S
Sacramentalist
Guest
Without getting into pages of cut-andpaste, how does one address these arguments by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that say that Peter wrote from Babylon, and not from Rome?
- Status
A
At_His_Feet
Guest
Having been entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ Peter could be expected to serve in a center of Judaism, such as Babylon… There was a large Jewish population in Babylon.
The same argument could be used of Rome: “…Phryg’ia and Pamphyl’ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre’ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” Acts 2:10
The Jewish presence in Rome was apparantly so great that at one point "… Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.: **Acts 18:10 **But some were back at end of Acts: “And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him. After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews” Acts 28:16-17
Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul’s preaching in both the E and the W a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the W.
Paul’s references to “Cephas” in 1 Corinthians, though not conclusive, suggest that the opposite may be true:
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:12 Compare with:
“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” 1Corinthians 9:5
"…that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,
1 Corinthians 15:4
Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). John 1:42
The same argument could be used of Rome: “…Phryg’ia and Pamphyl’ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre’ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes” Acts 2:10
The Jewish presence in Rome was apparantly so great that at one point "… Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.: **Acts 18:10 **But some were back at end of Acts: “And when we came into Rome, Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with the soldier that guarded him. After three days he called together the local leaders of the Jews” Acts 28:16-17
Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul’s preaching in both the E and the W a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the W.
Paul’s references to “Cephas” in 1 Corinthians, though not conclusive, suggest that the opposite may be true:
"What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 1 Corinthians 1:12 Compare with:
“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” 1Corinthians 9:5
"…that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas,
1 Corinthians 15:4
Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). John 1:42
L
LatinCat
Guest
Babylon is used throughout the New Testament as a symbolic name for Rome.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Babylon is used symbolically because of the persecution the Christians were facing from pagan Rome (and also in this passage). Thus they used Babylon (and concealing their identity and saving their lives) Many times throughout the NT, Babylon = pagan Rome.
C
catsrus
Guest
Typical watchtower jargon:
“possibly…”
“available evidence clearly shows…” (without citing the “evidence” - of course)
“could be expected…”
“it logically follows…”
“there would have been no reason…”
And, of course, that favorite of all anti-Catholics, (drum roll please)
“possibly…”
“available evidence clearly shows…” (without citing the “evidence” - of course)
“could be expected…”
“it logically follows…”
“there would have been no reason…”
And, of course, that favorite of all anti-Catholics, (drum roll please)
Oh that jws could read the ambiguity of the watchtower.
A
amgid
Guest
The ancient Babylon no longer existed as such. It had been destroyed centuries before. Speculations have been made about an “Assyrian Babylon” and an “Egyptian Babylon,” none of which makes a lot of historical sense.
What “available evidence?” there isn’t any!
I am not familiar with this publication. I would have to read it to see what it says before judging it.
Babylon is used symbolically in the Bible to refer to the wicked world and the wicked nations of the world, such as Rome was at that time.
Peter is not trying to “veil” the identity of Rome. He is merely recognizing its true identity by identifying it with the symbolic Babylon of the Bible.
But Peter demonstrates his familiarity with many (not just one) of Paul’s epistles. See 2 Peter 3:15-16.
amgid
M
mark_a
Guest
Please excuse me if this has been answered in this thread, but:
What point are JW’s proving with this?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
The Christians of Assyria (Iraq) believe that Peter was their first bishop in Babylon and that he wrote his Epistle from there, literally from Babylon and not from Rome. This is detailed in one of their ancient holy books The Marganitha (The Pearl).
So the line of apostolic succession for both Orthodox Assyrians and Catholic Chaldeans in Iraq commences with the holy Apostle Peter.
Here is the Petrine line of succession for the Assyrian Orthodox in Babylon
nestorian.org/nestorian_patriarchs.html
The Chaldean Catholic Church (under Rome) was formed in the 17th century and has the same line of succesion from Peter.
M
Marilena
Guest
Indeed! Indeed!
M
Marilena
Guest
mark a:
None.
A
amgid
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
There is no evidence that such a thing as Babylon existed at that time. It had been destroyed many centuries before, and it was no longer an inhabited city. It lay in ruins, just as it still does today.
The Assyrians had always existed in their own ancestral lands, the capital of which in biblical times was called Nineveh. There is still a province in Iraq by that name, where most of the Assyrians there still live, and still dream of some kind of autonomy or independence.
Nineveh was a long ways away from Babylon. The Assyrians and the Chaldeans (of Babylon) have always been enemies, and have hated each other. That hatred still lingers on today. The only difference is that whereas the Chaldeans (and their city Babylon) was completely destroyed (as prophesied by Isaiah, see chapter 13), the Assyrians were not completely destroyed (also prophesied by Isaiah, 19:18-25), but a sizeable population of them remained in their ancient ancestral land of Nineveh, after their kingdom was destroyed. If the Assyrians now want to claim sovereignty over Babylon, that should be taken with a VERY large pinch of salt!
The Assyrians adopted Christianity in the early centuries, and developed their own independent church. Following the Moslem conquests, the Assyrians, unlike most of their neighbors, did not convert to Islam, but remained true to their Christian heritage—which should be said to their credit. It is also a credit to the Moslems. It is not true that the Moslems forced people to change their religions. Conversion was voluntary. There was no persecution against Jews or Christians either in Moslem lands.
In recent history, however, as a result of several dictatorial regimes which arose in that area—the Ottomans first, and the Iraqi dictators like Saddam later—they suffered considerable persecution, as a result of which many of them emigrated Europe and North America, and there is a large “Assyrian Diaspora” just like the Jews. There are more of them that have emigrated to America than anywhere else, and they have interesting websites which tells you something about them. Large numbers of them also emigrated to neighboring countries, such as Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, where they enjoy relative security and freedom of worship.
But their claim to “Peter in Babylon” is of a very dubious origin at best. This claim of descent from Peter is a bogus claim no matter by whom it is made, Catholics, Assyrians, or Chaldeans. They like to make this claim because of the promise the Lord made to Peter, that He would give him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). They think that it gives them ecclesiastical legitimacy. Unfortunately it does not, as I have already shown in many instances on this board before.
amgid
Making such a claim does not automatically make it valid. There is no independent historical data to back this up. All churches have a vested interested in presenting themselves as being the legitimate successors to the original Christian church, and what better way to do this (as they think) than to claim direct descent from Peter!
There is no evidence that such a thing as Babylon existed at that time. It had been destroyed many centuries before, and it was no longer an inhabited city. It lay in ruins, just as it still does today.
The Assyrians had always existed in their own ancestral lands, the capital of which in biblical times was called Nineveh. There is still a province in Iraq by that name, where most of the Assyrians there still live, and still dream of some kind of autonomy or independence.
Nineveh was a long ways away from Babylon. The Assyrians and the Chaldeans (of Babylon) have always been enemies, and have hated each other. That hatred still lingers on today. The only difference is that whereas the Chaldeans (and their city Babylon) was completely destroyed (as prophesied by Isaiah, see chapter 13), the Assyrians were not completely destroyed (also prophesied by Isaiah, 19:18-25), but a sizeable population of them remained in their ancient ancestral land of Nineveh, after their kingdom was destroyed. If the Assyrians now want to claim sovereignty over Babylon, that should be taken with a VERY large pinch of salt!
The Assyrians adopted Christianity in the early centuries, and developed their own independent church. Following the Moslem conquests, the Assyrians, unlike most of their neighbors, did not convert to Islam, but remained true to their Christian heritage—which should be said to their credit. It is also a credit to the Moslems. It is not true that the Moslems forced people to change their religions. Conversion was voluntary. There was no persecution against Jews or Christians either in Moslem lands.
In recent history, however, as a result of several dictatorial regimes which arose in that area—the Ottomans first, and the Iraqi dictators like Saddam later—they suffered considerable persecution, as a result of which many of them emigrated Europe and North America, and there is a large “Assyrian Diaspora” just like the Jews. There are more of them that have emigrated to America than anywhere else, and they have interesting websites which tells you something about them. Large numbers of them also emigrated to neighboring countries, such as Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, where they enjoy relative security and freedom of worship.
But their claim to “Peter in Babylon” is of a very dubious origin at best. This claim of descent from Peter is a bogus claim no matter by whom it is made, Catholics, Assyrians, or Chaldeans. They like to make this claim because of the promise the Lord made to Peter, that He would give him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). They think that it gives them ecclesiastical legitimacy. Unfortunately it does not, as I have already shown in many instances on this board before.
amgid
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I note that the Coptic Orthodox Church denies that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome. There is a fascinating article by the Coptic priest at the church of Saint Mark in Los Angeles on this question and he claims that he is giving the teaching of Pope Shenouda.
Would you please look at it and give an opinion? It is in the thread entitled **“Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III” **and it spreads across messages #97 to #100
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52488
Any Church such as Rome which has a vested interest in having Peter as its founder should be able to provide answers to the Coptic viewpoint.
At the time of Christ and the preaching of the Apostles there were large numbers of Jews living in Babylon. Philo mentions this and that they were flourishing and that it was partly thanks to them that Babylonia had not fallen to Roman conquest. It actually makes perfect sense for Peter, himself a Jew, to go and preach to them.
For a rough and ready article see
"History of the Jews in Iraq"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq
http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/nineveh_map.gif
Ahem, you’re talkng to someone who has lived in the Balkans. To say that there were no forced conversion mocks the hundreds and even thousands of Christians who were martyred rather than renounce Christ. Their relics are still venerated in churches today.
