Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion - OS2

This is a discussion on Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion - OS2 ; duke wrote: >On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:52 -0700, Art Deco wrote: > >>duke wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:26:53 -0700, Art Deco wrote: >>> >>>>>>He also has no evidence that Peter was the first pope. >>>>>It's a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

  1. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    >On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:52 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >
    >>duke wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:26:53 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>>He also has no evidence that Peter was the first pope.
    >>>>>It's a part of scripture, which reflects the facts and figures of the
    >>>>>biblical
    >>>>>times including the religious beliefs and knowledge of the people.

    >
    >>>>No, it is not. What you call evidence is merely the official Roman
    >>>>interpretation of a single paragraph, designed to support a
    >>>>pre-conceived conclusion. Do you see the difference?

    >
    >>>I see that you are totally ignorant of scripture. Any other questions.

    >
    >>You made the claim that the new testament supports this assertion, it
    >>your job to support it.

    >
    >The New Testament does that.


    Where in the NT? And how?
    >
    >duke, American-American
    >*****
    >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    >Pope Paul VI
    >*****


    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  2. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:59:39 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

    >duke wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:52 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>
    >>>duke wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:26:53 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>He also has no evidence that Peter was the first pope.
    >>>>>>It's a part of scripture, which reflects the facts and figures of the
    >>>>>>biblical
    >>>>>>times including the religious beliefs and knowledge of the people.

    >>
    >>>>>No, it is not. What you call evidence is merely the official Roman
    >>>>>interpretation of a single paragraph, designed to support a
    >>>>>pre-conceived conclusion. Do you see the difference?


    >>>>I see that you are totally ignorant of scripture. Any other questions.


    >>>You made the claim that the new testament supports this assertion, it
    >>>your job to support it.

    >>The New Testament does that.

    >Where in the NT? And how?


    You're the one that made the reference to "merely the official Roman
    interpretation". I'm asking you.

    The NT is a compilation of the events, statements and religious beliefs of the
    biblical Christian people.


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

  3. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    >On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:59:39 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >
    >>duke wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:52 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>duke wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 10:26:53 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>He also has no evidence that Peter was the first pope.
    >>>>>>>It's a part of scripture, which reflects the facts and figures of the
    >>>>>>>biblical
    >>>>>>>times including the religious beliefs and knowledge of the people.
    >>>
    >>>>>>No, it is not. What you call evidence is merely the official Roman
    >>>>>>interpretation of a single paragraph, designed to support a
    >>>>>>pre-conceived conclusion. Do you see the difference?

    >
    >>>>>I see that you are totally ignorant of scripture. Any other questions.

    >
    >>>>You made the claim that the new testament supports this assertion, it
    >>>>your job to support it.
    >>>The New Testament does that.

    >>Where in the NT? And how?

    >
    >You're the one that made the reference to "merely the official Roman
    >interpretation". I'm asking you.
    >
    >The NT is a compilation of the events, statements and religious beliefs of the
    >biblical Christian people.


    You claimed Peter was the Popo numero I, elected by the other apostles,
    and there has been a continuous election of Popos since circa 30 AD. I
    merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.
    >
    >
    >duke, American-American
    >*****
    >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    >Pope Paul VI
    >*****


    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  4. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:01:36 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

    >>You're the one that made the reference to "merely the official Roman
    >>interpretation". I'm asking you.


    >>The NT is a compilation of the events, statements and religious beliefs of the
    >>biblical Christian people.


    >You claimed Peter was the Popo numero I, elected by the other apostles,
    >and there has been a continuous election of Popos since circa 30 AD.


    One small correction. Simon Peter was selected as the rock foundation (first
    Pope) by Jesus Christ from the ranks of the Apostles (bishops). Mat 16:13-20.
    After that, the Pope was selected by the bishops from their ranks.

    > I
    >merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    >records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    >would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.


    Obviously you never read the NT

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

  5. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    >On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:01:36 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >
    >>>You're the one that made the reference to "merely the official Roman
    >>>interpretation". I'm asking you.

    >
    >>>The NT is a compilation of the events, statements and religious beliefs of
    >>>the
    >>>biblical Christian people.

    >
    >>You claimed Peter was the Popo numero I, elected by the other apostles,
    >>and there has been a continuous election of Popos since circa 30 AD.

    >
    >One small correction. Simon Peter was selected as the rock foundation (first
    >Pope) by Jesus Christ from the ranks of the Apostles (bishops). Mat 16:13-20.


    Let's [tinu] check your evidence:

    When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his
    disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

    They replied, "Some say John the Baptish; others say Elijah; and still
    others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

    "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?"

    Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

    Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for this was not
    revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you
    that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
    gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
    kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,
    and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

    The overarching issue in the entire passage, from v. 13 to v. 20, is
    what individual people thought about Jesus being the Messiah or not.

    Note the lack of anything here about Peter becoming a "substitute
    Christ".

    Also, the RCH interpretation that this exchange hangs on the phrase "on
    this rock", and requires the pronoun "this" to refer to Peter himself.
    It can also easily refer to what Peter had just said, which was his
    declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (annointed one). This would
    indicate that the Church would be built on the realization and
    confession that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and not on any
    dictatorial power imputed to Peter.

    >After that, the Pope was selected by the bishops from their ranks.


    I see that you have no evidence that any elections took place for a
    substitute christ after the death of Simon Peter. History, on the
    other hand, indicates that papal elections did not happen at all prior
    to Constantine. There are no such elections mentioned in Acts by Luke
    the physician.

    >
    >> I
    >>merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    >>records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    >>would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.

    >
    >Obviously you never read the NT


    Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    you undoubtedly would have posted it.
    >
    >duke, American-American
    >*****
    >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    >Pope Paul VI
    >*****


    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  6. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    [Clockbrain drivel redacted]
    >
    >Which is the reason I don't prepare long responses unless I get same back.
    >
    >These people pretty much id themselves.


    Id? Does this indicate that you are a psychologist?
    >
    >duke, American-American
    >*****
    >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    >Pope Paul VI
    >*****


    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  7. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:27:13 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

    >duke wrote:
    >
    >[Clockbrain drivel redacted]
    >>
    >>Which is the reason I don't prepare long responses unless I get same back.
    >>
    >>These people pretty much id themselves.

    >
    >Id? Does this indicate that you are a psychologist?


    Normal people understand.

