Drama of The Lost Disciples - THE NOBILIS DECURIO

THE NOBILIS DECURIO


JOSEPH of Arimathea was a man of refinement, well educated,

and one who possessed many talents. He had extraordinary

political and business ability and was reputed to be one of the

wealthiest men in the world of that time. He was the Carnegie of

his day, a metal magnate controlling the tin and lead industry

which then was akin in importance to that of steel today.

Tin was the chief metal for the making of alloys and in great

demand by the warring Romans.

Many authorities claim that Joseph's world control of tin

and lead was due to his vast holdings in the famous, ancient tin

mines of Britain. This interest he had acquired and developed

many years before Jesus was baptized by His cousin, John the

Baptist, and before He began His brief but glorious mission.

The world's major portion of tin was mined in Cornwall,

smelted into ingots and exported throughout the then known

civilized world, chiefly in the ships of Joseph. He is reputed to

have owned one of the largest private merchant shipping fleets

afloat which traversed the world's sea lanes in the

transportation of this precious metal.

The existence of the tin trade between Cornwall and

Phoenicia is frequently referred to by classical writers, and is

described at considerable length by Diodorus Siculus as well as

Julius Caesar.

In the Latin Vulgate of the Gospel of St. Mark 15:43, and

St. Luke 23:50, we find both referring to Joseph of Arimathea as

'Decurio'. This was the common term employed by the Romans to

designate an official in charge of metal mines.

In St. Jerome's translation, Joseph's official title is

given as 'Nobilis Decurio'. This would indicate that he held a

prominent position in the Roman administration as a minister of

mines. For a Jew to hold such high rank in the Roman State is

rather surprising, and goes far to prove the remarkable

characteristics of Joseph. We know he was an influential member

of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious body that ruled Roman

Jewry, and a legislative member of a provincial Roman senate. His

financial and social standing can well be estimated when we

consider he owned a palatial home in the holy city and a fine

country residence just outside Jerusalem.



Several miles north of the ancient city he possessed another

spacious estate at Arimathea, which is known today as Ramalleh.

It was located on the populous caravan route between Nazareth and

Jerusalem. Everything known of him points to him as affluent and

as a person of importance and influence within both the Jewish

and Roman hierarchies.

According to the Talmud, Joseph was the younger brother of

the father of the Virgin Mary. He was her uncle, and therefore a

great uncle to Jesus. Chiefly from the secular reports we learn

that Joseph was a married man and his son, Josephes, left a mark

of distinction in British history.

During the lifetime of Jesus there constantly appears

reference to his association with a relative at Jerusalem.

Profane history is more positive on the matter, identifying the

connection with Joseph. As we study the old records we find there

is a valid reason for the close association of Jesus and his

family with Joseph. It is quite obvious that the husband of Mary

died while Jesus was young. Under Jewish law such a circumstance

automatically appointed the next male kin of the husband, in this

case Joseph, legal guardian of the family. This fact explains

many things. History and tradition report Jesus, as a boy,

frequently in the company of His uncle, particularly at the time

of the religious feasts, and declares that Jesus made voyages to

Britain with Joseph in his ships. Cornish traditions abound with

this testimony and numerous ancient landmarks bear Hebrew names

recording these visits.

Even during the short period of the ministry of Jesus there

is definitely shown to exist a close affinity between them, far

greater than one would expect from an ordinary guardianship. It

was fatherly, loyal, with a mutual affection death could not

sever.

We know that Joseph never forsook his nephew. He stood by

Him as a bold, fearless defender at the notorious trial, and

defied the Sanhedrin by going to Pilate and boldly claiming the

body when all others feared to do so. His arms were the first to

cradle the broken corpse when taken from the cross and place it

in the tomb. After death he continued to protect the mutilated

body of Jesus from the conspiring minds of the Sadducees. He

risked his all, wealth, power and position in those crucial years

fulfilling his obligation as guardian of Jesus and of the family

of Mary. He loved Jesus dearly. The disciples spoke of Joseph

with an affectionate regard. They wrote he was a 'just man', a

'good man', 'honourable', and 'a disciple of Jesus'. The latter

clearly indicates that all through their association Joseph must

have encouraged



THE NOBILIS DECURIO



Jesus in His great work and that he was aware of the mystery

of His birth and probaby His destiny. All evidence proves that

Joseph believed in the validity of all Jesus taught and

ultimately suffered for.

It is commonly taught that Jesus was poor and of obscure

relatives. His relationship with the affluent Joseph of Arimathea

proves otherwise. In His own right He was a property owner but

long before He took up His mission He forsook all material

wealth.

It should be remembered that Jesus was a true lineal

descendant of the Shepherd King, David, and of Seth, son of Adam,

who was the son of God.



WHO MOVED THE STONE AT THE TOMB?





DENIED the power of the vote Caiaphas lost no time in

contacting Pilate, fully prepared to play his ace with the

pressure of blackmail if Pilate hesitated to institute the charge

of treason against Jesus. Under Roman law treason was a capital

offence which, if proven, was punishable by death. Only the Roman

Procurator could try such a case and only he could legally impose

the death penalty. This Caiaphas demanded and silence was his

price.

The High Priest possessed positive knowledge that Pontius

Pilate had been an active party to a secret, futile plot to

assassinate Tiberius Caesar. Armed with this knowledge Caiaphas

imposed his will on the Procurator, who trembled with fear of

exposure, disgrace, and the threat to his life.

It is with certainty we can assume that Joseph pleaded with

Pilate not to interfere in a new trial of Jesus. Joseph was

unaware of the deadly secret Caiaphas held over the Spanish-born

Procurator. Neither his pleadings nor his influence could

prevail. Nor could the earnest supplication of Pilate's wife

avail, who, disturbed by the potency of a dream the night before,

begged of him to have nothing to do with the trial of 'that just

man'.

Pilate deferred to his wife. He owed his exalted position to

the social eminence his marriage had brought. His wife was

Claudia Procula, the illegitimate daughter of Claudia, the third

wife of Tiberius Caesar, and grand-daughter of Augustus Caesar.

Pilate knew that the Emperor, against whom he had plotted, was

very fond of his step-daughter and, being an astute politician,

Pontius Pilate deferred to her every whim. For him to deny

Claudia's urgent request is but to prove how serious Pilate

considered the hold Caiaphas had on him. At heart Pilate was not

in sympathy with the demands of the Sadducees. He found no

foundation to their charges. Four times Jesus was pronounced

innocent but Pilate, in his evasive gesture calling for a bowl of

water to signify he washed his hands of the whole matter, acceded

to the murderous demands of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, he

permitted the Roman guard to carry out the tragic act

historically known as 'The Scandal of the Cross'.



The dream that tortured Pilate's wife on the previous night

foretold disaster to him if he judged Jesus. The dream came true.

Later Pontius Pilate committed suicide.

From the beginning to the end the arrest and dual trial was

a vicious frame-up, a betrayal, a travesty of justice. From that

dark hour in the garden to the crucifixion, the plot was hurried

to its conclusion. It had to be. The murmurings of the people had

been growing louder, as evidenced at the final trial. Following

the fatal verdict the whole city seethed with fear and unrest.

Caiaphas and his fanatical collaborators had triumphed but the

Romans held the lash and would not hesitate to use it

unmercifully on the slightest provocation or interference. So

greatly did terror prevail throughout Jerusalem that all known to

have been associated with Jesus in even the slightest way fled

into hiding.

Nine of the twelve disciples had fled the city directly

after the arrest in the garden, leaving only three standing by.

Judas was no longer numbered among the faithful. Only Peter, John

and Nicodemus remained. Even though Peter had denied his Master

he, with the beloved disciple John, had followed Jesus into the

crowded court room of the Sanhedrin. There for the third time,

Peter denied association with his Lord. After the fatal

circumstances had arisen Peter, overwhelmed with self-torment and

ashamed of his denials, despondently went into seclusion within

the city. He did not witness the crucifixion. Of those present,

the Scriptures refer by name only to John and Mary, the mother of

Jesus, witnessing the tragedy at the foot of the cross, and the

three women, Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and

Salome who watched from a respectful distance.

Wonderment is often evinced at the omission of the Bethany

sisters, Martha and Mary, whom Jesus loved. The impression

gathered is that they were not present. This does not seem

conceivable. The name of Joseph is not mentioned but it seems

safe to say they were all present. The record says, 'all the

women who followed Him,' and 'others were mingled among the

crowd'. The speed with which Joseph called on Pilate after the

demise indicates that he was present. Pilate appears to be

surprised at hearing the swift news, asking those near him if it

were true Jesus was dead.



("But all those who were the acquaintance of Christ, stood at a

distance, as did the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee,

observing all these things:" - Nicodemus 8:11).





It is doubtful if the beloved John and the Blessed Mother

witnessed the expiration on the cross. We are told that after

Jesus committed His mother to the care of John, the disciple led

her away to spare her the last dark hours of suffering.

Probably the average Christian of today fails to realize the

extent of the physical and mental torture borne by the sensitive

Jesus through this agonizing period. From the hour of the Last

Supper to the time of His death, He had not touched food or

drink. He had been 'third degreed' from the moment He stood in

the torch-lit Sanhedrin, until after His trial before Pilate.

Then, following the heckling, the crowning of thorns, and the

reviling by His enemies who had placed the mocking sign on Him -

'King of the Jews'.

Following His condemnation to death He had been brutally

flogged by His Roman executioners, His back slashed to ribbons.

Even today it is conceded that the Roman flogging was the most

cruel ever to be inflicted on a human being. This we can well

believe as we scan the Roman records which attest to the fact

that only one out of ten ever survived the ghastly scourging.

His suffering was intensified when the reviling Roman

soldier pressed the bitter sponge of hyssop to His parched lips

when He called for water as He hung on the cross.

All this He endured apart from the terrible torment He

suffered as He slowly expired on the cross. Weighing all this as

we must, we are not left in doubt that Jesus was as physically

superb as He was mentally and spiritually.

According to both Jewish and Roman law, unless the body of

an executed criminal be immediately claimed by the next of kin

the body of the victim was cast into a common pit with others

where all physical record of them was completely obliterated.

Why did not Mary, the mother of Jesus, as the immediate next of

kin, claim the body of her beloved Son?

Perhaps John, fearing for the safety of Mary, restrained

her, leaving it to Joseph, the family guardian, to make the

request. We do know that Joseph was the one who personally went

to Pilate and obtained the Procurator's official sanction to

claim the body, remove it from the cross, and prepare it for

burial in his private sepulchre which was within the garden of

his estate.

You will likely agree that this was in order. But consider

the circumstances.



A reign of terror continued to prevail within the city of

Jerusalem. No follower of Christ was safe from the evil

machinations of the Sanhedrin, who were then enjoying a Roman

holiday in the persecution of the followers of 'The Way'. As

already stated, all but two of the disciples had fled the city

and gone into safe seclusion in fear of their lives. However, as

we shall see, there was yet another, Nicodemus, who had not fled

the city. But Joseph, the Roman senator, and the legislative

member of the Sanhedrin, also a disciple, was the only close

associate of Christ who dared to walk openly on the street

without fear of molestation. Was he too powerful and prominent

for either side to harm? Yet Joseph knew he was dealing with

dynamite, and from the circumstances that followed it appears

that Joseph did fear interference, not personally, but in his

intentions.

Actually, why did he go to Pontius Pilate ?

Why did he not claim the body in the ordinary way, according

to custom?

Certainly, it was not a common occurrence to seek permission

from the highest authority in the land in order to obtain the

body of an executed criminal.

Why had he not sought permission from the Sanhedrin? They

were inflexible in their rule that a body must be claimed and

buried before sunset. Actually, under normal circumstances there

was no need to go further than the Sanhedrin. Jesus was regarded

as a Jew. Joseph was a Jew and a high ranking member of the

Jewish Sanhedrin. There was only one reason why Joseph preferred

to make the claim for the body to Pilate. He knew that the

fanatical Sadducean Priesthood sought the total extinction of

Jesus, even in death.

Annas and Caiaphas had succeeded in their diabolical,

murderous scheme by having Jesus crucified as a common criminal.

Does it not stand to reason that they would seek to carry out the

ignominy to its fullest extent?

Would they not have preferred that the body of Jesus be

disposed of in the common criminal pit so that His extinction

would be total and all memory steeped in shame?

Certainly, it would have been Sanhedrin.

To have Jesus decently interred within a respectably known

sepulchre was but to erect a martyr's tomb for the multitude to

flock to in an ageless pilgrimage. That would have doomed the

Sanhedrin more surely than anything else. Therefore, reason would

indicate that the High Priesthood were bent on interfering with

the claim of the kin of the crucified Christ. With Mary, the

Sanhedrin could interfere, but not with Joseph. He did not fear

them and was to the best interest of the determined to thwart

them in their designs. The Scripture says he went 'boldly' before

Pilate and successfully asserted the kin rights of his niece.



(I also show in this section under my "The New Testament Bible

Story" that there was much going on during Jesus' hanging on the

cross and His death and what took place. The Jewish authorities

and Sanhedrin were in total shock at the darkness and the tearing

of the Temple curtain dividing the Holy Place from the Most Holy

Place. There would have been complete confusion as well as fear,

and the Jewish authorities could have cared less about the body

of Jesus on that cross; they were too busy in their confusion and

fear. I also show it was not till evening (the earliest being 6

pm) that Joseph came to Pilate. The body of Jesus was not taken

off the cross and put in the tomb until the first few hours of

the first holy day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the 15th of

the first month. Hence Jesus was raised three days and three

nights later, the first hours of what we today call Saturday

evening - in God's day reckoning the first day of the week. This

fulfilled the wave-sheaf cutting of the Sadducees during the

first few hours AFTER the weekly Sabbath, or Saturday evening,

during the Feast of Unleavened Bread, to be presented in the

Temple Sunday morning. This is all fully explained as I went

through this section of the Gospels in my "New Testament Bible

Story" - on this website - Keith Hunt)



Between Caiaphas and Pilate there still existed an armed

truce, but the latter played a skilful game. He played both sides

to his own advantage. Pilate had already satisfied the Sanhedrin.

No matter how they opposed him thereafter, at the moment they

could not deny him the right of fulfilling this particular part

of the law to which both the Jew and the Roman subscribed in the

disposal of the body. Pilate needed Joseph's friendship and there

was no easier way of securing it than by recognizing Joseph's

claim to the murdered body of his favourite nephew.

By this act of interference, Joseph became a doubly marked

man by the High Priesthood of Jewry.

Returning from his mission with Pilate, Joseph's acts are

again shown to be hurried as though fearing interception. He

returned to the scene of the tragedy followed by Nicodemus, who

carried one hundred pounds of mixed spices with which to prepare

the body, prior to burial. Premature darkness had set in

following the phenomenal storm that broke loose upon the land as

Jesus expired on the cross, rending in twain the curtain in the

temple and scattering the spectators abroad. Only two remained,

Mary Magdalene, and the wife of Cleophas, sister of the Blessed

Mary. They watched as Joseph, with the help of Nicodemus, lowered

the body from the cross, laid it on the ground and wrapped the

mortal remains of Jesus in the burial linen which Joseph had

personally provided. It was dark and time appeared precious.

Again we are impressed with the evidence of hurriedness. Without

any further preparation they carried the body to the sepulchre in

the garden of Joseph and laid it within the tomb, while the two

women who had followed, watched nearby.

Joseph and Nicodemus had too little time properly to anoint

the body and dress it according to the custom in the linen

shroud.



(This is not correct at all from the Gospels; they did take the

time to correctly, in the Jewish manner, use the 100 pounds of

aloe and wrap the body of Jesus. All fully exolained in this

Gospel section in my "New Testament Bible Story" - Keith Hunt)



Yet the surprising thing is that they sealed the entrance to

the tomb with a 'great' stone.

Why? Did Joseph have other intentions?

Common sense alone tells us that Joseph would not have

allowed the body of his beloved nephew to remain in the ghastly

state it was when lowered from the cross, bloody, sweaty, grimy

and torn.

Then what happened in between the few dark hours from the

time the sealing stone was rolled to close the entrance to the

tomb, and early dawn on the third day, when the second great

drama took place - the disappearance of the body of Jesus from

the sepulchre? We Christians accept without any reservations the

Biblical version of the disappearance, but it should be

remembered that in those days there was no Biblical version to go

by, and Jesus was but barely known outside His native land. Not

then was He the accepted Messiah; therefore, as we keep this in

mind, we can better understand the impact, pro and con, this

startling incident created among the populace, friend and foe.

The discovery was made on the sabbath dawn (the writer was

obviously person who took Sunday as the Sabbath, which it never

was nor it - Keith Hunt) when Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of

James, and Salome appeared on the scene at the break of day,

bringing with them spices with which to clean and anoint the body

of Christ. Their intentions are evident. They knew the body had

been hastily interred without the proper burial preparation. The

two Marys had been witness to this. They had watched Joseph and

Nicodemus take the body from the cross and hurriedly wrap it in

the linens at the foot of the cross. They had followed the two

men into the garden of Joseph, standing nearby, as the body was

placed on the ledge within the tomb, and witnessed the sealing of

the entrance to the tomb with the 'great' stone.



(The Mary's were coming that Sunday morning had nothing to do

with "correcting" something done in a hurry three days before -

the writer is reading his own ideas into the text - Keith Hunt)



They were not likely to anoint the body twice within a few

hours. On approaching the tomb, the scriptural record tells us

that the first experience of the three women was one of shock.

They saw that the great stone was completely removed from the

entrance. This shock was followed by another as the drama

unfolded. To their astonishment they saw a young man dressed in

white, seated in an unconcerned manner on the very ledge within

the tomb on which the body of Christ had been laid.

From a study of the Marcan Manuscript, which relates the

story with vivid realism, all evidence tends to prove that this

particular young man was a complete stranger to the women and his

attitude towards them was calm and unperturbed. He did not rush

out to meet them excitedly. Before they had time to speak he told

them Jesus was not there. The body was gone. They must go to

Galilee, where they would meet Him. He told the stunned women the

facts in the simple manner of one relating an incident he

believed they should have known. But they did not know. Neither

did they know the stranger within the tomb. All they were

conscious of was that the body of their Lord was gone. Without

questioning the stranger, the frightened women hastened back to

the city, with Mary Magdalene, the youngest and most active of

the three women, hurrying in advance to inform Peter and John of

the startling news.



(This is far from what really happened that Sunday morning. See

my "New Testament Bible Story" for the rest of the story as the

late Paul Harvey would have said - Keith Hunt)



Evidently the two disciples were just as ignorant and

bewildered over the disappearance of the body, if not doubtful.

We find them hastening to the tomb and, on arriving,

investigating the interior. On entering the sepulchre John

stooped to pick up the discarded linen that lay collapsed, but

intact, supported only by the spices.

But where was the young stranger in white?

He was not there for the two disciples to interrogate.

Who was he? What was he doing there? Where had he gone? What

did he know? Why was he never found?

History would give a great deal to know the answers to these

puzzling questions. The records are silent.



(The truth is in the Gospels - angels were present when the women

arrived - just that simple - Keith Hunt)



Following the entombment the Sadducees, suspicious of the

disciples, determined to prevent any possible tampering with the

body. They requested Pilate to post a guard over the tomb,

reminding him that Jesus had claimed that on the third day He

would rise from the dead. They did not believe this and instead,

considered it a ruse of the disciples to steal the body. Pilate

flatly refused. He had already washed his hands of the matter and

told them to arrange their own guard, which they did.

In this case where was the guard?

The tomb was unguarded when the three women had arnved. Why

had the guard left so early, and where was the change of guards?

Surely, the Sanhedrin, who had assumed full responsibility for

posting the guard, would have taken every possible precaution. It

was in their best interest to do so. To do otherwise was to

invite the roused anger of the populace and of Pilate. They dare

not have placed themselves in such an uncompromising position.

We can well believe that the Sadducees had nothing to do with the

disappearance of the body. If they had caused the body to be

removed they would never have unwrapped it, leaving the linen

there. Neither would they have left the entrance to the tomb

open. In their position there was no need for haste. The guard

was theirs Certainly, they would have concealed their crime by

replacing the stone at the entrance, giving orders to the guard

forbidding anyone entry.

Again, everything points to haste.



(No, the writer is in haste, to make it sound like all was in

haste at the beginning of the three days and three night Jesus

was to be in the tomb and then reusrrected - Keith Hunt)



Much has been said, pro and con, in reference to the story

of the guards, with the general assumption being that it was not

true, but a whitewashed alibi of the Sanhedrin. Common opinion is

that, even if the guard had fallen asleep at their post, a stone

so large and heavy that sealed the tomb could never have been

moved away without awakening them. If they had fallen asleep at

their post of duty they would have been punished by death, as was

the military custom of that time. In this, general opinion errs.

It is generally assumed that the guard had to be Roman. If it

were true the Roman penalty for dereliction of duty would

undoubtedly have been imposed. But the guard belonged to the

priestly Sanhedrin, whose discipline did not include the death

penalty.

The story given by the priests's guards is most probable.

They admitted they had fallen asleep and, on awakening, were

surprised to see that the huge stone had been rolled away. On

further investigation they saw that the tomb was empty and

straight away hurried to the Sanhedrin with the news. Caiaphas

bribed them, giving them money so say that the disciples had

stolen the body and to leave it to him to convince Pilate that

such was the case. Nevertheless, they were deeply concerned over

the disappearance and the Jewish record informs us that Caiaphas

ordered Joseph to appear before the Sanhedrin for questioning.

Another stormy scene occurred before the Assembly. Caiaphas

openly accused Joseph of being the prime instigator of the plot

and demanded to know where the body reposed. To all their

questioning Joseph maintained a stony silence. He refused to

talk, defiant in the knowledge that he was beyond their power to

prosecute.

Why did they not interrogate Mary, the mother of Jesus, or

Peter, John, or Nicodemus, whom the Sanhedrin knew were the only

associates of Christ present in the city at that time? Why were

the other women not questioned? Perhaps the Sanhedrin considered

such simple people as they incapable of carrying out such a

delicate operation. Perhaps the genuine agitation of the

disciples, and of the women concerning the mystery, was enough to

satisfy the priesthood that they had no knowledge of what had

happened.

The difference between the members of the Sanhedrin and the

disciples was - the Jewish priests insisted that the body of

Jesus was stolen and secretly buried by Joseph or the disciples.

The latter believed Christ had risen according to His word, on

the third day, to be the first-fruits of all who slept.



Therefore, it matters not who moved the stone at the tomb.



(Common sense tells us it was divine power that moved the stone,

and Matthew tells us it was an angel - not for Jesus to exit but

for the disciples that Sunday morning to see Jesus was no longer

in the tomb but was reusrrected just as Jesus Himself had said -

Keith Hunt)



Sorrow turned into triumph and an unquenchable zeal to

preach the Gospel to all the world. Joseph of Arimathea, the

uncle of Jesus, was no longer guardian over His corporeal

existence but over a greater treasure - Christ's sacred mission

on earth. Henceforth he was to be the guardian of all the beloved

against the arch-enemy, and ultimately their leader. He began to

dedicate himself to his amazing destiny, which later was to make

it possible for Peter and Paul to accomplish their great work in

the service of the Lord. Joseph himself was to plant the roots of

Christianity in fertile soil where it would flourish and never

perish from off the earth.



THE SAULIAN GESTAPO AND THE EXODUS A.D. 36



FOLLOWING the disappearance of the body and the Ascension of

Christ, an evil, brooding passion for vengeance seized upon the

ruling priesthood of the Sanhedrin. In secret conclave they

plotted and planned a campaign of unremitting persecution against

the followers of 'The Way'. Maliciously, they determined to

exterminate all who failed to escape their bloody hands.

There is no greater hatred than in a divided house, or brother

against brother. In the main, the victims of the Sanhedrin were

of their own race. The hatred they bore for the followers of 'The

Way' was far greater than the implacable hatred that had divided

the kingdom of Israel before the captivity. At that time, the Ten

Tribes under Ephraim had drawn north into Samaria, while the two

tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with a few Levites, remained at

Jerusalem. A wall of bitterness existed between them that was

never removed. After each regained their freedom, the Ephraimites

commenced their long march beyond the Euphrates, disappearing

from scriptural history, to become known by other names.

Now, it was more than a bitterness. It was a blind, cruel,

unreasonable, black hatred.

The 'Gestapo' the Sanhedrin formed was specially organized

under the appointed leadership of the vengeful Saul. He wasted no

time. He struck quickly and viciously. Followers of 'The Way'

found in Jerusalem, be they Greek, Roman or Jew, were openly, or

in secret alike struck down. No mercy was shown. The records of

that time state the prisons were overcrowded with their victims.

The first notable victim Saul seized upon was the man whom he

considered to be his inveterate foe, Stephen, the courageous

leader of the Liberal Party who led the brilliant defence of

Jesus on that fateful night in the court of the Sanhedrin. Along

with Peter, John and others, Stephen had taken up the sceptre,

defying the Sadducees by victoriously preaching the Word

throughout the holy city. Thousands were daily converted and

later, according to St. Luke, reached the spectacular number of

three to five thousand daily. This testimony dissipates the idea

that the Jews were unresponsive to the magic appeal of 'The Way'.

The Jews were the first converts, a fact which further infuriated

the corrupt Sadducean Priesthood.



Fate caught up quickly with Stephen. The Jewish minions of

the Sanhedrin stoned him to death in the manner peculiar to the

Jews, as Saul looked on. He perished by the gate that still bears

his name. St. Stephen was the first martyr for Christ, A.D. 33.

(Wrong year - it was AD 30 - Jesus died in 30 AD as a study on

this website proved in-depth, and as many other "scholars" have

also said it was 30 AD. - Keith Hunt)



So fierce was Saul's vindictive purge that he wrought havoc

within the Church at Jerusalem. The boundaries of Judea could not

confine him. Illegally, he trespassed far within Roman territory

where he hounded the devotees without censure or interference

from Roman administration. No doubt the Romans felt Saul was

doing them a service, and a good job in ridding them of what they

considered an undesirable religious pestilence.

Throughout this reign of terror Joseph remained the

stalwart, fearless protector of the disciples and of the women.

On every possible occasion he stood between them and their

enemies, a veritable tower of strength. Saul's fury knew no

bounds. Strive and scheme as they may, Joseph's position as an

influential Roman official defied the Saulian Gestapo from

molesting his person, or those whom he defended. Nevertheless, it

became a losing battle. Within four years after the death of

Christ, A.D. 36, (33/34 is more correct - Keith Hunt) many of the

devotees were scattered out of Jerusalem and Judea. There is

little doubt that the ships of Joseph, co-ordinating with the

Christian underworld, carried numerous of the faithful in safety

to other lands. He spared neither his help nor his wealth in

aiding all whom he could.

Calloused as the Romans were with their own specific brand

of brutality, even they were shocked by the ferocious atrocities

of the Sanhedrin Gestapo. Out of this evil sprung the cause of

their own ultimate doom. Later the Romans turned into a two-edged

sword, becoming the rabid persecutors and executioners of both

Jew and Christian. Saul was to meet a cruel death at their hands.

For the Judean Jews the culminating catastrophe occurred in the

year A.D. 70, when Titus, son of the Roman Emperor, Vespasian,

massacred them at Jerusalem and put the ancient city to torch,

levelling it to ashes, as Jesus had foretold. (Well... not quite,

the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem today was part of the outer wall of

the Temple, so levelling to ashes has become an incorrect way to

describe Titus' destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD. -

Keith Hunt)



Those who escaped were scattered to the four corners of the

world, despised and hated, forced to live in ghettoes, and never

to return to Judea. The Christian persecution was to continue for

centuries in an increasing, diabolic form. Tiberius proclaimed an

edict, making it a capital offence to be a Christian. Claudius

and other Roman Emperors repeated the edict. The Romans, noting

with alarm the rise of Christianity, began to consider Christians

a menace to their empiric safety; therefore a class of people to

be exterminated. History proves with a mass of bloodstained

evidence, how they strove their level best to crush the

evangelistic movement. It was like striving to push back the

waves of the sea with the palms of their hands. It was not to be.

As prophecy proclaimed, and history has fulfilled, the cross

was to triumph over the sword.



According to Acts 8:1-4, the Church of Jerusalem was

scattered abroad. Even the Apostles were forced later to flee.

This was the year of the epochal exile when the curtain descended

darkly upon the lives and doings of so many of that illustrious

band. Modem Christians are chiefly familiar with the New

Testament record of the favoured few - Peter, Paul, Matthew,

Mark, Luke and John, with passing reference to but a few others.

What became of the rest of the original twelve Apostles, the

seventy whom Christ first elected, then what of the later one

hundred and twenty? They are the lost disciples on whom the

scriptural record is as silent as the grave, particularly the two

most outstanding characters, Joseph of Arimathea, and Mary, the

mother of Jesus. The sacred pages close upon them in that fateful

year leaving not a trace or a shadow of their mysterious passage

into permanent exile.



Ponder the facts. Christ's mission lasted but three years.

Four years later the Elect had fled into exile. The great crusade

was ended in but six years. True, some disciples laboured later

there in Judea, but the effects were transitory. Roman rule

tightened down, with a mailed fist on both Jew and Christian.

Within thirty-five years the holy city was to be a rubble of

ruins and thereafter largely occupied by the heathen and

unbelievers. Christianity had its birth in Christ in the Holy

Land, but not its growth that flourished to convert the world.

This sprang to its full glory in another land. How could this

happen? You may search the Scriptures in vain for record of

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ever being near this distant

country. The journeys of Peter and Paul as described in the Bible

do not seem to give any clue. Then who performed this monumental

Christian evangelistic work?

Jesus Himself provides the answer as He denounces the

Sadducean Jews, telling them that the glory shall be taken away

from them and given to another. Again, when He says He came not

to the Jews, but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. He

knew He would not convert the Sanhedrin and its following, so it

had to be others - the lost sheep. Who were they? The answer lies

in His commission to Paul, the converted Saul, whom he commands

to go to the Gentiles. To what Gentiles did Paul go apart from

the Romans? Or did Paul commission others of the illustrious band

as missionaries? The answer has to be somewhere. The Romans did

not Christianize the world. They were the greatest enemies of the

Christian Gospel for over three hundred years after the death of

Christ. Who crushed this Roman opposition that made Rome

Christian?



Many are the intriguing questions that can be asked, all of

which would seem to deepen the mystery that revolves around those

who can be truly called the "Lost Disciples." We find the answers

by studying ancient writings, the old martyrologies and

menologies, the age-old parchments that have reposed in great

libraries for many centuries, filed away, and for almost as many

centuries, completely forgotten. These, and the works of eminent

scholars who have explored the great scrolls, and deciphered the

contents, reveal the astonishing facts. That is the object of

this work, which at best can only quote briefly from the mass of

data available. Where scriptural history ends secular history

begins and in using the word 'history', we find greater faith and

strength in understanding the original meaning of the word. As

one great writer stated, 'There are Sermons in Stones'. Equally

so, there is revelation in words.



The Bible was God's Book of history, the Word of God. In the

Old Testament, history is given to us in prophecy, and in the New

Testament demonstrated in fulfilment. Therefore, viewed in this

light, the true explanation of the word 'history,' as we employ

the word is: 'Prophecy is history [His-Story] foretold, and

history is prophecy fulfilled.' Fulfilment of His story began in

the advent of Christ and will continue until the whole world

accepts Him. Even we Christians have yet much to learn, but Jesus

said it would become known unto us all as we are ready to

receive.

All those who are inclined to consider the Gospel of Christ

a mystical, intangible or incredible story founded on myth and

superstition with no substance to His existence, will find solid

evidence in tracing the footsteps of the Lost Disciples from the

exodus of A.D. 36, when they passed out of Biblical history into

secular history, particularly the events concerning Joseph of

Arimathea. While there are many learned minds dating from the era

of Christ onward who provide the same record, there is a special

advantage in quoting a more modem authority with the eminent

ecclesiastical background of Cardinal Baronius, who is considered

the most outstanding historian of the Roman Catholic Church. He

was Curator of the famous Vatican library, a man of learning, and

a reliable, facile writer. Quoting from his Ecclesiastical Annals

referring to the exodus of the year A.D. 36, the mystery is

solved as to the fate of Joseph of Arimathea and others who went

into exile with him. He writes:



In that year the party mentioned was exposed to the sea in a

vessel without sails or oars. The vessel drifted finally to

Marseilles and they were saved. From Marseilles Joseph and

his company passed into Britain and after preaching the

Gospel there, died.



No doubt, this event in British history will come as a

surprise to many Christians, but there is a mass of corroborative

evidence to support this historic passage by many reliable Greek

and Roman authorities, including affirmation in the Jewish

Encyclopaedia, under 'Arles'.

The studious pronouncement made by Cardinal Baronius,

derived from delving into the treasured archives of the Vatican

at Rome, has proved to be as incontrovertible as it is revealing.

To my mind, the Vatican would be the first to repudiate any

testimony from their archives to support the priority claim of

Christian Britain, if it were untrue.

The interesting part of the Baronius report is that the date

coincides with that given in the Acts of the Apostles.

The expulsion of Joseph and his companions in an oarless

boat without sails would be in keeping with the malicious design

of the Sanhedrin. They dared not openly destroy him and, instead,

conceived an ulterior method hoping their ingenious treachery

would eventually consign Joseph and his companions to a watery

grave. Little did they realize that, by this subtle act in

ridding themselves of the outstanding champion of Christ, their

very hope for destruction would be circumvented by an act of

providence. Their perfidy made it possible for the forgotten

Fathers of Christianity to congregate in a new land where they

would be free of molestation.



The Saulian Gestapo had failed dismally and for the last

time. It began to collapse completely when vengeful Saul, on the

road to Damascus, was stricken blind. The incredible happened.

Saul heard the voice of Christ speak to him and had his sight

restored. He was converted to the faith of 'The Way'. The news

stunned the Sanhedrin, infuriating them beyond measure.

Immediately, they ordered an all-out drive to seize Saul and

kill him on sight, a reversal of circumstances. The hunter was

hunted. He went into hiding appealing for aid from Christ's

disciples. Their reluctance to save him is understandable. They

were filled with suspicion as much as with surprise. Finally they

complied, lowering him over the wall of the city with a rope,

making his escape in the company of the disciples. From then on

he became famous as Paul. The rest is well known. He took up the

cross with his great commission as given to him by His Redeemer,

Christ, and with all his heart. Finally he gave his all to his

Master, in martyrdom, leaving behind an unblemished record which

marked him as St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles.

..........



NOTE:





SO WE WILL START THE EXCITING HISTORY RECORDS THAT

REVEAL THE TRAVEL OF JOSEPH AND OTHERS TO THE LAND OF

BRITAIN - THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE SO-CALLED LOST TEN

TRIBES OF ISRAEL, WHICH WERE NEVER LOST TO GOD. THEY

HAD BEEN BROUGHT THROUGH EUROPE AND WOULD BE THE MAIN

NATIONS OF MODERN EUROPE, TO FULL-FILL, TO FILL TO THE

BRIM THE CUP OF END TIME PROPHECY, AND TO BE THE

PEOPLE WHO WOULD GIVE THE BIBLE (OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS) TO

THE WORLD.



Keith Hunt