First, it doesn't align with the role played by Peter in the early days of Christianity. Peter was clearly an evangelist and a missionary. Certainly he carried the God-given Apostolic authority. Yet I know of no record showing he acted in a leadership capacity for any congregation. Quite contrary, during the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter provided evidence. It was James whose opinion carried the day and which was handed down by "apostles and elders, with the whole church".
Second, when Peter was released from prison by the angel (Acts 12), he directs those in the house to “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” (Acts 12:17). Clearly James is a distinguished leader in the church at Jerusalem.
If there truly were an earthly leader of the early church, predecessor to your pope, James is a far better candidate for the job than Peter. But no worries, the entire idea is fiction.
I notice you focus your attention completely on verses 16-19, but disregard entirely the content of verses 21 through 23, But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Isn't it wonderful that the Holy Spirit saw fit to place these verses so closely together! It puts the reader in the position of having to question either the mental stability of the Son of God, or the RCC interpretation of Scripture.
One other bit of evidence (but certainly not the final piece) lies in Hebrews. Throughout the entire epistle the author goes to great lengths to prove that the need for priests no longer exists because the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. He argues that the Aaronic priesthood is ended, being replaced by the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the book does the author even remotely hint that the old Levitical priesthood was to be replaced by a new priesthood. Far from it! He states unequivocally that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, and that there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin, and hence no need for an earthly priesthood.
Sorry Rutles, your priesthood is a creation of man and not God, and the authority of the papistry rests on an obvious flawed interpretation of Scripture.
If you can't reconcile Matthew 16:17-19, nothing else really matters. There is zero evidence that Jesus' words are in reference to anyone other than Peter, thereby leading to the only possible conclusion that the "rock" upon which Christ would build His church was Peter himself, whom He just coincidentally renamed "Rock" in the previous verse.
Quite contrary, during the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter provided evidence. It was James whose opinion carried the day and which was handed down by "apostles and elders, with the whole church".
No it wasn't. Peter spoke up and settled the dispute. James' opinion only re-iterated what Peter said, and did not come until after he (James) reflected on what he (Peter) said.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (See verse 28)
11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. 12 And all the multitude held their peace; (Including James) and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. 14 Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: (James is merely seconding Peter here. This is an echo of Peter's declaration, nothing more.)
16 After these things I will return, and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and the ruins thereof I will rebuild, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. 18 To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. 19 For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted. 20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath. 22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company, and to send to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. 23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: 25 It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:
26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. 28 For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: (Re-iterating Peter's main point) 29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. 30 They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle.
Second, when Peter was released from prison by the angel (Acts 12), he directs those in the house to “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” (Acts 12:17). Clearly James is a distinguished leader in the church at Jerusalem.
Of course they're going to tell James. He's their bishop. And obviously he was a distinguished leader since he was a bishop. How does this disprove the office of Peter?
But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Fact: Peter tempted Jesus away from the Cross.
Fact: Peter is not yet pope. Jesus has not yet commissioned Him to "feed my sheep", nor has Jesus breathed upon Him the Spirit. He was certainly subject to error until that time, and Jesus made sure he knew in no uncertain terms that his place as the "rock" was still vulnerable to Satan (esp. as a forewarning of the three denials).
Isn't it wonderful that the Holy Spirit saw fit to place these verses so closely together! It puts the reader in the position of having to question either the mental stability of the Son of God, or the RCC interpretation of Scripture.
Why does it cause you to question either? Peter's tempting of Jesus away from the cross is a repeating of Satan's tempting of Jesus away from the cross in the desert. It makes complete sense for Jesus to reference Satan directly as He did in the desert.
As for the RCC interpretation of Scripture, as explained above, Peter was not yet Pope. He was not imbued with the Holy Spirit by the breath of Christ. When Christ says to Peter, "Upon this rock...I will build my Church," the tense is future, not present. Peter would not enjoy infallibility until the Church was actually born on Pentecost Sunday.
Throughout the entire epistle the author goes to great lengths to prove that the need for priests no longer exists because the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. He argues that the Aaronic priesthood is ended, being replaced by the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the book does the author even remotely hint that the old Levitical priesthood was to be replaced by a new priesthood. Far from it! He states unequivocally that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man, and that there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin, and hence no need for an earthly priesthood.
If this is the case - if Christ is the only mediator - why did Jesus give the Apostles the ability to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins? Also, why on earth would he give Peter the keys to the kingdom if there is no mediator? Your interpretation presents Jesus as a self-contradicting rambler. You're placing Paul above Jesus, himself.
Secondly, if your interpretation is correct, then Paul, himself, is a self-contradicting rambler. Paul is the first to speak of and wholly endorse the holy Eucharist, which was performed by priests.
Thirdly, if your interpretation is correct, the Bible itself is irrelevant since it was written through the mediation of human authors.
Sorry Rutles, your priesthood is a creation of man and not God, and the authority of the papistry rests on an obvious flawed interpretation of Scripture.
Cherry-picking is not evidence to the contrary. Do-it-yourself exegesis, by definition, has no point of reference but one's own logic. Since the Holy Spirit deals only in Truth, either the Holy Spirit has given just you (out of billions of human beings who have heard the word of God) the Truth, or the Holy Spirit has entrusted it to a body that serves all as protector and guarantor of that Truth. Since no two individuals will come to the same conclusion regarding the Truth (see "denominational chaos"), there must be an institutional guarantor which serves all for all ages, as the interpreting authority. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit is nothing but a sham. So, is it just you? Or is it a body unified by its teaching from the time of Peter, the Rock?