The 7 Year Covenant is not a Peace Treaty

I think Chris is Right and Wrong about much of this.

I now view the 70th Week of Daniel as fulfilled in the first Advent of Jesus, and that The Antichrist is mentioned in Daniel 9 only possibly in being the Abomination alluded to.  Which contrary to many translations is not set up by the same person who confirms the Covenant and stops the Daily Sacrifice.

But I think maybe the 70th Week has End Times relevance only in that an Antichrist will seek to claim he's The Messiah.  Though I do not view that scenario the same way Chris White does.  Though that could just be me seeking an excuse to not do all the work that changing the URL of this Blog would entail.

Misconceptions about the Magi and the Census

Matthew 2:1 clearly says.

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem

And yet today the notion is constantly being promoted that the Magi arrived 2 years later, or at least over a year.

The first argument for this presented is saying that Jesus was called a "child" not a "baby".  However the same Greek word translated "child" in Matthew 2:8, Luke uses in the same form in 2:17 to refer to the newborn Jesus on the day He was born.  And the form of the word used in Matthew 2:9 is used in Luke 2:21 of Jesus at his Circumcision.  So that whole argument is based on ignorance of the Greek.

That Herod ordered everyone under two years old to be killed was probably him grossly rounding up.  Matthew 2:16 clarifies Herod determined this from when they saw the Star.  And at the time Herod asked when they saw it they both may have thought the birth happened when they saw the star, but they were Human. 

God's inspired Word in Matthew 2:1 clearly and unambiguously synchronizes the Birth of Jesus to when the Magi arrived in Jerusalem, not when the Star was first seen.  God used the Star to bring them to where He wanted them when He wanted them.  And I think even if the Magi told Herod the King was probably born now not then, Herod would not have wanted to take a chance on it.

Matthew 2:8 says Herod told them to "search diligently" so he may have given them plenty of time before realizing he'd been snubbed. So I don't think the two year time frame in question cleanly begins or ends with the Birth of Jesus.

"You're placing the Presentation in The Temple between the Magi's Visit and Herod ordering the massacre" You may object. Herod wasn't always in Jerusalem, in fact most years he usually wasn't.  He may have been there when Jesus was born simply to be there for Hanukkah or whatever Holiday you think correlated to The Nativity.  So it's easily possible he wasn't there 40 days later when the Presentation happened.

Or maybe the language of Matthew 2:1 can allow the Magi to show up a little later after the 40 days, but certainly not two years.  

But there is one last argument against The Magi arriving in Jerusalem when Jesus was born, and I saved that for last because I want to use it to transition into something else.

That argument is that in Matthew 2 Jesus and His parents are living in a House not an Inn/Stable.  In the past I'd argued simply that a few days could be enough time for them to find better living quarters, as not everyone in Bethlehem when they first arrived was gonna stay there, some the Census may have been making travel even further.  But my views on that changed which I want to explain below.

The problem is much of how we picture the Birth of Jess is indeed not Biblical.  There is no Biblical account of them seeking room in an Inn and finding none.  Nor does it anywhere say He was born in a stable or a cave, that tradition comes from Christianized Rome wanting to make a cave for worshiping Adonis into a Church, thus we get the current Church of the Nativity.

The one occurrence of the word "inn" in the KJV of Luke 2:7 is mistranslated.  The Greek word is Katalumati.  The other two times it is used it is translated in the KJV "guestchamber".  It means a guest room of sorts usually located on the upper floor of a house.  It is used of the Upper Room of the Last Supper in Mark 14:14 and Luke 22:11, one of those is the same author as this verse.  In Luke 10:34-36 Luke uses a completely different Greek word for a commercial Inn, Pandoceion.

And this statement that there was no room in the Katalumati comes after Jesus is born not before, it's about where to place Him after being born.

Luke 2 also doesn't even say Jesus was born as soon as they arrived in Bethlehem.  Verses 1-5 tell us the Census brought them to Bethlehem, and then verse 6 says while they were there the time for Mary to give Birth came.   They could have been in Bethlehem for weeks or even months.  Which also addresses the common criticism of making Mary travel this far at a full 9 months.  I now think that she may well have been only 4 or 5 months pregnant when they traveled to Bethlehem.

