St. Paul in England?

[The Curtmudgeon]

It's an interesting evening when you're a history buff sitting in a room with a Church of Christ type arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that UCC was organised in 1957 from a joining of denominations none of which can be shown to be extant prior to the Reformation at the very earliest) and an Anglican arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that whole Henry VIIIth thing). Sigh. I wonder whatever happened to teaching history as a time-connected collection of facts? :ahem:

In any case, my Anglican friend brought up a point of Anglican 'history' :sigh: with which I was unfamiliar, and I'd like to see if anyone can point me in the direction of evidence for same. He claims that the Anglican Church as founded by Marryin' Henry in the 16th century was not simply a breakaway from the Roman church of the time, but was actually preceeded by "the Church in England" (his emphasis) which was somehow understood to be non- (or at least not-entirely-quite-) Roman and was founded by St. Paul on a visit to "This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England". And there's my question -- when did Paul peregrinate to England?

(He and another Anglican, actually his local priest, have tried to tie that whole thing in with the Celtic Church, but what they've said about that has shown me that they don't really understand much about what the Celtic Church was all about; besides, to the best of my knowledge none of the early Celtic fathers tried to tie their system onto Paul or any other figure than the historical 5th-century saints.)

I'm well aware of the medieval legend of Joseph of Arimathea founding Glastonbury in southern England, which gets prominent play in the Arthurian cycle of stories et al.; and I had heard speculation that Paul, who mentioned a desire to see Spain, actually did travel as far as the Iberian peninsula between his two imprisonments in Rome. But I am unaware of any putative Pauline missionary trip to Britannia.

Can anyone point me at any really early evidence, even if only anecdotal, for such? I'm hoping for something from the Early Fathers, as I would strongly suspect anything medieval as being wholly (not holy!) legendary.

The ("Paul, a bondservant of Christ, to the church which is in London, Greetings!") Curtmudgeon

[kuboes1831]

It's an interesting evening when you're a history buff sitting in a room with a Church of Christ type arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that UCC was organised in 1957 from a joining of denominations none of which can be shown to be extant prior to the Reformation at the very earliest) and an Anglican arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that whole Henry VIIIth thing). Sigh. I wonder whatever happened to teaching history as a time-connected collection of facts? :ahem:

In any case, my Anglican friend brought up a point of Anglican 'history' :sigh: with which I was unfamiliar, and I'd like to see if anyone can point me in the direction of evidence for same. He claims that the Anglican Church as founded by Marryin' Henry in the 16th century was not simply a breakaway from the Roman church of the time, but was actually preceeded by "the Church in England" (his emphasis) which was somehow understood to be non- (or at least not-entirely-quite-) Roman and was founded by St. Paul on a visit to "This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England". And there's my question -- when did Paul peregrinate to England?

(He and another Anglican, actually his local priest, have tried to tie that whole thing in with the Celtic Church, but what they've said about that has shown me that they don't really understand much about what the Celtic Church was all about; besides, to the best of my knowledge none of the early Celtic fathers tried to tie their system onto Paul or any other figure than the historical 5th-century saints.)

I'm well aware of the medieval legend of Joseph of Arimathea founding Glastonbury in southern England, which gets prominent play in the Arthurian cycle of stories et al.; and I had heard speculation that Paul, who mentioned a desire to see Spain, actually did travel as far as the Iberian peninsula between his two imprisonments in Rome. But I am unaware of any putative Pauline missionary trip to Britannia.

Can anyone point me at any really early evidence, even if only anecdotal, for such? I'm hoping for something from the Early Fathers, as I would strongly suspect anything medieval as being wholly (not holy!) legendary.

The ("Paul, a bondservant of Christ, to the church which is in London, Greetings!") Curtmudgeon


Actually Paul went into an English pub and took courage, just as he did on the Appain Way

[furay]

Interesting subject matter, I'll try and look up what the Orthodox have to say on the matter. I've certainly never heard of St. Paul visiting Britain, but then I don't know all that much.

[Spiritus Naturae]

I have often heard tale that Joseph of Arimathea visited the British Isles. Not sure if that's an actual established fact or merely legend.

[cweb255]

Perposterous, all of it is. It is merely legend.

[Amazing Rando]

Interesting subject matter, I'll try and look up what the Orthodox have to say on the matter. I've certainly never heard of St. Paul visiting Britain, but then I don't know all that much.

He certainly had plans to visit Spain- I don't doubt that he made it there. But not Britain.

I'm certain that had he not been killed by Nero, he would have made his way to Britain eventually, but he just didn't live long enough to do that.

[Contarini]

It's an interesting evening when you're a history buff sitting in a room with a Church of Christ type arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that UCC was organised in 1957 from a joining of denominations none of which can be shown to be extant prior to the Reformation at the very earliest) and an Anglican arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that whole Henry VIIIth thing). Sigh. I wonder whatever happened to teaching history as a time-connected collection of facts? :ahem:

In any case, my Anglican friend brought up a point of Anglican 'history' :sigh: with which I was unfamiliar, and I'd like to see if anyone can point me in the direction of evidence for same. He claims that the Anglican Church as founded by Marryin' Henry in the 16th century was not simply a breakaway from the Roman church of the time, but was actually preceeded by "the Church in England" (his emphasis) which was somehow understood to be non- (or at least not-entirely-quite-) Roman and was founded by St. Paul on a visit to "This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England". And there's my question -- when did Paul peregrinate to England?

(He and another Anglican, actually his local priest, have tried to tie that whole thing in with the Celtic Church, but what they've said about that has shown me that they don't really understand much about what the Celtic Church was all about; besides, to the best of my knowledge none of the early Celtic fathers tried to tie their system onto Paul or any other figure than the historical 5th-century saints.)

I'm well aware of the medieval legend of Joseph of Arimathea founding Glastonbury in southern England, which gets prominent play in the Arthurian cycle of stories et al.; and I had heard speculation that Paul, who mentioned a desire to see Spain, actually did travel as far as the Iberian peninsula between his two imprisonments in Rome. But I am unaware of any putative Pauline missionary trip to Britannia.

Can anyone point me at any really early evidence, even if only anecdotal, for such? I'm hoping for something from the Early Fathers, as I would strongly suspect anything medieval as being wholly (not holy!) legendary.

The ("Paul, a bondservant of Christ, to the church which is in London, Greetings!") Curtmudgeon

St. Clement of Rome speaks of Paul going to the "uttermost limits of the West," which could mean Britain. But I believe it's more likely to be Spain.

Anglicans often exaggerate the independence of the British Church at various periods in history. The more important point is that Anglicanism doesn't see itself as starting in the 16th century because we are a continuation of what went before. We see ourselves as a reform (whether the reform was a good idea or not is not the point here) of the existing Catholic Church in England. Henry is just another incident in our history. Neither communion with Rome nor lack of the same is essential to our identity.

Also, you need to learn to distinguish between the "Church of Christ" (which usually means one of the branches, probably the conservative "non-instrumental" branch, of the "Restoration movement" of the 19th century) and the "United Church of Christ" (which as you say was a merger of several denominations, most of them of a Reformed nature but including one spin-off of the Restoration movement). The "churches of Christ" (if they are noninstrumentalists) are very conservative; the UCC is perhaps the most liberal of the mainline denominations. Actually, the CoC has less claim to antiquity than the UCC--but that doesn't stop them . . . .

In Christ,

Edwin

[Rusty T]

Haven't ever heard this before. I tend to think that groups who go out of their way to 'prove' their apostolicity (if that's a word) perhaps should be avoided or at best scrutinized more intensely by anyone remotely interested.

rusty

[nomad]

what about augustine (the librarian, not the african)? There's the whole story about when the Catholic Church sent Augustine to 'evangelize' Britain, and found an existing church already there. These bishops refused to bow to Roman authority, and Augustine killed most of them.

It does imply an existing church in Britain if true. So, is it true? Does anyone know?

I can post some more from andrew gray's work on this later if anyone's interested as well. I also have a book on the early church in ireland (perranzabuloe) which i haven't read yet.

even in that book, though, which seems reasonable for the most part, he never mentioned Paul. I think any possible Paul visit is very apocryphal and not likely to be true.

[furay]

Whoops, I forgot all about this topic. I'm about ready to hop into my nice warm bed, but I'd thought I'd make a quick post to see if any of you can follow up on this. According to a quick background check the first Bishop of Britain was St. Aristobulus of the Seventy brother of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and mentioned in St. Paul's letter to the Romans (Rom 16:10). According to the lives of the saints it was St. Paul himself who ordained St. Aristobulus to be Bishop of Britain. Whether this means, St. Paul actually travelled to the British Isles is for you to find out. I am going to bed. See you all tommorow. :smile:

[cweb255]

Regarding finding a church in Britain. Remember, the barbarians were Christianised fairly early, so the Church in Britannia may not have been Orthodox church, but it is possible that it was a Gnostic or Heterodoxical church already in place, which, if the legend was based off of some historical fact, could explain the bloodshed. However, I'd be one to put it off as merely legendary, much like the imaginary journey there of the imaginary Paul.

[Anoetos]

Spiritus Naturae has it right. I think your friend misspoke...

The legend is that Joseph of Arimathea (he of the tomb gift) brought the Holy Grail to Glastonbury and founded the English Church.

It's a legend, without any substantiation...

The truth seems to be that the English churches were founded in the pre-saxon era by Irish missionary monks and continental missionary monks working independently and fairly simultaneously.

I do not know how much of the celtic population had been Christianized by the time the saxons got there, but it does seem likely that a large number of the Romans who had 'colonized' Britain were baptized members of the church.

[keith]

Spiritus Naturae has it right. I think your friend misspoke...

The legend is that Joseph of Arimathea (he of the tomb gift) brought the Holy Grail to Glastonbury and founded the English Church.

It's a legend, without any substantiation...

The truth seems to be that the English churches were founded in the pre-saxon era by Irish missionary monks and continental missionary monks working independently and fairly simultaneously.

I do not know how much of the celtic population had been Christianized by the time the saxons got there, but it does seem likely that a large number of the Romans who had 'colonized' Britain were baptized members of the church.

OK, lets get back to the primary historical sources on this one. The most credible early history of the English church is written by the Venerable Bede (born 673 died 735) and was written in the era when the English church had become established and peace with the other inhabitants - Scots, Irish, Picts and Britons had been established. This is from his 'History of the English Church and People'


In the year of our Lord's Incarnation 156, Marcus Antoninus Verus, fourteenth from Augustus, became Emperor jointly with his brother, Aurelius Commodus. During their regin, and while the holy Eleutherus ruled the Roman Church, Lucius, aBritish king, sent him a letter, asking to be made a Christian by his direction. This pious request was quickly granted, and the Britons received the Faith and held it peacefully in all its purity and fullmness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian

It seems pretty definite that there was enough interest in the new faith by the second century for at least some local kingdoms to express interest in the new faith. How did the faith reach Britain? The most likely explanation is that it came via the Roman military that had occupied the island and also by way of traders. In the West of England lay major tin mines and this is the area of the so called King Arthur. Many towns in the South West are named after Celtic saints - St Ives, St Columb, St Erth etc and were old well established settlements by the time the Saxons appeared on the scene in the fourth and fifth centuries.

The Glastonbury legend of Joseph of Arimathea was already old by then and the Abbey was spared destruction by the pagan Saxons (unlike a lot of the rest of the country). This does not confirm it is true, merely that it is very old.

The first recorded martyr was St Alban, a Roman soldier who came to faith while in Britain after sheltering a local Christian priest. He died in 301 A.D.

The Scots were outside the Roman Empire and had less contact with the classical civilised world because the Romans built walls to keep them out. They became Christianised later than the rest of Britain as a result. Here is Bede again


In the year of our Lord 423, Theodosius the Younger, next after Honorious and forthy-fifth in succession from Augustus, ruled the Empire for twenty-six years. In the eight year of his reign, the Roman Pontiff Celestine sent Palladius to the Scots who believed in Christ to be their first bishop.

