Poetry : What is a Home without a mother?

What is a Home without a mother?
An original poem by Brianroy

The autumn leaves are falling,
as the leaves of the trees have turned to their hues of red, orange, and brown.

Somewhere behind them, in the distance, the sun is yawning;
ready to set, as it goes down and down.

There is a little iron gate, that loudly creaks open;
as if shouting, ‘Awake! Awake! Your son is back in town!’

And yet, the expectation of the door opening is met with silence;
the leaves gently rustling as the lonely and so familiar path is trod.

Instinctively, he knocks, and awaits for an answer;
but there is only silence as he bows his head, and begins to nod.

The house is worn with years.
The paint is faded, and run, as though streaked with tears.
The rose bushes are barren, the mailbox lays empty.
The welcome mat is collecting dust,
and the door knob is just starting to rust.

What is a Home, without a mother?
It is just a residence, a temporary place of one or the other.
When a man marries, it is the woman who truly decorates the place;
but until a child is born, her honor feels as outward as chantilly lace.
And wherever thereafter that she goes,
the sense and feeling of “home” goes with her.

It is not with the Father, who might as well treat a piece of land,
to live like a bachelor, but loving “it” as though a woman in his hand.
That is never truly a “home”; it is a property, a pride, and a demand.
But the mother who truly is a mother, she loves and nourishes and respects;
she loves by instinct and kindness beyond normal reason or intellects.

She provides a something beyond what words can describe;
decorating and nourishing as if a gift of G-D,
a taste of the living waters of G-D’s goodness and grace.
It is a sweetness that keeps the heart, mind, and soul of going, as if a heavenly dew;
until the truth of G-D’s Son,
and the Salvation of Jesus upon the Cross,
is revealed upon you.

The door now creaks open, and an ‘oh, so familiar voice’ comes from the other side;
“Come in, my son. As you can see, I am still alive.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above poem was written with a mother figure who was widowed and in her 80s. The son, like a prodigal, returns after decades to the house of his youth; perhaps, keeping in contact with sparse letters and phone calls. He has had conflict with the father, which is a normal (or should I say, popular) sentiment in American Society. This poem should serve as a reminder for those who have parents still living.

Keep in regular physical visitation contact, not just by phone, e-mail, or postal mail. Watch out for them. Make sure regularly that they are well and are okay. When you reach an age where you can begin paying them back a small percentage of your pay monetarily, if they are poor, do so. For those without religion, they have no excuse to not tithe to their poor parent's well-being. If the parents are rich and have financial ease, then keep in contact.

If you have only one parent living, the moral responsibility upon you becomes greater as they advance in age. As a society, we need to be reminded and retaught basic values to both respect and take care of our elders in a loving way. For this moral reason, among many others, I oppose the Death Panels being introduced in International Law Courts, and in US Legislation under the guise of "Health Care".

The Most Accurate Dating of The New Testament in the World (to date)

After much careful and meticulous research, this is my dating of the New Testament writings to the times of their authorship. The Bible is a bedrock for reliability in historical and preternatural trustworthiness.

In what order written / Letter or Book that was written / When Written / From where it was written

1) Jude / A.D. 47 / Jerusalem, Israel
2) James / A.D. 47, Pentecost / Jerusalem, Israel
3) Galatians / A.D. 48 / Philippi, Greece
4) Gospel of Luke / A.D. 50 / Corinth, Achaia

5) I Thessalonians / February - July, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
6) I Corinthians / July - November, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
7) Revelation / Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 / Patmos, Aegean

8) Romans / October - November, A.D. 53 / Corinth, Achaia
9) Titus / February, A.D. 54 / Troas, Aegean Sea
10) Colossians / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel
11) I Timothy / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel

12) II Thessalonians / August - December, A.D. 54 / Ephesus, Asia
13) Gospel of Matthew / May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 / Jerusalem, Israel
14) Philemon / A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy

15) II Timothy / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
16) Ephesians / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
17) Philippians / February - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
18) I Peter / March - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

19) Gospel of Mark / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
20) II Peter / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
21) Acts of the Apostles / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

22) Hebrews / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
23) I John (severed intro) / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia
24) Gospel of John / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia

25) 2 John /A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia
26) 3 John / A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia

Poetry by Brianroy: "Angel Cloud"

This poem is written by me, and inspired (in part) by the reading of a passage from Josephus:

“I Suppose the account… would seem a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.” Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.6.3.
(listing supernatural signs before the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem)

ANGEL CLOUD by Brianroy


Have you seen an angel cloud? In times of Peace, they are small and white or small and gray.

The angels are dressed in flowing garb, oft with what seems to be reed pen and open papyrus scrolls;
Faces of serious consternation and focus, in distant stares, as if looking specifically off into the horizon far, far away.

Some run, and blur, and skip time and space;
From little angel cloud to angel cloud they jump, as if in a race.

You see them pick up speed, on one cloud, and on the other cloud stop;
As if entering into a transport beam or mini-cosmic worm-hole, with a just jump or a hop.

Have you seen an angel cloud? Hovering low to the earth.

They are certainly in the low thousands of feet up, sometimes only hundreds from the ground.

Composed of light or dense cloud mist, and if you look elsewhere for but a single second,
It seems they notice, because they no longer are around.

They are noticed best in open blue skies of a late morning and early afternoon day;
So that when you know that you spotted one, you don’t want to look away.

Have you seen an angel cloud, and wonder if those thereon record your every word?

As if a special time for them to relay your prayer to G-D in Heaven,
And make your prayer especially be heard?

If but for now, we see the angels garbed and robed in clothes of Peace;
There is yet hope from national Judgment and War.

But there are some storm angels who as if cherubim, they fly;
They lead dark clouds of strong and wind and rain;
They lead them in gusts that ahead of the storms, they go before.

These are sensitive to the thoughts of men who G-D allows to momentarily see them.

Do not dare to yourself as a champion to defend your mortal nation in sin.

Turn ye your back, and without the slightest hesitation, repent to G-D when they turn upon you;
Lest they strike you down, and in this Land of the Living you meet your end.

Have you seen an angel cloud? Are they yet garbed for war?

Pass ye on the message for man to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ and repent,
That from the Day of G-D’s coming Judgment and Wrath upon the ungodly,
And into a place of Heavenly safety, you might be sent.

Have you seen an angel cloud? You will know when you do.
A moment it is clearly there, and then it is completely gone.

Know then, while you were watching the angels,
They were also watching you.

Redating the New Testament (Revised), Part 4

In ca. 190 A.D., Clement from Alexandria, Egypt, supplements (Irenaeus) writing:
“The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first {32} …
[Then] as Peter had preached the Word at ROME publicly,
by the Spirit declaring the Gospel, many who were present
requested that Mark …should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel,
he gave it to those who had requested it…
Last of all, John…being persuaded by his friends, but inspired
by the SPIRIT, composed a Spiritual Gospel.” {33}

So what can we learn in these quotes from Irenaeus and Clement?

1) That Matthew was the 2nd written Gospel, and that by inference, Luke was written prior to Peter and Paul being in Rome. {34}

2) Mark’s Gospel is actually the 3rd Gospel, not sourcing from either Luke or Matthew, but from Peter himself (who was the sole source of Mark’s material): all this occurring in ROME. Twice, Mark is listed as the next to last Gospel, and twice John’s is listed as the last Gospel to be written.

3) John’s Gospel is written AFTER the deaths of Peter and Paul.

4) The letter of Hebrews is clearly distinguished as “Paul’s Gospel”, penned by his student Luke.

This book, now known as Hebrews, which bears the message to Ephesus from Luke, “the brother Timothy [might we add, your (at one time) bishop] is set at Liberty” (Hebrews 13:23), is understood in the light that Mark indeed, did hand to John, in Ephesus of Asia, in writing, the Sermons of Peter and the Gospel of Paul. We receive further affirmation that Luke penned it, and was called as “Luke’s Digest, even though men [such as Irenaeus] usually ascribe it to Paul” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).



A Limit set by the death of Mark in 62 A.D.

"Mark,” says Eusebius "dies in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, in Alexandria of Egypt." {35}

This, we would reckon as A.D. 61-62. In the First Century, the optimum travel time between Alexandria and Rome was a minimum of 12 days. However, if Mark ran a circuit tour of visiting various Churches, say Corinth and Philippi and Ephesus and Antioch and Caesarea and Jerusalem, for example, then his travel would have taken him months before he would have reached Egypt.

This pushes us back a year to 60-61. Then, it would have taken time for a non-Apostle like Mark to establish the Church at Alexandria, especially among 400,000 Jews who lived there, and to ensure its foundation. That Church Organization still exists from Antiquity to this Day, being only younger than the Roman Church by what is counted on one hand for a difference of years. And in order to establish and build such a Church, Mark alone would then need twice the time it took Peter and Paul to establish Corinth or Rome together. This gives us an additional subtraction of 3-4 years from the death and martyrdom of Mark, pushing us back to Mark leaving Rome somewhere around 57-58 A.D.

Church Tradition dating to the Third Century, in Rome, strongly adheres to the day of Peter and Paul's martyrdom as being on June 29 of an unknown year. {36}

The rolls of the bishops would have still been present in Rome in that period, and therefore, the veracity of the day and month -- being left unchallenged, is probably an attempt at authentication by its citation. Therefore, we should accept the date of June 29 of 57 or 58 A.D. {37}


Other Considerations: Separating History from Myth-making

Now, in the mid-Second Century, someone wrote in the Anti-Macionite prologues that: “Mark…after Peter’s death, wrote down (his) Gospel in the region of Italy.” In other words, he wrote down perhaps more copies of the original, but NOT in ROME. This answers the dual testimony of Mark's copying down his Gospel both before and after the death of Peter in ROME. Then comes the question, “Why did Mark feel compelled to leave ROME to either make more copies of, or to finalize, his Gospel?”
Ancient Roman historians warn of an out of control Nero, with his raging hormones, whom in the 50s and 60s A.D. repetitively demonstrated an inability to sanely and rationally to rule as Caesar. {38}
Tiberius moved to Caprae (Capri) in circa 26-27 A.D. to exercise total dominion and to shield his perversity, but Nero remained in Rome. Nero was much the more insulated by the Praetorian Guard than perhaps any Caesar before him, and as a reckless youth, he gradually became increasingly sociopathic. However, he soon found that much like Tiberius (who had to beg for the Senate to send Laodicea earthquake relief ca. 17 or 23 A.D) {39}, he, Nero, (but for the Senate) held near absolute power in only one province, wherever Caesar resided. And for Nero, that province was ROME. Not in Asia, where the Apostle John resided. Not in Gaul. Not in Briton. Just in ROME. Nero’s oppression and vices were at times so horrible, that even as one passed from inside ROME to outside the city, (unless you ran into the Camp of the Roman Legion), it probably felt as if you were being liberated.

