This is my eighty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. I’m sorry that I was unable to have this lesson ready for distribution for my February mailing. In the last two lessons I have been defending Josephus from the cruel charges being lodged against him by unresponsible parties who should know better! With this teaching lesson we’re going to see that archaeology is proving Josephus correct on many of his writings. This is not to imply that Josephus was perfect by any means, for he was a man as we. We will start with the subject of the temple built at Leontopolis in Egypt. As you may be aware, there was also a temple built at Elephantine on the river Nile. Leontopolis is a different temple at a different time. Let’s now pick up the documentation from The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.) by Prentice Hall Press.

“YEHUDIYEH (TELL EL-); LEONTOPOLIS An ancient mound in lower Egypt, 20 miles north of Cairo. The site was excavated at the beginning of this [20th] century by W.F.M. Petrie on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Egypt. The earliest traces of settlement go back to the early period of the Middle Kingdom, but the period of greatest interest is that of the 5th Dynasty, when the site was occupied by the Hyksos, who left a large fortified camp. The site was also inhabited at the time of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty) and burials of this period have been found. The 20th Dynasty is represented by remains of a temple of Rameses III. There were also tombs from the time of the Late Kingdom. In the Ptolemaic period a new city, Leontopolis, was built on the site. By permission of Ptolemy VI Philometor, the high priest Onias, built a Jewish temple there; hence the Arabic name for the site, which means ‘mound of the Jew’. According to (Josephus, Antiq. xiii, 62–73) this temple was built to the same plan as the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. It went out of use at the time of the war between the Romans and the Jews in ad 66.

“The Hyksos camp was surrounded by a huge glacis about 1,500 feet square. The width of this embankment is 80 feet by 140 feet at the top, and 130–200 feet at the base. It is made of sand covered with bricks and plastered. The inside of the camp was about 400 yds square and it is estimated that it could have provided shelter for about 40,000 people. On the east side of the camp there was a sloping ascent paved with bricks, about 180 feet long and fortified by two massive towers. This gangway provided a comfortable entry and a quick exit for chariots ...

“The temple of Onias was built to the northeast of the Hyksos camp, within a strong stone wall strengthened by a brick revetment on its inner side. It was approached by a very long stairway on the east, which led up from the outside, through the wall and the court, to the temple, of which little has remained.

“The cemeteries of Tell el-Yehudiyeh yielded numerous finds from all occupation periods. Of most interest were those of the Hyksos period. In addition to numerous scarabs and bronze weapons a great number of pottery vessels, mostly juglets of a type recognized as typical of the Hyksos and now termed ‘Tell el-Yehudiyeh juglets’, were found. These are black or dark brown and decorated with small dots made with a fine point; they form various patterns and are filled with a white pigment.”

This should begin to give some evidence that there was indeed a temple built at Leontopolis as Josephus witnessed. The following quotation was sent to me, and I believe it was an article from the Biblical Archaeology Review, but I do not remember the date as I lost the article after I had scanned it. I usually like to identify the publication page numbers and date. I apologize, for the moment, and will reveal the exact source when I finally find it. The object here is to compare this writing with the above article by The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.) by Prentice Hall Press. This next article reads as follows:

“Tell el-Yahudiya and the Jewish temple in Egypt. In 162 B.C., Antiochus V (Eupator) of Syria appointed a man named Alkimus as high priest in Jerusalem, although he was not of the priestly family. Alkimus was regarded as a usurper by many pious Jews, and Onias IV, the son of the High Priest Onias III who had earlier been deposed by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), fled to Egypt with the hope of establishing a center of true worship there. According to Josephus, Onias addressed a letter to the Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy VI (Philometor) and his wife, Cleopatra, requesting permission to build in Egypt a temple similar to that in Jerusalem, with Levites and priests serving as ministrants. The reply was brief and favorable (Josephus, Antiquities, 13:3:1-3).

“‘King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra to Onias, greeting. We have read your petition asking that it be permitted you to cleanse the ruined temple at Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis, called Bubastis-of-the-Fields. We wonder, therefore, whether it will be pleasing to God that a temple be built in a place so wild and full of sacred animals. But since you say that the prophet Isaiah foretold this long ago [cf. Isa. 19:19], we grant your request if this is to be in accordance with the law, so that we may not seem to have sinned against God in any way’ (Josephus, 13:3:2).

“Josephus tells us that Onias built a temple at Leontopolis ‘similar to that at Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer’ (Josephus, 13:3:3). Although the letters which Josephus records are not accepted as authentic, a Jewish temple is known to have been built in Egypt, and Tell el-Yahudiya is its traditional site.

“The tell, just north of Heliopolis, was excavated in 1887 by E. Naville and Llewellyn Griffin with no significant results, although the excavators were satisfied that they had identified the site of ancient Leontopolis. Flinders Petrie was more successful in his work there in 1906. He discovered the remains of a large building and later observed, ‘The plan of the whole hill is strikingly modelled on that of Jerusalem; the temple had inner and outer courts, like that of Zion, but it was smaller and poorer in size .... The whole site was formed in imitation of the shape of the Temple hill of the Holy City. It was, in short, a New Jerusalem in Egypt.’

“Petrie also discovered remains of a large Hyksos fortified encampment, a mile in circumference, at Tell el-Yahudiya, with a Hyksos cemetery nearby. He considered this as evidence that he had discovered the Hyksos capital city, Avaris; but more recent scholars tend to identify Avaris with Tanis. It is reasonably certain, however, that the Hyksos maintained a stronghold at Tell el-Yahudiya, whatever its name in ancient times.”

For the moment, we will diverge to Herodotus to show archaeology also confirms his writings. The following quotation is taken from The Wycliffe Historical Geography Of Bible Lands by Charles F. Pfeiffer & Howard F. Vos, pages 60-61:

“Tahpanhes. In the eastern Delta, twelve miles north of Tell-el-Mashkuta, the mound known as Tell Defenneh is located on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. Tell Defenneh is thought to mark the site of ancient Tahpanhes, the Egyptian city to which the Jews of Jeremiah’s day fled in order to escape Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath following the murder of Gedaliah (Jer. 40-41). Jeremiah accompanied the Jewish community which fled to Tahpanhes and prophesied to them:

“Take in your hands large stones, and hide them in the mortar in the pavement which is at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace at Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of Judah, and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and he will set this throne above these stones which I have hid, and he will spread his royal canopy over them. He shall come and smite the land of Egypt, giving to the pestilence those who are doomed to the pestilence, to captivity those who are doomed to captivity, and to the sword those who are doomed to the sword ...’ ( Jer. 43: 8-11, RSV).

“Flinders Petrie arrived at Tell Defenneh in the spring of 1886 and learned that the largest mound in the area bore the name Qasr Bint el-Yahudi, ‘The Palace of the Jew’s Daughter.’ Remembering the biblical reference to the Jewish settlement at Tahpanhes (Daphnae), Petrie’s interest in the site quickened. In excavating the mound, he came upon the entrance to an ancient fort with a door and a stairway. Parallel to the stairway, and projecting from the main tower, was a large brick platform suitable for the loading and unloading of baggage trains and other work connected with the garrison. Its shape was such that Jeremiah could have built into it such witness stones as the Scripture mentions (Jer. 43:9). At a later time Nebuchadnezzar may well have pitched his royal tent on this very spot in front of the frontier stronghold which he had captured.

“The Histories of Herodotus contain two references to Daphnae, the Greek form of the biblical Tahpanhes. The first reads:

“In the reign of King Psammetichus, garrisons were stationed at Elephantine against the Ethiopians, and another at the Pelusiac Daphnae against the Arabians and Syrians (Herodotus, History, 2. 30).

“It is known that Psammetichus made use of Ionians and Carians in his garrison near the sea, a little below the city of Bubastis, on that which is called the Pelusiac mouth of the Nile ... these were the first people of a different language who settled in Egypt (Herodotus, History, 2. 154).

“A second reference in Herodotus states that a Pharaoh named Sesostris was nearly burned alive at Daphnae through his brother’s treachery. Two of the Pharaoh’s six sons made a living bridge over the flames and the rest of the family escaped, although the two were burned to death. (Herodotus 2. 107)

“Excavations proved that Herodotus was correct in his statement concerning a garrison at Daphnae in the days of Psammetichus. Ruins of the fortress indicate that it contained a superstructure with living quarters for the garrison. It rose to a height of forty feet and provided an unobstructed view of the plain for miles around. The fortification was surrounded by a wall forty feet thick, and its foundation deposit mentions the name of Psammetichus.

“The heroic tale allegedly from the time of Sesostris is probably to be dismissed as fiction. The identity of Sesostris is not at all certain. There are, however, traces of a building earlier than that of Psammetichus at Daphnae. Bricks discovered there are traceable to the Ramesside period, and earlier attempts to identify Sesostris with Ramses II are not historically improbable although most recent scholars identify him with Senwosret III of the Twelfth Dynasty.

“The fact that Greeks settled at Daphnae found abundant attestation in Petrie’s excavations, for pottery shows a curious combination of Greek and Egyptian motifs. The Greek influences at Daphnae ended, however, in 564 B.C. when Ahmose II decreed that Naucratis (Naukratis), in the western Delta should be the sole Greek treaty port.”

Here you see the evidence mounting not only in favor of Josephus but also for Herodotus, which we also spent much time defending. The book Archæology And The Bible ©1916 by George A. Barton, pages 38-39 gives the following:

“The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis. – Josephus tells us twice, once in his Antiquities of the Jews, Book 23 chapter 3, and again in his Wars of the Jews), Book 7, chapter 10, that, when Jonathan, the Maccabee, was made high priest of the Jews, about 153 B.C., Onias, the son of Onias III, the deposed high priest, went to Egypt and obtained a grant of land and permission to build a Jewish temple. This land was in the region of the city of Bubastis, the nome where the cat goddess was sacred, and was accordingly called by the Greeks Leontopolis. There were at this time about as many Jews in Egypt as in Palestine, and doubtless Ptolemy VII thought to keep them more loyal by granting them a temple.      He gave to Onias the revenues of a considerable territory for the support of the temple. Josephus tells us that Onias urged as a reason for the construction of this temple that it would be in fulfilment of the prophecy in Isa. 19:19-22. Josephus goes on to say that this temple was built as an exact reproduction of the temple at Jerusalem and that it continued to exist as a place of worship until after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, when troubles caused by Jewish zealots led the Roman government to close the temple at Leontopolis and discontinue its worship ...

“The site of this temple was at Tell el-Yehudiyeh, the ‘Tell of the Jewess,’ about 20 miles north of Cairo. This tell was excavated by Petrie in 1905-1906. He found there remains of the Jewish temple, which fully confirm the statements of Josephus. Not only the temple, but the form of the Jewish settlement, was made as far as possible a replica of the city of Jerusalem. One of the most interesting discoveries was a series of ovens for the roasting of Paschal lambs. Others of a similar character were found higher up in the mound, but this first series was most numerous. Petrie infers that the temple was dedicated by a great Passover Feast, to which Jews came in large numbers from throughout Egypt ...”

 

MARK 6:17-18 CONNECTS WITH JOSEPHUS 18:5:2

 

“17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. 18 For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.”

“2. Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now, when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure against him.”

 

MATT. 26:3-4 & JOHN 11:48-50 LINK WITH JOSEPHUS 18:2:1 & 4:3

 

Matthew 26:3-4 (KJV): “3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, 4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.”

John 11:48-50 (KJV): “48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”

Josephus’ Antiquities 18:2:1: “When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest ...”

Josephus’ Antiquities 18:4:3: “... Besides which, he [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was called Caiphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan, the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him ...”

 

ACTS 12:20-23 PARALLELS WITH JOSEPHUS’ ANTIQ. 19:8:2

 

Acts 12:20-23: “And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king’s country. 21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. 22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voifont-size: 14.5pt; line-height: 50%; letter-spacing: .35ptce of a god, and not of a man. 23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.”

Josephus’ Antiquities 19:8:2: “Now, when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honour of Cæsar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival, a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him: and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another (though not for his good), that he was a god: and they added,– ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But, as he presently afterwards looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said,– ‘I whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.’ When he had said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace; and the rumour went abroad everywhere, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king’s recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; for he reigned four years under Caius Cæsar ...”

 

WITHOUT JOSEPHUS, LUKE 3:1 WOULD BE OBSCURE

 

Luke 3:1 reads: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene ...”

We would know little about “the region of Trachonitis” if it were not for Josephus! The parallel to this passage in Josephus is Antiquities 17:8:1: “And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archelaus, by the name of a Tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jamnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis, to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined.”

The “Philip” spoken of in these two passages is the same person. There are seven different personages by the name of “Philip” in Scripture, so we have to know which Philip it is talking about! For a better understanding of why it is essential to use Josephus for background testimony, I will quote from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume K-Q, page 785:

“Philip the tetrarch, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem. From 4 B.C. to 34 A.D., Philip was tetrarch of the sparsely populated area stretching north and east from the Sea of Galilee toward Damascus. The appointment was made by the Emperor Augustus in accordance with the latest will of Herod the Great. The remaining portions of Herod’s kingdom fell to Philip’s half brothers Archelaus and Herod Antipas ... According to Josephus (Antiq. 17:8:1; 11:4), Philip’s tetrarchy included Batanea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulanitis, and Panias. Luke 3:1 indicates that Ituraea was also included. Effective control of these regions was essential to the Roman state, because they formed a first line of defense against the Nabateans and the Parthians and because strategic lanes of commerce and communication were located here. The population of the area was largely non-Jewish [chiefly Greeks & Syrians]. In this difficult situation Philip not only fulfilled his responsibilities to Rome but ruled with such justice and benevolence that he gained the respect and affection of his subjects (Jos. Antiq. 18:4:6.) His capital was located at Beth-saida, on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee. He transformed the village into a city and renamed it Julias in honor of the daughter of Augustus. He also built the pagan city Caesarea Philippi. After his death (A.D. 34) his tetrarchy became part of the Roman province Syria. Later it was included in the kingdom of Herod Agrippa I (37-44).

Though once mentioned in Scripture, Josephus cites the topic of “Trachonitis” twenty-four times at: Wars 1:20:4; Wars 3:10:7; Wars 2:11:5; Antiq. 20:7:1; Antiq. 16:4:6; Antiq. 17:2:1; Antiq. 16:9:1; Antiq. 16:9:2; Life 23; Wars 3:3:5; Wars 2:17:4; Antiq. 15:10:1; Antiq. 18:4:6; Antiq. 1:6:4; Wars 1:33:8; Antiq. 15:10:3; Wars 2:6:3; Antiq. 16:9:3; Antiq. 17:8:1; Wars 2:12:8; Antiq. 13:16:5; Antiq. 18:5:4; Antiq. 17:11:4; Antiq. 16:10:8. Philo also speaks of Trachonitis, but his writings, while helpful, do not measure up to those of Josephus. More importantly, the historical method which Luke employed, which was something that set him apart from the other gospel writers, and how because of Luke’s methods, his gospel may then be corroborated not only with archaeology, but also with the testimony of Josephus.

 

ACTS 24:24-26, JOSEPHUS, AND TACITUS WORK IN HARMONY

 

We will start by quoting Acts 24:24-26: “24 And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. 25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. 26 He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him”.

You will notice the two main characters we are dealing with, other than Paul, are Felix and Drusilla. Let’s next check with Josephus’ Antiquities 20:7:1-2:

“... And when Agrippa had received these countries as the gift of Caesar, he gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa, upon his consent to be circumcised; for Epiphanes, the son of king Antiochus, had refused to marry her, because after he had promised her father formerly to come over to the Jewish religion, he would not now perform that promise. He also gave Mariamne in marriage to Archelaus, the son of Helcias, to whom she had formerly been betrothed by Agrippa her father; from which marriage was derived a daughter, whose name was Bernice.

“2. But for the marriage of Drusilla with Azizus, it was in no long time afterward dissolved, upon the following occasion:– While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty, and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon, one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician; and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him; and promised, that if she would not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman. Accordingly she acted ill, and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Bernice’s envy, for she was very ill treated by her on account of her beauty, was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix; and when he had had a son by her, he named him Agrippa. But after what manner that young man, with his wife, perished at the conflagration of the mountain Vesuvius,in the days of Titus Caesar ...”

Let’s now examine the last part of Tacitus’ Histories 5. 9: “... But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war. The death of the Emperor put an end to the disturbance. The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judaea to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of king in the spirit of a slave. He had married Drusilla, the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, and so was the grandson-in-law, as Claudius was the grandson, of Antony.”

It should starting to be apparent that if we don’t have this Josephus’ background evidence, we can hardly understand our New Testament! Without such information one can consider how much of a Bible student they are not, regardless of how many times they have read their Bible through! It is beyond human comprehension why anyone would simply flush such valuable evidence down the toilet! Yet they do!

Yes, there was a temple at Leontopolis in Egypt! Yes, Josephus gives us evidence for that which archaeologists have verified! Yes, it was built after the plan of Solomon’s Temple! Yes, though inferior in size it was copied after the temple at Jerusalem! And No, the temple at Leontopolis did not fulfill Isaiah 19:19-22! Yes, Mark 6:17-18 connects with Antiquities 18:5:2! Yes, Matthew 26:3-4 & John 11:48-50 link with Antiquities 18:2:1 & 4:3! Yes, Acts 12:20-23 parallels with Antiquities 19:8:2! Yes, without Josephus, Luke 3:1 would be obscure! Yes, Acts 24:24-26, Josephus and Tacitus work in harmony!

Not only this, but Josephus presents much informative data concerning Annas and Caiaphas, who were responsible for the premeditated murder of Yahweh in the flesh! It is of the highest degree of irresponsibility to make such derogatory charges against such momentous testimony. It’s tantamount to depriving our children of the history of their heritage as is being done by the educational system today! And we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface on this topic!

And if you haven’t purchased your copy of Josephus yet, I highly recommend the translation by William Whiston. But maybe you would rather be uninformed (willingly ignorant)!

This is my eighty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. We are picking up where we left off in lesson #81. We were in the process of comprehending how archaeology is proving Josephus correct in various parts of his writings. We also saw how Josephus’ histories link quite well with certain Scriptures. We will now see how Acts 23:24-24:27 fits with Josephus’ Antiquities 20:7:1. When you read the next reference, you’ll see how ridiculous it is to refute the evidence Josephus has to offer. We get the following information from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. E-J, page 264:

“FELIX, ANTONIUS ... Procurator of Judea from 52 to 60 and successor to Cumanus. According to Acts 23:24-24:27, Felix was procurator at the time of Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem and his arrest there. When Felix was recalled by Nero, Paul was turned over to the new procurator, Festus.

“1. In Josephus. Felix, according to Josephus (Antiq. 20:7:1 ), was the brother of an influential Roman named Pallas. In 52 (or 53) Felix was named procurator. Some two years later, Felix was busy putting down uprisings by ‘robbers and impostors’ who ‘were a multitude not to be enumerated’ (War 2:13:2-3). By treachery Felix seized one such leader, Eleazar the son of Deneas, after giving him an assurance of no harm. He utilized the services of these robbers (identified as Sicarii) in the murder of the high priest Jonathan (Antiq. 20:8:5). A Jew out of Egypt (see Acts 21:38), who led a large number of Jews, was attacked by Festus; the leader escaped, never to be heard from again, but four hundred of his followers were slain (Antiq. 20:8:6; see War 2:14:6).

“Felix was recalled to Rome. A deputation of Jews went to Rome to accuse Felix, but the influence and intervention of Pallas saved him from punishment (Antiq. 20:8:9).

“Felix married Drusilla, a sister of Agrippa II, after persuading her to leave her husband, Azizus king of Emesa (Antiq. 20:7:2); she bore him a son, Agrippa. Felix was married two other times.

“2. In Roman sources. Scattered notices about Felix appear in the works of the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus. A conflict exists in the data provided by Josephus (Antiq. 20:6:3-7:1; War 2:12:8) and Tacitus (Ann. 12. 54). The latter supposes that Felix was procurator of Samaria and Judea while Cumanus was procurator of Galilee, whereas Josephus relates that Felix succeeded Cumanus as procurator of Judea. Most scholars prefer Josephus on this point.

“Suetonius (Claudius 28) reports that Felix had been married to three royal women (reginarum). One was Drusilla; another was the granddaughter of Mark Antony and Cleopatra; the third is unknown (see Tac. Hist. 5. 9).

“Tacitus (Ann. 12. 54) reports that Felix believed that he could commit all kinds of evil with impunity. The influence of his brother was undoubtedly a spur to his arbitrariness. Tacitus comments that his actions only provoked further difficulties. Some six years after Felix’ recall, the Jewish War broke out; Josephus is the source of the credible contention that Felix’ term, with its cruelties and oppressions, provided the cause of the war; neither Festus nor his successors (Albinus, 62-64; Florus, 64-66) would have been able to avert the disaster, had they been minded to, and they were not. Felix is a prime example of colonial mismanagement.

“Apparently he was a freedman, deriving his name Antonius from Antonia, the mother of the Emperor Claudius. (A scribal error in Suidas is the basis of a wrong contention that Felix bore the name Claudius.)

“3. In Acts. Acts relates that the Roman tribune Claudius Lysias sent Paul from Jerusalem to Felix in Caesarea; five days later the high priest Ananias and one Tertullus laid before Felix the case against Paul. Tertullus is portrayed as speaking of the peace enjoyed under and the reforms introduced by Felix. Paul’s speech begins: ‘Realizing that for many years you have been judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense.’ After Paul’s speech, Felix, to whom is attributed a ‘rather accurate knowledge of the way,’ postponed the decision; he kept Paul in custody, but gave him ‘some liberty.’ A few days later, Felix and his Jewish wife, Drusilla, sent for Paul ‘and heard him speak upon faith in Christ Jesus.’ Felix was alarmed when Paul ‘argued about justice and self-control and future judgment.’ Felix said: ‘Go away for the present; when I have an opportunity I will summon you.’ Felix hoped ‘that money would be given him by Paul. So he sent for him often and conversed with him.’ When Festus became the new procurator, Felix, ‘desiring to do the Jews a favor,’ kept Paul in prison (Acts 23:24-24:27) ....”

Several reasons could be cited why Josephus (37-100 A.D.) is of the greatest importance for students of the New Testament wanting to understand its background; for without his testimony, much confusion can and does develop. Primarily, he introduces by far the most systematic and comprehensive history of the people of Judea from their beginnings to his own day. Josephus is especially thorough on the periods just before, during, and immediately after our Messiah’s lifetime. He covers especially Herod, and events such as the census of Quirinius. Moreover, he is the earliest non-Christian historical writer who cites John the Baptist, Yahshua (who most call “Jesus”), James, Judas the Galilean, and Theudas the Egyptian prophet. Additionally, he introduces the earliest methodical and comprehensive paraphrase interpretation of Old Testament Scripture.

While the overwhelming majority of classical historical works have become extinct, the writings of Josephus have come down to us in our day mostly intact. This resulted because the Christians found him extremely useful in filling the gap in the Judaene era between the close of the fifth century B.C. and the birth of our Redeemer. Especially significant is that his work is useful in confirming the historicity of Yahshua and John the Baptist, and the fulfilling of prophesied sufferings of the “broken bottle” nation of “bad figs” at the hands of the Romans.

From Josephus’ own autobiography, he was excellently equipped to write his histories. He claimed descent on his mother’s side from the Hasmonean kings (Josephus’ Life 1), “... by my mother I am of the royal blood ...” His father also belonged to the first of twenty-four courses of priests (Josephus’ Life 1): “Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses ... I am of the chief family of that first course ...” One must understand, after that remnant nation returned from the Babylonian captivity, the Levites, for the most part, served as the leaders rather than the House of David. Josephus was a personal friend of Agrippa II, who is said to have written no less than sixty-two letters testifying to the accuracy of Josephus’ history of the Judean War (Josephus’ Life 65): “... and for King Agrippa, he wrote me sixty-two letters, and attested to the truth of what I had therein delivered, two of which letters I have here subjoined, and thou mayest thereby know their contents:– ‘King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth greeting. I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears to me that thou hast done it much more accurately, and with greater care than have the other writers ...’”

Josephus did not lack for an excellent education in the traditional Judean system. He must have been a child prodigy, inasmuch as at the early age of fourteen the chief priests and other leaders sought him out to counsel them for his interpretation concerning Scriptural Law (Josephus’ Life 2) “... Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law ...”

Josephus then planned to spend three years gaining first hand knowledge of the three leading sects among the Judeans; the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. At Josephus’ Life 2 we read: “... and when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trial of the several sects that were among us. These sects are three: – The first is that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes, as we have frequently told you; for I thought that by this means I might choose the best, if I were once acquainted with them all ...” Had not Josephus been a pure Israelite by birth, he could never have been admitted to the Essene sect, so we can be quite sure he was not contaminated with bad blood. (See again Josephus’ Wars 2:8:2.)

At twenty-six years of age, Josephus was chosen to go to Rome to secure the release of some Judean priests which proved successful (Josephus’ Life 3): “But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome; and this on the occasion which I shall now describe.  At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea, there were certain priests of my acquaintance, and very excellent persons they were, whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar. These I was desirous to procure deliverance for; and that especially because I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God, even under their afflictions; but supported themselves with figs and nuts [meatless diet].  Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards, by sea ... I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew [Tribe of Judah] by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea, Caesar’s wife; and took care, as soon as possible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set at liberty ...” Observe here that Josephus worked to get Poppea’s sympathy through another “Judean by birth” like himself, Aliturius.

At Rome, under the patronage of Epaphroditus, Josephus happened on his thirty-thousand volume library. There Josephus found a knowledge of Greek literature, especially Homer, Thucydides, Plato which awakened him to Greek traditions. Many critical scholars are somewhat suspicious of Josephus’ accounts of which he took part, such as the siege of Jotapara, but for other notable events such as his account of Masada, the excavations by archaeologists in the years 1963 and 1965 have generally established his writings to be amazingly accurate. [emphasis mine]

To be noted is Josephus’ highly critical introduction to his Wars, where he reprimands predecessor historians (J. W. 1 §§1-2), in addition to his essay Against Apion (1:2-5 §§6-27). Josephus is considerably critical of Greek historians indicating that he himself made a special effort to be fair and accurate lest he be laughed out of court.

THE NEW TESTAMENT AND JOSEPHUS

 

Few are the scholars who doubt the validity of Josephus mentioning John the Baptist (Josephus’ Antiquities 18:5:2) as the language is considerably typical for that part of his Antiquities. Had a Christian scribe inserted it, it would be difficult to explain why he gave almost twice the narrative as given to that of the Redeemer who the translators designate as “Jesus.” But it is interesting that Josephus gives a different reason for John’s death than that found in the Gospels. Josephus says that John was condemned by Herod Antipas inasmuch as he observed that John was drawing such enormous crowds, and feared that this would incite sedition. Additionally, why did not Josephus associate John with Yahshua? In reference to the passage about the Sanhedrin’s condemnation of James (Josephus’ Antiquities 20:9:1), being referred to as the brother of Jesus (called the Christ), practically all scholars accept it as being authentic: “... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].  Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned ...”

There is a passage in Josephus usually dubbed the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” about Yahshua [Jesus] at Antiquities 18:3:3, and is found in all forty-two of the extant Greek manuscripts with regard to this portion of the Antiquities, the earliest dating from the eleventh century, as well as in all 171 extant manuscripts of the Latin translation which date to the sixth century under the sponsorship of Cassiodorus, which many scholars are increasingly proclaiming as authentic. It reads: “Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews [sic Judeans], and many of the Gentiles [sic ethnos].  He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

There has been much controversy over this passage, but Jerome Vir. 13 cites Josephus as saying not that Yahshua was the Messiah, but that “he was believed to be the Messiah.” Yet another witness can be found in a tenth-century history of the world, in Arabic, by a Christian named Agapius. His edition omits “if indeed we ought to call him a man”, and references to Messiah’s miracles and to the role of the “Jewish” leaders making accusations against Yahshua, and does not say that He appeared to His disciples on the third day, but rather his disciples reported that event. This version declares not that Yahshua was the Messiah, but rather “he was perhaps the Messiah.” A twelfth-century chronicle in Syriac by a Christian named Michael the Syrian in his Testimonium uses language similar to Jerome: “He was thought to be the Messiah.” One writing in Arabic in the 10th century, “Christian” or not, demands we be suspicious of his discrepancies!

The ultimate worth of Josephus’ writings constitute by far the most valuable body of literature, for New Testament background of Christianity, we possess. For Josephus conveys to us almost the entirety of what we know about the non-Christian figures, groups, institutions, customs, geographical areas and related events mentioned in our New Testament. It’s hard to imagine how we would manage without his witness on these topics. He is the sole surviving contemporary writer, for example, who portrays John the Baptist, the “Jewish” high priests of the first century, the Pharisees and Sadducees, the various religions of Judea, Samaria and Galilee, Herod the Great, Agrippa II and Bernice, the Jerusalem Temple renovated by Herod and its destruction in the revolt of 66-70, the census under Quirinius, Judas the Galilean and Theudas the Egyptian prophet. Although Philo mentions Pontius Pilate and Agrippa I, even there Josephus’ testimony is overwhelmingly critical for evaluation.

Yet these portions of information, as important as they are, do not turn out to be the most momentous contributions of Josephus in relation to New Testament background study. Knowledgeable scholars are coming to realize that Josephus wrote about these matters because he felt a compelling urgency to do so. And his invaluable stories represent the most fully articulated statements of first-century Judaism in Judea that we possess, save none. These enlightening accounts are conveyed by a contemporary of the first and second Christian generations who came from circles very dissimilar to that of Yahshua’s followers: that being a member of the governing aristocratic priesthood. Therefore, Josephus’ narratives are significant both because they portray a different view of the same circumstances that the New Testament mentions, and because they provide indispensable context for the understanding of what Josephus says about various personages and developments. Now to take a few cases in point:

Pontius Pilate  seems to have been recalled to Rome about A.D. 36 and replaced by a new prefect, Marcellus. Then, A.D. March 16, 37 the Emperor Tiberius died. The legate Vitellius was still in Jerusalem trying to soothe the feelings of the Judeans who had been outraged at Pilate, when the news arrived there of the new emperor, Gaius Caligula (37-41). The Judeans were the first of the nationalities of Syria to pledge their allegiance to the new emperor and hailed his regime, which was peaceful for the first 18 months. But whereas Tiberius had shunned emperor worship, Caligula then began to demand it. He wanted images of himself as divus erected in all shrines and temples (including synagogues) throughout the empire.

Caligula had not served long on the imperial throne before he bestowed on his friend Herod Agrippa I, the brother of Herodias and the grandson of Herod the Great, the territory of Philip’s tetrarchy in north Transjordan. Along with this grant went the title of king. Returning to Palestine, King Herod stopped off at Alexandria, and his brief stay there became an occasion of a serious defamatory outburst against him, along with the local colony of Judeans. This went unrestrained by the Roman prefect Avillius Flaccus (Philo, Flaccus 5. 25-35), and there followed a turbulent anti-Judean persecution (A.D. 38). Protesting, the Judeans of Alexandria finally sent a delegation to the emperor in A.D. 40 to plead their cause. Among this legation was the philosopher Philo, but these emissaries had little success (Josephus’ Antiquities 18:8:1).

Upon the exile of Herod Antipas in A.D. 39, his territory (Galilee and Perea) were annexed to the dominion of Herod Agrippa I. The latter, who had been insulted by the Roman prefect in Egypt, found greater success in swaying the legate of Syria, Petronius, who had been sent out by Caligula in A.D. 39. King Herod advised him not to press the issue of emperor worship; whereupon Petronius delayed matters as far as Jerusalem was concerned. But upon the erection of a crude altar to the emperor by the pagan inhabitants of the coastal town of Jamnia, it was torn down by the Judeans of the locale. The incident being reported to the emperor, he retaliated by commanding the immediate erection of a colossal statue of himself in the Temple (Philo, Embassy to Gaius 30. 203). But in spite of this development, Petronius stillsans-serif/pArialletter-spacing: 2.5pt 3): highly critical introduction to his procrastinated, while at the same time trying to get the Judean leaders to acquiesce to the order with good grace. Highly appalled, the Judean leaders gathered in Ptolemais where Petronius was quartered and entreated him not to erect the statue. Herod Agrippa then visited Caligula, hoping he would rescind the order. Enraged toward Petronius, the emperor commanded that he should commit suicide. However, the entire problem was put to rest by the murder of Caligula on January 24, 41 A.D.

