There Is NO -- *Chair of Peter*

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 7:03:05 PM11/30/05
to

Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of a *Chair of Peter*
is actually one of the many papal fabrication which has deceived the credulous
and biblically illiterate.

Andrew

Libertarius

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 7:14:39 PM11/30/05
to

Andrew wrote:

===>Of course it is.
If there was anyone in that role it would have been JAMES,
known as the "brother of the Lord". -- L.


Bible Bob

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 7:28:04 PM11/30/05
to

The evidence seems to point to that wise OLD sage, Libertarius being
the one in the hot seat:)

I know of no evidence that supports Peter ever went to Rome (think he
went the other way). And Poposity is not of Judean origin; but of the
pagan type common in the area around Popeville.

.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Libertarius

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 7:59:44 PM11/30/05
to

Bible Bob wrote:

===>The new state religion took on all the pomp and rituals
of the old Mithraic religion, even the attire of the priests and
the pope, as well as his title Pontifex Maximus was taken from
the Pagan religion.
However, this was only a continuation of the Paganization of
Messianism by Saul/Paul of Tarsus, whose new-fangled
Christos Cult was a continuation of the Pagan mystery religions,
with some Jewish flavoring added to provide a semblance of
continuity with old time Judaism, and perhaps to acquire some of the
privileges granted by the Empire to the true Jews. -- L.

Carlque

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 8:15:42 PM11/30/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:Z4rjf.2439$YT3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

You base your scholarship on a bogus bible from the 16th century? You sola
scripturists are the illiterates. You don't know nothing about Church
history because your sect started in the 1500s.

http://www.catholicapologetics.net/
Was St. Peter The First Bishop of Rome ?

Due to the vast amount citations from the early church fathers and
the archeological evidence readily available on the Internet it has become
harder than ever for Protestants to deny the fact that Peter was in Rome.
Protestants have had a hard time adjusting to this instant wave of
information, they have been forced to change their traditional arguments.
Recently it has become more common to here a Protestant say "sure Peter was
in Rome, but he was not the Bishop, Linus was the first Bishop of Rome". of
course this new revised argument holds the same lack of validity that the
original Protestant argument "Peter was not in Rome" as is shown in the
writing of the early church fathers:

Irenaeus of Lyons

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the
church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.
Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To
him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed
apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard
the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before
his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been
instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension
having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very
strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their
faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the
twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has
fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles
handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us"
(ibid., 3:3:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]:
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent
to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for
twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303])

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little
Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3)

Cyprian of Carthage

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by
the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then
present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no
one had been made [bishop] before him--when the place of [Pope] Fabian,
which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was
vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the
ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do
so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the
unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even
to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair
of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity
has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Firmilian

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and
contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of
the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18] . . . Stephen . . . announces that he
holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian's Letters
74[75]):17 [A.D. 253]).

The Poem Against the Marcionites

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded
Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the
flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement
follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the
flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to
Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to
Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the
Marcionites 276-284 [A.D. 267]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal
chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who
was head--that is why he is also called Cephas ["Rock"]--of all the
apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of
the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first Apostles and bishops were Peter, then Linus, then
Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest
Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter's twenty-second successor in
the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

Jerome

"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says 'With
Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book
of life,' the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was
Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that
Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D.
396]).

Jerome

"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting
between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of
the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn
to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal
for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ.
. . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your
heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently
what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for
blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of
faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and
faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of
Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Augustine

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them
of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which
Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of
Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much
more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to
whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this
rock I will build my church . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by
Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . .
" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).


>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>


The Rock Is Peter

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 9:10:38 PM11/30/05
to
Bible Bob wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:14:39 -0700, Libertarius
> <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Andrew wrote:
> >
> >> Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
> >> of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
> >> of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of a *Chair of Peter*
> >> is actually one of the many papal fabrication which has deceived the credulous
> >> and biblically illiterate.
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >
> >===>Of course it is.
> >If there was anyone in that role it would have been JAMES,
> >known as the "brother of the Lord". -- L.
> >
> The evidence seems to point to that wise OLD sage, Libertarius being
> the one in the hot seat:)
>
> I know of no evidence that supports Peter ever went to Rome (think he
> went the other way).

Key phrase: "I know of no evidence"...you don't know much, then.

Andrew

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 9:20:43 PM11/30/05
to
"Carlque" wrote in message news:_fOdnYjaXqh...@look.ca...

>
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
>> of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
>> of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of a *Chair of Peter*
>> is actually one of the many papal fabrications which has deceived the credulous

>> and biblically illiterate.
>
> You base your scholarship on a bogus bible from the 16th century? You sola
> scripturists are the illiterates. You don't know nothing about Church
> history because your sect started in the 1500s.


I commend you for acknowledging that the doctrine is not based on the Bible.
Therefore, on this we do have some agreement. But I contend that..if it is not
solidly based in the Scriptures, then it is only one of the many fabrications of
a system of religion which has deceived the credulous and biblically illiterate.

Andrew

ber...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 10:13:53 PM11/30/05
to
"Biblically speaking" - this argument or statement doesn't hold up
among either a group of Hebrew men or women, never mind those who,
according to Josephus, were known as the tribe of Christians. First,
there is a difference between those who were disciples of the Lord and
those Twelve chosen to be Apostles. When you read both the old and new
testaments, those covenants supposedly given as a gift to said
Christians, you can make a list from the BEGINNING on who was raised up
as pillars.
Let's start with Abraham, shall we?
His "seed" was still being referenced in the Gospel.

Whether or not anyone considers the Apostles to have been specially
priviliged and held in high esteem, to include Peter, is a particular
problem among those who oftentimes sound like Andrew who started this
thread.
In the sixties, he'd've fit right in with those who had not much use
for authority. And authority is big time scripturally based.
>From the beginning.

Have a nice day..

Qolon

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 10:57:37 PM11/30/05
to
"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over
them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But
ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the
younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. {

CURRENCY WITHIN PERPETUITY
3600 to 4000 % 22 = 16 [0 BCE] - Totality of Nature / Engendering Nature
{Yod / Sovereignty}
...

Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535 CE) in his De Occulta Philosophia gave these
same magic 32 = #15 and 92 = #369 number-squares where the magic #sum =
n(n2+1) /2), a special astrological significance:

Saturn (#3rd = 15 CE),
Jupiter (#4th = 34 CE),
Mars (#5th = 65 CE),
Sun (#6th = 111 CE),
Venus (#7th = 175 CE),
Mercury (#8th = 260 CE),
Moon (#9th = 369 CE)

Associating each with a planetary deity, in which form they became very
popular among Christian Kabbalists and to which they applied the hierarchy
as the Angel Names of God [Luke 12:8-12], a metaschema of Hebrew 3 letter
root words obtained anagrammatically from [Exodus 14:19-21]
...
5600 to 6000 % 22 = 13 as Mem = #41 during 13-17 September 2001 [2000CE
as122J3W1D] + 9(9ť+1)/2 as #369 - Nature surmounts Nature {Samek -
<http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/images/sept112001.gif>}

} For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is
not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are
they which have continued with me in my temptations.

And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That
ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel {He that sees God; He that prevails with God.
And the Lord said, Simon {that hears; that obeys}, Simon, behold, Satan hath
desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for
thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren." [Luke 22:25-33]

Within Jewish mysticism, the Archangel Metatron is considered the soul of
the Messiah, an angel of liberation and the covenant. As the greatest of all
the heavenly hierarchs to whom Gabriel is sub-ordinate, he is equated with
the demiurge or supernatural animating agent within the universe as the
Shekinah [#11, #2, #37, #47 - Ignorant Guides/ Viewing the Distant/ #1,
#81]. And who was especially important because his name is the mathematical
equivalent of Shaddai {Heb. Shin (#300) Daleth (#4) Yod (#10) = #314 % 81 =
#71} the Almighty [Genesis 17:1], as one of God's names: "Of the palace of
Metatron, the name comes from the Nepheshoth {ie. the life force, soul or
anima, psyche as distinguished from the nous or logos}, the most righteous
of the universe. Of the profound secret, Metatron is all the actions and
power of Shaddai, of all the one power." [ż 2000 Steve Savedow, The Sepher
Rezial: The Book of the Angel Raziel p 196] This Angel is regarded as
companion to the Angel Sandolfon {co-brother} who, being 'taller than his
comrades by a distance of 500 years' has a significance in being designated
as the left-handed cherubim of the ark of the covenant, thereby having an
intimate attendance upon God himself.

It is said that the Torah text [Exodus 23:20-22] specifically refers to the
Archangel Metatron: "Behold, I send an angel of mercy before you to guard
you in the land {Heb. derek}, to bring you into the place which I have
prepared. Pay attention before him and listen to (his) voice, and do not
rebel against his words, for my holy name is invoked upon him, for he will
not forgive or pardon your sins, for my holy name is invoked upon him. But
if you listen to the voice of my Memra {ie. The Lord of Sabaoth as the Lord
of Hosts, Forces & Authority over Chaos, Memra, Word, Shekinah, Holy Spirit;
By Acts of Divine Providence} and do all that it says, I will hate whoever
hates you, and I will oppress whoever oppresses you." [ż 1994 The Order of
Saint Benedict Aramaic Targum of Neofiti 1: Exodus 23:20-22]

Jesus of Nazareth, in speaking of John the Baptist's ministry, assigns to
him the role of this Angel as being the Divine Messenger, in fulfillment of
this Torah narrative: "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A
reed shaken by the wind? But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in
soft {ie. Gk. malakos} garments? Indeed those who are gorgeously appareled
and live in luxury are in the kings' courts. But what did you go out to see?
A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it
is written: 'Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare
your way {Gk. hodos} before you.' [Exodus 23:20-22] For I say to you, among
those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist;
but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." [Luke
7:24-28]

- dolf
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/kosmos.html#_edn2>

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438E406F.3A5481B@Nothing_But_The.Truth...

JCarew

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 11:03:45 PM11/30/05
to
JMJ
"Bible Bob" wrote

>snip<


>
>I know of no evidence that supports Peter ever
>went to Rome (think he went the other way).

See:

http://www.ucd.ie/classics/classicsinfo/96/Curran96.html

Jim Carew sfo

Carlque

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 11:20:05 PM11/30/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:%5tjf.3915$A23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...

> "Carlque" wrote in message news:_fOdnYjaXqh...@look.ca...
>>
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>> Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the
>>> book
>>> of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of
>>> the pillars of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea
>>> of a *Chair of Peter*
>>> is actually one of the many papal fabrications which has deceived the
>>> credulous
>>> and biblically illiterate.
>>
>> You base your scholarship on a bogus bible from the 16th century? You
>> sola scripturists are the illiterates. You don't know nothing about
>> Church history because your sect started in the 1500s.
>
>
> I commend you for acknowledging that the doctrine is not based on the
> Bible.
> Therefore, on this we do have some agreement. But I contend that..if it is
> not
> solidly based in the Scriptures,

You have no Scriptures to speak of had it not been for the Catholic Church!
So stop looking stupid!


>
> Andrew
>
>
>


Eeyore

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 11:44:38 PM11/30/05
to
In article <438E4B00.953BF99A@Nothing_But_The.Truth>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:


>
> ===>The new state religion took on all the pomp and rituals
> of the old Mithraic religion, even the attire of the priests and
> the pope, as well as his title Pontifex Maximus was taken from
> the Pagan religion.

> However, this was only a continuation of the Paganization of
> Messianism by Saul/Paul of Tarsus, whose new-fangled
> Christos Cult was a continuation of the Pagan mystery religions,
> with some Jewish flavoring added to provide a semblance of
> continuity with old time Judaism, and perhaps to acquire some of the
> privileges granted by the Empire to the true Jews. -- L.

Absolutely. And there is no certainty about the supposed martyrdom of
both Peter and Paul even

One interesting point I noted recently is that Christianity sees the entry
point of Mithraism into the Roman Empire as crucial in that it seeks to
claim that Christianity "inspired" Mithraism rather than that Christianity
in fact adopted many of the beliefs and practices of Mithraism.

