Saturday, April 21, 2018

I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians

Few Extra-Biblical traditions of Early Church History seem as unquestionable.  Nero's supposed Persecution of Christians is treated as the next chapter of Church History right after the narrative of Acts ends.  Hollywood movies depicting it are classified as Biblical Epics, and I will continue to enjoy those movies in-spite of how fictional I now view them to be, there were also certain things I always felt they got wrong.

The thing is, the closer to Biblical History a tradition is, the more likely it is evidence in The Bible itself could work against it.  I already did a post arguing that Peter never went to Rome, which included my deconstructing the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was talking about Nero at all.  (And there was a follow up to that about Simon Magus.)  I even already there questioned the assumption that Paul was Martyred in Rome, though he certainly did go there.

Here is a fact that is somewhat little known, the Trail before Caesar (Nero was Caesar at the time because it's after Felix's time as Governor of Judea ended) Paul was awaiting when the narrative of Acts ended, is kind of recorded in Scripture elsewhere.  2 Timothy 4 verses 16-18, often considered the last of Paul's Epistles to be written.
At my first answer 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 might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The implication of these verses is clearly that Paul was acquitted.

Now plenty of scholars are aware of this.  But some insist Paul returned to Rome a second time later and was killed then, by the very same Emperor who had acquitted him before.  Sometimes specifically saying 2 Timothy 1:16-17 refers to this second imprisonment, but to me the context of the letter clearly makes that the same imprisonment he records the resolution of quoted above.

The only authentic Epistle of Clement of Rome says in chapter 5 that Paul went to the "Extremity of The West" (or "limits of the west" in Bart Ehrman's translation).  Many ironically quote this passage as backing up Paul being martyred in Rome when in my view it does not, it seems on it's own without bringing our assumptions into it, to be saying the "Extremity of the West" is where Paul met his fate.

Now "extremity of the west" is an expression used in Secular Pagan Roman writings to refer to Spain, so this can be read as just confirming Paul fulfilled his stated desire to go to Spain from Romans 15:24&28.  I point this out because there is easily a temptation to see this as backing up fanciful theories that he went to Britannia or the New World.  I'm not against Paul in Britain theories, plenty of other claims about the Early Church in Brita I think are false, but I haven't read Paul in Britain yet so I can't firmly pass judgment on it.

I do feel convinced that that Claudia and Pudens of 2 Timothy 4:21 are the same as the ones from Juvenal who are linked to Britain.  Some argue the Juvenal reference is to late for them to be the same as Paul's.  But there are other reasons people have for placing the letters to Timothy and Titus in the 90s, though I disagree with the aspect of that based on thinking the Pastoral Epistles support Monarchical Church Structure, the men those letters are named after are just the contacts those churches had with Paul.  That date is viewed as conflicting with Paul being the author only because of the assumption Paul died in 64 or 67.

Maybe if Paul was martyred by a Roman Emperor it was a later one.  The second Emperor tradition says persecuted Christians was Domitian.  And sometimes people use against the Domitian persecution the same argument I'll bring up later against Neronian persecution, that Christians and Jews weren't distinguished in Roman law yet.  However that ignores that Suetonius records Jews being persecuted under Domitian, and unlike many other things Suetonius talks about this he was an eye witness to.

An overarching theme of the Book of Acts is that the Roman Governmental authorities under Claudius and Nero are the good guys during this era, Christian Persecution came from local mobs, which in Judea were often riled up by the Sadducees.  Tradition has chosen to vilify a Caesar that Paul was confident would rule in his favor.

Under the Flavians, as well as the Nerva-Hadrian administrations, it served the new Dynasty to vilify Nero for the same reasons it served the Tudors and Stuarts to vilify Richard III during the time of Shakespeare.  And meanwhile during this same era many "Early Church Fathers" were trying to appeal to these same Roman Emperors, often addressing their Apologies to them directly.  So at some point I think Christians like Tertulian wanted to pin the blame on Nero for the illicit legal status they had, and then Suetonius and Tactius listed persecuting Christians among the crimes they attributed to Nero because Christians were saying it.

The villainous reputation of Nero mostly comes from Roman Historians of the Senatorial Class (chiefly Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio), who loved to slander the Julio-Claudians as depraved because of their semi-plebian origins, but loved Vespasian-Titus and the "Five Good Emperors" because they came from their class and so were good to them.  Thing is the common people of the Empire were oppressed by heavy Taxes under those Senatorial Emperors.

There is plenty of evidence however that the common people were happy under Nero.  Even the Christian source John Crysostom acknowledged that.  Plutarch in his allusions to Nero is also more favorable, as well as Lucan.  The biography of Appolonius of Tyana also records how Nero was loved by the Greeks in the Eastern Provinces.  And the Talmud has a favorable memory of Nero also.  In fact the reason many later Christians started thinking the Antichrist would be Nero resurrected somehow was because before them those who liked Nero had started believing he would come back to save them from Flavian oppression, he became Greco-Rome's King Arthur.

One purely modern detail of the traditions about Nero's persecution is the tying it into the bad reputation of Poppaea Sabina his second wife, it seems the Hollywood versions needed a Jezebel figure.  Poppaea was depicted as a scheming Femme Fatale by the senatorial sources.  But Josephus who actually knew her personally paints a different picture in his autobiography.  Josephus depicts her as practically a Proselyte and mentions among her Jewish friends an actor Nero was a fan of.

Now some have suggested Poppaea's Jewish associations are why her influence would have been against Paul.  But that would be the case only if the Jews who had her ear were Sadducees But based on Josephus being a Pharisee, and that I think his Shipwreck was the same as Paul's, I doubt that. Plus Gentile Proselytes might have been inclined to like Paul's message.

Some histories are confused by how Josephus could possibly be talking about the same woman the other sources are, even if one or both is exaggerated to suit their bias.  I say just look at Anne Boleyn, to the Catholics of Tudor England she was explicitly compared to Jezebel, but Protestants sometimes paint her as a saint in for example the film Anne of the Thousand Days.

Acte was a mistress of Nero, archeology has shown there were Christians in her household as either slaves or freedmen, leading some to speculate she herself may have been one.  Modern fictionalizations often place her in conflict with Poppaea, wanting to make her the Betty to Poppaea's Veronica.  But politically they were on the same side when trying to influence Nero, being pro Seneca and anti Agrippina.  So for all we know they could have had a threesome.

Some secular scholars have already questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution.  But in a way they're not going as far as I am here, as they do think something happened, but distinguish it from a systemic persecution.

One of the arguments they do bring up is the lack of legal distinction between Jews and Christians before the time of Trajan, the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan clearly show there was no prior policy on what to do about Christians.  And Romans persecution they did face before was a product of persecutions the Jews suffered under Domitian.  But since the evidence from the Talmud and Josephus show The Jews had it good under Nero, there is no reason to think a Nero killed any Christians.

And these Secular critics have also pointed out that Tacitus account must be derivative of something he heard from Christians and not Roman legal records since he got the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong.  And Suetonius was certainly willing to record things based on pure rumor.  His account of the death of Caligula and Claudius becoming emperor is clearly based on Jospehus's account (he mentioned Josephus so was aware of him) but the differences are all the tabloid style scandals he spices it up with.

Why am I talking about this on the Prophecy blog?  Well for one thing it effects Preterism.  In one sense not that much since a lot of their arguments focus on Vespasian and Titus.  But Nero is the only of these Emperors where any plausible way to make their name's Gemetria equal 666 exists, and even that is tortured.  But also the assumption that Nero persecuted Christians is necessary to make it possible that John's exile to Patmos was under Nero, but even the traditional view of the Neronian persecution makes it local in Rome only.  All the facts I laid out above make John's exile far more plausible under Domitian's Jewish persecution.

