Nope. I just agree that it appears that for a brief time Peter was the leader of the very early church and then nothing more.
There is nothing in either the book of the Acts of the Apostles or I and II Peter that indicates he kept and special position or was elevated to any special position greater than the rest or that he passed on any mantle of any kind.
Scripture is deafeningly silent about the supposed papal succession that allegedly occurred for the next 300 or so years. Word of mouth, after the fact tradition doesn’t rate.
Paul does indicate that he passed his position on to Timothy. The Apostles chose successors. Every entity has a succession program. Jesus painstakingly taught His Church for three years. Was He going to let it drop after that? No. He promised that the Holy Spirit would be with them forever. The gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Church was made to continue. It continues. Quite satisfactorily. And the splinter churches continue their either quiet or noisy process of demise.
Scripture is deafeningly silent about the supposed papal succession that allegedly occurred for the next 300 or so years. Word of mouth, after the fact tradition doesn’t rate.
That's why the written records of the Church serve so well.
I would say Paul was more of a leader of the early church than Peter
There is nothing in either the book of the Acts of the Apostles or I and II Peter that indicates he kept and special position or was elevated to any special position greater than the rest or that he passed on any mantle of any kind.
Scripture is deafeningly silent about the supposed papal succession that allegedly occurred for the next 300 or so years. Word of mouth, after the fact tradition doesn’t rate.
###
INDEED TO THE MAX! WELL SAID.