Gentile Christians in Synagogues? Where? When?

[frederickdoc]

brother omc, now you got the same treatment, can you call him anti Greek?
Or you can say he is anti disabled people. I know you have some disability.

I am thankful you didn't call him the above names.

Wow
happen to read these posts . First follow Jesus and if you would follow the christ then that would be the United By Holy
Wow

 

[OMC]

brother omc, now you got the same treatment, can you call him anti Greek?
Or you can say he is anti disabled people. I know you have some disability.

I am thankful you didn't call him the above names.

No, I don't think I would respond by calling him "anti-Greek," "anti-disabled people," or attaching some other label to him. That would just be doing the same thing he's doing, only with different words.
The issue was not his ethnicity, education, language views, background, or any disability. The issue was his conduct in the discussion.

 

[BartholomewB]

And I trust that you recognize that the name "Nicodemus" is virtually unknown prior to the gospels? It would not have likely belonged to a Judean as it was primarily a Greek name, meaning "Defender of the People".

During the Seleucid period and afterward, Greek names were not uncommon in Jewish use. Think of Andrew and Philip among the twelve disciples.

 

[rewriter]

During the Seleucid period and afterward, Greek names were not uncommon in Jewish use. Think of Andrew and Philip among the twelve disciples.

I am very aware of this point, but the name "Nicodemus" is a far different case. And that is ignoring the OBSCURE evidence I am relying on. And when I say obscure, it comes from a footnote in a peer reviewed journal originally written in Italian from earlier this century referencing a discovery made in a replicable experiment. Now is your knowledge good enough to plausibly be aware of what I found or is it far more likely that I have seen something you have never even heard of.

 

[OMC]

I am very aware of this point, but the name "Nicodemus" is a far different case. And that is ignoring the OBSCURE evidence I am relying on. And when I say obscure, it comes from a footnote in a peer reviewed journal originally written in Italian from earlier this century referencing a discovery made in a replicable experiment. Now is your knowledge good enough to plausibly be aware of what I found or is it far more likely that I have seen something you have never even heard of.

Yes, it is entirely possible you've encountered evidence we have never seen.
But an appeal to undisclosed evidence is not itself evidence.
If the discovery is strong enough to overturn the conventional understanding of Nicodemus, then it should be able to withstand examination on its own merits.
Show us the source, the experiment, and the argument.
Then we can discuss whether it truly changes the interpretation or merely offers an interesting possibility.

 

[BartholomewB]

I am very aware of this point, but the name "Nicodemus" is a far different case. And that is ignoring the OBSCURE evidence I am relying on. And when I say obscure, it comes from a footnote in a peer reviewed journal originally written in Italian from earlier this century referencing a discovery made in a replicable experiment. Now is your knowledge good enough to plausibly be aware of what I found or is it far more likely that I have seen something you have never even heard of.

@rewriter, you obviously attach great importance to this footnote and, as far as I can tell, rightly so, since the author is apparently claiming to have discovered two serious mistakes in one verse, John 3:1. If Nicodemus was not Jewish, then John must have been wrong to describe him as, first, “a man of the Pharisees” (ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων) and then wrong again to describe him as “a ruler/ leader of the Jews” (ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων).

Unfortunately, however, you have omitted to identify your source. The only information you have given us is that “it comes from a footnote in a peer reviewed journal originally written in Italian from earlier this century.”

Do you know the title of the “peer-reviewed journal” you’re quoting from? If so, would you kindly tell us what it is?

Do you know the exact year in which this issue was published, rather than the vague expression “earlier this century”?

Do you know the exact wording of the footnote you’re referring to? If so, would you kindly cut-and-paste it for us to read here, preferably in the original Italian?

Do you know the title of the article that included this footnote?

Do you know the author’s name?

And, to conclude, did the publication of this article have any noticeable repercussions at the time?

Thanks for your help!

 

[rewriter]

I am very aware of this point, but the name "Nicodemus" is a far different case. And that is ignoring the OBSCURE evidence I am relying on. And when I say obscure, it comes from a footnote in a peer reviewed journal originally written in Italian from earlier this century referencing a discovery made in a replicable experiment. Now is your knowledge good enough to plausibly be aware of what I found or is it far more likely that I have seen something you have never even heard of.