Here is a decade old article I found arguing much of what I've argued here, though some aspects of it I may disagree with. 
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/11/08/The-Manger-and-the-Inn.aspx

[Better Link]

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/new-testament-era/2803-the-manger-and-the-inn

Some theories about the nativity bring up a question of "how did the Shepherds know where in Bethlehem to look" something brought up for both the Migdal Eder theories and supporting the traditional site saying it was a famous rock formation that looked like a Manger.  However I don't think finding them was difficult because I think only one baby was born in that city that day and it was probably the talk of the town.

So there is in fact nothing in Luke's account to definitively contradict a theory that Jesus was born in a house that Joseph (or his family) owned.  Yet I myself was still clouded by these misconceptions when I made all my previous Christmas relevant posts.  

It's possible there was no room in the guest chamber because others of the House of David were also staying there at this time.

Which is why I want to move on to the Census now.

When refuting the common assertion that a Roman census would never require such traveling on message boards I would copy/paste the following which I no longer remember where exactly I got it from.

First of all, lets look at a few early census accounts taken from history and see how they matchup with the Bible:

The following is a record of a census taken in the year 104 A.D. which contains similar wording to that found in the Gospel:

"From the Prefect of Egypt, Gaius Vibius Maximus. Being that the time has come for the house to house census, it is mandatory that
all men who are living outside of their districts return to their own homelands, that the census may be carried out."

Another census was uncovered from 48 A.D.which also records a return of the people to their native land for the census. It reads as follows:

"I Thermoutharion along with Apollonius, my guardian, pledge an oath to Tiberius Claudius Caesar that the preceding document gives an accurate account of those returning, who live in my household, and that there is no one else living with me, neither a foreigner, nor an Alexandrian, nor a freedman, nor a Roman citizen, nor an Egyptian. If I am telling the truth, may it be well with me, but if falsely, the reverse. In the ninth year of the reign of Tiberius Claudius Augustus Germanicus Emperor."

It is interesting to note that these two census accounts required a person to return to their homeland to be registered. The same is true of the Gospel account.

The response I got (that at the time I wasn't ready to respond to) was that the point of these was to bring land owners to where they owned their land, not the hometown of a distant ancestor from a thousand years ago.  (Another objection is that these were Egyptian customs, but it's logical to speculate that similar ones were done in neighboring provinces).

That notion seems inconsistent with the Nativity narrative only because of the extra-Biblical assumptions I just addressed.

The reason these Census instructions were needed is because clearly many people were living somewhere other then where they actually owned their property.

Remember, the word translated "Carpenter" in reference to Joseph could also very likely imply he was actually an Architect.  He may have been in Galilee because of a construction project, perhaps one of Herod's many.  And of course those insisting Nazareth is too young a city to be the Biblical one suggest it was at most brand new when Jesus was born.  Maybe Joseph was helping build Nazareth?  Or Sepphoris which wasn't too far away?

This Census, (whichever one it was, I'll try to tackle that in the future), then required him to return home sooner then originally planned.

And if my argument that Bethlehem is "Zion, which is the City of David" is true. Then that adds a lot to the above observations.  As we now see that David's family never stopped being linked to Bethlehem after they became Royalty.

Now I've seen someone argue that Nazareth not Bethlehem must be their hometown in Luke because of Luke 2:39.  Well Luke 2:3 says they are to return to their "own city", so if Luke 2:39 is calling Nazareth their "own City" in contrast to Bethlehem then you're not even dealing with an inconsistency with other sources but accusing Luke 2 of being inconsistent with itself.  Since no one accuses Luke of being garbled together from different authors like they do some other books, that option isn't really viable.  Luke 2:39 is simply about Nazareth becoming their new hometown after deciding to move there permanently, with Matthew 2 providing the reasons why this change in residence happened.  It may be that the English simply words this misleadingly.

Now this doesn't change that events of Matthew 1 take place while Mary and Joseph were in Nazareth even though Matthew doesn't mention Nazareth in that chapter.  But Matthew doesn't mention Bethlehem in that chapter either, Bethlehem is first mentioned in Matthew 2 when Jesus was born, and six to nine months separated the events of chapters 1 and 2.  In fact the way Bethlehem is specified in Matthew 2:1 could be taken as implying that's not where they were previously.

And it's still possible that Mary was indigenous to Nazareth.  Maybe Joseph met and courted her while in Nazareth on business.  Or maybe this arranged marriage is what first brought him there.  But the fact that Luke gives us the impression that the events of Matthew 1 didn't happen till three months into Mary's pregnancy makes the most sense if we presume Joseph was living in Bethlehem when the Annunciation and Visitation happened, and came to Nazareth for the wedding a few months later.

Zion, which is The City of David

[Update July 2025: The Better version of this is here. 

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2023/12/zionthe-city-of-david-wasnt-jerusalem.html]

The Second Captivity of Samaria?

When prophecies like Jeremiah 32 and Ezekiel 16 were foretelling the coming Babylonian Captivity of Jerusalem, they compared and contrasted it to the Assyrian Captivity of Samaria.  The thing I note about this is that Judah ultimately had two captivities and returns, while Samaria has thus far had one Captivity and not yet a return.

Meanwhile I also feel many difficult to fully understand Prophecies are implying a conflict between Ephraim and Judah in the End Times.  From Isaiah 28, (and possibly Isaiah 7-11 which may or may not have Eschatological significance).  And Jeremiah 4, and Zechariah 9-11.  Like how they were often at war during the divided Kingdom period.

Which is a problem for how Two House Theology and British Israelism like to see the Eschatological role of Ephraim.  I should also point out that Mormonism teaches a form of Two House Theology.

I'm not a Dispensationalist as that is usually defined, I agree that The Church is grafted into Israel.  But we're not grafted into a specific Tribe, Ezekiel 37 says Joseph and Judah both have companions joined to them.

Now people might ask, if the "Lost Tribes" returning is a part of the End Times, where is it in Revelation?

Well it's in Chapter 16, in the Sixth Bowl of God's Wrath.  The Euphrates River is dried up to make way for the Kings of the East, East of the Euphrates is where Assyria first took them.  But it also describes people coming from all four corners of the Earth, just as Israel was ultimately scattered to all four corners.  And they are gathered at Megiddo, Northern Kingdom territory, in the valley of Jezreel which had been one of their capitals.

I think it's possible part of the point of The Millennium is so the Northern Kingdom can have a second Captivity.

Chris White talks about reasons that the Antichrist could resemble the Rabbinic expected Messiah Ben-Joseph, an idea that some Hebraic style Christians have also accepted.  But does so leaving the Lost Tribes aspect of that doctrine completely out of it.

I've been talking a lot about The Antichrist possibly ruling from Egypt.  How can that and a false Messiah Ben-Joseph claimant go together?

Well between lots of maps online confusing the Brook of Egypt with The Nile, thus expanding Israel's rightful borders to include much of Egypt.  And fringe history theories hijacking legit Revised Chronology research to say many Kings of Israel and Judah were really Pharaohs of Egypt.  And people trying to claim The Great Pyramid was built to honor Yahuah.  And my arguments that some nations believed to be of the Lost Tribes may really be of Exiled Egyptians (or perhaps both).  And Hosea foretelling that Ephraim would return to Egypt.  And that Jeroboam was a vassal of Shishak.  And Leviticus 24 talks about a Blasphemous Israelite who's mother was Danite and Father was an Egyptian  There is a lot to work with.

But also that Joseph himself, viewed as the first type of Messiah Ben-Joseph, was essentially placed Second in Command of Egypt by Pharaoh.  I think there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle I'm still trying to put together.  And Joshua 10:41 says Joshua conquered all the way to Goshen.  Either that's a different Goshen, or he conquered the same land they had lived in as slaves.  Whichever answer is true, a Messiah Ben-Joseph wanna be claiming to b a new Joshua could well use the latter interpretation.

Is it possible Jesus was Crucified further from Jerusalem then we assume?

[Update January 25th 2016: This is now an Abandoned theory as explained at the end of this post.  March 8th Update: and now elaborated on here.

Update again, October 22nd 2017, perhaps it's not so abandoned anymore, I've become less impressed with the Mont of Olives view.]

Both popular favorites for the Crucifixion site today are within the city limits of modern Jerusalem but were outside New Testament era Jerusalem.  The accounts all agree He was taken outside the City.