None of the earliest sources mention St Paul coming to England which would have been a pretty big deal and worth boasting about if true.

The next major turning point is the arrival of St Augustine (no, not the famous writer of the Confessions, another one) in 603 A.D. He arrived to establish the Catholic Church and found the country already full of churches, bishops and so forth. Then things got nasty.


Now the Britons did not keep Easter at the correct time, but between the fourteenth and twentieth days of the moon - a calculation depending on a cycle of eight-four years. Furthermore, certain other of their customs were at variance with the universal practice of the Church. But despite protracted discussions, neither the prayers nor the advice nor the censures of Augustine and his companions could obtain the compliance of the Britons, who stubbornly preferred their own customs to those in universal use among Christian Churches.

The key differences, apart from the fact that Augustine wanted to take charge, were the date of Easter, the rites of baptism, and the evangelisation of the Saxons (which was already underway, the Saxons had been in England for about 150 years by then)
Augustine went on to declare himself the Archbishop of Britain and ride roughshod over the indigenous church. The following year he began appointing bishops to key positions such as his friend Mellitus as Bishop of London.

The indigenous church finally capitulated to Roman rule and customs at the Synod of Whitby in 664 when Orthodox customs were supplanted by Latin ones.

[MuggleOrSquib]

According to the Bede, the gospel reached the Britains fairly early. He doesn't however mention who brought the gospel to Britain. He claims that a King Lucian was an early convert. Pre-Saxon Britain was a mix of pagan and Christian. Pelagius was a Briton, whose birth-name, so I've heard, was Morgan.
St. Patrick, who evangelized Ireland, was a Briton who was captured by Irish Pirates.
So, Ireland was evangelized by the British (Welsh). On the other hand, Scotland was evangelized by the Irish, and Bangor in north-western Wales was founded by the Irish. It was also the Irish who evangelized the Saxons.

Augustine of Britain did not slaughter the Celtic monks. Such slaughter did occur, but in a battle between a pagan Saxon king (whose name I've forgotten) and a Christian king [I've forgotten if the Christian king were British or Saxon]. Upon observing a group of monks from Bangor on a hill away from the battle, praying for the success of the Christian forces, the pagans, viewing them as a sort of magic-worker, slaughtered them, and then went on to win the battle with the Christian army.

According to the Bede, there had been a meeting between Augustine and the local monks, priests, and bishops. When the meeting was arranged, the British, being concerned about how to deal with these new claims from Rome, approached a saintly man renowned for his wisdom. He told them that if Augustine rose to meet them when they approached, he would be showing humility and should be honored and trusted. If however Augustine remained seated, as would a ruler, he was exhibiting unwarranted pride or arrogance and should be shunned. Bede does not explain why Augustine remained seated.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[keith]

According to the Bede, the gospel reached the Britains fairly early. He doesn't however mention who brought the gospel to Britain. He claims that a King Lucian was an early convert. Pre-Saxon Britain was a mix of pagan and Christian. Pelagius was a Briton, whose birth-name, so I've heard, was Morgan.
St. Patrick, who evangelized Ireland, was a Briton who was captured by Irish Pirates.
So, Ireland was evangelized by the British (Welsh). On the other hand, Scotland was evangelized by the Irish, and Bangor in north-western Wales was founded by the Irish. It was also the Irish who evangelized the Saxons.

Augustine of Britain did not slaughter the Celtic monks. Such slaughter did occur, but in a battle between a pagan Saxon king (whose name I've forgotten) and a Christian king [I've forgotten if the Christian king were British or Saxon]. Upon observing a group of monks from Bangor on a hill away from the battle, praying for the success of the Christian forces, the pagans, viewing them as a sort of magic-worker, slaughtered them, and then went on to win the battle with the Christian army.

According to the Bede, there had been a meeting between Augustine and the local monks, priests, and bishops. When the meeting was arranged, the British, being concerned about how to deal with these new claims from Rome, approached a saintly man renowned for his wisdom. He told them that if Augustine rose to meet them when they approached, he would be showing humility and should be honored and trusted. If however Augustine remained seated, as would a ruler, he was exhibiting unwarranted pride or arrogance and should be shunned. Bede does not explain why Augustine remained seated.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Yes, the story about Augustine remaining seated is a strange one, it could be interpreted in a number of ways. When reading Bede it is always worth bearing in mind that his is the 'Official' history of the period - he was after all English and loyal to Rome. Even in this pro-Augustine document he appears to have been insensitive to say the least. From Augustine onwards the process of evangelisation was also a process of Latinization and tying the indigenous church into the growing Roman Catholic sphere of influence. A similar thing happened when the Portugese reached India and discovered Christians there. They were not happy until they had forced them to abandon their own traditions and take the rites and customs of the Latin church. This attitude clearly has deep roots.

Oh yes and as for Pelagius, the famous British heretic, he lived and wrote most of his works in Rome itself and was well known in his day. Why then were Augustine and his band of monks dispatched to England as if it were an unevangelized land? The whole story sounds more like an exercise in the consolidation of Roman power and influence.

[MuggleOrSquib]

Pressure towards standarization was typical of the time. Nestorius suppressed Quatrodecimians (who celebrated Easter on Nissan 14) in Constantinople.
The background story of Augustine is that of Pope Gregory and the two Angle slaveboys. As is noted, the Britons made little (if any) effort to convert the Saxons. The move to convert the Saxons seems to have started with Irish and/or Scottish monks. Due to the isolation of Britain and Ireland during this period, it was probably unlikely that Pope Gregory would have been aware of the evangelical efforts of the Irish. There are then two probable motives; the first being the conversion of the Saxons. The second would have been re-establishing contact with a church which, by the thinking of the day, was under the Bishop of Rome.
The various ancient Churches appear to have 'centered' on or near the local 'Capital', thus Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Seleucia Ctesiphon, Etchmiadzin, Mtsket, and Alexandria. From that thinking, a church in the what had been Western Roman Empire would be under the bishop of Rome, even as a church in the Persian Empire would likely be under the Patriarch of Seleucia Ctesiphon.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

[The Curtmudgeon]

Thanx for all the useful discussion, friends. I had actually forgot I had posted this topic myself! And only just stumbled on it again today. But I see that there has been some very worthwhile info posted, to the effect that I can safely ignore my friend's pretensions to a Pauline beginning of the British church (which agreed with what little knowledge I already had).

The (now, how many other threads have I started and lost?) Curtmudgeon

[The Wolf]

It's an interesting evening when you're a history buff sitting in a room with a Church of Christ type arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that UCC was organised in 1957 from a joining of denominations none of which can be shown to be extant prior to the Reformation at the very earliest) and an Anglican arguing that his church goes back to the very beginning (notwithstanding that whole Henry VIIIth thing). Sigh. I wonder whatever happened to teaching history as a time-connected collection of facts? :ahem:

In any case, my Anglican friend brought up a point of Anglican 'history' :sigh: with which I was unfamiliar, and I'd like to see if anyone can point me in the direction of evidence for same. He claims that the Anglican Church as founded by Marryin' Henry in the 16th century was not simply a breakaway from the Roman church of the time, but was actually preceeded by "the Church in England" (his emphasis) which was somehow understood to be non- (or at least not-entirely-quite-) Roman and was founded by St. Paul on a visit to "This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England". And there's my question -- when did Paul peregrinate to England?

(He and another Anglican, actually his local priest, have tried to tie that whole thing in with the Celtic Church, but what they've said about that has shown me that they don't really understand much about what the Celtic Church was all about; besides, to the best of my knowledge none of the early Celtic fathers tried to tie their system onto Paul or any other figure than the historical 5th-century saints.)

I'm well aware of the medieval legend of Joseph of Arimathea founding Glastonbury in southern England, which gets prominent play in the Arthurian cycle of stories et al.; and I had heard speculation that Paul, who mentioned a desire to see Spain, actually did travel as far as the Iberian peninsula between his two imprisonments in Rome. But I am unaware of any putative Pauline missionary trip to Britannia.

Can anyone point me at any really early evidence, even if only anecdotal, for such? I'm hoping for something from the Early Fathers, as I would strongly suspect anything medieval as being wholly (not holy!) legendary.

The ("Paul, a bondservant of Christ, to the church which is in London, Greetings!") Curtmudgeon

A lot of silly new aged nonsense with added Christianity. Saint Paul may or may not have come to England this would make no difference though.
As up to the Reformation England was fully Roman Catholic.

[rHarryr]

Did The Apostle Paul Visit Britain?

HEY!! That's the name of the book I have here in front of me.

Written by R.W. Morgan.

But before I get in to the book, I would like you to do something for me. Get your bible, the King James Version if you have it. That's the one I'm using for referrence. and turn to the 28th chapter of Acts and read verses 30 and 31. If you have read the Book of Acts and noticed Pauls' determination to spread the word. Do those two verses really sound like Paul? After you have done that, turn to and read the 29th chapter. After you read that, leave a post and tell me if you want me to continue with the book I have here in front of me. I'm not going to waste my time if your not.

rHarryr

[The Curtmudgeon]

Did The Apostle Paul Visit Britain?

HEY!! That's the name of the book I have here in front of me.

Written by R.W. Morgan.

But before I get in to the book, I would like you to do something for me. Get your bible, the King James Version if you have it. That's the one I'm using for referrence. and turn to the 28th chapter of Acts and read verses 30 and 31. If you have read the Book of Acts and noticed Pauls' determination to spread the word. Do those two verses really sound like Paul? After you have done that, turn to and read the 29th chapter. After you read that, leave a post and tell me if you want me to continue with the book I have here in front of me. I'm not going to waste my time if your not.

rHarryr

Hello, rH! Thanx for directing me back to this thread.

It's generally accepted by conservative Bible scholars that Acts ends before Paul's first trial in Rome, at which he was acquitted. Then, after a few more years of freedom, he was arrested again, imprisoned and beheaded by Nero about the time of the Great Fire (possibly somewhat before). So using Acts 28 in this argument is not too helpful. If he did ever travel to Britain, it would most likely have been between his two trials, and thus after the book of Acts was completed (otherwise, Luke would have mentioned it himself).

And what do you mean by "the 29th chapter"? Acts 28:31 is the last verse of the book of Acts; there is no 29th chapter.

But do go ahead and give me the gist of what the book says, if you have the time. I'm interested in what it might have to say.

The (I'll see what I can find on Morgan and his works) Curtmudgeon

[rHarryr]

Like you said, there was time between the first and second trial. Even in that day, he could probably have walked to England in 6 months, less if he rode a horse, and probably even faster by boat, which there is a record in acts that he has used before.

Like you said, Acts ends in the Bible with the 28th chapter. Did the possibility ever occure that maybe those who wrote the King James might not have access to or even known about the 29th chapter. Think of all the manuscripts, papri, and documents found since the King James and most of the other Bibles was written. I would like to continue with what I have, if you and anyone else interested is willing to listen with an open mind.

[Raphael]

Like you said, there was time between the first and second trial. Even in that day, he could probably have walked to England in 6 months, less if he rode a horse, and probably even faster by boat, which there is a record in acts that he has used before.

Like you said, Acts ends in the Bible with the 28th chapter. Did the possibility ever occure that maybe those who wrote the King James might not have access to or even known about the 29th chapter. Think of all the manuscripts, papri, and documents found since the King James and most of the other Bibles was written. I would like to continue with what I have, if you and anyone else interested is willing to listen with an open mind.
You keep on going on about the "29th Chapter" of Acts. Do you have anything to suggest that there ever was a "29th Chapter" of Acts?

Remember that the chaptering was a much later addition to the Bible. and Acts ends without there being a seeming break off in the narrative (it reads like a conclusion)

[One Bad Pig]

In the Parish Life booklet for this month that I got at St. John the Baptist Russian Orthodox church, it has the Life of St. Edward the Martyr (older half-brother of Aethelred the Unready). It seems that the English church was considered Orthodox until the Norman Conquest.

[rHarryr]

Hello Raphael;

The answer to your question is yes. But it is part of the evidence of Paul going to England. It will be introduced in due order. Thanks for asking and hang around. You might find it interesting.

[TyRockwell]

You keep on going on about the "29th Chapter" of Acts. Do you have anything to suggest that there ever was a "29th Chapter" of Acts?

Remember that the chaptering was a much later addition to the Bible. and Acts ends without there being a seeming break off in the narrative (it reads like a conclusion)

Hi, all. Within the last few months I have heard of the 29th chapter of Acts. I pulled it up with a Google search, and read it.

It seems to be consistent with the writing style of Luke, and it does recount a trip to the British Isles.

Additionally, I do not agree that the 28th chapter ends with a 'conclusion' type statement. It seems more like an inconclusive, abrupt ending, and gives no idea as to Paul's fate.

It could be presumed that King James did not want it included in his version of the Bible, believing it best to not antagonize Rome. There is also said to be a 30th chapter of Acts.

[Raphael]

Hello Raphael;

The answer to your question is yes. But it is part of the evidence of Paul going to England. It will be introduced in due order. Thanks for asking and hang around. You might find it interesting.:wink: I plan on doing that


Hi, all. Within the last few months I have heard of the 29th chapter of Acts. I pulled it up with a Google search, and read it. Do you still have the link? (I'm lazy)


It seems to be consistent with the writing style of Luke, and it does recount a trip to the British Isles. Fair enough. But what is the dating of it? Does it pass proper contextual criticism?


Additionally, I do not agree that the 28th chapter ends with a 'conclusion' type statement. It seems more like an inconclusive, abrupt ending, and gives no idea as to Paul's fate. That depends on when Luke wrote Acts. If he wrote it when Paul was released from his firs imprisonment in Rome, then he wouldn't have been able to give an idea of Paul's fate as it wouldn't have happened yet. To me it reads like a conclusion, if you assume Luke to have written is as soon as Paul was freed.


It could be presumed that King James did not want it included in his version of the Bible, believing it best to not antagonize Rome. There is also said to be a 30th chapter of Acts.There are other Bibles translations out there from way before King James that also exclude it (Tyndale, Geneva, Luther etc.).

For the "29th chapter" to be able to be considered genuine, an very early copy would have to be found, preferably one that can be shown to predate the gnostic writings of the second and third centuries.

NOTE: I am always sceptical of certain English claims about the ancient Church because of that annoying phase England went through of only England being true Chrisendom.

[TyRockwell]

:wink: I plan on doing that

Do you still have the link? (I'm lazy)

No, I don't have the link, a friend told me to put "Acts chapter 29" into a Google search, as I recall, and it came up easily.

Fair enough. But what is the dating of it? Does it pass proper contextual criticism?

I can't tell you what the 'experts' on dating and criticism have to say about it. I don't know. I do know that I'm not very impressed by the 'experts.'

That depends on when Luke wrote Acts. If he wrote it when Paul was released from his firs imprisonment in Rome, then he wouldn't have been able to give an idea of Paul's fate as it wouldn't have happened yet. To me it reads like a conclusion, if you assume Luke to have written is as soon as Paul was freed.

That's my feeling, that Luke would have passed on what he had of his writing of Acts before leaving with Paul to Spain and Britton.

There are other Bibles translations out there from way before King James that also exclude it (Tyndale, Geneva, Luther etc.).

As I understand it, Luther translated his version from the Catholic Bible, which likely didn't have it. (If they did, or do have it, it would be buried or burned in the Vatican, so as to not conflict with their claim that the Catholic church goes all the way back to the apostles, in exclusive apostolic succession.

For the "29th chapter" to be able to be considered genuine, an very early copy would have to be found, preferably one that can be shown to predate the gnostic writings of the second and third centuries.

I don't know about how old the copies are.

NOTE: I am always sceptical of certain English claims about the ancient Church because of that annoying phase England went through of only England being true Chrisendom.

So, both Rome and England had reason to put a lid on Acts 29. Rome would not want any legitimacy to the idea that all the church was only Roman from the start. England would not want to have Paul portrayed as submitted to the Roman church.

[Raphael]

Ty, instead of alternating between balck and blue text, could you use the quote system? Because when I push quote all I get is your last few lines. Thanks.....


No, I don't have the link, a friend told me to put "Acts chapter 29" into a Google search, as I recall, and it came up easily. I'll hunt for it this evening then.


I can't tell you what the 'experts' on dating and criticism have to say about it. I don't know. I do know that I'm not very impressed by the 'experts.' Hmmm, I place a high level of importance on what the experts say, without the experts you end up with nutters believing that the Gospel of Judas truly represents Christ.

If the "29th chapter" can only be dated to say the 7th century, then we have no justification for believing it to be valid, but if they can date it to the first century then there is a strong case for it's inclusion in the Book of Acts.


That's my feeling, that Luke would have passed on what he had of his writing of Acts before leaving with Paul to Spain and Britton. Maybe that was all he wrote. :shrug: it does hinge on whether or not the "29th chapter" can be shown to be a valid portion of Acts.


As I understand it, Luther translated his version from the Catholic Bible, which likely didn't have it. (If they did, or do have it, it would be buried or burned in the Vatican, so as to not conflict with their claim that the Catholic church goes all the way back to the apostles, in exclusive apostolic succession. the Catholic claim would not be damaged by Paul going to Britton as they could claim he was under Peter's Papal Authority. I don't think there is a need for conspiracy theories here.


I don't know about how old the copies are.Their age is critical to our accepting them as being valid.
If they are dated too late, then they could be cleverly written forgeries, if they are dated as being very early, then serious consideration needs to be taken for their inclusion in the text. (Something that will give the KJVO folk way more ammo to fire I'm sure)


So, both Rome and England had reason to put a lid on Acts 29. Rome would not want any legitimacy to the idea that all the church was only Roman from the start. England would not want to have Paul portrayed as submitted to the Roman church.I don't see a reason for Rome having put a lid on things, besides even the coptic texts don't have it. England would want it included during the King James period to prove England as being more Christian than Rome, had they known of it's existence.

[rHarryr]

Hello Folks;

There sure is a lot of theories and speculation going on here. Well, maybe I can shed a little light on the subject. First, let's start with a little background.

Go to Romans 16 verse 13. Paul is greating some one named Rufus and his mother. If you check some of those who did some real serious research you will find that Rufus last name pudens is actually Pauls flesh and blood ( probably half) brother and Rufus' mother is also Pauls mother.

Then, if you have a copy, go to Roman Historian Tacitus' Annals Book 12 period 54-58 A.D. ppg. 266-267 in my book. It tells of a British King the Romans called Caratacus, (British name Caradoc), who was so notorious in Rome, that when he was paraded down the street in chains, the citizens stood as they expected him to break the chains and come after them. He was preceded by his brothers, his wife and daughter.

Remember the names Rufus Pudens, Caractacus, and his daughter.

Now key Rufus Pudens in to a search engine and look for the link "Royal Soap: The British-Roman Church, and read a good story that written better than I can write it and based in more historical fact than probably most of you would want to believe.

Talk to you later.

P.S. If you haven't already, don't worry about looking up the 29th chapter of Acts unless you just want to. I'll post it here later on a post by itself.

[Raphael]

Tertullian.org (http://www.tertullian.org) Has a copy of Edgar J. Goodspeed's Strange New Gospels (http://www.tertullian.org/articles/goodspeed_strange_new_gospels.htm) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1931), v+110pp) Chapter 8 deals with this "missing" portion of Acts. Goodspeed's Strange New Gospels deals with apocryphal texts.

The only organisations I can find that take this seriously is the white supremacy group Stormfront, and the British Israelitism movement (which have the blokes that think the lost tribes of Isreal all moved to merry old england)

Nationmaster's encyclopedia (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Acts-chapter-29) has this comment: There is no chapter 29 in the canonical Acts of the Apostles. However, E. Raymond Capt did publish a book which was entitled "The Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles" (ISBN 0934666091), describing alleged travels of Paul of Tarsus in Spain and Britain. The work supports the viewpoint of British Israelitism. Capt claims to have translated it from a manuscript an Italian gentleman discovered in the archives at Constantinople; mainstream philology however considers it to most likely be a fraud perpetrated by Capt to support his views, and thus they class it among the modern apocrypha.

[rHarryr]

Raphael;

Did you READ my post right above yours?? From what you posted, it sounds like you didn't read more than one or two words. Sounds like your wound up tight in tradition. As for Goodspeed, his book "The Apocrypha" has 14 books listed in it that were in the King James up until the late 1800s when a certain group of people decided they didn't like them being there. Then the American and British Bible Societies removed them. As far as the British Iseaelites, When a certain incident in history that was prophisied, occured, That nut case Richard Brothers, I believe his name was, that started the cult, jumped on the bandwagon and scared everybody off. Too Bad, too many people with the ability to influence so many people are not able to decern the Devils hand in something important. And, people still continue to make void GODs' word by their traditions. Please, PLEASE, read my post above. Then read the story I asked everyone to read and the bibliography. Then try to find some good arguements instead of buckets with holes in them, these don't hold water. In other words, Please find arguements against what I have said in stead of something I haven't said.

rHarryr

P.S. If Capt said in his book that the man was from Italy, either you quoted him wrong or he entered the wrong country in his book. The Man was French.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Like you said, there was time between the first and second trial. Even in that day, he could probably have walked to England in 6 months, less if he rode a horse, and probably even faster by boat, which there is a record in acts that he has used before.

Certainly it's possible for Paul to have travelled there by foot, horse or boat; Britain had had fairly regular contact with Rome since Julius made his attempt to conquer it in 55 BC.

But my question was, Is there evidence that he did travel to Britain? It's possible for me to have visited Laredo, TX, because I have lived nearly 50 years in Texas and travelled extensively throughout the state, including many spots along or near the Rio Grande. But in actual fact, I've never been in Laredo. So the mere possibility of the thing is of no use; I want to know, what evidence, if any, do we have for the actual event?


Like you said, Acts ends in the Bible with the 28th chapter. Did the possibility ever occure that maybe those who wrote the King James might not have access to or even known about the 29th chapter. Think of all the manuscripts, papri, and documents found since the King James and most of the other Bibles was written. I would like to continue with what I have, if you and anyone else interested is willing to listen with an open mind.

You're rather uninformed if you think it's only the AV/KJV that ends Acts at Chapter 28; every original manuscript of Acts we have ends there (unless it's a partial manuscript and ends even earlier). Every translation that's been done ends there. There is no 29th Chapter.

I've read a review of Morgan's book you mentioned, and it appears to base its claims on such a 29th chapter. But even in that short review there was plenty of reason to understand that it was written by some Frenchman long after the time of Acts, quite possibly in the 18th or 19th century. It's not Biblical, and it has absolutely no use as evidence of anything, other than the creativity of the author.

Having an "open mind" is fine -- having a mind so open that all your brains fall out is not. I'm asking for evidence, not creative writing.

The (if that's the best you've got, it's not worth my time except possibly for entertainment) Curtmudgeon

[TyRockwell]

Ty, instead of alternating between balck and blue text, could you use the quote system? Because when I push quote all I get is your last few lines. Thanks.....

Now, this is my second attempt to use the 'quote' system for this post, because I hit the 'back' button to check for what had been the question that provoked the response I was now replying to, and of course, I lost what I had put in


I'll hunt for it this evening then.

I tried to find the 29th chapter of Acts again, and only found a wickepedia article about it, and not the text itself, this time.


