Why is there NO record of Paul before Nero?

[nuclearfuels]

Why is there NO record of what Paul and Nero said?

Seems odd no one present would have written it down (Romans, Scribes, Pharisees, Jews, Christians, etc.).

Maybe it was burned in the Fire of Rome?

I can understand if no Christians wanted to go with Paul due to, ya know, Nero (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Acts_of_the_Apostles/Paul_Before_Nero) but Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha - dont fail me now?

Seems odd that Paul wouldn't write down at least part of it, though it may have been similar to his appeal before Agrippa.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

Why is there NO record of what Paul and Nero said?

Seems odd no one present would have written it down (Romans, Scribes, Pharisees, Jews, Christians, etc.).

Maybe it was burned in the Fire of Rome?

I can understand if no Christians wanted to go with Paul due to, ya know, Nero (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Acts_of_the_Apostles/Paul_Before_Nero) but Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha - dont fail me now?

Seems odd that Paul wouldn't write down at least part of it, though it may have been similar to his appeal before Agrippa.

 

Why would Paul record it? Probably was not pleasant and I doubt Nero and his entourage would feel it worth recording.

[SettingDogStar]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would Paul record it? Probably was not pleasant and I doubt Nero and his entourage would feel it worth recording.

Agreed. We have very little written speeches of Joseph Smith in comparison to what he probably preached. Yet here is a prophet of God, why did no one record it? Maybe they just forgot haha

[sunstoned]

Maybe the Romans were not good record keepers.  After all, they didn't record the miracle of feeding 5000 people with five loaves and two fishes.  You would think something like that would gathered some attention.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Agreed. We have very little written speeches of Joseph Smith in comparison to what he probably preached. Yet here is a prophet of God, why did no one record it? Maybe they just forgot haha

They ran out of storage space on their phones.  Plus the phone batteries were not what they are today.

[SettingDogStar]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They ran out of storage space on their phones.  Plus the phone batteries were not what they are today.

Let’s say Paul did record (let’s even say he had a smartphone haha) how do we know that any copies were made at all. We have a handful of measly letters from him, two letters from Peter (who was the head apostle), and nothing in the hand of Christ. Paul probably did record it, I bet he even sent it around, but by the time the we get to our day it’s not so hard for a handful of letters to go missing. Especially if they contained doctrines that were unfamiliar or considered “false.”

Wouldn’t be surprised if they were collecting dust in a certain church’s basement lol

Edited August 5, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Why is there NO record of what Paul and Nero said?

Seems odd no one present would have written it down (Romans, Scribes, Pharisees, Jews, Christians, etc.).

Maybe it was burned in the Fire of Rome?

I can understand if no Christians wanted to go with Paul due to, ya know, Nero (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Acts_of_the_Apostles/Paul_Before_Nero) but Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha - dont fail me now?

Seems odd that Paul wouldn't write down at least part of it, though it may have been similar to his appeal before Agrippa.

 

There is barely any Roman record that Pilate even existed. The Romans were actually good record keepers compared to prior civilizations, but yeah, time has a way of getting records destroyed. Most Roman records are no longer extant - just like most early Christian records are no longer extant - this was so until Christianity was legalized. In the Christian East the records were later destroyed by Islam over the centuries. The great library of Rome was burned. The works of the library of Alexandria are said to have been used by the Muslims to kindle the city baths. We have some copies of copies of ancient records. Even Christians destroyed their own works. Try to find a copy of the Diatessaron. 

[The Nehor]

Paul’s attempts to appease Nero by doing standup while juggling did not go well and the less said about his attempted farcical impression of Nero’s wife the better. Everyone involved tried to pretend the event never happened.

Edited August 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[jpv]

On 8/4/2019 at 10:36 PM, RevTestament said:

The works of the library of Alexandria are said to have been used by the Muslims to kindle the city baths.

Arabic Muslims are the reason we have the Greek classics preserved. 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, jpv said:

Arabic Muslims are the reason we have the Greek classics preserved. 