For, as Tertullian writes,
“…Nero…assailed with the Imperial Sword – the Christian Sect – making progress especially then at ROME.” {40}

So, unless Nero traveled somewhere else -- such as Corinth, --his power and focus was not “near-absolute” anywhere where he was not. In jurisprudence, Nero specifically saw cases that were under his “sphere” only in the years of 55 (for 2 months), then in 57 (for 6 months), then in 58 (for 4 months), and lastly in A.D. 60 (for 6 months). {41}

Therefore, Paul could only have been executed in one of two years, A.D. 57 or 58. Jerome, who had access to the most ancient manuscript copies of the Church at the time, in A.D. 392, agrees and writes in “On Illustrious Men” in chapters 1, 5, and 9:

55 A.D. "…In the 25th year after our LORD’s Passion, {42}

55-56 A.D. that is the 2nd year of Nero, {43}
at the time Festus procurator of Judea, {44} succeeded Felix,
he [Paul] was sent bound to Rome, {45}


57-58 A.D.: and remaining for 2 years in Free Custody, [Acts 28:30]
disputed daily with the Jews concerning the Advent of Christ.”

Propaganda: Paul was dismissed by Nero that the Gospel of Christ
might be preached also in the West.

67 A.D.: …He, then, in the 14th year of Nero,
same day: on the same day with Peter, was beheaded in ROME
for Christ’s sake, and was buried in the Ostian Way

57 A.D.: the 27th year after the LORD’s Passion.” {46}


Jerome, earlier in his opening in chapter 1 of "On Illustrious Men,” cites a beginning of 42 A.D. for Peter’s reign, and an ending of 67 A.D. Obviously, this is impossible if he and Paul are co-founding Corinth, or if Peter is to also visit Asia’s Churches. {47} However, the specific analysis I want you to see is this: where Jerome evokes “the LORD’s Passion”, (which is on a March 23 according to Lactantius’ Letter to Donatus, .2), Jerome holds vehemently to a dating of 55-57 A.D. for the presence of Peter and Paul in ROME!

Also of note, in Chapter 9 of “On Illustrious Men”, Jerome also dates John’s death as “68 years after our LORD’s Passion.” Hence dating both John the Apostle’s death in 98 A.D. and the Passion as 68 years plus, before Trajan became Caesar in Rome after that transition period of Nerva (who followed Domitian).


A possible answer to Jerome's 2nd year of Claudius for Peter's arrival in ROME

Emperor Nero was also named “Claudius” after that his uncle had adopted him as his son, as stated earlier, so that his name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus.

So if Peter came in the 2nd year of the reign of this Nero Claudius, that is following June 1, 55 A.D., (when his second year would start, even after only a partial first), it would square with the historical record we have just examined throughout.

But let me clarify this one point: I hold Peter to arriving in Rome about a month following Paul, in the second year of Nero Claudius, but not Simon the Samaritan.

I believe the literary historical record is rigid on these two points:

1) Simon the Samaritan came to Rome in the second half of Claudius Caesar’s reign, between 48-53 A.D., and
2) Simon Peter, also called Cephas, arrived around June (or not much later) of 55 A.D.

It is extremely important that we can distinguish these two facts of the historical records which were in existence, but apparently misconstrued in later times because much of the information was rarely readily at one’s fingertips, due to the times in which they lived and the persecutions which they suffered.

“Simon Peter…in the 2nd year of the reign of [Nero] Claudius, pushed on to Rome, to overthrow Simon Magus.” says Jerome.

Again, according to the statement by Jerome, Peter came to Rome for what purpose? Not to head the Churches of Christianity...but to fulfill a personal mission...to take on Simon Magus.

Clearly, Jerome identifies, along with other evidence as we have seen, that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30. Now, such is the character of Jerome: when evoking the Passion, he refuses to lie, fearing loss of his eternal soul. Others after him also, refuse to change the utterance of Jerome where the Passion of Jesus is evoked. This speaks volumes, and tells us, that even as late as 392, there was a clear knowledge or information still available, that specifically dated the persecutions and deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul as being quite early in Nero’s reign.

To Jerome, when the name of G-D was evoked in such a way as to evoke “the efficaciously atoning Passion”, not even the Pope (or should we say, Bishop of ROME) could persuade him to "fudge" Church History. Claudius Nero becomes Claudius, except where the “Passion” of the LORD is evoked: then the truth is told! Perhaps in A.D. 392, there was a rivalry with the Church in Alexandria, and therefore a need for a 25 year leadership by Peter to counteract the Church started by a de facto successor of Peter, Mark. Who knows?

So, Jerome now identifies A.D. 57 for us. And the point of this, as at the beginning, that in dating John’s Revelation, even from the crucifixion do we see historical testimony from out of the ancient past. This reinforces that which Caius tells us specifically, how that Paul approved the Apocalypse before he died, and confined the number of his letters to his Churches, based solely on the number of Churches written to in the Apocalypse. Therefore, we are limited to a book of Revelation that was written only within Paul’s lifetime and after the founding of the Churches of Asia by Paul and other apostles of Jesus Christ.



=========================================

32 Luke’s was completed in Corinth of Achaia in 50-51 A.D., approximately 5 years before Matthew’s in Jerusalem.

33 Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14 – citing Clement of Alexandria

34 This can be further supported by Jerome. In 398 A.D., in his preface to Commentary on Matthew, Jerome tells us “Luke the physician…composed his book in Achaia and Boeotia.” That is: Corinth of Achaia, and near Athens in Boeotia. Prior to going to Athens in Acts 17:16, Luke goes to Berea in Acts 17:10. I believe that he is so impacted, as his statement in Acts 17:11-12 tells us, that he meets Theophilus in this city of Berea, and by the time Luke reaches Athens in Acts 17:16, it appears that Luke may have begun to piece together his rough draft Gospel outline (in part) from the parchments and scrolls of Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:13). These are they, which probably contain eyewitness testimonies and teachings as early as Acts 13:1 from Antioch. Luke then would then have conducted various apostolic interviews in Corinth, confirming, adding, and editing source material, before finally completing his Gospel in either A.D. 50 or by the Spring of 51 A.D.

35 Eusebius H.O.C., 2.24. In 2.16, Eusebius lists Mark as being the “first” who was sent to Alexandria, and the “first” to establish churches in that particular Egyptian city.

36 Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. p. 485, “Acts of the Apostles.” Although the story appears to be just that, there is little or no reason to doubt that such an odd date as June 29 would have been made up, but rather the author would have wanted to close on one well known fact as if to justify the reason for observance of the date that was being observed already. This date of June 29 falls very closely with Paul’s 2 whole years in his own hired house (Acts 28:30). Had he arrived in May of 55, followed by 2 whole years, and then receiving “a 30 day reprieve for the condemned” dating from Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus .32) or the later Senatorial reprieve of 10 days for the condemned issued in A.D. 21 (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius .75). And as Eusebius cites in H.O.C. 5.21, that once any man is brought to trial before Caesar and the Senate, …”once led to trial, and that would by no means CHANGE their purpose, should not be dismissed.”

One example that I have not seen anyone yet use in Roman history to date the trials of Peter and Paul, is that we do know with fair certainty, before even beginning to research the date of Peter and Paul's trials in Rome, that Peter and Paul were NOT executed in either November or December of any year, as the Court Calendars were dark in those months in Rome since the time of Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus, .32). Further, they would not have been executed in A.D. 56, because in that year, Seneca -- not Nero -- was Consul in ROME (Grant, Michael The Twelve Caesars, N.Y.: Barnes & Noble, © 1975, 1996 reprint, p.155).

Suetonius tells us that Nero held 4 consulships, which limits his interactions with the Apostles to these times:
1) Two months (in A.D. 55)
2) Six months (in A.D. 57)
3) Four months (in A.D. 58)
4) Six months (in A.D. 60) (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, 6.14)


37 Re: Bruce, F.F. “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, © 1943, 14th Edition 1980, p.83 Now, if F.F. Bruce’s assessment is correct, that the Ephesian riot took place in 54 A.D., the entire dating of the N.T. as I lay out must be bumped up a year. This could account for Paul’s expectancy of death in and desertion at 2 Timothy 4:16; but this could just as easily be explained as Paul simply referring to Jerusalem and his trial before Festus and Felix as the context of what he tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:16.

38 e.g., Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .20 - .29

39 Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .8 the earthquake relief / petition of funds was also made in behalf of Thyatira, and Chios also. Some historians have reckoned this earthquake at 17 A.D., while other opinions appear to be 23 A.D.

40 Tertullian, Apology, .5

41 Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .14

42 Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that Jesus was crucified on March 23, "the tenth of the Kalends of April". He also goes on to explain that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero", before Peter and Paul came to ROME.

43 Claudius died on October 13, 54 A.D. (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45) This is perfectly in line with the account given by Epiphanius, as stated earlier, in which John was both exiled to Patmos, and returned WHILE Claudius was emperor.
Nero was installed almost as soon as the news of Claudius’ October death was made public (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero,.8. Roman Emperors could appear to reckon their reign, like governors, from June 1 to May 31. Hence Nero’s 1st year could be reckoned in one of TWO ways: the actual calendar year of 365 days from when he took office in mid-October 54 A.D (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45; Nero .8; or by reckoning the time up to June 1, followed by the 365 days thereafter.

44 Josephus, 20.8.9. If Nero sent Festus straightway with a Legion in November 54, Paul would then have been sent from Jerusalem and on his way to ROME no later than January of 55 A.D., about one to two months prior to the death of Festus, who used his extra Legion to wage a swift winter campaign in the Israeli countryside. This still falls well within the timeline needed for a 53 A.D. Revelation authorship, and a death of Peter and Paul in Rome in A.D. 57.