Hmmm, I place a high level of importance on what the experts say, without the experts you end up with nutters believing that the Gospel of Judas truly represents Christ.

A few experts are helpful, but many get it wrong, also. 'Experts' believe the 70th week of Daniel is future :lmbo: 'Experts' have also given us preterism. :argh:


If the "29th chapter" can only be dated to say the 7th century, then we have no justification for believing it to be valid, but if they can date it to the first century then there is a strong case for it's inclusion in the Book of Acts.

It was in 1961 that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.


Maybe that was all he wrote. :shrug: it does hinge on whether or not the "29th chapter" can be shown to be a valid portion of Acts.

So, if Luke left Rome with Paul, are we to assume he stopped writing, or couldn't work a deal with a publisher?


the Catholic claim would not be damaged by Paul going to Britton as they could claim he was under Peter's Papal Authority. I don't think there is a need for conspiracy theories here.

Why, then, did the representatives from Rome find fault with the churches they found in England? Couldn't it have been they were not instructed to follow traditions that weren't practiced when Paul departed north? Maybe they never heard of a pope?


Their age is critical to our accepting them as being valid.
If they are dated too late, then they could be cleverly written forgeries, if they are dated as being very early, then serious consideration needs to be taken for their inclusion in the text. (Something that will give the KJVO folk way more ammo to fire I'm sure)

What if Luke never brought the additional chapter(s) back to Rome, and only included them in with the previous 28 wherever he went, post-first Roman imprisonment?


I don't see a reason for Rome having put a lid on things, besides even the coptic texts don't have it. England would want it included during the King James period to prove England as being more Christian than Rome, had they known of it's existence.

The RCC would not want to acknowledge legitimate churches that operated outside of their hierarchy, due to the fact that they had never been under their control, and were doing, "just find, thank you," without a pope, or the RCC traditions.

Weren't coptic churches southwest of Israel, in Egypt? They wouldn't necessarily have all the texts that were originating outside of the Roman world.

Maybe England didn't feel the need to prove themselves 'more Christian' than Rome, if they were more Christian.

[rHarryr]

Curt;

Please go back and read my post about the third above your last one and then please do what I ask. You might find the evidence your looking for. Then, let me know when you have finished and I will then try to give you evidence why a Frenchman who found, not wrote the 29th chapter of acts, might be a little more believeable. Look at the other discoveries even later than that. For example, "The Dead Sea Scrolls", The "Chester Beaty Papyri", "The Magdalen Papyri", and no one is accusing them of writting them. Maybe the "29th Chapter of Acts" should be given the should be given the same consideration since they were found, not written by the Frenchman. No one is asking you to let your brains fall out, just shake enough of the traditional cobwebs out to give the evidence I am trying to give, the benefit of the doubt.

[Littlejoe]

Nationmaster's encyclopedia (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Acts-chapter-29) has this comment: There is no chapter 29 in the canonical Acts of the Apostles. However, E. Raymond Capt did publish a book which was entitled "The Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles" (ISBN 0934666091), describing alleged travels of Paul of Tarsus in Spain and Britain. The work supports the viewpoint of British Israelitism. Capt claims to have translated it from a manuscript an Italian gentleman discovered in the archives at Constantinople; mainstream philology however considers it to most likely be a fraud perpetrated by Capt to support his views, and thus they class it among the modern apocrypha.


Raphael;

Did you READ my post right above yours?? From what you posted, it sounds like you didn't read more than one or two words. Sounds like your wound up tight in tradition. As for Goodspeed, his book "The Apocrypha" has 14 books listed in it that were in the King James up until the late 1800s when a certain group of people decided they didn't like them being there. Then the American and British Bible Societies removed them. As far as the British Iseaelites, When a certain incident in history that was prophisied, occured, That nut case Richard Brothers, I believe his name was, that started the cult, jumped on the bandwagon and scared everybody off. Too Bad, too many people with the ability to influence so many people are not able to decern the Devils hand in something important. And, people still continue to make void GODs' word by their traditions. Please, PLEASE, read my post above. Then read the story I asked everyone to read and the bibliography. Then try to find some good arguements instead of buckets with holes in them, these don't hold water. In other words, Please find arguements against what I have said in stead of something I haven't said.

rHarryr

P.S. If Capt said in his book that the man was from Italy, either you quoted him wrong or he entered the wrong country in his book. The Man was French.
Not really. This is the same Capt that I have already shown to be in error on the Great Pyramids in our Pyramids n' Stuff discussion. He misses badly on a couple of his "facts" about the pyramid dimensions. IMO, his stuff is already suspect by me.

LJ

[One Bad Pig]

It was in 1961 that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found.
:no: 1948.


So, if Luke left Rome with Paul, are we to assume he stopped writing, or couldn't work a deal with a publisher?
:twitch: publisher?

[rHarryr]

Hey Littlejoe;

I don't know anything about that book that Capt is supposed to have written. What I'm doing here is trying to provide evidence that Paul was in England. I haven't read anything by Capt concerning this. And, like I said above, if Capt did say Italian, he either spoke wrong, or the guy misquoted him. Or, maybe it's a typo. I don't know.

Please read my posts. I can point to evidence on this one.

rHarryr

P.S. Have you ever run accross a book where the writer was wrong about things in that book but appeared to know more about what he was talking about in another? I'm not saying Capt is right, just consider giving him the benefit of the doubt. If anybody is given enough they will either straighten it out or they will hang themselves.

[rHarryr]

One Bad Pig;

Your right, they were found in the "40s". As far as the other, please read my posts and do what I ask so you can have a little background about them.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

Now, this is my second attempt to use the 'quote' system for this post, because I hit the 'back' button to check for what had been the question that provoked the response I was now replying to, and of course, I lost what I had put in Thank-you, it is much appreciated. I am sorry you had a little difficulty with it (I also hate it when I lose a whole post)


I tried to find the 29th chapter of Acts again, and only found a wickepedia article about it, and not the text itself, this time. I found the same article/


A few experts are helpful, but many get it wrong, also. 'Experts' believe the 70th week of Daniel is future :lmbo: 'Experts' have also given us preterism. :argh::shrug: I don't go much into eschatology. But philology is a completely different field.


It was in 1961 that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. They were found in 1948. They were dated to the first century.
The importance is not when it was found, but when is it dated to. They could dig up manuscripts tomorrow containing another 50 chapters to Acts, and if those can be dated to the first century, then they need to be carefully considered. If they can only date them to the 10th century, they will be considered apocryphal.


So, if Luke left Rome with Paul, are we to assume he stopped writing, or couldn't work a deal with a publisher?Because Maybe Luke only wrote it during Paul's fist imprisonment, and then sent it to Theophilus as he and Paul were headed off elsewhere.


Why, then, did the representatives from Rome find fault with the churches they found in England? Couldn't it have been they were not instructed to follow traditions that weren't practised when Paul departed north? Maybe they never heard of a pope?Again, the Catholic church could have used Paul going to Britton to their advantage, and labelled the entire Britton church as being apostate for not regarding Paul's teachings. If Acts 29 had been around then, Rome would have found a way to use it to their advantage.


What if Luke never brought the additional chapter(s) back to Rome, and only included them in with the previous 28 wherever he went, post-first Roman imprisonment? He wrote a letter to his mate Theophilus. He wasn't writing Paul's autobiography with chapters.


The RCC would not want to acknowledge legitimate churches that operated outside of their hierarchy, due to the fact that they had never been under their control, and were doing, "just find, thank you," without a pope, or the RCC traditions. The RCC would have been able to use Acts 29 to their advantage. There is no need for a conspiracy theory.


Weren't coptic churches southwest of Israel, in Egypt? They wouldn't necessarily have all the texts that were originating outside of the Roman world.I stand corrected but don't the coptic texts include Luke's letter to Theophilus?


Maybe England didn't feel the need to prove themselves 'more Christian' than Rome, if they were more Christian.I take it you know very little about the British Israelitism movement. They claimed that the 10 lost tribes of Israel were living in England and that King George was a direct descendant of David, among other nonsense. The British Israelitism movement wanted, and still wants the centre of Chrisendom to be London, not Rome, and not Jerusalem. They believe that the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven and come to rest on England's green hills.

[Raphael]

Raphael;

Did you READ my post right above yours?? From what you posted, it sounds like you didn't read more than one or two words. I did read your whole post. And then went and did a little research.


Sounds like your wound up tight in tradition. Why? Because I want credible proof of the manuscript having existed?

As for Goodspeed, his book "The Apocrypha" has 14 books listed in it that were in the King James up until the late 1800s when a certain group of people decided they didn't like them being there. I think you will find that the Jerusalem Bible has all those books.

Then the American and British Bible Societies removed them.For very good reasons. The texts are still freely available. They are good reading. There is no reason for people to not study them. They're just not canonical.


As far as the British Iseaelites, When a certain incident in history that was prophisied, occured, That nut case Richard Brothers, I believe his name was, that started the cult, jumped on the bandwagon and scared everybody off. Too Bad, too many people with the ability to influence so many people are not able to decern the Devils hand in something important. And, people still continue to make void GODs' word by their traditions. Can you repeat that without being so cryptic about things?


Please, PLEASE, read my post above. I did

Then read the story I asked everyone to read and the bibliography. Again I did, I'll even link to it here (http://www.asis.com/users/stag/roylsoap.html) (warning, don't read while drinking coffee).
His genealogy chart is completely nutty.
He relies rather heavily on Capt who has been proven to be wrong (as referenced by LJ).
You say that you know nothing about Capt (who is the only source for the Acts 29, and a major source for the article you told me to read). Did you read the Bibliography?
He also uses HW Armstrong as a source who was also a cult leader. These aren't trustworthy sources. (I had the Armstong book, inherited it from my grandmother...one of the few books I've tossed for being complete and utter nonsense)

Then try to find some good arguements instead of buckets with holes in them, these don't hold water. In other words, Please find arguements against what I have said in stead of something I haven't said.

rHarryr

P.S. If Capt said in his book that the man was from Italy, either you quoted him wrong or he entered the wrong country in his book. The Man was French.We're talking here about the supposed existence of another portion of the Book of Acts. What evidence do we have that this portion exists? We have Capt, who produces an English text, which he says is the translation of a French (or Italian, it doesn't really matter) translation (we don't seem to have that) of a manuscript that has neither been seen, nor heard of both before.

You haven't produced anything that indicates that Acts 29 is nothing more than a 19th century fake, by a man trying to promote his belief in the British Isrealism movement

I have got an open mind about this issue, but until you produce some proper evidence (The Royal Soap article is not evidence).

[Littlejoe]

We're talking here about the supposed existence of another portion of the Book of Acts. What evidence do we have that this portion exists? We have Capt, who produces an English text, which he says is the translation of a French (or Italian, it doesn't really matter) translation (we don't seem to have that) of a manuscript that has neither been seen, nor heard of both before.

You haven't produced anything that indicates that Acts 29 is nothing more than a 19th century fake, by a man trying to promote his belief in the British Isrealism movement

I have got an open mind about this issue, but until you produce some proper evidence (The Royal Soap article is not evidence).
[Begin= Mr. Rogers voice]Can you say "Joseph Smith"? Surrre Ya can![/Mr. Rogers voice] :lol:

LJ

[Raphael]

whoops, I forgot to complete my last sentence (went back up and edited something else).

I have got an open mind about this issue, but until you produce some proper evidence (The Royal Soap article is not evidence) I don't see why I should accept that there is a "29th Chapter of Acts".

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curt;

Please go back and read my post about the third above your last one and then please do what I ask. You might find the evidence your looking for. Then, let me know when you have finished and I will then try to give you evidence why a Frenchman who found, not wrote the 29th chapter of acts, might be a little more believeable. Look at the other discoveries even later than that. For example, "The Dead Sea Scrolls", The "Chester Beaty Papyri", "The Magdalen Papyri", and no one is accusing them of writting them. Maybe the "29th Chapter of Acts" should be given the should be given the same consideration since they were found, not written by the Frenchman. No one is asking you to let your brains fall out, just shake enough of the traditional cobwebs out to give the evidence I am trying to give, the benefit of the doubt.

I did read your post, rHarryr. I'll answer it point-by-point below, just to show you how bogus all this material is. But to answer this later post first:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, et al. have been dated to the appropriate time periods, and are well known and discussed by all scholars of the Biblical era. This supposed Acts 29 has been rejected by all scholars of the Biblical era. When it shows up in the Nestle-Aland critical text of the NT, it'll be worth paying attention to. Don't hold your breath. Asking for verifiable historical evidence is not "traditional cobwebs" unless you have a prior commitment to unverifiable, unhistorical non-evidential fables.

Now, to go back to your earlier post:


Hello Folks;

There sure is a lot of theories and speculation going on here. Well, maybe I can shed a little light on the subject. First, let's start with a little background.

Go to Romans 16 verse 13. Paul is greating some one named Rufus and his mother. If you check some of those who did some real serious research you will find that Rufus last name pudens is actually Pauls flesh and blood ( probably half) brother and Rufus' mother is also Pauls mother.

The purported last name 'Pudens' appears nowhere in the text of Romans. I do not dispute that the Rufus named in Romans is quite possibly Paul's brother or other relative, but that proves nothing in itself. "Rufus" merely means "Red" (red-haired or ruddy complected), and as such has been born by hundreds if not thousands of individuals.


Then, if you have a copy, go to Roman Historian Tacitus' Annals Book 12 period 54-58 A.D. ppg. 266-267 in my book. It tells of a British King the Romans called Caratacus, (British name Caradoc), who was so notorious in Rome, that when he was paraded down the street in chains, the citizens stood as they expected him to break the chains and come after them.

The last claim, which I have underlined, does not appear in Tacitus' text. Tacitus mentions that all the others being paraded as slaves along with Caractacus showed fear, but not Caractacus; he (Tacitus) doesn't mention the citizens except to say that they were summoned to see a great spectacle (the triumph).


He was preceded by his brothers, his wife and daughter.

Remember the names Rufus Pudens, Caractacus, and his daughter.

Yes, what about that daughter?

Tradition says that the Claudia mentioned by St. Paul (2 Tim.iv. 21) was his daughter and introduced Christianity into Britain, but there is no historical evidence to support this legend.

[emphasis added]


Now key Rufus Pudens in to a search engine and look for the link "Royal Soap: The British-Roman Church, and read a good story that written better than I can write it and based in more historical fact than probably most of you would want to believe.

It certainly is an entertaining story, and if you say it's better-written than anything you could write I'll take your word for it. But an entertaining story doesn't make for historical evidence, and that's all Soapy has. What little "historical fact" that it might be based on is overwhelmed by the fables and folklore that he has filled it with. He can't even be self-consistent in the space of two consecutive paragraphs!

For ninety-seven years [after Julius Caesar in 53 BC] no Roman again ventured to set foot on the island, and when the eagle of Romulus once more expanded its pinions to the stormy winds of ocean it was when no other enemy, unconquered, confronted its gaze from the Euphrates to Gibraltar, and the forces of the whole empire were ready to follow its leading against the solitary free nationality of the West

Augustus sent ambassadors to Britain demanding the restoration of the three Reguli of the Coritani, or Coraniaid, Dumno, Belaunus, and Jernian, to their estates, confiscated for treason.

You are aware, are you not, that Augustus died in AD 14? From 53 BC to AD 14 is a total of 67 years, not 97. Okay, maybe he just doesn't do math very well or made a typo. Still, if he can't be bothered to proofread his work, why should I treat it as serious scholarship? Furthermore:

Augustus sent ambassadors to Britain demanding the restoration of the three Reguli of the Coritani, or Coraniaid, Dumno, Belaunus, and Jernian, to their estates, confiscated for treason. Tenuantius, the son of Caswallon, a mild, pacific monarch, had sent his two sons, Cynvelin and Llyr (Lear), to be educated at Rome, where they were brought up with his nephews in his palace by Augustus himself, who made a rule, as Suetonius informs us, of teaching the younger branches of his family in person. Cynvelin subsequently served in the German campaigns under Germanicus. He had now succeeded his father, and received the Roman ambassadors with courtesy, but peremptorily rejected the interference of a foreign potentate in the affairs of the island. Augustus moved half the disposable forces of the empire to the Gallic harbors on the Channel, but he never entertained serious intentions of an invasion.

None of this is mentioned by Suetonius, except nearly the statement "of teaching the younger branches of his family in person", which only means that Augustus taught members of his own family, not anyone else. In fact, what Suetonius actually said was:

He usually instructed his grandsons himself in reading, swimming, and other rudiments of knowledge; and he laboured nothing more than to perfect them in the imitation of his hand-writing.

So it was only his own grandsons that Augustus taught, and he didn't teach them very much.


Talk to you later.

P.S. If you haven't already, don't worry about looking up the 29th chapter of Acts unless you just want to. I'll post it here later on a post by itself.

Don't bother on my account. I've got plenty other sci-fi and fantasy books to read right now.

The (it's a real pity that the current generation has lost the meaning of the word evidence) Curtmudgeon

[rHarryr]

Well, it appears that none of you are interested in what I have to say, so I'll just say. Sorry I bothered you.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

Well, it appears that none of you are interested in what I have to say, so I'll just say. Sorry I bothered you.

rHarryr
We're interested, if you have evidence to back up your claims.

That evidence needs to come from credible sources.

[One Bad Pig]

One Bad Pig;

Your right, they were found in the "40s". As far as the other, please read my posts and do what I ask so you can have a little background about them.

rHarryr
Harry,

I've read your posts. I'm very much a history buff. The Anglo-Israel theory has been tried and found sorely wanting. Even disregarding the highly questionable historicity of the movement, what's the sense in being proud of being descended from apostates? Hey, it would be cool if St. Paul really visited the British Isles. However, when I want something to be true, it behooves me to attempt a skeptical approach, lest I be swayed into believing something that lacks credibility.

[Adrift]

This is like the 3rd time in the last 2 weeks I've seen someone sort of just leave the forum/thread disheartened by the audience response to their hidden knowledge. I get the impression that sometimes folks who wander onto the forums assume no one is going to fact check.

[Littlejoe]

This is like the 3rd time in the last 2 weeks I've seen someone sort of just leave the forum/thread disheartened by the audience response to their hidden knowledge. I get the impression that sometimes folks who wander onto the forums assume no one is going to fact check.
Yeah, Folks who do are in for a rude awakening here at TWEB! :hehe: You don't just post any ole thing here and get away with it. :lol: I found that out the hard way too! :hehe: But I sure wouldn't have it any other way.

LJ

[rHarryr]

Did you guys think I left because I hadn't said anything for a while?

Just so no one thinks I give up that easy when I'm trying to prove something, I was just finishing up a post about ten minutes ago and when I tried to post it, I had been kicked off. I was starting to wonder if it was done deliberately because when I log back in, my post had been errased. I didn't cut and run.

rHarryr

[Adrift]

Did you guys think I left because I hadn't said anything for a while?

Just so no one thinks I give up that easy when I'm trying to prove something, I was just finishing up a post about ten minutes ago and when I tried to post it, I had been kicked off. I was starting to wonder if it was done deliberately because when I log back in, my post had been errased. I didn't cut and run.

rHarryr

I thought you left because you wrote this:


Well, it appears that none of you are interested in what I have to say, so I'll just say. Sorry I bothered you.

I doubt very much that anyone is deliberately deleting your posts. Welcome to web forums, where 10 minute long posts tend to go the way of missing socks on occasion. That's the reason that, no matter which forum I'm on, I always back up any incredibly long post before I click the "Submit" button.

[rHarryr]

I'm not going back and take another thirty minutes or so trying to re-write the whole post again and take the chance of being kicked off again. Instead I'll just say, I appologized to Curt for some that I wrote in a post that didn't come out the way I intended, and didn't see it until he pointed it out. My book doesn't have that in it either.

The only thing I'll add right now is that Queen Elizabeth II authorized a chart that traces her lineage all the way back to Judah. And, along the way most if not all of the people mentioned in that story I asked you to read are listed. Now I don't expect you to believe me, and I'm not going to give you the address where you can get it lest you think I'm trying to pass off a fake document. If you want to find out for sure, contact the Queens' public relations office or someone in that general area and ask if they will sell you one. By the way, England is not the only place the lost tribes setteled.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Thanks Adrift;

That's comforting to know. I guess I'll have to start writting them in MS Word and then copy and paste them here.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

First, there is no conspiracy to boot you off before you post. Welcome to the Internet, these things happen. I've spent over two hours working on a post only to have it all disappear because my session had timed out.

The only thing I'll add right now is that Queen Elizabeth II authorized a chart that traces her lineage all the way back to Judah. And, along the way most if not all of the people mentioned in that story I asked you to read are listed. Now I don't expect you to believe me, and I'm not going to give you the address where you can get it lest you think I'm trying to pass off a fake document. If you want to find out for sure, contact the Queens' public relations office or someone in that general area and ask if they will sell you one. By the way, England is not the only place the lost tribes setteled.My family tree goes back to King Egbert, first king of all England, I have a close friend who we discovered, when comparing family trees found that six generations ago we're the same family (in the line that goes to Egbert).

My friend has the documents proving his line back in South Africa, and my father has our copies of the family tree, also in South Africa. The line to Egbert seems to be completely legitimate (as I have two independant sources for it)

Now I've found articles showing Egbert's line going back to King Priam of Troy, and from there back to Adam. Now I'm a little doubtful of the line from Egbert backwards because there are a coupla spots that I think are more than a little creative. (well actually between Priam and Noah it does seem to get more than a little creative).

I say all this to make it clear that I have researched these family lines in rather a large amount of detail, it is a hobby of mine.

However portions of this line are based on documentation that is suspect, or common legend, we do not know if it is valid. It means that although QEII can "trace" her line back to Abraham, so can I. The problem is some if those genealogies are suspect as they aren't verifiable.

[b]I still fail to see how this supports there being a valid manuscript that is an extension of the Book of Acts.[b]

[rHarryr]

Welcom to the club Raphael;

Most everyone in the world can trace there acestry back to Abraham. All can trace back to Noah if you can believe the Bible, hence back to Adam. The thing with the Queen though, don't forget that she has access to more resources than the rest of us. Her chart also list the House of Troy including Priam, out of Laomedon, out of, looks like Ilus., out of Tros. or Troes. out of Erichthonius, out of Darda, of Dara or Dardanus what ever you choose to call him out of Mahol., out of Ethan., out of Zarah., out of Judah. Somewhere between Ethan and Darda in Troy, and I believe Calcol in Greece, were the Hyksos rulers in Egypt after Joseph and before the Pharoh that knew not Joseph. Sounds like you need to get the Queens chart, you may have similar ancestors. And, with her resources, you can probably count on less exaggeration.

rHarryr

P. S. Did you catch the part about the same names that were in the story. There is a connection, no matter how small it may seem to you.

[Raphael]

Welcom to the club Raphael;

Most everyone in the world can trace there acestry back to Abraham. All can trace back to Noah if you can believe the Bible, hence back to Adam. The thing with the Queen though, don't forget that she has access to more resources than the rest of us. Her chart also list the House of Troy including Priam, out of Laomedon, out of, looks like Ilus., out of Tros. or Troes. out of Erichthonius, out of Darda, of Dara or Dardanus what ever you choose to call him out of Mahol., out of Ethan., out of Zarah., out of Judah. Somewhere between Ethan and Darda in Troy, and I believe Calcol in Greece, were the Hyksos rulers in Egypt after Joseph and before the Pharoh that knew not Joseph. Sounds like you need to get the Queens chart, you may have similar ancestors. And, with her resources, you can probably count on less exaggeration.

rHarryr

P. S. Did you catch the part about the same names that were in the story. There is a connection, no matter how small it may seem to you.
I still fail to see how this supports there being a valid manuscript that is an extension of the Book of Acts.

Two: It is a common thing for people living in the same time frame to actually have the same name.

Three: I don't need the queens chart, the information is freely available off the Internet. People have paid lots of money to genealogists, who all use the same base of information, and they have published their family trees on the Internet. If the queen expended a large sum of money in this task then she was ripped off for something that can take me twenty minutes in Google.

[rHarryr]

I got mine in the late "80s". It was printed in the "70s", and first published in 1902. It's possible that it's been around before Gurgle or even the compooter. Don't you think.

rHarry

[rHarryr]

I curious Raphael;

Are you deliberately being argumentative? Or, do you just refuse to accept the possibility that all referrences could be talking about the same people? If so, I can't help but wonder why.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

I got mine in the late "80s". It was printed in the "70s", and first published in 1902. It's possible that it's been around before Gurgle or even the compooter. Don't you think.

rHarry
sigh Mine was photographed by my grandmother in the 50's it is a photo of a much older document.
My friends one was done by his grandfather in the 50's/60's.

Google searching genealogy.com just make life a little easier and makes thing less expensive

Again: genealogies aren't the topic at hand. Is there any valid proof of the existence of a manuscript that is an extension of the book of Acts, that was penned by Luke?

[rHarryr]

Raphael;

I believe there is but, I wont say yes there is or no there is not. When I finish copying it and pasting it in a post, then you can read it and decide for yourself. I'm not here to make anyone believe anything. Just present what I have to say and let all of you take it from there.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Right now I copying part of the forward to the book that it is in. I consider that evidence also, but I doubt y'all will. Again, read it for yourself, then, you decide whether or not you want to accept it. I'll be back later when I finish it.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

rHarryr the evidence required would need to be the original manuscript that Capt claims to have translated his version from (I mean the original that was then supposedly translated into french which Capt then claims to have translated into english)

This MSS would then need to be analysed and tested by philographers and would need to be dated.

If it cannot be dated to the first century, then it's authenticity will remain in doubt, and it should not be given any more importance than any other apocryphal document.

If it can be dated to the first century, and can be demonstrated from philography that it is consistent with Luke's writing, then serious consideration needs to be given to it.

If however all we have is the writing of Capt, then it must be considered a 19th century fraud.

[One Bad Pig]

Harry, please don't violate copyright laws by posting all that here. Send me a PM with the copyright information so I can determine how much you can safely post.

[rHarryr]

One Bad Pig;

I can find no copyright anywhere in the book but, while I continue to look, check out these sites. It seems that we are not the only ones talking about the 29th Chapter of Acts. You will find other people that think the same as you, and also maybe a couple that think the same as me. One sites quotes a guy that wrote about it in 1801. Copy and paste these in your browser. Maybe they will work. I'll be back later.

http://bible-news.com/2007-yahshua-yahweh/acts-lost-chapter-sonnini-manuscript.htm#not

http://www.keithhunt.com/Acts29.html

http://www.thebibleforum.com/new/showthread.php?t=282&page=2



rHarryr

P.S. You will also see the English translation of the 29th Chapter.

[rHarryr]

I'm beginning to believe that most of you are tired of this subject because I haven't seen any replies to my last post. I have been unable to find the whereabouts of the original greek manuscript. There is the possibility that if it still exists, it might be back in the archives in Istanbul. In which case, it being a, mostly Muslim, country, they probably won't admit to a Christian document being there. Besides, the reason for my bringing it up to begin with, was for evidence that the Apostle Paul did visit England and that he was not the first. Christianity was already there brought by Joseph of Arimathea, and whoever was with him.

rHarryr

[Adrift]

No offense, but i think most people aren't posting because the whole idea is so preposterous its not worth the time exploring. Furthermore, people in this forum seem to learn pretty quickly that if others want to believe in the absurd, there's not much use in trying to convince them otherwise :shrug:

From my short time here it seems that, typically, the more outlandish the concept is, the tighter the conspiracy theorist holds to it.

When ideas are as off the wall as Paul hanging out in England, Paul inventing a mythical Jesus, or Mary Magdalene and Jesus moving to the South of France, those who present these ideas are so enraptured by them that they fail to notice how absolutely and completely unrealistic they are. They seem to be living in lala land, and almost no rational conversation is worthy of the time it would take to talk them out of it. Seriously. I've seen rational arguments go on for over 30 pages with absolutely no change of mind to the conspiracy theorist. In the end one must simply leave the theorist to their own wild imagination.

[rHarryr]

Adrift;

If I am considered a conspiracy theorist, well, so be it. To me, every one seams so bound by what they consider acceptable, that if Jesus hisself typed in something contrary to what they have already accepted, they would consider Him a conspiracy theorist also. I don't expect everybody to accept everything I say, just give it enough consideration to check it out for themselves. Also, if they only stick to their previously accepted sources, they will never find out if anything I say is true of false, and they can't prove that I'm saying something wrong until they check out my sources and prove them wrong before I will admit to being wrong. If anything I say is right and they dismiss it without checking it out, then who is the real looser? If they can prove me wrong, so be it, I'm not infallible, I'm only human. If I make a mistake and someone can show me where or what. I will apologize and change what I say, but not until someone can prove me wrong. If no one wants to talk to me because I have different ideas and beliefs than they do, then just say you don't like someone who thinks outside your accepted parameters, and I'll bow out and never bother any of you again. I'm beginning to believe that may be the case. I can't even wish everyone a happy Easter or Passover season and get a response.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

Adrift;

If I am considered a conspiracy theorist, well, so be it. Comments like "there is evidence, but people have hidden it, are a sign of conspiracy theory.


To me, every one seams so bound by what they consider acceptable, that if Jesus hisself typed in something contrary to what they have already accepted, they would consider Him a conspiracy theorist also. No, it's called not believing everything that is on the internet, or that someone manages to put in a book.


I don't expect everybody to accept everything I say, just give it enough consideration to check it out for themselves. We did, there was not enough evidence to support the position.

I plainly stated several times that if there was a primary source that could be dated to the first century then it would needed to be given serious consideration for inclusion in our current NT. However if there is no early source, than no matter how exciting the story may be, it belongs with the rest of the apocryphal literature. And in this case all the evidence points to it being a 19th Century fake.


Also, if they only stick to their previously accepted sources, they will never find out if anything I say is true of false, and they can't prove that I'm saying something wrong until they check out my sources and prove them wrong before I will admit to being wrong. We checked out your sources, they are discredited sources. Therefore they aren't considered valid.


If anything I say is right and they dismiss it without checking it out, then who is the real looser? But we did check it out, and found that there was not enough evidence to support your position


If they can prove me wrong, so be it, I'm not infallible, I'm only human.No-one was accusing anyone of being infallible.


If I make a mistake and someone can show me where or what. Sources who have been completely discredited.
Lack of primary evidence.


I will apologize and change what I say, but not until someone can prove me wrong. We've given the standard required for accepting the validity of the documents, it is a reasonable standard.


If no one wants to talk to me because I have different ideas and beliefs than they do, then just say you don't like someone who thinks outside your accepted parameters, and I'll bow out and never bother any of you again. No-one was talking because we'd given our opinions on what you had presented and had nothing more to say.


I'm beginning to believe that may be the case.There are people on tweb with ideas that make yours look perfectly acceptable, and they get talked to


I can't even wish everyone a happy Easter or Passover season and get a response.I was away for the long weekend (and being in NZ means it started before everyone else) But Happy Easter.

-Roger

[rHarryr]

Raphael;

If I recall correctly, I never once suggested that the 29th Chapter of Acts should be added to the Bible. I was merely referring to it as evidence that Paul was in England and that it was made known at exactly the right time for the prophecy in it to be fulfilled. As far as the Frenchman was concerned, example: At the time of WWII, was anything recorded anywhere that Germany put something in print that glorified England or the United States? The same conditions, pretty much existed at that time between France and England. Question: Why would any Frenchman publish anything that glorified his mortal enemy. This may not have any baring on the way all of you think, but it did make me want to take a second look. Again, I'm not trying to get the 29th Chapt. entered in the Bible. Just compare what it says with what happened in history at the time of the 7th taking of the census in England. Check it out and tell me whether on not they can be connected.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

Raphael;

If I recall correctly, I never once suggested that the 29th Chapter of Acts should be added to the Bible. No you didn't, but the very inference that it is the 29th Chapter of acts means that if it is legitimate, it should be included.
If it is legitimate, it should be included, if it is illegitimate then there is no reason to refer to it at all.

I was merely referring to it as evidence that Paul was in EnglandBut unless it can be verified as being credible it is not evidence of Paul going anywhere.

and that it was made known at exactly the right time for the prophecy in it to be fulfilled. Which would be the case if it was only written then

As far as the Frenchman was concerned, example: At the time of WWII, was anything recorded anywhere that Germany put something in print that glorified England or the United States? The same conditions, pretty much existed at that time between France and England. Question: Why would any Frenchman publish anything that glorified his mortal enemy. This may not have any baring on the way all of you think, but it did make me want to take a second look. I don't think the frenchman wrote anything, I think that Capt was the one who did the forgery as he seems to be the originator of the whole thing.


Again, I'm not trying to get the 29th Chapt. entered in the Bible. Just compare what it says with what happened in history at the time of the 7th taking of the census in England. Check it out and tell me whether on not they can be connected.I have checked it out, and there is nothing that says it can't be a 19th century forgery.

[rHarryr]

Oh well, so be it. But, I still don't know why people keep referring to that Johnny come lately Capt. when there was so much written about it before he was even Born. Capt was never entered into the conversion by me. Some one else through his name into the pot, and now everyone else seams to be throwing him up as if I was the one that referenced him. Why is everyone so infatuated with Capt.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

Ummmm, your source that you posted relies heavily on Capt.

[rHarryr]

No. No it doesn't. I have never read Capt on this subject. Have you? I have only read Capt on the Pyramid and when a mistake was pointed out that he made on that subject, I admitted it and immediately started trying to find the other books I had by others that came before him. I didn't have the books I needed so I recommended that the person I was talking too, look up the names of all of the Pyramidologist an go to the library and look in their books because I couldn't find mine. As far as this subject, I didn't even know Capt had written on it until one of you pointed it out. And, if what that person said that Capt said is true, I would consider him a very spurious source also.

rHarryr

[Raphael]

You told us to look at the royal soap article as it supported what you were saying and said that it "based in more historical fact than probably most of you would want to believe."

We had a look at it, and his major source was Capt.

