aa5874

The question of Paul and Bishops of the Church is extremely significant.

Let us examine the writings attributed to supposed Church writers and Bishops.

It is first claimed in "Against Heresies" that a Bishop of Rome under the name of Clement mentioned a Pauline letter to the Corinthians.

Against Heresies 3.3.3 It is claimed in "Church History" that Clement was Bishop of Rome in the 12th year of Domitian and was bishop for 12 years or around c 93- 105 CE.

Church History 3.14-15 Now, we will see that "Against Heresies" and "Church History" are contradicted by multiple sources of the Jesus cult which show that the Bishops of Rome were FABRICATED from the very start.

Remember, Clement of Rome was the THIRD Bishop and was in the chair from c 93-105 CE according to Eusebius.

Immediately AFTER "Against Heresies", Tertullian contradicted "Against Heresies" and "Church History" and claimed Clement was FIRST Bishop after Peter.

1. Tertullian's Clement was bishop c 64-68 CE--NOT 93 CE.

Tertullian has up to 20 years difference. See Prescription Against the Herestics.

2. Rufinus' Clement was bishop c 64-68 CE--NOT 93 CE.

Rufinus has up to 20 years difference. See the letter of Clement to Rufinus.

3. Optatus' Clement was 2nd bishop, NOT third as stated by Eusebius.

See Optatus "Against the Donatists"

4. Alexander of Hippo, his Clement was the 2nd bishop NOT 3rd as stated by Eusebius.

See Letter 53 of Alexander of Hippo.

5. The Chronograph of 354 claimed Clement was bishop c 67-68 CE--NOT 93 CE

See the Chronograph of 354--LIST OF BISHOPS.

We can clearly see the Contradictions and massive discrepancies in date of and length of time for the supposed Clement Bishop of Rome of the Catholic Church.

It is not really known when there bishops of Rome and the order of the bishops.

Alexander of Hippo could NOT have seen the records of the Bishop of Eusebius and Irenaeus.

Rufinus could NOT have seen the records of the Bishop of Eusebius and Irenaeus.

Optatus could NOT have seen the records of the Bishops of Eusebius and Irenaeus.

The author of the Chronograph of 354 could not have seen the records of the Bishops of Eusebius and Irenaeus.

Tertullian could NOT have seen the records of Bishops of Irenaeus.

It is clear that the Bishops of Rome were unknown and not established up to the 5th century.

If it was established for hundreds of years that Clement was Bishop of Rome c 93 CE then Tertullian, Rufinus, Optatus, Alexander and the author of the Chronograph 354 would have been known as Fiction writers and it would have made no sense whatsoever to write such fiction about Clement and the other Bishops.

Again, we see the Pauline writers associated with fabricated Bishops of Rome.

Neither, the Pauline writers or the Bishops of Rome were figures of history up to at least 180 CE.

Huon

I quoted only a short piece of Acts. Apart from Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus, there are some papyri dated around 250 (paleographic analysis, not necessarily accepted).

Yes. But I did not see any consequences of the "events" described in Acts.

aa5874

What is written in Acts must be taked extremely seriously. Acts of the Apostles is a book in the Canon and was declared to be accepted universally as authentic.

It would be considered completely ridiculous and even criminal, obstruction of justice, if the written statements of a defendant were shreded and dumped simply because it is believed to be a pack of lies.

It is imperative that the statements in Acts be examined.

The author of Acts made statements that show the Jesus cult originated WITHOUT Jesus.

The supposed Jesus was NOT on earth when the Jesus cult started.

In Acts, the Jesus cult could NOT have started WITHOUT a Holy Ghost.

In Acts, Jesus must NOT be on earth for the Jesus cult to start.

There is NO other story of the start of the Jesus cult in the Canon.

A Ghost, a Myth STARTED the Jesus cult in Acts.

Acts 1 Astonishingly, the disciples were POWERLESS to be witnesses when Jesus was on earth in Acts.

The Jesus cult got no power to preach from Jesus.

There were no Bishops of the Church in the 1st century, No Paul and No Pauline Corpus--a Holy Ghost could NOT have started the Jesus cult in any century and give the disciples POWER to preach.

All we know about Paul is total fiction. Paul could not have persecuted Holy Ghost Christians of Acts in any century.

jgreen44

Considering that Acts may not have been "concluded" until the 2nd century, that may not be the best evidence for Paul dying in about 64 CE.

Adam

Your late dating has been gaining scholarly favor, but the argument I gave in my #15 still has prima facie plausibility.

There is nothing in Acts that extends beyond about 64 CE, when the book closes. It concludes with Paul still alive, strangely omitted if Acts was a lot later. The argument continues....

aa5874

The very same source that claimed Paul died under Nero also claimed he was ALIVE after gLuke was already composed.

gLuke is deduced to have been composed after Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE. The earliest source to mention gLuke by name is "Against Heresies" composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

There was no early tradition that Paul was martyred because it would be expected to have been known by the author of Acts.

The author of Acts wrote about the supposed martyrdom of Stephen and James but nothing of Peter and Paul.

Acts of the Apostles was composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple so the author should have known of the tradition of the martydom of Peter and Paul.

The author wrote no such thing.

The martyrdom of Peter and Paul was invented AFTER Acts of the Apostles was composed.

aa5874

Acts cannot be the final CORROBORATIVE evidence for itself. It is not what the author of Acts alone wrote that is taken into consideration when attempting to make a determination of when Acts was composed.

One has to examine other Apologetic sources to see if there are any rerefences to passages or events in Acts.

There is virtually no known references or events to Acts until c 180 CE in "Against Heresies".

It is in the 4th century when the first non-Apologetic writers started to argue against events in Acts.

May I remind you that Chrysostom declared that Acts of the Apostles and its author were little known up to the end of the 4th century.

Homily 1 on Acts Christians did not know Acts of the Apostles was in existence up to the end of the 4th century.

outhouse

Im not aware of any hyms sung.

20? I believe that to be a very plausible for a household, provided the pater familias did sell his children into slavery.


Claim's are still made that women ran the houshold, and would have been involved in the organization of these private meetings and played a important role, would they not?

outhouse

Dont you view this author as someone fictionalizing a bit more then the others building intrest to keep you reading?

MrMacSon

"Acts is not history in the sense of accurate chronology or of continuity of events but in the ancient sense of rhetoric with an apologetic aim."

"Acts describes Paul differently from how he describes himself, both factually and theologically."

"Acts seems to differ with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church."

"Paul’s [supposed] speech on the Areopagus (a hill in Athens that traditionally was the meeting place of the city’s council) for a [supposedly] intellectual Athenian audience, is in good Greek, assimilating Gentile thought patterns, but is expressed in Old Testament universalistic terms."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...chor=ref598122