truthislight:

"also, i say to you, You are peter, and on this rock-mass i will build my congregation and the of Hedes will not overpower it"



note, " on this rock-mass i will build"

and this :

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " (Matthew 16:18).

Where did you get that from?

im suppose to ask u that question "you are cephas, and upon this cephas i will build my eclesia" i hope ur reasoning ability are alright lol.

debosky:

This is false - Petros/Peter is usually translated as Ke'pha (from which we derive Cephas) in Aramaic (a small stone) while Petra can be translated as Shu'a in Aramaic.

There is more than one word used for rock in Aramaic.

Secondly, while Jesus did speak Aramaic, the oldest available texts of Matthew are in Greek, not Aramaic.

hahaha, sorry d aramic text have d same word "cephas".

Ubenedictus: im suppose to ask u that question "you are cephas, and upon this cephas i will build my eclesia" i hope ur reasoning ability are alright lol.

keep deceiving yourself.

truthislight:

"also, i say to you, You are peter, and on this rock-mass i will build my congregation and the of Hedes will not overpower it"



note, " on this rock-mass i will build"

and this :

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " (Matthew 16:18).

Where did you get that from?

I am reading a book on this Frobel thread, am only at the chapter Two, and the book is already revealing alot hahaha.

I am comparelling it to two other books on this same subject and it makes real sense because they used the bible to defend this false claim of the Catholics.

Here is what the author says:

[b]Built Upon Which Rock?—Peter the First Pope?

When the Protestant Reformers rejected Rome’s authority, they were simultaneously rejecting the rule of popes over the church. Let’s briefly return to Matthew 16:18—where Christ said, “I will build My Church”—this time examining His statement to Peter.
Let’s first read: “And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
This verse is the single bedrock scripture to Catholic theology regarding the supposed authority of popes, who are said to derive their authority directly from Christ’s supposed empowerment of Peter, and thus his successors in an unbroken line ever since. Over a billion Catholics today, and generations before them, have been taught that this passage designates Peter as the first pope. The verse simply does not say this, and the reader needs to understand what it does say—what Christ meant by His statement.
Breaking down the important Greek words within this verse makes it easier to understand:
Peter comes from the Greek word petros, meaning a piece of rock, but either bigger or smaller than a stone. (Note that the Greek word for “stone” is lithos, and it essentially means a medium-sized rock.) The Greek word for Rock is petra, which means a mass of rock, usually very large.
Let’s carefully examine and understand. Verse 13 mentions that Christ was speaking at Caesarea Philippi. It is significant that He chose this site to speak of His Church! Here is why.
This city is in the far north of today’s Israel, about 25 miles north of Capernaum and the Sea of Galilee. Located at the foot of Mt. Hermon, it is where one of the three main branches of the Jordan River originates. The area is very beautiful.
A Key—Where Christ Was Speaking
I have stood on the spot from which Christ delivered these words. This is what I saw—and what anyone would see: Immediately above where the river springs from the base of a cliff is a massive rock outcropping that dominates the topography. Its presence towers over the landscape. None who were present when Christ spoke these words could possibly have believed He was talking about building His Church on Peter, whom He compared to a little rock. The enormous physical size of the rock looming directly over Christ’s head reinforced His message that He was building the Church on a giant Rock—HIMSELF! This is, no doubt, why He picked this setting to utter His words in Matthew 16:18 to His disciples, and to Peter.
In effect, Christ was saying that Peter was a small rock. On the other hand, Jesus Christ is the large rock, or foundation stone of the Church that He built. Christ is actually distinguishing between the two. Proof that the mass of rock is Christ can be found in I Corinthians 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, Matthew 7:24 and 16:13-16.
Understand that Christ is the great Rock that the Church is built upon. This verse is absolutely not saying that Peter is either that massive rock or that the Church is built on him. I Corinthians 3:11 shows there can be only one foundation (Christ), not two. Obviously, this applies to Peter’s role. Ephesians 4:11-12 explains that apostles (Peter, Paul, John, etc.) were in offices that Christ established to serve His Church. Collectively, with the prophets, they form part of the Church’s foundation—alongside Christ (Eph. 2:20).
Think of Christ as having complimented Peter. Then there is this: If He had established Peter as the first (and infallible) pope, how could Peter almost immediately have fallen into what Christ labeled a satanic attitude in the very next verses, 21 to 23? Take a moment to read them. Would such an attitude be possible for one who was spiritually infallible? Also, there is this question: How could Peter have later denied Christ three times?[/b]