45 More correctly, Paul arrived in Rome in 55 A.D. Luke records his stay as 2 whole years in a rented house, in which Paul awaited to stand before Caesar. Since Paul died on June 29 of 57 A.D., and if we subtract a 30 day imprisonment in bonds from June 29 in which he and Peter had time to change their minds toward the deities of Rome -- we reach an arrival date for Paul in Rome in the latter part of May 55 A.D. By February or early March of 55, Festus was dead. The martyrdom of James, the bishop of the Christians in Jerusalem, occurs on Passover in A.D. 55 just weeks after the death of Festus. (Re: Hegisippus’ account in Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.23; and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1.). Paul was on an island for about 3 months, subtracting to April, then March , then February. Then, allotting travel by ship and by pedestrian means, we are looking at a date no later than the first week of February, probably mid-late January 55 A.D. for Paul’s shipwreck experience.

46 Acts 28:30. The emphasis is that Paul stayed in his own rented house. Like Ignatius, in later times, he would have been chained to a special guard, and allowed to move about the city of ROME on rare occasions from time to time. The important thing to remember is that Paul’s house became an instant Church, in which others congregated and or met with him (Acts 28:17 ff.).

47 Jerome, “On Illustrious Men”, .545 Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.25, cites Dionysius of Corinth writing Soter of Rome, “…Peter, and Paul both sowed in Romans and Corinthians alike. For both of them sowed in our Corinth and taught us jointly: in Italy too, they taught jointly in the same city, and were martyred at the same time.” Cf.: I Corinthians 1:12, and I Peter 1:1.
In 44 B.C., Corinth was rebuilt into a “New Corinth”, a forced retirement settlement of former Legionnaires, Knights (L. “equestor ordo” -those of an upper social class who were senatorial financiers and contacts), and freedmen. There was an intense connection between Corinth and Rome when Peter and Paul arrived and stayed just 93-94 years later. It also tells us why that after the evangelism of Asia, funded by the Corinthians, the next effort was in Rome. Asia was home to the temples of Emperor Worship. Once the Gospel was clearly victorious in Asia, the Corinthian sponsors of the missionary efforts felt confident of their ambitions toward converting the people of Rome also. The noble Erastus was most likely of the “equestor ordo”, a Roman Knight, and financial sponsor of the Senator of Achaia as well as that of the Christian Churches funded by Peter and Paul in that region. The success of the evangelism of Asia probably relied quite heavily on Erastus’ position of influence in the Empire at the time, and an unspoken relationship with those around Emperor Claudius.

Redating the New Testament (Revised), part 3

History from Nicene Era Thyatira tells of a 53-54 A.D. Apocalypse

The post-Nicene 4th century apologist, Epiphanius (ca. 310-402 A.D.), in Against Heresies / Panarion, declares that John wrote his Apocalypse during the (end of the) reign of Claudius Caesar. The following is my reconstruction of the passages, in order to encapsulate what is being declared.

“Even the people of Thyatira testify this is to be true … [that]… (The Holy Spirit) did foretell (the Apocalypse) through the mouth of John (the Apostle)… who indeed did prophesy… during the reign of Claudius Caesar…when he was upon the isle of Patmos.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.33.8

“…after his (John’s) return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar…the Holy Spirit [not much later] compelled John to publish forth his Gospel…several years into his residing in [Ephesus of] Asia.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.12.1

Although this tradition was given through Thyatira of Asia to Epiphanius in the post-Nicene era; it was something that could be verified in the manuscripts of more than one Presbyter of Thyatira’s possession at that time. Epiphanius also tells us in these same two passages (excised here for clarity), that John died above the age of 90. If John was recruited by Jesus in late 26 A.D., and died in ca. 96-98 A.D.; then, according to recruitment requirements among Torah lawyers, John would have had to have been a minimum of 25 years of age for religious service under his Semikah rabbi.

That is, John the Apostle's birth can now be calculated to the first 7 months of the Julian year of 1 A .D. or within two years before that date. Hence, a death above 90, but not yet 100, and a fulfilling of what Epiphanius tells us, is that John was 95-97 at the time of his death. Not, as some translators of Epiphanius have misrepresented in translating Epiphanius’ passage here, that John was above 90 when first coming to or from Patmos, or above 90 in the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54 A.D.).

Clement of Alexandria, in saving the historically based tale of “A Rich Man who finds Salvation”, appears to support an early dating of the Apocalypse, saying:

“…This is not a myth, but a Word [logos], handed down and
committed carefully to memory, regarding the Apostle John.
When the tyrant died,

[tou turannou teleuthesantos – “the tyrant came to a lesser End” …perhaps implying natural causes like a heart attack in his sleep]

he [John] returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus,
and (then) being invited, went away to the neighboring
Districts of the nations:
appointing bishops here, setting Churches in order there,
and ordaining such as were (made known to him) by the Spirit.”

{Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man who shall find Salvation?”, .42)

So how old and lacking of vitality is John, when he indeed returned to Asia? At the first entering of Asia from his banishment by the tyrant (which is lingo for Procurator), John does not go about like an old man at the end of his life. John vigorously runs a circuit tour, and visits and reorganizes and appoints beyond Asia, like a ‘man on a mission’, ‘full speed ahead’.

The word “tyrant” speaks clearly that John’s persecutor was a local Procurator, and NOT a distant Caesar who would have banished to Pontia, off the Italian Coast.
In Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .54 and Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.18; we see that the isle of Pontia, off the Italian Coast, was in use from at least the 20s to the 90s A.D. as an isle of banishment. Caesar would not have allotted John to some obscure island, living almost comfortably in a fishing village, (which is what Patmos was and is still today), somewhere in the Aegean. So, we ask, is there more to point to a local Provincial Official as tyrant, and a local Ephesian or Asian persecution than that of an Emperor?

In the example of the grandsons of Judas, half-brother of Messiah, these were brought to ROME by the EVOCATUS in Domitian’s reign, but then were despised by the Emperor as “ignorant” and set free. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.20)

We do not have John preserved in any Early Church historical tradition as being known to have come to Rome and be tried before Caesar as were the grandsons of Judas. Since John was eminently more important in status to the Early Church, and one of Christ’s three closest disciples, had the event occurred, it WOULD have been clearly and historically referenced in the Patristic record. Instead, Tertullian tells us that before being banished from Asia,
“…The Apostle John [in Ephesus] was first plunged, unhurt,
into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile.”
(Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, .36)
and thereby indicates, along with the abovementioned quote of Clement of Alexandria, the extreme likelihood of this specific persecution as being the action taken by a local or provincial ruler.



A matter of history being taken literally

The word “history” comes from the Greek “historia” -- which means, “To investigate” and “to diligently seek out.” Simple referencing to commentaries, for example, is not a reasonable attempt to research. The failure to “thoroughly search out” would not have preserved us a Herodotus from Antiquity. Like with the students and teachers of the Talmud, those who accept commentaries appear to -- more often than not -- put the opinions of men ABOVE the Words of GOD. That is the danger we must avoid. We are all accountable to attempt the greatest accuracy on important issues, and this requires both time and laborious effort. Time and effort, which is often relegated to students and others, with the “scholar” behaving more like an editor than a researcher on his own merits.

Most scholars and laity are deficient in the proper and full reading of Irenaeus. They oft cite him as the authority for dating John's Apocalypse, and then ignore his other writings. Why? Perhaps they are too busy copying the endnotes of their colleagues...perhaps they are too busy...perhaps philosophic arguments are simple a dinner exercise, and academic truths are as intangible as a good dinner conversation.

Irenaeus is a third generation witness from Jesus, and a second generation witness from John the Apostle. When discussing Church history in these first two centuries or the first 150 years of development, it is ludicrous to leave Irenaeus out.

Irenaeus clearly states that at all points of the Empire in 178-181 A.D., Christianity clearly was an organized, developed, and communicating religious system. Germany communicates with Egypt and Spain; the Eastern provinces communicate with Libya and Italy. Gaul communicates with Greece and Asia...and all the Christians provinces communicate one with another, and testify faithfully that history - tradition - faith that has been passed down to them from the Apostles.

And what NT documents are communicated them? If we judge from Irenaeus own quotations in Against Heresies, we at least have the entire Roman Empire saturated with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,
I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter,
I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

In the dating of Revelation to 95 A.D., using Irenaeus as the primary source, name one commentary which cites all three of Irenaeus’ relevant quotes concerning the dating of John's Revelation to justify its date. Do they even at least expose any serious reader to a possibility of an early New Testament completely written before A.D. 70?

The noted author, and Christian Lecturer-Evangelist, Josh McDowell, in “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and “He Walked Among Us” (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers © 1972, 1988, respectively) points even the casual lay person to 3 points of interest in considering the N.T. Dating.

1) Over 40 years ago, William Foxwell Albright dared to tell the world, in 1963, that all the books of the New Testament were written no later than the 80’s A.D. Albright declared that every N.T. book was written by a baptized Jew in the First Century A.D. {18} “Every N.T. book”, means even the Apocalypse of John as being pre-90 A.D.

2) 13 years later, a scholar from Cambridge, John A.T. Robinson, released his work showing the New Testament was written entirely prior to 70 A.D. {19}

3) This same N.T. Scholar, Robinson, was interviewed by Time Magazine the following year, where he reiterated his claim, and challenged the academic world to prove him wrong. {20}

Most Academic scholars will lazily use only one quote from Irenaeus to “prove” 95 A.D. as an earliest possible date for Revelation. Therefore, I will use this same author and other early witnesses to show that they easily fail to invest a proper amount of time and effort on even just this one particular and most important topic -- in the dating of the New Testament.

Because the early dating of the New Testament clearly points to the power and effect of the Cross, and demonstrates down through the ages the veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Caius speaks from the past

Caius was a contemporary to Irenaeus, who along with Hippolytus, and others, probably was exposed to -- and learned directly from -- Irenaeus.{21} Caius, a ca. 190 A.D. Church Leader in Rome, {22} was what we consider a Third generation hearsay witness. John transmitted his teaching to Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, who taught Caius. {23}

What is Caius’s historical or chain-of-custody witness? That Paul wrote to only 7 Churches out of respect and acceptance of Revelation. That is, Revelation was written before the deaths of Peter and Paul!