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

  8. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:25:38 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

    >>One small correction. Simon Peter was selected as the rock foundation (first
    >>Pope) by Jesus Christ from the ranks of the Apostles (bishops). Mat 16:13-20.


    >Let's [tinu] check your evidence:


    >When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his
    >disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
    >They replied, "Some say John the Baptish; others say Elijah; and still
    >others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
    >"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?"
    >Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    >Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for this was not
    >revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you
    >that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
    >gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
    >kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,
    >and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.


    >Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.


    >The overarching issue in the entire passage, from v. 13 to v. 20, is
    >what individual people thought about Jesus being the Messiah or not.


    >Note the lack of anything here about Peter becoming a "substitute
    >Christ".


    He's not a "substitute Christ".

    >Also, the RCH interpretation that this exchange hangs on the phrase "on
    >this rock", and requires the pronoun "this" to refer to Peter himself.


    No, on the singular "you". Blessed are "you", for you were told this directly
    by the Father. Wow, 1-on-1 with the Father.

    >It can also easily refer to what Peter had just said, which was his
    >declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (annointed one). This would
    >indicate that the Church would be built on the realization and
    >confession that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and not on any
    >dictatorial power imputed to Peter.


    Read that "you" again.

    >>After that, the Pope was selected by the bishops from their ranks.


    >I see that you have no evidence that any elections took place for a
    >substitute christ after the death of Simon Peter.


    No substitute Christ, but history bears out the succession. Here's the first
    few:

    St. Peter (32-67)
    St. Linus (67-76)
    St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    St. Clement I (88-97)
    St. Evaristus (97-105)


    > History, on the
    >other hand, indicates that papal elections did not happen at all prior
    >to Constantine. There are no such elections mentioned in Acts by Luke
    >the physician.


    Your error comes in thinking the bible is the only record of the period. Acts
    addresses the travels of the Apostles in the spread of Christianity, not what
    was happening back in Rome, or at the point of gathering of the bishops.

    >>> I
    >>>merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    >>>records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    >>>would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.

    >>Obviously you never read the NT


    >Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >you undoubtedly would have posted it.


    Undoubtedly. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
    St. Peter (32-67)
    St. Linus (67-76)
    St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    St. Clement I (88-97)
    St. Evaristus (97-105)
    St. Alexander I (105-115)
    St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
    St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    St. Hyginus (136-140)
    St. Pius I (140-155)
    St. Anicetus (155-166)
    St. Soter (166-175)
    St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    St. Victor I (189-199)
    St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    St. Callistus I (217-22)
    St. Urban I (222-30)
    St. Pontain (230-35)
    St. Anterus (235-36)
    St. Fabian (236-50)
    St. Cornelius (251-53)
    St. Lucius I (253-54)
    St. Stephen I (254-257)
    St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    St. Dionysius (260-268)
    St. Felix I (269-274)
    St. Eutychian (275-283)
    St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
    St. Marcellinus (296-304)

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

  9. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    >On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:27:13 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >
    >>duke wrote:
    >>
    >>[Clockbrain drivel redacted]
    >>>
    >>>Which is the reason I don't prepare long responses unless I get same back.
    >>>
    >>>These people pretty much id themselves.

    >>
    >>Id? Does this indicate that you are a psychologist?

    >
    >Normal people understand.


    Please provide a list of these "normal" people. Do they support you in
    email?
    >
    >duke, American-American
    >*****
    >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    >Pope Paul VI
    >*****


    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  10. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:43:22 -0700, Art Deco wrote:

    >>>>Which is the reason I don't prepare long responses unless I get same back.
    >>>>These people pretty much id themselves.
    >>>Id? Does this indicate that you are a psychologist?

    >>Normal people understand.


    >Please provide a list of these "normal" people. Do they support you in
    >email?


    If you don't, you're not normal.

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

  11. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    >On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:25:38 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >
    >>>One small correction. Simon Peter was selected as the rock foundation (first
    >>>Pope) by Jesus Christ from the ranks of the Apostles (bishops). Mat
    >>>16:13-20.

    >
    >>Let's [tinu] check your evidence:

    >
    >>When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his
    >>disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
    >>They replied, "Some say John the Baptish; others say Elijah; and still
    >>others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
    >>"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?"
    >>Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    >>Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for this was not
    >>revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you
    >>that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
    >>gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
    >>kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,
    >>and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    >
    >>Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

    >
    >>The overarching issue in the entire passage, from v. 13 to v. 20, is
    >>what individual people thought about Jesus being the Messiah or not.

    >
    >>Note the lack of anything here about Peter becoming a "substitute
    >>Christ".

    >
    >He's not a "substitute Christ".


    He was renamed "rock" (masculine), not "father", "bishop", "vicar" or
    any of the other words attached to pope.
    >
    >>Also, the RCH interpretation that this exchange hangs on the phrase "on
    >>this rock", and requires the pronoun "this" to refer to Peter himself.

    >
    >No, on the singular "you". Blessed are "you", for you were told this directly
    >by the Father. Wow, 1-on-1 with the Father.


    If you want to go down to this level, you left out that "this rock" is
    feminine, not masculine. Two different words.
    >
    >>It can also easily refer to what Peter had just said, which was his
    >>declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (annointed one). This would
    >>indicate that the Church would be built on the realization and
    >>confession that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and not on any
    >>dictatorial power imputed to Peter.

    >
    >Read that "you" again.


    The disciples were not allowed to tell anyone that Jesus was the
    Messiah, yet they were free to run around announcing that Peter is the
    new holy father with the power to send people to hell.

    Do you see the problem here?
    >
    >>>After that, the Pope was selected by the bishops from their ranks.

    >
    >>I see that you have no evidence that any elections took place for a
    >>substitute christ after the death of Simon Peter.

    >
    >No substitute Christ, but history bears out the succession. Here's the first
    >few:
    >
    >St. Peter (32-67)
    >St. Linus (67-76)
    >St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    >St. Clement I (88-97)
    >St. Evaristus (97-105)


    There is no evidence that any of these men were elected to the head of
    a church in Rome that had dictatorial authority over every other church
    on the edges of the Mediterranean Sea. You are free to show that I am
    wrong, of course.
    >
    >
    >> History, on the
    >>other hand, indicates that papal elections did not happen at all prior
    >>to Constantine. There are no such elections mentioned in Acts by Luke
    >>the physician.

