The Papacy: The ultimate insult to the Apostle Peter?

[jerry kelso]

Jerry, All I'm saying is that Babylon is Rome. It's Rome in Revelation and it's Rome in 1 Peter. Christians referred to Rome as Babylon because of its pagan decadence. It is irrelevant to our topic what the 7 heads or the 10 horns were symbolic of. That is another discussion for another thread.

open heart,

1. The word Babylon has stood for anything pagan. Many think the United States is Babylon and within its hermeneutics in Revelation 18 is right.
I am not denying the fact that Rome in John's day was not called Babylon because of pagan decadence.
Just because that is true doesn't mean that it automatically was that Peter used it for this purpose. That is your opinion and conjecture and you have given no concrete proof that that is why Peter used it in that way and you cannot and neither can your theologians.

2. Just because Rome has 7 hills doesn't mean it is in reference to the 7 heads and 10 horns which has been used before.
At the same time I have already say that Rome was not used as Babylon in Peter's epistles and that was the scripture. I never said that Rome was never known or called babylon. Understand the context instead of trying to speak a generalization and put it into a context when you have no real proof to back it up. That was the point.

3. Just because it might be Rome in Revelation 17 doesn't mean it is in Peter's epistle. Some believe that the mother of harlots is the real harlot before Rome which was the real Babylon. This would fit the word "mother". At the same time we know that the 7th head will be the Revised Roman Empire and the 10 horns will be a part of this. Daniel says the Antichrist plucks up 3 of the 7 horns and he will be come up through the 10 horns or the 7th kingdom and even he is of the eighth which will be the antichrist kingdom.

4. I will stop here but since you believe that Peter's epistle using babylon and Revelation using mystery babylon and literal babylon being Rome feel free to explain these two chapters and I will be glad to answer in a rebuttal unless you state something I agree with you on. I'll look forward to your response. Jerry kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

open heart,

1. The word Babylon has stood for anything pagan. Many think the United States is Babylon and within its hermeneutics in Revelation 18 is right.
I am not denying the fact that Rome in John's day was not called Babylon because of pagan decadence.
Just because that is true doesn't mean that it automatically was that Peter used it for this purpose. That is your opinion and conjecture and you have given no concrete proof that that is why Peter used it in that way and you cannot and neither can your theologians.

2. Just because Rome has 7 hills doesn't mean it is in reference to the 7 heads and 10 horns which has been used before.
At the same time I have already say that Rome was not used as Babylon in Peter's epistles and that was the scripture. I never said that Rome was never known or called babylon. Understand the context instead of trying to speak a generalization and put it into a context when you have no real proof to back it up. That was the point.

3. Just because it might be Rome in Revelation 17 doesn't mean it is in Peter's epistle. Some believe that the mother of harlots is the real harlot before Rome which was the real Babylon. This would fit the word "mother". At the same time we know that the 7th head will be the Revised Roman Empire and the 10 horns will be a part of this. Daniel says the Antichrist plucks up 3 of the 7 horns and he will be come up through the 10 horns or the 7th kingdom and even he is of the eighth which will be the antichrist kingdom.

4. I will stop here but since you believe that Peter's epistle using babylon and Revelation using mystery babylon and literal babylon being Rome feel free to explain these two chapters and I will be glad to answer in a rebuttal unless you state something I agree with you on. I'll look forward to your response. Jerry kelso

 

[tz620q]

2. Just because Rome has 7 hills doesn't mean it is in reference to the 7 heads and 10 horns which has been used before.
At the same time I have already say that Rome was not used as Babylon in Peter's epistles and that was the scripture. I never said that Rome was never known or called babylon. Understand the context instead of trying to speak a generalization and put it into a context when you have no real proof to back it up. That was the point.

3. Just because it might be Rome in Revelation 17 doesn't mean it is in Peter's epistle. Some believe that the mother of harlots is the real harlot before Rome which was the real Babylon. This would fit the word "mother". At the same time we know that the 7th head will be the Revised Roman Empire and the 10 horns will be a part of this. Daniel says the Antichrist plucks up 3 of the 7 horns and he will be come up through the 10 horns or the 7th kingdom and even he is of the eighth which will be the antichrist kingdom.