@rewriter, you obviously attach great importance to this footnote and, as far as I can tell, rightly so, since the author is apparently claiming to have discovered two serious mistakes in one verse, John 3:1. If Nicodemus was not Jewish, then John must have been wrong to describe him as, first, “a man of the Pharisees” (ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων) and then wrong again to describe him as “a ruler/ leader of the Jews” (ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων).

Unfortunately, however, you have omitted to identify your source. The only information you have given us is that “it comes from a footnote in a peer reviewed journal originally written in Italian from earlier this century.”

Do you know the title of the “peer-reviewed journal” you’re quoting from? If so, would you kindly tell us what it is?

Do you know the exact year in which this issue was published, rather than the vague expression “earlier this century”?

Do you know the exact wording of the footnote you’re referring to? If so, would you kindly cut-and-paste it for us to read here, preferably in the original Italian?

Do you know the title of the article that included this footnote?

Do you know the author’s name?

And, to conclude, did the publication of this article have any noticeable repercussions at the time?

Thanks for your help!

Where did I say that Nicodemus was not Jewish? Nicodemus does not fit as a name, but it fits perfectly as a nickname. And you are way off as to where the issue is, and it is an issue supported by scripture, but buried by tradition. When someone says "A" under one set of circumstances, when it is convenient or possibly able to not be realized by others, and then "not A" when there is a different motive, one really should look to find out which is true rather than pick the easiest to accept statement.

I merely find that a statement that tradition likes to support does not fit the facts as well as its contradiction, which is also supported by scripture., just not as vigorously.

As for the exact year and title, I would have to dig back through my notes. I know I found it after 2020.

But I take it that you are conceding that perhaps, just perhaps because you do not want to admit a lack of scholarship on your part, you might not be current. In fact, you might rely heavily on outdated information. But I do not have space for the full, tear apart and put back together, explanation you would need in this forum.

But a simple question for you, based on historical evidence, roughly what percentage of the Jewish leaders liked Rome? Your answer will reveal the depth of your ignorance.

 

[BartholomewB]

Did I really give you the false impression that I was claiming to be a scholar of some kind? If so, I owe you an apology. That was certainly not my intention. I make no claim to scholarship in any area at all. I have an interest in reading about the New Testament period, but the half-dozen or so books I have on my shelf were all written for the general reader, not for academics, and none of them are new books. For instance, one book I was glancing through to refresh my memory just a few days ago is Stewart Perowne’s The Later Herods, published as long ago as 1958.

You ask, “Where did I say Nicodemos was not Jewish?” The answer is that you didn’t say it explicitly, but surely you must recognize that you strongly implied it here:

And I trust that you recognize that the name "Nicodemus" is virtually unknown prior to the gospels? It would not have likely belonged to a Judean as it was primarily a Greek name, meaning "Defender of the People".

 

[Musicmaster]

And I trust that you recognize that the name "Nicodemus" is virtually unknown prior to the gospels? It would not have likely belonged to a Judean as it was primarily a Greek name, meaning "Defender of the People". And there are ample records indicating the composition of the Sanhedrin in Jesus's time, but the number 71 is consistently absent. Rather the debate was whether it was 72 or 144. And there was only one permanent member with a first name of Joseph in the early 30's CE, and at most there were four permanent members, definitely two, plausibly three, maybe a fourth. We know the names of one of the two definite members, Joseph, as well as the plausible third, and the other definite member and the possible fourth would have obviously been pro-Jesus just based on their knowable theological stance. But here is the obscure evidence, which you are clearly unaware of, that tilts the entire issue. Obtaining even 75 pounds of myrrh and aloe on short notice would be virtually impossible without special access, the quantity simply would not be generally available at any price on short notice. Access to such a quantity would require specific access, with a very limited number of people allowed and special permission needed for them, and there is the key. Figure out who could grant such access and why they would and you can understand who is involved. But such appears to be beyond your limited knowledge.

