and your point is....what exactly?
That him opening the way for gentiles was the commission that Jesus meant when he gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom."
Yes, it is, you just don't want to accept it. I've already went over this, it is in the scriptures, you not wanting to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't there. No, we have scripture, and Tradition from Church Fathers(Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome etc etc ) Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was from John the Apostle --see how that works? Apostolic succession
The only scripture you gave was the replacement for Judas ... not succession. What you have is tradition, that was mostly made in the 3th and 4th century, about who was trained by who and so on ... But there is nothing to say that just because Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who may have known John the apostle, doesn't mean that he's an authority .... Or that his words are cannon, or that his argument AGAINST GNOSTICISM (you have to remember what he was doing), which stated that they were wrong and he knew people who knew the apostles giving him more credibility is somehow an argument for apostolic authoritative succession, it simply doesn't show that.
There most certainly is. There's nothing BUT evidence.
No there isn't, not in the scriptures, not even by the fathers, it's a later tradition.
Peter, not the Bishop of Rome was the cornerstone, I said that explicitly. No, James wasn't the leader he was the Bishop of Jerusalem The scriptures aren't the end all be all of evidence, the scriptures aren't there to give you a travelogue of Peter, they're there to Proclaim the Gospel of Jesus. Outside sources, which there is more than plenty corroborate Peter in Rome and the Bishop thereof, Of course Peter was treated as a leader whenever spoken of, whenever almost any major move was made, teaching given by Jesus, who was the point man? Peter.
Which outside sources? The scriptures show, not only that peter wasn't the leader, but that he had to defer to other apostles ... so if you're claiming those outside sources say that he was a pope then those sources oppose the scriptures.
What does giving in to Judaizers have to do with whether or not he was Pope? And there have been countless Church Councils from the very beginning last was Vatican II, does that mean none of them Popes during those times of Council were Popes too? Acts 11 he explained, not answered to, why would you go on you've not finished what you've attempted to make a start of here?
He listened to the Judaizers becasue they were "men from James," almost all critical scholars understand that James was the leader of the early Church. In the Circumsission issue, Peter wasn't the authority ... James was.
The real question here is Sola-Sciptura, I believe in Sola-Scriptura because of what the scriptures say "do not go beyond what is written." 1 corinthians 4:6, 2 Timothy 3:18 "all scripture is insipred of God."
If you believe in apostolic succession as authority you'd have to demonstrate it from the scriptures, sure the aposltes taught people, but that doesn't prove that they have the right to be part of the canon, or be a divine authority.
The bible is consistant, and clearly the word of God, and there is no reason one should choose (if you're going simply by apostolic succession) the catholic over the orthodox, over the coptic, over the oriental, or even protestant, since they were taught by catholic authorities.
The fact is if a so-called authority goes aagainst the scriptures, you stick with the scriptures.
eace