You answer your own question. How did Paul have access to Timothy though Timothy was over a thousand miles away. You dismiss it though scripture so says that it happened. Gee, go figure. How silly of me to expect you to accept the word of the Apostles on something.. Almost forgot only Christians do that. Oh, and the Rome/Babylon connection didn't exist at the time that 1 Peter was written. That would not come for another 35 years or two generations later. So in the instance of 1 Peter, there is no such connection.
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:
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: [6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Helps knowing the scriptures. Acts 15:7 gives reference to a prior event which allowed teaching the gentiles as well as the Jews - not the Gentiles exclusively. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Again, helps knowing scripture.
Here are some historical references for you to ignore:
Well, first of all, I don't ignore actual historical references. This is not a historical reference. That it is old is without question. That it is of authority is of some question. Ever bother to read where this hearsay comes from. Tertullian had no first hand knowledge of Peter having been born in 150 to 160 ad (depending on who you read) - over 80 years after Peter's presumed death (That's 4 to 4 1/2 generations or for you scholars). Here's the root:
"Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement: (1) The 'Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians.' Many critics have believed them genuine [they having been read in the Churches]. ... But it is now admitted on all hands that they cannot be by the same author as the genuine [?] Epistle to the Corinthians. ... (2) Two Epistles to Virgins.' (3) At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. (4) Ascribed to Clement are the 'Apostolic Constitutions,' 'Apostolic Canons,' and the "Testament of our lord.' (5) The 'Clementines' or 'Pseudo-Clementines,' including the Recognitions and Homilies," hereafter to be noticed. (CE. iv, 14-15; cf. 17, 39.)
The Clementine forgeries cropped up during the 2nd century ad and were added to over time. They were a manufactured history of Peter in Rome. Hmm. I wonder how people in the 2nd and 3rd centuries would get the idea that Pete was in Rome with this forgery floating about (scratching head) Hmmm.. how could it be possible. Let me think.. No wait, I'll get it eventually.
Tertullian is so authoritative that he wholely bought the Pagan oracles (a forgery) and states thus: "the Sibyl is thus proved no liar." - Pallium, ch 2; ANF. 4, 6. Let's not stop there, though, the man also believed that astrology was allowed - "But Magi and astrologers came from the East (Matt. ii). We know the mutual reliance of magic and astrology. The interpreters of the stars, then, were the first to announce Christ's birth, the first to present gifts. ... Astrology now-a-days, forsooth, treats of Christ-is the science of the stars of Christ; not of Saturn, or of Mars. But, however, that science has been allowed until the Gospel, in order that after Christ's birth no one should thenceforward interpret anyone's nativity by the heaven." (On Idolatry, ch. ix; ANF. iii, 65.) Or how about this one: "The serpent crawls into a cave and out of his skin, and uncoils himself in a new youth; with his scales, his years, too, are repudiated. The hyena, if you observe, is of annual sex, alternately masculine and feminine. ... The stag, feeding on the serpent, languishes-from the effects of the poison-into youth." (On the Pallium, ch. iii; ANF. iv, 7.).. Or perhaps this: "Among cures certain substances supplied by nature have very great efficacy; magic also puts on some bandages." (Scorpiace, ch. i; ANF. iii, 633.) Ooh, a favorite one here "You [Pagans] say we worship the sun; so do you." (CE. xiv, 525; Ad. Nationes, xiii; ANF. iii, 123.)
Not done with Tertullian, it's just beginning to run together. Here: "Then take a most complete and unassailable symbol of our hope [of resurrection], subject alike to life and death. I refer to the bird which is peculiar to the East, famous for its singularity, marvelous from its posthumous life, which renews its life in a voluntary death; its dying day is its birthday, for on it it departs and returns: once more a phoenix where just now there was none; once more himself, but just now out of existence; another, yet the same. What can be more express and more significant for our subject; or to what other thing can such a phenomenon bear witness? God even in His own Scripture says: 'The righteous shall flourish like the phoenix' [Greek Septuagint: Dikaios os phoenix anthesei; Ps. xcii, 12]. Must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?" (Tert., On the Resurrection of the Flesh, ch. xiii; ANF. iii, 554.)
