Jerusalem: The Harlot City and "Babylon"

[GW]

JERUSALEM: THE "GREAT CITY" OF REVELATION

Jerusalem is the Great City in the book of Revelation (Rev 11:8). She is Babylon (1 Pet 5:12-13), the Harlot that rode on the Beast's back (her alliance with Ancient Rome) before the Beast turned on her and made her desolate and burned her with fire (Rev 17:16; Lk.21:20).

Earthly Jerusalem, by Divine right and calling, was the preeminent city among all nations. The Hebrew/Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7). She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23), and all the kingdom, power and might over earth was His (1 Chron 29:11-12). Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

Yet, Jerusalem was also famous for becoming The Harlot City -- an unfaithful spouse to her King (Isa 1:21; Jer 3:6-10; Ez 16:37-39). She had become "drunk with the blood of the saints" (Rev 17:6; Rev 18:20,24; 1 Thess 2:15-16) as Christ had prophesied she would (Mt 23:33-37; Lk 11:50-51).

Sadly, the "great city," Jerusalem (Rev 11:8), had fallen, and had become the habitation of demons and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird (Rev 18:2). The Queen City Jerusalem (Rev 18:7/Lam1:1), which had been great among the nations (Lam 1:1), had become a widow (Rev 18:7/Lam1:1). And She, having become an unfaithful Harlot to God, was thus "burned with fire" (Rev 18:8/17:16) as her covenant law demanded for her (Lev 21:9). The blood of all the apostles and prophets who she famously killed (Matt 23:33-36; Matt 21:34-39; Lk 13:33; Acts 7:52; 1 Thess 2:15-16; Lk 11:47; Neh 9:26; 1 Ki 19:14) was avenged upon her (Matt 23:33-37; Rev 16:6; Rev 18:20,24; 1 Thess 2:15-16).

 

[GW]

Who is Babylon? Jerusalem is Babylon

"By Silvanus, ...I have written you. ...The Church in Babylon ...sends you her greeting, and Mark my son." (I Peter 5:12,13)
​

"Babylon" was Jerusalem. Jerusalem was where both "Mark" and "Silvanus" lived (Acts 12:12; 15:22-40).

Peter wrote his first epistle from Jerusalem in about A.D. 65, calling her "Babylon." Peter was a "pillar" at Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18; 2:9; Acts 15:7). He was the Apostle of the Circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9).

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi

Peter was in Rome when he wrote the Letter so when he say he is at Babylon it means he was in Rome.

The harlot of Rev 17: is the harlot of Isaiah 23:

15: And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king: after the end of seventy years shall Tyre sing as an harlot.16: Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered.17: And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

Tyre is the False god of forces Daniel 11: It is not Jerusalem.

Now Notice where It will take over the world from.

12: And he said, Thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zidon: arise, pass over to Chittim; there also shalt thou have no rest.

Chittim is Asia minor which is who the warning of Rev is written to.

Sorry your doctrine of denial and illusion just does not hold up to the facts of history or scripture.

 

[GW]

Peter was not at Rome at the time he wrote his first epistle. He was writing from the Church where Mark and Silvanus were from:

"By Silvanus, ...I have written you. ...The Church in Babylon ...sends you her greeting, and Mark my son." (I Peter 5:12,13)​

"Mark" and "Silvanus" lived in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12; 15:22-40). Peter was a "pillar" at Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18; 2:9; Acts 15:7). Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9).

 

[Brain Damage]

Gee something we can actualy agree on GW...

Yes JERUSALEM is the "GREAT CITY" OF REVELATION.

 

[vinsight4u]

...

 

[vinsight4u]

...

 

[Duke Nukem]

Mystery, or Secret, Babylon will be Jerusalem just before the end of the age. Since a great false Christ is prophesied to come, from what location is that “Christ” prophesied to rule as recorded in the Old Testament? It is only Jerusalem! And while the true Christ is prophesied to have an “Elijah” associated with His second coming, the Beast (the false Christ) has with him the false prophet of Revelation 13 who does Elijah-like miracles.