Persecuting Christians isn't the only evil thing attributed to Nero I think is slander.  I think Poppaea probably died of a miscarriage and the claim Nero kicked her to death was probably another of Suetonius's tabloid rumors. But he is someone who became ruler of the world at a young age, and so at some points could have cracked under pressure a few times.

If the rumors of the Incest with Agrippina were true, he'd be the victim in that case, he was probably still a minor by modern standards when that started since he was only 17 when he became Emperor.  However a book called Women of the Caesars (I'm not sure which book on Amazon with that title I read) argues for a more positive portrayal of Agrippina, but it did so supporting the negative view of Poppaea.

If you're familiar with my other blogs you may find yourself thinking "hmm, an Otaku Christian who's expressed a lot fondness for Fate/ suddenly trying rehabilitate Nero's reputation in Christendom, that's suspicious."  This stuff has all been floating around in my head for years really, it just took awhile for me to bring it all together.  It's again kinda derivative of what I'd already talked about regarding Peter.  I started watching Fate Animes in 2016 and hadn't even heard of the Extra games and their Waifu version of Nero till over half way through 2017.

I'm actually pretty annoyed by Fate/Extra's take on Nero. 1 Artoria works because Arthur is a figure who's very existence is questionable so of course their gender could have been remembered wrong.  2. They could have at least kept Nero plus sized, or as we say in Anime Meme circles THICC.  3.  I'd like Fate/ to start doing less random gender swapping and more bringing attention to actual historical/mythical women.  For example the characterization Fate/Extra gives Nero could have been perfect for how I view Poppaea and Anne Boleyn.  But also as a Christian I'd love to see the Arab Queen Mavia brought into the Nasuverse.

If someone's gonna write a fictionalization of Nero based on my theories, I may have to do it myself.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

25-22 BC Nativity Date

I’m going to talk about a theory I’d been contemplating for awhile but only recently found the final key puzzle piece for.

I have become convinced Jesus was born on Kislev 25th, or very close to then. But what year Jesus was born I’ve been going back and forth on.

I stumbled upon a book arguing Jesus was born in 25 BC, heralded by a Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Regulus in 27-26 BC. This Book was not from a proper believer but someone who just called parts of The Bible they felt didn’t suit their theory wrong. I am not willing to do that, however I did look into to how well this could fit a literal interpretation of The Gospels.

What I found was, the only real problem was reconciling Luke with Matthew. If someone wanted to consider only one Nativity narrative Canon, either one could fit a 25 BC model. And the main reason for that is Luke’s story about Jesus when He was 12. Since Interpreting Matthew this way would have the family still in Egypt all through Jesus tween years. The word for “young child” used at the time they return to Egypt, can simply mean not fully an adult yet, and in a sense you weren’t fully an adult in Jewish thinking until 30. Mark 5:40-42 and Luke 8:42-43 uses it of a 12 year old, the daughter of Jairus.

The first error of how we commonly view Luke 3 is saying it placed the Baptism of Jesus when he began to be about 30 in the 15th Year of Tiberius. But it doesn't, the reference to the 15th Year of Tiberius at the start of the Chapter is totally unconnected to the Baptism account. Paul in Acts 13 says John "Completed his course" before he Baptized Jesus. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I think it's good evidence against assuming the Baptism was the same year John began his ministry or any other key event of Luke 3. But doesn't rule it out entirely either.

BTW, I've become convinced of an argument that what Luke meant by the Greek phrase translated "Began to be about 30" was that Jesus was "almost" 30.

Luke 3 is clearly not being purely strictly Chronological since verse 20 has John put in Prison then verse 21 describes his Baptism of Jesus.

Luke 3:1-2 tells us that the "Word of God" came unto John in the wilderness in the 15th Year of Tiberius. Then we get a basic account of who John was and what he was doing. Then it talks about him preaching against Antipas and Herodias and getting imprisoned for it.

