I see why you can't read Scripture for understanding, since you can't even read my posts for understanding.
All you're doing here is IMPLYING that there is Biblical evidence for those teachings (spoiler alert: there isn't), and then personally attacking me by falsely suggesting I reject the Bible.
That's pretty pathetic.
I have heard them all, and NONE of them teach Romanism.
You need to actually DEMONSTRATE that they allegedly teach "Peter's preeminence".
If you're simply going to make bald assertions without exegesis, then I've already read those passages hundreds of times, and they don't teach anything of the sort.
Btw is that what your priest does at mass? Simply yell out Bible citations, without any explanations? No wondere you never learn anything at mass.
Again, all you're doing is quoting random citations, without any exegesis.
Do you really expect me to do your work for you?
If you want to learn how to debate, watch some of James White's debates against Sungenis, Matatics, Michuta, Pacwa, Stravinskas. While they didn't make very good arguments (IMO), at least they were able to quote verses and try to explain how they though the text supports their position. I was especially entertained by the Boston College debate with White and Zins against Bob Sungenis and Scott Buttler.
So preaching to crowds makes you a pope?!
Whaddya know? I'm a pope!
Where does it say he ALONE will strengthen the brethren?!
You are REALLY reaching here.
You are the one who clearly doesn't have any critical thinking skills.
That's not what it says.
This doesn't raise Peter "above" the rest of the Apostles.
It merely RESTORES Peter to the level of the other Apostles after he FELL by thrice denying Christ.
It was clearly led by JAMES, not Peter.
So James was the first pope?!
You "logically made" NOTHING.
You didn't even PRESENT any argument.
All you've done is ASSUME the papacy.
Clearly you have zero critical thinking skills.
Of course not.
Because it doesn't support your false claim.
What a convenient excuse for refusing to present an argument.
And you have now proved I was right!
No, you have not.
You have simply cited random verses (some incorrectly, like "Matt. 6:18"), and ASSUMED a meaning without properly exegeting the text.
You made unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS.
That is NOT a "defense".