[Hindsite]

By whom?

By many Bible Scholars.
when the Babylonians fell to the Persians and the Jews were permitted to return, only a small number did. Of what was probably a million Jews living in the Persian Empire, only 42,000 went back, meaning that the vast majority stayed in Babylon under Persia domination.

During the Second Temple period, up until its destruction in 70 CE, the Jewish community in Babylon—far from the eye of the storm that raged in the Land of Israel—continued to flourish.

Indeed, this is where the center of Jewish rabbinic authority came to rest after the Roman Empire shut down the Sanhedrin in 363 CE.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/article ... f_babylon/

The "Chronicle of Eusebius" is lost; but in Jerome's translation of it we find in three successive years the three entries:

that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years;

that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria;

and

that Evodrius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.

The Bodleian Codex, and just about every other surviving manuscript, gives this last year as the fourth year of Claudius's reign (44 AD), The only exceptions being the Codex Freherianus (Claudius III) and the Armenian translation (Claudius II).


A Pope does not bequeath his seat; popes are elected.

Perhaps you are thinking of Pope Symmachus (498–514), who instituted a practice of popes naming their own successors during the First Schism, which held until an unpopular choice was made in 530.

Even so, they still went through the motions of calling an election.


Traditionally there have been three ways a new pope could be elected: election by acclamation quasi ex inspiratione, election per compromissum, and election by secret ballot.


The cited Catholic quotes show Peter labouring 25 years in Rome.

This old comment has no color of truth in its favor; nor do I see why it was approved by Eusebius and others, except that they were already led astray by that error, that Peter had been at Rome. Besides, they are inconsistent with themselves. They say that Mark died at Alexandria, in the eighth year of Nero; but they imagine that Peter, six years after this, was put to death at Rome by Nero.

If Mark formed, as they say, the Alexandrian Church, and had been long a bishop there, he could never have been at Rome with Peter. For Eusebius and Jerome extend the time of Peter’s presidency at Rome to twenty-five years; but this may be easily disproved by what is said in the first and the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. Since, then, Peter had Mark as his companion when he wrote this Epistle, it is very probable that he was at Babylon: and this was in accordance with his calling; for we know that he was appointed an apostle especially to the Jews. He therefore visited chiefly those parts where there was the greatest number of that nation. In saying that the Church there was a partaker of the same election, his object was to confirm others more and more in the faith; for it was a great matter that the Jews were gathered into the Church, in so remote a part of the world.”
Calvin’s Commentary on 1st Peter 5:13.

Babylon=Rome? Some other Opinions on 1 Peter 5:13

"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son."

This is the most popular proof text used by Roman Catholics to establish that the apostle Peter was writing from his residence at Rome. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome…"Catholic Answers states, “Babylon is a code-word for Rome." Well, is there a Biblical basis for this interpretation? Is there an infallible “Tradition” that supplies this information about Peter’s use of “code words”? Below are some voices not normally heard by Roman Catholics.

What place is meant here by Babylon?

Peter is probably alluding to the Babylon on the Euphrates, a part of that Eastern world where he lived and did his work, rather than Rome (with Babylon being utilized as a cryptic word). Evidence for this position includes the following:

(1) There is no evidence that Rome was ever called Babylon until after the writing of the Book of Revelation in a.d. 90–96, many years after Peter’s death.

(2) Peter’s method and manner of writing are not apocalyptic. On the contrary, Peter is a man plain of speech, almost blunt, who would not interject such a mystical allusion into his personal explanations and final salutation.

(3) Babylon is no more cryptic than Pontus, Asia, or the other places mentioned when Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
(1 Peter 1:1)

(4) Babylon, no longer a great world capital in the time of Peter, was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews, many of whom Peter befriended and won to Christ.

(5) A study of the chronology of Peter’s travels argues for Babylon to be the Babylon on the Euphrates.

"The apostles, when they sent an epistle to the churches, and mentioned a place as the one where the Epistle was written, were accustomed to mention the real place… It would be hardly consistent with the dignity of an apostle, or any grave writer, to make use of what would be regarded as a nickname, when suggesting the name of a place where he then was.

If Rome had been meant, it would have been hardly respectful to the church there which sent the salutation - “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you” - to have given it this name. Peter mentions the church with respect and kindness; and yet it would have been scarcely regarded as kind to mention it as a “Church in Babylon,” if he used the term Babylon, as he must have done on such a supposition, to denote a place of eminent depravity. The testimony of the Fathers on this subject does not demonstrate that Rome was the place intended. They do not give this as historical testimony, but as their own interpretation; and, from anything that appears, we are as well qualified to interpret the word as they were.” [Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible, introductory comments on 1 Peter]

The Romish communion, say Babylon is to be taken figuratively for Rome, according to what was done by John in Revelation 17 and 18: What renders this opinion very improbable is, that to date an epistle at a place to which a figurative name is given, is without another instance in Scripture, and the thing itself seems quite absurd. The language of prophecy is quite a different matter. Paul wrote several of his epistles at Rome, and in no instance did he do anything of this kind. Such an opinion would have never gained ground, had there not been from early times a foolish attempt to connect Peter with Rome.

It is true that some ancient ecclesiastical writers have ascribed to the word Babylon a mystical meaning; for though the Greek and Latin fathers commonly understood Rome, yet the Syriac and Arabic writers understood it literally, as denoting a town in the east; and if we are to be guided by opinion, an oriental writer is surely as good authority, on the present question, as a European.

How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, Re 17:5), should be used! 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, Ac 2:9, Jewish "Parthians . . . dwellers in Mesopotamia.

Peter closes with salutations and a solemn benediction (1 Peter 5:13). Observe, Peter, being at Babylon in Assyria, when he wrote this epistle (whither he traveled, as the apostle of the circumcision, to visit that church, which was the chief of the dispersion), sends the salutation of that church to the other churches to whom he wrote, telling them that God had elected or chosen the Christians at Babylon out of the world, to be his church, and to partake of eternal salvation through Christ Jesus, together with them and all other faithful Christians (1 Peter 1:2). In this salutation he particularly joins Mark the evangelist, who was then with him, and who was his son in a spiritual sense, being begotten by him to Christianity.

that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria; and that Evodrius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.

A Pope does not bequeath his seat; popes are elected.

The claim is that the apostle Peter was a bishop of Rome for 25 years, then were is your source for the time that Peter was elected Pope?

This is what the apostle Paul writes:
Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.
(Ephesians 4:11-12 New Living Translation)

Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
(Philippians 1:1 KJV)

There seems to be many bishops at Philippi. What do you make of that? I think that the bishops and deacons are not as important as the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers to equip God's people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ.

It seems that the lying Roman Catholic Church has elevated the lowly bishops and cardinals (a made up postion) to high position above those positions designated by Christ, because they believe they have the right to change everything to please themselves.

Bullcrap!



Bullcrap!

So everything you don't like is Bullcrap?

Christ accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles, when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias, He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus was then dwelling with His Apostles in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi, engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ's coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias, many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles, Jesus asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man is?" The Apostles answered: "Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". Jesus said to them: "But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God". And Jesus answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21).

By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ. This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles and in the Christian community was the basis for the Kingdom of God on earth, that is, the Church of Christ. Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles by Christ Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy of the Roman Church and its bishops.