4. I will stop here but since you believe that Peter's epistle using babylon and Revelation using mystery babylon and literal babylon being Rome feel free to explain these two chapters and I will be glad to answer in a rebuttal unless you state something I agree with you on. I'll look forward to your response. Jerry kelso

Jerry,
I agree that there are several possibilities for the meaning of Babylon in Peter's epistle. It could be the original Babylon, which was part of the Parthian empire at this time and therefore outside of Roman rule. It could be Hieropolis in Egypt. It could be Rome. So how do we test these conjectures? We look at the totality of evidence. There is a lot of evidence that Peter was in Rome. There is no evidence that he was ever in Babylon or Hieropolis. So which theory has the better support? At some point you have to address the preponderance of evidence that Peter was in Rome to convince anyone that one of the other possibilities is true.

 

[Open Heart]

open heart,

1. The word Babylon has stood for anything pagan. Many think the United States is Babylon and within its hermeneutics in Revelation 18 is right.

That may be true of today's Christians, but we are not talking about today's Christians. We are talking about first century Christians, and to them it was Rome that was Babylon.

 

[jerry kelso]

Jerry,
I agree that there are several possibilities for the meaning of Babylon in Peter's epistle. It could be the original Babylon, which was part of the Parthian empire at this time and therefore outside of Roman rule. It could be Hieropolis in Egypt. It could be Rome. So how do we test these conjectures? We look at the totality of evidence. There is a lot of evidence that Peter was in Rome. There is no evidence that he was ever in Babylon or Hieropolis. So which theory has the better support? At some point you have to address the preponderance of evidence that Peter was in Rome to convince anyone that one of the other possibilities is true.

tz620q,

1. I have been talking about this matter in plenty of posts on this subject.

2. The catholic church says that AS started with Peter in Rome.
At the day of Pentecost was the mention of jews and proselytes of strangers from Rome.

3. Paul wrote to the Roman church and not as the apostle to Rome but as an apostle.
Paul never mentions or even greets Peter or explains that he was there or on a journey etc. Paul would have done this if Peter were the apostle to Rome because he didn't believe to encroach on another's foundation.

4. In the book of Romans at the conclusion Paul mentions many different helpers in his ministry and never mentions Peter. Tertius, who wrote the book said he was a guest of Gaius who was the host of the whole church at Rome. Gauis was baptized by Paul and not Peter.

5. Peter wrote his book as the minister to the jews and this was after Paul was given the dispensation of the grace of God towards the ministry to the gentiles because the jews would not listen to him. Read the 28th chapter of Acts.
Peter also wrote to the strangers at Asia Minor which was in the Roman kingdom but not in the city of Rome.
Mark was an apostle to Babylon an important and influential city in the babylonian mesopotamia in the delta area of Egypt.

6. Peter was never mentioned in any of Paul's epistles as being in Rome especially when he was in prison in Rome.

7. The rcc make the claim of Peter and AS from Rome and there is no recorded or solid implication by trying to construe a story together in the bible that Peter was even in Rome to preach lot alone be the apostle.

8. Paul is the one who gave information of apostles and apostleship in the Corinthian to the body of Christ and not Peter.

9. Secular history could be right about Peter being in Rome but the bible does not give an implication that he was or that he was the apostle to the church at Rome.

10. Peter says these enstranged jews in Asia minor were elected with babylon. Peter ministered to them in the 60's and Rome was destroyed in the 70's. The Roman church was on the day of Pentecost in the 30's and AS wasn't even a know term. The first of picking out faithful men was after that and Stephen was one of them and it was in conjunction with the administration of widows.
So to use the word as a code name of babylon for Rome would make no sense for there is not sufficient evidence of it and not to mention the fact that at that time from the day of Pentecost that there is no proof of Peter's AS and at the time of the Roman church being noted by Paul of no apostleship of anyone and his desire of imparting them gifts and of their faith being known around the world shows that Peter and AS is a made up story using secular history and an assumption from the book of Peter and a gross misunderstanding or more of poor hermeneutics of Matthew and Peter being the rock and the KOH being connected with the church age to boot to illustrate the KOH reign.

