The ROOT of our differences is the AUTHORITY we claim.....

[banished]

PS:  I'm still waiting for our friend McLees to back up his earlier claims about the Catholic Church and it's start date.

Come on Macca, show us how smart and educated you really are. Give us something more that wikopedia and Napoleon.

Back up your claims with intelligent, "mature" references to historical documents.

Or admit here before all you are making baseless and fraudulant claims which amounts to outright lying before Our Lord Jesus and Almighty GOD and reprent for your sin

If I comited a sin here then i would repent of it. Talking about real history is not a sin.
Wickapedea is only stating real history. It is not prejudice. Are they lieing ? If you want real historical documents then you produce them. Im sure they will back up what you say i cannot back up.  Talk about you baseless accusations just look at your own comment here. You can always say everything is a lie which is what you do if it does not support your idea.

I have already addressed the things you say I do not back up with common sense. From the deception that surrounds the word Catholic to when the papacy came to power. Just go back through the threads and Im sure you will find them but i think you already have.

You like to play the denial game a lot. It is not my fault you like the things i post that tell the real truth. 

mclees8,

Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.

[Fallen Knight]

My Dear Macca,
                           So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL  )

You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts

I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.

You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??

" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "

Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )

I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.

But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD

Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.

[Amo]

Actually, I think your buddy TradCath does deny the Holocaust.  It sure did seem like it from one of his posts in the history thread about Hitler anyway.

[mclees8]

My Dear Macca,
                           So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL  )

You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts

I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.

You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??

" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "

Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )

I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.

But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD

Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.

Night why don't you drop that old line about the word catholic. There was no Roman catholic Papacy that was a political religious system with popes on thrones big hats and  religious vestments in 110 AD. There was no Vatican capital authority that ruled the Empire,andt took a nose dive into corruption.
The church could be called catholic then but it is not a real legal term for it. this fact is true that they were not Roman Catholics or any other divisions.    The Roman catholic papal church is not 2000 years old and is not any church Christ founded or was ever ordained of Him.

This line of yours is old stuff and does not fool anyone but yourself and many uniformed RC's   There's never any so blind as those who refuse to see. 
God bless

[winsome]

My Dear Macca,
                           So let me see if I understand your approach to making statements about someone else's 2000 yr old faith. ( That's opposed to your 450 yr old one....please don't claim you've always been around because not even Wikopedia makes that claim LOL  )

You believe you have the right to make lying outlandish historical claims about the Catholic Church, and yet don't have to support any of your claims with actual facts

I suppose you walk around the streets claiming the Holocaust didn't really happen as well.

You reckon Wikopedia tells the "truth"??

" The Catholic Church traces its foundation to the gathering of the twelve Apostles by Jesus and the selection of Peter as their head "

Well that's an example of Wikopedia Macca, ( Catholic Church - Origins and History )

I guess even Wiki reckons your grasp on historical truth and religious truth concerning the Church Our Lord Jesus established is incorrect.

But please, you keep going. You are providing all with much amusement. You claimed The Catholic Church was not created until after Constantine approx 400AD

Please explain Saint Igntatius writing about the Eucharist 300 before this Macca.

Night why don't you drop that old line about the word catholic. There was no Roman catholic Papacy that was a political religious system with popes on thrones big hats and  religious vestments in 110 AD. There was no Vatican capital authority that ruled the Empire,andt took a nose dive into corruption.
The church could be called catholic then but it is not a real legal term for it. this fact is true that they were not Roman Catholics or any other divisions.    The Roman catholic papal church is not 2000 years old and is not any church Christ founded or was ever ordained of Him.

This line of yours is old stuff and does not fool anyone but yourself and many uniformed RC's   There's never any so blind as those who refuse to see. 
God bless

The Catholic Church

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.

That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ’s one fold (Jn 10:16).

This is the Catholic Church

[Tantor]

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.


That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ’s one fold (Jn 10:16).

To say this is the RCC is to take a humongous leap of faith... because it doesn't pass the test of even the most basic logic.

[winsome]

Jesus founded a Church (Mt 16:18); he founded it on the Apostles (Eph 2:20) and it is described as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15)

Jesus made promises to this Church, covenant promises, which he guarantees (Heb 7:22)

Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible. – the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

He promised the Church would be preserved from error by the Holy Spirit by reminding the apostles of all that Jesus had taught them (Jn 14:26) and guide them into the truth in the future (Jn 16:13)

He appointed the Apostles with Peter as the leader (Mt 18:18-19) and gave them the mission to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. (Mt 28:16-20)

He promised he would not leave them on their own (Jn 14:18) but that he would be with them until the end of the age (Mt 28:20)

He prayed that it would be one Church (Jn 18:20-23)

He prayed that the Father would consecrate the Apostles in the truth (Jn 18:17), and the Father always hears Jesus (Jn 11:41-42). We are therefore guaranteed by Jesus that what his Church teaches is the truth.