That brought Claudius to the throne (41-54 A.D.), by the acclamation of the Roman troops, whereupon his first directive was an edict of toleration in favor of the Judeans (Antiquities 19:5:2-3):

“So Claudius sent an order to the president of Egypt, to quiet that tumult; he also sent an edict, at the request of king Agrippa and king Herod, both to Alexandria and to Syria, whose contents were as follows: ‘Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, high priest, and tribune of the people, ordains thus:– Since I am assured that the Jews of Alexandria, called Alexandrians, have been joint inhabitants in the earliest times with the Alexandrians, and have obtained from their kings equal privileges with them, as is evident by the public records that are in their possession, and the edicts themselves ... I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews be not deprived of their rights and privileges, on account of the madness of Caius; but that those rights and privileges, which they formerly enjoyed, be preserved to them, and that they may continue in their own customs ... Upon the petition of king Agrippa and king Herod, who are persons very dear to me, that I would grant the same rights and privileges should be preserved to the Jews which are in all the Roman empire, which I have granted to those of Alexandria, I very willingly comply therewith; and this grant I make not only for the sake of the petitioners, but as judging those Jews for whom I have been petitioned worthy of such a favor, on account of their fidelity and friendship to the Romans ...’”

Thus, Claudius rewarded Herod Agrippa I for his patronage of Roman dominion by extending his territory to include that of the ethnarchy of Archelaus (Judea, Samaria, Idumea) so that from henceforward until his death he ruled over a territory almost as vast as that of Herod the Great. One of Herod Agrippa’s tentative projects was to build Jerusalem’s “third north wall”, which upon completion would have made the city practically impregnable. But prior to its finishing, Claudius was warned by Maurus, legate of Syria, and he halted any further progress (Antiq. 19:7:2): “As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, unless Marcus, the then president of Syria, had by letter informed Claudius Caesar of what he was doing. And when Claudius had some suspicion of attempts for innovation, he sent to Agrippa to leave off the building of those walls presently.  So he obeyed, as not thinking it proper to contradict Claudius.”

Today the location of that wall is much disputed by archaeologists. An excavation in 1965 by Kathleen Kenyon proposes a date no sooner than the sixties A.D. for “Sukenik’s wall.” Either the wall was not built by Agrippa, or he only laid out the line for a third wall, and the real building was accomplished at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (W. E. Albright), or later, during the time of Bar Cochba.

 

WITHOUT JOSEPHUS LITTLE WOULD BE KNOWN OF

ROME’S APPOINTED PROCURATORS TO JUDAEA

 

They are Coponius, A.D. 6-9; M. Ambivius, A.D. 9-12(?); Annius Rufus, 12-15(?); Valerius Gratus, 15-26; Pontius Pilatus (Pilate), A.D. 26-36; Marcellus, A.D. 36-37; Marullus, A.D. 37-41(?); C. Cuspius Fadus, A.D. 44-46; Tiberius Julius Alexander, A.D. 46-48; Ventidius Cumanus, A.D. 48-52; M. Antonius Felix, A.D. 52-60(?); Porcius Festus, A.D. 60-62(?); Lucceius Albinus, A.D. 62-64; Gessius Florus, 64-66.

Josephus speaks of Coponius at Antiq. 18:1:1; 18:2:2 & 14:8:5. Marcus Ambivius at Antiq. 18:2:2; Annius Rufus at Antiq. 18:2:2; Valerius Gratus at Antiq. 18:2:2 & 18:6:5; Pontius Pilate at Antiq. 18:3:1-3; 18:4:1-2; 18:6:5; Wars 2:9:2-4; Marcellus at Antiq. 18:4:2; Marullus at Antiq. 18:6:10; Cuspius Fadus at Antiq. 15:11:4; 19:9:1-2; 20:1:1-2; 20:5:1-2; Wars 2:11:6; Tiberius Julius Alexander at Antiq. 20:5:2; Wars 4:10:6; 2:11:6; 2:18:7; 5:1:6; 6:4:3; Ventidius Cumanus at Antiq. 20:5:2-4; 20:6:1-3; Wars 2:12:1-7; M. Antonius Felix at Life 3, 9; Antiq. 14:11:7; 20:7:1-2; 20:8:4-9; Wars 1:12:1; 2:12:1, 8; 2:13:2, 4, 5, 7; 2:14:1; Porcius Festus at Antiq. 20:8:9-11; 20:91; Wars 2:14:1 Luccius Albinus at Antiq. 20:9:3; 20:11:1; Wars 2:14:1-2; 6:5:3; Gessius Florus at Life 5; Antiq. 18:1:6; 19:9:2; 20:11:1; 20:9:5; Wars 2:14:2-9; 2:15:1-6; 2:16:1-3; 2:17:1, 4; 2:19:4; 2:20:1.

Without Josephus, we might know little about Pontius Pilate so needed to prove our Scripture correct; that there really was a Crucifixion. Without Josephus, we would have little data on the martyrdom of James. In fact, without the witness of Josephus, on so many urgent issues, men today would scoff at us, claiming our Scriptures are fraudulent. To remove the witness of Josephus is to destroy the faith of many, and in turn destroy our own families, and leave us in a state of complete anarchy. But thankfully, Josephus gives us a tool whereby to prove that the prophecy of Matthew 24 really happened, and help resolve our faith.

 

JOSEPHUS RECORDS THE FULFILLMENT OF GENESIS 3:15

 

You may say “That’s impossible”! But if we will check with Scripture we will find it’s true. To put it very concisely, the story goes like this: While Mel Gibson’s intentions were admirable with his THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, he failed to identify those responsible for Christ’s murder. Who killed Christ can be determined rather quickly from anyone’s Bible. The first prophecy concerning the Crucifixion is found at Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity (hatred) between thee (Satan) and the woman, and between thy seed (genetic physical offspring) and her seed (genetic physical offspring); it (the woman’s seed) shall bruise thy head, and thou (Satan’s seed) shalt bruise his heel.” The “chosen vessel” Paul, in addressing the Romans at 16:20 “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your (Roman) feet shortly.” Hence, in Paul’s day the Romans were of the “woman’s seed”, or true Israelites, and the bruising of Satan was the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., for which Josephus’ Wars gives a graphic blow by blow account. Therefore, it was rather some Kenite(Cain)-Canaanite-Edomites pretending to be of the Tribe of Judah, and not the Romans, who committed the premeditated murder of Christ!

Thus, Paul identified the Romans by-and-large as the “seed of the woman” and the “serpent people” at Jerusalem as the “seed (physical descendants) of the serpent.” Not only did Paul identify the Romans as the “seed of the woman” of Genesis 3:15, but also identified the false-Judahites who by-and-large occupied Jerusalem and vicinity in-and-around Judaea in 70 A.D. I don’t know about your Bible, but the center reference in mine takes me to Genesis 3:15 from Romans 16:20. So all you two-seedliners who are criticizing Paul, had better take another look at this passage, or join the anti-seedliners! And all you turkeys (like Ted. R. Weiland and his fellow travelers) who are teaching that we Israelites are responsible for the crucifixion of Christ better take a new look at Romans 16:20. Anyone who claims there are not TWO SEEDLINES are calling Paul a liar! Since Paul identifies the Romans as the “seed of the woman”, the Romans are those who were to bruise the head, not the heel! Inasmuch as it was prophesied that the Romans, being the seed of the woman, were to bruise Satan’s head, they can hardly play the parts as both the bruiser of the head and also the bruiser of the heel! But just ask Red Ted, he knows everything there is to know; at least that’s the impression he attempts to give! Shame on all the Paul-bashers! Shame on all the antichrist anti-seedliners! Yahweh, thank YOU for the “chosen vessel”, Paul!

While we are on the subject of Two Seedline, we can see clearly from Jude 7 & 11 that Cain was indeed a half-breed: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire ... Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.”

The “they” of Jude 11 is not only referring to the Baal-Peor incident, where Balaam advised Balak to have his non-Israel women sexually seduce and fornicate (race-mix) with the Israel men, but also refers to Sodom and Gomorrah, who were “going after strange flesh”, which is also race-mixing. Jude compares or parallels this as being identical to  “the way of Cain.” Thus, (1) Sodom and Gomorrha, (2) the advice of Balaam, and (3) the way of Cain all have race-mixing connotations. Thus, Jude makes it clear that Cain was a product of miscegenation, and not the son of Adam. Josephus describes the incident at Baal-Peor more graphically than anyone else, and that is why we desperately need his greatly detailed version of that race-mixing episode. Every parent who is concerned about today’s racial dilemma should read this passage in Josephus to his children in order to avoid today’s greatest disaster being foisted on us by our common enemy.

It all boils down that if we condemn Josephus’ witness on many critical subjects, we may do so to the destruction of our own family. This is quite serious, as the news media continues to forecast that in the not-so-far future, the White race is condemned to extinction. Today, before our very eyes, we are seeing the genocide of the entire White Adamic Race!

This is my eighty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. We will continue here where we left off in the last lesson. Of all of Josephus’ works, none could be of greater value than his rendering of the Baal-Peor incident, where it was necessary for Yahweh to destroy 24,000 Israelites in order to halt the tide of miscegenation (race-mixing) with which the Israelites were seduced by the nefarious advice of Balaam to Balak. Had this continued, it would have destroyed the young nation before it could be established. This incident is so similar to what is happening in all our Israel lands today, that it is applicable to our present situation! Truly, the “doctrine of Balaam” is alive and well in our day, and again, our race is on the verge of extinction! To demonstrate that Josephus was aware how serious a matter it was, I will now present his words without quotation marks from Antiquities 4:6:1-13:

 

CHAPTER 6: CONCERNING BALAAM THE PROPHET,

AND WHAT KIND OF MAN HE WAS:

 

“1. Now Moses, when he had brought his army to Jordan, pitched his camp in the great plain over against Jericho. This city is a very happy situation, and very fit for producing palm trees and balsam; and now the Israelites began to be very proud of themselves, and were very eager for fighting. Moses then, after he had offered for a few days sacrifices of thanksgiving to God, and feasted the people, sent a party of armed men to lay waste the country of the Midianites, and to take their cities. Now the occasion which he took for making wars upon them was this that follows:–

“2. When Balak, the king of the Moabites, who had from his ancestors a friendship and league with the Midianites, saw how great the Israelites were grown, he was much affrighted on account of his own and his kingdom’s danger; for he was not acquainted with this, that the Hebrews would not meddle with any other country, but were to be contented with the possession of the land of Canaan, God having forbidden them to go any further.So he, with more haste than wisdom, resolved to make an attempt upon them by words; but he did not judge it prudent to fight against them, after they had such prosperous successes, and even became out of ill successes more happy than before; but he thought to hinder them, if he could from growing greater, and so he resolved to send ambassadors to the Midianites about them. Now these Midianites knowing there was one Balaam, who lived by Euphrates, and was the greatest of the prophets at that time, and one that was in friendship with them, sent some of their honorable princes along with the ambassadors of Balak, to entreat the prophet to come to them, that he might imprecate curses to the destruction of the Israelites. So Balaam received the ambassadors, and treated them very kindly; and when he had supped, he inquired what was God’s will, and what this matter was for which the Midianites entreated him to come to them. But when God opposed his going, he came to the ambassadors, and told them that he was himself very willing and desirous to comply with their request, but informed them that God was opposite to his intentions, even that God who had raised him to great reputation on account of the truth of his predictions; for that this army, which they entreated him to come and curse, was in the favor of God; on which account he advised them to go home again, and not to persist in their enmity against the Israelites; and when he had given them that answer, he dismissed the ambassadors.

“3. Now the Midianites, at the earnest request and fervent entreaties of Balak, sent other ambassadors to Balaam, who, desiring to gratify the men, inquired again of God; but he was displeased at this [second] trial, and bid him by no means to contradict the ambassadors. Now Balaam did not imagine that God gave this injunction in order to deceive him, so he went along with the ambassadors; but when the divine angel met him in the way, when he was in a narrow passage, and hedged in with a wall on both sides, the ass on which Balaam rode understood that it was a divine spirit that met him, and thrust Balaam to one of the walls, without regard to the stripes which Balaam, when he was hurt by the wall, gave her; but when the ass, upon the angel’s continuing to distress her, and upon the stripes which were given her, fell down, by the will of God, she made use of the voice of a man, and complained of Balaam as acting unjustly to her; that whereas he had no fault to find with her in her former service to him, he now inflicted stripes upon her, as not understanding that she was hindered from serving him in what he was now going about, by the providence of God. And when he was disturbed by reason of the voice of the ass, which was that of a man, the angel plainly appeared to him, and blamed him for the stripes he had given his ass; and informed him that the brute creature was not in fault, but that he was himself come to obstruct his journey, as being contrary to the will of God. Upon which Balaam was afraid, and was preparing to return back again; yet did God excite him to go on his intended journey, but added this injunction, that he should declare nothing but what he himself should suggest to his mind.

“4. When God had given him this charge, he came to Balak; and when the king had entertained him in a magnificent manner, he desired him to go to one of the mountains to take a view of the state of the camp of the Hebrews. Balak himself also came to the mountain, and brought the prophet along with him, with a royal attendance. This mountain lay over their heads, and was distant sixty furlongs from the camp. Now when he saw them, he desired the king to build him seven altars, and to bring him as many bulls and rams; to which desire the king did presently conform. He then slew the sacrifices, and offered them as burnt offerings, that he might observe some signal of the flight of the Hebrews. Then said he, ‘Happy is this people, on whom God bestows the possession of innumerable good things, and grants them his own providence to be their assistant and their guide; so that there is not any nation among mankind but you will be esteemed superior to them in virtue, and in the earnest prosecution of the best rules of life, and of such as are pure from wickedness, and will leave those rules to your excellent children, and this out of the regard that God bears to you, and the provision of such things for you as may render you happier than any other people under the sun. You shall retain that land to which he hath sent you, and it shall ever be under the command of your children; and both all the earth, as well as the sea, shall be filled with your glory: and you shall be sufficiently numerous to supply the world in general, and every region of it in particular, with inhabitants out of your stock. However, O blessed army!  wonder that you are become so many from one father: and truly, the land of Canaan can now hold you, as being yet comparatively few; but know ye that the whole world is proposed to be your place of habitation forever. The multitude of your posterity also shall live as well in the islands as on the continent, and that more in number than are the stars of heaven. And when you are become so many, God will not relinquish the care of you, but will afford you an abundance of all good things in times of peace, with victory and dominion in times of war. May the children of your enemies have an inclination to fight against you, and may they be so hardy as to come to arms, and to assault you in battle, for they will not return with victory, nor will their return be agreeable to their children and wives. To so great a degree of valor will you be raised by the providence of God, who is able to diminish the affluence of some, and to supply the wants of others.’

“5. Thus did Balaam speak by inspiration, as not being in his own power, but moved to say what he did by the divine spirit.  But then Balak was displeased, and said he had broken the contract he had made, whereby he was to come, as he and his confederates had invited him, by the promise of great presents: for whereas he came to curse their enemies, he had made an encomium upon them, and had declared that they were the happiest of men. To which Balaam replied, ‘O Balak, if thou rightly considerest this whole matter, canst thou suppose that it is in our power to be silent, or to say anything, when the Spirit of God seizes upon us? – for he puts such words as he pleases in our mouths, and such discourses as we are not ourselves conscious of. I well remember by what entreaties both you and the Midianites so joyfully brought me hither and on that account I took this journey.  It was my prayer, that I might not put any affront upon you, as to what you desired of me; but God is more powerful than the purposes I had made to serve you; for those that take upon them to foretell the affairs of mankind, as from their own abilities, are entirely unable to do it, or to forbear to utter what God suggests to them, or to offer violence to his will; for when he prevents us and enters into us, nothing that we say is our own.  I then did not intend to praise this army, nor to go over the several good things which God intended to do to their race; but since he was so favorable to them, and so ready to bestow upon them a happy life and eternal glory, he suggested the declaration of those things to me: but now, because it is my desire to oblige thee thyself, as well as the Midianites whose entreaties it is not decent for me to reject, go to, let us again rear other altars, and offer the like sacrifices that we did before, that I may see whether I can persuade God to permit me to bind these men with curses.’ Which, when Balak had agreed to, God would not, even upon second sacrifices, consent to his cursing the Israelites. Then fell Balaam upon his face, and foretold what calamities would befall the several kings of the nations, and the most eminent cities, some of which of old were not so much as inhabited; which events have come to pass among the several people concerned, both in the foregoing ages, and in this, till my own memory, both by sea and by land. From which completion of all these predictions that he made, one may easily guess that the rest will have their completion in time to come.

“6. But Balak being very angry that the Israelites were not cursed, sent away Balaam without thinking him worthy of any honor. Whereupon, when he was just upon his journey, in order to pass the Euphrates, he sent for Balak, and for the princes of the Midianites, and spake thus to them:– ‘O Balak, and you Midianites that are here present (for I am obliged even without the will of God to gratify you), it is true no entire destruction can seize upon the nation of the Hebrews, neither by war, nor by plague, nor by scarcity of the fruits of the earth, nor can any other unexpected accident be their entire ruin; for the providence of God is concerned to preserve them from such a misfortune; nor will it permit any such calamity to come upon them whereby they may all perish; but some small misfortunes, and those for a short time, whereby they may appear to be brought low, may still befall them; but after that they will flourish again, to the terror of those that brought those mischiefs upon them. So that if you have a mind to gain a victory over them for a short space of time you will obtain it by following my directions: – Do you therefore set out the handsomest of such of your daughters as are most eminent for beauty, and proper to force and conquer the modesty of those that behold them, and these decked and trimmed to the highest degree you are able. Then do you send them to be near the Israelites’ camp and give them in charge, that when the young men of the Hebrews desire their company, they allow it them; and when they see that they are enamored of them, let them take their leaves; and if they entreat them to stay, let them not give their consent till they have persuaded them to leave off their obedience to their own laws and the worship of that God who established them, and to worship the gods of the Midianites and Moabites; for by this means God will be angry at them.’ Accordingly, when Balaam had suggested this counsel to them, he went his way.

“7. So when the Midianites had sent their daughters, as Balaam had exhorted them, the Hebrew young men were allured by their beauty, and came to discourse with them, and besought them not to grudge them the enjoyment of their beauty, nor to deny them their conversation. These daughters of the Midianites received their words gladly, and consented to it and staid with them; but when they had brought them to be enamored of them, and their inclinations to them were grown to ripeness, they began to think of departing from them: then it was that these men became greatly disconsolate at the women’s departure, and they were urgent with them not to leave them, but begged they would continue there, and become their wives; and they promised them they should be owned as mistresses of all they had. This they said with an oath, and called God for the arbitrator of what they promised; and this with tears in their eyes, and all other such marks of concern as might show how miserable they thought themselves without them, and so might move their compassion for them. So the women, as soon as they perceived they had made them their slaves, and had caught them with their conversation, began to speak thus to them: –

“8. ‘O you illustrious young men!  we have houses of our own at home and great plenty of good things there, together with the natural affectionate love of our parents and friends; nor is it out of our want of any such things that we came to discourse with you; nor did we admit of your invitation with design to prostitute the beauty of our bodies for gain; but taking you for brave and worthy men, we agreed to your request, that we might treat you with such honors as hospitality required: and now seeing you say that you have a great affection for us, and are troubled when you think we are departing, we are not averse to your entreaties; and if we may receive such assurance of your good will as we think can be alone sufficient, we will be glad to lead our lives with you as your wives; but we are afraid that you will in time be weary of our company, and will then abuse us, and send us back to our parents, after an ignominious manner.’ And so they desired that they would excuse them in their guarding against that danger. But the young men professed they would give them any assurance they should desire; nor did they at all contradict what they requested, so great was the passion they had for them. ‘If then,’ said they, ‘this be your resolution; since you make use of such customs and conduct of life as are entirely different from all other men, insomuch that your kinds of food are peculiar to yourselves, and your kinds of drink not common to others, it will be absolutely necessary if you would have us for your wives, that you do withal worship our gods; nor can there be any other demonstration of the kindness which you say you already have, and promised to have hereafter to us, than this, that you worship the same gods that we do. For has anyone reason to complain, that now you are come into this country, you should worship the proper gods of the same country? especially while our gods are common to all men, and yours such as belong to nobody else but yourselves.’ So they said they must either come into such methods of divine worship as all others came into, or else they must look out for another world, wherein they may live by themselves, according to their own laws.

“9. Now the young men were induced by the fondness they had for these women, to think they spake very well; so they gave themselves up to what they persuaded them, and transgressed their own laws; and supposing there were many gods, and resolving that they would sacrifice to them according to the laws of that country which ordained them, they both were delighted with their strange food, and went on to do everything that the women would have them do, though in contradiction to their own laws; so far, indeed, that this transgression was already gone through the whole army of the young men, and they fell into a sedition that was much worse than the former, and into danger of the entire abolition of their own institutions; for when once the youth had tasted of these strange customs, they went with insatiable inclinations into them; and even where some of the principal men were illustrious on account of the virtues of their fathers, they also were corrupted together with the rest.

“10. Even Zimri, the head of the tribe of Simeon, accompanied with Cozbi, a Midianitish woman, who was the daughter of Sur, a man of authority in that country; and being desired by his wife to disregard the laws of Moses, and to follow those she was used to, he complied with her; and this both by sacrificing after a manner different from his own, and by taking a stranger to wife. When things were thus, Moses was afraid that matters should grow worse, and called the people to a congregation, but then accused nobody by name, as unwilling to drive those into despair who, by lying concealed, might come to repentance; but he said that they did not do what was either worthy of themselves or of their fathers, by preferring pleasure to God, and to the living according to his will; that it was fit they should change their courses while their affairs were still in a good state; and think that to be true fortitude which offers not violence to their laws, but that which resists their lusts. And besides that, he said it was not a reasonable thing, when they had lived soberly in the wilderness, to act madly now when they were in prosperity; and that they ought not to lose, now they have abundance, what they had gained when they had little: – and so did he endeavor, by saying this to correct the young men, and to bring them to repentance for what they had done.

“11. But Zimri arose up after him, and said, ‘Yes, indeed, Moses, thou art at liberty to make use of such laws as thou art so fond of, and hast, by accustoming thyself to them, made them firm; otherwise, if things had not been thus, thou hadst often been punished before now, and hadst known that the Hebrews are not easily put upon; but thou shalt not have me one of thy followers in thy tyrannical commands, for thou dost nothing else hitherto but, under pretense of laws, and of God, wickedly impose on us slavery, and gain dominion to thyself, while thou deprivest us of the sweetness of life, which consists in acting according to our own wills, and is the right of free men, and of those that have no lord over them. Nay, indeed, this man is harder upon the Hebrews than were the Egyptians themselves, as pretending to punish, according to his laws, everyone’s acting what is most agreeable to himself; but thou thyself better deservest to suffer punishment, who presumest to abolish what everyone acknowledges to be what is good for him, and aimest to make thy single opinion to have more force than that of all the rest: and what I now do, and think to be right, I shall not hereafter deny to be according to my own sentiments. I have married, as thou sayest rightly, a strange woman, and thou hearest what I do from myself as from one that is free; for truly I did not intend to conceal myself. I also own that I sacrificed to those gods to whom you do not think it fit to sacrifice; and I think it right to come at truth by inquiring of many people, and not like one that lives under tyranny, to suffer the whole hope of my life to depend upon one man; nor shall anyone find cause to rejoice who declares himself to have more authority over my actions than myself.’

“12. Now when Zimri had said these things, about what he and some others had wickedly done the people held their peace, both out of fear of what might come upon them, and because they saw that their legislator was not willing to bring his insolence before the public any further, or openly to contend with him; for he avoided that, lest many should imitate the impudence of his language, and thereby disturb the multitude. Upon this the assembly was dissolved. However, the mischievous attempt had proceeded further, if Zimri had not been first slain, which came to pass on the following occasion; – Phineas, a man in other respects better than the rest of the young men, and also one that surpassed his contemporaries in the dignity of his father (for he was the son of Eleazar the high priest, and the grandson of [Aaron] Moses’ brother), who was greatly troubled at what was done by Zimri, he resolved in earnest to inflict punishment on him, before his unworthy behavior should grow stronger by impunity, and in order to prevent this transgression from proceeding further, which would happen if the ringleaders were not punished. He was of so great magnanimity, both in strength of mind and body, that when he undertook any very dangerous attempt, he did not leave it off till he overcame it, and got an entire victory.  So he came into Zimri’s tent, and slew him with his javelin, and with it he slew Cozbi also. Upon which all those young men that had a regard to virtue, and aimed to do a glorious action, imitated Phineas’s boldness, and slew those that were found to be guilty of the same crime with Zimri.  Accordingly, many of those that had transgressed perished by the magnanimous valor of these young men, and the rest all perished by a plague, which distemper God himself inflicted upon them.  So that all those their kindred, who, instead of hindering them from such wicked actions, as they ought to have done, and persuaded them to go on, were esteemed by God as partners in their wickedness, and died. Accordingly there perished out of the army no fewer than fourteen [twenty-four] thousand at this time.

“13. This was the cause why Moses was provoked to send an army to destroy the Midianites, concerning which expedition we shall speak presently, when we have first related what we have omitted; for it is but just not to pass over our legislator’s due encomium, on account of his conduct here, because, although this Balaam, who was sent for by the Midianites to curse the Hebrews, and when he was hindered from doing it by divine providence, did still suggest that advice to them, by making use of which our enemies had well nigh corrupted the whole multitude of the Hebrews with their wiles, till some of them were deeply infected with their opinions; yet did he do him great honor, by setting down his prophecies in writing. And while it was in his power to claim this glory to himself, and make men believe they were his own predictions, here being no one that could be a witness against him, and accuse him for so doing, he still gave his attestation to him, and did him the honor to make mention of him on this account.  But let everyone think of these matters as he pleases.” [End of chapter 6.]

This has taken up most of lesson #83, but it was necessary! Is today’s miscegenation any less serious than it was back then as to cause 24,000 deaths among our people? How many ought to die today for such an abominable sin? Actually, when a White Israelite today marries out of his Israelite race, it is a funeral rather than a /span class=,wedding. It is a miscarriage rather than a marriage! And when a child is born of such an unholy union, that child has not the spirit of Yahweh and is thus dead! It ends forever the family tree, and such a child is not fit for the Kingdom of Yahweh no matter how much Dave Barley teaches otherwise! If Dave Barley loves the viod-of-spirit-life Arabs so much, why doesn’t he move his ministry to Mecca? And if Ted R. Weiland “appreciates the other races” so much, as he stated on one of his audio tapes, why doesn’t he go along with Barley?

Both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text make it appear like the incident at Baal-Peor was but mere “idol worship”, where Josephus spells it out quite graphically as sexual intercourse and race-mixing! Some may trace the Midianites back to Midian, son of Abraham and Keturah, but by this time many of them had mixed with bad seed, possibly even the seed Cain. (Check Psalm 106:26-28, especially the words, “... overthrow their [Israelite] seed also among the [heathen] nations ...”) If our Bibles described the incident at Baal-Peor as Josephus does, we wouldn’t be having the problems we are today! Many say that Josephus on the Scriptures is in paraphrase, nevertheless, this passage from Josephus shows his superior understanding of the Baal-Peor incident.

Josephus, being a Levite on both sides of his family, was so well trained to be a priest that the “obscure sorts” which Herod was appointing to that office came to Josephus when he was only 14 years old for advice on the law. Eusebius speaks of this in his The Church History 1:6, and my translation is by Paul L. Maier, pages 34-35:

“When the line of Jewish rulers ceased, the orderly succession of high priests from generation to generation fell into instant confusion. The reliable Josephus reports that Herod, once made king by the Romans, no longer appointed high priests of the ancient line but obscure sorts instead, a practice followed by his son Archelaus and the Roman governors after him when they took over the government of the Jews. The same writer reports that Herod was the first to lock up the sacred vestment of the high priest and keep it under his own seal rather than priestly control, as did his successor Archelaus and the Romans after him.”

Not only this, but once Herod took power he attempted to destroy all of Israel’s genealogical records, ibid. 1:7, page 37:

“... So Herod, with no Israelite ancestry and pained by his base origins, burned the genealogical records, thinking he would appear of noble birth if no one were able to trace his bloodline from public documents. A few, however, carefully kept private records of their own, either remembering the names or finding them in copies, and took pride in preserving the memory of their aristocratic birth ...”

We have to be very careful what kind of things we promote, as Paul categorizes them as gold, silver, precious stones, hay, wood and stubble (1 Cor. 3:12). All this garbage that is being promoted in some of Israel Identity, fall in with these last three. Though they will be saved, all their works (teachings) will be burned with fire, but they themselves will be saved, but without any reward. Only gold, silver and precious stones will stand the test. Surely those who are catering to the products of miscegenation are not gathering to themselves gold, silver or precious stones! Yes, there is going to be judgment on everything we say and do! And I’m taking that into consideration while writing this lesson.

In the last lesson I demonstrated at Jude 7 and 11, how Jude equates those of Sodom “going after strange flesh” as the same abominable sin of race-mixing, and how he correlates Sodom with the sin Balaam advised Balak to place as a stumbling-block before the men of Israel. Further, Jude also compared these two and used the metaphor as “going the way of Cain”, which falls into the same category. But we really need to take this thing one step further.

Isaiah used the same metaphor to describe a condition of race-mixing at chapter 3, verse 9: “The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.”

Race-mixing leaves a mark that no one can hide in their countenance (physical features, especially facial). It is there for all to see in the same manner as we would now observe in a Mexican. Today we are confronted with this same change of physical features in America and all Israel lands engendered by the agenda of whom many dub “God’s chosen people.” Sad to say, our Israel lands have become one huge Sodom with all of the strange countenances showing up daily before our very eyes! So Isaiah here is placing the mixed half-breeds at Jerusalem in the same category as Sodom, or as Jude states, “going the way of Cain”! No doubt Jude had this passage in Isaiah in mind when he stated, Jude 7 & 11:

“Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire ... Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.”

That word “example” is the Greek word deigma, Strong’s #1164. Dr. Spiros Zodhaiates, in his New Testament Word Study Dictionary, page 400, states: “... deígma; genitive deígmatos, neuter from deíknuō (1166), to show. An example, specimen, sample, a display of things sold, occurring only in Jude 1:7 making the suffering of Sodom and Gomorrah an example of the future suffering of God’s judgment (cf. 2 Pet. 2:6). ... Synonyms: túpos (5179), pattern, model, impression; hupódeigma (5262), ensample, copy; hupotúposis (5296), an outline, sketch, pattern; hupogrammós (5261), an underwriting, an example; aparché (536), firstfruit.”

It is obvious that the same judgment meted out to Sodom and Gomorrah is going to happen again, but on a larger scale. This is the context at 2 Peter 2:6: “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly ...” It appears we haven’t seen anything yet! How in the world can Dave Barley and company put their stamp-of-approval on the Arabs of mixed-race?

This is my eighty-fourth monthly teaching letter and ends my seventh year of publication. If you will remember, we are doing a series defending the writings of Josephus. It is not the objective here to imply that Josephus was perfect in all that he wrote, but he was a man of Israel who normally would have been a priest of the first of twenty-four courses had not Herod begun appointing to the priesthood non-Israelites of a non-Levitical background. Many today are accusing Paul and Josephus of being Canaanite-Jews. As Paul was not a Canaanite-Jew, but of the Tribe of Benjamin; in similar manner Josephus was not a Canaanite-Jew, but of the Tribe of Levi. This is important, as today we would be hard-pressed to prove many passages in our Bible without the writings of Josephus.

