"Paul" (Mucianus?)

[outhouse]

Syria and Judea were Hellholes, backwater Despotries near the ever present threats of the Parthians. Mucianus loves Titus, Titus convinces him to stop being such a goddam Bitch and Mucianus realizes he's on the first bus back to Rome. It's very important to recall that Antonius Primus held Rome after defeating Vitellius. Mucianus comes in, strips Primus of his power, controls Domitian and restores things while he himself had Imperial Power and he gives it all to Vespasian and then very nearly disappears off the face of the earth.


CW

But by the writings we have, we find someone who had more then just a little value in Apocalyptic Judaism, even if just a Proselyte or less.

He was a proselyte to money and power.

If we claim were not sure who the author was, I think it can be assured he was well versed in Judaism. Isnt that safe to say? despite his exact self proclaimed relationship to Judaism.

I have my doubts. He traveled the Empire and wrote of the various religions he encountered.

The author/s seem to have quite the passion for Judaism. All just literary devise for control?

The Christian Resurrection had not obtained it's stature yet. For Mucianus, living in the 60s and to the mid-70s, the resurrection was directed against the Julio-Claudians. God Ingresses into the Caesars and the Fig Tree of the Julio-Claudians shall never provide food again.
*****
Lotsa' Mucianus here and not much Paul but those were the questions you asked. So much of this is from the hand of Tacitus, in Acts especially. There appears to be an "Objectification" that occurred that changed the "Caesar Worship" into "Father-Son-Holy Spirit". The Damnatio'd Domitian holds a lot of the answers.

Could that have originated in August claim that Caesar was Resurrected from the celestial event he witnessed?

[Charles Wilson]

Syria and Judea were Hellholes, backwater Despotries near the ever present threats of the Parthians. Mucianus loves Titus, Titus convinces him to stop being such a goddam Bitch and Mucianus realizes he's on the first bus back to Rome. It's very important to recall that Antonius Primus held Rome after defeating Vitellius. Mucianus comes in, strips Primus of his power, controls Domitian and restores things while he himself had Imperial Power and he gives it all to Vespasian and then very nearly disappears off the face of the earth.

But by the writings we have, we find someone who had more then just a little value in Apocalyptic Judaism, even if just a Proselyte or less.

We have those people. It's just that Mucianus wasn't one of them. Neither was another behind-the-scenes character, Nicholas of Damascus. Nicholas was around when the Priestly Courses and the Hasmoneans were making their last attempt at recovering power. Like your use of "Cultural Judaism", I get nervous around "Apocalyptic Judaism". Certainly If you believe that Leviticus 26 means what it says, then If "we" reclaim the Temple and clear out the Riff-Raff, God will stand with us. But what if He doesn't and thousands die at Passover?

I'm attempting to put together the Origins of the New Testament and this is the first part. There was a List put together from the List in 1 Chronicles 24 that pairs the Mishmarot Priestly Courses with Settlements in Galilee. The list was known in several excavated settlements and the List was created before the founding of the City of Tiberias.

There was this character named Peter and he appears to have come from the Group Immer and lived in Jabnit, or Meiron, Blah, Blah, Blah. You know that Story and our friendly Apocalypticists probably came from here. They were not Hellenists.

He [[Mucianus]] was a proselyte to money and power.

If we claim were not sure who the author was, I think it can be assured he was well versed in Judaism. Isnt that safe to say? despite his exact self proclaimed relationship to Judaism.

YES! Someone knows the Mishmarot Service with the ability to calculate days and weeks of Priestly Duties. He/They know POST-TEMPLE DESTRUCTION how to do this and if the Gospels were written (as I believe) no earlier than err...uhh....100-ish (110) to 125, these people have knowledge, Scribal Power and the ability to insert calculations into a Religious Document that hasn't been finished yet, for Emperors who care nothing if one Jew is left!

Mucianus traveled the Empire and wrote of the various religions he encountered.

The author/s seem to have quite the passion for Judaism. All just literary devise for control?

Yes again but there is something else as well. Judaism was Hellenized and Transvalued as you say but so was the Roman Religious Hierarchy.

Dio, Epitome 64:

"Now they would all shout together on one side the name of Vespasian and on the other side that of Vitellius, and they would challenge each other in turn, indulging in abuse or in praise of the one leader or the other. Again one soldier would have a private conversation with an opponent: "Comrade, fellow-citizen, what are we doing? Why are we fighting? Come over to my side." "No, indeed! You come to my side." But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since."

Eucharist anyone?

Acts 13: 11 (RSV):

[11] And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand.

Our Good Poster Jay Raskin has analyzed this and considers it mean and unnecessary. What if, however, "Magicians" in Acts such as Elymas are ciphers for the retrograde, "unholy" Caesars that came before Vespasian? We might find something like:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Nero":

"He planned but two foreign tours, to Alexandria and Achaia; and he gave up the former on the very day when he was to have started, disturbed by a threatening portent. For as he was making the round of the temples and had sat down in the shrine of Vesta, first the fringe of his garment caught when he attempted to get up, and then such darkness overspread his eyes that he could see nothing..."

The Christian Resurrection had not obtained it's stature yet. For Mucianus, living in the 60s and to the mid-70s, the resurrection was directed against the Julio-Claudians. God Ingresses into the Caesars and the Fig Tree of the Julio-Claudians shall never provide food again.

Could that have originated in August claim that Caesar was Resurrected from the celestial event he witnessed?

Possible. Gimme the quote. Titus promised his troops their own stars in the heavens for being valiant warriors. The idea is this. Some people melded Stories of a collapsed Jewish Culture which nonetheless promised that someone would sit on the Throne of David forever. The Romans (Possibly Mucianus) built a Story telling the world of the God-Like Titus (Sign's Gospel?). At the Interregnum of Vitellius and Vespasian, a son named Domitian survived and, after "possibly" poisoning his brother Titus, remade the Story. The Baptism of John ("Baptism" being a word that has been completely transformed) becomes almost instantaneously the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit". 'N this means that we are rewriting 2 Stories. Waydaminnit! There's money here. Let's just finish the job! Why spend blood and treasury when we can make them send money to us because they're s'posed to? WE sit on the Throne forever and THEY send us money!

It's not that Mucianus believed in Judaism, it's that his Story tells of what happened in the early years of the New Church. That is, a brief "History" of what happened when Vitellius was defeated and the first few days after the Ascension of the Flavians. 'N I haven't even mentioned the 12th Legion...

CW

[outhouse]

Possible. Gimme the quote.

CW

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... igion.html


A piece of heaven

An important part of this strategy involved religion. The Emperor of Rome was already the most powerful man on earth, but this wasn�t enough. Augustus wanted a piece of heaven too: he was determined that his people would see him as their supreme spiritual leader.

Roman religion had many gods and spirits and Augustus was keen to join their number as a god himself. This was not unusual: turning political leaders into gods was an old tradition around the Mediterranean. There was also precedent in Roman history � Aeneas and Romulus, who had helped found Rome, were already worshipped as gods.

Halley�s Comet

Aside from their many gods, Romans were deeply superstitious, so when Augustus was handed a huge piece of luck, he took full advantage of it.

Early in his reign, Halley�s Comet passed over Rome. Augustus claimed it was the spirit of Julius Caesar entering heaven. If Caesar was a god then, as his heir, Augustus was the son of a god and he made sure that everybody knew it.

Now regarded as part-god, Augustus encouraged stories of his frugal habits. He let people know that he lived in a modest house, slept on a low bed and, when he wasn�t fasting, ate only very plain food, like coarse bread and cheese. In a letter, he boasted to his stepson, Tiberius, of how he had not eaten all day.

[Peter Kirby]

Dio, Epitome 64:

[4] "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. [5] For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since." That would be the style of their conversation, after which they would rest a while, eat a bit, and then renew the battle. Soon they would stop again, and then once more join in conflict.

[4] καὶ ἐγνώριζον᾽ ‘λαβέ’ (take) ἔφη, ‘συστρατιῶτα, καὶ φάγε (eat): οὐ γὰρ ξίφος ἀλλὰ ἄρτον (bread) σοι δίδωμι. λαβὲ (take) καὶ πίε (drink): οὐ γὰρ ἀσπίδα ἀλλὰ κύλικά (cup) σοι προτείνω, ἵνα, ἄν τε σὺ ἀποκτείνῃς ἐμὲ ἄν τε καὶ ἐγὼ σέ, ῥᾷον ἀπαλλάξωμεν, μηδὲ ἐκλελυμένῃ καὶ ἀσθενεῖ τῇ χειρὶ μήτε σὺ ἐμὲ κατακόψῃς μήτε [5] ἐγὼ σέ. ταῦτα γὰρ ἡμῖν ζῶσιν ἔτι τὰ ἐναγίσματα καὶ Οὐιτέλλιος καὶ Οὐεσπασιανὸς διδοῦσιν, ἵν᾽ ἡμᾶς τοῖς πάλαι νεκροῖς καταθύσωσι.’ τοιαῦτα ἄν 1 τινες πρὸς ἀλλήλους εἰπόντες, καὶ ἀναπαυσάμενοι χρόνον τινὰ καὶ ἐμφαγόντες (eat), πάλιν ἂν ἐμαχέσαντο: εἶτ᾽ ἀνασχόντες αὖθις αὖ ”

