Josephus has four versions of Judas Maccabeus thinking they were all different persons

by Damien F. Mackey Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was. The first version, found in Antiquities Book XII, is basically recognisable from what we read about the Jewish Revolt against the Macedonian Seleucids in I-II Maccabees. The second version - Roman era presumably - found early in Antiquities Book XVII, provides us with an account of the Revolt against King Herod, late in life, by the Jewish pair, Matthias and Judas. Compare Mattathias and his son, Judas Maccabeus. This continues over in to the time of Herod’s son, Archelaus, whom Saint Joseph feared on the Family’s return from Egypt (Matthew 2:19-21). This is what Gamaliel was talking about, “Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census”. The Census, the one that greets us at the beginning of Luke 2 (:1-3): Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” (4) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2's "rock cut out of a mountain" | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In conventional terms, about 170 years separate these incidents, Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus, on the one hand, and Matthias and Judas the Galilean, on the other. In my scheme, they pertain to precisely the same events. This is only some several decades before the estimated birth of Josephus (c. 37 AD). How come, then, that he has it all so badly tangled up? Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (4) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this is borne out further in: The third version, found later in Antiquities Book XVII. Athronges, Josephus’s new name for Judas (without his realising it). Again, it was the time of Archelaus, son of Herod. …. 7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors; nor for any great wealth he was possessed of; but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only [were he and his 4 brothers shepherd priests at the time of the Nativity?] , and was not known by any body: yet because he was a tall man [Maccabees likens Judas to “a giant”], and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for King. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design. He had also four brethren,20 who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands; and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the Kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own. For those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders. But when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. While he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. And this man retained his power a great while: he was also called King; and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans [???], and of the King’s forces; and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The King’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government: and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men. Nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions. Since they slew some out of the hopes of gain; and others from a mere custom of slaying men. They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus; who were bringing corn and weapons to the army: and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. But the rest of them were affrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus; who came with the King’s troops that were about him to their assistance. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while, by such sort of expeditions: and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued. …. It sure beats Gamaliel’s miserable account of Judas the Galilean at least (Acts 5:37). The fourth version, also found in Antiquities Book XVII, seems to be simply a duplication of Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census. Certain scholars, at least, identify the two as one (see next): https://www.geni.com/people/Judas-the-Zealot-of-Gamala/6000000005747693711 …. Leader of a popular revolt against the Romans at the time when the first census was taken in Judea, in which revolt he perished and his followers were dispersed (Acts v. 37); born at Gamala in Gaulonitis (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 1, § 1). In the year 6 or 7 C.E., when Quirinus came into Judea to take an account of the substance of the Jews, Judas, together with Zadok, a Pharisee, headed a large number of Zealots and offered strenuous resistance (ib. xviii. 1, § 6; xx. 5, § 2; idem, "B. J." ii. 8, § 1). Judas proclaimed the Jewish state as a republic recognizing God alone as king and ruler and His laws as supreme. The revolt continued to spread, and in some places serious conflicts ensued. Even after Judas had perished, his spirit continued to animate his followers. Two of his sons, Jacob and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander ("Ant." xx. 5, § 2); another son, Menahem, became the leader of the Sicarii and for a time had much power; he was finally slain by the high-priestly party ("B. J." ii. 17, §§ 8-9). Grätz ("Gesch." iii. 251) and Schürer ("Gesch." i. 486) identify Judas the Galilean with Judas, son of Hezekiah the Zealot, who, according to Josephus ("Ant." xvii. 10, § 5; "B. J." ii. 4, § 1), led a revolt in the time of Quintilius Varus. He took possession of the arsenal of Sepphoris, armed his followers, who were in great numbers, and soon became the terror of the Romans. When did the Romans come to Judah? This present article has arisen from a discussion I have recently had with a colleague in which we were trying to determine when the Greek (Seleucid) hold over Judah ceased, and the Romans took over – presuming that this is what actually happened. That I have trouble with the conventional view of the Romans for this period will be apparent to readers of my article: Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible (4) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu To my suggestion that Josephus, a political animal, had a political agenda, my colleague replied (26/04/2024): Everyone has biases and agendas. That much can be tolerated by the discerning reader. I mean whether he is reliable witness to basic historical events. For instance I could read a newspaper columnist with whom I vehemently disagree but he is going to be working from the same basic historical backdrop - that Anthony Albanese is the prime minister etc. So, if Josephus is a witnesses to 1st century events and he says the Romans destroyed the Temple - then biases and agendas aside - I'd say that's how it went down. …. This led me to summarise some of my reasons for my minimilisation of the Romans: …. Sounds reasonable. But when do the Romans come into the Judean picture? …. Augustus writes a decree to the whole Roman world. Except, the word Roman is not there. The Romans in Maccabees are allies of the Jews, not invaders. They promise the world, but Judas, then Jonathan, then Simon, all die violently. What happened to the Roman promise of intervention? There are Roman centurions in the Bible. Except, the word Roman is not there. And a Greek word (hekatóntarkhos), not centurion (centurio), is used. We know from history that there was a Jewish centurion in the pagan army. May have been others. My tip is that the centurion (?) Jesus praised was Jewish. No Faith like this in Israel, a builder of a synagogue. Would a Roman centurion build a synagogue? Pilate writes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin (at least Fr. Brian Harrison reckons that that is the proper order). Why Greek, before Latin? Both Pontius and Pilate can also be Greek words. Caiaphas (from memory) warns that the Romans might come - the only solitary mention of them I have found (except for Maccabees) before Paul. If they might come, then does that mean that they are not actually there? Revelation does not name Greek or Roman invaders by those words. Gog and Magog get a look in late. In Ezekiel 38, 39, Gog and Magog refer to the Macedonian Seleucids and their array - and, specifically, to the showdown between Judas and Nicanor. Hence why I have remained non-commital thus far. (That is not to say that the Jewish Revolt ending in 70 AD was not against Rome. I don't know). …. Name “Athronges” As I noted in my “Religious war …” article (above): We can even connect the name, Athronges, thought to mean a “citron” (etrog), to the Maccabees, once it is appreciated that the wrongly-named Second Jewish Revolt was actually that of the Maccabees. See e.g. my article: An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt (DOC) An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu For: https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/was-jesus-of-nazareth-a-jewish-nationalist-53d2b082c9 In 132–135 [sic], the last Jewish leader, Simon bar Kokhba, attempted a final uprising in the hope of restoring Judea’s independence. On his coins, he minted the facade of the temple destroyed sixty years earlier [sic]. We also see a bouquet (lulab) and a citron (etrog), symbols of the traditional cult that Simon intended to restore. We can also read the slogan of the revolt, written in Hebrew: “For the freedom of Jerusalem.” ….

