Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Ah I found the longer quote and the conclusion that Peter and Paul probably died in the year 60.

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

I view revelation as having been "visioned" sometime during the period of either just after the Cross up to the end of Peter and Paul's preaching.
What are the catholics view on that? Thanks.

Luke 2:32 A light to the un-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of nations, and the glory of Thy people Israel.'

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YAHWEH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I view revelation as having been "visioned" sometime during the period of either just after the Cross up to the end of Peter and Paul's preaching.
What are the catholics view on that? Thanks.

Luke 2:32 A light to the un-covering/apo-kaluyin <602> of nations, and the glory of Thy people Israel.'

Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YAHWEH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness.

Are you talking about Johns vision? The book of Revelations?
I am not sure I understand your question.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

I accept that he was in Rome because he died there..and that babylon was Rome how is that important...the the cc was and is the wh--e I don't believe that.but I do believe that it is the church that is established during the trib.

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I accept that he was in Rome because he died there..and that babylon was Rome how is that important...the the cc was and is the wh--e I don't believe that.but I do believe that it is the church that is established during the trib.

Thank you. Good post.
It does seem to be important to many non-Catholic Christians. I have heard the denials of Peter being in Rome since I was a kid and that is a long long time ago.

Are you saying the Church during the trib, meaning the persecutions during Nero, etc? Lots of folks use to call that the trib.
I don't understand. Could you explain for me.?

 

[PastorMikeJ]

Thank you. Good post.
It does seem to be important to many non-Catholic Christians. I have heard the denials of Peter being in Rome since I was a kid and that is a long long time ago.

Are you saying the Church during the trib, meaning the persecutions during Nero, etc? Lots of folks use to call that the trib.
I don't understand. Could you explain for me.?

no I am talking about the book of Rev. tribulations. the church established by the antichrist

 

[TheDag]

Thank you. Good post.
It does seem to be important to many non-Catholic Christians. I have heard the denials of Peter being in Rome since I was a kid and that is a long long time ago.

I'm surprised. Maybe it is an american thing as I have never heard any protestant in Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Uniting (methodist and presbertyrian), AOG or other pentecostal churches even discuss this before. The above denominations are ones I have had large involvement in so can speak with confidence. The only people I have heard talk about this are catholics although not many of them.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Ok... Im trying to understand ... DANG

What ARE ya's talking about?

Im seeing Rome (written to) and Babylon (written to) as separate geographically, am I wrong? I'm not good at geography lol

I mean if our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem but in revelation its "spiritually called" Sodom, Egypt.

The ~mystery of~ Babylon (confusion) cant be geographically called Babylon (the one Peter writes of) ya'll think that?

Am I lost?

Just curious

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[racer]

According to some writings of at least one ECF that I know of, both Peter and Paul were in Rome.

Why would the fact that Peter was in Rome be indicative that the CC is the WoB?

 

[sunlover1]

There is a verse at the end of St Peter's first letter which says:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1Pt5​

During those times Babylon was a code name for Rome because it was the romans who were hostile to Christians just as the Babylonians had done to the jews in centuries past. They knew that the original Babylon was in ruins so they didnt worry about people confusing it when it was mentioned later in early Christian writings as a code name for Rome.

Now many protestants would also claim that the CC is the "harlot of Babylon" mentioned in the book of Revelation, but for some reason wont accept that the "Babylon" in St Peter's letteris also Rome.

This thread is about deciding one or the other, either Peter was in Rome and the CC is the WB or he wasnt in Rome and the CC is not the WB.

Please vote.

Didn't know about this 'codename' stuff.
I don't know where Peter was and
I have to admit that I dont know who
the harlot of babylon is.

Seems many think it's the CC?
Why?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Catholic Dude

There is a verse at the end of St Peter's first letter which says:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1Pt5​

During those times Babylon was a code name for Rome because it was the romans who were hostile to Christians just as the Babylonians had done to the jews in centuries past.

Remember also Peter had to live and preach amongst the OC Jews/circumcision in Judea/Jerusalem, and those rulers/priests were also primarily responsible for bringing much of the persecutions upon the Jewish/non-Jewish Christians assemblies during that time.
Hound-dogs they were, houn-dogs I tell ya!!!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

bump................

