"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."
In today's lesson, Jesus makes a statement to Peter that, in my opinion, completely destroys the Roman Catholic theory concerning their creation of the papacy and Peter as the "father" of the "church", or the first pope.
When Peter began to ridicule Jesus in the above quote, Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan". Jesus referred to, who according to Roman Catholicism, the supposed "father" of the "church", as Satan.
In the other account of this conversation, Matthew 16:23, Jesus said to Peter, "Get thee behind me, Satan: THOU ART AN OFFENCE TO ME: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
Neither Luke nor John make any mention of this conversation at all.
I am stunned that people, who were/are supposedly knowledgeable of the overall concept of the gospel of Jesus Christ, could/can come away from this lesson, and Matthew's account of the same exchange, believing that Peter was anointed the "father" of the Church.
How on earth could it be reasoned that the one Apostle who was "an offence" to Jesus and the one whom Jesus referred to as "Satan" could still be declared the "father" of the Church?
Matthew's account of this conversation simply established Peter as the first member of the Church, Jesus, since Peter was the first chosen of His Apostles, was saying, in essence, that His Church began with Peter as its first member. Peter was NEVER given authority over the Chruch.~
No comments:
Post a Comment