Robert Cornuke’s book, Temple, a game-changer

“Cornuke garners convincing evidence that the Temple was actually located to the southwest of the Temple Mount on a smaller piece of real estate, within the Old City of David and with access to the Gihon Spring”. Ed Vasicek https://sharperiron.org/article/review-temple-amazing-new-discoveries-change-everything-about-location Review - Temple: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's Temple Ed Vasicek Wed, 04/06/16 12:00 am Many of us recognize Robert Cornuke as the man whom many believe discovered the real Mt. Sinai. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: I think that a far better option for the: True Mount Sinai (2) True Mount Sinai | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu is professor Emmanuel Anati’s identification of Har Karkom, near the Paran desert. The Review continues: [Cornuke] is also president of the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration Institute, and has been featured on major television networks including ABC, FOX, CNN, National Geographic, and the History Channel; he received his PhD from Louisiana Baptist University. What I especially appreciate about the author is that he begins with complete confidence in the Scripture. If accepted tradition contradicts Scripture, Cornuke’s game is afoot. Dr. Cornuke, in a few pages, argues convincingly that the Temple was built in the old City of David—as he documents the Bible avows—rather than atop what has been wrongly dubbed the “Temple Mount.” Cornuke quotes a number of passages that equate Zion with both the Temple and the City of David. Since the “Temple Mount” sits outside the old City of David, Zion and the Temple Mount cannot be one and the same. What we call the Temple Mount, he argues, is actually the plateau built by the Romans for the Fortress Antonia. The Romans built their fortresses at the highest elevation possible, building a plateau akin to the “Temple Mount.” Damien F. Mackey’s comment: On this, see e.g. my article: Fortress of Antonia (2) Fortress of Antonia | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu [Cornuke] argues a convincing case, offering a variety of evidences from the biblical texts, formally recorded history (especially Josephus—whom those who accept the Temple Mount as the true location—believe erred), ancient eyewitness accounts, and both older and very recent archaeological findings (2013). The Review continues: Herod’s Temple was so thoroughly destroyed that all traces of it have vanished. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: What Herod’s Temple? The Review continues: Ancient pilgrims postulated that the Temple had been built on the highest part of the city, and thus dubbed that location the “Temple Mount.” Cornuke garners convincing evidence that the Temple was actually located to the southwest of the Temple Mount on a smaller piece of real estate, within the Old City of David and with access to the Gihon Spring. Although Herod’s Temple was destroyed without a trace—as Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:2— Damien F. Mackey’s comment: What Herod’s Temple? It was Zerubbabel’s Temple. — apparent remnants of Solomon’s Temple are evident underneath the suggested City of David location. The book actually contains a few photos of this subterranean archaeology. This is not just an attempt at sensationalism, but a generally logical, thoroughly argued case that will appeal to readers open to consider this possibility. The evidence leads me, personally, to embrace Cornice’s conclusion. … Getting back to the book itself, part one is both the real meat and bulk of the book: “The Temple.” Although not all arguments in this section are equally compelling, a number of them are quite so. Parts 2 and 3 (the future Temples and the Ark of the Covenant) make a few logical leaps, although I agree with his basic outline. …. Make no mistake about it: this book is monumental. Its tight and compelling case for locating the Temple in the City of David (not the Temple Mount) is persuasive and positioned to become a popular viewpoint. The author does repeat himself quite a bit, but this reinforces his points and will help readers who might otherwise find the subject confusing. The average layperson can readily understand this book. It is fascinating and the type of book that could become a “game changer.” Read also: https://planthopeisrael.com/a-secret-treasure-in-jerusalem/ A Secret Treasure in Jerusalem by Jennifer GuettaSep 7, 2018Archaeology, Blog Article, History, Messiah IN Archaeology …. Hidden away a few meters above the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem is perhaps the greatest discovery ever found in Israel. Strangely, not many people know about it. It is older and more spectacular than anything I have seen in Jerusalem. And very crucial for both the Old and New Testament. “Whatever is covered up will be uncovered, and every secret will be made known.” (Luke 12:2 GNT) A few years ago archaeologist Eli Shukron uncovered the remains of an ancient sacred site just above the spring in the City of David dating from the time of Melchizedek up to the time of the kingdom of Judah (MB-Iron Age). The area includes four small rooms aligned next to each other. To the far right is a small room with an olive press in front of it, for making oil. Immediately to its right is another room with at the back a small square altar or “table” with along the side a long drainage channel, possible used to drain off blood. On the other end of the building is another room with strange V- shaped markings in the floor which the excavator interprets as used for placing a wooden installation to hold animals that were being prepared for sacrifice. In the walls are even cut holes to tie the cords to hold the animals. But the most incredible find is in the back of the middle room where one upright stone stands straight amidst a foundation of smaller stones: A Biblical “Stele”. According to the excavator the site was definitely used for religious purposes, probably for sacrifice and anointing with oil. Its location above the only spring of Jerusalem and the massive spring tower also seem to be of central importance. Strangely it dates from the Middle Bronze Age into the Iron age and was still in use during Solomon’s Temple. Nothing was found in the area to indicate it was used to serve foreign gods (no figurines, drawings, etc). < Reconstruction drawing of the sacred place by the spring in Jerusalem This was a real sacred place above the spring used during the Bible. The question one immediately asks is: What was such a sacrificial place doing in Jerusalem south of the Temple Mount? Wasn’t all sacrifice only done in the Temple? And what was it doing there so early with continued use into the Israelite period? It makes one wonder. And we don’t have all the answers. What we do know, is that this place was used in Biblical times to sacrifice and probably anoint people and that it was used for ONE God. Visiting this place was the highlight of my trip to Israel. A dream fulfilled. Long ago I heard that Eli Shukron had made a major discovery. I had been to the City of David many times before but did not have the chance in the last few years to see what he found. I did however, travel there in my imagination when I was writing three of my children’s books (all in Dutch). In my first book The Treasure of Zion, the children discover a flat stone in a room above the spring (I did not know about the discovery then!). In my second book, The Secret of the Golden star, the children witness the anointing of King Solomon by the spring. In the third book, The Mystery of the Lion Throne, the children go in search of the Ark of the Covenant and the climax takes place in an underground temple near the spring. I had never been there when I wrote these books but imagined it and used it as the basis for a great adventure. It is perhaps strange but shortly after I wrote the Lion Throne many of the spiritual things which happened to me took place. As if I had uncovered a secret which someone didn’t want exposed. In my books the children are looking for the secret hiding place of the Ark of the Covenant that Solomon had built under the Temple. The Ark represented the very throne of God and His presence dwelled above it. But instead of finding the physical Ark my search for the truth ultimately led me to the greatest treasure of all: The real lions throne, the throne of the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) and He showed me that His presence now lives in people (and no longer above an ark). After I experienced the spiritual world and was confronted with witchcraft, I had to admit that the invisible realm was very real and in it there are two kingdoms, light and dark. I also learned that Jesus is truly alive and had all authority over the darkness and there was a reason that darkness listened to His name. He rescued me from kabbala and witchcraft and brought me into His kingdom of light. It is a long story, but in the end God cornered the archaeologist. After I gave my life to Jesus I also gave up the dream of ever going to the place that had inspired me for so long. But the Lord knows our dreams and hearts desires. He remembered, and blessed me by letting me go there with my mom and two sisters on Good Friday, the day we remember the greatest sacrifice ever made. The day that all other animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. The day His blood flowed for us and paid the price to set us completely free. The Lord had blessed me even more by letting Eli Shukron guide us through his discovery. It was early Friday morning 2016. The sun was shining and we were filled with anticipation as we followed Eli through the streets of the Old City. Along the way we talked about the real location of the Via Dolorosa, the road Jesus walked with the cross. Archaeologically it is a contested route and he showed us some of the places where archaeologists think it took place. Then we turned south towards the City of David. Tears filled my eyes when we descended along the steep hill. I felt like I was visiting there for the first time, but I wasn’t. I was not the same person I was before. It felt like everything was different. But it wasn’t. It was me that had changed, and these old stones had stayed the same. We followed Eli into a well secured area, behind a fence and he took out a key. Then we entered into a dark cave, with wooden beams holding up the ceiling. Built into the bedrock, along the side of the hill, we saw four small rooms. I was amazed how well the walls were preserved. It’s funny how things often look different than we imagined. But this was more beautiful than I could have dreamed of. Then Eli took out another set of keys and opened a steel box at the back of one of the rooms. The doors swung open. Behind it was an upright stone set in smaller stones. I gasped in awe. A stone of covenant You might think… It’s just a stone! What is so special about a stone? In the Bible there are many stories about stones marking a covenant between God and the people. For example the story of Jacob at Bethel: “Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.” (Genesis 28:18). Another example is found in Genesis 35:44-46. “So now come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.” Then Jacob took a stone and set it up as a pillar. Jacob said to his kinsmen, “Gather stones.” So they took stones and made a heap, and they ate there by the heap.…” And here is another: “So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and made for them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God; and he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be for a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD which He spoke to us; thus it shall be for a witness against you, so that you do not deny your God” (Josh. 24:26) Upright stones were symbols of a covenant between God and man. They are also called “stele” and are well known in Israel. Archaeologists have found them throughout the country, usually in combination with other stones. But never in Jerusalem. And never only ONE. This stone represented a relationship between ONE God and the people. The stone was also set up to make a vow, a reminder of a covenant. In the Bible when such a covenant was made there was often a meal right after with wine and bread, partaking of the feast upon the sacrifice. Even King Josiah when he called the people to renew their vow to the Lord made them stand by a pillar in Jerusalem and renewed there their covenant with the Lord. “And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant” 2 kings 23:3 Now, I was staring at a real upright stone in Jerusalem placed purposely above the spring, next to a sacrifice area, and an olive press for anointing oil. I was in awe of being in such a place and was reminded that this was also Good Friday and it was almost 12:00 , the hour that the Romans erected the cross that Jesus hung on. I gazed at the small altar of sacrifice with the channel for blood next to it. In today’s society it sounds awful and one wonders why sacrifices were necessary. It is strange concept. That blood has to flow. However, in the Bible God is very clear about it. “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.” (Leviticus 17:11). Blood had to flow to pay for the atonement of sin. In Genesis God said very clearly: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17). When man sinned, they were excommunicated from God and the punishment for sin was death. In the Old Testament animals died in our place. A lamb was slaughtered to atone for our sins. One died for the other. I looked at the small square altar and wondered how many poor animals were sacrificed here for us. They did nothing wrong. They were perfect without blemish. Some archaeologists and rabbi’s think the idea of atonement is purely pagan, because it is also found in many other religions, including ancient Assyria. But it is not pagan! It is very biblical, Jewish, and it is just how the spiritual world works. Therefore it can be seen in religions all over the world. Because in the spirit world there is a price to be paid. When Jesus died on the cross He paid the price once and for all and thankfully places like this were no longer necessary to sacrifice animals. It is through this concept that we can understand what John said when he said to Jesus: “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). In the order of Melchizedek Already several weeks ago the Lord had put it in my heart to bring bread and wine to the underground sacred area above the spring and to renew my covenant here with him and remember what He had done for us on this day. We were four women coming back to a place that probably had a very important meaning for the people in the Bible. It was the first time in 2500 years that this place was used again. We came and dedicated this sacrificial place of Jerusalem to the Messiah, the lamb of God, who gave himself as the greatest sacrifice of all. What I didn’t know was that Melchizedek, the high priest of Jerusalem had also brought forth bread and wine when he met Abraham. And the Messiah Yeshua/Jesus was priest in the order of Melchizedek. “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” Hebrews 5:6 “Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram”, Genesis 14:18-19 The Bible says Melchizedek was the priest of Salem (Jerusalem) long before the Temple existed. And he was priest of the Most High. The story of Melchizedek shows that long before David conquered Jerusalem this was a place dedicated to the MOST HIGH. Here we were, standing by a stone that had been purposely placed here to remember a covenant made between God and people, most likely dating from the time of Melchizedek (The Middle Bronze age). It was still in use during the time of David and Solomon and probably all the kings of Judah. The Bible describes that Melchizedek, the original high priest of Jerusalem brought forth bread and wine to Abraham, probably making a covenant with him and transferring his power to Abraham. < V-shaped groves probably used for a wooden installation to hold the animals for sacrifice. On this day 2000 years ago, the Messiah, the priest in the order of Melchizedek, gave an ultimate sacrifice: His life. By doing so he paid with his own blood the sins of the world, so that man could be restored and have a relationship with God again. He also destroyed the powers of the darkness completely, bringing light and hope back into the world. A few hours after His death, the Jews celebrated Passover, a great meal of covenant with four cups of wine. The night before, during the last supper, Jesus had shown his disciples how to celebrate Passover from now in commemoration of him. He did not drink the fourth cup and said He would drink it when his kingdom would come. Three days after his death Jesus rose from the dead and His kingdom is now in us. Therefore he longs to drink this cup with us. As I opened the bottle of wine and filled a cup, I remembered how Jesus had literally set me free from the bondage of witchcraft. How he liberated us and defeated the darkness. I remembered how exactly one year earlier we had celebrated His victory with 400 people during the biggest Passover Holland had ever seen. In that year (2015) Good Friday and Passover were on the same day, as they were many years ago, before time had distorted our conceptions. It was a great meal of covenant and also a call back to God. Now we were here on this location breaking bread and drinking wine in the place where an original covenant had been made between God and the people, repeating our own vow. We said the blessing over the wine and repeated the Lords words: “Do this in remembrance of me.” And we passed the cup around as if he himself invited us to His table in his kingdom. The wine is the symbol of the blood which flowed at Calvary. The blood of the lamb of Passover that was placed on the doors of the houses of the Israelites, as the darkness passed them by. The blood on the door of our hearts which forever makes sure that darkness passes us by. Then we broke the bread and said again: “Do this in remembrance of Him.” And shared it one with another. Just as Melchizedek had done to Abraham, Jesus hands us His cup and was also transferring His power to us, and gave us all authority over the darkness. The stone of remembrance is still locked away in Jerusalem in the secret hiding place. It has been rededicated to the high priest in the order of Melchizedek, Yeshua, the Messiah of Israel. Hopefully, it’s message of covenant and redemption will now go back into the world and to Jerusalem. If you are visiting Israel and would like to see it you can contact Eli Shukron: www.elishukron.com ….

Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem

“[Eli] Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. …. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood”. Dr. Frank Turek Dr. Frank Turek has given a dramatic, and optimistic, title to his 2014 article: https://crossexamined.org/jewish-temple-may-prevent-world-war-iii/ WEDNESDAY, JULY 2, 2014 THE JEWISH TEMPLE THAT MAY PREVENT WORLD WAR III • By Frank Turek |Israel is the most contested piece of real estate in the world. And the most contested piece of real estate within Israel is the temple mount in the old city of Jerusalem. Nearly every Jew believes that the Muslim Dome of the Rock, which dominates that thirty-six acre site, sits on the spot of all previous Jewish Temples, including the last one destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Some Jews and Christians believe that the temple must be and will be rebuilt on that spot. Therein lies the problem. Can you think of a faster way to start World War III? Thankfully, new evidence is just coming to light that might reveal a more peaceful solution. The Jewish Temple may not have been on the Temple Mount but just outside the current walls of the old city. I had the privilege of seeing this evidence several days ago along with a few others participating on our CrossExamined.org trip to Israel. Our guide was the man who uncovered the new evidence: Israeli archaeologist Eli Shukron. Since 1995, Shukron has been digging up the twelve-acre area called the City of David that [just] out from the southern wall of the old city of Jerusalem. He and his team have removed thousands of tones [sic] of dirt to discover, among other things, the Pool of Siloam where Jesus healed a blind person (John 9:7), and the once impenetrable fortress of the Jebusites that David and his men captured by sneaking up an underground water shaft (2 Sam 5:7-8). Near that water shaft, about 1,000 feet south of the Temple Mount, Shukron discovered the remains of an ancient temple just a few feet from the Gihon Spring. Shukron led us about forty feet underground into the well-secured area. As the lead archaeologist, only he has the key. The excavated area is down to bedrock, which means there was no civilization below it. The site has grooves cut into that bedrock for an olive press and sacrifice tables, and loops cut into the walls presumably to secure animals. Slightly uphill and to the left of the olive press is a long channel cut into the floor most likely designed to drain off blood. Behind it Shukron unlocked a steel box he had built to protect something on the floor. As he swung the doors open, we saw an ancient upright stone (called a “stele”) surrounded by a foundation of smaller stones. “The Bible says Jacob took a stone and put small stones around it, and then put olive oil on top of that stone.” Shukron told me, referring to the stele Jacob erected in the town of Bethel (Genesis 28:18). “It is a connection between Jacob and God—the relationship between them.” Indeed, Jacob called the place he made, “God’s house.” The Jews were known to set up stele to commemorate interactions with God (Gen. 28:18, 31:45, 35:14, Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 8:12). But according to Shukron, the stele he discovered is the only one ever found in Jerusalem. Could it mark the actual site of the real Jewish temple—God’s house? “It certainly was a temple from the first temple period (circa 970-586 B.C.),” Shukron said. “But Solomon’s temple was on the Temple Mount.” When I asked him what archeological evidence exists for the Temple Mount site, he offered very little in response. Perhaps the paucity of evidence is due to the political realities that prevent much digging there. On the other hand, quite a compelling case can be made for Solomon’s Temple being at Shukron’s site. My co-host on the trip, Bob Cornuke, makes that case in a fascinating new book called Temple: Amazing New Discoveries that Change Everything About the Location of Solomon’s Temple. Cornuke picks up on the research of the late archaeologist, Ernest L. Martin, who in 1997 suggested that the biblical text and eyewitness evidence from the first century all point to the City of David as the actual temple location. Now there appears to be quite specific archaeological evidence as well. Cornuke and Shukron have been discussing this evidence for the better part of the last year. There are even a couple of pictures in Cornuke’s book from Shukron’s site. You can see those pictures and some of my own here. So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question. First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct. Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July. If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” ….

Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed

by Damien F. Mackey “… Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded”.” Gunnar Heinsohn With reference to my article: Further argument for Prophet Mohammed’s likely non-existence (2) Further argument for Prophet Mohammed's likely non-existence | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu a reader has asked: Dear Damien, This is a highly controversial claim. Do you still stand by it? I cannot believe that you would. Best wishes . …. To which I replied emphatically: Damien Mackey …. A very happy and blessed Easter season to you …. Oh, yes, I absolutely stand by that claim. Apart from problems with an historical Mohammed, and with the Qur'an, there are massive problems associated with his so-called contemporaries, the supposed emperor Heraclius, for one, being a ridiculous composite figure. Somewhat like your Imhotep [the correspondent has written a magnificent account of massive preparations in 3rd Dynasty Egypt for a Famine]. See my: "Anachronistic contemporaries of the so-called Prophet Mohammed" https://www.academia.edu/116850671/Anachronistic_contemporaries_of_the_so_called_Prophet_Mohammed But wait, there is more .... Damien. …. The truly great bombshell is archaeology, see quote at the beginning of my article [see also above]: "Oh my, the Umayyads. Deconstructing the Caliphate" https://www.academia.edu/117122001/Oh_my_the_Umayyads_Deconstructing_the_Caliphate The Umayyad (caliphate) strata, thought by nearly all to follow on not long after Mohammed (600's AD), is found, instead, to lie at the same level of the Romans at about the time of Jesus Christ, some 6 centuries earlier. That wipes out Mohammed and the contemporary Rashiduns, and it terribly vitiates the Abbasids supposed to follow on from the Umayyads. On the strength of all of this, I now laugh at the suggestion that there was an historical Mohammed. ,,,,

Jotham’s Parable of Fig and Thorn

“A bramble, or thornbush, was a useless nuisance, the most worthless plant in the Middle East. It produces no fruit, and is too low to the ground to produce any shade. Its wood cannot be used for any kind of construction because it splits too easily. It is good only as fuel for the fire. And this was, of course, the symbol of Abimelech”. https://teachingforsotzambia.com/2019/08/28/from-the-old-testament-jothams-parable-what-does-it-mean/ From the Old Testament: Jotham’s Parable. What does it mean? Posted on August 28, 2019 by admin Whenever we think of parables in the Bible, we often only think of the parables spoken by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament. However, to the surprise of some, there are also several parables in the Old Testament including Jotham’s parable in Judges 9 that sheds considerable light on past and future events in both testaments. His name means “my father is king.” And his father certainly lived like a king, but he refused to establish any form of dynasty in Israel for himself or his sons. It is obvious that Abimelech thought his warrior hero father had made a mistake. He was the son of Gideon by a concubine who lived with her father’s family in Shechem, and he undoubtedly was shunned by his half-brothers. His father was an Israelite, but his mother was a Shechemite. The story of Gideon’s success as a great warrior is riveting and a great testimony unto the Lord. However, his epitaph is shadowed with disappointment. He had missed a great opportunity to bring reform and revival to the land of Israel. Instead of using the moment of his heroism to bring glory to God, he chose instead to profit himself. It is thus recorded, “And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made Baal-Berith their god.” (Judges 8:33) Our story now unfolds. It is interesting that in Judges 9-10, Gideon is always called Jerubbaal, never Gideon. “And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem unto his mother’s brethren, and communed with them, and with all the family of the house of his mother’s father, saying, Speak, I pray you, in the ears of all the men of Shechem, Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, which are threescore and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you? remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.” (Judges 9:1-2) His mother’s brothers pledged allegiance to Abimelech, and they gave him 70 pieces of silver from the house of Baal-Berith to finance a crusade against his 70 half-brothers. In this act he made the public announcement that he had renounced the God of Israel for Baal. With hired men he went to the house of Ophrah and slew all of Gideon’s sons except the youngest Jotham who hid himself in the slaughter. (verses 3-5) “And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.” (verse 6) It is here that in his godlessness and selfish acts Abimelech defiled a place sacred in Jewish history. Beth Millo translates “house of the fortress” and is the section of the upper classes. The word “plain” is ‘elown’ or a “great tree or oak” and is undoubtedly the well-known sacred tree of Moreh (Genesis 12:6; 24:1-5; 35:4; Deut. 11:26-32; Josh 8:30-35; 24:25-26) “And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.” (verse 7) Mount Gerizim was a place for blessings to be read (Deut. 27:12, 28), but Jotham’s speech was anything but a blessing. He continues: The Parable of the Trees “The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us. But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees? Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? (In each case, the trees refused the honor. Each would have to sacrifice something in order to reign and they weren’t prepared to make that sacrifice.) Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.” (verses 8-14) (A bramble, or thornbush, was a useless nuisance, the most worthless plant in the Middle East. It produces no fruit, and is too low to the ground to produce any shade. Its wood cannot be used for any kind of construction because it splits too easily. It is good only as fuel for the fire. And this was, of course, the symbol of Abimelech.) It is known as the principle of “expositional constancy” whereby the Holy Spirit tends to use the same symbols consistently throughout Scripture. As an example, remember that both Ezekiel 31 and Daniel 4 use trees to symbolize leaders or nations. Last week’s blog cited the “parable of the fig tree.” The Bible clearly uses all four of the trees to reference Israel. How so? The Parable of the Trees Olive Tree represents the Lineage or Genealogy of Israel -produces valuable oil Fig Tree represents Political Israel -produces sweet fruit Vine represents Spiritual Israel -produces wine Bramble represents Satan’s empire/kingdom of darkness -no fruit -only good as fuel for the fire Jotham had clearly made his point. If you read chapters 9-10 Abimelech, the “bramble king” would be unable to protect the people and would cause judgment to come that would destroy those who trust in him. After three conditional clauses, this was a prophecy and a curse. In its fulfillment, both Abimelech and his followers would destroy one another (literally in verse 57) and leading to his ignominious death. Jotham’s parable looks all the way back to Genesis where we are first introduced to thorns being a symbol of the “curse.” In speaking to Adam after the Fall, God says, “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.” (Genesis 3:17b-18) Thorns are a symbol of the “curse” and impending judgement. Throughout the Middle East it is the Acacia bush which is known as “the thorn bush of the desert.” And it is highly likely that this was the type of bush or bramble that Moses encountered at Mount Horeb. “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.” (Exodus 3:2) It was a burning bush that is not consumed. It is a symbol of grace. Why? Acacia= “thorn bush of the desert” Thorns= symbol of the curse Fire= symbol of judgement Even the writer of Hebrews reveals that thorns were viewed negatively in the ancient cultured and considered a curse. “For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned.” (Hebrews 6:7-8) After being mocked, beaten and spat upon by the Roman soldiers, Jesus was crowned with thorns and this highlighted that His suffering and death were a curse. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” (Hebrews 3:13) When our Lord was crowned with a crown of thorns, His torturers unknowingly punished Him with a symbol fitting of the suffering Messiah. Fortunately for us, Jesus rose from the dead and is gloriously revealed as the King and Savior of this world. Thus, for all who believe, we are not bramble dedicated for destruction. In fact, as Christians we are branches “grafted in” to the Olive Tree and bearing fruit for our Lord. (Romans 11:17-24; Ephesians 2:11-13; 2:19; 3:6) See also my (Damien Mackey’s) article: Jesus Curses the Barren Fig Tree (3) Jesus Curses the Barren Fig Tree | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Divine Mercy Sunday