[rHarryr]

Are you sure you don't mean that Capts' major source was the same as the source for this story. If you read the bibliography you would see that Capts' name was only one of many, and I guarantee you, he was nowhere near being the major source. I'm beginning to wonder if the one's that do read what I asked you to read only read at it and don't actually read it. When I signed on to this forum and started to introduce myself, I asked people to read my blog to find out more about me. The first response came from somewhere out in left field. It had nothing to do with anything I said. when I brought it to this persons attention and asked him to go back and re-read MY blog. He admitted that he had read someone elses and apologized. I still think he was kidding around with me, but I have noticed some of the others that I've talked to seamed to be doing somewhat the same thing. Only reading at what I said and responded with what looked like they were trying to put their words in my mouth. I can't help but feel that is what is happening here the way everyone keeps trying to put Capts' words in my mouth. Those links I entered in a previous post that I never got a response about, one of them referenced a quote from an individual, I think he was a preacher, in 1801. That was just a few years after the controversial chapter or Acts was introduced to the public. All of you would be happy to know that he agreed with the opinion all of you seam to have. [B][I][U]PLEASE [B][I][U] stop referring to Capt as the ultimate authority!!! HE'S NOT!! There are a lot of other people that came before him. Please visit those links. And find those other people, and stop quoting Capt as if he was the origin of everything, He's not GOD is. Capt is only attempting to confirm what others have said, Whether he's wrong or right is not my concern. GOD is a god of set times. He controls everything. And, He decides when certain things will be made known, and no one else. What He will not control is everyones reaction to what is made known. But, He will open some chosen ones eyes to see when no one else can. Those that refuse to see, especially those whose eyes He has opened, yet chose to follow the worlds point of view are the ones who had better take a second look at their FAITH and I don't mean their denomination. Stop reading Capt into everything I say. Open your eyes and look beyond him. GOD wants to reveal HIMSELF and His hand on history. After all, history is His (GODs) story.

rHarryr

P.S. Now you can call me a fanatic, a conspirator, or anything else you want. If your are supposed to learn about this, and your rejecting it, I'm in good company, with certain others that have been rejected.

[rHarryr]

Please see my latest post under Research thread, this category.

rHarryr

[One Bad Pig]

Capt is only attempting to confirm what others have said, Whether he's wrong or right is not my concern.
:huh: You mean it doesn't matter whether he's wrong or right?


What He will not control is everyones reaction to what is made known. But, He will open some chosen ones eyes to see when no one else can.
Why would God want to hide the truth from people? This seems to go against the words you closed with, "GOD wants to reveal HIMSELF and His hand on history. After all, history is His (GODs) story."


Those that refuse to see, especially those whose eyes He has opened, yet chose to follow the worlds point of view are the ones who had better take a second look at their FAITH and I don't mean their denomination.
Harry, please don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is following the world's point of view. There is plenty of room for disagreement within the church, and something as minor as whether or not St. Paul visited England should never be a determinant of faith.

[rHarryr]

One Bad Pig;

I just lost the post that I wrote responding to your questions. I guess I, maybe, wasn't supposed to say all that I did. You could say that I took too long typing it. About 20 or 30 minutes or longer. But, I'm inclined to believe there is another reason that has nothing to do with the way this forum operates or the people on it. Reason being, the post I just finished before responding to you took me at least an hour, maybe more.
In any case, what I will repeat, more or less, is that my assumption has nothing to do with agreeing with me. I don't normally visit this type of forum because most of what I see on them disagrees with what I've been taught. I was looking for something entirely different when I ran across the link to here. Normally, I would have kept on going. But I felt compelled to click on the link and started reading and could not pull myself away. As rediculass as it sounds, it's almost as if I was led here. Take that anyway you want with a grain of salt. But, if it had been my choice, I wouldn't started reading much less join the forum. So anything I say here isn't based sol-ly on what I believe. More so on what I've learned. I could go on talking about how I know what I have learned is right but that would take another hour or two. My back is bothering me and I don't think I could sit here that long anyway. But don't think anything I say is based on whether anyone agrees with me or not. Whether you or anyone esle accepts it or not is your business. Mine is just to present it and challange you to prove it wrong, which I don't think you can. If you're interested, visit my blog.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

I need to make a correction to something I said of a previous post and answer some questions.
First, the preachers' review in 1801 was at best one year after the introduction to the public because the earliest time is some time in 1800 that it was introduced.
Second, Capt, not being a source for what I write, makes it of no concern to me because he is not a source I went to on this subject.
Third, I didn't say GOD was hiding anything. He uses certain of His people to reveal Him and His ways. By His nature, He will not force Himself on anyone. The freedom of choice He gave was that we have the option to decide whom we will follow. Him or the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is those of us among the chosen that judge what He reveals according to the worlds acceptable standards that need to take a second look at our Faith. This has nothing to do with whether anyone agrees with me or not. Like He used Balem's ass to get a message to him, He could be using me, and I consider myself no better of worse than Balem's animal, to pass this information about Paul and his trip to Britain on to all of you. Or, at least those of you that find yourselves unusually curious about it. I hope I clarified my previous post.

rHarryr

[Adam]

I have read from time to time of the "29th Chapter of Acts", always in the context of frauds and forgeries.
Here's Edgar J. Goodspeed (famed Bible translator) in 1931 in Strange New Gospels, p. 93-95:


We have already seen, in discussing the "Confession of Pontius Pilate," that the story of his suicide on Mount Pilatus is a late legend. The researches of General Wallace and President Angell at Constantinople have shown that no such manuscripts as are here implied are known in the libraries there. On the other hand no manuscript of the Acts in Greek or any other tongue contains the chapter, and the conclusion is unavoidable that it was composed to support the British-Israel movement which circulates it. The testimony of the |94 Druids in verse 13, and Paul's prophecy of St. Paul's Cathedral and of the seventh British census of 1861, and the rise of the British-Israel movement soon after, verse 10, show this interest unmistakably.

That the original Greek of this chapter was given to Sonnini by the Sultan has no support from Sonnini's book of travels, according to which he did not even see the Sultan, but secured his permission to travel, through others.

The fantastic legend that the Lake of Lucerne assumed its present shape, faintly suggesting a crucifix, on the occasion of Paul's visit there (p. 21) is altogether unlike the writer of Acts, especially the part of his work that deals with Paul.

The reference to Pilate's washing his hands at the time of Jesus' trial (vs. 22) would be strangely out of place in Acts, the author of which does not mention it in his account of the trial (Luke 23). The words "men and brethren" (vs. 25) reflect an old mistranslation of a Greek phrase in Acts, now generally corrected; and the expression "Verily I say," here put (vs. 25) into the mouth of Paul, is one never used by Luke, and rigidly reserved by Matthew and John ("Verily, verily I say") for |95 Jesus alone. To use it of Paul is most unlike the New Testament.

In view of its interest in the British census of 1861 (vs. 10), and the popularity given to ideas of this kind by the work of Piazzi Smyth in the sixties of the last century, it is probable that this curious chapter was written not long before its publication in 1871. |96
I'm not saying fHarry is a liar. However, he is deluded and passing on an easily disprovable fraud.
Adam

[rHarryr]

Adam;

You're entitled to your opinion however wrong it may be. Goodspeed is a good writer and usually right about a lot of things. I hope you base your assumption on more that one source. Even the best writers make mistakes once in a while. As far as me being deluded, then it's by more than one source. So far, the only oposition I've had on this subject was from people quoting their opinion because it can neither be proven authentic nor fake due to lack of evidence either way. What it does do, is back up the evidence of Paul visiting Britain. Which there is multiple evidence to the fact that he did along with Spain and other places. And it also backs up the prophesies in the Bible concerning the "Islands afar off" as well as the ones about His Israel being lost and not being known as GOD's people and in that place being called the sons of the Living GOD. If this is being deluded, then thank GOD, I'm deluded by His word and evidence that leads to His hand on His people.

rHarryr

[Adam]

To tell the truth, rHarry,
I wasn't posting it for you, but for those you are deluding. Here's Wikipedia on "The Lost 29th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles":

History
The text made its first appearance in London in 1871. According to the editor, it was translated in the late 18th century by the French naturalist Sonnini de Manoncourt from a "Greek manuscript discovered in the archives at Constantinople and presented to him by the Sultan Abdoul Achmet". It was found hidden in an English translation of Sonnini's Voyage en Grèce et en Turquie in the library of Sir John Newport, MP (1756-1843) after the MP's death. However, no trace of any such manuscript has been found, and from internal evidence, mainstream philology considers it to most likely be a fraud, thus it is classed among the modern apocrypha.

As of 2005, it is available in a 1982 edition by E. Raymond Capt (ISBN 0-934666-09-1) from Artisan Publishers, Muskogee, which is a publisher specializing in evangelical fringe subjects.

Purpose
The purpose of the book is to support Anglo-Israelism. Today, the book has not found attention in recent mainstream publications and is not mentioned on the website of the British-Israel-World Federation. The influence of that movement parallels the influence of the British Empire and the group that was once supported by distinguished figures is now a minor fringe group.
Note the concluding paragraph--Anglo-Israelism is now a minor fringe group, and even it in its dying gasps does not stoop so low as to make claims based upon the 29th Chapter. In this case your friends are your worst enemy.
Adam

[rHarryr]

Adam;

Go to my blog and read my references there are to many to mention here. Wikipedia only regurgitates what is intered into it. It's not as reliable as Britanica or World Book or Funk & Wagnalls for that matter. Check out my references on my blog and then take the challenge and prove them wrong.

rHarryr

[Adam]

Dear Harry R.
I clicked on all the websites you listed, and none had any evidence. Any claims that could be tested (some of them date back to 1861)have been refuted when examined.
And none of them said anything about the current fraud you're pushing, Acts 29.
I have studied Pyramidology and Anglo-Israelism, but in the 1970's I rejected it all as nonsense. Pyramidology by Adam Rutherford said Christ would come again in 1979. I still own four of his volumes.
Adam

[rHarryr]

Adam;

What you say makes me wonder just how much of what I posted on my blog you actually read. First of all, a lot of the evidence goes back a lot further than 1861. The only place I recall that particular date being mentioned was in a wikipedia site that related the 29th Chapter to the British Israelites, and it said it was introduced to the public in 1861. That shows you how reliable that place is and that's not the first time I've heard of wiki making mistakes. The document was introduce in 1800 at the earliest and the preacher I referenced wrote his review about it in 1801. And, they didn't have the technical ability to test documents the way we do today. You still call it a fraud. You say it's not authentic, prove it. Show me the test that proves that it was not writen in the 1st Century. And, by the way, tell the Spanish that the set of Commemorative Stamps they have commemorating Paul visit to Spain is a fraud. See how far that gets you. As far as Rutherford is concerned. You sound like one of those people that would throw the baby out with the bath water. It doesn't matter to you if his research was impecable up to that point. He got carried away and made one mistake and you see his whole work as spurious. If you really think that about his work. Give the books to me. I'll gladly take them off your hands. If I had the money I would buy them from you. You say I'm pushing a fraud, PROVE IT!!!

rHarryr

[Adam]

Adam;

What you say makes me wonder just how much of what I posted on my blog you actually read. First of all, a lot of the evidence goes back a lot further than 1861. The only place I recall that particular date being mentioned was in a wikipedia site that related the 29th Chapter to the British Israelites, and it said it was introduced to the public in 1861. That shows you how reliable that place is and that's not the first time I've heard of wiki making mistakes. The document was introduce in 1800 at the earliest and the preacher I referenced wrote his review about it in 1801. And, they didn't have the technical ability to test documents the way we do today. You still call it a fraud. You say it's not authentic, prove it. Show me the test that proves that it was not writen in the 1st Century. And, by the way, tell the Spanish that the set of Commemorative Stamps they have commemorating Paul visit to Spain is a fraud. See how far that gets you. As far as Rutherford is concerned. You sound like one of those people that would throw the baby out with the bath water. It doesn't matter to you if his research was impecable up to that point. He got carried away and made one mistake and you see his whole work as spurious. If you really think that about his work. Give the books to me. I'll gladly take them off your hands. If I had the money I would buy them from you. You say I'm pushing a fraud, PROVE IT!!!
rHarryr
Yes, Harry, I would sell you all four volumes Adam Rutherford ever published (the projected 5th volume, the Index, languished after his death and became pointless after 1979 came and went.). I would not just give them to you, however, because they still serve the purpose of shooting down any new discoverer of Pyramidology.
You cavil about "one mistake". I suppose you mean picking 1979 as the date for the beginning of the millennium instead of something still convenient . Actually all the Bible prophecies and Great Pyramid measurements pointed to 1979 as the sure date. Both Daniel 12:11-12 prophecies concluded in 1979 by his interpretation. The 1335 days started in 644 when Caliph Omar erected a mosque in Jerusalem (I. 204). The 1290 days started in 688 when the Dome of the Rock was constructed (I,212). In line with the Adventist origins of this type of Historicism in interpretation of Revelation, he agrees that the Time of the End began with the fall of the Papacy in 1798 when Napoleon imprisoned Pope Pius VI, a date still used as key by Seventh Day Adventist evangelists. In line with being an outgrowth of Charles Taze Russell (to whom the Jehovah's Witnesses trace their origins), he holds that the Seven Times end in 1914 after beginning 2520 years earlier in 607 B. C, the first exile from Jerusalem. He then tacks on 65 years to agree that 1979 comes within a lifetime of that date. 1979 was a stretch, but for us in 2008 that's a delay of 94 years, beyond the lifetime of almost everyone, particularly those old enough to be aware of the start of the First World War in 1914.

