WTS vs HISTORY

bj

According to the Watchtower- April 1, 2001, p. 11, par. 11, Peter went to BABYLON (1Peter 5:13) But according to tradition it was Thomas who went to Babylon. So what is meant by BABYLON?
Today Bible scholars nearly all agree that it means ROME. To add weight to this, Eusebius in his famous book The History of the Church (2:15) stated: "Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle, which he is said to have composed in Rome itself, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the city figuratively as Babylon."
This was also the opinion of many noted Protestant scholars such as Valesius, Grotius,Cave, Whitby, and Lardner.
Even in the book of Revelation the word 'Babylon' is symbolic.
True, the Bible never say that Peter went to Rome neighter that he didn't but between the lines it does.
Therefore, once again the teachings of the WTS is in conflict with history.

TheApostleAK

Eusebius was catholic! Of course their gonna say Peter was in Rome. There's no proof that Peter was in Rome whatsoever.

Peter was intrusted to preach to the circumcised so he'd be expected to preach to the Jews and Babylon had a large Jewish population. The first claim that Peter went to Rome was made by Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth in the later part of the 2nd century.

Earlier, Clement of Rome both mentions Peter and Paul together, makes Paul preaching in the E and W but Peter never in the W.

When Peter's letters were composed he'd never have veiled the identity of Rome by another name as the great persecutions hadn't started.

Further reading see "Insight on the scriptures" Book 2, Pg 621, 2.

Francois2

There's "no proof" that Bill Clinton sold pardons for cold hard cash either.

There's "no proof" that Jesus, in all those undocumented years between 12 and 30 went to Rome either, but I'd be willing to bet that he did.

Mulan

Why do you say there is no proof that Peter was ever in Rome? Did the WTS tell you that? I watched a program on A&E last winter where they gave numerous proofs that he was in Rome, as a matter of course. They weren't trying to prove it to anyone, but talked about things he did there, and showed evidences of his being there. It convinced me.

bj

Please don't answer without knowing the subject or without research. See the following list which all say PETER WENT TO ROME:

1st Century

Clement of Rome
Ignatius of Antioch

2nd Century

Papias of Hierapolis
Hegesippus
Dionysius of Corinth
Irenaeus
Clement of Alexandria

3rd Century

Gaius
Hippolytus
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Firmilian of Caesarea
Peter of Alexandria

4th Century

Eusebius of Caesaea
Jerome
Lactantius
Ephraem Syrus
Ambrose
Prudentius
Sulpicius Severius
Arnbius the Elder
Epiphanius
John Chrysotom
Augustine

5th Century

Paulus Orosius
Moses of Khorene
Elisee
Eznigh of Golph
John Mantagouni
Mar- Narsaï
Mar- Balaï
Council of 450
Prosper of Aquitaine
Theodoret
Cyril of Alexandria

6th Century

James of Sarug

7th Century

Council of Carni (622)
Ischou-ïab III l' Adiabenique
Bede

8th Century

Zacharias
Patriarch Timothy I
The school of Karkaphienne

9th Century

Denis of Telmahr
Thomas of Marga
Council of Schiraghavan

10th Century

Moses Bar- Cephas
Chosroes Bishop of Antsevatzi
Georges of Arbeles
Elie of Damas

11th Century

Council of Ani (1036)
Aboul' Faradj-Ben-Attaïb of Bagdad
Elias of Nisibe
Gregoire Maghistros

12th Century

John of Mardin
Council of Tarse (1177)
Nierses Glaietsi
Michel the Great
Denis Bar-Tsalbi

13th Century

Salomon of Bassora
Ischou-ïab of Nisibe
Gregoire Bar-Hebraeus
Counsil of Sis (1251)
Vardan Bar- Tsbertzi
Ebed-Jesu
Floruit Mikhitar

14th Century

Counsil of Sis (1307)
Counsil of Aden (1316)
Counsil of Sis (1343)
Amrou-Ben-Matai

15th Century

Counsil of Florence (1439)

16th Century

John Oronetsi

bj

According to Pliny Nat. Hist., VI, 30; Josephus Ant. Jud. XVIII,ix,8,9. Sat that at that time the Jews were already chasted out from Babylon.
Also Nehardaa boasted that up to the end of the third century Babylon had not numbered among its members any convert to Christianity.
Interesting the miniscul Manuscripts of the Greek NT n° 1518 and 2138 render in 1 Peter 5:13 ROME instead of Babylon.

bj

Mulan,

Yes the WTS teach that Peter never went to Rome! They follow the old argument which the Waldensses in the 13th century started. Till that time it was universally accepted that PETER WENT TO ROME.
When they want they qoute Tradition but when it ring another bell they put it a side.

Amazing

I have not checked my Catholic Encyclopedia yet, but I was raised Catholic, and we were taught that the body of St. Peter the Apostle is buried in Rome at St. Peter's Basilica. If Peter never went to Rome alive, he got there anyway. I will try to find this out and say more later. - Amazing

MacHislopp

Hello BJ,

interesting topic...let's
do some research.

Agape, J.C. MacHislopp

bj

Apostle AK, without no animosity, instead of turning to your Insight on the Scriptures I sincerely encourage you to look up the subject YOURSELF.
What you might find is:
The first who interpreted 1 Peter 5:13 in a literal sense was Erasmus. But as the Bible scholar Harnack said: "That this was an error, is now as clear as daylight to every student of history who does not blindfold himself." (Thoughts on the present position of Protestantism)

WTS vs HISTORY

Share this