Christianity seeks to claim that the entry time was not earlier than 60AD
"as a soldiers religion"

This date cannot be correct in that the Levantine areas bordered on the
source of Mithraism in Iran and the beliefs and practices had long been
refined over hundreds of years as the parent religion of Zoroastrianism.
The Gospels themselves obliquely refer to Zoroastrian influence in the
three Wise Men (Magi).

If only Christians could be more honest about their origins and in
particular confront the problem of Paul

It was Paul who broke the influence of the church in Jerusalem that had
been under the leadership of Jesuses brother James.

++++++++++

Eeyore

unread,
Nov 30, 2005, 11:53:19 PM11/30/05
to
In article <%5tjf.3915$A23....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

It is questionable if - apart from Paul's letters - we even have a
reliable "Jesus" Scripture since Paul's letters and theology predate the
rest of the New Testament - with the possible exception of "Hebrews" (not
by Paul)

What we have in their present form is a collection of contemporary or post
Pauline writings

Jesus left no writings that we know of. The image of him we now have,
evolved over the thirty years following his death and was refined by Paul
and the post Paulines

The religion of Paul - with the addition of the second Century factional
religious tract called the "gospel of John" - became the religions we know
as Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity

Protestantism is an extraction of the worst errors of Johannine Paulism
with the authority of the Papacy and curia removed. It is highly
debateable that it did not make the situation worse

+++++++++++

bam

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:07:45 AM12/1/05
to

> Bible Bob wrote:

>> I know of no evidence that supports Peter ever went to Rome (think he
>> went the other way).

Now you do........


"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the
Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes
the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one
or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom,
departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter
and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church
History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own
dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the
foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414
<
"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by
the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him
for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D.
190), in NPNF2,I:261

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained
with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to
John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to
whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their
own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that
Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is
substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries
of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a
member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a
published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy,
speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the
aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles.
For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the
trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198),in
NPNF2,I:129-130

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for
he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in
NPNF2,X:132

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and
thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at
Rome."
Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power
which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115

"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to
Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and
set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of
heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in
NPNF2,VII:37-38

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul
who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear
witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed
rejoicing..."
Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church

whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor
of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there
shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the
Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so,
that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to
be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome
even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both
for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness,
and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let
all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his
lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he
was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is
more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body
great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints.
Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the
city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From
thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what
a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit,
together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will
Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what
golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I
admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the
other display there, but for these pillars of the Church."
Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its
commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by
the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men
to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D.
394),NPNF2,V:535

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with
how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we
reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the
Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his
successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus,
Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter,
Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus,
Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix,
Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester,
Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the
present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is
found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to
Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a
few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of
'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the
city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a
dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath,
because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his
encounter with Simon[Magus]."
John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy
anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that
whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere
celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which
to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with
special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a
predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where
the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men,
through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through
whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth.
These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be
numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and
happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls
were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his
brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in
NPNF2,XII:194

Some non-Catholic historians

"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in
Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant
champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that
Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of
the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am
willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account
that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to
have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it
take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name
of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for
Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the
history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a
critic of the Catholic faith)

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to
every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once
contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our
final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is
relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of
antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for
all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have
to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered
martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York:Doubleday,1971) p. 410

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6

"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by
Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in
Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans
Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar
Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's
death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in
Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth
similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p.
36

BAM


Bible Bob

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:27:55 AM12/1/05
to

Jim,

The link provided a lot of non-scriptural information.

1 Peter was written from Babylon (1Pet5:13)

Peter was the Apostle to the Circumcision; not the Gentiles and his
epistles were written to the Christian Jews of the dispersion.

Did it ever occur to you or anyone else reading this thread that it
might be that God left out what happened to the Apostles for a reason?
God has a purpose for everything He says; but also for what He does
not say.

.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net

Libertarius

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:33:44 AM12/1/05
to

Carlque wrote:

> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:Z4rjf.2439$YT3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the
> > book of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of
> > the pillars of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of
> > a *Chair of Peter*
> > is actually one of the many papal fabrication which has deceived the
> > credulous
> > and biblically illiterate.
>
> You base your scholarship on a bogus bible from the 16th century? You sola
> scripturists are the illiterates. You don't know nothing about Church
> history because your sect started in the 1500s.
>
> http://www.catholicapologetics.net/
> Was St. Peter The First Bishop of Rome ?
>
> Due to the vast amount citations from the early church fathers and
> the archeological evidence readily available on the Internet it has become
> harder than ever for Protestants to deny the fact that Peter was in Rome.

===>There is no such evidence.
The supposed grave of Peter contained dog bones. -- L.

Libertarius

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:46:14 AM12/1/05
to

Eeyore wrote:

===>If you compare the basic message of Zoroastrianism and Christianity,
you find that the latter is just a revised form of Zoroastrianism. -- L.

Libertarius

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:49:40 AM12/1/05
to

Eeyore wrote:

===>At least Catholicism has matured enough to be able to reconcile
with modern scientific thinking, unlike most Protestants who, having
replaced the "infallible" Pope with a paper Pope, the "inerrant" Bible,
are stuck with believing the ancient myths as the "Words of God". -- L.

Andrew

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:49:24 AM12/1/05
to
"Carlque" wrote in message news:O7Kdnf-IA_Vl5BPe...@look.ca...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Carlque" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
>>>> of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
>>>> of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of a *Chair of Peter*
>>>> is actually one of the many papal fabrications which has deceived the credulous
>>>> and biblically illiterate.
>>>
>>> You base your scholarship on a bogus bible from the 16th century? You
>>> sola scripturists are the illiterates. You don't know nothing about
>>> Church history because your sect started in the 1500s.
>>
>>
>> I commend you for acknowledging that the doctrine is not based on the Bible.
>> Therefore, on this we do have some agreement. But I contend that..if it is not
>> solidly based in the Scriptures,
>> (Andrew)

>
>
> You have no Scriptures to speak of had it not been for the Catholic Church!
> So stop looking stupid!
> ("Carlque")


Yes, I understand you feel that way. Whatever the truth is on THAT issue, the
fact remains that the concept of a *Chair of Peter* is unbiblical. In that respect
I do agree with you. Thank you!

