Judas Iscariot

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by MrMacSon »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:26 pm Cestius can be a savior to no one.
Well, not in a Roman sense. Yet if he had entered the Temple as desired, things may have been different, though perhaps only for a short time anyway.

Cestius was offered a Bribe.
I have so far missed that in the texts of Josephus.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:54 pm
Cestius was offered a Bribe.
I have so far missed that in the texts of Josephus.
Exactly. Josephus has several places where there are "Holes" where facts should be. Where Alexander Jannaeus is nearly destroyed by Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, you have to construct the story from what Josephus has left out:

1. Shechem is near the Temple at Gerizim.

2. Josephus states that the Mercenary Jews left Demetrius Eucerus "out of pity..." after what happened to Jannaeus. I have given up on finding a different way of saying "Absurd!!!" but that is what is True here. "Eisenhower, on delivering a massive defeat to Hitler's troops, was surprised when half of his army went over to the Germans our of pity for the losing troops. He was so scared that he went back to England..." Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.

SO: What would cause Jewish Mercs to leave Eucerus for Jannaeus? If you look at Sequence and events in, say, Mark 13 and certain places in Revelation, you find that the Abomination of Desolation occurs at the "Hole" in the description in Josephus. The implication is obvious. The Jewish Mercs went over to Jannaeus after Eucerus, standing where he ought not, sacrificed a pig (prolly...) on the Altar at Gerizim.

Now: Maybe that isn't what actually happened at Shechem. It makes sense, however. Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation (Let the reader note). Josephus' story is hidden at this point.

So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."

[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...

"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."

The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.

It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.

CW
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:39 pmJosephus has several places where there are "Holes" where facts should be. Where Alexander Jannaeus is nearly destroyed by Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, you have to construct the story from what Josephus has left out:

1. Shechem is near the Temple at Gerizim.

2. Josephus states that the Mercenary Jews left Demetrius Eucerus "out of pity..." after what happened to Jannaeus. I have given up on finding a different way of saying "Absurd!!!" but that is what is True here. "Eisenhower, on delivering a massive defeat to Hitler's troops, was surprised when half of his army went over to the Germans our of pity for the losing troops. He was so scared that he went back to England..." Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.

SO: What would cause Jewish Mercs to leave Eucerus for Jannaeus? If you look at Sequence and events in, say, Mark 13 and certain places in Revelation, you find that the Abomination of Desolation occurs at the "Hole" in the description in Josephus. The implication is obvious. The Jewish Mercs went over to Jannaeus after Eucerus, standing where he ought not, sacrificed a pig (prolly...) on the Altar at Gerizim.

Now: Maybe that isn't what actually happened at Shechem. It makes sense, however. Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation (Let the reader note). Josephus' story is hidden at this point.

So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."

[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...

"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."

The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.

It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.
Why, if the abomination of desolation is an event which actually happened in Samaria, do Matthew and Mark seem to locate it in Judea?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by MrMacSon »

Regarding -
Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:26 pm
What is left out, the Clue that would cement a very solid case against Cestius?

Matthew 26: 14 - 16, 27: 3 - 5 (RSV):

[14] Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
[15] and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.
[16] And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.

...

[3] When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
[4] saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
[5] And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.


Cestius was offered a Bribe. If he stays, the War does not take place. Verse 4 is where your Thesis gains traction (to me...) and it is powerful. The "chief priests and elders" are not worried about the death of Romans.

.
and
Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:39 pm
So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."

[Acts 3]
[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...

"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."

The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.

It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.

.
Are you saying Josephus failed to capture or narrate what the author/s of Matthew captured or narrated?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:20 pm
Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:39 pmJosephus has several places where there are "Holes" where facts should be. Where Alexander Jannaeus is nearly destroyed by Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, you have to construct the story from what Josephus has left out:

1. Shechem is near the Temple at Gerizim.

2. Josephus states that the Mercenary Jews left Demetrius Eucerus "out of pity..." after what happened to Jannaeus. I have given up on finding a different way of saying "Absurd!!!" but that is what is True here. "Eisenhower, on delivering a massive defeat to Hitler's troops, was surprised when half of his army went over to the Germans our of pity for the losing troops. He was so scared that he went back to England..." Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.

