Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Let me get this straight: You recommend to me an article that admits Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which can mean “rock” or ‘big boulder” (cf John 1:42), yet you reject the possibility that Peter could be “this rock” in Matt 16:18.
There is no problem - after Peter died a successor was appointed. He was known as Linus.
Constantine was never the leader of the Catholic Church.
It’s true that a few Popes did not behave in accordance with their calling. So what? Popes are imperfect sinners too. All the Bible’s prophets and writers were also imperfect sinners - does that mean that everything they said and wrote and did was uninspired and worthless?
The one who was chosen as Peter’s successor.
Nice try, but no cigar. You’ve got your facts wrong - it was never a sin for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. Abstaining from meat on Fridays was a “discipline”, not a commandment. As for me (as it is for many other older Catholics), I still abstain from meat on Fridays, not because I have to, but because I find it spiritually edifying to practise that “discipline”.I can't resist this one!
Some time during the 1960s-70s, the Roman Catholic church decided it was no longer a sin to eat meat on Fridays. Up until then, the faithful were permitted to eat only fish on Fridays. On the day that the decree was made by the Pope that the faithful can now eat meat on Fridays, a demon came up to the devil in hell and pointed to a very large group, and asked, "What do we do with all these ones who ate meat on Fridays?"
This Part
Neither Jesus, Peter, nor Paul wore a fancy hat, nor were they addressed in high sounding titles, so I follow them instead of an arrogant usurper who calls himself the "vicar of Christ".
Peter would never have supported that evil, demonic Bloody Mary, Roman Catholic queen of England who, with the full support of the Roman Catholic church, brutally murdered 285 Reformers, when their only crime was that they did not believe in transubstantiation. One of those burnings at the stake was of a pregnant woman who gave birth while being burned and the baby was rescued, but the evil demon possessed bishop took the baby and threw it back in the flames. And in 1836 a man and his son were burned at the stake because they said "Praise be to God" instead of "Praise to Mary" when they received the Eucharist.
I could never support a religious cult that murdered thousands of good people all because they translated or owned a Bible in their own language, or refused to pray to Mary, or participate in what they viewed was a pagan Mass that doesn't reflect the Lords true communion table. All this happened according to the Council of Trent, and Vatican II confirmed it, so the Roman Catholic church has never repented of all those godless murders.
After reading about the Christian martyrs murdered by the Roman Catholic cult, the penny did drop quite definitely about it, causing me to recognise that it is just as much of a cult as Mormanism. JW, or Christian Science.
As you can see by my posts, I feel totally horrified by the way the RCC has treated good people through history, even throwing newborn babies into the flames as their mothers burned at the stake, and so I am implacably opposed to what I see as an evil, pagan, satanic cult that is fraudulently presenting itself as the "true" Christian church.
This is funny
The reason for these unproven, psychotic hate rants is because you are doing so poorly in this discussion.
Most of what I said comes from secular history as well as church history. The Scripture says that in the last days many false prophets will arise who will deceive people. The psychotic English bishop who threw the new born baby into the flames is one of those who was deceived.
I may not be convincing you, but all the silent readers of the forum will see clearly how cultish and non-Christian the RCC really is and will avoid any association with it like the coronavirus! It is actually worse than the virus, because the virus can kill only the body, while the RCC can subject a soul to the second death!
The same can be said about the actions of Protestantism in history. With the defense of the Amazonians dominating the news in the past few months, your ignorance is astounding. Catholics of today do not hold Protestants of today accountable for the sins centuries ago, but you hold Catholics of today accountable with an unfair view of history. What you want is a stupid childish rock throwing contest because anti-Catholic bigotry is your religion.
Vatican II ratified every part of the Council of Trent, and the atrocities that were done to innocent people were done in obedience to the Council of Trent, so the RCC has never apologised or made any effort to show repentance for the wholesale slaughter of women and children during its dominance. The execution of Christian people was not because they broke any of the Ten Commandments, or it was not on moral grounds. It was because a person wouldn't pray to Mary, or helped translate the Bible into English, or decided not to accept the authority of the aduterous rat-bag pope of their time. It was under the Council of Trent that a whole city of 70,000 men in the South of France, women and children was totally wiped out with every inhabitant cruelly butchered by the crusaders appointed by the pope to clean out every man, woman and child who would not recognise his authority over them. That is a fact of secular, unbiased history of the time.
But you don't document your false histories, nor do you give reliable sources, you just assert them. The JW's and the SDA's do the same thing as you.
The Greek word used for peter can not mean big Bolder
