The East India Company: The Original Corporate Raiders

[allodial]

My take on math: symbols for expressing and record patterns that we might observe. As in who rejected Jesus/Y'shua perhaps became or become subscribers to a 'Worthless Shepherd function' it keeps producing predictable results: misery for subscriber and even for those they might adversely affect. Whether its misery from searching for grandeur and riches in Amway or misery of seeking liberty in black magic only to be caught up in dark Karmic cycles and so forth.

KJV)

See also: Bar Kokhba revolt (or Zechariah 11 Fulfilled). Generally: adultery and indirection.

***

Interestingly enough, it was Hadrian that renamed Judea (to) Palestine (as in Philistines ..Dagon).

[xparte]

ones handshake is honoured only if your a Man of your word the handshake is symbolic of some trust and a healthy fear of God and his internal word. Material handshake spiritual handshake two hands around someones neck is not a legal handshake without lawful excuse . Its A miracle Christ never shook hands with the Church Moses tapping a ROCK and the BROAD at the well asking Christ how he is going to help without a bucket both rivers of life Moses people thirst a burning knowledge /and a rock questioned. Christ what Rock you stand with or the one the church is hiding under is just been questioned with Moses as the Church we all thirst for some handshake it hides the fear of God as agreement between men or a deal in the eyes of God is just materialistic and its the word thats spiritual .No blessing required no swearing .Deals are as old as the paperwork .AZTECS and political power came from KERNEL CORN THE harvesting hearts thats a church thing SEPHARDIC HEBREWS were no match for CATHOLIC exploitation and expulsions when your Crown couldn't pay its debts it literally ripped a beating heart out of Any merchant mariner or those banking merchants of Venice MEXICO VIA Holland the VENETIANS WOODEN SHIPS NOT SHOES and the rest is justified handshakes .Discovering America is joining our underestimated past.Truth is just a regional bank where we store blame. one church at a time if offensive and defensive were just a handshake it would be just so much less to remember. If its written its just hidden within the words. in the beginning WAS without WAS in who's being or in what beginning . A happy being needs a tragedy of wordsmiths or a smile needs a wipe.musings or muskets.Gringo

[David Merrill]

My take on math: symbols for expressing and record patterns that we might observe. As in who rejected Jesus/Y'shua perhaps became or become subscribers to a 'Worthless Shepherd function' it keeps producing predictable results: misery for subscriber and even for those they might adversely affect.

What is mathematics, Really? by Rubin HERSH clarifies - The study of reproducible mental models. Which is what you said, as I read it.

You took me to revisit these two 1928 Century Magazine articles and be reminded that Jesus is Idumean in the multicultural setting of Israel. Edomite, presuming my take true that Jesus was the bastard son of young Archelaus HEROD, son of Idumean Jew Herod the Great. This article seems bereft of the distinction between Jews and Israelites as in the Books Ezra and Nehemiah. Without factoring in Nebuchadnezzar's mental capture I doubt the article will suffice for my purposes this wonderful High Sabbath morning.

Jesus being Edomite adds a new lens to a mixed reaction to public coronation.

Mar 11:27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,
Mar 11:28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?
Mar 11:29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.
Mar 11:30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

John, the King's (Archelaus - Antipas and Philip were Tetrarchs) Prophet had crowned Jesus from Administrative Headquarters in Exile - the "wilderness" East of the Jordan.

ones handshake is honoured only if your a Man of your word the handshake is symbolic of some trust and a healthy fear of God and his internal word. Material handshake spiritual handshake two hands around someones neck is not a legal handshake without lawful excuse . Its A miracle Christ never shook hands with the Church Moses tapping a ROCK and the BROAD at the well asking Christ how he is going to help without a bucket both rivers of life Moses people thirst a burning knowledge /and a rock questioned. Christ what Rock you stand with or the one the church is hiding under is just been questioned with Moses as the Church we all thirst for some handshake it hides the fear of God as agreement between men or a deal in the eyes of God is just materialistic and its the word thats spiritual .No blessing required no swearing .Deals are as old as the paperwork .AZTECS and political power came from KERNEL CORN THE harvesting hearts thats a church thing SEPHARDIC HEBREWS were no match for CATHOLIC exploitation and expulsions when your Crown couldn't pay its debts it literally ripped a beating heart out of Any merchant mariner or those banking merchants of Venice MEXICO VIA Holland the VENETIANS WOODEN SHIPS NOT SHOES and the rest is justified handshakes .Discovering America is joining our underestimated past.Truth is just a regional bank where we store blame. one church at a time if offensive and defensive were just a handshake it would be just so much less to remember. If its written its just hidden within the words. in the beginning WAS without WAS in who's being or in what beginning . A happy being needs a tragedy of wordsmiths or a smile needs a wipe.musings or muskets.Gringo

Thank you for walking me through some symbols I have not tried applying for some years now. Moses tapping the rock, to bring forth water - why not just render that action inert? How in the world would it bring forth water? By Moses' WILL and WORD? I want that magic wand!

[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!!

[allodial]

More points added since your post. Another important bit which reverberates with your analysis of history from the book of Nehemiah and which further underscores important distinctions from the survey drawn in time:

"The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism." --Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, (1874-1949)

Here is a timeline pertaining to Joseph Hyrcanus and Herod Archelaus:

142 BC - Exiles of Judah won independence under Maccabean kings
125 BC John Hyrcanus conquers Edomites incorporating them into his kingdom if they adopted Judaism
69 BC Antipater, Edomite chieftan and founder of the house of Herod rises to power, gains favor of Rome, made Procurator of Judea
37 BC Herod I gains almost complete control of Judea
4BC-6AD Herod Archelaus holds governorship over Judea; Scepter departs from the house of Judah; Y'shua born

There were many named "Y'shua" or "Joshua" at the time. So it would have been easy to pick out any prominent-born "Jesus" and try to mingle his background with Y'shua the Anointed's to make confusion or to defame or to obfuscate.

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Genesis 49:10

Related:
When the Scepter Departed from Judah (Genesis Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled)

[David Merrill]

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.

Well taken into account...

More points added since your post. Another important bit which reverberates with your analysis of history from the book of Nehemiah and which further underscores important distinctions from the survey drawn in time:



Here is a timeline pertaining to Joseph Hyrcanus and Herod Archelaus:



There were many named "Y'shua" or "Joshua" at the time. So it would have been easy to pick out any prominent-born "Jesus" and try to mingle his background with Y'shua the Anointed's to make confusion or to defame or to obfuscate.



[ATTACH=CONFIG]3926[/ATTACH]

Related:
When the Scepter Departed from Judah (Genesis Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled)

Thanks! I see an issue there but will look for resolution before developing any differences.

[BLBereans]

After reading the link allodial posted (Jesus son of Julius Pantera), something curious struck me:

Whenever the term "bastard" is used to describe 'Jesus', within this post and others, it is the name "Jesus" that is used. However, the same party who espouses that "bastard" theory also sometimes writes the name 'Yehoshuah' in other commentary.

What is interesting is that the name 'Yehoshuah' is never used in conjunction with the "bastard" theory by said party. Makes one wonder regarding the obfuscation allodial wrote about.

The test is easy: will anyone disparage the real name of the anointed Christ and Son of God, born in Bethlehem as scripture prophesied, by calling him a bastard?

I would bet not.

[David Merrill]

After reading the link allodial posted (Jesus son of Julius Pantera), something curious struck me:

Whenever the term "bastard" is used to describe 'Jesus', within this post and others, it is the name "Jesus" that is used. However, the same party who espouses that "bastard" theory also sometimes writes the name 'Yehoshuah' in other commentary.

What is interesting is that the name 'Yehoshuah' is never used in conjunction with the "bastard" theory by said party. Makes one wonder regarding the obfuscation allodial wrote about.

The test is easy: will anyone disparage the real name of the anointed Christ and Son of God, born in Bethlehem as scripture prophesied, by calling him a bastard?

I would bet not.

