You say that Babylon is a code word for Rome…. that may be, I’ll grant you that.
And you cited several “similar instances Rome has been referred to as Babylon, in:Sibylline Oracles (5:159f),
Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1),
4 Esdras (3:1),
Eusebius Pamphilius,
The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303…
none of which are Biblical… let that be said.
—
On your Biblical references, Revelation 14:8 Revelation 16:19, Revelations 18:2, and Revelations 18:10, All of which pertain to Rome as Babylon, is a surprising citation on your part.
Why?
Because on several occasions I cited these same verses to pertain to the Roman Catholic
Church as the Mother of Harlots, Catholics would say it’s not Rome. Isn’t that employing a double standard in interpretation of text? Sure it is, but… I’ll grant you that as well.
To be fair let us analyze Babylon. We have to since Peter did not write “Rome” when all other instances of apostles referring to Rome, say Rome. With no trouble at all. Could Peter be “hiding” his whereabouts? Was he afraid for his life? Or is it just simply, where he was.
There are a few places called Babylon during the time of Peter. First would be the nearest from Jerusalem, Babylon in Egypt. But since scripture never says he was in Egypt, we can rule that out… next is Babylon of Mesopotamia… which at that time was taken by the Macedonians and there was no account of Peter going there either. The last one is Rome. Although there is no such a place in Rome called Babylon, Rome did serve as a reminder of the Hebrew’s persecutions during the Babylonian empire. So to refer to Rome as Babylon is to an extent, acceptable if you refer to the sorrowful chapter of their history.
But it is still not fact. The state of Peter’s whereabouts are dubious at best because it is not clearly stated and only presumed. Besides, since many neighboring provinces around the capital is still under “Roman rule” therefore still Rome, it could be that Peter refers to being in Rome even when he was in Jerusalem. Since Jerusalem was under Rome. These are suppositions, and they are the best we can do because Peter himself did not write definitively. But I will concede to the unanimity of your non-biblical references that Rome had Peter killed even though the Bible is silent about it. Exactly how or when is just something else left to the wind. The historians themselves can’t agree if Peter was hanged, crucified, or beheaded.
It just makes the image of Rome all the more unlikely to be that of Peter’s ministry. His death yes, but his ministry no. He was brought to Rome to be executed. That is what’s common in all your references’ accounts. Let me list those for you just in case.
Writing of Tertullian
Letter of Clement
Letter of Ignatius
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies
Leter of Clement of Alexandria
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History
Lactantius’ The Death of the Persecutors
None of these are scriptural… let that be said as well.
None said that Peter taught in Rome. Not one.
But dare I say they’re unanimous in saying Peter was BROUGHT TO ROME TO BE EXECUTED?
I could.
Paul in his letter to the Romans never mentioned Peter in his greetings. Isn’t that odd, that a person such as Peter with “primacy” over the other apostles, and was (according to you) establishing his see in Rome, never even got a nod? Ni ha ni ho wala? Think about it. Para kang sumulat sa Know the Truth program at binati mo ang lahat ng kaugnay sa programa maliban kay Arganiosa. Think about it really well.
I don’t claim to be an expert in anything, but I do analyze and study things before I say them. I don’t merely copy and paste things like many of your fellow Catholics here, who do not even read half of what they post. But to you I say, you at least made a thoughtful defense for the Catholic position. But it still falls short of convincing facts.
We may agree on one thing. Peter was executed in Rome. But him having a ministry in Rome, and having primacy over the other apostles is something that even the Bible itself is silent about.
So to say that the readers here “proving my ignorance” is nothing but hubris on your part.
Puh-lease! They just made the Catholic position on the matter more UNBIBLICAL.
![St. Peter the Apostle]()
St. Peter the Apostle
[You say that Babylon is a code word for Rome.... that may be, I'll grant you that.
And you cited several "similar instances Rome has been referred to as Babylon, in:Sibylline Oracles (5:159f),
Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1),
4 Esdras (3:1),
Eusebius Pamphilius,
The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303...
none of which are Biblical... let that be said.]
SO WHAT? ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO USE OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND REFERENCES TO PROVE OUR POINT? HOW ABOUT THE BOOK OF JOHN CORNWELL THAT YOU STUPIDLY UPHELD IS THAT BIBLICAL?—
[On your Biblical references, Revelation 14:8 Revelation 16:19, Revelations 18:2, and Revelations 18:10, All of which pertain to Rome as Babylon, is a surprising citation on your part.]
