apparently not seen by any other humans) was an angel. Supporting this fact is that Luke 2:8-15 records that the birth of Jesus was announced to shepherds by angels speaking to them out of a heavenly light which accompanied their appearance. Since God used angels to bring the shepherds to Jesus' manger, it follows he also used an angel to lead the Magi to Jesus.
Obviously angels are like God beings in that they can switch on and off their light power (Refer to our free article, What God is actually like.)
[Capt's study in Pyrimidology (Refer Countdown No.15 page 9) shows Christ's birth to have been in 2 BC. As the Feast of Trumpets began, at about the autumn equinox.]
Having found Jesus, the Magi worshipped him, offering rich gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense. They then were warned by God in a dream (Matthew 2:12) not to return to Herod, resulting in the prompt exit of the Magi and their escorts from Judea. When Herod realized that he had been fooled, he wrathfully killed all the young male children of Bethlehem in a vain effort to kill the Messiah. However, there is no record that he made any attempt to overtake or punish the Magi. As high Parthian nobles, they had "diplomatic immunity," and Herod dared not anger Caesar by provoking the Parthians. Also, the size of the Magi's armed escort apparently dissuaded Herod from attempting to pursue them.
There is another important aspect of this remarkable episode. While it is not surprising that Jewish leaders during Herod's reign were sufficiently familiar with the prophetic writings to pinpoint for Herod where the Messiah would be born, it is surprising that God was working more closely with members of the Parthian ruling class than he was with the Jewish priests! This makes no biblical sense unless (A) the Parthians were descended from the exiled tribes of the House of Israel and (B) the Magi (Parthian priests) were Levites. During his ministry Jesus Christ himself asserted that he was not sent to the gentiles, but only to the descendants of the Israelites. (Matthew 15:24-28 shows the reluctance of Jesus to assist a gentile.)
Throughout the Old Testament God worked almost exclusively with the House of Israel and the House of Judah; his involvement with other nations was incidental (i.e. using them to punish his people when they sinned). It was not until death of Christ that gentiles were permitted equal access to the God of Israel. The fact that God was working intimately with the nobility confirms that the Parthians were the House of Israel in Asia and supports the conclusion that the Parthian Magi (their priests) were Levites.
The fact that some of the Parthian ruling classes worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is most revealing. That God himself sent an angel to lead them to Jesus, and gave instructions to the Magi via dreams is further revealing; obviously considered these Parthians to be "righteous" men under the terms of his laws or he would not have been dealing with them so personally. That educated Parthians were ready to visit and worship the Messiah at the time of Christ's birth indicates they were familiar with the prophecies of the Old Testament. Who but transplanted Israelites would have been looking for the Messiah at that time.
Although we are jumping ahead in the narrative, consider the events of Acts 2 which state Parthians (verse 9) were among those who made pilgrimages to Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks (known to Christians as Pentecost). Verse 9 also mentions "Medes Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia" as being present at this feast, and all these regions were provinces of the Parthian Empire. We know that portions of the ten tribes had been relocated to "the cities of Medes," so the presence of devout visitors from Media could easily designate people from the ten tribes of Israel. Interestingly, verse 9 also mentions "dwellers ... in Asia" were present. The word "Asia" has clouded origins, but the Encyclopedia Britannica states that "It's probable that it ["Asia"] has an Assyrian or Hebrew root, and was used first... with a specific or restricted local application, a more extended signification having eventually been given it..."
One of the Scythian tribes was called the "Asii" (or "Asiani") Since the "Asiani" were one of the Scythian tribes bearing the name Isaac (the Sacae or Saka), the Bible's reference to "Asians" attending the Feast of Weeks could indicate that Scythians were also present in Jerusalem at that time. This further indicates that the Parthians and Scythians were the displaced members of the "lost ten tribes of Israel." The gentile populations of Asia had no cultural interest in the worship of the God of Israel; only the ten tribes of Israel would retain such a custom.
