Replies

“Peter was appointed the “chief steward” of Christ’s kingdom by Christ himself.”

As to confirming Peter in his role as “chief steward” of Christ’s kingdom when did Peter take over this role?

Whe he spoke for Satan?

When he denied Christ?

When he hid out in fear of the Romans?

When he returned to his old business of fishing?

When Jesus told Peter to mind his own business?

When he doubted God’s command to go to Cornelius?

Perhaps it was when he acted the hypocrite at the church at Galatia around 49 A.D. some 20 years after the ascension. At the Galatians church Paul confronted Peter in front of the church for his hypocrisy. This confrontation was contrary to the etiquette for confronting Elders, yet Paul did not hesitate.

Paul was not impressed with Peter’s position and didn’t see Peter as head of any church. When he was converted, about 37 A.D., he says he didn’t bother with the Apostles but went off by himself to study. He later went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and James, Jesus’ brother, the head of the Jerusalem church. 14 years later (50 A.D.), Paul would say, “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:” and that included Peter. Paul put his ministry on a par with Peter’s.

The church at Corinth didn’t see Peter as head of the church when Paul wrote to them around 58 A.D. for they were divided among the followers of Apollos, Peter and Paul.

He wasn’t at Rome in 58 A.D. when Paul wrote to the church at Rome. He wasn’t in Rome when Paul was first imprisoned there in 61 A.D nor in his last imprisonment in 67 A.D. for there is no mention of him in Paul’s letters. He specifically states in his last latter to Timothy all had forsaken him and none stood with him. The only one with him at the time of the writing was Luke.

So when was Peter supposed to take “his role as “chief steward” of Christ’s kingdom?

"So when was Peter supposed to take “his role as “chief steward” of Christ’s kingdom?"

At Pentecost, of course. As to the rest, Peter was imperfect, as all Popes are, which is why they have the special guidance of the Holy Spirit to keep them from screwing up in a way that causes "the gates of hell to prevail against it (the Church)". That's what "papal infallibility" is all about.

On his visit to Jerusalem "to see Peter and James", Paul spent fifteen days closeted with PETER (I wonder why?? Do you think they might have been discussing something important??)

And you appear to have forgotten when Paul and Barnabas appeared before the Apostles to be confirmed in their roles as bishops (by the "laying on of hands"---aka the Sacrament of Holy Orders). So it appears that Paul DID think it was somewhat important to have the blessing of the the other Apostles.

"He wasn’t at Rome in 58 A.D. when Paul wrote to the church at Rome. He wasn’t in Rome when Paul was first imprisoned there in 61 A.D nor in his last imprisonment in 67 A.D. for there is no mention of him in Paul’s letters."

So?? Peter traveled to found Churches just as Paul did. He just wasn't as prolific a letter writer.

"He specifically states in his last latter to Timothy all had forsaken him and none stood with him. The only one with him at the time of the writing was Luke."

And why would Peter "be with him"?? They both had responsibilities to be about the Lord's business, not spend time crying on one another's shoulders.

I suggest you read "On This Rock" by Stephen K. Ray. He documents (in exquisite detail) the Scriptural and historical evidence for Peter's primacy, and totally blows the Orthodox and Protestant "positions" away.