Peter in Rome?

[thessalonian]

No apologies necessary for those "terms of endearment". I've been cut with much sharper knives than was wielded here. Besides, I've probably called you a "cracker idolator" or "bead counter" somewhere down the line...perhaps worse.

And it was jumped right on it I am sure. :-?

Unfortunately, anything I post refuting this harlot system of worship will be contradictory to what the Catholic Church teaches because it's contrary to the word of God on all counts

.

Hmmmm. Let's see you say that what you post is contradictory to the Catholic Church because it (what you post that is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches is the context) is contrary to the word of God on all counts. You know I agree completely with what you have stated. What you teach that is not what the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to the word of God because if it were what the Catholic Church taught it would be consistent with the word of God. Thank you for pointing this out to the board. :-D You said it. Not I.

I think you could come up with a better phrase than the straw man and red herring thing you've been using over and over. It's reallly getting quite old and worn out.

If your tired of it don't read my posts. I am simply calling a spade a spade. What is tiring is your constant rhetoric about harlots and pagans. You use those words far more than I use "straw man" and red herring. What's tiring is your distortions of what I believe and what the catholic Church teaches. You bear false witness.

As for Peter's mother-in-law living with him and the wife not mentioned, that's neither hear nor there.

I believe I demonstrated to any but the most prejudice that even if she was alive it's neither here nor their anyway. Why did you bring it up if it's neither here nor there.

The bottom line is (at least in times past) Catholic priests were to be celibate-part of the doctrine.

What does "celibate-part of the doctrine" mean. Priests are celibate by discipline, not doctrine, per sey. Though there is a doctrinal element to it found in Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7. We could get in to why your churches ignore these passages and has no application for them but that's a different thread.

Of course, many were married going back centuries ago and rightly so, from my perspective. God never intended such a burden as celibacy, knowing the problems it would generate and has to this day as the headlines clearly show.

Evidently 1 Cor 7 and Matt 19 are not in your Bible. Paul recommends that people do not marry. Jesus says that to some it is given not to marry. It is not an undue burden when the grace of God is involved. You are sorely confused about the source of the headlines.

I find it rather odd that in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul in his final salutation at the end of the last chapter, never mentions Peter at all...it appears nearly everyone else is mentioned but Peter.

I find it odd that the governor of Minnesota has never mentioned that george bush has been in minnesota in any of his writings. Very odd. "everyone else". Seems to me you are going beyond what scripture says her. Where does it say that Paul covers even close to the who Christian community in Rome? You can't make the statement you did from what scripture says. Could it be that he was writing to a Church he established. If I were writing my priest in Utah, where I used to live, I doudt very much I would mention the Bishop. Do you suppose we can find more than a few letters where Protestants have written to a Church and not mentioned the local leader. I don't know why Paul didn't mention him, but that he didn't is not proof of anything. Once again you try to prove your point with arguements of silence. Now that is tiring. I suggest you pick up Hurley's book on logic.

. Simon Magus was in Rome but, not Simon Peter...highly doubtful.

Lot's of handwaving going on. And of course you ignore the many authors who say he was.

Nevertheless, my bottom line is that even if Peter paid a visit to Rome, he was not there to start a pagan church and for sure he wasn't a pope...Leo I may have been the first bonified "Pontifax Maximus" or perhaps Gregory, but not Peter. Peter spoke too much about Christ to be a pope.

Popes don't speak much about Christ? Your being silly here. They speak more about Christ by accident than you have on this board on purpose. :o
Your history is very foolish here. I wrote a post to Mr. Versatile in the Hislop thread. Check it out. There were men acting as Popes long before Leo and Gregory, quite clearly, excercising authority and settling disputes. There were anti-popes in Rome which shows that the Christian center of Authority was Rome in the third century. You simply don't know carp with regard to history and put you head in the sand regarding these early writings and say "na ha boo boo it's not true".

