[Moonmad27]

I agree with you. All the proof I need is that in his epistles, Paul claims to have argued with Peter and seemed proud that he apparently won; clearly Peter in those early days wasn’t the sole authority. And I always think that they saw things a lot more clearly in the early days than we do now from a “distance” of 2000 years.

[zerosix]

Paul was no less an Apostle than Peter, in fact had it not been for Paul, the sect known as followers of "the Way" would have remained in a handful of Jewish believers. These people might all have died in Jerusalem when it was sacked in 70 A.D., or fled southward to Massada, where they committed suicide rather than be killed and enslaved by Rome.

No my saivation is found in Jesus Christ alone and I need pray for forgiveness through no human nor ask any human for "absolution," bow to no Pope nor light candles to no dead humans referred to as "saints" by the church at Rome.

All believers, are Christians and are referred to as "saints" by divine inspiration and need no confirmation from anyone other than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

All such idol worship and human worship is strictly forbidden and referred to as an aboomination by God.

He alone is my Holy Father.

[Mad Dawg]

clearly Peter in those early days wasn’t the sole authority.

The lady we call St. Catherine of Siena argued with the Pope and won.

The Pope is not the sole authority and people argue with him to this day. (There's a difference between "sole" and "final".) As happens, when the argument lasts long enough, when the Pope decides that he has won or lost, if other reasons justify it, he will "define" the conclusion. THEN it's "final". Up until then, it's "in play".

I am not trying to persuade you of any doctrine here. I am trying to help you confine your arguments to what the Church actually teaches rather than something she doesn't teach.

[cdcdawg]

I always thought it sounded like James was the head of the church.

[editor-surveyor]

"Peter in those early days wasn’t the sole authority."

Actually, the only 'authority' mentioned in the NT is James, the 1/2 brother of the Lord, who is acknowledged as the "Bishop of Jerusalem," and the only one that any apostle turned to for approval in their ministry.

[CAPTAINSUPERMARVELMAN]

I agree with you. All the proof I need is that in his epistles, Paul claims to have argued with Peter and seemed proud that he apparently won; clearly Peter in those early days wasn’t the sole authority. And I always think that they saw things a lot more clearly in the early days than we do now from a “distance” of 2000 years.

exactly and quiet as it’s kept James (the Lord’s half brother) seems to have been the one who had final say so regarding matters of doctrine. Not as “pope” or anything like that, but when discussing the matter as to whether or not Gentile believers were required to keep the Jewish traditions of the law, It was James whom the Lord used to dictate what the living (not salvation) requirements would be for non-Jewish believers not Peter.