This is what we know:
1) Christian scholars overwhelmingly believe the reference to Babylon was a codeword for Rome.
2) Early Christians, according to ALL of the evidence, believe that Babylon was a code word for Rome.
3) Early Christian writings (those of the Fathers and those of apocryphal writers) use Babylon as a code word for Rome or say that Babylon is a code word for Rome.
4) No one apparently denied the obvious until they, the Protestant Revolutionaries, wanted to separate themselves from the pope.
5) You can't refute any of the above.
6) You have presented exactly no evidence against the above.
Actually, from what I can tell this notion started even later. By the 18th Century, the European wars that were being fought over religion had pretty much ended. With that, a new generation of Protestants came along who didn't seem to hate Catholics like others did in the past. So the anti-Catholic bigots started inventing new issues. The absurdity of Peter never being in Rome was one and most of the issues concerning the Blessed Virgin were also fabricated then (ALL Protestant Reformers believed in her Perpetual Virginity, the Assumption and held a substantial belief in her being sinless).
You mean this is what you say.
1) Christian scholars overwhelmingly believe the reference to Babylon was a codeword for Rome . . . Early Christian writings (those of the Fathers and those of apocryphal writers) use Babylon as a code word for Rome or say that Babylon is a code word for Rome.
Did Paul and Peter and the other apostles have that code book? And all those people in Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor, and even in Rome? How come they didn't know about this code word? They weren't living in the magisterium's fantasyland back then.
And now you are reduced to citing mystics and gnostics as authoritative. That is merely further evidence of their confusion and the confusion of those who cite them as authoritative.
4) No one apparently denied the obvious until they, the Protestant Revolutionaries, wanted to separate themselves from the pope.
you mean, until they got Bibles in their hands and read them and saw that the Papal Magisterium had been lying to them for 1200 years.
5) You can't refute any of the above.
I just did and I will continue to do so below.
6) You have presented exactly no evidence against the above.
How about The Universal Standard Encyclopedia: Babylon: " . . . Even after the founding of of Baghdad, Babylon remained the capitol of the district. Later it became simply a village . . . ".
So Babylon in Peter's day was a village, a caravan stop as others have characterized it here. What a great place to start a church --- in a village that was a caravan stop carrying goods east and west and where all the people in the surrounding area of Babylonia [Mesopotamia]would come to trade and share the news carried by the caravaners. And furthermore, a great place to mail a letter that is to be delivered to the sojourners in Asia Minor along the way of those caravans headed to and from Rome.
So are you going to tell us that "Babylon" was not a real place in Peter's day?
chip never presents evedence only crazy eyed protestant assertions, he's lied at least 3 times after getting 10+ links on each subject to reputable sources. He never cites his own, just continues spouting information he knows is false.