I am glad you agree that as stated the number is correct.
I also know that 64 bit and 32 bit has different numbers.
You are beyond any help. No one should listen to anything you say about science. I hope our discussion on this topic is sufficient to illustrate that to folks who stumble across this thread.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
In other words I took it you were referring to the theory in the BBT but that you were referring to a BANG with the BB abbreviation. I can't read minds and don't think I would like to be able too.
No, I was simply referring to the inflation again. There is no actual BANG anywhere when talking about the BB or the BBT. It's simply a bad name, and the lesson of your confusion because of naming things badly should be learned here and applied to your intended bad-name of "God" for anything-that-began-the-universe (which includes non-sentient, natural explanations.)
So you don't think it would require a huge abount of pure energy to cause the universe to begin to exist. I think the description of the Planck epoch describes a tremendous amount of energy. A quintillion degrees would require a lot of energy. Our sun is only 9,941°F. So when we talk of the Planck epoch we are talking of a lot of energy.
A lot of energy once it's there - sure.
But how much energy is required to create or begin the universe?
I don't know. And neither do you.
Might be a lot. Might be a little. Might be none.
Your insistence that your chosen answer of it requiring a huge amount is baseless and meaningless. Unless you have some more information you're holding back from us? Any further implication that it must also require a God is at best confusing, and at worst just wrong.
A large amount of information is needed to be inserted in the creation to make everything work which would have to be supplied by whatever caused the universe to exist.
How could you possibly know such a thing?
Maybe a lot of information is needed. Maybe a little. Maybe none.
How many universes have you created? How many universe creations are you able to fully study and understand?
And I keep giving you the answer. The universe exists today. Can't you understand that?
If neither of my ways of the universe beginning to exist is right then how did it get here?
You seem to be unwilling to entertain the idea that ICANT and Stile may not be able to fathom how it got here.
You claim that you don't know everything... then you claim that there cannot be something you don't understand about the beginning of the universe?
That's what we call a contradiction.
Perhaps the universe got here in a way that Stile and ICANT cannot fathom. Perhaps it was not created and also is not eternal at all. Or perhaps it is, but not in a way that Stile or ICANT can currently fathom.
I can't say it must be one of those, because I understand that I do not have all the information about the beginning of the universe and that my existing logic may not apply.
What makes you think that your existing logic MUST apply to the beginning of the universe?
Could you please explain how zero or a small amount of energy could produce a temperature of one quintillion degrees?
Of course not. Just as you can't explain how a huge amount of energy could create a universe with a temperature of one quintillion degrees.
Remember... we're not talking about just 'producing'... we're talking about creating.
And you don't know how that works anymore than I do.
Maybe it takes a lot of energy to create a universe. Maybe it only takes a little. Maybe it doesn't take any at all.
I don't know. And neither do you. Or, at least, you've given no reason to suspect that you do.
So the universe existed eternally in the past? Is that what you are saying?
If so why did it wait so long to begin to expand? Also what caused it to start to expand?
I'm saying we don't know.
Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. Maybe it did something else that can't be explained by such a concept one way or the other, because ICANT and Stile simply cannot fathom such an idea.
I'm also saying that you don't know. Even though you simply claim to know. You seem incapable of backing up that claim with anything that makes sense.
The universe could not have existed eternally in the past. A profound statement, I will agree.
After discussing multiverses and eternal universes Mithani and Vilenkin came to say: The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal".
That's not a profound statement. It's a baseless and therefore meaningless statement.
Your quoted authorities also agree with me, ICANT.
Mithani and Vilenkin said that none of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.
What if the beginning of the universe wasn't one of those scenarios?
Mithani and Vilenkin don't say that the universe could not have existed eternally in the past. And neither can you.
Because you don't know. Because Mithani and Vilenkin don't know either.
That only leaves one possibility as far as science is concerned. The universe had a beginning to exist.
Except your logic is based on obviously flawed ideas, as shown. Therefore, your conclusion cannot be trusted.
But if my God is the one who created the heavens and earth as He claimed to. The universe could have well exited eternally in the past just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and could be recharged anytime God so chose to do so.
This is very true. Yay for you! You said something that's not wrong!
It's just also true if God doesn't exist at all.
It's even more probable that the universe could have existed eternally in the past, just not in the form it is today, as it would never run out of an energy source and may not even require one... all without God anyhere.
That's more probable because answers-that-do-not-include-God have been shown to be more likely than answers-that-do-include-God.
But which one accurately describes the reality behind the creation of our universe?
Conservative theologian: God created many universes
A conservative (but Reform congregation) Jewish teacher had an answer for a Mr. T.
Here is part of his answer.
By Rabbi Marc Gellman
God Squad: God is eternal, unlike our physical universe
Updated January 18, 2018 7:50 PM
This biblical verse (Matthew 24:35) troubles me: ¡±Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.¡± If heaven passes away, what happens to souls there? Thank you!
This verse in Matthew is a perfect example of the belief of all the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) that God is eternal. The existence of an eternal God who is not a part of the physical universe and who predates and postdates our present universe means that God does not depend upon the world. The world depends upon God.
This belief prohibits the use of magic or any other superstition that holds out the promise of manipulating God. God is beyond all natural forces and independent of them the way a potter is independent from the pot that he or she has made. This belief in an eternal, immaterial God also prevents idolatry. One cannot worship anything in the physical universe and imagine that one is worshipping God.
This idea of an eternal God outside of nature who yet created nature is conveyed in the first verse of the Bible. In Hebrew, the verse that is translated ¡°In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,¡± should actually be translated, ¡°In the beginning of God¡¯s creating of this heaven and this earth.¡± Such a translation is not only more accurate to the original Hebrew text, but it also conveys the meaning of an eternal, immaterial God. It says, in effect, that this universe of ours is just one of many universes that God has created. We are just the most recent experiment in God¡¯s eternal nature.
I was goggle searching for something and it appears that I found the Long Island daily newspaper.
This Jewish teacher is part of a group that includes Catholic priests (or he used to be).
I might ask if the "Gnostic" view(s) of (either) false scriptures OR a "Demiurge" creation should be considered though.
Consider the Nazarenes (also called Ebionites).
Paul was called a "Nazarene" in Acts.
These guys had the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew in Jerome's time (400 AD).
Look at the absence of the first few chapters of Matthew
(Nazarenes Gospel of Matthew lacked chapter 1 and the Ebionites Matthew Gospel lacked chapter 1 and 2)
Notice the rejection of the Torah as we now have it.
Notice the rejection of even the prophets.
This is a conservative evangelical dictionary.
quote: Encyclopedias - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Ebionism; Ebionites
\I. ORIGIN OF THE NAME
1. The Poor Ones 2. Origin of the Name
\II. AUTHORITIES FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE EBIONITES
1. Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus 2. Origen and Jerome 3. Epiphanius' Description 4. Justin Martyr
\III. LITERATURE OF THE EBIONITES
1. The Gospel According to the Hebrews 2. The Clementines 3. Apocalyptic Literature
\IV. HISTORY OF EBIONISM
1. Ebionites and Essenes 2. Organization of Ebionites
\V. EVIDENCE FROM EBIONISM FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH
1. Christology of the Early Church 2. Paulinism of the Early Church
The Ebionites were a sect of heretics frequently mentioned by the early Fathers. In regard to their opinions, as in regard to those of most early heretical sects, there is the difficulty that to a large extent we are dependent for our information on their opponents. These opponents were not generally very careful to apprehend exactly the views of those whose opinions they undertook to refute. It adds to the difficulty in the present case that there is a dubiety as to the persons designated by the title. Sometimes, it is admitted, the name was used to designate all Jewish Christians irrespective of their opinions; at other times it denotes a sect akin to the Gnostics, who ascribed a purely human origin to our Lord.
