It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
Or maybe Peter was a Roman the whole time? A certain Roman named Paul? That's what I believe. If Luke was Plutarch and Luke wrote Acts, then he could have changed Peter's name to Paul. Plutarch did write a book called "Parallel Lives" after all.
They couldn't have Peter writing all of these letters to important Roman people, that would look suspicious, so they changed his name. In my opinion.edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)
A growing belief points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41 In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple.
Before his conversion, Paul, then known as Saul, was a "zealous" Pharisee who "intensely persecuted" the followers of Jesus. Some scholars argue that Paul was a member of the "Zealot" party.