The people on the earth will be shown so many miracles by the false prophet, that they will believe the lie that the Beast is the Christ to come and that the prophet is the prophesied Elijah to come. There will be only a few whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life who will know differently.

The false Christ and the false prophet will claim to fulfill all the prophecies of the Old Testament in bringing in their world government when both bond and free, rich and poor, small and great, will receive a mark in the right hand or forehead so that people cannot buy or sell unless they obey the false Christ.

This is Satan’s last great deception. He will allow a false Christ to establish a world government emanating from Jerusalem to govern mankind, from a Temple, with laws of God, which Satan will deceptively pervert.

Just before the Beast and the False Prophet set up their 3½ year universal rule from Jerusalem (Revelation 13:5), there will be two witnesses of God who will prophesy with plagues and portents also for a 3½ year period prior to the emergence of Mystery Babylon in all her glory (Revelation 11:3–13). The Beast will kill these two prophets just before he commences his world rule (Revelation 11:7). They will prophesy from the city of Jerusalem and will be killed in Jerusalem (Revelation 11:8). Christ said: “For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33).

At the death of these witnesses of God, the Beast and the False Prophet will emerge with a supposed blessing for mankind. Instead of the plagues of the two witnesses, the Beast and False Prophet will bring in a time of “peace and safety” (1 Thessalonians 5:3). The Beast (calling himself the prophesied “Christ” to come) will cause peace and prosperity to come upon the earth. The merchants and ship owners will rejoice over the new world order (Revelation 18:19). Great riches and progress will accrue to all who heed the ways of the system. The world capital will be the new international city of Jerusalem (but it will be a new Babel). The aim of the system will be the ultimate rejection of the true God. It will be Satan’s world government which he promised to give to the one who would bow down and worship him (Matthew 4:8).

 

[NumberOneSon]

Another great post, GW. Right on the money.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[vinsight4u]

...

 

[GW]

Good to see so many folk who realize that the Holy Bible positively identifies Jerusalem as Babylon.

Now, we just need to get the time right on WHEN. St. John makes very clear when this took place. He sent his vision to his contemporaries, the recipients of the vision and the people for whom it was intended, saying:

Revelation 1:1,3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it for the time is at hand.
​

So we see, first century Jerusalem is meant. John's vision is based on Christ's prophecy:

Matthew 23:31-36
"...you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of gehenna? Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!
​

Yes, apostate first-century Jeruasalem was Babylon and The Harlot. It was upon first-century Jerusalem that the blood of the apostles and prophets was avenged (Matt 23:34-35/compare to Rev 16:6; 18:20,24).

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi


Yes Peter was all those things that does not mean he never travelled to Rome.

Once again As Always Preteisim it is about denial of the very clear facts and smoke and illusion designed to confuse those facts.

Peter was in Rome when he wrote that letter.

Peter was writing FROM ROME to the Church in Asia Minor after having passed through and taught on his way to rome..

He had travelled to Rome with Silvanus who was now returning to Jerusalem by way of Asia Minor. Peter sent a letter to them with Silvanus …………..back to them as he had passed through there ON HIS WAY TO ROME.

Peter died in Rome and was not in Jerusalem fore the last years of his life in fact James was head of the church in Jerusalem.

Look is this the harlot of Revelation Or not

Isaiah 23: 17: And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

Is that the harlot of Rev 17:

 

[GW]

Just the Facts:
Yes Peter was all those things that does not mean he never travelled to Rome.

GW:
I believe Peter journeyed to Rome. I believe he appointed his successors there.



JUST THE FACTS:
Peter was in Rome when he wrote that letter.

GW:
Scripture please.


JUSTTHE FACTS:
Peter was writing FROM ROME to the Church in Asia Minor after having passed through and taught on his way to rome.

GW:
Could we stick to just the facts? You have no reason to believe Peter wrote that from Rome and every reason to believe he wrote it from Jerusalem where he, with Silvanus and Mark, lived and ministered (Acts 12:12; 15:22-40). Peter was the minister to the Circumcision.


JUST THE FACTS:
He had travelled to Rome with Silvanus who was now returning to Jerusalem by way of Asia Minor.

GW:
Scripture please. Just the facts, please.


