Replies

You wrote:
“The burden of proof is on you to prove that Peter was not in Babylon as he wrote and that he meant something other than "Babylon" by the word "Babylon".”

Incorrect. The burden is all yours. What I have said is clearly what has always been believed. You are presenting the modernist view. The burden is entirely yours.

“Thanks for posting all of these quotes because it shows just how a myth grows from a little bush to a large tree.”

Trees grow from seeds. I proved there was a seed – in Rome. Your analogy even supports that point. Thanks for the assist.

IGNATIUS "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Where does he say that they were in Rome? Peter and the apostles gave commands at the Council of Jerusalem that affected Gentiles. He could be referring to that.”

If Peter and Paul commanded Romans then they were in Rome. I can’t believe missed that obvious point.

DIONYSIUS "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome [A.D. 166], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

“Dionysius [whoever he was?] loses his credibility when he indicates that Peter was involved in the planting of the church of Corinth. He was probably as involved with Corinth as he was with Rome.”

Which would mean it was his. You again miss the obvious. Just because we don’t have glaring evidence of something now does not mean a thing didn’t happen. That’s just common sense.

IRENAEUS "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

“Where was Irenaeus getting this from? He lists no sources. We know that Paul's letter in 56 AD was the first contact the church of Rome had with any apostle.”

We do? Where does Paul indicate he’s writing in AD 56? And how do you know Paul was the first Apostle to write to Rome?

“And Paul was not doing much "evangelizing" from his prison cell.”

Again, you miss the obvious. He certainly was doing “evangelizing” and how do you know it was always a cell? Sometimes he was on ship, on the road, in front of an official – and he was evangelizing every waking moment. Sometimes he even used words (as St. Francis said). Have you forgotten that he converted at least one of his guards? It is interesting to me how Protestants lose their memories in regard to the Bible when bashing Catholics or their beliefs.

“So just when were they together in Rome? doing this evangelizing together? This statement lacks credibility.”

No, you lack credibility. You seem to think St, Paul evangelized only when the situation seemed comfortable!!!
IRENAEUS "The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]" (ibid., 3:3:3).

“Neither of the apostles built up the church of Rome. Read Paul's letter. No apostle had been there, and yet it was a thriving church. Linus was mentioned by Paul, not Peter. Paul did not need Peter if he wanted to appoint Linus or anybody, but none of the apostles did any sort of appointing.”

Again, you miss the obvious. Paul did too build up the church in Rome as he did everywhere he went. Do you think he had no influence at all over those in Rome?

IRENAEUS "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall . . . [point] out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

“This is just Irenaeus pontifications without evidence. Where are his citations from the writings of Peter or Paul?Surely something of this magnitude would be down on paper from these two apostles. And was the church of Rome more ancient than the church at Antioch and Jerusalem?”

You’ve got to be kidding. Where are Paul’s citations about his own actions in the NT? Oh, right, there aren’t any. It’s inspired so we trust it. With the Fathers we simply have no reason to doubt that Peter was in Rome. Irenaeus needs no citations. Yes, it probably was written down before him, but that doesn’t mean that text survived his time. Look at Eusebius. He cites numerous books which are now lost. Some were very rare already in his day!!! We both know you have nothing to go on. So, what do you do? You attack the fathers and their writings as if they should have been writing footnoted dissertations.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:14:1).

“So now where is Paul in this story.”

Doesn’t matter. We’re talking about Peter, remember? Can you focus here? Is that asking too much?

“He now gets written out by Clement who adds his own additions. Where did all that come from? Any citations?”
No citations. None are needed. We have no reason to believe he is inventing stories.

GAIUS "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:5).

“So now the mythmakers are reduced to citing the names on a gravemarker as evidence and some obscure person named Gaius who was alive 198 -- 217 AD --- 150 years later?”

Prove they are mythmakers. Any citations for that? LOL!!!
Seriously, it must suck to be you. I know that sounds snide, but I don’t even mean it that way. You wanted evidence. It was posted. You’re stumped so you whine the evidence isn’t up to your standards – as if any researcher would treat evidence that way in a case like this.
“And that is supposed to be credible evidence?”

It sure is. You can’t refute it can you? Post your evidence to the contrary. Got any? Any at all?

TERTULLIAN "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (De Prescriptione 36 [A.D. 200]).

“So now Tertullian throws in "the passion like our Lord" without citing anyone before him.?”

Is that even necessary? You said ante-Nicene. Is Tertullian ante-Nicene or not? How about the Gospel of John? Is that a good enough source for you? Look up John 21:18-19. No, you won’t believe the stretching out of arms is about Peter’s crucifixion.

TERTULLIAN "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

“First Irenaeus tells us that Paul and Peter ordained Linus, now Tertullian tells us that it was Peter alone and that he ordained Clement instead? Don't you wish they could get their stories about this straight before writing it down?”

How are they contradicting each other? One sources mentions two, the other only one. The second source doesn’t say Paul WASN’T there. Are you saying the gospel writers couldn’t get their act together? Matthew says one angel was in the tomb. Mark says one man. Luke says two men, while John says two angels. Well, which is it? So God couldn’t His act together right? There are always differences in stories. These differences are not contradictions, however.

You’ve never had to do research have you?

THE LITTLE LABYRINTH "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:28:3).
“What happened to Paul? Irenaeus says that Linus was the first bishop not Peter? All of these writers tell different stories.”

Paul would not be part of that list since it is a list of succession. Didn’t that occur to you? No, of course not.

EUSEBIUS "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

“Here is a father of the church who forgets to mention that Peter was a pillar of the church in Jerusalem.”

Show that he “forgot”. More likely he chose not to mention it because it had nothing to do with that part of the story. You not only don’t know how to examine sources but you are insinuating your prejudice into them. That’s a great way to maintain ignorance, but it doesn’t help much in the learning process.

“Did he really establish the church in Antioch?”

Peter was the bishop of Antioch. See Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament, pp. 63-71.

“Where does he get this 25 years? ???”

It might have been common knowledge in his day. Is there an early written source that shows it. Not that I know of. Does that mean it is untrue? No.

LACTANTIUS "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome ...

“I thought it was 25 years beginning in 42 AD during the reign of Claudius. Lactantius and Eusebius should have compared notes before writing this. No one can seem to get their story straight.”

Lactantius may very well have gotten a detail wrong. He too talks of a 25 year period, but in a different way: “…and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city. And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord.”

I can easily see how Lactantius got a detail wrong.
Notice, however, that the 25 year period is still there. It is just related in a different way.

“There was a Peter there in Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD and his real name was Simon the Magician.”

So you trust the early Church fathers there, but not elsewhere? After all, this story is not in the Bible you know?

“He was there under Claudius and brought with him the sorcery of Babylon. There is your Babylon. It was brought to Rome by Simon Magus, the Samarian magician, who set up an ecclesiastical organization that ran parallel with the Church there in Rome. It had bishops and they called themselves "Christians". Check Justin Martur and Irenaeus and other ante-Nicenes. The Catholic Church has confused Simon Peter with Simon Magus who was pretending to be Peter and deceived a lot of people both then and throughout history.”

No, you’re the only confused one here. We don’t mistake Simon Magus for St. Peter.

Thanks for proving you have no evidence for your claims and can’t overturn the evidence presented by me. Your assistance in this matter is much appreciated.