[dangus]

There's so much nonsense, I don't even know where to start. I can't begin to refute every single claim, there are so many made, so I'll start wit the main points.

Peter was certainly not in Babylon. Babylon had long since been destroyed, and the area it once stood on was no longer called Babylon. As Anti-Catholics so often love to point out, Babylon is used in many places in Revelations to signify Rome. So, yes, Peter writes that he's in Babylon, that is the biblical proof that the sola-scriptura types need to establish he's in Rome. (incidentally, non-biblical Jewish and Christian sources also routinely identify Rome as Babylon, including 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibellyne Oracles.)

Other odd claims include that since Paul was "apostle to the gentiles," this means that He and not Peter left Palestine. It would also mean that none of the other disciples left Palestine, which would have been a direct refutation of the command given them by Jesus.

>>Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. >>

Actually, these proofs *DO* succeed in doing that fairly well; they at least make a strong case. But Peter is thought to have been in Rome about 3 times, totalling about 7-10 years during his 25 year reign as Bishop of Rome. Each apostle was actually given authority over patriarchates throughout the ancient world, although they're travels through different lands are well documented, yes, including in the bible. None stayed put; the most stationary was John who scarcely travelled far from Asia minor.

OP's article does concede that there is non-biblical, historical evidence to suggest that Peter was in Rome. This is somewhat of an understatement. Often Catholics say "the unanimity of the Church Fathers." This often means that certain Church Fathers have written on a subject without being opposed, or, if opposed, having shown that they had settled the matter with authority. In this case, however, when I looked it up, I was surprised to find that all of the most ancient church historians that I most commonly came across had specifically mentionned Peter in Rome: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gaius, Origen, Eusebius, etc.

By now, I'm actually amused be the way certain Protestants expect that the entirety of the church, even the popes and church fathers, would be so ignorant of the bible as to not notice Peter's presence in Antioch recorded in Acts!

And that closing quote is a beaut... an unsourced "secret" quote from a Pope... "Don't tell anyone this, but it was dem critters from Roswell that killed Jack in Dallas!" -- President Lyndon B. Johnson. Even the UFO wierdos would at least make up a story for the source of such a quote.

As for Peter not wishing to be buried in a cemetary... After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day; The Vatican can never be identified as "Babylon," for it is not in Rome, but in exile across the Tiber.

As for the Article which deceptively headlined this screed:
Is it the assertion of the article that this cave is the burial place of Peter, son of John, and also of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Mathew, Jude, and Salome? Given
1. the uproar of James' ossuary last year*, and
2. the presence of 1st-century attestations of Peter's death in Rome,
3. the weak source and lack of review
I'm not impressed.

(*For those of you who do not remember, within the past year, every major newspaper across the country ran sensational headlines about an ossuary which was found, saying, "James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus." What it actually said was "James of Joseph, of Jesus" which would imply nothing of the sort. The whole matter was quickly rendered moot when it was discovered that although the ossuary was 2,000 years old, the scratchings were fresh.)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

There's so much nonsense, I don't even know where to start. I can't begin to refute every single claim, there are so many made, so I'll start wit the main points. Peter was certainly not in Babylon. Babylon had long since been destroyed, and the area it once stood on was no longer called Babylon. As Anti-Catholics so often love to point out, Babylon is used in many places in Revelations to signify Rome. So, yes, Peter writes that he's in Babylon, that is the biblical proof that the sola-scriptura types need to establish he's in Rome. (incidentally, non-biblical Jewish and Christian sources also routinely identify Rome as Babylon, including 4 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Sibellyne Oracles.)

Actually, Josephus makes reference to the city of Babylon as an urban center for Judaism at least as late as 36BC, within a century or so of Peter's Epistles (I don't make any claim that the city had been rebuilt into as great a metropolis as its former days).

“Before I conclude this section, I must take notice of a passage in Josephus, which not only confutes all notions of a spiritual or mystical Babylon, but throws a great light on our present inquiry; and this passage is of so much the more importance, because Josephus was a historian who lived in the same age with St. Peter; and the passage itself relates to an event which took place thirty-six years before the Christian era, namely, the delivery of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high priest, from imprisonment, by order of Phraates, king of Parthia, with permission to reside in Babylon, where there was a considerable number of Jews. This is recorded by Josephus, Antiq. xv. c. 2, in the following words: dia touto desmwn men afhken, en babulwni de katagesqai pareicen, enqa kai plhqov hn ioudaiwn. Josephus then adds, that both the Jews in Babylon, and all who dwelt in that country, as far as the Euphrates, respected Hyrcanus, as high priest and king.
(http://www.geocities.com/arwoodco/1PETER.html)

So, when Peter says that he is writing from Babylon, the simplest read on the matter is that Peter... was writing from Babylon. After all, when Paul wrote from Rome, he stated "I'm writing from Rome".

That said, if one supposes that Peter was writing from a "metaphorical Babylon", that doesn't necessarily lead us to Rome. While Rome could be seen as a "metaphorical Babylon", we find another Christian writer speaking of a "metaphorical Babylon" within the pages of Scripture -- referring to Jerusalem.

Revelation 16: 17-18 -- And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done. And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, [and] so great.

Josephus, the Jewish Wars -- Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence".
Revelation 16:19-20 -- And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
Josephus, The Jewish Wars -- And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other... Accordingly, it so came to pass, that all the places that were about the temple were burnt down, and were become an intermediate desert space, ready for fighting on both sides of it; and that almost all that corn was burnt, which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years. So they were taken by the means of the famine, which it was impossible they should have been, unless they had thus prepared the way for it by this procedure.
Revelation 16: 21 -- And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, [every stone] about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Josephus, The Jewish Wars -- The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, "THE SON COMETH!"
Revelation 18:2 -- And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Now, to reiterate: the simplest read on Peter's Epistles would be to understand that when he claims to be writing from Babylon -- he's writing from Babylon. HOWEVER, if one believes that Peter is writing of a "metaphorical Babylon", the most obvious candidate would be the "metaphorical Babylon" recorded in the pages of the New Testament -- that is, Jerusalem.

So that'll hafta be my response to the first part of your Post; it's late afternoon, and I have to run. But, while I don't expect to have time tonight, I'll try to address the remainder of your Post on the morrow.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Moving along (you already responded to my first-half response, but lemme finish up with my second-half first)...

OP's article does concede that there is non-biblical, historical evidence to suggest that Peter was in Rome. This is somewhat of an understatement. Often Catholics say "the unanimity of the Church Fathers." This often means that certain Church Fathers have written on a subject without being opposed, or, if opposed, having shown that they had settled the matter with authority. In this case, however, when I looked it up, I was surprised to find that all of the most ancient church historians that I most commonly came across had specifically mentionned Peter in Rome: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Gaius, Origen, Eusebius, etc.

Well, you're surprised, I'm surprised -- now we're both surprised!

In my case, I'm surprised that when you looked it up, you were able to be surprised at Clement's and Ignatius' specific mentions of Peter in Rome, considering that neither of them ever mention Peter in Rome. For the sake of brevity I'll repost my response to "TheCrusader":

---

At least five Early Church Fathers, historians and Bishops wrote of Peter's death in Rome. Testimony of his martyrdom in Rome is extensive, including writings by Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Clement I of Rome, St. Ignatius, and St. Irenaeus.

Let’s take a look at the Fathers whom you mention:

First Century

• Clement of Rome -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all
• Ignatius -- No mention of Peter in Rome at all

Second Century

• Irenaeus -- Mentions only that Peter visited and preached in Rome (not denied by this article)

Third & Fourth Centuries

• Tertullian & Eusebius – We now begin to see mentions of Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome. However, to accept these references as accurate, we are reduced to accepting the word of a Montanist heretic (Tertullian) who wrote about 140 years after the events in question, and Eusebius (whom Catholic Encyclopedia calls “provokingly ill-informed about the West”) writing some 250 years after the fact.

So we can see that a century-and-a-half or two after the fact a tradition began to develop to support the claim that Peter was martyred in Rome, but the development of a tradition a couple hundred years after the events is not really very sound evidence for the accuracy of the claim.

On the other hand, we have testimony in stone, from the first century AD, that Simon bar Jonah was buried near Jerusalem, along with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, in a cemetery for Jewish Christians. Now, it may be claimed that this is not the “Simon bar Jonah” and not the “Mary, Martha, and Lazarus”, but the fact remains that as evidence for the claim it is much earlier and much more concrete (bad pun, sorry) than the traditions claimed as evidence by Roman Catholicism.

And that closing quote is a beaut... an unsourced "secret" quote from a Pope... "Don't tell anyone this, but it was dem critters from Roswell that killed Jack in Dallas!" -- President Lyndon B. Johnson. Even the UFO wierdos would at least make up a story for the source of such a quote.

Actually, the quotation is sourced to (Roman Catholic) Rev. Father P.B. Bagatti, author of Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit. See the second link provided above, scroll to "Saint Peter's Tomb".

As for Peter not wishing to be buried in a cemetary... After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day; The Vatican can never be identified as "Babylon," for it is not in Rome, but in exile across the Tiber.

As noted in my first response, I'm not arguing for Rome as the "Babylon" of Revelation; I'm pointing out that the Vaticanus was a cemetery reserved for the higher Pagan Magicians of the Mystery Religions. For Rome to allow a Jewish Christian who directly assaulted the Rome-endorsed Pagan Mystery religions to be buried therein -- would have been the height of irregularity (and therefore, probably didn't happen).

As for the Article which deceptively headlined this screed: Is it the assertion of the article that this cave is the burial place of Peter, son of John, and also of Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Mathew, Jude, and Salome? Given 1. the uproar of James' ossuary last year*, and 2. the presence of 1st-century attestations of Peter's death in Rome, 3. the weak source and lack of review I'm not impressed. (*For those of you who do not remember, within the past year, every major newspaper across the country ran sensational headlines about an ossuary which was found, saying, "James, son of Joseph, and brother of Jesus." What it actually said was "James of Joseph, of Jesus" which would imply nothing of the sort. The whole matter was quickly rendered moot when it was discovered that although the ossuary was 2,000 years old, the scratchings were fresh.)

There was always suspicion about the James ossuary, on account of the fact that it was (if memory serves) discovered in a private collector's hoard. Not so the burial cave and ossuaries referenced in the article, which by all accounts had been undisturbed and untampered since around AD70.

It's sorta like the difference between a fellow offering you a bottle of wine with the original cork on which the seal has never been broken, versus his offering you a bottle of wine which has obviously been opened and re-corked although he gives you his personal assurance that the wine is of the proper vintage. You'd have good reason for confidence with the first bottle (the Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Simon bar Jonah cave), but not necessarily the second (the James ossuary).

Well, now I have to run again, time to start the day... I'll try to get around to your second response later this afternoon.

best, OP

[OLD REGGIE]

After Peter was executed, his bones were unceremoniously dumped across the River Tiber, outside Rome, as a deliberate sign of disprespect. And it is there, outside Rome, where the Chair of St. Peter has remained to this day;

An article by one of those terrible people, an ex-Priest, which raises some points worthy of debate. (I promise you, you won't like it.)

Peter's Bones and Rome's Truth