There are so many people who have never researched out Jesus' Hebrew name Yehoshuah. Those who do, often called Messianic Jews, abbreviate and (Talmudic) slur Yehoshuah to Yeshuah; which actually removes the theophoric prefix:



Even changing it to Yehushuah is a slur against Jesus being Godly in nature.

I note as supermoderator you avoid mentioning me on "my own" website by name. I understand that. I like to believe that in my own firsthand access to source materials around Colorado Springs (Masonic library and federal repository etc.) that I can spot when a member writes things that might lead to prison, or even be degenerative to the other members finding prosperity. Also, on top of that I keep bots, phishers and spammers from even getting one post out.

You are refreshing BLBareans. Thank you for reminding me how conditioned we are to receive the legal term bastard as a nasty or otherwise unworthy person. I deserve the reminder, meaning I have earned it. The point is well taken and the readers here deserve an explanation. There is a scene from Kingdom of Heaven. It is difficult to accept this allegory for evidence, I am sure. However there is something important in my life history about using the State of Colorado Great Seal that led me to hold the scene where Liam asks forgiveness of his bastard son, and in turn the son forgives his biological but absentee father. Reconciliation and the redemption was found in the son enjoying an elaborate estate in Jerusalem.

The Secretary of State warned me that if I was not AFFILIATED with state business I was committing a class 5 felony in Colorado:





This is an act of love. Another way to view it is to adopt the state in breach of trust, as a wayward son; meaning that it is no longer under the parentage of the People. Breach of trust opens the opportunity for a resulting trustee.

Sometimes I will meet one of you, maybe even not a suitor, who will stop me in mid-sentence and say, "I know, I read this." - Meaning that there are "buddies" out there who have been entertaining themselves, and educating themselves as well now for years, upon my writings. So this is why I feel that maybe I have been enjoying the conditioning, that I have a better-than-conditioned definition for "bastard" to throw around.

When somebody shuts down hearing my point, I feel that I am right because I am using the term "bastard" in a legal sense and in my Bible Dictionary education about the life and times of Yehoshuah H'Mashiach - Jesus CHRIST.

The models I believe not only have Jesus surviving the Cross by hiding in the family tomb for two days, but the way he got there was for one of two reasons, the King of Israel was passing that crown to him, as the biological but bastard heir to that throne. Allodial has helped me hash through the multicultural environment and even get some insights into the political climate too.

My point, before I go into that, is that Archelaus HEROD either died or was accusing through John the Baptist that Antipas was in blatant adultery with the other Tetrarch, not King, Philip's wife so to impeach Antipas and either regain the Jerusalem throne, or put Jesus on it as the rightful heir the Wise Men (Magi) had indicated upon Jesus' birth when Jesus was a toddler.

Now I am integrating that Caesar had instated Herod the GREAT upon that throne as an Edomite King. This would mean that Jesus was a mixture of Levite maiden, and Edomite. Whether or not Mary the BRAIDER - MAGDALENE was Jewish or Israelite may be my next solution to work out. Either way, it is very productive to do so with minds like yours working through various issues with and for me. I have a good memory but my genius if any is right there between your ears and more specifically in my (our) brain trust of suitors, who by and large have published evidence they are courts of competent jurisdiction and enjoy the pure right of refusal (R4C) as such.

So please be clear that I believe Jesus was Son of God, named Yehoshuah. You will find this agrees with Young's, Strong's and Richardson's concordances. It is this man and the Son of God who I am calling a bastard.

[Michael Joseph]

arguments over historical accuracy rarely if ever yield any fruit. I liken these arguments to taking a side against abortion. I refuse to enter the arena as there is never any winner. Thusly I let no man judge me. Consider the wisdom in that statement. Let no man judge you!

As for my house, by careful study of Scripture I have come to understand trust law and how it works. In other words, the players are mere actors and I know if the kingdom is righteous THEN certain aspects have to be. I need no justification in terms of one placating me with "you are right" because I know I'm right!

I'm right for me. Now you go be right for you! The cry goes forth who will help the widows son? Which pisses off some folk because they don't understand who is the widow and who is the son. Elijah knew. Therefore John the Baptist knew!