One of the very most important of Josephus’ writings is his recording of the absorption of the Edomites, which he surely wouldn’t have recorded had he been like Herod who burned all the genealogical records to prevent anyone from knowing his low, ignoble lineage. How foolish the charge that Josephus was an Edomite-Jew! We find this at Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9:1, which reads as follows:

“But when Hyrcanus heard of the death of Antiochus he presently made an expedition against the cities of Syria, hoping to find them destitute of fighting men, and of such as were able to defend them. However, it was not till the sixth month that he took Medaba, and that not without the greatest distress of his army. After this he took Samega, and the neighboring places; and, besides these, Shechem and Gerizzim, and the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt at the temple which resembled that temple which was at Jerusalem, and which Alexander permitted Sanballat, the general of his army, to build for the sake of Manasseh, who was son-in-law to Jadua the high priest, as we have formerly related; which temple was now deserted two hundred years after it was built. Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”

Can you picture Josephus recording this if he were related to these Edomites or any other Canaanite tribe? How ridiculous! If Josephus were a Canaanite-Edomite-Jew, as many accuse him of being, he would rather have burned such damning evidence! I would warn again of concocting a faulty premise without any evidence, as one must then prop it up endlessly (wittingly or unwittingly) with one falsehood right after another. This is tantamount to declaring – and all one need do is observe the clergy today who have never read this passage in Josephus, and have adopted the faulty premise – “The Edomite-Jews are God’s chosen people”! It would seem that those who know Israel Identity would avoid such false conclusions. To claim that Josephus was a Canaanite-Edomite-Jew is equivalent to today’s clergy claiming “the Jews are God’s chosen people”! A footnote to this passage in Josephus reads:

“This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterwards. See Antiq. 14.8.1; 15.7.9. War 2.3.1; 4.4.5. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews, as here and elsewhere, Antiq. 14.8.1. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod were derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew, 15.15.2. But still, take out of Dean Prideaux, at the year 129, the words of Ammonius, a grammarian, which fully confirm this account of the Idumeans, in Josephus: ‘The Jews,’ says he, ‘are such by nature, and from the beginning, but Phoenicians and Syrians; but being afterwards subdued by the Jews and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Jews.’ Dio also says, as the Dean there quotes him, from book 36.37, ‘That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many others as embrace their religion, though of other nations.’ But then upon what foundation so good a governor as Hyrcanus took upon him to compel those Idumeans either to become Jews or to leave the country, deserves great consideration. I suppose it was because they had long ago been driven out of the land of Edom, and had seized on and possessed the tribe of Simeon, and all the southern part of the tribe of Judah, which was the peculiar inheritance of the worshippers of the true God without idolatry, as the reader may learn from Reland, Palestine, 1.154, 305, and from Prideaux, at the years 140 and 165.” [One would do well to check the references cited in this footnote above. Also, to give one an idea of the nature of the Idumeans, one might check out Wars 4:5:1-5]

Are we going to cut our own throat and destroy our own family by denying this evidence, by proclaiming to everybody we know, the false accusation accusing Josephus of being a Canaanite-Edomite-Jew? Without this critical evidence of the nation of Judaea absorbing the Edomites, we would be totally in the dark today, and we too would be parroting along with the clergy, “the Jews are God’s chosen people.” How senseless to withhold this crucial evidence in light of our Identity!

 

JOSEPHUS DETAILS JOHN THE BAPTIST’S IMPRISONMENT

 

The passage in which we are interested for this is Mark 6:17-18: “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.”

According to Josephus, this prison was at the fortress-palace of Machaerus, near the northeastern shore of the Dead Sea. In the Harper’s Bible Dictionary we find the following:

“Machaerus ... a fortress-palace some thirty-six hundred feet above the Dead Sea, about fifteen miles southeast of the mouth of the Jordan River. A fortress built on the site by Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.) was destroyed by Pompey’s general Gabinius; it was then extensively rebuilt by Herod the Great to include a palace within the fortress. Because of its proximity to Arabia and its location above the north-south road from the Red Sea to Damascus, the site was regarded as strategically important by Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4 B.C.-A.D. 39). According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Machaerus was the scene of the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist. Another account of John’s imprisonment and death is found in Matt. 14:3-12 and Mark 6:17-29.”

Herod was moved to this because of Herodias, an ambitious woman who was his second wife. Herod had first married a daughter of the Arabian king, Aretas IV. Then he became enamored with his half-niece Herodias (daughter of his half-brother, Aristobulus) who was married to Herod’s half-brother (brother includes also half-brother) Philip (her half-uncle; cf. Josephus The Antiquities of the Jews 18:5:1-2). They had a daughter, Salome. Herod divorced his wife in order to marry Herodias who had divorced Philip. John had repeatedly denounced this marriage as unlawful.

Josephus 18:5:1 reads: “About this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petrea) and Herod had a quarrel, on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Simon’s daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome; one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter. So Antipas, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place on the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived anything; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father, and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas’s army and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod’s intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and, when they had joined battle, all Herod’s army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas’s army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius; who, being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius, to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head.  This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.”

As ordinary people we tend to view John’s death as a tragedy, but we need to remind ourselves that death is not punishment for one of Yahweh’s children, but a release from an imperfect life transferring to life eternal. It is but the door to an unending presence with our majestic Almighty. John’s death graphically illustrates Matt. 10:39. You may find Josephus’ comment on Herod executing John the Baptist interesting; it attests the historicity of the gospel record, and is also independent testimony of the veneration in which John was held by the common man.

Josephus thus gives us the background for this episode. It took place at Herod’s palace in Machaerus, in Perea, east of the Dead Sea. The long journey John’s disciples made to carry the news to Yahshua in Galilee makes it clear that they saw a significant connection between John the Baptist and Yahshua the Christ. It is remarkable how much more we can comprehend Mark 6:17-18 once we have the testimony of Josephus!

JOSEPHUS WRAPS UP ACTS 23:2-3

 

To see how Josephus finishes the story of Acts 23:2-3, it will be necessary first to read the passage: “And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”

The high priest commanded, “smite him on the mouth” – a method of silencing a speaker common in the East to this day. But for a judge thus to treat a prisoner on his “trial,” for merely introducing his defense by a protestation of his integrity, was infamous.

“Yahweh shall smite thee” – as indeed He did; for he was killed by an assassin during the Jewish war, Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, 2:17:9. The epithet  “thou whited wall” – that is, hypocrite (Matt. 23:27). This epithet, however correctly describing the man, must not be defended as addressed to a judge, though the remonstrance which follows – “for sittest thou,” &c. – ought to have put him to shame. Thus, Josephus confirms justice to Paul at Wars 2:17:9:

“But on the next day the high priest was caught where he had concealed himself in an aqueduct; he was slain, together with Hezekiah his brother, by the robbers: hereupon the seditious besieged the towers, and kept them guarded, lest any one of the soldiers should escape. Now the overthrow of the places of strength, and the death of the high priest Ananias, so puffed up Manahem, that he became barbarously cruel; and, as he thought he had no antagonists to dispute the management of affairs with him, he was no better than an insupportable tyrant; but Eleazar and his party, when words had passed between them, how it was not proper when they revolted from the Romans, out of the desire of liberty, to betray that liberty to any of their own people, and to bear a lord, who, though he should be guilty of no violence, was yet meaner than themselves; as also, that, in case they were obliged to set someone over their public affairs, it was fitter they should give that privilege to anyone rather than to him, they made an assault upon him in the temple; for he went up thither to worship in a pompous manner, and adorned with royal garments, and had his followers with him in their armor. But Eleazar and his party fell violently upon him, as did also the rest of the people, and taking up stones to attack him withal, they threw them at the so[p]hister, and thought that if he were once ruined, the entire sedition would fall to the ground. Now Manahem and his party made resistance for a while; but when they perceived that the whole multitude were falling upon them, they fled which was [sic. way] every one was able; those that were caught were slain, and those that hid themselves were searched for. A few there were of them who privately escaped to Masada, among whom was Eleazar, the son of Jarius, who was of kin to Manahem, and acted the part of a tyrant at Masada afterward. As for Manahem himself, he ran away to the place called Ophla, and there lay skulking in private; but they took him alive, and drew him out before them all; they then tortured him with many sorts of torments, and after all slew him, as they did by those that were captains under him also, and particularly by the principle instrument of his tyranny, whose name was Apsalom.”

Maybe it would be advisable to take a lesson from this, and think twice before we bash Paul! Is not condemning the “chosen vessel” Paul’s ministry, a smiting of his mouth? In censuring Paul, are we not damning similar judgment upon ourselves to that of Ananias? In Paul’s rebuke to Ananias, Paul was identifying him as the “seed of the serpent”! We can be quite sure of that, as Ananias was among those who were tread upon by ... [the Romans]; for as Josephus explains, Ananias was slain by “robbers”, not the Romans. Read Wars 2:17:8 for the identity – in part of the robbers.) Paul, in addressing the Romans at 16:20 said, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your (Roman) feet shortly.” Hence, in Paul’s day the Romans were of the “woman’s seed”, or true Israelites, and the bruising of Satan was the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., for which Josephus’ Wars give a graphic blow by blow account.

Of my many commentaries, none, except one links Romans 16:20 to Genesis 3:15. In his commentary entitled Barnes’ Notes, which consists of 14 volumes taking up 24 inches of shelf-space, in the volume Acts-Romans, page 331,  Albert Barnes comments thusly:

“20. And the God of peace. The God who promotes peace; chap, xv. 33. ¶ Will bruise. The language here refers to the prediction in Gen. iii. 15. It here means to subdue, to gain the victory over. It denotes Paul’s confidence that they would gain the victory, and would be able to overcome all the arts of those who were endeavouring to sow discord and contention among them. ¶ Satan. The word Satan is Hebrew, meaning originally an accuser, a calumniator, and then an enemy.”

We must, at least, give Barnes credit for making the connection, but neither his nor the other commentaries I have, link Paul’s prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus in 70 A.D. Surely if the bruising “of his (Christ’s) heel” was the crucifixion of the Christ, then without question the bruising of “thy (the serpent’s) head” must also be physical in nature!

Paul also, in his rebuke to Ananias used the same metaphor as Christ used, “thou whited wall”, at Matthew 23:27: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.” Here the “dead bones” and “uncleanness” depict spiritless racial impurity.

 

OTHER HISTORIANS OF THE PERIOD ARE ALL BUT MUTE

 

I would like to demonstrate how little history we would have had we not the testimony of Josephus. Philip Shaff in his History Of The Christian Church, chapter 2 on Jesus Christ, #14 “Sources of Literature”, section V, says the following:

“Roman authors of the 1st and 2nd centuries make only brief and incidental mention of Christ as the founder of the Christian religion, and of his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus, Annales, I. xv. cap. 44, notices him in connection with his account of the conflagration at Rome and the Neronian persecution, in the words: ‘Auctor nominis ejus [Christiani] Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat,’ and calls the Christian religion an exitiabilis superstitio. Compare his equally contemptuous misrepresentation of the Jews in Hist., v. c. 3–5. Other notices are found in Suetonius: Vita Claudii, c. 25; Vita Neronis, c. 16; Plinius, jun.: Epist., X. 97, 98; Lucian: De morte Peregr., c. 11; Lampridius: Vita Alexandri Severi, c. 29, 43.”

It should be quite clear from this, if we didn’t have Josephus, our sources would be quite meager. Therefore it is downright preposterous to discard the witness of Josephus as if his works were merely trash. We could probably put everything these other sources cite on about five average book pages! With only that skimpy amount of historic fact, how can we ever expect our young people to have any confidence in Christianity in any way, shape or manner? Let’s get real! As far as I’m concerned, every home should have a copy of Josephus within arm’s reach of their Bible.

It is my opinion that if Josephus knew about John the Baptist, he also was aware of the existence of Christ, though Josephus was not born until 37 A.D., five years after Christ’s death and resurrection. There may be many condemning both Paul and Josephus because they were members of the Pharisee sect. The Pharisees, Sadduccees, and Essenes were the political parties of that day. Of these three, the Pharisees and Sadduccees were under the influence of the Cain-Edomite-Canaanite-Jews. Today, we have these same Cain-Edomite-Canaanite-Jews running our Democratic and Republican parties here in America. If one has ever voted for a Democratic or Republican candidate, he has no room to condemn Paul or Josephus for having been of the Pharisee political party, equivalent to our “Jewish” run political parties in America today! Maybe it would be advisable to remove the “beam” in our own eye before we try removing the “mote” in Paul’s or Josephus’ eyes! The only party of that day that refused membership to non-Israelites were the Essenes, and for a while, Josephus was joined with them. Had not Josephus been a pureblooded Israelite, the Essenes would not have allowed him to be in their company! Many who are condemning Paul and Josephus today, had they lived during Christ’s time, would have been right in there joining the Pharisees, because it was the popular thing to do. Anyone who has ever voted Democratic or Republican would also vote for the Pharisees. I personally regret the first time I ever went to the polls in 1948 when, in ignorance, I voted for the Pharisee, Harry Truman! So, it should be obvious that we are no better than Paul or Josephus when it comes to joining political parties!

 

DEAD SEA SCROLLS JUSTIFY JOSEPHUS’

TRANSLATION OF 1 SAMUEL 9:27-11:1

 

To see this we will go to The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament, by H. P. Scanlin, 1993 Tyndale House Publishers: Wheaton, Ill:

“Recent translations of 1 Samuel have diverged widely in their willingness to depart from the Masoretic Text. This is not only a matter of the degree of confidence the translation committees held towards the Masoretic Text, but also reflects the complex state of the text of 1 Samuel in its variety of forms during the period of the emergence of the stage-two text. Put one way, it may be claimed that the text of 1 Samuel has suffered greatly in transmission; or one may conclude that two editions of 1 Samuel existed in antiquity and that the degree of admixture between these editions may be seen in the extant forms of the text. A translation such as the New International Version, with only fifteen Masoretic Text departures in 1 Samuel, demonstrates its reverence for the Masoretic Text. At the other end of the scale, the New American Bible departs about 230 times, many departures being based on the Qumran evidence and its frequent support of LXX (Septuagint) readings. The departures from the Masoretic Text in 1 Samuel in the following translations provide a full picture: New International Version: 15; Today’s English Version: 51; Revised Standard Version: about 60; New Revised Standard Version: about 110; New English Bible: 160; New American Bible: 230. Statistics on earlier translations are taken from Albrektson (1981:17).

“In the account of the early achievements of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:27–11:1 (anointing, proclamation as king, military accomplishments), there are a number of significant pluses in the Old Greek that add certain details which generally reinforce a positive view of Saul’s kingship. In 10:1, Samuel prophesies that Saul will save Israel from their enemies. And 10:21 describes the selection process in greater detail than the Masoretic Text by saying that the men of the Matrite family were brought forth one by one, reinforcing the point that a man-by-man search for the chosen king was carried out to no avail, since Saul was hiding. The final major plus (10:27) offers a full explanation of the gravity of the threat by Nahash, king of the Ammonites. Any Israelite who crossed the Jordan into Ammonite territory had his right eye gouged out, and Israel had ‘no deliverer.’ Thus Saul’s courage and military prowess would be recognized as a particularly notable achievement and a specific fulfillment of Samuel’s promise in 10:1 (Old Greek) that Saul will save Israel from the hand of their enemies. The addition to 10:27 is not attested in the Old Greek, but is found in 4QSam^a, as well as in Josephus’s Antiquities (6.5.1), where Josephus offers the further explanation that gouging out only the right eye was sufficient to disable a warrior, since his shield would cover the left eye anyway.

“If the addition to 10:1 is considered a gloss, then the balance of the related textual problems would favor the Masoretic Text, which is precisely the decision made by the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. However, if one accepts the Old Greek reading of 10:1 (as in Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, and New English Bible), then the fuller 10:21 and the different form of the question in 10:22, which is more appropriate in light of the fuller 10:21, follow. Since the fuller 10:27 was poorly attested in external evidence (primarily Josephus) prior to the Qumran discovery, it is not surprising that Revised Standard Version did not add it. However, New American Bible ventures a footnote, ‘There is ancient evidence for a longer introduction to this campaign,’ and cite 4QSam^a in their ‘Textual Notes,’ published in some editions. New Revised Standard Version now places the extra material in the text, completing the process of accepting the Old Greek version of the narrative, with an attested Hebrew Vorlage for at least one of the additions. One should keep in mind that the Qumran evidence in this section is fragmentary. Nothing is known about its witness to the text of the earlier section of the narrative. This may be construed as an admittedly weak ex silentio argument in favor of the Old Greek/Qumran version. But it must be remembered that a comparison of all extant sections of 4QSam^a shows that it is not consistent in its preference for the Old Greek (Tov: 1980).”

To see how Josephus renders this passage we will now go to Antiquities 6:5:1:

“1. After one month, the war which Saul had with Nahash, the king of the Ammonites, obtained him respect from all the people; for this Nahash had done a great deal of mischief to the Jews [sic. Israelites] that lived beyond Jordan by the expedition he had made against them with a great and warlike army. He also reduced their cities into slavery, and that not only by subduing them for the present, which he did by force and violence, but by weakening them by subtilty and cunning that they might not be able afterward to get clear of the slavery they were under to him: for he put out the right eyes of those that either delivered themselves to him upon terms, or were taken by him in war; and this he did, that when their left eyes were covered by their shields, they might be wholly useless in war. Now when the king of the Ammonites had served those beyond Jordan in this manner, he led his army against those that were called Gileadites; and having pitched his camp at the metropolis of his enemies, which was the city of Jabesh, he sent ambassadors to them, commanding them either to deliver themselves up, on condition to have their right eyes plucked out, or to undergo a siege, and to have their cities overthrown. He gave them their choice, Whether they would cut off a small member of their body, or universally perish. However, the Gileadites were so affrighted at these offers, that they had not courage to say anything to either of them, neither that they would deliver themselves up, nor that they would fight him; but they desired that he would give them seven days respite, that they might send ambassadors to their countrymen, and entreat their assistance; and if they came to assist them they would fight; but if that assistance were impossible to be obtained from them, they said they would deliver themselves up to suffer whatever he pleased to inflict upon them.”

 

? WHAT DOES ALL THIS VARIATION IN TRANSLATION PROVE ?

 

Some might say: “Well, this is only a minor variation in translation, and doesn’t really effect the overall picture.” THAT’S NOT THE POINT! The main point is that we don’t throw away any evidence! We should take into consideration the Masoretic text; the Septuagint; the Samaritan text; the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Aramaic Targums; the Apocrypha and surely Josephus! Where these read alike, or in context agree, there shouldn’t be a lot of alarm, but when they read differently it should wave a red-flag at us, so we can look more deeply into the discrepancies. We are blessed today with more Scriptural evidence than anytime in history, and we have no excuse for not using it to its fullest! In addition to that, we now have the witness of archaeology to verify many things that are written in Scripture. In addition to all this evidence, we have the evidence of history, which if we understand the historical interpretation of prophecy, we can place all this history side-by-side with our Bible and everything will fit in its proper place. The bottom line is: We should thank the Almighty Yahweh for the witness of Josephus!

This is my eighty-fifth monthly teaching letter and begins my eighth year of publication. As of this date (4-9-05), Eugene (Buddy) Johnson has not repented of his blasphemous false teachings claiming that our Savior came from the Tribe of Ephraim rather than Judah, though this ministry has shown ample evidence of Johnson’s error and shared that evidence with him. Johnson further claims that Tamar (Judah’s intended daughter-in-law with whom he fathered the twins, Pharez and Zarah) was a Canaanite. I sent Johnson, nearly 10 years ago, a photocopy of The Book Of Jasher, chapter 45, verse 23 proving that Tamar was of the House of Shem, yet he continues to make that same charge that all the descendants of Judah and Tamar are “Canaanite-Jews.” Since the Germans, Scots and Irish are direct descendants of Judah and Tamar (of which I am all three), Johnson strongly intimates that I am a Canaanite! Therefore, all of you who have German or Scottish or Irish lineage; Johnson is also claiming you are a Canaanite. I thought you ought to know this before you send him some of your hard-earned-money to promote his lies. Probably 95% of Johnson’s followers have German or Scottish or Irish blood and it is amazing to me why anyone would continue to take the time to listen to Johnson continue to blaspheme their lineage, as well as the lineage of Yahshua Christ Himself!

Over the last several lessons we have been determining the value of the writings of Herodotus and Josephus. According to some, we should relegate these histories to an infamy of the utmost degree. Some would have us believe that the evidence testified to by these two witnesses should be cast into the flame. While we are in the process of burning all the histories of Herodotus and Josephus, we will also have to burn all the writings of Eusebius’ The Church History, for Eusebius depends on Josephus as a foundation for his church history which covers the period from the time of Christ until the early 300rds A.D. Once we start this enterprise of book-burning, it appears there will be no end to our endeavor to destroy. I am not saying that Herodotus, Josephus or Eusebius were perfect, but who else do we have to support Scripture at these critical periods of time? There are some in Israel Identity who claim to be of the highest Biblical authority, who have never so much as cracked, nor do they own, one of these three men’s histories. All three of these histories could probably be purchased for less than $100, so there are few who have an excuse for not procuring, and then seriously studying them!

To get started with this lesson, I will take an excerpt from Paul L. Maier’s translation of Eusebius’ The Church History where he describes Eusebius’ sources on page 131:

“As it happened, however, it is most fortunate that Eusebius did quote his sources extensively, since many of them have been lost and would not have survived, even in fragments, had Eusebius not incorporated them into his history. This is not true for Josephus, whom we have virtually intact, or for some of the works of the two Clements, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, or Tertullian. But it is true for the important testimony of Papias, Quadratus, Melito, Hegesippus, Rhodo, Apolinarius, and other early authors, as well as for important edicts and documents that would otherwise have been lost.

“Contemporary readers may recoil at Eusebius’s repeated references to God’s punishing the Jews with the destruction of Jerusalem for their ‘crime against Christ.’ Unfortunately, this opinion was rather typical of early Christian polemic in the struggle between church and synagogue, and Eusebius is more restrained in this respect than some other writers of his day. If many of the early Christian writers were anti-Judaic, it is equally true that many early Jewish writers were anti-Christian, and Jews in some localities helped incite persecution against the Christians. This, of course, is not to defend excesses and intolerance on either side.”

I’m contemporary with today’s readers, and I do not “recoil” in the least at Eusebius’ “repeated references to God’s punishing the Jews” nor he being “anti-Judaic.” There’s one thing about it, if Josephus were a bad fig “Jew” as some claim, Eusebius would never have quoted him in his church history as he did; he wouldn’t have given Josephus the time of the day!

On page 89, Paul L. Maier, under the heading “Eusebius On The Apostles”, comments thusly:

“With the book of Acts as his basis, Eusebius nicely supplements the New Testament account with extrabiblical material from Josephus, Philo, Clement, Tertullian, Hegesippus, and others. His reliance on Josephus is confessed and understandable, a practice widely shared by early Christian writers and probably a reason that Josephus has survived across the centuries through recopied manuscripts when other historians were irretrievably lost.”

To get some idea concerning the background of Eusebius, I will quote from the Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia:

“Eusebius of Caesarea (260?-340?), theologian, church historian, and scholar, probably born in Palestine. Called Eusebius Pamphili, he took the name Pamphili from his friend and teacher Pamphilus of Caesarea, whose extensive library furnished much of the historical materials for Eusebius’s later literary work. Eusebius also collaborated with Pamphilus on an edition of the Septuagint from the text in the Hexapla of the early Christian writer Origen, and in the preparation of an apology (five books, now lost) for Origen’s teachings. After the martyrdom of Pamphilus, Eusebius left Caesarea for Tyre. He subsequently fled Tyre during the persecutions of Christians at the beginning of the 4th century, presumably only to be imprisoned on his arrival in Egypt. After 310 the persecutions ceased, and he was released.

“About 314 he became bishop of Caesarea. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 Eusebius delivered the opening address and was made the leader of the Semi-Arians, the moderate party, who were averse to discussing the nature of the Trinity and preferred the simple language of the Scriptures to the subtleties of metaphysical distinctions. At Nicaea he accepted the Athanasian position, although he showed Arian leanings at the synods of Antioch (324) and Tyre (335). Eusebius stood in high favor with Constantine the Great, emperor of Rome, and was one of the most learned men of his time.

“Apart from his historical writings, Eusebius was responsible for the Eusebian Canons, a system of cross-references to the Gospels employed in many biblical manuscripts. Eusebius edited or improved the work of the 3rd-century Alexandrian theologian Ammonius by dividing the Gospel of Matthew into 355 sections, Mark into 236, Luke into 342, and John into 232, the number of each of these so-called Ammonian Sections being written on the margin of the text. Because of the similarity of matter, many sections of one Gospel were nearly identical with other sections of one or more of the other Gospels. For convenience of reference, Eusebius constructed ten clarifying tables or lists. Eusebius was a prolific writer, producing mostly apologetics, but also a history of the world until 303 and a history of the Christian church until 324.”

To get another glimpse of this historian named Eusebius, we will use an excerpt from a translation of The History Of The Church put out by Penguin Books, translated by G. A. Williamson, in the introduction on pages xvi-xvii:

“The rest of Eusebius’ works are biblical and doctrinal. He preserved the interest that he had shared with Pamphilus in preparing a reliable text of the Scriptures. When Constantine’s new city of Constantinople needed copies of the Bible for use in celebrating the liturgy in its many new churches, the Emperor wrote to Eusebius asking him to provide fifty copies of the Bible, well written and easy to read. Eusebius also wrote commentaries on the Psalms and Isaiah, works on problems posed by the Scriptures – the polygamy of the Patriarchs, the conflicting accounts of the Resurrection in the Gospels – and his ‘Gospel Canons’, which enabled one to locate and compare parallel passages in the four Gospels. He wrote a work (much of which is lost) on the significance of the Easter festival in relation to the Jewish Passover (it is worth noting, in passing, that Greek uses one word – pascha – where we use two – Easter and Passover – and so naturally associates Christian Easter and Jewish Passover, where we tend to separate them) and a work, usually called the Onomasticon, which is a gazetteer of biblical sites and is still today the most important source for the topography of the Holy Land. His doctrinal works include his part in the Defence of Origen, the last book of which Eusebius wrote himself after the death of Pamphilus, and two late works (Against Marcellus and the Ecclesiastical Theology) against bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, a supporter of Nicaea who was deposed by an Arian synod in Constantinople in 336 and whom the Arian party (including Eusebius) accused of Sabellianism.

“Alongside all this literary work, Eusebius was for some twenty-five years or so bishop of the busy provincial city of Caesarea, and, as bishop of that see, metropolitan bishop of Palestine. We have no idea what kind of a bishop he was, but it seems unlikely that one so attached to Caesarea would have been neglectful of his pastoral charge. His declining to leave Caesarea to become bishop of the much more prestigious see of Antioch c. 327 cannot, however, be used as evidence of his affection for Caesarea, as it was clearly the Emperor’s wish that he should not accept the see of Antioch. But he stayed at Caesarea until he died and one may presume anyway that he would have been reluctant to leave the library there.

“This survey of Eusebius’ works has manifested Eusebius the scholar, delighting in his extensive erudition and keen to put this erudition to use: helping the growing numbers of pilgrims to the Holy Land, helping Christians to understand the Scriptures, and indeed have access to reliable texts of the Scriptures, and placing on a sound, scholarly basis the credentials of the religion of the Incarnation. All these concerns were focused in what is without doubt his greatest work: The History of the Church.”

Those in Israel Identity will already detect where Eusebius was drifting away from Biblical teachings by the time of the 300rds A.D. As I said, he was not perfect, but in spite of that we need very much the witness of his history. On the other hand, we must give Eusebius credit where credit is due. Can anyone imagine the toil required for producing fifty entirely handwritten Bibles? One must remember that this was nearly 200 years before Justinian I, emperor of the eastern Roman Empire, who set up the power of the papacy which would later restrict the Bible from the common people. One must remember, too, Eusebius gave little history of the Celtic Church set up by Joseph of Arimathaea at Glastonbury in Britain: which was a better model of the true Church which would last for over a thousand years before being sold out to the Church of Rome. What we are looking for in the History Of The Church by Eusebius is the critical history which occurred between the time of Christ and that of Constantine. As Eusebius was seriously aware, it was imperative to lay the foundation for that history with the records already written down by Josephus, and that he did.

 

EUSEBIUS USES JOSEPHUS TO DATE CHRIST’S APPEARANCE

 

For this we will quote again from The History Of The Church put out by Penguin Books, translated by G. A. Williamson, pages 17-18:

“The date of Christ’s appearance to men: 5. So now, after this necessary introduction to my proposed History of the Church, let me begin my journey with the appearance of our Saviour in the flesh, first calling on God, the Father of the Word, and Jesus Christ Himself of whom I am speaking, our Saviour, the heavenly Word of God, to be my helper and coworker in producing a truthful record.

“It was the forty-second year of Augustus’s reign, and the twenty-eighth after the subjugation of Egypt and the deaths of Antony and Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, when our Saviour and Lord, Jesus Christ, at the time of the first registration, while Quirinius was governor of Syria, in accordance with the prophecies about Him, was born in Bethlehem, in Judaea. This registration in Quirinius’ time is mentioned also by the most famous of Hebrew historians, Flavius Josephus, who gives in addition an account of the Galilean sect which appeared on the scene at the same period, and to which our own Luke refers in the Acts:

“‘After him came the rising of Judas the Galilean at the time of the registration. He persuaded a number of people to revolt under his leadership; but he too perished, and all his followers were dispersed.’

“This statement is supported by the historian referred to above, in Antiquities Book XVIII:

“‘Quirinius, a member of the senate who had filled the minor offices and passed through them all to become consul, and in other ways was a man of great distinction, arrived with a few officials in Syria. He had been sent by Caesar to be supreme judge of the nation and to assess the value of their property ... Judas, a Gaulonite from a city called Gamala, took Zadok, a Pharisee, with him and instigated a revolt. They alleged that the valuation would lead to nothing but complete slavery, and summoned the nation to the defence of their freedom.’

“And in the History of the Jewish War, Book II, he writes this about the same man:

“‘In his time a Galilean named Judas tried to stir the natives to revolt, saying that they would be cowards if they submitted to paying taxes to the Romans, and after serving God accepted human masters’.”

It should be obvious how much more clear all this evidence is in helping us to better understand our Bible. I will now quote again from The History Of The Church put out by Penguin Books, translated by G. A. Williamson, pages 26-27 where Eusebius, with the help of Josephus, dates the period of time that Pilate ruled Judaea:

“Pilate’s date; high priests at the time of Christ’s mission: 9. The accession to power of Archelaus after Herod is confirmed by Josephus, who describes how in accordance with the will of Herod his father and the decision of Caesar Augustus he succeeded to the Judaean kingdom; and how after his fall from power ten years later his brothers Philip and the younger Herod, together with Lysanias, continued to rule their tetrarchies.

“In Antiquities Book XVIII, the same writer informs us that in the twelfth year of Tiberius, who had mounted the imperial throne after the fifty-seven-year reign of Augustus, Judaea was entrusted to Pontius Pilate, and that Pilate remained there ten years, almost till Tiberius’s death. This clearly proves the forged character of the Memoranda so recently published, blackening our Saviour; at the very start the note of time proves the dishonesty of the forgers. If they are to be believed the crime of the Saviour’s Passion must be referred to Tiberius’s fourth consulship, i.e. the seventh year of his reign, but at that time it is clear that Pilate was not yet in charge of Judaea, if we may accept the testimony of Josephus, who explicitly declares, in the passage already quoted, that it was in the twelfth year of his reign that Tiberius appointed Pilate procurator of Judaea.

