analice107:


Cc: Scholar8200, pls answer this.

Would do shortly

While I may not agree with a lot of claims by sir Sarassin, his assertion and quotes from history regarding James, brother of Jesus, as an apostle and later leader of the Church, is largely correct.

Yes, James, Christ’s younger brother, also functioned as an apostle. We do know that a number of other men were later ordained apostles, with one likely filling the position that James (John’s brother, who was martyred in AD 42 by Herod) had held. Note that it was after James was martyred that the twelve (now eleven) went to the lost tribes of Israel—their primary mission (Matthew 10:5-6). It therefore simply means that someone must have taken James place to complete the Original Twelve, before they start their primary assignment.

While it is true that these later apostles were ordained by the Original, it doesn't in anyway means that they are inferior or lower in rank to their predecessor, seeing that the office of an apostle is the highest in the Church of God, and all were directly responsible to Christ alone. As an example of no seniority among apostles, consider Peter who can be considered as the “Chief Coordinator” of the Church during its formative years, how he was confronted openly by Paul, a much later or younger apostle (Galatians 2:11-13).

Now consider the council at the Headquarters Church in Jerusalem, in AD 49, as related in Acts 15. Verse 6 shows the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter of circumcision. Peter led the council in their discussion and the decision was pronounced by James, Christ’s brother (13 & 19), and accepted by all present as the judgment bound on Earth and in heaven.

Just as another example of an apostle after the Original Twelve, in his Church History of Brittany, Cressy writes, “St. Aristobulus [Romans 16:10], a disciple of…St. Paul in Rome, was sent as an Apostle to the Britons, and was the first Bishop in Britain, he died in Glastonbury, A.D. 99.” And speaking of Joseph of Arimathea, also in Britain (said to be the first that planted Christianity in Britain), Cressy wrote “‘Joseph was buried near the little wattle church he built [at Glastonbury].’ The lid of the sarcophagus said to have contained his remains bore the simple inscription: ‘To the Britons I came after I buried the Christ. I taught, I have entered my rest.’”

cc: Scholar8200

Sarassin:


It is simply not possible that Herod Antipas made that statement. By Herod’s own admission he had killed John the Baptist. Now we know for a fact that he killed the Baptist sometime in the year 36CE before he went to war with Aretas and lost in 37CE.

The highlighted needs an evidence! First, we need to understand that Josephus was not an infallible omniscient, and hence could also make mistakes.

Besides, since he was born in AD 37/38, it is reasonable therefore that we go with the history as told by those who were eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2,3 also Luke 8:3) - the disciples, and not based on hearsay (and that from citizens of a nation whose hatred for Jesus and attempts to extirpate His memories was an open secret.)

History as well as Luke 3:1,3 tells us that John started his ministry around AD 29 (15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar) and later on in that chapter showed that Jesus commenced His shortly i.e. 40 days after John baptised Him. (Luke 3:23) Jesus began His ministry age 30 (or 30). Also,Luke and Mark (1:14) agree that Jesus' Ministry commenced shortly before John's incarceration(John 3:24). Paul further shows by Inspiration that John was rounding up his ministry (Acts 13:25) after Jesus came on board. This was also attested by John when he said of Jesus, "He must increase but I must decrease"(his ministry as forerunner was done) Logically, this implies that
1. John's imprisonment occurred around AD 29/30;
2. John was not executed immediately because at a time (Matthew 12) John, while in prison, sent his disciples to Jesus.

Now unless the deaths of the Baptist and Jesus took place in the same year (of which there is no evidence) if you say Jesus outlived John then it means the earliest Jesus died is 37CE in the middle of the Bar Kochba war which is impossible.

Even if the jews attributed herod's defeat to John's execution, that does not mean it took place in a recent time. WHile Jesus ministered, the reverence they had for John (who also had disciples that followed his teachings and were in agreement with the pharisees) was evident Luke 20:6. Hence, the reference to John's death is no sufficient proof that it occurred a year before.

We know also that Paul had experienced his epiphany of Christ before 37CE and headed to Arabia, we know this because he was escaping down walls in baskets from Aretas before, the war broke out. Would Paul have an epiphany of Christ whilst Jesus was still alive?

So, you tell me how Antipas could have ever uttered those words.

Let's start by ironing out:

1. The fact that John started out in AD 29;
2. Evidence/proof that

he killed the Baptist sometime in the year 36CE before he went to war with Aretas and lost in 37CE

and not a year before 36CE.


cc: analice raise your objections.

Splinz:
While I may not agree with a lot of claims by sir Sarassin, his assertion and quotes from history regarding James, brother of Jesus, as an apostle and later leader of the Church, is largely correct.

Yes, James, Christ’s younger brother, also functioned as an apostle. We do know that a number of other men were later ordained apostles, with one likely filling the position that James (John’s brother, who was martyred in AD 42 by Herod) had held. Note that it was after James was martyred that the twelve (now eleven) went to the lost tribes of Israel—their primary mission (Matthew 10:5-6). It therefore simply means that someone must have taken James place to complete the Original Twelve, before they start their primary assignment.

While it is true that these later apostles were ordained by the Original, it doesn't in anyway means that they are inferior or lower in rank to their predecessor, seeing that the office of an apostle is the highest in the Church of God, and all were directly responsible to Christ alone. As an example of no seniority among apostles, consider Peter who can be considered as the “Chief Coordinator” of the Church during its formative years, how he was confronted openly by Paul, a much later or younger apostle (Galatians 2:11-13).

Now consider the council at the Headquarters Church in Jerusalem, in AD 49, as related in Acts 15. Verse 6 shows the apostles and elders gathered to consider the matter of circumcision. Peter led the council in their discussion and the decision was pronounced by James, Christ’s brother (13 & 19), and accepted by all present as the judgment bound on Earth and in heaven.

