easymancfc:


again it doesn't demolish anything, John and Mathew give different account of the same name change but they do it differently... feeding of the five thousand for example is narrated differently in different gospel accounts... again you have demolished nothing all you have proven is that Jesus actually changed Simon's name to Peter, which John, Mathew and Even Mark also report although from different perspective...
mark 3:16

and besides, Kepha is mainly used in Aramaic to mean "Rock" not " stone", the word for stone in Aramaic is actually "evna"... So Mathew needed to enforce Peter's littleness he would have used to unambiguous "evna" instead of "Kepha" which is Rock...

evna means pebble found in river beds and beaches.

Kepha means rock or stone! Stop reading catholic forums.

Simon Magnus is New... I used to hear about emperor Constantine but this Simon Magnus story is really cracking me up...
People talk about Constantine but the Church had a Pope before Constantine came into the Picture when he stopped the persecutions and Legalized Christianity.... Constantine became Emperor in 306 AD and he legalized Christianity within that time...

HERE IS A LIST OF EARLY CHRISTIAN QUOTES CONCERNING THE PAPACY 106 YEARS BEFORE CONSTANTINE CAME IN.. and ALL OF THEM CAN BE VERIFIED HISTORICALLY IF YOU VISIT ACCURATE HISTORICAL SITES

Ignatius



"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Dionysius



"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.



Irenaeus



"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).



Irenaeus



"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).



Irenaeus



"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).



Clement of Alexandria



"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).



Gaius



"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).



Tertullian



"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

DoctorAlien:


evna means pebble found in river beds and beaches.

Kepha means rock or stone! Stop reading catholic forums.

You said Petros means small stones, What Is a pebble?

like I have said earlier, kepha is translated to mean rock not stone... and Mathew would have emphasized that he he meant Peter was a small stone...
A rock is indeed a stone but kepha doesn't have size distinction.

STOP READING ANTICATHOLIC FORUMS AND SITES

easymancfc:


You said Petros means small stones, What Is a pebble?

like I have said earlier, kepha is translated to mean rock not stone... and Mathew would have emphasized that he he meant Peter was a small stone...
A rock is indeed a stone but kepha doesn't have size distinction.

STOP READING ANTICATHOLIC FORUMS AND SITES

Petros means detachable, movable stone, as opposed to petra, which is an immovable rock. Petra is the rock which Jesus referred to when He was talking about the wise man that built on a rock.

easymancfc,

Please browse other sites apart from your catholic forums. Kephas is translated stones.

DoctorAlien:


Petros means detachable, movable stone, as opposed to petra, which is an immovable rock. Petra is the rock which Jesus referred to when He was talking about the wise man that built on a rock.

that argument has already been discussed...
you are just going back and forth... Rock is a thing and it has a Feminine name in Greek called Petra, but while using it for a man' s name (Simon bar Jonah ), it had to be made masculine which is Petros, Jesus would not want to call Paul, Paulina or Philip, Philipa if their root word was Feminine, he or any new testament writer would have used the masculine form...

in the Aramaic both Petros and Petra are both replaced with Kepha, in the Greek itself there is another word for small stone which Mathew could have used for clarity and to enforce that Peter was just a small stone... It's LITHOS

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

Please browse other sites apart from your catholic forums. Kephas is translated stones.

I do, and they say same thing... Kepha is translated as Rock first of all before Stone, and there's no distinction in the size of the stone with Kepha, So your small stone theory doesn't follow.....

easymancfc:


that argument has already been discussed...
you are just going back and forth... Rock is a thing and it has a Feminine name in Greek called Petra, but while using it for a man' s name (Simon bar Jonah ), it had to be made masculine which is Petros, Jesus would not want to call Paul, Paulina or Philip, Philipa if their root word was Feminine, he or any new testament writer would have used the masculine form...

in the Aramaic both Petros and Petra are both replaced with Kepha, in the Greek itself there is another word for small stone which Mathew could have used for clarity and to enforce that Peter was just a small stone... It's LITHOS

You assume Kepha is translated only "immovable rock." This is not true. Kepha means both immovable rock and stone(boulder perhaps).

easymancfc:


I do, and they say same thing... Kepha is translated as Rock first of all before Stone, and there's no distinction in the size of the stone with Kepha, So your small stone theory doesn't follow.....

The fact that kepha is translated "stone" punctures your argument about Matt. 16:18. We all know what a stone is.

DoctorAlien:


You assume Kepha is translated only "immovable rock." This is not true. Kepha means both immovable rock and stone(boulder perhaps).

