Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[allodial]

... Now with John, Archelaus' prophet channeling Elijah crowning him King, Jesus felt that he would be executed by sword and then somehow be resurrected in three days.

What few may realize is that the significance of the Resurrection as pertains to the extent Zoroastrianism that may have influenced the Pharisees. Babylonian religion and ideas had begun to corrupt at the time may have incompatible with the Melchedizek and Hebrew and Mosaic doctrines. That many Israelites had mistaken the doctrine of the Hebrews for secular dabblings was a major problem even in Isaiah's and Jeremiah's time--i.e. they started have the idea of modeling their governance after worldly governments such as Egypt and Babylon (which is why they wound up in Babylonian captivity--conflict of laws). Zoroastrians from what I recall had a shorter time limit on when a body could be resurrected. The 3 days would have proven contrary to Zoroastrian restrictions.

There is a strong body of evidence that the Pharisees (similar word to Farsi the language of Persia) were strongly leaning toward or influenced by Zoroastrianism. If the Bible was trying to conform with what was acceptable to the Flavian (Vespasian--said to have been born 9 years after Jesus) family or to the Pharisees the resurrection would likely have happened in less time. Its been a long time since I researched the Pharisee-Zoroastrianism connection. Consider, the significance of Iran these days: Persia.

Re: Two swords.
There were two cherubim atop the Mercy Seat (the lid of Ark of the Covenant). That seems highly significant to two swords. Furthermore, the significance of two witnesses.

Re: execution by sword.
From what I've gathered, the prophecies spoke of crucifixion or hanging. I would figure even on the secular level he would have expected to be stoned, crucified or hung. Likely, he was well aware that the scepter had departed from Judah so would be handed over to the Romans.

Nonetheless, diverse interpretations are interesting. However, I came to discover a consistent, golden thread permeating all of the Bible works and the Tanach that fails to contradict itself AFAIK. That is, I find it all highly pragmatic: spiritually first and foremost, physically after that--a good and right order.. I've found that most people that have a problem with true saints and believers really have a problem with heretical Gnostic doctrines, Mithraic overlays: and so they might mistake the baby for the bathwater and the Son for the stranger. They mistake the true believers for Simonians, Zoroastrians or Mithraists--due to projection and false impersonation.

I give you the end of a golden string. Only wind it into a ball. It will lead you in at Heaven's gate: built in Jerusalem's wall. --William Blake

Re: Vespasian
In light of Cyrus's significance, Vespasian's prophetic significance was asserted by Josephus.

Josephus had to fight a defensive war against overwhelming force while refereeing internecine squabbles in the Jewish ranks. In 67 C.E. Josephus and other rebels were cornered in a cave during the siege of Jotapata and took a suicide pact. However, Josephus survived, and was taken hostage by the Romans, led by Vespasian.

Josephus shrewdly reinterpreted the Messianic prophecies. He predicted that Vespasian would become the ruler of the 'entire world'. Josephus joined the Romans, for which he was branded a traitor. He acted as consultant to the Romans and a go-between with the revolutionaries. Unable to convince the rebels to surrender, Josephus ended up watching the second destruction of the Temple and the defeat of the Jewish nation.

What Josephus (and many later Rabbinical writers) saw as Vespasian in this:

"...the people of the prince that will come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." Daniel 9:26 in part

Is that not exactly what happened under Vespasian and his son Titus?