Still using Exchange 5.5 and all applicable post-SP4 hotfixes. Seriously reading up on http://www.sun.com/software/javaenterprisesystem/i ndex.xml and maintaining all Outlook functionality. 15MB email size limit. Spam filtering on an IIS smtpsvc gateway (before and on arrival points) keeps the crap away from Exchange via configurable DNSBL's, HELO format, MX or A record check, SPF1 lookups, Greylisting, tarpitting, regex black/whitelists, content and attachment filtering: .*\.(ade|adp|ani|app|asp|asx|bas|bat|bin|chm|clp|c md|com|cpl|crt|csh|dll|emf|exe|fxp|hhp|hiv|hlp|hta |htb|if|inf|ins|isp|its|job|js|jse|jtd|ksh|lnk|mad |maf|mag|mam|maq|mar|mas|mat|mau|mav|maw|mda|mde|m dt|mdw|mdz|mht|msc|msi|msp|mst|nws|ocx|oft|ops|ovl |pcd|pif|pl|plx|prf|prg|reg|scf|scr|sct|sh|shb|shs |swf|sys|tmp|url|vb|vbe|vbs|vsmacros|vss|vst|vsw|v xd|wmf|wmz|ws|wsc|wsf|wsh|xsl)$
All of these are replaced with custom text message. Media file types are huge and not work related. I also tell my co-workers to use YouSendIt, Dropload, Filefactory, Mailbigfile, etc, so the personal stuff is stored elsewhere.
Why do politicians who support minimum wage laws and all sorts of legislation for protecting U.S. employees nonetheless have no problems when the companies thumb their noses and hire employees with none of these protections? Is it because the politicians are creating reasons for the companies to do so and also spinning the same legislation as "for the people" at home who are merely necessary to win elections and prevent uprisings?
I can't explain it in a few sentences because most people still won't grok it.
Avoid this eniffable delemma and the non-groking-invincible-ignorance of most people and provide a link to your job description, or of a related field, or a paper that you wrote or one that is about this subcategory of physics you research and specialize in.
Funny, but bad anology (sex to computers) because the problem is on the OS level--almost exclusively Microsoft Windows. But "Don't use Windows..." isn't as funny:)
I believe in a Hell that includes mental and physical pain experienced by the occupants forever.
and all things work for the best for those who are called to his purpose
I think you're using the end of Romans 8, part of the "Golden Chain" of the doctrine of Predestination/Providential Election. I believe God chose to save a great multitude from *everyone* who deserves eternal mental/physcial pain in Hell. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 (and the first part of 2) are the clearest chapters on this. It is a tough doctrine, very unpopular in the last century of American baptistic-dedication church "members." But you probably believe Pauline doctrine is unique or wrong like you blew off parts of John.
I understand how someone with no time, no changing mind state, and no memories can be considered of no service (nor of any other use for that matter), but how can a place of experientially everlasting time-based consciousness and attendent memories of current and past and real relentless *excruciating* pain either be a place you'd rather be in or a place you could be consoled by the (delusional) belief that it was done as a service to God?
As I said, it was extremely obvious that I was referring to locations as opposed to some locationless mind state which conveniently exists outside of time. And your phrase "merge with God"...I thought that was only used in New Age and other false religions. A Hell where the mind is frozen "forever" outside of time with no "new memories" is no Hell at all.
I haven't read The Great Divorce; I don't know which point or question of mine may also be in that book.
Saying Christ descended into Hell is a horrible English translation. He descended into Hades--they abode of the dead where the rich man was across the chasm from Lazarus (which I believe is the only so-called "parable" with a name)--not Gehenna/Hell.
When I asked the question: "Or is your Hell simply another name for Purgatory and so it's not true that Purgatory always leads to Heaven?" you had to know I was using the terms to refer to two distinct locations and you therefore answered "Purgatory always leads to Heaven which is eternity with God. Hell is eternity *without* God."
But now you're saying "if you come to grips with the letting go, it [Hell] WAS only Purgatory. It's only those who can't let go of their certainty and their arrogance in sin that it becomes Hell."