    >
    >Your error comes in thinking the bible is the only record of the period. Acts
    >addresses the travels of the Apostles in the spread of Christianity, not what
    >was happening back in Rome, or at the point of gathering of the bishops.


    In the Galatian letter, in Antioch Paul told the infallible, holy
    father Peter that he was a hypocrite for not eating kosher when he was
    with the Greeks.

    And you still haven't showed any evidence that any elections were held
    in the first century, much less along the white/black smoke lines.

    >
    >>>> I
    >>>>merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    >>>>records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    >>>>would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.
    >>>Obviously you never read the NT

    >
    >>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>you undoubtedly would have posted it.

    >
    >Undoubtedly. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
    >St. Peter (32-67)
    >St. Linus (67-76)
    >St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    >St. Clement I (88-97)
    >St. Evaristus (97-105)
    >St. Alexander I (105-115)
    >St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
    >St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    >St. Hyginus (136-140)
    >St. Pius I (140-155)
    >St. Anicetus (155-166)
    >St. Soter (166-175)
    >St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    >St. Victor I (189-199)
    >St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    >St. Callistus I (217-22)
    >St. Urban I (222-30)
    >St. Pontain (230-35)
    >St. Anterus (235-36)
    >St. Fabian (236-50)
    >St. Cornelius (251-53)
    >St. Lucius I (253-54)
    >St. Stephen I (254-257)
    >St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    >St. Dionysius (260-268)
    >St. Felix I (269-274)
    >St. Eutychian (275-283)
    >St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
    >St. Marcellinus (296-304)


    Nice lits, you still haven't showed any succession. One break in this
    chain and the entire claim upon which the RCC is built upon falls.

    There is no evidence of any worldwide church organization in the first
    century, and certainly none that Peter was "bishop" in Rome. Rather,
    it a lot more probable that Peter ended up in Rome to be executed.

    The early church was molded on Jewish lines, which was natural because
    all the apostles were Jews. A.G. Fruchtenbaum, a Jewish source, has
    stated that the apostles adhered to Rabbinic forms of interpretation,
    using the OT (Septuagint) [paper available from homeoffice@ariel.org].

    The issue of papal succession and infallibility has been debated to
    death and others have stated the case better than I ever will, so I
    will not debate this with you other than to list a few sources that you
    will undoubtedly reject out-of-hand because they are from those
    heretical, lowly, vile "Protest_ants" who refuse to kneel before the
    pope.

    Here is a well-written blog:

    <http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com/2...lability-exami
    ned/>

    "From the Catholic perspective, the church and the papacy are
    infallible. No matter how vile and wicked its leaders, its doctrine is
    protected by Godıs sovereignty."

    [...]

    "If history proves that one particular pope contradicted others on a
    given issue, then papal infallibility crumbles. If history proves a
    particular pope was condemned by a counsel, it would substantiate
    Dollingerıs claim that the pope was never the final authority on
    matters of doctrine."

    [...]

    "Church history reveals that major doctrinal disagreements were settled
    by church councils, not by papal decree. This assumption can be proven
    from the supposed beginning of the papacy, Apostle Peter himself. At
    the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter spoke eloquently and beautifully
    that salvation by grace was available to the Jews without their keeping
    the law. It is interesting that the pastor of the Jerusalem Church,
    James (not Peter) gave the final opinion which sealed the councilıs
    decision."

    [...]

    "The Papacy of Vigilius spanned roughly 20 years from 537-555.[27] His
    almost 20 years were marked by uncertainty and weak leadership. The
    wife of Justinian I, Theodora, greatly supported the Monophysite
    heresy. She worked out a scheme whereby she would remove Silverius from
    the papal seat and replace him with Vigilius, who at that time
    supported the view that Jesus was indeed only part God. Because the
    Goths had just been driven out of Rome, the perfect opportunity arose
    for Theodora to accuse Silverius of treason. She forged several letters
    from Silverius to the Goths in order that he could be removed on the
    grounds of his treasonous acts. Shortly thereafter, Silverius was
    exiled and ³was divested of the insignia of his exalted rank.²[28]
    Shortly after Vigilius began his papacy, he changed his view on the
    nature of Christ and began to support the language of Chalcedon.[29]"

    [...]

    "On a theological note from a decisively non-Catholic reference frame,
    it should be understood that any pope who preaches another gospel
    besides the good news, which can be read freely in the Scriptures, is
    not only fallible, but also anathema (cf. Galatians 1:8). This point
    alone places every pope throughout the Romanist existence in the same
    crowded category, fallible."

    Here's a whole bunch of stuff you won't like:



    BTW--in my opinion that "ex cathedra" stuff is pompous-sounding
    bull**** designed to cover the fact that the popes are just men, many
    of which were corrupted by the vast wealth and power of the Roman
    Empire.

    Matthew 19:24 "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
    needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"

    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  12. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:

    >On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:43:22 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >
    >>>>>Which is the reason I don't prepare long responses unless I get same back.
    >>>>>These people pretty much id themselves.
    >>>>Id? Does this indicate that you are a psychologist?
    >>>Normal people understand.

    >
    >>Please provide a list of these "normal" people. Do they support you in
    >>email?

    >
    >If you don't, you're not normal.


    If I don't what? Support you?

    So it looks like duke the clueless has defined "normal" to be himself.
    >
    >duke, American-American
    >*****
    >"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    >Pope Paul VI
    >*****


    --
    Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
    Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
    as designated by Brad Guth
    COOSN-266-06-39716

  13. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:37:35 -0700, in alt.abortion, Art Deco
    wrote:

    >duke wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:25:38 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>
    >>>>One small correction. Simon Peter was selected as the rock foundation (first
    >>>>Pope) by Jesus Christ from the ranks of the Apostles (bishops). Mat
    >>>>16:13-20.

    >>
    >>>Let's [tinu] check your evidence:

    >>
    >>>When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his
    >>>disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
    >>>They replied, "Some say John the Baptish; others say Elijah; and still
    >>>others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
    >>>"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?"
    >>>Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    >>>Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for this was not
    >>>revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you
    >>>that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
    >>>gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
    >>>kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,
    >>>and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    >>
    >>>Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

    >>
    >>>The overarching issue in the entire passage, from v. 13 to v. 20, is
    >>>what individual people thought about Jesus being the Messiah or not.