Andrew


Carlque

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:20:04 AM12/1/05
to

"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message
news:438E8B38.E447DC80@Nothing_But_The.Truth...

You knew this by conjuring and rattling dog bones?

>


Andrew

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:41:59 AM12/1/05
to
"Carlque" wrote in message news:P_Gdncig9_M...@look.ca...

> "Libertarius" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Due to the vast amount citations from the early church fathers and
>>> the archeological evidence readily available on the Internet it has become
>>> harder than ever for Protestants to deny the fact that Peter was in Rome.
>>
>> ===>There is no such evidence.
>> The supposed grave of Peter contained dog bones. -- L.
>
> You knew this by conjuring and rattling dog bones?


http://www.societaschristiana.com/History/Reformation/InventoryOfRelics.html

Ron B.

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:47:56 AM12/1/05
to

Let's see here, the original poster is claiming modern archeology (but
does not substantiate the claim) and you are offering John Calvin as
refutation. Love ya' both.

DOC WATSON

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:52:06 AM12/1/05
to
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:03:05 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
said the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:

well Andrew- you KNOW the romanists have to be THE biggest and the
best of everything!!!!!!1
After all, they even claim Mary can tell GOD what He is 'allowed to
do'.


--

Confucious say: "Don't judge people by their relatives!"
Sign in feudin' homestead: "Friends Welcome. Relatives by Appointment.!"

DOC WATSON

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:52:07 AM12/1/05
to
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:15:42 -0500, "Carlque" <cqa...@idirect.com>

said the following funny stuff in this here little old new 'froup:

>You don't know nothing


wonderful grammar.....

Andrew

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:58:27 AM12/1/05
to

"Ron B." <zyp...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:7pKdnanZGJOzhhLe...@giganews.com...


John Calvin gives an excellent treatise on the absurdity of relic worship.

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:43:46 PM12/1/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:U3Ejf.2618$YT3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

How would you know what the Bible contained, especially the New Testament,
if it were not for the Catholic Church?

Surely Ellen White wouldn't have been given it?

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za


Stephen Korsman

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 12:44:20 PM12/1/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:D4Fjf.3152$Hk1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Nobody worships relics.

Andrew

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 4:37:48 PM12/1/05
to
"Stephen Korsman" wrote in message news:qs2dnR3LtZa...@is.co.za...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Ron B." wrote:
>> > Andrew wrote:

>> >> "Carlque" wrote:
>> >>> "Libertarius" wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Due to the vast amount citations from the early church fathers and
>> >>>>> the archeological evidence readily available on the Internet it has become
>> >>>>> harder than ever for Protestants to deny the fact that Peter was in Rome.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ===>There is no such evidence.
>> >>>> The supposed grave of Peter contained dog bones. -- L.
>> >>>
>> >>> You knew this by conjuring and rattling dog bones?
>> >>
> >>> http://www.societaschristiana.com/History/Reformation/InventoryOfRelics.html
>> >>
>> >
>> > Let's see here, the original poster is claiming modern archeology (but
>> > does not substantiate the claim) and you are offering John Calvin as
>> > refutation. Love ya' both.
>>
>>
>> John Calvin gives an excellent treatise on the absurdity of relic worship.
>
>
> Nobody worships relics. <------- ?????
>
> Stephen
>

"It will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate
objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or
even the statue or picture of a saint." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm

"Nothing is more characteristic of Rome than the worship of relics. Wherever a chapel is
opened, or a temple consecrated, it cannot be thoroughly complete without some relic or
other of he-saint or she-saint to give sanctity to it. The relics of the saints and rotten bones
of the martyrs form a great part of the wealth of the Church. The grossest impostures have
been practised in regard to such relics; and the most drivelling tales have been told of their
wonder-working powers.."

http://www.house-church.net/babylons/sect52.htm

http://the-true-jw.oltenia.ro/relics.html


Carlque

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 7:12:56 PM12/1/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:U3Ejf.2618$YT3...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

If you rely so much on the bible for your beliefs, aren't you refuting
yourself when the "bible alone" (sola scriptura) is unbiblical? Show me
where in the bible that the "bible alone" teaches all truth. Don't cite 2
Tim. 3:16, for this verse has been refuted to death since the reformation.

>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>


Tyrone Robinson

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 8:32:44 PM12/1/05
to

"Carlque" <cqa...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:KqudnSbd6dEXDBLe...@look.ca...

Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus
replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS
WRITTEN" Read it for yourself! If any one could have used oral tradition, it was
Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.

Acts 17:11-12: Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral
revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final
determination of truth. Oral tradition is worthless without the witness of
scripture!

Luke 10:26: "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" Jesus
expected even his enemies to correctly interpret the Bible by simply reading and
studying it.

Abide only within scripture to the exclusion of oral tradition

1 Corinthians 4:6: And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to
myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of
men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against
another.

Never did Jesus refer to oral tradition to prove or defend truth.

Never does Jesus refer to oral traditions in a positive way.

Every time he defends truth he refers to the scriptures.

The only times Jesus referred to Oral traditions, was condemning them:

Mt 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments
of men.

Jesus made over 100 references to scripture. Jesus never relies upon oral
traditions but scripture alone.

"Have ye not read" Matthew 12:3

"have ye not read in the law" Matthew 12:5

"Did ye never read in the scriptures" Matthew 21:42


2 Timothy 3:16-17: No matter how you twist it, it still says that scripture
alone is all-sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work.


Carlque

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 9:56:41 PM12/1/05
to

"Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com> wrote in message
news:E86dnWYikuCtORLe...@rcn.net...

You are already twisting it. Note your "scripture alone" above. It's
UNBIBLICAL. You don't see it anywhere in the bible. Jesus approved "oral
tradition"....Mark 26:15..."And He said to them: Go ye into the whole
world, and PREACH (oral) the gospel to every creature".


