Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Well at least that is how some guy maybe remembered it and who told it to some other guy and then eventually some other guy who knew how to write and then it got translated multiple times over the centuries adding some flourishes. But sure “he” said that.

That is true for all religous texts, including the Quran
Isn’t it a pity that they didn’t catch this all on recording devices or surveilance camera

Yes, it’s just the nature of oral stories about some random guys 2000 years ago. And why it’s “very likely” but not definite.

Oral history, not “oral stories.” You can believe whatever you want, but 99.9+% of academia and scholarship worldwide and millions of people have their own beliefs, too. You are waging a war that makes you look, in the words of Bart Erhman, foolish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

I guess some people just blindly believe what they are told is “evidence”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Well at least that is how some guy maybe remembered it and who told it to some other guy and then eventually some other guy who knew how to write and then it got translated multiple times over the centuries adding some flourishes. But sure “he” said that.

That is true for all religous texts, including the Quran
Isn’t it a pity that they didn’t catch this all on recording devices or surveilance camera

Yes, it’s just the nature of oral stories about some random guys 2000 years ago. And why it’s “very likely” but not definite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Well at least that is how some guy maybe remembered it and who told it to some other guy and then eventually some other guy who knew how to write and then it got translated multiple times over the centuries adding some flourishes. But sure “he” said that.

That is true for all religous texts, including the Quran
Isn’t it a pity that they didn’t catch this all on recording devices or surveilance camera

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

+1

I am glad this topic came up, though. It’s actually amazing, all the evidence there is.

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Well at least that is how some guy maybe remembered it and who told it to some other guy and then eventually some other guy who knew how to write and then it got translated multiple times over the centuries adding some flourishes. But sure “he” said that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

This all brings to mind the words of Jesus, when his disciples asked him why he spoke to people in parables:


This is why I speak to them in parables:

Though seeing, they do not see;
Though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

"You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

But blessed are your eyes because they see,
and your ears because they hear.

For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Continue reading down about the inconsistencies. It's inconsistent initially because we don't have direct sources - and then becomes increasingly inconsistent with each subsequent interpretation by other men with different agendas.

Everything written down - even from the start - was by men with an agenda.

Anonymous wrote:We have contemporaneous witness written account, we have written account of a witness to worshippers only a few decades later, not even a lifetime later, and we still have the same ethnic group in Syria practicing Christianity since the founding of that church was documented in the Gospels, as well as the lineage of patriarchs of the Syrian church - its on Wikipedia. Not sure what the heck else would convince a devils advocate here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Straw man argument. None of this is relevant to the question posed in the first post. Since Jesus existed, we have a clear origin for Christianity. The sects of Christianity aren't in question here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.

I haven't been commenting about Peter - that was the other PP. The specifics around the various Peter stories are irrelevant. The point was the large number of inconsistencies - do you dispute that they exist?

Men with their own agenda make up their own rules about Christianity. The fact that we have so many different flavors of Christianity - thousands - points to the many different agendas.

Pope won't let you divorce? Start a new religion.

Don't want to have a middle man to god? Start a new religion.

Want to treat the bible literally? Start a new religion.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's all manufactured by men with their own agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Syrian church has a patriarchal line going all the way back to Peter. It has existed, with leadership, since Peter. The antiochian church is mentioned in the Gospel. WE have existed since Peter in Syria. It's not a fairy tale.

And the Roman Catholic hierarchy also claims a direct line from Saint Peter. Somebody’s wrong. Maybe they’re both wrong.

Funny how the story changes when you have an agenda.

It's funny how neither of you are actually informed about this. Peter is regarded, by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches as being the first Bishop of both Antioch and Rome. The traditional story is that he founded the church in Antioch, where he served as bishop, and then later traveled to Rome. There's no dispute between the churches over what happened, even if they do disagree about plenty of other things, including the significance of the fact that the Bishops of Rome follow from Peter.

Don’t like what you hear? Make your own religion. Make your own rules/beliefs. It’s all manufactured by men to address their own agenda.

A genuinely funny response to me pointing out that your assumptions about something are wrong.

Are you disputing that there are many many inconsistencies across the Christian religions?

No, I'm pointing out that you assumed that an inconsistency would exist where one does not. When that was explained to you, rather than letting yourself learn something, you fell back on some lazy cliches. That wouldn't be funny in and of itself, but when the cliches are about ignoring evidence and making up your own reality? That's funny.