From all this I ony see that you are eithe an Adventist or a some sort of judaizing christian, but, I will have to tell this as a point to end your pretentions of the Old Testament being more important than the New Testament, go and read Hebrews 8 where Paul explains how the Old covenant Ended.
In fact you can read How Paul reprends thos christians who wanted to "follow the Law"
Galatians 3:22-25
Galatians 5:4-5
You reveal yourselve as an Adventist by endorsing The argument of Paul going to the Sinagogues in Saturday.... Quite typical of any Adventist.
Matthew 12:1-6
John 5:16
You reveal yourself as one who has no real argument to interact with what refutes you, but invokes texts which do no say what you need them to do, and here only apply to you, under your model for ascertaining what is of God.
Again, you claimed the Catholic wrote the Bible, not even just the NT, and thus you know the Bible is true. And by implication means that we need to look to Rome and her magisterium to know what is of God.
Which logically means that to be consistent, since Israel wrote, discerned and preserved the OT writings which the NT church validated its claims by, then assurance that these writings were true would be because Israel, under its magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, held them to be of God.
And consistent with the RC claim that we should therefore submit to Rome as concerns what Scripture consists of and means, then 1st century souls should have submitted to the magisterium of Israel in order to know what is of God and what is not.
Which effectively nukes the church, including Hebrews and whatever else from the NT you suppose helps your case. And which thus makes you the Judaizer, not me.
For in contrast, contrary to the RC model for ascertaining what is of God, we see that being the corporate and instruments and magisterial stewards of Scripture - which Rome claims to be and Israel was - does not require or infer ensured veracity of office.
And instead of knowing the Bible is True because the assuredly infallble Roman church said it is, we are to ascertain the veracity of Truth claims upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, which is how the church began.
That Peter was in Rome, Yes he was, and Rome is Called in code Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13
The word for "church" is actually not in the Greek, though that is likely rightly supplied, and the use of Babylon for Rome comes from later writings, yet while it is possible that this refers to the city of Rome, and perhaps that Peter was in Rome, yet it might also refer to body of Christians in the Roman Empire at large. T which date much later than the book of Revelation. Or that,
Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. Philo [The Embassy to Gaius, 36] and Josephus [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [Josephus, Antiquities, 17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision.
It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, Act_2:9, Jewish “Parthians ... dwellers in Mesopotamia” (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers, the Jewish “dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia,” he now ministers to by letter. (A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown)
That Paul didn't Mention Peter in his letter, Of course not, Paul wouldn't tell the Roman empire that the leader of the Church was in the very capital of the Empire. that is why also Peter salutes from Rome using Babylon as coding word, since Romans wouldn't understand the meaning, and would go looking to arrest Peter to Mesopotamia not to Italy.
That is an absurd apologetic. So Paul has no problem mentioning endangering up to 32 acquaintances (Phebe Priscilla Aquila Epaenetus Mary Andronicus Junia Urbane Stachys Apelles Aristobulus Herodion Narcissus Tryphena Tryphosa Rufus Asyncritus Phlegon Hermas Patrobas Hermes Philologus Julia Nereus Olympas Timotheus Lucius Jason Sosipater Tertius Gaius Erastus Quartus).
Yet Paul never even refers to the alleged pope of Rome even by allusion. Also, since Paul was averse to building upon another man's foundation, it is unlikely Peter was the founder of the church at Rome.
In addition is history research such as,
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
[/FONT]
“[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,”[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]and cannot concur with those [interacting with Jones] who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century... [/FONT] — [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224[/FONT]
More, by God's grace.
