Replies

Babylon was settled by the Israelites in the diaspora after the Northern Kingdom fell to Assyria. The assyrians deported most of the people they took captive into that area. This is a matter of Historical fact. It is also a matter of historical fact that in the time of Christ, that area was the most concentrated settlement of Israelites on the planet. The Israelites do keep track of their history, unfortunately for you.

Were there Jews in Babylon? Sure.
But the city of Babylon fails a critical test if it is referenced as "Babylon" in the Bible.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Darius Hystaspes captured the city of Babylon in 516 B.C., partially razed its walls, and carried its inhabitants into captivity (Herodotus, iii. 159; Justin, i. 10).

... When Seleucus Nicator founded Seleucia for his capital [312 BC], Babylon sank in importance and soon fell into ruins (Pausanias, viii. 33, 1; Dio Cassius, lxxv. 9).

"The Israelites do keep track of their history," yes they do. ;-)

And from the Encylopedia Brittanica:

A tablet dated 275 B.c. states that on the 12th of Nisan the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to the new town [Seleucia], where a palace was built as well as a temple to which the ancient name of E-Saggila was given. With this event the history of Babylon comes practically to an end

No matter how you slice it, Babylon was not "that great city" when the NT was set down, but a sleepy backwater. And there are plenty of references to Rome as Babylon.

...Eusebius was a lying quack. None of this puts Peter in Rome. None of it establishes Rome=Babylon as a common usage metaphor in Peter's time.

So, Ignatius, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Gaius, Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, are all "lying quacks", and you are telling the truth? I'll have to get back to you on that one.

And the only text written close to this time making this reference - for the first time I might add was Revelation - Written 35-40 years after Peter's epistle roughly and what about 33 years after his presumed death.

Excepting of course, 1 Peter? The references in Revelation make perfect sense if they are referring to Rome. Those references can'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. Babylon was no longer a "great city." It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the "great city" mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem. Rome makes the most sense (obviously).

At the same time Peter is writing his Work, Paul is writing II Timothy in which he sends letter by carrier to Ephesus to Timothy with the Charge to go get Marcus and Bring him to Rome. The Big problem with this is that Marcus was writing I Peter for Pete. Pause. That's right. If Paul has to send a letter to Ephesus to get the guy who's just down the block, there is a parallel universe thing goin on or something.

Neat. Where did you get the personal calendars of everybody involved? I gotta get me a copy. That is the only way you can know with such assurance that your dates are right. Was Mark with Peter when I Peter was written? Perhaps. Did Peter send Mark to Asia Minor as a courier for the letter? Perhaps. Was Ephesus a key city of Asia Minor? Yes. Could Paul therefore have written Timothy asking for Marcus to be sent back? Surely. Do you know with absolute certainty when I Peter and II Timothy were written? No. Can we conclude anything from the above? Only that you love to use ~~opinions~~ possibilities for facts.

Pete can't be writing from Rome if Paul has to send out of Rome to fetch Pete's writer.

Marcus didn't "write I Peter for Pete". Go read it again. Silvanus is widely acknowledged as the scribe.

It would have helped for the frauds to have read scripture before they tried to defraud everyone with their lies about Peter.

So true. Because you haven't "read scripture before [you] tried to defraud everyone with [your] lies" it's quite easy to turn back your "bogus lies". (did I use your oxymoron correctly?)

Peter didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone.

Go read the verse again. Only Peter is given the keys. Gee. Have you read the Bible at all? Or are you just using the Cliff notes?

Paul opened the Church to the Gentiles without so much as a 'by your leave' from Peter.

Sheesh. Even the Cliff notes would help you with this. Go read Galatians 2:9. It is specifically by the leave of Peter and others that Paul goes to the Gentiles.

Phew. Your batting zero here. Given your "Fundamental" errors, perhaps you should go back to Bible class.

Only that you love to use ~~opinions~~ possibilities for facts.
T'is Havoc's objective to obfuscate the truth by saying "Nyaa, nyaa, I told you so, I told you so."

Furthermore, Hav, you really seem to be jumping about a bit -- first you state that the scriptures are everything (which they are), then you contradict that by saying, no, Petere didn't hold the keys to the kingdom alone. So, you sayign the scriptures are WRONG???

So, Ignatius, Dionysius, Irenaeus, Gaius, Clement, Tertullian, Eusebius, are all "lying quacks", and you are telling the truth? I'll have to get back to you on that one.

They must have been 'philosophers'. LOLOLOLOL

Seriously, is Havoc digging a hole or what? In an effort to prove his beliefs, he's now degreaded St. Peter, now Eusebius, and by extension, like you said, Ireneaus, Ignatius, Dionysius, Gaius, Clement, Tertullian, etc.

Sheesh. Even the Cliff notes would help you with this. Go read Galatians 2:9. It is specifically by the leave of Peter and others that Paul goes to the Gentiles.

Sheese. Did you ever wonder why James was listed before Peter? Did you ever wonder why Peter didn't have any authority over the other Apostles?

Go read the verse again. Only Peter is given the keys. Gee. Have you read the Bible at all? Or are you just using the Cliff notes?

What power did the "keys" give to Peter which wasn't given to the other Apostles? (Hint: NONE!)

Sheesh. Even the Cliff notes would help you with this. Go read Galatians 2:9. It is specifically by the leave of Peter and others that Paul goes to the Gentiles.

Sheese. Did you ever wonder why James was listed before Peter? Did you ever wonder why Peter didn't have any authority over the other Apostles?

Go read the verse again. Only Peter is given the keys. Gee. Have you read the Bible at all? Or are you just using the Cliff notes?

What power did the "keys" give to Peter which wasn't given to the other Apostles? (Hint: NONE!)