I think the part three will be giving ten biblical PROOFS that Peter was probably never even in Rome

Truthabounds: There could be no finer and surer foundation for the true church than Christ Jesus, could there? It is his own perfect human life given as a ransom that makes possible this divine arrangement. Yet, how can we harmonize this testimony by Jesus and the apostle Paul with what Jesus stated to Peter at Matthew 16:18? We may be sure that there is no contradiction.
Peter had just acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ (or, the Messiah), the Son of the living God. Jesus then said: “I say to thee: That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” (Dy) Some understand these words to mean that Jesus’ church is built on Peter as the foundation. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is of interest to note that Archbishop Kenrick, in the book An Inside View of the Vatican Council (1870), shows that of at least eighty-six early church “fathers,” only seventeen understood Jesus’ reference to the “rock” as applying to Peter. Were you aware of this?
But of far more importance—how did Peter himself understand Jesus’ words? Concerning the Lord Jesus, Peter said: “Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded. To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: and a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word.” (1 Peter 2:4-8, Dy) These words of Peter show that he, like the apostle Paul, understood Jesus to be the “chief corner stone,” the “rock” on which the church is built. Peter is just one of the 144,000 “living stones” making up the true church.

Nice one!

2mch:

Gbam!
Catholic Church that is. This is why no frosbel nor other haters can prevail against it.

Its not a matter of Hate, its a matter of revealing the long hiden truth. Don't you wanna reign with Christ? If yes,
you will always seek the truth that will set you free.

frosbel:

The foundation is Jesus.

Isaiah 28:16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed.

Acts 4:11 He is "'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.'

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone .

Yeah for once i agree with you. Jesus is the foundation. Forget about catholic and their nonsense believe.

Cherry picking of scriptures will not get us any where.The supremacy of peter was explicitly stated in matt 16:18 and John 21:15-19 whether the word rock is used else where it in no way belittles the fact that the keys of heaven was handed over to peter.Jesus personally handed over the care of his church to peter in John 21:15-19 by asking him to take care of his flock.There were so many other apostles present but that responsibility was only vested on peter.

Any one saying peter was never in rome is only advertising his shallow knowlege of church history.Peter is not recoreded in the canonised scriptures to have gone to rome.likewise his death was equally not covered in the bible. Should we also say peter is still alivew because the bible mentions nothing about his death.The catholic existed before the bible was compiled and hence do not subscribe to sola bible.Even the bible does not subscribe to this ridiculous doctrine as it goes ahead to quote other extrabiblical books.

chukwudi44: Cherry picking of scriptures will not get us any where.The supremacy of peter was explicitly stated in matt 16:18 and John 21:15-19 whether the word rock is used else where it in no way belittles the fact that the keys of heaven was handed over to peter.Jesus personally handed over the care of his church to peter in John 21:15-19 by asking him to take care of his flock.There were so many other apostles present but that responsibility was only vested on peter.

Any one saying peter was never in rome is only advertising his shallow knowlege of church history.Peter is not recoreded in the canonised scriptures to have gone to rome.likewise his death was equally not covered in the bible. Should we also say peter is still alivew because the bible mentions nothing about his death.The catholic existed before the bible was compiled and hence do not subscribe to sola bible.Even the bible does not subscribe to this ridiculous doctrine as it goes ahead to quote other extrabiblical books.

We cannot subscribe to nonsense catholic belief. I see no connection with apostle Peter and your catholic that is deceiving people

truthislight:

christianity is christ like or followers of christ and not peter.

Are you saying that Catholics do Peternity?

Boomark:

Are you saying that Catholics do Peternity?

