The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Well, Alon certainly delivered regarding Aquila, Jewish Christians and post-70 CE Jerusalem/Aelia Capitolina. I was more familiar with Aquila from Jewish sources (where he is called Onkelos), but Alon cited some Christian sources besides Epiphanius that I was unaware of, and since it doesn't look like anything else regarding Aquila has come up since Alon's time, I can cite more recent scholars who are viewable on Google books (Alon isn't) and I don't have to carry Alon's book with me in my backpack to the library.

Aquila seems similar to the earlier Queen Helena of Adiabene and Clement of Rome, who were also claimed by Jews and Christians. In Aquila's case though, Silverstone appears to be saying that Epiphanius is the first Christian to claim him (Google books cuts off at a key part for me).
The statement of Epiphanius that Aquila first became a Christian [before converting to Judaism] is perhaps not historical, for neither by any writer prior to Epiphanius nor in the Jewish sources is mention ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=8NNRA ... us&f=false
Regarding the timing of Aquila's arrival in Jerusalem, Silverstone says on the same page that:
According to Epiphanius, he [Aquila] was appointed by his relative, the Emperor Hadrian, to superintend the rebuilding of Jerusalem under the new name of Aelia Capitolina, forty-seven years after the destruction of the temple (i.e., in 117, the year of Hadrian's succession). This took place circa 130, however, but it is possible that Aquila went to Jerusalem in 117, and spent some years there before beginning actual operations.
So if there is anything to this account then it would place the Jewish Christian presence in or near Jerusalem as early as 117 CE (when I gather that Jerusalem was little more than a Roman garrison). But perhaps this is wishful thinking on Epiphanius' part.

But whenever Jewish Christians may have returned to (or near) post-70 CE Jerusalem (if they did), they would have been excluded from there after 135 CE, so in the big picture their return would have ultimately been a bust.

I've been in one of my periodic states of disinterest in ancient history lately, so the Christian sources regarding Aquila that I was unaware of have been on the backburner, but since I gather they come after Epiphanius, I reckon they may not have much historical value, but I need to give this issue some more thought.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Now that I refresh my memory, in Epiphanius' favor regarding Aquila/Onkelos, he is said in Jewish sources to have been a student of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, and I recall that there was a Rabbi Eliezer who was charged with heresy for associating with Jewish Christians, and it turns out that this is the same Eliezer who tutored Aquila/Onkelos.
The earlier Jerusalem Talmud gives the subject of these stories as Aquilas the proselyte, often understood as being a person other than Onkelos. The difficulty with this theory, however, is that the Jerusalem Talmud says explicitly that he (Aquilas the proselyte) translated the Torah under Eliezer ben Hurcanus and Joshua ben Hananiah. The Babylonian Talmud repeats the same oral tradition, but this time calls him by the name Onkelos the proselyte, which leads one to conclude that the name is a mere variant of "Aquila", applied in error to the Aramaic instead of the Greek translation. This view is supported by Epiphanius of Salamis (4th century).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkelos

... he [Rabbi Eliezer] remembered that once, while at Sepphoris, he had met a Christian who communicated to him a singular halakhah in the name of Ben Pandera (Jesus), that he had approved of the halakhah and had really enjoyed hearing it, and, he added, "Thereby I transgressed the injunction, 'Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house,'" which the Rabbis apply to sectarianism as well as to heresy. The suspicion of apostasy and the summons before the dreaded tribunal came, therefore, as just punishment ... Separated from his colleagues and excluded from the deliberations of the Sanhedrin, Eliezer passed his last years of life unnoticed and in comparative solitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_ben_Hurcanus
Last edited by John2 on Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Schiffman adds some more details regarding Rabbi Eliezer.
Rabbi Eliezer is arrested for minut. From the continuation of the story it is certain he was accused of Jewish Christianity during the rule of Trajan by the Roman authorities who were at the time persecuting Jewish Christians. Indeed, this event must have occurred in 109 C.E. at the same time as the crucifixion of the Bishop of Jerusalem [I.e., Simon bar Clophas] reported by Eusebius [via Hegesippus]. An examination of the legal details of the story leads to the conclusion that the setting of the trial as it appears here is historical.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xiM2u ... TY&f=false
He goes on to say though that:
We cannot be certain ... that the narrative demonstrates a Rabbinic encounter with Jewish Christianity in the time of Rabbi Eliezer. It may reflect a somewhat later reality instead ... At the same time, we should note the attestations from this and later periods of the presence of minim in Sepphoris. The exchange with the Jewish Christian Jacob of Kefar Sikhnin, describing him as it does by name, also has the ring of historicity. It seems to us then to be probable, although not certain, that the events described in our accounts did happen. Already in 109 A.D. the tanna Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus was in contact with Jewish Christians in Sepphoris. He blamed his arrest on his failure to follow the advice of Proverbs to keep clear of their influence.
So Rabbi Eliezer's arrest is in keeping with Hegesippus' account regarding the arrest and execution of Simon bar Clophas by the Romans, which happened during the same time, and it also indicates to me that Jewish Christians were living outside of Jerusalem in Trajan's time, which fits Hegesippus' account of the grandsons of Jude owning land and being farmers and becoming leaders of multiple churches rather than one Jerusalem church during the time of Domitian.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