SO: What would cause Jewish Mercs to leave Eucerus for Jannaeus? If you look at Sequence and events in, say, Mark 13 and certain places in Revelation, you find that the Abomination of Desolation occurs at the "Hole" in the description in Josephus. The implication is obvious. The Jewish Mercs went over to Jannaeus after Eucerus, standing where he ought not, sacrificed a pig (prolly...) on the Altar at Gerizim.

Now: Maybe that isn't what actually happened at Shechem. It makes sense, however. Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation (Let the reader note). Josephus' story is hidden at this point.

So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."

[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...

"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."

The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.

It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.
Why, if the abomination of desolation is an event which actually happened in Samaria, do Matthew and Mark seem to locate it in Judea?
"Jesus" has to PREdict what is to come and the Story gets rewritten to make it appear that way (Have we had some of this conversation before?...). It is the advantage of theft over honest toil. The Hasmonean Dynasty, which was a threat to Rome, has to be vanquished and its literature either destroyed or rewritten in such a way as to become benign. 3000+ dead at Passover, 4 BCE, leaves an impression. The Priesthood of God is destroyed (Except for a few, Including Zakkai and others!) at the Triumph of Titus in 70 and the Divine is given over to the Romans. The Revolutionaries are transformed into Tax Paying Acolytes of Rome. Jannaeus is a Champion for Israel ("I was sent only to the Lost Tribes of Israel...") and his Story is among those that are kept and rewritten. Thus, the placement of the Original is incidental (What's important to see is the placement in Josephus - Shechem, not Gerizim). The SynApoc is now in the future, as a Sign to those who need one.

Mark 13: 17 (RSV):

[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

Josephus, Antiquities... 13, 14, 2:

"...for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes..."

The Anchor Verse with its Match.

Does this help you, Ben?

CW
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:42 pm
Are you saying Josephus failed to capture or narrate what the author/s of Matthew captured or narrated?
No. This is about the CONSTRUCTION of the NT. Josephus wrote ("If there was a Josephus, if he wrote...") what appears to be the Only Authorized History of the events of the NT in Judea and Rome, for instance. Only, there are problems. As I have stated there are Holes, elliptical and opaque phrases. Atwill has shown that, to the day, God's Favor went to the Romans on the Day of the Fall of Masada.

"WOW! God really does work Miracles doesn't he? "

Well, not exactly. You have to sorta' take the Document, hold it to the sun, tilt your head and kinda' squint in order to see it but...

If you are a believer - even if you are an Atheist - little of this will make sense. What I have tried to do over the years is put together the Stories that were rewritten and how they got rewritten. Josephus is certainly used as is Tacitus (esp. Tacitus!) Dio, Polybius and others. There is most always a small word or phrase that lets you know that there are Historical Markers:

Acts 5:

[9] But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

Tacitus, Annals, Book 11 (Death of Messalina):

"Hurrying on before with all speed to the gardens, he found Messalina stretched upon the ground, while by her side sat Lepida, her mother, who, though estranged from her daughter in prosperity, was now melted to pity by her inevitable doom, and urged her not to wait for the executioner..."

These "Jokes" are everywhere in the NT. If you think that the NT is the story of a savior/god and the Disciples who followed, look more closely (BTW, if we had not found most of Annals, we would have had to posit the book. Acts has significant relation to the 12th Legion and much can be found in Annals.)

The Gospels were Constructed and where there is a Gap or Hole, they are places where the Historians wrote their stories - and vice-versa. "What Mishmarot Service Group was on Duty at the Passover of 4 BCE?" You can find the answer to that with the Gospels and Josephus: The Fall of the Temple had Jehoiarib on Duty and since we have the Day of the Fall we can calculate back.

Is it important? Ohhhh, yes. "What is the Greek word for "Lamb?" "What is the Hebrew word - without diacriticals - for "Lamb"?" Think there is no reason to go beyond the Greek? Make this mistake and you miss what was done.

Find the Hebrew for Lamb and "The Sixteenth Mishmarot Service Group" (1 Chronicles 24). They are identical: "Immar" and "Immer". 'N so on...

All I'm doing is following trails. Matthew didn't "forget". Neither did Josephus. The NT was Constructed around these common stories. I still see it that way.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by MrMacSon »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:25 pm
... This is about the CONSTRUCTION of the NT. Josephus wrote ("If there was a Josephus, if he wrote...") what appears to be the Only Authorized History of the events of the NT in Judea and Rome, for instance. Only, there are problems. As I have stated there are Holes, elliptical and opaque phrases. Atwill has shown that, to the day, God's Favor went to the Romans on the Day of the Fall of Masada.

. . . .

The Gospels were Constructed and where there is a Gap or Hole, they are places where the Historians wrote their stories - and vice-versa.

. . . .

All I'm doing is following trails. Matthew didn't "forget". Neither did Josephus. The NT was Constructed around these common stories. I still see it that way.
ok. Are you saying the Josephean texts and the Gospels were written (or perhaps edited) concurrently? (or both?), or do you give one primacy (over another)?

You follow Atwill's propositions? That Josephus' "works provided the NT with its primary independent historical documentation.." (I have only read the start of Caesar's Messiah.)
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson »

MrMacSon --

Qwik response now, longer response later (I have a funeral to attend and I don't think it's mine)
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:09 pmok. Are you saying the Josephean texts and the Gospels were written (or perhaps edited) concurrently? (or both?), or do you give one primacy (over another)?
Something like that. My analysis shows that the NT was written no earlier than around 98-ish, more comfortably placed to around 110-ish. The disembodied, unseen Holy Spirit is tied to Domitian, who was given "Damnatio Memoriae" Treatment shortly after his death. Verginius Rufus figures into this and at his funeral, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are in attendance. They had Means, Motive and Opportunity. See also: "The Empty Tomb" finger print analysis which finds PtY and Tacitus fingerprints all over it.

Josephus is tougher. War and Antiquities have been massaged at key places. I don't know who did it although Eusebius can be blamed for a lot. He deserves the blame.
You follow Atwill's propositions? That Josephus' "works provided the NT with its primary independent historical documentation.." (I have only read the start of Caesar's Messiah.)
I have and always will have greatest respect for Joe Atwill. I mean it. Our Theses were developed independently. When Caesar's Messiah was published, everything fell into place for me. Our works are extremely complementary. We sometimes reasoned to contradictory opinions: The Lunatic is possessed by "Legion". Joe Atwill sees this as evidence that Judea is possessed by the Jewish Seditionists who must be rooted out and destroyed. I see "Legion" as meaning exactly what is stated. "Jesus" - a Priest in the Original - is attempting to overthrow Rome and the Herodians. Which is correct? Probably both although that is probably not satisfying to anyone else. So it goes.

The Roman Thesis, however, is sound. JA looks "forward" to the replacement of the Julio-Claudians by the Flavians. The Roman Thesis writ large. He has stated that my stuff "looks backward" to the History that led up to the War and the Fall in 70. The Hasmoneans. The Mishmarot Priesthood. The House of Eleazar. The History of the Losers, the Triumph of the Roman Rewrite.

When you read Caesar's Messiah, take notes. He makes many grind their teeth in anger but when you come back to the point later, it will make more sense. Throw away what irritates you and keep the rest to see the Structure. As to my stuff, do with it what you want. It is descriptive, it is consistent. No Space Aliens. It is tied to History, at least the Literature written as History. It is Anti-Metaphysical, reflecting my training in Empiricism, esp. British Empiricism - "The meaning of a Proposition is to be found in the Form of its Verification". Don't look to the skies, look at what's on the ground. You'll find Galilee and the Mishmarot Priesthood.

More later,

CW
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson »

Charles Wilson wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:36 amDon't look to the skies, look at what's on the ground. You'll find Galilee and the Mishmarot Priesthood
While looking at another Thread, verses in Acts were quoted and in examining them, I found the entire Section very interesting. Recall that I believe that "Judas" => "Cestius" and that I also believe that there was a Story that was rewritten, a Story concerning several players in the NT. The Story is about a Priest and a child named "Peter". Do I have to write it out again? I will if you want.

I saw that "John" was of the Mishmarot Priesthood and was a member of the Mishmarot Service Group "Bilgah" which is one the few Mishmarot Groups that actually had Stories written about them in Judaic Literature:

Mark 1: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.
[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

John 1: 15, 26 - 27 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")
...
[26] John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know,
[27] even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."

Now consider Acts 13: 24 - 25 (RSV):

[24] Before his coming John had preached a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
[25] And as John was finishing his course, he said, `What do you suppose that I am? I am not he. No, but after me one is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.'

As I have stated before, John is a Priest - "...as John was finishing his course...". Bilgah committed an infraction among the Priesthood and was separated from the others in the Temple. It's knives and closet were on the South end of the Temple.

Immer comes after Bilgah in the Weekly Service. Immer ranks above Bilgah in terms of Honor. This was what was rewritten. Some simple Maff will show that Immer was on Duty during the Feast of Unleavened Bread in 4 BCE (and 12 years later as well).

To John2: I do not believe that the Sicarii belong in the NT story in that Time Line of the Original 4 BCE Story. "Judas/Cestius" was a commander of the 12th Legion which was as crippled as could be:

Acts 9: 32 - 34 (RSV):

[32] Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.
[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.

Aeneas is bedridden for 8 years and what happened 8 years prior to the Destruction of the Temple? The 12th Legion is decimated at the hands of Vologeses*, humiliated so much that the soldiers would not even leave their tents to defend themselves. They were crippled all right.

BTW, 2 Notes:

1. If you follow the movements of Cestius, you will find that the 12th did indeed pass through Lydda:

Josephus, War, 2, 19, 1:

"But when Cestius had marched from Antipatris to Lydda, he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles...

("Desolate be his abode".... etc.)

2. Second, Peter, probably of Immer, lived in Jabnit, the Settlement assigned to Immer. That's just down the road from Meiron, Home of Jehoiarib, on the highest mountain in Galilee. So, this would be another historical marker as Peter would have indeed "come down to the saints" in Lydda.

CW

[Edit Note: Corrected "Mithridates" to "Vologeses". Such is memory these days.]
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Judas Iscariot

Post by Charles Wilson »

Tacitus, Annals, Book 15(Beginning):

"Paetus did not evade the challenge, but with two legions — the fourth, at that time commanded by Funisulanus Vettonianus, and the twelfth, under Calavius Sabinus — entered Armenia under sinister auspices...
...
"The twelfth legion was called to the scene, and the measure by which he had hoped to advertise the increase in his forces revealed their inadequacy...
...
"...In the interval, Paetus threw a bridge over the river Arsanias (which ran hard past the camp), ostensibly to prepare himself a line of retreat in that direction, though the work had, in fact, been ordered by the Parthians as evidence of their victory: for it was they who utilized it — our men leaving by the opposite route. Rumour added that the legions had been passed under the yoke [See Note below]; and other particulars were given, harmonizing well enough with our unfortunate position, and indeed paralleled by the behaviour of the Armenians. For not only did they enter the fortifications before the Roman column left, but they lined the roads, identifying and dragging off slaves or sumpter-animals which had been captured long before: even clothing was snatched and weapons detained, our terrified troops offering no resistance, lest some pretext for hostilities should emerge. Vologeses, after piling up the arms and corpses of the slain to serve as evidence of our disaster, abstained from viewing the flight of the legions: he was laying up a character for moderation, now that his arrogance had been satisfied..."

Note: "By another figure the yoke meant slavery, or the condition in which men are compelled against their will, like oxen or horses, to labour for others (Aeschyl. Agam. 512; Florus, II.14; Tacit. Agric. 31; Hor. Sat. II.7.91). Hence, to express symbolically the subjugation of conquered nations, the Romans made their captives pass under a yoke (sub jugum mittere), which, however, in form and for the sake of convenience, was sometimes made, not like the yoke used in drawing carriages or ploughs, but rather like the jugum described under the two first of the preceding heads; for it consisted of a spear supported transversely by two others placed upright."

Compare with (at least!) the 2 passages in Acts:

Acts 3: 2 - 7 (RSV):

[2] And a man lame from birth was being carried, whom they laid daily at that gate of the temple which is called Beautiful to ask alms of those who entered the temple.
[3] Seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms.
[4] And Peter directed his gaze at him, with John, and said, "Look at us."
[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."
[7] And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

And

Acts 9: 32 - 34 (RSV):

[32] Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.
[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.

In Acts 3, the man "lame from birth" parallels the 12th Legion commanded by Cestius, who appears to have demanded a Bribe from the "chief priests and elders". The Acts 9 passage finds a man Aeneas who was bedridden for 8 years. The identity of the 12th Legion appears solid. Why 2 passages that are so close in appearance?

There are 2 different commanders, perhaps. One thing is fairly certain: The 12th Legion has been poorly commanded.

One other thing appears fairly certain: "Aeneas" and the "Man who was Lame" were not Real People. They are Symbols for the 12th Legion and with that, the Explanations for the Origins of the New Testament point in a different direction.

CW
Post Reply