Your nuance: “virtually unknown prior to the Gospels” is fair ONLY if it means the specific Gospel character has no secure, independent identification. It 's too strong if meant to imply that the name itself was unheard of because we know that Josephus mentioned a person named Nicodemus from an earlier period. This alone makes your claim false.

My mention of the 71 is indeed a matter of historical record concerning the Sanhedrin. It can be seen quite clearly in the Talmudic sourcing, which includes the tractate Sanhedrin, it's clearly recorded that the Great Sanhedrin encompassed a court of 71 highly educated men who met on traditional occasions in the Lishkat La-Gazit (“Chamber of the Hewn Stones”) in the Jerusalem Temple. Those meetings were presided over by two officials (zugot, or “pair”), the nasi and the av bet din. Although a religiously legislative body, it was from that body from “whence the law [Halakha] goes out to all Israel.”

So, we can dispense with the alleged problem of my mention of the 71 since that body has historic grounding even though not specifically rendered in the Gospels.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

brother omc, now you got the same treatment, can you call him anti Greek?
Or you can say he is anti disabled people. I know you have some disability.

I am thankful you didn't call him the above names.

Ad hominem is something I always try to avoid. When I was younger and dumber, I resorted to that when my points were weak and without proper, foundational evidence.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Your nuance: “virtually unknown prior to the Gospels” is fair ONLY if it means the specific Gospel character has no secure, independent identification. It 's too strong if meant to imply that the name itself was unheard of because we know that Josephus mentioned a person named Nicodemus from an earlier period. This alone makes your claim false.

My mention of the 71 is indeed a matter of historical record concerning the Sanhedrin. It can be seen quite clearly in the Talmudic sourcing, which includes the tractate Sanhedrin, it's clearly recorded that the Great Sanhedrin encompassed a court of 71 highly educated men who met on traditional occasions in the Lishkat La-Gazit (“Chamber of the Hewn Stones”) in the Jerusalem Temple. Those meetings were presided over by two officials (zugot, or “pair”), the nasi and the av bet din. Although a religiously legislative body, it was from that body from “whence the law [Halakha] goes out to all Israel.”

So, we can dispense with the alleged problem of my mention of the 71 since that body has historic grounding even though not specifically rendered in the Gospels.

MM

I trust that you know that Josephus has been shown to have invented some history.

I also note that you avoid my questions back at you. You wish me to answer questions, yet you will not. By the way, any guess of how many Jewish leaders liked Rome that exceeds an absolute zero is extremely optimistic. They tolerated Rome, but even mid-level Romans did not like Rome. Pilates reported defection (it appears that Tiberius admitted to the defection) to Christian supports that.

And accusing someone of ignorance is not an ad hominem when there is evidence of ignorance and avoiding difficult questions on a topic one claims to know about can be a sign of ignorance,

 

[Musicmaster]

I trust that you know that Josephus has been shown to have invented some history.

I also note that you avoid my questions back at you. You wish me to answer questions, yet you will not. By the way, any guess of how many Jewish leaders liked Rome that exceeds an absolute zero is extremely optimistic. They tolerated Rome, but even mid-level Romans did not like Rome. Pilates reported defection (it appears that Tiberius admitted to the defection) to Christian supports that.

And accusing someone of ignorance is not an ad hominem when there is evidence of ignorance and avoiding difficult questions on a topic one claims to know about can be a sign of ignorance,

Yes, that's one of many conspiracies invented by revisionists who don't like it that God preserved His written word to us in spite of the creations of alleged contradictions and, well, to put it bluntly, there are many who just don't like God being the One who makes the rules and is in control. Historical differences do exist between historians, both of whom were right there watching the events, and yet who had differing perspectives, thus the textual critics claiming those writings to be unreliable.

You see, I've gotten pretty much over myself and my fleshly proclivities toward always going with the critics because, frankly stated, card carrying skeptics tend to never see their own failings and outright errors in their contrived arena of mistrust. One can only accomplish that level of improvement for getting over self through Holy Spirit and the guidance His Spirit gives to all who ask.

