Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[Tu Es Petrus]

And, btw, there is evidence which supports that Peter was in Rome. He and Paul were there. I don't understand the argument that apparently some people make saying Peter wasn't there.

I'll tell you why: Because some people think that the basis for the papacy is that Peter was in Rome. Therefore, they think that if they can prove he wasn't there that somehow this disproves the papacy.

Of course, that is NOT what the papacy is based on, so they are wasting their time. But, it is a great example of people who begin with a conclusion first, then work backward and try to mold the facts to fit their conclusion

 

[racer]

I'll tell you why: Because some people think that the basis for the papacy is that Peter was in Rome. Therefore, they think that if they can prove he wasn't there that somehow this disproves the papacy.

Of course, that is NOT what the papacy is based on, so they are wasting their time. But, it is a great example of people who begin with a conclusion first, then work backward and try to mold the facts to fit their conclusion

Well, I just think it's ridiculous to assert that he wasn't there when evidence supports that he was.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Well, I just think it's ridiculous to assert that he wasn't there when evidence supports that he was.

You are correct

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'll tell you why: Because some people think that the basis for the papacy is that Peter was in Rome. Therefore, they think that if they can prove he wasn't there that somehow this disproves the papacy.

Of course, that is NOT what the papacy is based on, so they are wasting their time. But, it is a great example of people who begin with a conclusion first, then work backward and try to mold the facts to fit their conclusion

I could hardly agree more. Whether Peter went to Rome or not has never been any more of an issue to me than whether Christopher Columbus found a new route to India and landed there.

The papacy does not depend upon Peter's presence in Rome, although it does pose somewhat of an inconvenience if he wasn't there and some other poor chap ended up in a chapel in the crypt under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I could hardly agree more. Whether Peter went to Rome or not has never been any more of an issue to me than whether Christopher Columbus found a new route to India and landed there.

The papacy does not depend upon Peter's presence in Rome, although it does pose somewhat of an inconvenience if he wasn't there and some other poor chap ended up in a chapel in the crypt under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica.

LOL
Thats true enough

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The great tragedy just begins when St. Peter's Basilica has to be renamed and the lovely Latin quotation around the interior base of the drum of the dome has to be chiselled out and a new one carved probably to the effect that Paul was the first Pope. Could the world accept St. Paul's Basilica? What would the Church of England do with St. Paul's Cathedral in London? Imagine all the Catholic theologians and historians busily at work reinventing Catholic theology and history. Imagine Mr. Ratzinger giving an ex cathedra statement to the effect that it was really Paul, after all, and not Rocky Peter. And that, my friend, is just the beginning of the tragedy.

Well, I just think it's ridiculous to assert that he wasn't there when evidence supports that he was.

What evidence is that?

 

[TheDag]

What evidence is that?

with all due respect if you are going to ask people for evidence should you not provide evidence that you have been asked for previously? Only good manners to do what you expect others to do.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

with all due respect if you are going to ask people for evidence should you not provide evidence that you have been asked for previously? Only good manners to do what you expect others to do.

Oh, he's seen the evidence a million times. He just likes asking the same question over and over again

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

with all due respect if you are going to ask people for evidence should you not provide evidence that you have been asked for previously? Only good manners to do what you expect others to do.

Is the Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 5 the same Babylon that is mentioned in Revelation?

Babylon mentioned 12 times in NT. 3 times in Matt 1, Acts 7:43, 1 Peter 5:13 and 6 times in Revelation

Acts 7:43 and ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god of ye Remphan, the figures which ye make to be worshipping to them, and I shall be exiling ye beyond Babylon

1 Peter 5:13 Is greeting ye the in Babylon together-chosen and Mark the son of me.

Reve 18:2 and He cries-out in a strong voice saying "She falls She falls Babylon the great, and She became a Habitation/katoikhthrion <2732> of demons and a prison of every spirit unclean and a prison of every bird unclean and hated"

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Is the Babylon mentioned in 1 Peter 5 the same Babylon that is mentioned in Revelation?....

Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that &#8220;It is said that Peter&#8217;s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.&#8221;

Consider now the other New Testament citations: &#8220;Another angel, a second, followed, saying, &#8216;Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion&#8217;&#8221; (Rev. 14:8). &#8220;The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath&#8221; (Rev. 16:19). &#8220;[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: &#8216;Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth&#8217;s abominations&#8217;&#8221; (Rev. 17:5). &#8220;And he called out with a mighty voice, &#8216;Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great&#8217;&#8221; (Rev. 18:2). &#8220;[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, &#8216;Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come&#8217;&#8221; (Rev. 18:10). &#8220;So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence&#8221; (Rev. 18:21).

These references can&#8217;t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a &#8220;great city.&#8221; It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the &#8220;great city&#8221; mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the &#8220;great city&#8221; mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

Luke 19:41 And as He nears, beholding the City and He laments/eklausen <2799> (5656) on Her, 42 saying, "That if thou-knew, and thou, even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes.

Matthew 23:38 Behold! is being left to ye the House of ye a-wilderness/erhmoV <2048>

Reve 14:8 And another Messenger, second-one follows saying "she falls she falls, Babylon the Great, the out of the wine of the fury of the fornication of her she has given to drink all the nations. [Jeremiah 51:8/Isaiah 21:9]

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Here you guys go: From a non-bias source:

Fast forward to the 7 min 20 sec mark of this video by "National Geographic":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmOPoL1emOM&feature=channel


Next, fasforward to the 2 min 40 sec mark of this video (part of the same Nat Geo video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hno13cylmic&feature=channel

 

[TheDag]

Oh, he's seen the evidence a million times. He just likes asking the same question over and over again

and not answering the question. Looks like I'll never get the evidence I and others asked for. He seems to keep going off on tangents or dancing around things that don't match his beliefs

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and not answering the question. Looks like I'll never get the evidence I and others asked for. He seems to keep going off on tangents or dancing around things that don't match his beliefs

What do you know about my beliefs? And I would suggest you stop making this personal....

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Just give me 2 1/2 minutes:

From a non-bias source:

Fast forward to the 7 min 20 sec mark of this video by "National Geographic":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmOPoL1emOM&feature=channel

 

[Uphill Battle]

your "non biased source" spoke pretty much exclusively to Catholics.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

your "non biased source" spoke pretty much exclusively to Catholics.

Its a "National Geographic" video, the same people who bring you multiple issues of their magazine touting Evolution. I would hardly call them cheerleaders for the Church.

This is what the video looks like:

http://www.amazon.ca/Inside-Vatican-John-B-Bredar/dp/B00005UF86

 

[Uphill Battle]

I didn't state otherwise. I just stated that their sources are indeed Catholic.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I didn't state otherwise. I just stated that their sources are indeed Catholic.

Well, I thought the computer animation of the Circus, the graveyard, and Constatine's first basillica was pretty neat.

Did you watch from the 7:20 mark all the way to the end?

 

[Uphill Battle]

yep.