Anne Catherine Emmerich

[steve53]

“Even if it did – practice does not imply proper interpretation of God’s intention. Interestingly enough, Josephus also has entire books attempting to preserve the books of the Torah as he understood them – AND HIS rendition of scripture does not agree well with the copies we have today.”

Josephus was the one SAVED the Second Temple Torah from being destroyed by Titus, and brought it to Rome. What he writes is based on a two thousand year old copy.

“Practice of individuals is not indicative of what God desires us to learn from his perfect plan for the temple and it’s models through history. Josephus was a traitor to the Jewish faith, and proclaimed the Romans equivalent to the “messiah”. He is one historical reference, but I’ll not give him pride of place when it comes to interpretation; but only when it comes to history and even then with some care to double-talk out of kissing up to his Pagan Roman superiors.”

Josephus did not consider himself a traitor to the Jewish faith. He considered the Jews of the time so evil that God broke his covenant with them and abandoned the Second Temple. The Romans were the instrument of God’s revenge against the Jews, and through dreams, Josephus was convinced that God wanted him to help the Romans.
Self-serving? Maybe, maybe not.
Regarding the Temple, you don’t have to interpret anything Josephus says. he just describes it, and what certain sections were used for.
Philo described it as well, but not as detailed a fashion.
Hagan in Roman Fires includes all the sections in Josephus and Philo that discuss the Temple. I would recommend it for secular historical background of the times, upon which you can build your various interpretations of whatever you want.
Josephus in Wars book two, and Antiquities book 15 have most of the information on the Second Temple.
Josephus wrote an autobiography, and no where does he mention he married a non-Jew.

I might add that a lot of references to children are symbolic, i.e. to see God we must be as pure and believing as children can be.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

“Even if it did – practice does not imply proper interpretation of God’s intention. Interestingly enough, Josephus also has entire books attempting to preserve the books of the Torah as he understood them – AND HIS rendition of scripture does not agree well with the copies we have today.”

Josephus was the one SAVED the Second Temple Torah from being destroyed by Titus, and brought it to Rome. What he writes is based on a two thousand year old copy.

Taking your word for it;
We have 1 witness that Josephus saved a 70AD contemporary or older copy;
(Even if he modified it erroneously, this is still a good thing for partial evidence).

The witness is Josephus; so unless he has other testimony like Jesus or like Jonas or like John the Baptist – he is problematic.

My memory recalls other witnesses who knew Josephus and despised him because he aggrandized himself, claimed that God told him not to mix his seed with any foreigners, and then wasn’t able to live with his first wife but used foreigners. If I was given bad information, I will reconsider it.

But I also suppose I might have made a technical mistake…
Pharisees probably didn’t consider sexual intimacy with foreign women valid marriages; and so, If Josephus were a Pharisee, that’s may well be a subjective issue in his autobiography.

Josephus did not consider himself a traitor to the Jewish faith. He considered the Jews of the time so evil that God broke his covenant with them and abandoned the Second Temple. The Romans were the instrument of God’s revenge against the Jews, and through dreams, Josephus was convinced that God wanted him to help the Romans.

Josephus, if learned, is responsible for not understanding the scriptures he is trying to preserve, and of being rash in his interpretation of the spirits giving him the dream. Responding too quickly because of pride and assurance in a judgmental matter is what I would say his sin is at best.

When God uses a pagan nation to subdue and bring his people (even nations) back to life; the nation which subdues them is Judged for anything they do wrong in the process. Josephus had to know this. As God says, vindication is mine, I will repay. Josephus’ revenge attitude, as you describe it, is unconscionable in a true shepherd with honest motive; he was clearly a thinker of “every man for himself, the end is near for me.”

Within the Jewish religion, Josephus was either a leader and therefore a shepherd – or he was ignorant and afraid. What did he call himself? That’s where his being a traitor is in my thinking.

Ignorance, is of course, excusable; but people learned enough to write in those days, ought to have also known enough (if not everything) to inform their consciences.

I can’t really even now point to the Catholic Church as it is today as a fulfillment of his dream, for the Vatican is not found within the seven hills of Rome; Many accuse the whole church of being the whore of Babylon, but they haven’t solid evidence. The chair of Peter, once called chair of Moses, can’t be denied to have been set there by Jesus Christ himself (by Catholics) – and therefore Peter who denied Christ three times has his authority reviled in imitation of Christ’s on the cross. Peter bears a chair that has both a blessing and a curse of revenge – not by Christ himself, but revenge of ignorant men and the wicked and proud alike.

Josephus, if he really was told to do this by God, would be little different than Peter and unless he is also a martyr like Peter; He is of a different character altogether.
Of course, I can’t speak for the Israelites that call themselves Jews today – what they think of Josephus depends on their learning of scripture.

Self-serving? Maybe, maybe not.

Huh? I can’t seem to find the thought that caused you to make this statement.

Either the temple and it’s contents were corrupted, or they were not – you can judge for yourself as well.

Regarding the Temple, you don’t have to interpret anything Josephus says. he just describes it, and what certain sections were used for.
Philo described it as well, but not as detailed a fashion.
Hagan in Roman Fires includes all the sections in Josephus and Philo that discuss the Temple. I would recommend it for secular historical background of the times, upon which you can build your various interpretations of whatever you want.
Josephus in Wars book two, and Antiquities book 15 have most of the information on the Second Temple.
Josephus wrote an autobiography, and no where does he mention he married a non-Jew.

I might add that a lot of references to children are symbolic, i.e. to see God we must be as pure and believing as children can be.

What do you mean, I don’t have to interpret? What’s its value if it isn’t explained?

Thank you for the specific references; I think I can find most of that online or in the local college’s library but it will take a while before I can process what you have said – I haven’t been feeling the best lately, either.

 

[steve53]

The serious Christian interested in early history should spend time reading Josephus. You have to read his actual words to get a flavor of the man. Putting his writings in historical context is important, and Hagan has done, in my opinion, as good a job in this as anyone.

Josephus reported that people actually heard thunder or some such natural phenomenon after the killing of Jonathan in the Second Temple in A.D. 56. He took that to mean that God had left the Temple- the most Holy inner room. God the left the temple-God broke the covenant with the Jews. Josephus thought god abandoned the Jewish nation, and that god wanted him to be a instrument of his revenge, just as god wanted him to survive the Jewish Revolt and be a witness to the corrupt Jewish nation in the Roman Empire.

Or Josephus could have just been making up a story to cover his roll as a Roman spy. He was in Rome three years before the revolt, and even met Nero and Poppea. He could have been recruited as a spy at that time.

But Josephus has always been politically incorrect- big time-to the Jews. Today, with the Zionist movement and Israel, even more so. So his writings have taken a hit, and over the centuries he has been scorned.

Why? According to Josephus, God took away the Covenant he had made with them. The Jews were NOT the chosen people. The land of milk and honey that god GAVE to the Jews, according to Moses, was to be taken away from them by God via the Romans, according to Josephus.

That didn’t play well then, and it doesn’t play well now.

As far as his marriages go, the morality of the Jews was always a target, at least Tacitus felt the need to write about it. I don’t have his reference at hand.

So reading the actual words of Josephus would be time well spent for the modern Theologian.

If there is a problem with Josephus, it is what he leaves out, rather than what he writes not being truthful. I think he leaves out his major role in the fall of Gamala and Jerusalem, for instance.