What is absent from II Peter is glaring:
* No mention of anyone being with him at all.
* No mention of Jail, Jailors, visitors, hardships from imprisonment, etc.
* No mention of what form his death may be taking, though he states it to be near.
* No mention of where he is or any travels he may have taken lately.
* No mention of where he may be going if anywhere
You're assuming that Peter wrote this letter. There was a resistance in the early church about accepting this epistle in the canon because it was not a given that Peter wrote it. There are a number of scholars who call this work a pseudonymous work because it gives the appearance of being more remote in time from 1 Peter. The principal reasons are because the author refers to the apostles and our ancestors as belonging to a previous generation now dead (3:2-4) and there is a collection of Paul's letters that exist and appear to be well known, but disputes have arisen on how to interpret them (3:14-16). There is also widespread agreement that II Peter depends on Jude and not vice versa. And finally, this epistle refers to "scoffers" who have concluded from the delay of the parousia that the Lord is not going to return. This could hardly be the case during the lifetime of Simon Peter.
So before you go hanging your hat on disproving Peter was never in Rome based on what is absent from II Peter, you may want to do a little more studying. I can't prove that Peter wrote this letter can you?
Peter himself says he's in Babylon. Now unless you can prove him a liar outright, or otherwise show beyond doubt that he's talking in code which he has no reason to do, He's in Babylon.
This is what your position really boils down to because all you have for documentation 1 Pet. 5:13. And yes, Peter would have a darn good reason to speak in code since the Christians were being persecuted in Rome. And we also know that Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way six times in the book of Revelation and in extra-biblical works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). This link has been posted before but here it is again.
Again, where's your proof. Where are the FACTS.
Since you don't accept our documentation and I can't get anything from you other that 1 Peter 5:13 it looks like we have reached a stalemate. Unless you want to provide proof that Peter actually did write II Peter. That could prove to be interesting.
So your argument now is that Peter didn't at all write II Peter? Or are you asking me to Prove it was Written By Peter based on two things you suggest as dissenting views - minor dissenting views. Yep, I've read the stuff too. I've also read the assenting views which were more pointed and won the day. The claims of the dissenters were shot down. And I can debunk them pretty quickly with modern parallels. And with parallels of the day.
Nice attempt at trying once again to shift the burden of proof.
As for the quotation once again of Revelation, Revelation was written after II Peter by dating. One cannot leap forward in time to a revelation direct from God, Grab something said to another by God, then leap back in time and apply the usage. Doesn't work that way.. ok, maybe in star trek; but, not in real life. Care to give us the actual dates of the writing of the other three works in relation to I Peter and how they'd have any bearing on Peter in AD 65 - 67? I would note, that has not been proffered. How about it?
Your, excuse me for borrowing, "Jack Chick"ish tract is duplicated here. Peg, playing cut and paste: www.lumenverum.com/apologetics/rome.htm.
Babylon in the Book of Revelation can only refer to Rome as it was the only "great city" in the time of Christ and the Apostles. Babylon proper in Mesopotamia had, by 100 AD, been reduced to insignificance.
This is the portion of the quotation just before your cut and past about revelation and the three other books. I suppose you couldn't put them into the date timeline that I have referenced a number of times because there were no dates given in the cut and paste method of scholarship?
Ok, I'll do it for you. 4 Esdras is dated to around 100 AD - After the writing of Revelation. Baruch is named for a prince dating to the Babylonian Captivity era and as such deals with actual Babylon, Not Rome in Italy - Kinda miss that in cut and pasting don't ya? Standard Baruch is aimed at Jews in Captivity in Babylon (Mesopotamia). This has no bearing on your argument (0). Now for the last reference the Sibylline Oracles:
see Pseudepigrapha.
(s´´dp´grf) (KEY) [Gr.,=things falsely ascribed], a collection of early Jewish and some Jewish-Christian writings composed between c.200 B.C. and c.A.D. 200, not found in the Bible or rabbinic writings.
How interesting, this one is spread out all over the place to the point where it's a collection of works spanning a 400 year period.. The latter end of the collection dating to 130 years after the presumed death of Peter. Cut and paste scholarship sucks doesn't it Pegleg. 3 quotations one that can't be pinned down and therefore gives no support to your argument. One that has nothing to do whatever with the supposed point, and one that was definitely written AFTER revelation, the only known Biblical reference to Rome as Babylon which itself was written not only After I peter was written, Not only after II Peter was written; but, according to opinion was written in 96 AD - 30 years after you guys say Peter died.. Tell me, Can Peter like come back from the Dead and rewrite I Peter to apply a parallel that wasn't made till after he died?
No rush, I'll let you think about it a bit. I'll be laughing in the next room for a while. Just respond any old time and we'll see what else you come up with.
Sorry, almost missed this. Can't let you get by with mistating the facts. I did not "hang my hat" on a single verse. I hang my hat on the entire texts of the complete works of Paul - Primarily I Timothy & II Timothy, I & II Peter and the Book of Revelation. Not just content; but, where they are placed in history and their authority as accepted cannon.
I Timothy provides the groundwork needed to show where Timothy's responsibilities lay. II Timothy in dating against I Peter provides a timeframe for actions taking place. The entirety of Paul's collection is necessary for establishing the whereabouts of many others in motion. It is necessary to show that in fact, by the time of the writing of I Peter, Sylvanus hadn't been with Paul for 10 years. Much ado is made about Sylvanus being a companion of Paul. But Mark was too. And yet both were then companions of Peter at the writing of I Peter. And Paul had to send to get Mark from Peter.
Knowing the Bible gives us a lot more context than just what was taught. And it's context that you can't ignore if you want truth. But you aren't attacking my position because I based it on a single verse. You're saying I'm basing it on a single verse to detract from the weight of the argument. How about some scholarship instead of mischaracterizations and hollow citations.