But given how much emphasis is placed on travel time in the accounts of his Burial and the women later coming to anoint him afterwards.  I can't help but wonder if it was further then we think.

First I want to say that as far as Revelation 11 calling where the Two Witnesses bodies will lay the place where Jesus was Crucified.  That city being where His execution was ordered still fits spiritually, as it is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt.  But, at the same time this location being called where Jesus was crucified was my main argument against Jack Kelly saying the Revelation 11 Temple will be at the same place as Ezekiel's Temple (he believes that is Shiloh, I believe it's Bethel) so perhaps this is significant.

John 19:20 says he was Crucified "nigh to the city".  But looking at other uses of the Greek word for Nigh, it's usually an idiom of time not distance.  And in Luke 19:11 Jesus is refereed to as nigh to Jerusalem when he was at Jericho.  And in John 11:18 Bethany is called "Nigh to Jerusalem".  In some contexts it seems like it could mean "facing" or "on the way to".  On the 14th of Nisan some people might have still been on the way to Jerusalem since the Pilgrimage command only required them to be there on the 15th.  And the point of that detail of John is to explain why word of what was written on Jesus Cross spread quickly in Jerusalem.

Where do I think it was?  Well I don't know for certain at all, this is just me throwing out that we should think about it.

But since my belief that Bethel is the site of Ezekiel's Temple has been relevant already, perhaps I should start there.

In Joshua 8:29 the King of Ai is hung on a Tree.  Something I already talked about having possible typological relevance to the Crucifixion of Jesus.  His body was taken down at sunset "even tide" which I recently pointed out being a relevant detail of Jesus Burial.  The text can also be taken as implying he was hung west of Ai.  Also west of Ai is Bethel, and I talked about how Abraham's altar was East of Bethel between it and Ai, and that Abraham's altar might be the site of Ezekiel's Brazen Altar.  Putting all that together, this as the site of Jesus Crucifixion becomes compelling.

But the key word used in the text to identify where Jesus was crucified is Golgotha, The Place of the Skull.  Garden Tomb proponents say this proves their site since it kind of looks like a Skull, but I don't think the Holy Spirit was going to make an identifier based on a Rorshach test.

The Hebrew word this name comes from is Gulgoleth, Strong number 1538.  It's not used too often which can make it easy to research, but the majority of the time the KJV doesn't translate it Skull, though in my opinion not once is it a context where it would totally lack grammatical sense to do so.

Only three places it's used could work to explain a location coming to carry that name, one involves tie ins with other passages to figure out how the Skull in question got to it's final resting place.

The least likely of these three to be relevant is Judges 9:53, where Abimelech's skull is crushed.  I don't see that location coming to have that name.

But 2 Kings 9:34-37 is interesting.  It refers to the fate of Jezebel, and her Skull and a few bones of her's being all that's left of her, and them being left there in the valley of Jezreel, which is also the valley overlooked by Meggido.

Now suggesting Jesus was Crucified there seems too far even for the logic I've argued already.  And yet on the subject of Zechariah 12-14 and my considering it's relevance to the First Advent of Jesus.  I talked about Chapter 12 verse 11 possibly being about the Mourning of Jesus, and it refers to the valley of Megiddon.

Third is Chronicles 10:10 which says the Skull of Saul was placed in the Temple to Dagon.  The KJV translates this Head but a prior verse had used a different word for Head when describing his post-Morten decapitation.  So I think this clearly tells us they removed the skin and meat from Saul's skull before placing it in there.

Then the men of Jabeshgiliead reclaimed the bodies of Saul and Johnathon and buried them in the Transjordan.

In 2 Samuel 21, seven descendants of Saul are Hung on Trees to appease the Gibeonites.  In or near Gibea, Saul's former capital, in land allotted to Benjamin, his tribe.  And this is dated to the beginning of the Barley Harvest, meaning near or at the time of Passover.

Later in verses 12-14 David had the bones of Saul and Johnathon moved from where they were buried to be reburied with these descendants of Saul in Zelah in the Sepulcher of Kish their father.

Jerusalem is also in Benjamite territory, but pretty close to the southern edge of it.  Given that Jericho which wasn't Benjamite territory was called nigh to Jerusalem, I think it's safe to say any place in Benjamin could be.