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, (1Co 11:23 ESV)
and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (1Co 11:24 ESV)
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1Co 11:25 ESV)
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. (1Co 11:26 ESV)

1 Corinthians 11:23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον (bread) (1Co 11:23 BGT)
1 Corinthians 11:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. (1Co 11:24 BGT)
1 Corinthians 11:25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον (cup) μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον (cup) ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. (1Co 11:25 BGT)
1 Corinthians 11:26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε (eat) τὸν ἄρτον (bread) τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον (cup)πίνητε (drink), τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ. (1Co 11:26 BGT)

And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." (Mar 14:22 ESV)
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. (Mar 14:23 ESV)
And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (Mar 14:24 ESV)
Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mar 14:25 ESV)

Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον (bread) εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν· λάβετε (take), τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. (Mar 14:22 BGT)
καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον (cup) εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον (drank) ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες. (Mar 14:23 BGT)
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν. (Mar 14:24 BGT)
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ. (Mar 14:25 BGT)

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves. (Luk 22:17 ESV)
Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." (Luk 22:18 ESV)
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you." (Luk 22:19a ESV)

καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον (cup) εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· λάβετε (take) τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· (Luk 22:17 BGT)
λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. (Luk 22:18 BGT)
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον (bread) εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· (Luk 22:19a BGT)

(Also parallels in the Didache, Justin Martyr, etc.)

While slightly less than meets the eye in English (the word for 'cup' varies--the one in Dio is more of a 'wine cup' or 'drinking cup', while the other term is more general), the verbal similarity is not unimpressive. Justin Martyr says the same rites are performed in the Mithraic mysteries.

'Take'... 'Eat bread'... 'Drink'... Could all of them have the same source... dinner practices of the age?

[Peter Kirby]

'Take'... 'Eat bread'... 'Drink'... Could all of them have the same source... dinner practices of the age?

Indeed we do have some interesting references in this regard (and also in the neighborhood of scriptural background for the New Testament).

This seems rather close.

Then she took and ate and drank before him what her maid had prepared. (Judith 12:19 RSV)
καὶ λαβοῦσα ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔπιεν κατέναντι αὐτοῦ ἃ ἡτοίμασεν ἡ δούλη αὐτῆς. (Judith 12:19 Greek)

But those who have seen and tasted it, are exceedingly delighted with it, and understand indeed what they feel, but do not know what the cause is which has affected them; and on this account they inquire, "What is this which is sweeter than honey and whiter than snow?" And they will be taught by the interpreter of the divine will, that "This is the bread which the Lord has given them to Eat."{37}{#ex 16:15.} (139) What then is this bread? Tell us. "This," says he, "is the word which the Lord has appointed." (Philo, De fuga et inventione, 138-139)
αἱ δὲ ἰδοῦσαι καὶ γευσάμεναι καὶ σφόδρ' ἡσθεῖσαι ἔμαθον μὲν ὃ ἔπαθον, τὸ δὲ διαθὲν ἀγνοοῦσι. διὸ πυνθάνονται· “τί ἐστι τοῦτο” (ibid. 15), ὃ μέλιτος γλυκύτερον, χιόνος δὲ λευκότερον εἶναι πέφυκε; διδαχθήσονται δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοπρόπου, ὅτι “οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος, ὃν ἔδωκε κύριος αὐτοῖς φαγεῖν” (ibid. 15). τίς οὖν ὁ ἄρτος, εἰπέ. “τοῦτο” φησί “τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ συνέταξε κύριος” (ibid. 16). (Philo, De fuga et inventione, 138-139)

Quoting Exodus 16:15 -- "It is the bread that the LORD has given you to eat." (οὗτος ὁ ἄρτος ὃν ἔδωκεν κύριος ὑμῖν φαγεῖν)

Of course we can go right back to the creation story for this general kind of thing (taking/giving and eating).