Well, I already presented the Protestant Christian belief on this topic. The Roman Catholic belief does not make much sense to me. By the way cephas means rock in Aramaic and Petros and Petra both mean rock in Greek. The Greek is more specific in it's language than the other languages. Perhaps that is why God decided that the New Testament would be written in Greek. Praise the Lord. HalleluYah

[ingliz]

By many Bible Scholars.

Name them.

"Babylon," from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is understood by learned annotators, Protestant and Catholic, to refer to Rome - the word Babylon being symbolic of the corruption then prevailing in the city of the Caesars.

from his residence at Rome

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, citing at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that "Peter came to Rome and died there" and that "Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy."

There is no evidence that Rome was ever called Babylon until after the writing of the Book of Revelation in a.d. 90–96, many years after Peter’s death.

We know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (Rev. 11:8), and it is called Babylon multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:215), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:67.7), and 2 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle Bk.2:15, noted that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Babylon, was composed at Rome itself.

Peter’s method and manner of writing are not apocalyptic. On the contrary, Peter is a man plain of speech, almost blunt, who would not interject such a mystical allusion into his personal explanations and final salutation.

Supposition.

Babylon is no more cryptic than Pontus, Asia, or the other places mentioned when Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
(1 Peter 1:1)

In that verse, Peter, a wanted man, does not disclose his location.

NB. Every apostle was martyred, save John.

James the son of Zebedee was executed by Herod.

Peter and Paul were both martyred in Rome.

Andrew was crucified in Greece.

"Doubting" Thomas died in India pierced by spears.

Philip was cruelly put to death in Asia Minor.

Matthew was stabbed to death in Ethiopia.

Bartholomew met his death as a martyr in Southern Arabia.

James the son of Alpheus was stoned and then clubbed to death in Syria.

Simon the zealot ministered in Persia and was killed after refusing to sacrifice to the sun god.

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace Judas, death by burning.

John is the only one to have died a natural death from old age, but it was a close run thing. An early Latin tradition has him escaping unhurt after being cast into boiling oil at Rome.

Babylon, no longer a great world capital in the time of Peter, was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews, many of whom Peter befriended and won to Christ.

Evidence?

A study of the chronology of Peter’s travels argues for Babylon to be the Babylon on the Euphrates.

Evidence?

So everything you don't like is Bullcrap?

No.

This is...

Rome was a Gentile area, not full of circumcised Israelites.

When...

The Jewish population of Rome ranked behind only that of Alexandria among the cities of the Roman Empire outside of Palestine.

[Hindsite]

Name them.

"Babylon," from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is understood by learned annotators, Protestant and Catholic, to refer to Rome - the word Babylon being symbolic of the corruption then prevailing in the city of the Caesars.

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, citing at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that "Peter came to Rome and died there" and that "Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy."

William MacDonald, James Strong, Robert Young, Robert Boyd, Loraine Boettner, Markus Bockmuehl, and many others.

Robert Boyd in his "World's Bible Hanbook" says the fist letter of Peter was written in 65 A.D. from Babylon. Boyd goes on to say that Some say "Babylon" was the symbolic name for Rome. However, 1 Peter was written long before Rome was referred to as "Babylon." Internal evidence would point to Babylon. The list of countries mentioned in his greeting (1:1) is from east to west,which suggests that Peter was in the east at the writing -- mentioning all countries in order of the location to him. And had it been Rome, he no doubt would have listed the countries from west to east. And had it been Rome, he no doubt would have said Rome.

At Pentacost there were men from every nation -- including Mesopotamia (Acts 2:5,9). There was at the time of Peter's writing a large colony of Jews in Babylon who not only had undergone persecution by Claudius but were now feeling the sting of Nero's mercilessness. Peter seems to "put" himself with these sufferers as he wrote.

Conspicuously absent from Scripture is any mention of his having been in Rome, and there is no substantial evidence from history to support the legend that he was the first Bishop of Rome and lived there 25 years before he died.

Loraine Boettner says in the book, Roman Catholicism:

"There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend." (p. 117)

All of this makes it quite certain that Peter never was in Rome at all. Not one of the early church fathers gives any support to the belief that Peter was a bishop in Rome until Jerome in the fifth century." (Roman Catholicism, p. 122)

Exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the Catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate that Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin. L.H. Lehmann, who was educated for the priesthood at the University for the Propagation of the Faith, in Rome, tells us of a lecture by a noted Roman archaeologist, Professor Marucchi, given before his class, in which he said that no shred of evidence of Peter's having been in the Eternal City had ever been unearthed, and of another archaeologist, Di Rossi who declared that for forty years, his greatest ambition had been to unearth in Rome some inscription which would verify the papal claim that the apostle Peter was actually in Rome, but that he was forced to admit that he had given up hope of success in his search. He had the promise of handsome rewards by the church if he succeeded." (Roman Catholicism, pp. 118-119)

“No one working from the first-century evidence alone can fail to be struck by the disparity between the unanimous teaching of the church, both East and West, and the lack of any ‘strictly historic proof’ that Peter was ever in Rome.”

—Markus Bockmuehl, “Peter's Death in Rome? Back to Front and Upside Down,”

And although there were some bones found in the diggings, these were of uncertain origin. The pope himself, who is supposed to be a firm believer as he is the alleged successor of Peter, was skeptical that these "bones... were really those of... Peter." In the magazine The Sunday Times, published on December 24, 1950, the Roman pontiff came out with an announcement:

"...the Pope announced officially the discovery of the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the great Basilica which bears his name. But the Pope said that it was not possible to prove with certainty that the human bones found in the tomb were really those of Saint Peter." (pp. 1,2)

Even Catholic scholars reject such claim. Bishop Stephen Neill says:

"Most scholars reject as unhistorical the tradition that the Apostle Peter was, and was recognized as being, the first Bishop of Rome." (The Christian Society, p. 36)

"Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 4]

"Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 10]

"The New Testament does not so much as give us a single unmistakable intimation that Peter was ever in Rome; and, even if the reality of such a visit be allowed, his connection with the church at Rome remains before the eyes of history a dim and misty thing compared with his connection with the church at Jerusalem. There is nothing in the nature of the case to assure us that Peter would fix upon the Bishop of Rome The Roman theory runs here into the region of pure assumption, and impinges, moreover, upon a very considerable incongruity." (History of the Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 70-72)

"The papacy was also aided by the scheming efforts of men who, through deceit and fraud, succeeded in strengthening the pope's position and authority." (The Church in History, p. 77)

Examples of documents falsified by scheming men in the Catholic Church just to fortify the authority and position of the papacy were the "Isidorian Decretals" and the "Donation of Constantine" says church historian Kuiper:

"Then somewhere around the middle of the ninth century there appeared a second mysterious document. It was called the 'Isidorian Decretals', because these decretals, or decisions, were claimed to have been collected by Isidore of Seville. This document consisted of decisions of popes and councils from Clement of Rome in the first century to Gregory II in the eighth.

"... For hundreds of years these documents were accepted at face value and regarded as genuine. Nicholas de Cusa in 1433 was the first one to suggest that the decretals were a forgery. After that they came to be called the 'Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals'. [Pseudo means 'false' , or 'pretended'.] In 1440 Lorenzo Valla proved that the' Donation of Constantine' was a forgery. Today, Catholic scholars agree with Protestant scholars that both documents are spurious." (Ibid., pp. 78-79)

Below are some major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero.