I don't assume, I know Kepha can be both, but in the context of Mathew 16 up verse 19... it does not follow that Jesus would be bringing Peter down, after praising his response to his question and Giving him the keys to the Kingdom... that logic is inconsistent, not to talk about etymology of the words..

easymancfc:


I don't assume, I know Kepha can be both, but in the context of Mathew 16 up verse 19... it does not follow that Jesus would be bringing Peter down, after praising his response to his question and Giving him the keys to the Kingdom... that logic is inconsistent, not to talk about etymology of the words..

How is referring to Peter as a stone bringing him down?

How about Jesus calls Peter Satan only a few verses after the verse you claim establishes Peter as the foundation of the church?

DoctorAlien:


The fact that kepha is translated "stone" punctures your argument about Matt. 16:18. We all know what a stone is.

Wrong again... Like I said the word index for Rock and Peter in the Aramaic is both Kepha so I don't know what you are puncturing it is literally according to Jesus in his native Aramaic

you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my
Church.

it is the Greek translation that word play of petros and petra come in....


so I don't know what you are puncturing

Another teaching the Roman Catholic Church puts forward is the teaching that there has been an unbroken line of Popes since Peter. But there is a problem with this teaching also. First, no Christians for FOUR CENTURIES after the time of Christ believed that Peter was the leader of the church. This teaching wasn't accepted until around A.D.445 during the reign of Pope Leo I. It was only during this time that the Catholic Church needed to find some Biblical support for Papal supremacy.

The other problem with this teaching of an unbroken line is that in A.D.1045, Pope Benedict IX was ran out of office because of his unworthiness, with Silvester III taking his place. When Benedict IX returned, he sold the Papal throne to Gregory VI, but still refused to give up his own claim to the throne. So at this time, all three men claimed to be the legitimate Pope! Then in 1046, the German Emperor Henry III settled it by deposing all three Popes and appointing a fourth, Clement II.

LOL.

DoctorAlien:


How is referring to Peter as a stone bringing him down?

How about Jesus calls Peter Satan only a few verses after the verse you claim establishes Peter as the foundation of the church?

Small stone instead of Rock is what??
Peter knew he was rebuking him because of what he said,
here he is praising Peter's confession and giving him the keys..

DoctorAlien:
Another teaching the Roman Catholic Church puts forward is the teaching that there has been an unbroken line of Popes since Peter. But there is a problem with this teaching also. First, no Christians for FOUR CENTURIES after the time of Christ believed that Peter was the leader of the church. This teaching wasn't accepted until around A.D.445 during the reign of Pope Leo I. It was only during this time that the Catholic Church needed to find some Biblical support for Papal supremacy.

The other problem with this teaching of an unbroken line is that in A.D.1045, Pope Benedict IX was ran out of office because of his unworthiness, with Silvester III taking his place. When Benedict IX returned, he sold the Papal throne to Gregory VI, but still refused to give up his own claim to the throne. So at this time, all three men claimed to be the legitimate Pope! Then in 1046, the German Emperor Henry III settled it by deposing all three Popes and appointing a fourth, Clement II.

LOL.

Your first Premise is wrong because from my earlier post I show what the early Christians believed from 110 AD to 200 AD, from IGNATIUS TO TERTULLIAN, LOOK IT UP...

YOUR SECOND PREMISE IF IT'S INFACT ACCURATE DOESN'T ALSO DO ANYTHING, THE PAPACY IS AN OFFICE AND DOESN'T BELONG TO ONE MAN.... If there indeed was a crisis at the time (which I will look into)
ALL HAVE A CLAIM IF THEY ARE VALIDLY ORDAINED BISHOPS,
AND IT IS THE CHURCH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SETTLE SUCH DISAGREEMENTS, IF A CHRISTIAN GOVERNOR IS THERE, THEN FINE, IF NOT THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE WOULD SETTLE IT...

easymancfc:


Your first Premise is wrong because from my earlier post I show what the early Christians believed from 110 AD to 200 AD, from IGNATIUS TO TERTULLIAN, LOOK IT UP...

YOUR SECOND PREMISE IF IT'S INFACT ACCURATE DOESN'T ALSO DO ANYTHING, THE PAPACY IS AN OFFICE AND DOESN'T BELONG TO ONE MAN.... If there indeed was a crisis at the time (which I will look into)
ALL HAVE A CLAIM IF THEY ARE VALIDLY ORDAINED BISHOPS,
AND IT IS THE CHURCH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SETTLE SUCH DISAGREEMENTS, IF A CHRISTIAN GOVERNOR IS THERE, THEN FINE, IF NOT THE CHURCH AS A WHOLE WOULD SETTLE IT...

