Death of Paul

[JacktheCatholic]

What do you base this house arrest on? According to Acts Paul was living in a house that he was paying for and he could freely see any visitors he wished to. What purpose would house arrest have served if not to silence Paul? If Paul was not silenced, how could he have been under house arrest?

Since Acts emphasizes that Paul was paying for his house, I would take it as emphasizing that Paul was a free man.

As a working hypothesis I would be willing to consider the possibility that Peter never saw Rome and that Paul may have died during the fire that took place under Nero, but due to the confusion caused by the fire it was just assumed that Paul died in Nero’s persecution, but no one at the time really knew what happened with any certainty so no one tried to leave a definitive record of what happened.

It is commonly assumed that the Gospel of Luke is really Peter’s memoirs of Jesus and Luke was just a ghost writer. If we assume that this is true, that Peter is the source for this Gospel, do we have any tangible evidence that Luke wrote the Book of Acts? If so, what was the source for the information in Acts? If Luke and Peter were pals while the Gospel was being written, were Luke and Paul pals while Acts was written? I find it odd that Luke and Peter could have been partners while writing the Gospel, but then Luke didn’t know anything about Peter’s death. I reiterate at this point that the conclusion of Acts is written in the past tense- meaning that Paul’s 2 years in his own house were finished before Acts was written, so I doubt that the author of Acts died before Paul did.

WHAT!?

Where do you learn this stuff???

Peter never in Rome? Paul burned in the fire by Nero? Luke was just a ghost writer?

Did you make this stuff up!?

 

[flaja]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm


Ancient tradition makes it possible to establish the following points:

Ancient tradition is not Scripture; neither is it documented history. I find it ironic that you fault me for relying on a Reader’s Digest book as a source for historical fact, but you are willing to rely on ancient tradition when it supports your claims about Roman Catholicism.

If this ancient tradition is so all-fired important, why wasn’t any of it included in Scripture?

We know from Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VII, 18) that even in his time there existed paintings representing Christ and the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Eusebius lived what- 3 centuries after Peter and Paul?

I remember, while doing research on the Shroud of Turin back in the 1990s, that at one time Jesus was depicted as a beardless youth in some ancient art work when the likelihood that any Hebrew man would have been clean-shaven is next to nil. Ancient art is not always a good source of historical information.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Ancient tradition is not Scripture; neither is it documented history. I find it ironic that you fault me for relying on a Reader’s Digest book as a source for historical fact, but you are willing to rely on ancient tradition when it supports your claims about Roman Catholicism.

If this ancient tradition is so all-fired important, why wasn’t any of it included in Scripture?



Eusebius lived what- 3 centuries after Peter and Paul?

I remember, while doing research on the Shroud of Turin back in the 1990s, that at one time Jesus was depicted as a beardless youth in some ancient art work when the likelihood that any Hebrew man would have been clean-shaven is next to nil. Ancient art is not always a good source of historical information.

Actually scripture is part of Tradition. The New Testament is Apostolic Tradition.

The Traditions of the church rely on the earliest Traditions from the Apostles. Do you think it better to rely on an ignorant writer of the 21st century or that of the Apostles and their disciples?

Point is that you accept the New Testament as inerrant and yet those writings came from Apostolic Tradition that are part of that deposit of Apostolic Tradition that has been protected and preserved for 20 centuries by the Catholic Church. The same Catholic Church that you seem to have so much disdain for.

And if you wish to learn why some books were chosen and some not then I would highly encourage you to find out. Here is a good place to start: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

[flaja]

Actually scripture is part of Tradition. The New Testament is Apostolic Tradition.

The Traditions of the church rely on the earliest Traditions from the Apostles. Do you think it better to rely on an ignorant writer of the 21st century or that of the Apostles and their disciples?

Tradition is unverifiable in the absence of any written record. When there is no written record, tradition can be interpreted in any self-serving way you desire. If tradition were the be all to end all when it comes to doctrine and behavior, then every congregation in the ancient world would have all followed the exact same tradition. Even in Apostolic times this did not happen.

 

[marvmax]

But Peter was a fisherman right? How educated do you suppose he was?

Peter was a businessman who's business was fishing. He owned more than one boat and had partners with servants. I think it is entirely possible he was literate. I hate it when people portray Peter as an ignorant fisherman, barely kept the family fed. I don't know that this is what you were doing but it sounds like it.

By the way fishing on the Sea of Galilee was big business. They made a fish sauce that was highly prized by the Romans. I won't go into how they made it because it sounds disgusting but the Romans really liked it.

 

[marvmax]

Point is that you accept the New Testament as inerrant

I'm new here but I've never heard flaja say he considered the Bible inerrant. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I'd be surprised that he considers the Bible inerrant.

 

[marvmax]

Eusebius lived what- 3 centuries after Peter and Paul?

I remember, while doing research on the Shroud of Turin back in the 1990s, that at one time Jesus was depicted as a beardless youth in some ancient art work when the likelihood that any Hebrew man would have been clean-shaven is next to nil. Ancient art is not always a good source of historical information.

I don't think that you should discount the sayings of the patristic fathers. They certainly were closer to the events than we were. I've always felt that they were Christians doing their very best to hand on what they had been given.

 

[flaja]

Peter was a businessman who's business was fishing. He owned more than one boat and had partners with servants. I think it is entirely possible he was literate. I hate it when people portray Peter as an ignorant fisherman, barely kept the family fed. I don't know that this is what you were doing but it sounds like it.

By the way fishing on the Sea of Galilee was big business. They made a fish sauce that was highly prized by the Romans. I won't go into how they made it because it sounds disgusting but the Romans really liked it.

Since Peter so readily followed Jesus when he was called, you must assume that Peter did have some religious feelings prior to Jesus. This means that he certainly would have been literate enough to read the Torah (likely in its Greek LXX translation). That fisherman = ignoramous is a myth.

 

[Lisa0315]

Since Peter so readily followed Jesus when he was called, you must assume that Peter did have some religious feelings prior to Jesus. This means that he certainly would have been literate enough to read the Torah (likely in its Greek LXX translation). That fisherman = ignoramous is a myth.

There is absolutely no substance or fact to that. There was a reason for oral tradition, why there were scribes, etc. There was a reason why Moses wrote the first five books. Moses was unique and was raised as an Egyptian Prince.

Jewish men MEMORIZED Scripture. Most did not read it, much less have the ability to write it. Paul was unique in that he was a Roman citizan and also an educated Pharissee.

Lisa

 

[flaja]

I'm new here but I've never heard flaja say he considered the Bible inerrant. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I'd be surprised that he considers the Bible inerrant.

One of my first threads on this board was in regards to the issue of Biblical inerrancy in terms of manuscript copies and translations of the Bible. I am not convinced that the Bible is inerrant in every single detail, but I do insist that it is a complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible record of doctrine, both in the original documents and in certain copies and translations thereof.

 

[flaja]

I don't think that you should discount the sayings of the patristic fathers. They certainly were closer to the events than we were. I've always felt that they were Christians doing their very best to hand on what they had been given.

Or they were false Christians, inspired by Satan and thus were doing everything they could distort doctrine and the Biblical record.

 

[flaja]

There is absolutely no substance or fact to that. There was a reason for oral tradition, why there were scribes, etc. There was a reason why Moses wrote the first five books. Moses was unique and was raised as an Egyptian Prince.

The distance in time between Moses and the 1st century AD was something like 1,600 years. The way Moses did or didn’t do something wouldn’t have any bearing on the way 1st century Christians did something.

Scribes were fairly common in the ancient world and among the Jews the job was held by highly meticulous professionals. So what makes you think that Christians didn’t carry on this tradition? The Jews of the time were not relying on oral tradition, so why would the Christians have relied on oral tradition?

Jewish men MEMORIZED Scripture. Most did not read it, much less have the ability to write it. Paul was unique in that he was a Roman citizan and also an educated Pharissee.

