Abraham & Sarah Never Happened?

[David Merrill]

I was taught that the Wortheless Shepherd prophecies pointed to the fact that Pharisees, etc. would reject Jesus (name basically means means 'savior') and in turn would turn to or get a "worthless shepherd" which to knowledge led them to Bar Kokhba revolt (Maccabean): a leader that made thousands cut off their fingers of their right hand etc., and led them to destruction and judgement with Rome being used as instrument of such judgment. The worthless shepherd prophecy was fulfilled to the 't' after they rejected Jesus.



The Expositor's Bible Commentary gives some insight although their commentary still holds on to some vestiges of yet-to-be-futurism. There are many "midrashim" about Simeon bar Kochba/Kohkba, here is one:



Also, from the Palestine Talmud (,Ta'anit 4.5):





The picture being painted is that Simeon bar Kochba it seems fulfilled the Worthless Shepherd prophecy. There is related book entitled Jewish Identity and Politics Between the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba by one Benedikt Eckhardt. However, there is a rather plausible notion of "the Worthless Shepherd" being composed of or alluding to each and every one the unreliable 'leaders' substituted for Jesus.

The Worthless Shepherd Prophecy brings Jeremiah 17:5 to mind:



From Jeremiah I also glean that reliance upon mundane political or military forces or could not have been part of the fulfillment of messianic prophecies since the word for arm also means: "forces (political and military)". In view of Jeremiah 17:5, likelihood of Jesus then having been intending to stage a secular coup d'etat is greatly diminished. One might also consider, also, riding on a donkey (peace) vs. riding on a horse (war) which had very significant meanings then.

One might also consider Habbakuk 1:16 which to knowledge describes the Babylonian practice of "worshipping one's net":



I was taught that net here mainly refers to their (Babylon's) military might or their of coercive force. The Hebrews, of course, would lack that kind of characteristic of worshipping (serving) or attributing their success or prosperity to military power. Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers lucidates:



The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (re: Habakkuk) echoes much the same:



In contrast to the Babylonians, it would have been most uncharacteristic of ancient Israel or of Hebrews generally to lawfully in God's eyes to worship their own 'net'. Jesus reliance upon secular or mundane military progress is highly diminished in light of the foregoing. The writings of Josephus and others clearly point to the divine and holy.

For further elucidation, earlier on in the Book of Zechariah we find:

Xparte; Thank you! This is why I post - that kind of mindful input!

Allodial; Pragmatism is a radical interpretation and like the euphemism of Abraham and Sarah's incest, I find so much interpretation like you share to be rationale and justification. Thank you for bringing in the Bar Kokhba Revolution in. I had nearly forgotten about that very embarrassing episode in Jewish history.

I think this might be more along my line of thought. But please don't assume I have adopted this as mine.

The Worthless Shepherd.

The Sop.

When forming my impressions about the Last Supper I presumed that Jesus knew how his life and recently his ministry had been fulfilling prophecies from the writings of Israel. Things had taken a turn for Jesus. He had been brought up knowing he was the son of the King, Archelaus HEROD but that he was an embarrassment bastard. 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.

This brings a lot of other passages into congruence. Like Peter finding two swords...


I will give your post some time and enjoyment too.

[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?

[allodial]

Xparte; Thank you! This is why I post - that kind of mindful input!

Allodial; Pragmatism is a radical interpretation and like the euphemism of Abraham and Sarah's incest, I find so much interpretation like you share to be rationale and justification. Thank you for bringing in the Bar Kokhba Revolution in. I had nearly forgotten about that very embarrassing episode in Jewish history.

I think this might be more along my line of thought. But please don't assume I have adopted this as mine.

The Worthless Shepherd.

The Sop.

When forming my impressions about the Last Supper I presumed that Jesus knew how his life and recently his ministry had been fulfilling prophecies from the writings of Israel. Things had taken a turn for Jesus. He had been brought up knowing he was the son of the King, Archelaus HEROD but that he was an embarrassment bastard. 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.

This brings a lot of other passages into congruence. Like Peter finding two swords...

I will give your post some time and enjoyment too.

Thank you for the The Worthless Shepherd.pdf link. Very insightful. I have come to suspect that "the Messiah System" has a cherubimic aspect. Why? The design of the Ark with the two cherubim on the mercy seat and the temple itself having cherubim incorporated. In other words, Messiah protects the Holiness in two ways, one of which is keeping the stranger out.

I am uncertain which prophecies they suggest Jesus to have failed to fulfill--I'm referring to page 642 of that link--I perhaps need to take another look. The irony is that it is the very book of Deuteronomy--chapter 28 in particular--that serves as the basis for the consequence of rejecting Jesus and also for disobeying the commandments. Those who followed the Good Shepherd System were led into paradise (the fled to Pella, etc. and escaped the Deuteronomy 28 curses). Those who rejected him therefore could only expect captivity (i.e.the 'negative side' of the Cherubimic duty)--the curses of Deuteronomy to befall them. Around the time James the Just was killed (almost immediately as if that were the triggering event) the hedges of protection were removed from Jerusalem, etc. and the Romans were allowed to proceed with judgement 66AD through 70 A.D. in fulfillment of Daniel 9:26. That is, to look at Deuteronomy as a basis for designating Jesus to be a false prophet is one thing--the evidence? Its an entirely different matter to wholly ignore Deutoronomy 28 and fail to see what was called Roman-Jewish War wasn't mere secular war it was Deuteronomy 28 grade judgement and the captivity that followed likewise.

However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today ...The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies. --Deuteronomy 28:15-26 in part

Deuteronomy 28:49-57 in a sense fortells what came at the hands of Rome after Christ was rejected:

Attachment 3131

49 The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, 50 a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. 51 They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or olive oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. 52 They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the Lord your God is giving you.

53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities.

Josephus and other historians wrote about the horrible consequences of the Roman invasion (Rome is often equated with Edom who characterized as being pitiless!) The outcome of the Roman-Jewish wars seems to almost eerily have been a rote fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28 curses with the consequences of the Bar Kochba revolt were reverberations of the same with the Worthless Shepherd prophecy woven in through it all.

Among the residents of the region beyond Jordan was a woman called Mary, daughter of Eleazar, of the village of Bethezuba (the name means "House of Hyssop"). She was well off, and of good family, and had fled to Jerusalem with her relatives, where she became involved with the siege. Most of the property she had packed up and brought with her from Peraea had been plundered by the tyrants [Simon and John, leaders of the Jewish war-effort], and the rest of her treasure, together with such foods as she had been able to procure, was being carried by their henchmen in their daily raids. In her bitter resentment the poor woman cursed and abused these extortioners, and this incensed them against her. However, no one put her to death either from exasperation or pity. She grew weary of trying to find food for her kinsfolk. In any case, it was by now impossible to get any, wherever you tried. Famine gnawed at her vitals, and the fire of rage was ever fiercer than famine. So, driven by fury and want, she committed a crime against nature. Seizing her child, an infant at the breast, she cried, "My poor baby, why should I keep you alive in this world of war and famine? Even if we live till the Romans come, they will make slaves of us; and anyway, hunger will get us before slavery does; and the rebels are crueler than both. Come, be food for me, and an avenging fury to the rebels, and a tale of cold horror to the world to complete the monstrous agony of the Jews." With these words she killed her son, roasted the body, swallowed half of it, and stored the rest in a safe place. But the rebels were on her at once, smelling roasted meat, and threatening to kill her instantly if she did not produce it. She assured them she had saved them a share, and revealed the remains of her child. Seized with horror and stupefaction, they stood paralyzed at the sight. But she said, "This is my own child, and my own handiwork. Eat, for I have eaten already. Do not show yourselves weaker than a woman, or more pitiful than a mother. But if you have pious scruples, and shrink away from human sacrifice, then what I have eaten can count as your share, and I will eat what is left as well." At that they slunk away, trembling, not daring to eat, although they were reluctant to yield even this food to the mother. The whole city soon rang with the abomination. When people heard of it, they shuddered, as though they had done it themselves. --Josephus on the Siege of Jerusalem

Zechariah in a sense could have been said to 'act it out' before it happened, as in: "If you will have no part in my right hand, then here is my left".



To reiterate they refer to Deuteronomy 22, but SIX chapters later is Deuteronomy 28 which attributes the calamities to judgement or curses. The kingdom DID come then, though it is not a secular kingdom. Jesus has been in session since ~30 AD.

“And the name of the city from that time on will be: the Lord is there.” --Ezekiel 48:35 in part

Some interpret it: "I am is there" or "I am there".

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. --2 Corinthians 3:17