“On that day are opened all the divine floodgates through which graces flow. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity”. Jesus Divine Mercy https://www.thedivinemercy.org/celebrate/greatgrace/dms What is Divine Mercy Sunday? Find out the basics. In a series of revelations to St. Maria Faustina Kowalska in the 1930s, our Lord called for a special feast day to be celebrated on the Sunday after Easter. Today, we know that feast as Divine Mercy Sunday, named by Pope St. John Paul II at the canonization of St. Faustina on April 30, 2000. The Lord expressed His will with regard to this feast in His very first revelation to St. Faustina. The most comprehensive revelation can be found in her Diary entry 699: My daughter, tell the whole world about My inconceivable mercy. I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and a shelter for all souls, and especially for poor sinners. On that day the very depths of My tender mercy are open. I pour out a whole ocean of graces upon those souls who approach the fount of My mercy. The soul that will go to Confession and receive Holy Communion shall obtain complete forgiveness of sins and punishment. On that day are opened all the divine floodgates through which graces flow. Let no soul fear to draw near to Me, even though its sins be as scarlet. My mercy is so great that no mind, be it of man or of angel, will be able to fathom it throughout all eternity. Everything that exists has come from the very depths of My most tender mercy. Every soul in its relation to Me will contemplate My love and mercy throughout eternity. The Feast of Mercy emerged from My very depths of tenderness. It is My desire that it be solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday after Easter. Mankind will not have peace until it turns to the Fount of My mercy. In all, St. Faustina recorded 14 revelations from Jesus concerning His desire for this feast. Nevertheless, Divine Mercy Sunday is NOT a feast based solely on St. Faustina's revelations. Indeed, it is not primarily about St. Faustina — nor is it altogether a new feast. The Second Sunday of Easter was already a solemnity as the Octave Day of Easter[1]. The title "Divine Mercy Sunday" does, however, highlight the meaning of the day. …. ________________________________________

Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate

by Damien F. Mackey “… Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded”.” Gunnar Heinsohn The major Caliphates of Islam are listed as these five (1-5): • 1 Rashidun Caliphate (632–661) • 2 Umayyad Caliphate (661–750) • 3 Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) • 4 Mamluk Abbasid dynasty (1261–1517) • 5 Ottoman Caliphate (1517–1924) It will be my purpose here - abstracting from the immense problems already associated with the Qur’an (Koran) itself (e.g.): Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry (2) Dr Günter Lüling: Christian hymns underlie Koranic poetry | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Islam according to Jay Smith (6) Islam according to Jay Smith | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Durie’s verdict on Prophet Mohammed (DOC) Durie's verdict on Prophet Mohammed | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sven Kalisch out to expose true nature of Islam (6) Sven Kalisch out to expose true nature of Islam | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu - to show that virtually none (if any at all) of this presumed history of the successive Caliphates is properly historical, and, hence, underpinned by a reliable archaeology. Abbasid Caliphate Aiming right at the centre, the middle one (No. 3 above), the famed Abbasid Caliphate: “The Abbasid caliphs established the city of Baghdad in 762 CE. It became a center of learning and the hub of what is known as the Golden Age of Islam”: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/medieval-times/cross-cultural-diffusion-of-knowledge/a/the-golden-age-of-islam I have already disposed of this supposedly the most glorious age of Islam by arguing that early Baghdad (not the modern city of that name), known as Madinat-al-Salam, “City of Peace”, was actually Jerusalem, meaning just that, “City of Peace”: Original Baghdad was Jerusalem (6) Original Baghdad was Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In the same article I noted that the imagined early Baghdad had, unsurprisingly, left no discernible archaeological trace. There I wrote: The first thing to notice about ancient Baghdad is that it has left “no tangible traces”: “Built of the baked brick, the city’s walls have long since crumbled, leaving no trace of Madinat-al-Salam today”. “While no tangible traces have yet been discovered of the eighth-century Madinat-al-Salam, and as it is currently impossible to conduct excavations in Baghdad, one can only hope that one day material evidence may be discovered”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Baghdad “The Round City was partially ruined during the siege of 812–813, when Caliph al-Amin was killed by his brother,[a] who then became the new caliph. It never recovered;[b] its walls were destroyed by 912,[c] nothing of them remains,[d][6] there is no agreement as to where it was located.[7]” [End of quotes] And just as I have shown, time and time again, that the Prophet Mohammed was a fictitious, largely biblical, composite, so, too, basically, I believe, were the luminaries of the so-called Abbasid Golden Age. Thus, for instance, the fairytale (Arabian Nights), Hārūn al-Rashīd, who is said to have built the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, is an appropriation of the great king, Hiram, ally of Solomon, who helped the wise king of Israel build the Temple of Yahweh and Solomon’s Palace in Jerusalem, “City of Peace”. And in the names of a handful of presumed Islamic scholars of the Golden Age, the polymathic Al-Kindi (c. 800); Al-Farabi (c. 900); Avicenna (c. 1000); and Averroes (c. 1150), I found what I would consider to be elements of Ahikar’s (Tobit’s nephew) Assyro-Babylonian names: respectively, Aba-enlil-dari and Esagil-kinni-ubba. Thus: AL-KINDI – ESAGIL-KINNI; AL-FARABI – ENLIL-DAR-AB(I); AVICENNA – UBB-KINNI(A); AVERROES – ABA-(D)AR(I) In these famous names is largely encompassed Islamic philosophy, science, astronomy, cosmology, history, demography, medicine and music for the Golden Age. Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (8) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu If the glorious and lengthy Abbasid Caliphate can be thus expunged from history, and the very originator of Islam, Mohammed, found to have been an artificial construct - not to mention Loqmân and Abu Lahab (see below) - then we appear to have no firm archaeological foundations upon which to erect a plausible history of the Caliphate. And things, apparently, do not get much better. Rashidun Caliphate Let us go back for a moment to Mohammed and his presumed era, more than a century before the so-called Abbasids. Not only has Mohammed been shown to have been a non-historical entity, a fictitious composite based upon real historical (biblical) characters: Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ (3) Mohammed, a composite of Old Testament figures, also based upon Jesus Christ | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu but the historicity of some of Mohammed’s supposed contemporaries, too, is highly suspect. Mohammed’s very uncle, Abu Lahab, for instance, has been found to have had suspiciously (biblical) Ahab-like traits, as, correspondingly, does Abu-Lahab’s unbelieving wife, Umm Jamīl, somewhat resemble Queen Jezebel: Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab (8) Abu Lahab, Lab'ayu, Ahab | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mohammed’s supposed contemporary, Nehemiah ben Hushiel, would seem to be a direct pinch from the biblical Nehemiah: Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time (3) Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And their (Mohammed and Nehemiah’s) contemporary, the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, is a most bizarre character, somewhat like a frog in a blender, whom I have described as being “a composite of all composites”: Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh (3) Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Again, there is the Islamic sage Loqmân (Luqman) of the Qur’an (31st sura), who quotes from the wisdom of Ahikar, an Israelite nephew of the biblical Tobit: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân (2) Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu Ahikar’s influence, as we read above, also permeates the Abbasids. But Loqmân has been compared as well with the venal biblical seer, Balaam, more than half a millennium before Ahikar: Islam’s Loqmân based on biblical Balaam (3) Islam’s Loqmân based on biblical Balaam | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Oh yes, of course, the story of Mohammed also has (like Balaam) a talking donkey: A funny thing happened on the way to Mecca (2) A funny thing happened on the way to Mecca | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu With so insecure an archaeologico-historical base, beginning with Mohammed himself, the entire Caliphate period, from, say, 650-1250 AD (Rashidun to Abbasid), must needs be looking very shaky indeed. At this stage I have not analysed the four caliphs closely associated with Mohammed (the Rashidun Caliphate), Abū Bakr (reigned 632–634), ʿUmar (reigned 634–644), ʿUthmān (reigned 644–656), and ʿAlī (reigned 656–661). But, based on the cases of Mohammed and Abu Lahab, I would strongly suspect that these four, too, can be identifiable with one or more biblical characters ranging from, say, Moses to Tobit (possibly also embracing the New Testament). Let us switch now to the Umayyads (661-750 AD). Umayyad Caliphate As with the 1 Rashidun Caliphate (632–661), so, too, in the case of the 2 Umayyad Caliphate (661–750), I have not yet analysed the various caliphs with an eye to biblical comparisons. But the great shock about the Umayyads came at the very beginning of this article, with archaeologist Moshe Hartal’s observation that the Umayyads existed on the same stratigraphical level as the Romans of the period approximating to Jesus Christ. How shattering! According to professor Gunnar Heinsohn’s interpretation of the Umayyads, these were none other than the Nabataeans (era of Maccabees and Jesus Christ): https://heinsohn-gunnar.eu/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/arab-coinage-hiatus-between-nabataean-1st-c-and-jewish-style-of-umayyad-8th-c-heinsohn-21-august-2021.pdf Professor Heinsohn is followed in this by The First Millennium Revisionist (2021) https://stolenhistory.net/threads/revision-in-islamic-chronology-and-geography-unz-review.5581/ I do not necessarily agree with every detail (e.g. date) of the following. …. “Archeologists have no way of distinguishing Roman and Byzantium buildings from Umayyad buildings, because “8th-10th Cent. Umayyads built in 2nd Cent. technology” and followed Roman models”. The First Millennium Revisionist In Heinsohn’s SC chronology, the rise of Christianity in the first three centuries AD and the rise of Islam from the 7th to the 10th century are roughly contemporary. Their six-century chasm is a fiction resulting from the fact that the rise of Christianity is dated in Imperial Antiquity while the rise of Islam is dated in the Early Middle Ages, two time-blocks that are in reality contemporary. The resynchronizing of Imperial Antiquity and Early Middle Ages provides a solution to some troublesome archeological anomalies. One of them concerns the Nabataeans. During Imperial Antiquity, the Nabataean Arabs dominated long distance trade. Their city of Petra was a major center of trade for silk, spice and other goods on the caravan routes that linked China, India and southern Arabia with Egypt, Syria, Greece and Rome. In 106 AD, the Nabataean Kingdom was officially annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan (whose father had been governor of Syria) and became the province of Arabia Petraea. Hadrian visited Petra around 130 AD and gave it the name of Hadriane Petra Metropolis, imprinted on his coins. Petra reached its urban flowering in the Severan period (190s-230s AD).[18] Mackey’s comment: I actually date the Trajan-Hadrian period to the Maccabean age, not c. 106 AD: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar - Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (5) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar - Trajan transmutes to Hadrian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And yet, incredibly, these Arab long-distance merchants “are supposed to have forgotten the issuing of coins and the art of writing (Aramaic) after the 1st century AD and only learned it again in the 7th/8th century AD (Umayyad Muslims). ” …. It is assumed that Arabs fell out of civilization after Hadrian, and only emerged back into it under Islam, with an incomprehensible scientific advancement. The extreme primitivism in which pre-Islamic Arabs are supposed to have wallowed, with no writing and no money of they own, “stands in stark contrast to the Islamic Arabs who thrive from the 8th century, [whose] coins are not only found in Poland but from Norway all the way to India and beyond at a time when the rest of the known world was trying to crawl out of the darkness of the Early Middle Ages.”…. Moreover, Arab coins dated to the 8th and 9th centuries are found in the same layers as imperial Roman coins. “The coin finds of Raqqa, for example, which stratigraphically belong to the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century), also contain imperial Roman coins from Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) and Late Antiquity (4th-7th century).” …. “Thus, we have an impressive trove of post-7th c. Arab coins lumped together with pre-7th c. Roman coins of pre-7th c. Roman times. But we have no pre-7th c. Arab coins from the centuries of their close alliance with Rome in the pre-7th c. periods.” …. The first Islamic Umayyad coins, issued in Jerusalem, “continue supposedly 700 years earlier Nabataean coins.” …. Often displaying Jewish menorahs with Arabic lettering, they differ very little from Jewish coins dated seven centuries earlier; we are dealing here with an evolution “requiring only years or decades, but not seven centuries.” …. Architecture raises similar problems. Archeologists have no way of distinguishing Roman and Byzantium buildings from Umayyad buildings, because “8th-10th Cent. Umayyads built in 2nd Cent. technology” and followed Roman models. …. “How could the Umayyads in the 8th c. AD perfectly imitate late Hellenistic styles,” Heinsohn asks, “when there were no specialists left to teach them such sophisticated skills?” …. Moreover, “Umayyad structures were built right on top of Late-Hellenistic structures of the 1st c. BCE/CE.” …. One example is “the second most famous Umayyad building, their mosque in Damascus. The octagonal structure of the so-called Dome of the Treasury stands on perfect Roman columns of the 1st/2nd century. They are supposed to be spolia, but . . . there are no known razed buildings from which they could have been taken. Even more puzzling are the enormous monolithic columns inside the building from the 8th/9th c. AD, which also belong to the 1st/2nd century. No one knows the massive structure that would have had to be demolished to obtain them.” …. Far from rejecting the Umayyads’ servile “imitation” of Roman Antiquity, their Abbasid enemies resumed it: “8th-10th c. Abbasids bewilder historians for copying, right down to the chemical fingerprint, Roman glass.” Heinsohn quotes from The David Collection: Islamic Art / Glass, 2014: The millefiori technique, which takes its name from the Italian word meaning “thousand flowers”, reached a culmination in the Roman period. . . . The technique seems to have been rediscovered by Islamic glassmakers in the 9th century, since examples of millefiori glass, including tiles, have been excavated in the Abbasid capital of Samarra. …. I included in “How Long Was the First Millennium?” one of Heinsohn’s illustrations of identical millefiori glass bowls ascribed respectively to the 1st-2nd century Romans and to the 8th-9th century Abbasids. Here is another puzzling comparison: …. Heinsohn concludes that, “the culture of the Umayyads is as Roman as the culture of early medieval Franks. Their 9th/10th century architecture is a direct continuation of the 2nd c. AD. The 700 years in between do not exist in reality.” …. “The Arabs did not walk in ignorance without coinage and writing for some 700 years. Those 700 years represent phantom centuries. Thus, it is not true that Arabs were backward in comparison with their immediate Roman and Greek neighbours who, interestingly enough, are not on record for having ever claimed any Arab backwardness. . . . the caliphs now dated from the 690s to the 930s are actually the caliphs of the period from Augustus to the 230s.” …. This explains why archeologists often find themselves puzzled by the stratigraphy. For example, Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded.’” …. Heinsohn argues that the Umayyads of the Early Middle Ages are not only identical with the Nabataeans of Imperial Antiquity, but are also documented in the intermediate time-block of Late Antiquity under the name of the Ghassanids. “Nabataeans and Umayyads not only shared the same art, the same metropolis Damascus, and the same stratigraphy, but also a common territory that was home to yet another famous Arab ethnicity that also held Damascus: the Ghassanids. They served as Christian allies of the Byzantines during Late Antiquity (3rd/4th to 6th c. AD). Yet, they were already active during Imperial Antiquity (1st to 3rd c. AD). Diodorus Siculus (90-30 BC) knew them as Gasandoi, Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD) as Casani, and Claudius Ptolemy (100-170 AD) as Kassanitai.” …. In the Byzantine period, the Ghassanid caliphs had “the same reputation for anti-trinitarian monotheism as the Abbasid Caliphs now dated to 8th /9th centuries.” …. They also, like the Islamic Arabs, preserved some Bedouin customs such as polygamy. …. [End of quotes] In a most interesting twist, Taycan Sapmaz identifies: THE NABATAEANS AND LYCIANS (6) THE NABATAEANS AND LYCIANS | taycan sapmaz - Academia.edu Who could argue against the Nabataeans and Lycians at least sharing commonalities? Ottoman Caliphate For further apparent anachronisms, this time with the early (only) Ottoman Caliphate, I simply refer the reader to my article: King Solomon and Suleiman (6) King Solomon and Suleiman | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu with more, hopefully, to be written on this subject in the future. Conclusions The Prophet Mohammed is clearly a non-historical, composite entity based on a bunch of real historical figures from a vast range of eras. Mohammed’s relatives, contemporaries, likewise are biblico-historically-based, e.g. uncle Lahab as Ahab; Nehemiah ben Hushiel as the biblical Nehemiah; emperor Heraclius as possibly literature’s most composite of composites. This necessitates that the closely associated Rashidun Caliphate could have no real historical reality in AD time. This view being totally reinforced by the next Caliphate, The Umayyad as belonging archaeologically to a Roman period, some six centuries prior to the supposed era of Mohammed. This being totally reinforced by the next Caliphate, The Abbasid, as having no archaeological trace for its epicentre, ancient Baghdad, Madinat al-Salam, which is really ancient Jerusalem.