As for Paul, he preached, In the Jewish synagogues,Acts 9:20. Saul was now convinced that Jesus, whom they had crucified, and who had appeared to him on the way to Damascus, was the Son of God, or Messiah; and therefore as such he proclaimed him. He was afterwards indeed the apostle of the Gentiles, but according to Christ's command, he first preached the word of life to the Jews, to convert some, and to leave others without excuse: After which he turned from them unto the Gentiles according to "It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you; but because you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles". Acts 13:46.
The doctrine he preached; That Jesus was the Son of God, the true, promised, and expected Messiah; and that all the prophecies and predictions of the prophets concerning the Messiah, were exactly fulfilled in his person.

Are you telling me something I don't know. The book of HEBREWS however was written AFTER he was declared apostle to the gentiles. So your point is?

Peter had a vision if you recall in Acts 10:10-16, and doubted it's vallidity until he was told of Cornelius summonsing him to his house. In Acts 10:22... And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.


Cornelieus was warned that he should send for Peter and no one else. I don't question God's reasoning about who goes to who to preach the good news and don't believe anyone else should make great strides toward disallowing God's intentions. He does as he will. You're just trying to mix and mince for debates sake and I won't play that game.

Nope. Just showing the fallaciousness of the arguements presented. You just can't grasp the significance of my points.

 

[D46]

Hmmmm. Let's see you say that what you post is contradictory to the Catholic Church because it (what you post that is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches is the context) is contrary to the word of God on all counts. You know I agree completely with what you have stated. What you teach that is not what the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to the word of God because if it were what the Catholic Church taught it would be consistent with the word of God. Thank you for pointing this out to the board. You said it. Not I.

Don't get your hopes up. You know exactly what I mean, don't get cute and twist this like you and your cronies in Rome, twist the scriptures. You always have to come out on top don't you? :roll: Nothing Catholicism teaches is in agreement with the word of God, from their Idolatrous practices of worshiping saints and relics, kissing toes, hands or whatever, Mary's Assumption and Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, to that crucifix, Jesuit death symbol you probably have hanging on the wall. In light of the Scriptures, you and your church don't have a leg to stand on unless you can prove Peter was in Rome and was head of the church because the fallacy of Apostolic Succession would crumble for all to see and know assuredly what a farce the Catholic Church is and always has been built upon lies and deceit guided by the master deceiver himself-satan, who was actually, Rome's first "papa". This system of idolatry was built upon forgeries and imposters so don't come strutting this junk around here because I have more knowledge than most on this and you know it! Anything Catholics don't wan't everyone to know about, they just twist scriptures and re-invent history.

Rome claims Peter was the first pope, and on him Jesus founded His church. Really? Does history, the early church writings, and the Word of God substantiate this heretical claim? Not hardly. Peter was never a pope or even a bishop or Rome. He was NOT the foundational "rock" on which Christ was to build his church. Futhermore, he was not infalliable either. None of the men claiming to be Peter's successors have been. Catholicism's headquarters is not the "eternal city" as you may have been led to believe. Jerusalem enjoys that singular honor.

If Peter's alleged selection by Christ to head his church is true, the following Scripture begs a rational explaination from the Catholic church and her "magisterium" who are tradition-bound and savor Vatican rhetoric...

Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

If Peter was a bishop, or THE bishop of Rome, God's choice to lead his church-why assign the job of witnessing at Rome to the Apostle Paul? Let's face it, Peter was not a bad preacher himself. His track record in Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea...wherever he preached, was just as good as Paul's.Why would Peter have needed Paul's help? The answer is that Peter was every bit as effective as Paul. However, he wasn't the one God chose to plant the fellowship at Rome. Paul was not a pope-neither was Peter.All who claim that title were and still are the greatest imposters known to mankind and have led millions down the road to Hell.

 

[Georges]

Uh...any valid Bible historian will tell you James, not Peter was the leader of the Chruch.....Peter went to Babylon....why? Because that is where the greatest number of Jews and Israelites were...

