Maccabees and Crusaders are substantially identical

“Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical”. Elizabeth Lapina See also Damien F. Mackey’s related article: Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders (4) Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Elizabeth Lapina has written most intriguingly on this subject in her article: “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” (4) “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” | Elizabeth Lapina - Academia.edu …. It is unclear what exactly the crusaders and medieval chroniclers of the Crusades knew about the importance of Antioch within the cult of the Jewish martyrs in Late Antiquity. When describing the city, crusading sources do not mention the Maccabees. One of the rare exceptions is the so-called Charleville Poet, who claims that Antioch was very ancient: “the book of Maccabees asserts its [Antioch’s] existence, when the priest is said to have perished, next to Daphne.” the poet is apparently alluding to the assassination of the pious Priest Onias in the vicinity of the city, described in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:34). …. In general, medieval writers of history were always eagerly looking for biblical prototypes of later events and figures. While Maccabean martyrs hardly resembled crusaders, Maccabean warriors did. Maccabean warriors shared the name of the Maccabean martyrs, but, of course, not their fate, fighting Antiochus actively under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Both the Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought for control of the city of Jerusalem and took pride in the restoration of holy sites. While the Maccabees fought against a Pagan enemy, crusaders struggled against Muslims, whom they frequently associated with Pagans. Last but not least, both profited from divine help on the battlefield. Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical.” Indeed, Baldwin I, the second ruler and first Latin king of Jerusalem, was called a “second Maccabee” in the laudatory inscription on his tombstone. Describing the Battle of Tall Danith, in which Prince Roger of Antioch emerged victorious, Fulcher of Chartres exclaims as follows: “For when did victory of fighters ever depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon, and many others who confided not in their own strength but in God and in that way overcame many thousands.” …. For instance, in the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus, a monk and the archbishop of Mainz, argued that Mattathias (the father of Judas Maccabeus) was a “type” of Christ and his sons signified the community of saints. In the late tenth or early eleventh century, Aelfric, an abbot at the Anglo-Saxon monastery of Eynsham, included the story of Judas Maccabeus in his collection of saints’ vitae compiled for the edification of the laity. On the one hand, Aelfric acknowledged that warfare in defense of one’s home and one’s faith, such as the one that Judas Maccabeus had undertaken, was just. On the other hand, he emphasized that spiritual combat is of greater value than actual warfare. In the aftermath of the First Crusade, there was considerable questioning of old paradigms regarding warfare. Some began to argue that crusaders fought “for Christ” and hence could almost be equated with monks. This revalorization of warfare led, at least in part, to the increasing popularity of the Maccabean warriors. However, many authors writing about the First Crusade found the very outward resemblance between the Maccabees and crusaders disturbing. From their perspective, if the wars of crusaders were both physical and spiritual, the wars of the Maccabees lacked a spiritual dimension, since, of course, they had nothing to do with the Christian faith. Damien Mackey’s comment: But, see my articles: Religious war waging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus https://www.academia.edu/107036451/Religious_war_raging_in_Judah_during_the_Infancy_of_Jesus and: Shepherds of Bethlehem and the five Maccabees https://www.academia.edu/111517720/Shepherds_of_Bethlehem_and_the_five_Maccabees Elizabeth Lapina continues: …. Both Cafaro and Fulcher saw the crusaders as “new Maccabees” of a hybrid variety: they resisted actively, with sword in hand, just like Judas Maccabeus, but at the same time they were martyrs, just as the Priest Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother. In this manner, the connection between the crusaders and Maccabees acquired a new meaning: the deeds of the crusaders surpassed the military exploits of the Maccabean warriors and, at the very least, equaled the spiritual victories of the Maccabean martyrs. …. The moment when crusaders came closest to resembling the Maccabees was during the Battle of Antioch. According to a number of sources, crusaders were able to emerge victorious thanks to divine intervention. For instance, the anonymous author of Gesta Francorum, one of the earliest narratives of the First Crusade, writes that there “appeared from the mountains a countless host of men on white horses, whose banners were all white.” he crusaders realized that “this was the succor sent by Christ, and that the leaders were St. George, St. Mercurius and St. Demetrius.” An obvious parallel to this and other narratives of celestial intervention in the Battle of Antioch is to be found in the Second Book of Maccabees, where there are several similar episodes. In one battle, for instance, “five resplendent men from heaven on horses with golden bridles . . . led on the Jews” (2 Macc 10:29–30). They “showered arrows and thunderbolts on the enemy till, blinded and disordered, they were utterly bewildered and cut to pieces” (2 Macc 10:30–31). There are several other biblical and non-biblical texts that mention celestial warriors or an entire celestial army. However, the only parallel that chroniclers of the Crusades acknowledge overtly is with the Second Book of Maccabees. William of Malmesbury, who included an extensive narrative of the First Crusade in his Deeds of the English Kings, uses the reference to the Maccabees to demonstrate that the miracle of saintly intervention in the Battle of Antioch was credible. Ater describing the miracle, he adds: “nor can we deny that martyrs have aided Christians, at any rate when fighting in a cause like this, just as angels once gave help to the Maccabees.” According to William, both the Maccabees and crusaders were fighting for a worthy cause and thus deserved divine help. Thus, William’s reference seems to be an example of a conventional use of Jewish heroes as prototypes of medieval warriors. …. Orderic Vitalis, the author of Ecclesiastical History, most of which was written between 1123 and 1137, represents the fourth strategy for undermining the standard connection between the crusaders and Maccabees. Orderic’s presentation of the Battle of the Field of Blood seems a response to that connection as raised, for instance, by Fulcher in the framework of the Battle of Tall Danith. As discussed above, Fulcher compared crusaders to Maccabees, who frequently won battles regardless of their numerical inferiority. he Battle of the Field of Blood took place just four years ater the Battle of Tall Danith; it was also fought relatively close to Antioch and involved the same crusading leader, Prince Roger of Antioch. But as its name suggests, the Battle of the Field of Blood was an unprecedented disaster for crusaders, with Prince Roger killed and his entire army annihilated. According to Orderic, just before the battle’s beginning, Bernard of Valence, the Patriarch of Antioch, warned Roger against engaging the enemy, begging him to wait for reinforcements. Abandoning the discourse of divinely-sponsored victory of the few over many, the patriarch gave Roger highly practical advice: “Temper your zeal with prudence, valiant duke, and wait for King Baldwin and Joscelin and the other loyal lords who are coming early to our assistance. Rash haste has brought many men to ruin and deprived great princes of life and victory.” The Patriarch supported his admonitions by citing historical precedent: Study ancient and modern histories, and ponder seriously over the fates of some remarkable kings. Call to mind Saul and Josiah and Judas Maccabeus, and the Romans who were defeated by Hannibal at Cannae, and take great care not to drag your subjects with yourself into a disaster of the same kind. Wait for your worthy allies . . . …. The Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought their wars on the same terrain, with Jerusalem being the ultimate goal. Both referred to the restoration of sites of worship and the possibility of freely practicing their faith in the city as the aims of their fighting and both profited from a remarkably similar type of miracle: the intervention of celestial agents on the battlefield. …. In canto XVIII of Dante’s Paradiso, completed shortly before the author’s death in 1321, the narrator meets eight rulers who have been admitted to paradise. The attribute shared by all eight is having defended the “true faith,” whether Judaism or Christianity, against “infidels.” Among these individuals, the narrator meets Duke Geofrey of Bouillon, one of the leaders of the First Crusade, and “the great Maccabee” (alto Maccabeo), presumably Judas. Clearly, by the fourteenth century, the controversy surrounding the comparisons between Christian and Jewish warriors was a thing of the past. It was no longer disquieting to find a crusader and a Maccabean warrior as neighbors in paradise.

Diocletian, rhyming with, or repeating, Augustus?

