Absolutely. It is total subjective reasoning from Scripture to promote Peter as "the first pope".
Here's the thing though, Phoneman. Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. The Bible has gone through many changes since the first word of the Bible was committed to writing. Letters were written...copies were made...other writings that used to be read in churches and distributed are no longer. The Didache is one of those manuscripts. While it was included in the reading of the first few centuries, it was later dismissed...only because true authorship could not be determined.
Also, the early church fathers had much to write on the matter. Clement, Tertullian, Caius, Origen...and a whole host of others who recognize Peter as the first Pope.
Did Jesus place a bit more focus on Peter? Does not the parent tend to focus more on the problem child more so than the rest? Peter was crude, given to violence, racism, self-confidence, and at times even acted as an agent of the devil - yet, Jesus sees in all of us the that sin-distorted image of God which He seeks to restore.
While Peter could be seen as a “problem child”, he also had the most zeal for the faith...AND, he was the FIRST to recognize Christ as the Messiah...the Son of God. Christ even said (I'm paraphrasing) that Peter wouldn't know that unless it was revealed to him by the Father...
...which is probably why Christ said that Peter would be the 'rock'.
After Jesus was resurrected, he told
Peter to “feed his lambs...tend his sheep...feed his sheep.” Jesus called himself the “good shepherd”; now entrusting the care of his “flock” to Peter.
Peter became an absolute giant of the faith, no doubt. But, the choice of the catholic church to completely ignore Paul's manifold contributions to Christianity which far exceed that of Peter is simply another reason why the Protestant Reformers were correct when they identified the papacy as the Little Horn Antichrist that has "eyes of a man" instead of the eyes of "Godly discernment".
That's a bit of an exaggeration. While the RCC sees Peter as the “rock” which the RCC would be built, it in no way “ignored” Paul's contributions. The RCC sees both Peter AND Paul as instrumental in forming the basis of forming church.
In order to appreciate what we read and HOW we read the Bible TODAY, we kinda got get into the mindset of the people from yesteryear...
...about 2000+ years ago.
I sometimes wonder how many of the Apostles would rolling around in their graves right now while saying, "That's NOT what I meant!"
Some Catholics included.