But their claim to “Peter in Babylon” is of a very dubious origin at best. This claim of descent from Peter is a bogus claim no matter by whom it is made, Catholics, Assyrians, or Chaldeans. They like to make this claim because of the promise the Lord made to Peter, that He would give him the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19). They think that it gives them ecclesiastical legitimacy. Unfortunately it does not, as I have already shown in many instances on this board before. I don’t think it has any reference to the claim about the “keys of the kingdon” - that is a particular focus and interpretation known only in Rome. In the East all bishops are considered to possess the keys of Peter. You’ll know that Antioch is another Petrine foundation, prior to Rome, but their bishops have never developed any theory about a petrine supremacy based on the keys verse from Matthew 16.
I’d be very interested to see what you have posted previously about Assyria if you would direct me to the messages. Have you addressed the Assyrian claim and in particular their book The Marganitha?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I should have noted that I am not Roman Catholic but Orthodox - in case anyone is wondering how a Catholic priest can be arguing so. 
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Babylonia was still very much alive, though vastly different ftrom what it had been at the time of the Exile - I don’t see anything inherently unlikely in the idea: there were plenty of Jews there, and he was “the apostle to the circumcision”; i.e., to the Jews. If he spent his last years or months in Rome planting the Church there because of the presence of Jews in the city, a visit further East does not seem impossible chronologically.
History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraqen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon#Hellenic_period
I don’t see that the suggestion threatens anything we believe as Catholics. ##
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
1 Pet 5:13:
Father Ambrose, your Church believes the Oriental Orthodox (the Orthodox of Iraq) to be heretics. When we were united (EO and CC) why was there never disputes from the patriarchs that Rome is Peter’s seat? Peter & Paul founded the Church which was at Antioch, I’ll give you that much, but Peter died in Rome so the Pope is the legitmate successor of Saint Peter.
1 Pet 5:13:
There are many instances in the Bible in which Babylon is not referred to as the literal Babylon. Why would it be referring to the literal Babylon in this passage? What historical evidence is there that Peter was ever in Iraq?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Semper Fi:
Who is the head of the Church? Its founder Jesus Christ? And where did He die? In Jerusalem. So that means that His brother Saint James the Just who became bishop of Jerusalem inherits the role of Head of the Church?
Just pointing out that the a priori assumption that Peter’s death at Rome makes Rome the Head of the Church is not entirely convincing. Not unless, as amgid says, you have a vested interest of some sort.
Now who inherits the throne in any monarchical system - the son who is born first or the son who is born last? Obviously anyone would answer - the elder son.
Who is the head of the Church? Its founder Jesus Christ? And where did He die? In Jerusalem. So that means that His brother Saint James the Just who became bishop of Jerusalem inherits the role of Head of the Church?
Just pointing out that the a priori assumption that Peter’s death at Rome makes Rome the Head of the Church is not entirely convincing. Not unless, as amgid says, you have a vested interest of some sort.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
The only vested interest I have is in maintaining historical Christianity. And historical Christianity has been in union with the Pope even when he started calling himself the Vicar of Christ in the 5th century. If this title was heretical, why didn’t any of the byzantines object to it and split off from Rome. This basically means that for 5 centuries the East was just as heretical with the west, united with a heretic. Why wait 5 more centuries until 1054? Why didn’t any Easterners try to excommunicated Pope Gelasius I for using the title during his reign in 492-496? Perhaps because it wasn’t heretical?Now who inherits the throne in any monarchical system - the son who is born first or the son who is born last? Obviously anyone would answer - the elder son.
Who is the head of the Church? Its founder Jesus Christ? And where did He die? In Jerusalem. So that means that His brother Saint James the Just who became bishop of Jerusalem inherits the role of Head of the Church?
Just pointing out that the a priori assumption that Peter’s death at Rome makes Rome the Head of the Church is not entirely convincing. Not unless, as amgid says, you have a vested interest of some sort.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Semper Fi:
The bishop as Vicar of Christ was symbolized (and still is in the East) during the divine Liturgy when the bishop would sit behind the altar during the Readings. He represented the Vicar of Christ and spreading out from both sides of him were his priests, respresenting the twelve apostles.
Anyway, I am sure you know that we have ONE 5th century reference to the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ, so it is hardly enough on which to erect the much later papal system.
The title of “vicar of Christ” was used in the early Church for any bishop, not only for the bishop of Rome.
The bishop as Vicar of Christ was symbolized (and still is in the East) during the divine Liturgy when the bishop would sit behind the altar during the Readings. He represented the Vicar of Christ and spreading out from both sides of him were his priests, respresenting the twelve apostles.
Anyway, I am sure you know that we have ONE 5th century reference to the bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ, so it is hardly enough on which to erect the much later papal system.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Citations, please?
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Semper Fi:
The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to fudge the issue but it says that Pope Innocent III in the 12th century was the first to use the title.
Yours first please, from the 5th century.
The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to fudge the issue but it says that Pope Innocent III in the 12th century was the first to use the title.
- Status