Abeg help me ask am.Peter is only a foundation and basis for church leadership since the leadership authourity was vested in him by Jesus.The fool is not even a Jehovah witness who beleives Angel michheal died on the cross for us

alexleo:

We cannot subscribe to nonsense catholic belief. I see no connection with apostle Peter and your catholic that is deceiving people

I cannot subscribe to your useless protestant belief as I see a lot of connection between the catholic church and peter

Ubenedictus: hahaha, sorry d aramic text have d same word "cephas".

Which Aramaic text are you referring to? What is the age of the Aramaic text? If the Greek text is older than the Aramaic text (indicating the latter Aramaic was translated from Greek) do you trust the older Greek or the Aramaic translated from the Greek?

The oldest texts for Matthew are in Greek, hence you cannot take an Aramaic translation above the oldest Greek texts.

Petros is NOT equal to Petra, meaning Jesus wasn't talking about Peter when he mentioned the large, immovable Rock on which he would build His Church.

chukwudi44: Cherry picking of scriptures will not get us any where.The supremacy of peter was explicitly stated in matt 16:18 and John 21:15-19 whether the word rock is used else where it in no way belittles the fact that the keys of heaven was handed over to peter.Jesus personally handed over the care of his church to peter in John 21:15-19 by asking him to take care of his flock.There were so many other apostles present but that responsibility was only vested on peter.

No such supremacy was stated in Matthew 16:18 - the Greek record (oldest available) of Matthew clearly indicates the difference in its use of Peter and Petros. No one handed any 'keys of heaven' to Peter. Did the bible say Peter was 'handed the keys of heaven' or is this some creation of your imagination?

Peter himself declared that Jesus was the living Stone in 1 Peter 2 - so how can Peter claim to be the same stone?

As for John 21:15-19, scripture has been provided showing that this was not an 'exclusive' instruction to feed the flock. The same exhortation to 'feed the flock' was given by Peter himself to others, showing that this wasn't his exclusive authority. Besides, Peter is DEAD - is he supposed to continue feeding the flock now from his grave?

Even if we believe the fallacious idea, where in the bible is it stated that Peter's authority was to be passed on to other Bishops of Rome? That is purely a human creation and nothing else.

@debosky

Jesus did not speak in greek but rather in aramaic.The only word for rock in aramaic is kephas.All your blabbing about the non existence of aramaic ancient texts is nonsense.

The language spoken in isreal @ Jesus's time and in which he spoke was aramaic.Even the gospel of mattew was originally written in hebrew before been translated to greek.

John 21:15-19 is explicit enough except you want to be mischievious.When jesus promised david that his kingdom was going to be forever did it mean david was going to physically sit on that throne forever? Of course not his authourity were transferred to is successors.Likewise peter his authourity has been continually transferred to his successors.

Hope you know peter's name was not originally peter but simon.Jesus was the one who changed his name to peter in preparation for his future role just like God did Abram and Jacob to Abraham and Isreal respectively

chukwudi44: @debosky

Jesus did not speak in greek but rather in aramaic.The only word for rock in aramaic is kephas.All your blabbing about the non existence of aramaic ancient texts is nonsense.

Brother chukwudi - please do your own research. Shu'a is an Aramaic word for rock.

Secondly, I have not said there are no 'ancient texts' of Aramaic, what I have said is that the oldest and most reliable texts for Matthew are in Greek not Aramaic. Can you dispute this?

The language spoken in isreal @ Jesus's time and in which he spoke was aramaic.Even the gospel of mattew was originally written in hebrew before been translated to greek.

Please provide evidence of this - as I said earlier, the oldest available texts are in Greek. I do not deny that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

John 21:15-19 is explicit enough except you want to be mischievious.When jesus promised david that his kingdom was going to be forever did it mean david was going to physically sit on that throne forever? Of course not his authourity were transferred to is successors.Likewise peter his authourity has been continually transferred to his successors.

Thanks for making the comparison to David - did Jesus say Peter should feed his flock 'forever'? Was 'forever' ever used in any of the instructions to Peter?

If the word 'forever' was never used, why should we regard Peter's authority (if such authority was ever given) as transferable? Did Jesus say transfer this authority to your successors?

Which successors should the authority be transferred to - to the Bishop in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome or all of the above?

Peter himself in 1 Peter 5:2 clearly demonstrated that feeding the flock was not an exclusive responsibility given to him.

