|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 16, 2008 16:09:40 GMT -5
Here is what Luther says about Peter:
That Caiaphas, Pilate, and St Peter came to Rome, and appeared before the emperor, is mere fable; the histories touching that point do not accord. Christ died in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, who governed five years after his death. All histories unanimously agree, that St Peter and St Paul died under the emperor Nero, whose last year was the five and twentieth year after the death of Christ. But St Peter was eighteen years at Jerusalem after Christ’s death, as the Epistle to the Galatians witnesses; and after that, he was seven years at Antioch. Then, as they fable, he ruled afterwards five and twenty years at Rome.
No pope among them all yet ruled five and twenty years; and, according to this reckoning, St Peter was not crucified under Nero. St Luke writes, that St Paul was two whole years at liberty in Rome, and went abroad; he mentions nothing at all of St Peter. It is a thing not to be believed that St Peter ever was at Rome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 16:33:38 GMT -5
Here is what Luther says about Peter: That Caiaphas, Pilate, and St Peter came to Rome, and appeared before the emperor, is mere fable; the histories touching that point do not accord. Christ died in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, who governed five years after his death. All histories unanimously agree, that St Peter and St Paul died under the emperor Nero, whose last year was the five and twentieth year after the death of Christ. But St Peter was eighteen years at Jerusalem after Christ’s death, as the Epistle to the Galatians witnesses; and after that, he was seven years at Antioch. Then, as they fable, he ruled afterwards five and twenty years at Rome. No pope among them all yet ruled five and twenty years; and, according to this reckoning, St Peter was not crucified under Nero. St Luke writes, that St Paul was two whole years at liberty in Rome, and went abroad; he mentions nothing at all of St Peter. It is a thing not to be believed that St Peter ever was at Rome. Yawn! 1 Peter 5:13 "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." Rome is Babylon. Next! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 16:34:17 GMT -5
What the Bible Says Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “ nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).
In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 16:35:36 GMT -5
What Christians that lived a thousand and a half years "before" Luther (the Mary venerator!) said:
HISTORY SPEAKS:
Peter's Roman Residency
In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.
But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.
This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
Irenaeus
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).
Gaius
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).
Clement of Alexandria
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Tertullian
"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).
The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
Peter of Alexandria
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius
"When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [A.D. 318]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.
"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 17:11:50 GMT -5
Here is what Luther says about Peter: That Caiaphas, Pilate, and St Peter came to Rome, and appeared before the emperor, is mere fable; the histories touching that point do not accord. Christ died in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, who governed five years after his death. All histories unanimously agree, that St Peter and St Paul died under the emperor Nero, whose last year was the five and twentieth year after the death of Christ. But St Peter was eighteen years at Jerusalem after Christ’s death, as the Epistle to the Galatians witnesses; and after that, he was seven years at Antioch. Then, as they fable, he ruled afterwards five and twenty years at Rome. No pope among them all yet ruled five and twenty years; and, according to this reckoning, St Peter was not crucified under Nero. St Luke writes, that St Paul was two whole years at liberty in Rome, and went abroad; he mentions nothing at all of St Peter. It is a thing not to be believed that St Peter ever was at Rome. Yet...Luther still relied on The Church Fathers that believed that knew Peter was in Rome. Who can be trusted on that more, Martin Luther, the Mary Venerator that lived 1100 years after those men who walked with The Apostles? Or those men who actually walked with The Apostles? Food for thought... Though much Protestant religious thought is based on Sola Scriptura (the principle that the Bible itself is the ultimate authority in doctrinal matters), the first Protestant reformers, like the Catholic and Orthodox churches, relied heavily on the theological interpretations of scripture set forth by the early Church Fathers. The original Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1531, for example, and the later Formula of Concord of 1576-1584, each begin with the mention of the doctrine professed by the Fathers of the First Council of Nicea. John Calvin's French Confession of Faith of 1559 states, "And we confess that which has been established by the ancient councils, and we detest all sects and heresies which were rejected by the holy doctors, such as St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose and St. Cyril."[24] The Scots Confession of 1560 deals with general councils in its 20th chapter. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, both the original of 1562-1571 and the American version of 1801, explicitly accept the Nicene Creed in article 7. Even when a particular Protestant confessional formula does not mention the Nicene Council or its creed, its doctrine is nonetheless always asserted, as, for example, in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of 1647. Many Protestant seminaries provide courses on Patristics as part of their curriculum. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers#Other_Fathers |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Apr 16, 2008 18:07:26 GMT -5
Hi Cepha----------
If Peter was in Rome why doesn't Paul (who we know was there) mention him?
much love--------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 18:12:56 GMT -5
Hi Cepha---------- If Peter was in Rome why doesn't Paul (who we know was there) mention him? much love--------------knuckle I don't know. Does Paul have to mention everything that ever happened for it to be true? The Holy Bible doesn't mention The Holy Bible...does "it" not exist?? Pax |
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Apr 16, 2008 18:44:11 GMT -5
If one looks at Paul's epistles written in Rome and all the salutation one would kind of look for a "Cephas sends his greetings" or something
In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.
In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there .
The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.
From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were in Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.I can not see Peter doing that.
And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.
So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"
It is my personal belief that had Peter been in Rome,he would have made every effort to comfort and strengthen Paul,Jesus Christ gave this instruction to Peter as a personal command(Luke 22:32) to strengthen the brethren and he would have to act on it.
According to church history,when did Peter become head of the church at Rome?If my dates are correct above it would have to be 70 ad at the earliest.
much love---------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Apr 16, 2008 18:45:41 GMT -5
OOPS 66 ad-----knuckle can't add
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 19:04:59 GMT -5
How do you know that he didn't? Is there any proof that Peter didn't comfort and strengthen Paul?
Remember, Paul could scream from the mountaintops the Gospel...he was actually a Roman citizen.
Saint Peter on the other hand was a persecuted outlaw who would have to keep his whereabouts secret.
The less evidence of where he was that could be intercepted by The Church's persecuters (The Pharisees and Rome), the better. That's why they used the code word "Babylon" for Rome sometimes.
There are the Apochryphal works that you can look into telling of Peter's life after Jesus left, but I personally don't trust everything I read.
Peter was made the head of The Church by Jesus. And where ever Peter was, there was the headquarters of The Church. Peter "ended" up in Rome (that's where he was martyred).
There was no big "church" with an altar and a rectory. They were on the run for 300 years until Constantine was confronted by Jesus (like Paul was) and turned Catholicism from an outlaw faith to a protected faith of The Roman Empire in the 4th Century.
70's is about right as to when he was martyred, but as far as being made the head of The Church, I'd guesstimate it at around 30 AD. He was promised this positions in Jesus' early ministry, but wasn't given that position until after Jesus had died and was ressurected in John 21.
I've heard an exact date of Peter being martyred on the 29th of June, year 67, but I wouldn't call that trustworthy.
Pax
|
|
|
|
Post by alfie on Apr 16, 2008 20:09:08 GMT -5
Hi Cepha---------- If Peter was in Rome why doesn't Paul (who we know was there) mention him? much love--------------knuckle I don't know. Does Paul have to mention everything that ever happened for it to be true? The Holy Bible doesn't mention The Holy Bible...does "it" not exist?? Pax The Bible says that Peter was a disciple to the Jews and that Paul was a disciple of the Gentiles so why would Peter be in Rome? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 16, 2008 20:26:43 GMT -5
[I think you meant Apostle to the Jews & Gentiles, not Disciples  ) Why would Peter be "in" Rome? I always wondered why Peter would go to preach from the heart of the most powerful empire in the civilized world that was hunting him down. Simple answer: God told him to. Jesus even predicted his death in John 21 when He told him that he'd be led to someplace that he would not want to go to. Imagine this: The Empire that once persecuted Christians overnight becomes it's protector. What does that tell you about Christianity? That Christ overcomes all...that not even the most powerful kingdom/religion/empire in the world could overcome His message about peace. Paul was sent by Peter. James ran the Jerusalem Church, Paul preached to The Gentiles, Peter continued with the Jews. Now, Paul would've been a far better choice and example to preach to the Jews...why? Because Paul was a raging Pharisee, remember? Who better to convert the Jews than a converted Jewish Priest? But Paul (again, let us not forget this important note) was a Roman Citizen, free to travel as he pleased! This is why Paul was chosen to preach to the Gentiles. Also, Paul wasn't with Jesus while He was alive before the resurrection. He was way lower on the list of who the Romans and Jews wanted to persecute. But that's just conjecture on my part. I can't state that as actual fact. Ultimately, the simple answer for me would be that Jesus told Peter to go to Rome to plant the seed of His Church in the center of the heart of the Empire. Because all roads led to Rome, it would've been easiest and most convenienct to export Christianity from there. Today, I believe that it would've been either New York or Washington D.C.. While God is God and omnipotent, He was using limited humans to do His work. He could've just given them supernatural powers that would've overwhelmed the world, but then the world probably would've made gods of Peter and Paul. I think God is as much a hands off God as possible so that we can develop on our own. Just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Jun 5, 2008 20:40:12 GMT -5
First of all, some non-Catholics will say ANYTHING in order to try and "prove" that Saint Peter, the first "Bishop of Rome" was never in Rome.
by doing this, they hope to discredit Peter as having the primacy, and thus by so doing they attempt to deny that he was first pope, and therefore the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession would fall apart.
By denying Apostolic Succession they would then try to show that the Catholic church is not the church which Jesus Christ founded.
Interestingly, if they ever reached that point (which they never could), then it would be impossible for them to fill the void of which church Jesus Christ did found if it were not the Catholic church.
So,...they have presented a circular argument for themselves, an argument which has no beginning and no end.
It is a futile attempt on their part, as they completely ignore an overwhelming deposit of genuine historical documents, and expert knowledgeable people to do the same.
Peter wrote "The church which is a t Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark" 1 Pet 5:13.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Jun 5, 2008 20:42:08 GMT -5
Also, I may add I was in Rome in October and stood in the prison of Peter and Paul. Very emotional. I also stood at the church where Peter's chains are in a glass case. There is so much evidence here it isn't funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 9, 2008 12:58:03 GMT -5
Okay, my question is
If "Babylon" in Peter's epistle wasn't Rome, then the only other option would be that he was literally in Babylon!! How would THAT make sense??
Teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 9, 2008 13:26:43 GMT -5
Okay, my question is If "Babylon" in Peter's epistle wasn't Rome, then the only other option would be that he was literally in Babylon!! How would THAT make sense?? Teresa I've heard that argument too. Yet, they never give an explanation for what else it could be. They only say that it cannot be Rome.  Know what's funny? They call The Catholic Church The Whore of Babylon because Babylon means Rome, EXCEPT when Peter uses the word? LOL |
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Jul 11, 2008 7:44:23 GMT -5
"The church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does my son Mark" 1 Pet 5:13
I can present many early church writings if you'd like also. Peter was in Rome, that he and Paul founded the church there, that he was the first bishop of Rome, now called the pope, and that he died there.
Peter's Tomb has been found, it was found under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome in 1965. The tomb is plainly marked with his name and there are human remains within it. I have seen it with my own eyes.
|
|
)
