Christ Church will teach only the truth and the Catholic does not even fits it, So much idolatry

chukwudi44: @debosky

The fact still remains that no where in the scripture is it implied that peter's authourity was not transferable.if there is any inkling to that in the scriptures kindly spill it here.

Even throughout the scripture and human history such authourities are always transfered after the death of the king or prophet why should this case be differant.Even you hypocritical protestants also observe such in your differant churces.

The people you are calling 'alleged church fathers' gave you the bible.The bible did not exist before the fourth century CE.Even the identities of the authours of all the gospels and when they were written were gotten from this 'alleged church fathers' so I would take their words over and above any protestant 'great man of God'

You protestants haveno roots,you were not thhere when it all happened that's why you keep shouting bible this ,bible that like the bible has always existed since the begining.which bible did the apostles use? Was there any approved canon extant then? Why then do some biblical authours quote outside the bible.This only goes further to show that even scripture writers did not practise sola bible that you protestants scream about.You have even gone furter to remove 7 books from the bible.

@truthislight

I have told you I do not argue with the followers of that deluded false propohet charles russel

you know when you lie i will show your for what it is, lies,
as such i dont expect you to like my person.

Am not doing what am doing here to be liked by any body but for the sake of the truth because people lives are at stake.

The Truth is that the OT is the writings of the prophet, judges, livites, and kings.

While the NT are exclusively are the writings of the apostles and history of Jesus and of the apostles.

This apostolic writings have been there since the first century ce.

They are not an RCC book.

RCC is using this deceit to keep people in there bondage, and to create a larger than life relevance by claiming to own this apostolic writings which Ofcouse is a lie since this letters written by the apostles have always been there since the time of the apostles.

@Anyigala

This is a very simple analysis.

Now, looking at that scripture again, we can get the points out without being too emotional.

1. What was the context/subject of the discussion?

Lets see:

matthew 16:13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
^^^
now this is the bone of the discuss " who Jesus is" and it was base on the subject "Jesus" and who he is that every other statement falls in place and refers to.

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” He asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

^^^
this is the answer that Jesus subsequent statement Refers to.

Meaning, now that the truth has been reveal as to my identity (know that it is on this revelation) christ revealed identity, "that i will build my church"

So, christ was refering to himself and his reveal identity when he made that statement and not to peter.


17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in Heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome It.

^^^
note the statement "THIS"

on this rock(the subject under consideration = christ identity) this rock, i will build my church.

The expect of the key was to peter and other elders, cause whatever they bind on earth is also bind in heaven.

Rightly, peter used that key to open the door to the gentiles christians.

If the aspect of the rock was to peter where in the scriptures did peter play the role of the rock?

alexleo:

We cannot subscribe to nonsense catholic belief. I see no connection with apostle Peter and your catholic that is deceiving people

since in u decitful mind "u are d rock and upon dis rock i will build my church" Jesus was talking to himself, please tell me wen he said "i will give u d keys of d kingdom" was he also talking to himself?

debosky:

Which Aramaic text are you referring to? What is the age of the Aramaic text? If the Greek text is older than the Aramaic text (indicating the latter Aramaic was translated from Greek) do you trust the older Greek or the Aramaic translated from the Greek?

The oldest texts for Matthew are in Greek, hence you cannot take an Aramaic translation above the oldest Greek texts.

Petros is NOT equal to Petra, meaning Jesus wasn't talking about Peter when he mentioned the large, immovable Rock on which he would build His Church.

dis is a very stupid arguement, if u want to know y petrous is used ask questions and stop displaying ignorance.

truthislight: @Anyigala

This is a very simple analysis.

Now, looking at that scripture again, we can get the points out without being too emotional.

1. What was the context/subject of the discussion?

Lets see:

matthew 16:13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
^^^
now this is the bone of the discuss " who Jesus is" and it was base on the subject "Jesus" and who he is that every other statement falls in place and refers to.