 

[thessalonian]

Uh...any valid Bible historian will tell you James, not Peter was the leader of the Chruch.....Peter went to Babylon....why? Because that is where the greatest number of Jews and Israelites were...

Your history is off. Babylon was destroyed 600 years prior to this time. I doudt Peter went there.

 

[D46]

The Apostle Peter had never been considered a bishop (or pope) of Rome until either the end of the second century or the eary part of the third. At some point in tim, what have been named the Pseudo Clementine Letters and Homilies made their appearance. These were the first of the fraudulent, forged documents Rome has used over the years to give credence to the office of the papacy. Included among this collection of documents was a letter allegedly written at Rome by Clemens Romanus to James, the brother of Jesus . It is a forgery, possibly the work of a sect known as the Ebionites. In this letter, Peter is said dto have been appointed by Christ to head His church, and as Peter's death was approaching, he is alleged to have appointed Clemens Romanus, to be his successor. Catholilc sources have admited that this forged, spurious, false document is the only evidence ever found connecting Peter with the Office of Bishop of Rome.

It was not known at the time that these documents were deliberate forgeries, so they became useful to the bishops of Rome in their claims of supremacy. In the 3rd Century, Calixtus, bishop of Rome around 225 AD, declared himself the successor to Peter by virtue of Matthew 16:18 which, he says, was authorization from Christ to be the sovereign ruler over all Christendom, east or west. For referring to himself as bishop of bishops, he was called an usurper by Tertullian, bishop of Carthage. However, militantly striviing for Monoarchial control of Christendom, the bishops of Rome supported their claims by forged documents and misinterpreted Scripture.

There were many in the 9th Century who still resisted the bishop of Rome's claim of authority over the entire church. So, quite conveniently for the ambitious bishops of Rome, there came to light in 857 AD, a book containing a collection of forged documents known as the "Isidoriam Decretals". Included in this was the "Donation of Constantine", the effect of these false documents was confirmation of the supremacy of the bishops, supposedly datiing back to the time of Constantiine the Great. Constantine was alleged to have granted pope Sylvester (414-335 AD) the rule and authority over all the world's bishops. Nicholas I claimed the Isidorian Decretals had been buried in the RCC archives from way back in ancient times. He attested to their authenticity and benefited greatly from them as did his successors.

This Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine, combined with the forged Pseudo Clementine Letters and Homilies of the 2nd or 3rd Century made it appear that the Papacy had been an established office from antiquity-endowed with temporal power and ecclesiastical authority. It was the revelation of these documents and their acceptance as genuine that enabled the papacy to solidify its claims to both spiritual and temporal supremacy, and to enforce those claims thoroughout the middle ages. These documents obviously were not of God. They were forgeries...read my lips-FORGERIES, LIES, AND DECEPTIONS, made some time around 700-850 AD. Over forty falsifications were found in letters allegedly written by popes such as Sylvester and Gregory I.

Therefore, all claims for Peter being in Rome and establishing any church, or being the first pope have been based on lies and deception. The pope of Rome looks down upon his subjects from a majestic throne while our Lord looked down upon sinners from an old rugged cross.The popes of Rome have bound upon the faithful a heavy yoke of works that cannot bring salvation. Our Lord's yoke is simple and requires nothing more than faith in His sacrafice, trust in his promises, and obedience to his word. With a great amount of effectiveness, satan has sowed the seeds of apostasy in Christendom that was in its infancy and vulnerable to "doctrines of devils". Catholicism-the RCC is the shameful result.

 

[Georges]

Uh...any valid Bible historian will tell you James, not Peter was the leader of the Chruch.....Peter went to Babylon....why? Because that is where the greatest number of Jews and Israelites were...

Your history is off. Babylon was destroyed 600 years prior to this time. I doudt Peter went there.

Are you serious.... :-D Thess you lose credibility with just about every post you write....you are about as bad as Preterist when it comes to this sort of thing....

