Whatever happened to Paul?

[didymus]

I want to throw this question out there for any interested in the topic. My question is about Paul and his final days in Rome. Acts 28:16- 31. I have heard that he was on house arrest there until he died. There wasn't a strong indication one way or another in Acts. It said that he spent his days in Rome teaching people about Jesus Christ.

I just wonder whatever happened to him. Were there writings as to when he died or where he was buried? A man as influential as Paul was in the establishment of Christianity shouldn't have drifted off into the unknown as is written in the Bible.

I also find it curious that he was permitted to dwell by himself with a guard and the others were delivered to the captain. But yet it states that the Romans wanted to let him go but the Jews appealed and he remained under quarantine. This just seems strange to me like there is a piece missing.

Did the Jewish people have that much pull with the Romans that they could dispute his release? I believe at that time they were being accused of killing the savior.

[Basstian]

These are Great questions alot of the answers will be just a guess based on what little information we have.

I think it is clear that Paul was in very poor health towards the later end of His life. Luke being a doctor joined him around the time he was at pamphylia. He seemed to be very aware of his state and wrote things as a man ready to complete lifes journey.

As far as the Jews yes they did seem to have at this time a very good voice in roman courts in alot of cities. This was due to men like Josephus. Romans had respect for knowledge and things of antiquity. The Jews that where in this position seem to be considered traitors by those in Israel and where not persecuted by the Romans like those who where revolting in judea.

I would somehow like to believe Paul didnt die alone in Rome but surrounded by people like Timothy and Luke maybe ones who would understand that their friend had indeed run the good race and reached the finish line.

As I read his writings he clearly sets an example of how to pass with grace and remain hopeful till the end.

[TheLovableNicola]

I dont know if he was buried or not. I found out that he was imprisoned and beheaded in Rome as commanded by Nero, and also that he wrote his last epistle 2 Tomothy while he was in the cells.

not much information there, but i hope it helps

[I, Brian]

Seems like the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia could be very useful here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm


In fact, I'll risk a three-paragraph copy/paste here as there is a lot of information to wade through on the linked page:




"E. Last Years

This period is wrapped in deep obscurity for, lacking the account of the Acts, we have no guide save an often uncertain tradition and the brief references of the Pastoral epistles. Paul had long cherished the desire to go to Spain (Rom., xv, 24, 28) and there is no evidence that he was led to change his plan. When towards the end of his captivity he announces his coming to Philemon (22) and to the Philippians (ii, 23-24), he does not seem to regard this visit as immediate since he promises the Philippians to send them a messenger as soon as he learns the issue of his trial; he therefore plans another journey before his return to the East. Finally, not to mention the later testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, and Theodoret, the well-known text of St. Clement of Rome, the witness of the "Muratorian Canon", and of the "Acta Pauli" render probable Paul's journey to Spain. In any case he can not have remained there long, for he was in haste to revisit his Churches in the East. He may have returned from Spain through southern Gaul if it was thither, as some Fathers have thought, and not to Galatia, that Crescens was sent later (II Tim., iv, 10). We may readily believe that he afterwards kept the promise made to his friend Philemon and that on this occasion he visited the churches of the valley of Lycus, Laodicea, Colossus, and Hierapolis.

The itinerary now becomes very uncertain, but the following facts seem indicated by the Pastorals: Paul remained in Crete exactly long enough to found there new churches, the care and organization of which he confided to his fellow-worker Titus (Tit., i, 5). He then went to Ephesus, and besought Timothy, who was already there, to remain until his return while he proceeded to Macedonia (I Tim., i,3). On this occasion he paid his promised visit to the Philippians (Phil., ii, 24), and naturally also saw the Thessalonians. The letter to Titus and the First Epistle to Timothy must date from this period; they seem to have been written about the same time and shortly after the departure from Ephesus. The question is whether they were sent from Macedonia or, which seems more probable, from Corinth. The Apostle instructs Titus to join him at Nicopolis of Epirus where he intends to spend the winter (Titus, iii, 12). In the following spring he must have carried out his plan to return to Asia (I Tim, iii, 14-15). Here occurred the obscure episode of his arrest, which probably took place at Troas; this would explain his having left with Carpus a cloak and books which he needed (II Tim., iv, 13). He was taken from there to Ephesus, capital of the Province of Asia, where he was deserted by all those on whom he thought he could rely (II Tim., i, 15). Being sent to Rome for trial he left Trophimus sick at Miletus, and Erastus, another of his companions, remained at Corinth, for what reason is not clear (II Tim., iv, 20). When Paul wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy from Rome he felt that all human hope was lost (iv, 6).; he begs his disciple to rejoin him as quickly as possible, for he is alone with Luke. We do not know if Timothy was able to reach Rome before the death of the Apostle.