Um, no. I strongly dislike this narrative. Without the Muslims, we would have many more Greek works in all probability. Did Muslims translate classics? Yes, in the early Islamic period the second caliphate got smart and decided to learn from their predecessors. The first caliphate was destroying everything in its path. The second caliphate was also centered in Iraq/Iran and was decidedly more open towards other societies - and less Arabic. This brought in "the golden age of Islam." But this ended under later caliphates which continued the short-sighted policies and beliefs of Arabic Islam. As a result Islam has since floundered, and will never return to its "golden age." 

Are you seriously contending that Muslims are not responsible for the destruction of the vast materials of the library of Alexandria? They are also responsible for the destruction of their own library of Baghdad, and many other libraries of the Middle East. Yes, some works survived, but I don't credit Islam for saving anything. For the most part Christianity would have been far better off without the scourge of Islam - largely because western Christianity became very stilted. Eastern Christianity would have had its own golden age.

[Stargazer]

On 8/5/2019 at 5:36 AM, RevTestament said:

The works of the library of Alexandria are said to have been used by the Muslims to kindle the city baths.

The phrase "are said to have been" is commonly used to accuse anyone of anything.  

I've heard this as well.  From the article on the library in Wikipedia:

"In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar. Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: 'If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.'"

Which is consistent with what you wrote. But the article adds:

"Later scholars, including Father Eusèbe Renaudot in 1793, are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers."

Except that the article mentions that the destruction order could be found in Arabic sources.  Were those sources in error?  I don't know.

To me, this actually sounds consistent with the attitudes of the kind of people who dynamited those enormous statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.  But if the Muslims had finally destroyed the Library, they would not have been the first.  The prestige of the Library had already been in decline before even the Christian era had begun.  In 48 BC Julius Caesar was besieged at Alexandria, and a fire set on the docks of Alexandria spread to the city. According to contemporary and near contemporary sources the fire consumed some 40,000 scrolls of the Library, possibly through the burning of a branch or warehouse of the main library.  Though the Library itself apparently survived, it was probably damaged significantly during two subsequent sieges of Alexandria in 272 and 297 AD.  By the time the Christians became ascendant in the Empire, there was probably little left of the original institution.  Thus, when the Muslims conquered the city and destroyed the Library, if they did in fact do so, it seems like it might have been more in the nature of putting it out of its misery.  

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

To me, this actually sounds consistent with the attitudes of the kind of people who dynamited those enormous statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. 

Probably unwise to assume a consistent attitude from the early caliphates to the Taliban over 1,500 years later.

[longview]

The Caliphate began after the death of Muhammad in 632 CE. The first successor to Muhammad was Caliph Abu Bakr. Today, historians call the first Caliphate the Rashidun Caliphate.

Taliban destroyed Bamiyan Buddha statues in 2001 - The Washington Post. This footage, released by NATO, shows the moment that the Buddhas were exploded by the Taliban in March 2001. Before they were destroyed, the statues were the world's largest standing Buddhas.Jul 29, 2015.

2001 - 632 AD = 1369 year interval.

Edited August 6, 2019 by longview

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The phrase "are said to have been" is commonly used to accuse anyone of anything.  

I've heard this as well.  From the article on the library in Wikipedia:

"In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of 'Amr ibn al-'As. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar. Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the thirteenth century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: 'If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.'"

Which is consistent with what you wrote. But the article adds:

"Later scholars, including Father Eusèbe Renaudot in 1793, are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers."

Except that the article mentions that the destruction order could be found in Arabic sources.  Were those sources in error?  I don't know.

To me, this actually sounds consistent with the attitudes of the kind of people who dynamited those enormous statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.  But if the Muslims had finally destroyed the Library, they would not have been the first.  The prestige of the Library had already been in decline before even the Christian era had begun.  In 48 BC Julius Caesar was besieged at Alexandria, and a fire set on the docks of Alexandria spread to the city. According to contemporary and near contemporary sources the fire consumed some 40,000 scrolls of the Library, possibly through the burning of a branch or warehouse of the main library.  Though the Library itself apparently survived, it was probably damaged significantly during two subsequent sieges of Alexandria in 272 and 297 AD.  By the time the Christians became ascendant in the Empire, there was probably little left of the original institution.  Thus, when the Muslims conquered the city and destroyed the Library, if they did in fact do so, it seems like it might have been more in the nature of putting it out of its misery.  

I don't know what to believe if I can't believe the Muslims telling on themselves. Yes, there was an earlier fire, but 40,000 scrolls is nothing compared to the million or so the library was said to contain at its peak. As to whether the library was past its peak, there is no doubt. The Byzantine Empire became strapped for cash in its wars against Persia. Nevertheless, it remained a center of learning in Christendom.

By the first caliphate I am speaking of the Umayyads, who were the culpable party.  The Ubassids of Iraq defeated the Umayyad rulers around 750 AD, and pushed them back into Africa, and are the second caliphate I am speaking of - just to be clear. I believe, however, they are also responsible for establishing Mecca as the Becca of the Quran. It is this caliphate which adopted a much more open policy towards other peoples and paid for many literary works to be translated. They had a great interest in painting a glowing picture of Islam, and were responsible for many of the Muslim works - the biographies of Mohammed, the hadith, etc which survive till today. If you are a student of Islam, however, you will probably notice that their translators flat out state that they threw out the majority of things passed down about Muhammed, because they just weren't obviously correct. So thanks to them what we have is a heavily censored history of Islam. But they are why Islam gets credited for "saving"  great western classics. It's kind of like the claim that the Catholic Church saved the scriptures. Um, no. The scriptures would still be here minus the Catholic Church. It just would have been non-Catholic scribes doing the work. We would still have the Masoretic Text and the Greek texts - who cares about the Latin texts.... sorry my Catholic friends for that little tease...

Edited August 6, 2019 by RevTestament

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, longview said:

The Caliphate began after the death of Muhammad in 632 CE. The first successor to Muhammad was Caliph Abu Bakr. Today, historians call the first Caliphate the Rashidun Caliphate.

Taliban destroyed Bamiyan Buddha statues in 2001 - The Washington Post. This footage, released by NATO, shows the moment that the Buddhas were exploded by the Taliban in March 2001. Before they were destroyed, the statues were the world's largest standing Buddhas.Jul 29, 2015.

2001 - 632 AD = 1369 year interval.

I apologize for the mistake in chronology. I meant to put 1200 years and made a typo.

The point stands though.

Edited August 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Probably unwise to assume a consistent attitude from the early caliphates to the Taliban over 1,500 years later.

Maybe, but they still pray towards Mecca, so some things are still true after all those years.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Stargazer said:

Maybe, but they still pray towards Mecca, so some things are still true after all those years.

They also still eat and drink.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I don't know what to believe if I can't believe the Muslims telling on themselves. Yes, there was an earlier fire, but 40,000 scrolls is nothing compared to the million or so the library was said to contain at its peak. As to whether the library was past its peak, there is no doubt. The Byzantine Empire became strapped for cash in its wars against Persia. Nevertheless, it remained a center of learning in Christendom.

Well, like you, I tend to believe that they were "telling on themselves", probably with some pride.  My argument was that what got destroyed by the Muslims, if they actually did it, was a lot smaller than some people assume. And that much much more had been lost well before that time. Not that that is an excuse, of course.  

