 

[epostle1]

Well you missed the point. Would you feel better if I changed my wording? How about, "some members of the Christian community give more honor to Mary and Peter than the Bible allots to them." Feel better?

"All devotions and practices must be explicitly found in scripture to be valid" IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE. It's a Protestant man made tradition. Honor to Mary and Peter needed time to develop, just as the Bible itself needed 350 years to develop. If you look at the first 350 years of Christianity, Protestantism isn't found in any form.

Like I was telling Mary... There is just so much talk about how Peter is the leader of the Church... Yet no one mentions the other Apostles (at least in some circles). I hadn't heard anyone mention that the Church was built on all the apostles and prophets until I pressed the issue with scripture.

Scripture doesn't invent false dichotomies between Peter and the other apostles. They worked together, in harmony.

Furthermore... Look at the general tone. When I stated that the Church wasn't built on Peter alone, what was the general tone? After a lot of resistance, it wasn't wasn', "Yes, that's right". It was, "I never said that!"

I never said that. The magisterium consists of Peter and the apostles, while you deny the magisterium exists (because you can't find the term in scripture)

As opposed to a Catholic man-made tradition???

For once I would like to see this cheap shot backed up with facts.

Besides... I am not a protestant.

You are in protest to Protestantism. That's an excuse to be your own pope.

That's what I mean by "Tradition". Anti-Catholics keep changing the meaning.

 

[epostle1]

Yes. Really.

The verse doesn't say he was the chief apostle. He absolutely at the time was the most predominate. But it doesn't say he was the chief.

Scripture doesn't use terms like "incarnation" or "Trinity" either. Where does scripture demand the use of English terms describing Peter's office?

And where did it say he got them alone?
What did these keys do? They allowed him to loose and bind stuff... Did Peter alone have that power?

Using Protestant scholars, I have posted extensively on the keys. The problem with you is you reject even Protestant scholars.

I've already covered that. Peter was the weak one at the moment and in need of prayer. Its not a point in his favor. And it comes after Jesus shut down the notion that someone was greater tham the other.
Really? That was a good thing? That was a point in his favor? He screwed up too. Next thing you will be claiming is a good thing is that Peter alone was called Satan.

But you don't understand WHY Peter was called Satan. Mark 8:33 – you are using this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. Why was Peter singled out? No answer? Didn't think so.

Again... Not a point his favor. Have you even read rhe account or are you just touting party line?

Is everyone on this board touting the party line when Jesus is quoted directly? Isn't your anti-authority your own party line?

 

[FHII]

All devotions and practices must be explicitly found in scripture to be valid" IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE. It's a Protestant man made tradition. Honor to Mary and Peter needed time to develop, just as the Bible itself needed 350 years to develop. If you look at the first 350 years of Christianity, Protestantism isn't found in any form

What in tarnations doea that have to do with anything we are discussing?

Scripture doesn't invent false dichotomies between Peter and the other apostles. They worked together, in harmony.

When did I say otherwise? I mean... I couldve. Paul was at odds with James, John Mark and Peter at times. Yea... They were all on the same team. But to say they worked in harmony is incorrect.

I never said that. The magisterium consists of Peter and the apostles, while you deny the magisterium exists (because you can't find the term in scripture)

Number one.. I never said you did say that. Number two... You are correct. I can't find the term magisterium in the Bible. I can't even find the concept in the Bible. I can find Paul setting doctrine. I can find Peter setting doctrine. But I can't find one Pope or the Catholic Church setting doctrine.

For once I would like to see this cheap shot backed up with facts.

And I would like to see a whole lot of Catholic doctrine backed by the Bible.

Easter. Christmas. Mary being sinless. Rosary. Priests not able to be married. Purgatory. Shall I go on?

You are in protest to Protestantism. That's an excuse to be your own pope.

Thats about the stupidest thing I've heard you say yet. Seriously kepha... Perhaps you should stick to initially insulting people the cutting ang pasting the works of others to make your point. I mean, that doesn't work well... But it works better than you trying to go at it on your own!

That's what I mean by "Tradition". Anti-Catholics keep changing the meaning.

I ain't anti catholic. I am anti false doctrine no matter where it comes from. I rarely even darken this board by using the term Catholic. You deem me anti catholic because you are the dog that got hit... Thus, you whine.

 

[epostle1]

Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.

2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus said in Aramaic, you are “Kepha” and on this “Kepha” I will build my Church. In Aramaic, “kepha” means a massive stone, and “evna” means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is “petra”, that “Petros” actually means “a small rock”, and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus’ blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used “Kepha,” not “evna.” Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the “small rock,” he would have used “lithos” which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church.

Matt. 16:17 – to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon “Bar-Jona.” The use of “Bar-Jona” proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, “Bar” means son, and “Jonah” means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 – also, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”).

Matt. 16:18-19 – in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic

 

[FHII]

The problem with you is you reject even Protestant scholars.

YES! Finally you get it! At least I don't reject the Bible!

But you don't understand WHY Peter was called Satan.