[xparte]

[xparte]

Most scholars assume that the disturbances mentioned by Suetonius in the passage were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome.[22] These disturbances were likely caused by the objections of Jewish community to the continued preachings by Hellenistic Jews in Rome and their insistence that Jesus was the Messiah, resulting in tensions with the Jews in Rome.[18][30]
Some scholars think Suetonius was confused and assumed that as the leader of the agitators, Chrestus, was alive and lived in Rome at the time of the expulsion.[11][30] The notion that Chrestus was instigating Jewish unrest suggests that the Chrestus reference is not a Christian interpolation, for a Christian scribe would be unlikely to think of the followers of Christ as Jews, or place him in Rome at the time of Claudius.Should real Pagan Rome be afraid nope feed some lions and chase knowledge.

[allodial]

There are so many people who have never researched out Jesus' Hebrew name Yehoshuah. Those who do, often called Messianic Jews, abbreviate and (Talmudic) slur Yehoshuah to Yeshuah; which actually removes the theophoric prefix:

[ATTACH]3948[/ATTACH]

Even changing it to Yehushuah is a slur against Jesus being Godly in nature....

So please be clear that I believe Jesus was Son of God, named Yehoshuah. You will find this agrees with Young's, Strong's and Richardson's concordances. It is this man and the Son of God who I am calling a bastard.

I would tread more prayerfully than carefully. There were many named 'Jesus'. Consider that the Talmudic stories about a son of Pantera didn't necessarily exist until the 2nd century A.D. Some if not many or most might fail to realize the link to the name at Exodus 3:14 which was put there for a reason. The names Hosea and perhaps even Isaiah are related to the discussion. The Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician words for savior and deliverer are 'yeh-shah' and 'howshea'. Add 'yeh' or the like to the beginning of 'howshea' and you get 'yeh+howshea' which is hardly a slur. However "Yehushuah " perhaps you have a point. Referring to someone as a bastard isn't a slur? A bastard according to whose standard?

In Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician the tidbit "shua" can connote: "sink or be bowed down, or humbled". However 'shea' is sometimes transliterated to 'shua'. 'shaua' refers to a 'cry for help'. However 'yeshua' means 'salvation' (rel. fem. noun). Also related are: shoa (free man or noble), yesha (salvation) and teshua (deliverance/salvation).

As for hijinx concerning names and name games of concealing true names, that some ancient Babylonians had complexes over the truth and were prone to demand to be worshiped and prostrated to seems plain in the historical record. No surprise at all if their progeny seem to follow suit. How much from Babylon can be deemed to be reliable? How do first and second century interpretations somehow manage to trump thousands of years of Ancient Old Dynasty Egyptian (remember Moses wrote using ancient Egyptian words) and Hebrew teachings and writings?

The Hidden Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV Connection
Also, one might do well to consider the Idumean attack on Israel (FROM WITHIN) and subsequent taking of Judea (with the help of Rome and Pompey) then capture of the Temple (130BC to 0AD ) and destruction (70AD) in view of your model concerning Nebuchadnezzar [two hundred years vs twenty]. The coming of the one predicated by Israel in Genesis was purposed to thwart Babylonian-Edomite attempts at 'taking heaven' (they couldn't do it by way of the Tower, so they went after the Temple and the Holy of Holies (as a gateway or portal)). All of such preceded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes who besieged the Jerusalem temple and slaughtered a pig there. The same Idumeans (Herodian line) helped siege the Jerusalem temple YET AGAIN ~63 B.C. But that is what Antiocus IV did only a 100 years or so before. Pompey (Roman general) with Hyrcanus (Herodian) help overcome Aristobulus and eventually himself entered the Holy of Holies too!

The problem for the Babylonians is that they weren't necessarily experts in Egyptian. They have attempted to claim origination of that which was written in a language which predates Babylon: fail.