“10. In their time, when, according to the evangelist, Tiberius Caesar was in the fifteenth year of his reign and Pontius Pilate in the fourth of his governorship, and Herod, Lysanias, and Philip were tetrarchs of the rest of Judaea, our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, beginning His mission at the age of about thirty, came to John’s baptism and then and there set to work preaching the gospel. Holy Scripture further tells us that He completed the whole period of His teaching when Annas and Caiaphas were high priest, showing that the years covering their ministry include the whole period of His teaching. Since, then, He began His mission in the high priesthood of Annas and continued till the reign of Caiaphas, the period covered does not stretch to four complete years. For, at that time the ordinances of the Law were already obsolescent and the rule was no longer operative under which the duties of God’s service were hereditary and lasted for life; the Roman governors bestowed the high priesthood first on one, then on another, and the office was held for not more than a single year. In fact, Josephus records that after Annas there were four successive high priests, Caiaphas being the last. I quote from the book of Antiquities:

“‘Valerius Gratus, after depriving Ananus of the priesthood, appointed as high priest Ishmael son of Phabi; but a little later he removed him and nominated as high priest Eleazar, son of the high priest Ananus. When a year had gone by he removed him in turn and transferred the high priesthood to Simon son of Camithus. He too remained in office no more than a year: he was succeeded by Joseph, also known as Caiaphas.’

“Thus the whole period of our Saviour’s teaching is shown to be actually less than four complete years, four high priests in four years, from Annas to the appointment of Caiaphas, having held office for a twelvemonth. Naturally, the gospel narrative named Caiaphas as high priest in the year in which the events of our Saviour’s Passion were enacted; it also shows that the period of Christ’s teaching harmonizes with the foregoing line of inquiry.

“Not very long after the start of His preaching our Saviour and Lord called the twelve apostles, to whom alone of all His disciples He gave, as a special privilege, the name of apostles. Furthermore, He appointed seventy others; these, too, He sent out two and two ahead of Him to every town or place to which He Himself intended to come.”

Here we have Eusebius with the help of Josephus identifying the religious and political climate which surrounded the ministry and Passion of Christ. Yet there are those who would put all this information to the flame. I would highly suggest that badmouthing Herodotus, Josephus and Eusebius is equivalent to book-burning! I will now quote a passage from Paul L. Maier’s translation of Eusebius’ The Church History where Eusebius describes the fulfillment of Yahshua’s prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple at Matthew 24, on pages 100-103:

“Jesus’ Predictions: 7. Such was the reward for the guilt and impiety of the JewAfter him came the rising of Judas the Galilean at the time of the registration. He persuaded a number of people to revolt under his leadership; but he too perished, and all his followers were disperseds against the Christ of God. It is worth appending to it the infallible prediction of our Savior regarding these very things in this prophecy:

“‘Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been seen from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be [Matt. 24:19-21].’

“In estimating the total number of lives lost, the historian [Josephus] says that 1.1 million died by famine and the sword, that the partisans and terrorists informed against each other after the city’s capture and were executed, and that the tallest and handsomest of the youths were saved for the triumphal parade. Of the rest, those over seventeen were sent as prisoners to hard labor in Egypt, and even more were divided among the provinces to be killed in the theaters by sword or wild beasts. Those under seventeen were sold into slavery, and the number of these alone was ninety thousand.

“This all happened in the second year of Vespasian’s reign in accordance with the prophecies of Christ, who foresaw them, by divine power, as if already present and wept over them. The holy Evangelist adds his [Christ’s] actual words to Jerusalem herself:

“‘If you even today would recognize the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. Indeed, the days will come upon you when your enemies will set up ramparts around you and surround you and hem you in on every side. They will crush you to the ground, you and your children within you [Luke 19:42-44].’

“On another occasion, he said: ‘For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled [Luke 21:23-24].’

“And again: ‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near [Luke 21:20].’

“Anyone comparing our Savior’s words with the rest of the historian’s record of the war cannot fail to be astonished or to confess the divine character of the Savior’s prediction.

“As to what happened to the whole nation after the Savior’s passion and the mob’s begging the release of the robber-murderer and the removal of the author of life, there is no need to add to the records. But it would be right to add facts that showed the kindness of a gracious Providence in delaying the destruction of the Jews for forty years after their crime against Christ. All that time, most of the apostles, including the first bishop, James himself, called the Lord’s brother, were still alive, and their remaining in the city provided powerful protection for the place. For God was still patient, hoping that they might finally repent of their misdeeds and find pardon and salvation, but also sending miraculous warnings of what would happen if they failed to repent.

“8. Josephus notes this in the sixth book of The Jewish War: Impostors and false prophets deluded the pitiable people, who, as if moonstruck, blind, and senseless, paid no attention to God’s clear portents and warnings of the approaching desolation. A star stood over the city like a sword, and a comet that lasted for a year. Then, prior to the war, when the people had gathered for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the eighth of Xanthicus at 3 A.M., a light shined on the temple and the altar so brightly that it seemed to be midday, and this lasted for a half hour. To the inexperienced this seemed a good omen, but the sacred scribes gave the true interpretation. During the same feast a cow brought for sacrifice by the high priest gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the temple, and at midnight the eastern gate of the inner sanctuary opened itself – a gate of bronze fastened by iron bars and secured by long bolts so massive that twenty men were required to shut it each evening.

“Not long after the feast, on the twenty-first of Artemisius, a demonic apparition of incredible size was seen. It would have seemed a fairy tale had it not been attested by eyewitnesses and followed by disasters that corresponded to the omens. Before sunset there appeared in the sky over the whole land chariots and armed forces speeding through the clouds and surrounding the cities. And at the Feast of Pentecost, when the priests entered the temple at night for their usual ceremonies, they heard a disturbance, a loud crash, and then a thunderous cry, ‘Let us leave this place!’

“Something even more alarming took place four years before the war, during a time of peace and prosperity. A common peasant, Jesus son of Ananias, came to the Feast of Tabernacles, stood in the temple courts, and suddenly shouted: ‘A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against all the people!’ Night and day he went through the narrow streets with this cry. Some of the prominent townspeople, enraged at these ominous words, seized the fellow and lashed him savagely. However, he uttered not a word in his own defense but persisted in shouting the same thing. The authorities, assuming correctly that the man’s conduct was inspired by something supernatural, brought him before the Roman governor [Albinus]. There, though he was scourged to the bone, he uttered no plea for mercy and shed no tear, but straining his voice to the utmost, he wailed with each blow, ‘Woe! Woe to Jerusalem!’

“The same writer tells an even more remarkable story in which he claims that an oracle was found in their sacred writings predicting that a man from their land would at that time rule the whole world, and the historian himself thought this was fulfilled in Vespasian. But he did not reign over the whole world, only that part under Roman control, and it would more justifiably be applied to Christ, to whom the Father had said, ‘Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession’ [Ps. 2:8]. And it was by his holy apostles at that very time that ‘their voice went through all the earth and their words to the end of the world’ [Ps. 19:4].”

You can plainly see from this that Eusebius understood that Yahshua’s prophecy at Matthew 24 was the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem and was not 2000 years in the future, as futurists claim, but imminent at Christ’s time. In December of 2000, I had prepared a brochure on this but I was rebuffed even by those in Israel Identity, so I put the article on hold until a more appropriate time. With Eusebius’ help here, that time has come, and I entitle it as follows:

 

DEATH OF A KINGDOM & REBIRTH OF ANOTHER

 

You may be wondering: Why the above title? As you will see later, the words are well chosen. It is a subject where, for a lack of thorough study, many find themselves completely bewildered. To study the New Testament without first mastering the content of the Old Testament is like building a house without a foundation. So it is with the topic we are about to take under consideration. The “Death Of A Kingdom & Rebirth Of Another” is a New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. Because of men’s fanciful reasoning, and without being thoroughly established in the whole Word, it is simply amazing the baseless doctrines which have been concocted with the 24th chapter of Matthew. It is the objective here, once we have exhaustively examined this passage, we will never again have any misgivings concerning this and related Scripture. The premise for the 24th chapter of Matthew is laid in the passages as follows:

Jeremiah 26:18: “Micah the Morasthite prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts; Zion shall be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.” (Covered with trees instead of houses.)

Micah 3:12: “Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest.”

You may be wondering: What do these two verses have to do with Matthew 24, anyway? To show the significance, I will present a running, verse-by-verse, commentary of this chapter. Before we get started, though, we need to take under advisement three different views of prophecy: (1) Futurists, who project all prophecy into the future, (2) Praeterists who claim all prophecy was fulfilled by 70 A.D., and, (3) Historicists, who see prophecy as a continuing unfolding panorama. Upon the first Bibles being circulated during the Reformation, many saw the Roman Church as anti-Christ. To avoid the heat, one Jesuit priest projected prophecy forward and another Jesuit priest projected it into the past. The “Futurists” hold that the last week of Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy was never fulfilled; they chop it off the other 69 weeks and propel it 2000 years in the future when they predict (1) a “rapture”, and then, (2) either a three and a half or a seven year period of tribulation representing Daniel’s 70th week. We need to know all this because these various opinions affect the interpretations of Matthew 24.

I will continue this article, which I wrote back in December of 2000, in the next lesson. When finished, we’ll see how important it is to have the witness of Josephus and Eusebius!

This is my eighty-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. In the last lesson, I demonstrated how Eusebius highly respected the histories written by Josephus and used them extensively. Toward the end of the last lesson we saw how Eusebius understood that Yahshua’s prophecy at Matthew 24 was of the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem and was not 2000 years in the future, as futurists claim, but imminent at His own time. In December of 2000, I had prepared a brochure on this, but I was rebuffed even by those in Israel Identity, so I put the article on hold until a more appropriate time. With Eusebius’ help in the last lesson, that time has come! I presented the first four paragraphs at the end of lesson #85, showing prophecy that Jerusalem would be plowed like a field at Jeremiah 26:18 and Micah 3:12, and it happened in 70 A.D. with Titus. Let’s now continue where we left off:

 

MATTHEW 24; MARK 13; LUKE 21

 

The passages cited above predict the utter destruction of the Temple and city of Jerusalem. This portion of Scripture represents a monumental turning point in history, as it brought to the fore the opposing forces of light and darkness. The Messiah voiced His utter disgust in loathing words against the “Jewish” hierarchy. With a language of awesome severity, He denounced their hypocrisy. Truly the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent of Genesis 3:15 were in mortal combat at that time. This passage of Scripture is referred to as the “Olivet Discourse.” For this presentation, I will be drawing material from about nine Bible commentaries for which space will not allow designation:

Matthew 24:1: “And Yahshua went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.” Yahshua had completed His work in the Temple, never to return again, and His Glory departed with Him as it had with Solomon’s Temple before its destruction by the Babylonians. He had just placed a curse on the “Jewish” nation by cursing a fig tree that it should never again bear fruit, Matthew 21:19; Mark 11:14. The fig tree represented the “Jews” as having a profession, but bearing no fruit. The “Jews” say the Temple was built of white and green-spotted marble. Josephus says the stones were white and strong; fifty feet long, twenty-four broad, and sixteen thick, Josephus Antiq. 15:11:3.

Matthew 24:2: “And Yahshua said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” These are probably the last words spoken as He left the Temple. This part of Yahshua’s prediction was fulfilled in a most literal manner. Josephus says, Wars 7:1:1, “Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the whole city and temple, except the three towers, Phaselus, Hippicus, and Mariamne, and a part of the western wall, and these were spared; but, for all the rest of the wall, it was laid so completely even with the ground, by those who dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.” So utterly destroyed was the Temple, Titus, the Roman emperor, taking Jerusalem, about forty years after this prediction, commanded his soldiers to spare the Temple when they entered the city, but they in their rage burnt of it what was of a combustible nature; and Turnus Rufus, [who was] left general of his army when away, drew a plough over it, as Yahweh had said, Jeremiah 26:18; Micah 3:12, as quoted in the first lesson, “Zion shall be plowed like a field.” And when after this Alippius, by the command of Julian the apostate, attempted the rebuilding of it, with the help of the “Jews”, it is reported by divers, that balls or globes of fire rose up from the foundations, destroyed many of the workmen, and made the place inaccessible for any further such attempts. Titus tried unsuccessfully to save the Temple, but his soldiers put it to the torch, thus fulfilling Yahshua’s prophecy. When the fire melted the gold trim, the molten metal ran down between the stones. To get it, the soldiers had removed the stones one by one, just as our Messiah predicted. The judgment was executed in A.D. 70 when the Romans under Titus sacked Jerusalem. Although Jerusalem was to be destroyed, another Jerusalem was being prepared and the true heirs of the Covenant being called (Matt. 21:43). The new city was the Jerusalem which John saw being prepared as a bride for her husband, Revelation 21:2.

24:3: “And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples (Peter, James, John and Andrew) came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” There appear here to be three basic questions asked by the disciples (1) When shall these thing be? viz., the destruction of the Temple, the city, and the “Jewish” state, (2) What shall be the sign of thy coming? viz., to execute these judgments upon the “Jews”, and the establishment of His kingdom and, (3) When shall be the end of the world? There is a double perspective to this discourse, (1) the destruction of the “Jewish” kingdom and, (2) the re-establishment of Yahweh’s kingdom. The Disciples and peoples of Judaea were in expectation of a Messiah to come and destroy their immediate enemies. Also it should be noted, it is not talking about the end of the world (as in the KJV), but the end of the age (Gk., aion). The Praeterists take the view the “age” ended with the destruction of Jerusalem, but verses 10-14 indicate there must come periods of apostasy followed by a mission to all [Israel] nations, and then only can the end come. This should be evidence these are both short-range and long-range prophecies. Mark 13:34-37 brings into play the need for watchfulness. If these prophecies be only till the destruction of Jerusalem, does that imply there is no longer a need to be watchful? Yet we must take into consideration the meaning at the time. Hebrew interpreters of the Old Testament had clearly seen that the coming of the Messiah would usher in the “age to come”, accompanied by the destruction of the wicked. It must be remembered the Twelve asked in the light of their traditional understanding, and Yahshua’s answers in this discourse surely assumed this. Thus the consummation of the age (ASV marg.) refers to the age of which they were a part and had knowledge. Though badly liquidated, a few of the satanic sons of Cain survived, so the final end must be yet to come.

24:4-5: “And Yahshua answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Messiah; and shall deceive many.” Josephus declares, Wars 2:13:2-7, there were many who, pretending to divine inspiration, deceived many people, leading numbers of them out into the desert. Pretending “God” would there show them signs of liberty, meaning redemption from the Roman power, an Egyptian false prophet led 30,000 men into the desert, who being no more than a cheat pretended to be a prophet. Felix prevented the attempted overthrow resulting in many being destroyed, taken alive or dispersed to hide in their homes (see Acts 21:38). It was no more than justice for the Almighty to deliver up that people into the hands of the false messiahs who had rejected and killed the true One. About twelve years after the death of Messiah, when Cuspius Fadus was procurator of Judaea, arose an impostor by the name of Theudas, who said he was a prophet, and persuaded a great multitude to follow him with their best effects to the Jordan, which he promised to divide for passage; and saying these things, says Josephus “he deceived many” — almost the very words of our Messiah. A few years afterwards, under the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judaea, impostors of this kind were so frequent that some were taken and killed almost every day (Josephus Antiq. 20, chapters 4 and 7).

24:6-7: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.” A message by the Messiah to his Disciples gives warning of coming dissensions, insurrections and mutual slaughter of the “Jews” and those of other nations who dwelt in the same cities together; as particularly at Caesarea, where the “Jews” and Syrians contended about the right of the city, which ended there in the total expulsion of the “Jews”, about 20,000 of whom were slain. The whole “Jewish” nation, being exasperated at this, attacked neighboring cities and villages of the Syrians, making an immense slaughter of the people. The Syrians in return destroyed no less a number of the Jews. At Scythopolis (a city established by a fragment group of returning Northern Kingdom Israelites who didn’t stay long) they murdered upwards of 13,000. At Ascalon they killed 2,500. At Ptolemais they slew 2,000, and made many prisoners. The Tyrians also put many Jews to death, and imprisoned more. The People of Gadara did likewise; and all the other cities of Syria, in proportion as they hated or feared the “Jews.” At Alexandria the Jews and non-Jews fought, and 50,000 of the former were slain. The people of Damascus conspired against the “Jews” of that city, and assaulting them while unarmed killed 10,000 of them. This portended the open wars of different tetrarchies and provinces against each other. There was a famine foretold by Agabus, Acts 11:28, which is mentioned by Suetonius, Tacitus, and Eusebius, “which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar”, and was so severe at Jerusalem that Josephus says (Antiq. 20:2) “many died for lack of food.” Pestilences are the usual attendants of famines, as the scarcity and badness of provisions generally produce epidemic disorders. The fourth sign was, “there shall be earthquakes, in divers places.” It means particularly those popular commotions and insurrections which have already been noted.

24:8: “All these are the beginning of sorrows.” The whole land of Judaea is compared to a woman in grievous travail. The Messiah intimates that all that had previously been mentioned was only the first pangs and throes, and nothing in comparison of the hard and death-bringing labor which should afterwards take place. These birth-pangs were (once Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed and the cursed “Jews” were dispersed into all the nations) pointing to a happier day for Yahweh’s Kingdom. This period of time was the onset of the birth-pangs bringing forth a new order under Israel’s Messiah-King. This verse looks beyond the convulsions to the redeeming act of Yahshua. With these birth-pangs, a kingdom under the cursed “Jews” is passing and a new Kingdom is being instituted under Messiah for true Israel.

24:9: “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” Yahshua was predicting great personal testing for those who would be unflinching in their testimony for Him. They would be put on trial before religious and civil courts. The arrests and beatings foretold here began to find their fulfillment in the book of Acts (cf. 4:5 ff.; 5:27 ff.), as do also the appearances before rulers and kings (cf. 12:1 ff.; 24:1 ff.; 25:1 ff.).

24:10-13: “And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” It is very remarkable that not a single Christian perished in the destruction of Jerusalem, though there were many there when Cestius Gallus invested the city; and had he persevered in the siege, he would soon have rendered himself master of it. But when he unexpectedly and unaccountably raised the siege, the Nazarenes (later to be called Christians) took that opportunity to escape. While this is quite interesting, the thought is shifting from the dying kingdom of the “Jews” to the birth-pangs of the Kingdom of Messiah. Comment will continue on verses 10-13 in next paragraph.

24:14: “And the gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all [Israel] nations; and then shall the end come.” The Kingdom message is divided into two different stages as described in Jeremiah 16:16.

“Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith Yahweh, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.”

The fishers were the disciples called by Messiah. The hunters were archaeologists who discovered Israel’s migrations after being taken captive by Assyria. The fishing period lasted for about 1,800 years until the archaeologists began to find evidence of Israel’s travels. The fisher’s message was: “Yahshua has redeemed Israel by His death.” The hunter’s message is: “We have found Israel’s footsteps.” It is truly this last message which is the “Gospel of the Kingdom.” The Kingdom message started to be told with John Wilson, a Benjaminite, about 1838 A.D. From that time on there has never been a message that divided like the Israel Identity Kingdom message. We shouldn’t be surprised at this for Yahshua declared in Luke 12:51: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” This is what we have with Matthew 24:10-13 (quoted second paragraph above). Luke 21:16-17 puts it this way: “And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some  of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men  for my name’s sake.”

24:15: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand).” It is clear at Luke 21:20-21 that the Roman army (eagles) gathering around Jerusalem was a signal for the true Judaean followers of Yahshua to leave, as the “abominable” was about to become “desolate” as prophesied by Daniel chapters 9 & 11. The prediction by Paul to the Romans at 16:20 was about to come to pass: “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” The remnant nation of Judaea was about to become the “broken-bottle” of Jeremiah 19:8-11 never to be restored, to which we owe a debt of gratitude to Josephus for giving us a blow-by-blow account of that event.”

24:16: “Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains.” This counsel was remembered and wisely followed by the Nazarenes afterwards. Eusebius and Epiphanius say that at this juncture, after Cestius Gallus had raised the siege and Vespasian was approaching with his army, all who believed in Messiah left Jerusalem and fled to Pella and other places beyond the river Jordan; and so they all marvelously escaped the general shipwreck of their country — not one of them perished. Only the flight of the Nazarenes from the beleaguered city delivered them from the fate of the “Jewish” inhabitants who stayed. During the lull in the attack, the Nazarenes left and went to Pella. Those who remained either died of starvation, or died resisting the Romans, or were sold as slaves. There is a very important point to be made here. This was a time of separation of the Cain-satanic seedline from the true Israelites (or the seed of the woman.) Therefore, no “Jew” on the face of the world is an Israelite! As Yahshua said Himself, John 10:26: “... ye are not of my sheep.” The Almighty was using a giant sieve to separate the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, Genesis 3:15. While the Nazarenes went to Pella, the bad-fig “Jews” were dispersed into all the nations as a curse and a byword.

24:17-19: “Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!” The houses in Judaea, as well as those of the ancient Greeks and Romans, were flat-roofed and had stairs on the outside, by which persons might ascend and descend without coming into the house. In Eastern walled cities, these flat-roofed houses usually formed continued terraces and terminated at the gates. He therefore who is walking on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house; but let him instantly pursue his course along the tops of the houses and escape out at the city gate as fast as he can. Because, when once the army of the Romans sits down before the city, there shall no longer be any possibility of escape, as they shall never remove till Jerusalem be destroyed. Because of this, it will be quite difficult for such persons as are not in condition to make their escape; neither can they bear the miseries of the siege. Josephus says the houses were full of women and children that perished by the famine, and that the mothers snatched the food even out of their own children’s mouths. See Wars, 5:10. How do the futurists explain people on the roofs of their houses if this is something that is supposed to happen at a so-called “rapture” at some future date? It was only back during that time they had flat-roofed houses leading to the city gate!

24:20: “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day.” For the severity of the season, the poor condition of the roads, the shortness of the days, and the length of the nights with all the great hindrances to your flight; and that you may not raise the indignation of the “Jews” by traveling on that day, and suffering death by them for which you endeavored to escape by fleeing. Besides, on the Sabbath days the “Jews” not only stayed indoors, but kept the gates of all the cities and towns in every place shut and barred. Yahshua had ordered his followers to make their escape from Jerusalem when they should see it encompassed with armies; but how could this be done? The Almighty took care to amply provide for this. In the twelfth year of Nero, Cestius Gallus, the president of Syria, came against Jerusalem with a powerful army.  According to Josephus (Wars 2:19:3-6) he might have put an end to the war, but without any just reason he raised the siege and departed. This was the window of opportunity Yahshua had instructed his followers to take advantage of, and many of the principal residents forsook the city like men do a sinking ship. Further, the news of the deaths of Nero and Galba and the disturbances that followed along with civil wars between Otho and Vitellius held Vespasian and his son Titus in suspense, delaying the besieging until after Vespasian was confirmed and Titus was appointed commander of the forces in Judaea. It was in these delays that the Nazarenes and others provided for their own safety, by flight.

24:21: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” It is at this point that the “futurists” try to make their case for their false doctrine of a future “rapture” and the false teaching of either a three and a half or a seven year period of tribulation. As you can plainly see, such a thing does not fit the text. No history can furnish us with a parallel to the calamities and anguish of the “Jews”: rapine, murder, famine and pestilence within; fire and sword, and all the horrors of war without. Luke 21:22 calls these the “days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”

24:22: “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” If the Romans had gone on destroying in this manner, the whole nation of the Jews would, in a short time, have been entirely eradicated. But for the sake of the “elect”, it says, these days were shortened. This passage doesn’t make a lot of sense unless we take former Scripture into consideration. We know that Israel is the “elect”, and the “Jews” are not Israelites. The question is: Why would some of the “Jews” be spared for Israel’s sake? The “Jews” were descendants of the people Israel was commissioned to kill every man, woman and child (Joshua 23:13). Because they failed to do this they were told: “Yahweh will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish ...” The Canaanite-“Jews” were to become Yahweh’s instrument of punishment to bring Israel back under the Covenant. Therefore, it was necessary to spare some of the “Jews” from Jerusalem for Israel (the elect’s) sake. This is the reason, and the only reason, Yahweh didn’t let the Romans completely and thoroughly annihilate forever the Cain-Satanic-Edomite-Canaanite-“Jews.” Because part of the story is wanting in Matthew, we will pick it up in Luke.

Luke 21:23-24: “... for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the heathen ethnos until the times of the heathen ethnos be fulfilled.” Josephus tells us, in the wars which ended in the taking of Jerusalem, by famine and the sword, there perished, 1,100,000 “Jews”, and 97,000 were carried into captivity, Josephus Wars 6:9:3. This “captivity” spoken of here is not the captivities of Assyria or Babylon, but a separate one for the cursed “Jews”, Isaiah 65:15. The “times of the heathen ethnos” (Gentiles, a Latin term) was fulfilled when the British, under General Allenby, took Jerusalem from the Turks, December 9, 1917 as prophesied.   

Matt. 24:23-24: “And if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Messiah, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise pseudo-messiahs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” This passage is similar to Matt. 24:4-5, except we should take note the word “elect” means Israelites.

24:25-27: “Behold, I have told you before, Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Because the Roman army was the instrument in the Almighty’s hand, it is represented as the coming of the “Son of man.” The Roman army entered into Judaea from the east and carried on their conquest westward, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, were intended in the comparison of the lightning issuing from the east and shining to the west.

24:28: “For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” They (the “Jews”) were a dead carcass doomed to be devoured, and the Roman eagles were the commissioned devourers. (See the pitiful account in Josephus, Wars, 7:2-3, 6, 9-11.)

24:29: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” In other words, the tribulation was the terrible process of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The sun, moon and stars are representative of a shakeup of ruler-ship, some dying while others having a change in status. With the destruction of Jerusalem, this naturally would change the power structure in that area.

24:30: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Adam in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Adam coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” This is not the Second Advent, but the setting up of Yahshua’s Kingdom. The power of the “Jews” had been brought to a very low ebb; so low it would take them 1,700 years to regain their strength. It then became possible for the Gospel message to make its way to and through all Israel lands and has continued from that time down to this very day.

24:31: “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” This verse signals the rebirth of Yahweh’s Kingdom. With this, the prophecy concerning Jeremiah 19:7-10, and the destruction of the evil branch of Judah at Jerusalem, was fulfilled. The “bottle” had thus been “broken”, never to be restored. The “angels” spoken of here were the Disciples taking the Gospel message to the 12 scattered “elect” tribes of Israel. The Disciples were depicted as “angels” or messengers. By the fall of Jerusalem, the Kingdom was liberated from the power of the “Jews.” By this time, the true Judahites had joined the House of Israel in their migrations into Europe.

This concludes the main part of this study. While it doesn’t cover the entire chapter of Matthew 24, it does present the “Death Of A Kingdom & Rebirth Of Another.” While the main portion of this passage concerns itself with short-range prophecy, there are also long-range predictions. You will remember the Disciples had asked Him two questions, “when shall these things be”? and “what shall be the sign of thy coming.”? Surely, Matthew 24:37 is one of the long-range prophecies:

“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Adam be.”

It is recorded that Noah was “perfect in his generations”, along with his three sons and daughter-in-laws (“generations”, Strong’s #8435 “descent, i.e. family ...”).  Noah’s family was the last of a line who had not race-mixed in their day.  Like today, in the days before the flood, it became politically correct to take a husband or wife not of one’s own race. The same degradation of the sexual instincts is here revealed in its disastrous consequences and is described as “all flesh had corrupted his way”, Genesis 6:12. Then, as now, when the subject of race was mentioned, one would shrug their shoulders and sneer in indifference. Like always, products of mixed marriages are not difficult to recognize. Although there were many in Jerusalem of mixed race, Matthew 24:37 more typically fits today’s multiculturalism.

No doubt, you’ll find this presentation on the 24th chapter of Matthew somewhat different than the usual one put forward by those who have not studied Josephus and Eusebius in conjunction with the very words of Yahshua the Messiah Himself. The futurists’ position has become so ingrained in people’s thinking that it is difficult for them to connect history with Scripture. The futurists’ position doesn’t require any knowledge of history, and therefore to those untaught in that area it becomes easy to embrace, as little mental effort is needed.

This is my eighty-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. In the last several lessons I have been defending the writings of Herodotus and Josephus; and in the last lesson I extended it to include Eusebius. Not that we find all these sources perfect in all respects, but without their histories we would have little with which to confirm our Scriptures. Not only do we need Herodotus, Josephus and Eusebius, but we can use the witness of many of the other classical and early church writers’ histories. For instance, without Eusebius, we would know little about Constantine’s political and religious involvement with Christianity. Under Constantine, Rome adopted a single official religion. To say “a single official religion” might be a misnomer, inasmuch as it was imperative for Constantine to unite the pagans with the Christians in order to gain the throne! And it has continued in that vein ever since, though Rome has forever fallen never to be established again. As Daniel said (2:35):

“Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.”

Since it was prophesied that the “iron” (and also “clay”) representing the Roman Empire would be “broken to pieces together, and become like chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them”, Daniel would become a liar if the Roman Empire were ever “revived” again as nearly all the mainstream “churches” so profusely proclaim. The real liars are the promoters and followers of the futurists’ doctrine dreamed up by a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest. The next time someone tries to convince you of futurism, quote them this verse. It might be well to memorize it by heart! You can mark it down in your little book that Tim LaHaye, Jerry B. Jenkins, Thomas Ice, and their ilk are all liars right out of the pits of hell. When are we ever going to study our Bibles? When are we ever going to study the histories available to us which support those Scriptures such as we read at Daniel 2:35? Without our history books, we have little evidence that Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome are all past history! Again, all that is left of the Roman Empire is “broken pieces and chaff”, just as Jerusalem and old Judaea are the “broken bottle” nation of Jeremiah 19:10; and none of these will ever be revived again –  ever! When it says “no place was found for them”, Daniel meant exactly what he said!

 

EUSEBIUS GIVES EVIDENCE OF JUSTIN MARTYR

 

Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Introductory Note to the First Apology of Justin Martyr from the Libronix Digital Library. (In my copy of the Libronix Digital Library, Eusebius is cited 4903 times in various books):

“Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, the modern Nablous. The date of his birth is uncertain, but may be fixed about A.D. 114. His father and grandfather were probably of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity he studied in the schools of the philosophers, searching after some knowledge which should satisfy the cravings of his soul. At last he became acquainted with Christianity, being at once impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death, and with the grandeur, stability, and truth of the teachings of the Old Testament. From this time he acted as an evangelist, taking every opportunity to proclaim the gospel as the only safe and certain philosophy, the only way to salvation. It is probable that he traveled much. We know that he was some time in Ephesus, and he must have lived for a considerable period in Rome. Probably he settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. While he was there, the philosophers, especially the Cynics, plotted against him, and he sealed his testimony to the truth by martyrdom.

“The principal facts of Justin’s life are gathered from his own writings. There is little clue to dates. It is agreed on all hands that he lived in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and the testimony of Eusebius and most credible historians renders it nearly certain that he suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The Chronicon Paschale gives as the date 165 A.D. [emphasis mine]

“The writings of Justin Martyr are among the most important that have come down to us from the second century. He was not the first that wrote an Apology in behalf of the Christians, but his Apologies are the earliest extant. They are characterized by intense Christian fervour, and they give us an insight into the relations existing between heathens and Christians in those days. His other principal writing, the Dialogue with Trypho, is the first elaborate exposition of the reasons for regarding Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and the first systematic attempt to exhibit the false position of the Jews in regard to Christianity.”

I would suggest that “regarding Christ as the Messiah of the Old Testament” and “the first systematic attempt to exhibit the false position of the Jews” is quite commendable on the part of Justin Martyr! It’s a shame that today’s clergy don’t do the same! Are we supposed to disregard this testimony of Eusebius concerning the martyrdom of Justin Martyr as not worthwhile as some would proclaim?

There are some cases where forged writings have been thrust upon us using the names of Early Christian writers. This became a standard practice of the Roman Catholic Church under the papacy later on. We find the following information at Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, Introductory Note to the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (from the Libronix Digital Library):

“There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.

“It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.”