That Church is headed by Christ (Col 1:18), but he appointed Peter to be the visible head on earth (Mt 16:18-19), to be the universal shepherd (Jn 21:15-17) of Christ’s one fold (Jn 10:16).

To say this is the RCC is to take a humongous leap of faith... because it doesn't pass the test of even the most basic logic.

If that is so then you will be able to demonstrate it very easily.

[Tantor]

1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

2.) To add to that, we do have one Apostle that spent a ton of time in Rome.. Paul.  And not once in any of Paul's writings from Rome did he mention Peter being there.. not even once.

3.) The office of Pope didn't start until September 3, 590 when Gregory first coined it.

In my humble opinion... Peter started the church in Jerusalem and never intended it to move to Rome.. there is amble evidence of this.  There is also no written record of Peter setting up a Papal see in Rome or that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over all christendom.  It also seems quite strange to me that Peter.. a devout Jew who loved his countrymen.. would purposefully set up his church in the gentile capital of the Jews sworn enemy... it does not compute.  Besides, Peter was sent to the Jews first, while Paul was sent to the Gentiles... why would Peter disobey Jesus and set up his church in Rome?


4.) When you read the verse calling Peter 'Rock'.. it is very problematic to read the greek or aramaic equivalent of that verse to mean that Peter was the Rock... the Rock is actually referring to the fact that Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ.. and the church was to be anchored on the rock of confession.

The bottom line is that if Peter intended to set up the Bishop of Rome as the head of his church, then we would have is writings to that effect... instead we have evidence that the Bishop or Rome rose to primacy due to political reasons..

For me.. the RCC started either at Gregory the 1st.. when he claimed himself pope and primacy over the other bishops... or at 1054 when the then Pope finally used that authority to excommunicate his eastern brothers...   if anything the Eastern brothers still retain the only legitimate apostolic line back to the original disciples due to their numbers.

[winsome]

1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
“The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.” (1Pet 5:13)
Babylon was the code word for Rome (see Revelation for more examples of that)

Early writing testify to Peter being in Rome.:
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).

Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthians in 95-97 AD also places Peter in Rome, being martyred with Paul probably during Nero’s persecution.

The there is this  - “Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" ( Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.” -  quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

2.) To add to that, we do have one Apostle that spent a ton of time in Rome. Paul.  And not once in any of Paul's writings from Rome did he mention Peter being there.. not even once.

I wouldn’t say he spent a ton of time in Rome. He spent 2 years that during his first captivity and an unknown amount later. He would not mention Peter being there. Rome was dangerous place to be, especially for Peter as leader. Paul would not have betrayed he was there in an open letter that might alert the authorities.

3.) The office of Pope didn't start until September 3, 590 when Gregory first coined it.

The earliest usage of the title Pope or pontiff was by Tertullian in 220 AD. But the office goes back to its institution by Christ.

In my humble opinion... Peter started the church in Jerusalem and never intended it to move to Rome.. there is amble evidence of this.  There is also no written record of Peter setting up a Papal see in Rome or that the bishop of Rome was to have primacy over all christendom.  It also seems quite strange to me that Peter.. a devout Jew who loved his countrymen.. would purposefully set up his church in the gentile capital of the Jews sworn enemy... it does not compute.  Besides, Peter was sent to the Jews first, while Paul was sent to the Gentiles... why would Peter disobey Jesus and set up his church in Rome?

We know that Peter made missionary journeys in the east, for example he was at Antioch (see Gal 2:1). And see quotations above which show Peter was in Rome.

4.) When you read the verse calling Peter 'Rock'.. it is very problematic to read the greek or aramaic equivalent of that verse to mean that Peter was the Rock... the Rock is actually referring to the fact that Peter confessed Jesus to be the Christ.. and the church was to be anchored on the rock of confession.

It’s not problematic at all. Peter was given the name Kephas, meaning “Rock” by Christ himself (Jn 1:42) and was referred to as Kephas by Paul in 1Cor 15:5 & Gal 2:9

An examination of the syntax clearly shows that Peter is the Rock referred to. Also the whole context of the passage focuses on Peter and his commissioning as leader with the keys and the binding and loosing

The bottom line is that if Peter intended to set up the Bishop of Rome as the head of his church, then we would have is writings to that effect... instead we have evidence that the Bishop or Rome rose to primacy due to political reasons..

No, we have evidence that Peter was given the leadership of the Church by Christ and that he was in Rome where he was martyred.

For me.. the RCC started either at Gregory the 1st.. when he claimed himself pope and primacy over the other bishops... or at 1054 when the then Pope finally used that authority to excommunicate his eastern brothers...   if anything the Eastern brothers still retain the only legitimate apostolic line back to the original disciples due to their numbers.

An opinion not backed up by facts.

Not exactly the basic logic you claimed.

[Tantor]

1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
“The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.” (1Pet 5:13)
Babylon was the code word for Rome (see Revelation for more examples of that)

Babylon is in Mesopotamia... all the early church fathers and writers acknowledged that... it wasn't a code word.. it was an actual city that was a stronghold of Judiasim... a place where the Jews fled to after the destruction of the temple in AD 70... do you have any support that the Jews fled to Rome?


PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME...EVER.


www.catholic.com even concedes the fact that Peter may have never been in Rome.. but they view that as inconsequential.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

How to Understand the Argument


At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

So, if the apostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about who his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter’s successor), but it would say nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the papacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.

No, somehow the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it.

“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.

All I want are the facts..and if you are going to assert something... you better well prove it.

[winsome]

1.) It's not provable that Peter was ever in Rome... if you take biblical events and timelines to be correct, Peter could never have been in Rome.  Even if it can be proven that Peters bones are in the Vatican it proves nothing because like most Roman relics, they get moved around.

Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome:
“The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.” (1Pet 5:13)
Babylon was the code word for Rome (see Revelation for more examples of that)

Babylon is in Mesopotamia... all the early church fathers and writers acknowledged that... it wasn't a code word.. it was an actual city that was a stronghold of Judiasim... a place where the Jews fled to after the destruction of the temple in AD 70... do you have any support that the Jews fled to Rome?

From Wikipedia

Hellenistic period

In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]

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

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE 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 Esagila. 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.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)

PETER WAS NEVER IN ROME...EVER.

The historical evidence says otherwise.

www.catholic.com even concedes the fact that Peter may have never been in Rome.. but they view that as inconsequential.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

How to Understand the Argument


At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

So, if the apostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about who his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter’s successor), but it would say nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the papacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.

No, somehow the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it.

“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.

No, it is making the point that whether Peter was in Rome or not is not relevant to his position as the leader of the Church, appointed by Christ. It is not saying that he wasn't in Rome.

The rest of the article goes on to show the evidence that he was in Rome.

All I want are the facts..and if you are going to assert something... you better well prove it.

You've been given the facts. You just find them unpalatable.

[Tantor]

From Wikipedia

Hellenistic period

In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]

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

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE 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 Esagila. 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.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)

So.. that proves nothing?... a lot can happen in 200 years.  America is just a little over 200 years old.

[winsome]

From Wikipedia

Hellenistic period

In 331 BCE, Darius III was defeated by the forces of the Ancient Macedonians ruler Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gaugamela, and in October, Babylon fell to the young conqueror. A native account of this invasion notes a ruling by Alexander not to enter the homes of its inhabitants.[13]

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

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BCE 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 Esagila. 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.[14] By 141 BCE, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity. (my emboldening)

So.. that proves nothing?... a lot can happen in 200 years.  America is just a little over 200 years old.

Well show something did happen to Babylon in that 200 years. It's possible to show a lot happened to America in 200 years.

Babylon was in ruins when Saddam Hussein started to rebuild it.

[Tantor]

not my favorite source.. wikipedia.. if you want more I can find them easily.

Babylon under the Persians

The invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus was doubtless facilitated by the presence of foreign exiles like the Jews, who had been planted in the midst of the country. One of the first acts of Cyrus was to allow these exiles to return to their own homes, carrying with them the images of their gods and their sacred vessels. The permission to do so was embodied in a proclamation, whereby the conqueror endeavored to justify his claim to the Babylonian throne. The Jews were also allowed to rebuild the Temple. The feeling was still strong that none had a right to rule over western Asia until Bel and his priests had consecrated him to the office; and accordingly, Cyrus henceforth assumed the imperial title of “king of Babylon.”

The Jews understood their time in Babylon as one of chastisement but they had also thought deeply about their experiences there and it was during this time that many of the customs and practices that characterize Judaism developed, including the synagogue as a place for prayer and study and many books of the Bible were compiled. The Bible (or the Torah) began to displace the Temple at the center of Jewish life. Jeremiah advised the exiles to "plant vineyards, build houses, marry off their daughters and work and pray for the prosperity and peace of the city in which they dwelt, for its common welfare was their own welfare" (Jeremiah 29:5-7). This enabled Jews of the Babylonian Diaspora to develop an understanding of their role in the world that did not require the Temple priesthood or sacrificial system. Jewish sense of identity and Jewish practice centered on the study of the Torah, instead.


