Correct: I deny that Peter was the first pope of anything like the Roman Catholic Church. Incorrect: I do not deny that Peter was "granted and office," and keys to the kingdom of heaven, which the Roman Catholic Church definitely is not, never was, and never shall be., although it misrepresents itself to be something akin to the kingdom of heaven---so it has a king (pope) and its own city state, and has ruled and ruined kings for centuries.
Wherever the Roman Catholic Church got to in Europe, there were already Christians there when the Vaticanist missionaries arrived. The means was stated in my original post.
"Biblicist" simply means having a faith based on the Bible. it does not designate any particular named group. Because there have always been, since the Apostles' ministries, true Christians which based their faith on the Scriptures rather than evolving forms of traditions like those of the RCC, Vaticanism has always been forced to use the Bible (almost always messing it up, of course), to try to make people think it is legitimate, which it is not. It is an impostor, a mere caricature, a religious buffoon.
Which scriptures were used in "the Apostles' ministries?
“Wherever the Roman Catholic Church got to in Europe, there were already Christians there when the Vaticanist missionaries arrived. The means was stated in my original post.”
History states clearly otherwise. The Romans in Britain considered themselves just that, Roman. As did the Romans in all the other places.
You are drawing a distinction where none exists, between the missionaries of the Church and between the Catholic church.
“Roman Catholic Church definitely is not, never was, and never shall be, although it misrepresents itself to be something akin to the kingdom of heaven-—so it has a king (pope) and its own city state, and has ruled and ruined kings for centuries.”
Does no such thing. You do know that the city states around Rome have been governed by the bishop of Rome, at least going back to the collapse of the Western Emperor. This is close to 1600 years. Far longer than any other Western government including that of France.
’ “Biblicist” simply means having a faith based on the Bible.’
That is what you say it means. It has absolutely no relevance to the period, and is ahistorical rubbish. Did the Christians of the time call themselves ‘biblicists?’ No. So there is no need to insert our own term to refer to them when they had names for themselves that we ought to use instead.
Names like the Catholic church.
“Because there have always been, since the Apostles’ ministries, true Christians which based their faith on the Scriptures”
Really. You ARE aware that the scriptures that you have today were first published by the Pope in the Vatican who decided what books should be used, books you don’t even use and that you refer to as ‘biblicist’, when you tear such books out of the bible?
Complete and utter hogwash. They referred to themselves by the Creeds when they were declared, and as Catholics and Christians.
“Vaticanism has always been forced to use the Bible (almost always messing it up, of course), to try to make people think it is legitimate, which it is not. It is an impostor, a mere caricature, a religious buffoon.”
Well considering as they wrote and put the blasted thing together, I should think they would use it.