What happened to having to make the decision either before or at "the moment of death" which determines the destination of either going to the place of Purgatory/Heaven or to the place of eternal Hell? Now a moment can last almost an eternity? I'm a going to get the lame excuse that "the moment of death" exists outside of time and can thus extend almost an eternity past the point of death?
> But unless one *also* learns to let go, to give it away- purgatory will be quite the gut-wrenching experience because one will be forced to give it *all* away at that point.
If Purgatory merely requires the pre-consent of the will to be "with God and others" then won't there be those going to Pergatory and those going to Hell that will both experience gut-wrenching? Neither of them can still have such-and-such sentimental "treasures," pets, etc. Those in Pergatory could easily believe they will be reuinited with such-and-such and if true, then "forced to give it *all* away" won't be true for ever. Only those in Hell would be able to come to grips with that. Why then could some of those in Hell not become ready for Pergatory?
This decision to be with God which we can make before or when we die in order to avoid an enternity in Hell...what exactly is the decision? Decide to believe what? Some vague notion of being alone in Hell from friends/family and not wanting to go there? Does it entail a minimum belief in a God as opposed to gods, or the non-Trinitarian Allah/God, the Trinitarian God, Trinity + understanding deity of Jesus, the Catholic Chursh, the Pope, and what about Mary? Does it entail belief in anything about the death and resurection of Jesus?
Jesus never left Judaism? What do you do with all the Gospel passages such as the Sermon on the Mount (you have heard...but I say unto you...), or the Great Commission that requires baptism and doesn't mention circumcision, the passages indicating his body was the new temple which people would worship in spirit and truth instead of this or that mountain, that he was given for the whole world as opposed to only the seed of Abraham--many of the religious leaders of which he called seed of Satan, saying their father was the Devil? And you don't think he knew/taught that Communion was the final culminiation of Passover and similar OT festivals/celebrations, that his sacrifice would be sufficient so as to put an end to animal sacrifices formerly performed year after year, that by his active obedience to God's Law and his substitutiary death/atonement/resurrection that he was *ultimately* fulfilling the requirements of the law, transforming/completing/finalizing once and for all time all the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects?
Do we decide the moment we die if we will go to Purgatory, which you say always leads to Heaven eventually, or decide not to convert and so go to Hell instead? Or is your Hell simply another name for Purgatory and so it's not true that Purgatory always leads to Heaven? How does your view reconcile with the eternal lake of fire and the "weeping and knashing of teeth" in Hell?
So are you saying that Catcholic Priests are available "to help" us perform the Sacrements, or is their personal presence, participation, and officiating necessary and essential? Can an ordained Christian pastor/elder/bishop/overseer/shepherd pray for the elements, lift them over his head, and pray for God's grace and blessing? Are Catholic Priests required for Transubstantiation?
The practice of the Christian Church in Jerusalem wasn't syncretizing with or getting back to the distinctions of Judaism. Sure, they had maturity issues, but generally not as bad as those which Paul rebuked in I Corinthians or the first chapter of Galatians. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So long as the Gospel is not compromised, cut your hair, do/don't eat this or that, wear head coverings, get circumcised, go to religious festivals, etc, just don't fornicate or break the 10 Commandments in the process. The Jerusalem Christians were transforming/reforming OT worship and avoiding man-made add-ons that were anti-Biblical. Non-biblical was alright; the regulative priciple of worship can be implemented generationally.
I wouldn't believe most of what you do if I were experientially suprised by the existence of Purgatory and then sat there under the punishme...uh...tutelege...of Catholics for days, decades, or centuries.
Are you saying salvific grace and/or spiritual food is only attained through experiencing "the Purgatory of Christ" but perhaps more quickly via Priest-officiated Sacraments?
I'm not the one who tried to link non-Papal Christianity to the Church in Jerusalem.
I do link the Christian church in Jerusalem to non-Papal Christianity; why your mention of Judaism?
Which part, if any, of the whole story that "those people are NOT hearing" could prevent them from currently being regenerate Christians going to Heaven upon death (rather than Hades/Purgatory/Hell)?
Can a non-RC/EO church (eg, with no Catholic Priest) host/officiate/legitimately practice/experience/receive grace from/etc the Sacrament of Communion?
Is righteousness legally and definitevely imputed/declared or rather progressively imparted/infused through Priest-officiated Sacraments?
