You can't understand Christ in the Temple without Rome's bronze law plates

Julius Caesar played a major role in the life and death of Jesus Christ. He was of prime importance in the existence and preservation of the Temple, even though Julius Caesar was long dead by the first century CE!

While the Temple existed, the Romans were unable to destroy Judaism and the Nazarenes. Why? Because in the period of one of the Roman civil wars, the Jews chose to help Julius Caesar against his rival Pompey. 

It turned out to be crucial for Rome and for the ruling Jerusalem priesthood that put their soldiers at Caesar's disposal. At this time the government in Israel had gained an unstable measure of freedom under the Hasmoneans and they then threw their weight on Caesar's side. Why? Their motivation makes the outcome a vital factor in NT history.

Jewish support was effective. Caesar, from an unsure situation where he shared power and then fought his former allies, gained unchallenged supremacy. He was grateful to his helpers in Jerusalem. He gave his thanks to receiving Jewish arms at a critical time. He made certain pledges to the Hasmoneans and the Jews when the Romans later occupied the land of Israel as a military power. They were not mere words that blew away with the wind.

Caesar's decrees had the support of the Roman Senate. They were so important they were engraved on bronze plates and exhibited in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Bronze plates with written law or declarations were used for millennia to show international agreements that must stand throughout time. Abraham was said to have made an agreement with the Jebusites about the future of Jerusalem and immortalized it on bronze plates. (See Jesus, James, Joseph, p580).

Without an understanding of these Roman bronze plates, much of the New Testament does not make sense. Happily we have an exact transcript of what they said.

A Roman bronze law plate

You will find these bronze plates described in detail in the fourteenth book of the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus. 

It is quite extraordinary that so many Bible commentators have not understood the significance of these plates. They represent fully-fledged legal pledges of the Roman military Dictator and his Senate into the future. The whole of the history of Israel in the first century BCE and beyond into the persecution of the early Nazarenes depends on them. Not least because the Senate also pledged to their continuance long after Caesar was deceased. It had international powers. The Senate was the body that sent and received ambassadors and appointed governors to provinces abroad.

While the plates stood, the Senate and Rome where obliged to follow its words as law. Their destruction brought about the demise of the entire city of Jerusalem. It resulted in its disappearance as the capital of the Jews, not for a few years, or a few centuries, but for a millennium or more.

The story of the Roman bronze plates is a question of law but also of greed, cheating and international chicanery.  

Battle Background

In the first century BCE, the Maccabees (the Hasmonean dynasty) had gained Israel's independence from the Hellenistic empire of the Seleucids of Syria. In the last days of the Hasmoneans, a struggle broke out between two family factions, brothers Hyrcanus II versus Aristobulus II. When both sides sought help and arbitration they made a foolish mistake which cost the Israelite nation dear. They turned to Rome's general Pompey to arbitrate. He was then warring against the Armenians, to the north. 

Instead of acting as a peacemaker, he seized on the opportunity to gain control of Israel. He conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE. And then he entered the Temple's Holy of Holies to see if it was really empty. This sacred place is entered only by the High Priest on one day in the year, on Yon Kippur. The sacred ornaments including the Ark of the Covenant had long disappeared in previous wars. 

Hasmonean independence was ended.  Rome, not the Seleucids, was the master. Israel was again a land occupied by foreign armies.

Rome was then led by three men, the triumvirs. Pompey was the rival of super-rich Crassus. Julius Caesar was a military hero in Rome but he was in debt to Crassus. While it is said that Pompey did not steal riches from the Temple or further desecrate it, his act horrified the Jews who had fought tooth and nail to gain freedom from the Syro-Grecian empire of the Seleucids that had tried to wipe out Judaism by forced Hellenization.

Gold-mad Crassus, already possessing the equivalent of more than 200 tonnes of gold, planned to invade the Parthian Empire in the East and pillage its treasures. He wanted more gold. On his way east, he arrived in Jerusalem. He pillaged the Temple of an equivalent amount of gold plus silver. Antiq 14, 7,1, (105). 

He thought he would seize more gold in Parthia. It was a huge, rich empire that rivalled Rome's. Alas! In Parthia he met his fate. Both he and his legions were destroyed.  

So when Pompey and Caesar struggled for ultimate power, the Hasmoneans threw their support to Caesar, not the Temple-defiler, and promised to help. Pompey died in Egypt in 48 BCE. Caesar then chose Hyrcanus as high priest and leader of ethnic Jews.  

Embossed on Bronze

Caesar then made the following legal promulgation according to Josephus book 14 chapter 10,2 (190).

2. "Caius Julius Caesar, imperator and high priest (Pontifex Maximus), and dictator the second time, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Sidon, sends greeting. If you be in health, it is well. I also and the army are well. I have sent you a copy of that decree, registered on the tables, which concerns Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, that it may be laid up among the public records; and I will that it be openly proposed in a table of brass, both in Greek and in Latin. It is as follows: 

I, Julius Caesar, imperator the second time, and high priest, have made this decree, with the approbation of the senate. Whereas Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander the Jew, hath demonstrated his fidelity and diligence about our affairs, and this both now and in former times, both in peace and in war, as many of our generals have borne witness, and came to our assistance in the last Alexandrian war, with fifteen hundred soldiers; and when he was sent by me to Mithridates, showed himself superior in valor to all the rest of that army; - for these reasons I will that Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, and his children, be ethnarchs of the Jews, and have the high priesthood of the Jews for ever, according to the customs of their forefathers, and that he and his sons be our confederates; and that besides this, everyone of them be reckoned among our particular friends. I also ordain that he and his children retain whatsoever privileges belong to the office of high priest, or whatsoever favors have been hitherto granted them; and if at any time hereafter there arise any questions about the Jewish customs, I will that he determine the same. And I think it not proper that they should be obliged to find us winter quarters, or that any money should be required of them."

Thus the Hasmoneans under Hyrcanus II were made hereditary high priests and ethnarchs, or secular rulers. 

Along came Herod

Being high priests for ever is not something that Caesar or any human can guarantee. For one, it depends on the family having the reproductive powers to have children, and two, that any male child surviving to adulthood would fulfill the stringent requirements of the office. This included being free from a long list of physical deformities. Other factors such as the will of Rome's rulers also come into play.

When Herod received the power as king from the Roman Senate, he saw the high priesthood as a rival to his office. He did two things. He married Mariamne, the last legitimate daughter of the Hasmoneans. Then he made sure that her brother, the young, potentially very popular high priest, was assassinated by drowning by his Gaulish bodyguards. The Hasmoneans were then bereft of any legitimate candidate for high priest.

Herod then thought he could select whomsoever he wished to be high priest. He made priests of men who had no right according to the laws of the Temple. So Josephus.

As Rome's agent, Herod exercised royal power in Judea. He had ultimate control of who would be high priest, whether it conformed to Hebrew law or not. The choice conformed to his will as someone loyal to the pagan gods but also a fervent restorer of paganism. Judea was in a dire spiritual situation. 

Consider the religious and political implications of these events. What would happen to true worship in the Temple? We need to look at the dilemma from the point of view of the faithful Jews.

Who makes high priests?

When Julius Caesar proclaimed that the Hasmoneans were to be forever high priests, he was exercising his own religious authority as the Pontifex Maximus, the chief authority of all religions in the Roman Empire. Before Caesar, the holder of the office was a priest separate from secular and military powers. Traditionally the Pontifex Maximus remained in Rome. When Caesar gained the office that all changed. After his military victories, he had all secular and religious power combined together.

A faithful Jew could ask: Is that how it works? Does a pagan, in fact the chief of the pagans, have the delegated authority of God to name the high priest in the Jerusalem Temple, dedicated to the Supreme God of the Universe?

The subjection of all forms of Judaism to the power of Rome was how Romans thought was the natural order. Herod assumed he had the legal power to name whomsoever he wished to be high priest, following the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

Did he have God's approval, according to the Jews faithful to Jehovah?

Certainly not. 

Hasmonean bronze plates

Bronze plates enunciating law and rights have along history. They were used in the Temple even before the Romans arrived to try to legitimize royal and priestly power. One set of bronze plates did not jibe for some Jews. Josephus makes it clear that neither the Hasmoneans (who had become corrupt and Hellenized) nor the Pontifex Maximus had powers to convince a certain group of Jews or provide any approval above Hebrew custom. Bronze decrees were often brazen attempts to overthrow God's laws written in minds and consciences.

The Hasmoneans were of a minor branch of the tribe of Levi and were not themselves fit to be high priests. Their glory lies in the facts of history. They refused to succumb to pagan Hellenism that the Seleucids wished to impose and thus to wipe out all forms of Judaism. They revolted. They fought the huge Seleucid Empire and won the independence of the nation with the help of the Parthian Empire in the East. 

But the revolt led by brave warriors did not give them divine rights to be high priests. Nor as it turned out later did it give them any right to claim to be kings or ethnarchs. The right of the high priesthood was always given to the sons of Aaron and their offspring. The throne of Israel was appointed to the offspring of King David.

The Hasmoneans saw things differently. They recorded their views on bronze plates in the Temple grounds. They claimed they were 'high priests and hegemons for ever' (eis ton aiona), I Macc 14:41. 

• Their word must be obeyed by all the people; 
• none should gainsay their words or else they would be punished; 
• the Hasmoneans should be clothed in purple and wear a gold buckle. 

These powers were conceded by their former imperial masters and confirmed by the Seleucid King Demetrius to Simon Maccabeus. They were written on bronze plates set up within the Temple in a conspicuous place so all could see them, v45.

  

They had overstepped the mark.

So where were the authentic priestly and royal dynasties at the time of the Hasmoneans and Julius Caesar?

The third parties

Let's go back to the time of the triumvirs, before Caesar was sole ruler. When Pompey conquered Israel, there were two last surviving Hasmonean brothers struggling for power: Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Caesar decreed that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and his offspring should be perpetual priests. 

But neither brother was of legitimate priestly or royal descent. When Pompey first arrived and entered into the dispute, there was another party who made claim to both royal and priestly offices. In Antiquities 14, chapter three, we read (41) that Pompey came to Damascus:

And there it was he heard the causes of the Jews, and of their governors Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, who were at difference one with another, as also of the nation against them both, which did not desire to be under kingly government because the form of government they received from their forefathers was that of subjection to the priests of that God whom they worshipped; and [they complained], that though these two were of the posterity of priests, yet did they did they seek to change the government of the nation to another form, in order to enslave them.

Who were members of the nation against both Hasmonean brothers? They wanted to change the Hasmonean form of government that was trying to enslave them? The Greek τὸ ἔθνος, ethnos, refers to an ethnicity, a genealogical family and dynasty. They were not a part of the Hasmoneans. These people, this tribe, were reclaiming the ancient rights of the pure priesthood who should have direct Aaronic blood, and royal Davidic blood if they should be considered for the kingship. They wanted a royal and priestly system based on freedom, not Gentile-style autocracy. 

They were not the third party in the dispute but the legitimate, first claimants. 

The legitimate claimants

This is a key historic event that should be at the forefront of biblical commentators and historians when they discuss Christianity. Both the priesthood and the secular power of Israel were in the hands of imperious imposters! They were supported by all the might and power of the Hellenizing Seleucids and then pagan Rome. 

This true genealogical claim hearkens back to the Return from the Babylonian exile. Then Ezra led a group of purified priests and made sure that they did not have mixed blood with the surrounding pagans. Some of the priests had even married the native (pagan) girls of the land. Ezra made sure that these priests either divorced from these pagans or were expelled from any office in the priesthood -- forever. He told them that one of the main reasons for the Babylonian conquest and their exile was that their forefathers had mixed with pagans.

 

The royal line was the inheritance of a different tribe, that of Judah. The royal line was the offspring of Zerubbabel who became the leader after the Return. While his sons were not crowned kings because they were still subjects and under control of the powers of Babylon and then Persia, they provided leadership up to a point into the empire of Alexander the Great and later the Seleucids. When the Law of God indicated that they should not stay in Israel, a country riven with war, idolatry and rape, they exiled themselves in Egypt. They could thus preserve their offspring and ensure it was not polluted by rapine.

It is clear from this passage of Josephus, however, that, when the land of Israel was returning to independence, the legitimate clans were not allowed by the Hasmonean power-holders to regain their offices. Their representatives, however, made it clear to Pompey in Damascus (outside Israel) that the Hasmoneans were not legitimate.

This passage from Josephus indicates and presages the rise of the legitimate Aaronic priesthood of the family of Jesus as High Priest and Davidic line of the 'king of the Jews' of the New Testament, the New Covenant.

Priestly polemics

For Israelites in Israel and those exiled broad it was the essential part of their faith and adherence that the priesthood should follow the instructions of the Torah, the books of Moses. The Temple priesthood represented a connection of the people with the Creator God and the covenant their families had made at Sinai. It opposed all forms of paganism. A falsified priesthood may have sat well with religious and political authorities in Rome but for many Jews it was an insult and sacrilege.

After the demise of the Hasmonean dynasty, the effort of Herod trying to foist his own choice as high priest would have not resolved the dilemma. It would have made the sacrilege and public outrage even worse. The Hasmoneans had no legitimate offspring. The people that Herod chose as his high priest had even less. Where was the authentic Aaronic dynasty and how could it be installed again with Herod's acquiescence?

