Replies

>>The successor of Peter was Linus,<<

Oh really? Paul didn’t know that when writing to the Romans?

Let’s look at some of the “proof” the CC uses to establish Peter’s place in Rome taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm.

“must have been known” Must have?

“written almost undoubtedly from Rome” They rest their most important structure of the RCC on “almost undoubtedly”?

“The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome”. Another conjecture with no scirptural proof or specific proof from other writings. They only “infer” that Peter was there.

Then 100 years late the myth is starting to entrench itself. Irenaeous makes the statement: “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” still with no proof from any writings of the Apostles themselves or proof that Peter was actually ever in Rome let alone head of the church there.

The entire leadership position of Peter is built on an erroneous interpretation of just one verse from scripture then built on supposition and speculation.

"Then 100 years late the myth is starting to entrench itself. Irenaeous makes the statement: “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” still with no proof from any writings of the Apostles themselves or proof that Peter was actually ever in Rome let alone head of the church there."

Yet you use the same Irenaeous to 'prove' a point that Peter was not there.

Now his other writing states Peter was There!

So he is now wrong!!

You just "sold him out"! Hello!

Your argument does not add up!