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” He asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

^^^
this is the answer that Jesus subsequent statement Refers to.

Meaning, now that the truth has been reveal as to my identity (know that it is on this revelation) christ revealed identity, "that i will build my church"

So, christ was refering to himself and his reveal identity when he made that statement and not to peter.


17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in Heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome It.

^^^
note the statement "THIS"

on this rock(the subject under consideration = christ identity) this rock, i will build my church.

The expect of the key was to peter and other elders, cause whatever they bind on earth is also bind in heaven.

Rightly, peter used that key to open the door to the gentiles christians.

If the aspect of the rock was to peter where in the scriptures did peter play the role of the rock?

are u thru? Now tell me wu was Jesus talking to wen he said "i will give u d keys" was he talking to himself?

Ubenedictus: are u thru? Now tell me wu was Jesus talking to wen he said "i will give u d keys" was he talking to himself?

this was a new sentence.

truthislight: @Anyigala

This is a very simple analysis.

Now, looking at that scripture again, we can get the points out without being too emotional.

1. What was the context/subject of the discussion?

Lets see:

matthew 16:13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
^^^
now this is the bone of the discuss " who Jesus is" and it was base on the subject "Jesus" and who he is that every other statement falls in place and refers to.

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” He asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

^^^
this is the answer that Jesus subsequent statement Refers to.

Meaning, now that the truth has been reveal as to my identity (know that it is on this revelation) christ revealed identity, "that i will build my church"

So, christ was refering to himself and his reveal identity when he made that statement and not to peter.


17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in Heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome It.

^^^
note the statement "THIS"

on this rock(the subject under consideration = christ identity) this rock, i will build my church.

The expect of the key was to peter and other elders, cause whatever they bind on earth is also bind in heaven.

Rightly, peter used that key to open the door to the gentiles christians.

If the aspect of the rock was to peter where in the scriptures did peter play the role of the rock?

I have to disagree with your interpretation here. You see Christ asked His apostles two questions - Who to men say i am? Who do you say i am? The second questions was as if He wanted to know who God the Father will reveal His true identity to. When Simon was revealed the true identity of Jesus, the discourse instantly moved from Jesus to Simon.
Christ gave him the name Peter(Rock), promise to build His future Church upon that Rock and also to give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and power to bind and loose. He went on to promise him that gates of Hades will not overcome this Church.
"This Rock" as you emphasised was Peter a person and not Peter's revelation of Chrsit. Your interpretation makes little sense. Christ changed Simon name to Peter (Rock) and upon that Rock (Peter) He will build His Church.

Some of Protestant interpretation of Matthew 16 after the reformation. Let’s look at them one by one.
A. Petros v. Petra
First, is the famous "Petros / Petra" distinction in Matthew 16:18. Peter's name in Greek is Petros, while Jesus says upon this Petra I will build My Church. Some Protestant authors argue that this means that Peter isn't the Rock Jesus will build upon:
At this point Jesus uses the Greek word for a small rock (Petros) and for a large rock (petra) instead of the Aramaic based Cephas (a stone). This was by design. It is the Petros (the man) declaring the petra (the foundational belief of the Christian Church). It is this belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the living God that will stand against hell and gain salvation. Everything rests on these two points.
This line of argumentation doesn't work for a number of reasons. First, Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. We know this from John 1:42, in which John clarifies that he's translating the Aramaic Kepha (or Cephas) to the Greek Petros. Paul repeatedly refers to Peter as Cephas . This is significant, since as Brent Kercheville admits in the Christian Monthly Standard, “the Aramaic kepa , which underlies the Greek, means '(massive) rock'.”

So Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Matthew translated into Greek (as he did with everything Jesus said). Why does Matthew use "Petros" instead of "Petra"? Because they meant the same thing, and Petros is the masculine version of the word for rock, Petra. That is, Matthew didn't want to give Peter a girl's name. And bear in mind that contrary to what Raymond claims above, in the Greek of Jesus; day it's not true that Petros meant "small rock," and Petra meant "large rock." Even John Calvin, while denying that Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built, conceded that "There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words 休赳矧 (Peter) and 疠赳�, (petra, a stone or rock,)."

Finally, Raymond's interpretation just doesn't work. As a stand-alone theological concept, sure: we can all affirm that Jesus is Rock. But in this passage, Jesus isn't the Rock He's referring to, just as He wasn't the shepherd He was referring to in John 10:3. Go back to the passage. Peter is blessed because (1) God the Father revealed to him that Jesus is Christ; (2) he is Peter, Rock; (3) upon this Rock Jesus will build His Church; (4) Peter has the Keys to the Kingdom; and (5) Peter has the power to bind and loosen sins. To say that # 1, 2, 4, and 5 are about Peter, but that 3 isn't because it refers to some other Rock (Jesus Himself, faith, etc.) leads to an interpretation which borders on incoherent. It would be as if God began to bless Abraham in Genesis 17 and then, without any way for a reader to know what was going on, started blessing a different Abraham, before coming back to the Abraham we know and love. So even though it's true that Christ is elsewhere described as Rock, in this passage, the Rock has to be Peter, or the passage stops making sense. Even D.A. Carson concedes that "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter."


B. Did Jesus Change Peter's Name in Matthew 16?

This is one of the strangest arguments. To try and break the parallel with Abram/Abraham, some Protestants authors claim that "the name Peter 'is not now given for the first time, for Matthew has used it throughout in preference to 'Simon' (which never occurs without 'Peter' until v. 17), and Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 indicate that it was given at an earlier stage'" (Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 188). Look at those examples. Matthew, in narrating the Gospel, calls Simon "Peter," even before his name is changed by Christ. And Mark 3:16., in a list of Apostles, starts with "Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter)." In both cases, it's a narrative technique to make sure the reader knows that Simon and Peter are the same guy. Likewise, if you say something like "when Bob Dylan was a child..." you're not saying he was called Bob Dylan then; you're just using the name everyone now knows him by (saying "when Robert Allen Zimmerman was a child" will just get you confused looks).

John 1:42 is even more extreme: Jesus looked at Simon and said, “'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter).” Jesus depicts the changing of Simon's name as a future event in John 1:42. In Matthew 16:18, that prophesy comes true, when He says "you are Peter." And John makes clear the point from A., that the name given by Christ is Cephas, not Petros, and that Petros is what Peter's name is "when translated."

C. Did This Authority Die with Peter
Ironically many Protestant commentators readily concede that Jesus may very well have been referring to Peter when He said, 'Upon this rock.' Rome's argument is not helped by this concession, because regardless of whether the 'rock' refers to Peter, to Peter's faith or to Christ, Rome has read much more into the text than can be found there. While many Protestants have not allowed for the possibility that the 'rock' is Peter because they believed that this would entail accepting the entire Roman Catholic argument, many Roman Catholics have assumed that if they can demonstrate the 'rock' is a reference to Peter then they have somehow proven that Christ established the Roman Catholic papacy in Matthew 16. The leap from 'this rock' being a reference to Peter to the doctrine of the papacy, however, is textually groundless.
One protestant authors argues that “even if we assume that the 'rock' does refer to Peter. What have we lost (if we are Protestant) or gained (if we are Roman Catholic)? Nothing. Because even if the passage is speaking of Peter, it says absolutely nothing about succession, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction or any other fundamental elements of the modern papacy”
The answer he provides to his own question above is obviously untrue. To say that the Catholic position is "not helped by this concession" is likewise untrue. Instead, he is doing what all too many Protestant apologists do in this position: namely, demand that every verse supporting the papacy support every single aspect of the papacy that they find questionable. And if a single passage doesn't prove, in explicit terms, "succession, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction," etc., they act as if proves nothing. There has to be some sort of middle ground. Just as the Trinity isn't proved by a single verse, but by looking at the interrelation of numerous passages, the papacy is the same way.

That said, many of the things he claims aren't in this passage are. If this passage means what it appears to, papal succession has to be true. "Hades" literally means the grave, although it's often a metaphor for Hell. If the Church's authority dies with Peter, then Hades has literally won. The grave triumphs over Peter's authority, and his authority is quenched. This interpretation is, of course, supported by times when we see Apostolic succession in practice, like Acts 1, in which Matthias is chosen to replace Judas; and in Acts 14:23, in which Paul and Barnabas ordain presbyters ("elders," priests) for the flock; or in Acts 6:1-6, when the Apostles ordain deacons by laying on hands. So from Matthew 16, we can see that the Church will overcome death (including, of course, Peter's death). And in Acts (as well as early Church history), we see how this was done: the Apostles ordained And it doesn't stop with the Apostles ordaining successors: in Titus 1:5 and 2 Timothy 2:2, we see Paul instructing the men he's ordained to ordain others and pass the Gospel along through them.

Likewise, papal infallibility is testified to in at least two different manners, perhaps three. First, the binding/loosening power (Matthew 16:19) establishes explicitly that nothing Peter binds or loosen contradicts what God has bound or loosened. The debate over whether Peter or God binds and loosens first is irrelevant to this point: the fact is that whatever Peter declares bound or loosened he declares with the full authority of God behind him. Second, the Church built upon Peter will never be overcome by Hades. If Peter or his successors can make declarations binding upon the whole Church that are wrong (as Protestants claim not only can happen, but has), then Hades prevails over the Church established by Christ. The Petrine Church ceases to be reliable. And finally, there's at least a hint of a third promise of infallibility. Look at the way that Peter is protected in Matthew 16:17. He knows Jesus is Christ because of the Father revealing it, not his own merits. If everything depended on Peter, the Church would collapse. But if it's God working through Peter, we know He's trustworthy. And v. 17 shows God working through Peter quite plainly.

As for "supreme jurisdiction," that's entailed in the binding/loosening as well. In Matthew 18:17-18, the Church has the binding/loosening authority because She's the last stop. If you refuse to listen "even to the Church," you're out. Peter's got the same authority, for the same reason. He's the last resort in a theological dispute: when Rome speaks, the matter is settled.

Anyigala:

You see Christ asked His apostles two questions - Who to men say i am? Who do you say i am? The second questions was as if He wanted to know who God the Father will reveal His true identity to.

hahaha. Lol.

Now, who is allowing his idea to influence is bible knowledge here?

Well, what i said is there for all to see.

I dont know how you came about with this:

Anyigala:
The second questions was as if He wanted to know who God the Father will reveal His true identity to.

Anyigala: Some of Protestant interpretation of Matthew 16 after the reformation. Let’s look at them one by one.
A. Petros v. Petra
First, is the famous "Petros / Petra" distinction in Matthew 16:18. Peter's name in Greek is Petros, while Jesus says upon this Petra I will build My Church. Some Protestant authors argue that this means that Peter isn't the Rock Jesus will build upon:
At this point Jesus uses the Greek word for a small rock (Petros) and for a large rock (petra) instead of the Aramaic based Cephas (a stone). This was by design. It is the Petros (the man) declaring the petra (the foundational belief of the Christian Church). It is this belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the living God that will stand against hell and gain salvation. Everything rests on these two points.
This line of argumentation doesn't work for a number of reasons. First, Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. We know this from John 1:42, in which John clarifies that he's translating the Aramaic Kepha (or Cephas) to the Greek Petros. Paul repeatedly refers to Peter as Cephas . This is significant, since as Brent Kercheville admits in the Christian Monthly Standard, “the Aramaic kepa , which underlies the Greek, means '(massive) rock'.”

So Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Matthew translated into Greek (as he did with everything Jesus said). Why does Matthew use "Petros" instead of "Petra"? Because they meant the same thing, and Petros is the masculine version of the word for rock, Petra. That is, Matthew didn't want to give Peter a girl's name. And bear in mind that contrary to what Raymond claims above, in the Greek of Jesus; day it's not true that Petros meant "small rock," and Petra meant "large rock." Even John Calvin, while denying that Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built, conceded that "There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words 休赳矧 (Peter) and 疠赳�, (petra, a stone or rock,)."

Finally, Raymond's interpretation just doesn't work. As a stand-alone theological concept, sure: we can all affirm that Jesus is Rock. But in this passage, Jesus isn't the Rock He's referring to, just as He wasn't the shepherd He was referring to in John 10:3. Go back to the passage. Peter is blessed because (1) God the Father revealed to him that Jesus is Christ; (2) he is Peter, Rock; (3) upon this Rock Jesus will build His Church; (4) Peter has the Keys to the Kingdom; and (5) Peter has the power to bind and loosen sins. To say that # 1, 2, 4, and 5 are about Peter, but that 3 isn't because it refers to some other Rock (Jesus Himself, faith, etc.) leads to an interpretation which borders on incoherent. It would be as if God began to bless Abraham in Genesis 17 and then, without any way for a reader to know what was going on, started blessing a different Abraham, before coming back to the Abraham we know and love. So even though it's true that Christ is elsewhere described as Rock, in this passage, the Rock has to be Peter, or the passage stops making sense. Even D.A. Carson concedes that "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter."


B. Did Jesus Change Peter's Name in Matthew 16?

This is one of the strangest arguments. To try and break the parallel with Abram/Abraham, some Protestants authors claim that "the name Peter 'is not now given for the first time, for Matthew has used it throughout in preference to 'Simon' (which never occurs without 'Peter' until v. 17), and Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 indicate that it was given at an earlier stage'" (Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 188). Look at those examples. Matthew, in narrating the Gospel, calls Simon "Peter," even before his name is changed by Christ. And Mark 3:16., in a list of Apostles, starts with "Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter)." In both cases, it's a narrative technique to make sure the reader knows that Simon and Peter are the same guy. Likewise, if you say something like "when Bob Dylan was a child..." you're not saying he was called Bob Dylan then; you're just using the name everyone now knows him by (saying "when Robert Allen Zimmerman was a child" will just get you confused looks).

John 1:42 is even more extreme: Jesus looked at Simon and said, “'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter).” Jesus depicts the changing of Simon's name as a future event in John 1:42. In Matthew 16:18, that prophesy comes true, when He says "you are Peter." And John makes clear the point from A., that the name given by Christ is Cephas, not Petros, and that Petros is what Peter's name is "when translated."

C. Did This Authority Die with Peter
Ironically many Protestant commentators readily concede that Jesus may very well have been referring to Peter when He said, 'Upon this rock.' Rome's argument is not helped by this concession, because regardless of whether the 'rock' refers to Peter, to Peter's faith or to Christ, Rome has read much more into the text than can be found there. While many Protestants have not allowed for the possibility that the 'rock' is Peter because they believed that this would entail accepting the entire Roman Catholic argument, many Roman Catholics have assumed that if they can demonstrate the 'rock' is a reference to Peter then they have somehow proven that Christ established the Roman Catholic papacy in Matthew 16. The leap from 'this rock' being a reference to Peter to the doctrine of the papacy, however, is textually groundless.
One protestant authors argues that “even if we assume that the 'rock' does refer to Peter. What have we lost (if we are Protestant) or gained (if we are Roman Catholic)? Nothing. Because even if the passage is speaking of Peter, it says absolutely nothing about succession, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction or any other fundamental elements of the modern papacy”
The answer he provides to his own question above is obviously untrue. To say that the Catholic position is "not helped by this concession" is likewise untrue. Instead, he is doing what all too many Protestant apologists do in this position: namely, demand that every verse supporting the papacy support every single aspect of the papacy that they find questionable. And if a single passage doesn't prove, in explicit terms, "succession, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction," etc., they act as if proves nothing. There has to be some sort of middle ground. Just as the Trinity isn't proved by a single verse, but by looking at the interrelation of numerous passages, the papacy is the same way.