WELL, CONCERNING THE HARLOT. IT WAS CALLED THE WHORE OF BABYLON AND NOT THE CHURCH OF ROME. SO, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN BIBLICALLY HOW COME THE WHORE OF BABYLON SUDDENLY WAS CHANGED BY FOOLS LIKE YOU INTO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
THE TERM WHORE OF BABYLON REFERS TO THE EVIL PAGAN EMPIRE WITH THEIR IMMORAL ACTS AND CORRUPT POLITICAL AND BUSINESS SYSTEMS.
[Why?]
WHY O WHY? HA HA HA…
[Because on several occasions I cited these same verses to pertain to the Roman Catholic
Church as the Mother of Harlots, Catholics would say it's not Rome. Isn't that employing a double standard in interpretation of text? Sure it is, but... I'll grant you that as well.]
HA HA HA THAT IS VERY STUPID. IN WHAT VERSE DID IT REFER TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH? HA HA HA… THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ANTI-PROSTITUTION AND OUR ENEMIES ARE IN FAVOR OF LEGALIZED PROSTITUTION, ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION, DIVORCED, EUTHANASIA, ETC. SO IT IS NOT US WHO REPRESENT THE HARLOT BUT OUR ENEMIES OF WHICH YOU ARE ONE.
WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT THE HARLOT IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH? NADA, NUNCA, NIENTE, NEVER EVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA…[To be fair let us analyze Babylon. We have to since Peter did not write "Rome" when all other instances of apostles referring to Rome, say Rome. With no trouble at all. Could Peter be "hiding" his whereabouts? Was he afraid for his life? Or is it just simply, where he was.]
WELL, ST. PAUL WROTE TO THE CHURCH OF ROME AND TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS AND WORD FOR WORD. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES WRITTEN BY ST. LUKE MENTIONED ROME AND HIGHLIGHTED HOW PAUL AND OTHER APOSTOLIC SAINTS WENT TO ROME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL. SO ROME IS MENTIONED WORD FOR WORD BY THE APOSTOLIC WRITERS AND THEY REFER TO IT AS FIELD OF EVANGELIZATION WHERE THERE IS A FLOURISHING CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. THE CHURCH OF ROME IS WELL PRAISED IN THE BIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO RECOGNIZE THAT. YOU ARE BLINDED BY YOUR EVIL AGENDA TO MALIGN ROME IN ORDER TO ATTACK THE CATHOLICS.[There are a few places called Babylon during the time of Peter. First would be the nearest from Jerusalem, Babylon in Egypt. But since scripture never says he was in Egypt, we can rule that out...]
WHERE IN THE SCRIPTURES DOES IT SAYS THAT PETER WAS NEVER IN EGYPT? WHO KNOWS HE WENT THERE? HE HE HE… CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE.
[next is Babylon of Mesopotamia... which at that time was taken by the Macedonians and there was no account of Peter going there either.]
SO, IF IT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE IT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT TRUE THEN. WHERE CAN YOU FIND THEN IN THE BIBLE THAT PETER NEVER WENT TO MESOPOTAMIA? IF THE BIBLE IS SILENT ABOUT IT THEN IT IS NEUTRAL. IT IS STUPID FOR YOU TO SIMPLY SAYS: “HE WAS NEVER THERE” SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BIBLE DIDN’T SAY IT.
[The last one is Rome.]
DID ST. PETER GO TO ROME OR NOT? YOU DO NOT BELEIVE THAT PETER WENT TO ROME AND YET YOU STUPIDLY BELEIVE THAT PETER MEANT ROME WHEN HE WROTE ABOUT BABYLON. HA HA HA… YOU HAVE DOUBLE STANDARD. IF IT IS AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH YOU ACCEPT EVEN WITHOUT BEING MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE. BUT IF IT IS FAVORABLE TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH YOU REJECT.
[Although there is no such a place in Rome called Babylon, Rome did serve as a reminder of the Hebrew's persecutions during the Babylonian empire.]
WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT STATE THAT ROME DID SERVE AS A REMINDER OF THE HEBREW’S PERSECUTIONS DURING THE BABYLONIAN EMPIRE? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HA HA HA… NADA, NUNCA, NIENTE, NEVER EVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA…
[So to refer to Rome as Babylon is to an extent, acceptable if you refer to the sorrowful chapter of their history.]
IF I WILL FOLLOW YOUR REASONING THAT IF ST. PETER IS NEVER IN ROME BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE SO ROME IS NOT BABYLON AND NEVER TO BE INTERPRETED AS SUCH UNLESS THE BIBLE STATES THAT ROME IS ACTUALLY THE BABYLON MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE OF REVELATION. WHAT CHAPTER AND VERSE IS THAT? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HA HA HA… NADA, NUNCA, NIENTE, NEVER EVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA…[But it is still not fact. The state of Peter's whereabouts are dubious at best because it is not clearly stated and only presumed.]
IF THAT IS THE CASE TO REFER TO ROME AS BABYLON IS ALSO DUBIOUS AND STUPID ON YOUR PART BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEARLY STATED AND ONLY PRESUMED. IT IS A MERE PRODUCT OF YOUR HALLUCINATIONS. HA HA HA…
[Besides, since many neighboring provinces around the capital is still under "Roman rule" therefore still Rome, it could be that Peter refers to being in Rome even when he was in Jerusalem.]
ONCE AGAIN THIS CLAIM IS DUBIOUS AND STUPID ON YOUR PART BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEARLY STATED AND ONLY PRESUMED. IT IS A MERE PRODUCT OF YOUR HALLUCINATIONS. HA HA HA… CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HA HA HA…
[Since Jerusalem was under Rome.]
THAT IS STUPID. IF PETER WAS IN JERUSALEM IT IS STUPID TO CLAIM BEING IN ROME. HE HE HE… YOUR REASONING IS ILLOGICAL, IMPRACTICAL AND DOWNRIGHT STUPID. HA HA HA…
[These are suppositions, and they are the best we can do because Peter himself did not write definitively.]
PETER DID WRITE DEFINITIVELY. HIS WRITING IS DEFINITIVE ON THEIR OWN WAYS. BUT PETER IS NOT AN IDIOT LIKE YOU WHO SIMPLY RELY ON BIBLE ALONE. PETER KNOWS THAT HIS FOLLOWERS KNOW HIS WHEREABOUTS AND THAT THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE PASSED ON IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITIES. THAT IS WHAT HISTORY IS ALL ABOUT. ONLY IDIOTS WILL BELIEVE THAT HISTORICAL INFORMATION MUST BE FOUND EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE BIBLE. THAT IS THE ROOT OF YOUR IGNORANCE. HA HA HA… YOUR BIBLE ALONE DOGMA MADE YOU THINK ON THE LEVEL OF THE DOGS, BEREFT OF TRUTH.
[But I will concede to the unanimity of your non-biblical references that Rome had Peter killed even though the Bible is silent about it.]
THAT IS A VERY STUPID STATEMENT. ROME DIDN’T KILL PETER BUT THE ROMAN PAGANS DID. PETER WAS KILLED BY THE ORDER OF EMPEROR NERO OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. SO, IT WAS NOT ROME BUT THE ROMAN EMPEROR WHO WAS PAGAN. HA HA HA STUPID. ST. PAUL WROTE TO THE CHRISTIANS OF ROME AND THEY ARE WELL PRAISED. THE CHRISTIANS OF ROME LOVED PETER AND PAUL AND THEY SUFFERED WITH THEM. THESE CHRISTIANS ARE THE ROMAN CATHOLICS: THE CHURCH OF ROME.
[Exactly how or when is just something else left to the wind.]
LEFT TO THE WIND OF YOUR IGNORANCE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO THE CHURCH OF ROME. THAT IS THE EFFECT OF YOUR OWN SELF-INFLICTED STUPIDITY. HA HA HA… BUT THE CHRISTIANS OF ROME KNOW THE PLACE AND DATE AND THE MANNER OF MARTYRDOM OF ST. PETER. NO MORE NO LESS. FOR THAT REASON THEY BUILT A MONUMENT ON THE SPOT WHERE HE DIED AND THEY BUILT A SPECIAL CHURCH ON THE SPOT WHERE HE WAS BURIED. THE SAME THING FOR ST. PAUL.
[The historians themselves can't agree if Peter was hanged, crucified, or beheaded.]
IDIOT. THE HISTORIANS ARE UNANIMOUS THAT ST. PETER DIED BY CRUCIFIXION… CRUCIFIED UPSIDE DOWN BY HIS PERSONAL REQUEST AND WAS MARTYRED ON A VATICAN HILL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER TIBER. HA HA HA…[It just makes the image of Rome all the more unlikely to be that of Peter's ministry.]
IT MAKES ROME THE REAL PLACE OF PETER’S MINISTRY BECAUSE HE PREACHED AND LIVED THERE AS THE FIRST AND THE HIGHEST RANKING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF ROME WITH PAUL WORKING WITH HIM.
[His death yes, but his ministry no.]
HIS DEATH YES AND HIS MINISTRY YES. YES AND YES… HA HA HA… IF HE DIED IN ROME THEN HE PREACHED IN ROME. NO MORE, NO LESS. HE WAS ALSO ARRESTED IN ROME AND THERE IS AN ANCIENT MONUMENT FOR THAT PLACE. THERE IS ALSO HISTORICAL PROOFS WHERE HE WAS IMPRISONED AND WAS BURIED.
[He was brought to Rome to be executed.]
HA HA HA REALLY? SAYS WHO? WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HA HA HA… NADA, NUNCA, NIENTE, NEVER EVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA… WHERE WAS HE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED? WHEN WAS HE ARRESTED? WHY WAS HE ARRESTED? HA HA HA… YOU ARE NOW INVENTING THINGS. YOU ARE IMPOSING ON US YOUR OWN HALLUCINATIONS.
[That is what's common in all your references' accounts.]
THAT IS WHAT IS COMMON FROM THE STUPIDITIES OF ANTI-CATHOLICS.
[Let me list those for you just in case.Writing of Tertullian
Letter of Clement
Letter of Ignatius
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies
Leter of Clement of Alexandria
Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History
Lactantius' The Death of the Persecutors]
THESE ARE ONLY SOME. NICE TRY…[None of these are scriptural... let that be said as well.]
THEY ARE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PEOPLE CLOSER TO THOSE TIME. SO THEY ARE MORE CREDIBLE THAN IDIOTS LIKE YOU WHO ARE SELF-PROCLAIMED HISTORIANS. YOUR CLAIMS ARE NON-SCRIPTURAL TOO. HE HE HE IF YOU THINK THAT YOUR CLAIM IS SCRIPTURAL YOU ARE WALLOWING IN YOUR OWN SELF-DELUSION. HA HA HA..
[None said that Peter taught in Rome. Not one.]
THERE ARE SOLID HISTORICAL EVIDENCES THAT PETER WENT TO ROME, PREACHED THERE, ARRESTED THERE, IMPRISONED THERE AND DIED A MARTYR’S DEATH THEREIN. NO MORE, NO LESS. YOUR “NONE” IS A MERE MANIFESTATION OF YOUR STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE.
[But dare I say they're unanimous in saying Peter was BROUGHT TO ROME TO BE EXECUTED?
I could.]
WHO CARES ABOUT YOU? WHO ARE YOU? YOU ARE JUST A PIECE OF SHIT. YOU DON’T HAVE HISTORICAL COMPETENCE AS REGARDS ST. PETER’S WHEREABOUTS BEFORE AND DURING HIS DEATH.
WHAT WE NEED ARE THE HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS. FROM THEM WE LEARNED THAT PETER WENT TO ROME, PREACHED IN ROME, ARRESTED IN ROME AND WAS EXECUTED IN ROME BY CRUCIFIXION. NO MORE, NO LESS. HA HA HA SORRY FOR YOU.[Paul in his letter to the Romans never mentioned Peter in his greetings.]
WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR HIM TO MENTION PETER IN HIS GREETINGS. HE ALSO DIDN’T MENTION THE OTHER APOSTLES IN HIS LETTER TO THE ROMANS. PAUL WAS NOT WRITING TO PETER BUT TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS AND SO HE MENTIONED THEM RATHER THAN THE APOSTLES.
[Isn't that odd, that a person such as Peter with "primacy" over the other apostles, and was (according to you) establishing his see in Rome, never even got a nod?]
HA HA HA…WHO SAYS THAT IT IS ODD? WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TOLD YOU THAT ST. PETER MUST BE MENTIONED BY ST. PAUL IN HIS LETTER? PAUL ALREADY MENTIONED PETER IN HIS LETTER TO THE GALATIANS AND IN HIS ADDRESSES IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. SO, WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TOLD YOU THAT BEING MENTIONED IN THAT LETTER IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER? HA HA HA
EXCUSE ME. ST. PETER HAS THE PRIMACY WHETHER PAUL MENTIONED HIM OR NOT IN HIS LETTER. BECAUSE JESUS MENTIONED PETER SO MANY TIMES IN THE GOSPEL WHILE PAUL WAS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL BY THE LORD JESUS IN THE GOSPEL ACCOUNT. PETER ALREADY GOT SO MANY ‘MENTIONING’ OF HIS NAME FROM THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF. AFTER JESUS, ST. PETER IS THE MOST MENTIONED PERSON IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. PETER DOES NOT NEED THE NOD OF PAUL, BUT PAUL NEEDED THE NOD OF ST. PETER.
[Ni ha ni ho wala?]
SO WHAT? THE LETTER WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO PETER AND IF PAUL DIDN’T MENTION PETER SO WHAT? PETER IS ALREADY WELL MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. HA HA HA… WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? WHO SAYS THAT PETER MUST BE MENTIONED BY PAUL IN THAT LETTER?