2. Origen and Jerome:
From two other sources we derive further information:
Origen and Jerome both notify the fact that the Ebionites translated `almah "young woman" (it is rendered "virgin" in our the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)). This translation, so far as the mere word is concerned, is indubitably correct. There is another point in which both afford us information. The first says (Contra Celsum, v.61) that there are two classes of Ebionites, one of which denies the miraculous conception and birth of our Lord, the other of which affirms it. Jerome, in his letter to Augustine, not only asserts the same thing but calls the one class, those affirming the miraculous birth, Nazareans, and the other Ebionites. Origen in his second book against Celsus speaks as if the only distinction between the Ebionites and other Christians was their obedience to the Mosaic law, and by their example rebuts the assertion that the Jews in becoming Christians deserted the law of their fathers.Another feature of Ebionism presented to us by Jerome (In Jesaiam, lxvi.24) is their chiliastic view--the personal reign of our Lord for 1,000 years as the Jewish Messiah.
3. Epiphanius' Description:
The writer who gives the most voluminous account of the Ebionites--"Ebionaeans" as he calls them--is Epiphanius. With him it is at once heresy No. X and heresy No. XXX. Before discussing the Ebionites he takes up the closely related sect of the Nazareans as heresy No. XXIX. He had already in a more compendious way considered a similarly named sect, numbering it No. XVIII. It, however, is Jewish while this is Christian. The Jewish sect is distinguished by eating no animal food and offering no sacrifices. They have thus an affinity with the Essenes. They have a peculiarity that, while they honored the patriarchs, they rejected the Pentateuch which related their history. These Nazareans dwelt East of the Jordan in Gilead and Bashan. Heresy No. XXIX is the Christian Nazareans. This name had been at first applied to all Christians. Epiphanius identifies them with the Essenes and declares their distinguishing peculiarity to be the retention of circumcision and the ceremonial law. They use the Gospel of Matthew but without the genealogies. As Heresy No. XXX he proceeds to consider the Ebionites. Ebion, Epiphanius assumes to have been a man, and calls him a "polymorphic portent," and asserts that he was connected with the Samaritans, the Essenes, the Cerinthians and Carpocratians, yet desired to be regarded a Christian. The heresy originated after the flight of the church to Pella. They denied the miraculous birth of our Lord, but maintained that a Divine influence came down upon Him at His baptism. This Divine wisdom had inspired, and in a sense dwelt, in all the patriarchs. In some sense the body of Jesus was regarded as that of Adam revived. This body was crucified and rose again. They receive only the Gospel of Matthew in the form the Cerinthians use it, i.e. the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Epiphanius gives some account of this gospel and its defects.
1. The Gospel According to the Hebrews:
The Gospel according to the Hebrews we know only through quotations. We can have no certainty that these quotations are accurate. The quotations may have been interpolated, and further the book from which the quotations have been made has probably passed through several recensions. The discussion of the question of the relation of this book to the canonical Gospel of Mt is considered elsewhere (see APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS). One thing is clear, there were at least two recensions of this gospel, one nearer and the other farther from the canonical Gospel; the former, the Nazarean, differed only by omitting the genealogy from the First Gospel of the Canon. The other was more strictly Ebionite and omitted all mention of the miraculous birth. The Ebionite recension began, as Epiphanius tells us, abruptly with the calling of the Apostles. The assertion of Epiphanius that the Ebionites rejected the prophets is supported by a quotation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews in Jerome (Adv. Pelag., iii.2):
Perhaps there wasn't an omission but an original Matthew Gospel before additions to make Jesus look like he was from the House of David (through Joseph)?
Were these Nazarenes and Ebionites the original Jewish Christians of Jerusalem (with James as the "Bishop")?
Look at this recent Patheos article.
Were the "Judaizers" Jewish Christians ("Messianic Jews")?
December 22, 2017 by Dave Armstrong
Some scholars are of the opinion that these were Jews and precursors of what later became the Ebionite heresy, or even worse, a strain of Gnosticism (Bruce mentions the latter possibility). Philip Schaff (one of the "patron saints" of the general Protestant view of Church history) holds to the "primitive Ebionite Jews" explanation (History of the Christian Church, Volume I: 565-567). Some scholars (e.g., Harnack and Hort) have equated the Ebionites with the Nazarenes (i.e., 4th-century patristic usage rather than biblical).