It should be recalled that Aaronic priests were always a minority among the Levitical priests that made up the tribe. Aaron had two surviving sons when the total number of male Levites was more than 22,000, Num 3. 

The solution was forced on Herod. It was not his choice. The undisputed dynastic claims made the choice inevitable. It was thrust upon him from Egypt of all places.

A man and his family arrived from refuge in Egypt and settled in Israel. The Land was now at peace, although it was ruled by a ruthless conqueror. For the priesthood it was important that their families and especially their virgin daughters should not live in a place of open warfare. Civil war was replaced by Roman law and administration.

Out of Egypt   

Simon Boethus arrived from Egypt and caused consternation. One surprising result of his arrival was that Herod had to divorce his queen! Why?

• Was it money? Was Simon super-rich? No. 
• Did he have an intimate political relationship to Caesar? There is no evidence of any relationship. 
• Did he blackmail Herod in some way? Not at all. Simon was known for his piety and adherence to the laws of God.

Simon was from a family of modest means. It was not wealth or politics that caused Herod to take real notice of him. 

Here's what Josephus records:

There was one Simon, the son of Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria, a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter who was esteemed as being the most beautiful woman of her time ...  Herod was stricken with her beauty. Antiq bk 15, 9, 4 (320).

What was the brutal Herod to do? Use his authority to abuse her? Be thus stigmatized by violence and tyranny? Simon was of a dignity (social standing) too inferior to be allied to him, but too considerable to be despised, says Josephus. Curious. Herod wielded enough brutal power to do what he wanted. But here with Simon, he did not exercise it. Simon had a social standing but not riches or political power.

What dignity did Simon have that an abuse of his daughter would have provoked a revolt?

What was the context of popular discord that Herod had already stirred up? The dignity that Simon possessed was not riches or powerful friends but a pure genealogy. Even Josephus, who held Hasmonean loyalties, had to admit Simon was a 'priest of great note'.

Herod immediately deprived Jesus son of Phabet of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, says Josephus. Thus it is clear that Simon had the standing of a pure Aaronic pedigree. No one objected when such a person became high priest. Then Herod did something that was illegal.

And so Herod joined in affinity with him [by marrying his daughter, Mariamne] says Josephus. It was not permitted for an Aaronic high priest to give his daughter to a non-Israelite. Herod threw up a cloud of false information about his origins. What could Simon do against the desires of an autocrat? For someone who Josephus describes as having little dignity, he drove a hard bargain: his daughter became Herod's first lady to the exclusion of all others.

Simon now held the title of high priest and ethnarch. By marrying into the family with the greatest priestly genealogical claims, Herod, the product of a disreputable line as far as Israel was concerned, sought to capture some of its legitimacy and make his offspring the heirs to his kingdom. That this was his motive is shown by the fact that he divorced his queen, his previous wife of Samaritan extraction (also named Mariamne) and made Simon's daughter his queen.

The previous high priest was a man of little breeding. Simon was a popular choice, and one that could not easily be reversed, as history shows. He remained high priest for some two decades.  

As Josephus tells the story it is about beauty and kingly power but the record shows much more was involved. Why is Josephus reticent in saying the word 'priestly pedigree'? Why use the word 'dignity'? Josephus confesses his own bias as narrator: he had some minor Hasmonean blood and therefore supported their cause; he was a Pharisee (as distinct from supporting the Nazarenes or Esseans) and he was a leader of the bloody and fruitless revolt against the Romans (which Simon and his family were not). To say more about Simon would reveal the inadequacy of his own positions by comparison.

The elevation of Simon to the high priesthood coincided with the golden revival of Jewish fortunes, the Parthian peace process. Peace with Rome's major rival, Parthia, meant neither side wasted resources on war. Trade blossomed. Simon led the rebuilding of the Temple and its glorification. With the influx of vast quantities of treasures from Israelites in Parthia and around the world the Temple became the greatest construction project in the Roman Empire. It was the result of a geopolitical agreement of peace between the kings of Parthia and Emperor Augustus of Rome. Herod merely submitted to Rome's geopolitical plan. In Israel other amazing construction projects with no parallel elsewhere in their ingenuity followed. Herod took the praise. 

 The Temple and the Plaque

With the end of the Hasmoneans, the legitimate Levitical priesthood had gained the high office in the Temple. The City State, recognized by Julius Caesar, continued as an autonomous entity of the high priest. The high priest held all powers within the Temple. The Hasmoneans had been ethnarchs as well masters in the Temple itself. But now under Roman occupation, the ethnarchy of the land of Israel outside the Temple complex was subject to Roman occupation and Herodian control. 

The sanctity of the Temple remained. No Roman, nor any Gentile was allowed within its inner courts, such as the Court of the Israelites, and certainly nowhere near the Court of Priest and the Temple itself. That included the powerful King Herod himself. What restrained him? Roman law and the bronze plaque showing the agreement and decree of Julius Caesar and Rome's continuous adherence to its principles. In other words, Augustus made it clear to Herod that the Temple and its grounds were off-limits to him because major geopolitical agreements were involved.  

The Despot of the House

But was Simon the sole master inside the Temple? Simon was the High Priest (Cohen haGodol) and as such was responsible for the rituals and daily services of sacrifice.  The Hebrew Scriptures speak of several high priests and they are ruled by a Chief Priest (Cohen haRosh). He was quite often a relative, that is a fellow Aaronic priest, sometimes with royal blood too. The Hasmoneans seem not to have followed this or demoted the latter to a subservient position as a military commander.

The Chief Priest was the Teacher of the high priest. As such he could discipline the high priest if he did not follow the rules of the Temple. The Chief Priest was in charge of all aspects of the Temple, including its security and the thousands who served as Temple guards, opened the gates at the appointed time and made sure that only Israelites of verified pure pedigree were admitted and they were all properly purified. He was in charge of the Temple treasury and the Temple archives. 

The Chief Priest was the Absolute Sovereign of the Temple, God's House. The Greek term, used in the NT, is oikodespotis -- literally House Despot, whose voice had to be obeyed as the voice of God. The term despotis was not used by observant Jews of any man but only of God, the supreme power of good. No human outside the Temple wielded such power over Israelites, not even the Caesar. The customary exception was that of the head of a family with slaves as this described that absolute authority on a much smaller scale. He had total power of life, torture and death over his slaves under Roman law. They were his objects. 

Caesar's bronze plates state Roman Law that no one in the Empire had the right to violate the sanctity of the Temple. That had to be observed by all Roman soldiers in Jerusalem. Within the whole Roman Empire there may therefore have been one area that lay outside any force of Roman power. That was the tiny enclave of the Temple. The House of God itself was a fortress, built square with sides one Roman stade long. That is 185 meters or 600 feet. Its wall rose 140 meters from the Kidron valley. Josephus Wars 5,5,1 (188.) Jesus, James, Joseph, p439ff.

