Replies

So in your reading, the "Babylon" of 1 Peter does not refer to Rome, but the "Babylon" of Revelation does. I don't really have a problem with that, as the authors likely used the terms independently, and with different intentions. I was just curious to see if you have modified your opinion on the matter of Peter.

Of course, this dual usage of "Babylon" presents as much difficulty to the Catholic interpretation, but in reverse. Those who want to identify the Babylon of 1 Peter with Rome must explain why the Bablyon of Revelation does not refer to Rome.

I recently read a short blurb about Babylon in connection with the movement of 3rd MD past the site. According to it the city was in the First Century pretty much nothing.

Well, the problem frankly is that they think 2 dimensionally. They see a term used in the Bible and think because it appears there that it must apply everywhere - the critical review doesn't happen. It doesn't occur that This is a collection of works written over roughly a 60 year period after the Death of the Annointed one. It also doesn't occurr to them that Revelation is prophecy and recorded from a vision given from Jesus. The book itself says so. Pointing this out has always drawn incredulity from Catholics. Incredulity that one can believe that the author had a vision, though they have no problem with the transfiguration (oops yes they do- don't understand it was a vision - 2 dimensional again..). They don't want to be bothered with the blatent obvious, especially when they haven't been trained to think for themselves but to let another think for them. You know, use it or lose it syndrome. If you don't excercise that muscle, it goes to flab. There's also a spiritual component to that. But there is no linkage between 1 Peter and Revelation without redefining the laws of space/time and physics not to mention of life and death and continuity. Nothing minor - don't you know.

No, Paul vouches for where Peter was if only by accident. He was ministering to the lost tribes of the house of Israel at Babylon in the fertile cresent where they had gone when they left during the Diaspora. It fits his mission as he was commissioned by Christ and it fits in countless other ways which I have previously listed at length. But it gives them fits because it makes their founders to be liars, dupes or at the very least, grossly misinformed because the sources they drew from were wrong. Any one of these could be the case, I would proffer the likelyhood is all. Given their track record, it's difficult to imagine otherwise.

Of course, this dual usage of "Babylon" presents as much difficulty to the Catholic interpretation, but in reverse. Those who want to identify the Babylon of 1 Peter with Rome must explain why the Bablyon of Revelation does not refer to Rome.

Nope. Both refer to Rome. You only have to spin if you think one does and the other does not. I don't think that it is the church's position that Daniel was not refering to Rome.