A beautiful phallic complete with two balls

[Bella]

Also, @ Omollo, I had forgot about the whole thing you listed in summary about Peter was sent to Jews, Paul to Gentiles. People usually assume that Jews in ancient Rome were somehow confined to the borders of Palestine. To the contrary, there were entire Jewish communities all over the ancient world, including Rome and for sometime they had even been bannished sometime in the Ad 40s for fighting amongst each other and causing a riot in the capital over a person named "Chrestus" a fight obviously between traditional Jews and Christian Jews in Rome. The ban was later lifted and they could go back to the capital. Hence, even granting that argument, Peter would not have been confined to palestine simply because he considered himself an postle of the Jews for Jews had an enormous diaspora all over the empire.

[vooke]

kadame,
I doubt Peter has ever been to Rome. Could you VERY briefly adduce your strongest and earliest evidence that he did?

vooke, christians believed he was, Nothing in the New Testaments says he wasnt ever there. What evidence shows he couldnt have? This is something even protestants scholars agree on, since it has nothing to do with whether Peter was pope and the other cxatholic-protestant fights. For example, please look at this explanation and tell me where it is wrong...

Actually kadame, I wanted to aks if he ever was in Rome and whether he was the first bishop/pope of Rome.

Usage of Babylon in his epistle may point to Rome but Paul writing to Rome calls it Rome. Heard the word Babylon developed after 70AD. This poses a serious dilemma because Romans was penned well before 70AD. Internal evidence against his Rome leadership among others is;

1. Paul wrote Romans to Christians in Rome and he sent shout outs to over 16 leaders there kina Aquila and Priscilla. It would be extremely strange for Paul not to mention an apostle if indeed Peter was its bishop. Note the epistle is directed to an existing church/congregation.

2. The other one is Galatians where we are told Peter was an apostle to Jews and Paul to Gentiles. And three years and 17years after Paul's conversion, he on both ocassions runs into Peter at Jerusalem who he describes as a pillar there together with James and John

Point is all internal evidence strongly suggest against that. Let's look at external evidence. Am open to that as well.

[Bella]

kadame,
I doubt Peter has ever been to Rome. Could you VERY briefly adduce your strongest and earliest evidence that he did?

vooke, christians believed he was, Nothing in the New Testaments says he wasnt ever there. What evidence shows he couldnt have? This is something even protestants scholars agree on, since it has nothing to do with whether Peter was pope and the other cxatholic-protestant fights. For example, please look at this explanation and tell me where it is wrong...

Actually kadame, I wanted to aks if he ever was in Rome and whether he was the first bishop/pope of Rome.

Usage of Babylon in his epistle may point to Rome but against that would be two points;
1. Paul wrote Romans to Christians in Rome and he sent shout outs to over 16 leaders there kinda Aquila and Priscilla. It would be extremely strange for Paul not to mention an apostle if indeed Peter was its bishop. Note the epistle is directed to an existing church/congregation.

2. The other one is Galatians where we are told Peter was an apostle to Jews and Paul to Gentiles. And fourteen years after Paul's conversion, he runs into Peter at Jerusalem who he describes as a pillar there together with James and John

Point is all internal evidence strongly suggest against that. Let's look at external evidence. Am open to that as well.

vooke, you've combined the two issues of Peter being Bishop of Rome and Peter being martyred in Rome, which one do you think is not probable from internal evidence, one or both? Personally, I think it established that Peter was not only in Rome but was killed there.

Point 1) The apostles were all missonaries, planting churches all over the place, not just Paul. Paul not mentioning Peter at most points to him not being aware of his presence in Rome at the time of he wrote, which may mean Peter was not there at that time, or Paul didn't know about it. It doesnt mean that this point in time is definitive of all History of the Apostles in Rome. Also, remember that Jews were expelled from the capital by the emperor sometime in the 40s AD, so even if Peter had been in Rome before this time, he would have left Rome during the exile (Acts 18: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%27_expulsion_of_Jews_from_Rome

Point 2) There were Jews in Rome as in many other towns/cities beyond Palestine, as you can see if you follow Pauls journeys in the book of Acts. Thus, this division of Jews/Gentiles between Peter and Paul could not prevent Peter from being in Rome where there were apparently enough Jews to cause such fracus that, for peace's sake, they had to be expelled.

