__________________________________________________________________________________

ABORTION, at whatever stage and for whatever reason, IS HUMAN SACRIFICE to INHUMAN SELFISHNESS. Remember Biblical Canaan and South American pre-Columbian civilizations which were notorious for offering human sacrifices to their false gods.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Peter in Rome? Question-and-Answer Session (September 23, 2009)

Thank you for your comments. Below are my belated replies.

You wrote:
There is, however, a very big problem with your argument below; you use Roman
Catholic dogma in your premises as if these are established facts. To non
Catholics, this is not convincing at all. To outsiders such as myself, your
arguments seem to be a form of circular logic. Your "facts" are claims made by
the RC church in order to demonstrate that the RC church has the authority to
interpret scripture and issue these dogmatic statements as "facts".

My reply:
I consider it unfair to reject outright ancient Biblical interpretations and
brand them as dogmas. Considering proximity in time to the Biblical events,
ancient interpretations and reports on persons and events have more credibility
than most modern works of Biblical scholarships on the subjects which, almost
always, suggest alternatives rather settling issues once and for all.

You wrote:
One example is your use of I Peter 5:13 to establish that Peter went to Rome.
The text does not say, "she who is in Babylon, (Rome)". It just says "she who is
in Babylon." The addition of "Rome" is an interpretation made by the RC church.
However, there is nothing in the context to indicate that this is a code word
for Rome. It is used that way in Revelation of course, but Peter is not writing
an apocalyptic book. So, your argument works for Catholics, but is unconvincing
to outsiders.

My reply:
You wrote: . . ."there is nothing in the context to indicate that this (Babylon)
is a code word for Rome."

May be so. But consider the use of the word "She." "She" could only be a "code
word" for the Church, not a simple pronoun. Did "She" refer to Peter's wife? Had
"She" played any significant role in the founding of the churches addressed to
in the letter to be worthy of her being introduced: "She . . . (my wife) . . who
is in Babylon . . . sends you her greetings?" If so, why did Peter not give the
name of his wife? If not his wife, was there another woman with Peter whom the
recipients of the letter could immediately identify as being the "She?" Again,
if so, why did Peter not give the name of the lady? Peter's use of "She" for his
wife or for another lady does not make sense. So, "She" could only be a code
word for "Church."

Here is a quote from Barnes Commentary: "But the Arabic, Syriac, and Vulgate, as
well as the English versions, supply the word "church." This interpretation
seems to be confirmed by the word rendered "elected together with" -
suneklektee. This word would be properly used in reference to one individual if
writing to another individual, but would hardly be appropriate as applied to an
individual addressing a church. It could not readily be supposed, moreover, that
any one female in Babylon (or in Rome - I supplied this) could have such a
prominence, or be so well known, that nothing more would be necessary to
designate her than merely to say, "the elect female."

Since Peter definitely used a code word for "Church" he had more reasons to use
a code word for Rome - "Babylon."

The conclusion can only be that Peter used codes, "She" for Church and "Babylon"
for Rome because Peter and the Church in Rome were facing some real danger, and
that danger could only come from the Roman authorities in Rome.

You wrote:
By bringing this up you have indicated that you know that there is no historical
evidence that Peter ever went to Rome. The claim was made by Irenaus and
Eusebius, but they were not contemporaries of Peter.

My reply:
We are looking at a two-thousand year old event. If ancient testimonies are not
acceptable, let us leave it at that. For whatever it is worth, here is a quote
from Wikepedia that you should consider:
("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter's_tomb):

"Although traditions suggest that Peter was in Rome, there is no
incontrovertible historical evidence. (However), Dionysius of Corinth wrote the
following to the Church of Rome in the time of the bishopric of Soter (ca
160s-170s), thanking the Romans for their financial help:

"`You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and
of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in
our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered
martyrdom at the same time'".

You wrote:
However, there is excellent Biblical evidence that Peter had good reason to by
in Babylon. Rather than being appointed Pope of a universal church, he was
actually appointed an apostle to the circumcision, (Galatians 2:8). There was a
large community of diaspora Jews at Babylon at that time, so it is completely
unnecessary to think of "Babylon" as a code word for Rome.

My reply:
The same questions raised earlir can be asked if Peter were somewhere else
other than in Rome which, as you suggested, could be "in the ancient celebrated
Babylon in Assyria, which was, as Dr. Benson observes, the metropolis of the
eastern dispersion of the Jews," to quote a passage in Adam Clarke's Commentary.
If so, why use "She" for the "Church in Babylon in Assyria?" Peter and "She"
could not have been in any danger being among Peter's own Church and people?

You wrote:
You make much of the fact that Jesus told Peter, "feed my sheep". So, what Jesus
meant by sheep is important to understand this passage. Jesus frequently called
the Jews his sheep.
Examples are such passages as:

1. He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10:6.
2. He told his Jewish hearers that he was the good shepherd, Jn 10:14.
3. He told his Jewish hearers that he was the door of the sheep. John 10:9.
4. At the time he said this, the gentiles, (the other sheep of John 10:16) were
yet future.
5. There is and will be only one shepherd, (John 10:16).
6. Jesus is and always will be that one shepherd, (Hebrews 13:20, I Peter 5:4).

So, It is quite reasonable to think that in John 21:15-17 Jesus was admonishing
Peter to come back from the fishing business he had returned to and rejoin the
other apostles, (Galatians 2:9) in tending the sheep he was about to leave them.

My reply:
I totally agree with you that in the beginning Jesus focused his mission to the
Jews and Jews alone. He announced joyfully his mission to his own people by
citing Isaiah 61:1-2, in abbreviated form, in Lk 4:18-19:

18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Note that Jesus omitted the phrase "and the day of vengeance of our God."

At the end, however, Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Temple, putting an end to his mission to his "Jewish sheep" declaring instead:

"This is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written
(Luke 21:22)" putting back what was earlier omitted from Isaiah 61:1-2 ". . .
and the day of vengeance of our God" in paraphrase and indicating Jesus'
rejection of the Jews as his "sheep."

The proof for this was the call to his Jewish apostles, including Peter, to the
Great Commission to go to the "Gentile nations" (Matt 28:19-20). There was no
call or mention of any mission to the Jews.

Note that Paul was called by Jesus himself, after his resurrection and
ascension, to be the apostle to the Gentiles. But Peter was designated to be the
apostle to the Jews not by Jesus but by the Jewish Church in Jerusalem. Even as
an apostle to the Jews, Peter was the one who opened the Church to the first
Gentile converts, the centurion Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:1-48).

I hope this response answers your position on 1 Peter 5:13. And as usual, we
both (all) graciously agree to disagree.

Isabelo S. Alcordo, Ph.D.

In Service to the "Lay People of God"