Boomark:

Are you saying that Catholics do Peternity?

maybe, seems like, Since they follow traditions, they are in a better posting to say who they follow, either Jesus christ or peter.

chukwudi44: @debosky

Jesus did not speak in greek but rather in aramaic.The only word for rock in aramaic is kephas.All your blabbing about the non existence of aramaic ancient texts is nonsense.

The language spoken in isreal @ Jesus's time and in which he spoke was aramaic.Even the gospel of mattew was originally written in hebrew before been translated to greek.

John 21:15-19 is explicit enough except you want to be mischievious.When jesus promised david that his kingdom was going to be forever did it mean david was going to physically sit on that throne forever? Of course not his authourity were transferred to is successors.Likewise peter his authourity has been continually transferred to his successors.

so, the flock or christianity is now a dynesty abi?

It is a kingship that is being transfered?

This your RCC lies used to KEEP people under their shackles.

@debosky

The gospel of mattew was first written in hebrew actually and not greek.This was attested by the writings of papias of hierapolis (100-140)CE.You may google for more details.

The shua synonym for aramaic kephas is a fabrication meant to refute the teaching of the catholic church.

Peter's authourity has already been outlined in the scriptures and the writings of the church fathers.

@truthisligt

I do not argue with the followers of that fraudster called charles russel responsible for 90% of the false prophecies in the last 200 years

chukwudi44: @debosky

[i]The gospel of mattew was first written in hebrew actually and not greek.[/i ]This was attested by the writings of papias of hierapolis (100-140)CE.You may google for more details.

I am not even arguing this point - The point is, the oldest available manuscripts are in Greek, so those are the ones to be trusted above any subsequent Aramaic translations. If we don't have these 'first writings' we have to go by the oldest writings - do you agree?

The shua synonym for aramaic kephas is a fabrication meant to refute the teaching of the catholic church.

Simply because you say so? Come on you can do better than that!

List of words in Aramaic that mean rock:

http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=rock&B1=Search&Search_Field=Meaning&VTI-GROUP=0

Shu'a as a word in Aramaic: http://www.atour.com/cgi-bin/dictionary.cgi?string=20988&B1=Search&Search_Field=Word_Address&VTI-GROUP=0

Peter's authourity has already been outlined in the scriptures and the writings of the church fathers.

Where was it outlined in the scriptures? Beyond the division of Peter to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles, what authority do you speak of?

Peter himself only called himself an elder, a fellow elder for that matter in 1 peter 5:2, so where in the scriptures is he bestowed this authority?

You have still failed to answer my question regarding biblical evidence for this alleged 'transfer of authority'. Was Peter established as feeding the flock 'forever' as the David example?

Were did you read that the petrine authourity to feed the flock will not be forever.I have provided my own biblical proof to back up my claim it is now left for you to prove to me that the authourity cannot be transferred.

There were eleven disciples sitted there why was this order directed to just peter? Have you ever tought about that.

This was attested by the church fathers in several writings from the first century down to the fourth century some of whom had met the apostles or come in contact with those who met the apostles.

Peter's death and his rise to the bishopric of rome was not contained in the 'canonised scriptures' but were all detailed in the works of these church fathers.

^^

I hope you do not mind, as I am not politically correct, I will like to go straight to the point.

Peter had nothing to do with the catholic church, the catholic church is a continuation of the mysteries of the Babylonian religion.

The resemblance in worship styles , dress and symbols are too similar to ignore. Peter will never have had any part of this most wicked institution.

chukwudi44:

Abeg help me ask am.Peter is only a foundation and basis for church leadership since the leadership authourity was vested in him by Jesus.The fool is not even a Jehovah witness who beleives Angel michheal died on the cross for us

You are wrong my dear and for calling a brother a fool. Christ is the foundation of the church that is why you are a Christian. Christ is the owner and head of the church.

chukwudi44: Were did you read that the petrine authourity to feed the flock will not be forever.I have provided my own biblical proof to back up my claim it is now left for you to prove to me that the authourity cannot be transferred.

