Prove it was eisegesis and not just something you don’t agree with.
There are lots of examples but let's just deal with one at a time. You made the following conclusion:
Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church.
This is apparently deduced from Peter's statement: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ..."
The first part "Peter is an apostle" is sound exegesis - clearly that is what the text says. The second part "and we should expect apostles in God's True Church" is not. How can you deduce that from what Peter said? This isn't even implied by the text nor in the rest of the verses that follow. Your conclusion certainly wouldn't be clear to anyone who comes to the text without that position already formulated. In other words, you where using eisegesis. Logicians would call it confirmation bias.
BTW have you ever posted on the Free Republic under a different screen name? Your argumentation style is similar to a Mormon defender who hasn't posted for a while.