John 19:21 tells us the place where he was buried was right by the place he was Crucified.  Yet we also know this Tomb was originally the tomb Joseph of Arimathea had prepared for himself.  Arimathea is probably a Rama or Ramath of the Hebrew Bible.  Joshua 18:25 and Nehemiah 11:33 places one in the territory of Benjamin, and Judges 19:13 and Isaiah 10:29 seems to place it near Gibea.  Though Judges 4:5 places one near Bethel.  That makes the place known as The Tombs of the Children of Israel an interesting place to look.

The Toldoth Yeshu drawing on various conflicting Talmud passages often speculated to be about Jesus, places the Crucifixion at a place called Lod/Lud/Lydda.  In the Talmud this isn't said of a Yeshu at all but of Ben-Stada, I don't think Ben-Stada was Jesus, in fact I agree with the speculation that he may have been "That Egyptian" of Acts and Josephus.  What is interesting here is that it seems he was likewise sentenced in Jerusalem then taken to Lud, which could perhaps imply this was a standard procedure.

The few references to Lod in the Hebrew Bible associate it with Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).  Acts 9:32-38 has Peter perform miracles there, and calls it Nigh to Joppa but that is using the same word for Nigh again.  So I saved this for last because it begins with something not only outside The Bible but ultimately hostile to it.  However it can be seen as possible further evidence for it being in Benjamite land north of Jerusalem.

I'm going to add at the end here a bone for Preterists that they might find interesting.  In the Talmud the "Slain of Lydda" refers to people killed in Lod by Rome during the Kitos War.  The two notable ones were Jullian and Pappos.  The Talmud also refers to a Pappos ben Yehuda, in one context implying a possible family connection to Yeshu and Mariam.  Church history tells us unnamed grandsons of Jude the half brother of Jesus survived a persecution during the reign of Domitian, Eusebius adds however they were Martyred under Trajan, the Kitos War was under Trajan.  Then a great grandson of Jude was the last Bishop of Jerusalem.  Especially given a recent theory of mine, could Julian and Pappos be the grandsons of Jude?  Which could then open up for preterists to consider that these two Martyrs of Lydda were the Two Witnesses Martyred where Jesus was Crucified in Revelation 11.

Interestingly an Islamic Hadith refers to Lod as being where the Dajjal will be slain.  Many Islamic Antichrist proponents fixated on the Mahdi like to speculate that the Dajjal will be the Two Witnesses, independent of any of this.

Update October 22nd 2017:  Moreh and Gilgal.

Genesis 22:14 is often taken by Christians as saying where Isaac was offered is where Jesus will be Crucified.  And since Genesis 22:2 says that is Mt Moriah, that's taken as proof it must be some location that cna qualify as the same mountain as The Temple Mount.

But the Samaritan Pentatuch version of Genesis 22:2 says Moreh rather then Moriah, and the Latin Vulgate supposedly translated from the Torah used by Jews in Jerome's time, seems to be based on that reading.  I've been a strong Masoretic Text over anything else proponent for years.  But certain factors have recently caused me to consider the Samaritan version to possibly be right in some areas.  In this case the difference in just a Yot between the R and the H.

The Masoretic text does mention Moreh in three places, Genesis 12:6, Deuteronomy 11:30 and Judges 7:1.  The Samaritan tradition on where exactly Moreh refers to I think could be off.  It's not a synonym for Shechem.  Genesis 12:6 says Abraham went through the land of Shechem to the plain of Moreh.

Moreh is a plain or plains in the Torah references but a Hill in Judges 7.   In Genesis 12 Abraham leaves his Altar in the Plain of Moreh to make one on a hill between Bethel and Ai.  Could that hill have become the Hill of Moreh? And so for the offering to Isaac God brought Abraham back to the place where he earlier called upon the name of Yahuah?

Gilgal is a name that I'm not sure every place it appears refers to the same location.  And if it does I doubt the traditional place is it.  Deuteronomy 11:30 has a Gilgal right by the Plain of Moreh.  The first Gilgal of Joshua seems to be east of Jericho.  But then in Joshua 9 that's still the name of their Camp after taking Ai.  Which I talked about above.