That said, many of the things he claims aren't in this passage are. If this passage means what it appears to, papal succession has to be true. "Hades" literally means the grave, although it's often a metaphor for Hell. If the Church's authority dies with Peter, then Hades has literally won. The grave triumphs over Peter's authority, and his authority is quenched. This interpretation is, of course, supported by times when we see Apostolic succession in practice, like Acts 1, in which Matthias is chosen to replace Judas; and in Acts 14:23, in which Paul and Barnabas ordain presbyters ("elders," priests) for the flock; or in Acts 6:1-6, when the Apostles ordain deacons by laying on hands. So from Matthew 16, we can see that the Church will overcome death (including, of course, Peter's death). And in Acts (as well as early Church history), we see how this was done: the Apostles ordained And it doesn't stop with the Apostles ordaining successors: in Titus 1:5 and 2 Timothy 2:2, we see Paul instructing the men he's ordained to ordain others and pass the Gospel along through them.

Likewise, papal infallibility is testified to in at least two different manners, perhaps three. First, the binding/loosening power (Matthew 16:19) establishes explicitly that nothing Peter binds or loosen contradicts what God has bound or loosened. The debate over whether Peter or God binds and loosens first is Church built upon Peter will never be overcome by Hades. If Peter or his successors can make declarations binding upon the whole Church that are wrong (as Protestants claim not only can happen, but has), then Hades prevails over the Church established by Christ. The Petrine Church ceases to be reliable. And finally,
As for "supreme jurisdiction," that's entailed in the binding/loosening as well. In Matthew 18:17-18, the Church has the binding/loosening authority because She's the last stop. If you refuse to listen "even to the Church," you're out. Peter's got the same authority, for the same reason. He's the last resort in a theological dispute: when Rome speaks, the matter is settled.

do you imagined that we are blind and cannot read?

Those history are highly tainted with censored tradition that people were even killed for going against them.

This are all one sided history that were allowed during the dark ages and are no basis for truth today.

truthislight:

this was a new sentence.

d question is, who was he talking to? Did u miss d question?

frosbel: John Wycliffe
"When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: "two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them." -Ibid

and how does that help ur point?

truthislight:

do you imagined that we are blind and cannot read?
Those history are highly tainted with censored tradition that people were even killed for going against them.

This are all one sided history that were allowed during the dark ages and are no basis for truth today.

hahaha, i cant blive u just said that, u are highly baised and prejudiced. Martin luther was untouchable even in the middle ages he had d full back of a king and kingdom anybody wu wanted luther shuld be ready for a war so luther had no reason to bend what he thought was the truth.
Im no fan of luther on the long run, but to claim that the quote of luther provided above is "highly tinted" is to display intellectual dishonestly. Till luther died he understood that those word were refered to peter himself, luther would deny that dat power d full authority of the pope but he never denied that that passage was for peter.
Please research on it.

truthislight:

do you imagined that we are blind and cannot read?

Those history are highly tainted with censored tradition that people were even killed for going against them.

This are all one sided history that were allowed during the dark ages and are no basis for truth today.

Well, i guess i have nothing more to add to this debate since you cannot, logically, historically or biblically refute Catholic Church's claim that Christ is Her founder and Peter was the first Pope.

Blessings.

Anyigala:

Well, i guess i have nothing more to add to this debate since you cannot, logically, historically or biblically refute Catholic Church's claim that Christ is Her founder and Peter was the first Pope.

Blessings.

your words!!!