Ancient tradition makes it possible to establish the following points: (1) Paul suffered martyrdom near Rome at a place called Aquae Salviae (now Tre Fontane), somewhat east of the Ostian Way, about two miles from the splendid Basilica of San Paolo fuori le mura which marks his burial place. (2) The martyrdom took place towards the end of the reign of Nero, in the twelfth year (St. Epiphanius), the thirteenth (Euthalius), or the fourteenth (St. Jerome). (3) According to the most common opinion, Paul suffered in the same year and on the same day as Peter; several Latin Fathers contend that it was on the same day but not in the same year; the oldest witness, St. Dionysius the Corinthian, says only kata ton auton kairon, which may be translated "at the same time" or "about the same time". (4) From time immemorial the solemnity of the Apostles Peter and Paul has been celebrated on 29 June, which is the anniversary either of their death or of the translation of their relics. Formerly the pope, after having pontificated in the Basilica of St. Peter, went with his attendants to that of St. Paul, but the distance between the two basilicas (about five miles) rendered the double ceremony too exhausting, especially at that season of the year. Thus arose the prevailing custom of transferring to the next day (30 June) the Commemoration of St. Paul. The feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (25 January) is of comparatively recent origin. There is reason for believing that the day was first observed to mark the translation of the relics of St. Paul at Rome, for so it appears in the Hieronymian Martyrology. It is unknown to the Greek Church (Dowden, "The Church Year and Kalendar", Cambridge, 1910, 69; cf. Duchesne, "Origines du culte chrétien", Paris, 1898, 265-72; McClure, "Christian Worship", London, 1903, 277-81).

"

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by didymus

I also find it curious that he was permitted to dwell by himself with a guard and the others were delivered to the captain. But yet it states that the Romans wanted to let him go but the Jews appealed and he remained under quarantine. This just seems strange to me like there is a piece missing.

Did the Jewish people have that much pull with the Romans that they could dispute his release? I believe at that time they were being accused of killing the savior.

I beleive that like Pontius Pilot, the Roman authorities did not want to deal with a revolt by this "group of people" (the Jews), who refused to be truly subjugated by Rome. It seems that no matter how many times Rome tried to force them into submission, it never quite succeeded (until roughly 70 AD when Rome had enough and leveled everything, scattering every one).

I could be wrong, but some how I think I'm pretty close to the mark.

v/r

Q

[Sacredstar]

Its also interesting that it states in the bible that Jesus said they should only preach to the Jews but yet Paul and the others dispersed all over. I will have to double check that passage again.

being love

Kim xx

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

Its also interesting that it states in the bible that Jesus said they should only preach to the Jews but yet Paul and the others dispersed all over. I will have to double check that passage again.

being love

Kim xx

Jesus specifically warned the Jewish authorities, that He would take what was theirs (originally belonging to the Jews), and give it to the Ger (gentiles), and they would be grateful and reap a harvest for Him. (Master of the vineyard parable immediately comes to mind).

v/r

Q

[KnightoftheRose]

Its also interesting that it states in the bible that Jesus said they should only preach to the Jews but yet Paul and the others dispersed all over. I will have to double check that passage again.

being love

Kim xx

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Jesus specifically told the Apostles after his resurrection to preach to everyone, including non-Jews.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by KnightoftheRose

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Jesus specifically told the Apostles after his resurrection to preach to everyone, including non-Jews.

Amen!

this is what happened to Paul. (since it is a speculation topic) When he was exiled, a bottle washed up onto shore. He opened it and a jeanie popped out and her name was Barbara Eden.
Jeanie granted Paul 3 wishes.
Paul replied with his 3 wishes,
1. That the gospel of Jesus Christ and his death burial and resurrection unto salvation never be lost.
2. Though he be persecuted clear up into the year 2000, that his work for the Lord would not be in vain so that the remnant of the righteous seed could still know about Jesus.
3. That all might come to the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and know that the invisible God is alive and loves all and is able to deliver them unto salvation who seek Him in spirit and truth.

Then she granted him all 3 wishes. Paul kissed the Jeanie and he turned into a frog and hopped away to live happily ever after.
The End

[KnightoftheRose]

LMAO! - You forgot the part where he went to India, stole the Buddha's ideas, and then came back to teach them to Rome. 'Cause he was a hippy, and stuff. j/k

[didymus]

Interesting take Bandit. Thanks for the replies on this issue.

I've been reading through the gospels and the pauline letters lately and I find some things that strike me as odd. Before I continue, this thread is for mature audiences only. This is not an attempt to debunk anyone's faith. This is for those that are able to stay level headed and speak of this objectively without being threatened. After all if these issues can't be discussed on a christian thread then that is a sad state of affairs.

When Jesus said seek and you shall find and knock and the door will be opened to you, I took him at his word. I no longer fear questions which may stir up controversial answers. I used to live like that but those days are over.

My first issue is the authors of the gospels. We don't know who wrote them( or at least the majority are unknown). There is wide speculation but no proof one way or the other. Second is the time frames they were written. Example being John which was written 70 years after Jesus died. Clearly the gospel of John is drastically different from the synoptics. It icontains much hellenized and even gnostic innuendos. In Mark there is no mention of virgin birth. Subsequently the virgin birth is mentioned as preaching gains momentum in gentile audiences in gospels of Luke and Matthew. These gospels being written much later than Mark.

Jesus said he would found his church on Peter and Peter appears from the gospels and pauline letters to be the weakest and least reliable and who had ongoing friction with Paul.

Paul who was one of the biggest leaders of the faith goes virtually unmentioned in any of the gospels, in fact I don't think he is brought up at all. It is fact that Paul's letters and ministry occured before gospels of Luke, Matthew and John were written. As much as Paul did why wasn't he mentioned in the gospels? Why is he hardly mentioned in letters of new testament not written by Paul?

There is clear evidence in the letters that there was quarreling among the apostles and Paul regarding observance of law, dietary issues, faith and works. Paul was not an eye witness to Jesus, he only had a vision of him( which i'm not minimizing). For this reason the apostles didn't want to include him. He basically forced his way in from the way it reads.

It seems strange to me that a man who didn't meet Jesus should preach a message very different from that of the very people who knew him(Jesus). This leads me to ask myself a few questions. a.) Jesus was not God, didn't resurrect in the flesh after death. b.)_the apostles totally missed the boat on this one, (which is almost impossible to believe since they saw him resurrect, heal people, transfigure and talk with Moses and Elijah, walk on water, spoke with him on a daily basis etc. or c.) Paul invented his own religion in spite of what everyone else said , brought it to the gentiles and created what we now call the church and christianity. This religion not being based on what Jesus really said but rather Paul's interpretation of what Jesus' death meant to him and all of mankind.

These are my thoughts currently and may change in the near future. I pray for revelation from God about his son Jesus and my walk with him. Hopefully those that read are not too offended by my remarks.

[lunamoth]

No offense at all, didymus. I think they are all pretty good questions and you are right about not hiding from difficult questions. I think once addressed, even if they can't be answered, they can help one's faith be stronger. I like reading the historical Jesus scholarship from time to time, but then I always must draw back and reflect on what I read in the light of the overall Mystery.

You should have been here a few months back when the assault on Paul was at its peak! Go back some threads and look.

Even though Paul's letters were written after the Gospels and his influence must have been felt in at least some early Christian communities, it still would not make sense for the Gospels to mention Paul---they end with Christ's ministery, death and resurrection. Paul came later. What form of the Gospels if any did Paul have? That is something I could probably research for myself or perhaps others here already know.

It seems strange to me that a man who didn't meet Jesus should preach a message very different from that of the very people who knew him(Jesus). This leads me to ask myself a few questions. a.) Jesus was not God, didn't resurrect in the flesh after death. b.)_the apostles totally missed the boat on this one, (which is almost impossible to believe since they saw him resurrect, heal people, transfigure and talk with Moses and Elijah, walk on water, spoke with him on a daily basis etc. or c.) Paul invented his own religion in spite of what everyone else said , brought it to the gentiles and created what we now call the church and christianity. This religion not being based on what Jesus really said but rather Paul's interpretation of what Jesus' death meant to him and all of mankind.

Could you clarify what you mean here? Are you saying you see Paul's message as very different from Jesus's?

added in edit: Actually, perhaps for discussion starter you could give one two examples from the Bible where you see the conflict.

Thank you for starting an interesting discussion.

peace,
lunamoth

[Sacredstar]

Dear Didymus

There was a TV programme on in the UK at Christmas presented by a Christian and biblical scholar that was searching for the truth like you and his discoveries took him all over the middle east and eventually it came to light that Paul wrote most of the NT. Is this truth I do not know but the scholar agreed at the end of the day it mattered not who wrote them, his faith remained the same. The programme was called 'Who wrote the bible' and I think there was a thread on CR at Christmas with a link to the website.

being love

kim xx

[Basstian]

seems to me if all the answers are exactly the same somebody would be cheating. I dont see the diferences in the gospels or personal letters from apostles to the churches or groups of people as being anything other than proof of authenticity.
We have several different views from several different personalities.
If I decide I like Pauls take on grace and faith I will Know Jesus
If I like Peter and decide to be just a little more strict in my doctrine I will know Jesus
If I choose Faith and works like James I will know Jesus
If I group them all together I will know Jesus.
I wonder what it would be like just having one letter or one gospel could we or would we believe?

[Bandit]

I wonder what it would be like just having one letter or one gospel could we or would we believe?

the book of acts does this. we could all get by on just that one book.

it does not matter what anyone says in this thread. it is a no win controversial and get rid of Paul discussion right from the start. even though Paul taught the same exact message as the rest of them. then you get rid of the Book of Genises and the creation and parts of the 4 gospels like the virgin birth and the blood of Jesus, get rid of sin and the devil... and of course throw out Revelations so all we have left are the gnostic writings and mysticism and a little witchcraft. same old thing

Now that is what I call mature.


At the same time it is a faith builder for those who already know the truth and have the same spirit in them that raised up Jesus.
Put on the full armor of God saints. The same armor that Paul taught us to have on and it is easy to resist the firey darts.