Why be good?

[abaris]

Simon of Cyrene, Rufus' father, was forced to carry the cross of Jesus in Jerusalem. By the time Mark and Paul mention Rufus, Rufus and his mother are living in Rome.

Randy, we all get that you know your bible and the genealogies of the supporting acts as well as the extras.

But somehow my earlier question seems to have escaped your notice. So let me ask again: Have you ever been to Rome? Do you know what a christian "church" looked like when this famous letter exchange supposedly happened? A church that was obviously so famous that Paul knew about it, although he never was there. Do you know your history and archeology as well as your bible?

[Randy Carson]

You have confused the "Babylon" of 1 Peter 5:13 with the discussion of "Babylon" in the book of Revelation. Notice that the authors of the passage you quoted make the distinction (and I'm adding two bits for clarification):


IOW, poca, Peter used "Babylon" to mean Rome in his letter, but John was NOT referring to Rome in Revelation.

Mistakes like this are easy to make when you're not actually familiar with the source material.

errr.... wasn't that the very same thing I quoted?
Keep reading, because I quoted a bit more than you!

Yes, I know. It appeared to me that you did not seem to understand that the authors of the passage you quoted are speaking of two different usages of the term "Babylon".

1. Peter used "Babylon" as code for Rome in his first epistle.
2. John was not referring to Rome in the Book of Revelation.

ah... ok, then... that makes more sense.

[Randy Carson]

Simon of Cyrene, Rufus' father, was forced to carry the cross of Jesus in Jerusalem. By the time Mark and Paul mention Rufus, Rufus and his mother are living in Rome.

Randy, we all get that you know your bible and the genealogies of the supporting acts as well as the extras.

But somehow my earlier question seems to have escaped your notice. So let me ask again: Have you ever been to Rome? Do you know what a christian "church" looked like when this famous letter exchange supposedly happened? A church that was obviously so famous that Paul knew about it, although he never was there. Do you know your history and archeology as well as your bible?

It didn't escape my notice. I didn't see the relevance, and I have to triage what I have time to address.

However, Paul was there eventually. He was martyred there. But at the time of the writing the Letter to the Romans, Paul had not been to Rome; the letter is introductory.

[abaris]

It didn't escape my notice. I didn't see the relevance, and I have to triage what I have time to address.

Yeah, that would be because you deal in bible quotes whereas most of us like to deal in facts. Kind of a communication problem we have here.

You failing to see the relevance of the question is but one of the reasons why you also fail to make an impression.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why are you citing the Bible? You told me I don't know what god you worship, but I've read the Bible. If you do believe in the god of the Bible, quit saying otherwise elsewhere. If you don't, quit citing the Bible.

[pocaracas]

errr.... wasn't that the very same thing I quoted?
Keep reading, because I quoted a bit more than you!

Yes, I know. It appeared to me that you did not seem to understand that the authors of the passage you quoted are speaking of two different usages of the term "Babylon".

1. Peter used "Babylon" as code for Rome in his first epistle.

Come on... they address that specifically:
1.

Some assert that Peter’s use of the term Babylon (1Pe. 1Pe. 5:13) must point to Rome. But this is an argument from silence. It is also possible to take Peter’s mention of Babylon as denoting the city on the banks of the Euphrates, which served as a center of Jewry beyond the time of Peter’s writing (see Babylon’s Historic Fall).

[Esquilax]

Why are you citing the Bible?  You told me I don't know what god you worship, but I've read the Bible. If you do believe in the god of the Bible, quit saying otherwise elsewhere. If you don't, quit citing the Bible.

I suspect it's the same old sophistic chestnut we get from theists from time to time, where reading the bible doesn't count, and is the same as not reading the bible at all, if you don't believe it at the end. Reading doesn't confer understanding, only agreeing with it does that, and if you read it but didn't agree, then you must not have understood.

Christians in particular seem to love these little hidden redefinitions of words when it comes to their religious concepts. They don't see fit to fully explain that this is what they're doing, but they also expect that everyone else will play along with them; you might be just using words as we commonly understand them for ease of communication, but you'd better be prepared to waste time on at least one extra post clarifying what you mean, because there's a good chance that at least one christian will pretend that you were using the secret theological redefinition, because that's the one that counts because they said so, and write some nonsense post that you both know is inapplicable, but helps with the religious grandstanding.