1st Samuel 7:16 has a Gilgal in Samuel's circuit with Bethel.  Lots of later references to Gilgal in Samuel treat it possibly as almost synonymous with Bethel.  Hosea 4:15 pairs Gilgal with Bethaven, a name used as a derogatory synonym for Bethel while Jeroboam's Idol was there. A number of places seem to refer to sacrifices being made at Gilgal.  Amos also links Gilgal to Bethel.

In the Strongs, Gilgal is right next to Gulgoleth, the latter is arguably Gilgal with a TH added at the end.  Is it possible that Golgotha is Gilgal?

Update November 27th 2017: Retracting the Moreh instead of Moriah part.

First of all since I, unlike Torah only people, consider Chronicles canon, I think the only reason it names Moriah is to identify that location with Genesis 22, like how it in the same verse mentions the threshing floor.

There is also the fact that Moria is just a shorter way of saying the meaning of Jehovah-Jirah, that's why it's Yah theophoric.  And the Samaritan Pentateuch still agrees with saying Jehovah-Jirah in 22:14.

Also Moriah too carries the meaning of seeing or vision in it, so the argument for the Vulgate agreeing with the Samaritan here is flawed.

Also Abraham was living in Mamre/Hebron both before and after this narrative.  So I'm not sure it works to say he traveled that far north.

Since some use the existence of Salem against this being Moriah, I will remind people of my view that the Salem of Genesis is Shiloh.

Was Rabbinic Judaism founded by Apostate Christians?

That is a shocking suggestion isn't it?

First of all this is another post where I need to remind people up front that I'm ultimately a Futurist because of how I view Matthew 24, Revelation, the Thessalonian Epistles and 2 Peter 3.  But yet I'm open to Preterist interpretations of many Prophecies most Futurists aren't because I think God has his hand in all eras of Human History.

For this I am returning to the subject of Zechariah 12-14.  In the last post where I brought that up, I mentioned how Preterists have argued Zechariah 13:7-9 including the two thirds being killed detail can apply to the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD.  I disagree with them wanting to make Matthew 24 part of that, but much of Luke 21 can apply.

The only problem with that, which I suspect most Preterists ignore, is that part of what Zachariah 13:7-9 says is that all or most of those who survive will be right with God when it's all over.  And from a Christian perspective that would mean becoming Christians.

Well it is interesting that the sects of Judaism that were most hostile to Early Christians, the Sadducees, Zelots, and Shammai Pharisees, were the ones mostly wiped out by that war.  (there is a theory that some Sadducees went to Arabia and became the Himyar kingdom.)  Rabbinic Judaism basically grew out of the post 70 AD evolution of the Pharisees who followed Hillel.  There are plenty of Christians out there seeking to argue that basically Jesus was a Hillel Pharisee.

Chuck Missler likes to say if you study Acts closely it seems like eventually all the Pharisees became Christians.  Well after 70 AD the Pharisees are all that were left.

Karaite Jews reject the Rabbinic traditions, but they as a community are not an independent descent, they are people who left Rabbinic Judaism in the 10th and 11th Centuries, like how Protastants left The Catholic Church.  Inder the leader ship of an Exilarch who descended from the Rabbinic Exilarchs.

Today a lot of Karaite Jews get along well with Torah Observant Christians.  Yet I once years ago read a rant from a Karaite on a message board basically blaming the Talmud and the Mishna for why so many Jews are becoming Messianic Jews now days.  He pointed out how much of what's said in those traditions imply The Messiah already came and was rejected, and even that this happened around 1-100 AD.

I already talked about the Menahem traditions including the Sefer Zerubabel, which has come to define the Eschatology of Rabbinic Judaism.  How they seem to teach that Messiah Ben-David had already come and is waiting to return, and even imply he'll descend from David's son Nathan.  And the strange emphasis on the Mother of the Messiah.  And I've also had my thoughts on how the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition could be related to the White Horseman of Revelation 6 and/or The Two Witnesses.

Gamaliel the grandson of Hillel the Elder is mentioned in the New Testament twice.  He appears early in Acts encouraging tolerance of Christians.  And then Saul aka Paul a fellow Benjamite claims to have been mentored by Gamaliel.  There are extra Biblical traditions that say eventually Gamaliel converted to Christianity, these are dismissed by mainstream scholars since the Jewish traditions know no hint of it.  But it's interesting to recall that he and his family were the intellectual leaders of Rabbinic Judaism until the Sanhedrin was dissolved around 600 AD.  And much later Rashi descended from the house of Hillel.