    >>
    >>>Note the lack of anything here about Peter becoming a "substitute
    >>>Christ".

    >>
    >>He's not a "substitute Christ".

    >
    >He was renamed "rock" (masculine), not "father", "bishop", "vicar" or
    >any of the other words attached to pope.


    Rock just lay there not doing anything. However, in the areas Rocks
    and stones have long been worshiped. even Moslems venerate and use a
    Rock as a substitute of the Deity.

    Substitution is a long use religious device. Even Christ uses bread
    and wine as a substitute act of eating the deity and
    become one with him.

    >>>Also, the RCH interpretation that this exchange hangs on the phrase "on
    >>>this rock", and requires the pronoun "this" to refer to Peter himself.

    >>
    >>No, on the singular "you". Blessed are "you", for you were told this directly
    >>by the Father. Wow, 1-on-1 with the Father.

    >
    >If you want to go down to this level, you left out that "this rock" is
    >feminine, not masculine. Two different words.


    One could also question the translation of the word you, referring to
    all the disciples, or all the believers. Not you the individual.

    >>>It can also easily refer to what Peter had just said, which was his
    >>>declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (annointed one). This would
    >>>indicate that the Church would be built on the realization and
    >>>confession that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and not on any
    >>>dictatorial power imputed to Peter.

    >>
    >>Read that "you" again.

    >
    >The disciples were not allowed to tell anyone that Jesus was the
    >Messiah, yet they were free to run around announcing that Peter is the
    >new holy father with the power to send people to hell.


    >Do you see the problem here?


    Bet he doesn't.

    >>>>After that, the Pope was selected by the bishops from their ranks.

    >>
    >>>I see that you have no evidence that any elections took place for a
    >>>substitute christ after the death of Simon Peter.

    >>
    >>No substitute Christ, but history bears out the succession. Here's the first
    >>few:
    >>
    >>St. Peter (32-67)
    >>St. Linus (67-76)
    >>St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    >>St. Clement I (88-97)
    >>St. Evaristus (97-105)

    >
    >There is no evidence that any of these men were elected to the head of
    >a church in Rome that had dictatorial authority over every other church
    >on the edges of the Mediterranean Sea. You are free to show that I am
    >wrong, of course.


    he will claim tradition... but lack any evidence.

    >>> History, on the
    >>>other hand, indicates that papal elections did not happen at all prior
    >>>to Constantine. There are no such elections mentioned in Acts by Luke
    >>>the physician.

    >>
    >>Your error comes in thinking the bible is the only record of the period. Acts
    >>addresses the travels of the Apostles in the spread of Christianity, not what
    >>was happening back in Rome, or at the point of gathering of the bishops.

    >
    >In the Galatian letter, in Antioch Paul told the infallible, holy
    >father Peter that he was a hypocrite for not eating kosher when he was
    >with the Greeks.
    >
    >And you still haven't showed any evidence that any elections were held
    >in the first century, much less along the white/black smoke lines.


    and it is doubtful he will ever be able.

    >>>>> I
    >>>>>merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    >>>>>records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    >>>>>would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.
    >>>>Obviously you never read the NT

    >>
    >>>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>>you undoubtedly would have posted it.

    >>
    >>Undoubtedly. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
    >>St. Peter (32-67)
    >>St. Linus (67-76)
    >>St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    >>St. Clement I (88-97)
    >>St. Evaristus (97-105)
    >>St. Alexander I (105-115)
    >>St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
    >>St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    >>St. Hyginus (136-140)
    >>St. Pius I (140-155)
    >>St. Anicetus (155-166)
    >>St. Soter (166-175)
    >>St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    >>St. Victor I (189-199)
    >>St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    >>St. Callistus I (217-22)
    >>St. Urban I (222-30)
    >>St. Pontain (230-35)
    >>St. Anterus (235-36)
    >>St. Fabian (236-50)
    >>St. Cornelius (251-53)
    >>St. Lucius I (253-54)
    >>St. Stephen I (254-257)
    >>St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    >>St. Dionysius (260-268)
    >>St. Felix I (269-274)
    >>St. Eutychian (275-283)
    >>St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
    >>St. Marcellinus (296-304)

    >
    >Nice lits, you still haven't showed any succession. One break in this
    >chain and the entire claim upon which the RCC is built upon falls.
    >
    >There is no evidence of any worldwide church organization in the first
    >century, and certainly none that Peter was "bishop" in Rome. Rather,
    >it a lot more probable that Peter ended up in Rome to be executed.
    >
    >The early church was molded on Jewish lines, which was natural because
    >all the apostles were Jews. A.G. Fruchtenbaum, a Jewish source, has
    >stated that the apostles adhered to Rabbinic forms of interpretation,
    >using the OT (Septuagint) [paper available from homeoffice@ariel.org].
    >
    >The issue of papal succession and infallibility has been debated to
    >death and others have stated the case better than I ever will, so I
    >will not debate this with you other than to list a few sources that you
    >will undoubtedly reject out-of-hand because they are from those
    >heretical, lowly, vile "Protest_ants" who refuse to kneel before the
    >pope.
    >
    >Here is a well-written blog:
    >
    ><http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com/2...lability-exami
    >ned/>
    >
    >"From the Catholic perspective, the church and the papacy are
    >infallible. No matter how vile and wicked its leaders, its doctrine is
    >protected by Godıs sovereignty."
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >"If history proves that one particular pope contradicted others on a
    >given issue, then papal infallibility crumbles. If history proves a
    >particular pope was condemned by a counsel, it would substantiate
    >Dollingerıs claim that the pope was never the final authority on
    >matters of doctrine."
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >"Church history reveals that major doctrinal disagreements were settled
    >by church councils, not by papal decree. This assumption can be proven
    >from the supposed beginning of the papacy, Apostle Peter himself. At
    >the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter spoke eloquently and beautifully
    >that salvation by grace was available to the Jews without their keeping
    >the law. It is interesting that the pastor of the Jerusalem Church,
    >James (not Peter) gave the final opinion which sealed the councilıs
    >decision."
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >"The Papacy of Vigilius spanned roughly 20 years from 537-555.[27] His
    >almost 20 years were marked by uncertainty and weak leadership. The
    >wife of Justinian I, Theodora, greatly supported the Monophysite
    >heresy. She worked out a scheme whereby she would remove Silverius from
    >the papal seat and replace him with Vigilius, who at that time
    >supported the view that Jesus was indeed only part God. Because the
    >Goths had just been driven out of Rome, the perfect opportunity arose
    >for Theodora to accuse Silverius of treason. She forged several letters
    >from Silverius to the Goths in order that he could be removed on the
    >grounds of his treasonous acts. Shortly thereafter, Silverius was
    >exiled and ³was divested of the insignia of his exalted rank.²[28]
    >Shortly after Vigilius began his papacy, he changed his view on the
    >nature of Christ and began to support the language of Chalcedon.[29]"
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >"On a theological note from a decisively non-Catholic reference frame,
    >it should be understood that any pope who preaches another gospel
    >besides the good news, which can be read freely in the Scriptures, is
    >not only fallible, but also anathema (cf. Galatians 1:8). This point
    >alone places every pope throughout the Romanist existence in the same
    >crowded category, fallible."
    >
    >Here's a whole bunch of stuff you won't like:
    >
    >
    >
    >BTW--in my opinion that "ex cathedra" stuff is pompous-sounding
    >bull**** designed to cover the fact that the popes are just men, many
    >of which were corrupted by the vast wealth and power of the Roman
    >Empire.
    >
    >Matthew 19:24 "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
    >needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"