I know how good the Roman catholic church is at forging "letters from church fathers". So, I'll pass.

It's funny that since after 1046 AD, Roman catholic popes have been succeeding a pope appointed by a German emperor. LOL.

DoctorAlien:


I know how good the Roman catholic church is at forging "letters from church fathers". So, I'll pass.

It's funny that since after 1046 AD, Roman catholic popes have been succeeding a pope appointed by a German emperor. LOL.

Like I said, all are historically accurate and have been verified and attested to Also by historical sources and even top protestant scholars so I don't care about what you think, because you have no historical pedigree, so I will go with the experts
Secondly like I said even if that Pope was appointed by a German king or whatever, what matters is He has been validly ordained and can trace his line of ordination back to the apostles... you didn't give any citation for that story so until I know what happened,
..
provide historically accurate citations so I can look it up..

One thing you should know, the Pope doesn't fall from heaven, He is appointed from among the Bishops of the Church provided they are validly ordained...
So whoever was chosen to become Pope,if he has valid ordination and the Church accepts him, thats all, he gets the authority...

From wikipedia

Benedict was the son of Alberic III, Count of Tusculum, and was a nephew of Pope Benedict VIII and Pope John XIX. He was also a grandnephew of Pope John XII. His father obtained the Papal chair for him by bribing the Romans.

Meanwhile Benedict IX was the 145th in the line of popes.

They were indeed succeeding Peter.

DoctorAlien:
From wikipedia

Meanwhile Benedict IX was the 145th in the line of popes.

They were indeed succeeding Peter.

Corrupt Popes or People taking the office doesn't devalue the office or makes it null, So that fact doesn't mean the papacy never existed or that Peter was never Bishop of Rome...
Judas was an apostle, even though he betrayed Jesus...
the Presidency of Nigeria is still the presidency of Nigeria even if it is being occupied by an Armed Robber, it is still Nigeria's Presidency.. the office is not devalued by the Person

easymancfc:


Corrupt Popes or People taking the office doesn't devalue the office or makes it null, So that fact doesn't mean the papacy never existed or that Peter was never Bishop of Rome...
Judas was an apostle, even though he betrayed Jesus...
the Presidency of Nigeria is still the presidency of Nigeria even if it is being occupied by an Armed Robber, it is still Nigeria's Presidency.. the office is not devalued by the Person

Where did Peter acknowledge that he was a pope? Or are you lying against Peter?

In Galatians 2 we find Paul confirming that he was the apostle to take the gospel to the Gentile world, while Peter was the apostle charged with taking the gospel to the Jews. And Paul states in verse 9 that it was James, Cephas (Peter) and John who ALL "SEEMED" to be pillars of the church. Making no distinction between them whatsoever.

What about the great church meeting in Acts 15? Did Peter stand out as the leader in this great meeting? No, Peter did speak, but if you read the whole of that meeting, you will see that in fact James seemed to be the presiding elder, as he was the one who gave the final decision on the question of circumcision (see Acts 15:19).

DoctorAlien:


Where did Peter acknowledge that he was a pope? Or are you lying against Peter?

Going around in circles again...
that was the beginning of the whole discussion with you...
Where in the Bible does it say Bible that Peter has to acknowledge himself as Pope for him to be Pope,

The name might not have been established but Peter clearly had a primacy in the early Church...

easymancfc:

Going around in circles again...
that was the beginning of the whole discussion with you...
Where in the Bible does it say Bible that Peter has to acknowledge himself as Pope for him to be Pope,

The name might not have been established but Peter clearly had a primacy in the early Church...

Where does Peter acknowledge this primacy?

easymancfc:

Going around in circles again...
that was the beginning of the whole discussion with you...
Where in the Bible does it say Bible that Peter has to acknowledge himself as Pope for him to be Pope,

The name might not have been established but Peter clearly had a primacy in the early Church...

It's not easy my brother, that's how one could begin to imagine what Jesus felt like while dealing with the Jews.

DoctorAlien:


Wht are you peddling lies?

1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:33; Isa. 28:16 all identify the Rock Christ was talking about.

Even Peter himself knew that he was not the Rock which Christ was talking about(1 Pet. 2:6).

Protestants have the worst view of theology.
The fact that Jesus is rock doesn't prevent him from making another rock. Infact Jesus also say in revelation that he has the keys yet in matthew he clearly says he gives it to Peter, Jesus calls himself Good sherperd and tell peter to do the work of a sherpherd ie tend the sheep, he is the rock that is why he could make peter the rock and call him cephas.