Jesus Christ alone opens up before us the doors of life

“How much suffering we see in the eyes of the children: the children in those lands at war have forgotten how to smile! With those eyes, they ask us: Why? Why all this death? Why all this destruction? War is always an absurdity, war is always a defeat!” Pope Francis URBI ET ORBI MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS EASTER 2024 Central loggia of the Vatican Basilica Sunday, 31 March 2024 ________________________________________ Dear brothers and sisters, Happy Easter! Today throughout the world there resounds the message proclaimed two thousand years ago from Jerusalem: “Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified, has been raised!” (Mk 16:6). The Church relives the amazement of the women who went to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. The tomb of Jesus had been sealed with a great stone. Today too, great stones, heavy stones, block the hopes of humanity: the stone of war, the stone of humanitarian crises, the stone of human rights violations, the stone of human trafficking, and other stones as well. Like the women disciples of Jesus, we ask one another: “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” (cf. Mk 16:3). This is the amazing discovery of that Easter morning: the stone, the immense stone, was rolled away. The astonishment of the women is our astonishment as well: the tomb of Jesus is open and it is empty! From this, everything begins anew! A new path leads through that empty tomb: the path that none of us, but God alone, could open: the path of life in the midst of death, the path of peace in the midst of war, the path of reconciliation in the midst of hatred, the path of fraternity in the midst of hostility. Brothers and sisters, Jesus Christ is risen! He alone has the power to roll away the stones that block the path to life. He, the living One, is himself that path. He is the Way: the way that leads to life, the way of peace, reconciliation and fraternity. He opens that path, humanly impossible, because he alone takes away the sin of the world and forgives us our sins. For without God’s forgiveness, that stone cannot be removed. Without the forgiveness of sins, there is no overcoming the barriers of prejudice, mutual recrimination, the presumption that we are always right and others wrong. Only the risen Christ, by granting us the forgiveness of our sins, opens the way for a renewed world. Jesus alone opens up before us the doors of life, those doors that continually we shut with the wars spreading throughout the world. Today we want, first and foremost, to turn our eyes to the Holy City of Jerusalem, that witnessed the mystery of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, and to all the Christian communities of the Holy Land. My thoughts go especially to the victims of the many conflicts worldwide, beginning with those in Israel and Palestine, and in Ukraine. May the risen Christ open a path of peace for the war-torn peoples of those regions. In calling for respect for the principles of international law, I express my hope for a general exchange of all prisoners between Russia and Ukraine: all for the sake of all! I appeal once again that access to humanitarian aid be ensured to Gaza, and call once more for the prompt release of the hostages seized on 7 October last and for an immediate cease-fire in the Strip. Let us not allow the current hostilities to continue to have grave repercussions on the civil population, by now at the limit of its endurance, and above all on the children. How much suffering we see in the eyes of the children: the children in those lands at war have forgotten how to smile! With those eyes, they ask us: Why? Why all this death? Why all this destruction? War is always an absurdity, war is always a defeat! Let us not allow the strengthening winds of war to blow on Europe and the Mediterranean. Let us not yield to the logic of weapons and rearming. Peace is never made with arms, but with outstretched hands and open hearts. Brothers and sisters, let us not forget Syria, which for thirteen years has suffered from the effects of a long and devastating war. So many deaths and disappearances, so much poverty and destruction, call for a response on the part of everyone, and of the international community. My thoughts turn today in a special way to Lebanon, which has for some time experienced institutional impasse and a deepening economic and social crisis, now aggravated by the hostilities on its border with Israel. May the Risen Lord console the beloved Lebanese people and sustain the entire country in its vocation to be a land of encounter, coexistence and pluralism. I also think in particular of the region of the Western Balkans, where significant steps are being taken towards integration in the European project. May ethnic, cultural and confessional differences not be a cause of division, but rather a source of enrichment for all of Europe and for the world as a whole. I likewise encourage the discussions taking place between Armenia and Azerbaijan, so that, with the support of the international community, they can pursue dialogue, assist the displaced, respect the places of worship of the various religious confessions, and arrive as soon as possible at a definitive peace agreement. May the risen Christ open a path of hope to all those who in other parts of the world are suffering from violence, conflict, food insecurity and the effects of climate change. May the Lord grant consolation to the victims of terrorism in all its forms. Let us pray for all those who have lost their lives and implore the repentance and conversion of the perpetrators of those crimes. May the risen Lord assist the Haitian people, so that there can soon can be an end to the acts of violence, devastation and bloodshed in that country, and that it can advance on the path to democracy and fraternity. May Christ grant consolation and strength to the Rohingya, beset by a grave humanitarian crisis, and open a path to reconciliation in Myanmar, torn for years now by internal conflicts, so that every logic of violence may be definitively abandoned. May the Lord open paths of peace on the African continent, especially for the suffering peoples in Sudan and in the entire region of the Sahel, in the Horn of Africa, in the region of Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the province of Capo Delgado in Mozambique, and bring an end to the prolonged situation of drought which affects vast areas and provokes famine and hunger. May the Risen One make the light of his face shine upon migrants and on all those who are passing through a period of economic difficulty, and offer them consolation and hope in their moment of need. May Christ guide all persons of good will to unite themselves in solidarity, in order to address together the many challenges which loom over the poorest families in their search for a better life and happiness. On this day when we celebrate the life given us in the resurrection of the Son, let us remember the infinite love of God for each of us: a love that overcomes every limit and every weakness. And yet how much the precious gift of life is despised! How many children cannot even be born? How many die of hunger and are deprived of essential care or are victims of abuse and violence? How many lives are made objects of trafficking for the increasing commerce in human beings? Brothers and sisters, on the day when Christ has set us free from the slavery of death, I appeal to all who have political responsibilities to spare no efforts in combatting the scourge of human trafficking, by working tirelessly to dismantle the networks of exploitation and to bring freedom to those who are their victims. May the Lord comfort their families, above all those who anxiously await news of their loved ones, and ensure them comfort and hope. May the light of the resurrection illumine our minds and convert our hearts, and make us aware of the value of every human life, which must be welcomed, protected and loved. A happy Easter to all!

How we should be toward one another

“Francis explained that the foot-washing was “not folklore” but a “gesture which announces how we should be toward one another.” He lamented that “others profit off each other, (there is) so much injustice ... so many ugly things”. Pope washes feet in Holy Thursday rite at Rome youth prison BY FRANCES D’EMILIO Published 1:02 PM GMT+11, April 7, 2023 VATICAN CITY (AP) — In a Holy Thursday ritual symbolizing humility, Pope Francis washed and dried the feet of a dozen residents of a Rome juvenile prison, assuring them of their dignity and telling them “any of us” can fall into sin. The Casal del Marmo facility on the outskirts of Rome is the same juvenile prison where Francis performed the first feet-washing ritual of his papacy, demonstrating his belief that the Catholic Church should give attention to people living on society’s margins. On Thursday, Francis repeated the ritual on 10 male and two female residents who are serving time at the facility. He leaned over and poured water on one foot of each, then used a white towel to gently pat the foot dry before kissing it. When Francis looked up at them in turn to smile, they shook his hand and kissed it. Many of the young people whispered into the pope’s ear, and he chatted with them briefly in return. The ritual recalls the foot-washing Jesus performed on his 12 apostles at their last supper together before he would be taken away to be crucified. Jesus “washes all our feet,” Francis told several dozen residents assembled in the prison chapel. “He knows all our weaknesses,’' the pope said in a completely improvised homily. Among the 12, six were minors while the others had become adults while serving their sentences. The dozen included a Muslim from Senegal, as well as young people from Romania, Russia and Croatia, the Vatican said. Francis explained that the foot-washing was “not folklore” but a “gesture which announces how we should be toward one another.” He lamented that “others profit off each other, (there is) so much injustice...so many ugly things.” Still, he said, “any one of us can slip” and fall from grace. The foot-washing “confers on us the dignity of being sinners.” The lesson, he added, should be to “help one another, so life becomes better.” The pontiff, who has a chronic knee problem, navigated the small spaces of the chapel either unaided or with the help of a cane, although he used a wheel chair to leave after the roughly 90-minute appearance. On Saturday, Francis was discharged from a Rome hospital where he was treated for bronchitis. The Vatican said at the time that he would carry out the complete Holy Week schedule, including the Good Friday late-night Way of the Cross procession at Rome’s Colosseum and Easter Sunday Mass in St. Peter’s Square. Earlier Thursday, he presided over Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica as part of his stamina-testing Holy Week appointments. At Thursday’s basilica Mass, dozens of rows of priests in simple white cassocks sat in front of rank-and-file Catholics in the packed church. Francis used the homily as a pep talk to priests, after decades of scandals involving sex abuse of children by clergy caused many faithful to lose trust in their pastors. The pope didn’t cite the scandals or church hierarchy cover-ups. But, he spoke of “crisis” affecting priests. “Sooner or later, we all experience disappointment, frustration and our own weaknesses,’' Francis said. “Our ideals seem to recede in the face of reality, a certain force of habit takes over, and the difficulties that once seemed unimaginable appear to challenge our fidelity.” The basilica ceremony traditionally includes the blessing of ointments and priests’ renewal of promises made when they were ordained to the priesthood. Highlighting the spirit of renewal that the pope indicated the priesthood needs, added to the ointments at this year’s Mass was bergamot perfume that came from trees in southern Italy on land confiscated by authorities from mobsters. In off-the-cuff remarks during the homily, Francis admonished priests not to “forget being pastors of the people.” https://apnews.com/article/pope-holy-thursday-vatican-footwashing-b70a4c6beeb03e811825f6c352d39c57

The Philosophy of Mary

“The sheer breadth of issues Kreeft covers by reflecting on Mary and her life surveys not just the issues of our time but the issues of every time, wherever thinking men and women (which is what philosophers are) have reflected on the meaning of life”. John Grondelski This can be read in conjunction with my (Damien Mackey’s) series: Philosophy of Jesus Christ (1) Philosophy of Jesus Christ | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Philosophy of Jesus Christ. Part Two: Towards a Philosophy that is Christ-shaped (2) Philosophy of Jesus Christ. Part Two: Towards a Philosophy that is Christ-shaped | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu https://www.ncregister.com/features/mary-seat-of-wisdom-and-philosopher-extraordinaire Mary, Seat of Wisdom and Philosopher Extraordinaire BOOK PICK: ‘The Greatest Philosopher Who Ever Lived’ …. John Grondelski BooksMay 28, 2022 THE GREATEST PHILOSOPHER WHO EVER LIVED By Peter Kreeft Ignatius Press, 2021 285 pages, $18.95 To order: ignatius.com or (800) 651-1831 (web purchases discounted) Peter Kreeft, a full professor in philosophy at Boston College, loves philosophy in its radical root as “the love of wisdom.” So it’s no wonder that his book about the “greatest philosopher who ever lived” is a rich tome about … the Blessed Virgin Mary. Yes, Mary lacks a doctoral degree and is a bit short on publications, her longest lecture (the Magnificat) not filling a full page. That said, Kreeft still considers her the preeminent philosopher. Why? Philosophy means “love of wisdom.” Jesus is Wisdom Incarnate. And the Blessed Mother loved him more than any other human being. “Mary was the greatest philosopher (wisdom-lover) who ever lived. For she had the greatest love for the greatest wisdom,” as Kreeft explains in the “Introductions” section. “Mary is such an archetype of wisdom that the Church applies to Mary the attributes of wisdom itself …” he adds. Mary’s philosophy is eminently practical, meant to apply to real living — and offers profound, beautiful insights. “I write this book, not as an academic philosopher, but as a child who thinks he sees something profound and beautiful in Mary’s largely silent wisdom and who wants to call out to others: ‘Oh, look!’ — like a child seeing a rainbow or a cathedral for the first time.” Throughout, Kreeft examines Mary from the perspective of the many branches of philosophy. Her metaphysics is most interesting. Metaphysics deals with being, and Kreeft makes an illuminating argument that (which he admits comes from Gabriel Marcel) that sanctity is really the fullness of being. “‘[T]he study of sanctity … is the true ontology [metaphysics].’ This startling conclusion follows from two premises: that saints are the standard for personhood, because they actualize and thus reveal the meaning of human personhood better than any others, and that personhood is the standard for being. …. I predict that future theistic philosophers will be more surprised that no one before Marcel articulated this principle than they will be surprised by the principle itself” (p. 134). This book performs a twofold task: It provides a thorough overview of basic principles of Christian philosophy while using the Blessed Virgin Mary as the best illustration of those principles. Consider, for example, the problem of suffering, a classical problem in philosophy. Mary suffered. Kreeft argues that, in fact, the more morally pure one is, the more intense is joy … and suffering (and Mary was Immaculate). But suffering is not an excuse for her to blame God or even deny his existence, but to recognize that everything comes from his good and providential will, everything to which she assented in her fiat. That “let it be” is not just the metaphysical starting point of a new creation (in which Mary is the new Eve) nor an assent to whatever God willed, but also a philosophy of history: The instrumental cause for all human history begins there. [See also: To philosophise in Mary (3) To philosophise in Mary | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu] “Because history is His story, because only He is its lord, and not any Caesar, any warlord, or any other military, political, philosophical, scientific, or even religious revolutionary, therefore no mere man or woman who has ever lived has ever performed a more revolutionary work than Mary. No one has ever changed human history more than she. No one has ever more crucially changed the life of every person who has ever lived, both in this world and in the next, than Mary” (p. 250). The sheer breadth of issues Kreeft covers by reflecting on Mary and her life surveys not just the issues of our time but the issues of every time, wherever thinking men and women (which is what philosophers are) have reflected on the meaning of life. What makes Kreeft doubly rewarding are his erudition and brilliant turns of phrase: A man who can combine great thinkers and literature with pop music (“c’mon and dance with me”) is worth the read. Far from being marginal to our lives, a saint on a pedestal, Mary is very much the answer to the problems of our day and all days. As ancient Israel believed, to live as God wills is wisdom — not to is folly. Mary, the Seat of Wisdom, is the practical philosopher teaching us true wisdom.