The Lord did not say it was forever, neither did the Lord say the authority was to be transferred - that is my own proof. In the example YOU gave, David's throne was said to be forever - by comparison, no such statement was made about Peter so there is absolutely NO biblical proof that any such authority is forever or transferrable.

There were eleven disciples sitted there why was this order directed to just peter? Have you ever tought about that.

I have thought about it, and the clear reason Jesus spoke to Peter was because it was Peter who denied Jesus ; it was Peter that called people to go back to fishing after Jesus had called them out to be fishers of men - Jesus was simply reinstating him as an apostle after his fall from grace.

This was attested by the church fathers in several writings from the first century down to the fourth century some of whom had met the apostles or come in contact with those who met the apostles.

I will take Peter's own words over those of any alleged 'church fathers' - Peter called himself a fellow elder and NOTHING ELSE.

Peter's death and his rise to the bishopric of rome was not contained in the 'canonised scriptures' but were all detailed in the works of these church fathers.

David did not decide that he could transfer power to his descendants - it was appointed unto him by God.

Therefore I put it to you that ANY claim to transfer of power MUST have come from He who gave the power in the first place. If Jesus did appoint Peter as the one to feed the flock forever, then we can believe the 'works' of the so called 'church fathers'. However Jesus never made any such pronouncement - he said feed my sheep - he didn't say feed my sheep and pass on the authority to whoever succeeds you in Rome forever. That is purely a human creation.

chukwudi44: Hope you know peter's name was not originally peter but simon.Jesus was the one who changed his name to peter in preparation for his future role just like God did Abram and Jacob to Abraham and Isreal respectively

the notable thing that i know was assign to peter was for him to preach to conelius a gentile, opening the way for gentile christians.

This he was directed to do in a vision, to eat things that he as a Jew will consider unclean.

chukwudi44: Were did you read that the petrine authourity to feed the flock will not be forever.I have provided my own biblical proof to back up my claim it is now left for you to prove to me that the authourity cannot be transferred.

There were eleven disciples sitted there why was this order directed to just peter? Have you ever tought about that.

This was attested by the church fathers in several writings from the first century down to the fourth century some of whom had met the apostles or come in contact with those who met the apostles.

Peter's death and his rise to the bishopric of rome was not contained in the 'canonised scriptures' but were all detailed in the works of these church fathers.

is it the same peter that apostle paul rebuked publicly for being afraid of Jews when he mixed up with uncircumcise gentiles because of circumcision?

This your RCC really knows how to lead people to miss the mark.

@debosky

The fact still remains that no where in the scripture is it implied that peter's authourity was not transferable.if there is any inkling to that in the scriptures kindly spill it here.

Even throughout the scripture and human history such authourities are always transfered after the death of the king or prophet why should this case be differant.Even you hypocritical protestants also observe such in your differant churces.

The people you are calling 'alleged church fathers' gave you the bible.The bible did not exist before the fourth century CE.Even the identities of the authours of all the gospels and when they were written were gotten from this 'alleged church fathers' so I would take their words over and above any protestant 'great man of God'

You protestants haveno roots,you were not thhere when it all happened that's why you keep shouting bible this ,bible that like the bible has always existed since the begining.which bible did the apostles use? Was there any approved canon extant then? Why then do some biblical authours quote outside the bible.This only goes further to show that even scripture writers did not practise sola bible that you protestants scream about.You have even gone furter to remove 7 books from the bible.

@truthislight

I have told you I do not argue with the followers of that deluded false propohet charles russel

chukwudi44: @debosky

The fact still remains that no where in the scripture is it implied that peter's authourity was not transferable.if there is any inkling to that in the scriptures kindly spill it here.

What kind of reasoning is this?

So I need to show you that Peter's authority was NOT transferrable when the bible makes NO reference to any transfer? The burden of proof is on you - if the scripture is silent on an issue, we cannot imply it is supporting the issue as that will be adding to God's word!

The bible NEVER said Peter's authority was transferrable - in fact, the bible CLEARLY said the responsibility was not even exclusive as Peter's advice to fellow elders to take care of the sheep reflects. If, while Peter was still ALIVE, other shepherds were being told to feed and take care of the sheep, what other proof do you need to show there was never any exclusive or transferrable authority? Feeding and taking care of sheep is the duty of ALL elders, be that Peter, Timothy or anyone else.