Let me post this openly (rather then link it) because I dont click on links myself (just thought about that). Its not that long.

[SIZE=+2]The Bones Of Peter

[SIZE=+1]by Dr. W. A. Criswell [/SIZE]

Simon Peter is addressed by our Lord Jesus in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew in these words: "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Because of this passage, there is a vast system of religion built upon Simon Peter. Three things in this ecclesiastical system are avowed about him.

1. That Peter ruled the church.
2. That Peter ruled the church in Rome.

Jerome (d. 240 A.D.) declared that Peter, after being first bishop at Antioch, and after laboring in Pontus, Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (about 42 A.D.) to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of that church for 25 years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign (67 A.D.) and was buried on the Vatican hill.

3. That Peter's tomb and his bones are under the high altar of St. Peter's church in Rome.
There is no intimation in the Scriptures that the words of our Saviour addressed to Simon Peter made him ruler and head of the church.

In the Greek there is a play upon his name - "Thou art Petros (a stone) and upon this petra (a stratum of stone) I will build my church." First Peter 2:5 says, "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house." First Corinthians 3:11 says, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus." The meaning is self-evident. The foundation, "the petra," upon which Christ will build His church is His deity, which Simon Peter has just confessed upon a revelation from the Father. The stones out of which Christ will erect His church are believing disciples, one of whom is Peter himself.

The keys of the kingdom here given to Peter as a representative disciple, with the authority of binding and loosing, are given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18 and in John 20:23.

Peter in the Early Churches

Was Peter ever the ruler of the church? Of any church any time, any place? Not that anybody knows of. The pastor and leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (Acts 12:17; 15: 13-21; 21:18; Gal 2:9.) This Scriptural account of James is confirmed by Josephus in his Antiquities XX, 9,1, where James' martyrdom is described. Josephus never heard of Simon Peter, but the Jewish historian knows all about the faithful pastor and leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem.

Notice in Acts 8:14 that Peter is "sent" by the apostles along with John to Samaria. Peter is not doing the sending; somebody else is.

Notice in Acts 15:14-21 that at the Jerusalem conference, after Peter made his speech and Paul and Barnabas made their speeches, it is James who delivers the final verdict.

Was Peter Ever in Rome?

The second avowal of the Roman hierarchy concerning Peter is that he was bishop at Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D, when he was crucified under Nero. If Peter was in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon. There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the city of Rome.

1. Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:13-18) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." This takes us to 40 A.D., and Peter is still in Jerusalem.

2. Sometime during those days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11).

Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then "went down from Judea to Caesarea and there abode" (Acts 12:19). Herod Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:20-23).

Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.

3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first journey was 40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.

4. Peter returns the visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter is still in the Orient, not in Rome.

5. After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman provinces of the East. On these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (I Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and so great a territory must have consumed several years. This would take us, therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East.

6. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twenty-seven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter where "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.

Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.

7. Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. from his prison the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter.

8. Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "II Timothy." In that final letter the apostle mentions many people but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter.

We have gone throughout those years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Peter is supposed to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather the New Testament clearly and plainly denies the fiction.

Babylon and Rome

In I Peter 5:13, Peter says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you." Some suppose "Babylon" is a cryptic word for Rome.
There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If I Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible.

Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus," "Asia," or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of that eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work.

Babylon in the time of Simon Peter was no longer a great world capital, but it was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews. Among those Hebrew friends he won many to Christ, and those Jewish Christians sent greetings to their fellow-Jewish Christians in Asia Minor where Peter had previously done a blessed missionary work.

Unbiased historians and the Scriptural records indicate that Peter died and was buried either in Mesopotamia or Asia Minor.

The Pope of Rome will be able to find plenty of bones beneath the Vatican hills, where Christians by the thousands were murdered and buried by pagan and papal persecutors back when Rome ruled the world. But these bones prove nothing except that the Roman hierarchy is frantic in its efforts to find something that will give a semblance of justification to their false claims that Peter was connected with the papal system.
Peter was never in Rome. Nor was he ruler over any church. Nor did he have any keys to give to anybody else to hand down to others. He was a stone, one out of many with which God is building His spiritual house in earth and in heaven.[/SIZE]

 

[Benedicta00]

Peter's Presence in Rome

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D. 190), in NPNF2,I:261

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198),in NPNF2,I:129-130

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115

"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:37-38

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church."
Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon[Magus]."
John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194

 

[Benedicta00]

Some non-Catholic historians

"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York: Doubleday,1971) p. 410

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6

"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York: Abingdon,1959) p. 36

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

Protestants protested against man-made traditions, not Jesus Christ.