11. Such gross misapplication of context about the KOH and the KOG message and the rcc knows better or at least some do and their theologians will tell you that there is no concrete scriptural evidence that Peter was in the Roman church as the apostle to them.
Mentioning Peter was in Rome doesn't show any evidence that he was there as the apostle or to minister there even though if he was anywhere he would probably be ministering.

12. As far as Peter being buried in Rome doesn't make any sense because the jews would bury there own and if the rcc which wasn't even around then there would have been real controversy stirred up and made known in history. Peter being buried in a pagan burial ground would make more sense for Simon the Magi and there is evidence that this could be true.

13. Anyone is free to believe whatever they like but to believe such gross error and insufficient evidence scripturally shows that the rcc has deemed that veiled the scripture must adhere to secular history and not harmonize together. Jerry Kelso

 

[jerry kelso]

That may be true of today's Christians, but we are not talking about today's Christians. We are talking about first century Christians, and to them it was Rome that was Babylon.

open heart,

1. Rome's reputation as babylon even in that day as a known fact would be greater in making no sense in Peter using that term for Rome would have found that being suspect.

2. In Nero's day there was persecution but these in Asia Minor were elected with the church in Babylon and there is no indication of election in the Roman church by Peter or Paul either one concerning being the apostle to that church.
At the day of Pentecost dwellers of Mesopotamia which babylon was in Egypt and John Mark ministered there and so did Peter. In that day when they were elected together if it was in the early church would not have a code word for Rome for they were said to be strangers from Rome and this meaning was proselytes or converts to judaism and not elected by the context of AS for Paul brought this out and the church was just getting started and didn't have the thought of AS even after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They didn't pick faithful men till after the day of Pentecost of which Stephen was one and this was in conjunction with the ministry of widows and not AS. Paul was the one to bring out about Apostles in the body of Christ and not Peter because Peter was picked by Jesus as a disciple that became an apostle in the church with the other 12 all equal lively stones. James was a pillar with Peter and there is no implication of Peter being the head pope of the early church. This is a gross interpretation and adding to the scripture and changing the true meaning of these jewish scriptures and it's history to bolster the rcc.

3. The bottom line of Rome having a reputation of being known as babylon is not sufficient evidence to claim that Peter was talking about Rome in his book. It is not proven in the immediate context or at the day of Pentecost or in conjunction with Peter being an apostle to the Roman church or any other context in the scriptures. It is nothing less than conjecture, assumption and an opinion and does not fit the timbre of the context in Peter.

4. In Revelation was much different climate of persecution with domitian than with Nero. With that said the churches were written by the apostle John the beloved. These churches were in Asia in the Roman kingdom and not in the city of Rome. Rome is not specifically mentioned or coded in Revelation 1-3. It is known that Rome in Domitian's reign was where Satan's seat was and came from babylon and moved to Pergamos which was not the city of Rome but in the Roman kingdom.

5. Revelation 17 is talking about after the church age and in the tribulation preceding the jews fulfilling their covenants and the true setting up of the Millennial kingdom.
The term is "MYSTERY BABYLON" and the "MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH". At first reading this phrase we could believe that this is talking about literal babylon. The mother of harlots concerning abominations came from babylon and Nimrod and his queen. This doesn't necessarily mean that literal babylon is the mystery babylon because the blood of the martyrs of Jesus in the literal sense would seem to denote Rome because Babylon has not really been a factor in connection with the martyrs of Jesus as much as Rome. With the history of the rcc it is easy to assume that the rcc will go apostate.

6. I am not sure that being a code name would make alot of difference in John's day if the letter would have been intercepted by the Roman government. It seems they would have questioned it. I am going to stop here and give you opportunity to expound on the word the church at Rome being used as a code word and a code word being used in for Rome in the phrase in Mystery Babylon. Jerry kelso