Posts by Bobcat

42

Great Crowd is NOT under the New Covenant...Where does it say this?

by Christ Alone in

i was wondering if there was anywhere someone could point to in the bible for the watchtower belief that the great crowd is not included in the new covenant.

i know that this is their line of thinking when it comes to jesus being mediator.

they say that jesus is only mediator of the new covenant and since the gc is not under the new covenant, jesus is not specifically a mediator to them.

Bobcat

On this post I have numerous links to research linking the "great crowd" to the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant.

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

Before this thread goes the way of all threads, I want to thank everyone for their comments.

Take Care

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

Snowbird:

Also, those "great academies of Babylon" referenced in the Encyclopaedia Britannica seem to have been established after the destruction of Jerusalem, during the Diaspora, at which time Jewish scholars completed the Babylonian Talmud.
Is this referring to a dispersal after the Roman War? When I read it originally from the encyclopedia my first thought was the dispersal from the exile in the 6th century BCE.

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

Copied from above is the Insight reference involving Clement which the Insight uses as part of the evidence that Peter was not in the "West," including Rome.

*** it-2 p. 622 Peter, Letters of ***
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.

Here is the Clement reference copied with context from here. See if the Clement reference actually makes the point that the Insight gets out of it. (This point, to me, seems like a case of special pleading or grasping-for-straws on the part of the Insight book.)

CHAPTER 5

5:1 But let us pass from ancient examples, and come unto those who have in the times nearest to us, wrestled for the faith.

5:2 Let us take the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most just pillars of the Church were persecuted, and came even unto death.

5:3 Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles.

5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.

5:5 Through envy Paul, too, showed by example the prize that is given to patience:

5:6 seven times was he cast into chains; he was banished; he was stoned; having become a herald, both in the East and in the West, he obtained the noble renown due to his faith;

5:7 and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

Thanks for the reference Snowbird!

Take Care

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

Phizzy:

Thanks for your comments. It also seems that the opposing sides of this argument often have an ulterior motive: Either to prove or disprove Peter's papacy. The WT definitely falls on the disprove side of that, the Catholics (for the most part) on the other. (See here for discussion of Peter being the "rock" of Matthew 16:19.) It is interesting that 'Protestant' commentaries that I have don't see any problem with Peter being in Rome. Such a thing would neither prove nor disprove Peter to be the first 'Pope.' The WT's argument against apostolic succession definitely includes the idea that Peter was never in Rome. So they need Peter to not have been there. But in reality it is a moot point. If Peter became the first "pope" at the time Matthew 16:19 describes, his later being in Rome is unimportant (IMO).

I'm more looking to sort out the possibilities outside of any papal implications, purely as a matter of research. And I don't necessarily need the WT to be wrong, although I wouldn't be surprised if they were. Or it might be one of those things that is presently unprovable.

Edited to add:

Just found this in the Jewish Encyclopedia here. If one searches for the word "Babylon" references can be found to Jewish "academies" in Babylon up to the 3rd century or so (covering the period in this thread).

Take Care

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

Here is a Catholic based discussion of the subject. The writer tries to seperate the idea of papacy from the subject of whether Peter was ever in Rome and if Babylon was a code word for Rome in Peter's letter.

In a spirit of fair research, here is a link with arguments on the Babylon = Babylon side.

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

In connection with the Josephus reference above, the ISBE (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol III, p. 809) says:

Alternative locations [i.e. other than Rome] have been proposed, however. (1) A literal Babylon was championed by R. G. Heard (Intro. to the NT, 1950, p.171), who called attention to Josephus's remarks on the large number of Jewish communities there (Ant. xv.2.2 [14]). But Josephus's evidence is doubtful, and there is no positive confirmation that Babylon did not fall into disrepair and ruin (see D. J. Wiseman, NBD, p. 118)

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

I culled through the WT Library to see what evidence holds up the WT view of things. Here is what I came up with. (I've underlined references that I want to track down to see if they are honest and in-context quotes. If any have access to them and can post them here it would be much appreciated.):