    Well said!


    --
    Ak'toh'di

  14. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    In article <121220072225383616%erfc@caballista.org>,
    Art Deco wrote:
    >duke wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:01:36 -0700, Art Deco wrote:
    >>
    >>>>You're the one that made the reference to "merely the official Roman
    >>>>interpretation". I'm asking you.

    >>
    >>>>The NT is a compilation of the events, statements and religious beliefs of
    >>>>the
    >>>>biblical Christian people.

    >>
    >>>You claimed Peter was the Popo numero I, elected by the other apostles,
    >>>and there has been a continuous election of Popos since circa 30 AD.

    >>
    >>One small correction. Simon Peter was selected as the rock foundation (first
    >>Pope) by Jesus Christ from the ranks of the Apostles (bishops). Mat 16:13-20.

    >
    >Let's [tinu] check your evidence:
    >
    >When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Phillippi, he asked his
    >disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
    >
    >They replied, "Some say John the Baptish; others say Elijah; and still
    >others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
    >
    >"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?"
    >
    >Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
    >
    >Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, for this was not
    >revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you
    >that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
    >gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the
    >kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven,
    >and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
    >
    >Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
    >
    >The overarching issue in the entire passage, from v. 13 to v. 20, is
    >what individual people thought about Jesus being the Messiah or not.
    >
    >Note the lack of anything here about Peter becoming a "substitute
    >Christ".
    >
    >Also, the RCH interpretation that this exchange hangs on the phrase "on
    >this rock", and requires the pronoun "this" to refer to Peter himself.
    >It can also easily refer to what Peter had just said, which was his
    >declaration that Jesus was the Messiah (annointed one). This would
    >indicate that the Church would be built on the realization and
    >confession that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and not on any
    >dictatorial power imputed to Peter.
    >
    >>After that, the Pope was selected by the bishops from their ranks.

    >
    >I see that you have no evidence that any elections took place for a
    >substitute christ after the death of Simon Peter. History, on the
    >other hand, indicates that papal elections did not happen at all prior
    >to Constantine. There are no such elections mentioned in Acts by Luke
    >the physician.
    >
    >>
    >>> I
    >>>merely asked you to substantiate this. Because the only written
    >>>records from the first century are the new testament, I assumed it
    >>>would contain this substantiation. Obviously I was wrong.

    >>
    >>Obviously you never read the NT

    >
    >Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >you undoubtedly would have posted it.


    Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.

    The line of apostolic succession from the time of the Twelve (and
    immediate successors) to the time when records started becoming easier to
    keep because the government was not coming and burning the place down on a
    regular basis is part of church history and tradition, NOT the NT. The
    present NT manuscripts were composed by no later than ca. 100 CE and the
    line of succession had a couple of hundred more years to go before
    Constantine.

    I really wish that people wouldn't get their sources confused. It really
    sounds like he's been going round with too many demented babtists who
    think that their particular set of cafeteria practices (including church
    on Sundays) are ALL "biblical". Some things aren't, but have a pretty
    good case arising out of church tradition (the point of contention then
    becomes "when did it become tradition", natch, but that's another story).

    Charlotte

    --

  15. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    Blackmer) wrote:

    >>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>you undoubtedly would have posted it.

    >
    >Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.


    The List of Popes
    See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.