PROOF ONE:

We should consider Christ's commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles. "The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Gal. 2:7-8). Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN'T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9). Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles." PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

If there was a Jewish Christian community in Rome it was too small to need a bishop and especially one that despite having a high role in Church affairs in Jerusalem gave it up to become minister to a handful!

PROOF TWO:

Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL established the Church at Rome.

PROOF THREE:

We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!

PROOF FOUR:

We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.

PROOF FIVE:

At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!

PROOF SIX:

Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

PROOF SEVEN:

When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.

PROOF EIGHT:

After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!

PROOF NINE:

With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Roman Catholic Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.

PROOF TEN:

The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Roman Catholic Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Peter was accustomed to their Eastern dialect.

At the times the Roman Catholics believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.

The book of Revelation addressed seven Churches and said they were symbolised as seven lamps before God. This indicates that the author considered the Roman Church apostate or dubious even then! He had a lot of bad things to say about the Churches he addressed which gives an inkling of what he thought of the Roman Church!

PROOF ELEVEN:

Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Peter, James and John, after the ascension of our Saviour, despite their being prepared by our Lord, did not seek the honour of being bishop of Jerusalem but chose James the Just for this office". Now Peter if he were head of the Church would have been bishop of Jerusalem. Catholics must believe that. They must believe that until he went to Rome, Peter was bishop of Jerusalem and it was the centre of the Church and then he moved his seat of authority to Rome. Peter not being bishop of Jerusalem implies that Peter never was a pope.

http://www.romancatholicism.co.uk/peter ... ishop.html

It is possible that those that think Peter was crucified upside down in Rome were correct in the sense that Babylon of that time was part of the Roman Empire. But it doesn't make sense that Peter could have been in the city of Rome for 25 years until his death. He could have been captured at Babylon and taken to the city of Rome in his last year. But if he was going to be crucified, it seems more likely that they would do it at the place were they captured him. That would be a lot of trouble in those days to transport him all that way. So one could still say he died in Rome, meaning the Roman Empire. But I really think it is a made up lie, so that the Roman Catholic Church can claim they are the main church and have authority ove all others.

If the Roman Catholic Church really wants to take on the mystical name of "Babylon the great whore" in Revelation just to claim primacy, then that seems pretty damning for them, doesn't it?
Praise the Lord. HalleluYah

[ingliz]

William MacDonald

A Sola scriptura fundamentalist (Plymouth Brethren).

James Strong

How does he help you?

3. allegorically, of Rome as the most corrupt seat of idolatry and the enemy of Christianity: Revelation 14:8 (here Rec.elz Βαβουλων); (in the opinion of some 1 Peter 5:13 also; (cf. 1 at the end, above)).

Robert Young

Is that the Robert Young whose method of translating Hebrew tenses makes his Old Testament virtually unreadable?

Robert Boyd

Is that the Rev. Bob Boyd who is reduced to reviewing his own book, Boyd’s Bible Handbook, in glowing terms?

Loraine Boettner

Mr. Boettner, a Calvinist, who displays a complete lack of objectivity in the anti-Catholic tract Roman Catholicism. A "flimsy", "inaccurate", and "unscholarly" work.

Peter never was in Rome at all

1 Peter 5:13

Syncellus in his Chronicon has Ῥωμῃ, Rome, in the margin, probably as the meaning, according to the writer, of the word Babylon.

Bishop Strossmayer's Speech

Is a proven forgery.

Later, in 1871, a piece of literature appeared, which passed itself off as a speech which Bishop Strossmayer gave on 2 June 1870 in the Council. This speech is from beginning to end fictitious.

In 1876 Bishop Strossmayer was clarified about the originator of the forgery, by means of the following letter, which is now printed in the Appendix to the Council Acts (Acta etc IV b, 649 sq.):

"Buenos Aires, 18 August 1876. Your Episcopal Grace! Allow me to forward as an enclosure below, an edition of the “America del Sud” which appears here. It contains under the title “La Verdad en el Vaticano” the confession of a man, who has done you a grave wrong, who opportunely published a speech under your name in the Vatican, which has recently been circulated here by some Protestants. Afterwards he named himself as the author and thereby made good at least some of the trouble caused...

Sr. D. Pedro Stollenwerk, Misionero Lazarista, Buenos Aires, Calle Libertad, Hospital Frances.

Requesting your episcopal blessing, I remain etc… Jos. Wallinger, Bishop’s secretary, vouches for the original copy. Djakovo, 30 December 1876."

to find some inscription

Some bones and two inscriptions.

Petros eni

Peter is within

and


PETRUS ROGA CHRISTUS JESU

Peter pray Christ Jesus …

PRO SANCTIS

for the holy…

HOMINIBUS CRESTIANUS AD CORPUS TUUM SEPULTIS

Christian men buried near your body.

Markus Bockmuehl

Why do you think he supports your argument?

I have made little attempt to impose a single overall argument in either form or substance... [Ignatius] evidently appeals to a local memory of the personal presence, ministry and (by implication) the martyrdom of both apostles [Peter and Paul] in Rome.

Even Catholic scholars reject such claim. Bishop Stephen Neill says:

Bishop Stephen Neill was an Anglican; Anglicans are not Roman Catholics.

45 AD

Herod Agrippa dies in 44 AD.

49 AD

The Council of Jerusalem is generally dated to 48 AD.

51 A.D

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.…But when I saw they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all ‘If you though a Jew live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Gal.2:11,14

Paul was in Antioch.

Peter was not, he came.

Later in about 66 A.D

Between Peter and Paul there were no dogmatic differences. St. Peter (Acts 10) recognised the converts from paganism as Christian brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians formed a single Kingdom of Christ.

Near... about ... about

Your anonymous source appears quite cavalier in his use of dates.

wanting to establish the Church at Rome

Paul did not establish the Church at Rome.

At this time the Jews were very numerous in Rome, and their synagogues were probably resorted to by Romans also, who in this way became acquainted with the great facts regarding Jesus as these were reported among the Jews [Peter?]. Thus a church composed of both Jews and Gentiles was formed at Rome. Many of the brethren went out to meet Paul on his approach to Rome. There are evidences that Christians were then in Rome in considerable numbers, and had probably more than one place of meeting (Romans 16:14, 15).

At the time Paul wrote the epistle he had not been to Rome (cf. 1:13 ; 15:22 ). Therefore it is very improbable that Paul had any direct role in founding the church.

While many modern scholars hold that little is known of the circumstances of the church's founding, they agree that it was not founded by Paul.

Source: The Expositor's Bible Commentary, (Ed. F.E.Gaebelein, Zondervan, 1976–92) Commentary on Romans (Introduction)

Paul's Epistle to the Romans

Although Romans is almost universally thought to have been written by Paul, it is not certain.

Some manuscripts have a subscription at the end of the Epistle:

προς Ρωμαιους εγραφη απο Κορινθου δια Φοιβης της διακονου ("to the Romans it was written from Corinth by Phoebus the deacon"): 42, 90, 216, 339, 462, 466*, 642;

εγραφη η προς Ρωμαιους επιστολη δια Τερτιου επεμφτη δε δια Φοιβης απο Κορινθιων της εν Κεγχρεαις εκκλησιας ("the epistle to the Romans was written by Tertius and was sent by Phoebus from the Corinthians of the church in Cenchreae"): only in 337;

προς Ρωμαιους εγραφη απο Κορινθου δια Φοιβης της διακονου της εν Κεγχρεαις εκκλησιας ("to the Romans it was written from Corinth by Phoebus the deacon of the church in Cenchreae"): 101, 241, 460, 466, 469, 602, 603, 605, 618, 1923, 1924, 1927, 1932, followed by Textus Receptus.

