FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2013, 01:17 PM   #1
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default The Pauline authors are the Late "Pauls"

There is a consistent pattern in the NT Canon. Late writings AFTER c 70 CE are attributed to supposed contemporaries of Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost and a virgin.

If we momentarily exclude the Pauline Corpus it will be noticed that all the authors are fakes and were supposedly either disciples or relatives of the myth character called Jesus.

The real authors were not disciples nor relatives of Jesus the Messianic ruler. There was no such character in the history of the Jews.

gMatthew, gLuke, gMark, gLuke, the Epistle of Peter, James, John, Jude and Revelation were most likely composed or manipulated by authors in the 2nd century or later.

Now, for hundreds of years, it was believed that the Entire Pauline Corpus was composed by an Early Paul, before c 69 CE, but it has been deduced by scholars that authors of the Pauline Corpus were late--AFTER c 70 CE.

The Pauline Corpus is a Late compilation of forgeries or falsely attributed epistles.

For hundred of years, the forgers appear to have committed the perfect crime. Everyone was fooled into believing the Pauline Corpus was composed Before c 69 CE.

In fact, the Pauline Corpus is no different to the other books of the Canon.

The Entire NT Canon is filled with writings composed AFTER c 70 CE but manipulated to appear BEFORE the death of Nero.

The Entire Pauline Corpus was sanitized to appear to be from an early date.

Thanks to Acts of the Apostles, Origen's "Against Celsus", Justin Martyr, Aristides, Municius Felix, Arnobius, Lactantius, Julian the Emperor, Ephrem the Syrian, Hippolytus and others.

The forgers of Pauline Corpus have been busted.

The "real" authors of Pauline Corpus are those who wrote AFTER gLuke was composed--after c 70 CE.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1
Quote:
And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 02:14 PM   #2
maryhelena
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Early 'Paul' and late 'Paul'? Or maybe no historical NT 'Paul' at all...i.e. we are dealing with a composite figure. A composite figure that is reflecting two very different time slots in the development of early Christianity. A pre-70 c.e. 'Paul' and a post-70 c.e. 'Paul'. One 'Paul', the pre-70 c.e. 'Paul', being concerned/interested in Jewish Law and a post-70 c.e. 'Paul' reacting to the historical situation and seeking to open up a road to the gentiles.

No historical gospel JC, of whatever variant, means that these two 'Paul' time zones reflect theological and philosophical intellectual developments. Inserting a historical JC into the mix only serves to add confusion not enlightenment. The early 'Paul', pre-70 c.e., set the ball rolling. The late 'Paul', post 70 c.e., kicked the ball skyhigh. The later 'Paul' developed, re-modelled, transformed the prior earth bound thinking. It's not a case of choosing between an early 'Paul' and a late 'Paul'. The NT is telling it's one story about 'Paul' in order to harmonize with it's JC story. That story is not historical.

However, that there was a pre-70 c.e. development in theological/philosophical thinking etc is evident in the writing of Philo. Post 70 c.e. added it's own historical reality to that developing philosophy and theology. In other words; the intellectual seeds from which Christianity arose were sown pre-70 c.e. The growth from those intellectual seeds only began to surface post 70 c.e.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 02:54 PM   #3
Clivedurdle
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

How important really would the fall of the Temple have been to Diaspora Jews? It wasn't even that old.
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 09-25-2013, 04:02 PM   #4
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Early 'Paul' and late 'Paul'? Or maybe no historical NT 'Paul' at all...i.e. we are dealing with a composite figure. A composite figure that is reflecting two very different time slots in the development of early Christianity. A pre-70 c.e. 'Paul' and a post-70 c.e. 'Paul'. One 'Paul', the pre-70 c.e. 'Paul', being concerned/interested in Jewish Law and a post-70 c.e. 'Paul' reacting to the historical situation and seeking to open up a road to the gentiles.

No historical gospel JC, of whatever variant, means that these two 'Paul' time zones reflect theological and philosophical intellectual developments. Inserting a historical JC into the mix only serves to add confusion not enlightenment. The early 'Paul', pre-70 c.e., set the ball rolling. The late 'Paul', post 70 c.e., kicked the ball skyhigh. The later 'Paul' developed, re-modelled, transformed the prior earth bound thinking. It's not a case of choosing between an early 'Paul' and a late 'Paul'. The NT is telling it's one story about 'Paul' in order to harmonize with it's JC story. That story is not historical.

However, that there was a pre-70 c.e. development in theological/philosophical thinking etc is evident in the writing of Philo. Post 70 c.e. added it's own historical reality to that developing philosophy and theology. In other words; the intellectual seeds from which Christianity arose were sown pre-70 c.e. The growth from those intellectual seeds only began to surface post 70 c.e.
Philo had nothing to with the Pauline Corpus or the development of a character who was born of a Ghost and a virgin.

There is no theological/philosophical thinking evident in the writings of Philo that promoted the worship of a man as a God or a character called Jesus as a God or that Jesus had abolished the Laws of the Jews.

Philo was supposedly a contemporary of Saul/Paul and he [Philo] did specifically state that even the Emperor of Rome [Caius] admitted that the Jews were the only nation who did not worship him as a God.

See "On Embassy to Gaius" attributed to Philo.

See Tacitus' Histories 5--the Jews ONLY worship ONE God.

The development of the Logos as Jesus is a mid-late 2nd century development by non-Jews.

Examine the Plea for the Christians attributed to Athenagoras c 175-180 CE.

A Plea for the Christians
Quote:
...for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son.

For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son.

But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one.

And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (nous kai logos) of the Father is the Son of God.

But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [nous], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [logikos]...
Up to the mid-late 2nd century, the Pauline Corpus was unknown and played no role in the early development of the cult of Christians.

Athenagoras did not use the Pauline Corpus or Philo but a source which contained the words of the Logos.

The Pauline Corpus appears to have been written in a vacuum--unrelated to actual events of the Jesus cult.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-26-2013, 10:19 AM   #5
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The time period in which the Pauline Corpus was composed is extremely easy to decipher.

The massive amount of chronological and theological problems in the Pauline Corpus would have exposed by Non-Apologetics since the 2nd century if it was already composed.

The very Jesus cult writers exposed that the Pauline Corpus was most likely composed very late--after at least c 180 CE.

Let us start with the Epistle of Galatians.

A Pauline writer claimed he was ENTRUSTED to preach the Gospel to Non-Jews [the uncircumcised]

The same writer claimed he had preached to Non-Jews for at least SEVENTEEN years and was only in Jerusalem twice.

In effect, the Jesus cult doctrine should have been developed by the Pauline writer for at least SEVENTEEN years. Supposedly Paul was essentially RESPONSIBLE for the teachings and practices of the Jesus cult OUTSIDE of Judea from c 37 -54 CE.

It is extremely important to note that the Galatians writer MUST go to Jerusalem to get ACQUAINTED with Peter/Cephas.

Peter/Cephas was UNKNOWN to the Pauline writer until he met him in Jerusalem in Galatians.

Galatians 1 NAS
Quote:
15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days...
Galatians 2 NAS
Quote:
1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain...............7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised...
The Pauline writer in Galatians establishes himself exclusively as the ONE who has preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Non-Jews for at least SEVENTEEN years.

However, it will be seen that Non-Jewish Jesus cult who wrote about the Preaching of the Gospel AFTER the Ascension do NOT acknowledge Paul as the one who was responsible for the preaching of the Gospel.

1. c 125-300 CE, recovered dated NT Gospels mention NOTHING of Paul.

2. c 117-138 CE, Aristides in the 'Apology' claimed it was the 12 disciples who preached the Gospel to the world and wrote NOTHING of Paul and Pauline Corpus.

3. c 138-160 CE Justin Martyr in his 'First Apology' claimed it was the 12 ILLITERATE disciples who preached the Gospel to the world and wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

4. c 175-180 CE Irenaeus in 'Against Heresies' claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age after being 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius or about c 49 CE. Irenaeus CONTRADICTS the Pauline story.

5. c 175-180 CE Celsus in 'True Discourse' wrote NOTHING of Paul according to Origen.

6. up to c 234 CE, Hippolytus admitted that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline Corpus but the writings of Empedocles.

7. c 284-305 Arnobius in 'Against the Heathen' claimed it was the apostles of Jesus who preached the Gospel to the world and wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

From c 117-304 CE there are many Apologetic writers Non-Jews who wrote NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline Corpus. The very Jesus teachings in the Gospel and many Jesus cult writers in the Canon itself are NOT compatible with the Pauline Corpus.

It is ONLY from the 4th century when virtually ALL Jesus cult writers [Non-JEWS] acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

It is from around the 4th century when[ Non-Jews and Non-Apologetics also argue AGAINST the Pauline Corpus.

Porphyry exposed the Fallacies of the Pauline Corpus and considered Paul a Liar some time in the 4th century yet Celsus writing in the late 2nd century wrote Nothing at all of Paul.