>
>
>
>


Tyrone Robinson

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:34:26 PM12/1/05
to

"Carlque" <cqa...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:z_2dnbmXj65...@look.ca...

Say what? I just showed you umpteen verses that confirm it's biblical and you
say it's unbiblical.


Jesus approved "oral
> tradition"....Mark 26:15..."And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world,
> and PREACH (oral) the gospel to every creature".
>

Do you have a clue what the gospel is that Jesus was referring to?


Ananias917

unread,
Dec 1, 2005, 10:49:06 PM12/1/05
to
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:56:41 -0500, "Carlque"
<cqa...@idirect.com> spake thusly:


>> 2 Timothy 3:16-17: No matter how you twist it, it still says that
>> scripture alone is all-sufficient to equip us for EVERY good work.
>
>You are already twisting it. Note your "scripture alone" above. It's
>UNBIBLICAL. You don't see it anywhere in the bible. Jesus approved "oral
>tradition"....Mark 26:15..."And He said to them: Go ye into the whole
>world, and PREACH (oral) the gospel to every creature".

You are trying to make excuses for your church making
up whatever they want to and then claiming it is from
God, which is exactly what they do and don't care if it
contradicts Scripture.

Jesus told the disciples to go and preach what He had
already said to them, not whatever they wanted to make
up and claim was from Him. So you have no point to
make there and when you refer to something that
happened in the Bible, you are only conceding that it
is the Bible that we must go back to and use as the
ruler by which we measure all doctrines, so you support
the argument of those whom you claim are wrong.

The "oral tradition is still to be used" argument is
not true. That is an argument that the Catholic Church
uses, which is that oral tradition is to be followed,
which of course, they get to make up as they go. (:

They claim that the Bible says it and isn't it
interesting, that they refer to the Bible, instead of
themselves, to claim this, thus recognizing (even
though they deny this) that the Bible is the final
authority in matters of faith? :)

The reality is, that the Apostles limited oral
tradition to what they had already taught.

Let's look at it and examine the very passages that are
used to try to support the claim that oral tradition is
still ongoing and is still to be used...

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether
by word, or our epistle." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Don't they love to use that passage as proof that
it's okay to keep adding to the message? "It says
by word", they claim.

But what does it REALLY say? Let's look and see. :)

1) "have been taught" Past tense. It is not a
prescription for a continual adding, as they
claim it is.

2) Paul also sent Timothy to tell some to stop teaching
doctrines that were not taught by the Apostles
themselves. Oral tradition was limited to that which
the Apostles brought and Paul sending Timothy
to stop them from teaching things that were not
taught directly by the Apostles, proves that.

3) They cannot produce one single reference that says
to continue adding oral tradition beyond what the
Apostles taught.

4) Paul was discussing what they had been taught
in person and by letter, by the Apostles themselves.

5) They have no basis from which to argue that what
is presently called oral tradition by the Catholic
Church, but was actually added later by them, is valid.

Thus my friend, their claim about adding oral
traditions is wrong and their claim that any letters
outside the NT are to be viewed as authoritative, is
wrong, since the Apostles limited it directly and
specifically to their teachings and stated it in the
past tense (to what was already taught previous
to the point in time that the "oral tradition"
statement was made in that letter by Paul).

6) You are trying to claim that orally repeating
something is the same as adding new doctrine,
when you claim that Jesus approved of what you
claim, which is that it's okay to keep adding and
you call that "oral tradition". That is like saying
that if I read a definition in the dictionary out
loud, repeating it, that it's okay to add my own
words to it. That's ridiculous! Repeating something
is not the same thing as ADDING to it!

7) You will have to come up with a statement by the
Apostles themselves, that says that it is okay to keep
adding to the "oral tradition".


--

"And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house;
and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way
as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
- Acts 9:17

Andrew

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 1:18:25 AM12/2/05
to
"Carlque" wrote in message news:KqudnSbd6dEXDBLe...@look.ca...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Carlque" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> "Carlque" wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
>>>>>> of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
>>>>>> of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of a *Chair of Peter*
>>>>>> is actually one of the many papal fabrications which has deceived the credulous
>>>>>> and biblically illiterate.
>>>>>
>>>>> You base your scholarship on a bogus bible from the 16th century? You
>>>>> sola scripturists are the illiterates. You don't know nothing about
>>>>> Church history because your sect started in the 1500s.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I commend you for acknowledging that the doctrine is not based on the Bible.
>>>> Therefore, on this we do have some agreement. But I contend that..if it is not
>>>> solidly based in the Scriptures, then it is only one of the many fabrications of
>>>> a system of religion which has deceived the credulous and biblically illiterate.

>>>> (Andrew)
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no Scriptures to speak of had it not been for the Catholic
>>> Church! So stop looking stupid!
>>> ("Carlque")
>>
>>
>> Yes, I understand you feel that way. Whatever the truth is on THAT issue, the
>> fact remains that the concept of a *Chair of Peter* is unbiblical. In that respect
>> I do agree with you. Thank you!
>
> If you rely so much on the bible for your beliefs, aren't you refuting
> yourself when the "bible alone" (sola scriptura) is unbiblical? Show me
> where in the bible that the "bible alone" teaches all truth. Don't cite 2
> Tim. 3:16, for this verse has been refuted to death since the reformation.
> ("Carlque")

Whatever you term as tradition, must be in perfect agreement and harmony
with the Holy Scriptures. Otherwise you will be departing from the pathway
of life; and as Jesus said...your worship would be "in vain."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mark 7:7-9 (Amplified Bible)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7. In vain (fruitlessly and without profit) do they worship Me, ordering and
teaching [to be obeyed] as doctrines the commandments and precepts of
men.

8. You disregard and give up and ask to depart from you the commandment
of God and cling to the tradition of men [keeping it carefully and faithfully].

9. And He said to them, You have a fine way of rejecting [thus thwarting and
nullifying and doing away with] the commandment of God in order to keep
your tradition!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew

Carlque

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 7:47:44 AM12/2/05
to

"Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com> wrote in message
news:vaednZnPZNErXRLe...@rcn.net...

You still don't get it. Your protestant slogan (sola scriptura), "scripture
alone", do these words appear anywhere in the bible? You can put up as many
verses as you may. But show me those two words *scripture alone*. And
while we are at it, do you believe in the Trinity of God; the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit? Where do you find the word "Trinity" in the bible.
And if you don't find it, do you still believe that there are 3 persons in
One God?

>
>
> Jesus approved "oral
>> tradition"....Mark 26:15..."And He said to them: Go ye into the whole
>> world, and PREACH (oral) the gospel to every creature".
>>
>
> Do you have a clue what the gospel is that Jesus was referring to?

I'm not sure if you know it yourself. Do you know what the word GOSPEL
means? It means GOOD NEWS. Good news can be delivered orally, or by
letter. But when Jesus was delivering His Good News during the three years
of His teaching life, was He getting them from the New testament book
(absurd) or was He teaching orally? How about the early Christians of the
first four centuries before the books of the Scriptures were canonized? Are
their souls lost because they did not have a chance to read the New
Testament? Were not the Good News being PREACHED (oral) to them?

>
>


Carlque

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 8:01:35 AM12/2/05
to

"Ananias917" <_-_Anania...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:31gvo1192b6lb56d4...@4ax.com...

Uh...oh... yeah?

The Rock Is Peter

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 8:19:21 AM12/2/05
to
Bible Bob wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:03:45 GMT, "JCarew" <oth...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > JMJ
> >"Bible Bob" wrote
> >
> >>snip<
> >>
> >>I know of no evidence that supports Peter ever
> >>went to Rome (think he went the other way).
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.ucd.ie/classics/classicsinfo/96/Curran96.html
> >
> >Jim Carew sfo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Jim,
>
> The link provided a lot of non-scriptural information.
>
> 1 Peter was written from Babylon (1Pet5:13)

Too bad you don't know how to actually read the Bible.

Andrew

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 10:29:02 AM12/2/05
to
"Carlque" wrote in message news:ONKdnY7GLKM...@look.ca...
> "Ananias917" wrote:
>> "Carlque" spake thusly:


The problem is that when you accept what you call "tradition"
that is not in full agreement with all of the preceding revelation
that is known to be inspired, then you will be vulnerable to the
deceptions that we have been specifically warned about in the
Bible, and liable to be worshiping God "in vain" as Jesus said
would be the case when we accept tradition above the written
Word.


Andrew

duke

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 1:31:24 PM12/2/05
to
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:03:05 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>
>Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
>of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
>of the early church, he was not a Pope.

St Peter was the first Pope.

duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

duke

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 1:32:22 PM12/2/05
to
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:52:06 -0500, DOC WATSON <docwatson@yup> wrote:

>well Andrew- you KNOW the romanists have to be THE biggest and the
>best of everything!!!!!!1
>After all, they even claim Mary can tell GOD what He is 'allowed to
>do'.

Where?

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 12:02:12 AM12/2/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:M2Kjf.2$Of...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

The word is used in an archaic sense, and doesn't mean what it means to you.

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 10:43:02 AM12/2/05
to

"Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com> wrote in message
news:vaednZnPZNErXRLe...@rcn.net...

You showed umpteen verses to confirm that the Bible is important. You have
shown nothing that says the Bible alone is to be our source of truth.

> Jesus approved "oral
> > tradition"....Mark 26:15..."And He said to them: Go ye into the whole
world,
> > and PREACH (oral) the gospel to every creature".
> >
>
> Do you have a clue what the gospel is that Jesus was referring to?

The King James Gospel of Matthew?

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 2:31:25 PM12/2/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:2LZjf.465$Of1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Smacks of Ellen White.

Stephen Korsman

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 2:31:46 PM12/2/05
to

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:RGRjf.3437$Hk1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Don't worry ... it is :-)

Andrew

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 3:31:15 PM12/2/05
to
"Stephen Korsman" wrote in message news:TcadnfEOGaIfAw3e...@is.co.za...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "Stephen Korsman" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >> "Ron B." wrote:
>> >> > Andrew wrote:
>> >> >> "Carlque" wrote:
>> >> >>> "Libertarius" wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Due to the vast amount citations from the early church fathers and
>> >> >>>>> the archeological evidence readily available on the Internet it has become
>> >> >>>>> harder than ever for Protestants to deny the fact that Peter was in Rome.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ===>There is no such evidence.
>> >> >>>> The supposed grave of Peter contained dog bones. -- L.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You knew this by conjuring and rattling dog bones?
>> >> >>
>> > >>>
>> >>>> http://www.societaschristiana.com/History/Reformation/InventoryOfRelics.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Let's see here, the original poster is claiming modern archeology (but
>> >> > does not substantiate the claim) and you are offering John Calvin as
>> >> > refutation. Love ya' both.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> John Calvin gives an excellent treatise on the absurdity of relic worship.
>> >
>> >
>> > Nobody worships relics. <------- ?????
>> >
>> > Stephen
>> >
>>
>> "It will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate
>> objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or
>> even the statue or picture of a saint." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm
>
>
> The word is used in an archaic sense, and doesn't mean what it means to you.
>
> Stephen Korsman

Your unqualified statement.."nobody worships relics" shows not only ignorance
of doctrine and practice within Catholicism, but also of the historical and current
practice within other world pagan religions.

And true to form..you refuse to acknowledge your error, but try to make a play
as to the definition of the word. The fact remains that relic worship is practiced
throughout the world today.


Andrew

Andrew

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 3:45:32 PM12/2/05
to
"duke" wrote in message news:cn41p1l4kth0004pp...@4ax.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>>Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
>>of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
>>of the early church, he was not a Pope.
>
> St Peter was the first Pope.
>
> duke

When we read the account of the early church in the book of Acts and the
NT epistles, we see that Peter was not 'the pope' or a pope - it's not there.

Therefore, the whole idea is a deception to promulgate the unscriptural idea
of a Papacy..an engine of darkness designed to control the minds, the souls
and the consciences of men.