“…The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than 7 Churches by name, in this order:
1) to the Corinthians, 2) to the Ephesians, 3) to the Philippians,
4) to the Colossians, 5) to the Galatians, 6) to the Thessalonians,
7) to the Romans.
Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for
their Correction, it is yet shown – that is, by this Sevenfold Writing -- that there is One Church spread abroad through the whole world.” {24}

Now, while we can debate the order which Caius presents {25} – what is irrefutable is the repetitive declaration that John’s book of Revelation was the reason why Paul limited himself to only 7 Churches, both having read and having approved the Apocalypse prior to his own death in Rome.

The question then becomes, if we accept the witness that Revelation was written PRIOR to the death of Paul, could we accurately pinpoint the year Paul died as an early year?

The academic culture believes we need a post 85 A.D. Revelation, because Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60. They reason that until its full restoration in A.D. 85, Revelation could not have been written. That is, if Revelation was written, it was penned before A.D. 60, {26} or after A.D. 85; with no room in between. So then, what is the historical witness?

Testimony from Irenaeus
In ca. 181 A.D., Irenaeus, a second-generation hearsay witness from John, writes:

“We have learned from none others than from those whom the GOSPEL –
the Plan of our Salvation -- has come down to us, which they at one time,
did proclaim in public; and at a later period, by the will of GOD,
handed down to us, in the Scriptures – to be the ground and pillar of our
Faith. Matthew indeed issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their Own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching in
ROME, {27} and laying the FOUNDATIONS of the CHURCH. {28}

After their departure, {29} Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us {30} in writing, what had been preached by Peter - – and Luke as well, that companion of Paul,
Who had recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. {31}

Afterwards, John, the Disciple of the LORD – who also leaned upon His breast, -- did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus of Asia.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)


How soon did John arrive in Ephesus? Was it before or after Paul’s death? In Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3., we read:
“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles”

Latin: Sed et quae Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem fundata Johanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora testis est verus Apostobrum traditionis.

Loosely translated and reiterated by me, for more impact:
“Indeed, what is more, those Ephesus called out ones --
of Paul, certainly founded --
John however /moreover permanently in the presence / house of
advanced all the way up to the times of Trajan
as one who gives credible evidence as a true witness,
testifying of the true Apostolic Tradition.”

The purpose of the loose translation with reiteration is to see where the drive of the testimony is. Irenaeus in the Ante-Nicene Father translation and in the Latin, is claiming veracity and soundness based on a continued, unbroken, permanent presence of John...pushing an island exile back to a pre-Neroian era, and to a matter of months of separation between Paul and the Church of Ephesus. Certainly less than one year.

Further, we find from Irenaeus that he also had access to and learned from other unnamed elders and presbyters (beside Polycarp) who had conversed with John for many years. In Against Heresies 5.30.3., (e.g, compare http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/images/ah5p052.jpg )

"...it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Reading from the Greek text "Oude gar" - "Not for", we see that there is a continuum of the expressing John's presence to be asked about the Revelation "alla schedon epi tas hameteras geneus" / "up alongside against but opposite to, almost nearly upon our own daylight / time of life".

The which is reiterated and qualified as until "pros to telei tas Domitianou archas" / "up alongside the end/completion of Domitian's reign."

This is interpretation is verified by looking at context in the preceding sentence's "di ekeinou an errathe tou kai tan Apolkaluphin eorakotos," which continues into the oft misquoted Irenaeus, to force-fit a late date to Revelation. We are clearly talking about "that one there" or a "he"...not an "it". The Revelation wasn't some cloud or floating-floaty that haunted Patmos...it was a proclamation by he who was at Ephesus until his spirit was no more in his head, as it were -- cf. Gen. 2:7 -- (or body).

Notice the text in the Greek directs us to view "the announcement" in regards one who was he who "announced" the Apocalyptic Vision in the sense of being one who was "stimulated into action to proclaim forth or feel the need to tell the truth."

For John, the Apocalypse wasn't simply a vision; it was as if part of the Gospel proclamation and ministry of testifying of and about Jesus Christ.

If this is indeed the intent of the wording, then, according to the Asiatic view, we must accept that the Asiatic elders who knew and succeeded John felt that Revelation was part of the package that included the later Gospel of John (written post Peter and Paul's departure from this life day: June 29, 57 A.D.).

We, like our predecessors, may take such a view to task (at the first)...but the concept does deserve some consideration. It may also tie in to a later doctrinal conflict between Asia and Rome less than 100 years after John's demise.

It appears that we may liken the differences from the Roman and Asiatics, not only in regard to whether or not they observed the Passover --(Ephesus/Smyrna did, Rome did not except for the Passover Communion accepted from Polycarp in the 150s) -- but also in principal as to whether we were looking for a kingdom of G-D on Earth physically now, or one like Revelation and Paul in Colossians 3:1ff. and I Corinthians 15:51 (et al.) in which "the Church" (the body of all Christian believers as a whole) is "raptured" or "snatched away" in a deliverance to the Heavenlies until Judgment and the Day of HASHEM purges the Earth.

This theological difference is foundational to understand why the Roman branch evolved into what it did, and why they felt a need to artificially create a Papal Office that was non-existent to the time of Against Heresies' first publication.

================================

18 Christianity Today, magazine, January 18, 1963 “Toward a More Conservative View.”

19 Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976.

20 Time, March 21, 1977.

21 The importance of Irenaeus is that he probably has two direct links to John in his Instruction. The first is obviously Polycarp, who John declares he saw and learned from in Smyrna (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.).
The second link to John was through Papias. Irenaeus had probably met and learned from Papias, and if he did not, he had access to those who had; and Irenaeus had possession or regular access to the complete works of Papias’ 5 books and those sayings and teachings of the Apostles and Jesus that did not make it into the New Testament, but should have (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3-4).

22 There may be debate as to Tertullian being a Fourth Generation witness, having learned from Proculus who learned from Irenaeus, etc. However, the insight granted us by Tertullian in his work “Against the Valentinians” 3.5. perhaps can be taken either way. Either that Tertullian met Irenaeus the man, and despised his abrasiveness; thus, elevating Proculus as a better role model. Or that it was Proculus that had met the meticulous Irenaeus, and transmitted his teachings to Tertullian. What is important to note, is that by 190 A.D., there was an agreement in ROME (and perhaps other major Churches) as to the completion of the New Testament canonization.
Caius and other Church Leaders were involved in the Canonization of the New Testament by the close of the Second Century. Such was his position in ROME among the Christians. For he writes in the Muratorian Canon, how that no more books may be added to the prophets or the Apostles to the end of time, as the number is made complete for those works which ought to be read in public among the Churches. The one point that shouldn't be missed in all of this is that when Caius and his contemporaries speak of Christianity being proclaimed in ROME, they speak of doing so in private meeting places, and not in public streets or squares in ROME. The fact that Peter and Paul at one time spoke publicly in the streets or wherever, freely, appears to just blow their minds that such a day ever was.

23 We also have the probability of a secondary transmission of Polycarp to Pius, bishop of Rome, who also passed along the teaching and book of the Apocalypse in the 150’s A.D, verifying the veracity of Irenaeus’ teachings. When Polycarp came to Rome, he would have been a very healthy and well above 110 years old, when he made the trip by ship and donkey drawn carts.

24 Caius, Fragments 3.3. Clearly the “rule” is established by a manuscript of John’s Patmos Apocalypse. This is only possible if it preceded John’s 44 year unbroken stay in Asia, as defined by Irenaeus, whose teacher Polycarp, was one of John’s bishops. (Re: Irenaeus 3.3.4. Cf., Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man who finds Salvation, .42).

25 My general evaluation on these Church letter dates correspond as:
1) Corinthians 1 & 2 in 52 –53 A.D. from Asia.
2) Ephesians in October 56 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
3) Philippians in 57 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
4) Colossians in 54 A.D. from captivity in Israel.
5) Galatians in 48 A.D. (unknown location at this time).
6) Thessalonians in 54 A.D. from Asia.
7) Romans in 53 A.D. Unknown. Possible locales include from either Macedonia or the isle of Troas in the beginning of the year to as late as Israeli imprisonment before being shipped out to his Caesarian trial from Israel in the Fall. The Communication is heavily to past Corinthian Church members, to those who co-evangelized Asia with Paul, now in Rome.
Therefore, the phrase, “in this order”, may actually appear to mean: “received among the Churches as part of the Canon in this order.” If that is the case, and the intent, then we see that by 190 A.D., many of the epistles of the New Testament were already well tested and established in both its makeup and distribution. We therefore see a 190 A.D. Roman Church, when examined through Irenaeus, as being familiar with the entire New Testament, with the exceptions of Philemon and 3 John. Philemon is familiar to Ignatius out of Antioch of Syria, and 3 John probably only among the Asiatic Churches at the time of Caius’ above evaluation.

26 This thesis was written by me, and as my work product (i.e., my primary manuscript was copyrighted 03-31-2006). So far, in the contacting of “evangelical” or “apologetic” “Christians”, I found myself fulfilling Isaiah 53:1’s “Whom shall believe our report? And to whom is the ARM [YHVeH Messiah] of the LORD revealed?”

27 Matthew is traditionally said to have died on November 16 of an unknown year in Macedonia according to the Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle. If the date of death were correct, then Matthew would most likely have died in A.D. 56 on that date of November 16.
28 That is, laying the ground and pillars of the Scriptures. This will have occurred, as we shall see, between 55-57 A.D.

29 Their deaths -- in ROME. Another indicator to the early dating of Revelation: In A.D. 62 or 63, Clement, bishop of ROME, tells the Corinthians that Paul had already preached the West (by inference, ROME, I Clement 5:6-7), and that the purpose of evangelizing was toward achieving the set number of “elect” {or Israelites}, which would indicate the knowledge of Revelation’s 144,000 quota (I Clement 2:4).

30 Generically “to us in Asia;” Specifically, “to John in Ephesus of Asia.” John is called the disciple of the LORD, an Apostle, an elder, and is identified as the evangelist by Anatolius as being the “evangelist John, who leaned on the LORD’s Breast” in Anatolius, Paschal Writings, .10.