The Wikipedia article on the library is where I got most of my information, and I thought it to be fairly interesting. Just in case you're interested: Library of Alexandria

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

By the first caliphate I am speaking of the Umayyads, who were the culpable party.  The Ubassids of Iraq defeated the Umayyad rulers around 750 AD, and pushed them back into Africa, and are the second caliphate I am speaking of - just to be clear. I believe, however, they are also responsible for establishing Mecca as the Becca of the Quran. It is this caliphate which adopted a much more open policy towards other peoples and paid for many literary works to be translated. They had a great interest in painting a glowing picture of Islam, and were responsible for many of the Muslim works - the biographies of Mohammed, the hadith, etc which survive till today. If you are a student of Islam, however, you will probably notice that their translators flat out state that they threw out the majority of things passed down about Muhammed, because they just weren't obviously correct. So thanks to them what we have is a heavily censored history of Islam. But they are why Islam gets credited for "saving"  great western classics. It's kind of like the claim that the Catholic Church saved the scriptures. Um, no. The scriptures would still be here minus the Catholic Church. It just would have been non-Catholic scribes doing the work. We would still have the Masoretic Text and the Greek texts - who cares about the Latin texts.... sorry my Catholic friends for that little tease...

I'm not arguing with you over these matters.  I am no friend of Islam, which doesn't mean I would not be friends with Muslims.  I believe their religion is a false one (and I freely admit that they would think the same of mine), and their religion will cause them to partake rather heavily in the calamities preceding the Second Coming -- indeed I believe that their actions will help precipitate it.  But God still loves them as his children, as do I love them as my brothers and sisters.

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They also still eat and drink.

And breathe.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And breathe.

So everyone, remember to breathe. It is important.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They also still eat and drink.

You do realize that eating and drinking is not particular to that faith, right?  So why do you bring up these two non-particular items as if they somehow answer what I was suggesting?  They don't.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Are you seriously contending that Muslims are not responsible for the destruction of the vast materials of the library of Alexandria? 

I tend to agree with most of what you said, but the Library of Alexandria was under pressure from fairly early on. In the late Hellenistic era Ptolemy was purging intellectuals and possibly censoring or destroying records. To the point that the head librarian, Aristarchus, left in exile along with many other intellectuals who fled. That's around 150 BC. Julius Caesar destroyed part of the library around 48 BC during the civil war. (It's unclear how much) For the rest of the Roman period the library got worse and worse. It was around 270 AD that what was left of the library was destroyed in a rebellion by Alexandria against Roman rule. That's all well before the rise of Islam.

Typically no one faith has a monopoly on poor libraries, losing documents, or censoring ideas that conflict with the ideology of leadership.

The idea that the Library of Alexandria was this amazing resource that spanned centuries is a bit problematic. It was probably pretty solid up for a while, but it's hard to know how complete it was or what all it housed. Certainly I wish we had access to its contents - but that's true for lots of records we've lost. The reality is that most of the books of the ancient world aren't extant even though there were many.

While Islam did destroy a lot - just think of what was lost in the sacking of Constantinople - that also had the benefit of refugees bringing books to the west that had been lost over the centuries there. That in turn set off the Renaissance.

Edited August 6, 2019 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You do realize that eating and drinking is not particular to that faith, right?  So why do you bring up these two non-particular items as if they somehow answer what I was suggesting?  They don't.

I am making the assertion that just because practices are the same it does not mean the culture is similar. We ritually sacrifice birds every Thanksgiving but showing that pagans and Jews sacrificed birds does not mean that we have the same attitude the pagans did about it. Our way is better; we also have pie.

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am making the assertion that just because practices are the same it does not mean the culture is similar. We ritually sacrifice birds every Thanksgiving but showing that pagans and Jews sacrificed birds does not mean that we have the same attitude the pagans did about it. Our way is better; we also have pie.

Mmmmm. Pumpkin pie!  Although I buy my bird pre-sacrificed -- no muss, no fuss, just toss it into the oven and there it is.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Mmmmm. Pumpkin pie!  Although I buy my bird pre-sacrificed -- no muss, no fuss, just toss it into the oven and there it is.

I prefer deep fried. So much more succulent and juicy. The skin, unhealthy as it is, is so tasty.