It is the light from the Holy Scriptures which will unmask these deceptions
and set you free from their bewitching control over you..through the merits
of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Amen.

Andrew

Tyrone Robinson

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 3:56:21 PM12/2/05
to

> "duke" wrote in message news:cn41p1l4kth0004pp...@4ax.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the
>>>book of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of
>>>the pillars of the early church, he was not a Pope.
>>
>> St Peter was the first Pope.
>>
>> duke

Let's play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself.


Qolon

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 4:29:25 PM12/2/05
to
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:08Wdnb73kIVHPA3e...@is.co.za...

> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:RGRjf.3437$Hk1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Whatever you term as tradition, must be in perfect agreement and harmony
>> with the Holy Scriptures.
>
> Don't worry ... it is :-)

QOLON NOTE:
The Dead Sea Scroll fragments suggests a religious/political policy of
systemic annihiliation as violation of autonomous, sovereign, common law and
constitutional rights! [cf: Acts 28:10-23]

But several gems continue to speak to us from the pages of such history:

"Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we
determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen
[that] you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these
things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away
from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the
end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be
reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and
good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel." [A Sectarian
Manifesto, Section C.26-32]

"On the 1st day [ie. Sunday 16th September 2001?] of the [21st Priestly
Service] course of Jachin [ie. he that strengthens and makes steadfast] on
the 29th day of lunar month [Elul 5761], on the 5th day of the 7th solar
month [ie. (30+30+31) + (30+30+31) + 5 = 187th day of 364 days chronology
cycle such that the Vernal Equinox after 20 March + 187 days = 23rd
September as Equinox. cf:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/images/sept112001.gif


. Jubilee & Torah @ Sinai [50J] + 12 x 6J {'oth as 294 years} = 1977 CE + 19
years {lunar metonic cycle} = Vernal Equinox Wednesday 20 March 1996 CE /
(Thursday 1 Nisan 5756) + (364 days * 5 years) + 187 days = Sunday 16th
September 2001 CE .]." [cf: 4Q321 / 4QCalendrical - Dead Sea Scroll
Fragment]},

As the Julian calendar introduced in 46 BCE, would not have been unknown to
Paul a young man in 34 CE [Acts 7:59] who as a Hebrew of Hebrews according
to the customs of their fathers [Acts 28:17] was educated according to the
Pharisean Sect [Acts 26:5] at the feet of Gamaliel {recompense of God; camel
of God} [Acts 22:3], I have inserted our relative Western date as a means of
providing a synchronised context and correspondence between the Biblical
narrative, Dead Sea Scroll calendar fragments, modern Jewish calendar and
the Gregorian or Western calendar:

"And we sailed away {ie. Thursday 1 April 1999} from Philippi {warlike; a
lover of horses} after the days of unleavened bread (evening Wednesday 31
March 1999), and came unto them to Troas {penetrated} in five days {ie.
arriving Monday/Tuesday 5/6 April 1999}; where we abode seven days. And upon
the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread
{ie. On the twenty-sixth of the month {ie. Sunday 11 April 1999} is the
Barley Festival, on Sunday day after the Sabbath." [4Q326]}, Paul {small;
little} preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow {12 April 1999};
and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the
upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window
a certain young man named Eutychus {happy, fortunate}, being fallen into a
deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and
fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead." [Acts 20:4-9]

The equivalent time period would be covered by the following 364 day
Priestly Calendar as the Temple's religious calendar perspective: "...On the
fourth of the month is a Sabbath as 20 March {ie. that is when there is a
reprise of the Priestly Service with the entrance of the Eliashib as 11th
course}. On the eleventh of the month is a Sabbath {ie. Shabbat HaGadol on
27 March with the entrance of Jakim as 12th priestly course} ... on the
evening of fourteenth {ie. Erev Pesach on Wednesday 31 March 1999} is the
Feast of Unleavened Bread. On the fourth day {ie. Wednesday} is a holy
assembly. On the twenty-fifth of the month {ie. 10 April 1999 as entrance of
Jeshebeab as 14th priestly course} is a Sabbath.

On the twenty-sixth of the month {ie. Sunday 11 April 1999} is the Barley
Festival, on Sunday day after the Sabbath." [4Q326]

Of course this context is repeated in another fragment [4Q325] and from
there we learn that the Passover (which many Christians equate with Easter)
festival lasted only three days finishing Saturday evening, thus there was
no christian culture which many claim as "The Sunday evening of the day He
rose, the first Sunday Christian service took place"--they were Jewish
Christians who regarded Saturday as the Sabbath.

Thus from fragment 4Q325 - Priestly Service: Sabbath, Month and
Festival--Year One {ie. Wednesday 20 March of the vernal equinox with 1
Nisan on 21 March after 294 [6J] cycle}, we can observe that according to
this tradition, "the Passover {ie. Erev Pesach fell on the evening of 14
Nisan/Wednesday 3 April 1996} is on the fourteenth of the month on the third
day {ie. 24th course of Maaziah: "On the 3rd day of Maaziah falls the
Passover." [4Q321]}. On the eighteenth of the month {ie. 6 April 1996} is
the Sabbath [as the entrance] of the [1st] Course of Jehoiarib. PASSOVER
ENDS ON THE THIRD DAY IN THE EVENING {ie. 6 April 1996/ Easter Sunday 7
April 1996}.

On the twenty-fifth of the month is the Sabbath of the course of Jedaiah,
its responsibility includes the Barley festival on the twenty-sixth of the
month {ie. Sunday 14 April 1996} on the day after the Sabbath." [cf: 4Q325]

- dolf


Codeb...@bigsecret.com

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 5:41:28 PM12/2/05
to
Andrew wrote:
> Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the book
> of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of the pillars
> of the early church, he was not a Pope. Therefore the idea of a *Chair of Peter*
> is actually one of the many papal fabrication which has deceived the credulous
> and biblically illiterate.


Yet there was a Council held at Jerusalem which edicted some rulings
and dietary Laws to be observed by the Gentile Christian community,
dietary Laws that you don't even observe. Which means that you
don't even take the Bible seriously, yet you get the nerve to
talk about SOLA SCRIPTURA and how the Bible is the word of God.

>
>
>
> Andrew

duke

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:39:38 PM12/2/05
to
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:37:48 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>"Stephen Korsman" wrote in message news:qs2dnR3LtZa...@is.co.za...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Ron B." wrote:
>>> > Andrew wrote:
>>> >> "Carlque" wrote:
>>> >>> "Libertarius" wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Due to the vast amount citations from the early church fathers and
>>> >>>>> the archeological evidence readily available on the Internet it has become
>>> >>>>> harder than ever for Protestants to deny the fact that Peter was in Rome.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> ===>There is no such evidence.
>>> >>>> The supposed grave of Peter contained dog bones. -- L.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You knew this by conjuring and rattling dog bones?
>>> >>
>> >>> http://www.societaschristiana.com/History/Reformation/InventoryOfRelics.html
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Let's see here, the original poster is claiming modern archeology (but
>>> > does not substantiate the claim) and you are offering John Calvin as
>>> > refutation. Love ya' both.
>>>
>>>
>>> John Calvin gives an excellent treatise on the absurdity of relic worship.
>>
>>
>> Nobody worships relics. <------- ?????
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>
>"It will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate
> objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or
> even the statue or picture of a saint."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm
There are several degrees of this worship:

1. if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme
worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological
term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed
to a creature it would become idolatry.

2. When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object
is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate
worship >

Why didn't you tell the whole story.

duke

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:44:22 PM12/2/05
to
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:45:32 GMT, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

>When we read the account of the early church in the book of Acts and the
>NT epistles, we see that Peter was not 'the pope' or a pope - it's not there.

It's in Mat 16. It is almost a certainty that Pope Peter and the current Pope
Benedict would not recognize each other. Peter functioned as the very alpha, and
Benedict the Omega.

>Therefore, the whole idea is a deception to promulgate the unscriptural idea
>of a Papacy..an engine of darkness designed to control the minds, the souls
>and the consciences of men.

Oh, it's scriptural all right. Read also Acts 15-7.

>It is the light from the Holy Scriptures which will unmask these deceptions
>and set you free from their bewitching control over you..through the merits
>of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Amen.

And the man he left in charge of his Church on earth under the guidance of the
Holy Spirit.

duke

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:45:26 PM12/2/05
to

Nah, let's read scripture. Mat 16 and Acts 15:7

Tyrone Robinson

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 6:58:46 PM12/2/05
to

"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:23n1p155g8013oa5n...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:56:21 -0500, "Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> "duke" wrote in message news:cn41p1l4kth0004pp...@4ax.com...
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Biblically speaking there never was a *Chair of Peter.* When we read the
>>>>>book of Acts and the NT epistles, we find that...although Peter was one of
>>>>>the pillars of the early church, he was not a Pope.
>>>>
>>>> St Peter was the first Pope.
>>>>
>>>> duke
>>
>>Let's play horse. I'll be the front end and you be yourself.
>
> Nah, let's read scripture. Mat 16 and Acts 15:7

Keep talking, someday you'll say something intelligent!


Eraser

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 7:00:56 PM12/2/05
to
"Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com> wrote in message
news:vaednZnPZNErXRLe...@rcn.net...

The Protestant dogma of sola scriptura (ie. the Bible ALONE contains all
truth) is rationally indefensible. This is demontrated by simple,
common-sense logic, and a couple of indisputable, empirically observable
facts about the Bible:

1. Protestants assert "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired
Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are
meant by the "inspired Scriptures" since many different sects and religions
have many different books which they call "inspired Scriptures."
2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures,"
means in fact those 66 books which are bound and published in Protestant
Bibles. (henceforth referred to as "the 66 books")

3. The statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B:
"All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books."

4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any
statements telling us which books make up the entire body of inspired
Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their
own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses
together. This would be the case:

(a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel
is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture,"
etc., for all of the 66 books; and

(b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other
than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even
pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the
Bible itself.

5. It follows that Proposition B - the very foundation of all Protestant
Christianity - is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from
Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in
Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all
revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, it must be
now affirmed in Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66
books. "

6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition
B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a
self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66
books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there."

7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed
truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be
deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone
can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is
ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from
Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra- Scriptural premise
from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second
possibility involves no self-contradiction, but it is factually
preposterous, and is doubtful whether any Protestant has seriously tried to
defend it - least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly
emphasize the corruption of man's natural intellectual powers as a result of
the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and
responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality
of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that
this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence.

(Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an
authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded
certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what
is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those
who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely
Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own
fallibility - whether individually or collectively - in matters of religious
doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as
they deny the Pope's.)

8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be
deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at
all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought, and which
Protestants accept, is simply false.

Tyrone Robinson

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 7:13:06 PM12/2/05
to

"Eraser" <Erase...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >

> 8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be
> deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at
> all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought, and which
> Protestants accept, is simply false.

Don't get insulted, but is your job devoted to spreading ignorance?


Andrew

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 7:18:00 PM12/2/05
to
<Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message news:1133563288.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>(Codebreaker)


Interesting that you would cite the church Council recorded in Acts 15, because it
is another place where we clearly see that Peter was not the one in charge, and that
he was -not- a pope. James was the presiding elder at the Council, not Peter.

------------------------------Acts 15:13-19-----------------------------------------

"When they finished, JAMES spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has <------- The presiding elder speaks
described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the
Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement
with this, as it is written:

" 'After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
that have been known for ages.

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the <-------- The presiding elders judgment
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gentiles who are turning to God." (James)


------------------------------Acts 15:13-19-----------------------------------------


That's right, folks. Peter was not a pope, and there is NO *Chair of Peter.*

Andrew

Andrew

unread,
Dec 2, 2005, 7:24:58 PM12/2/05
to

"Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com> wrote in message news:9ZednVlXH7K...@rcn.net...


They say it is part of the Jesuit agenda to undermine the work
of the reformation. Therefore in that sense it would be "his job."