We now return to the original thread:

Quote:
But why does the Bible nowhere describe Peter as participating in the things that would support the papal invention?

Why is there no instance where the other apostles accepted or treated Peter as their pope?




Let's examine another facet of this fraud:


Mt 16:18-19 are two of the most contested and least understood verses in Scrip-tures. With these two verses, the Catholic Church claims that Peter was made the undisputed referee of Christianity and is one of the cornerstones of Catholicism.

Never mind the rock and keys stuff, and that two different word forms were used, the Catholic interpretation is circular and flows from their agenda.

Peter's confession is related by the three synoptics, Mt. 16:13-20, Mk. 8:27-30, and Lk. 9:18-21.

If this is supposed to mean that Peter and his successors were to be in charge, why did the passages in Mk and Lk conclude with this:


Mark 9:34
But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.

Luke 9:46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.



The primacy of Peter can only be seen as Catholic eisegesis [reading meanings into Scripture that aren't there] and circular theology.