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.
Peter is an apostle and we should expect apostles in God’s True Church isn’t derived from a single verse or even a part of a verse, but the entire Bible. As you know, the Bible from Gen. 1:1 to Revelations 22:21 is a continuum. You can’t leave something out. At no point in the Bible does God have an anarcho-church, one without some formal hierarchy. Even apostate Judah in the New Testament continues to run things using the same pattern God set out at first. The Apostles are called, they replace missing members, etc. All that is evidence that they belong in the Church.
If Peter were to hand you a copy of an epistle with the express intent of reaching the saints in Pontus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontus#Roman_province) or Cappadocia to whom do you deliver Peter’s letter?
Why would it be eisegesis to expect God’s house not to be a house of order? The economy of God is order. Those are what the text says, not my preconceived notion of it. It’s how I learned that the Trinity isn’t Biblical or even a doctrine of Salvation.
No, I didn’t used to post as anybody else.