It could be the 15th Year of Tiberius is when he preached against Herod Antipas marriage to Herodias, (perhaps because that was the year he married her) and was imprisoned for it. And that this doesn't tell us when John began his ministry at all. And so both that and Jesus Baptism could have preceded the 15th year of Tiberius.

John 8:57 can be interpreted as implying Jesus was near 50 years old when that event transpired.  And since I place John 8 on the Eighth Day of Tabernacles, Jesus probably had one more Birthday before his Crucifixion.  One can also see a Biblical symmetry to Jesus dying in his 49th or 50th year.  And there is that controversial quote of Irenaeus saying Jesus was about 50 at the Crucifixion.  Milestone ages in The Torah go from 20 to 30 to 50.  But a 49th year can be interesting because of the Jubilee.

The Slavonic version of Josephus is a big part of this theory for a few reasons. One is it placing the beginning of John The Baptist’s ministry in 6 AD, near the other famous events of that year, thus making it possible to also put Jesus Baptism in that year, or later. Slavonic Josephus also seems more consistent with The Gospels in saying Herodias first husband was Philip son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, rather then Herod Boethus.

Another reason is that it seems to describe the Magi coming to Jerusalem, but places that event between 27 and 22 BC.

In this model the Census could be Augustus first Empire wide Census, the Monumentum Ancyranum inscription combined with other records about Roman Censors tells us this Lustrum was from 28-24 BC.  And the wording of Luke 2:1 can be interpreted as saying it was the very first Census of Augustus reign.

And I already talked about reasons to doubt Quirinus was mentioned in Luke 2.

For the movements of Jupiter and Saturn in Regulus I mentioned. Just download stellarium and look through this period. It’s like the Jupiter-Regulus alignment made such a big deal out of by 3 BC theorists, but the involvement of Saturn makes it both even more impressive and far more rare. Jupiter and Saturn conjunction ever 20 years about, but only do so anywhere near Leo every 800 years or so, and the times they have since and the last time before this came nowhere near fully aligning with Regulus how they did this year. Venus was also involved.

That Herod began building Herodium about 23 BC is interesting. It seems odd if he didn't know about Bethlehem's Messianic associations till 12-2 BC, which Matthew implies he didn't till the Magi visited.

These are all pretty compelling evidences. I’m not willing to throw out Matthew or Luke however. So unless an answer to that one issue can be found, I can’t support this theory.

But here is the final piece, the solution to the one problem this theory had.

I think it’s possible the Greek word for Twelve, might have sometimes been used by Luke and Mark with the intent of saying Twenty.  (The Greek word usually translated Twenty or Score  is used only as a part of larger numbers.)  It’s basically combing the Greek words for two and ten.  That includes both Luke 2 and the daughter of Jairus mentioned above.

The thing I noticed recently that would become an issue to me honestly even without its relevance to everything laid out above.  Is that around 12 or 13 as the age of adulthood isn’t supported by The Torah, it’s a Rabbinic Custom and one that may not have developed till after 70 AD. 

The Torah talked about 20 years old as the minimum age requirement for the census and the Pilgrimage festivals, in Leviticus 27, Numbers 1, 26 and 32:11,  though Number 8:24 makes 25 years old an important date for Levites.

Commentators already think Luke singling out Thirty years old for the Baptism has relevance to Numbers 4 (where Fifty years old is also important).  So it also makes sense in this context that the Torah significance of twenty years was implied in Luke 2.

Now you may at first feel that the story makes less sense if Jesus was that old.  But again some words translated “child” in Biblical Language can be shown to apply to older then you’d think.  And in Jesus day Jewish men usually didn’t leave their father’s house to get married till they were 30.  Frankly I can argue the fact that it took Mary and Joseph so long to notice Jesus wasn’t with them is odd if he was as young as 12.