Jesus Christ is the new and everlasting Temple

by Damien F. Mackey “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this Temple, and I will raise it again in three days’. They replied, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this Temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?’ But the Temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken”. John 2:19-22 The popular quest today for a Third Temple has no actual biblical relevance if pope Benedict XVI was correct in this his view that Jesus Christ is “the new Temple”. http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120502.html BENEDICT XVI GENERAL AUDIENCE Saint Peter's Square Wednesday, 2 May 2012 Dear Brothers and Sisters, In our recent Catecheses we have seen how through personal and community prayer the interpretation of and meditation on Sacred Scripture open us to listening to God who speaks to us and instils light in us so that we may understand the present. Today, I would like to talk about the testimony and prayer of the Church’s first martyr, St Stephen, one of the seven men chosen to carry out the service of charity for the needy. At the moment of his martyrdom, recounted in the Acts of the Apostles, the fruitful relationship between the Word of God and prayer is once again demonstrated. Stephen is brought before the council, before the Sanhedrin, where he is accused of declaring that “this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place, [the Temple] and will change the customs which Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:14). During his public life Jesus had effectively foretold the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem: you will “destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (Jn 2:19). But, as the Evangelist John remarked, “he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken” (Jn 2:21-22). Stephen’s speech to the council, the longest in the Acts of the Apostles, develops on this very prophecy of Jesus who is the new Temple, inaugurates the new worship and, with his immolation on the Cross, replaces the ancient sacrifices. Stephen wishes to demonstrate how unfounded is the accusation leveled against him of subverting the Mosaic law and describes his view of salvation history and of the covenant between God and man. In this way he reinterprets the whole of the biblical narrative, the itinerary contained in Sacred Scripture, in order to show that it leads to the “place”, of the definitive presence of God that is Jesus Christ, and in particular his Passion, death and Resurrection. In this perspective Stephen also interprets his being a disciple of Jesus, following him even to martyrdom. Meditation on Sacred Scripture thus enables him to understand his mission, his life, his present. Stephen is guided in this by the light of the Holy Spirit and by his close relationship with the Lord, so that the members of the Sanhedrin saw that his face was “like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15). This sign of divine assistance is reminiscent of Moses’ face which shone after his encounter with God when he came down from Mount Sinai (cf. Ex 34:29-35; 2 Cor 3:7-8). In his discourse Stephen starts with the call of Abraham, a pilgrim bound for the land pointed out to him by God which he possessed only at the level of a promise. He then speaks of Joseph, sold by his brothers but helped and liberated by God, and continues with Moses, who becomes an instrument of God in order to set his people free but also and several times comes up against his own people’s rejection. In these events narrated in Sacred Scripture to which Stephen demonstrates he listens religiously, God always emerges, who never tires of reaching out to man in spite of frequently meeting with obstinate opposition. And this happens in the past, in the present and in the future. So it is that throughout the Old Testament he sees the prefiguration of the life of Jesus himself, the Son of God made flesh who — like the ancient Fathers — encounters obstacles, rejection and death. Stephen then refers to Joshua, David and Solomon, whom he mentions in relation to the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, and ends with the word of the Prophet Isaiah (66:1-2): “Heaven is my throne, and earth my footstool. What house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?” (Acts 7:49-50). In his meditation on God’s action in salvation history, by highlighting the perennial temptation to reject God and his action, he affirms that Jesus is the Righteous One foretold by the prophets; God himself has made himself uniquely and definitively present in him: Jesus is the “place” of true worship. Stephen does not deny the importance of the Temple for a certain period, but stresses that “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands” (Acts 7:48). The new, true temple in which God dwells is his Son, who has taken human flesh; it is the humanity of Christ, the Risen One, who gathers the peoples together and unites them in the Sacrament of his Body and his Blood. The description of the temple as “not made by human hands” is also found in the theology of St Paul and in the Letter to the Hebrews; the Body of Jesus which he assumed in order to offer himself as a sacrificial victim for the expiation of sins, is the new temple of God, the place of the presence of the living God; in him, God and man, God and the world are truly in touch: Jesus takes upon himself all the sins of humanity in order to bring it into the love of God and to “consummate” it in this love. Drawing close to the Cross, entering into communion with Christ, means entering this transformation. And this means coming into contact with God, entering the true temple. Stephen’s life and words are suddenly cut short by the stoning, but his martyrdom itself is the fulfilment of his life and message: he becomes one with Christ. Thus his meditation on God’s action in history, on the divine word which in Jesus found complete fulfilment, becomes participation in the very prayer on the Cross. Indeed, before dying, Stephen cries out: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59), making his own the words of Psalm 31[30]:6 and repeating Jesus’ last words on Calvary: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Lk 23:46). Lastly, like Jesus, he cries out with a loud voice facing those who were stoning him: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). Let us note that if on the one hand Stephen’s prayer echoes Jesus’, on the other it is addressed to someone else, for the entreaty is to the Lord himself, namely, to Jesus whom he contemplates in glory at the right hand of the Father: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God” (v. 55). Dear brothers and sisters, St Stephen’s witness gives us several instructions for our prayers and for our lives. Let us ask ourselves: where did this first Christian martyr find the strength to face his persecutors and to go so far as to give himself? The answer is simple: from his relationship with God, from his communion with Christ, from meditation on the history of salvation, from perceiving God’s action which reached its crowning point in Jesus Christ. Our prayers, too, must be nourished by listening to the word of God, in communion with Jesus and his Church. A second element: St Stephen sees the figure and mission of Jesus foretold in the history of the loving relationship between God and man. He — the Son of God — is the temple that is not “made with hands” in which the presence of God the Father became so close as to enter our human flesh to bring us to God, to open the gates of heaven. Our prayer, therefore, must be the contemplation of Jesus at the right hand of God, of Jesus as the Lord of our, or my, daily life. In him, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we too can address God and be truly in touch with God, with the faith and abandonment of children who turn to a Father who loves them infinitely. Thank you. And pope Francis picked up this theme of his predecessor’s in a Mass sermon of November 2014: Readings: • Ez 47:1-2, 8-9, 12 • Ps 46:2-3, 5-6, 8-9 • 1 Cor 3:9c-11, 16-17 • Jn 2:13-22 Some thousand years before the time of Christ the great Temple of Solomon was built. Previously, the tribes of Israel had worshipped God in sanctuaries housing the ark of the covenant. King David had desired to build a permanent house of God for the ark. But that work was accomplished by his son, Solomon, equally famous for his wisdom—and his eventual corruption due to the pursuit of power and wealth. In the Old Testament the temple is often referred to as “the house of the Lord”. Sometimes it is called “Zion,” as in today’s Psalm (Ps. 46), a term that also referred to the city of Jerusalem, which in turn represented the people of God. The temple was a barometer of sorts for the health of the covenantal relationship between God and the people. Many of the prophets warned that a failure to uphold the Law and live the covenant would result in the destruction of the temple. The prophet Jeremiah, for example, warned that having the temple couldn’t protect the people from the consequences of their sins: “Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD’.” (Jer. 7). In 587 B.C., the temple was finally destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, marking the start of The Exile. During that time, in the 25th year of exile, the prophet Ezekiel had a vision of a new temple (Ezek. 40-48). The description of the temple, part of it heard in today’s first reading, hearkened back in various ways to the first chapters of Genesis (cf., Gen. 2:10-14), including references to pure water, creatures in abundance, and unfading trees producing continuous fresh fruit. This heavenly temple, it was commonly believed, would descend from heaven and God would then dwell in the midst of mankind. Following the exile, the temple was rebuilt, then damaged, and rebuilt again. …. It was there that Jesus was presented by Mary and Joseph and blessed by Simeon (Lk 2:22-35) and where he, as a youth, spent time talking to the teachers of the Law (Lk 2:43-50). It was also the setting for the scene described in today’s Gospel—the cleansing of the temple and Jesus’ shocking prophecy: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” Was Jesus, in cleansing the temple, attacking the temple itself? No. And did Jesus, in making his remark, say he would destroy the temple? No. But, paradoxically, the love of the Son for his Father and his Father’s house did point toward the demise of the temple. “This is a prophecy of the Cross,” wrote Joseph Ratzinger in The Spirit of the Liturgy, “he shows that the destruction of his earthly body will be at the same time the end of the Temple.” Why? Because a new and everlasting Temple was established by the death and Resurrection of the Son of God. “With his Resurrection the new Temple will begin: the living body of Jesus Christ, which will now stand in the sight of God and be the place of all worship. Into this body he incorporates men.” The new Temple of God did, in fact, come down from heaven. It dwelt among man (Jn. 1:14). “It” is a man: “Christ is the true temple of God, ‘the place where his glory dwells’; by the grace of God, Christians also become temples of the Holy Spirit, living stones out of which the Church is built” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1197). Through baptism we become joined to the one Body of Christ, and that Body, the Church, is the “one temple of the Holy Spirit” (CCC, 776). “Come! behold the deeds of the LORD,” wrote the Psalmist, “the astounding things he has wrought on earth.” Indeed, behold Jesus the Christ, the true and astounding temple of God, and worship him in spirit and in truth." Jesus Christ is the new and everlasting Temple, He having replaced the stone temple of old. “The truth in all its grandeur and purity does not appear. The world is “true” to the extent that it reflects God: the creative logic, the eternal reason that brought it to birth. And it becomes more and more true the closer it draws to God. Man becomes true, he becomes himself, when he grows in God's likeness. Then he attains to his proper nature. God is the reality that gives being and intelligibility”. Benedict XVI When writing the following article, I was particularly struck by Josef Ratzinger’s (pope Benedict XVI’s) wonderfully philosophical discussion of Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate regarding ‘What is Truth?’ A Kingdom of Truth not Power (2) A Kingdom of Truth not Power | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The basis of the unique kingdom of Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be the very Messiah - and indeed equal to God - was, not earthly power like the Roman kingdom in which Pilate served, but Truth. This was all of course completely mystifying to Pontius Pilate, who could not initially regard Jesus as any sort of threat to Roman law and order. So Benedict writes: …. At this point we must pass from considerations about the person of Pilate to the trial itself. In John 18:34–35 it is clearly stated that, on the basis of the information in his possession, Pilate had nothing that would incriminate Jesus. Nothing had come to the knowledge of the Roman authority that could in any way have posed a risk to law and order. The charge came from Jesus' own people, from the Temple authority. It must have astonished Pilate that Jesus' own people presented themselves to him as defenders of Rome, when the information at his disposal did not suggest the need for any action on his part. Yet during the interrogation we suddenly arrive at a dramatic moment: Jesus' confession. To Pilate's question: "So you are a king?" he answers: "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice" (Jn 18:37). Previously Jesus had said: "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world" (18:36). That God the Almighty is utterly contemptuous of our much-vaunted human power, the ‘might-is-right’ mentality, is attested by Psalm 2:1-6: Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth rise up and the rulers band together against the LORD and against his anointed, saying, “Let us break their chains and throw off their shackles.” The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. He rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain.” Obviously Pilate, though, had never embraced this deeper wisdom of Divine perspective. Benedict continues: This "confession" of Jesus places Pilate in an extraordinary situation: the accused claims kingship and a kingdom (basileía). Yet he underlines the complete otherness of his kingship, and he even makes the particular point that must have been decisive for the Roman judge: No one is fighting for this kingship. If power, indeed military power, is characteristic of kingship and kingdoms, there is no sign of it in Jesus' case. And neither is there any threat to Roman order. This kingdom is powerless. It has "no legions". Jesus is operating on a plane completely different from the world of Pilate – a level of being with which this superstitious pagan Roman cannot come to grips. But can we? So, Benedict: With these words Jesus created a thoroughly new concept of kingship and kingdom, and he held it up to Pilate, the representative of classical worldly power. What is Pilate to make of it, and what are we to make of it, this concept of kingdom and kingship? Is it unreal, is it sheer fantasy that can be safely ignored? Or does it somehow affect us? It is Truth, not power or dominion, that actually typifies the kingdom of Jesus Christ: In addition to the clear delimitation of his concept of kingdom (no fighting, earthly powerlessness), Jesus had introduced a positive idea, in order to explain the nature and particular character of the power of this kingship: namely, truth. Pilate brought another idea into play as the dialogue proceeded, one that came from his own world and was normally connected with "kingdom": namely, power — authority (exousía). Dominion demands power; it even defines it. Jesus, however, defines as the essence of his kingship witness to the truth. Is truth a political category? Or has Jesus' "kingdom" nothing to do with politics? To which order does it belong? If Jesus bases his concept of kingship and kingdom on truth as the fundamental category, then it is entirely understandable that the pragmatic Pilate asks him: "What is truth?" (18:38). But Pilate’s question continues to have relevance as it is still, today, being asked in political discussions. And human freedom and “the fate of mankind” may be dependent upon the right answer given to this question: It is the question that is also asked by modern political theory: Can politics accept truth as a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere, its place taken by an attempt to build peace and justice using whatever instruments are available to power? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular traditions that in reality are merely forms of holding on to power? And yet, on the other hand, what happens when truth counts for nothing? What kind of justice is then possible? Must there not be common criteria that guarantee real justice for all — criteria that are independent of the arbitrariness of changing opinions and powerful lobbies? Is it not true that the great dictatorships were fed by the power of the ideological lie and that only truth was capable of bringing freedom? What is truth? The pragmatist's question, tossed off with a degree of scepticism, is a very serious question, bound up with the fate of mankind. What, then, is truth? Are we able to recognize it? Can it serve as a criterion for our intellect and will, both in individual choices and in the life of the community? Benedict now moves on to a philosophical discussion of truth, beginning with the scholastic definitions of it by Saint Thomas Aquinas, so highly regarded in the Catholic world: The classic definition from scholastic philosophy designates truth as "adaequatio intellectus et rei" (conformity between the intellect and reality; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 21, a. 2c). If a man's intellect reflects a thing as it is in itself, then he has found truth: but only a small fragment of reality — not truth in its grandeur and integrity. We come closer to what Jesus meant with another of Saint Thomas' teachings: "Truth is in God's intellect properly and firstly (proprie et primo); in human intellect it is present properly and derivatively (proprie quidem et secundario)" (De Verit., q. 1, a. 4c). And in conclusion we arrive at the succinct formula: God is "ipsa summa et prima veritas" (truth itself, the sovereign and first truth; Summa Theologiae I, q. 16, a. 5c). This formula brings us close to what Jesus means when he speaks of the truth, when he says that his purpose in coming into the world was to "bear witness to the truth". Pope John Paul II had observed, in his encyclical letter Fides et Ratio (1998), that a modern distrust of human reasoning has led to thinkers of today greatly limiting the range of their philosophical endeavour: …. 55. Surveying the situation today, we see that the problems of other times have returned, but in a new key. It is no longer a matter of questions of interest only to certain individuals and groups, but convictions so widespread that they have become to some extent the common mind. An example of this is the deep-seated distrust of reason which has surfaced in the most recent developments of much of philosophical research, to the point where there is talk at times of “the end of metaphysics”. Philosophy is expected to rest content with more modest tasks such as the simple interpretation of facts or an enquiry into restricted fields of human knowing or its structures. Benedict will lament, along very similar lines, that now: “The truth in all its grandeur and purity does not appear”. Again and again in the world, truth and error, truth and untruth, are almost inseparably mixed together. The truth in all its grandeur and purity does not appear. The world is "true" to the extent that it reflects God: the creative logic, the eternal reason that brought it to birth. And it becomes more and more true the closer it draws to God. Man becomes true, he becomes himself, when he grows in God's likeness. Then he attains to his proper nature. God is the reality that gives being and intelligibility. "Bearing witness to the truth" means giving priority to God and to his will over against the interests of the world and its powers. God is the criterion of being. In this sense, truth is the real "king" that confers light and greatness upon all things. We may also say that bearing witness to the truth means making creation intelligible and its truth accessible from God's perspective — the perspective of creative reason — in such a way that it can serve as a criterion and a signpost in this world of ours, in such a way that the great and the mighty are exposed to the power of truth, the common law, the law of truth. We, like Pilate, lacking a Divine perspective - such as Jesus was attempting to proclaim - end up by falling hopelessly short of the ideal, worshipping power, not truth: Let us say plainly: the unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world. And, with power, science, since we consider it to supply many of the answers - some would even go so far as to say it encapsulates ‘the theory of everything’. But, as Benedict goes on to explain, science does not of itself have the capacity to penetrate to the deeper metaphysical truths: At this point, modern man is tempted to say: Creation has become intelligible to us through science. Indeed, Francis S. Collins, for example, who led the Human Genome Project, says with joyful astonishment: "The language of God was revealed" (The Language of God, p. 122). Indeed, in the magnificent mathematics of creation, which today we can read in the human genetic code, we recognize the language of God. But unfortunately not the whole language. The functional truth about man has been discovered. But the truth about man himself — who he is, where he comes from, what he should do, what is right, what is wrong — this unfortunately cannot be read in the same way. Hand in hand with growing knowledge of functional truth there seems to be an increasing blindness toward "truth" itself — toward the question of our real identity and purpose. Truth is indeed most powerful because God’s seeming powerlessness far outweighs any human power: What is truth? Pilate was not alone in dismissing this question as unanswerable and irrelevant for his purposes. Today too, in political argument and in discussion of the foundations of law, it is generally experienced as disturbing. Yet if man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger. "Redemption" in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable. He becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history. Truth is outwardly powerless in the world, just as Christ is powerless by the world's standards: he has no legions; he is crucified. Yet in his very powerlessness, he is powerful: only thus, again and again, does truth become power. The kingdom offered by Jesus Christ is liberating for man, because in truth man finds his true liberation: In the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, the subject matter is Jesus' kingship and, hence, the kingship, the "kingdom", of God. In the course of this same conversation it becomes abundantly clear that there is no discontinuity between Jesus' Galilean teaching — the proclamation of the kingdom of God — and his Jerusalem teaching. The center of the message, all the way to the Cross — all the way to the inscription above the Cross — is the kingdom of God, the new kingship represented by Jesus. And this kingship is centered on truth. The kingship proclaimed by Jesus, at first in parables and then at the end quite openly before the earthly judge, is none other than the kingship of truth. The inauguration of this kingship is man's true liberation. Jesus Christ is Truth incarnate: At the same time it becomes clear that between the pre-Resurrection focus on the kingdom of God and the post-Resurrection focus on faith in Jesus Christ as Son of God there is no contradiction. In Christ, God — the Truth — entered the world. Christology is the concrete form acquired by the proclamation of God's kingdom. The antithesis of the Divine Kingdom of Truth is Satan’s anti-kingdom of un-truth (lies). “The new Temple of God did, in fact, come down from heaven. It dwelt among man (Jn. 1:14). “It” is a man: “Christ is the true temple of God, ‘the place where his glory dwells’; by the grace of God, Christians also become temples of the Holy Spirit, living stones out of which the Church is built” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1197). Through baptism we become joined to the one Body of Christ, and that Body, the Church, is the “one temple of the Holy Spirit” (CCC, 776)”.