With this, it should be quite apparent that what Eusebius didn’t say can be as important as what he did. But there is another famous forgery by the Roman Catholic Church we should mention here:

 

ROMAN CATHOLICISM SITS ON A FALLACIOUS FOUNDATION

 

For information pertaining to “The Donation Of Constantine” I will quote from The Horizon History Of Christianity, by Roland H. Bainton, pages 243-244:

“We do find skepticism of a sort in the form of historical criticism used to expose the spuriousness of famous forgeries and to examine sacred documents critically. Historical criticism was a by-product of studies by the Humanists, whose profound interest in the antique encouraged a pure Latin style. Through their comparison of classical and medieval Latin, there arose an awareness of philological (study in literature and linguistic) development. ‘The Donation of Constantine’, upon which the papacy long based its claims to dominion, was exposed as a forgery by Lorenzo Valla. The language, he pointed out, was not that of the age of Constantine. In the document there were references to the iconoclastic controversy of the eighth century. Documents of the period of Constantine never once mentioned the Donation, and at no time during that emperor’s reign did the popes actually exercise the authority Constantine was supposed to have bestowed upon them. Valla disproved also the common assumption that the Apostles’ Creed was the work of the twelve apostles. More daring was his application of historical, critical methods to the study of the Bible, even though he came up with no startling conclusions. As far as the Church was concerned, Valla’s demonstrations were not especially disturbing. She could survive the exposure of forgery.” (See also, The Story Of Civilization; Part IV, “The Age Of Faith”, by Will Durant, pages 525-526, along with footnote.)

But according to some, “It’s only history; and we should read only the Bible.” And as we have seen, many who proclaim this, and other silly notions, can’t even read Daniel 2:35 correctly! Why don’t they just be honest and own up to the fact that they are simply too lazy to study history? There is no place in Israel Identity for such an attitude!

 

EUSEBIUS TESTIFIES TO WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

 

Eusebius gives us data concerning the writing of the books of our New Testament. Interestingly, he speaks of Paul, Mark and Peter.  Eusebius: Church History tells us this at chapter 8, paragraph 3, on page 222 (Eusebius’ Church History is found under The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. 1 in the Libronix Digital Library, also in book form from Hendrickson publishing and others.):

“3 After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared.”

We pick up again at Eusebius chapter 21, speaking of the Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts of the Apostles:

“3 Josephus relates these events in the second book of his History. But it is worthwhile comparing the account of the Egyptian given here with that contained in the Acts of the Apostles. In the time of Felix it was said to Paul by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance against the apostle, ‘Art not thou he who before these days made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?’ These are the events which took place in the time of Felix.”

At chapter 22, page 124 we read again about Paul, Luke and Paul’s epistle to Timothy. Paul having been sent bound from Judaea to Rome, made his defense, and was acquitted of every charge:

“1 Festus was sent by Nero to be Felix’s successor. Under him Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome. Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner. And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without restraint.

“2 Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and that upon coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom. In this imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy, in which he mentions his first defense and his impending death.

“3 But hear his testimony on these matters: ‘At my first answer,’ he says, ‘no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles [sic. nations] might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.’

“4 He plainly indicates in these words that on the former occasion, in order that the preaching might be fulfilled by him, he was rescued from the mouth of the lion, referring, in this expression, to Nero, as is probable on account of the latter’s cruelty. He did not therefore afterward add the similar statement, ‘He will rescue me from the mouth of the lion’; for he saw in the spirit that his end would not be long delayed.

“5 Wherefore he adds to the words, ‘And he delivered me from the mouth of the lion,’ this sentence: ‘The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom,’ indicating his speedy martyrdom; which he also foretells still more clearly in the same epistle, when he writes, ‘For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.’

“6 In his second epistle to Timothy, moreover, he indicates that Luke was with him when he wrote, but at his first defense not even he. Whence it is probable that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles at that time, continuing his history down to the period when he was with Paul.

“7 But these things have been adduced by us to show that Paul’s martyrdom did not take place at the time of that Roman sojourn which Luke records.

“8 It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, Paul’s defense of his doctrine was more easily received; but that when he had advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of daring, he made the apostles as well as others the subjects of his attacks.”

At chapter 6, page 220 we read in Eusebius about a catalogue of the Bishops of Rome:

“1 The blessed apostles (namely, Peter and Paul; but neither of them founded the Roman church. See Bk. 2. chap. 25, note 17) having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus.Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.”

In my Watchman’s Teaching Letter #13, May 1999, I spoke of Linus several times:

These names (Claudia, and Rufus Pudens) just mentioned should be familiar to you as they are mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21. I am sure that millions of people over the years have read this passage and had no idea who the people mentioned were, or that they had a direct connection with the first permanently organized church, the British Church. Let’s read it again with a new light on it:

“Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.”

This not only proves that Paul had a direct connection with the church in Britain, but proves that Paul was a genuine apostle of Yahshua. It proves that his calling was true. There is a doctrine going around that Paul was not genuine, but an impostor and a deceiver. I will give you a short history of this “Anti-Paulism” which was published in pamphlet form by Destiny Publishers, Merrimac, Mass. I will only quote the first three paragraphs:

“There is a movement on foot to discredit the writings of the Apostle Paul in the Bible, declaring they are a perversion of the truth. The conclusion is that Paul’s Epistles should be expunged from the New Testament.

“This is the objective of a book entitled Who Was Paul of Tarsus? by Isabel Upton Van Etten. In this book, a premise is established, based upon ‘ifs’, ‘surmises’ and ‘assumptions’ which enable the author to conclude that Paul was in opposition to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and was completely out of step with the teachings of the disciples of Jesus.

“It is a faithful axiom that, once a premise is established and accepted, the deductions drawn naturally follow. After reading this little book, we are reminded of another book, also by a woman author, whose name was Mary Baker Eddy [founder of so-called Christian Science]. She also established a premise and won the acceptance of a substantial following in support of her conclusions. We pose the question: Will many succumb to the propaganda that Paul was subversive and that his writings are unacceptable and should be deleted from the New Testament?”

Obviously, Isabel Upton Van Etten overlooked 2 Timothy 4:21 (above), and 2 Peter 3:15 where Peter said in his epistle, our beloved brother Paul. I presume, because of this remark, might we have to delete all of Peter’s Epistles also? Either Paul was a “chosen vessel”, or he was not a “chosen vessel”, and we might advisedly tread very lightly in condemning his commissioned ministry to be unfit, as Paul commissionedtext-align: center; line-height: 50%; tab-stops: .25insans-serifletter-spacing: 2.5pt/emtext-align: center; line-height: 105%font-family: Linus, first Bishop of Rome.

In the yearbook of DESTINY magazine (a monthly publication), June, 1946 published by Destiny Publishers, Haverhill, Massachusetts, there is an article, Druidism in Britain, by Rev. L. G. A. Roberts, pages 203-208. On page 207 of this article, we find the following information under the subtitle “Christianity in the Isles”:

“It was in A.D. 52 that the conflict took place between the Romans and British under Caractacus, who so nearly held back the Roman legions from conquering Britain, but he was cruelly betrayed by Cartismandua and tak/emen prisoner to Rome. With him, as hostages, Bran, his father, his three sons, and daughters, were also taken captive. The struggles of this brave people for their liberty filled the streets of Rome with their daring prowess, and about A.D. 59 St. Paul was himself a prisoner at Rome, but in his own hired house. Whilst here he met with Pudens and Linus and Claudia, and evidently also Eubulus, i.e., Aristobulus. Timothy was also with St. Paul, and in the 2d Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, written a few years after (chap. 4:21), he says, ‘Eubulus greeteth thee and Pudens and Linus and Claudia.’ Every one of these we find intimately connected with Britain. The prefix Eu in Eubulus being of the same meaning in Greek as arestos, the two names (Rom. 16:10; II Tim. 4:21), Aristobulus and Eubulus, have been considered to mean the same person. Of this man we read in the ‘Greek Menologies’ that St. Paul ordained him as a bishop to the country of the Britons. Another account says that this man died at Glastonbury in A.D. 99.” ...

You will notice it is a bit hard to follow names here. For instance, let’s take the name of Caradoc. As long as he was not king, his name was Caradoc, but once he took the throne, he was called “King Arviragus” (being the same person as Caradoc). When he went to Rome, they Latinized his name to Caractacus (still being the same person), so whether he is called Caradoc, King Arviragus or Caractacus, it is the same person (see Celt, Druid and Culdee by Isabel Hill Elder, page 38, paragraph 4). Caractacus is the next person I am going to talk about, and for that I will quote from, The Origin and Early History of Christianity In Britain, by Andrew Gray, D.D., pages 14-16:

 

“CARACTACUS

 

“From those valuable historical documents, the Welsh Triads — written originally in the British dialect — it appears that Caràdoc (Caractacus) was betrayed and delivered up to the Roman Commander by Arègwedd, about A.D. 51, and taken to Rome. Brân (Brennus) his father, Llyn (Linus) his son, Eurgan a daughter, and Gladys (Claudia) a second daughter, were all taken to Rome likewise, and there detained seven years as hostages for Caractacus.

“Tacitus  furnishes an account of the battle which terminated the career of Caràdoc in field. Caràdoc seeing that the Romans were victorious, and that his own wife and daughter had fallen into the hands of the conquerors, took refuge himself, at her repeated solicitations, at Caer Evroc (York), with Arègwedd, Queen of the Brigantes, and grand-niece of the infamous traitor in the Julian war, Mandubratius of Avarwy. Here by her orders, — with hereditary treachery, he was seized while asleep in her palace, loaded with fetters, and delivered to Ostorius Scapula. On receiving intelligence of the event, Claudius ordered him and all the captive family to be sent to Rome. The approach and arrival of Caràdoc at Rome are finely described by the ancient historians — ‘Roma catenatum tremuit spectare Britannum’ — Rome trembled when she saw the Briton, though fast in chains.

“The Senate was convened and the trial of Caràdoc began. With an unaltered countenance, the hero of forty battles, great in arms, greater in chains, took his position before the Emperor and defended himself in the following utterances:

“‘Had my government in Britain been directed solely with a view to the preservation of my hereditary domains or the aggrandizement of my own family, I might long since have entered this city an ally, not a prisoner; nor would you have disdained for a friend a king descended from illustrious ancestors and the director of many nations. My present condition, stript of its former majesty, is as adverse to myself as it is a cause of triumph to you. What then? I was lord of men, horses, arms, wealth: what wonder if at your dictation I refused to resign them? Does it follow, that because the Romans aspire to universal domination, every nation is to accept the vassalage they would impose? I am now in your power — betrayed, not conquered. Had I, like others, yielded without resistance, where would have been the name of Caràdoc? Where [is] your glory? Oblivion would have buried both in the same tomb. Bid me live, I shall survive for ever in history one example at least of Roman clemency’.”

This is part of what I wrote in Watchman’s Teaching Letter #13. I am bringing this again to your attention, as with this present lesson we can clearly see a direct connection between the Celtic Church in Britain and Paul, though Eusebius failed to identify the origin of Linus, Claudia and Pudens. This evidence of Paul’s direct connection with the Christians from Britain proves beyond all doubt that he was a true Apostle chosen by Yahshua Christ to the nations [not the silly term Gentiles]! The people who today are still bashing Paul would do well to take this history presented here into consideration!

If Paul were this terrible, evil person that several people in Israel Identity are proclaiming, why didn’t his contemporary coworkers and the very apostles chosen by Yahshua Christ Himself identify Paul as such? Inasmuch as Eusebius was evidently the best qualified to put together a church history during his tenure (for no one else ever did), why didn’t he warn us against this erroneously-so-called (by many), “Jew.” Paul was not a “Jew”, but a Benjaminite, as were all the other twelve disciples Yahshua chose, except Judas Iscariot the Canaanite. The Book of Acts, at 1:23-26, records that a certain Matthias was chosen by the apostles to take the place of Judas, but Yahshua Himself chose Paul, and surely this is correct for we never again hear anything mentioned concerning Matthias. The deafening silence on Matthias speaks volumes, though no doubt he was otherwise a man of great esteem.

Let us now return to The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series, vol. 1. Eusebius’ Church History, chapter 4  page 163:

“7 But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as [of] those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself:

“8 And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, ‘according to my Gospel.’

“9 As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.

“10 Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.

“11 Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.”

 

TWO DIFFERENT PAULS

 

Eusebius mentions two different Pauls in his history: (1) the Apostle Paul and (2) Paul of Samosata, and we shouldn’t confuse one with the other. This Paul of Samosata, (bishop of Antioch c. 260-272) is mentioned at chapter 30, and a footnote makes this explanation:

“It is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata had been discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one which deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. The passage shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so long. Not merely on account of his influential position, as some have said, but also because he promised that he would give up his heresy and conform his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language would seem to imply that Firmilian had presided at the synod or synods, which are referred to here; and this is assumed by most writers. On Firmilian, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.”

At chapter 30 under the subtitle “The Epistle of the Bishops Against Paul [of Samosata]”:

“The pastors who had assembled about this matter, prepared by common consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Maximus of Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces. In this they make manifest to all their own zeal and the perverse error of Paul, and the arguments and discussions which they had with him, and show the entire life and conduct of the man. It may be well to put on record at the present time the following extracts from their writing:

“‘Whereas he has departed from the rule of faith, and has turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not necessary, – since he is without, – that we should pass judgment upon his practices: as for instance in that although formerly destitute and poor, and having received no wealth from his fathers, nor made anything by trade or business, he now possesses abundant wealth through his iniquities and sacrilegious acts, and through those things which he extorts from the brethren, depriving the injured of their rights and promising to assist them for reward, yet deceiving them, and plundering those who in their trouble are ready to give that they may obtain reconciliation with their oppressors’ ...” Paul of Samosata was hardly a tent maker!

span style=sans-serifn’s/span

This is my eighty-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. With this lesson, we’ll continue our defense series. With the last several lessons we’ve defended Herodotus, Josephus and Eusebius. Without these historians, along with several other classical historians, we would have little tangible evidence that our Bibles are true. Yet in spite of this there are those who would irresponsibly throw all this evidence to the wind, completely repudiating every thread of evidence. With this lesson we will start defending the apostle Paul’s writings. It is simply amazing how many in Israel Identity, and even those in mainstream churchianity, are jumping on the bandwagon to bash Paul. It has now risen to epidemic proportions and is still growing.

Maybe someone should organize a national book-burning meeting for all these historians’ writings along with Paul’s epistles. They (not I) could go around to all the new and used book stores and collect all these writings after they have cleared out their own basements and attics. They (not I) could pick out a central location in the United States convenient for all like minded to meet for this great event. Maybe they (not I) could find a source where they could purchase all the matches, kerosene and razor blades at wholesale prices. Of course, they (not I) would have to get a burning permit from some local government, so the fire department could be standing by preventing the blaze from getting out of control. Maybe, after they have removed all of Paul’s writings along with Luke’s from their Bibles, they could donate the paper to some recycling operation. If they are really all that serious about what they are promoting, they should do all this to testify to others of their beliefs. Like the old saying, “Put your money where your mouth is.”

And while they are burning all of Herodotus’, Josephus’ and Eusebius works, they might as well destroy all the historical classics. I guess we really don’t want to know how Zerah-Judah left Egypt before the Red Sea episode, settled the Dardanelles and Troy, became the Trojans, moved and settled Rome where some became the Julian family and other families of the Patricians, while later others went back to Greece, fought an engagement where Brutus bargained for a wife and several hundred ships, then sailed for Britain. I guess we really don’t want to know how, as Herodotus records, a woman named Tomyris, a Massagetae-Israelite lady, after her husband the king had died, took charge of the Massagetae army, outwitted the Biblical Cyrus in his military exploits, and killed many Persians including Cyrus himself. Cyrus, outmaneuvered by a lady Israelite! Her husband the king, before his death, had taught her well!

Before we address today’s variety of Paul bashing, we really need to research its history from its beginning!

 

THE HISTORY OF PAUL BASHING

 

For this I will go to Barnes’ Notes, volume 10 ,page vii, to the “Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans”:

“This Epistle has been, with great uniformity, attributed to the apostle Paul, and received as a part of the sacred canon. It has never in the church been called in question as a genuine, an inspired book, except by three of the ancient sects deemed heretical – the Ebionites, the Encratites, and Cerinthians. But they did not deny that it was written by the apostle Paul. They rejected it because they could not make its doctrines harmonize with their views of other parts of the Scriptures. Their rejecting it, therefore, does not militate against its genuineness. That is a question to be settled historically, like the genuineness of any other ancient writing. On this point the testimony of antiquity is uniform.          The proof on this subject may be seen at length in Lardner’s works. The internal evidence that this was written by Paul is stated in a most ingenious and masterly manner by Dr. Paley in his Horœ Paulinœ.”

Well, it is evident that we are not going to know a lot about all this Paul bashing unless we investigate these ancient sects: the Ebionites, the Encratites, and the Cerinthians! I assure you before we start, they’re not the kind of people we would want to keep company with! To start this subject I will now go to The Church History of Eusebius, 2.27, with Philip Shaff:

“1 The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ..

“2 For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.

“3 There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.

“4 These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.

“5 The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.”

A footnote to this reads: “That there were two different views among the Ebionites as to the birth of Christ is stated frequently by Origen (cf. e.g. Contra Cels. V. 61), but there was unanimity in the denial of his preexistence and essential divinity, and this constituted the essence of the heresy in the eyes of the Fathers from Irenaeus on. Irenaeus, as remarked above, knows of no such difference as Eusebius here mentions: and that the denial of the supernatural birth even in the time of Origen was in fact ordinarily attributed to the Ebionites in general, without a distinction of the two classes, is seen by Origen’s words in his Hom. in Luc. XVII.”

At Eusebius chapter 26, under the heading “Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes” we read:

“1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

“2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.

“3. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: ‘But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.’ Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes.”

By the way, this is the first reference that I have found that identifies the Nicolaitanes of Revelation 2:15. If Yahshua hates these kind of people, I surely wouldn’t want to be counted among them! Had today’s Paul-bashers lived during this early Christian era, this is the kind of company they would have kept! Like Nellie Babbs and Judy Nipps for instance. They would have been right at home with the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes (and Encratites as well) in bashing Paul! But we are only getting a good start on this thing!

At Eusebius chapter 21, by Shaff, under the heading, “A Vindication of the Prophecy in Isaiah (VII. 14) Against the Misinterpretations of Theodotion, Aquila, the Ebionites, and the Jews. Authority of the Septuagint Version. Arguments in Proof that Christ Was Born of a Virgin”:

“1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,’ as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God ...”

From the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, chapter 15 under the heading, “Refutation of the Ebionites, Who Disparaged the Authority of St. Paul, from the Writings of St. Luke, Which Must Be Received as a Whole. Exposure of the Hypocrisy, Deceit, and Pride of the Gnostics. The Apostles and Their Disciples Knew and Preached One God, the Creator of the World”:

“1. But again, we allege the same against those who do not recognise Paul as an apostle: that they should either reject the other words of the Gospel which we have come to know through Luke alone, and not make use of them; or else, if they do receive all these, they must necessarily admit also that testimony concerning Paul, when he (Luke) tells us that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven: ‘Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? I am Jesus Christ, whom thou persecutest;’ and then to Ananias, saying regarding him: ‘Go thy way; for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name among the Gentiles [sic. nations], and kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him, from this time, how great things he must suffer for My name’s sake.’ Those, therefore, who do not accept of him [as a teacher], who was chosen by God for this purpose, that he might boldly bear His name, as being sent to the forementioned nations, do despise the election of God, and separate themselves from the company of the apostles. For neither can they contend that Paul was no apostle, when he was chosen for this purpose; nor can they prove Luke guilty of falsehood, when he proclaims the truth to us with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth very many Gospel truths, through Luke’s instrumentality, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and steadfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public.”

From the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, chapter 6 under the heading “Do Not Accept Judaism”:

“If any one preaches the one God of the law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision. If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit. If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men. And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.” [emphasis mine]

It is very regrettable to say, but there are those in Israel Identity who understand and promote Two Seedline who condemn Paul, thinking they are being spiteful to the bad-fig-Canaanite Jews, but in reality are doing quite the opposite! They unwittingly do so, as they take the same position as the Ebionite-Jews who practiced Judaism, and are in reality befriending them! This passage is part of an epistle of Ignatius, to the Ephesians who lived A.D. 30-107, and Polycarp and he were fellow-disciples under John. Thus, we surely can’t brush these words of his aside without great difficulty!

From The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, J. D. Douglas, general editor, page 326, under the heading “Ebionites” we read in part:

“EBIONITES. The name is derived from a Hebrew word meaning ‘poor’ (cf. Luke 6:20) ... The Ebionites exalted the Law, though they considered it contained false pericopes (shortened renderings), rejected the Pauline epistles, and regarded Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary, but elected Son of God at his baptism when he was united with the eternal Christ, who is higher than the archangels, but not divine. This Christ had appeared in various figures from Adam on. His work was that of a teacher rather than savior... They had their own gospel, now called the ‘Gospel of the Ebionites’; it has survived mainly in quotations in Epiphanius. Apparently it was a developed form of the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ i.e., essentially Matthew ... Along with other Jewish Christians they suffered heavily during the Bar-Kochba revolt (132-135), because they would not accept him as Messiah. They then gradually dwindled away, their last remnants being swept away by the Muslim conquest of Syria.”

The modern-day Paul-bashers have become modern-day Ebionites in every respect of the word! It may take me several lessons to confirm that, but confirm it I will! And Dr. [Ha!] H. Graber is no exception to the rule! The only thing H. Graber has going for him is the fact he is dead, and “thank God and Greyhound he’s gone”! While H. Graber was alive, he was a fool – now he’s a dead fool! He’s a dead Ebionite-fool! The Ebionites denied that Yahshua was Yahweh in the flesh, and such are antichrists! I pray to Yahweh that the reader will begin to see how dangerous all this Paul-bashing can become!

We will now go to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 4, chapter 65: “But since he asserts that ‘you may hear all those who differ so widely saying, ‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world’,’ we shall show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain heretical sects which do not receive the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two sects of Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites. Those, then, who do not regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his language, and say, ‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.’ And consequently in this point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood.”

Then at the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 7, under the heading, “That Even Among the Jews There Arose the Doctrine of Several Heresies Hateful to God”:

“VI. For even the Jewish nation had wicked heresies: for of them were the Sadducees, who do not confess the resurrection of the dead; and the Pharisees, who ascribe the practice of sinners to fortune and fate; and the Basmotheans, who deny providence, and say that the world is made by spontaneous motion, and take away the immortality of the soul; and the Hemerobaptists, who every day, unless they wash, do not eat, – nay, and unless they cleanse their beds and tables, or platters and cups and seats, do not make use of any of them; and those who are newly risen amongst us, the Ebionites, who will have the Son of God to be a mere man, begotten by human pleasure, and the conjunction of Joseph and Mary. There are also those that separate themselves from all these, and observe the laws of their fathers, and these are the Essenes. These, therefore, arose among the former people. And now the evil one, who is wise to do mischief, and as for goodness, knows no such good thing, has cast out some from among us, and has wrought by them heresies and schisms.” [emphasis mine]

From The Moody Handbook of Theology, page 415, under the heading “Ancient Perversions: Relating To Mosaic Law” we read: “... The Nazarenes used only the Hebrew edition of Matthew’s gospel, but at the same time they recognized Paul’s apostleship. The Ebionites denied the virgin birth and deity of Christ, teaching that He was the natural son of Mary and Joseph and as such, just a man, howbeit, a prophet. Paul’s apostleship was rejected; they considered him an apostate from the law ...” [emphasis mine]

This Ebionite sect may seem quite obnoxious, but I guarantee that the modern-day Ebionite Paul-bashers have gone far beyond those of the early Christian era, and that is an understatement! We’ll be getting into all that as we continue this theme. If you think this is all that repugnant, wait until we expose the venom of Joseph Jeffers! You ain’t heard nothin yet! I’m sure most everybody has heard the expression “straw-boss”, meaning someone who has been given an insignificant amount of authority and it goes to his/her head. Well, we have a whole bunch of straw-one-verse-Bible-bosses going around churning out hay, wood and stubble rather than gold, silver and precious stones. Leading this group are the Paul-bashers!

So far we have been addressing mainly the Ebionites, but there are others: the Encratites, and Cerinthians (all being in the same category as the Nicolaitanes) all of whom Yahshua hates, Rev. 2:15. Yes, if one is a Paul-basher, one is no better than the Ebionites, the Encratites, the Cerinthians or the Nicolaitanes.

Here is mentioned the Cerinthians. In order to understand the Cerinthians, we must refer to their founder Cerinthus. For this, we will go to The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by J. D. Douglas, page 207:

“CERINTHUS (c.100). Heretic who lived in Asia Minor. His theology appears to have been a combination of Ebionite theology with Gnostic speculation. The world, he taught, was not the creation of the Supreme God, but that of an inferior angel who held the world in bondage. According to him, Jesus was a normal man, the son of Joseph and Mary, who differed from ordinary men only in greater wisdom and righteousness. He was chosen by the Supreme God to proclaim Him and release the world from its bondage. For this task the Christ descended upon him at his baptism in the form of a dove, sent from the Father. This Christ departed from Jesus before his crucifixion, and it was only Jesus who suffered and rose again. Cerinthus taught also a carnal doctrine of the Millennium, in that at his coming Jesus would introduce 1,000 years of sensuous pleasure before the consummation. According to the Alogi, Cerinthus was the author [or falsely claimed to be]“p style=sans-serif/span/span of the gospel of John and the Apocalypse.” (G. L. CAREY)

Not only do we find out more about the Cerinthians, but we come closer to the origin of the theory of the so-called “Millennium” touted by today’s phony-baloney futurists’ views of Biblical prophecy. Here also is introduced the term “Alogi.” For clarification on the Alogi we again go to The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by J. D. Douglas, pages 29-30:

“ALOGI. An obscure Christian group in Asia Minor about 175 which, in reaction to Montanism, questioned the authority of those sacred books on which they based their claims. Hence they rejected en bloc the gospel of John and the Apocalypse which, according to them, were written by Cerinthus. They also objected to the Logos theology of the Apologists. The nickname Alogi (Gr. alogoi) was scornfully applied to them by Epiphanius, who used it in a double sense to denote that they were ‘irrational’ people who were without the ‘Logos’.”

Now that we have a general view of what the Cerinthians were all about, let’s take a look at the Encratites. For that we will go to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 5, chapter 8 under the heading, “The Doctrines of the Encratites”:

“Others, however, styling themselves Encratites, acknowledge some things concerning God and Christ in like manner with the Church. In respect, however, of their mode of life, they pass their days inflated with pride. They suppose, that by meats they magnify themselves, while abstaining from animal food, (and) being water-drinkers, and forbidding to marry, and devoting themselves during the remainder of life to habits of asceticism. But persons of this description are estimated Cynics rather than Christians, inasmuch as they do not attend unto the words spoken against them through the Apostle Paul. Now he, predicting the novelties that were to be hereafter introduced ineffectually by certain (heretics), made a statement thus: ‘The Spirit speaketh expressly, in the latter times certain will depart from sound doctrine, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, uttering falsehoods in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by the faithful, and those who know the truth; because every [sic. every clean] creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.’ This voice, then, of the blessed Paul, is sufficient for the refutation of those who live in this manner, and plume themselves on being just; (and) for the purpose of proving that also, this (tenet of the Encratites) constitutes a heresy. But even though there have been denominated certain other heresies – I mean those of the Cainites, Ophites, or Noachites, and of others of this description – I have not deemed it requisite to explain the things said or done by these, lest on this account they may consider themselves somebody, or deserving of consideration.”

From Who’s Who in Christian History, under the heading “Tatian” we read:

“Tatian (died c. 180) Apologist and heretic: Originally from Assyria (upper Mesopotamia), Tatian acquired extensive Greek learning. He became a Christian in Rome following a long period of travel. For several years, Tatian was an adherent of Justin and his teaching. But after Justin’s death, he retreated into the Encratite sect and lived mostly thereafter in the empire’s far eastern provinces. The Encratite doctrines were heavily Gnostic in character. The sect believed that matter is evil and maintained varied ascetic practices, including prohibition of marriage.”

For more on Tatian, we will go to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, volume 3, chapter 29:

“Tatian who, while teaching oratory, won not a little glory in the rhetorical art, was a follower of Justin Martyr and was distinguished so long as he did not leave his master’s side. But afterwards, inflated by a swelling of eloquence, he founded a new heresy which is called that of the Encratites, the heresy which Severus afterwards augmented in such wise that heretics of this party are called Severians to the present day ...”

 

THE GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES

 

We will never make any sense out of these various sects unless we consider their background and their motives. I get the following information from the Dictionary of the New Testament, “The Apostolic Church”, by James Hastings, volume 1, pages 494-495. I will not quote it, but will paraphrase it, filling in my own comments:

According to Epiphanius (Hœr. 30.3), the Ebionites accepted no Gospel except that of Matthew. Matthew alone they use as well as also the adherents of Cerinthus and Merinthus, as they call it “the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” The Book of Matthew alone was composed in Hebrew characters. It is true, Epiphanius adds, and repeats at 30.6 that Hebrew to be kept in the Genizah at Tiberias, which had proved useful in the conversion of Jews. (No indication is made here whether these be good-fig or bad-fig Judahites.)

Anyway, this idea of a Hebrew Matthew obsessed Epiphanius, along with other early Christian writers. Importantly, for our present purpose, notice how he proceeds to make explanation that the Gospel used by the Ebionites was not the Greek canonical edition (30.13). The Hebrew edition used by the Ebionites began at chapter 3:1 “It came to pass in the days of king Herod”, completely omitting the story about the birth, and cutting off all the genealogy of the Christ.

Thus, it is apparent that these Ebionites, and like minded sects, rejected anything written in Greek. I guess this is about the size of the New Testament we would have today if we listened to today’s Paul-bashers. When Epiphanius speaks here of Hebrew, I don’t believe he is referring to Aramaic. If this is true, he was alluding to a narrow class of people, and who might that people be?

There are other passages, according to Hastings, where the Hebrew Matthew does not agree with the canonical Matthew. Hastings also demonstrates on page 495 that “the original text [of Matthew] was Greek, not Semitic.” For us, this should throw up all kinds of red flags! It should also throw up all kinds of red flags when we witness people bashing Paul’s writings! Maybe the modern-day Ebionites might have accepted Paul had he written everything in Hebrew which he also surely knew quite well!

The Ebionites were vegetarians, probably because they objected to all sexual relations as immoral. Consequently, any animals brought to life by such relations to them were unfit for food. Amazingly, we have those in Israel Identity today who also advocate total vegetarianism. How do those who demand such a thing get around 1 Timothy 4:1-3:

“1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

Evidently Paul ran into this same thing at Romans 14:1-3, saying to us who eat meat that we shouldn’t judge him “who is weak [in the faith] who eateth herbs.” Yes, Paul identified those who advocated total vegetarianism in those days as “weak in the faith.” Of course, the modern-day Ebionites would reject Paul’s admonition here.

This lesson has been an effort to show that Paul-bashing is nothing new, and that it existed among those in early Christianity, and for the same reasons as today. As the old saying goes, “There’s nothing new under the sun”! I have to warn you in advance, I haven’t even scratched the surface on this subject yet. I felt it was important to start this series in defense of Paul right where it started in history. So with the help of my good friend William Finck, we’re going to come out with our guns blazing on this blatant mockery against the apostle Paul!

This is my eighty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. With this lesson, we’ll continue our defense of the apostle Paul, which I initiated in lesson #88, where recorded history reveals its origin, showing Paul-bashing is nothing new. Most, if not all, of the condemnation of the apostle Paul is based on faulty research establishing flawed premises, and therefore, in the end, fostering spurious conclusions.

Before we get started in our defense of Paul, I would like to demonstrate a case in point where such “spurious conclusions” are misconceived. One such architect of misconceptions is the late Joseph Jeffers, whose perverted theology-factory has been taken over by one Dr. (ha!) Philip B. Evens. Jeffers and company are Paul-bashers extraordinaire. One of Jeffers’ twisted premises is that the Christ of our Bible was a fake and that the true Messiah was “the teacher of righteousness” of Dead Sea Scroll fame. To enforce such a spurious position, he attempts to show that his “teacher of righteousness” lived contemporaneously with Caesar Augustus some 50 years earlier. In Jeffers’ publication, Yahweh Yesterday, Today And Forever, on page 24 he makes the statement:

“Another revelation from Yahweh concerning the Messiah was that he was not born on December 25 in the year 1 or 4 B.C. First, let us take the year of his birth. Luke 2:1 is the scripture that is the basis for this falsity: ‘And it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed...And Joseph also went up from Galilee...to be taxed with Mary, his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.’