Note the reference to the pheonix.. Oh, and not to be disharmonous with his treatment of frauds, showing no respect one to another, here is Tertullian on another fraud "All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Caesar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and even the Caesars would have believed on Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Caesars." (Apol. ch. xxi; ANF. iii,. 35.) - reference is to the 'official report of Pilate to Caesar'. And how about the fable of the Septuagint as it is known: "To this day, at the temple of Serapis, the librariis of Ptolemy are to be seen, with the identical Hebrew originals in them." (Apology, to the Rulers of the Roman Empire, I, xviii; ANF. iii, 32.) or perhaps on the efficacy of Pagan gods as a witness for Christ - "effective witnesses for Christ";-"Yes, and we shall prove that your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ ... "Yes, and we shall prove that your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ. ... Against the Greeks we urge that Orpheus, at Piera, Musaeus at Athens, (etc.) imposed religious rites. ... Numa Pompilius laid on the Romans a heavy load of costly superstitions. Surely Christ, then, had a right to reveal Deity." (Apol. ch. xxi; ANF. iii, 36.) Finally, let us note Tertullian as being the author or publisher of "The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas" A fraud - A known fraud. One wonders why such a confused person and good fiction writer would thus recant his 'christianity' and follow the pagans. Oh, didn't know that part of it?
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.
Presumed Iggy, not proven iggy, that's number one. Number two, one can command anything, that makes them leader of none. And presumed iggy has no direct knoledge of Peter in Rome. Considering Peter cannot be placed in Rome by first hand witness other than through forgery, the best we can opine is that this is hearsay. The worst we can opine is that it is another forgery to fit the majority stance of all other works attributed to him. In any case, hearsay with no authoratative linkage is of little use. Try it in court.
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."
Wow, another person repeating hearsay. Imagine that - must have been reading pseudo Clement alont with Iggy or perhaps Iggy was penned by the same author to give pseudo clement some standing.. hmm. what a thought. At any rate, not first hand and of not authority or use as evidence - thusly rejected.
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."
Stop the press!! You mean to tell me that there are people here who yet have the gaul to quote from Eusebius?! That fraud is about as useless as the New York times for accuracy and truth, one hopes the paper he is printed upon is soft and absorbent that it would find use next to a stool. I can't believe you try to quote him. Praytell, do you expect to quote Arthur C. Clarke at some point in the future? Or parhaps Witkinstein?
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.
I'll Give Lactantius a pass. Anyone can look up lactantius on the web and see for themselves his appeals to pagan gods as witness to Christianity and his documentation of a diatribe of Apollo on the forged pagan Sybil. It is of little surprise as usual that these people all give credit to the same false documents. One wonders why. One further wonders why it all happens in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all ends up tied back to the reign of Constantine and ultimately to Eusebius. Gee, let's put our thinking caps on.
As for your testimonies, you've cited well known and often rehashed hearsay as though we should jump up and down at these hacks and imagine them of authority and great insight. So great an insight have they that they praise frauds and are frauds themselves. Either you are ignorant of their backgrounds or you're regurgitating propaganda or summarizing from an official prop sheet. Which is the case is of no concern and is about as useful as the bones you claim to have. Or did you not know that the Catholic church long claimed to have the bones of Peter and Paul elsewhere before 'finding' them under the Vatican buried under a 2nd century Shrine that was erected on a cemetary as a monument - not a grave marker. Of course this has been known for a very long time. And the site is a mass grave that served the Roman Circuses - IE any moron could walk up that hill, plant a shovel and uncover bones without trying hard. It's a stinking mass grave for cryin out loud. Oh, but let us pretend.... If this wasn't all so sad, it would be laughable.
I am still interested in this concept of the "Lost Tribes of the House of Israel" You said it though it is nowhere in the Bible, and, although you have the advantage over me in knowing the scriptures, I wonder what scripture you mean, that phrase belongs to the Book of Mormon, if I'm not mistaken. Are you a Mormon?
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: [6] But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Helps knowing the scriptures. Acts 15:7 gives reference to a prior event which allowed teaching the gentiles as well as the Jews - not the Gentiles exclusively. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Again, helps knowing scripture.
What prior event does Acts 15:7 refer to? Prior to Mt 10:5? You seem to claim this, as you imply that the instruction to the twelve superceeds that event. I think that you are incorrect. The clearest connection is Peters dream of the unclean animals. You also seem to attempt to distinguish Peter from Paul here: "not the Gentiles exclusively. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles" since Paul also taught Jews as well as Gentiles there is no basis for this.
To "prove" Peter would not have been in Rome Havoc can say "Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles" - but when the Apostle Peter says: "God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." We really all (even you) need to pick Peter over Havoc, don't you think?
the Rome/Babylon connection didn't exist at the time that 1 Peter was written. That would not come for another 35 years or two generations later.
This is sort of like saying "since I am not having eggs until tomorrow, you could not have had them yesterday." Clearly, the author of Revelations is using this very statement of Peters to create the relationship in the first place, since everyone knows what Peter meant.
Lastly, still waiting on that "dating methology" that proves Paul wrote to Timothy at the same time Peter wrote from "Babylon." I know we are not talking carbon dating here. That would be the last remaining bit of evidence proving your thesis, would it not?
With bated breath,
v.