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

The Book of Acts is the history of the early Church up until a few years before Peter's death. It says nothing about Peter being in authority over the whole Church. It shows no connection between Peter and Rome.

Acts 28:14-15 tells how Paul met with the "brethren" in Rome, but it makes no mention of Peter. As we shall see, when Paul met with Peter in Jerusalem, Peter was identified by name.

Acts 2:14 and Acts 8:14 say that Peter was in Jerusalem. Acts 9:36-43 says that Peter went to Joppa, which is near Jerusalem. In chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, Peter is still in Joppa. Acts 11:2 says that Peter returned to Jerusalem.

Joppa is about thirty miles from Jerusalem. If the Book of Acts records this much detail about Peter's visit to a nearby town, wouldn't it tell us if Peter went all the way to Rome? Particularly since it does tell us that Paul went to Rome.

IN gal paul says peter was in antioch, are u aware dat isnt in acts?

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

Gal. 2:7-8 states that the gospel of the circumcision(i.e. to the Jews) was committed by GOD to Peter, while the gospel to the uncircumcision(i.e. to the gentiles, which included the Romans) was committed to Paul.

Why would Peter leave his ministry in Judea to go and dwell in Rome, a gentile area?

The same reason that would make him leave judea and go to antioch.

DoctorAlien:
easymancfc,

Please browse other sites apart from your catholic forums. Kephas is translated stones.

sorry dear
Strong's Concordance Képhas: "a rock," Cephas, a name given to
the apostle Peter
Original Word: Κηφᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Képhas
Phonetic Spelling: (kay-fas') Short Definition: Cephas
Definition: Cephas (Aramaic for rock), the
new name given to Simon Peter, the apostle.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
of Aramaic origin Definition
"a rock," Cephas, a name given to the
apostle Peter
NASB Translation
Cephas (9).

biblehub.com/greek/2786.htm

DoctorAlien:


You need to stop reading Roman Catholic Bibles.

see your protestant bible
John 1:42
New International Version (NIV) 42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a])

. Footnotes: a. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock


EXB Then Andrew took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas.” (“Cephas”
means “Peter.”) [C Both Aramaic Cephas and Greek Petros mean “rock.”]

Syncan:


Now he diverts attention. Did you, or whoever you're listening to, misrepresent scripture or not, as pointed out by me? You build your claim on false premise and hope it becomes true. Just see the way you conveniently used "little stone" for Peter in Matt.16:18, and used Rock for Christ in 1 Cor.10:4 . Yet both are same in Greek. Only the truth can set you free, know the truth, speak it always. I have shown you your error, now you've heard His words harden not your heart as at meribah.

If you agree that you were wrong in thinking that Peter means "little stone", then we can start to disabuse your mind from the false teachings that prevents you from knowing the whole truth with regards to succession.

Am not diverting the attention am only pointing to you the reason we are discussing, I dont discuss to argue or destroy someone, I discuss to share my line of thought. And we are gradually shifting ground the reason why we are discussing.

Now let me stick to the reason why we discuss

God has converted His blessings into spiritual dimension for safe keeping( Late Rev Fr Njoku Upper Room Ministry and I agree with him).
Since God has done that,it is imperative to look for the things of God from spiritual/revelational point of view.

Matt 16:17-18, I build my church on peter(Physical)
Eph 5:23, Christ is the Head of the Church(Spiritual).
Colosian 1:18 Christ is the Head of the body, the Church(spiritual).

The Church here has no physical address, has no physical headquarter, no physical head but everything here is purely spiritual such that devil wont spoil it again as he did in the Garden of Eden hence Christ our Last Adam(1 Cor 15:45).

If you check this with divine revelation you will understand first God does not keep his salvation in the physical temple or person since Christ came else devil would have destroyed it. More emphasis.

Take for instance in Gal 2:11-12, if the church is built upon peter, devil would have accused him and destroy the church again upon what Jesus has suffered.

Am not distorting your reasoning but sharing a line of thought should incase you might need it later.

I believe the church of Christ is already one(spiritual not physical as in name of church and all that), we have different Gospels in the land. I believe what these Gospels are doing is sorting children of promise to that of the bond woman.

However, how I know the true Gospel is; claim anything, believe anything,say anything but what you are saying,believing and claiming must lead me(the hearer) to Christ straight and help me look at his face and become more like him.

Ubenedictus:
see your protestant bible
John 1:42
New International Version (NIV) 42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a])

. Footnotes: a. John 1:42 Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) both mean rock


EXB Then Andrew took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas.” (“Cephas”
means “Peter.”) [C Both Aramaic Cephas and Greek Petros mean “rock.”]