“Here let us do some more reasoning. If you look up Caesar Augustus in the Encyclopedia, you will find that Caesar Augustus was born 63 B.C. Now, if the scripture in Luke is anywhere near correct, then the Messiah was born approximately the same time when Caesar Augustus was in power, or 45 B.C.”

It is true in some cases if one will look up Caesar Augustus, that in a few encyclopedias only a trifling amount of information can be found, but if one will check under Roman history, it will be confirmed that Luke was absolutely correct in his account. The World Book Encyclopedia under the “Roman Empire”, volume 16, page 392 has Augustus’ reign as emperor from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D; ditto Collier’s Encyclopedia (1970) under “Augustus”, volume 3, page 226; ditto the 1951 World Scope Encyclopedia, volume 1 under “Augustus”; ditto the 1910 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume 2, page 911, under “Augustus”; ditto the 1998 Encarta Encyclopedia under “Augustus” stating: “Augustus (63 BC-AD 14), first emperor of Rome (27 BC-AD 14) ...”

It is apparent from this that Joseph Jeffers did not research his subject sufficiently, and his so-called “reasoning” is severely flawed. It should be crystal clear that our Yahshua Christ was indeed born during the reign of Caesar Augustus, and that Luke was accurate in his account of His Advent. This, then, should give us great confidence in the accuracy of Luke’s writings. Once one starts on the road of Paul-bashing, Luke-bashing is not far behind.

The object of pointing out Joseph Jeffers’ error here is to make the reader aware of how dangerous a flawed premise can become. The story of Jeffers is long and convoluted, based on sundry errors. In short, Jeffers is bad news and his diatribe to be avoided!

Getting started now with our defense of Paul the apostle, we will go to William Finck in a letter he wrote to a friend which is presented here and in lessons to come as an open letter to H. Graber:

 

OPEN LETTER RESPONDING TO H. GRABER  by William Finck

 

In the Autumn of 2003, a dear friend of mine sent me a copy of the December 1985, vol. II, #12, Kingdom Courier by one H. Graber, 5393 Carleton Rd., Mariposa, Ca. 95338. This document is a reflection of most of the trash being printed nowadays – and even in Israel Identity circles – to discredit Paul of Tarsus. My friend is, unfortunately, deceived by people such as H. Graber, Scott Nelson, and others, into rejecting the excellent and legitimate writings of Paul, for none other than a want of understanding. In November of 2003 I wrote a lengthy response to Graber’s document, and both are reproduced below in their entirety, except that my response, originally in the form of a personal letter, has been edited somewhat for general consumption and for the format here. In my letter dated 19th Nov. 03, I stated:

Dear Friend, Hello! Today I am writing you to respond to some of the statements in the December, 1985 Kingdom Courier you sent me, the article being entitled “The Gospel Of Jesus Christ! Versus The Doctrine Of The Apostle Paul!” And I must say, if the so-called ‘Dr.’ H. Graber truly wanted to “seek the truth and insure [his] eternal destiny” as he so boldly states, I’m sure he has found a destiny other than he hoped to attain: for his work is weighed in the balance, and found wanting. This letter will demonstrate that Mr. Graber is a liar, and a fraud. I am not going to address every aspect of Graber’s eight page document, though I will discuss many of his statements, and certainly more of it than would be sufficient to support my claims concerning his character and scholarship. So that you may more easily follow my answers to Graber’s statements, I will include a marked copy of his document with my letter, and the marks will correspond to those which will precede my several responses, i.e. <A>, <B> etc.

[So the reader will not become confused, all of Graber’s remarks will be in italics, and a reference system will be used for first Graber’s presentation followed by my (William Finck’s) response which is slightly different than my original response to my friend]:

<Reference A> H. Graber states: “Indeed I am aware of the controversy this message will percipitate [sic.], but if there is one iota of TRUTH in this exposition, then I propose that the professed Christian must establish justification for the discrepencies [sic.] between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the apostle Paul! It is not my purpose to generate controversy, but, rather to seek the truth and insure my eternal destiny. If we manufacture any justification for the doctrine of the apostle Paul, then we must concede that Jesus Christ erred in the presentation of His Gospel, while He walked this earth. Or we must acknowledge that Jesus Christ changed His Divine Plan after His resurrection and ascention [sic.], and this premise must then acknowledge that Paul was spiritually inspired of God, to document his divergent doctrine.

“I shall be eternally greatfull [sic.] to Dr. W. G. Finlay of South Africa, for his expose [sic. exposé] of this matter, which inspired me to verify his presentation in both scriptures and secular history. It will be impossible for me to present all the details of this picture of betrayal in this short treatise, but I shall endeavor to present the fundamental basis for this message, to serve as a rational guide for any sincere Christian to expand upon by their own research and study.”

William Finck answers <A>: To begin, I will quote a statement of Graber’s from the end of his original document, page 8, prg. 9: “... we are all indavidually [sic], the captains of our own destiny!” This statement alone exposes Graber as a humanist, and not a Christian, and also as a hypocrite, for in the following paragraph Graber claims: “I shall glean my spiritual sustenance from Matthew, John, Peter and James ...” yet who does Peter say is the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, but Yahshua Christ (1 Peter 2:25)? We are not the “captains” of our own destiny, we are purchased by Yahweh, and our lives are not our own! Paul teaches this (Eph. 1:14, 1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23) as does Peter (2 Peter 2:1), which is the meaning of redemption in the first place (i.e. Isa. 43:1)! So who is a liar, but H. Graber? Pretending to be a teacher in Israel, he “doeth the work of Yahweh deceitfully” (Jer. 48:10) and conceives and utters “from the heart words of falsehood” (Isa. 59:13). But there is much more!

<Reference B> H. Graber states: “The book, ‘The Great Lion of God’ by Taylor Caldwell, gives one a preview of Saul of Tarsus as a Pharisee, depicting a totally perverse and reprobate Jew, steeped in the traditions of Judaism. Further, he is depicted as a [sic.] short, stocky, and of strong stature, with a very unpleasant countenance. This is the character that admits his zealousness in killing Christians, (Gal. 1:13-14, Acts 22:4). Here I would like to ask you to read the words of Jesus Christ in His ‘Sermon on the Mount’, in Matt. 7:1-29, and then read Paul’s (Sermon on the Mount?), in Rom. 12:1-21. Certainly the divergent doctrine of Paul is evident in this comparison.”

William Finck answers <B>: Last year [2002] I wrote to the original recipient of this letter, in response to an anti-Paul document he had sent to me, which discussed the alleged description of Paul echoed here by Graber above, and quoted from a book by Taylor Caldwell. For those interested, they will find that this alleged physical description of Paul is derived from the writings of a second century forger of scripture, one who contrived the so-called Acts of Paul and Thecla in order to pollute Christianity with his false doctrines. Now all of this was evident in an encyclopedia article which this same person had sent to me, and which information is readily available (see, for instance, Word Pictures in the New Testament by A. Robertson at 2 Cor. 10:10-11). This spurious description of Paul was repeated in another forgery using the name of Lucian in the fourth century. Because such a description of Paul is used by multiple forgers, and enemies of the truth and of Christianity, I would safely confer that the truth concerning Paul’s appearance is quite the opposite of what the forgers would have us believe! The authors of these alleged physical descriptions of Paul are discredited as frauds and forgers. Any historian is only as good as his sources. If H. Graber and T. Caldwell want to promote the works of a liar, then they themselves are become liars in doing so! I asked this person to also please refer to my discussion of this topic from our past correspondence, if he still had it, and which I regret not having available as I write this.

In this paragraph Graber also condemns Paul’s words at Romans 12, in comparison with Matthew 7. He makes no specific statements, however, (what a wonderful ‘scholar’) and I’m not going to stab at shadows, except to say that I find no fault at all in Paul’s discourse here, in comparison with the entire Sermon on the Mount of our Redeemer, which begins at Matthew 5, and includes Matthew 6! By comparing apples and oranges, and removing words from their contexts, Graber exposes himself as an underminer and dissembler.

<Reference C> H. Graber states: “Now let us consider the purported Divine commission of apostleship bestowed upon Saul/Paul, as documented by the professed apostle Luke, in Acts chapter 9. There is NO evidence in scriptures or secular history of this miraculous event, except THE CLAIM OF PAUL HIMSELF! as documented by his companion Luke, in the book of Acts. Here let us consider the authors of the New Testement [sic.] books. We know that Jesus Christ commissioned His Disciples to perform His commands, and Jesus personally selected Matthew, Peter, John, James, Phillip [sic.], Bartholomew, Simon, Thaddaeus, Andrew, Thomas and Judas Iscariot, a devil, and Jesus knew it. Of these twelve, only four wrote books that we have in the New Testement [sic.], Matthew, John, Peter, and James, a total of (9) books, all authored between AD 63 and AD 96, except Matthew, which is dated AD 37. These are the works of the Disciples of Jesus Christ. NOW, let us consider the books written by professed apostles in the New Testement [sic.], ALL authored between AD 54 and AD 69. These books (17) total, were all authored by Mark, Luke, and Paul, with Paul being the author of (14) of them. Here we note what seems an enigma to me. If Paul was this great man of God, that he is expounded to be by all professed Christianity (except a few) today, Why was his name mentioned only (1) time (by Peter) in all the works of the Disciples, who wrote during the time, and much later than Paul? <Reference C-2> Conversly [sic.], why did Paul not mention Matthew even ONE TIME in his works, considering that he was the author of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Paul mentions John (1) time, Peter (5) times, and James (4) times in all of his prolific writings. HOWEVER, when we consider the three professed apostles, Mark, Luke, and Paul, we find that Mark did not mention Paul even one time, but Luke, Paul’s companion, mentioned Paul’s name (133) times, and Paul mentions his own name (30) times. By way of observation, it appears like Luke is the Publicity Agent (Hollywood style) for Paul. I believe here we have two professed apostles that seem to be working hand in glove, to promote a new star on the horizon of Christianity. I believe that the following exposition will support this contention.”

William Finck answers <C>: In response to this paragraph I will make only a general statement in support of both Luke and Paul. The mark of an inspired writer of the words of Yahweh is the revelation of prophecy later fulfilled. Luke’s gospel contains prophecy that, although the same general sketch of the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem was also painted by Matthew (24) and Mark (13), Luke (here I speak of Luke 21:5 to 21:24) states some things in a different way than his colleagues. One may walk through Josephus’ Wars, the history of the destruction of Jerusalem, and see that Luke’s version, which states some things more specifically than the other two (i.e. 21:20) was fulfilled exactly as Luke wrote it. There are many other writings in Luke (and in Acts) which only a man inspired of Yahweh could possibly write. However, men like Graber, who are of false and deceitful hearts, do not have the capacity to recognize such things. There are also many prophetic statements made by Paul, among them Romans 16:20, of which a proper study would reveal that Paul also was inspired by Yahweh!

Now here, and at <Reference C-2>, Graber makes some very insidious statements and questions. For instance, he demands to know why Matthew never mentioned Paul. It doesn’t seem to matter to Graber that Matthew’s gospel ends its account before the first Pentecost, mentioned at Acts 2, long before Paul’s involvement in Christianity. Is Graber a fool, or a purposeful deceiver? His question is the equivalent of asking why Matthew didn’t mention the birth of Constantine or the founding of these United States! Then Graber admits that Paul was mentioned by Peter, and then regardless of Peter’s testimony of Paul, Graber claims to “... glean his spiritual sustenance from ... Peter ...”! H. Graber: liar and hypocrite! Graber states “we find that Mark did not mention Paul even one time”, yet again, Mark’s gospel ends long before Paul’s involvement! My friend and correspondent, you and I met in 1998. Would you mention me in a narrative of your life, if your narrative closed with 1995? Of course not! A child should notice Graber’s duplicity here! Now Graber raises a lot of smoke, claiming that Luke “mentioned Paul’s name (133) times” yet he fails to state (or rather admit) that not one of these mentions are in the gospel of Luke! Here it should be evident, H. Graber is a deceiver and a liar!

In the one short letter we have of his, James does not mention Paul, but James does not mention any of his other contemporaries either! Who is a liar, but H. Graber? In two letters, the only other apostle Peter mentions is Paul! Here Graber’s own arguments proved just the opposite of what Graber intends! And proved that Graber is a liar! John mentions none of his colleagues in his three epistles, and of course he wouldn’t mention Paul by name in his gospel, for the same reason given above. Jude mentions only James, his brother, surely to prevent us from confusing him with the other New Testament men with the name z3@b*"l (there were three). So who is a liar, but H. Graber? And a fool!

We have 14 of Paul’s epistles. Of these, four are very long, and the other ten are nearly all as long or longer than any of the seven epistles we have written by other apostles. For sake of comparison, Paul’s epistles consume 179 pages in the NA27, where the other seven epistles consume but 44 pages. Paul mentions his own name 30 times in letters written on a personal basis (Graber’s count) from Paul to various assemblies, approximately once per six pages of text. James mentions his own name once, Peter his own name twice, and Jude mentions his own name once, for a total of about one per 10 pages, but only because the humble John does not mention his own name! Hopefully you see how inane this argument is. It adds up to one thing: Graber is an idiot!

The Book of Acts is basically an account of those deeds of Peter and Paul written by Luke. Peter’s name occurs 58 times in Acts, Paul’s 133 (as Graber states) to which I must add 23 mentions as “Saul.” This should not be considered excessive, since Luke spent much more time with Paul than he did with Peter. Now to be fair, the gospel of Matthew is basically an account of the deeds of Yahshua Christ, and His name (Yahshua) appears in Matthew approximately 152 times, and in John 240 times (according to the Moulton-Geden concordance). Now Matthew contains 87 pages of Greek text in the NA27, and John 74, but Acts 89. So Paul’s name is certainly not mentioned excessively. Therefore, let no man attempt to fool you with such deceptions. Paul mentions His name (Yahshua) approximately 230 times! H. Graber is a liar!

<Reference D> H. Graber states: “Who is the professed apostle Paul? In scriptures Paul tells us that he is an Israelite, (Rom. 11:1). Then he tells us that he IS a Pharisee, (Phil. 3:5). Luke tells us that Paul is a Jew, (Acts 21:39, & 22:3). History tells us that after the Babylonian captivity of the House of Judah, only a small remnant returned to Jerusalem, which were mostly Jews and not Israelites. Jesus warned His people concerning the LIE that even today has blinded the world. We read in Rev. 2:9, & 3:9, ‘I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews (Judeans) and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.’ So one must ask the question, Was Paul a Jew (Yehuwdaiy), or an Israelite? We know that in secular life, Paul was a rabid Jew, Pharisee, and Lawyer, and we are told that he was steeped in the principles of judaism! Also he was an avid student of the Philosophers of his days at the University, such as Plato and Socrates.”

William Finck answers <D>: Here Graber engages in deception by purposefully confusing the context in which certain terms are used. Where Paul says he is an Israelite (of the tribe of Benjamin), he lies not, identifying himself by race. Where Paul says he is a Judaean (right, in the original Greek, neither Paul nor Luke, nor any other Biblical writer, use the term ‘jew’, as Graber so idiotically alleges), or where Luke calls Paul a Judaean, they lie not, but are using the term to describe Paul’s national identity, in terms understood in the Greco-Roman world, even though Paul was born at Tarsus and therefore also a Roman citizen. In a similar manner, I may elect to call myself an American (my citizenship), a Saxon or Celto-Saxon (my race) or even a German (the land my fathers came from). Would I be lying? Of course not, and neither is Paul, or Luke! H. Graber is the only liar here!

Paul was a Pharisee. Does that make him evil, as Graber implies? Nicodemus was a Pharisee, was he evil? Joseph of Arimathea was on the council, the Sanhedrin! He was not evil! There were many good Pharisees, and many bad. Today’s equivalents are Republicans, there are many of them, too, good and bad. (Democrats are more like the Sadducees.) Graber, the liar, uses ‘Pharisee’ as a scare-word, and it surely should not be used in such a manner. It was a political party, and if you wanted any sort of voice in the community, you joined one of the parties. Was Paul a liar? Certainly not! He was a tentmaker by trade (Acts 18:3) and nowhere does it state that he was a lawyer. Pharisee, scribe and lawyer were all quite different things. Just read Matthew 23. H. Graber? He is a liar!

Was Paul learned in the learning of the Greeks? Yes! And this should be a source of pride to Identity students, since most of the Greeks were Israelites. It is also a source of refutation to the jews, who today would want you to believe that Judaea was isolated from Greco-Roman language, culture and learning, a huge lie. A separate and lengthy topic, I could surely write a twofold paper, first illustrating parallels in ancient Greek and Old Testament literature, and secondly on the New Testament parallels with ancient Greek literature. Paul quotes Aratus, Euripides, Epimenides, Menander, uses illustrations derived from Homer, Pythagoras, etc. As I said, most of the Greeks were Israelites. Of course, I suspect H. Graber may not be!

<Reference E> H. Graber states: “Now let us consider specific Pauline doctrine that is divergent from the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

“LIES: We read in Rom. 3:17, ‘For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?’ Here Paul is justifying lies, if they serve a moral purpose. This sounds like the anti-christian Plato’s philosophy from ‘The Republic’ quote, ‘Such a dangerous weapon as falsehood may not be employed by any but rulers, and then only for great and good purposes.’ Is this what Paul is saying in Rom. 3:7? The Gospel of Jesus Christ tells us in 1 John. 2:27, ‘But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is the truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.’ If Paul was indeed anointed of Jesus Christ, how could he lie?”

William Finck answers <E>: I must ask, how did Mr. Graber become ‘Dr.’, not having any basic reading skills? You can read Romans 3:7 from the A.V., as Graber does, yet here it is from my own translation: “Indeed if the truth of Yahweh were increased by my lie for His honor, why then am I still judged as wrongful?” Is Paul here promoting lying, as Graber claims? Certainly not! Paul is saying that to lie, even if one believes that he is helping or honoring Yahweh by lying, is still sinful! Who isans-serif class=s a liar, but Mr. Graber? Paul lies not!

The definition of διάβολος, one of the words translated “devil” in the A.V., is “accuser”, and more fully is one who throws up (διά-βολος is literally “by a throw”) false accusations, hence in my translations I write: False Accuser. This alone best describes H. Graber, for I have already shown this is his device, several times over. διάβολος is the word for ALL of the critics of Paul, whose actual goal is to undermine Christianity, while calling themselves Christians! This, reader, is their second oldest trick. They undermined Judaea by calling themselves Judah. They undermined America by calling themselves Americans. Today they divide Christian Identity, being called “One-Seedliners”! The ignorant among us, which is usually the majority, fall time and again to these devices.

With this in mind, I will yet take the time to dissect H. Graber’s false accusations, if for nothing else but that hopefully by this I may help strengthen the knowledge and awareness of a few, that they “be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked” such as Graber and Scott Nelson, his fellow liar.

<Reference F> H. Graber states: “THE MESSIAH: We read, concerning Paul in Acts 13:46-47, ‘Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was neccessary [sic.] that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: (meaning the Jews) but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.’ If the apostle Paul is to be for salvation unto the ends of the earth, that means that Jesus Christ has abdicated His Messiahship! If we are to believe these scriptures, and the apostle Paul, then Paul is our Messiah. Paul further magnifies himself in Gal. 4:14, ‘And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even Jesus Christ.’ What arrogance! Paul putting himself on the same level with Jesus Christ. We read the words of Jesus in John 4:25-26, ‘The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.’ Who do you accept as the MESSIAH, Jesus Christ or the apostle Paul?”

William Finck answers <F>: I have been thinking to write a paper for some time now concerning all of the mistranslation and misconception in and of the book of Acts. When I do, Acts 13:46-47 will certainly be one of the pericopes discussed. At Acts 13:47 Paul quotes Isaiah (see Isaiah 42:6, 49:6 and 51:4), whose prophecy is surely related to the promises found at 1 Kings 11:36 (and 2 Chron. 21:7) and which Paul surely understood – knowing the prophecy better than Mr. Graber – that he had a part in fulfilling (see Acts 26:17-18). Every message needs a messenger. If one claims to know where lost Israel was at the time of Christ, one must accept Paul as that messenger, for no one else delivered Yahshua’s message to the Nations (not the “Gentiles”), but Paul! The Gauls, Greeks, Romans and Spaniards that Paul visited, along with the Scythians and others he mentioned, were all Israelites, and Paul knew it.

We are the light of the world (Matt. 5:14-16). We are the children of Light (John 12:36, 1 John 1:5-7). Shemesh, or “sun” in Hebrew, also means “people of Shem” in Hebrew. This is not an accident. Peter also knew the prophet’s comparison of the Word to light (2 Pet. 1:19), but was not the writer that Paul evidently was. Luke (2:32) knew the source of the light, and surely Paul did too, though in the A.V. Luke 2:32 is poorly translated, for the Nations (not ‘Gentiles’) and the glory of Israel are in the Greek both one and the same. If Graber understands not the prophecy concerning the light of the gospel, it is only because there is no light in him (John 11:10)!

Now to discuss Acts 13:46. Paul gives this discourse in Pisidian Antioch, which contained a colony of Romans (Strabo 12.18.4), amidst a land settled throughout history by Phrygians (who were Thracians according to Strabo and others, hence descendants of Japheth – Gen. 10:2), Pisidians (a people which Strabo relates to the Leleges and Cilicians, Strabo 12.7.3, who in turn are shown to be related to the Trojans and had Trojan kings, Strabo 13.1.7, 13.1.51, 13.3.1 et al., and in turn the Cilicians are related to the Phoenicians by Rawlinson in his edition of Herodotus, from comments Herodotus made; Israelites all!), and later the area was overrun by the Keltic-Israelite Galatians, and later colonized by Greeks as well as Romans. So enough background on the environs of Pisidian Antioch, a “multi-cultural” region, but consisting entirely of Adamic cultures. When Paul first addressed these people he states (13:16) “Men of Israel, and ye that fear God”, a device which indicates the presence of non-Israelite Adamites (compare Peter at Acts 2:14) and his entire address is for and about Israelites. See also Acts 13:26, where by no means is Paul attempting to change the original commission (Matt. 15:24).

Now at Acts 13:46, after the Judaeans (not the “jews”, which is not in the original Greek anywhere, although today we call the non-believing Judaeans, racially Canaanites and Edomites, by the name of “jew”) rejected Paul’s message, Paul says “... lo, we turn to τὰ ἔθνη” and I will discuss the Greek words τὰ ἔθνη in a moment.

First, it should be obvious that Paul’s scope here is local. This is not, as the catholics would have you think, a sudden and general rejection by Paul of Judaeans everywhere; God having changed His mind and His people. Oh the deception! By no means should Acts 13:46 be cross-referenced, as so many fools do, to Matthew 21:43. Instead, Matthew 21:43 should be cross-referenced to Micah 4:7-8 and to Daniel 2:44, which the catholics usually neglect to do, not having the Truth! Paul’s rejection of Judaeans here applies only to those Judaeans at the time and place (the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch) in which Paul makes the statement. This is obvious, since days later at Iconium, 75 miles east of Antioch Paul visits another synagogue (Acts 14:1) and “a great multitude of the Judaeans and also of the Greeks believed.” Here it is proven: anyone who follows the catholic (meaning “universalist”) theology is a fool, and anyone who parrots it is a liar! H. Graber is a fool and a liar!

Now for the words τὰ ἔθνη in this passage. Anyone who ever reads the Greek word ἔθνος, of which ἔθνη is plural, and utters the made-up catholic word “gentile”, is a moron! Let us look at the secular definition of ἔθνος as given by Liddell & Scott: “a number of people accustomed to live together, a company, a body of men ... of animals, swarms, flocks ... after Homer, a nation, people ... in the N.T. the nations ...” Now not always can this word be translated “nations.” See Acts 8:9 and Romans 10:19 in the A.V., where ἔθνος is translated “people.” Compare Mark 11:17 to its source at Isaiah 56:7, where the A.V. should have translated the word “people”, but did not. There are other examples of this, and many more in the Septuagint. Here the A.V. should have rendered this part of Acts 13:46 “lo, we turn to the people”, and left behind in the Greek would be the diversity of the synagogue audience, Thracians, Kelts, Greeks, Romans and Judaeans, but all Adamites, which Paul’s use of τὰ ἔθνη surely indicates. Other Greek words meaning “people” or “multitude” among which are λαός, δῆμος, πλῆθος, ἁλής or ὄχλος, simply would not have the same precise meaning. Graber is ignorant, and his ignorance is accomplice to his lies. (Finck’s open letter to his friend will be continued in the next several lessons.)

The reason I made an example of Joseph Jeffers at the beginning of this lesson is because there are many in Israel Identity who are swallowing down his lies. Jeffers seems to have a propensity to change everything to just opposite of what it really was or is. He seems to take great delight in contorting the truth (especially on Paul)! But Scripture will make a liar out of people like him every time!

This is my 90th monthly teaching letter and I will continue with William Finck’s an Open Letter Responding To H. Graber, where Graber makes all kinds of harsh allegations against the apostle Paul. You will need #89 in this series, or you will not fully understand this one:

 To continue by examining another part of this paragraph at <F>, I will discuss his lies concerning Galatians 4:14. Quoting my own translation of this verse: “And of my trial in the flesh you did not despise or loathe, but as a messenger of Yahweh you accepted me, like Yahshua Christ.” It may be proven (start by reading 4:15) that Paul’s “trial in the flesh” was his failed eyesight (see also Gal. 6:11), and he was here commending the Galatians for treating him respectably, even though he had such a disability. Paul is not elevating himself to the position of Christ, but rather is commending the Galatians for abiding by the words of Christ, expressed at Matthew 10:40: “He that receiveth you receiveth me”! Paul is being fair in his assessment. Is Mr. Graber? Who is a liar, but H. Graber? It is obvious that Graber does not know his Scripture, yet makes many accusations. The jews did the same thing to Christ!

<Reference G> H. Graber states: “WORD OF GOD FIRST TO THE JEWS: In the above scriptures, Acts 13:46-47, Paul says that it was neccessary [sic.] that the word of God should first be preached to the Jews (Yehuwdiy). (Here we must understand that the words Jew and Israel are not synonymous.) We read in I Cor. 9:20, ‘And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;’ We have no evidence in the Bible that Jesus Christ ever done [sic.] this, to the contrary, Jesus said, speaking of the Jews in Matt. 13:10-13, ‘And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not; from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.’ Also in Matt. [sic. 13:] 34-35, ‘All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, saying, I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundations of the world.’ Does this sound like Jesus Christ was trying to gain the Yehuwdiy (Jews)? Of course not, Jesus knew that the Jews are the children of the devil as He tells us in John 8:44. We read in Jude: 4, ‘For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Certainly Jesus Christ knew who the Yehuwdiy are, and I believe that the learned Paul did too.”

William Finck answers <G>: Now to come to the paragraph marked <Reference G>. There is much deception on Graber’s part here! First Graber continues, in good catholic tradition, to confuse the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος, or properly “Judaean”, with the term “Jew.” Then, because Graber himself is confused, he accuses Paul of wanting to preach to Canaanites and Edomites! Now, Paul explains thoroughly the difference between Jacob and Esau (see Romans 9:1-13), and is very aware of those children of Cain masquerading as Judah (Acts 13:6-10, 19:13, 2 Thes. 2). Why does Graber not criticize John, who recorded our Redeemer as saying: “Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of (τῶν Ἰουδαίων) the Judaeans” (where the A.V. has “of the Jews”). Does Graber hold John to a different standard than Luke? Seemingly! Does Graber expect that the same word has some mysteriously different meaning if uttered by Yahshua rather than Paul? Surely! Who is a liar, but Mr. Graber?

I could write at length on why Paul felt that he had to bring the gospel to those Israelites (who at that time were calling themselves Judaeans) under the law first, who were mostly of true Judah and Benjamin, and then to those lost Israelites, the Nations of Genesis 17:6 and 35:11, though that is far beyond the scope of my purpose here. To read 1 Kings 11:36 and Zech. 12:7 should be sufficient for the time being.

To address Graber’s duplicity in the paragraph marked <G> of his twisted document: Paul spoke amongst the dispersion of Israel, lost and Judaean alike, in plain language. Yahshua spoke amongst the Judaeans of Palestine in parables. Paul’s mission was to live long enough to adequately spread the message of Redemption among lost Israel. Yahshua Christ’s mission was to announce that same gospel which Paul spread, He being its originator, and then to die at the hands of His enemies, and to live again, accomplishing our Redemption. Two different missions require two different methods. Paul also used many parables and analogies in his letters, which surely Graber and his ilk do not understand, because if they did they wouldn’t be critical of Paul!

Graber quotes Jude 4: “For certain men crept in unawares ...” yet ignores the nearly identical words of Paul at Gal. 2:4 “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in ...” and Acts 20:29: “... after my departing [from Asia Minor] shall grievous wolves enter in among you ...” Who is a deceiver, but H. Graber? And a liar too!

<Reference H> H. Graber states: “THE GENTILES: We note that Paul tells us in Acts 13:46-47, that, ‘the Lord commanded us saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles,’ And we also read in Rom. 11:13, ‘For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:’ Let us also read Rom. 15:16, ‘That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.’ There is no place in scriptures or secular history that tells us where Paul received this authority, except by his own claim and that of his companion Luke, who was a gentile. NOW, let us read what Jesus had to say in this matter. We read, Jesus commanding His Disciples, in Matt. 10:5-6, ‘These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ (The white caucasian [sic.], anglo-saxon [sic.], celtic [sic.], germanic [sic., should be capitalized] people of the world, the TRUE Israelites of the Bible!) We also read in Matt. 15:24, ‘But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ Very clearly, by the words of Jesus Himself, He tells us that He did not come for the Gentiles. WHY? Because Jesus came for salvation for His children that had the original sin imputed upon them, and thereby had become prisoners of Satan after death. The original sin was only imputed upon the seed of Adam, and not upon the Gentiles or Jews! I am sure the learned apostle Paul knew this. SO WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE, JESUS OR THE PROFFESSED [sic.] APOSTLE PAUL?”

William Finck answers <H>: Here, in the paragraph marked <H>, is Graber’s biggest and most obvious lie! First, Graber criticizes Paul for going to so-called ‘Gentiles’ – a word that no true scholar should even use, and then Graber admits that “the True Israelites of the Bible” are the “white Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic people of the world” [though he must have missed or slept through his third-grade school-classes the days when he would have been taught that these words should be capitalized.] Well, here Graber is right, but fails to mention that Paul wrote to the Galatians, better written “Gauls” (see my Galatians translation and the accompanying notes), and also mentioned the Scythians. It is the Galatians (synonymous with Kelts) and Scythians who are the parent races of all the “Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic people”, as is demonstrated by history. But Paul also went throughout Asia Minor, in his time inhabited mostly by Trojans, Phoenicians, Romans, Danaan and Dorian Greeks, all Israelites who left Israel during the 1,000 years between the sojourn in Egypt and the Assyrian deportations, and also by Thracian and Ionian Japhethites and Kelts (Galatians). And Paul also went to Greece, inhabited by Phoenicians, Danaan and Dorian Greeks (all Israelites) and Ionian Greeks (Javan, son of Japheth), and Paul went to Italy, inhabited by those same Greeks and Phoenicians and Trojan-Romans, and Paul likely went to Spain, inhabited by Phoenicians, Tartessians (Japhethites) and Kelts (deported Israel), and except for these tribes of Japheth (see Genesis 9:27) and the Semitic Lydians of Asia Minor (who are also the Etruscans of Italy), all of the people Paul went to and wrote to were also Israelites and all took part and have a share in the promises to Jacob, Isaac and Abraham. Only since Paul’s time have these southern European nations been invaded and mongrelized. When Paul was there – as archaeology fully proves – they were all “white Caucasian nations.” H. Graber, again: a liar and a deceiver! I wonder, does the “H” stand for Hymie, or Huckster? Paul never uttered the silly non-word “gentiles”! Rather, Paul used only the Greek words τὰ ἔθνη (ta ethnê) “the nations”, and knew that he was going to those same nations of Genesis 17:6 and 35:11, which nearly every one of his epistles proves in multiple ways.