Source: Bruce M. Metzger (2001) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

Peter simply wasn't there!

Peter was based in Rome. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys is clearly established and is not disputed. So, it is quite possible that Peter simply wasn't there at that time.

[Hindsite]

How does he help you?

James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D., author of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, in his Greek Dictionary of the New Testament lists 897: Βαβυλών Babulon, Babylon, the capital of Chaldaea lit. or fig. (as a type of tyranny).

He never mentions Rome or any other city, but Babylon, as a possibility in his dictionary.

1 Peter 5:13

Syncellus in his Chronicon has Ῥωμῃ, Rome, in the margin, probably as the meaning, according to the writer, of the word Babylon.

Probably but not sure. So this is no better than all the other speculations about Babylon. Why not just take Peter's word that he meant the real literal Babylon as he said, and not some figurative meaning that no one can be certain? Do you really think the Roman Catholics want to be associated with a type of tyranny?

Some bones and two inscriptions.

Petros eni

Peter is within

and

PETRUS ROGA CHRISTUS JESU

Peter pray Christ Jesus …

Catholic tradition holds that the Basilica is the burial site of Saint Peter, one of Jesus's Apostles and also the first Pope. Saint Peter's tomb is supposedly directly below the high altar of the Basilica. For this reason, many Popes have been interred at St. Peter's since the Early Christian period, and there has been a church on this site since the time of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great. Construction of the present basilica, which would replace Old St. Peter's Basilica from the 4th century CE, began on 18 April 1506 and was completed on 18 November 1626.[
Catholic tradition holds that Peter, after a ministry of thirty-four years, traveled to Rome and met his martyrdom there along with Paul on 13 October, 64 CE during the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero. His execution was one of the many martyrdoms of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome. According to Origen, Peter was crucified head downwards, by his own request because he considered himself unworthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. The crucifixion took place near an ancient Egyptian obelisk in the Circus of Nero. The obelisk now stands in St. Peter's Square and is revered as a "witness" to Peter's death.

In 1939, in the reign of Pope Pius XII, 10 years of archaeological research began, under the crypt of the basilica, an area inaccessible since the 9th century. On 23 December 1950, in his pre-Christmas radio broadcast to the world, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of Saint Peter's tomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter ... -JL-M_24-2

Colossians 2:8 - Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Why do you think he supports your argument?

Markus Bockmuehl was the one that wrote that the Pope said that there was no way that they could be certain that the bones found was those of Peter.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.…But when I saw they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all ‘If you though a Jew live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Gal.2:11,14

Paul was in Antioch.

Peter was not, he came.

Okay, I get your point. This is evidence that Peter may not have founded the Church in Antioch.

The Church of Saint Peter (Aramaic: Knisset Mar Semaan Kefa, Turkish: Senpiyer Kilisesi, St. Peter's Cave Church, Cave-Church of St. Peter) near Antakya (Antioch), Turkey, is composed of a cave carved into the mountainside on Mount Starius with a depth of 13 m (42 ft.), a width of 9.5 m (31 ft.) and a height of 7 m (23 ft). This cave, which some believe was used by the very first Christians, is one of Christianity's oldest churches.

Some people believe that the founding of the church in Antioch can be traced to the Biblical Acts of the Apostles (11:25-27), which relates that Barnabas travelled to Tarsus to bring Paul the Apostle there. They worked for a year with the nascent Christian community, and there adherents to the faith were called "Christians" for the first time. Christian tradition considers the apostle Peter to be the founder of the church of Antioch and the first priest of the Christian population established there; the Church of St. Peter is traditionally considered to be at the place where he first preached the Gospel in Antioch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_St_Peter

Paul did not establish the Church at Rome.

At the time Paul wrote the epistle he had not been to Rome (cf. 1:13 ; 15:22 ). Therefore it is very improbable that Paul had any direct role in founding the church.

While many modern scholars hold that little is known of the circumstances of the church's founding, they agree that it was not founded by Paul.

Source: The Expositor's Bible Commentary, (Ed. F.E.Gaebelein, Zondervan, 1976–92) Commentary on Romans (Introduction)

I am almost certain that I have read that some scholars believe Paul may have dictated some letters.

Peter was based in Rome. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys is clearly established and is not disputed. So, it is quite possible that Peter simply wasn't there at that time.

Peter was originally with the Church in Jerusalem with James, brother of Jesus. Years later he moved to the large community of Jews in Babylon, which was his base until the year of his death as I have already indicated. Praise the Lord.

[ingliz]

James Strong, S.T.D., LL.D... Βαβυλών... fig. (as a type of tyranny).

As a type of tyranny.

Rome as a tyranny...

[A]n autocratic form of rule in which one individual exercised power without any legal restraint... In 46 BC Caesar also took an army into Italy and was made dictator—first for 10 years and then, in 44, for life. That made him effectively a king, superior to all other magistrates and not subject to their veto or appeal, and in that context the idea of tyranny began to be discussed by historians and philosophers. Thinkers such as Cicero adopted the language of Greek tyranny to describe Caesar’s position and debated the moral justification for tyrannicide.

Why not just take Peter's word that he meant the real literal Babylon as he said.

Please provide evidence that he meant the real literal Babylon; Rome has been called Babylon many times, in multiple works, the NT included.

there was no way that they could be certain

Correct, but Bockmuehl doesn't need his bones to show Peter was in Rome.

"Ignatius evidently appeals to a local memory of the personal presence, ministry and (by implication) the martyrdom of both apostles in Rome."

This is evidence that Peter may not have founded the Church in Antioch.

No.

It is evidence that Peter wasn't in Antioch in 51 AD.

The "Chronicle of Eusebius" is lost; but in Jerome's translation of it we find in three successive years the three entries:

that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he perseveres as bishop for 25 years;

that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria;

and

that Evodrius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.

The Bodleian Codex, and just about every other surviving manuscript, gives this last year as the fourth year of Claudius's reign (44 AD). The only exceptions being the Codex Freherianus (Claudius III) and the Armenian translation (Claudius II).

I am almost certain that I have read that some scholars believe Paul may have dictated some letters.

How does Paul dictating some letters in Rome, and it is disputed that Paul dictated any letters in Rome, prove Paul founded the church in Rome? There is evidence that Christians were in Rome in considerable numbers before he arrived (61 AD?).

Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews.

Note the authenticity of Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews (a majority of the 'Roman' epistles) is disputed.

There are problems datewise with Philippians and Philemon, too.

Philippians:

Internal evidence in the letter itself points clearly to it being composed while Paul was in custody (Philippians 1:7,13), but which period of imprisonment is highly debated. Some suggest the Roman imprisonment at the end of the Book of Acts (chapter 28:30,31). Others suggest the earlier Caesarean imprisonment (Acts 23-26). Still others suggest an earlier imprisonment again, and postulate an Ephesian imprisonment during Paul's lengthy stay in that city (Acts 19)

Philemon:

A majority of scholars think that Paul writes to Philemon from either Ephesus or Rome. The decision between these two locations (and dates) is usually related to another decision about a completely different matter: the question of whether Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians, and we know that is disputed.

