Replies

Peter called Rome the city, Rome the empire Babylon, not the Church there.

Peter never referred to Rome as Babylon. How oft must it be noted that there is no basis for this. I understand you were taught this junk; but, I was taught that Constantine was a Christian and that ain't any more true than when I was taught that Alex Graham Bell said "Watson, come here, I want you." Alex didn't say that. Constantine followed Mithraism and Peter was in Babylon in the Fertile Crescent.

Now, When I started in this conversation over 2 years ago and nearly three now if memory serves. The Catholic position was that there was no settlement in Babylon at that time. Seems the propaganda at that time from Rome was saying this. When it was noted sometime back that not only was there a settlement in that area but a thriving Israelite community, the rhetoric changed to 'there was no settlement of any worth there. One assumes that either the Church at Rome still has little use for Israelites, is intent on belittling them or is just blind to history in favor of it's rhetoric and propaganda. For it seems everyone but Rome is capable of acknowledging the truth on this matter. Rome must have overlooked the two part early Israelite Diaspora in it's rush to reinvent history in favor of its fables. Perhaps Rome will eventually fess up to the truth? One can hope; but, one is not so foolish as to hold one's breath.

Peter, you'll remember was commissioned to go preach to the lost tribes of the house of Israel. And it just so happens that the Old testament records where those tribes went - East, Northeast, and North. Care to guess which directions are not included there. West is one of them, had to give it away you know. And West is the direction of What country? Italy - wherein is contained - you guessed it - Rome. So if Peter is an Apostle and commissioned to preach to the lost Tribes, the last place on earth he'd be caught dead would be where? Anyplace that isn't North, Northeast or East of Jerusalem (That would include Rome).

Now, as if it isn't apparent enough Where Peter should be, and where he should not be, is it possible To tell anything about where he actually was based on scripture. Yes, indeed it is. I Peter And II Timothy were written at roughly the same time according to dating methodology. Mark at this time was in service to Peter - acting as a scribe and penning Peter's first book for him presumably for this is what he did for Paul. And wouldn't you know, that going to I Timothy, another Character enters the picture - namely Timothy who was given charge over the Church at Ephesus. So flash forward to II Timothy again and now Paul is sending this letter to Timothy with a charge:

2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. [12] And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. [13] The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring [with thee], and the books, [but] especially the parchments.

So, We know that Mark was with Peter and aiding him. And Paul had to send to Ephesus and replace Timothy in Ephesus with Tychicus so that he could bring Mark to Rome to work for him.

See Ephesus over there on the right. Now lets zoom out..

See Ephesus over there on the right....

To say that Paul sent a messenger to Ephesus to go fetch Mark and Bring him to Rome when Mark is supposed to be with Peter in Rome tells us that though Mark is with Peter, he isn't in Rome, Much less in the same country as Rome. Thus if Peter was hailing from anywhere in I Peter, it was Babylon in the Fertile Crescent - not Rome. There is no reason to assume he was in Rome to begin with or to think he needed to use code language when Luke is with Paul in Rome and others are moving freely in and out of Rome with no trouble - at least no trouble Paul or the Romans were aware of.

Interestingly, II Peter is penned in a different hand - is absent any mention of anyone else being present and is entirely absent all the hallmarks that should be present if Peter were captive or suffering. Seems Peter didn't know he was supposed to be in Rome and under gaurd in prison at the time this Epistle was written. Though he is well enough aware of Paul's plight. Perhaps because of his visit with Timothy... One thing is clear, this journey from Rome to Ephesus alone would take quite a long time. There was no TWA, Air Italia, etc in those days. If you wanted to travel, you did so overland or jumped aboard a trade ship for passage. If you went by trade ship, you went wherever you had to go with the trade ship till it reached the point on it's route closest to your destination. However long it took, by the time Hebrews is written, Paul is still awaiting his visit from Timothy. Whether Mark ever arrived before Paul breathed his last is not recorded. But it isn't necessary to know.

I am so glad you asked :-) Go get a Rosary and start Praying it. You will see for yourself.

Hardly convincing. Or did you not know that Pagans got answers from their gods? Satanists get answers from their god. Etc. The only thing you're offering is that something is hearing and responding in some cases. Scripture tells us Mary can't hear you (Ecclesiastes 9). Since Mary can't hear you, And only Jesus can mediate before God on your behalf in heaven, something else has to be hearing and answering. It ain't God or Jesus because you're praying to neither and breaking the rules all around in the doing. Guess what you are praying to. I'll give you a couple chances and you ain't gonna like the answer.

Not my area.

Doesn't have to be. This is sort of a copout. You don't want to answer because you don't have a philosophy for this or haven't read it. Right. I mean up to now everything you've said is written in your philosophy and could be cut and pasted from prior conversations here with other Catholics. Go figure. In order for Mary to hear and respond to the number of prayers that Catholics alone pose to her, she would have to be omnipresent. That would make her deity. Bing bing bing. That's the warning that you're into big time trouble with this. Of course, if you knew scripture half as well as you seem to know church propaganda - I mean philosophy, you'd have those bells going off in your ears without my having to interject them.

Well that's a bit rude.

I'm sure that's the way Bagdad Bob felt when the Marines went to say Hi to him. How dare they spoil his propaganda. Was probably rude to him that they wouldn't commit suicide at the city limits for him either..

How then would Timothy have access to Mark if he, like Peter, was a thousand miles away in Mesopotamia? Sorry, doesn't wash. The Rome/Babylon connection is scriptural.

HAVOC: "Peter, you'll remember was commissioned to go preach to the lost tribes of the house of Israel"

No I didn't remember that. In fact, I don't find the phrase "Lost Tribes" in either the KJV or the NRSV. Do you have scripture? I do remember this though:

Act 15:7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Somehow the above passage from Acts reads a bit different than your claim.

HAVOC: "I Peter And II Timothy were written at roughly the same time according to dating methodology"

Ah, methodology, fascinating. care to elaborate? I would love to learn all about this methodology.

Here are some historical references for you to ignore:

"Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, "How happy is that church. . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John?s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded]." Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that ?this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.? This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn?t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn?t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church." He then says the two departed Rome, perhaps to attend the Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49). A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter's successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea?s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, "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 for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed."

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that "When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54-68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God."

So we have Scriptural consistancy, Testimony from a variety of sources dating back to before the RC Church could be distinguished (so know axe to grind) back to just a few years after Peters martyrdom in Rome (read: living witnesses). And of course, we have the bones.

HAVOC: "How oft must it be noted that there is no basis for this."

Ditto

As oft as you opine, with no contradicting evidence whatsoever, that the plain and simple facts are not so.

v.