Yes, the city of Babylon was taken by the Medo-Persians...but the city wasn't destroyed....and the area was still inhabited...as I had said...it held the biggest population of Jews in the world at the time of the NT...

Peter wasn't in Babylon? There was no Babylon?
.
1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Guess Peter must mean those in the church at Babylon, NY......

A simple retraction will suffice.......nah, I don't even want that....I do expect you to be intellectually honest...which you haven't been so far...

Was the 1 Pet verse a strawman, or a red herring.....? :-D

 

[Georges]

Uh...any valid Bible historian will tell you James, not Peter was the leader of the Chruch.....Peter went to Babylon....why? Because that is where the greatest number of Jews and Israelites were...

Your history is off. Babylon was destroyed 600 years prior to this time. I doudt Peter went there.

Are you serious.... :-D Thess you lose credibility with just about every post you write....you are about as bad as Preterist when it comes to this sort of thing....

Yes, the city of Babylon was taken by the Medo-Persians...but the city wasn't destroyed....and the area was still inhabited...as I had said...it held the biggest population of Jews in the world at the time of the NT...

Peter wasn't in Babylon? There was no Babylon?
.
1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Guess Peter must mean those in the church at Babylon, NY......

A simple retraction will suffice.......nah, I don't even want that....I do expect you to be intellectually honest...which you haven't been so far...

Was the 1 Pet verse a strawman, or a red herring.....? :-D

 

[thessalonian]

The end of Babylon: 3rd century BC

Babylon's final claim to fame is an accidental one. Alexander the Great dies here, in 323 BC, after a banquet.

The city's end directly relates to the Greek conquest of this region. In 312 BC Seleucus founds a new Mesopotamian capital city, Seleucia, further to the north and on the Tigris rather than the Euphrates. Much of the building material is brought from Babylon, which becomes a forgotten city until excavated in the 20th century. But at all times there has been an important city in this region where the two great rivers come closest together. Seleucia is followed, in it turn, by Ctesiphon on the opposite bank of the Tigris. And from the early days of Islam this has been the site, a few miles further up the Tigris, of Baghdad.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=aa10

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's mysterious death in 323 BC in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon
The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of E-Saggila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary. By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity.

Admittedly my dating was a bit off and it was rebuilt for a time but there was noone in what was Babylon at the time of Christ. I don't see any sites on the net that say that Babylon was still going stong at the time of Christ as you claim. I am well aware of Peter's words in his letter. I find it amusing how protestants will say that Rome was Babylon in the book of Rev. when it speaks of the Whore of Babylon, but then when it comes to Peter's letter it cannot possibly be Rome.

Your buffoonery and condescention are duly noted. As for my credibility I'll let the readers be the judge of that. Intellectually honest hardly has your name by it in the dictionary.

Blessings

 

[D46]

Another challenge for Solo and anyone else who might want to rise to the occassion. Come up with a decent explanation of why all of these people from different countries, separated by many miles all come to the same conclusion that Peter was in fact in Rome at least for some time?

Ignatius (Anitoch)
Irenaus (France)
Dionysius (Corinth)
Clement (Corinth)
Clement (Rome)
Tertullian (Carthage)
Eusibius (Palestine, Cessarea) Hey he's even pretty close to Jerusalem and he said Peter was in Rome.
Peter (Alexandria)
Augustine (Africa)

I just explained in length the great fallacy of this post. Notwithstanding, that bunch of nine you made a list of are Catholic and of course would lie to defend "mother church's" reputation of being deceitful for gain. They would say black is white and white is black for the "church" if the pope said so... So, where's my 10-grand? I expect it in large bills please, and thank you for your generosity. Do come back now, ye hear?

 

[Theoketos]

Another challenge for Solo and anyone else who might want to rise to the occassion. Come up with a decent explanation of why all of these people from different countries, separated by many miles all come to the same conclusion that Peter was in fact in Rome at least for some time?

Ignatius (Anitoch)
Irenaus (France)
Dionysius (Corinth)
Clement (Corinth)
Clement (Rome)
Tertullian (Carthage)
Eusibius (Palestine, Cessarea) Hey he's even pretty close to Jerusalem and he said Peter was in Rome.
Peter (Alexandria)
Augustine (Africa)

I just explained in length the great fallacy of this post. Notwithstanding, that bunch of nine you made a list of are Catholic and of course would lie to defend "mother church's" reputation of being deceitful for gain. They would say black is white and white is black for the "church" if the pope said so... So, where's my 10-grand? I expect it in large bills please, and thank you for your generosity. Do come back now, ye hear?

It is facinating that you admit that there were true Catholics as Early as those folks, espcially Clement and Igantius.

 

[D46]

It is facinating that you admit that there were true Catholics as Early as those folks, espcially Clement and Igantius.

AntiChrists have been around a long time...even in Jesus' time.

1 John 2:18 (KJV) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

The Savior had predicted the appearance of false Christs and false prophets, as a sign of the approach of great changes, the nature of which was only obscurely intimated.

Mark 13:22-23 (KJV) For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

Most of these guys lived around the 3rd and 4th Century ...about the time Catholicism was beginning it's upward journey of deceit and power.

 

[Georges]

The end of Babylon: 3rd century BC

Babylon's final claim to fame is an accidental one. Alexander the Great dies here, in 323 BC, after a banquet.

The city's end directly relates to the Greek conquest of this region. In 312 BC Seleucus founds a new Mesopotamian capital city, Seleucia, further to the north and on the Tigris rather than the Euphrates. Much of the building material is brought from Babylon, which becomes a forgotten city until excavated in the 20th century. But at all times there has been an important city in this region where the two great rivers come closest together. Seleucia is followed, in it turn, by Ctesiphon on the opposite bank of the Tigris. And from the early days of Islam this has been the site, a few miles further up the Tigris, of Baghdad.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=aa10

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's mysterious death in 323 BC in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon
The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of E-Saggila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary. By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity.

Admittedly my dating was a bit off and it was rebuilt for a time but there was noone in what was Babylon at the time of Christ. I don't see any sites on the net that say that Babylon was still going stong at the time of Christ as you claim.


Here is the http://www.Jewishenclopedia.com article on Babylonia....
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 2&letter=B

and, the greatest Jewish scholar Hillel was from Babylon...the Greatest Rabbinic schools were in Babylon at the time of Christ....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... rch=Hillel

Doctor of the Law at Jerusalem in the time of King Herod; founder of the school called after him, and ancestor of the patriarchs who stood at the head of Palestinian Judaism till about the fifth century of the common era. Hillel was a Babylonian by birth and, according to a later tradition, belonged to the family of David (Lévi, in "R. E. J." xxxi. 202-211, xxxiii. 143).

and, an article concerning the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud)
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... n%20Talmud

Name of two works which have been preserved to posterity as the product of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools during the amoraic period, which extended from the third to the fifth century C.E. One of these compilations is entitled "Talmud Yerushalmi" (Jerusalem Talmud) and the other "Talmud Babli" (Babylonian Talmud).

As best I can figure (as a buffoon of course) is that the 3rd to 5th century C.E. is 200AD-400AD......must mean that Jews had been there since the Babylonian and even the Assyrian diaspora...

and....here is a history of Jews living in Babylon (or what ever you want to call that land)....from the exile to the Common Era....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... n%20School

I am well aware of Peter's words in his letter. I find it amusing how protestants will say that Rome was Babylon in the book of Rev. when it speaks of the Whore of Babylon, but then when it comes to Peter's letter it cannot possibly be Rome.

Different situation....Revelation is future....It also describes the city of Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt....


Your buffoonery and condescention are duly noted.

Oh oh...."duly noted?". :-D

As for my credibility I'll let the readers be the judge of that. Intellectually honest hardly has your name by it in the dictionary.

OK....maybe not my name...but my picture is there.... :-D At least I don't twist anyones posts....as other poster's allege of you.... at least if I'm wrong or misspeak I'll admit it.....I won't attack anyone (and sometimes it's tough not to....) I'll leave that to you... I Don't think I've been accused of buffoonery before.....had to chuckle at that...

Blessings

Back at cha bruddah.....

If you still want to claim Peter never went to Babylon....fine.

 

[Collier]

I have a question and I ask because I simply don't know. I did a little research and much like anything else, the context was dependent upon the agenda of the writer. So here is the question. Catholics believe Peter went to Rome and died there and buried there as well. Is this correct so far? Next, didn't someone discover a burial site in Jerusalem with the name of Simon Bar Jona among them (many were known Christians)? I just wondering any FACTS about this. Was it true or false?

 

[thessalonian]

Georgie,

The footnotes in Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" where your information likely originates says:

1) The city here called "Babylon" by Josephus, seems to be one which was built by some of the Seleucidae upon the Tigris, which long after the utter desolation of old Babylon was commonly so called, and I suppose not far from Seleueia; just as the latter adjoining city Bagdat has been and is often called by the same old name of Babylon till this very day.

According to this the info in your Jewish Encyclopedia is in error. The other article I posted says that this city was built from the ruins of Babylon. Now it is possible that Peter made this same error and called this city babylon. I don't think that will sit well with many protestants. You certainly can go with what your Jewish Encyclopedia says as well. I myself doudt it and think that your condescention toward me is rather unwaranted. Of course I suspect you will continue your childish tauntings. That is fine. Have fun.


Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

I have a question and I ask because I simply don't know. I did a little research and much like anything else, the context was dependent upon the agenda of the writer. So here is the question. Catholics believe Peter went to Rome and died there and buried there as well. Is this correct so far? Next, didn't someone discover a burial site in Jerusalem with the name of Simon Bar Jona among them (many were known Christians)? I just wondering any FACTS about this. Was it true or false?

It was posted on page 1 of this thread. Read my response also.
Some claim this. It is very odd first of all that nobody is parading this stone around. Secondly Peter and John were very common names at the time even though with a handwave solo's article denies this. Just pick up the Bible. There are several simon's and John's there. It is not an unlikely possibility that there was another Simon Bar Johna burried in the area at all. Simon became known as Peter and is primarily called that in scripture so I don't know why he would not be burried with that on his stone.

There is good reason to believe the find in Rome was Peter as well. It was directly under the altar which is common practice in Catholic Churches even that far back. There was purple dye associated with the bones, indicating that the person was of significance. There was an inscription that indicated it was Peter there as well. The feet were missing. As you recall Peter was crusified upside down. They would have cut off his feet to get him down.

As for what we Catholics believe it is not a matter of faith but all early historical writings say that Peter went to Rome from different countries and different languages throughout the world, at a time when such communication was difficult. There is little reason to believe that these people were mistaken or lying Catholics as D46 wants to say, even though most of them lived before constantine, who as I recall he says started the Catholic Church. :o However let's say they are. It is not a matter of faith that Peter ended up in Rome but a matter of historical record. If it ended up that he did not go to Rome things wouldn't fit together so nicely but it would not by any means prove Catholicism wrong. Peter was Pope no matter where he ended up. He had successors as recorded in Eusibius and Irenaus in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The successors somehow ended up in Rome. That Peter went there fits with the rest of history very nicely. The simon magnus theory is ridiculous.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

[MrVersatile48]

The end of Babylon: 3rd century BC

Babylon's final claim to fame is an accidental one. Alexander the Great dies here, in 323 BC, after a banquet.

The city's end directly relates to the Greek conquest of this region. In 312 BC Seleucus founds a new Mesopotamian capital city, Seleucia, further to the north and on the Tigris rather than the Euphrates. Much of the building material is brought from Babylon, which becomes a forgotten city until excavated in the 20th century. But at all times there has been an important city in this region where the two great rivers come closest together. Seleucia is followed, in it turn, by Ctesiphon on the opposite bank of the Tigris. And from the early days of Islam this has been the site, a few miles further up the Tigris, of Baghdad.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=aa10

Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's mysterious death in 323 BC in the palace of Nebuchadrezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon
The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of E-Saggila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary. By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity.

Admittedly my dating was a bit off and it was rebuilt for a time but there was noone in what was Babylon at the time of Christ. I don't see any sites on the net that say that Babylon was still going stong at the time of Christ as you claim.


Here is the http://www.Jewishenclopedia.com article on Babylonia....
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 2&letter=B

and, the greatest Jewish scholar Hillel was from Babylon...the Greatest Rabbinic schools were in Babylon at the time of Christ....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... rch=Hillel

Doctor of the Law at Jerusalem in the time of King Herod; founder of the school called after him, and ancestor of the patriarchs who stood at the head of Palestinian Judaism till about the fifth century of the common era. Hillel was a Babylonian by birth and, according to a later tradition, belonged to the family of David (Lévi, in "R. E. J." xxxi. 202-211, xxxiii. 143).

and, an article concerning the Talmud (the Babylonian Talmud)
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... n%20Talmud

Name of two works which have been preserved to posterity as the product of the Palestinian and Babylonian schools during the amoraic period, which extended from the third to the fifth century C.E. One of these compilations is entitled "Talmud Yerushalmi" (Jerusalem Talmud) and the other "Talmud Babli" (Babylonian Talmud).

As best I can figure (as a buffoon of course) is that the 3rd to 5th century C.E. is 200AD-400AD......must mean that Jews had been there since the Babylonian and even the Assyrian diaspora...

and....here is a history of Jews living in Babylon (or what ever you want to call that land)....from the exile to the Common Era....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... n%20School

I am well aware of Peter's words in his letter. I find it amusing how protestants will say that Rome was Babylon in the book of Rev. when it speaks of the Whore of Babylon, but then when it comes to Peter's letter it cannot possibly be Rome.

Different situation....Revelation is future....It also describes the city of Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt....


Your buffoonery and condescention are duly noted.

Oh oh...."duly noted?". :-D

As for my credibility I'll let the readers be the judge of that. Intellectually honest hardly has your name by it in the dictionary.

OK....maybe not my name...but my picture is there.... :-D At least I don't twist anyones posts....as other poster's allege of you.... at least if I'm wrong or misspeak I'll admit it.....I won't attack anyone (and sometimes it's tough not to....) I'll leave that to you... I Don't think I've been accused of buffoonery before.....had to chuckle at that...

Blessings

Back at cha bruddah.....

If you still want to claim Peter never went to Babylon....fine.

Yo Tex!

What's it say @ Babylon da spaceship on Sci-Fi TV, dude? :roll:

Keep smilin' man!! :-D

I just gotta chase UK Passport Office for the passport they said I'd have by 20 months ago at the latest! :evil:

To be fair, I applied @ the time their office relocated

But it didn't stop 'em cashing the £70 fee!! :

Off topic? :o

Moib :-?

I wuz thinking @ having a ROAM to the Irish PEAT bogs.. :wink: :multi:

Ian

 

[Georges]

Babylon....and Babylonia......City and Country.....one and the same...

New York (City)....and New York (State).....one and the same....

People that live in New York City are New Yorker's.....

People who live in New York Sate are New Yorker's....

Jew's who lived in the city of Babylon were Babylonian Jews.....

Jew's who lived in the land of Babylon were Babylonian Jews....


You can forget Babylon (the city)....even if it was destroyed (so no living creature lived there, although that wasn't the case), so what....the rest of the land wasn't destroyed....The largest population of Jews...lived in the Land of Babylon.....the area known as Mesopotamia.

I've provided the Jewish sources that indicate that.....believe me (or not), they (Jewishencyclopedia.com) don't have an antichristian agenda to put forth a disinformational lie to distract the fact that Jews lived in Mesopotamia.

Thess...you are holding on by your fingertips....

 

[thessalonian]

Your a legend in your own mind. Keep decieving yourself.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Another challenge for Solo and anyone else who might want to rise to the occassion. Come up with a decent explanation of why all of these people from different countries, separated by many miles all come to the same conclusion that Peter was in fact in Rome at least for some time?

Ignatius (Anitoch)
Irenaus (France)
Dionysius (Corinth)
Clement (Corinth)
Clement (Rome)
Tertullian (Carthage)
Eusibius (Palestine, Cessarea) Hey he's even pretty close to Jerusalem and he said Peter was in Rome.
Peter (Alexandria)
Augustine (Africa)

I just explained in length the great fallacy of this post. Notwithstanding, that bunch of nine you made a list of are Catholic and of course would lie to defend "mother church's" reputation of being deceitful for gain. They would say black is white and white is black for the "church" if the pope said so... So, where's my 10-grand? I expect it in large bills please, and thank you for your generosity. Do come back now, ye hear?

Funny thing about lies and liars. They have a hard time telling one story. Just this week in Minnesota we had a state senetor say he talked to the state supreme court and they said they wouldn't overturn the law about Marriage. A rather serious ethics violation. Well someone taped him when he said it and it was all over the news. Of course he now had to change his story. Two or three times.

If we look on this thread and others we see Catholics presenting one story that is consistent with the writings through 2000 years by Catholics and even many non-catholics. The secular encyclopedias as well trace the papacy back to Peter. We have the writings of the above mentioed people before Constantine who support this claim quite throuroughly. They are from many different countries all over the known world. But somehow in the year 1515 the stories start to change. Oh, constantine started the Church. Then it's Hislop's Babylon and Mystery Religions and Simon Magnus and Peter stayed in jersualem or went to Babylon or who knows where. The Catholic Church started in the fourth century. It immediately fell away with Ignatius of Antioch, that heretic. Some say it was okay until the 7th century, others until the 11th century. I've heard it all. Then there the trail of blood theory where every heretical group denying the divinity of Christ and engaging in sexual excess and dual Gods are baptists. And of course all these things they believe are lies. No, I think if one examines history with an open mind it is obvious who the liars are. Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling you guys liars per sey though you do perptuate the lies. Your culpability for the lies is for the lord to judge. One thing is obvious there are no historical roots of protestantism dating back to Christ. You have no family history. And so you must jealosly attack the Church that does. Some of it can be attributed to the way you are raised in rebellion and error. You each have your own little theologies which you pridefully hang on to as the Word of God. It's sad. And of course we Catholics are a threat to your "freedom" to come up with your own individual theories. Some on this board have even told me they are infallible. All while you distort the Catholic faith to your advantage. Not attacking the doctrines on what they say but some disfugured lie of what the Church teaches. Keep it up folks. I am patient and anyone really searching for the truth will not find it in you.

Peace out.

Thess

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

By the way George, it's fine with me if you want to believe Peter spent some time in Babylon, if the place existed at the time of Christ. There is some question that it did it seems. The early church did not think Peter went to babylon and there are certainly other legitimate explanations for his use of babylon, even from a protestant perspective. You seem to think I am going to hell or am completely stupid if I don't believe Peter was literally in babylon. The fact is it is not a contradiction that he was in babylon and he died in Rome or Jerusalem. Further if he died in Jerusalem that presents a few historical problems but no real theological ones. Of course you folks on this website won't sit still until you "prove" that Peter was never in Rome, even though historically it's pretty sound, no matter where else he was.

Collier, I think I forgot to mention that considering the fiasco of the Joseph ossuary recently even if someone would come up with this alleged stone with Peter Bar Johna on it, considering it was "discovered" around the time the vatican was also saying that Peter's bones were found in Rome, a fake stone is not hardly out of the question. Especially with the great efforts that Protestant go to to prove anything contrary to Catholicism.

Blessings