Years later he moved to the large community of Jews in Babylon, which was his base until the year of his death as I have already indicated. Praise the Lord.

An assertion, without evidence.

There are numerous references, in sources from the Didache to John Damascene, that Peter came to Rome and died there, and that Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.

[Hindsite]

As a type of tyranny.

Rome as a tyranny...

The tyranny of Rome was not the only tyranny the tribes of Israel have ever known. Babylon was a place of tyranny too.

Please provide evidence that he meant the real literal Babylon; Rome has been called Babylon many times, in multiple works, the NT included.

Where is Rome called Babylon in the NT? Don't you remember in the Old Testament about the Babylonian captivity? Anyway, the letter of Peter seems to be written in a literal way with no evidence of being figurative.

Correct, but Bockmuehl doesn't need his bones to show Peter was in Rome.

"Ignatius evidently appeals to a local memory of the personal presence, ministry and (by implication) the martyrdom of both apostles in Rome."

Even if it is true that Peter was was killed in Rome that does not prove he had been there for long and certainly does not prove he was ever called the Pope, which is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

No.

It is evidence that Peter wasn't in Antioch in 51 AD.

I don't see that it makes any difference if it was 52, 50, or 49 A.D.

How does Paul dictating some letters in Rome, and it is disputed that Paul dictated any letters in Rome, prove Paul founded the church in Rome? There is evidence that Christians were in Rome in considerable numbers before he arrived (61 AD?).

It doesn't and neither does it prove Peter founded the church in Rome.

Note the authenticity of Ephesians, Colossians, and Hebrews (a majority of the 'Roman' epistles) is disputed.

There are problems datewise with Philippians and Philemon, too.

Philippians:


Philemon:

A majority of scholars think that Paul writes to Philemon from either Ephesus or Rome. The decision between these two locations (and dates) is usually related to another decision about a completely different matter: the question of whether Paul wrote the letter to the Colossians, and we know that is disputed.

There are always going to be some crackpots that will dispute anything. That does not mean we should take them seriously.

There are also some that think the Gospel of Mark should be called the Gospel of Peter, because they think Mark was writing that gospel from the point of view of Peter.

An assertion, without evidence.

I gave you evidence in another post.

There are numerous references, in sources from the Didache to John Damascene, that Peter came to Rome and died there, and that Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.

I believe this must be made up in an attempt to magnify the church in Rome over all the other churches. It did not work. For many Christians churches rejected that idea.
Praise the Lord.

[ingliz]

Where is Rome called Babylon in the NT?

John's Revelation.

A strange question when you have already conceded this point.

"That may be what the book of Revelation refers to as "Mystery" Babylon."

I don't see that it makes any difference if it was 52, 50, or 49 A.D.

Why do you think Peter was residing in Antioch in 52, 50, or 49 A.D?

I gave you evidence in another post.

No, you did not.

[Hindsite]

John's Revelation.

A strange question when you have already conceded this point.

"That may be what the book of Revelation refers to as "Mystery" Babylon."

I said that it "may" not that it did refer to "Mystery Babylon." It could also refer to a New and Improved Satanic Babylon of Islam. In the Revelation prophecy, John speaks of the killing and beheading of the "saints" in the end times. Today, Rome is not beheading anyone, but Islamic terrorists are beheading and killing those they call "infidels."

Why do you think Peter was residing in Antioch in 52, 50, or 49 A.D?

Well, the Holy Bible says Peter met Paul in Antioch. He had to do it sometime. When do you say that meeting occurred?

No, you did not.

I thought I did. I'll have to check and get back to you.

Here is what I was referring to:

Robert Boyd in his "World's Bible Hanbook" says the first letter of Peter was written in 65 A.D. from Babylon. Boyd goes on to say that Some say "Babylon" was the symbolic name for Rome. However, 1 Peter was written long before Rome was referred to as "Babylon." Internal evidence would point to Babylon. The list of countries mentioned in his greeting (1:1) is from east to west,which suggests that Peter was in the east at the writing -- mentioning all countries in order of the location to him. And had it been Rome, he no doubt would have listed the countries from west to east. And had it been Rome, he no doubt would have said Rome.

At Pentacost there were men from every nation -- including Mesopotamia (Acts 2:5,9). There was at the time of Peter's writing a large colony of Jews in Babylon who not only had undergone persecution by Claudius but were now feeling the sting of Nero's mercilessness. Peter seems to "put" himself with these sufferers as he wrote.

Conspicuously absent from Scripture is any mention of his having been in Rome, and there is no substantial evidence from history to support the legend that he was the first Bishop of Rome and lived there 25 years before he died.

I also did some more research and come up with this:

J. Vernon McGee writes: “There was at this time a large colony of Jews in ancient Babylon who had fled Rome due to severe persecution under Claudias and at the time of writing bloody Nero was on the Throne” (Through the Bible, p. 256).

And this:

Some historians believe that a sizeable proportion of the Hellenized Jewish communities of Southern Turkey (Antioch, Alexandretta and neighboring cities) and Syria/Lebanon converted progressively to the Greco-Roman branch of Christianity that eventually constituted the "Melkite" (or "Imperial") Hellenistic churches of the MENA area:

Jewish Christianity originated at Jerusalem, so Gentile Christianity started at Antioch, then the leading center of the Hellenistic East, with Peter and Paul as its apostles. From Antioch it spread to the various cities and provinces of Syria, among the Hellenistic Syrians as well as among the Hellenistic Jews who, as a result of the great rebellions against the Romans in A.D. 70 and 130, were driven out from Jerusalem and Palestine into Syria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism

Tradition relates that Peter went to the East, that he preached to the Jews in Babylon. In fact, this First Epistle declares itself to have been written from Babylon, and Babylon, I suppose, was not a mythical name for Rome, as some have supposed. It never assumed that mythical signification until after John had written his Apocalypse. At the time when this Epistle was written we have no reason to believe that the word "Babylon" was used for Rome. In an Epistle like this, in plain prose, we should hardly expect that the word Babylon would be used in that figurative, rhetorical, poetical sense.

There was a very large colony of Jews at Babylon: and Peter seems to have gravitated toward the East of the Roman Empire, as Paul gravitated toward the West. As the larger part of the Jews were in the East rather than in the West, the apostle to the Jews seems to have had the chosen sphere of his activity there, while Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, had his chosen sphere of activity westward, toward Rome, ever tending toward Rome, until at Rome he died. Some one will ask: Is it, therefore, entirely a mythical thing that Peter was crucified at Rome, that he was the founder of the Roman church, that he suffered martyrdom there by being crucified with his head downward? Well, with regard to that, the historians of the church are at variance to this very day. It certainly appears that Peter had not been at Rome at the time that Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans. It would be almost inexplicable that there should be no mention of Peter if Peter had founded the Roman church. It would be impossible for Paul to have written the Epistle to the Romans without mentioning Peter, if Peter was there or had been there. We have no evidence in all the Epistles which Paul wrote during his imprisonment at