Besides this impressive battlement, certain other land was attached. This included the wine and olive press gardens on the east side of the precipitous Kidron valley. Gethsemane was connected by a holy bridge. Both the bridge and the area of Gethsemane were Temple ground. The ownership of this land dated back to the time of King David. Only priests were allowed to use this area. That is why the fraudulent high priests made such a clamor when Christ crossed the Kidron on a donkey just like his ancestor David. 

The ride on a mule was no random choice. It was an assertion of royal legitimacy. It reflected the historic event when King David rode from his palace on the Mount of Olives on the bridge to the Temple area to quell the rebellion of his son and his military commander. He then crowned Solomon king as his legitimate successor, and the high priest anointed Solomon over the sacred Gihon spring, the site of the Temple. Jesus, James, Joseph, p429ff.

The ride was an assertion by Jesus that he was a Davidic king of the Temple and rightful priest. 

The fraudsters had to react. Jesus re-affirmed his genealogy to Pontius Pilate's question 'Are you a king?' 'You said it! I am king,' John 18:37. But not of Caesar's world. He was king and priest of the Temple, the last remaining parcel of Israelite sovereignty. Pilate's praetorium lay outside this zone and Jerusalem proper. To the fraudsters' questions, he said nothing. He did not have to justify the claim; they had to give grounds for theirs. 

Inside the Temple, Jesus could call on all loyal priest-guards and Israelites. Outside he was on Roman occupied ground. Inside he was designated by right as military commander. He is called Commander many times in the NT but readers would not know it from almost all English translations. 

In Luke 5:5 Simon Peter at his first meeting calls Jesus epistatis, usually translated as Master. It means much more. The Geneva Bible has a note: The word signifies him that is made ruler over anything. The original Weymouth has Commander. The Julia Smith or Jonathan Mitchell Literal translations also have Commander. The same word is used in the Greek Septuagint in Jeremiah 29:25 as 'overseer in the Temple' in 2Chron 31 :12 it is ruler-priest and elsewhere taskmaster in charge of construction.

The lexicon says it means chief or commander. Chief and commander over what? The Temple.  It was a fortress. The commander had absolute command.

Some translations have Rabbi! That is false and an outright distortion of the Greek. The Greek for rabbi is literally rabbi! If Peter wanted to say Rabbi, he would have said Rabbi. That shows the confusion among churches that have not come to grips with the technical terms of the NT and its Temple context.  

The Greek translators knew Greek history and usage. The term epistatis is a special, technical political term used for centuries earlier and also later. He is the head of a city. In this case the Temple-city. He was in charge of fortification and security and all aspects of the politics.  He was thus Superintendent of the city's assembly -- which is called the ekklesia in Greek! He holds the key to the city and is their military commander. That is the way the term ekklesia is used in the NT. 

It is used of the Congregation of the tribes of Israel, Acts 7:38. It is the political assembly of Israel. In the NT it is used of a Greek political assembly, Acts 19:32, 39, 41. Yet many people today think it means 'church' in the style set up in the Middle Ages by the Catholic church. In the NT it means the political assembly of those who recognized the kingship of Christ. The ekklesia abroad were run by his designated Ambassadors (the Greek word is apostolos). When Peter and others address Christ as epistatis they acknowledge he is king, military commander and keeper of the archives (canon). He was absolute, sovereign ruler, despotis.

What this is saying is that firstly Jesus is the designated, hereditary leader and Sovereign of Israel. Secondly in the Roman context, he is Ruler of the Temple, an independent City-State, recognized by Rome as separate from their own laws and religious obligations.

That came into conflict with the Roman quislings, their high priests chosen to be guardians of Roman control of the people. It was these fraudulent high priests, working for Rome, that denounced Christ as undermining their authority. But Pontius Pilate knew his Roman law and that Christ was the real King and Chief Priest of Holy Jerusalem. He declared him innocent of any charge. He knew the genealogies of Christ made him the hereditary Ruler. 

And Christ also made clear that outside Holy Jerusalem, for example, as a prisoner inside the praetorium of Pilate, he was not an active king. 'My kingdom is not of this world (kosmos)' -- the Roman world. Inside the Temple fortress it was different. 'If my kingdom were of this (Roman) world, then would my officers (hyperetai) fight' to deliver me. John 18:36. That would mean taking on the whole Roman world. It would incite a world war with Jews and Israelites in the Diaspora and with the Parthian Empire. Jesus the king (as Pilate confirmed) was totally in Rome's hands without help inside the Roman hall of judgement of the legionary garrison. He showed Jesus to the mob outside as 'the King of the Jews'. They demanded punishment and refused clemency. 

Pilate showed his power by scourging Christ with a multi-thronged whip with attached jagged metal pieces.  Hoping this would satisfy their illicit desires to humiliate and eliminate Christ, he had soldiers hit the bloodied Jesus and say 'Hail the king of the Jews!' striking him several times across the face with their hands, John 19:3.  Pilate then presented him with a crown of thorns to the mob: 'See the man now!' 

Pilate tried further to get out of the dilemma, when Christ as God's legitimate High Priest, told him that he, Pilate, governor from Rome, had no authority except that which was allowed by God. Those that demanded his death had the greater culpability, John 19:11. They demanded his death and Pilate gave the order.

Jesus was crucified. A green tree (xulon), Acts 5:30, was used as a stake. 

What was at stake at his trial before Pilate? 

Truth. 

The fraudulent high priesthood depended on a bronze plaque, initially favoring the Hasmoneans. It was given by the Pontifex Maximus, the chief of all pagan religions of the Roman Empire. When asked about giving tribute to Rome, Jesus asked for a coin of Tiberius, bearing his effigy and title as Pontifex Maximus. 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's' was his reply, Mat 22:21. All the Universe belongs to God, the Supreme Sovereign and Creator.  Jesus, James, Joseph, p325. 

Jesus said he was come to bear witness of the truth. After extracting the forensic facts, Pilate asked 'What is truth?' John 19:37-8. Surely, factual truth was vital in judgement.

Jesus could prove his genealogy as a king from David. He could prove his fitness as Chief Priest from Aaron. What the fraudulent high priests and the Roman governor decided was based on politics.

They thought their politics would save the day.

They were wrong.

Truth is eternal.  Truth saves. 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life' John 14:6.

       

Review: Timeline's Why Did Pontius Pilate Allow The Killing Of Christ? | The Man Who Killed Christ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fppoqtIu2ug 

Useful, well-produced historical presentation but lacks discussion on several key issues.