And she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Gen 3:6b ESV)
καὶ λαβοῦσα τοῦ καρποῦ αὐτοῦ ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τῷ ἀνδρὶ αὐτῆς μετ᾽ αὐτῆς καὶ ἔφαγον (Gen 3:6 BGT)

And take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever (Gen 3:22b ESV)
καὶ λάβῃ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ φάγῃ καὶ ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (Gen 3:22 BGT)

It doesn't take much effort to see the links between the references in Genesis and Exodus above and the New Testament or at least the Gospel of John (but also 1 Corinthians 10 as well).

And we find similar verbs again in another very famous story in Genesis (gave, ate, drank).

Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright. (Gen 25:34 ESV)
Ιακωβ δὲ ἔδωκεν τῷ Ησαυ ἄρτον καὶ ἕψεμα φακοῦ καὶ ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔπιεν καὶ ἀναστὰς ᾤχετο καὶ ἐφαύλισεν Ησαυ τὰ πρωτοτόκια (Gen 25:34 BGT)

Lest we think that this combination is only found in Jewish sources, Christian sources, and a lone reference in Dio Cassius, we can also find it in Diodorus Siculus.

Diodorus Siculus Hist., Bibliotheca historica (lib. 21-40)
Book 22, chapter 5, section 1, line 5
Apollodorus, who aimed at a tyranny, and thought to render the conspiracy secure, invited a young lad, one of his friends, to a sacrifice, slew him as an offering to the gods, gave the conspirators his vitals to eat, and when he had mixed the blood with wine, bade them drink it.
Ὅτι Ἀπολλόδωρος ἐπιθέμενος τυραννίδι καὶ βεβαιῶσαι κρίνας τὴν συνωμοσίαν, μειρακίσκον τινὰ φίλον αὐτοῦ καλέσας ὡς ἐπὶ θυσίαν καὶ ςφαγιάσας τοῖς θεοῖς τά τε σπλάγχνα τοῖς συνομόσασιν ἔδωκε φαγεῖν καὶ τὸ αἷμα κεράσας οἴνῳ πιεῖν παρεκελεύσατο.

Which not only sheds further light on the context of this cluster of verbs in the setting of a banquet (give/take, eat, drink--often in that very order) but also sheds light on an accusation made against the Christians. They were not just idle rumors. Some conspirators were regarded as having bound themselves to oath by committing an act of sacrificial murder together, sealed to a common secret and enjoined to a conspiracy by sharing in the crime of feasting on the body and blood of the victim.

[Charles Wilson]

A lot to go through in the next coupla'...

Does Cultural Judaism embrace the Temple Cult as the Hasmoneans did?

I don't really know the Hasmoneans relationship with the temple cult.

According to Leibner, the Temple Sacrifice was very big with the Hasmoneans. The Hasmoneans used the List of Settlements for the Priests of 1 Chronicles 24 so it looks as if they had it mapped out.

I couldn't even tell you much surrounding the tying of babies around necks when they were found to be circumcised.

I don't even want to know...

I know the Sadducees were a hated group. I know some Pharisees used Roman muscle to steal from peasants in the name of tithes.

You can trace the hatred of especially the Pharisees in Josephus. The Pharisees complain that Hyrcanus 1 should give up the High Priesthood since it was rumored that his mother was a "comfort girl" to the Greeks. What is also interesting here is that the Pharisee complainer is named "Eleazar" and that is a flag that something else is going on. Perhaps there were people within the Priesthood that were not so happy with Hasmoneans taking over the Mishmarot Group Jehoiarib and making it the "Leading Group". The List in 1 Chronicles 24 is not the only list and there are lists that begin with Gamul which means that maybe the Hasmoneans are being a little pushy.

I also have heard some Pharisees mirrored Zealots and were opposed to the Pharisees more open to Hellenism.

Agreed. Non-Monolithic Groupings over many years.

The temple was ran by Hellenist who worshipped Judaism, working for the Romans hand in hand to retain their wealth, and keep the money flowing to Rome.

This is where I would advise extreme caution. The Temple may have been run by Hellenist/Herodian/Roman Stooges but there is a HUGE supply of Priests who are not loyal to the quislings chosen by Herod, et. al. They are trained and sincerely motivated by the Pentateuch and its values. They are not Hellenists.

The required temple coin had Melqart a pagan deity on the face, so I challenge how Jewish these hated people really were.
I think the puppet regime sums it up.

Well stated.

One stood behind Romans like the residents of Sepphoris, and the temple elite.
The other wanted to remove Roman oppression.

Leibner has more on Sepphoris. I try to summarize soon.
1 of 2 very good Posts Outhouse. See ya' in a minute.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

Possible. Gimme the quote.

http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empir ... igion.html

"A piece of heaven

"An important part of this strategy involved religion. The Emperor of Rome was already the most powerful man on earth, but this wasn�t enough. Augustus wanted a piece of heaven too: he was determined that his people would see him as their supreme spiritual leader.

"Roman religion had many gods and spirits and Augustus was keen to join their number as a god himself...Early in his reign, Halley�s Comet passed over Rome. Augustus claimed it was the spirit of Julius Caesar entering heaven. If Caesar was a god then, as his heir, Augustus was the son of a god and he made sure that everybody knew it.

"Now regarded as part-god, Augustus encouraged stories of his frugal habits. He let people know that he lived in a modest house, slept on a low bed and, when he wasn't fasting, ate only very plain food, like coarse bread and cheese. In a letter, he boasted to his stepson, Tiberius, of how he had not eaten all day."

Halfway home on another major point. There is this to add also:

Tacitus Histories, Book 2:

"...Vespasian was an energetic soldier; he could march at the head of his army, choose the place for his camp, and bring by night and day his skill, or, if the occasion required, his personal courage to oppose the foe. His food was such as chance offered; his dress and appearance hardly distinguished him from the common soldier; in short, but for his avarice, he was equal to the generals of old..."

(I also think John 1:1 fits in with the Senate voting or NOT voting "Diuus" as it chose but that is for another day.)

A side point to PK: I've stated that I believed the "Vision on the Road to Damascus" was Titus convincing Mucianus to end the feud with Vespasian. Mucianus agrees and gives the oath of allegiance to his Legions in favor of Vespasian.

Acts 9: 20 (RSV):

[20] And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God."

CW

[Peter Kirby]

A side point to PK: I've stated that I believed the "Vision on the Road to Damascus" was Titus convincing Mucianus to end the feud with Vespasian. Mucianus agrees and gives the oath of allegiance to his Legions in favor of Vespasian.

How is that supposed to make sense?

[Charles Wilson]

A side point to PK: I've stated that I believed the "Vision on the Road to Damascus" was Titus convincing Mucianus to end the feud with Vespasian. Mucianus agrees and gives the oath of allegiance to his Legions in favor of Vespasian.

How is that supposed to make sense?

Zowie, are we miles apart.
The verse was supposed to go with the note. *IF* Mucianus is "Saul" and he is convinced by Titus/Jesus to overcome his feud with Vespasian then we get a little nod in that direction when he acknowledges that "Jesus is the son of God". Titus was the son of Diuus Vespasian.

I've still got a Tokyo phone book sized Post to compose for your wonderful Post of "Give-Take", "Eat-Drink" and now I gotta do some more.

We're a long way apart but I haven't stopped writing yet...

Best...

CW

[Peter Kirby]

A side point to PK: I've stated that I believed the "Vision on the Road to Damascus" was Titus convincing Mucianus to end the feud with Vespasian. Mucianus agrees and gives the oath of allegiance to his Legions in favor of Vespasian.

How is that supposed to make sense?

Zowie, are we miles apart.
The verse was supposed to go with the note. *IF* Mucianus is "Saul" and he is convinced by Titus/Jesus to overcome his feud with Vespasian then we get a little nod in that direction when he acknowledges that "Jesus is the son of God". Titus was the son of Diuus Vespasian.

The Acts of the Apostles isn't talking about Mucianus or Titus. It's talking about Saul/Paul and about Jesus. There are many aims that are evident behind the writing of Acts, but attempting to bridge a feud between Mucianus and Vespasian is not one of them.

This isn't a matter of personal opinion or differing interpretation. The set of claims being made here is completely removed from reality. We might as well be talking about how the color green likes to take its coffee at this point. (Well, *IF* the color green were a coffee drinker, I suppose he'd enjoy some pure green coffee bean extract, him being green and all...)