I call “gentile” a non-word because in our language it is just that, not an English word. Rather, “gentile” was borrowed from the Latin language, and assigned a corrupted meaning, “Non-Jew”, which it never bore in Latin! The English translators chose the Latin gentilis, “gentile”, for their corrupt translation of the original Greek word ἔθνος (ethnos) because Jerome, when he made the Latin Vulgate, used the word gentilis to translate ἔθνος into Latin. Jerome, however, may well have had more wisdom than the later English translators, since gentilis is defined “family, hereditary; tribal; national ... clansman, kinsman” by The New College Latin & English Dictionary, and describes a people with some degree of relationship to each other. The Junior Classic Latin Dictionary published by Wilcox & Follett Company in 1945 defines gentilis: “of the same clan or race”, surely a word consistent with all scripture (Amos 3:2, Matt. 15:24 et al.) and nothing like the corrupted catholic interpretation of the word! To be honest, ἔθνος must be translated into a like English term when translating the Greek scriptures into English, and no borrowed and corrupted third-language term should be used, especially when that word’s true sense is ignored completely!

Now if Paul did not bring the gospel of Yahshua Christ to the promised nations of Jacob Israel (on book and parchments – i.e. 2 Tim. 4:13), then who did?!?! The other apostles?!?! If so, where are their letters, besides the seven brief epistles we have?!?! Although surely they all had their own function to perform, and I criticize them not, it was Paul whose work was best remembered and preserved, and it was Paul who risked his neck in Anatolia, Thrace, Macedon, Greece, Rome, and possibly even Spain and Britain, and his writings are still reaching out to the Israel-nations of today. Paul went nowhere but unto where history separately tells us the Israel-sheep were! There was no Paul in Egypt, China, India, Arabia or Ethiopia, places much safer and out of the way of jewish persecution, and far better to pollute Christianity if that were one’s mission. Anyone who criticizes Paul is a liar! H. Graber is a liar!

<Reference I> H. Graber states: “GENEAOLOGY [sic.]: The apostle Paul tells us in I Tim. I:4, ‘Neither give heed to fables and endless geneaologies [sic.], which minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.’ Again we read in Titus 3:9, ‘But avoid foolish questions, and geneaologies [sic.], and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.’ IF this be true, why did Almighty God give us the examples in the Old Testement [sic.], and why was the geneaology [sic.] of Jesus Christ documented in Matthew chapter I, reckoning Jesus Christ back to Adam? Did Jesus ever tell us that geneaologies [sic.] were vain? The Old Testement [sic.] gives us (12) times that the children of God were reckoned by geneaology [sic.], and purged of any and all adulterated seed. Read Ezra 2:62, ‘These sought their register among those that were reckoned by geneaology [sic.], but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.’ People that do not understand IDENTITY, cannot comprehend this truth.”

William Finck answers <I>: On to the next paragraph, which was originally on page 3 in Graber’s polluted document, and Paul’s exhortations to Titus and Timothy concerning “fables and endless genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4) and “foolish questions and genealogies” (Titus 3:9), these were NOT, as Graber the deceiver insinuates, admonitions by Paul to forgo or ignore concerns over one’s racial purity. To the contrary, Paul calls Titus “a purely bred child according to the common belief” (Titus 1:4, my translation) which is all Titus had to go by, his being Greek (a “lost” Israelite) and no true genealogical records being in his possession! Paul also addressed Timothy as a “purely bred child in faith” (1 Tim. 1:2, my translation) and Timothy being half-Greek and half-Judaean (Acts 16:1) the average Greek or Judaean, being ignorant of Greek roots, may have considered him a bastard.

To comprehend Paul’s admonitions concerning genealogies, we must understand that Paul is writing to Greeks, men schooled in Greek thought and literature, and is writing on Greek terms (which is what he is explaining at 1 Cor. 9:20-21 and which Graber understands not, that Paul being educated in Judaism and Greek literature, had the ability to speak to each on their own terms!) If anyone has read Homer, Hesiod, and the many other Greek poets and playwrights, and otherwise respectable Historians such as Strabo, Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus who often repeat such fables, only then can that one comprehend and appreciate the Greek idea of genealogy, and Paul’s admonitions here. Paul is certainly not condemning the likes of Esdras, and the Levitical record keepers of ancient Israel, but rather he is condemning Hesiod and the likes of his Theogony, and the many similar works which account for the races of men in various genealogies where those races are said to have descended from various pagan gods and goddesses such as Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Heracles, etc. Such accounts were quite intricate, repeated by poet and historian alike, and absolutely vain.

Who, then, can comprehend the Bible without understanding these things? Nobody! To properly understand the Bible, one must study language, history and archaeology, and the other literature of the periods of the Bible. Not to do so is to be susceptible to the lies of men such as H. Graber and Scott Nelson!

As for “contentions and strivings about the law” Paul warns Titus not to get caught up in the same such deceit which we find in the Talmud, a reflection of thought in Judaism of the period, and a perverted web of deceit and evil indeed! It is obvious that Graber, by his criticism of the statement, can not or is not willing to distinguish between “strivings about the law” and the law itself! Graber is as deceitful as those who wrote the Talmud!

This closes the sixteenth page of [my original handwritten] comments which by now I hope you agree have entirely discredited Mr. Graber. Yet I’m just coming to the bottom of page 3 of his document, and I have 5 pages to address yet, and address them I will, even if I must write twice sixteen pages again. I only hope the reader will be able to share this with others, who may be weak in the faith, and caught up in Graber’s deceit, and that they benefit somewhat by it. I also hope the reader will see through these empty and vain attacks upon the Truth which are engineered by Graber and his ilk. Anyone with only a surface knowledge of the Scripture is easily taken away by purveyors of deceit. A great difference there is, between hard study and casual reading, and then the source materials one uses make a world of difference also.

<Reference J> H. Graber states: “THE LAW: The doctrine of the professed apostle Paul very emphatically negates the Laws of God. BY WHAT AUTHORITY? We read in Rom. 1:17, ‘For therein is righeousness [sic] of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.’ (Not the law) <Reference J-2> Here we need to point out how Paul many times misquotes the Prophets of the Old Testement [sic.]. <Reference J continued> This is quoted from Hab. 2:4, which reads, ‘the just shall live by his faith.’ Again Paul says in Rom. 6:14, ‘For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.’ Certainly we can understand this, because the law was not given to the Gentiles, but neither did Jesus Christ offer salvation to the Gentiles, because they do not need it, for the original sin was not imputed upon them. Eph. 2:15, ‘Having abolished in his flesh the enemity [sic.], even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;’ Rom. 4:15-16, ‘Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.’ Paul is telling us that if we repeal the laws of God, then there can be no sin. That is the same as if we repealed all criminal law, then we would have no crime! WHAT DOES JESUS TELL US CONCERNING THE LAW OF GOD? Jesus tells us in Matt, 5:17-18, ‘Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfil [sic.]. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ (emphasis added) Has heaven and earth passed, or did Jesus change His mind? We also read in John 14:15, ‘If ye love me, keep my commandments,’ And again, in I John 2:4, ‘He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.’ WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, JESUS OR THE PROFESSED APOSTLE PAUL? Paul tells us over and over again that the law was negated by the cross. If that is true, Why did Jesus Christ not give us one word of evidence that this is so?”

William Finck answers <J>: Beginning with the first few lines of the paragraph marked <Reference J> (which was the last three lines of page 3, and continuing into page 4 of Graber’s original document), Graber makes a treacherous attack upon Paul’s views concerning the law. Graber states that “Paul very emphatically negates the Laws of God”, which is a vile lie, for Paul clearly states at Romans 3:31 (from the A.V.): “Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law.” Graber is very short of understanding, and so that you may see what I speak of here, I will take the time to explain a few things concerning the law under the New Covenant.

First, as can be witnessed by history, the Levitical laws in the Pentateuch, based upon but not a perfect image of Yahweh’s law (i.e. Matt. 19:8) certainly had their purpose, and still do: for we see today the greater part of the enemies of Yahweh, the seed of the serpent, have trapped themselves in the Old Testament law – and not having the Faith of the Anointed – they have voluntarily condemned themselves! Both Paul and James as you will see make allusions to this. Both jew and muslim claim to believe and accept the Old Testament, and all (and they are nearly all descendants of Cain) are condemned by it!

Now it is certain that Yahshua Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfill, both the law and the prophets. Now, let us see just what the prophets say concerning the New Covenant, which all agree that Yahshua Christ, Yahweh Himself, compacted with the children of Israel:

• Jer. 31:31-33: “Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers ... which my covenant they brake ... But this shall be the covenant that I will make ... I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ...”

• Isa. 51:7: “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law ...”

• Jer. 32:39-40: “And I will give them one heart, and one way ... And I will make an everlasting covenant with them ... I will put my fear in their hearts ...”

• Ezek. 11:19-20: “And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances ...”

• Deut. 30:6: “And Yahweh thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed ...”

• Jer. 4:4: “Circumcise yourselves to Yahweh, and take away the foreskins of your heart ...”

Now it should be evident, that if the laws of Yahweh were to be written in our hearts [a promise made only to Israel] then there is no longer a need for the written Levitical law, for the matters of the Law, encapsulated in the 10 commandments which Yahweh Himself illustrated (i.e. Mark 10, Luke 18), are common sense to OUR RACE! Paul explains these things in Hebrews 7, and in Romans 7:6 and 2:29 where he explains that we keep the law in spirit, and not in letter. The jews pretend to keep the law in letter, yet their Talmud is filled with many devices of “reasoning” and vile ways to get around the law! Know that even in modern litigation according to the laws of man, that courts often cite the difference between the “letter of the law” and the “spirit of the law” and realize that Paul is explaining that same thing here to the Romans.

So it should be obvious, that the removal of the yoke of the Levitical law is a matter of prophecy along with the New Covenant – [For Yahshua says “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”, Matt. 11:30] – and Paul explains this very thing over and over, but using different methods for Romans and Hebrews, since they have different perspectives. Where Paul writes at Romans 2:14-15 “For when the Nations, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law ... which show the work of the law written in their hearts” is Paul not demonstrating that the Romans – themselves a part of “lost” Israel – are indeed Israelites to whom such a promise was made? Compare this to the words of the prophets quoted above! And where Paul tells the Corinthians at 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” Is Paul not showing the fulfillment of the words of the prophets: that the New Covenant was being brought to Israel, whom the Dorian Greeks also descended from (as I can demonstrate in history and archaeology)? Read Paul’s quote of Jer. 31:33 to the Hebrews at 10:16. If one studies prophecy, one must come to the conclusion that the children of Israel are NOT bound to the written law, yet they should seek to obey it voluntarily. This is what Paul explains. The children of Satan have bound themselves to the written law, and never being able to fulfill it, they have condemned themselves!

Now this I can go further to demonstrate, but what I have written here should be sufficient. The children of Israel following the law in Spirit, and not in letter (the written law), is in itself a fulfillment of the law and the prophets, which Christ came to accomplish, and did! To deny such is to deny Him. Paul does not deny Christ: H. Graber does! Yet I will discuss a few more things concerning Paul and the law.

At Colossians 2:14 Paul states that the ordinances, not the entire law, were nailed to the cross. These are all of the rituals, sacrifices, oblations and such. Daniel 9:27 prophecies that when Yahshua confirms the covenant, “the sacrifices and the oblation [He shall cause] to cease.” These are what Paul calls elsewhere “the works of the law”, which in Ferrar Fenton’s translation (and in my own) you will find translated “the rituals of the law”, which are precisely what Paul means. That these were done away with are also a matter of the law and the prophets, and it was NOT written on our hearts to continue them! Of course, the catholics have a schedule of rituals that they have substituted, none with any foundation in Scripture (not even water baptism!). So enough of this. Now we will see that James and Paul agree on the law!

An examination of the epistle of James, compared to Paul’s epistles, demonstrate that James and Paul were in complete cohesion regarding the law, and so was Peter. Here I will demonstrate such.

• Romans 2:13 (see 2:14-15 quoted above): “For not the hearers of the law are just before Yahweh, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”

• James 1:22-24: “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.”

• Galatians 2:4: “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ ...”

• Galatians 5:1: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

• Galatians 5:13-14: “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh [i.e., to follow lust], but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’.”

• 1 Peter 2:15-16: “For so is the will of Yahweh, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of Yahweh.”

• 2 Peter 2:1, 19: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying Yahweh that bought them ... While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”

• James 1:25: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.”

• James 2:10: “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

• Romans 2:25: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.”

• Galatians 5:2-3: “Behold ... if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing ... every man that is circumcised ... he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

• James 2:12: There is a problem with the A.V. translation of this verse. The word μέλλοντες is treated as a Substantive and translated “they that shall be”, which is only necessitated if the word were preceded by an Article, which it is not. Also, the A.V. places an Article before “law” which does not exist in the Greek, hence here is my own translation: “Thusly you speak, and thusly you do: as going to be judged by a law of liberty.”

• Romans 14:10: “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”

• James 4:11-12: “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?”

So with this it must be evident, Paul taught liberty from the letter of the Old Testament law, and to follow it in deed and in Spirit, and these same things were foretold by the prophets, and also taught by James and by Peter! And who can read this, then deny such? Now compare Luke’s account of James’ and Peter’s opinions concerning Paul’s teaching and the law at Acts 15, and now that you see that this by no means conflicts with Paul’s epistles, with James’ or Peter’s epistles, with the prophets, or with the gospels, what may one say? Surely Paul said much more concerning the law, and it should be examined, but none of it is with fault. Paul may only be attacked in ignorance, or by those caught up in the deceit and devices of Yahweh’s enemies: among whom I count H. Graber, and Scott Nelson! [End of the second episode in this series, with more to come by William Finck.]

Note again, this is a personal letter Finck wrote to a friend which is here presented as an open letter exposing H. Graber, and will be continued in the next teaching letter.

This is my ninety-first monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. With this lesson, we’ll continue with William Finck’s Open Letter Responding To H. Graber, where Graber makes all kinds of harsh allegations against the apostle Paul. You will need lesson #’s 89 & 90 in this series, or you will not fully understand this one. Here we must review a statement which H. Graber made at <Reference J>: “THE LAW: The doctrine of the professed apostle Paul very emphatically negates the Laws of God. BY WHAT AUTHORITY? We read in Rom. 1:17, ‘For therein is righeousness [sic] of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.’ (Not the law) ... <Reference J-2>”

William Finck answers <J-2>: Among other things in this paragraph, discussed above at <J>, Paul is accused by Graber of “many times” misquoting the Old Testament, a blatant lie once one sees that: (a) the majority of Paul’s quotes agree with the Septuagint rather than the A.V. (b) often Paul is simply paraphrasing rather than quoting (c) quote marks were not used in Greek, they belong to modern translators (d) the Old testament texts have not come down to us in perfect form, some New Testament quotes disagree with both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, and some of those do agree instead with the Aramaic Targums! (e) these circumstances exist in every New Testament book, not only in Paul (or Luke or Mark). Here Graber’s duplicity is quite obvious, for he is a liar and a fraud! The LXX version of Habbakuk 2:4 (by Brenton, and a fair rendering of the LXX Greek): “... but the just shall live by my [Yahweh’s] faith.” Who is a deceiver, but H. Graber? There is not any contradiction between Paul and Yahshua Christ, whom Paul follows!

<Reference K> H. Graber states: “DIVERGENT PAULINE DOCTRINE: Let us document some more of the apostle Paul’s confusing and contradictory doctrine. Paul tells us in Rom. 1:4, ‘And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:’ (emphasis added) Here Paul tells us that Jesus was not the Son of God untill [sic] he qualified himself by the spirit of holiness, and after His resurrection. Matthew tells us that Jesus was born the Son of God, by the virgin Mary, WHO DO YOU BELIEVE, MATTHEW OR PAUL?”

William Finck answers <K>: Romans 1:4 is a difficult verse to translate, and here in his paragraph designated <K>, which was the second paragraph on page 4 of his original document, Graber criticizes Paul only by the bad translation of this verse in the A.V. In April of 2000, translating Romans I rendered 1:4 “Who has been distinguished as a son of Yahweh in the ability through the sanctity of the Spirit to rise up from the dead; Yahshua Christ our prince”, and I stand by the sense of that translation today. The Greek verb ὁρίζω may by no means be translated “declare” as the A.V. has done here, the word meaning “to mark out or bound, ... fig. to appoint, decree, specify ...” Paul is indicating that the resurrection of Christ made the assertion that Christ is the Son of Yahweh an indisputable fact, i.e. He was the Son of God, and resurrection was the first device Paul uses to present that fact to the Romans. As usual, Graber’s condemnation of Paul is shown to be vanity.

<Reference L> H. Graber states: “Paul tells us in II Cor. 5:15-19, ‘And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. (emphasis added) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the words of reconciliation.’ Here Paul completely removes Jesus Christ from recognition, by saying, now that Jesus has accomplished this miracle on the cross, we know him no more, and we are now reconciled to God. Paul does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ and God are one and the same being. John 10:30, ‘I and the Father are one.’ John 14:9, ‘he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;’ WHAT PAUL IS SAYING IS, THAT NOW THAT JESUS’ TASK IS FINISHED, NOW WE SHOULD LOOK TO GOD.”

William Finck answers <L>: At 2 Corinthians 5:15-19 Paul explains that we should not live “after” (i.e. according to or in relation to) the flesh, but after the Spirit instead. In other words, we should seek the spiritual rewards of life and not the carnal ones. We should seek to know Yahweh spiritually, and not as a man (Christ) even if any who had read Paul’s letter had known him in that manner (were among those in Palestine who had seen Him). Graber says “Paul does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ and God are one and the same being”, a blatant lie! Graber had just quoted Paul as saying “that God was in Christ”, the exact equivalent of such an acknowledgment! Paul explains elsewhere (and quotes the Old Testament doing so) that the body is just a vessel (i.e. or also a temple) for the Spirit, the “real us” so to speak. Does Graber have no understanding whatsoever? Paul says of Christ “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily” (Colossians 2:9, my translation), surely acknowledging that Yahshua and Yahweh are one. Who is a liar, but H. Graber?

<Reference M> H. Graber states: “Paul tells us in Rom. 2:16, ‘In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to My gospel.’ (emphasis added) BY WHOSE GOSPEL? Here Paul admits that he is not preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, but rather his own gospel.”

William Finck answers <M>: In this fourth paragraph on page 4 of Graber’s [original] document, we have an argument four times as childish as those which precede! Paul says at Romans 2:16 “... according to my gospel”, and that is without dispute, and Paul also calls this same gospel which he describes to the Romans: “of God” (1:1), “of His son” (1:9), “of Christ” (1:16), “of peace” (10:15, quoting Isaiah, and at 10:16 Isaiah is quoted as saying “Yahweh, who hath believed OUR report?” [emphasis mine]), “of God” again at 15:16, “of Christ” again at 15:19 and 15:29, “my gospel” again at 16:25, and simply “the gospel” at 1:15, 10:16, 11:28 and 15:20. So have we here five different gospels? Certainly not! But one gospel which Paul presents. And surely Graber points no finger at Isaiah for claiming a share of it (Isaiah 53:1 quoted at Romans 10:16 and by John at 12:38)! Oh the hypocrisy! Here, as in the previous paragraph discussed above, Graber is throwing everything including the kitchen sink onto the pile of counts with which he creates an indictment against Paul, hoping to make something stick, just like a government prosecutor, and a typical False Accuser indeed! Paul is preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and doing so to the Kingdom people!

<Reference N> H. Graber states: “Paul tells us in Gal. 4:14, ‘And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me even as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.’ WHAT ARROGANCE! Paul puts himself on a pedestal, equal with Jesus Christ!”

William Finck answers <N>: Graber’s lies here in this paragraph are a repeat from the fifth paragraph of his original Kingdom Courier’s second page, here designated <F>, in my reply. Graber repeats himself in an attempt to magnify Paul’s supposed “arrogance”, but only magnifies his own ignorance!

<Reference O> H. Graber states: “Paul tells us in Gal. 1:6-9, ‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (meaning the gospel of Paul) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.’ Paul claims that his doctrine is infallable [sic], and the Galations [sic] must accept it or be accursed. IS THE GOSPEL OF PAUL THE SAME AS THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST?”

William Finck answers <O>: This last paragraph of Graber’s paper, page 4, which runs into the beginning of page 5 of his original document discusses Galatians 1:6-9. Graber claims that Paul is forcing his own gospel, and not Christ’s, upon the Galatians. Paul says differently at 1:7, assuring that this gospel he preaches is the gospel of Christ. As I have demonstrated over the past 25 hand written pages of this response to Graber, it may be a wiser choice to believe Paul, indeed! Is it proper to curse or consider cursed those who would deny the gospel of Christ? Of course it is! Peter calls those who “have forsaken the right way” cursed children (2 Pet. 2:14-15). Christ Himself says of the goats “depart from me, ye cursed” (Matt. 25:41). Was Paul’s doctrine infallible? An honest study of Paul’s letters reveal no fault on Paul’s part when compared with the four gospels, though in places Paul’s mere humanness is surely revealed, and as Paul at times himself admits. Paul’s letters are NOT his gospel (which is surely found with Luke), but rather are an explanation of the various questions posed by the various Christian assemblies, an exposition of various topics from Scripture, and an application of Scripture to some of the problems of the time. Remember that Peter himself had full respect for Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:15-16), something that Graber, who so proudly gleans his “spiritual sustenance from ... Peter”, yet doesn’t seem to comprehend! H. Graber, hypocrite, liar, dissembler, and I suspect, kike!

<Reference P> H. Graber states: “CONCERNING THE APOSTLE PAUL, we read the words of Luke, Paul’s constant companion during their ministry, in Acts chapter 9, telling us of the miraculous conversion of Saul of Tarsus, where he purportedly received his commission as an apostle of Jesus Christ. The problem with this scenario is that there is absolutely no evidence of this event, except THE WORDS OF PAUL HIMSELF, via his Publicity Agent. This event is presented again in the 22nd and 27th chapters of Acts. There is no other Bible record of this event, and not a word to be found in secular history, except the claim of Paul himself. We know that Jesus selected His twelve Disciples, and commissioned them to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, but Jesus did not select, or do we have any record of Him commissioning any of the professed apostles. Even as Luke and Paul profess to be apostles of Christ, I likewise make that claim. Am I telling the truth? Are Luke and Paul telling us the truth? Jesus Christ tells us in Matt. 7:16, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits.’ And again in I John 4:1, ‘BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world’.”

William Finck answers <P>: In this second paragraph on page 5 of Graber’s original document, Graber states that there is no evidence of Paul’s Road to Damascus event outside of the Bible, which of course is true – yet there is no evidence of or mention of many things Biblical outside of the Bible, Graber’s argument here is inane. The event would not be mentioned outside of Acts for the same reasons that Paul was not mentioned in the gospels or catholic letters – except for 2 Peter, which I address at <C> in this response. Returning to 2 Peter, by saying the things which Peter said of Paul, we may assuredly infer that Peter accepted Paul’s accounts, including that of the Road to Damascus event. That James accepted Paul’s person also infers such. So here Graber offers a different approach to the same argument which fails him in paragraph four on page 1 of his original document. And who is the liar, but H. Graber?

<Reference Q> H. Graber states: “Paul seems to have been obsessed with the world of mystery. First we are told of his mysterious conversion, and then we read in II Cor. 12:1-8, ‘It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which is not lawful for man to utter.’ The mysterious claim of Paul having a connection with some entity of the third heaven, means he was not in communication with Jesus Christ, Who is sitting on the right hand of God, which is the seventh heaven. (The Book of Enoch) To the contrary, we find that the third heaven is described as ‘between corruptibility and incorruptibility’, with the Northern side manifesting ‘magic making, enchantments and devilish witchcrafts,’ In light of what we have presented thus far, I ask the question, Was Paul motivated and inspired by the Spirit of Jesus Christ?”

William Finck answers <Q>: I will try to keep my reply to this paragraph brief. It is clear in the Revelation that John had the same type of “out-of-body” experience which Paul describes here, as it is mentioned at Rev. 4:1. If Graber does not understand such, it certainly is not Paul’s fault. Paul’s account in 2 Corinthians 12 does NOT necessarily conflict with the account in Enoch which Graber presents here (which I find not in my Charles edition of 1 Enoch, Graber may be referencing the Enoch found in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden).

It amazes me that Graber would argue that “Jesus Christ ... is sitting on the right hand of God, which is the seventh heaven” as if He could not move from that position these 2,000 earth years if He so willed! Does Graber think his readers are idiots, to even utter such a ridiculous argument? Additionally, Paul mentions several different “mysteries” in his letters, yet is hardly “obsessed” with anything but the truth, being the revelation of each of those mysteries (i.e. the revealing of the Edomite-Canaanite-jews as the children of Satan: 2 Thes. 2:3-8, 1 Cor, 2:6-8; or the fact that Israel is favored simply because of genetic reasons: Eph. 1:3-9; et al.) A mystery is basically something not fully understood. It is apparent to me that the entire Bible is a mystery to H. Graber, and he realizes it not!

<Reference R> H. Graber states: “THE RECORD OF SECULAR AUTHORS : Now I shall document a few quotes from secular authors, concerning the professed apostle Paul.

“From ‘Paul the Man’ by Michael Grant, quote, ‘Far from claiming to have known Jesus personally, when he was alive, he (Paul) is asserting a knowledge about him (Jesus) superior in quality to anything that mere eye witnesses of his life on earth could ever claim for themselves, (such as Matthew, John, Peter, or James) for he had not been among their number, and was anxious to assert superiority over them. He does not therefore think of himself as a disciple of the historic Jesus, as indeed he had not been, but a man commissioned by Him after His death, and events, and a timeing [sic] which relegated the actual details of His teaching during His former earthly life to comparative unimportance in Paul’s eyes,’

“From ‘Paul the Man’ by Michael Grant, quote, ‘What is most surprising of all those familiar with modern ideas of Christianity, is to discover that Paul, although he recognized that Jesus had come to earth in human form, believed that He had never been the Messiah in His lifetime, but only became this when He was declared the Son of God. He was proclaimed the Son of God by a mighty act, in which He rose from the dead.’ (Ref. Rom. 1:4)

“From ‘Androcles and the Lion’ by George Bernard Shaw, quote, ‘Howbeit, Paul succeeded in stealing the image of Christ crucified for the figurehead of his salvationist vessel, with it’s [sic] Adam poseing [sic] as the natural man. It’s [sic] doctrine of original sin and it’s [sic] damnation avoidable only by faith in the sacrafice [sic] on the cross. In fact, no sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition, then Paul boldly set it on it's [sic] legs again in the name of Jesus.’ (Ref. Acts 13:46-47, Gal. 4:14, Rom. 4:5)

“From ‘Paul the Man’ by Michael Grant, quote, ‘True, Paul denies that he is actually identifying the Torah with sinfulness, is the law identical with sin? Of course not! Never the less [sic] he goes much farther with his criticism of the law, apparantly [sic] than Jesus ever did, and by so doing, he denies the need, or importance of the only ethical code the Jews posessed [sic]. Indeed he is actually declaring, that this code does more harm than good. True that impression is contradicted, seemingly by careful moral direction which he offers in other passages. Yet his discription [sic] of the Jewish law remains on record. To justify this sensational rejection, he brings forth other points as well. One of them calculates to appeal directly to those versed in Jewish tradition, that Abraham who was the traditional founder of Israel and it’s [sic] monotheism, and was regarded as the righteous man. Managed perfectly well to win the good will of God, before the Mosaic law ever existed. So the law cannot be regarded as indispensible [sic] for the purpose, and it’s [sic] demotion is merely a return to the original covenant granted by God to Moses’ ancestor Abraham, but frustrated by subsequent generations.’ (Ref. Rom. 4:15-16, Rom. 4:1-5)

“From ‘Paul the Man’ by Michael Grant, quote, ‘The faith which Paul himself came to hold, and desired others to hold with him, was, faith in the crucifiction [sic] and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the consequences of those events for mankind. This was by far the most important part of his beliefs and preachings and teachings, and it means that they scarcly [sic] be compared at all with those of Jesus. For even if Jesus in His last days came to foresee His own violent death as in some way redemptive, this idea had not manifestly stood in the forefront of His ministry, which through His career had centered on the dawning and shortly to be consumated [sic] Kingdom of God. It was scarcly [sic] surprising then, that Paul showed so little interest in Jesus’ life. For what the two men preached was quite different, and the Christianity we have today is largely Paul’s creation.’ (Ref. Gal. 1:6-9, Rom. 2:16)

“From Dr. Joachim Prince, President of the American Jewish Congress, quote, ‘Saul of Tarsus is the real founder of the Christian Church, and the true archetect [sic] of christian [sic] theology.’ ‘Conciously [sic] or unconciously [sic] Paul worked to establish the church in Rome and not Jerusalem. Suffice it to say, there is much history to support the claim, that it was not Peter that established the Roman Catholic Church, but rather the PROFESSED APOSTLE PAUL’.” [bold emphasis mine C.A.E.]

William Finck answers <R>: From the fourth paragraph of page 5 to the third of page 6 of Graber’s original Kingdom Courier publication, Graber supplies what he calls “The Record of Secular Authors” (as if his narrow selection met so wide an objective) concerning Paul of Tarsus, choosing quotes from Michael Grant, George Bernard Shaw, and Joachim Prince.

From Michael Grant, Graber offers a statement concerning Romans 1:4, much like that which Graber offered as his own on page 4, paragraph 2 of his publication (which I addressed previously at <K> of this reply). Grant refers to the Books of Moses as the “Torah” and to the Levitical Law as the “Jewish law”, makes the same mistake as judaized-churchianity by regarding Paul as having rejected the law, and draws false conclusions from his ill-guided perspectives. It is clear to me that Michael Grant is writing from a mainstream “jewish” perspective, even if he is not a jew himself (though I do not discount that possibility). To this I might ask, “Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?”

Speaking of which, Joachim Prince who Graber quotes at page 6, paragraph 3 of his Kingdom Courier, certainly is a devil! Why is Graber quoting jews concerning Christianity? Can Graber be a Christian, honoring the opinions of Satan? This alone exposes Graber as a fraud, respecting the lies of the anti-christ! For there is NO TRUTH in them! Yet here Graber offers still more deceit ...

In the last paragraph on page 5 of my copy of his document, Graber quotes George Bernard Shaw concerning Paul. I will address Shaw’s statement below. First, note that in the fourth paragraph of page 7 of his [original] document [found here at <Reference T> below] Graber accuses Paul of being a socialist and a humanist, and of seeding a “One World Government.” Now I have already exposed Graber’s own humanism on page 1 of this hand written reply, [see <A> above], however let us check out Mr. Shaw, from the American Heritage College Dictionary: “Shaw, George Bernard ... Irish born British playwright and critic who was a founder of the Fabian Society ...” and that society?: “Fabian ... 2. Of, relating to, or being a member of the Fabian Society, which was committed to gradual means of spreading socialist principles ...” Oh the deceit! Graber, accusing Paul of being an evil, short, swarthy, jew, quotes such people as he attacks Paul. Graber, accusing Paul of being a socialist, at the same time quotes socialists! Graber, accusing Paul of being a humanist, is himself exposed as holding humanist beliefs! No wonder Paul said in Romans: “On which account you are inexcusable, O man, all who judge, since by your judging another you are condemning yourself: indeed you practice the things which are judged.” So I must ask again, who is a liar, but H. (Huckster?, Hymie?) Graber?

