Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 10907
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by Giuseppe »


The writer of Acts has not been able to disguise the fact that Paul, when he went to Rome, remained quite apart from the Christian church there, and taught independently.

(A Critical Analysis of the Four Chief Pauline Epistles, L. G. Rylands. 1929, p. 413)
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14514
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by Secret Alias »

= Marcionite Paul. Even the bit about Marcion being part of the Roman Church reflects this.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by Charles Wilson »

William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, 1867,
https://archive.org/details/DictionaryO ... 3/mode/2up :


"...When Vespasian was on his way to Italy, Mucianus went to Brendisium to meet him, accompanied by the principal Roman nobles. The services of Mucianus had been so great, that Vespasian continued to show him his favour, although his patience was not a little tried by the arrogance of his subject. The last circumstance recorded of Mucianus is that he persuaded Vespasian to banish the philosophers from Rome. He seems to have died in the reign of Vespasian, as his name does not occur either under Titus or Domitian..."

Acts 28: 30 - 31 (RSV):

[30] And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him,
[31] preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.

As close as you can come to finding out what happened to Paul (Mucianus).

CW
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by Charles Wilson »

Note: The extrapolation from the Data would imply that from the Roman Records, there was no "Mucianus died here" Statement. Acts is constructed from these records and therefore a simple statement of Paul preaching in Rome is built. Mucianus is enamored with Titus. Thus, verses 30 - 31.

YMMV.

CW
lclapshaw
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by lclapshaw »

Charles, you are the ultimate example for me of what not to be. You are so invested in your narrative that you cannot see how truly unlikely it really is. Try stepping back a bit and give it a little critical thought. Rather than continuing to try to prove it right, deconstruct it and try to disprove it instead.

Not trying to be a dick, just saying what I think, Just being honest. Sorry.

Lane
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by Charles Wilson »

Lane --

I don't mind that you are not convinced. That's OK.
I am concerned that the Thesis has not been considered.

I have provided what I consider Evidence based on Historical Readings.
You are so invested in your narrative that you cannot see how truly unlikely it really is
Compared with what? Giuseppe's Celestial Crucifixions? Raising dead people back to life?
What is this "Unlikely" thing you're talking about?

I'm still waiting for someone to examine the Thesis. I've been cursed, ridiculed and ignored but have the Points been examined?
Not really.

You're welcome to try.

Thnx,

CW
lsayre
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by lsayre »

lclapshaw wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:54 pm Charles, you are the ultimate example for me of what not to be. You are so invested in your narrative that you cannot see how truly unlikely it really is. Try stepping back a bit and give it a little critical thought. Rather than continuing to try to prove it right, deconstruct it and try to disprove it instead.

Not trying to be a dick, just saying what I think, Just being honest. Sorry.

Lane
We are all generally speculating and attempting to reconstruct a quasi-history (quasi-plausible-reality) from sparse (to perhaps non existent) factual data. Charles at least attempts to broaden the reach into documented history whereby to bridge the gap from speculation to plausibility. He merely does so from a rather obscure avenue of approach that is not connected to the safety of being even remotely mainstream popular. But whatever the outcome of his approach, I value that these words from 19th century Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer will ring true (quoting here from memory):
All [real] truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third it is eventually accepted as self evident.
Note that the word "real" in brackets within the quote was added by me, and not present as penned by Arthur Schopenhauer.
lsayre
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by lsayre »

Acts 5:33-40 is seen by me as essentially an earlier version of my above quote from Arthur Schopenhauer .
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why in Acts the fate of Paul in Rome is missing

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you, lsayre. I know that you have considered what I have offered.
'Preciate it ("N a few others as well...).

CW
Post Reply