Toto

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Paul was a "savior" (or the alternate spelling "gZeus" ???). Paul was reputed to be a missionary, who never stayed in one place long enough to put down roots.

Letters (also known as epistles) attributed to Paul do not exactly dominate the NT. By wordage, what dominates the NT are works attributed to an author known as Luke. If you take what "Luke" wrote about Paul in Acts and combine it with the epistles attributed to Paul, you have a fair amount of column inches devoted to "Paul". But Acts is a historical novel with an unknown relation to actual history, and the epistles attributed to Paul range from outright forgeries to possible forgeries. Given that, you might ask, why didn't someone invent a story about Paul being Pope?

I suspect that the early Popes were invented by Irenaeus as part of an effort to devise a pedigree for the church by linking the chuch bureaucracy to Jesus through the "apostolic succession." I doubt that Peter was ever in Rome or considered a "Pope" *, but he fit the bill, because he was alleged to have heard from Jesus directly, and charged by him to build the church. Paul could not be worked into this story because 1) he was not one of the original followers of Jesus and 2) he was reported to have been martyred at the same time as Peter, leaving no time frame for him to be annointed as Peter's successor. In addition, Paul was the favorite writer of the heretics that Irenaeus opposed.

* What we think we know about Peter / Cephas - Paul met him in Jerusalem, where he was part of the Jerusalem Church and secondary to James "the Brother of the Lord," who has virtually disappeared from the official Christian story.

Toto

offs's sources
ISBN 0-8028-8094-0

Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol-8, Third & Fourth Century

I think most of this text is online. The letter referred to is The Epistle of Clement to James. It seems to date from the third century, and cannot be used as evidence that Peter was in Rome, or that Clement reported his death to James.

ISBN 0-06-067782-1

Jesus & the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story by Barbara Thiering

offa

Toto,

I am sure glad what I posted last night did not go on line.
I did not appreciate this reply. I was rude. however, here is my sober reply.

you wrote,
"It seems to date from the third century, and cannot be used as evidence that Peter was in Rome, or that Clement reported his death to James."

My feelings on the matter,
The scholarly dating system is fundamentally flawed.
It has been proven that the carbon dating of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" was a bungled mess. Our fundamental problem is this system we have where belief's are accepted and those that challenge beliefs have to give sources. I gave my source in ISBN's in order for those really curious to have to go to www.amazon.com and search. You did not give any sources for your belief "it seems to date". The fundamental flaw is the research people are theists and believe what they want to believe because they fear death.

Toto

offa

I am sorry you are upset, but I am not clear what I did to offend, or what carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls has to do with the dating of the Pseudo-Clementines, which are published in a volume entitled Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol-8, Third & Fourth Century.

Mageth

Who said I thought he was? I was merely citing the "official" Papal succession posited by the RC Church.