by Damien F. Mackey “The purpose of the Roman empire’s subdivision by Diocletian and his tetrarchy was to permanently end the civil wars that had been raging since 88 BC (Marius [died 86 BC] against Sulla [died 78 BC]). This transformation from a more central to a more decentralized administration did not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but during the time that Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome, but to protect the capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms. He was directly responsible for their implementation”. Gunnar Heinsohn More on the historical revision of antiquity by professor Gunnar Heinsohn (RIP): https://q-mag.org/rome-and-jerusalem-a-stratigraphy-based-chronology-of-the-ancient-world.html Rome and Jerusalem - a stratigraphy-based chronology of the Ancient World Professor Heinsohn’s parallels between Augustus and Diocletian I find to be most interesting, indeed, presuming that they are accurate. So far I have not thoroughly checked all of them: https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-augustus-and-diocletian-contemporaries-or-three-centuries-apart.html Gunnar Heinsohn (15 June 2019) AUGUSTUS AND DIOCLETIAN: CONTEMPORARIES OR 300 YEARS APART? This all becomes especially intriguing for me in light of my article of somewhat similar parallelism between Augustus and Hadrian: Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus https://www.academia.edu/43238752/Hadrian_a_reincarnation_of_Augustus To recall a few examples of what I wrote there: When reading through Anthony Everitt’s 392-page book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, NY, 2009), I was struck by the constant flow of similarities between Hadrian and Augustus - which the author himself does nothing to hide. Here are some of them: Pp. 190-191: Ten years into his reign, Hadrian announced to the world that, speaking symbolically, he was a reincarnation of Augustus. P. x: … Augustus, whom Hadrian greatly admired and emulated. P. 145: Flatterers said that [Hadrian’s] eyes were languishing, bright, piercing and full of light”. …. One may suspect that this was exactly what Hadrian liked to hear (just as his revered Augustus prided himself on his clear, bright eyes). P. 190: … the true hero among his predecessors was Augustus. For the image on Hadrian’s signet ring to have been that of the first princeps was an elegantly simple way of acknowledging indebtedness …. Later, he asked the Senate for permission to hang an ornamental shield, preferably of silver, in Augustus’ honor in the Senate. P. 191: What was it that Hadrian valued so highly in his predecessor? Not least the conduct of his daily life. Augustus lived with conscious simplicity and so far as he could avoided open displays of his preeminence. P. 192: Both Augustus and Hadrian made a point of being civiles principes, polite autocrats. …. Whenever Augustus was present, he took care to give his entire attention to the gladiatorial displays, animal hunts, and the rest of the bloodthirsty rigmarole. Hadrian followed suit. …. Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus “Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders”. Christian History for Everyman The career of Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (formerly Diocles) (c. 300 AD, conventional dating), follows a pattern remarkably similar to that of the Seleucid tyrant king, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’. This pattern can partly be perceived from the following comparison of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Diocletian, as provided at: https://housetohouse.com/the-indestructible-word-2/ …. When Antiochus Epiphanes became ruler in Syria in 175 b.c. [sic] he destroyed the Jewish temple, sold the people of Jerusalem into slavery, and sought to do away with their sacred writings, forcing Greek culture upon the Jews. This was all done in an effort to substitute Zeus worship for the worship of God. Frank E. Hirsch in, “Abomination of Desolation,” wrote, “The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death. The Jewish cult was set aside; in all the cities of Judaea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month the search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death.” However, God saw to it that efforts to destroy the sacred writings of the Old Testament failed. Roman emperor Diocletian decreed death for any person who owned the Bible. After two years he boasted, “I have completely exterminated the Christian writings from the face of the earth.” In fact, he is said to have erected a monument over the ashes of burned Bibles. However, when Constantine came to the throne and desired copies of the Bible, offering a reward to anyone who could deliver one, within twenty-five hours fifty copies of God’s word were offered to the emperor. Voltaire was a notorious French infidel. In 1778, he boasted that within one hundred years the Bible would be no more. Later, the very press that printed the blasphemous prediction was used to print Bibles, and the house in which he lived was used by the Geneva Bible Society to store Bibles and as a distribution center. Bob Ingersoll, an American agnostic, once held a Bible up and boasted. “In fifteen years I will have this book in the morgue.” Within fifteen years, Ingersoll was in the morgue; however, the word of God lives on. —Wendell Winkler Regarding the ‘Great Persecution’ of Diocletian – most reminiscent of that of king Antiochus – we read at: https://www.christian-history.org/diocletian.html Diocletian and the Great Persecution I won't spend a lot of time on the details of