I think Hegesippus' account of the grandsons of Jude being interrogated by Domitian is also in keeping with Cassius Dio's account of Flavius Clemens (a.k.a., possibly, Clement of Rome), who was executed and his wife Flavia Domitilla sent into exile.
...Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/r ... o/67*.html
Regarding the identity of Flavius Clemens, by the way, it is arguable, as Jackson, for example, notes (though he doesn't seem to buy it), that he was Clement of Rome:
A more plausible theory makes Clement of Rome the same as the consul Flavius Clemens ... whose wife, Flavia Domitilla, is actually claimed by Eusebius as a sufferer for Christ [EH 3.18]. Flavius Clemens was put to death on the charge of atheism and Jewish manners, in the very year (A.D. 95) in which, according to some authorities, Clement bishop of Rome died.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wS-pe ... me&f=false
Last edited by John2 on Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Here is Eusebius' reference to Flavia Domitilla (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavia_Domitilla_(saint)), the wife of Flavius Clemens (a.k.a., possibly, Clement of Rome) being a Christian (which is mentioned right before the citation of Hegesippus concerning the interrogation of the grandsons of Jude in the time of Domitian):
To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.

And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
Suetonius also records Domitian's extreme anti-Semitism.
Besides other taxes, that on the Jews was levied with the utmost rigour, and those were prosecuted who without publicly acknowledging that faith yet lived as Jews, as well as those who concealed their origin and did not pay the tribute levied upon their people. I recall being present in my youth when the person of a man ninety years old was examined before the procurator and a very crowded court, to see whether he was circumcised.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/r ... tian*.html
Footnote 48 to this suggests that: "These were doubtless Christians, whom the Romans commonly confounded with the Jews."

Compare this with Hegesippus:
Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.

And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes
and supported themselves by their own labor.

Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.”

But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them.
So you were in a really tight spot if you were a Jewish Christian in this time.

It's worth pointing out as well that Hegesippus is said to have been familiar with 1 Clement in EH 4.22 (which, of course, is ascribed to Clement of Rome and commonly dated to the time of Domitian).
Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
Last edited by John2 on Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Josephus too disappears around this time and was perhaps also killed by Domitian, since Domitian is the last emperor he mentions, as this book edited by Mason notes:
Josephus has mentioned Domitian occasionally in the War (esp. 7.85-8), praising his courage as a young man. Following the emperor's death in 96, however, when his memory was subject to damnatio, the literary tradition represented by Pliny, Tacitus, Seutonius and later Cassius Dio became uniformly hostile, representing his entire regime ... as a reign of terror ... he lashed out at all those around him, terrorizing the senate, Jews, Christians, philosophers and many others ... As Niese ... and Luther ... already pointed out, it is hard to see how Josephus could have written this grateful note concerning Domitian after his reign had ended in 96 CE ... he fails to mention any subsequent ruler's benefits -an unthinkable slight if he wrote under Nerva or Trajan ... it is hard to see how he could speak so fondly and innocently of Domitian after his death and damnatio.

https://books.google.com/books?id=IZWPc ... an&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

And I see that some scholars, such as Brent, argue that 1 Clement refers to the persecution of Domitian.
Clement's Corinthians has been convincingly dated as contemporary with Domitian's reign (A.D. 81-96), and more specifically between A.D. 94 and 97 during which the "sudden and repeated misfortunes ... and calamities" ... occurred that had delayed the sending of the letter (Cor. 1,1). Christian writers from Hegesippus and Melito of Sardis onwards claimed that Domitian persecuted Christianity, so that it would be reasonable to conclude that Clement's words here refer to that reign and such a persecution. Furthermore, as Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V, 30,3) connects the Apocalypse with the reign of Domitian, it would follow that this work is a reaction to that persecution.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CMsbX ... ns&f=false
The reference to Revelation brings us back full circle, because I recall that it is commonly thought to have been written by Jewish Christians (though I've never looked into it much).
All that is known is that this John was a Jewish Christian prophet, probably belonging to a group of such prophets, and was accepted as such by the congregations to whom he addresses his letter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_R ... C_and_date
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

