What charge ...

[Tychicum]

was brought by the Romans, against the Apostle Paul which led to his various incarcerations ... ?

Particularly his second ...


†

 

[Tychicum]

Found it. I must be getting old or something .

It was the charge of founding a "new religion" which was against Roman law.

They put up with all of the existing religions but had a law against starting up a new one ...

(found my answer in Robert Anderson's book "Forgotten Truths" of all places ... )

†

 

[heymikey80]

How about Peter? What charge was presumably brought against him?

The imprisonment recorded in Acts didn't really say, although from the circumstances it appears his very presence was the cause of a riot. His charges were essentially dropped, but he appealed to Caesar, and so being a citizen he went to Caesar.

Paul twisted up any theological accusation the Sanhedrin was trying to make by asserting he was accused of believing the resurrection of the dead.

Ultimately the second imprisonment doesn't have much to say about his accusation. It could well have been a "new religion", if it had been identified as such by Sanhedrin. It was also a proselytizing religion -- something that Rome prohibited as well. By that time Caesar was a despot, so Paul's imprisonment could've been at Caesar's bidding, even.

 

[Tychicum]

It seems that after the death of James the Apostle in Acts 12:2 (no not Jesus brother ... John's brother) the 12 were only mentioned in terms of how they interacted with Paul.

Their deaths (and from what I understand they were pretty well all martyred) were not worth even the mention in Scripture.

As Israel passed from predominance so did their 12.

I didn't think that Peter was Roman. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

.

 

[heymikey80]

It seems that after the death of James the Apostle in Acts 12:2 (no not Jesus brother ... John's brother) the 12 were only mentioned in terms of how they interacted with Paul.

In Acts, yes. In their epistles, no.

Their deaths (and from what I understand they were pretty well all martyred) were not worth even the mention in Scripture.

Nor Paul's. If we're talking about any Apostle but James, we're talking about traditional histories of a martyr's death.

As Israel passed from predominance so did their 12.

Israeli predominance ... in what? Peter and other Apostles were sent outside Judea and to other than Jewish nationals.

I didn't think that Peter was Roman. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

As you may remember, all tradition points out Peter was killed under Roman capital punishment at Rome. Rome is ruled by Romans.

Thus Peter was condemned by Roman Law or the Roman Caesar, as he was put to death at Rome.

And thus the question, "How about Peter? What charge was presumably brought against him?"

 

[Tychicum]

The only reason Paul was able to appeal to Caesar was due to his citizenship.

If you believe that Israel is now predominant after having read the Book of Romans (which I believe you have ... at least I will presume you have) and even watching the evening news ... that is most interesting.

You say "Peter and other Apostles were sent outside Judea and to other than Jewish nationals" ... that too is intersting. And counter to the actual Scripture record.

You into the book of Enoch too ... ?



.

 

[Tychicum]

It just occurred to me ... heymikey80 ... what year was it ... for example ... that you believe the book of James was actually written in?

I hope you know that the order in which the books appear in the "Bible" which you posses is not necessarily the order in which they are chronologically written in.


.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

The only reason Paul was able to appeal to Caesar was due to his citizenship.

If you believe that Israel is now predominant after having read the Book of Romans (which I believe you have ... at least I will presume you have) and even watching the evening news ... that is most interesting.

You say "Peter and other Apostles were sent outside Judea and to other than Jewish nationals" ... that too is intersting. And counter to the actual Scripture record.

You into the book of Enoch too ... ?



.

If you want to know about the persecution of Christians by Rome then you should go read the history of the early Church, from the witness of those who were there, and the Roman persecutions, as the New Testaemt Scriptures, themselves, are Testimony about Jesus Christ -and not about the Saints, esp.

Peter was "en" Babylon -the real Babylon of Scripture, not an allegorical one- when he wrote 1 Peter to the "pilgrims" -Christians are called "Pilgrims" on this earth, who are looking for a City whose builder and maker is God, which is Mount Zion above-

Peter said -
1Pe 1:1¶Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the ‘pilgrims” scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

1Pe 1:3¶Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again [given us New Birth in Spirit] unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1Pe 1:9Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls.

1Pe 1:10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:
1Pe 1:11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
1Pe 1:12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into [which fact of the fallen angels wanting to know the secret of the Son of Man, Peter first read about in the writings of Enoch, BTW -for your information]
1Pe 1:23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.


1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] “en” Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

 

[heymikey80]

The only reason Paul was able to appeal to Caesar was due to his citizenship.

Yeah, so? The only reason Peter would be executed at Rome was because of Roman rule, by Law and by Caesar.

If you believe that Israel is now predominant after having read the Book of Romans (which I believe you have ... at least I will presume you have) and even watching the evening news ... that is most interesting.

If you vault to assumptions like this for those discussing your own questions, I find no value in such a conversation -- and you shouldn't, either. I didn't make any assertion, I inquired in what sense you meant Israel was predominant at the time.

