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.
The book of Isaiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls almost 100% intact, and it says the exact same thing as my KJV says in English. The Bible has been miraculously PRESERVED by God and what we have in our hands today can be safely regarded as "the Word of God". As for the NT, the Byzantian Family MSS is vastly larger than and exclusively reliable, compared to the corrupt Alexandrian Family MSS and the corrupt Western MSS.
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.
Even if they did recognize him, that's inconsequential. The question is, does the Bible recognize him - absolutely not. The real "Peter" to which catholicism points is "Simon Magus".
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...
Andrew, not Peter, was the first to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Andrew told Peter "we have found the Messiah!"
...which is probably why Christ said that Peter would be the 'rock'.
Christ called Peter a "small stone of instability" - hardly an approbation worthy of "the first pope".
However, Jesus referred to Peter's confession as "a giant stone of immense proportion".
I don't understand why catholics ignore this - their claim that this passage points to Peter as "the rock" is like me saying "I've got a 12" black and white and upon this giant, mega pixel, IMAX screen behemoth, I'm going to watch the Superbowl".
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.
Yes, Peter denied Him three times, and Jesus gave him an opportunity to confess Him three times, is all we see here. Paul says the exact same thing in Acts 20, so he must be "the first pope" too.
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.
I'm not saying they're ignoring Paul's contributions, but they certainly fail to appreciate and esteem Paul's contributions which were far more than that of Peter.
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.
Sola Scriptura is the only way to go. The Bible repeatedly says God ensures that His Word is preserved, yet as far as the "word of man" and popes is concerned, the Bible makes no such declaration.