How those of us that reject the office of Pope and are members of the Body of Christ through membership in a local Christian Church (Trinitarian, upholds imputation of sins to Jesus who died for us and now reigns as Lord, etc.) with the office of Elder/Bishop/Overseer/Pastor/Shepherd and of Deacons (both offices as given to the church in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1) whom administer the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion (bread & wine preferably every Lord's Day) and practice necessary church discipline (keys of the Kingdom), etc., and hear the preaching of the whole of God's Word and especially the NT (and especially Peter's epistles and Paul's Books of Romans and Galatians) can still be considered a sect or cult of Judaism or of some such "Pre-Pope Peter Christianity" by someone, that someone is both wrong and hellbound.
Oh? Then I won't refer to the Protestant Reformation era...
Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) obeyed James (Acts 15: 13-22) deferred to James (Acts 21:18) and feared James (Galatians 2:12).
There were 5 Sees/Synods in the early church: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome--each with a Patriarch/Pope/Pastor/Bishop.
St. Augustine (The Names of Christ) : "I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the Rock; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church, must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be the Son of the Living God. Peter so named after this Rock represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, thou art Petra, but thou art Petros, and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter."
Josephus (37 - 100) : "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Clement, bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215) : "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."
Hegesippus (100 - 160): "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James..."
Origen (185 - 254) quoting Josephus : "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Eusebius (263 - 339) (Historia Ecclesia ii, 23.4) : "...turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."
According to St. Ingatius (Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Ch. 4. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I) Peter wasn't even in the list of Rome's first bishops : Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Ignatius (Telephorus), Huginus, Pius, Anicetus, Sorer, and Eleutherius.
The whole papal election process has been an embarassing flop with Popes adding former Popes to the growing list of Antipopes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
On the Trinity, have you ever discussed it with a Oneness Pentecostal?
Yes. The Catholic notion of "invincible ignorance" came to mind when they wouldn't even address, let alone rebut, most of my reasoning and rhetorical questions. But the applicability of that notion exists within both camps.
...thus Protestants following these other traditions are just as unbiblical as the Pope.
It's a conditional following, i.e. following in every area/claim/summary/statement/proposition that comports with the 66 inspired/infallible/inerrant books. They aren't authoritative, but they certainly aid in summarizing/systematizing what was and usually is important polemically. A Catholic may claim that our sole authority is old and dead, but I say "the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword...", etc.
I find it hard to believe the early Catholic church picked Peter as the start for papal sucession. Jesus called him a mere pebble and said he would build the church on the rock (Jesus is the connerstone). Peter was publicly rebuked by both Jesus and Paul. He was the Apostle to the Jews while Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles including Rome: "I am under obligation both to Greeks and to non-Greeks, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome."
Slashdot Mirror
If you go to http://www.supermicro.com/ and enter opteron in the Search box, there appears to be several Opteron non-Aplus servers:
2 SUPERMICRO, INC. - PRODUCTS | CHASSIS | 1U | SC813T+-500
3 SUPERMICRO, INC. - PRODUCTS | CHASSIS | 1U | SC813S+-500
4 SUPERMICRO, INC. - PRODUCTS | CHASSIS | 1U | SC813I+-500
5 SUPERMICRO, INC. - PRODUCTS | CHASSIS | 1U | SC812S-420C
The third: http://www.trinity.edu/rjensen/NHcottage/BathroomC omputer.jpg
Still using Exchange 5.5 and all applicable post-SP4 hotfixes. Seriously reading up on http://www.sun.com/software/javaenterprisesystem/i ndex.xml and maintaining all Outlook functionality. 15MB email size limit. Spam filtering on an IIS smtpsvc gateway (before and on arrival points) keeps the crap away from Exchange via configurable DNSBL's, HELO format, MX or A record check, SPF1 lookups, Greylisting, tarpitting, regex black/whitelists, content and attachment filtering:
.*\.(ade|adp|ani|app|asp|asx|bas|bat|bin|chm|clp|c md|com|cpl|crt|csh|dll|emf|exe|fxp|hhp|hiv|hlp|hta |htb|if|inf|ins|isp|its|job|js|jse|jtd|ksh|lnk|mad |maf|mag|mam|maq|mar|mas|mat|mau|mav|maw|mda|mde|m dt|mdw|mdz|mht|msc|msi|msp|mst|nws|ocx|oft|ops|ovl |pcd|pif|pl|plx|prf|prg|reg|scf|scr|sct|sh|shb|shs |swf|sys|tmp|url|vb|vbe|vbs|vsmacros|vss|vst|vsw|v xd|wmf|wmz|ws|wsc|wsf|wsh|xsl)$
All of these are replaced with custom text message. Media file types are huge and not work related.