Porphyry's Against the Christians
Quote:
.....And Paul's lie becomes very plain when he says, "We which are alive." For it is three hundred years since he said this, and no body has anywhere been caught up, either Paul's or any one else's....
Porphyry's Against the Christians
Quote:
We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.

And it is beside the point for him to say : "I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not" (Rom. ix. 1). For the man who has just now conformed to the law, and to-day to the Gospel, is rightly regarded as knavish and hollow both in private and in public life.
Porphyry's Against the Christians
Quote:
Let us consider another wise remark of his, astounding and perverted, wherein he says, "We which are alive and remain, shall not go before them that are asleep unto the coming of the Lord, for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess. iv. 15-17).

Here is a thing that indeed rises in the air and shoots up to heaven, an enormous and far-reaching lie....
The Pauline Corpus, indeed a compilation of lies, was most likely composed some time AFTER c 180 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-26-2013, 10:38 PM   #6
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The Pauline Corpus is an extremely late work of fiction and forgeries.

The supposed very first writer to mention the Pauline Corpus was Irenaeus who was claimed to be a presbyter of the Church of Lyons.

Irenaeus would make claims about the age of Jesus at crucifixion which would show that the timeline for Paul's preaching of the Crucified and resurrected Jesus was an invention.

It is virtually impossible for a Presbyter of a Church to not know the story of Jesus and that it is claimed he was about thirty years old when he was baptized and was crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor---Not Claudius.

Justin Martyr, writing BEFORE Irenaeus, already wrote that Jesus was about 30 years old at baptism and was crucified under Tiberius.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXXXVIII
Quote:
And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He ....... waited for thirty years, more or less, until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown. And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote.....
Justin's 'First Apology' XIII
Quote:
Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..
Now, examine writings attributed to a late 2nd century Irenaeus.

Writings under the name of Irenaeus are historically bogus and cannot be reconciled with the Pauline Corpus and other Jesus cult writers. It is virtually impossible that Irenaeus could have been a Presbyter and PUBLICLY argued AGAINST the supposed teachings of Church itself.

Irenaeus' Demonstration Apostolic Preaching"
Quote:
For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.
Irenaeus' Against Heresies 2.22
Quote:
....they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.

For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years...
Not only is Irenaeus implying that the Pauline Corpus is not credible he also claimed that even the Gospel, John the Disciple of Jesus and the Elders of Asia ADMITTED the crucifixion took place when he was about 50 years old.

[u]Irenaeus' "Against Heresies' 2.22
Quote:
Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.
The very first source [Against Heresies] to mention the Pauline Corpus is a forgery or falsely attributed to Irenaeus in which the Pauline Corpus and the Jesus story cannot be reconciled.

Even the author of Acts cannot account for the Pauline Corpus up to c 62 CE or in the time of Festus procurator of Judea.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-27-2013, 01:04 AM   #7
maryhelena
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
How important really would the fall of the Temple have been to Diaspora Jews? It wasn't even that old.
I suppose one could speculate with many answers

However, I doubt that the fall of the Temple, for Diaspora Jews, was meaningless. Religion, nationalism, politics, are always heavy with meaning for many people.

Imagine Westminster Abbey being destroyed - in the name of whatever - and your living far away in Australia. Maybe you'll say - 'so what' - but "the Abbey is a must-see living pageant of British history" and is as much a religious and cultural symbol as was the Jerusalem Temple. True, Herod's temple was not old - but that Temple had as much history behind it as does Westminster Abbey.

http://www.westminster-abbey.org/
maryhelena is offline  
Old 09-27-2013, 10:06 AM   #8
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

It is an extremely simple matter to logically deduce that the Pauline Corpus was unknown up to at least c 180 CE.

The very Church preserved copies of writings which show NO awareness of the Pauline Epistles in the 2nd century.

Aristides supposedly wrote within a hundred years of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

There are copies of the Apology from Aristides supposedly written to Hadrian c 117-138 and it will be noticed that Aristides did NOT show that he was aware of Paul and show no awareness that it was Paul who was supposedly COMMISSIONED and initially EVANGELISED the Roman world.

Aristides' Apology
Quote:
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.
Aristides did not acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Corpus.

Now, it will seen that Lactantius writing some in the early 4th century 170 years after Aristides would repeat a similar story but will INCLUDE PAUL.