The only "external evidence" is the beliefs of the christians about it that were never contradicted by other churches. Think about it, why would the church that had actually burried Peter just not say something about the stories of his martyrdom in Rome?

[vooke]

vooke, you've combined the two issues of Peter being Bishop of Rome and Peter being martyred in Rome, which one do you think is not probable from internal evidence, one or both? Personally, I think it established that Peter was not only in Rome but was killed there.

Point 1) The apostles were all missonaries, planting churches all over the place, not just Paul. Paul not mentioning Peter at most points to him not being aware of his presence in Rome at the time of he wrote, which may mean Peter was not there at that time, or Paul didn't know about it. It doesnt mean that this point in time is definitive of all History of the Apostles in Rome. Also, remember that Jews were expelled from the capital by the emperor sometime in the 40s AD, so even if Peter had been in Rome before this time, he would have left Rome during the exile (Acts 18: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%27_expulsion_of_Jews_from_Rome

Kadame,
It is preposterous to even suggest that Paul can pen an epistle to Romans a congregation founded and run by Peter and he is totally ignorant of its leadership. Aquila and Priscilla actually headed a church from their house in Rome. They are acknowledged as such in two epistles, 1 Cor and Romans. Those was leaders from Rome.

Note, Peter's epistles was penned much later than the expulsion. If Peter planted a church within 5 years of Pentecost at Rome, came back to Jerusalem, then over 30 years later he pens his epistles while in the interim Paul is writing to Rome and visiting them....don't sound right.

May be at this point we should aks what being a Bishop/Pope in first century entailed. Church planting hardly looks like it, else Paul was bishop over all those cities he planted churches. To my mind, a bishop was more of a resident leader of a local congregation(s).

Galatians clearly describes Peter,James and John as pillars in Jerusalem. Now imagine Paul visiting Jerusalem twice and running into both and on one ocassions describing them as leaders there.

Point 2) There were Jews in Rome as in many other towns/cities beyond Palestine, as you can see if you follow Pauls journeys in the book of Acts. Thus, this division of Jews/Gentiles between Peter and Paul could not prevent Peter from being in Rome where there were apparently enough Jews to cause such a racus that for peace, they had to be expelled.

No doubt Jews was scattered all over in diaspora. This is why Pentecost was intriguing. They heard disciples speaking in their diverse tongues, their adopted languages. But the idea of a parallel church in Rome is just way off. Paul epistles contain salutations to Gentiles and Jews. This suggests a mixture of the same.

The only "external evidence" is the beliefs of the christians about it that were never contradicted by other churches. Think about it, why would the church that had actually burried Peter just not say something about the stories of his martyrdom in Rome?

Let's examine those 'external evidence' starting from the earliest.

[Bella]

vooke, you've combined the two issues of Peter being Bishop of Rome and Peter being martyred in Rome, which one do you think is not probable from internal evidence, one or both? Personally, I think it established that Peter was not only in Rome but was killed there.

Point 1) The apostles were all missonaries, planting churches all over the place, not just Paul. Paul not mentioning Peter at most points to him not being aware of his presence in Rome at the time of he wrote, which may mean Peter was not there at that time, or Paul didn't know about it. It doesnt mean that this point in time is definitive of all History of the Apostles in Rome. Also, remember that Jews were expelled from the capital by the emperor sometime in the 40s AD, so even if Peter had been in Rome before this time, he would have left Rome during the exile (Acts 18: 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%27_expulsion_of_Jews_from_Rome

Kadame,
It is preposterous to even suggest that Paul can pen an epistle to Romans a congregation founded and run by Peter and he is totally ignorant of its leadership. Aquila and Priscilla actually headed a church from their house in Rome. They are acknowledged as such in two epistles, 1 Cor and Romans. Those was leaders from Rome.

Who spoke of leadership? You said this is proof Peter wasnt there. Thats why I asked you If you were arguing about Peters presence or Bishopric. About the founding of the church, Paul himself is considered a founder of that church. Who "started" or was there first among the apostles is of zero consequence. It could have been a "nobody" christian, for all we know. Even if Peter only visited it, they would still have considered him as they did, later, to be among their founders, along with Paul. So I dont get your point here besides, Peter is not in Rome when Paul writes.

Note, Peter's epistles was penned much later than the expulsion. If Peter planted a church within 5 years of Pentecost at Rome, came back to Jerusalem, then over 30 years later he pens his epistles while in the interim Paul is writing to Rome and visiting them....don't sound right.

Peter never actually did much writing, if you have never noticed. That doesnt mean he did zero missionary work. Paul wrote virtually all of the Epistles with few exceptions due to his education, he was no fisherman. But again, the idea that Peter jumpstarted christianity in Rome, or even Paul himself, has not been claimed as a Basis for Peters presence there at any point thereafter. That they nurtured that church later even by appointing Bishops wouldve been enough.

May be at this point we should aks what being a Bishop/Pope in first century entailed. Church planting hardly looks like it, else Paul was bishop over all those cities he planted churches. To my mind, a bishop was more of a resident leader of a local congregation(s).

Doesnt mean he couldnt move to another city and be replaced in his church by another. Peter was considered Bishop of Antioch, Rome and Alexandra, in the first centuries. I'm sure they knew what Bishop meant.

Galatians clearly describes Peter,James and John as pillars in Jerusalem. Now imagine Paul visiting Jerusalem twice and running into both and on one ocassions describing them as leaders there.

Dont get the point here. Peter did not remain in Jerusalem, though he was there at some point, serving a significant role.

No doubt Jews was scattered all over in diaspora. This is why Pentecost was intriguing. They heard disciples speaking in their diverse tongues, their adopted languages. But the idea of a parallel church in Rome is just way off. Paul epistles contain salutations to Gentiles and Jews. This suggests a mixture of the same.

Which means you refute your own point that Peter couldnt have been in Rome because of that so-called partition, eh? Why was Paul addressing Peter's flock, per your view? If Paul could minister to an undivided church without violating your "division" argument, then so could Peter. No parallel church needed. So thank you for blowing that strawman out of the water

Let's examine those 'external evidence' starting from the earliest.

Promptly. Next post.

[Bella]

Also, vooke, you might want to produce your evidence for the claim that Babylon was "invented" from 70 AD only.  Just to keep this a fair exchange and not just you making demands and me scamparing to answer. 

Here is your "evidence", happily borrowed from other people's listings, like the link below. I would also like to see your own evidence of Peter dying elsewhere, to counter this foolish Christian myth. or offer an explanation why the church Peter actually died with was so oblivious, allowing the Romans to manufacture a whole tradition of their myth without so much as a counter story/myth/tradition.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-roman-residency

[Omollo]

[Omollo]

The way I see it we have two distinct Christian movements:
1. Paul's Synthesized Ministry
2. The Nazareens's

James - The Brother of Jesus - headed the Original Mission of Jesus while Paul led another which incorporated myths and traditions of prevailing religions.

The Nazareens accepted their Jewish background, worshipped in the Jewish temple and upheld all the laws of moses minus the extremist dogmas that Jesus had taught against - such as the excessive zealotry in respect of the Sabbath and other fundamentalist practices. Remember Jesus preached liberalism and devotion to God.

The Nazareens upheld the position of God as indivisible and non dependent on any other being. On the other hand Paul cultivated Jesus as "God". The elevation of Jesus from the mere servant of God to his son and eventually God in his own right appears to have been progressive and was aided by the increase in Christian  political power and influence characterized by the persecution and destruction of opposing and parallel religions and beliefs.

My personal view is that starting with Paul and ending with Constantine, Christianity sought to encompass the beliefs of the people of the Roman empire - ending with a compromise religion that gave up on certain core Jewish practices and acceptance of non Jewish traditions. The birthday of Jesus comes to mind. One can also include the consumption of alcohol, pork etc.

The Nazareens died not least because of their fidelity to Moses or The Jewish religion.

Therefore it is not strange that symbols of Baal and other heathen gods found their way into the synthesized religion - Christianity.

Bella tell me something.

Christianity was a banned sect in the Roman Empire. It can be likened to Al Qaeda today in a world dominated by the US. How on earth would the head of Al Qaeda establish a functioning body in Washington (=Rome)?

