The scandal was that most of the True Cross, after being unearthed in Jerusalem in the fourth century, was lost again.
Alrighty then!
Another Catholic has said:
Paul was in Corinth during the governorship of Gallio (the brother of Seneca) in the very early 50s, before Nero was emperor, and Luke's account of Paul's trip from Palestine to Rome (after he appealed to Caesar) does not include visits to Corinth or Ephesus. Even that trip must be earlier than the Great Fire.
The point about the Jews is that the Romans believed in mos maiorum, the ways of the ancestors, so they could respect the Jews for following the ways of their ancestors (even if they had a negative attitude towards Judaism), but Gentile converts to Christianity had abandoned the beliefs of their ancestors.
By the way, there is a church in Patras which claims to have some of the wood from the cross on which St. Andrew was crucified.
Well; since ROME has glommed onto all the early data; I can see why there just maybe some differing viewpoints now.
Hey, it's all about the love of the history. I could discuss or debate this kind of stuff for hours with people. I concede that I didn't explore the relationship between Agrippina and Claudius well enough.
I think there is a lot of disagreement about how trustworthy the legends are about how and when they were killed. There is also disagreement about the dates when various books of the New Testament were written.
Well whoever's in disagreement should just consult with me! ;-)
Paul was in Corinth during the governorship of Gallio (the brother of Seneca) in the very early 50s, before Nero was emperor, and Luke's account of Paul's trip from Palestine to Rome (after he appealed to Caesar) does not include visits to Corinth or Ephesus. Even that trip must be earlier than the Great Fire.
I'm double checking Paul's voyage to Rome after his appeal to Caesar and I'm not sure what you mean by visits to Corinth or Ephesus. I see the trail of his journey including Sidon, Myra, and Cnidus along Crete before the shipwreck at Malta. After three winter months (the synoptic gospels are written roughly during this time) they finally depart for Rome, stopping at Syracuse, Rhegium, and Puteoli before arriving.
Two years later, Paul travels straight to Spain immediately after release, followed by the island of Crete (appointing Titus over the church), then a few cities in Asia Minor where he finally meets Timothy at Ephesus. Is this what you're referring to? My book dates it at 63 AD, about a year before the Great Fire.
As for Corinth, I'm seeing Paul's last visit a few years earlier at 58 AD (he had never been to Rome and wrote Romans while staying there for three months, expressing his desire to visit the church there).
Luke does end Acts as soon as Paul arrives at his house arrest in 61, while things had clearly happened between that and the book being written two years later (63). However, I think this is intentional on the author's part. As an appeal to the Roman government to portray Christianity as a legitimate religion, the conclusion of Paul arriving gives the subtle impression that Christianity itself has arrived at the Eternal City, and can't be stopped.
Since you mentioned that Gallio was Seneca's brother, that reminded me of an interesting side note that I probably should have mentioned; Nero's madness was kept in check at the outset by his two advisers, Seneca and Burrus, head of the praetorian guard. After Burrus died, Nero ordered Seneca to commit suicide, and then there was nothing to hold back his homicidal tendencies.