Just as another example of an apostle after the Original Twelve, in his Church History of Brittany, Cressy writes, “St. Aristobulus [Romans 16:10], a disciple of…St. Paul in Rome, was sent as an Apostle to the Britons, and was the first Bishop in Britain, he died in Glastonbury, A.D. 99.” And speaking of Joseph of Arimathea, also in Britain (said to be the first that planted Christianity in Britain), Cressy wrote “‘Joseph was buried near the little wattle church he built [at Glastonbury].’ The lid of the sarcophagus said to have contained his remains bore the simple inscription: ‘To the Britons I came after I buried the Christ. I taught, I have entered my rest.’”

cc: Scholar8200

Indeed, he might have been ordained by the original Apostles. My grouse is:

1. Making it sound as though he was an Apostle from the start over the first 12;
2. claiming he was Saul's target and Stephen was mentioned when this is not so!;
3. claiming Jesus appointed James (at the time latter did not even believe on Him)!

If he was appointed later on by the Apostles, fine. But fine-tuning history to suit claims of James/Stephen chased by Paul is not acceptable.

Sarassin:

Now you are simply being obdurate. I gave you a number of impeccable historical sources who made it clear that James led the early church. Whether he was appointed to the position or inherited it or whatever, the point is validly made and properly attested that he led the Church in Jerusalem. It is not in doubt.

The bone of contention here is that, at the time of Paul's conversion, there is NO way James was a leader over the Church hence rendering untrue claims that Paul was after one James leader of the Church. His leadership (as appointed by the Apostles) came much later.

Where have I stated that Jesus died in 36CE?

Apologies, it was a quote while making a statement.

The author of Acts is alone in his claim that James did not believe in Jesus. Contemporary sources state otherwise as I have shown. Luke’s claim is clearly mendacious.

And Luke's got company!
John 7:5
For neither did his brethren believe in him

Where did I claim that Stephen was a “nom de guerre” for Paul? You’re putting words into my mouth. I wrote that Luke masked the true event of Saulus attacking James by claiming it was Stephen who was attacked.

And what does nom de guerre mean? It appears you are the one putting words in Luke's mouth. However, you forgot this passage:

20 and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. Acts 22:20 Paul speaking here of the DEATH of Stephen and not injuries to be healed in qumran!

History tells us no such thing. It is only Luke who makes this claim, he is not a witness to the event and it is not attested in any other gospel, sorry, biblical accounts are not historical.

opinion noted.

I have already done so. Do you suppose that even the murderous Saulus was brave enough to attempt the murder of Two prominent Christian figures on the steps of the same temple?

Stephen was one, who is the second?

Scholar8200:


Let's start by ironing out:

1. The fact that John started out in AD 29;
2. Evidence/proof that and not a year before 36CE.


cc: analice raise your objections.

There is no historical evidence that John started his ministry in the year 29CE.

But let’s try to deal with the thorny issue of dating the death of the Baptist. I shall be relying on the historical accounts of Josephus in this instance.

According to Josephus there is an argument between Herod Antipas and King Aretas. Herod illegally married the wife of his step-brother Herodias. Herod had been married to Aretas’ daughter, who then fled home to her father.
By the way this King Aretas is the same one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32 so we know that (a converted) Paul is active at this time.

Josephus states: That the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106) We know that the Baptist was alive at this time because he interpreted a dream to Philip, not that it did him much good, Philip died on the same day.
Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas' daughter, left him.

The death of Tiberius who had instructed his commanders to attack Aretas occurred on 16 march 37CE so we can reasonably state that the battle took place during the winter of the year 36/37. (there is further evidence for this but I won't bore you all)

We know that the Baptist had died before the war broke out. There is only the time window of the fall of 34CE when we know that the Baptist was still alive and the winter of 36CE by which time he would be dead. If we factor in a period of incarceration of John by Herod, it is not unreasonable to assert that he died in 36CE.

quite interesting sarassin.

Scholar8200:
The bone of contention here is that, at the time of Paul's conversion, there is NO way James was a leader over the Church hence rendering untrue claims that Paul was after one James leader of the Church. His leadership (as appointed by the Apostles) came much later.

Fine, pray do tell us then who in your opinion was the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's conversion?

Scholar8200:

And what does nom de guerre mean? It appears you are the one putting words in Luke's mouth. However, you forgot this passage:

20 and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. Acts 22:20 Paul speaking here of the DEATH of Stephen and not injuries to be healed in qumran!

Agreed, this is what the quasi-historical account of Luke states. I am presenting what actual historians recorded. Quoting "Thee's" and "Thines" does not make biblical accounts historically accurate.

Scholar8200:
Stephen was one, who is the second?

Why, James "the Just" of course.

adepeter26:
quite interesting sarassin.

Thank you.

analice107:


I have just one question to ask you here, If Jesus was a Pharisaical Jew, why was he opposed to them from start to finish?

If u allow this guy to drag u through his historical circus he will rubbish u...

There is always an agenda... Ask sailent question, he will soon expose his real deal..


Is like someone trying to proof to you that your father is not your father through historical circus..


Sailent questions and he will tell u when he is heading to.... He will soon get to the point of Jesus is an impostor, and how Paul self imposed what we have now as christianity..

Blackfire:




If u allow this guy to drag u through his historical circus he will rubbish u...

There is always an agenda... Ask sailent question, he will soon expose his real deal..


Is like someone trying to proof to you that your father is not your father through historical circus..


Sailent questions and he will tell u when he is heading to.... He will soon get to the point of Jesus is an impostor, and how Paul self imposed what we have now as christianity..

Which one is 'Sailent' again

Sarassin:


Fine, pray do tell us then who in your opinion was the leader of the early Church in Jerusalem at the time of Paul's conversion?

According to impeccable sources (available on request), the Church in Jerusalem was under the authority of the Apostles i.e the ones that appointed Matthias to fill up Judas' place (interesting that James was not picked even though he was in the upper room see Acts 1) and appointed Stephen and 6 others as deacons. One or two might have been vocal, but you dont find a single person being their head. (what? these were those who directly asked Jesus who the head should be and He corrected that notion).

Agreed, this is what the quasi-historical account of Luke states. I am presenting what actual historians recorded. Quoting "Thee's" and "Thines" does not make biblical accounts historically accurate.

Remember Luke's addressee was a highly placed and knowledgeable royalty (Luke 1:1-2) and not some ignoramus serf! Will he play with political/historical facts then?

Sarassin:


There is no historical evidence that John started his ministry in the year 29CE.

Luke, writing to Theophilus, places the commencement of John's ministry at the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar's reign. Luke 3:1-4. This is 29 CE.

But let’s try to deal with the thorny issue of dating the death of the Baptist. I shall be relying on the historical accounts of Josephus in this instance.

According to Josephus there is an argument between Herod Antipas and King Aretas. Herod illegally married the wife of his step-brother Herodias. Herod had been married to Aretas’ daughter, who then fled home to her father.
By the way this King Aretas is the same one mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32 so we know that (a converted) Paul is active at this time.

Paul was there speaking about his conversion. From records in Galatians, he spent 3 years in Arabia (where Aretas was ruling).

Moreover, Aretas' incursion to take over Damascus took place after the death of Tiberius in 37AD. This implies that Paul's conversion took place before his reign. (he got converted and the same day was asked to go into Damascus Acts 9.) Since Aretas went after Paul in AD 39, and Paul spent 3 years in Damascus, we can infer that Paul was converted in AD 36 not in any way earlier than this.

The foregoing places a question on your claims that:

This of course would be a nonsense because it places Jesus much too close to Paul, whose conversion on the road to Damascus must have happened in one of the years between 28CE and 36CE and in fact closer to the earlier date.

And until proven, changes a number of things.

Herod's battle with Aretas appears to have broken out soon after Herod's first wife, Aretas' daughter, left him.

The death of Tiberius who had instructed his commanders to attack Aretas occurred on 16 march 37CE so we can reasonably state that the battle took place during the winter of the year 36/37. (there is further evidence for this but I won't bore you all)


Josephus states: That the quarrel with Aretas sprang up "about the time" that Herod's brother Philip died in 34 CE (Ant. 18.4.6 106) We know that the Baptist was alive at this time because he interpreted a dream to Philip, not that it did him much good, Philip died on the same day.

Kindly clarify this.
John was imprisoned by Herod.
Herod had snatched Phillip's wife.
Phillip was still allowed to visit Herod's domain (where his wife was) to see John for dream interpretation!
And that at a place where Herod also visited to hear John regularly?

This appears not to relate to the issue at hand but until clarified, it appears to reinforce that John was alive but the scenario needs explanation. Yes John's disciples had access to him at a place near Herod and perhaps under the watch of his soldiers, but for Herod's 'ex-husband - in - law', this is doubtful.

We know that the Baptist had died before the war broke out. There is only the time window of the fall of 34CE when we know that the Baptist was still alive and the winter of 36CE by which time he would be dead. If we factor in a period of incarceration of John by Herod, it is not unreasonable to assert that he died in 36CE.

from your sources, when was John imprisoned? Besides, placing claims of John's death on reports that people said Herod's defeat was as a result of killing John does not automatically mean John was killed in 36CE.

Sarassin:

We are able also to determine the date of the Passover, therefore it is possible to indicate with preciseness independently of biblical sources, the day of the passion of Christ as 16th April 21CE

No sir, I disagree.

Jesus crucifixion occurred on Passover day, the 14th of Abib (or Nisan), the first month in God’s Sacred Calendar. This occurred in the year A.D. 31, in which Passover fell on a Wednesday. Many fail to consider the prophecy that the Messiah would be “cut off…in the midst of the week” (Dan. 9:26-27). Wednesday falls in the middle of the week—the very day upon which Passover fell in A.D. 31. According to the Roman calendar, this date was Wednesday, April 25.

Proofs to Confirm the Year A.D. 31

The Sacred Calendar reveals that Passover occurred on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. By first establishing the day of the week and day of the month of Passover in 1931, we can arrive at the day of the week and day of the month of the Passover in A.D. 31. Precisely 100 19-year time cycles would have elapsed. Following this method helps greatly in computing the difference of elapsed time between the Roman and Sacred calendars during that 1,900-year time span. After this, we can safely calculate the month and week in which Passover fell in A.D. 31.

Various Hebrew calendar software programs calculate when Passover or any other Holy Day fell in almost any year, even before A.D. 31.

The following historical accounts will further validate the evidence presented here.

The Decree of Artaxerxes

In the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, a decree was made to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7). It followed the decree of Cyrus, in which he acknowledged that “the Lord God of heaven” had charged him “to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah” (Ezra 1:2). Artaxerxes’ decree became significant because of a prophecy revealed to Daniel.

Daniel 9:25 states, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times.” This shows that there are 62 weeks + 7 weeks—69 prophetic weeks (or 483 days). Applying the day-for-a-year principle (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6), we arrive at 483 years from the decree until the beginning of Christ’s ministry.

The decree was made during the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign (457 B.C.). This date is historically well documented. By subtracting 457 from 483, we come to the year A.D. 26. When counting from B.C. to A.D., astronomers correctly add one year since there is no year “zero,” while historians and chronologists generally neglect to do this. Adding one year brings us to A.D. 27—the prophesied year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 tells us, “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age…” The context of this verse is after John the Baptist had begun his ministry and just before Jesus began His. Since Jesus was 30 years old in A.D. 27, He would have been born in 4 B.C. Remember, we must add one year to compensate for no year “zero.” Thus, from 4 B.C., advancing 30 years brings us to A.D. 27. This leads us to the next historical proof that further confirms when Jesus was born.

The Time of Herod’s Death

Shortly after Christ’s birth, an angel warned Joseph in a dream that he and his wife Mary were to take the child and flee into Egypt. They stayed there until the death of Herod (Matt. 2:15). Christ was an infant less than one year of age when Herod died.

Matthew 2:16 shows that Herod “slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” Herod knew the child’s approximate age, but went beyond that age to include those up to age two, to make sure that the prophesied Messiah would not escape execution.

To better establish the exact time of Herod’s death, we find in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews a reference to a lunar eclipse. A footnote in the Whiston translation of Josephus states, “This eclipse of the moon (which is the only eclipse mentioned by Josephus) is of greatest consequence for the determination of the time for the death of Herod…and for the birth and entire chronology of Jesus Christ. It happened March 13th, in the year of the Julian period 4710, and the 4th year before the Christian era” (Bk. XVII, ch. vi, sec. 4). According to Josephus, Herod died the following year, 3 B.C.

Soon after Herod’s death, the angel instructed Joseph to return to the land of Israel with Mary and Jesus, who would have been about one year old.

Time of Construction of the Temple

As mentioned, Jesus was 30 years old (Luke 3:23) when He began His ministry in A.D. 27. Now, we will see how the chronology of the temple harmonizes with the chronology of Jesus: “Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign show You unto us, seeing that You do these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will You rear it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body” (John 2:18-21).

This occurred on the first Passover during Christ’s ministry, in A.D. 28. The Jews said that the temple had been under construction for 46 years. By adding one year to compensate for no year “zero,” this means that the temple’s construction began in 19 B.C., the 18th year of Herod’s reign.

In Antiquities, Josephus wrote, “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign… undertook a very great work, that is to build of himself the temple of God…” (Bk. XV, ch. xi, sec. 1). From 19 B.C., we advance 46 years since the beginning of the reconstruction of the temple, arriving at A.D. 28—the first Passover after the beginning of Christ’s ministry.

And so on...

Sir Sarassin, thank you for your efforts, which I want to believe are aimed at establishing the fact that indeed, Jesus walked the earth. Be rest assured that the true Church of God knows its history and can conveniently prove same.

Regards.

Hello Sarassin. You have got mail. Please view.

Sarassin:

Thank you.

Scholar8200:
According to impeccable sources (available on request), the Church in Jerusalem was under the authority of the Apostles i.e the ones that appointed Matthias to fill up Judas' place (interesting that James was not picked even though he was in the upper room see Acts 1) and appointed Stephen and 6 others as deacons. One or two might have been vocal, but you dont find a single person being their head. (what? these were those who directly asked Jesus who the head should be and He corrected that notion).

What impeccable sources? You are still fudging and obfuscating on what is staring you in the face. What is the difficulty in accepting that James led the early Church? I have given you the historical context so I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions.

Scholar8200:

Remember Luke's addressee was a highly placed and knowledgeable royalty (Luke 1:1-2) and not some ignoramus serf! Will he play with political/historical facts then?

Great sense of humour! what political/historical facts?

Scholar8200:
Luke, writing to Theophilus, places the commencement of John's ministry at the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar's reign. Luke 3:1-4. This is 29 CE.

Dr. Luke could not even get the relatively straightforward date of the birth of the Messiah correct.

Scholar8200:


Paul was there speaking about his conversion. From records in Galatians, he spent 3 years in Arabia (where Aretas was ruling).

Moreover, Aretas' incursion to take over Damascus took place after the death of Tiberius in 37AD. This implies that Paul's conversion took place before his reign. (he got converted and the same day was asked to go into Damascus Acts 9.) Since Aretas went after Paul in AD 39, and Paul spent 3 years in Damascus, we can infer that Paul was converted in AD 36 not in any way earlier than this.

I think we are just going around in circles. Here is my last word on the issue, even if we accept the latest conversion date of Paul which you are gerrymandering for obvious reasons as 36CE the problem still remains. We know that the Baptist was alive and kicking in the fall of 34CE and that he was dead by the winter of 36CE

If you insist that Jesus outlived the Baptist that would place his death around the time of the battle between Antipas and Aretas either shortly before or after the battle. I hope you will agree for obvious reasons that this was improbable. There is no indication of this anywhere, not even in the gospels.

It is true that the attribution of Herod’s defeat to Aretas to retribution for the killing of the Baptist is not an indication of the time of his death, but it is far more important. If Jesus of Nazareth outlived the Baptist and was put to death later why then would the outcome of the battle between Herod and Aretas not be attributed to the killing of Jesus who surely was the greater instead of John?

And why oh why would Paul experience his epiphany when Jesus was still alive according to you?

Scholar8200:


Kindly clarify this.
John was imprisoned by Herod.
Herod had snatched Phillip's wife.
Phillip was still allowed to visit Herod's domain (where his wife was) to see John for dream interpretation!
And that at a place where Herod also visited to hear John regularly?

This appears not to relate to the issue at hand but until clarified, it appears to reinforce that John was alive but the scenario needs explanation. Yes John's disciples had access to him at a place near Herod and perhaps under the watch of his soldiers, but for Herod's 'ex-husband - in - law', this is doubtful.

from your sources, when was John imprisoned? Besides, placing claims of John's death on reports that people said Herod's defeat was as a result of killing John does not automatically mean John was killed in 36CE.

Herod illegally married Herodias, who was the wife of his half-brother by another mother. This half-brother was also named Herod, not Philip.

Splinz:


No sir, I disagree.

Jesus crucifixion occurred on Passover day, the 14th of Abib (or Nisan), the first month in God’s Sacred Calendar. This occurred in the year A.D. 31, in which Passover fell on a Wednesday. Many fail to consider the prophecy that the Messiah would be “cut off…in the midst of the week” (Dan. 9:26-27). Wednesday falls in the middle of the week—the very day upon which Passover fell in A.D. 31. According to the Roman calendar, this date was Wednesday, April 25.

Proofs to Confirm the Year A.D. 31

The Sacred Calendar reveals that Passover occurred on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. By first establishing the day of the week and day of the month of Passover in 1931, we can arrive at the day of the week and day of the month of the Passover in A.D. 31. Precisely 100 19-year time cycles would have elapsed. Following this method helps greatly in computing the difference of elapsed time between the Roman and Sacred calendars during that 1,900-year time span. After this, we can safely calculate the month and week in which Passover fell in A.D. 31.

Various Hebrew calendar software programs calculate when Passover or any other Holy Day fell in almost any year, even before A.D. 31.

The following historical accounts will further validate the evidence presented here.

The Decree of Artaxerxes

In the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, a decree was made to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7). It followed the decree of Cyrus, in which he acknowledged that “the Lord God of heaven” had charged him “to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah” (Ezra 1:2). Artaxerxes’ decree became significant because of a prophecy revealed to Daniel.

Daniel 9:25 states, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times.” This shows that there are 62 weeks + 7 weeks—69 prophetic weeks (or 483 days). Applying the day-for-a-year principle (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6), we arrive at 483 years from the decree until the beginning of Christ’s ministry.

The decree was made during the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign (457 B.C.). This date is historically well documented. By subtracting 457 from 483, we come to the year A.D. 26. When counting from B.C. to A.D., astronomers correctly add one year since there is no year “zero,” while historians and chronologists generally neglect to do this. Adding one year brings us to A.D. 27—the prophesied year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 tells us, “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age…” The context of this verse is after John the Baptist had begun his ministry and just before Jesus began His. Since Jesus was 30 years old in A.D. 27, He would have been born in 4 B.C. Remember, we must add one year to compensate for no year “zero.” Thus, from 4 B.C., advancing 30 years brings us to A.D. 27. This leads us to the next historical proof that further confirms when Jesus was born.

The Time of Herod’s Death

Shortly after Christ’s birth, an angel warned Joseph in a dream that he and his wife Mary were to take the child and flee into Egypt. They stayed there until the death of Herod (Matt. 2:15). Christ was an infant less than one year of age when Herod died.

Matthew 2:16 shows that Herod “slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” Herod knew the child’s approximate age, but went beyond that age to include those up to age two, to make sure that the prophesied Messiah would not escape execution.

To better establish the exact time of Herod’s death, we find in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews a reference to a lunar eclipse. A footnote in the Whiston translation of Josephus states, “This eclipse of the moon (which is the only eclipse mentioned by Josephus) is of greatest consequence for the determination of the time for the death of Herod…and for the birth and entire chronology of Jesus Christ. It happened March 13th, in the year of the Julian period 4710, and the 4th year before the Christian era” (Bk. XVII, ch. vi, sec. 4). According to Josephus, Herod died the following year, 3 B.C.

Soon after Herod’s death, the angel instructed Joseph to return to the land of Israel with Mary and Jesus, who would have been about one year old.

Time of Construction of the Temple

As mentioned, Jesus was 30 years old (Luke 3:23) when He began His ministry in A.D. 27. Now, we will see how the chronology of the temple harmonizes with the chronology of Jesus: “Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign show You unto us, seeing that You do these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will You rear it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body” (John 2:18-21).

This occurred on the first Passover during Christ’s ministry, in A.D. 28. The Jews said that the temple had been under construction for 46 years. By adding one year to compensate for no year “zero,” this means that the temple’s construction began in 19 B.C., the 18th year of Herod’s reign.

In Antiquities, Josephus wrote, “And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign… undertook a very great work, that is to build of himself the temple of God…” (Bk. XV, ch. xi, sec. 1). From 19 B.C., we advance 46 years since the beginning of the reconstruction of the temple, arriving at A.D. 28—the first Passover after the beginning of Christ’s ministry.

And so on...

Sir Sarassin, thank you for your efforts, which I want to believe are aimed at establishing the fact that indeed, Jesus walked the earth. Be rest assured that the true Church of God knows its history and can conveniently prove same.

Regards.

Thank you for this great contribution. Needless to say, historically speaking I don't agree with it. As I pointed out in a previous post the Romans did not pussyfoot around when it came to capital crimes and punishment. The trial, conviction and sentencing of Jesus of Nazareth was a fully documented affair, to think otherwise is simply folly. The genuine Acta Pilati provides details of the trial of Jesus, complete with his description and his antecedents, admittedly it is gruesome reading for Christians. My proofs are that early church fathers went out of their way to ensure the thing never saw the light of day until when it was published in 311CE.

Blackfire:




If u allow this guy to drag u through his historical circus he will rubbish u...

There is always an agenda... Ask sailent question, he will soon expose his real deal..


Is like someone trying to proof to you that your father is not your father through historical circus..


Sailent questions and he will tell u when he is heading to.... He will soon get to the point of Jesus is an impostor, and how Paul self imposed what we have now as christianity..

I Know dear, i know.

His Historical sources means more to him than the Biblical sources, My Biblical sources means more to me than his bias historical sources. What we want out of life is what we'll ultimately get
In Life we choose different paths, and those paths leads to destinations whether we believe it or not.

If Jesus were just a character in a book whose power and influence i have not personally felt, then whatever anyone says, i'd give heed, but Jesus is a person, i real living person to me. When in doubt, i ask Him, when in need i call Him, When am weak i ask for strength, When confused i ask for direction, and He has never disappointed me.

We just here chatting, it doesn't go skin deep.

I have sworn allegiance to serve only Jehovah the Father of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who is sovereign over all his realm. All powers in heaven, on earth and beneath the earth belongs to Him. He is the supreme authority, doing according to the counsel of His Will in the armies of heaven and amongst the inhabitants of the earth, and no man can say to Him, 'What are you doing?.

Those who serve Satan, overtly or covertly may or not know that they including their master works according to the immediate plans and purposes of the Most High God.

We shall soon find out, for we all shall stand before the supreme council of heaven to account for the life we lived here on earth. For that, there shall be no escape.

So now that people have vented their religious insecurities perhaps we can return to what I hoped would be a good historical analysis of what we know about Jesus the Christ.

I call it as I see it. Historical sources offer a pure window into the events surrounding the life and death of the Messiah but unfortunately history is no respecter of doctrine. It is quite normal that historical sources who provide a perspective that differs from the accepted orthodoxy will be deemed “biased”or accused of a “hidden agenda”. Yet with the exception of Paul, verifiable Christian historical sources are thin on the ground, Irenaeus tells us that the gospel accounts were attributed to the named authors arbitrarily and there were to be four gospels reflecting the winds of the four corners of the world, so much for Christian sources.

Blackfire:

If u allow this guy to drag u through his historical circus he will rubbish u...

There is always an agenda... Ask sailent question, he will soon expose his real deal..


Is like someone trying to proof to you that your father is not your father through historical circus..


Sailent questions and he will tell u when he is heading to.... He will soon get to the point of Jesus is an impostor, and how Paul self imposed what we have now as christianity..

If you have a salient question to ask feel free to address me directly. No need to hide behind the petticoats of Analice107. Get yourself a boner.

Sarassin:


Thank you for this great contribution. Needless to say, historically speaking I don't agree with it.

Thank you. However, I don't understand what you mean by the bold, seeing that what I have up there is also history, well documented independent of biblical sources, and also verifiable.

If you say 'personally', fine. You've quoted history and I've also done same.

Splinz:


No sir, I disagree.

Jesus crucifixion occurred on Passover day, the 14th of Abib (or Nisan), the first month in God’s Sacred Calendar. This occurred in the year A.D. 31, in which Passover fell on a Wednesday. Many fail to consider the prophecy that the Messiah would be “cut off…in the midst of the week” (Dan. 9:26-27). Wednesday falls in the middle of the week—the very day upon which Passover fell in A.D. 31. According to the Roman calendar, this date was Wednesday, April 25.

Proofs to Confirm the Year A.D. 31

The Sacred Calendar reveals that Passover occurred on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. By first establishing the day of the week and day of the month of Passover in 1931, we can arrive at the day of the week and day of the month of the Passover in A.D. 31. Precisely 100 19-year time cycles would have elapsed. Following this method helps greatly in computing the difference of elapsed time between the Roman and Sacred calendars during that 1,900-year time span. After this, we can safely calculate the month and week in which Passover fell in A.D. 31.

Various Hebrew calendar software programs calculate when Passover or any other Holy Day fell in almost any year, even before A.D. 31.

Your historical analysis falls down on several fronts. I grant that you have rightly shown that the Passover of the year 31CE fell on Wednesday April 25th.

Splinz:

The following historical accounts will further validate the evidence presented here.

The Decree of Artaxerxes

In the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, a decree was made to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7). It followed the decree of Cyrus, in which he acknowledged that “the Lord God of heaven” had charged him “to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah” (Ezra 1:2). Artaxerxes’ decree became significant because of a prophecy revealed to Daniel.

Daniel 9:25 states, “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troubled times.” This shows that there are 62 weeks + 7 weeks—69 prophetic weeks (or 483 days). Applying the day-for-a-year principle (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6), we arrive at 483 years from the decree until the beginning of Christ’s ministry.

The decree was made during the seventh year of Artaxerxes’ reign (457 B.C.). This date is historically well documented. By subtracting 457 from 483, we come to the year A.D. 26. When counting from B.C. to A.D., astronomers correctly add one year since there is no year “zero,” while historians and chronologists generally neglect to do this. Adding one year brings us to A.D. 27—the prophesied year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 tells us, “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age…” The context of this verse is after John the Baptist had begun his ministry and just before Jesus began His. Since Jesus was 30 years old in A.D. 27, He would have been born in 4 B.C. Remember, we must add one year to compensate for no year “zero.” Thus, from 4 B.C., advancing 30 years brings us to A.D. 27. This leads us to the next historical proof that further confirms when Jesus was born.

Your use of Daniel’s prophecy is entirely inappropriate, it is a huge stretch to attribute that prophecy to the death of Jesus on Wednesday April 25th.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Can you specify what people destroyed the city and the sanctuary? Can you give an indication of when the prophesied flood took place in the context of the time that Jesus died? You have taken a prophecy out of context and mis-applied it.

Your application of the Day-for-a-year principle is staggering. In the aforementioned verses you quoted in Numbers and the Book of Ezekiel, the prophecy giver clearly states the intention of a day-for –a year, not in the case of the Daniel prophecy, it is an overreach on your part. Your dates of 26CE and 27CE based on the above calculations are therefore untenable, in my view. You go further to state that Luke places Jesus aged 30 in 27CE, however it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Luke's own chronological account of the birth of Jesus places that event at 6CE, it is in fact the account of Matthew that places the birth of Jesus somewhere between 6BCE and 4BCE. There is no consistency in your analysis.

Shortly after Christ’s birth, an angel warned Joseph in a dream that he and his wife Mary were to take the child and flee into Egypt. They stayed there until the death of Herod (Matt. 2:15). Christ was an infant less than one year of age when Herod died.

Again biblical inconsistencies, Luke does not mention this flight to Egypt. Luke 2:22-40 states clearly states that after Mary’s 40 day purification period the child was brought to the temple, according to this it places the 40 day old Jesus in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke’s account cannot be right, the possibility exists that both are wrong.

As mentioned, Jesus was 30 years old (Luke 3:23) when He began His ministry in A.D. 27. Now, we will see how the chronology of the temple harmonizes with the chronology of Jesus: “Then answered the Jews and said unto Him, What sign show You unto us, seeing that You do these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and will You rear it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body” (John 2:18-21).

Herod died in 4 BCE, his heirs dated their reigns from that year but no matter. Wherever I see the word harmonization it simply means Christians are manipulating facts to a predetermined outcome. The above is a faulty conclusion based on the faulty premise that Jesus began his ministry in 27CE aged 30. According to Scholar8200 Luke dates the start of the ministry of John the Baptist to the year 29CE, you say Jesus began his ministry in the year 27CE, who exactly “fore-ran” whom?

Sir Sarassin, thank you for your efforts, which I want to believe are aimed at establishing the fact that indeed, Jesus walked the earth. Be rest assured that the true Church of God knows its history and can conveniently prove same.

Absolutely.

Sarassin:
Jesus of Nazareth was an erstwhile disciple of the controversial messianic and revolutionary priest, John the Baptist. He was put to death on the cross for agitating for the liberation of his people from the yoke of the Romans, the rulers of this world.

Perhaps one of the greatest difficulties encountered in any attempt to present the historical life and work of Jesus according to the evidence of his own words are the sharp, irreconcilable contradictions in the words attributed to him in the New Testament, for instance between the so-called 'fire and sword' sayings in the Gospel of Matthew on one hand and the beatitudes on the peacemakers, the meek, the prohibition to kill, to be angry, to resist wrong, and the command to love one's enemy, contained in the sermon on the mount, on the other hand.

This sharp contradiction occurs only in the Gospel of Matthew. Where we find side by side the saying about the sword, and the beatitudes.

We know that the Church from the days of Paul consistently followed the path of reconciliation with the empire, those fiery words of 'fire and sword' would certainly have been deleted had it been possible to do so, i.e. had they not been too surely attested as genuine. As a matter of fact, though not suppressed outright, those words have in the course of time been toned down as much as possible.

Where Matthew makes Jesus say, ' Think not that I came to cast peace on the earth; I came not to cast peace, but a sword,' Luke, in the extant text weakens the hard word, replacing 'a sword ' by ' division'. But the damage remains since both exhortations originate from polar end of the spectrum. Who exactly was Jesus of Nazareth and what was his message or mission and was he a revolutionary or peacemaker?

All hail Sarassin.

following with kin interest

I really do not care about what Blackfire said.... we need Sir Sarassin to come and finish the story......let us even know if it is a God thing or a mere political matter......i have often taken a stand that God is irreligious.....if Christ did preached God, it does not give men the right to establish a religion out of it.

What we have now......... is a Deformed religion so to say.......organized in to private business empires.

Sarassin:


Your historical analysis falls down on several fronts. I grant that you have rightly shown that the Passover of the year 31CE fell on Wednesday April 25th.

Thank you. At least, we have agreed on something.

Sarassin:

Your use of Daniel’s prophecy is entirely inappropriate, it is a huge stretch to attribute that prophecy to the death of Jesus on Wednesday April 25th.

Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Can you specify what people destroyed the city and the sanctuary? Can you give an indication of when the prophesied flood took place in the context of the time that Jesus died? You have taken a prophecy out of context and mis-applied it.

Sorry sir, but you're getting it wrong, or lets say, you're running faster than your shadow. What I rightly quoted was Daniel 9:25. But probably being in a haste to prove me wrong, you lifted another prophecy (The Coming Great Tribulation) off its place. Notice the opening phrase of verse 26: “And after”, i.e, previous event. This following verse and 27 is talking of the coming Great Tribulation and Abomination of Desolation respectively.

So then, if there's anyone who is quoting Scriptures out of context, sir, it is you.

Sarassin:

Your application of the Day-for-a-year principle is staggering. In the aforementioned verses you quoted in Numbers and the Book of Ezekiel, the prophecy giver clearly states the intention of a day-for –a year, not in the case of the Daniel prophecy, it is an overreach on your part. Your dates of 26CE and 27CE based on the above calculations are therefore untenable, in my view. You go further to state that Luke places Jesus aged 30 in 27CE, however it is beyond any reasonable doubt that Luke's own chronological account of the birth of Jesus places that event at 6CE, it is in fact the account of Matthew that places the birth of Jesus somewhere between 6BCE and 4BCE. There is no consistency in your analysis.

It is not a surprise that you're staggering, seeing the Bible's Day-for-a-Year principle. But that is just the fact. 2 Peter 3:8 states: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

As for the historical dates as presented, which are untenable in your view, well, I respect this view of yours. However, history is history. You also seems to have a hard time believing Scriptures. Perhaps, you only believe it when it suits your arguments, seeing that you've quoted the Bible several times to support your arguments in several places, not just in this thread alone. But it's okay.

Sarassin:

Again biblical inconsistencies, Luke does not mention this flight to Egypt. Luke 2:22-40 states clearly states that after Mary’s 40 day purification period the child was brought to the temple, according to this it places the 40 day old Jesus in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke’s account cannot be right, the possibility exists that both are wrong.

Biblical inconsistencies and contradictions is not a new chorus by critics. Perhaps, what you called inconsistencies here would have been avoided if you stay on course. Be it as it may, the Bible is not written this way for nothing: “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).

Sarassin:

Herod died in 4 BCE, his heirs dated their reigns from that year but no matter. Wherever I see the word harmonization it simply means Christians are manipulating facts to a predetermined outcome. The above is a faulty conclusion based on the faulty premise that Jesus began his ministry in 27CE aged 30.

At the bold, I think you shouldn't have said that for obvious reasons. It's even funny. I mean, you've been quoting history to support your arguments, and when I also did same, mine suddenly becomes a manipulation. The questions are: On what premise? Have you verified these information and found them to be false? What makes you think that yours is not a fabrication too? Perhaps you've forgotten that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sarassin:

According to Scholar8200 Luke dates the start of the ministry of John the Baptist to the year 29CE, you say Jesus began his ministry in the year 27CE, who exactly “fore-ran” whom?

Sorry sir, I can't remember speaking for Scholar8200, neither is he speaking for me. So this is really an off one.

Regards.