I’m going to be returning to this subject in the future.  I haven’t decided the exact dates I’d go with yet.  The only way to maintain my Nisan of 30 AD Crucifixion date with it is if Jesus was born between Tabernacles of 22 BC and Nisan of 21 BC.  An argument for the Crucifixion happening the first Passover Pilate was Governor can be logical.  But a 70 Weeks model making the 69th week end with the Nisan of 26 or 27 AD I haven’t seen yet.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David

Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption.  Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David.  But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said so what.  Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy.

But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians.  Does Jesus qualify as an adopted father of Joseph?

Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as Jesus father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing his Father's business as correcting her.  That has it's origins as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said against The Virgin Birth.

But I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the nuclear family.  They feel an Adopted father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible.  This is also why so commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.

Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.

In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and Mortals can become Sons of God.  And I still think he was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.

Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised on the Eight Day who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite.  It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.

II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed.  But it's be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus reject often dual fulfillment elsewhere.  The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died.  What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God.  So that New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes a Son of David.  And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.

The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity.  The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David.  Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.

I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37.  As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.  And that subject has also come up in my unconventional interpretation of Revelation 19.

I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by Blood of Saul.  In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul father and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.

Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's.  But likewise the Creator of The World incarnate doesn't need to descend from anyone to be the rightful ruler of The World.  David became a Son of Saul regardless.

Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal.  To which I say, like how Christian apologists argue Luke genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son.  This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.

What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism.  It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected.  Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh.  For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.

But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David.  Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot.  These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom.  So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The Curse on Jeconiah?

My addressing the Genealogies of Jesus on this Blog has generally mostly focused on dealing with Luke's Genealogy for various reasons.  But I've come to realize that it's about time I paid more attention to Matthew's as well.

This particular topic however can be viewed as a transitional one, since the names of Sheatiel and Zerubabel being in Luke means the Curse on Jeconiah issue has been used against both.

I'm not going to use the usual Chuck Missler tactic of talking about how God worked around it.

In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.
Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah.  Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.

Now it makes sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole.  But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.

Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse.  And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18.  Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of the time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah at all.

Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.
As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;
Compare this to Haggai 2:23 He says of his grandson Zerubabel.
In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.
So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost Zerubabel has back.  And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.

And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.

People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother. And through a son of David further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.

So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no descent from the Royal Line.

Friday, March 30, 2018

Eden may have been in Yemen

I have to agree with the position that the Tigris and Ephrates aren't useful for identifying Eden, since things changed at the Flood.  Rob Skiba likes to say the text of Genesis is present tense, but I think that's because Moses simply edited together older sources.  I believe Genesis 2-4 were written by Adam and Eve themselves.  The fact is, the relationship between the Tigris and Euphrates in Genesis 2 is literally the exact opposite of the Post-Flood rivers we now call by those names.

That doesn't mean I think it's hopeless to identify Eden's location.  Because there are Post-Flood references to it.

I had in the past fixated on ways to read the references in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 37 and Amos 1 as placing Eden in Mesopotamia.  But those verses contain qualifiers like "Scepter of" and "sons of" that may mean we're dealing with references to Eden that are not geographically useful.

What's interesting however is Ezekiel 27:23, which mentions Eden right before Sheba.

Genesis 2 says the Garden was "Eastward in Eden".  Which has been debated between whether it means the Garden was in an Eastern part of Eden, or that Eden was East of where Yahuah first created Adam.  What's interesting is Genesis 10 says the children of Joktan settled at mount Sephar (Zafar), a mountain known to be in Yemen, and calls it a Mountain of the East.  A fact I also noted when arguing the Magi came from Arabia not Persia.

There is a region in Yemen called Aden.  And their local tradition is that it's as old as Humanity and Cain and Able were buried there.

Ezekiel goes on in Chapter 28 when addressing the Melek of Tyre to say the Mountain of God was in Eden.  And elsewhere in Scripture "Mountain of God" is a title used only of Sinai/Horeb, never of Zion or Moriah.  I noted this once before when trying to place Sinai in Iraq.

But now this Eden/Sinai connection is perfectly compatible with my argument that Sinai was in Yemen and is the tallest Mountain in Arabia.

In that context this post is a companion piece to the one I made earlier today.  As well as this post.

Now it might be possible to make this argument compatible with connecting all the Genesis 2 names to their Post-Flood usage.  After the first river mentioned is associated with Havilah, a name that is in Yemen near Sheba and Ophir post Flood.  But I'm gonna leave that to someone else to figure out since I don't find it necessary.

I may have to abandon the Mizraim in Arabia theory

Which I disused last fall in Biblical Egypt may not be Egypt.

Plenty of the issue brought forward there people do have answers to.  And now I've noticed a Achilles Heel of that model in Exodus 13:17-18.
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.
We know because of Solomon's port that the Red Sea(Yam Suf) is or includes the Gulf of Aqaba.

So we're told that going through the Land of the Philistines (The Gaza Strip) would be the short way.  He's instead taking them the long way around the Red Sea.  If they were East of the Red Sea going to where the Philistines are would not have been an inherently shorter route.

So this leads me to conclude that they were East of the Red Sea from the Red Sea Crossing to the Rejection at Kadesh-Barnea.  Then following the post I made last year about the wandering last year about Numbers 21 were West of it when at Mount Hor and before that the Second Kadesh, the one that marks a southern boundary of Israel.  And then went East of it again for their interactions with Moab and the Midianites.

I'm not sure which of my past Mount Sinai theories to return to.  My closer Study of Exodus 3 and 4 have lead me to conclude it wasn't in Midian.  What I've observed above does make it East of the Gulf of Aqaba.  Where I had settled on for Sinai was the post about Eden, Sinai and Iraq.

I'd also forgotten during this whole phase of mine the clear evidence of the name of Moses being Kemetic in origin, being the same as the mosis part of names like Tuthmosis.   Both Moses and Tuthmosis end with an S for us only because of Greek influence.

It might be there was an offshoot of Mizraim in Arabia and that's where the Jurham Tribe came from.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

The Origins of Lent

One of the false claims you'll see among people presenting conspiracy theories about where the Holidays came from, is that Lent is when the Women weeped for Tammuz.

All the evidence shows that on or soon after the Summer Solstice was when that happened.  The Assyrians and Babylonians also used a lunar calendar and after the return form captivity the months of the Hebrew calendar took their names.  The women weeped for Tammuz is the month that was named after Tammuz, the fourth month.  Which on our calendar usually begins in late June or July.

The myth went that the Summer Solstice was when Tammuz went to the Underworld for 6 months and then at the Winter Solstice Ishtar takes his place.  Fitting the point I made before the Pre-Christian Pagans did the opposite of the traditional Christian calendar, Solstices were for deaths and resurrections and sometimes conception at the same time, while Equinoxes were for births.

Adonis was a figure in Greek mythology probably based on the Tammuz cult spreading west.  The Adonia, a festival in which women weeped for him, was also in the Summer.

So where did Lent come from?  I have a few ideas.

Jewish tradition eventually started preparing for Passover a full month in advance, essentially starting it right after Purim.  (Interpretations for abstinence from leaven or yeast)  This included a custom of refraining from eating Matza in order to build an appetite for it before the Feast.

Deuteronomy 34:8 tells us that the children of Israel wept for Moses for 30 days after he died.  And the start of the Book of Joshua seems to give the impression a new year started right after that.

The traditional explanation is that Lent commemorates the 40 Days of Jesus fast in the Wilderness.  And I don't think it's really based on claiming this is when those 40 days actually happened.  There is a Jewish tradition that one of Moses 40 days on Mount Sinai ended on Yom Kippur.  And other traditions that say Yom Kippur is when the events of Genesis 3 happened.  So placing Jesus Temptation on Yom Kippur fits nicely in my view.  There is also my hunch that Yom Kippur is when Michael will cast Satan out of Heaven.