If at some time you answer that question, you might inquire rather than making ridiculous assertions about what I might believe.

You say "Peter and other Apostles were sent outside Judea and to other than Jewish nationals" ... that too is intersting. And counter to the actual Scripture record.

The "actual Scriptural record" of who Jesus sent where:

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" Mt 28:16-19
​

You into the book of Enoch too ... ?

You into the Gospel of Matthew? Maybe Luke; or Acts. Stop me when I hit something you consider actual Scripture, and relent this false assertion:

Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." Lk 24:45-49

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. Acts 2:39
​

It just occurred to me ... heymikey80 ... what year was it ... for example ... that you believe the book of James was actually written in?

Probably the early 50's, but here everything is a guess.

Why would the book of James be distributed generally to the entire church?

 

[Tychicum]

I do find it interesting that so many people hold the Apochrapha and Pseudepigrapha of the Gnostics in such high regard ...

and yes even secular history ...

... even when it runs counter to the plain record of actual Scriptural.

In the old days we were permitted to call that "superstition".

I suppose today's politically correct environment it would be said to be "just another way to God" ...

But to be fair ... I too have read many of these books ... out of curiosity, the way one would read any fiction ... but they are not the Word of God.

They are as Paul said ... "another gospel".

As far as Peter going to Rome ... Peter wasn't a Roman and Rome wouldn't have paid the fare to take him there ... much simpler to kill him where he stood. No disrespect to Peter ... but the Scripture makes it clear that new "Christian" revelation didn't go through Peter.

God raised up another.

Why? Well you would have to take that one up with God.

Apparently He wanted a lawyer and not a fisherman to represent Him once God had discharged His purpose with Israel and had set them aside in favour of a new endeavor ... Jew and Gentile with no difference.

I suppose God could have "recycled" one of the 12 ... but he left them linked to Israel's program and took His great enemy Saul and made him Paul ...

Paul was charged with "starting a new religion" which was counter to Roman Law. Paul's legal defence was that it was the same God and was after-all just an outworking of God's eternal Purpose as predicted in Prophecy (even thought it was berried so that no one could understand it) ... hid in God is the term.

Apparently Rome didn't buy it. They said it was a different religion.

And in a profound way it is ...

God did away with religion in favour of a program in which He did all of the heavy lifting.

Grace.

This isn't rocket science ... but it does take Spiritual discernment ...

.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I do find it interesting that so many people hold the Apochrapha and Pseudepigrapha of the Gnostics in such high regard ...

and yes even secular history ...

... even when it runs counter to the plain record of actual Scriptural.

In the old days we were permitted to call that "superstition".

I suppose today's politically correct environment it would be said to be "just another way to God" ...

But to be fair ... I too have read many of these books ... out of curiosity, the way one would read any fiction ... but they are not the Word of God.

They are as Paul said ... "another gospel".

As far as Peter going to Rome ... Peter wasn't a Roman and Rome wouldn't have paid the fare to take him there ... much simpler to kill him where he stood. No disrespect to Peter ... but the Scripture makes it clear that new "Christian" revelation didn't go through Peter.

God raised up another.

Why? Well you would have to take that one up with God.

Apparently He wanted a lawyer and not a fisherman to represent Him once God had discharged His purpose with Israel and had set them aside in favour of a new endeavor ... Jew and Gentile with no difference.

I suppose God could have "recycled" one of the 12 ... but he left them linked to Israel's program and took His great enemy Saul and made him Paul ...

Paul was charged with "starting a new religion" which was counter to Roman Law. Paul's legal defence was that it was the same God and was after-all just an outworking of God's eternal Purpose as predicted in Prophecy (even thought it was berried so that no one could understand it) ... hid in God is the term.

Apparently Rome didn't buy it. They said it was a different religion.

And in a profound way it is ...

God did away with religion in favour of a program in which He did all of the heavy lifting.

Grace.

This isn't rocket science ... but it does take Spiritual discernment ...

.

Defend your charge against the book of 1 Enoch and show where anything in that writing runs counter to the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament -rather, it is the place where the doctrines of Sheol and the lake of fire, demons, the Trinity, and the Word of God as the Judge -and the Fire Who judges by His Word- and He who was the hidden in God Son of Man who was to come and be revealed to the "elect" -and then, at the end, to all the world, is first found, and all Hebrew Scripture never contradicts anything in that book, rather, that book is the basis for many comments on these things found in Scripture.

the doctrine of everlasting life and everlasting punishment, is fully developed by revelation in that book, and the creation of the angels and their purposes is fully developed in that book. The reason for the flood of Noah and the consumation of all things is fully developed int hat book.