Please keep in mind that this is simply my take on all the skepticisms you seem to always apply toward the very historic writings and the very scriptures Paul stated are trustworthy because God Himself is trustworthy to have kept it incorrupt without generations of people being allegedly lost and floundering about blindly in the dark until extreme skeptics come along to "save the day" for all others thereafter. In other words, I don't buy it.

I didn't address all your points because my typing time is so intermittent given that I therefore mainly focus on the main point(s) made at the beginning of your posts more than the latter. Please forgive me if it seems as though I'm avoiding because that's not my aim. I have many things demanding my attention these days here at home and from others in severe need of counseling in their marriages and personal lives, etc.

MM

 

[Churchgoer]

Ad hominem is something I always try to avoid. When I was younger and dumber, I resorted to that when my points were weak and without proper, foundational evidence.

MM

Exactly.
Do onto others as you would like others do on to you.
I don't see anyone is attacking semites. People are arguing for topics, which should be allowed, and respected.
We should not use the word anti this anti that to stop people s debating.
Peace.

 

[rewriter]

Yes, that's one of many conspiracies invented by revisionists who don't like it that God preserved His written word to us in spite of the creations of alleged contradictions and, well, to put it bluntly, there are many who just don't like God being the One who makes the rules and is in control. Historical differences do exist between historians, both of whom were right there watching the events, and yet who had differing perspectives, thus the textual critics claiming those writings to be unreliable.

You see, I've gotten pretty much over myself and my fleshly proclivities toward always going with the critics because, frankly stated, card carrying skeptics tend to never see their own failings and outright errors in their contrived arena of mistrust. One can only accomplish that level of improvement for getting over self through Holy Spirit and the guidance His Spirit gives to all who ask.

Please keep in mind that this is simply my take on all the skepticisms you seem to always apply toward the very historic writings and the very scriptures Paul stated are trustworthy because God Himself is trustworthy to have kept it incorrupt without generations of people being allegedly lost and floundering about blindly in the dark until extreme skeptics come along to "save the day" for all others thereafter. In other words, I don't buy it.

I didn't address all your points because my typing time is so intermittent given that I therefore mainly focus on the main point(s) made at the beginning of your posts more than the latter. Please forgive me if it seems as though I'm avoiding because that's not my aim. I have many things demanding my attention these days here at home and from others in severe need of counseling in their marriages and personal lives, etc.

MM

I note that you also like to use references from well after a given time to support what went on at a specific time. The Talmuds, both Jerusalem and Babylonian, date 3-400 years after the events surrounding Jesus. Are you certain that they accurately represent what was the customs of the day? Note that in the NT there is a hint that the Sanhedrin of that day was ideally 144 people that is if you can spot it.

Josephus recounts Antipas traveling to the Euphrates with Vitellius, the timing of which is quite plausible, and returning alone. Would you care to speculate what this was all about? Also, why, roughly two years later was he sent into exile, and was the timing just a coincidence or is there something being left unsaid in Josephus? If something was left out of Josephus, might it be relevant to the reported conversion of Pilate (there is actually evidence that this might be true, not just a tale).

Josephus also devotes a fair amount of time to Izates, might you have a suggestion as to why?

Do any of these questions have anything to do with the issue of women's hair in Corinth or Paul's choice of words in 2 Timothy 3:!6 or be relevant in understanding 1 John 5:8?

I freely admit that even 10 years ago all these questions would seem absurd to me, but it has been in the last 10 years, after over 40 years of trying to answer a question posed to me by a much-respected professor, that I found numerous connections that tradition denies, and denies with justifiable, although no longer relevant, cause.

 

[Musicmaster]

I note that you also like to use references from well after a given time to support what went on at a specific time. The Talmuds, both Jerusalem and Babylonian, date 3-400 years after the events surrounding Jesus.

Date? By whose estimation?

Are you certain that they accurately represent what was the customs of the day?

What else do we have from historical accounts?

Note that in the NT there is a hint that the Sanhedrin of that day was ideally 144 people that is if you can spot it.

Source...reference?

Josephus recounts Antipas traveling to the Euphrates with Vitellius, the timing of which is quite plausible, and returning alone. Would you care to speculate what this was all about? Also, why, roughly two years later was he sent into exile, and was the timing just a coincidence or is there something being left unsaid in Josephus? If something was left out of Josephus, might it be relevant to the reported conversion of Pilate (there is actually evidence that this might be true, not just a tale).

What I read is Josephus said Antipas traveled to the Euphrates with Vitellius and then returned alone. He says Antipas hosted the meeting there between Vitellius and the Parthian, king Artabanus, then sent Caesar a report ahead of Vitellius’s own dispatch. The text goes on to say that Vitellius went to Antioch and Artabanus to Babylon; it doesn’t tell us Antipas’s route afterward. Therefore Josephus’ explanation for Vitellius’s later hostility is explicit: he thought Antipas had preempted him in reporting the agreement to Caesar. That’s a plausible political slight, not evidence of a hidden mission. Where do you get this stuff?

Josephus also devotes a fair amount of time to Izates, might you have a suggestion as to why?

Josephus gave Izates substantial space because his story lets him discuss the conversion of a royal family in Adiabene to Orthodox Judaism and practice in following the Law in spite of the obvious political risks of that conversion and its benefits to Jews in Jerusalem. He described Izates’ instructions and circumcision, threats to his rule, and his mother Helena and his own aid during a famine (Antiquities 20.17–53, 75–96). This is a striking case of Judaism attracting a foreign royal house and of that house becoming a major benefactor. That would seem to me a reason why the episode had significance to Josephus. By itself, it doesn't show that Izates was connected to Antipas, Pilate, or an unreported political plot. If you’re suggesting such a connection, what specific evidence do you have?

These rabbit holes are a distraction away from the real question at hand that you haven't answered:

What manner of God do you see the God of the Bible being who would leave the people of the earth, apart from a small hand full of mystical intellects, to flounder about with no real trustworthy copy of his inspired word to the people of the earth he said that He loves AND able to read it for what it says without all the fanfare of scholastic interventions to set us all straight?

Do you count yourself among Agnostics? Why these seeming doubts about the scriptures that have been delivered to us and preserved by the Lord who said that His word would go on forever?

MM

 

[frederickdoc]

I remember as a christian non believer Not baptized in The Holy Spirit i used to share Greek mythology from standard high school classes to relate to God . He actually used that within a few months I was 1200 miles away getting the Holy Ghost . I do not remember much of Greek mythology anymore I just brought up the Greek mythology because I know that was also a big factor back in the days of the other followers With The Anointing I have no clue why I brought remember so it must mean something else for others to look at too it seems people may think this was not a real religion? Oh also I was remembering they named the apostles with the Greek names and reading some post out here reminded me of that of that so yes it's probably mixed in with all the rest of it

 

[Musicmaster]

Generally speaking -

Psalm 12:6-8
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

We see here that only the vile and wicked among mankind claim, even by inference, the Lord failed to keep His written words to us inviolate, all while claiming we can't trust any version even though the KJV has proven itself time immemorial. These passages in Psalms don't promise there would be no corruptions out there, corrupt versions such as the modern versions based upon Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Aleph, B and C, but there has always been a trustworthy writing/translation.

This is not to say that nobody can be saved who read those other versions given that Holy Spirit works independent of them. This is about the purity of doctrine, such as:

• 1 John 5:7–8 — The KJV includes the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Most modern versions omit that longer wording or place it in a note, because it is absent from most early Greek manuscripts. The Trinity is still affirmed elsewhere in those translations.
• Mark 16:9–20 — signs and miracles: Many modern Bibles mark the long ending of Mark as absent from some early manuscripts or otherwise textually disputed. The passage includes verses about signs accompanying believers, including speaking in tongues and healing promised to those who were under the Kingdom Gospel of the twelve.
• John 7:53–8:11 — the woman caught in adultery: Modern editions commonly bracket or footnote this story because it is missing from a VERY small hand full of some earlier manuscripts but appears in different places in others. Its treatment can be framed as a concern about the textual status of a story, rather than a rejection of forgiveness or Jesus’ mercy.
• Colossians 1:14 — redemption “through his blood”: The KJV includes “through his blood”; many modern versions omit those words in this verse, though they teach redemption through Christ’s blood elsewhere.
• Acts 8:37 — confession before baptism: The KJV includes a confession of faith by the Ethiopian eunuch before his baptism. Many modern translations omit it or put it in a note because it is absent from many early manuscripts.