Lactantius' Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died
Quote:
In the latter days of the Emperor Tiberius, in the consulship of Ruberius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, and on the tenth of the kalends of April, as I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews. After He had risen again on the third day, He gathered together His apostles, whom fear, at the time of His being laid hold on, had put to flight; and while He sojourned with them forty days, He opened their hearts, interpreted to them the Scripture, which hitherto had been wrapped up in obscurity, ordained and fitted them for the preaching of His word and doctrine, and regulated all things concerning the institutions of the New Testament; and this having been accomplished, a cloud and whirlwind enveloped Him, and caught Him up from the sight of men unto heaven.

His apostles were at that time eleven in number, to whom were added Matthias, in the room of the traitor Judas, and afterwards Paul. Then were they dispersed throughout all the earth to preach the Gospel, as the Lord their Master had commanded them; and during twenty-five years, and until the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Nero, they occupied themselves in laying the foundations of the Church in every province and city...
It can be easily seen that stories about Paul as the one who was COMMISSIONED to preach the Gospel to Non Jews in the Roman Empire was a very Late invention some time AFTER c 180 CE.

It is easily shown that Multiple Church writers and non-apologetics in the 2nd century had NO knowledge of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

From the 4th century, it is the REVERSE.

Virtually every Church writer mentioned Paul and the Pauline Corpus and even Non-Apologetic argue AGAINST the Pauline Corpus and claim Paul was a Liar.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity has BETRAYED the Church.

Paul and the Pauline Corpus were invented AFTER C 180 CE.

Origen's Against Celsus 1
Quote:
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul...
Now, we can easily logically deduce which writings are manipulated, forgeries or falsely attributed.

Celsus wrote True Discourse c 175-180 CE.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 09-27-2013, 10:56 AM   #9
Kent F
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 60
Default

To aa5874

Empedocles, born around 492 BCE, had a doctrine of two opposite eternal forces, Love and Strife, i.e. one Good God and one Evil God. This was modified by Marcion, into an previously unknown God Most High and a lower Creator God, the Demiurge. Hippolytus wrote in his Refutation of All Heresies: When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles. (Book VII:Chap.XVIII)

How do you deduce from this that Marcion did not have the Pauline corpus? Why are Paul and Mark mentioned here when Hippolytus is trying to refute Marcion? Isn't it because Marcion had their writings? And on top of that, Hippolytus is clearly wrong when he includes Paul because Paul did write about an unknown God, a hidden wisdom. And who knows what the original gospel of Mark looked like!

In Chapter XIX, Hippolytus wrote as follows: (Marcion's doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles.
Again, Mark and Paul are alluded to in the refutation of Marcion. Why?

One might then ask, who's the real author of the Catholic NT? Jesus? Well, yes, that's the whole point of Hippolytus work. He goes through a whole stack of heretics and they all, of course, owe their doctrines to some other writer, like Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle and so forth. Only the Catholics have the true words from the Son of God. And you believe this to be true as well? The Catholic Jesus character owes nothing to earlier philosophers or to paganism but is True in all sense?

Also, Apelles is mentioned by Hippolytus as a disciple of Marcion and "(Apelles) selects from the Gospels or (from the writings of) the Apostle (Paul) whatever pleases himself." Chap. XXVI.

There's plenty of evidence elsewhere that Marcion had the Pauline epistles, as there are several sources for this: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Adamantius, Ephiphanius, Jerome and others. Justin Martyr also claimed to write Against, or To Marcion, thus firmly placing this so called heretic way before 180 CE.

The Pauline epistles are therefore earlier than Justin Martyr, because Marcion/the Marcionites had them.

It's obvious that the original Pauline corpus was NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to begin with but belonged to an earlier, rival Church, that of Alexandria. That's why the Epistles are not quoted until the late second century, because it's about this time the RCC becomes really powerful, and that's why they look like they do, interpolated and manipulated but clearly not written by people associated with the RCC because then these writings would mention at least some of such important Catholic doctrines as John the Baptist, the Virgin Mary, Jesus miracles on earth, his disciples and his death and resurrection on earth.

Paul couldn't have been invented as late as 180 CE because then he would be more like the Paul in the Pastorals or like Paul in Acts, a rather dull figure saying the same things as Peter, not the arrogant type we now have who has his own gospel without the Baptist and the Virgin, who ridicules Peter and holds contempt for the so called pillars.
Kent F is offline  
Old 09-27-2013, 02:08 PM   #10
MrMacSon
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
How important really would the fall of the Temple have been to Diaspora Jews? It wasn't even that old.
There had been lots of local events to negate the Jews from the time of the Maccabean Revolt (during which the [2nd] Temple was restored to service).

The Jewish-Roman Wars & jewish dispersion continued to ~ 135AD/CE
MrMacSon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.