The traditional succession of the Exilarchs (descendants of Zerubabel who were leaders of the Jewish Community in Babylonia) skips right from those mentioned in The Hebrew Bible to a contemporary of Trajan.  Is it possible that large gap could be partly filled by The New Testament?  Both Matthew and Luke's Genealogies trace the family of Joseph and Mary to Zerubabel.  I did a post on the Half Brothers of Jesus, and another on Adiabene, which seem to make it plausible that the Exilarchs that popped up in the Second Century could have descended from the Half Brothers of Jesus.

The Epistles of The New Testament seem to foretell a coming Apostacey, not just in II Thessalonians 2.  Apostacey means leaving the faith, not bad doctrine.  Maybe that isn't limited to the End Times, maybe it foretells many Jewish Christians of the East backsliding back into Rabbinism in the late first and early second centuries?  I see today a major problem of many Hebraic Themed Christian leaders calling themselves Rabbis and acting like Rabbinic interpretations are valid, even though Jesus said "Call no man Rabbi" in the same place he said "Call no man Father" which we love to use against the Catholic Church.  Being Torah observant is good, but over valuing the Rabbis, even though they got a few things right, is dangerous.

But I'm not necessarily saying the majority of these Jewish Believers fell away.   Maybe many who spread The Gospel to Gentile nations simply in time become absorbed into their populations?  Edessa for example was a city with a major Jewish population in the days of Trajan (when Christians were still seen as a sect of Jews by the Romans) and later became a major center of Syraic Christianity later.  Also there are apparently families in Antioch that claim descend from Simon Peter.

Update May 2nd 2017:  Leaders of the Sanhedrin.

I mentioned Gamaliel I up above.  He is traditionally the Nasi of the Sanhedrin till about 50 AD.  Then his son Simeon or Shimon II is from 50-70, some have already theorized he could be Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7.

After 70 AD things get more clouded.  Sometimes no one is listed between Simon II and Gamaliel II.  But often Gamaliel II (the son of Simon II) isn't said to have become Nasi till 80 AD.

Gamaliel II (80-118) is noted for disputing with early Christians.  In fact he seems to be the earliest known example of someone misusing Matthew 5:17 to support legalism.  Perhaps it is under him this Apostacey began?

Update March 27 2018: After reading more on Johanan ben Zakai I'm not longer comfortable with theorizing he's a Biblical John.

Lunar Sabbath proponents are misinformed

I already did one post on The Lunar Sabbath Issue.  But I want to add something important.

They keep saying the idea of a Weekly Sabbath synchronized to the month comes from Pagan Babylon.  This is literally the Opposite of the Truth.

From the Seven Day Week Wikipedia page's History section.

While the seven-day cycle may have deep historical origins in the Ancient Near East, the "planetary theory" of horoscopy is a development of Babylonian astrology roughly around 500 BC, with the oldest extant horoscope dated to just before 400 BC.^[8]

The seven-day week being approximately a quarter of a lunation has been proposed (e.g. by Friedrich Delitzsch) as the implicit, astronomical origin of the seven-day week,^[9] and indeed the Babylonian calendar used intercalary days to synchronize the last week of a month with the new moon.^[10]

Meaning the oldest references to a Week like concept to occurs in Ancient Mesopotamia were using something probably not identical to the modern Lunar Sabbath concept, but the same basic logic behind it.  Sumerian Texts and the Enuma Elish seem to imply every Full Moon was a Sabbath.

The Astrological idea of affiliating the Days with Planets not showing up till 500 BC, means they didn't show up till after the Babylonian Captivity, and well after the Assyrian.  So there is no evidence of a strict seven day week not synchronized to a new moon that can be proven to exist independent of Jewish and/or Christian influence.  Which backs what I proposed in The Manna Miracle and The Sabbath.

The people running Wikiepdia of course want to convince people that the idea of a Week was borrowed by the Israelites from Babylon.  But we know better.

The Lunar Sabbath model also argues for a Friday Crucifixion, which I have firmly refuted.