The East India Company: The Original Corporate Raiders

[allodial]

Several issues:

1. most if not all non-Judah tribes of Israel (save Benjamin at Galilee) were most likely in exile or scattered or the like at the time Jesus arrived (Judah and Israel as kingdoms had separated and were on different 'judgment clocks');
2. the idea of any organic Judahite being in exile at the time with John in the wilderness may have been because the Edomites didnt' want anything to do with the original doctrines (see #9);
3. the notion of Y'shua/Jesus being the son of an Edomite-Judahite is highly questionable (see #7);
4. the notion of Y'shua/Jesus being clearly non-Edomite makes more sense as to why the Edomite-Judahite factions may have been against him.
5. I recall analysis pointing to Y'shua/Jesus having been hanging out with the Benjaminites and the Essenes in northern Judea.
6. there are those who assert that those called for the death and crucifixion of Y'shua seem to have identified themselves with Essau/Edom by admitting that they had never been in captivity which might be true of Edom/Essau's or even Ishmaelites rather than being true of Israel (Judah-inclusive);
7. its important to avoid blurring the distinctions between Jesus son of Julius Pantera and the Y'shua the Anointed;
8. The saints aren't referred to as being gentiles in the Bible but as "formerly gentiles";
9. Edomites were incorporated into Judah under John Hyrcanus, even if Israel or Judah ceased to see distinction, the Edomites may have maintained distinction of themselves;
10. Syncretism ala Darius may have not necessarily been a good thing.

When, Herod, the son of the Idumean, Antipater "received the kingdom, he slew all the members of this Sanhedrin" Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews

[David Merrill]

Several issues:

1. most if not all non-Judah tribes of Israel (save Benjamin at Galilee) were most likely in exile or scattered or the like at the time Jesus arrived.
2. the idea of any organic Judahite being in exile at the time with John in the wilderness may have been because the Edomites didnt' want anything to do with the original doctrines;
3. the notion of Y'shua/Jesus being the son of an Edomite-Judahite is highly questionable;
4. the notion of Y'shua/Jesus being clearly non-Edomite makes more sense as to why the Edomite-Judahite factions may have been against him.
5. I recall analysis pointing to Y'shua/Jesus having been hanging out with the Benjaminites and the Essenes in northern Judea.
6. there are those who assert that those called for the death and crucifixion of Y'shua clearly identified themselves with Essau/Edom by admitting that they had never been in captivity which might be true of Edom/Essau's or the Edom-Cain lines rather than being true of Israel/Jacob;
7. its important to avoid blurring the distinctions between Jesus son of Julius Pantera and the Y'shua the Anointed;
8. The saints aren't referred to as being gentiles in the Bible but as "formerly gentiles".

Thank you Allodial. That is all great food for thought.

I believe some of the "issues" are resolved by separating out Edomites and Jews. This might be why young Archelaus HEROD, an Edomite not a Jew was so disgraced when he got young maiden Mary (BRAIDER) MAGDALENE pregnant. Here we find that Jesus was the bastard son between an Edomite and Judah - which could mean either a Jew, or an Israelite. There are two kinds of people of the Eretz, the Land in Israel. There are Israelites with captured minds, the Jews. And there are Israelites who stayed working and living the land, who never went into the Babylonian captivity. After seventy years the Jews returned, fought for the Temple Mount for eleven years and won, capturing the Temple Mount. Then in 50 BCE Rome appointed Herod the GREAT on the Temple Mount.

This is what I was reminded of in the articles about Paul. The other article about Idumean culture reminded me how multicultured Israel was at the time of Jesus.

My idea about John being a Prophet is from the Gospel of Mark. That he was a Levite is clear too. I deduce that typically the King of Israel had a traditional prophet. After some thirty years in exile, Archelaus had a slam-dunk conviction of the Pretender (Tetrarch Antipas) in idolatry with the other Tetrarch's (Philip) wife Herodias. - For which John apparently voiced the accusation, for one reason or another.

Through the affiliation and adoption of the Bastard, it would seem that politically, Jesus ascended to the throne. This is why I quote Mark chapter 11.

It would seem I cannot tie this directly back to the thread topic, but it usually happens from sleep related contemplation. I look forward to explaining it in terms of the "issues" you have brought up.

Most excellent!!