Yes, interesting point, Nick, though I have to state that you are tacitly assuming that 1 Peter (and 2 Peter, I presume) were actually written by the disciple, Simon Peter. I have already said that, in my opinion, they were both forgeries written by Saul of Tarsus. You don't agree with my claim, I know, but nevertheless it needs to be clarified, for the benefit of our debate. Neville. "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote: All, Thank you Philip for a great discussion, which goes to the heart of much of what is wrong today. I wanted to add one tidbit. You mentioned there is no "Biblical evidence" that Peter went to Rome. Perhaps there is no absolute Biblical "proof" (though there is historical proof), but I understand there is actually some Biblical "evidence".It is apparently understood by scholars that Peter's greetings from "Babylon" referred to the common, derisive name given to Rome by first-century Jews and Christians. Stephen Ray recounts this in the book I mentioned the other day. The Haydock commentary in the Douay-Rheims Bible also discusses this (in the footnote for I Peter 5:13). This passage in Peter refers to the "church, which is in Babylon". The ancients understood this to mean in Rome, so called not only on account of the extent of its empire, but also for its idolatry and vices. Haydock goes on to say "In this text, where all the lights of antiquity understand Rome by Babylon, they [referring to certain seceders] deny it; and in the book of Revelations, where all evil is spoken of Babylon, there they will have it signify nothing else but Rome: yes, and the Church of Rome, not (as the holy Fathers interpret it) the temporal state of the heathen empire." Regards, Nick. --------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos