Forgetting God, the works of the Lord, the holocaust

by Damien F. Mackey “Towards the end of his life [Primo Levi] was beginning to worry about precisely what Alastair writes about: that memories would fade and the horror of the holocaust – the greatest evil ever inflicted on man by man – might fade as well”. Fraser Nelson Forgetting the major lessons of history can have dire consequences for humanity. Hence the wise among the Hebrews were forever reminding their people: “Do not forget the works of the Lord!” “That they might not forget the works of God” (3) "That they might not forget the works of God" For instance, according to Psalm 77:11-15 (Douay) /Psalm 78: And they forgot his benefits, and his wonders that he had shewn them. Wonderful things did he do in the sight of their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Tanis. He divided the sea and brought them through: and he made the waters to stand as in a vessel. And he conducted them with a cloud by day: and all the night with a light of fire. He struck the rock in the wilderness: and gave them to drink, as out of the great deep. A modern prophet had bemoaned the consequences of such forgetting: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened”: Solzhenitsyn (3) "Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened": Solzhenitsyn Although Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn here was thinking essentially about his own Russia, what he said has applications for the whole world. War, torture, starvation, death camps. “… orchestrated famines, deportations, civil wars, terror campaigns, forced labor, concentration camps, and mass killings” (see below). “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened” Fittingly, on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a Marist priest in Sydney told of one Primo Levi, himself a prisoner, who had feared that the holocaust, in time, would be forgotten. The priest urged the congregation to obtain a copy of Primo Levi’s book, The Drowned and the Saved: On a far lighter note, the same Marist priest had told a joke. An Italian lady had approached him and told him: ‘You look like Padre Pio’. He replied to her: ‘I look like Padre Pio because I am Padre Pio’. ‘Noooo’, she said. ‘Padre Pio very holy’. Remembering what the priest had said bout Primo Levi, I looked him up on the Internet and found this article by Fraser Nelson (Times and Spectator): https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-primo-levi-s-warning-about-the-young-forgetting-the-holocaust-resonates-now/ Fraser Nelson Why Primo Levi’s warning about the young forgetting the holocaust resonates now • 30 March 2018, 12:00am One of the most thought-provoking pieces in The Spectator this week is from Alastair Thomas on why his generation don’t get so upset about anti-Semitism. He explains the phenomenon and offers an explanation: the years have passed, the memories of the holocaust have dimmed. It’s no longer the experience of someone’s grandparents’ generation, but further back. Since then, there are more recent memories: of the Israeli Defence Force and Gaza. The conflation between Jews, Israel and Zionism has restored the idea of the Jews as being suspiciously powerful – the oppressors rather than the oppressed. This certainly stands to reason. Memories of the holocaust were kept alive for my generation by films like Schindler’s List. But there are few left to tell the story first hand. Reading Alastair’s essay made me think of a book I read years ago: The Drowned and the Saved, by Primo Levi, who was arrested for being a member of the Italian anti-fascist front and sent to Auschwitz. Towards the end of his life he was beginning to worry about precisely what Alastair writes about: that memories would fade and the horror of the holocaust – the greatest evil ever inflicted on man by man – might fade as well. When I first read it, I thought he was wrong: that the holocaust was taught in schools world over and films like Schindler’s List would keep the nightmare vivid for new generations. But perhaps he was right after all. That film is now a quarter-century old. A new generation will have new reference points. …. Levi’s writing is incredibly vivid, yet hard to track down in the digital era: The Drowned and the Saved, even If Not Now, When? are not on Kindle, not Googleable. So we have posted an extract from the book on Coffee House (here) to give a taste. For those who haven’t come across his writing before, you can find it all here, many for under £1. It’s dangerous, he says, to think that the evil of the holocaust sprang from the blackness of Nazi hearts and died with Hitler. It had all-too-human beginnings, and one of them was the general idea that the Jews are suspect, which can come back anytime, anywhere. At church services world over this afternoon, Christians will be saying the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. There’s plenty to think about after a week where Jewish leaders were driven to protest in parliament. But this is about more than Corbyn, or the recent attacks in France: there’s a general sense that anti-Semitism is back – partly because it doesn’t appal a young generation and the scenario that Primo Levi described is now coming to pass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_theology#:~:text=The%20well%2Dknown%20Lithuanian%20Jewish,religious%20observance%20for%20the%20enlightenment. “The well-known Lithuanian Jewish leader, Rabbi Elazar Shach taught that the Holocaust was a divine punishment for the sins of the Jewish people, and for the abandoning of religious observance for the enlightenment”. This is getting to the crux of the matter, not just for Jews, but for Russians, Germans, and indeed for the whole world. Our Lady’s Prophecy Fulfilled: Spreading Errors of Russia …. Our Lady of Fatima warned that if mankind did not stop offending God, and if her messages were not heeded, a worse war was yet to come. To prevent the evil of World War II, Our Lady requested both the Communion of Reparation on Five First Saturdays, as well as the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. As we have seen, the request was not heeded in time. World War II erupted, and the errors of Russia were spread throughout the world. ________________________________________ Our Lady appeared to the three children in Fatima eight days after Pope Benedict XV’s piercing cry for her intercession for an end to the war. Yet that was not the only providential reason for Our Lady’s appearance to the three children at that specific time. Something dangerous was also happening in Russia which would have a devastating impact on the world. The Russian Revolutions Russia suffered greatly from the negative effects of World War I. The high number of casualties, combined with economic stagnation and food shortages, caused the people to grow angry, restless, and critical of the country’s governance. This national instability culminated in the overthrow of the one thousand year-old Christian monarchy, and the execution of the Russian Tsar and the ruling Romanov dynasty. This revolution occurred in February 1917 (March on the Gregorian calendar), and a provisional government was established in its place. Seeing the Russian monarchy toppled, Vladimir Lenin, who had previously been exiled from Russia due to his revolutionary political agitations, saw his opportunity to return and once again involve himself with the nation’s politics. Lenin was fully committed to the economic, social, and atheistic philosophy of Marxism and sought to implement it in Russia. He banded with other leftist political revolutionaries to form the Bolshevik party, and he became its leader. The discontent about the ongoing war and the instability under the provencial government allowed the Bolsheviks to quickly rise to power, and they seized control of Russia during the infamous October Revolution (November on the Gregorian Calendar). Lenin became the head of Russia, and the Bolsheviks became the Communist Party. This was the keystone event that led to the founding of the Soviet Union. The country once called “Holy Russia” by her people, a land rich in faith and tradition, was overthrown. Our Lady was appearing in Fatima during this critical period in Russia’s—and by extension, Europe’s—history; the first and last of her apparitions corresponded closely with the first and second Russian revolutions in March and November of 1917. The Persecution Of The Church And The Family Essential to the realization of Lenin’s goal to implement his Marxist ideals and transform Russia into a communist country was to eliminate the influence of Christianity, especially the Russian Orthodox church. The following year, Russia implemented the law of separation of Church and State, “In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people,” that is, freedom from the moral restraints that religion brings. The law of separation of Church and State was, in effect, a law imposing State atheism. Although religion was not officially banned, its influence on society was intentionally and aggressively attacked. The Marxist revolutionaries knew that to undermine religious practice one must first corrupt the morality of the people. In addition to weakening the Church, they also worked to upend the social unit of the family in order to realize their ideal of a classless society ruled by an authoritarian State. To further this goal, the Bolsheviks instituted no-fault divorce, thus supplanting sacramental marriage with civil marriage. Divorce was made swift and easily obtainable, with no provisions for the support of children. Laws were passed stating that there was now no such thing as an illegitimate child, a revolt against the natural right of children to be born into the stability of wedlock and raised by their mother and father. The result was utter moral decay among the people. Previously a deeply religious people, many Russians became promiscuous and literally began to divorce and remarry with the seasons. Women who were divorced by their husbands while pregnant sought to abort their children out of the fear of abandonment. Under Communist rule, Russia became the first country in the world to legalize abortion, and eventually the nation with the highest rate of divorce and abortion in the world. Before these disastrous laws were implemented, it was the Church who governed marriage, family, and the moral life of the people in the name of God. The Bolshevik Revolution was not merely a political revolution, it was a revolution of the fabric of society itself, and ultimately a revolt against the divine and natural law of God. If the Bolshevik Revolution is—as some people have called it—the most significant political event of the 20th century, then Lenin must for good or ill be regarded as the century’s most significant political leader. Not only in the scholarly circles of the former Soviet Union but even among many non-Communist scholars, he has been regarded as both the greatest revolutionary leader and revolutionary statesman in history, as well as the greatest revolutionary thinker since Marx. Encyclopedia Britannica Once Lenin defeated every political enemy which threatened his power, the Soviet Union was formed in 1922 under Secretary Joseph Stalin. Lenin then became the first dictator of the world’s first Marxist state, although briefly, as he died in 1924. His ruthlessness against his political enemies established precedent for his successor, Joseph Stalin, to preside over a campaign of brutality against his own citizens, especially Christians. Although Our Lady mentioned the need for the consecration of Russia during her apparitions at Fatima, she did not formally ask for it at that time. This request was not given to Sr. Lucia until June 13, 1929. Once again, the timing was providential as there was a significant event transpiring in Russia at that time. In 1929 Russia began a new wave of anti-religious persecution under the dictatorship of the infamous Joseph Stalin. Previously the Orthodox Church was persecuted indirectly; Christians were imprisoned by being labeled as enemies of the State. Now, an official political campaign was begun to actually destroy the Church. Ecclesiastical property and wealth was confiscated, religious activities were prohibited, churches were destroyed, and nearly all clergy, along with many laity, were killed or sent to concentration camps. Christianity in Russia was forced underground. In addition to unleashing a severe persecution on the Orthodox Church, Stalin turned on his own citizens in other evil ways. In the 1930’s Stalin forced a man-made famine on the Ukraine. This genocide killed an estimated 7-8 million people. During the famine’s worst period from 1932-34, it is estimated that nearly 30,000 Ukrainians were dying from starvation every day. Meanwhile, Stalin denied the existence of the famine while exporting Russian grain to other countries. Such was the brutality that would become the manner of rule for atheistic communist dictators throughout the 20th century: orchestrated famines, deportations, civil wars, terror campaigns, forced labor, concentration camps, and mass killings. Perhaps Jacinta, who often received visions of the future chastisements that Our Lady of Fatima prophesied, beheld the devastating Ukrainian famine when she said to Lucia, “Can’t you see all those highways and roads and fields full of people, who are crying with hunger and have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father in a church praying before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And so many people praying with him?” Russia Spreads Her Errors The central error of Russia was the modern atheistic Marxist-Communist State and its attacks on morality, the natural order of human society, and the Church. This diabolical revolutionary spirit spread to other countries like an infectious disease, starting with the Eastern bloc countries, until more than half of the globe was ruled by communist dictators. Their brutal regimes which severely persecuted the Church and killed millions of their own citizens. …. The Russian Bolshevik revolutionaries … however, actively pursued a global atheistic communism. The Bolsheviks implemented Marx’s Communist Manifesto and became the world’s first communist state. The Soviet Union then became not only a dominant world power, but also a flagship for the rise of atheistic dictatorships around the world. These brutal regimes and their insidious philosophies threatened and slaughtered their own citizens in a heinous manner never before seen in history. The 1997 book, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stephane Courtois places the death toll of communism in the 20th century at 94 million, making atheistic communist regimes more deadly than the first two World Wars combined: People’s Republic of China: 65 million Soviet Union: 20 million Cambodia: 2 million North Korea: 2 million Ethiopia: 1.7 million Afghanistan: 1.5 million Eastern Bloc: 1 million Vietnam: 1 million Latin America 150,000 International Communist movement and Communist parties not in power: 10,000 In addition to the shocking death toll, the suppression and persecution of the Christian faith and the institutionalization of immorality was the most devastating for the salvation of souls. Without the light of the Christian faith to guide souls to the worship of the One True God, many souls under Communist regimes were lost for eternity. Looking back on this devastation, we are reminded of what Lucia said to the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, on the eve of the anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima in 1982: “The third part of the secret is a symbolic revelation, referring to this part of the Message, conditioned by whether we accept or not what the Message itself asks of us: ‘If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, etc.’ Since we did not heed this appeal of the Message, we see that it has been fulfilled, Russia has invaded the world with her errors. And if we have not yet seen the complete fulfilment of the final part of this prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides. If we do not reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge, injustice, violations of the rights of the human person, immorality and violence, etc. And let us not say that it is God who is punishing us in this way; on the contrary it is people themselves who are preparing their own punishment. In his kindness God warns us and calls us to the right path, while respecting the freedom he has given us; hence people are responsible.” Again, it is incredible to consider that the Mother of God offered a means to prevent this disaster for humanity, with the responsibility of averting it given to the authority of the Vicar of Christ as the shepherd of the world’s souls.

Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

“Some of the parallels are so striking that a person would basically have to conclude that John borrowed from the earlier writings of Josephus, and then used the language of Josephus to prophesy of a much later war. We know, however, that John wrote his prophecies first, and Josephus wrote his works a decade or so later. John wrote before the Jewish-Roman War and Josephus wrote after the war”. Adam Maarschalk Adam Maarschalk told this of “Josephus and the Book of Revelation (9 Case Studies)” in a Conference of November, 2016: https://preteristconferencecalls.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/06-adam-maarschalk-josephus-and-the-book-of-revelation-9-case-studies/ In John Wesley’s commentary on Matthew 24 (1755), he said, “Josephus’s History of the Jewish War is the best commentary on this chapter…” I believe this is also true for the book of Revelation. The preterist movement is known for believing that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This belief is backed by both external and internal evidence, that is, testimonies in early church history as well as (more importantly) evidence within the text. “The Wars of the Jews” by Josephus is another major source of evidence that Revelation was written before 70 AD. This work by Josephus was published in 75 AD, less than 15 years after Revelation was written. It contains seven books, most of which cover the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD. In this message I want to present nine case studies showing parallels between the book of Revelation and “The Wars of the Jews.” As we look at these parallels, consider what they mean for the popular idea that John wrote Revelation around 95 AD. Some of the parallels are so striking that a person would basically have to conclude that John borrowed from the earlier writings of Josephus, and then used the language of Josephus to prophesy of a much later war. We know, however, that John wrote his prophecies first, and Josephus wrote his works a decade or so later. John wrote before the Jewish-Roman War and Josephus wrote after the war. In this presentation I’ve included the month and year of each event that Josephus referred to. This is based on dates that Josephus himself cited, as well as a helpful table in Ed Stevens’ book, “The Final Decade before the End” (p. 242) showing the modern equivalents of the months cited by Josephus. In the chart below, I’ve color-coded the case studies that feature the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments: Case Study Reference by John Reference by Josephus Approximate Date(s) #1 Revelation 6:4 (2nd Seal) Civil War: Wars 4.3.2 Sword: Wars 2.18.3, 4.4.3, 4.5.3, and 5.8.1 August 66 AD; Feb./ March 68 AD; May 70 AD #2 Revelation 6:15-16 (6th Seal) Wars 6.7.3 August 70 AD #3 Revelation 8:7-9 (1st and 2nd Trumpets) Wars 3.4.1 Wars 3.9.3 Wars 3.10.9 March – August 67 AD #4 Revelation 9:13-16 (6th Trumpet) Wars 4.4.2 February 68 AD #5 Revelation 11:7-13 (6th Trumpet) Wars 4.4.5 Wars 4.5.1-2 February 68 AD #6 Revelation 16:3-6 (2nd and 3rd Bowls) Wars 4.7.5-6 April-May 68 AD #7 Revelation 16:19 (7th Bowl) Cities of the nations fell: Wars 3 (Galilee) Wars 4.7 (Perea) Wars 4.9 (Idumea & Judea) Jerusalem divided: Wars 5.1.1 and 5.1.4 (67 AD) (Spring 68 AD) Mid-68 AD – 69 AD December 69 AD #8 Revelation 16:21 (7th Bowl) Wars 5.6.3 May 70 AD #9 Revelation 17:12-17 Wars 2.20.3-4 Dec. 66 AD – Aug. 70 AD …. The more parallels we can nail down between the book of Revelation and the writings of Josephus, the better we can understand the structure of Revelation. For example, were the seals, trumpets, and bowls fulfilled chronologically? When Josephus made reference to them, did he do so in the same order John listed them? How much recapitulation (restating of events) actually exists in Revelation? Case Study #1 (Revelation 6:4) “And another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.” Revelation 6:4 describes the opening of the second seal. Here we see that peace would be taken from “the earth.” This phrase can also be translated as “land” (as it is in Young’s Literal Translation), a reference to “the promised land,” i.e. the land of Israel. A good example of this is Luke 21:23, where Jesus clearly spoke of Judea, yet some translations say “on the earth” and others say “in the land.” Here’s a description given by Josephus about the civil war among the Jews, which began outside of Jerusalem but spread to Jerusalem by the time the war began in August 66 AD (Wars 4.3.2): “But then it must be observed, that the multitude that came out of the country were at discord before the Jerusalem sedition began… There were besides disorders and civil wars in every city; and all those that were at quiet from the Romans turned their hands one against another. There was also a bitter contest between those that were fond of war, and those that were desirous for peace. At the first this quarrelsome temper caught hold of private families, who…began already to stand in opposition one to another; so that seditions arose everywhere… the barbarity and iniquity those of the same nation did no way differ from the Romans; nay, it seemed to be a much lighter thing to be ruined by the Romans than by themselves.” Josephus was describing the events of November 67 AD when he gave this summary. Josephus used phrases like “one against another”, “in opposition one to another”, “civil wars in every city,” and “barbarity.” This lines up well with John’s vision of people “killing one another” in the land. This domestic fighting was so significant that the approach of the Romans was seen as “a much lighter thing.” In John’s vision, he also saw “a great sword.” Numerous times Josephus spoke of the Zealots killing others with swords and cutting their throats (e.g. Wars 2.18.3, Wars 4.4.3, Wars 4.5.3, and Wars 5.8.1). Were these beheadings? These four instances of throat cutting took place in Galilee and Jerusalem in August 66 AD, February/March 68 AD, and May 70 AD. Case Study #2 (Revelation 6:15-16) “And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’” (Revelation 6:15-17). This passage describes the sixth seal. Notice how Josephus described the attempts of the Zealots to save themselves when they were driven out of the lower city of Jerusalem in August 70 AD (Wars 6.7.3): “So now the last hope which supported the tyrants, and that crew of robbers who were with them, was in the caves and caverns underground; whither, if they could once fly, they did not expect to be searched for; but endeavored, that after the whole city should be destroyed, and the Romans gone away, they might come out again, and escape from them. This was no better than a dream of theirs; for they were not able to lie hid either from God or from the Romans.” So John saw a vision of commanders and other men [1] hiding in the caves and rocks and [2] attempting to hide from God. Josephus likewise described the Zealots [1] heading to the caves and caverns as their last hope and [2] being unable to hide from God and the Romans. These accounts are also parallel to an earlier prophecy given by Jesus on His way to Golgotha: And a great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him. But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” (Luke 23:27-30) Jesus told those ladies that they and their children would personally see the day when people in Jerusalem would call upon the mountains to fall on them and hide them. About 40 years later it happened just as He said, just as John foretold, and as Josephus recorded it. See also Hosea 10:8. Case Study #3 (Revelation 8:7-9) “The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood; and a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.” This passage describes the first and second trumpet judgments. Notice that both judgments feature a mixture of fire and blood. Compare this with what Josephus said happened in Galilee in March/April 67 AD after he tried to fortify the city of Sepphoris, the capital and largest city of Galilee (see Wars 3.2.4): “By this means he [Josephus] provoked the Romans to treat the country according to the law of war; nor did the Romans, out of the anger they bore at this attempt, leave off, either by night or by day, burning the places in the plain, and stealing away the cattle that were in the country, and killing whatsoever appeared capable of fighting perpetually, and leading the weaker people as slaves into captivity; so that Galilee was all over filled with fire and blood; nor was it exempted from any kind of misery or calamity…” (Wars 3.4.1). Sepphoris was located halfway between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee, and only three miles away from Nazareth. Damien Mackey’s comment: I have tentatively proposed that Sepphoris was Nazareth: Nazareth may be Sepphoris, the “ornament of all Galilee” https://www.academia.edu/107781502/Nazareth_may_be_Sepphoris_the_ornament_of_all_Galilee_ Adam Maarschalk continues: In Wars 3.9.3 Josephus described what happened on the Sea of Galilee in June 67 AD to thousands of Jews who tried to escape from Joppa: “Now as those people of Joppa were floating about in this sea, in the morning there fell a violent wind upon them; it is called by those that sail there “the black north wind,” and there dashed their ships one against another, and dashed some of them against the rocks, and carried many of them by force, while they strove against the opposite waves, into the main sea; for the shore was so rocky, and had so many of the enemy upon it, that they were afraid to come to land… And much lamentation there was when the ships were dashed against one another, and a terrible noise when they were broken to pieces; and some of the multitude that were in them were covered with waves, and so perished, and a great many were embarrassed with shipwrecks. But some of them thought that to die by their own swords was lighter than by the sea, and so they killed themselves before they were drowned; although the greatest part of them were carried by the waves, and dashed to pieces against the abrupt parts of the rocks, insomuch that the sea was bloody a long way, and the maritime parts were full of dead bodies; for the Romans came upon those that were carried to the shore, and destroyed them; and the number of the bodies that were thus thrown out of the sea was four thousand and two hundred.” In Wars 3.10.9 Josephus also described what happened on the Sea of Galilee in August 67 AD to people from Tiberias and Taricheae: “Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; …one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air…” So John saw fire and blood, land being burned, and ships being destroyed. Josephus described those very things taking place throughout Galilee from March – August 67 AD. Case Study #4 (Revelation 9:13-16) “Then the sixth angel sounded: And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, ‘Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.’ So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind. Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million, and I heard the number of them” (Revelation 9:13-16). This is a partial description of the sixth trumpet. Momentarily we’ll take a look at a quote from Josephus about four commanders who led a murderous army, but first here’s some background. During the winter of 67-68 AD, Ananus II, the former high priest in Jerusalem, urged the people of Jerusalem to oppose the lawless Jewish Zealots who had taken over the temple as “blood-shedding villains.” John Levi of Gischala had recently come to Jerusalem, and he pretended to be on the side of Ananus and was invited to be an ambassador to the Zealots (Wars 4.3.13). However, John quickly betrayed Ananus and falsely claimed that he had invited the Roman general Vespasian to conquer Jerusalem (Wars 4.3.14). In response, the Zealot leaders Eleazar ben Simon and Zacharias ben Phalek requested help from the Idumeans (Idumea was south of Judea). They told the Idumeans that “unless they would come immediately to their assistance… the city would be in the power of the Romans.” The Idumeans quickly prepared an army of 20,000 directed by four commanders (Wars 4.4.2): “Now these [Idumean] rulers were greatly surprised at the contents of the letter, and at what those that came with it further told them; whereupon they ran about the nation like madmen, and made proclamation that the people should come to war; so a multitude was suddenly got together, sooner indeed than the time appointed in the proclamation, and everybody caught up their arms, in order to maintain the liberty of their metropolis; and twenty thousand of them were put into battle-array, and came to Jerusalem, under four commanders, John, and Jacob the son of Sosas; and besides these were Simon, the son of Cathlas, and Phineas, the son of Clusothus.” What about the discrepancy between the numbers “200 million” and “20,000”? Earlier I quoted from the New King James Version. Like most versions, it gives some variation of the number “200 million.” Young’s Literal Translation says “two myriads of myriads.” The Interlinear translates this phrase as “twice ten thousand ten thousands.” The word “myriad” in Greek meant “10,000,” so two myriads was “20,000,” the same number that Josephus assigned to the Idumean army. A similar expression is used in Psalm 68:17 (“The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place” –NKJV). This verse is far more often translated to say “20,000” than Revelation 9:16 is. The Interlinear for Psalm 68:17 translates this verse to say “even thousands, twenty thousand of God are the chariots.” When it comes to Revelation 9:16, it seems that most translations have unnecessarily squared the number “10,000” before doubling it, coming up with 200 million instead of 20,000. In any case, John and Josephus both described an army of 20,000 led by four commanders. The Idumeans came to Jerusalem in February 68 AD. We’ll hear more about them in the next section. Case Study #5 (Revelation 11:7-13) “Now when they [the two witnesses] finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three and a half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth… In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand men were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.” This vision is also part of the sixth trumpet, or at least it appears before the seventh trumpet sounds. This is the first passage in Revelation where “the beast” is mentioned, and it’s also where “the great city” is first mentioned and defined – as being the city where Jesus was crucified, i.e. Jerusalem. Josephus described a morning in February 68 AD when the city of Jerusalem woke up to find that 8,500 people had died during the night due to an earthquake and a slaughter carried out by the Idumeans. Here’s how he described the earthquake in the midst of a great storm (Wars 4.4.5): “[F]or there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake… anyone would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.” And here’s how he described the slaughter carried out by the Idumeans that same night, after they managed to saw through the gates and break into the city (Wars 4.5.1): “The zealots also joined in the shouts raised by the Idumeans; and the storm itself rendered the cry more terrible; nor did the Idumeans spare anybody; for as they are naturally a most barbarous and bloody nation, and had been distressed by the tempest, they made use of their weapons against those that had shut the gates against them… Now there was at present neither any place for flight, nor any hope of preservation; but as they were driven one upon another in heaps, so were they slain… And now the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood; and that day, as it came on, they saw eight thousand five hundred dead bodies there.” Recall that John said “in the earthquake seven thousand men were killed.” Josephus didn’t distinguish between how many died in the earthquake and how many were killed by the sword, so it’s possible that the earthquake killed 7000 and the Idumeans killed 1,500. The next day the Idumeans, working on behalf of the Zealots, hunted down and killed a couple of former high priests, Ananus and Jesus, who had long tormented the Zealots by opposing their war and working for peace. Here’s how Josephus described their deaths in Wars 4.5.2: “[The Idumeans] sought for the high priests, and…went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial… I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city… He…preferred peace above all things; …he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war… And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.” So John and Josephus both described two individuals in Jerusalem who were hated, killed, and not allowed to be buried. If we go back to Rev. 11:5-6, they also both describe a couple of men who could not be taken down by their enemies until this particular time. And they describe this happening at the same time as an earthquake that coincided with the deaths of at least 7000 people. …. One thing we should note here in Revelation 11 is the fact that the beast oversees the deaths of the two witnesses in Jerusalem. If this indeed happened in 68 AD, the beast could not have been Roman. From August 66 AD until April 70 AD the Romans were not in Jerusalem, except for a few days in November 66 AD when Cestius Gallus led a failed attack on the city. If the events of Revelation 11 took place anytime between late 66 AD and the spring of 70 AD, the beast that overcame the two witnesses was Jewish, not Roman. And based on the four case studies we’ve already looked at, and the next four that we’re about to look at, it’s very fitting that the events of Revelation would have taken place in early 68 AD. Case Study #6 (Revelation 16:3-6) “Then the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became blood as of a dead man, and every living creature in the sea died. Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying: ‘You are righteous, O Lord, the One who is and who was and who is to be, because You have judged these things. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.’” This is a description of the second and third bowl judgments. Josephus described how, in the spring of 68 AD, Vespasian prepared for the eventual siege on Jerusalem by marching “against Gadara, the metropolis of Perea” (Wars 4.7.3) and the rest of Perea as well (Wars 4.7.6). Perea was the region east of the Jordan River, just next to Judea and Jerusalem. Some of the Jews who fled from Gadara joined with others and “got in great numbers together and fled to Jericho” (Wars 4.7.5) with Placidus, Vespasian’s assistant, chasing them. Placidus drove the whole multitude to the riverside, along the Jordan River. Then things really took a tragic turn (Wars 4.7.5-6): “They then extended themselves a very great way along the banks of the river, and sustained the darts that were thrown at them, as well as the attacks of the horsemen, who beat many of them, and pushed them into the current. At which fight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand…were slain, while the number of those that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious… and Jordan could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it, but because the lake Asphaltiris was also full of dead bodies, that were carried down into it by the river. And now Placidus… put his soldiers on board the ships, and slew such as had fled to the lake…” Lake Asphaltiris [Asthaltites] was the Greek name for the Dead Sea. So John saw a sea that “became blood as of a dead man” (Rev. 16:3) and he saw that “every living creature in the sea died.” Josephus said that the Dead Sea was “full of dead bodies” and that Placidus killed everyone else who fled to the Dead Sea. John saw rivers and springs of water turn to blood, and that those who shed the blood of saints and prophets were given “blood to drink.” Josephus said that a multitude of Jews was pushed into, and “unwillingly forced to leap into,” the current of the Jordan River. That river was so full of dead bodies that no one could pass over it. Some of them drank the bloody water as they drowned. Case Study #7 (Revelation 16:19) “Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.” This is from John’s description of the seventh bowl. “The great city,” as we already saw, was Jerusalem. The Cities of the Nations Fell The downfall of the nation of Galilee in 67 AD can be seen mostly in The War of the Jews, Book 3. In the previous section we saw that Vespasian subdued the entire nation of Perea in the spring of 68 AD. Then in the summer of 68 AD Vespasian was at Caesarea, ready “to march directly to Jerusalem” when he learned that Nero had died (in June 68 AD). So Vespasian waited there for almost a year (Wars 4.9.2). In the meantime, though, another nation fell. That was the nation of Idumea, but it was at the hands of Simon Bar Giora, a Jewish Zealot leader. He first “laid waste the whole country” of Idumea, attacking Hebron, ravaging cities and villages, and making Idumea like a desert (Wars 4.9.7). Then he “compelled a great number of [the Idumeans] to retire to Jerusalem; he followed them himself also to the city.” Josephus said he “was a greater terror to the people than the Romans themselves,” but the Zealots in Jerusalem were even “more heavy upon” the people than Simon and the Romans (Wars 4.9.10). So, amazingly, Simon was invited into Jerusalem. The people “made joyful acclamation to him, as their savior and their preserver,” thinking he would save them from the madness of the Zealots. However, Simon Bar Giora looked upon them all as his enemies (Wars 4.9.11). In April 69 AD Simon “got possession of Jerusalem” (Wars 4.9.12). Soon the stage would be set for Jerusalem to be divided into three factions, but first we’ll take note of more cities that fell. In May-June 69 AD Vespasian “marched against those places of Judea which were not yet overthrown,” sparing only Herodium, Masada, Macherus, and Jerusalem which were controlled by the Zealots (Wars 4.9.9). He paused his campaign again, however, when he learned that Vitellus had become emperor of Rome (Wars 4.10.2). In December 69 AD he was named emperor of Rome (Wars 4.11.4-5) and his son, Titus, was dispatched to besiege Jerusalem (Wars 4.11.5 and Wars 5.1.1). Here’s a simple table of nations that fell from 67 AD to mid-69 AD. This is not exhaustive: Nations that Fell Time Period Conqueror Galilee 67 AD Vespasian and Titus (Romans) Perea Spring 68 AD Vespasian Idumea Late 68 AD – Early 69 AD Simon Bar Giora (Jewish Zealot) Judea (most of it) May/June 69 AD Vespasian Jerusalem Divided Into Three Parts In Wars 5.1.1 and Wars 5.1.4 Josephus described the conditions in Jerusalem in December 69 AD: “[T]he sedition at Jerusalem was revived, and parted into three factions, and that one faction fought against the other… one should not mistake if he called it a sedition begotten by another sedition, and to be like a wild beast grown mad, which for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.” “And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other. Eleazar [ben Simon] and his party, that kept the sacred first-fruits, came against John [Levi of Gischala] in their cups. Those that were with John plundered the populace and went out with zeal against Simon [Bar Giora].” So this is a very clear fulfillment of John’s words that the great city, Jerusalem, “was divided into three parts” (Revelation 16:19). It’s also a flashback to Jerusalem’s earlier destruction in 586 BC. In Ezekiel 5:1-12 we see that Ezekiel was required to shave his head and divide it into three parts, and God told him, “This is Jerusalem” (verse 5). One third of his hair was burned, one third was chopped up by the sword, and the last third was scattered into the wind. Case Study #8 (Revelation 16:21) “And great hail from heaven fell upon men, every hailstone about the weight of a talent. And men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.” This is also from John’s description of the seventh bowl. Compare this to the following description of large stones catapulted over the wall in Jerusalem by the tenth Roman legion in May 70 AD (Wars 5.6.3): “The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion… Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, ‘THE STONE COMETH,’ so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means … thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow.” So John saw hailstones weighing a talent falling from the sky over Jerusalem, and Josephus describes white stones weighing a talent being catapulted into the city. A talent was 75 – 100 pounds. According to William Whiston’s famous translation of the works of Josephus, the watchmen shouted, “THE SON COMETH,” rather than “THE STONE COMETH.” J. Stuart Russell, in his 1878 book The Parousia (p. 482), pointed out that it was only eight years before this, in 62 AD, that as James was being martyred he cried out that “the Son of Man was about to come in the clouds of heaven.” So Russell speculated that the watchmen gave this cry “in mockery of the Christian hope of the Parousia.” These large stones were actually discovered in an archaeological dig during the last year. See here and here for articles on this find, including photos of the stones. Case Study #9 (Revelation 17:12-16) “And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as of yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them… And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” As I mentioned earlier, until a few months ago I believed that the beast in Revelation was Rome and Nero. I assumed that the 10 horns must have been the 10 Senatorial Provinces of Rome working with Nero to persecute Christians and to capture and burn Jerusalem in 70 AD. When I started to rethink this subject, one thing I discovered is that when Titus overthrew Jerusalem in 70 AD he did not have leaders or representatives of those 10 provinces with him. He didn’t even have 10 legions with him. Instead he had four legions – the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th legions (Wars 5.1.6). Then I was surprised to discover that Josephus listed exactly 10 high priests and religious leaders in Israel who were given authority as generals in December 66 AD. Three of them were even killed by the Zealots in early 68 AD, fulfilling Daniel 7:8, 20, 24. Here’s a quick summary of what led up to the selection of those 10 generals. (More details can be seen in this article.) Josephus says that the Jewish/Roman War officially began in August 66 AD when Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, “who was at that time governor of the Temple, persuaded those that officiated in the divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner.” They used this new law to reject “the sacrifice of Caesar” (Wars 2.17.2). They also massacred a Roman garrison stationed at the Antonia Fortress on the east side of Jerusalem (Wars 2.17.7). In November 66 AD Cestius Gallus brought the 12th Legion to put down the Jewish rebellion. Surprisingly, his army suffered about 5,700 deaths, his weapons and supplies were stolen during an ambush, they retreated on November 22nd, and the Jewish rebels chased and killed many of them over the next five days. The Jewish temple leaders knew that a full-scale Roman revenge was inevitable. So they “got together in great numbers in the temple, and appointed a great many generals for the war.” Here’s a list of the territories they were to oversee in preparation for war with Rome (Wars 2.20.3-4): 1. Joseph, the son of Gorion (Governor of Jerusalem) 2. Ananus, the high priest (Governor of Jerusalem) 3. Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests (Idumaea) 4. Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest (Idumaea) 5. Niger, the then governor of Idumea (Idumaea) 6. Joseph, the son of Simon (Jericho) 7. Manasseh (Perea) 8. John, the Esscue (toparchy of Thamna; “Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus”) 9. John, the son of Matthias (toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene) 10. Josephus, the son of Matthias (both the Galilees; “Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command”) The three generals who were killed by the Zealots in fulfillment of Daniel 7:8, 20, 24 were [1] Ananus ben Ananus [2] Niger of Perea, and [3] Joseph ben Gorion. Their deaths are recorded in Wars 4.5.2 and Wars 4.6.1. How did these horns make war with the Lamb? In a nutshell, Jesus made war against the harlot/great city, Jerusalem, and He used the Roman army as His instrument (see Matthew 22:7). The Zealots and those who were aligned with them fought desperately to maintain power over Jerusalem and to gain independence for Israel. This question is addressed further here. How did they turn on the harlot, make her desolate, eat her flesh, and burn her with fire? They were assigned to Idumea, Jericho, Perea, Galilee, Jerusalem, etc. During the Jewish-Roman War, Jerusalem became more and more isolated as Rome captured Galilee, Perea, and other places. Many people made their way to Jerusalem, and presumably these generals did the same. Josephus, of course, was captured. We already saw the quote from Wars 5.1.1 where Josephus described “the sedition” in Jerusalem, and the civil war between the Zealot factions, as “a wild beast grown mad, which, for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.” Josephus also repeatedly blamed the Jews, especially the Zealots, for the fire that burned Jerusalem and the temple. In Wars 6.4.5 he said, “[T]hese flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them.” In Wars 6.6.2 he records a speech given by Titus in which he said to the Zealots, “You…have set fire to your holy house with your own hands.” Josephus made similar statements in Wars 5.4.4, Wars 6.2.9, and other places. ….

Vespasian and Constantine

by Damien F. Mackey Constantine was a Flavian just like Vespasian was, Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Parallel Lives Having detected some fairly striking parallels between the ancient historians: Josephus and Eusebius (1) Josephus and Eusebius let us see now how well may compare the emperors whom they so faithfully served and admired, Vespasian in the case of Josephus, and Constantine in the case of Eusebius. For Constantine, here, I am simply (for the main part) taking my information from Wikipedia’s account of him, in its article “Constantine the Great”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great and then comparing this with the life of Vespasian, taken mainly from UNRV.com. Name and religious tolerance Constantine I … (Latin: Flavius Valerius Constantinus … also known as Constantine the Great, was …the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. …. My comment: Well, well, well, Constantine was a Flavian just like Vespasian was, Titus Flavius Vespasianus. I learned that only today (21st January, 2025). https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15379a.htm Still more important to the subsequent progress of civilization was the period of tranquility for the infant Church which began in [Vespasian’s] reign. The official classes of Rome then regarded the Christians vaguely as a Jewish sect, and as such the latter was subject to the impost of half a shekel for rebuilding the Capitoline temple, which had been destroyed when Rome was stormed for Vespasian; but this tax does not seem to have been the occasion of any general harsh treatment. Tertullian (Apologia) and Eusebius (Church History) agree in acquitting Vespasian of persecution. Military career (Including Britannia) …. Constantine was the son of Flavius Constantius, a Roman army officer …. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6751#acrefore-9780199381135-e-6751 [Vespasian’s] father, Flavius Sabinus … was a tax-gatherer …. …. Constantine served with distinction under the Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius. He began his career by campaigning in the eastern provinces (against the Persians) before being recalled in the west … to fight alongside his father in the province of Britannia. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Though much of the details of Vespasian's youth are unknown, it is widely accepted that his path followed the cursus honorum, and therefore a direct line into the Senate. By the reign of Caligula, Vespasian had been a Military Tribune, a Quaestor, an Aedile and a Praetor, in which capacity he impressed Caligula by calling for games to honor his 'victories' in Germania. …. When Claudius looked to Britannia for imperial expansion, Vespasian, with his imperial ties, became a natural choice as a Legate in the campaign. He was first sent to Argentoratum along the Rhine to take command of Legio II Augusta, which was to be one of four Roman legions making the crossing to Britain. Proclaimed emperor …. After his father's death … Constantine was proclaimed as augustus (emperor) by his army at Eboracum (York, England). He eventually emerged victorious in the civil wars against emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire …. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php On 22 December 69 AD, Vespasian was afforded full imperial honors, matching those of the predeceasing Julio-Claudians. Governmental reform (gold coins) Upon his ascension, Constantine enacted numerous reforms to strengthen the empire. He restructured the government, separating civil and military authorities. To combat inflation, he introduced the solidus, a new gold coin that became the standard for Byzantine and European currencies for more than a thousand years. Vespasian likewise produced gold coins. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Immediately upon his Senatorial confirmation as 'Emperor' in December of 69 AD, Vespasian moved with extreme purpose on several fronts, but perhaps none more so than to legitimize his reign. …. With a strong presence, Vespasian could not only restore Roman glory, but secure his position from the pitfalls of recent imperial rivals. Though he risked angering supporters and the Senate alike, Vespasian clearly marked his eldest son, Titus, as his heir, making him a partner in administrative affairs and naming him Caesar in 71 AD. This designation (marking the first use of the name "Caesar" clearly as a title) angered the Senate, who certainly wished to avoid the Caligulas and Neros of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but they had little choice in the matter. Additionally, Vespasian openly promoted various omens that predicted his rise, assuming the Consulship on several occasions. He also tied his own legitimacy to the Julio-Claudians through Claudius, by erecting a temple in his honor on the Caelian Hill. While Vespasian undertook several building projects, none are as noteworthy as the Flavian Ampitheatre. The Colosseum, so named for the nearby Colossus of Nero, was not only a grand legacy to the culture of Roman 'bread and circuses', but was intended as a showcased gift from the Flavians to the Roman people. Reforming the army The Roman army was reorganised to consist of mobile units (comitatenses), often around the Emperor, to serve on campaigns against external enemies or Roman rebels, and frontier-garrison troops (limitanei) which were capable of countering barbarian raids, but less and less capable, over time, of countering full-scale barbarian invasions. Constantine pursued successful campaigns against the tribes on the Roman frontiers—such as the Franks, the Alemanni, the Goths, and the Sarmatians—and resettled territories abandoned by his predecessors during the Crisis of the Third Century with citizens of Roman culture. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Perhaps Vespasian's greatest contribution was the reformation of the Roman army. It was not a reformation in the sense of massive change, but in restoring its sense of imperial loyalty. (After Vespasian, the legions would remain relatively loyal to the reigning emperor until the death of Commodus some 120 years later). He did punish Vitellius' men by dismissing many from service, but for the most part left the legions intact from their previous positions. In Britannia, more northern territory was brought under Roman rule, and there were considerable pacification efforts in the Rhine and Danube regions. He increased the number of legions in the east, in part to help Titus finish the capitulation of Judaea, and to stop 'barbaric' invasions into Cappadocia. Admirers Eusebius and Flavius Josephus Constantine was a ruler of major importance and has always been a controversial figure.[7] The fluctuations in his reputation reflect the nature of the ancient sources for his reign. These are abundant and detailed,[8] but they have been strongly influenced by the official propaganda of the period[9] and are often one-sided;[10] no contemporaneous histories or biographies dealing with his life and rule have survived.[11] The nearest replacement is Eusebius's Vita Constantini—a mixture of eulogy and hagiography[12] written between 335 and c. 339[13]—that extols Constantine's moral and religious virtues.[14] The Vita creates a contentiously positive image of Constantine,[15] and modern historians have frequently challenged its reliability.[16] The fullest secular life of Constantine is the anonymous Origo Constantini,[17] a work of uncertain date[18] which focuses on military and political events to the neglect of cultural and religious matters.[19] https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Flavius Josephus, the great Jewish historian, was originally a Roman captive following Vespasian's campaigns in Judaea. He eventually became such an ardent supporter of Vespasian and Titus that he took the name 'Flavius' in their honor. Alexandria (Egypt) https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-25/ Following the Council of Nicaea, the emperor sent a letter to the congregation in Alexandria proclaiming what had been decreed at the council. He declares that Arius and his heresy had been rejected and urges the Alexandrians to renounce any adherence or favor towards Arianism and to accept wholeheartedly the Nicene Council’s decrees. Constantine adds that he will soon visit Alexandria personally and rejoice with them on account of the victory over heresy. …. https://www.sullacoins.com/post/vespasian-in-alexandria#:~:text=Vespasian%20was%20in%20Alexandria%20in,in%20Rome%20when%20h Vespasian was in Alexandria in the Fall of 70 and returned home to Rome … October.

Josephus and Eusebius

by Damien F. Mackey Eusebius used Josephus’ works extensively as a source for his Historia Ecclesiastica. Parallel Lives Amongst my various historical identifications for the patriarch Joseph is Den: Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’ (2) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water' Joseph, son of Jacob, must thus have been, unlike Moses, a veritable Pharaoh. Moses, for his part, was Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt, but the ruler still had the power of life and death over him: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (3) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty Now, Den’s various names are most instructive for Joseph: - He was Usaphais (Manetho), that is Yusef/Yosef, Joseph. - He was Khasti, “foreigner”. - He was Den (Udimu), “he who brings water”. In other words, he was Joseph, the Foreigner, who Brings Water (to a Parched Egypt). Think, for instance, of the Bahr Yusef canal, still flowing today. Now, Manetho’s Greek name for Joseph, Usaphais, reminds me of the name Eusebius. - And that is my first comparison between Josephus and Eusebius, the like names. - The second comparison is that Josephus and Eusebius hailed from Palestine. Josephus is thought to have been raised in Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus While the precise origins of Eusebius are unknown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius “Most scholars date the birth of Eusebius to some point between AD 260 and 265.[10][13] …. Nothing is known about his parents”. “He was most likely born in or around Caesarea Maritima.[10][14]” - My third comparison is that Josephus and Eusebius greatly admired, and became attached to, a victorious emperor - Josephus famously in the case of Vespasian, even to adopting the name Flavius, and Eusebius in the case of Constantine. - My fourth comparison is the contiguity of their historical writings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus “Eusebius, who used Josephus’ works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica”. - Finally (so far), my fifth comparison concerns the famous reference in Josephus to Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavium. Ken Olson, for instance, thinks that Eusebius actually wrote it: https://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html Tuesday, August 13, 2013 The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - Olson …. Some years ago, I wrote a paper (“Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” 1999) in which I argued that Eusebius, the fourth century Bishop of Caesarea who is the first person to quote the passage, was its actual author. There are striking parallels in both language and content between the Testimonium and Eusebius’ works. In particular, I was skeptical about the method employed in John Meier’s well-known reconstruction from A Marginal Jew (1991) that distinguishes between a Josephan “core” text and three “Christian interpolations.” Meier’s linguistic analysis is premised on the assumption that an early Christian writer would have followed the language of the New Testament when writing about Jesus. I was certain that Eusebius does not do this and don’t know of any early Christian authors who did. Meier, in fact, does not claim that his linguistic analysis consistently finds Josephan language in the “core text” and New Testament language in the “Christian interpolations.” He acknowledges that some examples go the other way, and that his main argument is from content (see the end of note n. 42 p.83) The theory of Eusebian authorship has been criticized by James Carleton Paget (2001) and dismissed by Alice Whealey (2007), but has now also been advocated by Louis Feldman. In his 2012 review article on the Testimonium, Feldman comes to the conclusion that Eusebius is likely to be the author of the extant text: “In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.” (p. 28). More recently, I’ve published another paper, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum,” in which I’ve tried to bring out more clearly what the text means in the context of Eusebius work and what his purpose was in writing it. In this post, I’ll try to make clear why I am skeptical toward common scholarly claims about what an early Christian writer would or would not have written in a brief passage about Jesus. Here is my own translation of the Testimonium (I’ve placed the three sections considered to be Christian interpolations by Meier and others in italics and adapted it a bit to make the discussion of Robert Van Voorst’s comments which follow comprehensible): About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a worker of amazing deeds, a teacher of human beings who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over both many Jews and also many from the Gentiles. This one was the Christ. And although, on the accusation of the first men among us, Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who first loved [or “adhered”] did not cease, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets had spoken these and myriads of other wonders about him. And still to this day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not failed. In Jesus Outside the New Testament, Robert Van Voorst draws together six arguments from internal evidence that scholars have commonly given in support of the theory that the text of the Testimonium has an authentic Josephan core. I’ve chosen to use Van Voorst here because I think, with the possible exception of his fifth point, he has given a reasonably good representation of the common scholarly arguments. 1) The passage calls Jesus a “wise man,” which while complimentary is not what one might expect a Christian interpolation to say, because the label was not at all a common Christian one. 2) That Jesus is said to have been a “worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) may be a positive statement, but the wording is not likely to come from a Christian. The phrase “amazing deeds” is itself ambiguous; it can also be translated “startling/controversial deeds,” and the whole sentence can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker. 3) According to the passage, Jesus was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure.” Christian writers generally avoid a positive use of the word “pleasure” (hēdonē), with its connotation of Hedonism. 4) The statement that Jesus won over “both Jews and Greeks” represents a misunderstanding perhaps found among non-Christians like Lucian. However, anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus did not win over “many Greeks” to his movement, even though “Greeks” here means Gentiles. 5) The sentence “Those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]” is characteristically Josephan in style, and points to the continuance of Christianity after the death of its founder. It implies that the love of Jesus’ followers for him, not Jesus’ resurrection appearances to them, was the basis for Christianity’s continuance. 6) Calling Christians a “tribe” (phylon) would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow particularistic implications of the word. [All quoted from Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000) pp. 89-90]. Every one of the six premises Van Voorst gives is wrong. Or, rather, they would be wrong except that the qualified way they are stated (in terms of what is usual, general or common) allows them to accommodate an unspecified number of exceptions. But if such exceptions are made, the reasons lose their force. Eusebius of Caesarea is an exception to each case. 1) Eusebius calls Jesus (identified as “our Savior and Lord”) a wise man (sophos anēr) in the Prophetic Eclogues (PG 22, 1129), which shows at least he has no aversion to applying the term to Christ. In the particular context of the Testimonium, however, Eusebius is most probably responding to pagan claims made by the philosopher Porphyry and the oracles of Apollo and Hecate that Jesus was a “wise man” who had mistakenly been taken to be a god by the Christians. The Christian response to this, as found also in Augustine’s City of God 19.23 and Lactantius’ Divine Institutes 4.13.11-17 was to allow that the oracles may have spoken the truth insofar as saying that Christ was a wise man, but to insist that he was far more than that. 2) The wording “worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) is found only in the Testimonium in the works of Josephus, but occurs several times elsewhere in Eusebius works to describe Christ or God. The claim that the phrase is “ambiguous” points to a larger problem of interpretation. The phrase “worker of amazing deeds” might sound ambiguous to modern interpreters who imagine it coming from the non-Christian Jew Josephus. But the same interpreters probably would not find the phrase so ambiguous when Eusebius applies it to the Logos of God in the Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23 or to God in the Life of Constantine 1.18.2. Eusebius certainly did not avoid using the term out of fear that it could be misinterpreted (is there even such a thing as language that can’t be misinterpreted?). The same argument applies to those scholars who edit out the most obviously Christian parts of the Testimonium and find the remainder “too restrained” to be the work of a Christian. The fact that a Christian uses the language to describe Christ elsewhere shows that it’s not “too restrained” for a Christian to use to describe Christ. 3) Eusebius, like other Greek writers, recognized both good and bad forms of pleasure. He praises Christian Martyrs who received death with pleasure in the Martyrs of Palestine 6.6 and In Praise of Constantine 17.11 and describes the happy state of the righteous in the afterlife who rejoice in pleasure in the divine presence in his comment on Psalm 67 (PG 23, 684). Additionally, the term “teacher of human beings” (didaskalos anthrōpōn, with the peculiar placement of the recipients of the teaching in the genitive) is not found in Josephus’ works outside the Testimonium, but is used to describe Christ elsewhere in Eusebius’ Demonstratio (3.6.27; 9.11.3). The theme that the Christ was sent into the world to teach the truth about the One God to all human beings willing to receive it is the central point in Eusebius’ theology of the incarnation (see especially Praeperatio Evangelica 1.1.6-8). Previously Christ, the Logos of God, had taught this truth, consisting of the knowledge of the One God and reverence for him alone, among the pre-Mosaic Hebrew nation. Later, through Moses and the prophets, the Logos had also taught their descendants the Jews about the One God, but his teaching was in the form of the types and symbols of the Mosaic law, which most of them were able to understand only in the material, rather than the spiritual, sense. Finally, as the prophets foretold, Christ became incarnate as the man Jesus to re-teach the earlier true religion to all nations (for a concise discussion of Eusebius’ Christology, see Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon 2nd edition 2010, 1-24, especially 10-11). 4) Van Voorst’s claim concerning “anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition” seems to presuppose that all ancient Christians read the Gospels the way modern historical critics do. In fact, in many cases there was a tendency for later Christians to increase Jesus’ contact with Gentiles during his ministry (see Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 1909, 344-345). In the Demonstratio, Eusebius says that the fact that Jesus brought under his power myriads of both Jews and Gentiles can be established both from the witness of his disciples and apart from it (3.5.109), that he freed all who came to him from the polytheistic error (4.10.14), and that he revealed the power of his divinity to all equally whether Greeks or Jews (8.2.109). In retelling the story of King Abgar in the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that Jesus miraculous’ powers became so well known that myriads from foreign lands far remote from Judea were led to him seeking healing (1.13.1). To be sure, Eusebius also says that Jesus sent his disciples to all the nations after his resurrection, but this does not negate what he says about Jesus himself attracting Gentiles during his ministry. 5) Van Voorst’s claim that the sentence is characteristically Josephan is unusual in scholarship on the issue and is not discussed further or footnoted. Most commentators have found the fact that it is not clearly stated what Jesus adherents ceased to do, but leaves the reader to infer it from context, is unusual in Josephus. (To be fair, it’s probably unusual in most writers, including Eusebius). Van Voorst’s second claim that the passage makes the love of Jesus followers rather than Jesus’ resurrection appearances the reason for the continuation of his following is based on an incomplete reading of the text that sets up a false dichotomy. The Testimonium explicitly gives Jesus’ resurrection appearance as the reason for his followers not ceasing in their “love” (or “adherence”). This is a Eusebian argument. Eusebius elsewhere ranks Christ’s desire to give his followers visual proof of life after death so that they would continue in and spread his teaching as one of the major reasons for the resurrection (Demonstratio 4.12). 6) As Van Voorst himself notes (p. 90 n. 39): ‘the exception that proves the rule is Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.3, “the Christian tribe.”’ In fact, Eusebius uses ethnic terms (including genos, laos and ethnos) and concepts in describing Christianity (see especially the discussion in Aaron Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeperatio Evangelica, 2006). In summary, the six arguments against Christian authorship of some elements of the Testimonium that Van Voorst has culled from the scholarly literature do not hold with respect to Eusebius. At the very least, this should remind us to be wary of arguments from authority. The fact that one or more scholars has endorsed a particular argument does not mean it is sound. Even if one were to reject the overall conclusion that Eusebius wrote the text, it would not change the fact that these six arguments are based on false premises about what a Christian writer would or would not have written. Arguments about what a generic Christian writer is likely to have done always need to be checked against the actual practices of real Christian authors. ….

Jumpin’ Ji-had!

“The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty percent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 percent Muslim…. Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.” Robert Spencer Robert Spencer, a clear and incisive speaker with a better-than-most understanding of Islam, has written some controversial books, such as this one, “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDeXrbqHeDk The following is taken from a 2018 review of another of his books: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/11/21/a-review-of-the-history-of-jihad-by-robert-spencer/ A Review of The History of Jihad. By Robert Spencer. Posted onNov 21, 2018 Bombardier Books, 2018. Robert Spencer is a leading authority on Islam and the challenges and risks it poses to the free West – and the rest of the world. He has written numerous important volumes on Islam, creeping sharia, and Muslim terrorism. In his newest book he offers us a panoramic view of 14 centuries of Islamic bloodshed and killing. As he says in the introduction to his book: There is no period since the beginning of Islam that was characterized by large-scale peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. There was no time when mainstream and dominant Islamic authorities taught the equality of non-Muslims with Muslims, or the obsolescence of jihad warfare. There was no Era of Good Feeling, no Golden Age of Tolerance, no Paradise of Proto-Multiculturalism. There has always been, with virtually no interruption, jihad. Strong claims. But Spencer spends 400 pages documenting this in great detail. And all this is due to the life and teachings of Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the sira. Indeed, both of the major schools of Islam, Sunni and Shi’ite, fully affirm the need to kill the infidel if they refuse to convert or be subjugated. Islamic terror goes back to day one of Islam. As Muhammad said on his deathbed: “I have been made victorious with terror.” Spencer remarks, “It was a fitting summation of his entire public career.” Thus the first chapter of this vital book looks carefully at the role jihad played in the life of Islam’s founder. It is not a pretty read. Damien Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that Robert Spencer has, in his book, “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?”, queried the very historical existence of Mohammed, writing, there is "considerable reason to question the historicity of Muhammad." I, myself, have zero belief in the historical reality of Mohammed who was, as I have argued, a fictitious composite. See my various articles on the subject, including: Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed (5) Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed Robert Spencer continues: And since Muhammad is regarded as the perfect example for all Muslims to follow, his bloodthirsty ways were carefully emulated by his devout adherents ever since. Spreading the faith by the edge of the sword was forever to be standard Muslim practice. Thus by the end of the seventh century, just decades after Muhammad’s death, authoritarian Muslim control extended from North Africa to Central Asia. And the spread of Islam continued apace over the next few centuries. The conquest of Spain and India followed, and the body count continued to mount up. Damien Mackey’s comment: Some of the supposed ‘history’ that follows, needs to be, I think, subjected to some serious forensic scrutiny. Robert Spencer continues: So too did slavery, destruction, bloodshed and dhimmitude. The gory details of ruthless Islamic oppression in these and other regions are carefully related by Spencer, usually relying on accounts written during the time. And the many stories of the enslavement and persecution and pogroms against Christians and Jews make up a big part of all this. While the phrase ‘streets running with rivers of blood’ may involve some poetic license, more than once we read of this being the outcome of Islamic slaughter and carnage. For example, Spencer cites historian Steven Runciman regarding the fall of Constantinople in May of 1453: The Muslims “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.” Or consider one contemporary Muslim account of the jihad against Hindus in India in the 14th century. Some 100,000 men had taken refuge on an island along with their families. The Muslims transformed “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers…. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service at the house of every soldier.” The Islamic warlord Tamerlane, who actually penned an autobiography, spoke of his dilemma as to what to do with a large horde of Hindu prisoners. He went with an easy option, saying this: “One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.” Moving to more recent times, consider the treatment of the Christian Armenians. Late in 1894 a massacre lasting 24 days wiped out 25 villages. People were burned alive, and pregnant women were ripped open and their babies torn to pieces. But much worse was to come. The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty percent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 percent Muslim…. Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.” He also looks at the Islamic war against Israel. He recounts how the Soviet KGB invented the fiction of the Palestinian people (there long had been a region known by the name of Palestine, but never a people or an ethnicity). The Soviets also helped to form the PLO and carefully mentored Arafat to do their bidding. Spencer quotes a PLO leader who said in 1977, “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state was only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.” He also discusses the formation of Hamas in 1988 and its determination to wipe Israel off the map. He brings things right up to date, looking at Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and September 11. And he reminds us how harmful policies of appeasement and Islamophilia have been in the West. For example, the Catholic church which was once on “the forefront of resistance to the jihad for centuries” has begun to cave, especially under the current Pope, who has become an avid defender of Islam and the Qur’an. And of course leaders like Obama were committed to being apologists for Islam, seeking to advance their cause at home and abroad. Thankfully today much of this is being turned around. As Spencer reminds us, “at its height, the Islamic State controlled a territory larger than Great Britain… [But] within a year of the beginning of the Trump presidency, the Islamic State had lost ninety-eight percent of its territory.” All up this book makes for sickening and gruesome reading. Here we have example after example of 1400 years of bloodshed, murder, rape, pillaging, enslavement and terror – all proudly and decidedly done in the name of Islam. The simple truth is this: the history of Islam is the history of jihad. When Muslim jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” mow down innocent men, women and children on the streets and sidewalks of Nice or London, or stab them to death in Brussels or Melbourne, they are simply doing what Islam has always done. Their acts of terrorism are simply a continuation of what Muhammad began, and what has always been the MO of the political ideology known as Islam. We all owe Robert Spencer a debt of gratitude for bringing together in one volume this stomach-turning but necessary story of what Islam really is all about. Just as there were countless “useful idiots” who promoted and made excuses for godless, totalitarian communism, so too there are also plenty of apologists for, and clueless defenders of, the deadly political ideology of Islam. Hopefully this book will help to change that to some extent.

Jimmy Carter carried off with John Lennon’s empty sky song

by Damien F. Mackey “Imagine is not just sentimental waffle. It is dangerous sentimental waffle. It asks nothing from us. The song allows us to feel morally superior while doing absolutely nothing. Nobody sensible believes any of it. We get to imagine a world of harmony with others where we don’t have to change”. Michael Jensen Some decades ago I perchanced to walk in to a concelebrated (five priests at the altar) Requiem Mass for a deceased nun at St. Patrick’s, Sydney. The Mass concluded with the popular John Lennon song, “Imagine”, which I had always considered to be an atheistic anthem, “no heaven”, “no hell”, “no religion”, hence, presumably, no God. Now I began to wonder if I had heard the lyrics correctly. Perhaps I was missing out on something. Well, if the reverend Michael Jensen is correct, in his article for The Daily Telegraph (January 14, 2025, Opinion 13), “Carter was a good man, but Imagine was an awful song”, my first instincts about John Lennon’s son were perfectly correct. Here is what Michael Jensen, the rector at St. Mark’s Anglican Church, Darling Point, has written about it: I admire former President Jimmy Carter as a man who exemplified what it is to be a follower of Jesus. He gave himself in humble service. He taught Sunday school until well into his 90’s. But I have to say I was completely flummoxed by the choice of John Lennon’s Imagine as one of the “hymns” for his funeral service in Washington’s National Cathedral. According to some reports, it was Carter’s own choice. It’s a weird choice for the overt believer Carter was. Imagine is a song of yearning for a world without religion and an afterlife. It is not quite an atheist fantasy, but it is close. It’s sadly become a staple of secular seasonal singalongs for when we’ve run out of songs about reindeer and obese guys dressed in red. But that’s not what gets up my nose about Imagine. Imagine is not just sentimental waffle. It is dangerous sentimental waffle. It asks nothing from us. The song allows us to feel morally superior while doing absolutely nothing. Nobody sensible believes any of it. We get to imagine a world of harmony with others where we don’t have to change. We get to imagine a world of no consequences. Certainly, you don’t see people singing the song and then giving up the idea of national borders or giving away all their possessions. John Lennon himself didn’t believe it. He was a man who mocked disabled people, mistreated his wives, neglected his son, and had an airconditioning system for his fur coats in his vast apartment in New York. Imagine no possessions? Yeah, right. Easy if you try. Living life in peace? He couldn’t even keep four guys from Liverpool together. [End of quote] The Beatles featured the infamous British arch-Satanist, Aleister Crowley (d. 1947), “the wickedest man in the world”, on the cover of their Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album, and there are rumours that John Lennon himself had dedicated his soul to the devil in order to achieve serious fame and success. Crowleyism was a huge fad at the time, as David Bowie has pointed out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX0ZVQhEnEc Michael Jensen concludes his article: Taken literally, Imagine is the kind of insipid vision for world peace that leads to totalitarian mass murder At the time Lennon was writing this hymn to an empty sky, the authoritarian atheistic regimes of the left in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and China held millions of people under the jackboot in the name of ‘the brotherhood of man’ [a quote from Imagine]. It was obvious even in 1970 that Communism was the kind of guff only a Western intellectual would think was a good idea. That’s not to say that military dictatorships, rampant unchecked capitalism, colonialism and theocracies don’t also have blood on their hands. But the real flaw in Imagine I that it confuses a political problem with a spiritual one. It is ludicrous to suppose that if we just change political structures, we’ll live in peace and harmony. What we need to imagine is a world in which we ourselves are changed. We don’t do this by imagining God into non-existence, but by turning to him – as Jimmy Carter himself would no doubt have agreed.

CIA not Merry about Christmas and quite Mangey about Mangers

You can no longer say merry Christmas in any office space. You cannot have a manger scene on your desk or on your door or you will face administrative penalties. CIA “CIA: anyone uses the phrase “Merry Christmas” faces punishment CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS Ex- CIA Officer says the Director of The CIA made a new policy that if anyone used the phrase “Merry Christmas” they would face punishments. 1:35 Instagram An ex-CIA agent on how the CIA views ... An ex-CIA agent on how the CIA views Christianity... 316K views2 weeks ago Candace Owens 0:22 ... the CIA uh you can no longer say merry merry Christmas in any CI office space you cannot have a manger scene on desk or on ... Also exposes Barack Obama was behind eliminating religious freedom from the Department of State “When I was in The CIA. We ordered into a conference room — This comes down from the Director of The CIA. You can no longer say merry Christmas in any office space. You cannot have a manger scene on your desk or on your door or you will face administrative penalties.” “The CIA was actively against Christians, and they used DEI as a method to suppress them” “Going back to Obama, how they attacked Christians and eliminated the religious freedom post at the Department of State” THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM AN EX- CIA OFFICER.

Jordan Peterson’s alternative to the World Economic Forum

“Why is this a problem? Why should you care? Well, the saviours at Deloitte admit that there will be a short-term cost to implementing their cure (net-zero emissions by 2050, an utterly preposterous and inexcusable goal, both practically and conceptually). This, by the way, is a goal identical to that adopted last week by the delusional leaders of Australia, which additionally committed that resource-dependent-and-productive country to an over 40 per cent decrease by 2005 standards in "greenhouse gas emission" within the impossible timeframe of eight years. This will devastate Australia”. Jordan Peterson https://thedeepdive.ca/jordan-peterson-proposes-alternative-to-world-economic-forum-will-he-be-the-new-klaus-schwab/ The worldwide group, according to Peterson, will be based in London, with the first meeting scheduled for the fall. He didn’t say anything about the group’s name or who will be involved. Peterson went on to say that the consortium will be founded on questions rather than solutions, one of which would be bringing the most energy and resources to the most people at the lowest possible cost. “You don’t get to save the planet by making energy prices so expensive that no one poor can afford them. That’s off the table,” he said. “You don’t get to impose your utopian vision in the service of your narcissism on the poor.” Another dilemma is how to prioritize human well-being “in harmony with nature,” with the caveat that it should not be “predicated on the idea that there are too many goddamn mouths to feed and that you’re evil if you just think about having children.” Other issues the consortium hopes to address, he says, are “how do we arrange systems of governance” without a top-down approach like the WEF and how to promote long-term monogamous child-centred families. “Some spirit is going to guide you – that’s life. The question is, what is the highest spirit that could guide you?” Peterson said. The psychologist’s proposal garnered mixed reactions from online observers, with some noting that another global organization is not a solution to the prevalence of such influential groups. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/peddlers-environmental-doom-have-shown-true-totalitarian-colours/ Jordan Peterson Deloitte is the largest “professional services network” in the world. Headquartered in London, it is also one of the big four global accounting companies, offering audit, consulting, risk advisory, tax and legal services to corporate clients. With a third of a million professionals operating on those fronts worldwide, and as the third-largest privately owned company in the US, Deloitte is a behemoth with numerous and far-reaching tentacles. In short: it is an entity we should all know about, not least because such enterprises no longer limit themselves to their proper bailiwick (profit-centred business strategising, say), but – consciously or not – have assumed the role as councillors to believers in unchecked globalisation whose policies have sparked considerable unrest around the world. If you’re seeking the cause of the Dutch agriculture and fisheries protests, the Canadian trucker convoy, the yellow-jackets in France, the farmer rebellion in India a few years ago, the recent catastrophic collapse of Sri Lanka, or the energy crisis in Europe and Australia, you can instruct yourself by the recent pronouncements from Deloitte. Whilst not directly responsible, they offer an insight into the elite groupthink that has triggered these events; into the cabal of utopians operating in the media, corporate and government fronts, wielding a nightmarish vision of environmental apocalypse. Outlandish claims In May this year, Deloitte released a clarion call to precipitous action trumpeting the climate emergency confronting us. Called ‘The Turning Point: A Global Summary’, it is a stellar example of a mentality more common among officials in the EU: one of fundamental bureaucratic overreach (and one which generated Brexit – a very good decision on the part of the Brits, in my view) that threatens the very survival of that selfsame EU. The report opens with two claims: first, that the storms, wildfires, droughts, downpours, and floods around the globe in the last 18 months are unique and unprecedented – a dubious claim – and implicitly that the “science” is now at a point where we can say without doubt that experts can and must model the entire ecology and economy of the planet (!) and that we must modify everyone’s behaviour, by hook or by crook, to avoid what would otherwise be the most expensive environmental and social catastrophe in history. The Deloitte “models” posit that “climate impacts” could affect global economic output, and say that unchecked climate change will cost us $178 trillion over the next 50 years – that’s $25,000 per person, to put it in human terms. Who dares deny such facts, stated so mathematically? So precisely? So scientifically? Let’s update Mark Twain’s famous dictum: there are lies, damned lies, statistics – and computer models. “Computer model” does not mean “data” (and even “data” does not mean “fact”). “Computer model” means, at best, “hypothesis” posing as mathematical fact. No real scientist says “follow the science.” Yet this is exactly what bodies such as the EU consistently pronounce, pushing for collectivist solutions that do more harm than good. Solutions in sovereignty What might we rely on, instead, to guide us forward, in these times of accelerating trouble and possibility? Valid authority rests in the people. Truly valid structures of authority are local, not centralised for reasons of efficiency and “emergency”. This must not become the generation of yet another top-down Tower of Babel. That will not solve our problems, just as similar attempts have failed to solve our problems in the past. Ask yourself: are these Deloitte models – which are supposed to guide all the important decisions we make about the economic security and opportunity of families and the structures of our civil societies – accurate enough even to give those who employ them any edge whatsoever, say, in predicting the performance of a stock portfolio (one based on green energy, for example) over the upcoming years? The answer is no. How do we know? Because if such accurate models existed and were implemented by a company with Deloitte’s resources and reach, Deloitte would soon have all the money. That is never going to happen. The global economy, let alone the environment, is simply too complex to model. It is for this reason, fundamentally, that we have and require a free-market system: the free market is the best model of the environment we can generate. Let me repeat that, with a codicil: not only is the free market the best model of the environment we can generate, it is and will remain the best model that can, in principle, ever be generated (with its widely distributed computations, constituting the totality of the choices of 7 billion people). It simply cannot be improved upon – certainly not by presumptuous power-mad utopians, who think that hiring someone mysteriously manipulating a few carefully chosen numbers and then reading the summarised output means genuine contact with the reality of the future and the generation of knowledge unassailable on both the ethical and the practical front. The impact of delusional thinking Why is this a problem? Why should you care? Well, the saviours at Deloitte admit that there will be a short-term cost to implementing their cure (net-zero emissions by 2050, an utterly preposterous and inexcusable goal, both practically and conceptually). This, by the way, is a goal identical to that adopted last week by the delusional leaders of Australia, which additionally committed that resource-dependent-and-productive country to an over 40 per cent decrease by 2005 standards in "greenhouse gas emission" within the impossible timeframe of eight years. This will devastate Australia. Here is the confession, couched in bureaucratic double-speak, from the Deloitte consultants: "During the initial stages the combined cost of the upfront investments in decarbonization, coupled with the already locked-in damages of climate change would temporarily lower economic activity, compared to the current emissions-intensive path.” The omniscient planners then attempt to justify this, with the standard empty threats and promises (the suffering is certain, the benefits ethereal): “those most exposed to the economic damages of unchecked climate change would also have the most to gain from embracing a low-emissions future.” Really? Tell that to the African and Indian populations in the developing world lifted from poverty by coal and natural gas. And think – really think – about this statement: “Existing industries would be reconstituted as a series of complex, interconnected, emissions-free energy systems: energy, mobility, industry, manufacturing, food and land use, and negative emissions.” That sounds difficult, don’t you think? To rebuild everything at once and better? Without breaking everything? …. Integral Ecology and the Ecological Virtues in Pope Francis’s Laudato Si’ November 29, 2015 by Dr. Matthew J. Ramage, PhD Introduction …. After finishing the encyclical [Laudato Si’], I started to peruse the blogosphere and, unsurprisingly, encountered a wide range of reactions. There were those on the left who cheered the Church for finally having gotten with the times, and accepted the human causes behind climate change. And there were those on the right who dismissed the entire document, moved by their skepticism regarding this same claim. It turns out, however, that the question of climate change holds a minor place within the scope of the encyclical, and it is largely irrelevant to Francis’s overarching message. In other words, the text is not “an encyclical on climate change,” as some have called it. It treats a number of other scientific issues and much, much more besides that. In this piece, what I would like to do is to offer a reflection on what I take to constitute the heart of Francis’s vision for an “integral ecology” and the “ecological virtues” demanded by it. In so doing, I will assuredly touch on certain themes that others have treated, but I also hope to add some nuances that have not been addressed in the various commentaries currently circulating in the blogosphere. Francis’s Vision for an Integral Ecology If there is one theme that runs throughout Francis’s encyclical, it is his repeated insistence that everything in the world is “interconnected” or “interrelated.” This thought is expressed dozens of times throughout the text, and it is probably the most concise way to capture the core conviction undergirding the pontiff’s vision for an “integral ecology.” According to Francis, the problem is that we have forgotten that we ourselves are the dust of the earth. Echoing St. Francis and St. Bonaventure, the pontiff does not shy away from speaking of all creatures as our brothers and sisters. But in invoking this turn of phrase from the Franciscan tradition, Francis is, by no means, denying the uniqueness of man and his place in the cosmos—far from it, as we shall see below. Rather, the thrust behind this expression is to emphasize that the natural environment, and man’s social environment, are really two sides of a single reality in crisis today. This is expressed well in the following paragraph: When we speak of the “environment,” what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature, and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves, or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it, and thus in constant interaction with it. … We are faced, not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis, which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and, at the same time, protecting nature (§139). This paragraph is of paramount importance, especially for some traditionally-minded Catholics who have claimed that the environment is a secondary issue, and that the Pope has more important things he should be talking about. On this score, we should recall that Francis inherited his office from predecessors who thankfully did do a whole lot of talking on the subjects conservative Catholics want to hear about. Francis’s own view on the matter is perhaps best expressed in his first major interview as Pope: We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear, and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.1 Thus, this encyclical, which is not focused on your typical pro-life issues, but on care for mankind’s common home. The irony is that some people get caught up on the climate change question and miss the fact that Laudato Si’ is, in fact, a deeply pro-life encyclical that ought to be applauded by conservatives. Specifically, Francis’s insistence upon environmental issues offers an exceptional backdoor entry into issues concerning human dignity, and what the Church’s social doctrine tradition calls “integral human development.” To be sure, Francis is not simply using environmental issues as a means to talk about thorny social problems, but since we are inextricably connected with the rest of nature, to talk about how to treat the environment is also to talk about ourselves—how convenient! An example of this can be seen in what Francis has to say about cruelty toward animals. While we certainly ought to respect God’s creatures, and see in all of them a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness, Francis emphasizes that the abuse of God’s creation is “contrary to human dignity” (§92; 130; cf. CCC §339; 2418). In other words, regardless of whether Francis is right on every last scientific point in the encyclical, it is, in the first place, bad for us to treat the environment the way we often carelessly do. As in the Catholic moral tradition, so here, it is largely about the habits we are creating in ourselves. Francis wants us to ponder these questions: In a world where people have grown accustomed to disrespecting the natural environment, why should we expect them to respect man’s nature? Or, conversely, in a world where we habitually manipulate our own bodies without any concern for their nature, why should we expect people to respect the nonhuman environment around us? Pro-life Implications of an Integral Ecology To draw out the implications of his integral vision, Francis builds on a little understood concept introduced into Catholic social teaching by Pope John Paul II, and reiterated by Pope Benedict XVI: human ecology (or, if you prefer, ecology of man). In a 2011 address to the parliament of Germany, Benedict pointedly stated: The importance of ecology is no longer disputed. We must listen to the language of nature, and we must answer accordingly. Yet, I would like to underline a point that seems to me to be neglected, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man, too, has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he respects his nature, listens to it, and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled.2 In his social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the emeritus pontiff wrote in a similar vein: There is need for what might be called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is, in fact, closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology” is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one, places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society, and its good relationship with nature … If there is a lack of respect for the right to life, and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation, and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in, not only the environment, but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties toward the environment are linked to our duties toward the human person, considered in himself, and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties, while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society.3 I find this to be a remarkably fresh and brilliant way to discuss pro-life issues today in the public square: We begin by recalling that man is part of nature. And every school kid these days is told he needs to respect nature. But then it must be asked: how can we be expected to respect non-human nature if we do not even respect our own human nature? Francis invokes this argument several times in his encyclical: When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities—to offer just a few examples—it becomes difficult to hear the cry of nature itself; everything is connected (§117). …. https://www.hprweb.com/2015/11/integral-ecology-and-the-ecological-virtues-in-pope-franciss-laudato-si/