Replies

Didn’t He also say to Peter “get thee behind me Satan”?

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Yeah. Right after He said this.....

Matthew 16:17-19 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Interesting that....

I suppose when they can declare themselves infallible and insert meanings into scripture they can also ignore some of it? They take the comment by Christ and misinterpret it to usurp Christ’s authority but neglect to also quote the part where Christ called Peter “satan”. Go figure.

I thought it really interesting that the Catholics start a thread with a article that admits that the time and teaching of Peter in Rome is really “uncertain” “solved only on hypotheses”.

From the article
“As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded.

I would shudder in fear if my faith and salvation was based on “uncertain” and “hypotheses”.

I’ll stay founded on the Rock of Jesus.