If most Jewish men only memorized Scripture, if so much was oral, there would have been little need for Moses to have ever written anything down.

Furthermore, there was an awful lot of reading being done in the NT:

Matthew 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

It seems that Jesus never asked anybody if they had memorized anything.

Then in Acts we are reminded that Scripture reading, not recitation, was an ordinary practice in Synagogues.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And it seems that you didn’t have to be rich or powerful to be literate. Even servants were literate:

Acts 8:27-28 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

 

[Lisa0315]

The distance in time between Moses and the 1st century AD was something like 1,600 years. The way Moses did or didn’t do something wouldn’t have any bearing on the way 1st century Christians did something.

Scribes were fairly common in the ancient world and among the Jews the job was held by highly meticulous professionals. So what makes you think that Christians didn’t carry on this tradition? The Jews of the time were not relying on oral tradition, so why would the Christians have relied on oral tradition?




If most Jewish men only memorized Scripture, if so much was oral, there would have been little need for Moses to have ever written anything down.

Furthermore, there was an awful lot of reading being done in the NT:

Matthew 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

It seems that Jesus never asked anybody if they had memorized anything.

Then in Acts we are reminded that Scripture reading, not recitation, was an ordinary practice in Synagogues.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And it seems that you didn’t have to be rich or powerful to be literate. Even servants were literate:

Acts 8:27-28 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

Matthew 12: Jesus was talking to educated Pharissees.
Matthew 19: Jesus was talking to educated Pharissees.
Matthew 21: Jesus was talking to the educated Chief Priests and Scribes.
Matthew 22: Jesus was talking with educated Sadducees
Acts 13: If you read the context, it is the rulers of they Synagogue that were doing the reading, not the Apostles
Acts 15: Again, this talks about the reading within the Synagogue and this was done by Priests, Scribes, and the educated, not your every day Jew.
Acts 8: The Ethiopian was a servant in a royal house and was probably raised up with the children in the house. Believe it or not, this is WHY some chose to be servants. They actually lived a better, easier life in many ways.

Finally, you need to understand how Jews reacted to the Helenization of their land. It was disdained for a Jew to associate with the Romans and they would not have partaken of the education opportunities and culture of Rome.

Now, give me a few, and I will give you some verse that give evidence to the fact that the common Jew was illiterate.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

Number 10 - To read the Shema` twice daily, as it is written "and thou shalt talk of them . . . when thou liest down, and when thou risest up" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 11 - To learn Torah and to teach it, as it is written "thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 17 - For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself, as it is written "write ye this song for you" (Deuteronomy 31,19).
Thus the father was obligated as the sole teacher of his children in Jewish history (Deut. xi. 19).

I beg your pardon. You are 100% correct! I actually studied in college that it was highly unlikely that the Apostles could read and write. However, this clearly shows in Scripture that they could and should.

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education#Israel

 

[flaja]

Matthew 12: Jesus was talking to educated Pharissees.
Matthew 19: Jesus was talking to educated Pharissees.
Matthew 21: Jesus was talking to the educated Chief Priests and Scribes.
Matthew 22: Jesus was talking with educated Sadducees
Acts 13: If you read the context, it is the rulers of they Synagogue that were doing the reading, not the Apostles
Acts 15: Again, this talks about the reading within the Synagogue and this was done by Priests, Scribes, and the educated, not your every day Jew.

What difference does this make? What makes you think that a poor Jew would have the time needed to memorize Scripture if he didn’t have the time and wherewithal to learn how to read?

Didn’t Jesus himself, purportedly a poor carpenter, read Scripture in the Synagogues? How did He manage to be educated enough to be literate?

Acts 8: The Ethiopian was a servant in a royal house and was probably raised up with the children in the house. Believe it or not, this is WHY some chose to be servants. They actually lived a better, easier life in many ways.

Considering what he had to give up for that royal household, I don’t see it as an even trade.

Finally, you need to understand how Jews reacted to the Helenization of their land.

