Were the Acts of the Apostles written by and for the RCC?

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: The Acts of the Apostles can be dated no earlier than the end of the second century.

Godfrey Higgins, Esq., in his book Anacalypsis states that The Acts of the Apostles was "fabricated by monks, devil-drivers and popes, who wished to form an alliance by writing the books. the Latin character of which is visible in every page...".

NT scholars now suggest the author(s) of Acts copied text from both Josephus' and Aristides' writings. This later compilation also includes the story of the life of Apollonius of Tyana who lived in the first century CE.

"It is plain that the Acts of the Apostles was written in the interest of the Roman Catholic Church, and in support of the tradition that the Church of Rome was founded by the joint labors of Peter and Paul."

Waite, Charles, History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred, Caroll Bierbower, 1992.

Any comments?

 

[567]

*************
?

I read somewhere that half the writers of bible were uknown and they were just "acording to" and "by" statements to prove that they were authentic. Is that true?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I read somewhere that half the writers of bible were uknown and they were just "acording to" and "by" statements to prove that they were authentic. Is that true?

*************
M*W: I believe the bible was not written by the authors who are credited for its words.

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence from scholarly researchers that would indicate the Romans had a lot to do with the creation of christianity and, therefore, wrote about it kind of like a promotional advertisement. It was written to control the masses. Actually, I'm more inclined to think that the NT was written as a parody, probably by certain Roman writers such as F. Josephus and maybe Tacitus, et al. There are just too many coincidental events in the lives of the Roman Emperors and the myth of Jesus.

Take the alleged INRI sign on the cross (not that there was a real sign or cross), but in the parody, the sign would have been put up as shame to the Jesus character to claim he was a "king" like Caesar. The Caesars were also considered to be divine. There's just too many comparative events between the Romans and the Jews. These events could not have happened randomly. In other words, the stories and myths between the Roman emperors and Jesus are paralleled.

One question I have is: If the Romans hated the Jews, and Jesus was a Jew, why did Jesus' church end up in bed with the HRE? Why is christianity so antisemitic if it's not a Roman creation? Those early church fathers were prominent Romans and citizens of the HRE. They weren't 'christians,' they were pagans!

 

[Markx]

I read somewhere that half the writers of bible were uknown and they were just "acording to" and "by" statements to prove that they were authentic. Is that true?

Actually, what MW is trying to say is that Bible is not the word of God, as it has been claimed. It is total fiction and word of men, greedy, power hungry and wife beater men. I can give you more details and prove it historicaly that this is not what people say it is.

 

[John99]

Actually, what MW is trying to say is that Bible is not the word of God, as it has been claimed. It is total fiction and word of men, greedy, power hungry and wife beater men. I can give you more details and prove it historicaly that this is not what people say it is.

You know MarkX i doubt that the ones who actually diid all the wrirting profited from it at all or garnered even the slightest bit of power from it. As a matter of fact it should be obvious that they did not. Wife Beater men that is just a slur is'nt it?

But feel free to expand on this.