[daniel1212]

There is no one named "Peter of Scripture;

Like there is no one named the God of the Bible. Forsake your sophistry.

here is someone called Simon Peter, or Cephas, the Apostle to whom the Messiah said these mighty words

The meaning of which is the issue, for which we look in the rest of Scripture, and thus once again your conclusion is actually begging the question on your part and is hardly a response to what refuted it.

I believe Him.

Well then, that settles the issue as well as believing in Bigfoot.

Does your faith community have succession and provenance ?

In evangelical faith, under the new covenant God can raise up children from stones, (Mt. 9:6) who like Peter effectually profess faith in the risen Son of God, and a true Jew is not one whose DNA goes back to Abraham, but one who has the faith of such. (Rm. 2:28) That is what is needed for succession and provenance of the church, as that is how it began and grew, "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

And under which basis for ecclesiastical validity, erroneous competing claims must be overcome by the weight of Scriptural substantiation, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Succession and provenance are not my undoing; I am not in rebellion or protesting. I am in faith believing the words of the LORD Jesus Christ, that He built His church on the Apostle Peter, and there has been one holy catholic apostolic church ever since, to this day

Yes, it is indeed your undoing, since you engaging in an polemical argument by interpretive assertion, the conclusion of which does not flow from the premise.

[af_vet_1981]

Like there is no one named the God of the Bible.

There is no name like that in the scriptures. Do you invoke that as a proper name in your daily (or nightly) prayers ?

[af_vet_1981]

The meaning of which is the issue, for which we look in the rest of Scripture, and thus once again your conclusion is actually begging the question on your part and is hardly a response to what refuted it.

If I consider the equivalent of Bible School professors in the Gospel accounts trying to relate to the Messiah and His Apostles, P the Apostle Peter I am astounded at how some of them completely missed what the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was doing in the life of the Apostle Peter, as well as his brother Apostles. No, it would not matter had they studied Hebrew and Greek even more; they would still stumble over it.

The question is already answered in the Scriptures, and in history, for those who have faith to receive it.

[af_vet_1981]

In evangelical faith, under the new covenant God can raise up children from stones, (Mt. 9:6) who like Peter effectually profess faith in the risen Son of God, and a true Jew is not one whose DNA goes back to Abraham, but one who has the faith of such.

Do you claim to be a Jew ?

[af_vet_1981]

And under which basis for ecclesiastical validity, erroneous competing claims must be overcome by the weight of Scriptural substantiation, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

Which re-formed religious movement (assumed to have started in the 16th Century) does your faith community come from ? Where is it in history ?

[af_vet_1981]

Yes, it is indeed your undoing, since you engaging in an polemical argument by interpretive assertion, the conclusion of which does not flow from the premise.

You lack authority, succession, and provenance.