1. A diplomatic accord was made under Julius Caesar and Hasmoneans that the Temple was to be treated as an independent City-State totally under control of the high priests. The armed priests had recognised powers and rights to kill all intruders including non-Israelite Roman citizens, as Titus confirms in Josephus. 2. Jesus was arrested by Temple guards led by high priests who had major reinforcements at feasts like Passover. Not Romans. Gethsemane, where Temple oil was prepared on Olivet, was part of the extended Temple grounds and Davidic property. Roman soldiers were forbidden there. 3. Jesus (Christ = Anointed) was anointed with the holy oil of special preparation that was exclusively held by Aaronic priests. The Talmud says that the high priests, like Annas and Caiaphas, were not anointed but held office because of their holy garments. It is dubious that Annas had legitimate Aaronic blood. The faithful priests who held the special oil would not anoint them, Ex 30:32,33. Jesus had direct Aaronic bloodline, like John the Baptists, as both Elizabeth (Elisheva) and Mary (Greek Mariam) were of the daughters of Aaron (Luke 1). 4. Hence the struggle of the high priests (Roman nominees or Quislings) to retain power in the Temple. Jesus stopped their merchant trade in the Temple twice with the help of sympathetic priestly guards and bust the high priests' money making schemes. He denounced their hypocrisy in Matt 23 and the murder of Zacharias v35, the father of John the Baptist. John fled to the East, most likely Parthia until his surprise reappearance before the 'offspring of vipers' Mt 3:7. 5. Jesus affirmed the rule of the Eternal God but did not foment armed revolt against Rome. Pilate had access to the genealogical records that showed Jesus was the son of Joseph, called the son of David, Matt 1:20. Hence he had the legal right to kingship. Jesus did not call Pilate 'Lord' as the high priests did. Pilate knew he was rightfully a king and did not object. He was merely a prefect. He affirmed Roman recognition of Jesus as King of the Jews but he ordered the execution. 6. Pilate may have been part of the highly anti-semitic Sejanus faction that wanted to remove the 'Jewish problem'. Tiberius was in semi-retirement, leaving Sejanus to seize charge and control the Senate. 7. When Tiberius, who wanted peace and recognised the resurrected Jesus as a God, regained control, Pilate was sent for trial in 36 for abuses against the Jewish people. Gaius Caligula who had Tiberius murdered was ten times worse as an anti-semite than Pilate. He nearly brought total destruction of all Jews and world war with Rome's super-power rival Parthia.

Why I am discontented with Robert Kuhn's 'Closer to Truth'

The Mission of getting Closer to Truth

https://www.closertotruth.com

I can't say that I have listened to all Robert Kuhn's series in his format called Closer To Truth. There is a vast library now of 3500 videos of the world's greatest thinkers. Over the years I dipped into quite a few. Overall Robert Kuhn has done a magnificent job in covering such a range of views and expertise that is rarely found with such sympathetic yet probing integrity. His interviews cover physicists, biologists, scientists, philosophers, theologians, historians and many scientific disciplines of all hues.

I found them all interesting in that they were interviews with specialists and experts but I came away dissatisfied with almost all of them.

Why? 

True and whole Science

I found that they lacked a coherent scientific structure. Academic disciplines are becoming more and more separated into silos and few experts can have the vision of an overview from the heavens to the deep analysis of the infinitesimal detail. Silo-hopping results in lack of overall cohesion. Then there were failings of internal logic, which is natural. As humans we are all reluctant to yield our own prejudice for pure fact and logic. This is especially the case when it comes to theological foundations of knowledge. Materialistic liberalism infuses much modern thought, even (or especially!) among theologians. Iron needs to sharpen iron, but the right sort of iron is needed to make a sharp blade to bring overall satisfaction. Some borrow extradisciplinary iron that is already rusty.

Theology creates the big divide in academia, where the predominant philosophy disdains it. Knowledge of God requires logically obedience to God as our Creator. Or at least reverence and awe. Skeptics disparage moral laws. Or to put it another way, those who refuse the Ten Commandments call themselves atheists or excuse themselves with a religious label. What is their conscientious objection? 

True science requires a pure conscience. A persistent, pure conscience can also break empires. The conscience of Judeo-Christian believers in DDR, Hungary, Poland and Russia brought the downfall of the atheistic USSR. It showed Marxism was unscientific. The Politburo was biased. It banned free discussion of the spiritual, or non-materialism. Education in Museums of Atheism did not work.

Today, however, the West is still suffering from USSR's ideological attacks and materialism that emptied churches and more. Soviet propaganda undermining society structures was long-lasting. Now the more subtle Chinese atheism and autocracy produces thousands of choking weeds. But even media and internet censorship in USA will not stop the quest for truth. There may be more professing Christians in China than in Europe.             

Origin of modern Science

The scientific method derives from classical reform theology. In our modern era, the Hon Robert Boyle in the 17th century and later the Royal Society laid down personal rules that a searcher for truth must make sure that his conscience is absolutely clear of prejudice, and preconceptions. Experiments must be totally impartial. Facts and logic should provide the answers. The early scientists learned logic from the Bible -- for example debunking apparent contradictions by testing multiple hypotheses. They also compared the standard Roman Catholic belief and myths with historic documents now published and translated into the common languages for the first time. The vast collection of papal claims made over a millennium were exposed as frauds. 

Today our knowledge is increased in many areas. (In some other areas it has declined, such as the motor motive of science that there is one truth and fraud should be exposed and rejected.) The ideology of the popes is replaced by a Darwinistic / neo-Marxist premise (both failed theories). That results in false conclusions that everything evolved or economics dictates all human history and knowledge.

It is not progress to turn all phenomena into mindless, purposeless materialism. Such nonsense permeates the whole framework of present day thought. It represents the greatest danger to civilization -- materialism, only matter is important, not the spiritual world. Did electrons evolve to create Dark Energy, did amoebas grow to become elephants? Was it a triumph of workers over capitalists? Class warfare failed, so atheistic Marxists turn to race wars as the new Dialectical materialism.

Use your brain!

All civilizations knew that human mind is different from rocks and chemicals and far superior in its potential to the animal brain. The whale does not do better at mathematics or astronomy because its brain is seven or eight times bigger than man's 1300 gms. Or an elephant brain with 256 billion neurons, three times more than a human.

On the other hand some birds can circumnavigate the whole planet and find their way home. The aptly named godwit, shaped like a high tech fighter aircraft, travels from Alaska to New Zealand in one go, and later flies back across oceans. No stops for food.

Some humans get lost in their own city. Could you manage two non-stop trips totalling 29,000 kms?

The godwit reduces the size of its internal organs to make space for fuel. Its brain size? The whole bird weighs about 300 gms -- and its brain must be just a couple of grams. Butterflies also travel across oceans and back.   

 

Big Picture

The search for truth must take all new facts and conclusions into account.

What new knowledge needs to be integrated?

The great scientists of its modern foundation period knew man was a spiritual being. They applied this knowledge. Newton and William Whiston, his successor as Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge, John Wilkins, cryptologist, philosopher, Anglican bishop and first Secretary of the Royal Society, John Ray the pioneering biologist, and many others were fervent Christians. Science boomed because they were scientists in mind and spirit. Ray like Paley described how each creature was finely constructed for its own good purpose. The Bible animated all their researches. The same can be said for the next generations, such as Faraday and Maxwell who electrified our present society. Their electromagnetic wave theory is based on 'spiritual fields'. The designs of God indicate his purpose and plan but also act as a spearhead to new discoveries.

Your God is too small

No-God atheists and small-minded ministers need to stretch their minds to the reality of Creation and obviously the Creator. 

We know now that the Universe is far more magnificent and vast than any could have imagined. It stretches 14 or 15 billion light years to the visible rim. Who knows what lies beyond it?  The maximum speed of 74 km/second for a rocket was achieved by the Juno probe to Jupiter using the slingshot of gravitational assist. It would take such a probe 15 billion x 300,000 x 31.56 million seconds divided by 74 -- 6 trillion years -- to reach the rim of the universe and peak into what is beyond our visible sighting of stars. I can't wait that long.

The voyage is likely to be lonely. Even though the universe is dotted with stars and many may have planets, the Earth is the only known planet in our solar system and beyond where we know there is life such as bacteria. But we see good and negative spiritual forces in battle all day long. 

As we look deeper we find that the Earth has not only an extraordinary abundance of life but it is in forms that earlier man had could not imagine. Life exists in the deepest oceans and in the upper atmosphere. The simplest of cells, seen through microscopes, is as well organized as a massive city. But a cell has powers that go far beyond it. It can search for chemical foodstock. It can reproduce. It can make other cities. 

Each of the creatures on earth can tell us a lesson about how to live, care for young or not, or avoid our predatory enemies. They are education. We have a book of wisdom written in Nature. Modern technologies look to Nature's original design to find new designs and inspirations. 

Diseases caused by man's foolishness find their therapeutic solutions in Nature. The Nobel-prize-winning therapeutic Ivermectin, a powerful world-changing corrective and preventative to viruses (including in practice corona viruses), was found in the soil of a golf course in Japan by Satoshi Omura. It is one of the most tested, effective and cheapest of drugs. Then 'science' changed. Today the 'science' of its use may be distorted by profits of Big Pharma or a globalist agenda of those like WHO. 

A detailed View

Let's go smaller. Small, small fingers are required.

Last century's scientists started off by believing that the fundamental building blocks of our world, whether atoms or then atomic particles, would be simple systems. (atom= Greek indivisible) We could then work out the Lego construction of the universe.

The truth turned out to be far more complex, as is all nature. A whole zoo of particles and anti-particles, quarks, neutrinos, photons and strange and beautiful beasts act both as waves and particles. But they all work well and the average citizen does not have to look 'under the hood' to see how the material world works. Complexity and functionality is everywhere in harmony.

The universe is founded in wisdom down to the smallest detail we can figure out.

A pair of the smallest particles retain an intimate interconnection. When a human observes and measures one, the other, perhaps now at the far reaches of a galaxy, 'knows' and reacts faster than light travels. Man's decision-making affects the physical characteristics of the universe in ways we are only beginning to understand. Man operates on a spiritual plane. The human mind acts beyond the material physics.

From the least particle to the entire spread of the universe each brings a lesson to Mankind. The Great Creator God will not fit into man's box of experiences. From the stuff a billionth of a centimeter to that billions of light years, all give a lesson: if we wish we can grow in knowledge, wisdom and maturity. But silo academics must abandon 'Greek' thinking about atoms, universal measures of time and space to come to truth.

Truth, then what?

The crux of my remarks here would be to pose the question: where does one start?

Information, it has now been shown to the satisfaction of astrophysicists, can survive a Black Hole collision. Information existed before the beginning of the Universe 14 or so billion years ago. An impartial look at the existence of humankind and human observation of nature shows that it involves not only information but knowledge (from whence we deduce our sciences) and wisdom -- which is necessary for human maturity, the building of virtuous character.

Therefore all scientific analysis must start with the Wisdom Giver. Even the skeptics think they are wise. Usually groups of humans become unwise.

The early scientists were Jews or Christians but they shunned organised religion. Newton's researches led him to reject the pagan trinity. Whiston was expelled from Cambridge because of 'heresy'! Others adhered to obscure congregations of believers or were known as non-conformists and unitarians like many of America's founding fathers. They did not conform to crowd psychology. They rejected the church that absorbed paganism. They searched for truth and paid the price for non-conformity to errors. That showed that their pure conscience was fundamental to science and faith in God. Which scientist today is persecuted? Which scientist is not influenced by peer pressure or by grants from industry or government? Which real scientists are able to teach or debate in group-think universities?

After analyzing the proofs of God and how the atheistic skeptic refused them, Whiston concluded that biblical prophecy was paramount. He foretold in the 1700s, based on the Bible, that Jews would rebuild their homeland in Israel. A Temple would be built. The first happened in 1948, despite centuries of skeptics saying it was impossible. The second is yet to come. 

Diamond quality

Why did I feel unsatisfied with Closer to Truth? Getting close to truth is a start. Truth merely excludes the false. Wisdom is better than knowledge; knowledge is better than information, information is better than data. A diamond is more valuable than raw carbon. 

I was taught that Wisdom is the principle thing. Above all seek wisdom. Awe of the Eternal is the beginning of wisdom. 

 

 

Bamboozled after 1000 years of Mariolatry? Check the Bible!

Astrophysicist Carl Sagan wrote:

If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken in. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Paul wrote: 'To whom you yield yourself servants to obey, his servants you are to whom you obey,' Rom 6:16. 

What to do? We are told by Simon Peter to 'Obey God, not man' Acts 5:29. We should seek the truth and obey it, not man.

It is a dangerous path even for an astrophysicist to submit himself to an atheistic dogma instead of keeping an open mind. It is like propelling yourself into a cul-de-sac and then complaining there is no way forward.

When it comes to a relationship with the Creator, we cannot give up in our search for the truth. How can we be sure of the truth of biblical Christianity, free from propaganda and disinformation? 

Check the Bible. Prove all things. Avoid shuttered thinking.

 The Roman Catholic Mary

Original 'Christianity' is vastly different from that a few centuries later. The Roman Empire subjected its population to a sustained disinformation campaign. Thus a church arose that tried to absorb the beliefs of Christ and the apostles of the first century into its deeply pagan framework. 

The early believers did not even call themselves 'Christian'. This was a term invented by their opponents at Antioch as Acts 11:26 records. 

Since the time that a form of 'Christianity' became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the imperial authorities centralised doctrine in a way that drew in the masses. Thus the Roman Catholic Church became a mixture of paganism including myths of Greek, Roman and Egyptian demigods with a veneer of Christianity. At the same time the church remained antisemitic so the Hebrew Scriptures were despised, banned and burned. Jewish Christians were declared heretics.

Thus the Catholic dogma of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) arose. It had more in common with Greek pagan legends than Hebrew history and custom. Mary, or Mariam as the NT calls her, should be given due respect. But this version had little in common with the Bible. She was transformed into a plaster model of the Greek goddess, Artemis, the Queen of Heaven. The theme of the virgin goddess with child is common throughout all paganism from China to the West. It is denounced in the Bible. 

Once the BVM falsehood was entrenched as a doctrine, how was it sustained against questions by the few who had access to the New Testament? By bad logic and subterfuge. Up to quite recently Roman Catholics were forbidden to read the Bible and only listen to their priests. Why? The Bible makes nonsense of the doctrine of the forever virginal Queen of Heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

One example is John 8:38 41, the incident when Jesus was in the Temple and confronted by people who wanted to kill him. They say that 'We are not the children of fornication.' 

Ah ha, say the Roman Catholics, obviously they thought Jesus was a child of fornication because he was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Joseph was not his father.

Bad logic! It is amazing how such illogicalities persist. If someone says to you: ‘I am not a thief’, does that mean that you are a thief? If he says 'I am not an idol-worshipper,' does that mean you are?

Some Pharisees were of dubious birth. That created jealousy compared with the stricter Sadducees on Temple matters. They were shamed by the undeniability of Christ’s legitimate pedigree as both King and Priest. Jesus was perfect in all his generations. The Hebrew Scriptures, Tanak, finish with the genealogies of Chronicles and the NT begins with the genealogy from there to Christ. Above all Christ was true to his ancestors' faith in God, unpolluted by the devil. The Pharisees not only perverted the truth but wanted to kill the son of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David, a personage prophesied throughout the Scriptures as the Anointed, Dt 18:18 and 17:14.

The spirit of murder showed they were not legitimate, even though they might be sons of Abraham. It was the spirit of the devil.

Three proofs

How do I know the Roman Catholic interpretation is incorrect? I will give you three proofs. Jesus spoke inside the Temple and taught priests inside the Court of Priests. The Torah in Deut 23:2 says that

No bastard (mamzer – someone of unproven pedigree) shall enter the Court of Israel surrounding the Temple – on pain of death.

And no Israelite other than Levitical priests could enter the Court of Priests. Furthermore, no offspring of such a person may enter the Temple for TEN generations. If as Catholics say Jesus maintained he had no earthly father then he would be dead if he tried to enter the Temple, dispatched by the armed Temple guards. To claim that he was like the pagan demigods and was the offspring of a virgin and Zeus/ Jupiter was an even surer way to oblivion if he crossed into the precincts of the Temple.

The word of a future emperor

Secondly, the Romans under Julius Caesar when they made a treaty with the Jews respected the right for them to forbid all foreigners and mamzers from the Temple.

This continued until the very date of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. We have the witness of Titus, son of emperor Vespasian, recorded in Josephus.

Josephus Wars Bk 6,2,4 (124):

Titus was deeply affected and reproached {those in the Temple}:

‘Have not you, vile wretches that you are, by our permission, put up this partition wall before your sanctuary? Have not you been allowed to put up the pillars thereto belonging, at due distances, and to engrave in Greek and in your own letters, this prohibition, that no foreigner should go beyond the wall.

Have we not given you leave to kill such as go beyond it, though he were a Roman?’

Proof in stone

Thirdly, those massive stone warnings, written in Greek and Latin (and Hebrew for the Court of Priests) were repeated every few meters. They said in bold red letters that anyone entering (a) the Court of Israel who was not an authentic Israelite (verified for ten generations) and (b) anyone who was not an authentic Levite (verified over ten generations) would be killed and their death was their own fault.

This is my facsimile of it.

 It says:

Nobody at all of alien racial stock may proceed within the balustrade surrounding the sanctuary and the encompassing court. Whoever ventures inside will be responsible for his death that will ensue.

The original stone 90cm by 60 cm by 30 cm was discovered by Clermont-Ganneau in 1871. It is now on display in the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul. Another piece of such a Warning Stone has also been uncovered.

The reluctance of the churches to draw the right conclusions about the Catholic BVM dogma shows how deeply disinformation over a millennium by the RCC is hard to shift.

If modern 'Christianity' is all based on a false premise, then what is it really? BAMBOOZLED. 

If 'scientists' and modern theologians believe that the miracles of Christ and his resurrection could not happen, then they are denying the evidence and are equally bamboozled.

 

Rome’s aim in destroying the Temple was to destroy Christianity

Why was the medieval Roman church and the Orthodox church so antisemitic? Why were the Hebrew scriptures and all knowledge of Hebrew banned? Why were Christians expelled for 'judaizing' when it is clear that Jesus and nearly all the early Christians were Jews?

The last verse of Luke says that Christ's disciples were “continually in the Temple, praising and blessing God.” In the book of Acts, James, the brother of Jesus, instructs the Apostle Paul how best to perform Temple ritual. In early Christian writings up to the time of Jerome around 400, James is described as bishop of bishops, praying inside the Temple as Sagan priest.
Church history has been turned upside down. Black means white and white black. Judaism is allegedly anti-Christian. Paul is proclaimed as making a break with all aspects of the Temple tradition. The Bible, on the other hand, shows Paul anxious to fulfill the Temple tradition scrupulously. He is taught by someone whom the Roman church writes out of their history—James the brother of Jesus!
Why in short was Christian history re-written between the first century when Christians took full part in the Temple services, as the gospels and Acts say, and the time of Constantine in 325 when at Nicea he created an imperial Catholic Church profoundly anti-Jewish?  

Meir Ben-Dov pointed out the Titus pillar

A major discovery mentioned in archaeologist Meir Ben-Dov's book 'In the Shadow of the Temple' p187f  helps explains what was behind the so-called 'lost centuries' of Christian history.

Here's what he wrote about an extraordinary discovery during the first modern dig near Temple Mount:

"Among the most outstanding volunteers working on our dig were students from Ambassador College in Pasadena, California, who returned annually in groups of 100 and spent six weeks in arduous and energetic labor. Because of their remarkable fortitude and energy we often assigned them to particularly difficult projects.
One was to uncover what could be found under the remains of the Moslem palace south of the Temple Mount. A group of Ambassador students set work among the foundations of the building, which sometimes extended as far down as 7 meters and included parts of columns from earlier buildings placed in secondary use by the Moslem builders. The year was 1970 and we were approaching the 9th of Av -- when one of the members of this group came running towards me flushed with excitement.

"I've been looking all over for you!" he shouted. "What's up?" I asked, though it seemed pretty clear from the state he was in that he had found something interesting. "There's an inscription down there," he told me, and I accompanied him back to the area and climbed down the ladder to find that a column that the Moslems had incorporated into the palace foundation walls bore a clear inscription in Latin letters.
Even at first glance I could tell that this was a royal inscription, though most of it was still not visible. After a few hours' hard work we managed to free the column from the wall of which it had become a part -- without damaging the wall itself -- and cleaned off the remaining plaster that still clung on to it. Then came our startling discovery that it was a dedicatory inscription to the Tenth Legion mentioning none other than Titus himself.
We were filled with emotion because of the uncanny symbolism of the find. Here we were on the eve of the 9th of Av. One thousand nine hundred years ago to the day, Titus had briefed his troops on the storming of the Temple Mount. And now, in the renewed State of Israel, standing in Jerusalem, digging alongside the Temple Mount, we had come into tangible contact with Titus and his legions." (emphasis added.)

Ambassador College was collaborating in the first dig at Jerusalem organized by Prof Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University and the Israel Exploration Society. 

 Dr Ernest L Martin, who led the Ambassador College group, revealed the truth about Titus at the time that student John Turner uncovered the Titus Pillar inscribed with the imperial name of his father Emperor Vespasian.
There are two versions of the briefing that Titus gave to his General Staff about storming and looting of the Temple in 70 CE. One is a short version. It looks more like Roman propaganda. Why? Because it appears to be a censored version that gives the entirely wrong impression of the facts. This was a common technique in Rhetoric or "spin" management as we would say today. It excises inconvenient facts from and account to lead the reader to a distorted conclusion.

What it leaves out is more significant than what it mentions. The fragment is attributed to the historian Tacitus and says:
The military staff told Titus:

“This holy building is the most beautiful structure ever built by the hand of man and should not be destroyed. If we leave it unharmed, its continued existence would serve as a witness to the moderation of the Romans. But if it were destroyed, the Roman name would be forever blackened. "

What it admits is striking. That the 'Jewish' Temple outshone anything in the Roman world is an extraordinary admission for any Roman writer, proud of Rome's achievements.

Many other writers, however, make the same assessment. This account, in itself, indicates the desperation to put some form of positive gloss on what in effect was a global disaster to its prestige. Rome destroyed the World's Wonder, a city greater than Rome and in direct violation to the Treaty between Caesar and the Jewish Ethnarch at the time of the Maccabees. It blackened its reputation forever.
The extract implies that the Roman army were careful not to harm this Wonder of the World.
Is it true?
  

The fuller story is revealed in the Sacred History of Sulpicius Severus, an educated Gallic Christian, a post-Nicene father (NPNF, s2, vol xi, p111). He appears to be quoting from the same or similar historical records but this time he gives the unvarnished truth. The Caesars wanted to destroy the Temple because the Temple Teacher and his Resurrection made nonsense of their pagan pantheon of false gods. Hence the Empire was threatened.

"Titus is said, after calling the council, to have first deliberated whether he should destroy the Temple, a structure of such extraordinary work. For it seemed good to some that a sacred edifice, distinguished above all human achievements, ought not to be destroyed, inasmuch as, if preserved, it would furnish an evidence of Roman moderation, but, if destroyed would serve as a perpetual proof of Roman cruelty. But on the opposite side, others and Titus himself, thought that the Temple ought especially to be overthrown, in order that the religion of the Jews and Christians might more thoroughly be subverted; for these religions, although contrary to each other, had nevertheless proceeded from the same authors; that the Christians had sprung up from among the Jews; and that, if the root were extirpated, the offshoot would speedily perish. "

The Titus Pillar may have been a Roman celebration of the brutal destruction of the Temple and the subjugation of Jews and Christians. It was the victory pole of paganism. If it was erected near where it was found, it would have stood like a vile asherah, decorated with an pagan eagle in the court before the Temple.
If that is so, it would have echoed repeated attempts to erect the pagan symbol in the Temple to proclaim to all Roman supremacy of their pantheon.

The Roman Governor Pontius Pilate had, according to the contemporary historian Josephus, tried to infiltrate Roman Legion standards into Jerusalem, something forbidden by the earlier treaty between Julius Caesar and the Maccabees. He failed, due to the passive resistance of the Jewish nation, who would rather die than see their Temple defiled.
An even more remarkable event occurred around the time of the birth of Christ and the dying days of Herod the Great. Josephus records that Romans attempted to raise an eagle at the great gate of the Temple. Jews, in fervent expectation of the coming of the Messiah at this time, ripped it down. They were led by two fervent Jewish scholars, Judas of Sepphoris and Matthias of Margalus. Fearing the whole nations would rise against him and Rome, Herod burnt alive the main perpetrators and killed their students in a bloody slaughter. Wracked with a putrefying disease, Herod in his last days instructed his soldiers to gather the most illustrious leaders from the entire Jewish nation into the hippodrome and slaughter them all at his death.


Seventy years later Titus may have erected this Pillar as the Roman signal of their definitive destruction of Judaism and Christianity.


Despite the myriad of martyrs who maintained the facts of the resurrections, miraculous healings and personal revelations, Rome was unable to accomplish the human destruction of Christianity or Judaism. Roman emperors conceded that the resurrections and miracles had taken place and were taking place in their own times. (Jesus, James, Joseph, p530 and chapter 32).

Then it became obvious that Rome had lost the war against truth. It tried another tactic: Fake history, disinformation and dissembling about why the Temple was destroyed.
The Titus Pillar reveals one reason for the truth gap, the so-called 'missing centuries' of Christian history. It took centuries of antisemitic propaganda before the Romans could dissociate and expunge the real facts of the New Testament. The NT showed Christians' strong involvement in the Temple. Jesus, James and Joseph taught and officiated there.
Rome was destroyer of the building God had decreed to be built. How then could Rome, the determined destroyer of the King of Jews, the Chief Priest of that building, present itself as champion of Christianity? It banned first the Hebrew Scriptures and then the Greek New Testament. It persecuted and exiled its opponents.

It took centuries of killings and propaganda to subvert all connections between Christ, the Bible and Israel. Then with an empire that had only modified its effete and dying paganism, Constantine could proclaim an imperial religion that he called 'Christianity' where the Hebrew scriptures, the Temple, Sabbath and the festivals were banned on pain of death.

                                      David Heilbron Price, Nazarene Project   8/2018