I appreciate studying the bible via greek/hebrew or other translation to get the better understanding of a verse but also Holy Spirit is the one that decodes the meaning of every scripture such that we will go closer to Christ.

The main issue here is not literally rock or peter else we concentrate on shadows leaving the substance.
Christ is pointing out that there is something in peter that has something to do about him( The knowledge about what He is and what has come to do and in that revelation he is building His church which is his body. The church is yet to be finished, once the church is finished he stands up and come to rule there) just as in the case of the temple.

easymancfc:

We don't magnify Peter above his Place in the Catholic Church, the Bible clearly gives him a primacy among the apostles... it's anti-Catholic people who bring him down in order to make the Catholic Church look bad...
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY
Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of
Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be
bound in Heaven; whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed. in Heaven.
Mark 16:7
Angel sent to announce the Resurrection to
Peter.
Luke 22:32
Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren.
Note: The word you [I have prayed for
you.]
The Greek is in the personal tense, not
the plural like:
All you Apostles .
Luke 24:34
Risen Jesus first appeared to Peter.
John 21:17
Given Christ's flock as chief shepherd.
Acts 1:13-26
Peter headed meeting which elected Matthias to
replace Judas.
Acts 2:14
Peter received the first converts.
Acts 3:6-7
Peter performed the first miracle after
Pentecost.
Acts 5:1-11
Peter's words inflict deadly punishment on
Ananias and Saphira.
Acts 8:21
Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon
Magnus.
Acts 10:44-46
Peter received a revelation to admit the Gentles
into the Church.
Acts 15
Peter Lead the first Catholic council in
Jerusalem.
Acts 15:7-12
Peter spoke saying: "My brothers, he said, ....
But we believe that we are saved in the same
way as they are: through the grace of the Lord
Jesus." The entire assembly fell silent, and they
listened to Barnabas and Paul describing all the
signs and wonders God had worked through them
among the gentiles."
Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision.
Galatians 1:18
After his conversion, Paul visits the chief
Apostle.
Matthew 10:1-4 , Mark 3:16-19 , Luke 6:14-16 ,
Acts 1:13
Peter's name always heads the list of Apostles.
Matthew 18:21 , Mark 8:29 , Luke 12:41 , John 6:69
Peter spoke for the Apostles.
Luke 9:32 , Mark 16:7
Peter and his companions.
Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New
Testament. All the other Apostles names
combined are mentioned only 130 times. And the
most commonly referenced apostle apart from
Peter is John, whose name appears 48 times.

Remember what the Bible says
1 Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

SO DON'T BRING DOWN WHOM THE LORD HAS HONOURED...

Concerning the Rock argument...
It is clear that Peter is the Rock on which Christ would build his Church according to Mathew 16.. because Christ would not praised his answer, put him down by calling him small stone and then give him authority... it follows that Christ praised his answer, Exalted him and then gave him authority... Besides if Christ was putting him down, the Change of name from "SIMON" To "PETER" would not be necessary instead, according to scriptures change of name normally shows a rise to importance or greatness, ABRAM to ABRAHAM and SARAI to SARAH was for increase them from just been "FATHER " to being "FATHER OF MANY NATIONS" see gen 17:5-15... Same goes for the name change from Simon to Peter...

we know that Christ is the Rock but Christ also calls Peter the Rock... 1 cor 10:4 doesn't take away from Christ because Paul who made that statement also calls the apostles of which Peter is the head " THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH WITH CHRIST AS THE CORNER STONE and so does John who called them the foundation of the new Jerusalem see
Ephesians 2:19bbut you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, 20 BUILT UPON the FOUNDATION of the APOSTLES and PROPHETS, CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF being the CORNERSTONE,

Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had TWELVE FOUNDATIONS, and on them the twelve names of the TWELVE APOSTLES of the LAMB.

I sincerely hope you understand the meaning all the verses quotes you made because if you do you would not use it to defend Pope rather magnify Christ.

After the Pentecost where the Holy Ghost of adoption was release unto all that believe, you will see that peter was not heading Apostle anymore since the head of the Christians is the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ and was going about doing the work of Apostle to the Jews which Christ has handed over to him the reason for his reward in the millennium.

Apostles are called primarily then secondarily the prophets, thirdly the Evangelist, fourthly the Pastors and teachers(1 Cor 12:28 , Eph 4:11-13).
Apostles, I mean all the apostles lay the foundational teaching of the spiritual church we have today and they can be found in the bible.

However if studying, praising and appreciating Peter ( As catholics have everywhere) makes you to look Christ instead of taking him a brother in the Lord, then that is you but not for me.