Rome that Peter was there in Rome or that he had ever preached there at all. I think, therefore, that the Epistle to the Romans is, in itself, a strong argument against the claims of the papacy, against the claim that the bishops of Rome derived their apostolic descent directly from Peter. It never can be proved that Peter was in Rome at all. If Peter ever was in Rome, it seems to me altogether probable that he was in Rome after Paul had suffered martyrdom, and that he went to Rome to take Paul's place and preach the gospel after Paul was taken away. But I think we shall have to leave the question in abeyance. With the light we now have it cannot be decided. All we know in regard to the First Epistle of Peter is that it was written from Babylon, the far east of the Roman Empire.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/classics ... peter.html

The Jewish Diaspora at the time of the Temple’s destruction, according to Josephus, was in Parthia (Persia), Babylonia (Iraq), Arabia, as well as some Jews beyond the Euphrates and in Adiabene (Kurdistan). In Josephus’ own words, he had informed “the remotest Arabians” about the destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

The Jews of Babylonia, it seems, had the intention of founding a high-priesthood for the exiled Hyrcanus, which they would have made quite independent of Judea. But the reverse was to come about: the Judeans received a Babylonian, Ananel by name, as their high priest which indicates the importance enjoyed by the Jews of Babylonia. Still in religious matters the Babylonians, as indeed the whole diaspora, were in many regards dependent upon Judea. They went on pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the festivals.

How free a hand the Parthians permitted the Jews is perhaps best illustrated by the rise of the little Jewish robber-state in Nehardea (see Anilai and Asinai). Still more remarkable is the conversion of the king of Adiabene to Judaism. These instances show not only the tolerance, but the weakness of the Parthian kings. The Babylonian Jews wanted to fight in common cause with their Judean brethren against Vespasian; but it was not until the Romans waged war under Trajan against Parthia that they made their hatred felt; so that it was in a great measure owing to the revolt of the Babylonian Jews that the Romans did not become masters of Babylonia too. Philo speaks of the large number of Jews resident in that country, a population which was no doubt considerably swelled by new immigrants after the destruction of Jerusalem. Accustomed in Jerusalem from early times to look to the east for help, and aware, as the Roman procurator Petronius was, that the Jews of Babylon could render effectual assistance, Babylonia became with the fall of Jerusalem the very bulwark of Judaism. The collapse of the Bar Kochba revolt no doubt added to the number of Jewish refugees in Babylon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ws_in_Iraq

[ingliz]

Well, the Holy Bible says Peter met Paul in Antioch.

That does not mean Peter was living in Antioch.

The Holy Bible says, "when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face."

This means he came from elsewhere - Rome, perhaps?

When do you say that meeting occurred?

51 AD is as good a date as any.

Here is what I was referring to: Robert Boyd in...

into Syria.

Babylon is not located in Syria.

Tradition relates...

Tradition relates Thomas went East.

They went on pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the festivals.

So?

I also did some more research and come up with this... And this

Are you taking the piss? A bullshit quote from the Rev. Bob followed by a string of irrelevant copy-pastes is not evidence.

There may have been some Christians and Jews in the city of Rome before the Apostle Paul arrived, but as Paul himself said in his letter, they did not have a clear understanding of Christianity.

Please edit your post and remove this interpolation from the quote beginning, "Paul did not establish... ".

There may have been some... Jews in the city of Rome

As 4000 adult males were actually sent to Sardinia in 19 A.D. it may safely be said that a quarter of a century later, allowing for the natural growth of population, for fresh batches of slaves receiving manumission, and for immigration from outside, the total Jewish settlement in Rome would not be less than 30,000 and might reach 50,000.

Christians

These are three groups.

(1) a body of Jewish Christians, largely sympathetic to Paul but open to be influenced by (3).

(2) a larger body of converted Gentiles, largely sympathetic to Paul.

Although the Jew was hated and scorned, his religion became to a surprising degree the mode in Rome, especially among ladies of the patrician houses. The number of actual proselytes of Gentile origin was large, and still larger the number of those whom St. Luke in the Acts styles ‘God-fearers' (σεβόμενοι τὸν Θεόν), i.e. people who adopted the Jewish monotheism, attended the synagogue services, and observed the Sabbath and certain portions of the ceremonial law. These ‘God-fearers,' in every place where Jewish communities were to be found, formed a fringe round the Synagogue of bodies of men and women, who, in this age of religious electicism, without altogether abandoning their connexion with Paganism, had become semi-Jews.

[...]

The Gentiles formed the chief element in. the Roman Church. Of these no doubt a certain number had been converted straight from heathendom, but the assumption which runs through the epistle, that they were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures in the Septuagint version, and with the Jewish ceremonial law, would seem to point to their being largely drawn from the class of Greek-speaking ‘God-fearers,' which, as I have already stated, in all the chief towns of the Empire, and conspicuously in Rome, formed a fringe round the synagogue.

'God-fearers', the semi-Jews, were ripe for conversion.

Christianity, oriental in its origin, an outgrowth of Judaism, akin in so many points to the Mystery-Religions of Egypt and Asia Minor then so much in vogue, and bearing, as it did, in its ethical teaching so striking a resemblance to the moral code of the Stoics.

(3) an extremely influential and energetic section of Judaeo-Christians, Jews rather than Christians, who, like the Judaisers in the Epistle to the Galatians and elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to St. Paul, disputed his Apostolic authority, traduced, and misrepresented his teaching (Rom. 3:8).

Paul himself said in his letter, they did not have a clear understanding of Christianity.

Paul was addressing the Judaeo-Christians.

The Jews addressed were men who had indeed accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah but who perhaps only the more obstinately for that very reason clung to their Judaism, and hated the thought of losing any of those exclusive religious privileges, as Israelites, which were their pride and boast. The doors of the Christian Church, as they conceived it, might be open to Gentiles, but only if they would consent to be circumcised and to conform to the ordinances of the Mosaic Law.

[Hindsite]

That does not mean Peter was living in Antioch.

The Holy Bible says, "when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face."

This means he came from elsewhere - Rome, perhaps?

Antioch is in modern day Turkey. No one has said, Peter lived in Antioch. Peter lived first at Bethsaida, and afterward in a large house at Capernaum, according to the New Testament. Peter was just visiting the church at Antioch. He most likely traveled from his home in Capernaum or the Church in Jerusalem.

Babylon is not located in Syria.

No one has said Babylon is located in Syria. I have repeatedly said Babylon is located in present day Iraq. At the time of the Apostles it was located in the Roman province of Babylonia. However there was another Babylon closer to Israel in Egypt.

Babylon Fortress was an ancient fortress city or castle in the Delta of Egypt, located in the area today known as Coptic Cairo. Within the fortress' enclosure are the Coptic Museum, a convent, and several churches, including the Church of St. George and the Hanging Church.

In the age of Augustus the Deltaic Babylon became a town of some importance, and was the headquarters of the three legions which ensured the obedience of Egypt. In the Notitia Imperii, Babylon is mentioned as the quarters of Legio XIII Gemina. (It. Anton.; Georg. Ravenn. etc.) Ruins of the town and fortress are still visible a little to the north of Fostat or Old Cairo, among which are vestiges of the Great Aqueduct mentioned by Strabo and the early Arabian topographers. (Champollion, l'Egypte, ii. p. 33.)