More modern biblical scholars and historians are even more interesting. James D. G. Dunn is always informative and fascinating, even when one disagrees with him (as I do, not infrequently):
In Galatians Paul speaks of no less than three gospels. First, his own . . . (Gal. 2.7) . . . Second is the gospel for the Jews, "for the circumcision" (2.7), represented by the "pillar apostles", Peter in particular, centred on Jerusalem. Paul recognizes this Jewish version of the gospel as a legitimate form of Christian kerygma, appropriate to the Jews . . . in his view it involved a greater subjection to the law than he himself thought right (2.11-21). However, so long as the proponents of each of these two gospels recognized the validity of the other and did not seek to impose their own gospel on those who held to the other, Paul was content. But evidently the churches in Palestine had a legalistic right wing which opposed the law-free Gentile mission. Theirs is the "other gospel" which Paul attacks in fierce language in 1.6-9. It is not finally clear whether Paul denied Christian status to this third gospel (1.7 probably means: it is not another gospel but a perversion of the gospel of Christ). But he leaves no doubt as to what he thought of the so-called "Judaizers" attempts to force their understanding of the gospel on others: it is no good news, the way of bondage; those who preach it are "sham Christians", they have missed the full truth and ought to castrate themselves (2.4f; 5.12)!
(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 23-24)
We know from Gal. 2.4, not to mention Acts 15.1 and Phil. 3.2ff, that there was a strong party in the Palestinian churches, a powerful force in the Christianity of Jerusalem and Palestine, which insisted on circumcision for all converts. Paul calls them some very rude names "false brethren" (RSV), "sham Christians, interlopers" (NEB ¡ª Gal 2.4), "dogs" (Phil. 3.2) . . . But it is quite clear, from Gal. 2 and Acts 15 at least, that they were Jewish Christians " that is to say, a force within the Jerusalem community who could with justice claim to speak for Jewish believers in Judea . . . Here at once we recognize a form of Jewish Christianity which stands within the Christian spectrum at the time of Paul's missionary work . . .
I still have trouble with those who want to see the current European Bible as representing the first century views.
The Hebrew Matthew was destroyed by the Catholics.
It was a "heretic Bible".
The "Bishop" issue, as we now know it, was a European corruption (especially after 100 AD).
Modern Protestant scholars want to claim Apostolic succession for the Roman Catholic church Bishops.
Like Michael Kruger.
quote: Where Are All the Heretical Bishops in the Second Century?
February 15, 2016
But let’s test this theory by asking a simple question: who were the bishops in second-century Christianity? If heresy was as widespread as orthodoxy, we should expect to find a number of bishops that are openly Marcionite, Ebionite, Gnostic, and beyond.
They forget that Hegesippus (around 180) wrote about all the early Bishops, and James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.
quote: Hegesippus and the Events which He Mentions. - Bible Hub
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 ... How old he was at that time we do not know, but he was very likely a man past middle life, and hence was probably born early in the second century. With this, his own ...
12) The disciples said to Jesus: We know that you will depart from us; who is it who will be great over us? Jesus said to them: Wherever you have come, you will go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.
LNA writes: "Space is being created today, and even you would say it is naturalistic."
I don't know what that has to do with getting information past T=10-43 s., towards the zero side.
You said the scripture describes God stretching space.
(I should also ask if anybody pre Einstein interpretations interpreted that as some sort of "cosmological constant" type of space creation BECAUSE it seems like a modern 20th century reinterpretation of the Prophet Isaiah)
quote: Leviticus 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
These three verses go together in the original text and cover the complete thought under discussion in them.
This was written to the children of Israel. Verse 10 says any man (Israelite or sojourner) who eats any manner of blood will be cut off.
Verse 11 says the life of the flesh is in the blood. It also says blood has been shed to make an atonement.
Verse 12 says Therefore... no soul (living being) of you shall eat blood.
What are these verses talking about? Eating blood. What is said concerning eating blood? Man forbidden from eating blood. Why are they forbidden from eating blood? Because the life of the flesh is in the blood. What is the results of eating blood? Cut off from the promise.
Is the life of the flesh in the blood?
Actually the word for animal "life" is nephesh which is the closest word to mean "soul" in Biblical Hebrew.
It says the SOUL is in the blood which is used to make atonement for YOUR SOULS.
The "your souls" is the same "nephesh" word but in the plural (plus the suffix for "your" attached.)
Without the suffix, it is nephashoth for plural.
It is about souls if anything.
See Genesis 9.
quote: 3Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
6“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
It is taking a vegetarian command and making an excuse for meat eating.
Here is an accurate translation.
quote: 17:11 For the SOUL of the (ANIMAL) flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your (HUMAN) souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Jerome (who you got your Bible from) correctly said this:
quote: Just as divorce according to the Saviour's word was not permitted from the beginning, but on account of the hardness of our heart was a concession of Moses to the human race, so too the eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth. … At the beginning of the human race we neither ate flesh, nor gave bills of divorce, nor suffered circumcision for a sign. Thus we reached the deluge. But after the deluge, together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfil, flesh was given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something superfluous. But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh.
Jerome, Against Jovinianus (trans. W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley), Book I, 18.
Here is a quote that I have found multiple times on the web but seems a little corrupted.
quote: St Jerome Quote | The eating of meat was unknown up …
... has again joined the end with the beginning, so that it is no longer allowed for us to eat animal meat." - St Jerome. St Jerome Quote Wallpapers Jesus, Animal ...
As for the bloodletting thing, it is a completely external issue to the Biblical text.
The issue of humors and bleeding had nothing to do with people (possibly) thinking that the vital soul force was in the blood.
The Biblical text is about nephesh and the verb (naphash) means he breathes or he breathed ("TO BREATH" in Lexicons)
You want to get scientific?
Is a "soul" proven?
There is no real word for soul in Biblical Hebrew.
The word means breathing creature.
Is breath literally from blood?
It has to do with killing.
The Nephesh/blood issue is all about sacrifices and this humor issue is 100% off the path.
So people attempted to purify a man medically.
Blood transfusions can be done correctly without killing people.
The humor issue was an attempt to cure a person without killing them.
A side issue and blood being lost was known to kill.
When engaging in scholarly debates, being adept at googling is hardly a substitute for actually studying Hebrew and/or having a concordance. Google is full of information but the challenge is to apply the information so as to make a point, rather than simply flooding the discussion with links, articles, and ancient practices.
Personally, I find that one is less likely to arrive at wisdom through studying ancient beliefs than from applying what we learn to our daily experience, discipline, motivation, and intention.
I believe that GOD exists and is aware of us and our experience, intent, and attitude towards each other. One major question to be resolved is whether GOD (Through Jesus Christ according to Christian Belief) interacts with humanity in any meaningful or relational way.
The ancient folks are no closer nor any farther than we are from addressing this today.
Edited by Phat, : spellcheck
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)
Phat's Applied Common Sense on the William Harvey 1628 discovery.
(the quotations are important so we can see historical interpretations of the scripture)
I'CANT sais this a while back:
quote: Around the 1620's AD William Harvey discovered the life of the flesh was in the blood and was circulated by the heart. He published his "de Motu Cordis" in 1628.
I did some research a while back and found that William Harvey died around 1656 I think.
The fundamentalist's favorite reformation devotional commentary seems to be Matthew Henry's, who was born in 1662. He wrote a full 3 quarters to 1 full century after this blood discovery.
Here is what he said.
(via the Bible Hub comment option on Genesis 9:4)
quote: 9:4-7 The main reason of forbidding the eating of blood, doubtless was because the shedding of blood in sacrifices was to keep the worshippers in mind of the great atonement; yet it seems intended also to check cruelty, lest men, being used to shed and feed upon the blood of animals, should grow unfeeling to them, and be less shocked at the idea of shedding human blood. Man must not take away his own life. Our lives are God's, and we must only give them up when he pleases. If we in any way hasten our own death, we are accountable to God for it. When God requires the life of a man from him that took it away unjustly, the murderer cannot render that, and therefore must render his own instead. One time or other, in this world or in the next, God will discover murders, and punish those murders which are beyond man's power to punish. But there are those who are ministers of God to protect the innocent, by being a terror to evil-doers, and they must not bear the sword in vain, Ro 13:4. Wilful murder ought always to be punished with death. To this law there is a reason added. Such remains of God's image are still upon fallen man, that he who unjustly kills a man, defaces the image of God, and does dishonour to him
I still don't see where this discovery was seen as some big confirmation in the commentaries.
I think that I'CANT doesn't accept a "Cosmological Constant" (from a single initial point) but might be more in favor of a general relativity application toward a Halton Arp type of "multiple ongoing creation points" (as creationists like to interpret his work to have indicated) in endless spots in the universe.
He thinks that the scripture states that space was (is?) being created by God, which would then be matching modern scientific observations.
Where are the pre-Einstein commentaries to back his scriptural exegesis claim?
quote: . The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: "And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas,  was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.
"Therefore,  they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.
When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.
Concerning the martyrdom of Symeon the son of Clopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid an information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it. With show of reason could it be said that Symeon was one of those who actually saw and heard the Lord, on the ground of his great age, and also because the Scripture of the Gospels makes mention of Mary the daughter of Clopas, who, as our narrative has shown already, was his father.
The same historian mentions others also, of the family of one of the reputed brothers of the Saviour, named Judas, as having survived until this same reign, after the testimony they bore for the faith of Christ in the time of Domitian, as already recorded.
He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trojan Caesar: that is, until the time when he who was sprung from an uncle of the Lord, the aforementioned Symeon son of Clopas, was informed against by the various heresies, and subjected to an accusation like the rest, and for the same cause, before the legate Atticus; and, while suffering outrage during many days, he bore testimony for Christ: so that all, including the legate himself, were astonished above measure that a man 120 years old should have been able to endure such torments. He was finally condemned to be crucified.
... Up to that period the Church had remained like a virgin pure and uncorrupted: for, if there were any persons who were disposed to tamper with the wholesome rule of the preaching of salvation, they still lurked in some dark place of concealment or other. But, when the sacred band of apostles had in various ways closed their lives, and that generation of men to whom it had been vouchsafed to listen to the Godlike Wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then did the confederacy of godless error take its rise through the treachery of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles any longer survived, at length attempted with bare and uplifted head to oppose the preaching of the truth by preaching "knowledge falsely so called."
quote: Saint Simeon of Jerusalem, son of Clopas, was a Jewish Christian leader and according to most Christian traditions the second Bishop of Jerusalem (62 or 70–107).
Eusebius of Caesarea gives the list of these bishops. According to a universal tradition the first bishop of Jerusalem was Saint James the Just, the "brother of the Lord," who according to Eusebius said that he was appointed bishop by the Apostles Peter, St. James (whom Eusebius identifies with James, son of Zebedee), and John.
According to Eusebius, Saint Simeon of Jerusalem was selected as James' successor after the conquest of Jerusalem which took place immediately after the martyrdom of James (i.e. no earlier than 70 AD) which puts the account in agreement with that of Flavius Josephus who puts James' first arrest and subsequent release by Procurator Albinus in 63 AD: (Many interpret Josephus to be saying that James was martyred at that time, but Josephus states that he was released and the modern footnotes show that his martyrdom took place some years afterwards, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem.)
After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.
According to Hegesippus, Simeon prevailed against Thebutis, whom the church fathers deemed a Judaizing heresiarch, and led most of the Christians to Pella before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 and the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70.
According to Church historian Eusebius, Simeon was executed about the year 107 or 117 under the reign of emperor Trajan by the proconsul Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes in Jerusalem or the vicinity. However,this must be a mistake by Eusebius because the Roman province of Judea the Roman administrator (Legate) of the day at the time of the crucifixion was a Quintus Pompeius Falco (between 105-107 AD) and Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes was there much earlier from 99-102 AD.
Simeon is sometimes identified with Simon, the "brother of the Lord", who is mentioned in passing in the Bible (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3) (although Aramaic had no term for "cousin") and pointing to Hegesippus referring to him as the "second cousin" as bishop of Jerusalem. Other exegetes consider the brothers to be actual brothers and Hegesippus' wording as subsuming both James and Simeon under a more general term.
He has also been identified with the Apostle Simon the Zealot.
Why can't the Eusebius quotes of Hegesippus be seen as monumentally enlightening?
He lived during the time of the Jesus family Bishops.
James really was Bishop of Jerusalem.
He really was related to Jesus (probably his blood brother)