Now as for the content of Shaw’s quoted remark, (to which Graber adds a reference, citing three of Paul’s verses which have nothing to do with that content,) Shaw claims that Yahshua “Knocked over the dragon of superstition.” Superstition! Now we who are bearers of the Truth know that Yahshua Christ exposed a walking, talking, genetic dragon, Satan, the children of the accuser (John 8:44, Matt. 13:37-43. Luke 11:39-52 et al.), and Paul followed Yahshua Christ’s example, for which see Acts 13:8-10, 19:13, 20:28-30, Romans 9:1-13, 16:20, 2 Cor. 6:14-18, 2 Thes. 2:3-12 and 1 Tim 6:3-4 (my own translations of Paul are much clearer than the A.V. – especially at Rom. 9 and 2 Thes 2). Paul of Tarsus was clearly an ambassador of Yahshua Christ, Yahweh Himself! Who is H. Graber an ambassador of? The Socialist Shaw? The jew Joachim Prince? The just-as-good-if-not-a-jew Michael Grant? These are the men that Graber follows, and has a high regard for!!!

<Reference S> H. Graber states: “In light of all this information, we can conclude from scriptures and secular history, that Paul /span class=worked in concert with many to establish the Catholic Church. Among them of course, his companion, the professed apostle Luke, Clement I, Barnabas, Silas, Judas Barsabas, Timothy, Justus, Gallio, Pricilla [sic] and Aquila, Gaius, Aristarchus, Alexander, and Gamaliel.

“The historic information on many of these characters is sketchy, but I shall endeavor to present what I can find, in order to present the scenario surrounding the apostle Paul, and his professed apostleship for Jesus Christ. The information is taken from divers sources, such as the Encyclopedia Americana, The Harvard Classics, The Bible, and related documentation.

“LUKE, ‘Eustabius [sic Eusebius] states that Luke was born at Antioch, and Paul seems to imply that he was a Gentile. There has been much discussion on the question as to the existance [sic] in ‘Luke’ of a Jewish or of a Gentile bias. Those who find it markedly Jewish in tone, incline to distrust the tradition ascribing it’s [sic] composition to the Gentile physician; those who regard it as the Pauline gospel, naturally find it easier to associate it with the companion of the apostle to the Gentiles.’ I believe that if Luke was a Gentile, that he would have an affinity for Paul, because it was Paul that proclaimed salvation for the Gentiles. Even today we see this same affinity of the Gentiles to the Jewish Pied Pipers of ‘equal opportunity’, ‘human rights’, ‘anti-discrimination’, etc. etc..

“TIMOTHEUS, He is listed as a disciple of St. Paul, and not of Jesus Christ. He was born of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother.

“GAMALIEL, He was a Jewish lawyer, President of the Sanhedrin under the corrupt reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius.

“ALEXANDER, Supporter of the doctrine of Paul and his endeavors in establishing the Catholic Church, and later became a Pope of the church.

“ALL the other close associates are listed as either Jew or Gentile, some of them noted for their adherance [sic] to Platonism, which seems to agree with the apostle Paul’s doctrine. We also note that Paul spent much time in synagogues, contrary to the ministry of Jesus Christ and His Disciples. We should also mention that another character that supported the apostle Paul, was Clement, who also later became a Pope, Clement I.

<Reference S-2>: “Speaking of Paul and the people surrounding Paul, we read in Eustabius [sic Eusebius] #6 [sic 6.19 from Eusebius, The History Of the Church, translation by G. A. Williamson, published by Penguin Books © 1965, revisions 1989, pages 195-196. Why doesn’t Graber properly identify his source?], ‘In their eagerness to find, not a way to reject depravity [sic the depravity] in [sic of] the Jewish scriptures, but a means to explain [sic of explaining] it away, they resorted to interpretations which cannot be reconciled or harmonized with scriptures, and which provides [sic provide] not so much a defence of the original authors, as a foolsome [sic fulsome, which means ‘offensive’] advertisement for the interpretors [sic interpreters]. Inigmas [sic ‘Enigmas’] is the pompous name they have given [sic they give] to the perfectly plain statements of Moses, gloryfying [sic glorifying] them as oracles full of hidden mysteries, and bewitching the critical factor [sic faculty] by their extravagent [sic extravagant] nonsense. [My God! - Can’t H. Graber read? C.A.E.]

“It is my understanding from the foregoing research, that indeed it depicts a scenario of betrayal. I ask myself, How can such a man as the professed apostle Paul, indeed be an apostle of Jesus Christ, in light of what his doctrine expounds, and what historians have to say of him? How can I justify Paul’s hand in the creation of the Roman Catholic Church nothing more or less than an extention [sic extension] of Babylonian Judaism. (The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop.) Jewish influence in the Roman Catholic Church is historically evident from it’s [sic] earliest foundations. The Jewish Pierleoni family had (3) Popes on the Throne. Gregory VI (John Pierleoni), who bought the Throne for 6000 pounds sterling. Gregory VII (Hildabrandt [sic Hildebrand] Pierleoni), and Anacletus II (Pietro Pierleoni). It was the Roman Catholic Church that sent a group of Monks from Italy to Jerusalem, to establish the monestary [sic] of ‘The Order of Zion’, which I believe is today manifest in the ‘Learned Elders of Zion’. These are the forces of evil in the world today that are bent upon establishing a Zionist ‘One World Government’.”

William Finck answers <S>: I am not going to specifically address most of Graber’s poorly documented slanderous remarks concerning certain New Testament figures here. Some of them have already been addressed in various places in the preceding pages, directly or indirectly. I will say that Graber is but a blasphemer and slanderer, and it is evident that his true intent is to subvert and to undermine, hurling accusations and being ignorant of the Truth!

One thing that I will comment upon concerning these nine paragraphs, from the fourth of page 6 through the third of page 7 of Graber’s original document, is his very tenuous (a word from the Greek verb τείνω, “to stretch”) claim that the Romish catholic church was founded by Paul of Tarsus along with these named New Testament figures. This is a blatant lie! For all of the early Christians at Rome, from Paul and the British Christians of the family of Caradoc, and several of the first bishops of Rome and their followers with them, were persecuted and slain by the Romans, at the behest of the jews. There is absolutely no connection between the Romish church which began its development in Byzantium at the time of Constantine, and later more notably the emperor Justinian, and the True Christian assemblies at Rome in the first century, which were related to those of not only the Mediterranean regions, but of Ireland and Britain which are known as the Celtic Church. George Jowett, E. Raymond Capt, and Clifton Emahiser have gone to great lengths to demonstrate this. And who in Israel Identity is ignorant of this, but H. Graber? To pin the “pope” label onto Paul, Linus, Clement or Alexander is to join in league with the Romish catholics and their blasphemies, which Graber does here. The people who had ultimately made the Romish catholic church the fraud that it is are the same people who slew the early Christians (including Paul), who also crucified Yahshua, and slew the prophets: and I’m not accusing Romans, but jews! Read the martyrologies and early church fathers such as Tertullian! [end of this installment]

It will be necessary to continue William Finck’s Open Letter Responding To H. Graber in the next teaching letter. A very serious question should be asked at this point: Why does H. Graber falsely condemn Paul as being a “Jew”, yet, at the same time, quote from “Jewish” sources? Is not Graber guilty of a double-standard?

This is my ninety-second monthly teaching letter and continues my eighth year of publication. With this lesson, we’ll finish up with William Finck’s Open Letter Responding To H. Graber, where Graber makes all kinds of harsh allegations against the apostle Paul. In order to fully understand this last segment, it will be necessary for the reader to have read WTL lesson #’s 89, 90 & 91. In order to get started on this one, it will be necessary to backtrack from where we left off in the last one. H. Graber had just quoted from The History Of the Church, translation by G. A. Williamson, published by Penguin Books © 1965, revisions 1989, pages 195-196 where he didn’t properly identify his source. I had three sources of Eusebius and was fortunate to have the edition from which H. Graber quoted for which he so badly copied, riddling it with numerous errors, and reads from Graber’s Kingdom Courier thusly as <Reference S-2>:

“In their eagerness to find, not a way to reject depravity [sic the depravity] in [sic of] the Jewish scriptures, but a means to explain [sic of explaining] it away, they resorted to interpretations which cannot be reconciled or harmonized with scriptures, and which provides [sic provide] not so much a defence of the original authors, as a foolsome [sic fulsome, which means ‘offensive’] advertisement for the interpretors [sic interpreters]. Inigmas [sic ‘Enigmas’] is the pompous name they have given [sic they give] to the perfectly plain statements of Moses, gloryfying [sic glorifying] them as oracles full of hidden mysteries, and bewitching the critical factor [sic faculty] by their extravagent [sic extravagant] nonsense.” [My God! - Can’t H. Graber read? C.A.E.]

William Finck answers <S-2>: Here is either a purposely deceitful act on Graber’s part, or one of the most idiotic instances in the history of scholarship. Graber has taken a paragraph from Eusebius, and has claimed that these are the very words of the church historian “speaking of Paul”, when in fact Graber quotes a known liar whom most of the early church fathers condemned as such. Yes, the paragraph Graber cites is found in Eusebius, even though Graber could not cite it properly. It is apparent that Graber does not check out the context in which a passage is written, but chooses only a few short lines which he can force to fit his theory, no matter how nefarious the source might be. Yet checking the source itself, perhaps something Graber may have hoped that no one would do, we find the following:

• The words Graber quotes are not Eusebius’, but a quote by Eusebius of an early anti-Christian writer and perverter of the truth named Porphyry.

• Porphyry was not even speaking of Paul, but of another early Christian writer named Origen, who lived from about 185-245 A.D.

• Eusebius considered Porphyry, who Graber is actually quoting, to be but a liar! Graber, the liar, relies upon liars, and lies about Eusebius too!

In order to demonstrate this fully, a larger portion of this same chapter of Eusebius, 6.19, from the same edition mis-used by Graber, that of G. A. Williamson at pages 195-196, but including the surrounding text, exposing Graber’s misapplication of his source, is faithfully reproduced here. In this passage, Eusebius is discussing Origen (and indirectly Porphyry), not Paul:

“19. Testimony to his [Origen’s] success in these endeavours is paid by the Greek philosophers who flourished in his time, in whose writings I have found many references to him. Sometimes they dedicated their works to him, sometimes they submitted their own labours to him, as to a master, for criticism. Far more significant is the case of Porphyry, who in my own time settled in Sicily and in an attempt to traduce the Holy Scriptures published a long treatise attacking us, in which he refers to those who have interpreted them. He finds it quite impossible to bring any damaging accusation against our doctrines, so for lack of arguments he turns to abuse and traduces the interpreters. His special target is Origen, whom he claims to have known as a young man and attempts to traduce, little knowing that he is actually commending him. When he cannot help it, he tells the truth; when he thinks he will not be found out, he tells lies. Sometimes he accuses him as a Christian, sometimes he enlarges on his addiction to philosophic studies. Listen to his actual words [Here is a correct reading of the passage H. Graber garbled]:

“‘In their eagerness to find, not a way to reject the depravity of the Jewish [sic Israelite] Scriptures, but a means of explaining it away, they resorted to interpretations which cannot be reconciled or harmonized with those scriptures, and which provide not so much a defence of the original authors as a fulsome advertisement for the interpreters. ‘Enigmas’ is the pompous name they give to the perfectly plain statements of Moses, glorifying them as oracles full of hidden mysteries, and bewitching the critical faculty by their extravagant nonsense ... This absurd method must be attributed to a man whom I met while I was still quite young, who enjoyed a great reputation and thanks to the works he has left behind him, enjoys it still. I refer to Origen, whose fame among teachers of these theories is wide- spread’.” [emphasis mine, ellipsis in original]

Thus, it is quite evident from this full disclosure that Graber’s source implies quite the opposite that he would like his readers to believe. Not only that, but this reference which Graber cites in Eusebius has absolutely nothing to do with the apostle Paul! The bottom line is: Graber has taken the words of a known liar and presented them as being the truth, and out of context at that. Graber is either hopelessly ignorant, or an accomplished con-artist. Take your pick.

<Reference T> H. Graber states: “I believe that contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul teaches a doctrind [sic] of socialism and humanism, which establish the foundations for a ‘One World Government’. Paul himself tells us in Heb. 13:8, ‘Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.’ If Paul indeed believes this, how does he justify his divergent doctrine from the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Paul tells us in I Cor. 9:20-22, ‘And unto the Jew I become [sic became] as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, that I might gain them that are without law. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak become I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.’ This is an all inclusive position for any one to take. This includes compromise, this includes ignorant arrogance, for how can a mere man be ALL things to ALL men? And again Paul speaks of saving people: ONLY JESUS CHRIST CAN AND DID DO THAT!”

William Finck answers <T>: I have already addressed most of Graber’s statements in these final paragraphs, from the fourth on page 7 to the end of page 8 of his original formatted publication, so I am not going to repeat myself, yet there are a few things left to address.

In the closing lines of the fourth paragraph on page 7 of his original document, Graber criticizes Paul’s remarks at 1 Cor. 9:20-22 (where basically Paul is only explaining that he tries to speak to people on their own terms, not with the pretense of superiority and authority that the jew rabbis and their catholic followers do), and Graber accuses Paul of “ignorant arrogance” and states that “again Paul speaks of saving people: ONLY JESUS CHRIST CAN AND DID DO THAT!” And here it can be demonstrated that Graber lies again! It is obvious to me that Graber, while claiming to glean his “spiritual sustenance from ... James” surely hasn’t read James! Let us read James 5:19-20 from the A.V.: “Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (the emphasis is mine, of course). Who is a liar, but H. Graber? Why does he criticize Paul, and not James for making a like statement? While it is evident that Yahshua Christ, Yahweh Himself, is the author of our salvation, as Paul attests at 1 Thes. 5:9, 2 Tim. 2:10, Titus 2:11, and especially at Hebrews 2:10 and 5:9, it is also clear that “the workman is worthy of his meat” (Matt. 10:10), and that the children of Israel share in the fruits of their labors, which many parables illustrate (i.e. Matt. 20:1-16, 25:14-30). Graber, like the jews which Yahshua reproved time and again, claims to know the Scripture, but is consistently reproved by Scripture.

<Reference U> H. Graber states: “When we consider the books of the New Testement [sic], written by Luke and Paul, and recognizing that the book of Mark was also tampered with by an unknown scribe, then one comes to consider these works as a conspiracy to subvert Christianity. We know that in the last chapter of Mark, verses 9-20 were not in the original transcript of the apostle Mark, and when you consider these added verses, we see that they do not harmonize with the first eight verses, and are the first indication that Christianity was to be a universal religion, quote, ‘and preach the gospel to every creature.’ I believe that this was part of the betrayal, to justify Paul’s claim that he was commissioned to go to the Gentiles. We know that Jesus Christ never commanded His Disciples to go to the Gentiles, or for that matter to every creature. He commanded to only go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel! And Jesus told His Disciples in Matt. 10:23, ‘But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.’ From this we can conclude, that as of this moment, not ALL Israelites have yet received the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“In conclusion, allow me to simply sum up the gist of this exposition, The Gospel of Jesus Christ versus The Doctrine of the Apostle Paul. I believe I have presented sufficient evidence, that there is a great discrepency [sic] between the Doctrine of Jesus, and the doctrine of Paul.”

William Finck answers <U>: Mark can not be blamed that the end of his gospel was lost, or maybe never even completed. And Mark certainly can not be blamed that long after his death certain men (there are three spurious “endings” to Mark’s gospel extant, not just one) attempted to pollute his gospel by supplying their own endings. Mark’s gospel is sound and there is no valid reason to reject it once the spurious ending is removed. John’s gospel was added to (for John 7:53 through 8:11 is surely a late interpolation) and so was one of his epistles (the end of 1 John 5:7 and the beginning of 5:8), and we certainly don’t want to reject those for such reason! Now if Graber does not seem to reject Mark’s gospel in this last paragraph at reference <U>, he certainly did in the last paragraph on page 1, (or here at reference <C>), even calling Mark a “professed apostle”, as he also calls Luke and Paul, as if they were not worthy of the title. H. Graber is little but a lying duplicitous hypocrite!

Graber also insists here, and at the top of page 8 (the second paragraph [of his original document] there), that Paul brought the gospel to “gentiles.” An examination of Paul’s letters, of Luke’s gospel, and of the Acts clearly shows that Paul only brought the gospel to those nations (Gen. 17:6, 35:11) which were colonized by Israelites of the Old Kingdom, or founded by Israelites of the Assyrian deportations. This message is obfuscated in many places by all ‘mainstream’ translations, which is the reason for my own work in Paul in the first place. I will begin an article highlighting certain mistranslations and misconceptions in Luke and Acts sometime this winter. Luke 1:67-80 alone vindicates his gospel, for Luke knew perfectly well that the New Covenant applied only to the true Israelites. Note also Luke 1:54-55.

Language in Romans proves that Paul knew that the Romans were Israelites. Language in 1 Corinthians proves that Paul knew that the Dorian Greeks were Israelites. Language in Colossians proves likewise! History and archaeology support these claims fully. Galatians and Scythians and the Iberians of Spain are also Israelites, Paul knew it, and he went to them, just as he was supposed to! H. Graber is not only a liar, but a man of little understanding! Paul did not go to gentiles, but to Israel! It can even be demonstrated, or rather should be evident to one who studies, that at Acts 17 Paul even treats the Japhethite Athenians differently!

Graber continues:

“1.Jesus said, go not to the Gentiles, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul proclamed [sic] himself the apostle to the Gentiles, and compromised in the Jewish synagogues. [see Finck’s comments at <U> and <H>]

“2. Jesus said that He was the Messiah, and He and the Father are one. Paul claims messiahship for himself, and does not attribute this recognition to Jesus untill [sic] after the resurrection. [see Finck’s comments at <L>]

“3. Jesus was reckoned by geneaology [sic], the same as all the seed of Adam, throughout the Old Testement [sic], many times. Paul negates the reckoning by geneaology [sic]. [see Finck’s comments at <I>]

“4. Jesus said, not one jot or tittle of the law would pass, even untill [sic] heaven and earth shall pass. Paul negates the Commandments, Statutes, and Judgments of God, by the stroke of his pen, upon the cross. [see Finck’s comments at <J>]

“5. Jesus instructed His Disciples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. Paul teaches and preaches a gospel of salvation, an event that was finished on the cross for all true Israelites. Paul tells us many times that he is preaching his own gospel. [see Finck’s comments at <V>, <M> & <O>]

“6. Jesus gave us many scriptures, admonishing us not to lie. Paul admits to lieing [sic], if and when it serves his purpose. [see Finck’s comments at <E>]

“7. There is NO evidence given by the words of Jesus Christ, or His Disciples, concerning the miraculous conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and certainly there was ample opportunity to do so. [see Finck’s comments at <P>] Therefore, we have only the words of Paul himself, that have established him as ‘The Great Lion of God’. (Here we should be aware of the historic promotion by Jews, and Gentiles, that catapulted Paul into prominance [sic].)”

William Finck answers Graber at #5 <V>: Here Graber accused Paul of not following the command of Yahshua to preach “the gospel of the Kingdom.” As I said at <O> of my reply, Paul’s letters are NOT his gospel, which is surely found in Luke. We don’t even have all of Paul’s letters (i.e. 1 Cor. 5:9), but probably only a small percentage of what he wrote. Nearly everyone I’ve ever read who criticizes Paul seems to neglect these facts.

Now at Acts 19:8, Luke says that Paul in Ephesus “... spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.” See Acts 20:25, 28:23 and 28:31. See then Romans 14:17, 1 Cor. 4:20, 6:9-10, 15:24, 50, Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:5, Col. 1:13 and 4:11, 1 Thes. 2:12, 2 Thes. 1:5, 2 Tim. 4:1, 18, and Heb. 1:8 and 12:28! So who is a liar, but H. Graber?

Do we look forward to the establishment of Yahweh’s law? So did Paul (Romans 3:31). Do we look forward to the destruction of Yahweh’s enemies? So did Paul (Romans 16:20). Do we assert a knowledge of the identification of the “lost” sheep which Yahshua Christ established a New Covenant with? So did Paul (Romans 1:25, 1:31, 4:16-18, 1 Cor. 10:1-13, Eph. 1:4, Col. 1:20-21, etc.) Do we look forward to His return and the fulfillment of the establishment of His Kingdom? So did Paul (2 Tim. 4:1). Is this not the hope of Israel? Of course it is, which is also Paul’s hope (Acts 28:20)! Notice Paul said “Israel”, not “Israel and the Gentiles” (to borrow a phrase from Clifton Emahiser). Don’t blame Paul that some deceiver read “τὰ ἔθνη” 1550 years after Paul wrote, and translated “gentiles” rather than “nations”!

As for the law, all good Christians should seek to follow the laws of Yahweh! But remember that James’ opinions of the law – which must have come from Yahweh Himself, and the prophets agree also – is fully cohesive with Paul’s opinions. We being Israelites of the Faith are not going to be judged by the law. But our enemies the jews (and arabs) will be! Although the written law is good and is holy (Rom. 7:12) and we seek to establish it, desiring to be obedient (Rom. 3:31), do not “put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Note Matt. 11:25-30. We are to separate ourselves from unrepentant lawbreakers (i.e. 1 Cor. 5:9-13, Rev. 22:15 et al.)

If I have not demonstrated that H. Graber is a liar and a fraud, manifold, then explain such to me. I will resign from writing anything of this sort again. If I have uttered a lie and attempt to deceive, explain it to me. I will resign from writing anything of this sort again. No liar should ever be allowed to be a teacher, and escape condemnation.

Either I am a liar, or H. Graber is a liar. There is nothing in between. He is a deceiver, or I am a deceiver. There is no compromise. There are many opinions in the world, but only one Truth. If I have built upon a foundation of sand, say it before me, and I will resign from building. Yet if H. Graber is found to be a liar, I adjure the reader: Study again Luke’s gospel, Acts, and Paul’s letters, and in a new light make a new determination. I also adjure such a one: please share my reply to Graber with anyone also who may have read H. Graber’s document from his misnamed Kingdom Courier, December, 1985, that they may have the opportunity to see his many lies. Even share it with Mr. Graber himself, if indeed he still lives, his document being just short of 20 years old.

With this I will close, only reiterating one thing: that those who criticize Paul of Tarsus and question the validity of his ministry seek only the ultimate division and destruction of Christianity itself. Do not be deceived by their devices!

Graber closes his Kingdom Courier, December, 1985 thusly: “This subject deserves a volume of documentation, and I hope such research and writting [sic] shall be forthcoming. In light of what has been presented in this bulletin, it becomes an indavidual [sic] readers [sic] option to accept or reject the obvious disputatious evidence presented herein. You may elect to put your head in a pile of sand, and hope it will go away. Finally, we are all indavidually [sic], the captains of our own eternal destiny! [see Finck’s comments at <A>]

“For myself, I shall reject Mark 16:9-20, and ALL of the works of the professed apostles Luke and Paul! I shall glean my spiritual sustenance from Matthew, John, Peter, and James, the SURE Disciples of Jesus Christ, and this will remove for me, all the confusion and contradiction I encounter between the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the professed apostle Paul!” [see Finck’s comments at <A>]

End of critical response to the entity and its executive director calling itself Kingdom Courier Published by Dr. H. Graber, 5393 Carleton Road, Mariposa, CA 95338.

I last spoke to the original recipient of this letter concerning its contents in December 2003. At that time my friend only stated it was “good”, and that he would pass it on to one of the other anti-Paulist Israel Identity pastors in his congregation, who will also go unnamed here. Yet sadly, my friend continues in the camp of the anti-Paulists to this day. It is now July of 2005, and despite my pleas and my challenges duplicated heretofore, I have never been answered by this letter’s original recipient and those whom he shared it with. Rather, my friend ceased sending me any more of the anti-Paul material which he or his congregation still produce and circulate! To me this is a sad situation, but a perfect example of a peoples’ willingness to believe a lie, rather than undertake the more difficult journey necessary in order to arrive at the truth. For my part, I shall not become exasperated, but rather hope to continue that I may more fully manifest the folly of all those who speak against Paul of Tarsus. [End of William Finck’s letter to his friend. Now back to Clifton A. Emahiser.]

H. Graber was a close follower of W. G. Finlay from South Africa, and on audio tape #87 Finlay identified the source of his conviction. Finlay based his tenets on a book Popes From The Ghetto by Dr. Joachim Prince, president of the American Jewish Congress, and chairman of the Conference Of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.” Finlay also referred to Prince as “The learned rabbi, who still serves in the Temple Beni-Abram of Newark in New Jersey.” Finlay further stated:

“Dr. Prince, who in common with most theologians both Christian and Jewish, claims that Saul of Tarsus was the real founder of the Christian Church, and the ,sans-serifspan style=true architect of Christian theology. He prefaces his work, which provides the documentary evidence, indicating that three popes during the Middle Ages were Jewish, was a very illuminating statement. He wrote, ‘Early Christianity, which should be called ‘Jesusdom’ for it is still intimately connected with Jesus of Nazareth, and not with the Church, or with a set of doctrines is a religion of the last days of mankind.’ Now, this statement, when placed side by side with what Dr. Prince had to say about Paul being the founder of the Christian Church ...” Questions: Were we not instructed by Christ Himself, “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”, Matt. 16:6? Were we not told that those who did not believe Christ are Anti-Christs? And that there is no truth in them? And that they are of the synagogue of Satan? Thus, anti-Paulists are hypnotized by the “Jews.”

[Now back to William Finck on an article concerning the apostle Paul’s attitude toward women.]

 

PAUL WAS NOT A MISOGYNIST!

 

Many today accuse Paul of Tarsus of misogyny (hatred of women), and no doubt because of some of Paul’s remarks concerning the place of women in Christian society. It does not surprise me that in today’s liberal feminist society, where even ideas generally perceived as being moderate or centrist are actually skewed far to the left, that this is a prevailing view amongst the jew-controlled, jew-media dominated jew-led and fed masses of the populace. That feminism is a jewish cause and a primary jewish-led movement is easily demonstrated in the identities of its leaders, such as Emma Goldman, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, et al., and also by their own testimony, which is published regularly by their media outlets. For instance in the Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled How Do You Mark 350 Years in America? by Naomi Schaefer Riley, which ran on p. W13 on Sept. 9, 2005, it is boasted that “... there is much to be gained from studying Jewish life in America after the mass migrations from Eastern Europe. Jews were among the most prominent voices pushing for liberalized immigration policies, a strong labor movement and rights for women ... Nor were Jewish efforts always on behalf of other Jews. The end of [an exhibit at the Center for Jewish History in New York] the exhibit explores Jewish participation in the civil-rights movement.” Paul was certainly at odds with jewish thinking! What we see as a problem (“we” being aware Saxons), the jews see as an accomplishment, and take full credit for it!

The New Testament accounts show beyond doubt that Paul could not have been a misogynist, a hater of women, and here I shall endeavor to elucidate such in a simple manner; for it is plainly nothing which needs to be examined too deeply.

Ÿ   In Acts 16, Paul along with Timothy, Silas, and surely Luke who wrote the account, are at Philippi in Macedonia where they congregated by a river for prayer, and spoke at length to women there who did likewise. There a certain woman Lydia, and her household, were apparently the first Greeks of Europe to become Christians (lost Israelites returning to Yahweh, as Paul teaches in all his epistles). This woman later assisted Paul and his companions, after the brief imprisonment at Philippi (Acts 16:40).

Ÿ   At Berea, as at many other places, Paul preached to “honorable women” as well as to men (Acts 17:12).

Ÿ   Of the converts at Athens, a women named Damaris merited particular mention (Acts 17:34).

Ÿ   Paul met Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth, and every time the couple is mentioned it is obvious that the woman is respected by Paul every bit as much as her husband, and is even mentioned before him in most places where the two are mentioned (Acts 18:1, et al.).

Ÿ   Paul entrusted a woman, Phoebe, to bear his epistle to Rome, and recommended her highly to the Christian assemblies there, also praising her for her assistance to him (Rom. 16:1-2).

Ÿ   Of the people Paul specifically greeted in his epistle to the Romans, many were women, including Priscilla, Mary, Persis, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, the mother of Rufus (and Paul) and the sister of Nerea. Some of these were further lauded for their labor in the faith or for their having assisted Paul in some way.

Ÿ   Other women mentioned are Chloe at 1 Cor. 1:11, and the text there infers that she is head of a household, and so probably a widow and a woman of means; Euodia and Syntyche at Ph’p. 4:2; Nympha at Col. 4:5 (although the A.V. and some early mss. have “Nymphas” as a man) and Apphia at Ph’m 2.

Ÿ   Furthermore, in Paul’s letters to Timothy, he spoke especially well of Lois and Eunice, Timothy’s mother and grandmother, and must have known them personally (2 Tim. 1:5.) Paul also sent Timothy greetings from Priscilla, and from Claudia whom history shows is the wife of Rufus, and whom Paul is staying with at Rome when he wrote Timothy (2 Tim. 4:19, 21).

All of this shows that Paul certainly had all due respect for women in general, and had warm and Christian relationships with many of them.

The opinions which are formulated in and acted on by society today are not correct simply because a majority of people here are persuaded by them. Christianity is not a democratic institution, but rather a Theocratic one. A woman’s place was to be subject to her husband, as with Paul (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23; Col. 3:18), also with Peter (1 Pet. 3:1-5) and so with Yahweh (Gen. 3:16). A woman’s place was to keep the household, as it was in Greek society (i.e. Euripides’ Alcestis 304 ff., Electra 54 ff.) and so with Paul (Titus 2:5), and so in the Old Testament, i.e. Proverbs chapter 31. Those who doubt the validity of Paul’s instruction here contend not with Paul, but with the entire Bible!

Paul instructs that a woman is never to have authority over a man (i.e. 1 Tim 2:12), and in the Old Testament at Isa. 3:12 we see that it was a reproach for women to rule over men in that time also. Whether it was the noble Deborah, or the wicked Athaliah, doesn’t matter. Neither situation says much of the men of those times. Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Janet Reno, Diane Feinstein, et al. are certainly a reproach to all Saxon men today, along with the millions of women who have forsaken childbearing and normal household life for love of lucre and status. Those who feel otherwise contend not against Paul, but against Yahweh! And Judi Nipps and Nellie Babbs are among their number.

Only men participated in the “democracy” of Athens. Women were excluded from politics, did not speak publicly, and as Euripides’ character Aethra in his Suppliant Women says at lines 40-41 “It is proper for women, if they are wise, to do everything through their men.” So Paul’s admonition to women, not to speak in the assembly but to learn and inquire by their husbands (1 Cor. 14:34-35), was surely not a novel contrivance, but already a part of Hellenistic culture! In fact, Athenian life was stricter yet: For in Euripides’ Hecuba at lines 974-75 the title character states that “custom ... ordains that women shall not look directly at men.” The word translated “custom” in the Loeb Library edition of Euripides is νόμος, “law” everywhere in the New Testament. Paul’s admonition against women “wandering from house to house ... idle ... tattlers ... busybodies, speaking things they ought not” was a normal concern long before Paul wrote such words, and in Euripides’ Andromache lines 930-953, the poet through his character Hermione expressed very similar concerns.

I have cited Euripides here, having his writings at hand and having recently read them, yet may refer to a plethora of Greek writers, even those closer to Paul’s own time, to show that Paul was not being novel to the Greeks concerning treatment of women. Strabo, speaking of the Cantabrians of Iberia and some of their customs, where women have influence over their kinsmen, says: “The custom involves, in fact, a sort of woman-rule – but this is not at all a mark of civilisation” (Strabo 3.4.18, Loeb Library edition). Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the mythical Amazons, says “The men, however, like our married women, spent their days about the house, carrying out the orders which were given them by their wives; and they took no part in military campaigns or in office or in the exercise of free citizenship in the affairs of the community by virtue of which they might become presumptuous and rise up against the women”, and so of course in reality, in the Greek world women kept the home, having no voice in the community, nor role in government. The very role described in Proverbs 31!

As in the book of Numbers, so in Matthew (14:21, 15:38), women were not counted. It is not that women do not count, Yahweh forbid! Yet the woman’s role in a proper Christian society is clearly defined, and Paul explains that role properly. Pity those who doubt the truth of such matters. Nothing Paul says is contrary to Old Testament instruction or practice. Can the anti-Paulists make such a claim for themselves? W.R.F.

More on Paul of Tarsus in the upcoming lessons.