So defend your charge against the book of 1 Enoch being gnostic. -Rather, the doctrines of MAD are gnostic in that it says it's doctrine was not revealed in Scripture or to the prophets of God -in contradiction to all things God was to do having first been revealed to His prophets, as pr. Amo 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

And one "big in the movement" leader of the Mid Acts dispensation movement has gone on record saying that even Jesus did not know what was later revealed to Paul when He walked the earth, and I formerly made reference to where that could be found online, but that particular post got deleted: nevertheless, that is gnostic sir, but Enoch's writings are not -but try to prove they are, if you can -and that is the only book I have referred to, BTW, in relation to being in existence before the doctrine of MAD was made up thousands of years after it Enoch was written and was known and was quoted by the New Testament writers -and also quoted by the LORD Jesus, and also by early Church "Fathers -so called" -as Scripture.

 

[Tychicum]

Just a quick note as I have a few more minutes ...

One can be "Saved" and still be quite "wrong" on their interpretation of Scripture. They will be held to account and not to me ...

Such is Grace. It isn't what we do it is what He does not what we do.

So before someone goes off on a tangent and completely wigs out that their salvation is being questioned ...

I am not questioning any one's salvation ... only their intelligence.

Their errant beliefs.

So notwithstanding accusations of the anti-dispensationalists ...

I believe my opinion that the Canon is limited to 66 books written by 40 or so God led authors (verbally inspired is the term) ... would be much closer to the mainstream than someone who takes up secular history or some gnostic or cultic writings and uses them to "augment" the plain Scripture.



.

 

[Tychicum]

By the way the book of Enoch does have many truths. My contention isn't that it doesn't have truths ... only that it may contain falsehoods and that God didn't see fit to preserve it for our Scriptures ...

Be careful of all Jewish mysticism and fables.
It is obvious that the book of Enoch was not written by THE ENOCH but most likely what he prophesied was passed along orally and then one day later somebody wrote it down and attributed the book of Enoch.

So some of it represents what Enoch actually said, but probably the legend grew and a lot of the story was added later.

It is hard to tell what is genuine and what is not. T

therefore because it had no possibly of perfect in-errency it was disregarded as canon.

.

 

[Tychicum]

By the way ... I do believe that "the sons of God" and "mixed it up" with the "daughters of men".

But not because of Enoch alone. But because it is supported in OTHER scriptural accounts.

If that is where you are headed.

.

 

[Tychicum]

The attached is an example of the kind of Enoch followers website ... which I use as a warning to others of going off onto the "kookier side" of the "Enoch religion".

http://www.alienresistance.org/book_of_enoch.htm

 

[heymikey80]

As far as Peter going to Rome ... Peter wasn't a Roman and Rome wouldn't have paid the fare to take him there ... much simpler to kill him where he stood.

They executed him in Rome. There's total historical silence on any contrary opinion.

Next historical issue?

No disrespect to Peter ... but the Scripture makes it clear that new "Christian" revelation didn't go through Peter.

God raised up another.

1 John 1:1-4, Acts 9.

Paul was charged with "starting a new religion" which was counter to Roman Law. Paul's legal defence was that it was the same God and was after-all just an outworking of God's eternal Purpose as predicted in Prophecy (even thought it was berried so that no one could understand it) ... hid in God is the term.

Scripture? Didn't see that in Acts. Didn't see that in the Pastorals.

Apparently Rome didn't buy it. They said it was a different religion.

So you'll take the judgement of Roman pagans over Scripture. Ah. I get it now. Tradition over Scripture.

God did away with religion in favour of a program in which He did all of the heavy lifting.

Grace.

This isn't rocket science ... but it does take Spiritual discernment ...

Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened Rom 11:2-7
​

It's always been grace. It was grace under Elijah; "so too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace."

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:16
​

The promise has always depended on grace.

For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:18
​

Promise or law? Hm? It was never both. Paul says so.

 

[Tychicum]

They executed him in Rome. There's total historical silence on any contrary opinion.

So in the absence Scripture to the contrary ... all things about Peter are true? You are funny. Hilarious even.

Do you also believe in Apostolic succession?

I always chuckle when the issue of Peter's mother-in-law comes up ...


.

 

[heymikey80]

So in the absence Scripture to the contrary ... all things about Peter are true? You are funny. Hilarious even.

In the absence of Scripture history should at least be consulted and not constructed out of thine own mind. Otherwise the accusation could carry that you're not being forthright with the historical information.

Do you also believe in Apostolic succession?

I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church, certainly, and the Apostolic ministry and doctrine commended to us to accept. Do you believe in this Apostolic succession?

I always chuckle when the issue of Peter's mother-in-law comes up ....

'Guess you're chuckling at yourself bringing up Peter's mother-in-law.

 

[GLJCA]

This isn't rocket science ... but it does take Spiritual discernment ...

You are right!! It isn't rocket science, but nor is it spiritual discernment, it is spiritual apostasy.

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, with which he opened up to the Jews in Acts 2, to the Samaritans in Acts 8, and to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

Again your assumptions are invalid.

GLJCA

 

[Tychicum]

I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church, certainly, and the Apostolic ministry and doctrine commended to us to accept. Do you believe in this Apostolic succession?

'Guess you're chuckling at yourself bringing up Peter's mother-in-law.

Ah. I see now ...