*** g04 5/8 p. 14 Demographics, the Bible, and the Future ***

Reading on in the Christian Greek Scriptures, we learn that the apostle Peter visited distant Babylon to preach the good news there. (1 Peter 5:13) Why Babylon? A comment in The New Encyclopædia Britannica is enlightening: “The chief centres of Jewish population outside Palestine were in Syria, Asia Minor, Babylonia, and Egypt, each of which is estimated to have had at least 1,000,000 Jews.”Since Peter was assigned to preach particularly to the Jews, it was reasonable for him to travel to an enclave of Judaism—Babylon. (Galatians 2:9) And given the Jewish population there, it is not likely that he ran out of territory!

*** si pp. 251-252 par. 4 Bible Book Number 60—1 Peter ***
Where was First Peter written? Whereas Bible commentators agree on the authenticity, canonicity, writership, and approximate date of writing, they differ as to the place of writing. According to Peter’s own testimony, he wrote his first letter while at Babylon. (1 Pet. 5:13) But some claim that he wrote from Rome, saying that “Babylon” was a cryptic name for Rome. The evidence, however, does not support such a view. Nowhere does the Bible indicate that Babylon specifically refers to Rome. Since Peter addressed his letter to those in literal Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, it logically follows that his reference to Babylon was to the literal place of that name. (1:1) There was good reason for Peter to be in Babylon. He was entrusted with ‘the good news for those who are circumcised,’ and there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. (Gal. 2:7-9) The Encyclopaedia Judaica, when discussing the production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.

*** rs p. 41 Apostolic Succession ***
Was Peter in Rome?
Rome is referred to in nine verses of the Holy Scriptures; none of these say that Peter was there. First Peter 5:13 shows that he was in Babylon. Was this a cryptic reference to Rome? His being in Babylon was consistent with his assignment to preach to the Jews (as indicated at Galatians 2:9), since there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism’s “great academies of Babylon” during the Common Era.

*** it-1 pp. 775-776 Exile ***
In the First Century C.E. In the first century C.E. there were settlements of Jews in Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, and Babylon, as well as in other cities. (Ac 17:1, 16, 17; 18:1, 4, 19) Many Jews lived in Babylon, where Peter preached. (1Pe 5:13) Josephus records that “a great number” of Jews were in Babylonia in the first century B.C.E. (Jewish Antiquities, XV, 14 [ii, 2]) In 49 or early 50 C.E. the Roman emperor Claudius banished all the Jews from Rome. This also affected Jews who had become Christians, among them Aquila and Priscilla (Prisca), whom Paul met in Corinth about 50 C.E., shortly after the edict by Claudius. (Ac 18:2) They accompanied Paul to Ephesus, and at the time he wrote from Corinth to fellow Christians in Rome (c. 56 C.E.), they were evidently back in Rome, for Claudius had died and Nero was then ruling. Many of the other Jews had also moved back to Rome.—Ac 18:18, 19; Ro 16:3, 7, 11.

*** it-2 p. 622 Peter, Letters of ***
The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, 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. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter’s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul’s letters written from Rome—Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

Take Care

37

Peter in Babylon? - 1 Peter 5:13

by Bobcat in

for any looking over the wt study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to peter spending time in babylon.

the paragraph speaks of peter living in babylon as if it were a well established fact.

in fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 peter 5:13.. see here for a writeup that analyzes 1 peter 5:13 and whether "babylon" really means the city of babylon.

Bobcat

For any looking over the WT Study article for 3-30-2014, paragraph 9 refers to Peter spending time in Babylon. The paragraph speaks of Peter living in Babylon as if it were a well established fact. In fact, the only evidence for this idea is 1 Peter 5:13.

See here for a writeup that analyzes 1 Peter 5:13 and whether "Babylon" really means the city of Babylon. Or whether it could refer to Rome.