Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is Peter writing from babylon, code name for Rome. More importantly Peter is with Saint Mark one the early saints in the chain of Apostolic Succession (another truth denied by the Protestants).
We all know Saint mark was a disciple of Saint Peter. And Peter called mark son in the same manner Paul called Timothy son.
Where did Mark write his gospel? Most scholars say he wrote the Gospel in Rome. And if Mark was in Rome Peter was in Rome. But, this is a moot point because Peter died in Rome and if Peter died in Rome then Peter was in Rome.
Two flaws.
Babylon is not a code word for anything it was a city full of Jews needing help.
Mark, like all disciples, moved around, so where he was on one occasion has nothing to do with another event.
...The leadership of Peter and the papacy are not dependent on Rome.
Yup. From 1309 until 1378, seven successive popes lived in Avignon. They were still the head of the Roman Catholic Church, even though they did not reside in Rome. Like most areas in life, 'politics' made a mess of things.
Italy is not all Roman Catholic , as the Evangelical church moved in .... The Pope should move to Brazil , as there are more Roman Catholic there .... Even Spain which was predominate Catholic is waning in numbers
Babylon is not a code word for anything it was a city full of Jews needing help.
Ha, ha! All of you call the Catholic Church "The ***** of Babylon". And you conveniently say Babylon is not code word for Rome, yeah right.
Quote:
Mark, like all disciples, moved around, so where he was on one occasion has nothing to do with another event.
Mark was not a disciple of Jesus. Mark was schooled by Saint Peter. A great classic example of apostolic succession. And Saint Peter called mark his son.
And Mark wrote the gospel in Rome. And peter said greeting from Babylon while he was with his son Mark.
Does Peter need to live in Rome to prove the Papacy?
I'm guessing that this is from our discussions in other threads. If so, your question needs a lot of clarification.
Proving that the Pope has authority is impossible. If Peter had been born, raised and died in Rome, it wouldn't make any difference to any Protestant because the entire notion of Papal Succession is just so much nonsense to them in the first place.
The problem with your dismissiveness of Rome is that to the Popes/Bishops in Rome from 200 AD to 1900 AD geographical location was everything. Their geographical location was the single greatest reason that their authority was greater than any other bishop. Their many feuds with Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, the kings of Europe, the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc all came down to location. From a non-Catholic perspective, that history is just gasoline on the fire of blatant fabrication of authority.
If you wanted to prove the Pope has any authority at all, proving that there is any real connection between Rome and Peter is the least of your worries, but I suppose it would be a reasonable starting point.
Ha, ha! All of you call the Catholic Church "The ***** of Babylon". And you conveniently say Babylon is not code word for Rome, yeah right.
Not a response particularly as I do NOT subscribe to the idea that BTG is the RCC, so it does not address the issue that there us NO historical evidence Peter was not in Babylon when he said he was.Historically it was a seat of Jewish thought and had a large population of Jews, so it makes sense peter was there.
[/quote]Mark was not a disciple of Jesus. Mark was schooled by Saint Peter. A great classic example of apostolic succession. And Saint Peter called mark his son. [/quote]
Actually he was and as present when Jesus taught, just as Peter was. he also traveled with Paul and Barnabas.He was a companion to Peter, Barnabas and Paul among others. He went to Cyprus with Barnabas after the split with Paul.
And Mark wrote the gospel in Rome. And peter said greeting from Babylon while he was with his son Mark.
Wet again![/quote]
Mark was with Paul in Rome, who had no problem with saying "Rome", not Peter. In fact we have Paul asking for Mark to join him in Rome on his second imprisonment and he would have been with Paul when he wrote the Gospel according to Mark. Before that, after his first visit to Rome, he left and joined Peter. If Peter was in Rome then Paul would not have asked for him to be sent to him, as he would be there.
Scripture shows the truth, Mark was in Rome with Paul and in Babylon with Peter before that.
Try actually reading all the accounts and ignore tradition.
Ha, ha! All of you call the Catholic Church "The ***** of Babylon". And you conveniently say Babylon is not code word for Rome, yeah right.
Mark was not a disciple of Jesus. Mark was schooled by Saint Peter. A great classic example of apostolic succession. And Saint Peter called mark his son.
And Mark wrote the gospel in Rome. And peter said greeting from Babylon while he was with his son Mark.
Wet again!
Babylon is not a 'code word' for Rome, but is simply [the] Babylon on the Euphrates River, and is no more used in a cryptic sense than e other places where Peter salutes the elect/the Jews of the Dispersion:Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Babylon, above was a colony of ppl, [mostly Jews who had been 'won to Christ']. Also a study of Peter's travels shows [this]"Babylon" to be the Babylon on the Euphrates.
Not a response particularly as I do NOT subscribe to the idea that BTG is the RCC, so it does not address the issue that there us NO historical evidence Peter was not in Babylon when he said he was.Historically it was a seat of Jewish thought and had a large population of Jews, so it makes sense peter was there.
Actually he was and as present when Jesus taught, just as Peter was. he also traveled with Paul and Barnabas.He was a companion to Peter, Barnabas and Paul among others. He went to Cyprus with Barnabas after the split with Paul.
Mark was with Paul in Rome, who had no problem with saying "Rome", not Peter. In fact we have Paul asking for Mark to join him in Rome on his second imprisonment and he would have been with Paul when he wrote the Gospel according to Mark. Before that, after his first visit to Rome, he left and joined Peter. If Peter was in Rome then Paul would not have asked for him to be sent to him, as he would be there.
Scripture shows the truth, Mark was in Rome with Paul and in Babylon with Peter before that.
Try actually reading all the accounts and ignore tradition.
Are you one of the few that believes Peter must be in Rome to prove the papacy?
]If Peter had been born, raised and died in Rome, it wouldn't make any difference to any Protestant because the entire notion of Papal Succession is just so much nonsense to them in the first place.
Exactly! But, many Protestant apologists think they get mileage out of this.
It's you Roman church folk that claim Peter was in Rome and that his "successors" are all the bishop of Rome. Then when asked or challenged you say Rome has nothing to do with it. If Rome is not important why place so much emphasis on Rome?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