Diocletian and his Great Persecution. We have a higher goal than the details. The Great Persecution, from A.D. 303 to 311, was a time of sudden transition and massive change in the history of Christianity. It's the change and what caused it that we want to focus on. To do so, I want to rename the Great Persecution and give you my unique (but historically accurate) perspective. Let's call it ... The Great Judo Throw I took judo for several years as a child. Even though I was very small, I was pretty good at it. In Judo, you don't have to be stronger than your opponent. Instead, you make your opponent's strength work for you. I must have had a good teacher because I remember lots of surprise on the faces of larger kids as they crashed to the ground. There's a secret to getting your opponent to help you throw him. You push really hard. Your opponent automatically pushes back. When they push, you pull and rotate into a throw. It's amazing how far their momentum will carry them. The Push: Diocletian Persecutes the Church Though it's popular to believe that Christians were always being persecuted in the Roman empire, it's not true. Empire-wide persecutions were rare, and the Great Persecution under Diocletian was the only one of any great length, lasting eight years. The "Great" Persecution? It is argued that the Great Persecution was hardly great. It was possibly sporadic in the west and occasional in the east. Constantius and Maximian, co-emperors in the west, were not interested in it. However, there is no doubt about the effects. At least the leaders of the churches were very affected, and many showed up at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) bearing scars from the persecution. It was intense. Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders. Note: Diocletian retired in 305 (the only Roman emperor ever to voluntarily retire), and the persecution was carried on the east by Galerius. Constantius (then Constantine) and Maximian (then Maxentius) in the west had little interest in the persecution. Mackey’s comment: But see my article on Constantine: Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus (4) Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The article continues: He was trying to turn them back to paganism, to the old Roman religion with the emperor as a God. Therefore, anyone he caught and tried could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor. They could also gain great favor by turning over copies of the Scriptures to be burned. In addition, Diocletian destroyed their church buildings. This was something that couldn't be done earlier, as Christians rarely had devoted meeting places in the 2nd century. It was too easy to see them destroyed or taken over. While empire-wide persecutions were rare, local persecutions at the whim of a governer or prelate were not. It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death. …. The following piece, by Rev. Adrian Dieleman, appropriately lumps together, as ‘Antichrist’ types, Antiochus, Herod and Diocletian: http://www.trinityurcvisalia.com/OTSer/dan11.html …. Antiochus, however, will not be completely successful in his campaign against the "holy covenant." Daniel reminds and assures us that "the people who know their God will firmly resist him." Those, in other words, who live for the Lord, who walk with Him, who read His Word, who spend time in prayer, who faithfully attend worship, have the tools they need to fight off the attacks of the evil one. As I said before, those who put on the armor of God will be able to take their stand against him. Daniel's message is that God will always preserve for Himself a church; no matter how hard the Antichrist tries, he will never succeed in total destroying the "holy covenant." Of course, he won't be the first to discover this. Pharaoh discovered the church can't be wiped out. Jezebel and Ahab and Herod found that out too. The emperor Diocletian set up a stone pillar on which was inscribed these words: For Having Exterminated The Name Christian From the Earth. If he could see that monument today, how embarrassed he would be! Another Roman leader made a coffin, symbolizing his intention "to bury the Galilean" by killing His followers. He soon learned that he could not "put the Master in it". He finally surrendered his heart to the Savior, realizing that the corporate body of Christ and its living Head, the Lord Jesus, cannot be destroyed. Like Antiochus Epiphanes, the Antichrist will attack the "holy covenant." Though his attacks are directed against the church, the real object of his attacks is God. Says Daniel, (Dan 11:36) "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He would love to defeat God and sit on God's throne as King of heaven and earth. But since he cannot do that, he decides instead to establish his throne on earth and pretends that he is God. Daniel says he has no regard for any god, "but will exalt himself above them all" (vs 37). http://www.korcula.net/history/mmarelic/diocletian.htm “Diocletian's retirement, an act of self-denial, which in its intentions and results, recalled the abdication of Sulla, threw the constitution back into the melting pot. Diocletian's great palace and his luxurious baths were dedicated in 305-306 A.D [sic]”. Did Diocletian, too, die the same disgusting, wormy death as did Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, as did Sulla, as did a Herod, as did Galerius? He was not supposed to have died well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian#Retirement_and_death “Deep in despair and illness, Diocletian may have committed suicide. He died on 3 December 312”.

Excessive force, even after an attack, is immoral, according to pope Francis

Carol Glatz Sep 30, 2024 US & World Using disproportionate force after being attacked is immoral, Pope Francis said. There are rules, even in war, that should be followed, he said. And when those rules are not adhered to you can see, “as we say in Argentina, the ‘bad blood’” or bad intentions behind the actions. During a brief question-and-answer period with reporters on the papal plane returning to Rome from Belgium Sept. 29, the pope was asked specifically whether he thought Israel had gone too far in its most recent strike on Lebanon. The U.S. reporter had prefaced the question by saying Israel, in its targeted strike assassinating Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, had dropped tons of explosives on Lebanon, resulting in many casualties and displacing hundreds of people, which prompted the pope to put his hand to his face in a show of despair. “Has Israel perhaps gone too far in Lebanon and Gaza?” the reporter asked. The pope replied that he speaks every day by phone with the people who have been sheltering in Gaza’s Catholic Church, “and they tell me about the things that are happening, even the cruelty that happens there.” He said he was not sure about what really happened in Lebanon, but he said a nation’s “defense must always be proportionate to the attack.” “When there is something disproportionate, one shows a tendency to dominate which goes beyond what is moral,” he said. Defensive actions that are so “excessive,” he said, “are immoral actions.” After Mass at the stadium, the pope had appealed to all parties involved in conflicts in the Middle East “to cease fire immediately in Lebanon, in Gaza, in the rest of Palestine, and in Israel.” “Hostages must be released, and humanitarian aid must be allowed,” he said, adding he feels sorrow and great concern hearing about “the escalation and intensification of the conflict in Lebanon.” https://www.cathstan.org/us-world/excessive-force-even-after-an-attack-is-immoral-pope- After Mass at the stadium, the pope had appealed to all parties involved in conflicts in the Middle East “to cease fire immediately in Lebanon, in Gaza, in the rest of Palestine, and in Israel.” “Hostages must be released, and humanitarian aid must be allowed,” he said, adding he feels sorrow and great concern hearing about “the escalation and intensification of the conflict in Lebanon.” Another reporter asked about his recent praise of the late King Baudouin of Belgium, whom the pope had said, when he prayed at his tomb Sept. 27, was courageous to abdicate his throne for a day so he did not have to give his assent to a bill Parliament passed in 1990 legalizing abortion. The pope had also said after Mass Sept. 29 that he wanted Belgium’s bishops to commit to advancing the sainthood cause of the leader who died in 1993. He is an example of a man of faith who should “illuminate leaders,” the pope said after the Mass. On the plane, the pope said, “it takes a politician who ‘wears pants’ to do this, it takes courage.” Replying to a reporter’s question about how to balance the rights of women and the right to life, the pope said, “Women have the right to life: to her life and her children’s lives.” “Abortion is homicide,” he said, and doctors who perform abortions “are hitmen. And there can be no debate about this.” “Contraceptive methods are something else. Don’t mix them up. I am talking about abortion,” he said. Asked about what he will do with the requests for action he received from victims of clergy abuse he met with in Brussels Sept. 27, the pope said the church has “a responsibility to help those abused and to take care of them” and to punish the perpetrators. Perpetrators cannot be left “free to live a normal life with responsibilities in the parish or schools,” he said. They suffer from a psychiatric illness, not “a sin” that one can choose not to commit.

G. Cestius Gallus – history can rhyme, but a doctored history can also repeat

“History Doesn’t Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes”. Mark Twain Gaius Cestius Gallus Steve Mason writes: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/history-of-the-jewish-war/neros-war-i-the-blunder-of-cestius-gallus/96D313480094F1FE648A41266B60CCA4 5 - NERO'S WAR I: THE BLUNDER OF CESTIUS GALLUS? from Part II - INVESTIGATIONS Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2016 One of the great puzzles of the Judaean War is the event that set it in motion: the expedition to Jerusalem by the legate C. Cestius Gallus, in September–October of A.D. 66. Until that time, as we have just seen, Judaeans had been in conflict only with the largely Samarian auxiliary (Chapter 4). Now Cestius marched south with a reported force of 30,000, anchored in the Twelfth Legion, with auxiliaries and regional allies from the north plus ad hoc recruits (War 2.499–502). Within two months, most of that being travel time, he was back in Antioch, disgraced and disconsolate after losing an alleged 5,300 men. Even if the real number were much smaller, he suffered a serious humiliation. No one could doubt