The town was the seat of a Christian bishopric, a suffragan of Leontopolis, the capital and metropolitan see of the Roman province of Augustamnica Secunda. The names of several of its bishops are recorded. After the Council of Chalcedon (451), some are of those who accepted the council, but most are of those who rejected it. No longer a residential bishopric, Babylon is today listed by the Catholic Church as a titular see.
During the Muslim conquest of Egypt the fort was surrounded for about seven months before finally falling in April 641 to the Arab general 'Amr ibn al-'As.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_Fortress

some traditions hold that this was the area in Egypt that the parents of Jesus fled to in the time of King Herod the Great.

According to ancient tradition, Christianity was introduced to the Egyptians by Saint Mark in Alexandria, shortly after the ascension of Christ and during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius around 42 AD.

Are you taking the piss?

I often do for comfort.

A bullshit quote from the Rev. Bob followed by a string of irrelevant copy-pastes is not evidence.

You do copy-paste too. And some of mine are historical evidence from Wikipedia articles that Babylon did have a large colony of Jews there at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter.

[ingliz]

He most likely traveled from his home in Capernaum or the Church in Jerusalem.

Evidence?

from Wikipedia articles

The tradition is Thomas founded the church in Babylonia (Iraq).

The Christians of Iraq are considered to be one of the oldest continuous Christian communities in the world... Christianity was brought to Iraq in the 1st century by Thomas the Apostle and Mar Addai (Thaddeus of Edessa) and his pupils Aggai and Mari. Thomas and Thaddeus belonged to the twelve Apostles [5*].

* Suha Rassam. Christianity in Iraq

At the time of the Apostles it was located in the Roman province of Babylonia.

No.

From the second century BC until the third century AD, they were subjects of the Arsacid Parthians.

At the time of the Apostles, Babylon was located in the Parthian Kingdom, a loose federation of feudal principalities.

the Roman province of Babylonia

After the time of the Apostles...

In 141 BC, the Parthian king Mithradates I took control of Mesopotamia. The Parthians, who came from eastern Iran, briefly lost control of Mesopotamia when it was invaded by the Romans in AD 115 but it was returned to the Parthians by the Roman emperor Hadrian in AD 117.

The Romans conquered 'Mesopotamia' briefly under Trajan in 115–16 AD. The exact borders of the conquest aren't really clear: the area was abandoned again under his successor. Hadrian decided that the new territories were not worth the cost. He made peace with the Parthians and pulled the Roman frontier back to the western bank of the Euphrates.

Cassius Dio Book 68

Eutropius’s biographical dictionary

Arrian's Parthica

Babylon did have a large colony of Jews there at the time of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter.

The simple fact that Babylon had a large colony of Jews (and I would dispute that) is not evidence that Peter founded a church in Babylon.

a large colony of Jews

The Wars of the Diadochi effectively forced many to abandon Babylon in the turmoil that followed. By the time of Emperor Trajan (53-117 AD) the city had been all but abandoned, Trajan was disappointed at what he found when he visited the city; "nothing but mounds and stones and ruins."

[Hindsite]

Evidence?

I don't have any direct evidence, but there is no evidence that he did not travel from his home in Capernaum or maybe even from the Church in Jerusalem to meet with Paul in Antioch, now in modern Turkey. How far is Rome, Italy form Antioch in Turkey? How long would it take someone in those days to travel that far?

The tradition is Thomas founded the church in Babylonia (Iraq).

He could have.

No.

From the second century BC until the third century AD, they were subjects of the Arsacid Parthians.

At the time of the Apostles, Babylon was located in the Parthian Kingdom, a loose federation of feudal principalities.

After the time of the Apostles...

The Romans conquered 'Mesopotamia' briefly under Trajan in 115–16 AD. The exact borders of the conquest aren't really clear: the area was abandoned again under his successor. Hadrian decided that the new territories were not worth the cost. He made peace with the Parthians and pulled the Roman frontier back to the western bank of the Euphrates.

The simple fact that Babylon had a large colony of Jews (and I would dispute that) is not evidence that Peter founded a church in Babylon.

The Wars of the Diadochi effectively forced many to abandon Babylon in the turmoil that followed. By the time of Emperor Trajan (53-117 AD) the city had been all but abandoned, Trajan was disappointed at what he found when he visited the city; "nothing but mounds and stones and ruins."

Okay, but Babylon did become a city in the Roman province of Babylonia and today a location in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was attempting to rebuild.

Visiting Babylon

There is a map in the back of my NASB that is during the time of the Roman and Parthian Empire. You are correct that Babylon was in the Parthian Empire south of Seleucia. It also shows the other Babylon in Egypt that is in the Roman Empire. The dot for that Babylon is right on the River Nile. It is south of Heliopolis and northeast of Memphis. It is much closer to Jerusalem, so perhaps that is the Babylon that Peter mentioned in his letter. If so, then this Babylon is code for Rome can be dismissed.

According to the Wikipedia website -- and this information can be confirmed by a number of other websites as well -- Mark became the first Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt. This seems to indicate that the Babylon fortress city -- which was located some one hundred and forty miles to the southeast of Alexandria -- would have been under his jurisdiction. Please consider the following Wikipedia excerpts taken from several different pages:

Further it is held that Christianity began to spread in Egypt when St. Mark arrived in Alexandria, becoming the first Patriarch, though the religion remained underground during the rule of the Romans.

Under the Romans, St. Mark and his successors were able to convert a substantial portion of the population, from pagan beliefs to Christianity.

According to ancient tradition, Christianity was introduced to the Egyptians by Saint Mark in Alexandria, shortly after the ascension of Christ and during the reign of the Roman emperor Claudius around 42 AD. The legacy that Saint Mark left in Egypt was a considerable Christian community in Alexandria. From Alexandria, Christianity spread throughout Egypt within half a century of Saint Mark's arrival in Alexandria, as is clear from a fragment of the Gospel of John, written in Coptic, which was found in Upper Egypt and can be dated to the first half of the 2nd century, and the New Testament writings found in Oxyrhynchus, in Middle Egypt, which date around the year 200 AD. In the 2nd century, Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local language, today known as the Coptic language (which was called the Egyptian language at the time). By the beginning of the 3rd century AD, Christians constituted the majority of Egypt's population, and the Church of Alexandria was recognized as one of Christendom's four Apostolic Sees, second in honor only to the Church of Rome. The Church of Alexandria is therefore the oldest church in Africa.

Saint Apostle Peter wrote his first epistle from Babylon (north of Old Cairo), when visiting Mark (1 Peter 5:13). When Mark returned to Alexandria, the pagans of the city resented his efforts to turn the Alexandrians away from the worship of their traditional Hellenistic gods. In AD 68 they placed a rope around his neck and dragged him through the streets until he was dead.

Please realize that some of the previous information is based on Coptic Church traditions, and Roman Catholic Church traditions, and finds no actual support in the Scriptures. Yet at the same time, if the previous information is accurate and true, you'll notice that the final paragraph does confirm that Peter would have to have been physically with Mark in Babylon, Egypt at the time that he wrote his first Epistle. We also cannot overlook the fact that in this particular case, the historical record appears to agree with the Biblical record.

"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son."
(1 Peter 5:13 KJV)

The distance by land from Jerusalem to Babylon, Egypt -- or Coptic Cairo as it is known today -- is about four hundred and eighty miles, if one travels via Eilat on the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba, we need to bear in mind that a large part of such a journey would have been through Israel itself. Furthermore, both Israel and Egypt were controlled by Rome, which would have made it a much safer journey for the Apostle Peter to make.

[ingliz]

I don't have any direct evidence

You have no evidence.

Wikipedia

No.

It can be found here...

Bill's Bible Basics, Peter's Babylon: A Biblical Mystery Solved? - Endtime Prophecy Net

And Bill has...

abandoned the idea that Peter may have travelled to Babylon, Babylonia

Have you?

Coptic Church traditions

There is no tradition that connects Peter with Coptic Cairo.

This seems to indicate that the Babylon fortress city -- which was located some one hundred and forty miles to the southeast of Alexandria -- would have been under his jurisdiction.

No.

"The Alexandrian Church laid no claim to it"

"The Alexandrian Church laid no claim to it and this Babylon was so small a district that it seems highly improbable that Peter made his headquarters there without such a fact leaving any trace in early tradition". Further more, as in Bell, "it is doubtful whether as early as this it was more than a military centre, and whether we take ὴ συνεκλεκτὴ (that [female] which has been chosen with [you]) as the Church or St. Peter's wife it is unexpected to find either in a military camp."*

* Franz Altheim and Ruth Stiehl, 1973. Christentum am Roten Meer, Zweiter Band.

In AD 68 they placed a rope around his neck and dragged him through the streets until he was dead.

A Coptic Church tradition:

Mark was martyred on May 8 (Easter Monday), 68 AD, after being dragged by his feet through the streets and alleys of Alexandria.

[Hindsite]

You have no evidence.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Cairo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Egypt

Christianity was introduced to the Egyptians by Saint Mark in Alexandria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Or ... Alexandria

In AD 68, they placed a rope around his neck and dragged him through the streets until he was dead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_the_Evangelist

There is a great difference between an apocalyptic book such as the book of Revelation, which for the most part is written in figurative and symbolic language, and an epistle such as this which is written in a straightforward, matter of fact style. In regard to Peter's assignment to work among the Jews, it is known that there were many Jews in Babylon in New Testament times. Many had not returned to Palestine after the Exile. Many others, such as those in Asia Minor and Egypt, had been driven out or had left Palestine for various reasons. Josephus says that some "gave Hyrcanus, the high priest, a habitation at Babylon, where there were Jews in great numbers" (Antiquities, Book XV, Ch. II, 2).

And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
(Revelation 11:8)

We know that the Lord Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, so the great city of Jerusalem is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.

But why the Roman catholic Church would wish to be associated with the spiritual Babylon in the book of Revelation is shocking. For here are some of the verses about Babylon there:

A second angel followed and said, “ ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great,’ which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries.”
(Revelation 14:8 NIV)

The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
(Revelation 16:19 NIV)

The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
(Revelation 17:5 NIV)

After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. With a mighty voice he shouted: “ ‘Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!’ She has become a dwelling for demons and a haunt for every impure spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable animal. For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”
(Revelation 18:1-3 NIV)

Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry: “ ‘Woe! Woe to you, great city, you mighty city of Babylon! In one hour your doom has come!’
(Revelation 18:10 NIV)

The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn and cry out: “ ‘Woe! Woe to you, great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!’ “Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, ‘Was there ever a city like this great city?’ They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out: “ ‘Woe! Woe to you, great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin!’ “Rejoice over her, you heavens! Rejoice, you people of God! Rejoice, apostles and prophets! For God has judged her with the judgment she imposed on you.”

Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: “With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. The music of harpists and musicians, pipers and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No worker of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again. The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world’s important people. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray. In her was found the blood of prophets and of God’s holy people, of all who have been slaughtered on the earth.”
(Revelation 18:15-24 NIV)

By the way, Peter did not have to take his wife to the places he visited. They had a big house in Israel where his mother in law also lived and Peter and his wife probably had children that stayed there. It would be unreasonable to think Peter made them go with him everywhere he went.

The only reason I can see for the Church of Rome claiming that the Babylon that Peter is writing from is code for Rome is that they wanted evidence from the scriptures that Peter went to Rome so they can claim the primacy of Peter over all the other churches. But it simply is not in scripture, but Paul going to Rome is in scripture. HalleluYah.

[ingliz]

Antiquities, Book XV, Ch. II, 2

John Hyrcanus II

In 40 BC, Aristobulus' son Antigonus Mattathias allied himself with the Parthians and was proclaimed King and High Priest. Hyrcanus was seized and mutilated at his ears (according to Josephus, Antigonus bit his uncle's ears off) to make him permanently ineligible for the priesthood.

Then Hyrcanus was taken to captivity in Babylonia by the Parthians, where for four years he lived amid the Babylonian Jews, who paid him every mark of respect.

Note the date.

[Hindsite]

John Hyrcanus II

Note the date.

Yeah, so what?

[ingliz]

Yeah, so what?

Note the date.

The temple there of Jupiter Belus is still in existence; he was the first inventor of the science of Astronomy. In all other respects it has been reduced to a desert, having been drained of its population in consequence of its vicinity to Seleucia.

Diodorus Siculus described the city as "in ruins."

while as for the palaces and the other buildings, time has either entirely effaced them or left them in ruins; and in fact of Babylon itself but a small part is inhabited at this time, and most of the area within its walls is given over to agriculture.

Strabo calls it "a great desert."

None of his successors cared for this matter; and even what was left of the city was neglected and thrown into ruins, partly by the Persians and partly by time and by the indifference of the Macedonians to things of this kind, and in particular after Seleucus Nicator had fortified Seleuceia on the Tigris near Babylon, at a distance of about three hundred stadia therefrom. For not only he, but also all his successors, were strongly interested in Seleuceia and transferred the royal residence to it. What is more, Seleuceia at the present time has become larger than Babylon, whereas the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say with one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia: "The Great City is a great desert."

Pausanias says that it has been "reduced to nothing.

All that remains of Babylon is the temple of Belus and the walls of the city; of Babylon, a greater city than which the sun formerly did not any where behold; and in like manner nothing of Tiryntha,
an Argolic city, remains but the walls. All these the daemon has reduced to nothing

Also...

(3) The city here called Babylon by Josephus, seems to be one which was built by some of the Seleucidæ, upon the Tigris, which long after the utter desolation of old Babylon was commonly so called: and, I suppose, not far from Seleucia. Just as the later adjoining city Bagdat has been, and is often called by the same old name of Babylon till this very day. And a plain reason occurs here, which shews that Josephus meant no other than a city built on the Tigris: and this from his own way of speaking immediately, that not only the Jews at his Babylon, but over all the countrey, as far as the Euphrates, paid this honour to Hyrcanus. Which surely implies, that his Babylon did not lie upon Euphrates; as the old Babylon most certainly did. See Prid. at the year 293. at large.

[Hindsite]

:)

"Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"

(John 21:18-19 NIV)

Many say this is a prophecy of a violent death for Peter when he becomes old, perhaps even a death like that of Jesus. Legend says he was crucified in Rome, but does that mean the city of Rome or just somewhere in the Roman Empire? That could have occurred at either of the two Babylons or even in Israel, and perhaps even in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified.

[ingliz]

Legend says he was crucified in Rome, but does that mean the city of Rome or just somewhere in the Roman Empire? That could have occurred at either of the two Babylons or even in Israel, and perhaps even in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified.

You're just grasping at straws now.




Edits in last post: I pressed submit and there was a glitch, lost all the quotes.