It was not unusual for large pilgrimages originating in Parthia to travel to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel. We noted that Josephus wrote of caravans (of offerings to the God of Israel) from Parthian Mesopotamian arrived in Jerusalem under the protection of
"many ten thousand men." These must have been magnificent treasure trains to have warranted the protection of a sizeable army. Such huge "offerings" going to Jerusalem from Parthia indicates that many people within the Parthian Empire worshipped the God of Israel. This meant that, at the time of Jesus and Herod, there was a great deal of travel and trade between Judea and many regions of the Parthian Empire.
The Magi were loyal to one dynasty (the Arsacids), whose members continuously ruled Parthia. It was shown that many rulers of Parthian (Saka) kingdoms had names incorporating the word "Phares" or the consonants of the Hebrew root word for that name (PH-R-S). This indicates that the Arsacids were descended from the seed of David, who was the first king of the Phares family (Matthew 1:2-6). I Chronicles 3:17-24 reveals that the royal lineage continued to flourish after Judah's captivity. Indeed, this dynasty was given high status in the Babylonian Empire (II Kings 25:27-30).
This post-exilic elevation of the Davidic dynasty in Asia likely led to their serving as vassal kings (over captive Israelites) under Baby1onian and Persian masters. Their later elevation to the throne of Parthia fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah 33:17 that David's descendants would always rule over the descendants of the ten tribes of Israel. This may explain the unshakable loyalty of the Parthians to the Arsacids. With the Parthians being Israelites, and the Arsacids being descended from King David, the Arsacids were the only dynasty in Asia that was racially, historically and culturally related to the Parthian people.
Since Matthew 1:3-17 tells us that Jesus Christ was also a descendant of Phares and King David, Jesus was a blood relative of the Parthian ruling dynasty, which also descended from Phares. The relationship of Jesus to the Parthian Arsacids serves as a further explanation for the homage paid to Jesus by the Parthian nobility. It was customary for the Parthian Megistanes (the Magi and Wise Men) to keep track of Arsacid relatives in foreign nations. In some cases the Megistanes sent to foreign nations (Scythia and Rome) to summon various relatives of the Arsacids to come to Parthia to serve as their king.
It is known that some Parthian rulers killed every male relative they could find in an effort to eliminate potential rivals to their throne. This compelled the Magi to look for distant individuals who had the bloodline of the Arsacids (the lineage of Phares and King David). At the time of the birth of Jesus, the recent Parthian emperor, Phraates IV (who reigned 37-2 B.C.), had killed many male relatives, including his own father and almost thirty brothers.16 Male Arsacids at the time of Jesus'birth were in short supply.
When the Magi were led by an angel of God to pay homage to the young Jesus, they doubtless asked Joseph and Mary everything they could think of concerning Jesus' background. They must have learned that Jesus was a blood descendant of Phares and King David. This relationship made Jesus an Arsacid, a blood relative of Parthia's kings. In fact, since Parthia could offer the kingship to any Arsacid, not just the oldest son or closest relative of the previous king, Jesus Christ was technically eligible for the Parthian throne. While the Bible does mention Jesus' royal lineage (of the seed of David), it does not mention his relationship to Parthia's dynasty. However, as we shall see later, the Bible twice implies that this relationship existed.
Since the Magi who worshipped Jesus were members of the body which selected the kings of Parthia and kept track of male Arsacids, they must have been ecstatic to learn that the young Jesus was an Arsacid. While the Bible is silent on their future contacts, Parthian Magi likely would have stayed in contact with Jesus in future years and monitored the events of his life.
We will now examine the possibility that the visit of influential Parthians to the young Jesus Christ almost led to a Parthian-Roman war. From 40-37 B.C., Parthia had ruled Palestine and Syria before the Romans drove them back across the Euphrates River. That war ushered in a long period of Parthian-Roman detente which included the entire lifetime of Jesus Christ. However, a great Parthian-Roman war was barely averted in 1 A.D. when a "summit conference" was held between the Parthian emperor, Phraataces, and Caius Caesar, the grandson of Augustus Caesar on an island in the Euphrates River (i.e. neutral territory). Roman sources record that:
"The armies of the two chiefs were drawn up on the opposite banks of the river [the Euphrates], facing one another; and the chiefs themselves, accompanied by an equal number of attendants, proceeded to deliberate in the sight of both hosts. "17
This "summit conference" averted war, but how could the Magi's visit have had a role in this crisis?
Scholarship has documented that Jesus Christ was apparently born in approximately 4 B.C. Bible accounts of the Magi visiting Jesus cease when the Magi left Judea and returned to Parthia, leaving the impression that the issue was concluded. However, if we consider the geopolitical realities of that time, there is no way that the Magi's exit from Judea ended the matter. Matthew 2:3 records that Herod and "all Jerusalem" were troubled by the arrival of the Magi. Jerusalem was a commercial city at the nexus of major trade routes, and it commonly received caravans of many hundreds or thousands of people. Three tired Magi arriving from the east wouldn't have made a ripple in the city's calm. For that matter, caravans from Parthian territory could arrive in Jerusalem with many thousands of armed escorts, and such events did not trouble the city. What was singularly different about the caravan that brought the Magi?
The Magi (perhaps ten, twelve, or more of them) were Parthian nobility who selected the rulers of Parthia's empire. Such a visit was unprecedented and unrepeated in the history of the city of Jerusalem. Such prominent people did not "sneak into town," but came with many attendants and perhaps thousands of regular Parthian soldiers as escorts. This occurred at a time when Parthia and Rome had a peace treaty, and no major Roman or Parthian military forces had crossed the Euphrates River in decades. The arrival of a significant Parthian military force in Jerusalem escorting high Parthian officials was militarily provocative and could justifiably be seen by Herod and the Romans as a treaty violation.
When Parthia had occupied Palestine, it had crowned its own vassal king, Antigonus, as ruler of Judea. When the Magi (Parthia's official king-makers) came to Jerusalem looking for "a new king of the Jews," it must have sounded to Herod and the Romans that the Parthians were there to reassert their claim to Judea and dethrone Herod. Their speaking directly to Herod (who was Rome's king of the Jews) about wanting to find a "new king of the Jews" could be seen by the Romans as close to a declaration of war, given the region's history. The fact that King Herod "bit his tongue" and made no rash statement to the Magi and treated them with deference argues that the Parthians must have had an intimidating number of troops at Jerusalem to compel Herod to be so uncharacteristically meek. Since a major Roman-Parthian treaty had been in effect for over three decades, Rome felt unthreatened in the region, and would, consequently, have had a small garrison in Jerusalem.
Caesar's decree that no Parthian war be provoked also put Herod in an awkward position. While the Magi and Parthians were in Judea with no harmful intent, there is no way the Romans could be sure this "visit" was benign in nature. After the Parthians left, reports had to be filled with Caesar about this highly unusual event.
Herod was justifiably fearful of Parthian intentions in the area. Hadn't they come to anoint a replacement for him as "king of the Jews?" Hadn't they also deceived him by leaving the area without his knowledge or permission? Herod's murderous act in Bethlehem would also have inflamed Jewish opinion, and rumors of revolt against the hated Romans would have intensified. Faced with a possible Parthian invasion and/or a Jewish revolt, Herod needed more Roman soldiers in the region.
In his reports to Caesar, Herod undoubtedly put himself in a favorable light, and warned Caesar that the Parthians had crossed the Euphrates, made a military reconnaissance to Jerusalem to spy out the city's weakness and were openly talking about crowning a new king of the Jews." Because the Parthians' arrival in Jerusalem had scared the whole city, news of this extraordinary event would have spread quickly along the trade routes connected to Jerusalem.
Also, in 2 B.C., Rome and Parthia were facing a possible conflict in Armenia over succession to the throne of Armenia. In both Armenia and Judea, the issue was whether Rome or Parthia would choose the kings of those nations. While Parthia had not forced the crisis in Armenia, Parthia's actions in Judea (the Magi's visit) were provocative. Rome's response was to send a large army "to the east" to prepare for a possible Parthian-Roman war. Rawlinson records that the Roman army arrived in 1 B.C., delayed by the retirement of Augustus Caesar's preferred commander, and that the situation was further muddled by the death of Phraates IV, Parthia's emperor during the visit of the Magi to Jerusalem.18 Herod the Great had also died by the time Roman reinforcements arrived, so all the major principals had a fresh viewpoint by the time Rome and Parthia had their "summit conference" at the Euphrates River.
Historical accounts do not mention the Parthian visit to Jerusalem as a factor in this near confrontation, but its occurrence can now be seen as adding to Roman fears of a Parthian invasion of its empire. Although the historical accounts mention only the Armenian dispute, it is worth noting that the Parthian and Roman armies did not confront each other in the mountains of Armenia but rather along the Euphrates River (the invasion route to Syda and Palestine). Since the Roman army arrived in 1 B.C., and the Roman-Parthian peace conference did not defuse the situation until 1 A.D., there was a two year period of "war fever" in the Mideast. Everyone in the region breathed a huge sigh of relief when war was averted. As we shall soon see, if a war had been fought (ending the Parthian-Roman detente), much of Jesus Christ's ministry in Judea could not have occurred.
Very little else is said in the Bible concerning the early years of Jesus Christ. Luke 2:40 states that Jesus grew up strong and healthy, and that he was filled with wisdom and favored by God. Luke 2:41-50 tells us that Jesus, at age twelve, amazed the teachers in the Temple with his wisdom. This passage shows that he was still being raised by his parents according to the Laws of God, as his family annually attended the Passover in Jerusalem (the location of the Temple). Jesus would have been seen by others as a devout, brilliant son of a traditional Jewish family.
Luke's account mentions that Jesus was absent from his family for a full day before they realized he was missing, and initiated a search which located him in the Temple. How could Jesus, a twelve year-old youth, be apart from his parents, and his parents not know about it for a full day? How did a mere twelve year old lad even come into the presence of the teachers of the Temple, the religious hierarchy of the Jewish religion? There is more here than meets the eye.
It would have been inappropriate for Joseph and Mary to have allowed Jesus to be wandering around Jerusalem unescorted by an adult. It seems apparent that Jesus was being escorted by an adult relative. That they were unconcerned about Jesus' absence for a full day before searching for him indicates that such absences were commonplace. It is recorded in the Jewish Talmud and in other sources that Joseph of Arimathea was the great-uncle of Jesus Christ. It is likely that Joseph of Arimathea was the adult relative who was serving as Jesus'mentor and escort.
Joseph of Arimathea was a powerful figure in Jewish society, and was apparently a member of the Sanhedrin itself. Years later, when the Sanhedrin plotted the death of Jesus, Luke 23:50-51 asserts that Joseph of Arimathea had not consented to the deed that was done to Jesus. That Joseph had not consented to the Sanhedrin's murderous plot indicates that Joseph was a member of the body with the inherent right to consent to (or dissent from) the actions of the Sanhedrin.
It is now clear how the young Jesus came to be involved in a discourse with the Temple hierarchy. Since Jesus'great-uncle, Joseph of Arimathea, had easy access to the highest echelons of Jewish society, it is likely that Jesus simply accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to the Temple, and eventually participated in a discussion between his great-uncle and the Temple teachers. Apparently, Jesus was with his great-uncle often enough that Jesus's prolonged absence from Joseph and Mary at that time was not a unique experience.
The remainder of Jesus' life until age thirty is apparantly a mystery. While the Bible is silent on the subject, it does give us several clues. The fact that Jesus was, by the age of twelve, spending more time in the care of Joseph of Arimathea and less time in the care of Joseph and Mary is significant. It appears that a major transition was occurring in Jesus' life. When Joseph and Mary found Jesus in the Temple after a threeday search, (Luke 2:46) Mary reproved him with the words: "Why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously. "(RSV) Jesus replied: "How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" Jesus, at the age of twelve, essentially told them: "Why were you even bothering to look for me?" The phrase "I must be in my Father's house" indicates that the Spirit of God was now leading him away from the household of his human family and into the work of his heavenly Father. The Bible adds that Jesus went back to Nazareth with Joseph and Mary, so Jesus did not yet make a "clean break" from his childhood home. However, the event at the Temple and Jesus' own words indicated his departure was imminent.
Is it not incongruous that while Jesus Christ is the central character of the New Testament, nothing is written concerning the majority of his life? The Bible tells us a little about his first twelve years, a lot about his last three and one-half years, but nothing about an eighteen year span between ages twelve and thirty.
Luke 3:23 observes that Jesus was "about 30" when he became a public figure in Judea due to the advent of his ministry, but where had he been and what had he done in the intervening eighteen years? Since the Bible makes no direct comment about this period of time, we must rely on non-Biblical sources for information about these missing years.
The New Testament's silence about these eighteen years of Jesus' life is significant. Since Luke 1:2 states that the gospel narratives of Jesus' life were eye-witness accounts, it implies that the gospel writers had not witnessed any of the events of Jesus' adult life before age thirty. This further implies that Jesus was not even present in Palestine during the "missing" eighteen years. If he had been living in Judea or Galilee, it would have been impossible to hide such a precocious youth who had been worshipped by foreign nobility as a child, and who had awed the Temple's rulers with his brilliance at age twelve.
Did the spiritual power that was manifesting itself in Jesus at age twelve go dormant for eighteen years? Did Jesus "quench the spirit" at age twelve so he could live as an obscure Galilean carpenter for eighteen years? That is highly unlikely. Indeed, the event at the Temple indicates that Jesus was in the process of separating from his parents to pursue the divine mission that he had been born to fulfill. It is the contention of this book that soon after the Temple incident, Jesus left Palestine altogether for eighteen years. There is biblical evidence supporting such a conclusion.
The account of Matthew 13:54-56 indicates that after this eighteen year period, Jesus was scarcely remembered in his own home town. Whereas, at age twelve, Jesus is amazing the teachers in the Jerusalem Temple with his wisdom, the common folk in his home town synagogue are asking themselves eighteen years later (after hearing Jesus speak): "Where did this man (Jesus) get this wisdom?" If the uncommon wisdom of Jesus had been present in Nazareth for those eighteen years, such a question would have been ludicrous. Note also verses 55-56 where the listeners ask: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary. and his brethren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? and his sisters, are they not all with us?"
This indicates that the members of his home town synagogue were struggling to identify or remember who Jesus was. The fact that they easily named all his immediate family members, and said "are they not all with us?" indicates that Jesus had not been "with them" as were his other family members. Their quizzical response to Jesus indicates that while Jesus had been gone from Nazareth for a long time, his immediate family members had remained there in the community. Obviously, if Jesus had been a hard-working carpenter in Nazareth all his life, the local citizenry would have easily recognized him. Yet they spoke as having never previously witnessed either his wisdom or power!
Jesus' wisdom had awed the most learned Jewish leaders in the nation at age twelve! To believe that Jesus lived the next eighteen years in Nazareth as a "humble carpenter" while showing no wisdom at all until age thirty, one has to believe that for eighteen years Jesus "quenched" the Holy Spirit that was burning brightly in him at age twelve! Christians are forbidden in I Thessalonians 5:19 to "quench the spirit." Did Jesus do what Christians are forbidden to do? Hardly! Yet traditional dogma (that Jesus lived inconspicuously in Nazareth untill age thirty) advocates just such a view.
The logical conclusion is that Jesus did not work as a carpenter in Nazareth during the "missing eighteen years." In fact, the Bible offers no statement that Jesus was ever employed as a carpenter during his adult life. Matthew 13:55 refers to Jesus as a "carpenter's son," NOT as a "carpenter." Luke's account about Jesus' meeting with the Temple elders at age 12 records Jesus declaring that his future was not linked to the profession of his physical father, but with the calling of his spiritual Father in heaven.
When his parents chided Jesus for being in the Temple rather than with them, Jesus replied "know you not that I must be about my Father's business?" This does not portray Jesus as a "rebel" since verse 51 shows that he was an obedient youth, but it shows that as early as age twelve, God's Spirit was drawing Jesus away from the carpenter "business" of Joseph, and toward the spiritual "business" of God.
As a child growing up in a carpenter's household, Jesus was certainly familiar with carpentry, but the Bible does not assert that he was a carpenter in Nazareth during the "missing years." Mark's account of Jesus' visit to his old home synagogue (Mark 6:1-6) does quote townsfolk as calling Jesus a "carpenter." However, these were the same townsfolk who struggled to identify Jesus, as the context confirms. Note that the Bible itself does not declare "Jesus was a carpenter," but rather quotes the comments of those who did not know him very well.That some hometown folk would call him a "carpenter" is consistent with the likelihood that Jesus had been a carpenter's apprentice to Joseph when they had last seen him.
This passage also declares that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. Jesus was an oldest son in a family of at least seven siblings. Whatever the number of siblings, it is clear that Mary had a large family after Jesus was born.
The Bible never mentions Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, after the episode of Jesus being in the Temple at age twelve. Since Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the siblings of Jesus are cited as living in Nazareth when Jesus is 30 years old and Joseph is not mentioned, it is apparent that Joseph died during those "missing years." Since Joseph of Arimathea was already spending a lot of time with Jesus at age twelve, he likely became Jesus' guardian after Joseph died.
Joseph of Arimathea was surely a good role model for Jesus as Luke 23:50 refers to him as "good" and "just." Given the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was a man of prominence in the Jewish community, and Jesus' precocious wisdom was known to the Temple elders in his pre-teen years, how is it possible that no record of Jesus' activities in Palestine exists for the missing eighteen years of Jesus' life? The logical answer is that he was not present in Palestine during that time!
Ordinarily, with the death of a father, the oldest son (even a young one like Jesus) would have been compelled to begin working for a living to support the family. However, since Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy relative (who could guarantee the economic health of the family), Jesus was free to pursue his real calling in life. Also, the Parthian Magi had lavished gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh upon Jesus when they had visited him shortly after his birth.
Since this large sum of wealth would have been held "in trust" for him either his parents or Joseph of Arimathea, Jesus could have tapped that wealth to provide for his family's needs without having to work as a carpenter.
In "The Traditions of Glastonbury", E. Raymond Capt cites evidence that Joseph of Arimathea was an international merchant involved with the tin trade in the British Isles. The British Isles were an Israelite region since at least the reign of Solomon. Also large bodies of the tribes of Simeon and Dan enterd Briton and Ireland around 721 B.C. when ancient Israel fell to Assyria, adding more Israelites to the population base of the British Isles. It is hardly surprising that Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the tribe of Judah, would be trading with people descended from the other tribes of Israel.
Capt cites the account of Gildas Badonicus (an early Britis historian of the sixth century A.D.) which refers to Joseph of Arimathea as a "nobihs decurio." The very fact that an early historian of Britain dismisses Joseph of Arimathea at all gives weight to accounts that Joseph was involved with the events of early Briton. Capt asserts that Joseph's role was as follows:
"The same title `Decurio'[applied to Joseph of arimathea is used by St. Jerome in his translation of the Vulgate of St. Mark's `honourable counsellor' (Mark 15..43) and St. Luke's 'counsellor.' (Luke 23..50) In the Roman world, a 'decurio' denoted an important Roman office, usually. connected with the general management of a mining district. The implication is that Joseph was in charge of Rome's mining interests in Britain.Such a position would require Joseph to spend a considerable amount of time away from his homeland."
Indeed, Joseph had to be a prominent man in the Roman world to receive immediate access to Pilate, the Roman administrator of Judea, during the intense political turmoil surrounding the crucifixion (Mark 15:43-45). Unless Joseph of Arimathea was both known to and trusted by Pilate and the Roman rulers of Judea, he would not have been allowed swift access to Pontius Pilate at a sensitive and critical a time.
Capt also states that during that period both Roman and Jewish law called for the disposal of the bodies of criminals in common pits with all memory of them removed, unless the body was promptly claimed by a relative. The fact that Joseph of Arimathea came forward to claim Jesus' body is convincing evidenece of not going to a lower official, but to Pilate himself, indicates that he was used to doing business with the highest Roman officials.
However, what of the activities of Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus during the "missing eighteen years?" If Jesus were under Joseph of Arimathea's tutelage during those years, he would have spent considerable time traveling, given that Joseph's business involved international trade between the nations of that day. While the information which follows is based on legends and traditions, they are buttressed by the Bible's implication that Jesus was absent from Palestine for a prolonged period of time.
Obviously, Jesus went somewhere during that time, and legends and traditions ofter the only evidence that exists.
Many traditions assert that Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus were not only present in Britain, but had homes in the area of Glastonbury, England. Supporting these traditions, Capt cites evidence that Glastonbury bore two titles from ancient times -"Secretum Domini" and "Domus Dei" (Latin for "The Secret of the Lord," and "The House of God").
William Steuart McBirnie, in his book, The Search for the Twelve Apostles, also wrote concerning these traditions:
"There certainly is no other tradition known concerning the history of St. Joseph of Arimathea and since the British tradition is vigorous we see no reason to challenge it ... If in any country there is a strong tradition concerning some Apostolic figures, and no counter-tradition elsewhere, then we at least stand on the ground of possibility and even probability. So it is with ... St. Joseph."
Capt also lists a fifteenth century document that Joseph of Arimathea converted Yjng Arviragus of first century A.D. Britain to the Christian religion, and that this early king in Britain gave Joseph and his party twelve portions of tax-free land in the area of Glastonbury. This tax-free land in Glastonbury is confirmed in the Domesday Book of early English history under the title "Domus Dei.126 The fact that there were twelve portions of land is significant. Did God inspire this symbolism ... one portion for each of the twelve tribes of Israel?------------------to be contd.
Alex Cain
NEW READERS Please note if you do NOT want to carry on receiving the Countdown
Magazine please let us know and we apologize in advance for any inconvenience caused--
Editor
If you use WP 6.0 for DOS or can convert we will be quite happy to let you have all past material. We will send you the discs. Otherwise patience is required. Send for latest list of free articles.
Phone international: (*) 44 (0)1252 547397
(*) code out of Your Country
44 into Britain
(0) local only
Please not after 2200 hrs or 10 o'clock GMT
Copyright© Church of God 1996
This article has been financed by others, our Religious Organisations Girobank No. is 17
799 7206
Not to be sold to the general public but you may photocopy, or scan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I/we would like to receive " The Countdown" Monthly Magazine.
I would also like a friend to receive it. Please inform us of any change of address.
Name______________________________________________________
Address_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Church of God, P.O. Box 53. Farnborough, Hants. GU14OYZ UK .
We would like to thank all who contributed financially (in whatever form), by article, by note, by phone call, by handing us material and by all your very encouraging letters throughout the year from around the world and by people who operate behind the scenes. Without YOU the magazine is not possible.
Readers might like to know that Lord Rothschild was head of
Edward Heath's think-tank.
(Sunday Telegraph 29 Dec 1996) Heath took Britain into the Common Market.
To date there has been NO scientific evidence to connect B.S.E with human
beings, C.J.D. And the best coverage of the subject to date has been in, On
Target (Vol.26 Nos.6 &7) from Bloomfield Books 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury,
Suffolk, England, CO10 6TD. Cost 1 plus postage.
Christopher Booker and Richard North in their book THE CASTLE OF LIES shows
quite conclusively how that most politicians do not speak the truth. Now in its
fourth printing 8.95 from Telegraph Books Direct on 01908 566366.
And Stephen Dorrell who made that fateful statement last March linking BSE
with "new" C.J.D causing the holocaust of millions of cattle at the cost to the
British taxpayer of 3.5 billion might be the leader of the Tory Party. As Mr
Booker wrote-- God help us.