There are many, many more departures modern versions perpetrate on the basis of the fallacy underlying the appeal to SOME antiquity compared to the plethora of more than 6000 other manuscripts upon which the KJV is based.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

The Ethiopian Bible is a tragic corruption of doctrine along with other modern versions, only that the Ethiopian version has about 22 extra books added. Let's do some textual comparisons:

In the Allegedly Complete Ethiopian Bible:​

• Daniel 3:25
  • KJV: "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" (capitalized), indicating the pre-incarnate Son (second person of the Godhead).
  • NIV-like reading: "a son of the gods" (lowercase), changing the meaning from a divine Person to a generic pagan reading; the Complete Ethiopian Bible reads similarly to NIV.
• Matthew 5:22
  • KJV: includes "without a cause," distinguishing unrighteous anger from righteous anger (e.g., Jesus’ temple cleansing).
  • NIV-like omission: removes "without a cause," making the verse condemn any anger and implies Jesus’ righteous anger would be judged. The (allegedly) Complete Ethiopian Bible aligns with this omission.
• Mark 1:2–3
  • KJV: "as it is written in the prophets" (plural), accurate because verses quote both Malachi and Isaiah.
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "as it is written in Isaiah the prophet" followed by a quotation from Malachi ("I am sending my messenger…"), which is a factual error—misattribution of Malachi to Isaiah.
• Mark 9:44, 9:46, 9:48
  • KJV: repeats "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" in vv. 44, 46, 48, a deliberate emphasis.
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: omissions noted—verses 44 and 46 missing (numbers skipped from 45 to 47) without footnotes, which undermines preservation and clarity.
• John 5:3–4 (Pool of Bethesda)
  • KJV: includes explanation that an angel troubled the water and only the first entrant was healed; provides narrative coherence (the lame man’s urgency).
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible/NIV-like: omits latter part of v. 3 and all of v. 4, removing the reason for the urgency and, per the instructor, making the passage incoherent.
• Acts 8:37 (Ethiopian eunuch)
  • KJV: includes the eunuch’s confession, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," as a key testimony prior to baptism.
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: verse omitted (jumps from 36 to 38), erasing a pivotal confession tied to an Ethiopian figure, an ironic and problematic omission.
• 1 Corinthians 1:18
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "to us who are being saved, it is the power of God."
  • KJV: "unto us which are saved, it is the power of God." Salvation is instantaneous, not a process; "being saved" is a false gospel construct.
• 2 Corinthians 2:17
  • KJV: "we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God…"
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "not like… hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit…" Notes the semantic shift from "corrupt" to "peddle," which is ironic given the product’s sales price ($49.95 implied), and defends legitimate Bible printing costs; emphasizes that altering this verse itself exemplifies corruption.
• Colossians 1:14
  • KJV: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." It's worthy to critique the omission of "through his blood," which cannot help but to lead one to the blood of Christ as central to redemption.
• Colossians 2:18
  • KJV: warns against "worshiping of angels… intruding into those things which he hath not seen…"
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: phrasing implies the person may have "supposedly seen" such things, effectively removing "not" and altering the meaning; underscoring how deletion of "not" changes doctrinal sense.
• 2 Timothy 2:15
  • KJV: "Study… rightly dividing the word of truth."
  • Complete Ethiopian Bible: "Make every effort… teaching the message of truth accurately." emphasizing loss of the "rightly dividing" concept, which is absolutely essential to sound interpretation.

So, one must read that corrupt book as if walking through a mine field, as is true of all the modern versions.

MM

 

[rewriter]

Date? By whose estimation?



What else do we have from historical accounts?



Source...reference?



What I read is Josephus said Antipas traveled to the Euphrates with Vitellius and then returned alone. He says Antipas hosted the meeting there between Vitellius and the Parthian, king Artabanus, then sent Caesar a report ahead of Vitellius’s own dispatch. The text goes on to say that Vitellius went to Antioch and Artabanus to Babylon; it doesn’t tell us Antipas’s route afterward. Therefore Josephus’ explanation for Vitellius’s later hostility is explicit: he thought Antipas had preempted him in reporting the agreement to Caesar. That’s a plausible political slight, not evidence of a hidden mission. Where do you get this stuff?



Josephus gave Izates substantial space because his story lets him discuss the conversion of a royal family in Adiabene to Orthodox Judaism and practice in following the Law in spite of the obvious political risks of that conversion and its benefits to Jews in Jerusalem. He described Izates’ instructions and circumcision, threats to his rule, and his mother Helena and his own aid during a famine (Antiquities 20.17–53, 75–96). This is a striking case of Judaism attracting a foreign royal house and of that house becoming a major benefactor. That would seem to me a reason why the episode had significance to Josephus. By itself, it doesn't show that Izates was connected to Antipas, Pilate, or an unreported political plot. If you’re suggesting such a connection, what specific evidence do you have?

These rabbit holes are a distraction away from the real question at hand that you haven't answered:

What manner of God do you see the God of the Bible being who would leave the people of the earth, apart from a small hand full of mystical intellects, to flounder about with no real trustworthy copy of his inspired word to the people of the earth he said that He loves AND able to read it for what it says without all the fanfare of scholastic interventions to set us all straight?

Do you count yourself among Agnostics? Why these seeming doubts about the scriptures that have been delivered to us and preserved by the Lord who said that His word would go on forever?

MM

So, you do not know your history. There is no record of either Talmud existing prior to the late 4th early 5th centuries. Why would that be if they were written earlier?

The timing of Antipas's trip to the Euphrates, and his actions, are telling, as his exile in 39. The history is well-documented. Your ignorance is not my problem.

Likewise with Izates, Josephus provides far more space to this account than is justifiable. There were other Jewish kingdoms within the Parthian Empire at the time that get far less attention. You are floundering. Especially true since Josephus's account about the famine contradicts scripture if you pay attention, but when one wants to support a specific position sometimes details become unimportant and may be changed. This is not scholarship, this is rather an example of the conclusion driving the data, the exact opposite of scholarship and truth seeking. But what use is truth when you are pushing your theology which has no need of truth as truth might interfere with your placing God in a box of your own design.

 

[Musicmaster]

So, you do not know your history. There is no record of either Talmud existing prior to the late 4th early 5th centuries. Why would that be if they were written earlier?

You're mixing up when the Talmuds took shape with when surviving copies first appear. The Jerusalem Talmud is generally dated to the late 4th or early 5th century, yes, while the Babylonian Talmud developed and was redacted over a longer period, with its final form often placed later. So the evidence doesn’t show that both were fully written earlier and then mysteriously disappeared. Much of the material circulated orally and was gradually compiled. Surviving, physical manuscripts are centuries later. A lack of early manuscripts limits what anyone could say about the exact wording and dating of particular passages, but it doesn’t by itself prove the traditions began only when the surviving copies were made, as you seem to imply.

The timing of Antipas's trip to the Euphrates, and his actions, are telling, as his exile in 39. The history is well-documented. Your ignorance is not my problem.

Likewise with Izates, Josephus provides far more space to this account than is justifiable. There were other Jewish kingdoms within the Parthian Empire at the time that get far less attention. You are floundering. Especially true since Josephus's account about the famine contradicts scripture if you pay attention, but when one wants to support a specific position sometimes details become unimportant and may be changed. This is not scholarship, this is rather an example of the conclusion driving the data, the exact opposite of scholarship and truth seeking. But what use is truth when you are pushing your theology which has no need of truth as truth might interfere with your placing God in a box of your own design.

Setting all these rabbit holes aside, you still haven't shown how the Bible itself is unreliable. What manner of god do you believe in given you have such doubts about the reliability of the one authoritative source, which you seem to find questionable?

MM