A sizable Jewish presence remained in Babylon even after the destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E. and on into the Islamic period. Babylon became a leading center of Jewish learning; it was there that the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli), one of the most important texts of Rabbinic Judaism, was collected by Rav Ashi and Ravina in 550 C.E..

A year before Cyrus' death, in 529 B.C.E., he elevated his son Cambyses II in the government, making him king of Babylon, while he reserved for himself the fuller title of “king of the (other) provinces” of the empire. It was only when Darius Hystaspis ("the Magian") acquired the Persian throne and ruled it as a representative of the Zoroastrian religion, that the old tradition was broken and the claim of Babylon to confer legitimacy on the rulers of western Asia ceased to be acknowledged. Darius, in fact, entered Babylon as a conqueror.

After the murder of Darius, it briefly recovered its independence under Nidinta-Bel, who took the name of Nebuchadnezzar III, and reigned from October 521 B.C.E. to August 520 B.C.E., when the Persians took it by storm. A few years later, probably 514 B.C.E., Babylon again revolted under Arakha; on this occasion, after its capture by the Persians, the walls were partly destroyed. E-Saggila, the great temple of Bel, however, still continued to be kept in repair and to be a center of Babylonian patriotism, until at last the foundation of Seleucia diverted the population to the new capital of Babylonia and the ruins of the old city became a quarry for the builders of the new seat of government.

[winsome]

not my favorite source.. wikipedia.. if you want more I can find them easily.

Babylon under the Persians

The invasion of Babylonia by Cyrus was doubtless facilitated by the presence of foreign exiles like the Jews, who had been planted in the midst of the country. One of the first acts of Cyrus was to allow these exiles to return to their own homes, carrying with them the images of their gods and their sacred vessels. The permission to do so was embodied in a proclamation, whereby the conqueror endeavored to justify his claim to the Babylonian throne. The Jews were also allowed to rebuild the Temple. The feeling was still strong that none had a right to rule over western Asia until Bel and his priests had consecrated him to the office; and accordingly, Cyrus henceforth assumed the imperial title of “king of Babylon.”

The Jews understood their time in Babylon as one of chastisement but they had also thought deeply about their experiences there and it was during this time that many of the customs and practices that characterize Judaism developed, including the synagogue as a place for prayer and study and many books of the Bible were compiled. The Bible (or the Torah) began to displace the Temple at the center of Jewish life. Jeremiah advised the exiles to "plant vineyards, build houses, marry off their daughters and work and pray for the prosperity and peace of the city in which they dwelt, for its common welfare was their own welfare" (Jeremiah 29:5-7). This enabled Jews of the Babylonian Diaspora to develop an understanding of their role in the world that did not require the Temple priesthood or sacrificial system. Jewish sense of identity and Jewish practice centered on the study of the Torah, instead.


A sizable Jewish presence remained in Babylon even after the destruction of the second temple in 70 C.E. and on into the Islamic period. Babylon became a leading center of Jewish learning; it was there that the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli), one of the most important texts of Rabbinic Judaism, was collected by Rav Ashi and Ravina in 550 C.E..

A year before Cyrus' death, in 529 B.C.E., he elevated his son Cambyses II in the government, making him king of Babylon, while he reserved for himself the fuller title of “king of the (other) provinces” of the empire. It was only when Darius Hystaspis ("the Magian") acquired the Persian throne and ruled it as a representative of the Zoroastrian religion, that the old tradition was broken and the claim of Babylon to confer legitimacy on the rulers of western Asia ceased to be acknowledged. Darius, in fact, entered Babylon as a conqueror.

After the murder of Darius, it briefly recovered its independence under Nidinta-Bel, who took the name of Nebuchadnezzar III, and reigned from October 521 B.C.E. to August 520 B.C.E., when the Persians took it by storm. A few years later, probably 514 B.C.E., Babylon again revolted under Arakha; on this occasion, after its capture by the Persians, the walls were partly destroyed. E-Saggila, the great temple of Bel, however, still continued to be kept in repair and to be a center of Babylonian patriotism, until at last the foundation of Seleucia diverted the population to the new capital of Babylonia and the ruins of the old city became a quarry for the builders of the new seat of government.

You didn't give the citation for this - and I'm not surpised. It's from the New World Enclyclopedia originated by Sun Myung Moon of the "Unification Church" otherwise known as "moonies". You don't expect me to take quotes from that as serious histroy do you?