    St. Peter (32-67)
    St. Linus (67-76)
    St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    St. Clement I (88-97)
    St. Evaristus (97-105)
    St. Alexander I (105-115)
    St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
    St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    St. Hyginus (136-140)
    St. Pius I (140-155)
    St. Anicetus (155-166)
    St. Soter (166-175)
    St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    St. Victor I (189-199)
    St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    St. Callistus I (217-22)
    St. Urban I (222-30)
    St. Pontain (230-35)
    St. Anterus (235-36)
    St. Fabian (236-50)
    St. Cornelius (251-53)
    St. Lucius I (253-54)
    St. Stephen I (254-257)
    St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    St. Dionysius (260-268)
    St. Felix I (269-274)
    St. Eutychian (275-283)
    St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
    St. Marcellinus (296-304)
    St. Marcellus I (308-309)
    St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
    St. Miltiades (311-14)
    St. Sylvester I (314-35)
    St. Marcus (336)
    St. Julius I (337-52)
    Liberius (352-66)
    St. Damasus I (366-83)
    St. Siricius (384-99)
    St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    St. Innocent I (401-17)
    St. Zosimus (417-18)
    St. Boniface I (418-22)
    St. Celestine I (422-32)
    St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    St. Hilarius (461-68)
    St. Simplicius (468-83)
    St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    Anastasius II (496-98)
    St. Symmachus (498-514)
    St. Hormisdas (514-23)
    St. John I (523-26)
    St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
    Boniface II (530-32)
    John II (533-35)
    St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
    St. Silverius (536-37)
    Vigilius (537-55)
    Pelagius I (556-61)
    John III (561-74)
    Benedict I (575-79)
    Pelagius II (579-90)
    St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
    Sabinian (604-606)
    Boniface III (607)
    St. Boniface IV (608-15)
    St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
    Boniface V (619-25)
    Honorius I (625-38)
    Severinus (640)
    John IV (640-42)
    Theodore I (642-49)
    St. Martin I (649-55)
    St. Eugene I (655-57)
    St. Vitalian (657-72)
    Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
    Donus (676-78)
    St. Agatho (678-81)
    St. Leo II (682-83)
    St. Benedict II (684-85)
    John V (685-86)
    Conon (686-87)
    St. Sergius I (687-701)
    John VI (701-05)
    John VII (705-07)
    Sisinnius (708)
    Constantine (708-15)
    St. Gregory II (715-31)
    St. Gregory III (731-41)
    St. Zachary (741-52)
    Stephen II (752) -- Because he died before being consecrated, some lists
    (including the Vatican's official list) omit him.
    Stephen III (752-57)
    St. Paul I (757-67)
    Stephen IV (767-72)
    Adrian I (772-95)
    St. Leo III (795-816)
    Stephen V (816-17)
    St. Paschal I (817-24)
    Eugene II (824-27)
    Valentine (827)
    Gregory IV (827-44)
    Sergius II (844-47)
    St. Leo IV (847-55)
    Benedict III (855-58)
    St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
    Adrian II (867-72)
    John VIII (872-82)
    Marinus I (882-84)
    St. Adrian III (884-85)
    Stephen VI (885-91)
    Formosus (891-96)
    Boniface VI (896)
    Stephen VII (896-97)
    Romanus (897)
    Theodore II (897)
    John IX (898-900)
    Benedict IV (900-03)
    Leo V (903)
    Sergius III (904-11)
    Anastasius III (911-13)
    Lando (913-14)
    John X (914-28)
    Leo VI (928)
    Stephen VIII (929-31)
    John XI (931-35)
    Leo VII (936-39)
    Stephen IX (939-42)
    Marinus II (942-46)
    Agapetus II (946-55)
    John XII (955-63)
    Leo VIII (963-64)
    Benedict V (964)
    John XIII (965-72)
    Benedict VI (973-74)
    Benedict VII (974-83)
    John XIV (983-84)
    John XV (985-96)
    Gregory V (996-99)
    Sylvester II (999-1003)
    John XVII (1003)
    John XVIII (1003-09)
    Sergius IV (1009-12)
    Benedict VIII (1012-24)
    John XIX (1024-32)
    Benedict IX (1032-45) Benedict IX appears on this list three separate times,
    because he was twice removed and restored (see below)
    Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope
    Benedict IX (1045)
    Gregory VI (1045-46)
    Clement II (1046-47)
    Benedict IX (1047-48)
    Damasus II (1048)
    St. Leo IX (1049-54)
    Victor II (1055-57)
    Stephen X (1057-58)
    Nicholas II (1058-61)
    Alexander II (1061-73)
    St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
    Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
    Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
    Paschal II (1099-1118)
    Gelasius II (1118-19)
    Callistus II (1119-24)
    Honorius II (1124-30)
    Innocent II (1130-43)
    Celestine II (1143-44)
    Lucius II (1144-45)
    Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
    Anastasius IV (1153-54)
    Adrian IV (1154-59)
    Alexander III (1159-81)
    Lucius III (1181-85)
    Urban III (1185-87)
    Gregory VIII (1187)
    Clement III (1187-91)
    Celestine III (1191-98)
    Innocent III (1198-1216)
    Honorius III (1216-27)
    Gregory IX (1227-41)
    Celestine IV (1241)
    Innocent IV (1243-54)
    Alexander IV (1254-61)
    Urban IV (1261-64)
    Clement IV (1265-68)
    Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
    Blessed Innocent V (1276)
    Adrian V (1276)
    John XXI (1276-77)
    Nicholas III (1277-80)
    Martin IV (1281-85)
    Honorius IV (1285-87)
    Nicholas IV (1288-92)
    St. Celestine V (1294)
    Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
    Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
    Clement V (1305-14)
    John XXII (1316-34)
    Benedict XII (1334-42)
    Clement VI (1342-52)
    Innocent VI (1352-62)
    Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
    Gregory XI (1370-78)
    Urban VI (1378-89)
    Boniface IX (1389-1404)
    Innocent VII (1404-06)
    Gregory XII (1406-15)
    Martin V (1417-31)
    Eugene IV (1431-47)
    Nicholas V (1447-55)
    Callistus III (1455-58)
    Pius II (1458-64)
    Paul II (1464-71)
    Sixtus IV (1471-84)
    Innocent VIII (1484-92)
    Alexander VI (1492-1503)
    Pius III (1503)
    Julius II (1503-13)
    Leo X (1513-21)
    Adrian VI (1522-23)
    Clement VII (1523-34)
    Paul III (1534-49)
    Julius III (1550-55)
    Marcellus II (1555)
    Paul IV (1555-59)
    Pius IV (1559-65)
    St. Pius V (1566-72)
    Gregory XIII (1572-85)
    Sixtus V (1585-90)
    Urban VII (1590)
    Gregory XIV (1590-91)
    Innocent IX (1591)
    Clement VIII (1592-1605)
    Leo XI (1605)
    Paul V (1605-21)
    Gregory XV (1621-23)
    Urban VIII (1623-44)
    Innocent X (1644-55)
    Alexander VII (1655-67)
    Clement IX (1667-69)
    Clement X (1670-76)
    Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
    Alexander VIII (1689-91)
    Innocent XII (1691-1700)
    Clement XI (1700-21)
    Innocent XIII (1721-24)
    Benedict XIII (1724-30)
    Clement XII (1730-40)
    Benedict XIV (1740-58)
    Clement XIII (1758-69)
    Clement XIV (1769-74)
    Pius VI (1775-99)
    Pius VII (1800-23)
    Leo XII (1823-29)
    Pius VIII (1829-30)
    Gregory XVI (1831-46)
    Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
    Leo XIII (1878-1903)
    St. Pius X (1903-14)

    Benedict XV (1914-22)
    Pius XI (1922-39)
    Pius XII (1939-58)
    Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
    Paul VI (1963-78)
    John Paul I (1978)
    John Paul II (1978-2005)
    Benedict XVI (2005—)

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

  16. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote in
    news:1ahfo3ddrsu7jlj0n7tmfdcgmt5hd0dtn7@4ax.com:

    > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net
    > (Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
    >
    >>>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of
    >>>elected popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such
    >>>evidence, you undoubtedly would have posted it.

    >>
    >>Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely
    >>NOT.

    >
    > The List of Popes
    > See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
    >
    >
    > St. Peter (32-67)
    > St. Linus (67-76)
    > St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    > St. Clement I (88-97)
    > St. Evaristus (97-105)
    > St. Alexander I (105-115)
    > St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
    > St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    > St. Hyginus (136-140)
    > St. Pius I (140-155)
    > St. Anicetus (155-166)
    > St. Soter (166-175)
    > St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    > St. Victor I (189-199)
    > St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    > St. Callistus I (217-22)
    > St. Urban I (222-30)
    > St. Pontain (230-35)
    > St. Anterus (235-36)
    > St. Fabian (236-50)
    > St. Cornelius (251-53)
    > St. Lucius I (253-54)
    > St. Stephen I (254-257)
    > St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    > St. Dionysius (260-268)
    > St. Felix I (269-274)
    > St. Eutychian (275-283)
    > St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
    > St. Marcellinus (296-304)
    > St. Marcellus I (308-309)
    > St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
    > St. Miltiades (311-14)
    > St. Sylvester I (314-35)
    > St. Marcus (336)
    > St. Julius I (337-52)
    > Liberius (352-66)
    > St. Damasus I (366-83)
    > St. Siricius (384-99)
    > St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    > St. Innocent I (401-17)
    > St. Zosimus (417-18)
    > St. Boniface I (418-22)
    > St. Celestine I (422-32)
    > St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    > St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    > St. Hilarius (461-68)
    > St. Simplicius (468-83)
    > St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    > St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    > Anastasius II (496-98)
    > St. Symmachus (498-514)
    > St. Hormisdas (514-23)
    > St. John I (523-26)
    > St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
    > Boniface II (530-32)
    > John II (533-35)
    > St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
    > St. Silverius (536-37)
    > Vigilius (537-55)
    > Pelagius I (556-61)
    > John III (561-74)
    > Benedict I (575-79)
    > Pelagius II (579-90)
    > St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
    > Sabinian (604-606)
    > Boniface III (607)
    > St. Boniface IV (608-15)
    > St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
    > Boniface V (619-25)
    > Honorius I (625-38)
    > Severinus (640)
    > John IV (640-42)
    > Theodore I (642-49)
    > St. Martin I (649-55)
    > St. Eugene I (655-57)
    > St. Vitalian (657-72)
    > Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
    > Donus (676-78)
    > St. Agatho (678-81)
    > St. Leo II (682-83)
    > St. Benedict II (684-85)
    > John V (685-86)
    > Conon (686-87)
    > St. Sergius I (687-701)
    > John VI (701-05)
    > John VII (705-07)
    > Sisinnius (708)
    > Constantine (708-15)
    > St. Gregory II (715-31)
    > St. Gregory III (731-41)
    > St. Zachary (741-52)
    > Stephen II (752) -- Because he died before being consecrated, some
    > lists (including the Vatican's official list) omit him.
    > Stephen III (752-57)
    > St. Paul I (757-67)
    > Stephen IV (767-72)
    > Adrian I (772-95)
    > St. Leo III (795-816)
    > Stephen V (816-17)
    > St. Paschal I (817-24)
    > Eugene II (824-27)
    > Valentine (827)
    > Gregory IV (827-44)
    > Sergius II (844-47)
    > St. Leo IV (847-55)
    > Benedict III (855-58)
    > St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
    > Adrian II (867-72)
    > John VIII (872-82)
    > Marinus I (882-84)
    > St. Adrian III (884-85)
    > Stephen VI (885-91)
    > Formosus (891-96)
    > Boniface VI (896)
    > Stephen VII (896-97)
    > Romanus (897)
    > Theodore II (897)
    > John IX (898-900)
    > Benedict IV (900-03)
    > Leo V (903)
    > Sergius III (904-11)
    > Anastasius III (911-13)
    > Lando (913-14)
    > John X (914-28)
    > Leo VI (928)
    > Stephen VIII (929-31)
    > John XI (931-35)
    > Leo VII (936-39)
    > Stephen IX (939-42)
    > Marinus II (942-46)
    > Agapetus II (946-55)
    > John XII (955-63)
    > Leo VIII (963-64)
    > Benedict V (964)
    > John XIII (965-72)
    > Benedict VI (973-74)
    > Benedict VII (974-83)
    > John XIV (983-84)
    > John XV (985-96)
    > Gregory V (996-99)
    > Sylvester II (999-1003)
    > John XVII (1003)
    > John XVIII (1003-09)
    > Sergius IV (1009-12)
    > Benedict VIII (1012-24)
    > John XIX (1024-32)
    > Benedict IX (1032-45) Benedict IX appears on this list three separate
    > times, because he was twice removed and restored (see below)
    > Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope
    > Benedict IX (1045)
    > Gregory VI (1045-46)
    > Clement II (1046-47)
    > Benedict IX (1047-48)
    > Damasus II (1048)
    > St. Leo IX (1049-54)
    > Victor II (1055-57)
    > Stephen X (1057-58)
    > Nicholas II (1058-61)
    > Alexander II (1061-73)
    > St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
    > Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
    > Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
    > Paschal II (1099-1118)
    > Gelasius II (1118-19)
    > Callistus II (1119-24)
    > Honorius II (1124-30)
    > Innocent II (1130-43)
    > Celestine II (1143-44)
    > Lucius II (1144-45)
    > Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
    > Anastasius IV (1153-54)
    > Adrian IV (1154-59)
    > Alexander III (1159-81)
    > Lucius III (1181-85)
    > Urban III (1185-87)
    > Gregory VIII (1187)
    > Clement III (1187-91)
    > Celestine III (1191-98)
    > Innocent III (1198-1216)
    > Honorius III (1216-27)
    > Gregory IX (1227-41)
    > Celestine IV (1241)
    > Innocent IV (1243-54)
    > Alexander IV (1254-61)
    > Urban IV (1261-64)
    > Clement IV (1265-68)
    > Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
    > Blessed Innocent V (1276)
    > Adrian V (1276)
    > John XXI (1276-77)
    > Nicholas III (1277-80)
    > Martin IV (1281-85)
    > Honorius IV (1285-87)
    > Nicholas IV (1288-92)
    > St. Celestine V (1294)
    > Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
    > Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
    > Clement V (1305-14)
    > John XXII (1316-34)
    > Benedict XII (1334-42)
    > Clement VI (1342-52)
    > Innocent VI (1352-62)
    > Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
    > Gregory XI (1370-78)
    > Urban VI (1378-89)
    > Boniface IX (1389-1404)
    > Innocent VII (1404-06)
    > Gregory XII (1406-15)
    > Martin V (1417-31)
    > Eugene IV (1431-47)
    > Nicholas V (1447-55)
    > Callistus III (1455-58)
    > Pius II (1458-64)
    > Paul II (1464-71)
    > Sixtus IV (1471-84)
    > Innocent VIII (1484-92)
    > Alexander VI (1492-1503)
    > Pius III (1503)
    > Julius II (1503-13)
    > Leo X (1513-21)
    > Adrian VI (1522-23)
    > Clement VII (1523-34)
    > Paul III (1534-49)
    > Julius III (1550-55)
    > Marcellus II (1555)
    > Paul IV (1555-59)
    > Pius IV (1559-65)
    > St. Pius V (1566-72)
    > Gregory XIII (1572-85)
    > Sixtus V (1585-90)
    > Urban VII (1590)
    > Gregory XIV (1590-91)
    > Innocent IX (1591)
    > Clement VIII (1592-1605)
    > Leo XI (1605)
    > Paul V (1605-21)
    > Gregory XV (1621-23)
    > Urban VIII (1623-44)
    > Innocent X (1644-55)
    > Alexander VII (1655-67)
    > Clement IX (1667-69)
    > Clement X (1670-76)
    > Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
    > Alexander VIII (1689-91)
    > Innocent XII (1691-1700)
    > Clement XI (1700-21)
    > Innocent XIII (1721-24)
    > Benedict XIII (1724-30)
    > Clement XII (1730-40)
    > Benedict XIV (1740-58)
    > Clement XIII (1758-69)
    > Clement XIV (1769-74)
    > Pius VI (1775-99)
    > Pius VII (1800-23)
    > Leo XII (1823-29)
    > Pius VIII (1829-30)
    > Gregory XVI (1831-46)
    > Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
    > Leo XIII (1878-1903)
    > St. Pius X (1903-14)
    >
    > Benedict XV (1914-22)
    > Pius XI (1922-39)
    > Pius XII (1939-58)
    > Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
    > Paul VI (1963-78)
    > John Paul I (1978)
    > John Paul II (1978-2005)
    > Benedict XVI (2005—)
    >
    > duke, American-American
    > *****
    > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
    > Pope Paul VI
    > *****
    >

    Looks more like a list of rogue's gallery puke.


  17. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    In article <1ahfo3ddrsu7jlj0n7tmfdcgmt5hd0dtn7@4ax.com>,
    duke wrote:
    >On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    >Blackmer) wrote:
    >
    >>>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>>you undoubtedly would have posted it.

    >>
    >>Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.

    >
    >The List of Popes
    >See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.


    Um, Duke, you might want to switch to a properly threaded newsreader.

    I'm not the one disputing a continuous line of Bishops of Rome (although
    you still really need a good grownup Church History refresher). I'm the
    one disputing your previous claim that it's all "Biblical" and asking
    folks to not mix up the New Testament and Early Church tradition.

    (All by way of saying ... you spewed the list in the wrong post, and
    didn't address MY concerns.)

    BTW regarding elections of Roman Bishops, you might want to check out:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm

    Charlotte
    --

  18. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:58:40 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    Blackmer) wrote:

    >In article <1ahfo3ddrsu7jlj0n7tmfdcgmt5hd0dtn7@4ax.com>,
    >duke wrote:
    >>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    >>Blackmer) wrote:
    >>
    >>>>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>>>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>>>you undoubtedly would have posted it.
    >>>
    >>>Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.

    >>
    >>The List of Popes
    >>See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.

    >
    >Um, Duke, you might want to switch to a properly threaded newsreader.


    What do this mean? I'm having a lot of trouble right now with outgoing
    messages. About 23 hours a day I'm offline for some reason. So this might all
    be another clue as to what's going on.

    >I'm not the one disputing a continuous line of Bishops of Rome (although
    >you still really need a good grownup Church History refresher). I'm the
    >one disputing your previous claim that it's all "Biblical" and asking
    >folks to not mix up the New Testament and Early Church tradition.


    >(All by way of saying ... you spewed the list in the wrong post, and
    >didn't address MY concerns.)


    I'm only going by what I see. And I'm not sure which posts are going thru and
    which are not. So I made use of opportunity.

    >BTW regarding elections of Roman Bishops, you might want to check out:
    >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm


    We just had one.

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

  19. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:
    > On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:58:40 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    > Blackmer) wrote:
    >
    >> In article <1ahfo3ddrsu7jlj0n7tmfdcgmt5hd0dtn7@4ax.com>,
    >> duke wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    >>> Blackmer) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>>>> popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>>>> you undoubtedly would have posted it.
    >>>> Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.
    >>> The List of Popes
    >>> See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.

    >> Um, Duke, you might want to switch to a properly threaded newsreader.

    >
    > What do this mean? I'm having a lot of trouble right now with outgoing
    > messages. About 23 hours a day I'm offline for some reason. So this might all
    > be another clue as to what's going on.


    Might need to accept the true Lords and Saviors into your life. Namely
    Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis. Accept them into your heart and you will be
    able to get back online normally.



    --
    ************************************************** **
    * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
    *--------------------------------------------------*
    * "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
    * of the whole American people which declared that *
    * their legislature should make no law respecting *
    * an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
    * free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
    * separation between church and state." *
    * --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
    ************************************************** **

  20. Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion

    duke wrote:
    >On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:58:40 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    >Blackmer) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <1ahfo3ddrsu7jlj0n7tmfdcgmt5hd0dtn7@4ax.com>,
    >>duke wrote:
    >>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), clb@green.rahul.net (Charlotte L.
    >>>Blackmer) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
    >>>>>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
    >>>>>you undoubtedly would have posted it.
    >>>>
    >>>>Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.
    >>>
    >>>The List of Popes
    >>>See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.

    >>
    >>Um, Duke, you might want to switch to a properly threaded newsreader.

    >
    >What do this mean? I'm having a lot of trouble right now with outgoing
    >messages. About 23 hours a day I'm offline for some reason.


    There is a God!

    --
    Ray Fischer
    rfischer@sonic.net


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast