I can say the same about you.
Sure, but you can't back it up with anything other than the claim itself.
I have proven your posts false repeatedly. You've never once come up with anything close to an argument that wasn't easily refuted.
Unlike you, I can back my claim up with irrefutable evidence:
No, if you look at the passage, the ot and the Jewish mindset/understanding at the time it is very clear that Jesus is giving authority to Peter.
The author of this gospel is Jewish, and one would assume that his mindset/understanding is evident in his narrative, no?
Here's what he wrote:
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
Are we to now suppose that no one else in the history of humanity has ever had this revealed to them? We have the New Testament itself which testifies that no one can be saved unless they confess Christ, and that can only be through revelation from God. Flesh and blood can only inculcate these ideas. They can never produce a genuine confession of faith, only a profession of faith.
"18 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."
The usual argument for this verse goes something like this:
Protestants claim that the Greek "petros" refers to a stone while the Greek "petra" refers to a massive immovable rock.
The Catholic church points out that this distinction is quite accurate for Attic Greek, but no longer existed by the time people were speaking, and writing the Koine Greek of Matthew's gospel narrative.
The Protestants then point out that the Greek "petros" is masculine, but the Greek "petra" is feminine, and therefore "upon this rock" (taute te petra) cannot refer to "petros". Greek grammar requires references to agree in gender, number and case. This verse doesn't allow for the Catholic interpretation.
However, the Catholic response is intriguing in that they point out that the gospel writer couldn't very well give Peter a feminine name, could he? Of course not, but our Catholics have forgotten their own argument because there is no reason why "upon this rock" need be in the feminine to begin with. It could just as easily have been in the masculine, e.g. "tautw tw petrw". Why? Because the distinction between stones and boulders, rocks etc. no longer existed remember??? A rock is a rock is a rock.
The Catholics will then point out that in the gender neutral Aramaic language these gender distinctions didn't exist, and since that is the language they were undoubtedly speaking, this argument becomes a moot point. The problem with this analysis is that it is essentially claiming that the gospel writer goofed. He didn't know what he was doing. He was quite simply uninspired, and for some unknown reason completely lost his ability to continue this narrative observing elementary Greek grammar. Yeah, right. smh. Moving on...
"19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The future periphrastic "shalt bind.. contains the past perfect preterit "having been bound", A better way to say it would be "whatsoever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven", and this is the case throughout scripture. For example, the pattern of the temple Moses is given to construct already exists in heaven. Christ says to pray that God's will be done on earth as it already is in heaven. Satan is cast from heaven prior to being cast to the earth.
Peter is not being given authority to bind or loosen anything. He's being given the ability to see what is already bound or loosened in heaven, and act accordingly. In other words, he now sees that to lust after a woman is to commit adultery. Anyone who is able to see the workings of their own heart, and given the gift of repentance, and takes hold of their calling from God is given those same keys to bind and loosen. This does not put them in a position of authority, but into servitude to God and humanity.
Moreover, to assume that Christ is pointing out that whatever Peter binds or loosens now has Celestial approval and blessing is to bestow authority even he doesn't possess himself. He admits that he only does what he sees his father doing, and only says what is given to him from God to say. He may ask, but ultimately, he concludes that it is "not my will, but Thine be done"
Anyone can see your responses are nothing more than one logical fallacy after another. You never came back with anything to address, or much less refute what I posted.