I also tell my co-workers to use YouSendIt, Dropload, Filefactory, Mailbigfile, etc, so the personal stuff is stored elsewhere.
Why do politicians who support minimum wage laws and all sorts of legislation for protecting U.S. employees nonetheless have no problems when the companies thumb their noses and hire employees with none of these protections? Is it because the politicians are creating reasons for the companies to do so and also spinning the same legislation as "for the people" at home who are merely necessary to win elections and prevent uprisings?
MHTML Firefox extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=212&application=firefox
I can't explain it in a few sentences because most people still won't grok it.
Avoid this eniffable delemma and the non-groking-invincible-ignorance of most people and provide a link to your job description, or of a related field, or a paper that you wrote or one that is about this subcategory of physics you research and specialize in.
Funny, but bad anology (sex to computers) because the problem is on the OS level--almost exclusively Microsoft Windows. But "Don't use Windows..." isn't as funny:)
Please post/email the best beginning/intermediate Java books/links.
The employer is eROI, Inc.: http://portland.craigslist.org/sad/126471389.html
Would the license affect ZFS so that Linux and DragonFly BSD couldn't use it?
You may like enjoy critiqing N.T. Wright:5 02175-9059832
_ volume_2/wright.htm
"What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802844456/103-8
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections
I believe in a Hell that includes mental and physical pain experienced by the occupants forever.
and all things work for the best for those who are called to his purpose
I think you're using the end of Romans 8, part of the "Golden Chain" of the doctrine of Predestination/Providential Election. I believe God chose to save a great multitude from *everyone* who deserves eternal mental/physcial pain in Hell. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 (and the first part of 2) are the clearest chapters on this. It is a tough doctrine, very unpopular in the last century of American baptistic-dedication church "members." But you probably believe Pauline doctrine is unique or wrong like you blew off parts of John.
I understand how someone with no time, no changing mind state, and no memories can be considered of no service (nor of any other use for that matter), but how can a place of experientially everlasting time-based consciousness and attendent memories of current and past and real relentless *excruciating* pain either be a place you'd rather be in or a place you could be consoled by the (delusional) belief that it was done as a service to God?
As I said, it was extremely obvious that I was referring to locations as opposed to some locationless mind state which conveniently exists outside of time. And your phrase "merge with God"...I thought that was only used in New Age and other false religions. A Hell where the mind is frozen "forever" outside of time with no "new memories" is no Hell at all.
I haven't read The Great Divorce; I don't know which point or question of mine may also be in that book. Saying Christ descended into Hell is a horrible English translation. He descended into Hades--they abode of the dead where the rich man was across the chasm from Lazarus (which I believe is the only so-called "parable" with a name)--not Gehenna/Hell.
When I asked the question: "Or is your Hell simply another name for Purgatory and so it's not true that Purgatory always leads to Heaven?" you had to know I was using the terms to refer to two distinct locations and you therefore answered "Purgatory always leads to Heaven which is eternity with God. Hell is eternity *without* God."
But now you're saying "if you come to grips with the letting go, it [Hell] WAS only Purgatory. It's only those who can't let go of their certainty and their arrogance in sin that it becomes Hell."
What happened to having to make the decision either before or at "the moment of death" which determines the destination of either going to the place of Purgatory/Heaven or to the place of eternal Hell? Now a moment can last almost an eternity? I'm a going to get the lame excuse that "the moment of death" exists outside of time and can thus extend almost an eternity past the point of death?
> But unless one *also* learns to let go, to give it away- purgatory will be quite the gut-wrenching experience because one will be forced to give it *all* away at that point.
