Christian Forums

Quote from: Tantor on Fri Dec 04, 2009 - 12:14:00
We have been through the definition of Babylon many times.  Babylon could not have been Rome.

Then where was it?  Why does all of the evidence say that it is Rome?  Why do so many writers of that era and immediately after report Peter to have been in Rome and executed there?

Quote from: TantorPeter was a Apostle to the Jew first.. and then the Gentile.  Babylon is where all the Jewish people went when they fled the Roman occupation of Palestine.. and it would make perfect sense for Peter to go there while it would make almost no sense to head to Rome since Paul was already there and Paul was destined to minister to the Gentiles. And like I said, in all the extensive writings of Paul, he never mentioned Peter even once as being in Rome.

Huh?  "Babylon" had not been a city for about 200 years before Peter was born.  There was no "Babylon" to go to.  It did not exist.  The reason Paul didn't mention Peter being in Rome was that Paul was there after Peter's death.  He was also not there to appoint anyone Bishop or do any evangelising as such.  He was there as a prisoner making a legal appeal to the emperor as a Roman citizen, (it was his right.).  He lost that appeal and was executed there.

Quote from: TantorTaking travel time into account with Peter's journeys and witness from other books of the bible, it is almost impossible for Peter to have ever been in Rome and it would never have made sense for him to go to Rome in the first place.

Please site your biblical sources as evidence.

Quote from: TantorI'm of the belief that if you go by history.. Linus (who was killed) was the first Bishop of Rome as appointed by Paul and then Linus was succeeded by Cletus.. and then there was some sort of argument about succession and Cletus gave way to Clement who was appointed by Peter... either way, I think it is obvious that even the early apostles were confused about apostolic succession and it's not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

It is possible that Paul may have somehow, been able to anoint Linus as Bishop, but as said, as he was under arrest and was not in Rome to evangelise, it is less likely.  It is far more likely that Peter did as tradition says, which is why Linus is already mentioned as a leader in Rome in 2 Tim. 4:21.

I have never made it out to be "cut and dried", in fact, I have been the one who is continually trying to educate you non-Catholics on what the definition of Apostolic Succession is.   It does not matter greatly whether Paul anointed Linus or Peter did.  It does not mater greatly whether Peter was actually in Rome, although what accounts we have seem to overwhelmingly state that it was so.  It is that the Church proclaimed through her authority that the Chief of the Bishops should be the bishop of Rome is all that is important.  That certainly by Clement I, the authority of Rome as the Chief See is evident in Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians.  Now to be clear, it does not make any difference if the Pope or chief Bishop, lives in Rome or the Catskills of New York.  It is the fact that the Church, through the linage of authority of the Apostles, is able to anoint who she wants to positions of authority.  When the Popes were living in France during the Avingon period, they were still the legitimate leaders of the Church.  By tradition, the head of the Church is elected Bishop of Rome, but that title is not the same as the authority the Church has to appoint a chief Bishop.       

QuoteHummmm, now as there isn't a single Biblical scholar that I know of that actually believes Peter was in Mesopotamia, and for good reason..."Babylon" had ceased to exist for over two centuries before Peter was even born, then, pray tell. where was he writing from?  It obviously wasn't Jerusalem because that is where he was writing to!  Now we have literally, dozens of historic accounts of Peter's presence in Rome and his execution, but not one scrap of evidence, not one account, not one scholar of note, claims that he went to a city that was sand and centuries old artifacts in order to write 1st Peter.

Wow!  Yet today neither desertknight, or any other Catholic I have ever met, will admit that Rome is the spiritual Babylon spoken of in the new testament.   Of course when it needed to be Rome, in order to support their teachings, it was, but now it is not.  Is Rome Babylon, or is Rome not Babylon?

Quote from: Amo on Fri Dec 04, 2009 - 16:05:31Wow!  Yet today neither desertknight, or any other Catholic I have ever met, will admit that Rome is the spiritual Babylon spoken of in the new testament.   Of course when it needed to be Rome, in order to support their teachings, it was, but now it is not.  Is Rome Babylon, or is Rome not Babylon?

I can only speak for myself and not for others, but I certainly wish you would get your facts straight...

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/catholic-forum/bablylon/msg715902/#msg715902