Regarding Revelation, I see that Longenecker says:
That the Apocalypse of John stems from a Jewish Christian milieu and was addressed to Jewish Christians seems beyond all reasonable doubt. In form, it is comparable to the spate of Jewish apocalyptic writings associated with the names of Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Baruch, and Ezra. Its very first word, in fact, furnishes the term that describes this distinctive type of writing ... In content, the Apocalypse of John is thoroughly saturated with the Old Testament. Though it contains no formal quotations, 278 of its 404 verses contain allusions to the Scriptures. In style, its language is "particularly stained by 'Semitisms.' In fact, as Matthew Black has asserted, no New Testament book has a better claim to be written in 'Jews' Greek' than the Apocalypse.

https://books.google.com/books?id=lWC1w ... ns&f=false
And Ulfgard writes (with a reference to our Stephan Goranson in footnote 1):
My ambition in this essay is to discuss how some aspects of the Christology of Revelation may be more adequately understood when seen within the context of Jewish angelology and messianology as these phenomena are witnessed in Qumranite and extra-biblical texts.

https://books.google.com/books?id=br3UA ... gy&f=false
Angelology appears to be a commonly discussed theme in Revelation. For examples, Ulfgard refers to Stuckenbruck's Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, and Carrell has a book called Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John that I wish was more viewable on Google books (https://books.google.com/books?id=1_sKc ... gy&f=false).

When I think of Jewish Christians and angels I think of Epiphanius' statement in Pan. 30 that Jewish Christians believed that Jesus was an angel, which Carrell cites.
They do not say that he was born of God the Father but that he was created as one of the archangels (and even higher) and that he is Lord over the angels as also over everything the Almighty has created.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1_sKc ... el&f=false
And also Hegesippus's statement about the grandsons of Jude when they were interrogated by Domitian in EH 3.20:
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

And I'm gathering that these are some verses in Revelation that are seen as referring to the persecution of Domitian.

1:9 (New Living Translation, which gives a better sense of John being "exiled"):
I, John, am your brother and your partner in suffering and in God's Kingdom and in the patient endurance to which Jesus calls us. I was exiled to the island of Patmos for preaching the word of God and for my testimony about Jesus.
And 2:3:
You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.


The first one reminds me of the exile of Flavia Domitilla mentioned by Cassius Dio and Eusebius above.
... Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.
... in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontine_Islands
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The Jerusalem Church after 70 CE

Post by John2 »

As much as I dislike apocalyptic writings, I thought I'd try reading Revelation and see what pops out at me as being possibly Jewish Christian. And while I'm inclined to see something in 1:6 with respect to the idea that priests in the Damascus Document are not literally priests ("To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father"), I'll let that go for now to not invite any "controversy" about the DSS and Christian origins. But in 1:7 it says:
"Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”
This seems similar to what James says in Hegesippus in EH 2.23.
The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’ And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’ And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.’
Rev. 2:9:
I know your afflictions and your poverty--yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
It's curious that it says "Jews" here instead of "Christians," which fits what Hegesippus says in EH 4.22 about the other first century CE Jewish sects.
The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: “There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.”


In other words, in Hegesippus' view only Jewish Christians were "true" Jews, just like in Rev. 2:9.

James 2:5:
Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
And Gal. 2:10:
All they [James, Cephas and John] asked was that we should continue to remember the poor ...
Rev. 2:14 and 2:20:
Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: There are some among you who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin so that they ate food sacrificed to idols and committed sexual immorality.
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
This is similar to what James says in Acts 15:19 and 29:
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality ...
And the Didache 6:5-6 (which is commonly thought to be associated with Jewish Christianity):
And concerning food, bear what thou canst, but keep strictly from that which is offered to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods
Rev. 3:7:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
This is similar to what Hegesippus says in EH 2.23:
Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him [James], ‘What is the gate of Jesus?’ and he replied that he was the Saviour. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ.
Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man?'
And, in my view, this also seems similar to James 5:8-9:
You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
Rev. 3:11-12:
I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. The one who is victorious I will make a pillar [stylon; στῦλον] in the temple of my God.
Gal. 2:9:
James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars [styloi; στῦλοι] ...
Rev. 3:9:
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars--I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
Hegesippus in EH 2.23:
On account of these words [of James] some [of the other sects] believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James ... And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, ‘We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.’ And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.’
Rev. 3:20:
Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.
Rev. 3:23:
Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
Hegesippus in EH 2.23:
But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James.
And in EH 3.20:
And when they [the grandsons of Jude] were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
Rev. 4:1:
After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven.
Rev. 4:2:
...and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.
EH 2.23:
‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’ And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’
Compare this with the orthodox version in Acts 7:55-56, where Stephen says that Jesus is standing in heaven rather than sitting:
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
And those are just the first four chapters. So Revelation does seem very Jewish Christian to me.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply