Ah, CynicalBear, you have just inadvertently made the case for Peter as the first pope. Jesus is speaking to ALL OF THEM, and it is Peter that responds for ALL OF THEM. Then Jesus affirms that the TRUTH that Peter has just spoken for ALL OF THEM, has been revealed by the Father, revealed to PETER and not to ALL OF THEM.
You have admitted that Peter spoke for all of them, that Jesus affirmed what he said as truth, and revealed to those for whom Peter spoke, that it was the Father that revealed it to him.
Ah, Jvette I thought Catholics were against personal interpretations but you just added your own version of what those verses mean. You assume things that are not explicitly stated in the verses.
“...revealed to PETER and not to ALL OF THEM.” The verses do not state that only Peter believes that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. You are assuming that because Peter’s answer is recorded that he is the only one to believe that fact then and later on. Nowhere in the verses does is state that because Peter was the disciple that professed faith in Christ he would have authority over the other disciples.
In fact, as has been pointed out in the thread, the Bible points out the Paul publicly challenged Peter and considered himself equal with Peter. James also made the final decision for the disciples during their conference with Paul.
There simply isn’t any Biblical basis for having Peter as a pope.
LOL I know you want it to be so but alas you would be in error. You want it so badly that you didn’t read the rest of the post, or dismissed it out of hand.
Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. Then after acknowledging who Peter was as Peter had acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of the living God, Jesus says that it’s on this Rock (The living God) that He would build His church. There is sufficient evidence in God’s own words who the Rock is as I have shown in my previous post.