JUST THE FACTS:
Peter died in Rome and was not in Jerusalem fore the last years of his life in fact James was head of the church in Jerusalem.

GW:
But Peter was head of all the apostles and the prime minister of the whole church.

 

[Kingdom_Come]

[font=&quot]

”This great man was the first President of the United States, this great man freed the slaves and this great man ruled during the fall of communism.”

[/font]



[font=&quot]Being read by someone who has no sense about what is being spoken about here one might conclude that this “great man” is referring to the same man. Yet someone who has an understanding of history and of the events being spoken about clearly sees that these are three distinct and separate men. How do we know? We read the description of this “great man” which tells us things that separate them by centuries. This “great man” who ruled during the fall of communism can hardly be the same “great man” that was the first President of the United States since the descriptions themselves separate them by a span of time that no man usually lives to see. Not to mention the fact that it would be historically inaccurate.[/font]



This is a nice little anecdote. But it serves to make a very valid point. Sometimes people “miss the forest for the trees”. They get hung up on a particular word or phrase and make the mistake of assuming these words and phrases hold some secret meaning that is neither implied or is evident given the context. The phrase “great man” is merely a generic descriptive phrase that can be applied to many men, not just one. The context in which the descriptive phrase is used will show its true meaning. This is usually not a problem when dealing with most contemporary writing as most of us have a similar base of reference and enough understanding of the language to avoid being “fooled” and thus take a statement out of its context, and end up losing its real meaning. We simply read what is written and we understand what it means. Unless a descriptive term has been and is only ever used to describe one particular person, event, place or time we should not assume the term always means the same thing every time it is used. For some reason with Scripture people like to take general descriptive terms and phrases and turn them into “holy grails” for interpretation. This is what can often lead to errors in understanding the fundamental meaning of certain Scriptures and in understanding prophetic Scripture, particularly Revelation.



People get hung up on the term that “great city” which is used in Revelation and assume that each time this particular descriptive term is used it must be referring to the same “great city”. Taken in context this term is not a problem. However, when presumptions are made about its meaning and then the interpretation of the corresponding passages is made based on those presumptions, it poses a big problem. It is folly to assume that each time Revelation refers to the “great city” it is and must be talking about the same place. The descriptive term “great city” is just that, a descriptive term and can and does apply to different cities. If we read the passages in context we clearly see that every time Revelation refers to that “great city” it is not necessarily referring to the same city. If we read the description of each “great city” mentioned it helps us to identify them a little better. In Revelation 11:8 we see the “great city” described as the place where The Lord was crucified (Jerusalem). In Revelation 17:18 we see the “great city” described as the one that rules over the kings of the earth (Mystery Babylon). “She” is a literal political, economic and cultural power in the world. Finally, in Revelation 21:10 we see the “great city” as the city descending out of heaven from God. Now I am sure no one would interpret the “great city” of Rev 21:10 as the same “great city” of Rev 17:18. The “great city” of Rev 17:18 is an earthly empire that is judged by God as a wicked place and is given over to be destroyed and is “found no more at all” (Rev 18:21). The “great city” mentioned in Rev 21:10 is not going to be judged by God and destroyed but is going to be the seat of the kingdom of God upon the earth. What this clearly shows is that John did not use the term “great city” to delineate one particular city each time he used to term. But rather he used it as a general descriptive term the same way the term “great man” is used as a general descriptive term in the quote above.



Anyway, the point I want to make here is that the notion that first century Jerusalem is the “great city” of Rev 17:18 simply does not fit. Jerusalem was not even ruling over herself, let alone the kings of the earth. Make no mistake about it, the “great city” in Rev 17:18 literally exercises dominion over the nations of the earth. This is not meant to be an obscure reference to her “spiritual” or “Divine” heritage, as she does not “spiritually” trade with the nations and merchants of the earth. Jerusalem was not the merchant capitol of the world at that time and is not even today. That alone precludes her from having been the “woman” in Revelation 17 and 18. Note, it does not say the “woman” is allied with the “great city” that rules over the kings of the earth and is the merchant capitol of the world, it says “she” IS the “great city” that rules over the kings of the earth. “She” is the one exercising political, cultural and economic dominion over the earth at the time God passes judgment on “her”. God’s word is always fulfilled in its entirety and “Mystery Babylon” will be at the height of her power when she is destroyed (it will not be a thing of her past). This is why the people of the world will react the way they do to her destruction. How can this great nation fall so quickly? No one will be able to believe their eyes.

