Resurrection of Christ, page-1063

"Did you read this, your mate wotsup need to take a hard look at it too as I told him this many times but rejects it to give credit to himself, he has no choice to knock it on the head and pretend the bible is easy to comprehend"

Address me as me,dont try to rope what someone else says as what i say to further your own case.

I address you as an individual,not as wafflehead,please give me the same courtesy

"That's the difference no matter how smart a translator of history is or are, they cannot be 100% sure as per above quote , that they got it right in context, no matter what, period, unless they were there and experienced it first hand"

No,this is a typical catholic response,and of course you have to respond like this,and also be indignant to people who believe the bible is our test of faith and is the word of God.

Because this book is what exposes Romes changing of christianity and the self appointed church of God and its fake leader the manmade pope or father as it means in latin,funnily enough the bible tells us to call no man father(spiritually)but your father in heaven,but that would be bible believing again wouldnt it Ppm? And we certainly dont want that! Do we God forbid.

I mean your forefathers put the christians in dungeons not to mention the st Bartholomew's mascre etc etc all for the crime of not believing the state appointed church ,the church and state power and believing the bible to be the word of God and inspired,i can understand your indignation to anyone who challenges your church state dogma.

"The CC was there and formulated creeds prayers hymns and dogmas so we know exactly what the faith was going to the time of the apostles, even fought heresies, was there when it was needed"

Heresy to the rcc is just like you are indignant about,is the binle as your rule of faith,not the man made church of Rome.
The Roman catholic church was not even in existence until Ad 313 lol,based on that fact alone Peter could not have been the 1st pope and the early apostolic christians existed long before this date.

There is absolutely no historical evidence their was a pope in the 1st century.

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession).

Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine

"and to your other post, very funny the CC started at the time of the apostles here is a list of Popes from day one

we have documents written by Pope Clement I. so we are very certain the Papacy exited early way before 300ad"

You said matth 16.16 applied to Peter being the first pope and the gates of hell shall not prevail against this in another conversation,infact there is no historical proof Peter even went to Rome other than his statement about Babylon which Rome was sometimes referred too.

Was Peter the first pope?

The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.”

Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles.

Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church.

Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors.If it does Ppm can you show us?
Or is that just based on tradition as well like most of the things Rome introduced in christianity?

"Gnosticism/the modern day new age, yeah, where were you or your protestant brothers fighting heresies from day one, Gnostic system posed a major challenge to orthodox Christian teachings, forcing the Church to clarify and defend its doctrines against his heretical ideas, and by the way that's how doctrines are born, in the likes of the Trinity, or anything else that is disputed, then councils are held to adhere to the teaching and then solidified"

Incorrect Ppm,you snookered your own self with that comment.

The bible goes to great lengths long before there was even a Roman catholic church in existence talking about who God is was and does.
People like you dont challenge what you have been taught by the church and get indignant at anyone else who would dare challenge the churches authority over christians,for you they are your authority,for me they mean nothing.

Once again its your own indoctrination that assumes "God" had to be defined by a religion thats origins came from pagan Rome? Lol really?

"Here are the first 10 popes, if you want the rest they can easily be found on the internet

St. Peter (c. 30 - c. 64 AD)

St. Linus (c. 64 - c. 76 AD) the one mentioned in the bible

St. Anacletus (c. 76 - c. 88 AD)

St. Clement I (c. 88 - c. 97 AD)

St. Evaristus (c. 97 - c. 105 AD)

St. Alexander I (c. 105 - c. 115 AD)

St. Sixtus I (c. 115 - c. 125 AD)

St. Telesphorus (c. 125 - c. 136 AD)

St. Hyginus (c. 136 - c. 140 AD)

St. Pius I (c. 140 - c. 155 AD)"

So what?
Jesus said in vain you worship me,teaching the doctrines of men for the commandments of God.
That is only applicable to a catholic,to me its just a continuation of the Babylonian belief with the fish hat mitre