Most tolerated it and many embraced it- at least outside of Judea. Otherwise the Greek LXX translation of the Old Testament would have never been made. Note also that Hellenic architecture was common in and around Judea during the 1st century AD- Sepphoris and the Decapolis were entirely Hellenized. And Paul used sports-themed metaphors in his epistles meaning that he had some exposure to Greco-Roman athletics.

It was disdained for a Jew to associate with the Romans and they would not have partaken of the education opportunities and culture of Rome.

The culture of Rome had nothing to do with whether or not a 1st century Jew could read and write.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561415_2/History_of_Education.html

In the ancient world the Jews were noted for their education system. Rabbis acted as teachers and synagogues served as schools where children, both boys and girls, studied the Torah. The Yiddish term for synagogue is Shul. Yiddish is derived from German and the German word for school is Shule, 2 syllables.

http://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraeg

“Hebrew was not used as a mother tongue for roughly 1800 years. However the Jews have always devoted much effort to maintaining high standards of literacy among themselves, the main purpose being to let any Jew read the Hebrew Bible and the accompanying religious works in the original…”

Now, give me a few, and I will give you some verse that give evidence to the fact that the common Jew was illiterate.

Huh? This sentence isn’t even coherent.

 

[Lisa0315]

[/font][/font][/color]

What difference does this make? What makes you think that a poor Jew would have the time needed to memorize Scripture if he didn’t have the time and wherewithal to learn how to read?

Didn’t Jesus himself, purportedly a poor carpenter, read Scripture in the Synagogues? How did He manage to be educated enough to be literate?



Considering what he had to give up for that royal household, I don’t see it as an even trade.



Most tolerated it and many embraced it- at least outside of Judea. Otherwise the Greek LXX translation of the Old Testament would have never been made. Note also that Hellenic architecture was common in and around Judea during the 1st century AD- Sepphoris and the Decapolis were entirely Hellenized. And Paul used sports-themed metaphors in his epistles meaning that he had some exposure to Greco-Roman athletics.



The culture of Rome had nothing to do with whether or not a 1st century Jew could read and write.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561415_2/History_of_Education.html

In the ancient world the Jews were noted for their education system. Rabbis acted as teachers and synagogues served as schools where children, both boys and girls, studied the Torah. The Yiddish term for synagogue is Shul. Yiddish is derived from German and the German word for school is Shule, 2 syllables.

http://br.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebraeg

“Hebrew was not used as a mother tongue for roughly 1800 years. However the Jews have always devoted much effort to maintaining high standards of literacy among themselves, the main purpose being to let any Jew read the Hebrew Bible and the accompanying religious works in the original…”



Huh? This sentence isn’t even coherent.

He He. Now, read my next post...

Lisa

 

[flaja]

He He. Now, read my next post...

Lisa

The amount of time between the time I posted this and the time you replied shows that you didn’t take the time needed to read what I posted. Am I wasting my time with you?

 

[Lisa0315]

The amount of time between the time I posted this and the time you replied shows that you didn’t take the time needed to read what I posted. Am I wasting my time with you?

Considering that I apologized in the very next post and said you were right, yeah, I guess you are wasting your time with me.

Lisa

 

[flaja]

Considering that I apologized in the very next post and said you were right, yeah, I guess you are wasting your time with me.

Lisa

This next post is not visible on my computer. Do you know what's going on?

 

[Lisa0315]

This next post is not visible on my computer. Do you know what's going on?

You can't see post #34? Here it is again.

Number 10 - To read the Shema` twice daily, as it is written "and thou shalt talk of them . . . when thou liest down, and when thou risest up" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 11 - To learn Torah and to teach it, as it is written "thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children" (Deuteronomy 6,7).
Number 17 - For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself, as it is written "write ye this song for you" (Deuteronomy 31,19).
Thus the father was obligated as the sole teacher of his children in Jewish history (Deut. xi. 19).

I beg your pardon. You are 100% correct! I actually studied in college that it was highly unlikely that the Apostles could read and write. However, this clearly shows in Scripture that they could and should.

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ucation#Israel