Rev 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

Rev 18:15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

Rev 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What [city is] like unto this great city!

Rev 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast [it] into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Rev 18:22 And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft [he be], shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

“She” is the power of her time. The global reaction to “her” destruction is one of disbelief and horror. Her merchants were the richest and “greatest” men of the earth. Some will bewail her destruction because she was a major consumer of the goods they provided (Rev 18:11). How, in any way, did first century Jerusalem fit this profile? Who, besides the Jews of that day, were weeping over her? Who was surprised that she had been taken down?



What about all the other prophecies that were not fulfilled? Since Christ defeats the beast at His return and you say the beast was Nero, who was Nero’s false prophet and when was Nero cast “alive” into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20)(2 Thess 2:8)? Who were the 10 kings that received power with Nero and gave their power unto Nero (Rev 17:12)? When did the great earthquake prophesied happen (Rev 16:18 …and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, [and] so great.”)(Is 2:19)? This is the vial of the seventh angel and this happens just prior to the judgment that befalls her (Rev 16:17-18). When did this happen in the first century AD (or was this a “spiritual” earthquake)? This earthquake is so bad that there has never been one like it since men have been on the earth! What about the Euphrates River? When did it dry up (Rev 16:12)? When did the battle between the armies of heaven and the armies of the beast take place (Rev 19:19)(Dan 8:25)? What about the great hail storm (Rev 16:21). What about the 2 witnesses who will prophesy and be killed in Jerusalem (Rev 11:3, Rev 11:7-8)? What about their resurrection, someone had to see it according to Revelation? (Rev 11:11 “…..and great fear fell upon them which saw them.”)? Considering how well the Roman Empire is documented historically these things should not be hard to prove if they have already happened! They should be a fact of history. We should have historical evidence that all these things came to pass including the appearing of Christ (Luke 21:27). Or are we going to say that God didn’t really mean any of this? Every word about The Messiah was to be fulfilled to the letter but not the return of The Messiah?

Luke 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matt 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

[font=&quot]Jesus spoke of a time so horrible that people would have heart attacks from the fear of the things they saw. It is such a terrible time that He said there was never a time like it since the beginning of the world and there will never be again. It’s so bad that if He didn’t shorten those days and return no one would survive! Does this describe the time period of the first century AD? Have we not seen days as dark or darker since then? You’ve yet to answer even one of these questions. How was even one of these prophecies fulfilled in the time of Nero? How does any of this fit first century Jerusalem? The disciples asked Him when the things He said about the temple would come to pass and what would be the sign of His return and the end of the world (Matt 24:3)(Luke 21:7). Then Jesus prophesied to them and told them all of the terrible things that must happen first and that the generation that sees these things happen will not pass until ALL of them be fulfilled (not some) (Luke 21:32)(Matt 24:34)! Show me where they were all fulfilled during the first century AD? If you are right then it shouldn’t be too hard, just give me the history lesson and let me read where these events were all fulfilled.[/font]

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi


Where is your scripture you have none to say Peter was not in Rome when he wrote it in fact the very fact Peter says Babylon PROVES he was in Rome.....................

You see when you answer the question that has been put to you will see just how wrong you are about Jerusalem being the harlot that Takes over the World.

So answer the question GW Is Isaiah 23: the harlot of Revelation. Yes or No

Isaiah 23:17: And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth.

1: And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great harlot that sitteth upon many waters:
2: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

So are they the same or not

No smoke ………….no mirrors………………………just answer the question please.

I will save you the trouble the answer is obvious………………………… even to a fool……………………And I am sure you are no fool.

So Where does God say this False God of Tyre (baal God of Forces) will take over the world From.

12: And he said, Thou shalt no more rejoice, O thou oppressed virgin, daughter of Zidon: arise, pass over to Chittim; there also shalt thou have no rest.

Well what do you know from Chittim………. Asia Minor ………………to the exact area that John has given the churches their warning. Of the Beast and the harlot that would take over the world.

Asia Minor is not Jerusalem…………………………..Jerusalem has never ruled anything except Judea never has never will,

Holy Jerusalem out of Heaven will rule for that ages of ages. Earthly Jerusalem will be destroyed.

 

[GW]

JUST THE FACTS:
Where is your scripture you have none to say Peter was not in Rome when he wrote it

GW:
Cite the scripture that says he was.


JUST THE FACTS:
the very fact Peter says Babylon PROVES he was in Rome

GW:
Ugh. You are asserting as fact what you must first prove. You need to prove that Babylon equates to first-century Rome, which you can't do.

I have proved that Peter was with Mark and Silvanus who were of the Church in Jerusalem, and Peter was the apostle to the circumcision. Therefore, when Peter claims to be writing from the "church at Babylon," with Mark and Silvanus sending greetings, Peter is clearly in Jerusalem where their Church, homes, and ministries were located.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi

No what you have proven is that Peter was in Rome and was in fact the Bishop of Rome until his death.

It is well known that James was the Bishop in Jerusalem not Peter…………………….Peter was a traveller he was not in Jerusaelm when James was Killed . Your attempt to prove the harlot is Jerusalem from this verse is just plain nonsense. Just because peter was in Jerusalem in early Acts does not mean he was there when he wrote this letter…………that is what is called circumstantial evidence………and as I stated the very fact that he calls it Babylon shows he was in Rome

As we both know the early writings of the saints all referred to Rome as Babylon as do many books of the Apocrypha.

When you combine these facts with the truth of scripture such as Isaiah 23: it becomes clear that the harlot is the worship of the False God Baal.

Which moved to Asia Minor from Tyre and then took over the world just as Isaiah said it would.

 

[GW]

"By Silvanus, ...I have written you. ...The Church in Babylon ...sends you her greeting, and Mark my son." (I Peter 5:12,13)
​

(1) Peter was a "pillar" of the Jerusalem Church (Gal. 1:18/2:9; Acts 15:2,7). Thus we know "Babylon" in 1 Pet 5:12-13 is Jerusalem.

(2) Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9). His ministry was primarily to the Israelites. Thus we know "Babylon" in 1 Pet 5:12-13 is Jerusalem.

(3) Silvanus (silas) had a home Church -- that was the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22,27). Thus we know "Babylon" in 1 Pet 5:12-13 is Jerusalem.

(4) Mark's home was also in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). Thus we know "Babylon" in 1 Pet 5:12-13 is Jerusalem.

 

[GW]

Just the Facts,

Would you please show from scripture that Peter was in Rome at this time the epistle was written. I have clearly linked Peter, Silvanus and Mark to Jerusalem using Holy Scripture. I expect you to do the same for your belief about Rome. If you cannot, then I will not continue to address you on this matter. Too little time.

Thanks,
GW

 

[FreeinChrist]

Who is Babylon? Jerusalem is Babylon

"By Silvanus, ...I have written you. ...The Church in Babylon ...sends you her greeting, and Mark my son." (I Peter 5:12,13)



​

"Babylon" was Jerusalem. Jerusalem was where both "Mark" and "Silvanus" lived (Acts 12:12; 15:22-40).

.

1Pe 5:12 Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard {him),} I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!

1Pe 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and {so does} my son, Mark.

Paul wrote the letter through Silvanus...but does Silvanus live in Jerusalem?

Let's looks at Acts 12 (given as PROOF). This mentions a Mark, but is it Mark the son of Peter?:
Act 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, "Now I know for sure that the Lord has sent forth His angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from all that the Jewish people were expecting."

Act 12:12 And when he realized {this,} he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John who was also called Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying.

Act 12:13 When he knocked at the door of the gate, a servant-girl named Rhoda came to answer.
Doesn't say it is Mark, the son of Peter. In fact, this fellow is discussed again in Acts 12:25:
Act 12:25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their mission, taking along with {them} John, who was also called Mark.

Also, John who was also called mark is discussed in Acts 15:
Act 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.

Act 15:38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.

Act 15:39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
It is in Colossians, that we learn this Mark is the cousin of Barnabus:
Col 4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and {also} Barnabas's cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);
So from Acts 12, I don't see that this John who is also called Mark is the same Mark who is the son of Peter.

If Silas is the same fellow as Silvanus, and he likely is, this is still not proof that Peter was writing from Jerusalem, because Silas was a missionary. He went with Paul to preach to the Corinthians and others on a missionary journey. Peter does not say he is in the home of Silvanus, but says "thorugh Silvanus"...like Silvanus did the writing, or delivered it for Peter.


Catholic tradition asserts that Peter was the Bishop at Anticoh and then the bishop of Rome for 25 years....to write this, he would have to be in Rome if this is true.

John Gill's commentary is interesting:
[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]John Gill's Exposition of the Bible[/font]


[font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica][font=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]1 Peter 5:13[/font]

The church that is at Babylon…
The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, supply the word "church", as we do. Some, by "Babylon", understand Rome, which is so called, in a figurative sense, in the book of the Revelations: this is an ancient opinion; so Papias understood it, as F5 Eusebius relates; but that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in (Psalms 87:4) perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle's being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews F6 to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence F7 Babylonian. The church in this place is said to be

elected together with you;
that is, were chosen together with them in Christ, before the foundation of the world, to grace here, and glory hereafter; or were equally the elect of God as they were, for as such he writes to them, (1 Peter 1:2) and this the apostle said in a judgment of charity of the whole church, and all the members of it, being under a profession of faith in Christ; and nothing appearing to the contrary, but that their faith was unfeigned, and their profession right and sincere. This Church, he says,

saluteth you;
wishes all peace, happiness, and prosperity of every kind, and so doth Marcus,
my son; either, in a natural sense, his son according to the flesh; since it is certain Peter had a wife, and might have a son, and one of this name: or rather in a spiritual sense, being one that he was either an instrument of converting him, or of instructing him, or was one that was as dear to him as a son; in like manner as the Apostle Paul calls Timothy, and also Titus, his own son. This seems to be Mark the evangelist, who was called John Mark, was Barnabas's sister's son, and his mother's name was Mary; see (Colossians 4:10) (Acts 12:12,25) . He is said F8 to be the interpreter of Peter, and to have wrote his Gospel from what he heard from him; and who approved of it, and confirmed it, and indeed it is said to be his.

[/font]Gill beleives Peter was likely in Babylon on the Euphrates, OR possibly Rome.

Jamison Faucett Brown commentary has this regarding I Peter:

"The PLACE OF WRITING was doubtless Babylon on the Euphrates (1 Peter 5:13 matter-of-fact communications and salutations in a remarkably plain Epistle, the symbolical language of prophecy (namely, "Babylon" for Rome) should be used. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 15.2.2; 3.1] states that there was a great multitude of Jews in the Chaldean Babylon; it is therefore likely that "the apostle of the circumcision" (Galatians 2:7,8 would at some time or other visit them. Some have maintained that the Babylon meant was in Egypt because Mark preached in and around Alexandria after Peter's death, and therefore it is likely he did so along with that apostle in the same region previously."

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

Peter wrote his first epistle from Jerusalem in about A.D. 65, calling her "Babylon." Peter was a "pillar" at Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18; 2:9; Acts 15:7). He was the Apostle of the Circumcision (Gal. 2:7-9)

Galatians 1:18 is an account of Paul's trip to Jerusalem when he was converted many years before. You are assuming that Peter never left Jerusalem.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter {had been} to the circumcised

Gal 2:8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in {his} apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),

Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we {might} {go} to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
It doesn't precisely say "pillar at Jerusalem". That is a bit misleading, GW.

I think your scholarship is sloppy and doesn't stnd up when one actually reads the references you give as 'proof'.
There is no indication that Peter is in Jerusalem, or that Babylon is Jerusalem.

And neither Catholic church tradition or the writings of the Reformers grees with you.