If Peter was the first Pope and could speak God's Word infallibly, why does history tell us this?:
Why just five verses after the verse you so love to misinterpret (Matthew 17: 17-19) does Jesus call the "Pope" Satan and an offense to Christ? (Matthew 17:23)
Why, if Peter is Pope, did the Church have the Jerusalem Council? Wouldn't Peter just tell them what's what? Seems like a wonderful missed opportunity to show Peter's preeminence.
Since history has established that James ran the show at the Jerusalem Counsel, did he usurp Peter's position? Why would impetulent Peter sit quietly by and allow it to happen?
If Peter is Pope, why did he deny Christ three times? Kind of messes up his infallibility.
If Peter is Pope, why did he allow Paul to publicly dress him down on a theological issue? Doesn't Paul know his place? Would a modern-day Pope allow a Bishop or Cardinal to do that today?
If Peter was the first Pope, why was Paul the one who wrote most of the New Testament books?
If Peter is the first Pope, why did he have trouble understanding some of Paul's writings? (2 Peter 3:15-16)
These hardly fill one with confidence that Peter was the appointed Vicar of Christ. He didn't act like he knew it or that his contemporary Church leaders did either.
Details, details......
Once a pope, always a pope, you know.....
Wow CommerceComet, should be getting a 10,000 copy/paste heading our way. Hoping that a flood of words will give the response legitimacy.
Hardly. The entire gathering was in turmoil UNTIL Peter stood up and gave the official reasoning... at which time James as the local Bishop gave his ruling.
This is why serious, unguided, bible reading and study has always proven fatal to Roman Catholic authority.
And why, sooner or later, the Roman church ALWAYS discourages bible reading and study. The contrast between New Testament Christianity and what Rome calls Christianity...is just too great, for the honest reader.