How dare they refer to us as "Blind"!!!

2 corin 3:12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech -- 13 unlike Moses, [who] put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were dull. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the [veil] is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veillies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil/kalumma <2571> is taken away.

[ISA] Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YAHWEH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Protestants protested against man-made traditions, not Jesus Christ.

How dare they refer to us as "Blind"!!!

2 corin 3:12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech -- 13 unlike Moses, [who] put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were dull. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the [veil] is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veillies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil/kalumma <2571> is taken away.

[ISA] Revelation 1:1 A-from-covering/apo-kaluyiV<602> Yeshuwa` Mashiyach, which gives to Him, the God/YAHWEH, to show to the bondservants of Him, which is behooving to be becoming in swiftness.

Yeah Nah really... I am honestly looking for scriptural FIRST corrections in what is written above in the post you posted. That which is extracted from the scriptures concerning Peter (what is first clear) then proceed further. Honestly it really makes not much difference really, though I believe Paul can be placed there (without a doubt) I would definately love to see (by looking at his journeys) and running into Peter (in other places) if this can be proven (at all) from there in accord with the years as recorded in it.

Maybe I can find someone online who has intensely studied this and can pinpoint it better, that would help.

Peace

Fireinfolding

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Maybe I can find someone online who has intensely studied this and can pinpoint it better, that would help.

Peace

Fireinfolding

Ok Fire. I am working on other things, so I won't be able to help ya out on that. Good luck girl!!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Catholic Dude
There is a verse at the end of St Peter's first letter which says:

13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.-1Pt5​

During those times Babylon was a code name for Rome because it was the romans who were hostile to Christians just as the Babylonians had done to the jews in centuries past. They knew that the original Babylon was in ruins so they didnt worry about people confusing it when it was mentioned later in early Christian writings as a code name for Rome.

Now many protestants would also claim that the CC is the "harlot of Babylon" mentioned in the book of Revelation, but for some reason wont accept that the "Babylon" in St Peter's letteris also Rome.

This thread is about deciding one or the other, either Peter was in Rome and the CC is the WB or he wasnt in Rome and the CC is not the WB.

Please vote.

Didn't know about this 'codename' stuff.
I don't know where Peter was and
I have to admit that I dont know who
the harlot of babylon is.

Seems many think it's the CC?
Why?

I would like to ask if the Orthodox also have proof that Peter was in Rome.
Heck, babylon could have been a code name for "judea/jerusalem" where the murderous corrupt Priesthood was for all we know. Thoughts?

 

[Trento]

I would like to ask if the Orthodox also have proof that Peter was in Rome.
Heck, babylon could have been a code name for "judea/jerusalem" where the murderous corrupt Priesthood was for all we know. Thoughts?

A well known Orthodox Bishop answers.

St. Chrysostom became Bishop of Constantinople.

"In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me" (viz. St. Flavian, his bishop) "our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself." (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])
​

And since Paul shared the world with Peter, so he also must go to Rome. "He prophesies, saying: 'I must also see Rome'" (cf. Acts 19:21, Hom 42, 1, vol IX, 295[317]); and in accordance with this prophecy, thither he goes, and there Peter and Paul, "greater than Kings and Princes" (c. Jud et Gen, 6, vol I, 821[565]) are buried:

 

[Tonks]

holy old thread batman

 

[Uphill Battle]

no doubt. Ressurection indeed.

a couple things were mentioned.

1) why does it matter if Peter was in rome?

a) depends on whom you are. I believe Peter made it to Rome at one point or another. The when, and why, and how doesn't matter to me, and if I'm wrong In thinking he was there, and he wasn't, ah well. To the Catholics, it is paramount that Peter was in Rome. Their Papacy is built on this idea.

2) Are they the harlot of Babylon

a) Nobody knows who the harlot of Babylon is at this point. Anyone who points and says "there she is" is reading to many Chik tracts. I don't believe that tidbit has been revealed yet.