If Purgatory merely requires the pre-consent of the will to be "with God and others" then won't there be those going to Pergatory and those going to Hell that will both experience gut-wrenching? Neither of them can still have such-and-such sentimental "treasures," pets, etc. Those in Pergatory could easily believe they will be reuinited with such-and-such and if true, then "forced to give it *all* away" won't be true for ever. Only those in Hell would be able to come to grips with that. Why then could some of those in Hell not become ready for Pergatory?
Doesn't this reduce the Gospel to merely "when you die, choose to be with us and God" ?
Tom: "Choose to let God do whatever God wants to do to you and with you."
Mike: "And if I don't?"
Tom: "God will choose to honor the choice you make when you die and never offer it to you again."
Mike: "How so?"
Tom: "God made Hell and will put you there forever, and never return for you."
Mike: "Oh? This could be good. What is Hell like, besides God not being there?"
Tom: "We don't know with any certainty, but God won't be there."
Mike: "Who will be in Hell?"
Tom: "Those who chose to not be with God at the time of death."
Mike: "So can I be with them?"
Tom: "We don't know with any certainty; you may be alone."
Mike: "What will I be able to do if alone?"
Tom: "We don't know with any certainty; but we do know that you will exist."
Mike: "Uh, exist in torment or torture, hellfire, brimstone, weeping'n nash'n teeth?"
Tom: "No, those are poetic descriptions."
Mike: "Sweet. So they are totally baseless, right?"
Tom: "We don't know with any certainty. You may experience torment in your soul or spirit."
Mike: "You mean I will wish I chose God, but God won't accept?"
Tom: "The gift is only offered until you die."
Mike: "But you can't tell me for certain about the offer now?"
Tom: "We presently know God will present the present--the gift offer--when you die."
Mike: "Can you tell me anything else with certainty?"
Tom: "Cetainly. God and I hope you choose to be with God."
This decision to be with God which we can make before or when we die in order to avoid an enternity in Hell...what exactly is the decision? Decide to believe what? Some vague notion of being alone in Hell from friends/family and not wanting to go there? Does it entail a minimum belief in a God as opposed to gods, or the non-Trinitarian Allah/God, the Trinitarian God, Trinity + understanding deity of Jesus, the Catholic Chursh, the Pope, and what about Mary? Does it entail belief in anything about the death and resurection of Jesus?
I *think* you meant http://www.adiumx.com/ (for Mac OS X).
The site www.adium.com is about "financial, management, consulting and investment services"
Jesus never left Judaism? What do you do with all the Gospel passages such as the Sermon on the Mount (you have heard...but I say unto you...), or the Great Commission that requires baptism and doesn't mention circumcision, the passages indicating his body was the new temple which people would worship in spirit and truth instead of this or that mountain, that he was given for the whole world as opposed to only the seed of Abraham--many of the religious leaders of which he called seed of Satan, saying their father was the Devil? And you don't think he knew/taught that Communion was the final culminiation of Passover and similar OT festivals/celebrations, that his sacrifice would be sufficient so as to put an end to animal sacrifices formerly performed year after year, that by his active obedience to God's Law and his substitutiary death/atonement/resurrection that he was *ultimately* fulfilling the requirements of the law, transforming/completing/finalizing once and for all time all the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects?
Do we decide the moment we die if we will go to Purgatory, which you say always leads to Heaven eventually, or decide not to convert and so go to Hell instead? Or is your Hell simply another name for Purgatory and so it's not true that Purgatory always leads to Heaven? How does your view reconcile with the eternal lake of fire and the "weeping and knashing of teeth" in Hell?
So are you saying that Catcholic Priests are available "to help" us perform the Sacrements, or is their personal presence, participation, and officiating necessary and essential? Can an ordained Christian pastor/elder/bishop/overseer/shepherd pray for the elements, lift them over his head, and pray for God's grace and blessing? Are Catholic Priests required for Transubstantiation?