31 The Book of Hebrews. Contrary to later speculation that Paul claimed Luke’s Gospel as his own.

Redating the New Testament (revised), part 2

Eusebius tells us that prior to 67 A.D. -
“The whole body, however, of the Church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a Divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the War, removed from the city, and dwelt in a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella. Here, those that believed in Christ, having removed from Jerusalem as if holy men, had entirely abandoned the Royal City itself, and the whole land of Judea….” >(Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5).

This quote also isolates the writing of I Clement to a time frame of not just before 70 A.D., but certainly before 67 A.D.

Indirectly, then, it may be understood that the “presbyter” of Corinth was de facto a neo-Sanhedrin office, an ambassador to Jerusalem, in behalf of the Churches at Corinth. But why was Clement contacted by Fortunatus of Corinth?

Philippians 4:3 appears to infer Clement was a fellow-laborer with Paul since at least the founding days of the Churches of Philippi, and his mention is prominent in that capacity. Since Clement was likely continuing with Paul in the ensuing years since Philippi, through Corinth and Asia and Rome, being also present with Paul and Peter at Corinth’s Christian founding, perhaps there was some sort of unwritten Charter that was specifically relevant to the Churches at Corinth? This would explain why Clement in Rome (if the sole known survivor, means Luke and Timothy would have been deceased by this time) was tapped by Fortunatus (but not necessarily). But alas, this is speculative.

The expression by Clement that "one or two" had overthrown the Corinthian Presbyter {13} might then suggest perhaps Stephanus and/or Achaicus (I Corinthians 15:17) had seized the office and household, cast out the existing representative presbyter, and installed their own man.

Therefore, in regard to pre-70 A.D. Jerusalem, we need to adapt our minds to grasp that pre-67 A.D. Christianity still observed Temple Sacrifice and had their own Sanhedrin, as if a parallel Judaism within Judaism.

The idea, then, of a papacy in Rome or anywhere else, was simply an alien Gentile concept reserved for much later generations. But like the redating of the New Testament, it appears that even a contemporary work like First Clement is also a lock...datable from within a few months following the fires to Rome in 64, to no later than 66 A.D.

From this background of understanding, we can clearly defend the position of dating Clement to a period when the Temple in Jerusalem yet stood and sacrificed, unthreatened; and was also that period after the deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome.



Further Dismantling a Modern Late Dating "Spin"
When the Church history and the roll of the bishops of Ephesus were read in circa 207 A.D., (in the same Third Century A.D. in which some New Testament’s Progressive / Communist / Atheistic critics contend the NT was "created"), it clearly showed that at its very origin: that is, along with Ephesus’ first bishop (Timothy), John and his Apocalypse were recorded as being present at Ephesus’ origin or beginning (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).

But is this possible?

Timothy, a companion of Silas (bishop of Corinth), whom we know to have been Paul’s disciple, served as bishop in Ephesus, under Paul, from ca. A.D. 52 - ca. August 53 (the approximate de facto date of the Ephesian uproar, which some reckon as in the spring months of March to April).{14}

Timothy then, would have had to continue serving to a certain year as bishop, even after the uproar had passed, without the guidance of an apostolic overseer, for a period of months. As we shall see later, I say "months" because this is the testimony of John through Polycarp through Irenaeus in one of the essential quotes liberal scholarship fears to let you know about. And, as we shall see in the chronology of Luke's Book of Acts, John (by inference) returned from his exile and came back to Ephesus, by April of 54 A.D.

As Hebrews 13:23 testifies,{15} we do know that Timothy at some point left the bishopric of Ephesus in order to have been arrested elsewhere and set free.

In examining the life of Paul through Acts, I place this as likely being late fall or early winter the year before Paul died; hence, A.D. 56 (if we accept 2 Timothy 4:6-21 at face value).

Certain years that I believe are definitive years of the book of Acts:

44 A.D. -- The death of a Herod in 44 A.D. listed in Acts 12:21.

47 A.D. -- The Jerusalem Conference, Pentecost 47 A.D. in Acts 15:7.

Paul gives testimony of his conversion in Galatians 1:13-17, explaining that after his conversion, he did not go up to Jerusalem, but went to Arabia for a period of time and then returned to Damascus.

Galatians 1:18:
“Then after years, three, I went up to Jerusalem to learn from Peter; and stayed upon up alongside him days, fifteen.”

Galatians 2:1:
“Then through 14 years, again, I went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas; taking with me also, Titus.”


Galatians 2:1 identifies that the Jerusalem conference was 14 years after Paul’s conversion (i.e., through the use of “dia”/”through” ff.. “meta”/”after” in 1:18).

That means that the calculation isn’t PLUS Galatians 1:18’s “meta”/”after 3 years, as though to be 17 years…but rather it keeps the 14 as a “total” tally.

Being 14 years prior to 47 A.D., means a conversion of Saul to Paul in 33 A.D. This allows Saul (who would become “Paul”) about 2 to 3 years (depending on when he saw the martyr's death of Stephen) to persecute Christians viciously in Judea, the coastal regions, and perhaps Galilee, before setting out for Syria with Sanhedrin letters of authority to do the same there also.

49 A.D.-- The Claudine expulsion of Jews from Rome (Acts 18:1-2.) {16}

49 – 51 A.D. -- For the next 18 months (Acts 18:11), until the spring of 51 A.D. Paul is in Corinth. Paul then sails to Syria (Acts 18:18), and then goes to Ephesus of Asia.

51-53 A.D. -- Paul still travels, but his time from this point at Ephesus is reckoned for 2 years (Acts 19:10). This brings us to the summer months of 53 A.D.

Late April to the first days of May 54 A.D., but likely late April -- Paul calls for the elders of the Church of Ephesus by messenger from Miletus (Acts 20:17) and officially announces his departing (Acts 20:29,32).

A.D. 54 - Paul is imprisoned many days in Israel, but not years (dietia)

That is the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts.

June 1, 54 A.D. - According to the Roman transfer of proconsuls / governors and Caesars, the years of service were reckoned from June 1 of a given year. If the year for a Caesar precedes June 1, that is often calculated as Year 1, and then at June 1, even if that falls but 2 or 4 months later, that is Year 2 of the reign. It is as if limited by "fiscal" as well as "political" calendars, and perhaps set by Augustus' reconstruction and laws guiding Roman governance.

Διετιας δε πληρωθεισης ελαβεν διαδοχον ο Φηλιξ

"Years then being completed/fulfilled [in the sense of duty being accomplished (Acts 12:25) ] received a successor Felix"...etc. is the literal translation.

Often the changing of the order in varying translations to "(Two) years then being completed, Porcius Festus came into Felix's room" (Acts 24:27) confuses those who have not looked to the Greek manuscripts, because in the Greek, this verse clearly speaks to Felix serving a second term, not of Paul's imprisonment.

Twice the article "ho" in the sentence first rests on Felix, and this drives the highlight and theme of what Luke is conveying. The sentence is about Felix in the Greek, even as in John 1:1c, the absence of the article on Theos and the use with Logos (kai theos een ho Logos...and G-D was the Word) tells us that the theme is on the Logos being G-D, but not the complete expression or totality of G-D (since we have the Father and the Holy Spirit as part of the expression of what and who G-D is, more than just the Son, the Word or Logos).

To skip the articles of the Greek in which the years are driving the point home on "Felix", and to jump to Paul (who is the second to the last word -- some 13 words later after two mentions of Felix -- in the entire somewhat lengthy sentence), is a bad reading of the Greek, and sloppy scholarship in that regard.


In a careful reading and redating of Josephus' Antiquities and Wars of the Jews, we will find:

Pilate served from [June 1,] 24 A.D. - 34 A.D. (Antiquities 18.4.2,6) Two Legion tours of duty [being 5 years each].

Later, Cumanus served from [June 1,] 42 A.D. - [May 31,] 47 A.D. One legion's term of 5 years.

Felix served from [June 1,] 47 A.D. - [May 31,] 52 A.D. and again from [June 1,] 52 A.D. - [May 31,] 54 A.D. before being relieved by Festus. One legion's term of 5 years plus 2 years into a second term.

Festus lasted only from [June 1,] 54 A.D. - ca. pre-Passover 55 A.D.

That chronology which places Paul in the hands of Festus in or about 54/55 A.D., is virtually the same as the testimony of Luke through the book of Acts.

The question of filling in the blanks of Paul’s length of imprisonment will be answered later, because as we shall see, the 2 years Paul will stay in Rome (Acts 28:30) is a FINAL stay. It is my contention, after having examined all of the evidence, that this year is almost certainly 57 A.D. Critics are given only one other year as a remote possibility: 58 A.D.

Therefore, we are given a timeline of 53-55/56 A.D. in which John the Apostle must be banished, write the Apocalypse / Revelation, and come to Ephesus with the book in order for there to be an unbroken succession at Ephesus between Paul the Apostle, and John the Apostle, as we shall see Irenaeus testify. If Timothy is indeed a Semikah rabbi (disciple) of Rav Paul, then as long as he remains in Ephesus for up to a year after Paul leaves, it is as if Paul’s rule yet remains unbroken (though he be temporarily absent), and Irenaeus is vindicated.

But Timothy, indeed, at some point traveled to Rome. There, he was imprisoned for an unknown offense (Hebrews 13:23), most probably in relation to Paul’s execution on June 29 of that year. And curiously enough, it was Trophimus, and not Timothy, who was martyred along with Paul the Apostle.{17}

============================================
13 ANF - I Clement .47, and addressed as if men/persons of means in .57

14 F.F. Bruce, Are the New Testament Documents Reliable? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 14th Reprint March 1980, p. 84, citing Duncan, G.S., St. Paul’s Ephesian Ministry (1929) p. 140.

15 “Know (then that) the brother Timothy, having been freed, with whom if I come sooner, I will see you.” (Literal Greek to English)

16 cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 18.1.2-6.

17 Hippolytus, On the 70 Apostles,.70 “Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul”. Although not de facto scholarly considered as written by Hippolytus, the data appears to retain pertinent and clearly factual data on where many earliest church bishops and relevant figures ended up., and how some died.

