There you go.... picking versus at random.
Peter was still very human, subject to sin, and the influence of Our Enemy. Because, Peter, in trying to dissuade Jesus from the cross, came under the influence of Satan and tempted Jesus not to take up His cross, Jesus clearly perceived the true source of Peter’s seemingly compassionate words and denounces Satan and his influence on Peter.
“Get behind me Satan”. He was addressing Satan not calling Peter Satan. Then, speaking to Peter, Jesus says,
You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
This was Peter’s first lesson in learning how to discern the voice of Satan and the Voice of Christ.
Again, explain how there has been a Pope on record (recorded in history) ever since Peter? Was that just a coincidence?
No, Christ said to Peter, I confirm you, now you confirm your brethren...There was a Pope confirmed ever since Peter...
Sorry, but you cannot deny history!
Or, are you doeing the same thing with Church history as some do with US founding father history...
That’s exactly what the CC did when they took one verse from scripture and denied every other verse that claims God is the only Rock. Even that one verse the CC uses is misinterpreted to try to force their control on earth.
• There is actually very little proof that Peter was even in Rome. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans in Romans 16: 1-15. He mentions everyone of note but nothing about or to Peter. Not only that but in Romans Paul is giving instructions in the faith if Peter was already the Bishop of Rome. If Catholics are right Peter would have been Paul’s superior. Yet Paul never mentions him in his letter to the church at Rome and gives them instructions in the faith. If Peter had been in Rome as it’s Bishop there certainly would have been mention and there would have been no need to “go over his bosses head” and give instruction in the faith.
There is no record in the Bible or elsewhere, of Peter issuing instructions to the diocese of Rome. What an amazing oversight by a supposedly infallible commander-in-chief! In addition to that, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome.
2 Timothy 4:9-12 - "Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus."
Where was Peter the supposed Bishop of Rome? Again in 2 Timothy Paul is giving instructions to Timothy. If Peter was the Supreme Pontiff of Rome why is Paul writing from Rome with no mention of Peter?
Then there is Irenaeus.
Irenaeus: "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus, was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth (SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3)
Did you notice that it was Paul who made mention of Linus, not Peter? With no indication of Peter ever being in Rome nor any indication that Peter in fact was the head of the Apostles there can be no legitimate claim that Peter was the first Pope or that the RC was built on Peter.