The practice of the Christian Church in Jerusalem wasn't syncretizing with or getting back to the distinctions of Judaism. Sure, they had maturity issues, but generally not as bad as those which Paul rebuked in I Corinthians or the first chapter of Galatians. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. So long as the Gospel is not compromised, cut your hair, do/don't eat this or that, wear head coverings, get circumcised, go to religious festivals, etc, just don't fornicate or break the 10 Commandments in the process. The Jerusalem Christians were transforming/reforming OT worship and avoiding man-made add-ons that were anti-Biblical. Non-biblical was alright; the regulative priciple of worship can be implemented generationally.
I wouldn't believe most of what you do if I were experientially suprised by the existence of Purgatory and then sat there under the punishme...uh...tutelege...of Catholics for days, decades, or centuries.
Are you saying salvific grace and/or spiritual food is only attained through experiencing "the Purgatory of Christ" but perhaps more quickly via Priest-officiated Sacraments?
I'm not the one who tried to link non-Papal Christianity to the Church in Jerusalem.
I do link the Christian church in Jerusalem to non-Papal Christianity; why your mention of Judaism?
Which part, if any, of the whole story that "those people are NOT hearing" could prevent them from currently being regenerate Christians going to Heaven upon death (rather than Hades/Purgatory/Hell)?
Can a non-RC/EO church (eg, with no Catholic Priest) host/officiate/legitimately practice/experience/receive grace from/etc the Sacrament of Communion?
Is righteousness legally and definitevely imputed/declared or rather progressively imparted/infused through Priest-officiated Sacraments?
How those of us that reject the office of Pope and are members of the Body of Christ through membership in a local Christian Church (Trinitarian, upholds imputation of sins to Jesus who died for us and now reigns as Lord, etc.) with the office of Elder/Bishop/Overseer/Pastor/Shepherd and of Deacons (both offices as given to the church in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1) whom administer the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion (bread & wine preferably every Lord's Day) and practice necessary church discipline (keys of the Kingdom), etc., and hear the preaching of the whole of God's Word and especially the NT (and especially Peter's epistles and Paul's Books of Romans and Galatians) can still be considered a sect or cult of Judaism or of some such "Pre-Pope Peter Christianity" by someone, that someone is both wrong and hellbound.
Oh? Then I won't refer to the Protestant Reformation era...
Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) obeyed James (Acts 15: 13-22) deferred to James (Acts 21:18) and feared James (Galatians 2:12).
There were 5 Sees/Synods in the early church: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome--each with a Patriarch/Pope/Pastor/Bishop.
St. Augustine (The Names of Christ) : "I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the Rock; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church, must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be the Son of the Living God. Peter so named after this Rock represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, thou art Petra, but thou art Petros, and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter."
Josephus (37 - 100) : "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Clement, bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215) : "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."
Hegesippus (100 - 160): "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James..."
Origen (185 - 254) quoting Josephus : "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Eusebius (263 - 339) (Historia Ecclesia ii, 23.4) : "...turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."
According to St. Ingatius (Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Ch. 4. Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I) Peter wasn't even in the list of Rome's first bishops : Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Ignatius (Telephorus), Huginus, Pius, Anicetus, Sorer, and Eleutherius.
See "2. Actual origins of the papacy" http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/OP/OP.htm and the corruption by papal Rome of the Sixth Nicene Canon in an attempt to extend its authority: http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/6c.htm
The whole papal election process has been an embarassing flop with Popes adding former Popes to the growing list of Antipopes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
On the Trinity, have you ever discussed it with a Oneness Pentecostal?
...thus Protestants following these other traditions are just as unbiblical as the Pope.
Yes. The Catholic notion of "invincible ignorance" came to mind when they wouldn't even address, let alone rebut, most of my reasoning and rhetorical questions. But the applicability of that notion exists within both camps.
It's a conditional following, i.e. following in every area/claim/summary/statement/proposition that comports with the 66 inspired/infallible/inerrant books. They aren't authoritative, but they certainly aid in summarizing/systematizing what was and usually is important polemically. A Catholic may claim that our sole authority is old and dead, but I say "the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword...", etc.
I find it hard to believe the early Catholic church picked Peter as the start for papal sucession. Jesus called him a mere pebble and said he would build the church on the rock (Jesus is the connerstone). Peter was publicly rebuked by both Jesus and Paul. He was the Apostle to the Jews while Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles including Rome: "I am under obligation both to Greeks and to non-Greeks, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome."