So now you dispute the existence of the church in Rome? I assume there is some limitation on this unfounded skepticism? First Century? Second? Third?

And its nonexistence would surely be problematic for New Testament studies. For example,

Who was Paul writing to in his Epistle to the Romans?

And, moving beyond the New Testament for a second, where did 1 Clement come from?



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 20, 2001).]

Layman,

Though I know Doherty doesn't think that Paul started Christianity (after all he was a convert to it), I don't think he is able to make a detailed case of how it originated. I will be reading more and hopefully Doherty himself will arrive soon and present his own views.

As usual, you twist what I said. Evidently you are unable to deal with the straightforward text, so you create a strawman.

And --guess what-- since the main thrust of my point was your questionable reliance upon the Suetonius passage to establish age for the Roman church, what do we see? Why, wonder of wonders - you fail to address that and shift attention away from your non-response.

In any event:
1. You claimed that the epistle to Romans was written in 57 BC.
2. You claim that a Roman church pre-dated that time by "many years"
3. You claim that such a church was started by person(s) other than Paul

It is this description of a church that I am questioning (points 1-3 above). That is why I specifically and carefully said:


As far as you know, the church in Rome was only one year old. There is no evidence that it had existed for 'many years'. So far, the only non-biblical source you have offered is the ambiguous Suetonius quote, which you use to try and establish an age of at least 8 years for this church.

What else do you have, deLayman?


Settle down, Beavis.

I deleted the rest of your bogus questions because you are already several miles down the rat hole created by your own strawman.

Layman is probably old, short, overweight and perhaps even bald. He has a beard.

Nomad, on the other hand, is most likely a tall, strong individual (though still perhaps old and bald). I doubt Nomad has a beard.

I'll pass on your admiration to Nomad, but who do you think founded the church in Rome?

Actually, I have a beard (well, a goatee) and a mustache, and I am 36. Is that old? And as for balding, well... let's just say that I am coming to terms with it.

Now, do the sceptics actually want to address Layman's points or not? I'm still waiting.

Nomad

Why do you ignore Paul's letter to the Romans as evidence of the Roman church's existence? It is first person testimony, from the hand of the person who is at issue. Certainly if we are discussing whether Paul had founded the church in Rome I do not understand why a letter from that very Paul would be "no evidence."

Paul is clear that he did not found the church, he had never been there before, and that the church had existed for "many years" prior to this writing of the epistle? I'm unclear how this is "no evidence?" Please explain.

Additionally, Luke wrote in Acts 18:1-3 (probably around 75-80 CE), that Prisca and Aquila were in Rome when Claudius expelled the Jews (49 C.E.). Moreover, whatever accuracy one might ascribe to Acts as a basis for tracking Paul's missionary efforts, the fact that he never associates Paul, one of his heros, with the founding of the church in Rome strongly indicates that Paul was not involved with the founding of that church.

As for nonbiblical evidence, I'll repeat this from the above post:

It is very unlikely that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, would produce a church with such conservative Jewish tendencies as purification baths. It is also unlikely that a church historian, such as Ambrosiaster would de-emphasize the role of Paul by stating that Rome was not founded by any of the Apostles and was founded after the "Jewish rite."

And finally, although in 1 Clement, written around 95 CE, the Roman church clearly claims that Paul was martyred in Rome, there is no claim that the church in Rome was founded by Paul, despite the level of prestige that such a claim would make.

It is apparent, therefore, that Paul did not found the church in Rome and that it was founded "many years" before he wrote his Epistle to that church in 57 CE.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 23, 2001).]

Sorry to come in right here but listening to Layman and Om gives me heartburn
ouch....
-Shaun



[This message has been edited by Irishbrutha (edited April 23, 2001).]

I'm kinda curious about this early church thing too, any ideas?

Paul arrived in Rome for the first and only time in the Spring
of A.D. 61. This was probably the church of Domine Quo Vadis on
the Appian Way.

Acts 28:15 And from thence, when the brethren heard of us,
they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three
taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.

The Three Taverns is the Essene-Sadducees mission in Rome.

Paul is arrested a short time later and charged with assisting
in the murder of Jonathan Annas.

In A.D. 63 Paul is released from prison. A short time before he
had sent out a message that "the word of God is not fettered"
and this message was a code telling that Jesus (still alive and
kicking) is safe. Jesus is known as "the word of God" in Acts
and the Gospel of John.

John 01:01 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.

The great fire of Rome occurred in A.D. 64 and Peter and Paul
were both put to death by Nero. (Rumor has it that the bones
of St. Peter located in the Rome are actually those of Jesus)

The church in Rome was started by king Herod the Great. Herod
was a priest and he sent his sons Alexander and Aristobulus to
Rome in about 25 b.c.e. and they would have a house of worship
wherever it was they resided. King Herod was taught by Manahem
the Essene (Antiquities chapter 15).

thanks, offa