Splinz:

Sorry sir, but you're getting it wrong, or lets say, you're running faster than your shadow. What I rightly quoted was Daniel 9:25. But probably being in a haste to prove me wrong, you lifted another prophecy (The Coming Great Tribulation) off its place. Notice the opening phrase of verse 26: “And after”, i.e, previous event. This following verse and 27 is talking of the coming Great Tribulation and Abomination of Desolation respectively.

So then, if there's anyone who is quoting Scriptures out of context, sir, it is you.

You are absolutely right I definitely got the verses mixed up, my apologies for that. My underlying comments still stands though, if it is your contention that Dan 9:25 refers to the dating of the birth of Jesus, fine. You say that Dan 9:26 relates to trials and tribulations. What tribulations are these of what or whom exactly? I am asking so it is clear to me. What is your understanding of Dan 9: 25-27 in totality?

Splinz:

It is not a surprise that you're staggering, seeing the Bible's Day-for-a-Year principle. But that is just the fact. 2 Peter 3:8 states: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

As for the historical dates as presented, which are untenable in your view, well, I respect this view of yours. However, history is history. You also seems to have a hard time believing Scriptures. Perhaps, you only believe it when it suits your arguments, seeing that you've quoted the Bible several times to support your arguments in several places, not just in this thread alone. But it's okay.

I have no issues with historical accounts, but you see, there should at least be consistency, I pointed out to you that in the previous examples you cited, both prophecy givers specified the allegorical nature of the time scale, anybody can pick up those verses and it is instantly clear what the time scale of the prophecy is, therefore what is the yardstick you have used to establish that in the Book of Daniel the timescale is anything other than what was stated? I am genuinely interested?

Is it the case that every prophecy given in the scriptures is subject to this treatment? Or is it just a case of expediency? If you can clear this up we might all learn something.

So far your historical analysis still requires a huge leap of faith.

Splinz:

Biblical inconsistencies and contradictions is not a new chorus by critics. Perhaps, what you called inconsistencies here would have been avoided if you stay on course. Be it as it may, the Bible is not written this way for nothing: “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).

You made a scriptural point that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt, I made the point that Luke gives a different chronology.

Splinz:

At the bold, I think you shouldn't have said that for obvious reasons. It's even funny. I mean, you've been quoting history to support your arguments, and when I also did same, mine suddenly becomes a manipulation. The questions are: On what premise? Have you verified these information and found them to be false? What makes you think that yours is not a fabrication too? Perhaps you've forgotten that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Actually my comments on harmonization were not directed at you personally, I actually think your effort is one of the better one’s I’ve come across. I just think it doesn’t hold up at certain points. I have no issues with biblical assertions per se I often use scriptural verses to make a point, but where scripture is demonstrably shown to be problematic we should be brave enough to say so. You wrote that Luke states Jesus is 30 when he begins his ministry in the year 27CE, If we accept your historical analysis with the prophetic years, I pointed out to you that Luke’s nativity account historically places the birth of Jesus no earlier than 6CE, how then does your analysis hold up? You did not address the underlying issue.

Sorry sir, I can't remember speaking for Scholar8200, neither is he speaking for me. So this is really an off one.

I am glad to read that he does not speak for you, I have not implied that either. I am simply showing that there's no Christian consensus on the historicity of its patrons.

All the best.

urheme:
I really do not care about what Blackfire said.... we need Sir Sarassin to come and finish the story......let us even know if it is a God thing or a mere political matter......i have often taken a stand that God is irreligious.....if Christ did preached God, it does not give men the right to establish a religion out of it.

What we have now......... is a Deformed religion so to say.......organized in to private business empires.

Organized religion is a no no.... But what Christ came to do for us is indestructible... Let us know where we are channelling our anger.

The scriptures says if we preach ANOTHER Christ let us be accursed.

If we have a genuine interest in learning about the historical Jesus we have to consider the best sources available. The best sources are definitely those nearest the time of Jesus himself and the only way to know what Jesus said and did is by seeing what his contemporaries or near-contemporaries said about him.

What we can be sure of is that Jesus was a teacher and prophet of Israel, he engaged in an itinerant preaching ministry throughout the region of Galilee in what is now northern Israel. Jesus accepted the Torah as authoritative scripture from God, and taught his followers his interpretation of it. Therefore we can establish that the earliest Christians were followers of Jesus who accepted the books of the Jewish Bible.

The exact nature of the teachings of Jesus are somewhat lost in the fog of time, but we are offered tantalising glimpses, for instance his disdain for legalistic Judaism is very clear. Our earliest surviving Christian source is the apostle Paul, who wrote his surviving letters even prior to the New Testament Gospels of the synoptics and John. But outside of the writings of his followers, Christianity is still majorly challenged by the fact that there is no consensus on who Jesus was or his message, certainly not in the crucial period of the first century CE. The Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea Scrolls in particular are a grave issue because their antiquity demonstrates that the message and teachings of Jesus were elusive, the name Jesus cannot be found in either document.

As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century CE. It is of course Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE-47 CE).

Philo was already an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 CE. Philo clearly, lived at precisely the time that Jesus of Nazareth would have enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and his eventual death.

He was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. He was a Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem where he had connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the chief tax official, was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205)

One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).
Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words survive. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.

Yet Philo does not say a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all of his work, Philo does not make a single reference to his contemporary Jesus Christ who supposedly was up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, and raising the dead.

With his close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5:18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12:2,7) might have gotten the odd mention. But not a murmur. Nothing even about the killing of "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12:1,2).

But perhaps in a manner of speaking, he did. In Flaccus VI (Works of Philo Judaeus) Philo wrote about the harassment of a mentally-deficient man named "Carabas." His tormentors put a purple robe on, made him a crown of leaves, saluted him and called him "King of the Jews." Philo's words are embarrassingly similar to the account of Jesus' harassment in the Gospel of Mark to be eventually copied by the authors of Matthew and Luke. Maybe Philo did write about Jesus. Perhaps the author of Mark got the inspiration for his account of the crucifixion from the works of Philo.