Brother AACOOLDRE : How did we get Two different Pope List ???

Discussion in 'AACOOLDRE' started by AACOOLDRE, Nov 19, 2014.

  1. AACOOLDRE

    AACOOLDRE Well-Known Member MEMBER

    Country:
    United States
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    2,445
    Likes Received:
    364
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Teacher
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +400
    HOW WE GOT TWO POPE LIST ???

    The first four:

    1. Simon/Peter the Rock a black rebel against Rome

    2. Linus (fictional)

    3. Anakletus (fictional)

    4. Clement a member of the Flavian family

    The best known of the “Christian Flavians” was (Pope) Clement 1. He is described in The Catholic Encyclopedia as the first pope about whom “anything definite is known”, and was recorded in early church literature as being a member of the Flavian family.


    Pope Clement was the first Pope who was referred to by individuals known to history, and who left behind written works. He purportedly wrote the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, quoted previously. Thus, Clement is of great significance to the Church’s history. In fact, while The catholic Encyclopedia currently lists Clement as the fourth “bishop of Rome”, or pope, this was not the assertion of many early Church scholars. St. Jerome wrote that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement had been the direct successor of Peter. [Unfortunately Satan Domitian killed Clement/Clemens in 95AD). Tertullian also knew of this tradition; he wrote, “The Church of Rome records that Clement was ordained by Peter. Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius also placed Clement at the very beginning of the Roman Church, each of them stating that Clement had been the “fellow laborer” of the Apostle Paul.

    Scholars have seen that the list of popes given by Irenaeus (125-202AD) that names Clement as the fourth pope is suspect and it is notable that the Roman Church chose to use it as official history. This list names Linus as the second pope, followed by Anakletus and then Clement. The list comes from Irenaeus, who identifies “Linus the Pope” as the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. Scholars have speculated that Irenaeus chose Linus simply because he was the last male that Paul mentioned in the epistle, which supposedly was written immediately before Paul’s martyrdom. The provenance of Pope Anakletus may be no better. In Titus, the epistle that immediately follows Timothy in the canon, it is stated, “The bishop shall be irreproachable”. In Greek, “irreproachable” is Anenkletus.

    Irenaeus may not have known who the popes between Peter and clement were and therefore had to invent names for them. If this was the case, then after creating “Linus” as Peter’s successor, “Irreproachable” as the next bishop of Rome, his imagination may have become strained, because the name he chose for the sixth pope in his list was “Sixus”.

    It also seems strange that the Roman Church chose to use Irenaeus fictional list, considering that it originated in the East. The idea that Clement was the second pope is no weaker historically and reflects the papal sequence that was known in Rome. Perhaps early church officials preferred not to use a list stating that Clement was Peter’s direct successor, because of the traditional view that he was a member of the Flavian family.

    SIMON/PETER the Rock

    In the New Testament Simon/Peter denies three times that he is a follower of Jesus. He then returns to his “right mind” and feels remorse. This is a satiric depiction of the true Simons three refusals to surrender to Titus and then his being, as Josephus records, “made sensible” once he has been capture by the Romans (see War of Jews 6,6 325-351). Few people know cocks crowing were symbolic of victory (see Cicero On Divination Book 35).

    In the Christian tradition, “Simon the Apostle” suffers a martyr’s death at Rome. In fact his execution, in the manner and approximate year that the Christian tradition maintains, is described by Josephus. Simon is not, however, a Christian martyr but a Jewish one.

    In retrospect, it seems hard to understand why, with the exception of Robert Eisenman, scholars have not commented on the parallels between the Christian Simon and his Jewish counterpart, because they are obvious. Both Simons were leaders of a Judean messianic movement engaged in missionary activity who suffered a martyr’s death at Rome in approximately the same year. How many such individuals could there have been.

    The traditional time span given as likely for the Christian Simon’s death is between July 64 AD (the purported date of the outbreak of the Neronian persecution) and 68AD). The rebel Simon was martyred in 70 or 71 AD after he was captured under a Rock near the Temple was razed. And, as shown above, both can be seen as the “Cornerstone” of the church that replaces the one that is destroyed of their Temple. The same analogy is applied to the Jewish tree that is cut down and a new branch and tree is grafted into it. Further, both Simons are recorded as having a relationship with the Flavian family. St Jerome and Tertullian both refer to the traditional that “Simon” ordained Clement, the purported Flavian Pope.

    This tradition that the early church scholars refer to is significant in that it not only links the Flavian family to the origin of Christianity, but if correct, creates a conundrum for the religion. If Simon did ordain Clement it would suggest that he was not martyred by Nero, but later, by the Flavians. However, it is hard to imagine that Simon would have handed over control of his movement to a member of the family that was about to execute him.

    My explanation resolves this paradox. If the rebel Simon and the Christian Simon were the same individual, then his being martyred by the flavians and also handing control of the religion over to them becomes understandable. The tradition that Simon ordained a Flavian as pope and then was executed by that family simply reflects the truth. The flavians executed Simon and then passed control over his messianic cult (Now called Christianity) to family members as new rock and trees substituted by Satan. Later Christian scholars, attempting to organize the history of the religion, recognized that such a direct connection to the Flavian family was problematic. Therefore, they simply inserted Popes between Simon and Clement. This led to the two lists of popes, the one that the church officially claims, and the one that Tertullian and Jerome knew of, which had the succession go diretly from Simon to a member of the Flavian family.

     
Loading...