Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 16:09:01 -0600
From: James Jordan 
Subject: (urth) Side note

--=====================_94020043==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

For anyone else listening in:


>Side note, from Dan'l to James: You wrote:
>
> > his voyage to horrible Green can be seen as Peter's journey to Rome,
> > where he died -- though this is not in the New Testament, and
> > protestants like me don't believe it happened, yet it is a central part
> > of Wolfe's Roman Catholic committments.
>
>I've never quite understood this, btw - most Protestants believe many
>things that aren't in the Bible (i.e., "Cannibalism and polygyny are
>wrong," "Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo," "The Gospel according to
>Matthew is divinely inspired, but the Gospel according to Thomas is
>not," etc.) - why do so many Protestants feel so strongly about rejecting
>this particular bit of historical trivia? I mean, it isn't as if this
>is in any material way the basis of the claims of the Papacy.

Sorry, I was very unclear. Most protestants DO believe Peter went to Rome 
and died there, interpreting "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 as a code for Rome. 
"Protestants like me" (those who are of my ilk, and they are the minority) 
reject this because we believe the symbol "babylon" is pretty securely 
established in both OldTestament (when used symbolically) and NewTestament 
as Jerusalem-in-Rebellion. I believe Peter stayed in the Jerusalem area and 
died there. But none of this has anything to do with the Papacy one way or 
another, as you point out  -- and I myself have no problem with a supreme 
bishop, provided that he agrees with ME!!!    ;-)

Jim Jordan

-- 
--=====================_94020043==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


For anyone else listening in:




Side note, from Dan'l to James: You
wrote:


> his voyage to horrible Green can be seen as Peter's journey to
Rome,

> where he died -- though this is not in the New Testament, and

> protestants like me don't believe it happened, yet it is a central
part

> of Wolfe's Roman Catholic committments.


I've never quite understood this, btw - most Protestants believe many


things that aren't in the Bible (i.e., "Cannibalism and polygyny
are

wrong," "Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo," "The
Gospel according to

Matthew is divinely inspired, but the Gospel according to Thomas is

not," etc.) - why do so many Protestants feel so strongly about
rejecting

this particular bit of historical trivia? I mean, it isn't as if
this

is in any material way the basis of the claims of the
Papacy.


Sorry, I was very unclear. Most protestants DO believe Peter went to Rome
and died there, interpreting "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5:13 as a
code for Rome. "Protestants like me" (those who are of my ilk,
and they are the minority) reject this because we believe the symbol
"babylon" is pretty securely established in both OldTestament
(when used symbolically) and NewTestament as Jerusalem-in-Rebellion. I
believe Peter stayed in the Jerusalem area and died there. But none of
this has anything to do with the Papacy one way or another, as you point
out  -- and I myself have no problem with a supreme bishop, provided
that he agrees with ME!!!    ;-)


Jim Jordan

--=====================_94020043==_.ALT--