[Think about it.]
WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND WE FOUND YOU STUPID AND PATHETIC. HA HA HA… THE PRIMACY OF ST. PETER DEPENDS ON THE LORD JESUS AND NOT ON THE LETTER OF PAUL. HA HA HA SORRY FOR YOU.
[Para kang sumulat sa Know the Truth program at binati mo ang lahat ng kaugnay sa programa maliban kay Arganiosa. Think about it really well.]
HA HA HA… THAT IS VERY STUPID. WHO IS THE DEVIL WHO TOLD YOU THAT PAUL GREETED ALL THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROGRAM IN ROME? HA HA HA… PAUL GREETED THE SIMPLE FOLKS AND HE NEVER CLAIMED IN THAT LETTER THAT HE MENTIONED ALL THE HIGH RANKING LEADERS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME THEN. DID HE? WHERE? CHAPTER AND VERSE PLEASE. HA HA HA… NADA, NUNCA, NIENTE, NEVER EVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA… ISEP-ISEP, GAMITIN ANG UTAK PARA HINDI KA TATANGA-TANGA. HA HA HA… SAAN SINABI NI PAUL NA BABANGGITIN NIA LAHAT NG MATATAAS NA OPISYALES NG CHURCH OF ROME SA SULAT NIA? SAAN? WALA… NADA, NUNCA, NIENTE, NEVER EVER. IN RUSSIAN: NYET, NYET. HA HA HA…
KAYA KAHIT HINDI MABANGGIT SI ST. PETER AY OK LANG. HINDI NAMAN IYON SULAT PARA SA PINAKAMATAAS NA PINUNO KUNDI SULAT PARA SA MGA SIMPLENG MIEMBRO NG CHURCH OF ROME. HA HA HA…[I don't claim to be an expert in anything, but I do analyze and study things before I say them.]
SO, WE ARE GLAD TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ANALYZE AND STUDY THINGS. HOWEVER WE ARE PERPLEXED THAT DESPITE SUCH EFFORTS YOU ARE STILL VERY STUPID AND PLAIN IDIOT. YOU SHOULD STUDY AGAIN. WHERE DID YOU STUDY? YOUR REASONING IS STILL GARBAGE. I SUGGEST YOU STUDY CHURCH HISTORY IN THE BEST CATHOLIC SCHOOLS. YOU WILL LEARN A LOT.
[I don't merely copy and paste things like many of your fellow Catholics here, who do not even read half of what they post.]
HA HA HA DO NOT POINT TO US YOUR OWN STUPIDITIES. HA HA HA… YOU ARE ALREADY SELF-PRAISING HERE. HA HA HA… IT’S PATHETIC AND PREPOSTEROUS. HA HA HA…
[But to you I say, you at least made a thoughtful defense for the Catholic position. But it still falls short of convincing facts.]
YOU DON’T HAVE CONVINCING FACTS AND YOU DON’T HAVE BIBLICAL FACTS. THAT IS SO POOR OF YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE ‘BIBLE ALONE’ IDIOT. BIBLE ALONE IDIOTS LIKE YOU ARE USELESS AND IMPOTENT ONCE YOU CAN NO LONGER QUOTE THE BIBLE. HA HA HA…[We may agree on one thing. Peter was executed in Rome.]
REALLY? HOW NICE OF YOU. HA HA HA… DO YOU WANT PRAISE FOR THAT? HERE: CLAP, CLAP, CLAP…. HA HA HA DO YOU WANT SOME MORE? HERE: CLAP CLAP CLAP… HA HA HA…
[But him having a ministry in Rome, and having primacy over the other apostles is something that even the Bible itself is silent about.]
HA HA HA… THE PRIMACY OF PETER IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN THE BIBLE. THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF MADE HIM SUCH. HIS MINISTRY IN ROME IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS.[So to say that the readers here "proving my ignorance" is nothing but hubris on your part.]
YOU ARE FULL OF HUBRIS. YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITIES ARE WELL ESTABLISHED HERE. HA HA HA… EVERY SINGLE DAY YOU ARE MERELY PROVING THE SHALLOWNESS OF YOUR MIND MR. JESSICA SANCHEZ.
[Puh-lease! They just made the Catholic position on the matter more UNBIBLICAL.]
HA HA HA OUR POSITION IS MORE AND MORE BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL WHILE YOUR CLAIMS ARE PURE HOGWASH AND DELUSIONAL. HA HA HA SORRY FOR YOU.