Peter did not hold a high office in the Nazareen movement whose leader was James. How could he then have occupied a higher position than James? He did not even succeed James. He was not literate as opposed to the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

[Bella]

Hi Omollo, interesting ideas....I disagree  But I bet you already knew I do, lol!

Omollo, these ideas all depend on discounting the most reliable historical evidence we have....the New Testament itself. Please, just take some time tonight, or tomorrow, maybe...read through the book of the Acts (of the Apostles), bearing in mind, it and the Gospel of St. Luke are actually one book, as I understand, but divided by tradition in order to keep the "Gospels" together in organizing the New Testament. There isn't a more reliable evidence regarding the beliefs and practices of the earliest christians than the New Testament and some other christian writings from the same time.

The following seems pretty clear to me when I read Acts. It continues the story after Jesus has resurrected, promised the coming of the Holy Spirit and ascended in Luke. Acts continues the story now by focussing on the christian community seeing as Christ has exited the scene as the "starring" character. You will notice very clearly that for some years, before the time that Peter is arrested and escapes prison and is forced to depart Jerusalem, it is not in question that he is the leader of the christian community there at all. It is he who preaches on pentecost, it is he who directs that Judas place be filled and leads the church to choosing st. Mathias by casting lots. It is before him that Ananias and saphira bring their gifts before they die etc etc. St. James simply isnt the main guide here until after Peter's departure, necessitated by Peter pulling a prison-break. St. Peter then moved to Antioch where he was Bishop. James ruled the Jerusalem church. But even then, it is Peter that God commands to open the church to gentiles through a vision. When a council is called to settle the fight about circumcision, the church meets in Jerusalem, rightly presided over by its leader, st James, but even so, it is Peter who settles the "debate" in that when he stands to speak, all debate ceases and does not resume thereafter. only "supporting evidence" is adduced by Paul and his companion in support of Peters teaching. Then st James considers the matter settled and proceeds to issue decrees in conformity thereto. After that, Acts mainly follows the activities of st Paul, the other apostles fall to the background.

About leading a banned movement in the capital? Well, I am honestly not sure about the issue. Someone had to lead that church, even if not Peter, some one else, because that church did in fact exist. It wasnt fictional. In fact it paid a really heavy price once Nero "founded" christian persecution as a Roman practice.

Jesus being God invented by Paul? Honestly, st Paul gets too much flack from JWs and Muslims, and too much credit. Personally, I find the most explicit words attributing Divinity to Jesus being in the Gospels, none of which were written by Paul. "The word was God" for example, which "became flesh", and "all things came to be through him", in John. St Thomas is recorded as exclaiming to Jesus "My Lord and my God!" The Gospels also attribute to Jesus qualities that were clearly divine. Even secular evidence from the 1st centuries describes christians externally as people who sang hymns to Christ "as to a god". Yes, Paul also says "he did not cling to his equality with God", but he is not the one who invents the notion. In fact, st Paul is a late-comer in christianity. Considering his background, he was MOST jewish of all the apostles, not just by blood, belief, regular lifestyle, but by career/training, he lost most for becoming christian. I just dont see what his motive would be in perverting christianity with paganism.

Another reason i dont accept the theory is that christian Jews were persecuted by other Jews for believing "blasphemous" things about Jesus and eventually kicked out of the synagogue altogether. Its clear that no early christian looked at Jesus like a regular prophet at all, he was much more to them all, without exception. And the Romans targetted them all, not just the jewish ones who were soon the minority after gentiles were allowed in. The perscutions continued sporadically for the next 3 centuries, even after a jewish segment identifying itself by its jewishness distinct from other christians had vanished.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

Termie,
I think you hate me with a passion. Nuff Sed draws my attention to three phallics in her signature and aks me if they remind me of anything. I swear they did just that I couldn't figure what. Then it all came back, a hard on and two balls erected(pun) on Ellen Gould White grave. She ordered it soon after her hubby's death.

I believe it is very impolite to ignore a question/challenge.

No.  You are entertaining.  There are not too many who can mix superstition and rationality with a straight face like you can.  A sight to behold.  How can I hate that?  I am just thinking you might hound Daily Bread from this place.

[vooke]

Kadame,
To avoid derailing this thread, I will open a new thread on this topic. Please don't hesitate to repeat what you just said here. I will do myself

[Bella]

Kadame,
To avoid derailing this thread, I will open a new thread on this topic. Please don't hesitate to repeat what you just said here. I will do myself

vooke, no problem. Just use the quoting function and respond to my post there. 

[vooke]

Omorlo,
my views on phallics oscillate from horror to contempt. I think it was the early 90s when I heard a tape about Illuminati and the Masonic symbols all over US Capitol and on the dollar bill. There was no internet, just me and my notes. I could see the signs all over. They was hiding in plain sight.

Since then I have studied the much that is available on Freemasonry, Satanism then I got bored. Ignored them.

My current position is there are two levels of Freemasonry, the innocent members of a fraternity. And then there are the really deep guys into satanism. So when I run into a phallic, I see either ignorance or some connection with freemasonry/illuminati.  I recall the first time I visited Mombasa Continental. Heard it is owned by the Ndegwa family,the former CBK governor or something. I saw the compass and square. Right there at the lobby. Impossible to miss. And it was constructed using antique stuff. Beautiful but very conspicuous. Unfortunately I had no smart phone with me. I panicked the entire night. The next day? BS .....fun began and lasted my whole stay.

When I see them erected around Christian stuff, I see a past/present connection to those secret societies but I have no proof. so I ignore them

[GeeMail]

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

[Omollo]

At the root of the schism between Shias and Sunnis is exactly this reverence or worship (if you like) of the dead.

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

[GeeMail]

Oh? I don't have much information on the sects of the religion of peace. Your informative pieces and pictures of Vatican are highly appreciated. Talking of worship of the dead, I'll post a comment on Windy's thread on "Nyaatha beautification."

At the root of the schism between Shias and Sunnis is exactly this reverence or worship (if you like) of the dead.

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

[vooke]

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

Ellen White is INFALLIBLE else give me just one bit you differ with her on anything, and explain why her writings carry as much authority as scriptures.

Whether Adventists do pilgrimage or not, the fact is a 'prophet' of God erected (pun) a serious hard on on her husband's grave and continued receiving revelations after this. That is quite telling. It means either of these three things;

1. She was completely ignorant of a hard-on ( kinda hard seeing she was taught Masonic symbols in Australia)
2. Hard-ons erected on her hubby's grave was a non-issue for her spirit/angel/god
3. At least  husband was into Freemasonry. Or both of them

If she was ignorant, her family should have done the needful and removed it unless they was equally ignorant.

If hard-ons never bothered her, her god/angel/spirit, then it should not bother Nuff Sed

If she and hubby was into Freemasonry/luciferianism, then Nuff Sed is mighty welcome

If it is #2 or #3, Nuff Sed would do well to start budgeting for her hard-on asap

[Bella]

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

Daily Bread, those persecuted early Christians whose pictures you loved to put in your signature were often caught invoking the apostles at their grave-sites before they were led away to the coliseum in Rome for the lions to eat them for lunch. Just saying!

[GeeMail]

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

Daily Bread, those persecuted early Christians whose pictures you loved to put in your signature were often caught invoking the apostles at their grave-sites before they were led away to the coliseum in Rome for the lions to eat them for lunch. Just saying!

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_twentyone_b.html#46

[Bella]

 I'm sure you think Protestants were innocent warm, fuzzy teddy bears in those days. Nothing on the tomb-worshipping persecuted early Christians, though?

Precise and insightful response to Voke. Again, I have never heard of Adventists pilgrimages to the White gravesite as an act of worship. Nobody invokes the tombstones on the White gravesite as a blessing in the manner it is done in the Vatican.

vooke,

If Helen White claimed that she was perfect or infallible, I might just be able to see your point.  Otherwise, you need an anti-Helen White injection. 

Daily Bread, those persecuted early Christians whose pictures you loved to put in your signature were often caught invoking the apostles at their grave-sites before they were led away to the coliseum in Rome for the lions to eat them for lunch. Just saying!

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_twentyone_b.html#46