that this would swiftly be avenged. Judaeans began preparing for that retaliation (War 2.562–79). But how did Cestius come to such grief? What was he intending, and was he so utterly incompetent to see it through? Assuming that Judaea was already in open revolt against Rome and that Cestius’ objective was to crush Jerusalem, analysts have found his behaviour baffling. His apparent dithering en route and abrupt departure from Jerusalem, capped by the catastrophic ambush in the Beit-Horon pass, have seemed evidence of staggering ineptitude. The successful ambush gave an incalculable boost to Judaean morale (War 3.9). And because it clearly demanded revenge, more than any other single event it created the Judaean-Roman War. Josephus’ formulaic repetition of “the blunder(s) of Cestius” brings this episode into the orbit of “the Varian disaster” (clades Variana) of A.D. 9, in which an emeritus legate of Syria lost three legions and his own life in Germany. Cestius lived long enough to suffer the ignominy, but not long enough to redeem his reputation. A generation later Tacitus reflects that “he suffered varied fortunes and met defeat more often than he gained victory” (Hist. 5.10). [End of quote] Gunnar Heinsohn wrote (badly formatted here, see original): https://www.scribd.com/document/655098736/Gunnar-060322-Jerusalem-First-Millennium-Ad-Heinsohn-September-2021-1 ________________________________________ III. TWO ATTACKS OF GALLUS AND THE REPETITION OF 1-66 AD during 284-350/51 AD We know the names of the Roman officials in charge of Jerusalem for the 66 years from 1 to 66 AD (see p. 15 above). For the 66 years 284/85-350/51 AD we do not know such names. This is remarkable because the second period is almost 300 years closer to us than the first. And it is also the period closer to us that sees the erection of imposing Roman buildings in Jerusalem, while the first period – in terms of Roman monuments and ursbanism – seems to be a phantom. 284/285 AD is the textbook date for the beginning of the Tetrarchy under Diocletian (284/85-305 AD). 350/351 AD dates the death of Constans I (337-350 AD) and the beginning of the sole rule of the last emperor, Constantius II (337-361), of the dynasty of Constantine the Great (306-337 AD). In 351 AD, a Roman legate for Syria stationed in Antioch named Gallus attacked Judaea. 1 AD constitutes the first year of the Christian calendar which is also trusted by the archaeologists and historians of Israel. In 66 AD, a Roman legate for Syria stationed in Antioch named Gallus attacked Judaea. There are further similarities between the two periods, but also striking differences as shown in the table below. JERUSALEM’S parallels between 1 to 66 AD and 284/285 to 350/351 AD [cf. also the appendix after the bibliography]. 79 AD (Vespasian’s death and rule of Titus with Jewish bride 284 years later, in 363 AD, Flavius Claudius Julianus (the Apostate) Berenice [eventually abandoned]) created hope for 3rd temple. offered the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. 66 years from 1 to 66 AD 66 years from 285 to 351 AD Legio X Fretensis was active in the Jewish wars of 66 - 136 AD. Legio X Fretensis was active in fighting Jews 350s-420s AD GALLUS (legate for Syria 63/65-67 AD) marched from Constantius GALLUS (legate for Syria 351-354 AD) marched from Antioch/Syria to attack Judaea but failed to take Jerusalem. Antioch/Syria to attack Judaea but failed to take Jerusalem. St. Paul (10-60 AD) had trouble in Antioch under Nero (54-68 AD). Paulinus of Antioch had trouble in Antioch under Constantius II (337-361 AD).

Ethiopian eunuch has nothing to do with the Second Coming

by Damien F. Mackey “Christ comes back at the Second Coming with the appearance of an Ethiopian eunuch”. A reader You get some strange comments sometimes. The most recent one is this, concerning Gog and Magog and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ: …. Of course Zechariah connects with Gog! Gog is the disgusting thing that causes desolation. Who desolated the Jews during the Holocaust? Who took their homes and businesses leaving them with nothing? It was Gog of Magog, white supremacy. Revelation sees Satan reinspiring Gog of Magog after the millennium. Meaning he reinspires white supremacy. And why not? Christ comes back at the Second Coming with the appearance of an Ethiopian eunuch. Sorry, but all my prophecies are in order. If not, please be more specific. "Gog of Magog" is the cult of white supremacy in its ugliest form. …. Damien Mackey replied: Christ came back, just as He said He would, in that generation, to destroy Judaïsm and the Temple, which had all gone wrong. He is the new Temple, no need for a third one. The old stone temples are gone – ‘not a stone left upon a stone’ (e.g. Matthew 24:2). He came back as the Bridegroom: “Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom” https://www.academia.edu/61682115/Jesus_Christ_came_as_Bridegroom to embrace a new Bride, since the old Bride, Judaism, had gone wrong. The new Bride is the Church. No hint of an Ethiopian eunuch in any of this. You are getting a bit airborne …. [name added] ….