That's just his Biblical datings. His Great Pyramid chronology is rigidly fixed in line with the above. Using the inch-year rule, the Ascending Passage starts at 1453 B. C., the Exodus. To make Christ's Crucifixion occur at 33 A. D., he feels compelled to argue that Jesus was born in 2 B. C. as dictated by Pyramidology, not 4 B. C. or earlier as all others agree. He goes to great lengths to try to prove that Herod the Great died in 1 A. D., not four years earlier as all historians say. (II, 303-347). He continues in the same precision to state dates of Jesus's ministry and Crucifixion (II, 348-448).
Such exactitude is required to keep in line with the Pyramid's dimensions. Starting from 1453 B. C., the Resurrection had to occur at 33 A. D. when the Ascending Passage abruptly heightens. The high area continues to 1914, with a side jaunt to 1979 towards the King's Chamber. Meanwhile the passage towards the Queen's Chamber reaches 1979 at the entrance and 2979 at the end--obviously the Millennium running from 1979 to 2979 (III, 1138 fold-out diagram of the Great Pyramid). The Descending Passage continues on to its Dead End at the same derived 2979 end of the Millennium.
Anybody believe we're now living in the Millennium?
Adam

[rHarryr]

Great Adam;

Big supprise. You think he made all those mistakes. How about taking your last post where it belong, under Archaeology to the thread "Pyramids and Things". We'll discuss this subject over there. Lets get back to the subject of this thread, the Apostle Paul In Britain. By the way, when you go there I'd like to see what answers he came up with for the Pyramids relation to the Earth, Sun, moon and other astrological points of interest. And the formulas he used to get them, There is someone else that might be interested in them, that is if you don't mind too much.

rHarryr

[Adam]

First, the preachers' review in 1801 was at best one year after the introduction to the public because the earliest time is some time in 1800 that it was introduced.
Second, Capt, not being a source for what I write, makes it of no concern to me because he is not a source I went to on this subject.
rHarryr
Yes, Harry,
That's what the links on your website shows, 1801.
But who was this "Gale"? Do we know the dates he lived?
Does anyone have the book in his possession? Maybe it says, "1901", and someone changed it to "1801". Impostures like that are done all the time. The Mother Shipton prophecies telling of the world ending in "--96" are changed each century to advance from 1596 to 1696 to 1796 to 1896 to most recently (when I saw it) 1996.
Proof? You want proof? No one in the First Century spoke or wrote English. Or French. They didn't exist then. Are you one of those who thinks the King James Bible was the original gospel right from the apostles themselves in the First Century? Oh, that was the "St. James Bible", excuse me. The complete 66-book Bible in Greek dated from 100 A. D,, yes that one?
As for Capt, on the websites hawking his wares they speak of him almost as if he were still alive. He was alive during my adulthood, so he would not be much of a source, anyway. Now of the sites cite a bio, I guess because he is too disreputable.
Adam

[rHarryr]

Adam;

How about telling me which spicific link your refering to. I remember the name, but I don't remember which site he was on and it would save me having to look through all of them till I find him.

rHarryr

[Adam]

Adam;
How about telling me which spicific link your refering to. I remember the name, but I don't remember which site he was on and it would save me having to look through all of them till I find him.
rHarryr
It was in your Post #63, the link to TheBibleForum" Yakabunch etc.. In context it is clearly impossible for T. G. Cole to have commented upon the 29th Chapter in 1801. The publishing data at the end is that for Sonnini's Travels in Turkey.... And look how he is called "the late T. G. Cole", as if he were not long deceased. Nor are these comments found among any of the other blogs that make no claims earlier than 1861 for publication, so Cole must have written later than that. Cole himself refers to all the "history" subsequent to Newport's death in 1843. So there still remains no evidence for any text of "Acts 29" prior to its 1861 publication.

The following are the comments given by the late T. G. Cole, writing in 1801 about this chapter of Acts 29.
"In bringing to the notice of the Christian Public the document known by the name of the "Long Lost Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles," we feel that we are fulfilling a duty to Christ and rendering a service to our fellows. In all probability not one percent of Christian believers, not to speak of the general public, have ever heard of the "Sonnini Manuscript"; yet how many earnest believers would be delighted to have corroborative evidence of the visit of the Great Apostle to the Gentiles to these lands. The document refered to purports to be the concluding portion of the "Acts of the Apostles", and gives an account of Paul's journeyings after his two years enforced residence in Rome in his own hired house. It is written in the style of the Acts and reads like a continuation of it."

"It was found interleaved in a copy of the Sonnini's travels in Turkey and Greece, and purchased at the sale of the library and effects of the late Right Hon. Sir John Newport, Bart., in Ireland, whose family arms were engraved on the cover of the book, and in whose possession it had been for more than thirty years, with a copy of the firman of the sultan of Turkey, granting to C. S. Sonnini from an original Greek manuscript found in the Archives at Constantinople, and presented to him by the Sultan Abdoul Achmet. The following is the contents of the title page of Sonnini's work, in which the English translation of the document was found: "Travels in Turkey and Greece undertaken by order of Louis XVI, and with the authority of the Ottomen Court by C. S Sonnini, member of several scientific or literary societies of the Society of Agriculture of Paris, and of the Observers of Men. `Mores moltorum videt et ubes.' -Hor., London; Printed for T. N. Longman

[rHarryr]

Adam;

Check this out from Irish records.

How Waterford City Voted in 1807.
Contributed by Cara_Links

A general election was held in MAY-JUNE 1807, on the fall of the Ministry of All the Talents.
At this election Sir John Newport, Bart-the sitting Member for Waterford City, successfully defended his seat against his double second cousin, Cornelius Bolton.
This connection occurred by Bolton’s mother being a daughter of Francis Barker and Elizabeth Newport, the latter being a sister of Simon Newport ( Sir John’s Grandfather ) whose wife Elizabeth was a sister of Francis Barker.
Newport, son of a Waterford Banker, was born in 1756 and was created a baronet in 1789, with remainder to his brother. From 1803 until 1832 he represented Waterford at Westminster, and during the Ministry of All the Talents was Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer. A firm Whig, he was a dedicated supporter of Catholic Emancipation, His brother William committed suicided on the collapse of the Newport Bank in 1820 and when Sir John Died without issue in 1843 he was succeeded by William’s son John as second ( and last) baronet.
(All accounts report Sir John having the Manuscript in his possession for more than 30 years. That would be at least since 1812. That’s a little closer to 1801. Wouldn’t you say?)

The Quay of Waterford.
From The Dublin Penny Journal, Volume 1, Number 24, December 8, 1832.
In 1793,
A year rendered sacred,
To national prosperity
By the extinction of religious divisions,
The foundation of this Bridge was laid,
At the expense of associated individuals
United by Parliamentary grants,
By Sir John Newport, Bart.,
Chairman of their Committee.
Mr. Samuel Cox,
A native of Boston, in America,
Architect.
On the thirtieth day of April, 1793,
This Bridge was begun.
On the eighteenth of January, 1794,
It was opened for the passage of carriages.
It is 832 feet in length, 40 in breadth,
Consisting of stone abutments,
And forty sets of piers of oak.
The depth of water at lowest ebb tides 37 feet.
(Would you or would you not say this puts him alive during the time in question?)
Information is easy to find if you key the right words in a search engine. As far as Cole is concerned, I’m still looking him up. Goodspeed refers to a Cole, but I’m not ready to admit that he’s the one in question yet.

rHarryr

P.S. You still didn't mention where "Gale" was and how he fit in.

[Adam]

"Gale" was my mistaken memory of "Cole".
That Newport existed is not in question, nor that he may have owned a copy of Sonnini's Travels in Turkey...
The imposture is laid to some Anglo-Israelite who represented his fictional Acts 29 as if it had been found in said book. Thus there remains no evidence of any existence prior to 1861.
Your critical skills are the equal of your spelling.
Adam

[rHarryr]

Adam;

Here we go with the insults again. Can't you say anything without insulting the person your talking to. First you say I'm perpetuating a fraud, then you call me a fundamentalist, now my spelling. I've never claimed to be a gramarian and it arrogent, egocentric. myopic visioned, plebian mentality yuppies like you that make me want to mispell every word just to see if you might have enough sense and intellegence to figure out what I'm saying. And while your trying to figure out what I just said, go read about Brothers and his sucsessors that don't even mention the document much less make any claim to it. If you can find where they do, show me, and I'll probably be able to show you another "Johnny come lately". And If you find where they did claim it, they weren't the first ones to say it was in the book owned by "Sir John".

rHarryr

P.S. This forum is the only place I've ever been to write something on a forum that said I had to download a program to be able to use the spell checker. I don't need to add any more stuff on my hard drive than is necessary for what I need to do. Entering posts on a forum is not #1 on my list of necessities.

[rHarryr]

I've been thinking,there is opinion in both directions on this thread. Also, it appears that neither side is willing to give an inch. So, I can’t help wondering, who stands to gain the most, and who stands to loose the most. So far, there appears to not be much evidence in either direction. My question is, who stands to gain the most if it is true, and who stands to loose the most. If it is true, and Paul did visit England, that means that everything claimed is true. The British Isles, the whole commonwealth, at least most of Europe, if not all, the United States and the rest of the Americas are all descendents of the 10 “Lost Tribes of Israel”. That means everybody gains. That means the prophecy is true and the people learned their inheritance, it means Jeremiah brought the daughter of the king (Tia Tephi), the Phares line of Judah to marry the king of Ireland, a descendant of the Zahra line of Judah. Also descendants of the Phraes line that came through Europe and the Zahra line through Ireland, Scotland, and England married. The throne was overturned from Judea to Ireland (1), from Ireland to Scotland (2), from Scotland to England (3), and it will be no more overturned until Shiloh comes. It also means that Joseph of Aramathia and the group that was with him in the boat came to England by the middle of the first century and the first church above ground was established there. The British were among the first converts and some of them were the ones who established the first Gentile Church in Rome. And, one of them was the first Bishop at Rome appointed by the Apostle Paul. But, most important, the prophesies in the Bible are fulfilled and the devil looses another round. There is more, but I think this is enough of the positive side right now.

The negative side, none of it is true, the devil using the cult groups make a mockery of Christianity because their fanaticism turn Christians off to the idea of it. This allows them to be able to claim the inheritance and all of the actually designated people still walk around as if they were lost. Also, the Catholic Church can no longer claim supremacy as the first Church above ground and only allow premacy to the British Church. It would have to acknowledge the Supremacy of the British Church and take a step or two backwards. Uhhh! Now that I think of it, that might should be on the positive side. If anyone else can think of any positive aspects of the Apostle Paul visiting Britain and the possibility of the 29th Chapter of Acts being real, or any negative aspects, pleas feel free to add your comments.

rHarryr

[rHarryr]

Hey Curt;

I know your not supposed to put links in a post like this, but there is too much to copy. So, how about checking this out.

http://www.biblefacts.org/myth/j_arimathea.htm