Redating of the New Testament (revised), Part 1

Preface: An early dating of the New Testament is grounded in the historical
anamnesis and witness of those of the generation, which saw, heard, and physically touched Jesus Christ. In contrast, it is those who choose to do what the scribes and Pharisees did to the masses while Jesus taught or performed miracles -- to commit apodokimazo (Gr. "to actively keep from proving"){1} -- to illegitimately and deceptively proclaim disbelief, which will potentially turn thousands upon thousands AWAY from Christ.

Beginning with Clement (bishop at Rome 57 -100/101 A.D.)

By looking first at Clement, I wish to bring you into the First Century from a more proper perspective, so that you may see without the purple haze that "Q" and other theories have placed upon the minds of those looking at the New Testament era.

The bishop of Rome in the first centuries of Christianity was never a pontifex maximus (the top “high priest”) over Christianity, as Roman Catholicism has re-envisioned history to be. But the fact of the matter is that 1 Clement was written by Clement, who was THE HEAD of the Churches at Rome, who confessed more than once, that there was NO PAPACY present.

I Clement was written prior to A.D. 70 by the THIRD bishop of the Christian Churches at Rome. Roman Catholicism incredulously calls him the third pope. If so, by his own words and closeness to the apostles, Clement’s own words should have the greater weight in our considerations of debating about the man. In I Clement, .34, ( by my reckoning dating to weeks or months just after the fire of Rome under Nero) we have the citation that could just as easily be attributed to Revelation 22:12 as to Isaiah 40:10, or 62:11. When the proper dating is accomplished, possibilities like these must dealt with in the context of the most accurate timeline, and properly addressed.

I Clement was most likely in the months following the persecutions by Nero Caesar following his burning of Rome. There is some debate as to whether that July 18-19 burning of Rome was in A.D. 64. I Clement was most likely written between September and November following the Great Fire of Rome, and the following persecutions and torching of the Christians.{2}

Sometime in the two months prior to the letter of I Clement, there was a tumult created by some one or two affluent persons who sought to engage in sedition against the Presbyters at Corinth.

I Clement, .47 reads thus:
– It is disgraceful…and unworthy of your Christian profession that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and the*very* first* Church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its Presbyters. And this rumor has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected (or differ) with us….”

One or two members had raised a sedition against the holy and blameless bishop over the Corinthian Churches, for no other reason perhaps, than just because they could. The point did not matter in regards as to whether these men were pretenders of Judaism, Greek philosophy, or worshippers of Roman or Greek deities. What did matter is that the leaders had to have been men of great influence within the Church; and at Corinth, and that meant wealth. Whoever these two men were, they had great wealth and were either great benefactors only, or both benefactors and Presbyters over their own large congregations. If Presbyters, then as we read that word, we should translate it as Chief Reverend or Rabbi, so that we might get the modern concept or understanding of this position. But in context, we come to find that earlier in the Epistle, Clement confesses of not being over all churches:

"Let us cleave, therefore, to those who cultivate peace with godliness, and not those who hypocritically profess to desire it…For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock." {3}

…let us esteem those who have the rule over us; let us
Honor the aged among us; let us train up the young men in the fear of G-D….” {4}

The above quoted words were written and stated when John the Apostle was yet alive. It is also highly likely that Phillip the Apostle was also alive, but that the social and religious nature was that the Corinthians wanted a familiar authority, but less than that of an apostle to more meekly judge their conflict; especially if that someone was familiar with all the players involved in the conflict; someone like Clement.
It would have followed a more logical order on seeking independent authority outside the regional nearby major Church cities that the Church having an issue seeking doctrinal clarity normally would have contacted Jerusalem, now headed by Simeon, son of Cleopas. However, Eusebius tells us that the Churches of Christ removed themselves to Pella (a city east of the Jordan River) {5} after heeding prophetical utterance of Jerusalem’s coming destruction utterances by the same man who is mentioned in Josephus, whose ministry began 7 years before the taking of Jerusalem, or AD. 63. {6}

And the next quote verifies that as of the writing of I Clement, Jerusalem was still actively sacrificing daily and unmolested; hence, clearly dating not only pre-70, but pre-67 A.D. as well.

“Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to G-D in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming Gravity, and not going beyond the rule of ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem only." {7}

The Christian denomination of the Hebrew Faith was only 34 years old when Clement dictated this epistle as one bishop writing to another bishop's province. Clement himself is identified by the New Testament as being a former missionary and evangelist under Paul, who helped establish the Churches while at Corinth.{8} So, in the year 64 A.D. when I Clement was written -- following the fires and persecutions at Rome -- the Church at Corinth would have been only about 15 years in existence, and writing for advice from Clement as someone who helped to establish what the Church Doctrine as given them from Peter and Paul (their founders) was.

In Paul's letter to the Corinthians some 11 years previously, Paul criticized those whose congregations were claiming pre-eminence over others in the city. At the time, those factions divided themselves as followers of the Apostle Paul, followers of the Apostle Peter, and followers of the Evangelist Apollos. According to Hippolytus, Silas was the appointed bishop of Corinth of Achaia,{9} and as we can see in this retrospect, it was probably the Presbyters of the factions of "Apollos” and of “Peter" from 53 A.D., who were (probably) the ones who then had successfully removed Silas (more the follower of Paul’s way of thinking) in early 64 A.D. without any just cause or excuse.{10}

Let me reiterate the point that directly dates Clement pre-70 A.D.:
“Let each of you/us brothers, in his proper order give thanks to G-D, maintaining a good conscience, not overstepping the designated rule of his ministry, but acting with reverence. (2) Not just anywhere, brothers, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the offerings for sin and trespasses, BUT ONLY IN JERUSALEM.
And even there the offering is not made in every place, but IN FRONT OF THE SANCTUARY at the altar, the offering having been first inspected for blemishes.”{11}

Clement speaks in the present tenses of the Greek regarding the Temple. It stands…it exists…it is not in danger…the sacrifices are occurring…the inspections of sacrifices are on-going. There is no hint of even a siege, or a shutting up of the city so as to choke the process that he lays out in 41.2. Clement speaks of the ministries as having reverence to Jerusalem, and speaks of subservience to those higher than themselves.

In I Clement 21.6 (Lightfoot), Clement speaks of “our leaders” / “those who have the rule over us”.{12} The word of interest there, for our understanding the proper context of the translation, is Proegoumenous. Proegeomai appears just once in the New Testament in Romans 12:10. There, Paul uses the same word (Proegoumenoi) to speak of a way of not only out-doing the righteousness of the Pharisee; but of trying to emulate and outdo the kindness and godly actions of those (within the Church or Faith) “officials who take the lead by example, as better, presiding over us; having gone on before us.”

Proegeomai therefore is an idea that is lost in translation from Greek into English; it is of duplicating works and reverencing those in authority over us by outdoing them, as if they had become a past twin reflection of us…a mirror image, if you will…and we are simply carrying on by their illustrious examples. How you treat 'that one' will not only enhance or worsen the one you project 'love' or 'enmity' to... but that projection of 'love' or 'enmity' will also 'mold and shape' you (personally, for good or evil) as well.

As we will see momentarily, Clement was in fact referring that he had officials of the Church higher than he, and one of them was his own presbyter ambassador (when empowered by the Christian neo-Sanhedrin of Jerusalem). Lost in translation is the fact that the Gospels themselves (as it were) label the traditional Jewish Sanhedrin of 70 as not just “elders”, but “presbyters”. Some of these are clearly found in the Greek texts of Matthew 16:21, 26:3; Mark 8:31, 11:27; Luke 9:22, 20:1.

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria,in his Epistle to the Church at Tralles,.3
viewed “Presbyters as [those who made up the membership of] the Sanhedrin of GOD.”

The view, which was almost certainly penned or dictated by Ignatius while in Smyrna in the presence of Polycarp. Hence, we have an “organized” structure of the Christians, based in and out of Jerusalem until the death of James on Passover 55 A.D. And afterwards, there would form multiple Sanhedrins, or congresses of 70. These would first evolve out of Antioch of Syria, Ephesus of Asia, and Corinth of Achaia…each having a 3 day travel radii to participant Christian synagogues or assemblies, and 70 church leaders to represent their districts and region.

The NT references most clearly used in First Clement, besides the Gospels of Luke and Mark, are: Romans, I Corinthians, Hebrews, Ephesians, and I Peter. These testify of a relationship of some correspondance with Corinth and Ephesus.

Therefore, with regard to Luke and Mark, the understanding of whether or not we are to define a presbyter / elder as a member of the Sanhedrin in the earliest apostolic Churches, is clearly relevant to the need of having a better comprehension of First Clement. We know that the Christians started their denomination of Judaism as Jewish-Israeli, and took the position that Judaism’s leaders were leading Jews and Israel away from the Almighty; and hence, from the Faith of the Forefathers of them. It also appears that the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 was, in effect, a neo-Sanhedrin of Christianity‘s own 70, with their own scribes and priests, etc..
Eventually, by the third century A.D., it appears that there evolved multiple systems, where there were multiple Sanhedrins in Christianity based out of chief churches such as Corinth, Alexandria, and Rome…having suburbicary distances of influence of 3 days or less journey (generally 100 miles in any one direction beyond city limits). But in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, it appears that there was only one central neo-Sanhedrin of Christianity, and that was in Jerusalem.

================================

1 e.g., Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31 & 12:10; Luke 9:22, 17:25, 20:17

2 cf. Tacitus, Histories, Annals 15. Christians were falsely accused for the fires of Rome. Some crucified, some placed in animal skins and dogs set on them, others were turned into human torches (probably an oil grease) and set on fire like candles to illuminate Nero’s vast gardens; etc.

3 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches - .15, .16

4 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .21

5 Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.5

6 Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.5.3 at the feast of Tabernacles, A.D. 62, Jesus ben Ananus began his prophesying night and day without ceasing until killed by a Roman catapulted boulder, lasting 7 years and 5 months without growing hoarse, even to the moment he died.