Actually... I do.

you are using this verse to down play Peter’s authority.

It may surprise you, but that's correct to some degree. I am using it to counterbalance you false elivation of Peter.

A side note for you Kepha... I am not stupid. I know I will not win this convesation. I can give you all the Biblical facts, but you have your own "sacred" tradition which you can point to which trumps all biblical facts.

Why was Peter singled out? No answer? Didn't think s

Umm seriously? No answer? There is an answer. Peter was singled out cause he was the on at fault.

Is everyone on this board touting the party line when Jesus is quoted directly?

I am less interested in Jesus being quoted directly (which happens a lot) than I am him being quoted correctly (which in this thread, rarely happens) . quote him correctly, not directly to suit your needs.

Isn't your anti-authority your own party line?

I am as far from anti-authority as you can get.

 

[epostle1]

What in tarnations doea that have to do with anything we are discussing?

You unrealistically expect a 21 century papacy to look identical to the 1st century church, you have no concept of doctrinal development.

When did I say otherwise? I mean... I couldve. Paul was at odds with James, John Mark and Peter at times. Yea... They were all on the same team. But to say they worked in harmony is incorrect.

If what you say is true, the doctrines they taught would be seriously flawed. This is contrary to Jesus'
promises. I am not talking about arguing over a board game, I am talking about infallible doctrines, and I submit you have your own private definition of infallibility. It's wrong.

Number one.. I never said you did say that. Number two... You are correct. I can't find the term magisterium in the Bible. I can't even find the concept in the Bible. I can find Paul setting doctrine. I can find Peter setting doctrine. But I can't find one Pope or the Catholic Church setting doctrine.

I suppose the canon of scripture happened by itself. The problem with you is you refuse to be reasonable. This is where you invent Bible-origin fantasies.

And I would like to see a whole lot of Catholic doctrine backed by the Bible.

You haven't looked. All Catholic doctrine is found directly or indirectly in the Bible. What is not backed by the Bible is Bible-alone theology. (sola scriptura) It's a man made, unhistorical, illogical, unworkable theory invented by Martin Luther because he was mad at the Pope.

Easter. Christmas. Mary being sinless. Rosary. Priests not able to be married. Purgatory. Shall I go on?

Don't bother. I don't reply to mindless rants.

Thats about the stupidest thing I've heard you say yet. Seriously kepha... Perhaps you should stick to initially insulting people the cutting ang pasting the works of others to make your point. I mean, that doesn't work well... But it works better than you trying to go at it on your own!

You are your own Pope. You oppose all authority (except your own) and you don't like being exposed. You are the dog that got hit. Hence the mindless rant.

I ain't anti catholic. I am anti false doctrine no matter where it comes from. I rarely even darken this board by using the term Catholic. You deem me anti catholic because you are the dog that got hit... Thus, you whine.

No, you are anti-everything. Sola scriptura is as false as they come and you follow it blindly. You rant on a list of terms you have no hope of understanding. That's proof of your whining. Prejudice forbids any sincere inquiries.

Easter is a celebration of the Resurrection and you oppose even that. I would rather debate with Christians.

 

[Nomad]

It may surprise you, but that's correct to some degree. I am using it to counterbalance you false elivation of Peter.

The distinction you make here is key and I want all of our RC residents to take note of it. Was Peter an important leader? Yes. Was Peter 'primus inter pares' (first among equals), along with James and John, yes.

Gal 2:9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars...

Was Peter the top dog, head honcho, or the first pope? Absolutely not. This very idea is a 'false elevation' of Peter. See my previous arguments here:

Built On The Wrong Apostle

 

[pia]

I push a little more hoping that a little light will come on and she really will see something from God so that she can also move out as a living soul.

Of course, sorry.....I guess I allowed an emotion to enter into that one..Most of the time I'm ok, but other times, when people are attacked in one form or another, I can get a little antzy...

 

[H. Richard]

The truth remains. That truth is that the gospel of the kingdom, preached by Jesus and the 12, had to be put on hold since the Jews rejected it.

Jesus, by His own words, said He only came to the Jews and that was to fulfill all that was written about Him. He was their promised Messiah and King BUT THEY REJECTED HIM.

In other words, Only the Jews were promised a kingdom and that kingdom was to be setup in Israel. That is what is contained in the OT. Jesus did not come to offer a kingdom to the Gentiles. Since none of the promises of a kingdom could be established because of the Jews rejecting it in unbelief, it is rather foolish to think God would offer that kingdom to the Gentiles. That would mean God does not keep His promises.

It is because of the Jews rejecting their promised kingdom that God has setup another gospel (good news) of grace and has offered it to the whole world. That is what the story Jesus told about the wedding feast was all about.

Matt 22:1-10 -- The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Luke 14:15-24)
1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said:
2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. (the Jews)
4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."'

The Jews rejected the invitation.

5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.
6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

God sent the Romans to destroy the Jewish Temple and send the Jews all over the world.

8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.'

The beginning of the gospel of grace.

10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
NKJV

Matt 22:11-13
11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.

In those days travel was on dirt roads. Traveler had to wear clean clothes to a feast. Normally those clean cloths were furnished by the host, In the story the one thrown out refused to wear the clothing (righteousness) offered by the host.

12 So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless.
13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
NKJV

IMO, today, if a person refuses to place their faith in the work of God (Jesus) on the cross they are refusing to accept the righteousness offered by God on behalf of Jesus' work on the cross.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Neither myself nor my Church is a denomination. So right there I am excluded.

Second, a am not protesting anything other than false doctrine. Ley your pope be your leader!

Third, yes I like many of the principles the reformers laid down. Not all of them. They have their leaven too.

Now then... Didn't Pope Benedict say that the Catholic Church is still the mother church... Even for protestantsm

I am not part of any of that! I reject it all! I don't hate Catholics or Protestants. I will amen them when the get it right! But to Catholics.. Protestants are hust disobient catholics. The ONLY thing about that definition (which isn't God's) is that I believe in the Bible--the words of God, his prophets and his apostles is supreme.

If you want to say that doesn't make me a Christian... Fine. But if so, you can take your definitions and opinions elsewhere. I really don't care and nneither does Jesus.

First of all - you don't have to belong to a "denomination" to be a Protestant. Look at the definition. It simply refers to non-Catholic Christians.

Secondly - You admit to protesting Catholic doctrine - yet you don't consider yourself "Protestant", which is a ridiculous contradiction.

Thirdly - adherence to ALL of the principles laid down by the Reformers isn't mandatory within Protestantism. It is a perpetually-splintering system so you're just being a good Protestant by disagreeing . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Once again, James speaking at the end of the proceedings says,
Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God...
Pay attention here. Whose judgement??? That's right, James' judgement. Peter didn't seem to realize that he was the first Pope.

Nonsense.
This is NO different that my wife coming up with an idea and ME saying, "You know what? I've decided that this is a good idea."

Peter laid down his decision and James agreed.

Peter was a leader, not the leader. He was one among many with the power to bind and loose.
*Again see my comment regarding the Council of Jerusalem above.

Yup - ALL the Apostles had the power to bind and loose.
ONLY Peter, however was singled out for this PRIOR to the others - and ONLY Peter was given the Keys to the Kingsom of Heaven.

We should expect a higher standard from the very first vicar of Christ

I suppose his preaching was ex cathedra, but his conduct was not. He even had to be corrected by a lesser apostle. I don't envy you. The notion that Peter was the head honcho -- the very first pope, is a hard sell to those who are paying attention. Sorry.

I agree with your comment in RED. We SHOULD expect a higher standard.
Unfortunately, though - Peter was just a flawed humane being - just like YOU and everybody else.

Peter, like every other leader the world has ever known had his high points as well as his low points.
Doesn't make him any less of a leader. It just makes him HUMAN . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The verse doesn't say he was the chief apostle. He absolutely at the time was the most predominate. But it doesn't say he was the chief.

You didn't answer the question.
Why is Peter called "Protos" (first) - when he wasn't the first chosen??

And where did it say he got them alone?
What did these keys do? They allowed him to loose and bind stuff... Did Peter alone have that power?

Matt. 16:18 says that Peter and Peter ALONE received the Keys from Jesus. This echos Isaiah 22:22 where God gives the Keys to the House of Israel to Eliakim. The Keys signify complete Authority.

I've already covered that. Peter was the weak one at the moment and in need of prayer. Its not a point in his favor. And it comes after Jesus shut down the notion that someone was greater tham the other.

Why did Jesus pray for Peter ALONE to strengthen his brothers??
He was praying for Peter so that he could SERVE the others. Jesus told them that the greatest among them would have to SERVE the rest.

Why didn't He pray for each one of them to be strengthened??
It's because Peter was the Chief Apostle.

Really? That was a good thing? That was a point in his favor? He screwed up too. Next thing you will be claiming is a good thing is that Peter alone was called Satan.

Yup - they ALL screwed up - and Peter alone is held accountable for it.
That's usually the way it works with leaders . . .

Again... Not a point his favor. Have you even read rhe account or are you just touting party line?

I've absolutely read it. Jesus was reinstating Peter because he denied Him 3 times.
Jesus NEVER asked ANY other Apostle to feed His sheep or tend His flock. Not ONE - except for Peter . . .

 

[epostle1]

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council
Here is a compelling biblical argument for an infallible Church, and against sola Scriptura.

 

[H. Richard]

It seems that most on this thread think that Jesus (God) has set up just another religious church run by men and and that trusting in it is the way to heaven.

Jesus did not setup a church. He setup a way for sinners to be saved and that way is not through a church. It is through faith. Faith in the work of Jesus (God) on the cross where He (God) paid for all the sins of the world. Faith is not a church. Faith is believing God. It is faith, trust, and confidence in what God did on the cross for mankind. But the religious think it is all about what they do in religion. If salvation is by what mankind does in religion then everyone is going to hell. God will not let the work of His Son on the cross be overshadowed by the religions of man.