Even throughout the scripture and human history such authourities are always transfered after the death of the king or prophet why should this case be differant.Even you hypocritical protestants also observe such in your differant churces.

Jesus established a new testament, based on Faith in Jesus Christ and not on any contrived transfer of authority. ALL MEN are to be made disciples and ALL MEN who have accepted Christ are members of a royal priesthood - beyond that, there are only the five-fold ministries permitted, no 'special' authority anywhere!

The people you are calling 'alleged church fathers' gave you the bible.The bible did not exist before the fourth century CE.Even the identities of the authours of all the gospels and when they were written were gotten from this 'alleged church fathers' so I would take their words over and above any protestant 'great man of God'

Is Peter now a protestant? Peter made no claims to this authority, so anyone making claims he didn't make while he was alive is a liar. Peter was simply an elder by his OWN words, nothing more!

You protestants haveno roots,you were not thhere when it all happened that's why you keep shouting bible this ,bible that like the bible has always existed since the begining.which bible did the apostles use? Was there any approved canon extant then? Why then do some biblical authours quote outside the bible.This only goes further to show that even scripture writers did not practise sola bible that you protestants scream about.You have even gone furter to remove 7 books from the bible.

Is it your so called 'roots' that take you to heaven?

No - the reason 'we' keep 'shouting' bible is because that is the Word of God given for instruction. Are you now denying the authority of the scripture and elevating your 'church fathers' above it? Peter's OWN words stand above any creation or imagination by the so called 'church fathers'.

As for the 'removed' 7 books - do those 7 books contain where Peter's 'authority' was presented as transferrable and forever?

@debosky

What church do you attend.I think I will need this info before proceeding with this thread.
[Quote]60. debosky(m): Quote Post

chukwudi44: @debosky

The fact still remains that no where in the scripture is it implied that peter's authourity was not transferable.if there is any inkling to that in the scriptures kindly spill it here.

So I need to show you that Peter's authority was NOT transferrable when the bible makes NO reference to any transfer? The burden of proof is on you - if the scripture is silent on an issue, we cannot imply it is supporting the issue as that will be adding to God's word![/quote]

You show were it is clearly stated in the bible that such powers cannot be transferred before you claim such succession is merely the creation of man.
What do you understand by the word of God? I have already told you I do not practice sola bible and I think by now that should have begun to sink into you.God did not stop speaking to his church after 100AD.The fact that the church fathers choose to restrict the canon to after 100 AD does not mean that was where the word of God ended.The people that gave us the bible did not practice sola bible,the apostles themselves did not practice sola bible, in fact that notion of sola bible has no in itself no biblical basis.The transferable nature of the power has already been outlined by the church.

St Peter was appointed head of the christian church by our Lord Jesus,he went ahead to become the first bishop of antioch before he ended his earthly journey as the bishop of Rome making the bisopric of rome the prime position in the church.This has been sanctioned by the church and taught by all the church fathers

chukwudi44:

St Peter was appointed head of the christian church by our Lord Jesus,he went ahead to become the first bishop of antioch before he ended his earthly journey as the bishop of Rome making the bisopric of rome the prime position in the church.This has been sanctioned by the church and taught by all the church fathers

Peter is not the head of any church, this is never depicted in scripture.

How can Jesus be the corner stone and Peter be the main building ? We , including Peter are all lively stones built up into a house to be habited by the Lord GOD.

Peter is a small part of this structure.

The office of the papacy is a shameless fraud and has nothing at all to do with Christ who is the true HEAD of the Church.

The single clearest demonstration of Peter's primacy from Scripture is Jesus' blessing of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19.
I. What Scripture Says


A. The Critical Blessing
Matthew 16:13-19 says,
13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” He asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in Heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome It. 19 I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.”
There's a lot to unpack, so let's take it one part at a time.

B.From Abram and Simon to Abraham and Peter
specifically, let's look at v. 17-18 first. To understand what's going in this passage, compare it to Genesis 17:3-8,
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is My covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
What do we see? First, we see God blessing Abram personally, and creating a covenant people (the Jews) with him. God promises a whole litany of things to Abram, out of His sheer Graciousness (that is, Abram doesn't earn these promises, they're just given to him). And finally, in the midst of these promises, God changes Abram's name to Abraham, to signify the promises He's just made.

Look at how neatly that parallels what's happening between Jesus and Peter. First, we see Jesus blessing Peter personally, and creating a covenant people (the Church) with him. Second, there's a whole litany of promises again. Jesus announces (1) the blessing that Peter has already received (Divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ), and then blesses him further, promising (2) to build the Church upon him, (3) to give him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and (4) to give him the power to bind and loosen sins on Earth and in Heaven. Like Abram/Abraham, Simon/Peter doesn't earn the blessings - the one thing he does right (declaring Jesus the Christ) is because the Father chose to reveal it, not his own intelligence or wisdom. And finally, in the midst of this, between blessings (1) and (2), Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter. With Abram to Abraham, it was because he was to be the father of many nations, and that's what Abraham means. With Simon to Peter, it was because he was to be the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church, and that's what Peter means.

The significance of this shouldn't be missed: Jesus creates the name Peter. That is, it's one of only a handful of names (others include Adam, Abraham, and Israel) which are created by God Himself. And in each of those times, it's for a very specific purpose: the creation of mankind, the creation of the Jewish people, the creation of the Jewish nation, and now the creation of the Church.


C. The Keys
Now let's move on to the next part of this blessing, the giving of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven in v. 19. There are three things to note. First, this blessing is never given to any of the other Apostles, or anyone else. Second, the power Peter possesses is parallel to the power that Jesus Christ Himself holds in Heaven (Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7). And finally, the giving of the Keys has some serious implications. Look at Isaiah 22:20-24, in which God says:
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.
In giving Eliakim the Keys to the House of David, God is making him palace administrator (something like prime minister), and giving him the ability to speak and act on behalf of the House of David. We see this in 2 Kings 18:18, for example, when the Assyrians arrive: "They called for the king; and Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator, Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the recorder went out to them." So they call for the King (Hezekiah), and Eliakim shows up with his secretary and recorder. When Peter receives the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, then, he's got the ability to speak and act on behalf of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Church.


D. The Binding and Loosening of Sins
This power to bind and loosen sins is a disciplinary power. We can tell this from the other time it's granted, in Matthew 18:15-18,
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
We can tell from this that the power to bind and loosen is connected to the power to excommunicate. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and there's a lot of wisdom necessary to know when someone's marriage to sin is so grave that the best thing you can do for them to ostracize them from the Church, and treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. You don't want some sort of "three sins, you're out" rule, but you also can't have people trampling on God's Commandments without any sort of rebuke. Knowing when to bind and loosen is a challenge for Christian leadership, and God promises to respect these judgments (an alternative translation of the passage says that whatever you bind and loosen "will have been" bound and loosened in Heaven, suggesting that the Church's binding and loosening is dictated by God). Whatever the case, we know that the binding and loosening power granted to the Church is enormous. Regardless of whether it's God responding to the Church's rulings, or the Church's rulings derived from God acting first, we know that the Church's judgments on Earth have the full weight of Heaven behind them.

So it's remarkable that this enormous power is given not only to the Church acting as a whole (Matthew 18:17-18), but also to Peter, acting as head of the Church (Matthew 16:19). When Jesus says to Peter, "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven," He's speaking in the singular. Catholicism retains this distinction and recognizes the two recipients of this binding/loosening power. So, for example, only Church Councils and the pope are capable of speaking infallibly.

All of this, in my opinion, lays out Peter's authority in the Church in clear terms. He's called to be the Rock upon which Jesus will build His Eternal Church (which will never be overcome by Hell), he's given the ability to speak on behalf of the Kingdom of God, and to individually bind and loosen sins in the way that the Church collectively can. No one else anywhere in Scripture is given this level of authority by Christ. So Peter not only is the leader (as we've shown from the previous posts), and not only was called to minister to the others, but was clearly called to serve as God's chief representative (His "vicar," if you will) on Earth.

Next - Refuting Protestants reponses.