7 I Clement, Letter to the Corinthian Churches, .41

8 Philippians 4:3 tells us that when the call came from Paul, Clement was in Philippi. The identification was also made by Origen in his commentary on John 1:29. Of note: Origen says Clement even spoke of those people who are on the other side of the impassable ocean, which were called “antichthones” by the Greeks (Origen de principiis, 3.3.6), but as kosmos (peoples / world) in I Clement, .20. Instead of Paul preaching to Britain, as some few contend…according to Origen, it was Clement who founded Christianity in Rome by making a trip there at some unknown time in the 50s or 60s A.D.

9 Hippolytus, on the 70 disciples,.16; lists Silas as that bishop who succeeded Peter and Paul.

10 In 1 Corinthians 1:12, there were three factions in Corinth: those who claimed Paul, those who claimed Peter, and those who claimed Apollos. Each called their apostle “greater” in order to net some kind of apparent material gain or ability to place themselves as first in line(and such nonsense), and were all rebuked by the Apostle Paul for such childish behavior.

11 I Clement 41.1-2 (Lightfoot translation, emphasis mine)

12 Cf. http://www.textexcavation.com/greekclement17-32.html

How many went down to Egypt? 75, 71, 70, or 66?

In the New Testament, there has been a complaint raised about Jacob coming to Egypt with 75 people, while in the Hebrew Torah, the number listed is 70.

In the New Testament, Acts 7:14 states 75. The LXX states 75 in Exodus 1:5 and previously in Genesis 46:27.

Genesis 46:26 states the number at 66 in the Masoretic text. In verse 27, the number of those coming into Egypt were 70. In Exodus 1:5 of the Masoretic the number is 70. See also Deuteronomy 10:22 in the Hebrew.

That is a jump of 4 in the Hebrew or O (zero) in the Greek. What might be missed is a doubling of the two souls of the sons of Joseph from Genesis 46:26-27, plus their prior count in Genesis 46:20. Were Manassah and Ephraim now counted thrice (3 times)?

The discrepancy between the LXX and the Masoretic, and the Masoretic from itself appears to be a a matter of reckoning. It may be that in the third century BC, and certainly before Herod I came to power when all the LXX was finalized by, the scribes may or may not have altered this number after other information, such as counting children over age two, instead of just those over age three, for example. That LXX information of 75 was entered and finalized well prior to Hillel restoring the lost Hebraic Torah to Israel some 30 years after Herod I came to power. Because the anti-Christian Sanhedrin of Jerusalem sought to catch Christians in every word, it is very unlikely that Stephen, attempting to convince a Sanhedrin Katan wishing to destroy him, would have made the number 75 up. That mistake would have been pounded against Christianity to successfully disperse it if it were so. Hence, we ned to look further, and elsewhere.

When the Hillel Torah was translated in the then modern Hebrew script, it likely did so first using vastly differing letter forms just 400-500 years earlier (several letters even trading with one another), so that number was also entered in the Hebraic Script; but , we just don’t "absolutely" know. But it is possible that the Hillel Copy had 70, because Josephus (who took his reckoning in Antiquities 2.7.4,) reckoned 70 without Jacob, and 71 with him. This disagrees then with the Massorete Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronmy 10:22. What happened?

There is some unaccountability in Torah manuscript transmission. That lacking finds litle solace in being dependant on sparse Mishna to Talmudic quotations, compared to the NT manuscript fragments dating well back to within a couple generations of the disciples themselves, and having a completeness by the age of Jerome, some 50 years prior to the Leningrad Codex.

We do know that in the Second Century, about 250 years before Jerome, a war of words went up when Jewish zealots redacted out this or that word or phrase in order to deny Yeshua, and the Christians chewed them up for it. Perhaps this happened also with the text, using a new counting of souls after thus an age rather than the prior thus an age. If the family of Hebraic manuscripts became small, it made small changes more possible.

Jerome in ca. 392 A.D. probably held copies of the New Testament that were almost exclusively from the first century A.D. sources as well, being only 350 or less years removed from the 47 -57 A.D. compositions of those works (an NT author dating I can reasonably prove).

It is known (Jerome, Against Rufinius, 2.34) that where the Apostolic texts differ from the much later Masoretes in quoting the Hebraic Old Testament texts, the Apostles appear to have followed a manuscript tree that was more closer to Aramaic (if we follow the second century quotations in translation to Latin and Greek by Irenaeus) and first sources, such as the Ezra era translation of Hebrew Scriptures scribed by Hillel -- if I understand correctly -- that was brought to Rome, and cited by Josephus.

Those same copies of that master copy of the Temple, which would have included the Psalms and the prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah (etc.), made available to all Israel by 6 A.D. to 66/67 A.D. in copy form from that master copy.

Jerome, himself, handled some of these same pre-LXX manuscripts, pre-dating the LXX's completion prior to the ascension of Herod the Great.

By his own testimony, Jerome says that his Hebrew copies that he was handling, were those that pre-dated even our extant Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll now on display in Israel, dating to at least 150 B.C. and possibly as old as 250 B.C.

For him to say this there would have been a clear distinction in the difference of the Hebrew epigraphy. For which aid, he sought out the best Hebrew expert of his day to learn more than just an expanded version of what he would have called "modern Hebrew" in the 4th century A.D....but an "ancient Hebrew" of the 4th to 5th century B.C. as well. The only Ante-Nicene (pre-Nicene) mention of the relevant texts I have found is from about 190-200 A.D., in which Clement repeats the number of 75, citing Genesis 46:27 (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21) and comparing Euphorus and the 75 nations he mentions (having 72 languages and 3 dialects blending two or three of the 72 together).

So we arrive back at the Massoretes, and find that 134 texts have been tampered with by the Massoretes, who changed the name YHVH into ADNY…4 letters for 4 letters. Therefore, I presume, based on the preponderance of my research that the redaction of the original 75 to 70 was made sometime in the Second Century and retained that way in the Hebrew, and based most likely on whether or not to reckon newborns or one year or two year or three years olds...something along those lines.

I have found no Dead Sea Scroll Texts or anything of an antiquity prior to the ascension of Judah ha-nasi (ca. 190 A.D.) to demonstrate otherwise.

Matthew 1:23 was correct in interpreting Isaiah 7:14, a virgin birth text.

"Therefore, the Master Himself shall give you a sign [oth]; Behold, a VIRGIN [alma] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel {trans. as 'G-D with us"}."

As we know, in the tanakh, the word "alma" appears 7 times. In Gematria, we are made aware of this, as it teaches us about the character of G-D, whose "being" is comprised also of 7 spirits (Zechariah 4:10) seen as ehad (Zechariah 4:2). This tells us that we are to approach this textual criticism with caution.

The primary contention of the Hasidim to alma being taken as "virgin" in the Tenach, deals primarily with the usage in Proverbs 30:18-20. The way of a man with a young woman or "b'alma" is compared to three things: an eagle in the heavens, the path of a serpent upon the rock, and the course of a ship in the middle of the ocean. In each case, the "way" is the wide course of "derek", which is subject to the whims of the wind and the eagle, the serpent and the slope of the rock, and the ship's master and the motion of the wind and the sea. However, this subject is merely smoke and mirrors for the novice, is it not?

The crux of the matter of Proverbs 30 rests in verse 20, in which the woman performs a "Monica Lewinski" with her mouth, and because her hymen is intact and never violated, she says..."I have done no wickedness", as she wipes the "seed" from her mouth. This is the harshness of the text. Therefore, those doctors of the Law who are called to examine the girl, find her hymen intact, and rule, "SHE IS STILL A VIRGIN."

Therefore, we must again ask ourselves, what activity violates a girl or young woman, so that she is no longer a virgin; and was that act (respecting alma) performed in Proverbs 30:20 or any where else in Scripture? The answer is "no". If we were to argue that "parthenos" is used in the Septuagint in relation to Genesis 32:4, we find that we are discussing a translation of na'arah, not alma.

I find it hypocritical that in order to refute the virgin intent of Almah, that counter-missionaries call Rebekkah a 3 or 13 year old slut (depending on receiving Rashi's lacunae age) as well as Moses' own 12 year old sister, Miriam. So Israel's matrons were sluts so they can refute Yeshua? Pork baloney.
In regards to this "alma", we find that the one who shall be born of her is an "oth". He is a signal, a banner, a miracle that is to come in the distant future. This "oth" is attached upon the lineage of Ahaz (Achaz in Matthew 1:9 in the KJV), and in Isaiah 7:14, v'qarath Shemo Imanu El - "she will call out and address His name [by the familiar -- which means] with rest, home, and pasture (to all who believe), G-D (dwells)."

Rashi expounds that the "almah" teaches of the Shekinah resting upon her, and that our "rock" or "eben" [ the Alef- BeN / trans. as "G-D's Son" in Gematriac analysis] will be with us. Who is our "rock" but HASHEM Himself, I ask? Now if the Hebraic "alma" is true as "virgin" in the Tenach, each and every time, even if the Greek word "parthenos" isn't; there is still no contention for anyone to dispute that in Isaiah 7:14 that the intent of that passage is that of a virgin.

I suggest that you look to another prophetical passage for the answer to Isaiah 7:14, in Jeremiah 22:29-30.
"O eretz, eretz, eretz! Hear and obey the Word of HASHEM! This, is what HASHEM commands: inscribe (in you) this man as a watcher*of*the*irrigation*water*that*slakes*the*thirst*; the Mistress (shall) not push forward to come in the heat of his days. A burning brand which shall not be pushed forward from his posterity, a (First) Man who sits down (to Judge) on the throne of David, and rules with dominion, and rules and rules from Judah." (fully amplified translation from Hebrew, mine)

The three eretz uses focus from Heaven to all the earth, then to the dominion of Abraham, then to the borders of Israel west of the Jordan; and is used as a response to why Jehoichin's rejection (cf. Jeremiah 22:28).

Instead of going back to Deuteronomy 28, and Jeremiah's citation of the worship and incense to "the queen of Heaven", (to which some hasidim sing to at or around Pesach in America) as if G-D had a harlot mistress named Asherah -- instead, the mercy of G-D says that the focus is to be on the posterity of David.

That is, for David's sake, and for HASHEM's own Name's sake, Jehoichin might live to bring forth a descendant who is NOT Messhaich, but a watcher over "he who possesses the aoinios or life-force of eternity" as "living waters"...i.e., HASHEM [cf. Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13; Ezekiel 47:1].

This "watcher", who comes into being after Jehoichin is long dead and buried, is Joseph, the husband of the "alma" called Miriam (Matthew 1:12-16), in 14 generations.

In Micah 5:2, we read that the "comings forth" as umootsata(y)v" is as the source going forth, as though referring to a well spring which origin is unseen, and practically unknowable except in generality. (Cf. Isaiah 12:3-4 in Hebrew, His name is Yeshua, and you will praise his name and works among the peoples).

That origin is M'Qedem memey olam...from before the days of eternity, from before the days of the world.

The anti-Christian rabbis argue EleM (Ayin-Lamed-Mem)/ "young man" has the three root letters of ALMaH (Ayin-Lamed-Mem-He), and therefore removes virginity. That argument won't wash. ELeM or "young man" has the same spelling as OLaM (Ayin-Lamed-Mem), eternity / world.
The angels are of an eternal substance, and when men tried to rape two "young man angels" visiting Lot in Sodom, G-D blinded the wicked men of the town or city and destroyed Sodom. Yeshua said that the angels have NO sexual relations in Heaven, they do not marry. Nor will people in the Resurrection marry, or have any sexual relations...they just won't. Therefore, in the application of a prophetical ALMaH, the virgin birth through the word "ALMaH", must be viewed as from OLaM (Ayin-Lamed-Mem) with a letter "He" on the end of it. The interpretation then, signifying in Gematriac analysis, "a revelation of the Spirit by the word of promise", or a Gematriac interpretation to this effect. In other words, something akin to the virgin birth promise made in Isaiah 7:14 by the prophecy of the Holy Spirit of G-D.

In Isaiah 7:14, we have "The Virgin" or Ha Almah that is given "to you" in the plural. That is, if "to You" was in the singular, we might concede that it could mean Ahaz...but since Ahaz was not beside himself as a set of twins or triplets to rule the throne as one man, the pluralized "to you" which immediately precedes HaAlmah, is addressing all of the House of Judah in the the prophecy.

G-D will spring forth like a stream or a well-spring which is drawn from the midst of the virgin (again, Isaiah 12:2,3 names Him as Yeshua), and be born among men by the power of the Holy Spirit by a source and means hidden from the understanding of man... except in generalities.

For this reason, Almah, which speaks of a "hiddenness", was chosen. Lest perhaps, someone would say of Deuteronomy 22:19 that in Moses' Torah, it speaks of a Bethulah as one having already had intercourse, and that this would have been the hidden meaning of Isaiah 7:14 if Bethulah would have been handed down to us in the prophecy, instead of Almah.

And if G-D raised Isaac from the dead, after that his heart was pierced by the knife of Abraham and stopped its beating upon the wood...as Paul indicates through Luke in Hebrews 11:17-19...from where did the well-spring of resurrection life come forth, but from within, because of a trusting faith into G-D upon His promises when G-D himself called for it? Isaac, therefore, was a type of the Christ who was to come...innocent, sacrificed, and who rose from the dead after paying the obligations of another.

In Esther 2:17 and Joel 1:8, it cannot be categorically stated that Bethulah means a virgin, and appears to show cause to believe "almah" is the better translation regarding Biblical use in the OT texts.

Cyrus Gordon in Journal of Bible and Religion’s 21:240-241 argued that the origins of Bethulah in the near eastern languages does not meet the virgo intacta demands the anti-Almah contenders say that Bethulah would have carried.

In the Akkadian, the related Bethulah cognate will only translate to virginity when applied to the very youthful;
{the Assyrian Dictionary Volume 2, University of Chicago, 1965, pp. 173-174 regarding "batultu" (pp. 192-193 on pdf. scroll)

http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/cad_b.pdf }

while in the Ugaritic, the possible root "btlt" is a oft a reference to the wife of Baal, who indeed has an active sex life in the mythology regarding Baal and Anat. Had bethulah been used, the prophecy could not have definitively meant a "virgin" while Almah could so be used.

Apples and Oranges?

Apples and Oranges?

Time to humorously look at the old cliche.

1) Apples and Oranges both grow on deciduous trees.

2) Apples and Oranges are both called "fruit".

3) Apples and Oranges can both be picked, or fall to the ground from respective, even equal heights.

4) Apples and Oranges both have skins.

5) Apples and Oranges have pulp, juice, seeds within.

6) Apples and Oranges can both be made into a juice form for enjoyment, as well as being edible in their ripened natural states.

7) Apples and Oranges both offer beneficial nutrients and sustenance for the human body.

8) Depending on when they are picked, (and other factors), Apples and Oranges can both be sweet or tart in flavor.


Gee...apples and oranges sure sound alot alike to me. Maybe people should now say that something is like comparing oranges and rutabagas...after all, whoever heard of someone enjoying a cold glass of yellow turnip juice? Yuck.

Keep the humor. Peace.

Luke 22:14-20 A Communion Study Aid with Greek amplification, and relevant Hebrew prayers

Luke 22:14-20 A Study Aid

14) And when the hour came to pass,
He [Jesus] reclined, and the 12 Apostles with Him.

15) And He said up to and alongside of them,
‘With a strong desire and longing,
I have set My mind with affection on this…
To eat the Passover in your midst and among you,
Before undergoing the experience of My suffering.’

16) ‘I lay before you these definite words to you,
That never – in any way may I eat out of it again –
Until when it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of G-D.’

17) And readily, and deliberately receiving and taking a cup
Brought Him by another, having given Thanksgiving and gratitude

Barukh atah YHVEH Elohaynoo
Melekh Ha’Olam
Borei
pri Hagafen

Blessed are You YHVEH our G-D,
Sovereign King of the Universe and of Eternity,
Who creates - Brings Forth – Makes Fat As A New Thing
the Fruit of the Vine.

He (then) spake,
‘Take this, and through division, divide it up into parts among yourselves.

18) I lay before you these definite words to you:
That in no way may I drink of that which is generated - produced - brought forth of the Vine,
Until when the Kingdom of G-D comes.’

19) And actively taking and receiving with the hand (unleavened Matzoh) bread,
Having given Thanksgiving and gratitude,

Barukh atah YHVEH Elohaynoo
Melekh Ha’Olam
HaMotzi Lechem Min Ha’Aretz

Blessed are You YHVEH our G-D,
Sovereign King of the Universe and of Eternity,
Who brings forth Bread from the Land - the Earth.

He broke the Unleavened Bread as though breaking off leaves,

[The Greek appears to indicate that if we take a Matzoh, and pull at its edges, while spinning it around, the activity is like breaking off leaves.Hence, while the left hand holds, the right thumb and one or two fingers snap and pull. Therefore, a plucking motion using either 7 or 8 fingers. As if the Bread itself were fruit being harvested from a tree, after a sense. Perhaps, the act of picking the Tree of Life's fruit in Paradise, will be the Heavenly version of partaking of Communion in the Kingdom, after this action, and in rembrance of what Yeshua did on a Tree (i.e., at the Cross).]


And gave of His own accord and good will, bestowing to them,
Laying before them these definite words, saying,
‘This is the body of Me,
being offered and given as a gift and posession for you;
this manifest as an outward completed action
into the recalling to mind of
My Memorial - Remembrance

20) In like manner and the same way.’
And the cup, after having banqueted and eaten,
Laying before them these definite words, saying,
‘This, the New and Better Covenant,
Unrestricted by time,
(is) the Cup,
in the Blood of Me, for you,
(which) is being generously spilled and poured out. ‘

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three relevant Kingdom passages to the promise of Union in the Communion in the life and age to come are these:

“AND IN THAT DAY, it will be that the mountains will rain down YHVeH’s Spirit,
as though flowing down forth an intoxicating New Wine;
and the hills will gush forth and flow with fatness;
and all the deep channels of Judah shall flow forth with Living Waters;
and an overflowing River shall pour forth as a spring from the Mountain of G-D -- from out of the House of YHVeH will it go out;
and a refreshing and a watering will it give,
as it fills even the Valley of the Pierced Tree.”(Joel 3:18, my translation, fully amplified with word pictures from the Hebrew)

We see that in the last verse, the Pierced Tree refers to the coming Cross of Jesus / Yeshua. According to Revelation 11:8 (taken with Jeremiah 19:6, et al.), that outer valley (sometimes translated 'street' from 'plateia') of the Cross is the Kidron Valley. In Revelation 22:1, we see that the river which fills this valley, is that which proceeds from the throne of G-D and the Lamb (Christ Jesus); and because of this submersion or constant baptism of living waters, there shall be no more curse. In Revelation 22:2, on either side of the valley of the Cross, shall be the tree of life, and each month of the year, people shall eat of the tree a new fruit in its month, and take communion with G-D and His Christ for eternity.

“AND IN THAT DAY, will the BRANCH of YHVeH be glorious and beautiful,
and the fruit of the Earth (will be) for glory and for pride for the survivors of Israel.” (Isaiah 4:2)

AND IN THAT DAY -- “The days will come when the vines will grow, each having 10,000 shoots; and on each shoot 10,000 branches; and on each branch 10,000 twigs; and on each twig 10,000 clusters; and in each cluster 10,000 grapes; and each grape when crushed will yield 25 measures [ca. 150 gallons].

And when one of the Saints takes hold of a cluster, another cluster will cry out,
‘I am better. Take me. Bless the L-RD through me.’

Similarly, a grain of wheat will produce 10,000 heads; and every head will have 10,000 grains; and every grain (will yield) 10 pounds of fine flour, white and clean.
And the other fruits, seeds, and grass will produce in similar proportions -- and all the animals feeding on these fruits produced by the soil, will in turn, be harmonious toward one another, and fully subject to man.”

-- Papias…who was a hearer of John and…saw John the disciple of the L-RD, recalled having heard how the LORD used to teach about those times…and he goes on to say [that Jesus, the L-RD, said]:
‘These things are believable to those who believe.’
And according to John, ‘when Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, ‘’How then, will such a growth be accomplished by YHVeH?’’, the L-RD said, ‘’Those who live until those times will see.’’ “
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.3-4 (2nd generation student from John)

One shall live unto those times by taking hold on eternal life, and believing into Jesus Christ as their L-RD and Savior, he who as atoned for their sins upon the Cross, and has the power and authority over death to save them.