It was an Idumean army that arrived in 68AD. How 'convenient' that the details of the 60 AD to 70AD periods have been left out of the discussion in "Christian churches" for so long. So begs the question: how can the "Jews" (Judeans, those of the house of Judah) that rejected Jesus and who were either taken into captivity or slaughtered at Jerusalem also be the very same "Jews" (Idumeans) who brought an army against Jerusalem together with the Romans? Mind you: Israel was predominantly in captivity or exile at the time.

arguments over historical accuracy rarely if ever yield any fruit.

The main persons arguing are the ones aiming to deny the truth or to overlay (cover) it with something else. Consider those who deny Edomite Herod's slaughter of the Innocents when ancient 350BC text written in latin (for which, 'conveniently', English translations are hardly available online except behind a pricey paywall or campus restricted context) that records Augustus responding to the news of the Slaughter of Innocents perpetrated by Herod and saying that he'd rather be a pig (hus) than one of Herod's sons (huios) (some leave out the text about the slaughter of infants under the age of two years, again, 'conveniently'). When leaders of a religion, philosophy or political system deliberately mislead 'followers' even to the extent of omitting over 160 years from the calendar--for the purpose of concealing the truth--, how reliable can their testimony be? What is there then to argue? Lies vs truth. Yielding to the truth yields fruit, no arguments then.

Consider those who spend lots of time hiding Middle Eastern artifacts in order to thwart proof of Bible historical accuracy. Not to mention that Joseph (Imnhotep) wasn't just an imaginary symbolic figure--he really lived and the evidence is all over the place. Who is arguing but those who want a different 'truth'. If those who tell us that its "all relative" really believed that--they would leave others alone, but they don't tend to unless checked.

Cum audisset inter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rex Iudaeorum intra bimatum iussit interfici filium quoque eius occisum, ait: Melius est Herodis porcum esse quam filium. --from Macrobius' Saturnalia

Note that by the time of Macrobius' writings, Syria Palaestina would have referred to the merger of Judea and Syria into a singularity.

Later, in 135 AD, in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Syrian province was merged with Judea province, creating the larger province of Syria Palaestina.

Related:

• Yeshua In the Tanakh (The Name of JESUS in the Old Testament)
• The Appearance of Christ in A.D. 68

[David Merrill]

arguments over historical accuracy rarely if ever yield any fruit. I liken these arguments to taking a side against abortion. I refuse to enter the arena as there is never any winner. Thusly I let no man judge me. Consider the wisdom in that statement. Let no man judge you!

As for my house, by careful study of Scripture I have come to understand trust law and how it works. In other words, the players are mere actors and I know if the kingdom is righteous THEN certain aspects have to be. I need no justification in terms of one placating me with "you are right" because I know I'm right!

I'm right for me. Now you go be right for you! The cry goes forth who will help the widows son? Which pisses off some folk because they don't understand who is the widow and who is the son. Elijah knew. Therefore John the Baptist knew!

As we both teach on www.lawfulmoneytrust.com I feel it necessary to explain this discrepancy, but after some sleep and in the peaceful quiet of the early morning. Xparte however seems to disagree, as he asserts history with the opening sentences of his post; so my commentary follows:

There follows a very edifying recitation of history.

Most scholars assume that the disturbances mentioned by Suetonius in the passage were due to the spread of Christianity in Rome.[22] These disturbances were likely caused by the objections of Jewish community to the continued preachings by Hellenistic Jews in Rome and their insistence that Jesus was the Messiah, resulting in tensions with the Jews in Rome.[18][30]
Some scholars think Suetonius was confused and assumed that as the leader of the agitators, Chrestus, was alive and lived in Rome at the time of the expulsion.[11][30] The notion that Chrestus was instigating Jewish unrest suggests that the Chrestus reference is not a Christian interpolation, for a Christian scribe would be unlikely to think of the followers of Christ as Jews, or place him in Rome at the time of Claudius.Should real Pagan Rome be afraid nope feed some lions and chase knowledge.

Allodial illuminates us with more history, but extends some useful advisement about approaching prayerfully, (in trust) rather than carefully. So not to exceed 10,000 characters I am going to comment in the next post.

Continued...

[David Merrill]

I would tread more prayerfully than carefully. There were many named 'Jesus'. Consider that the Talmudic stories about a son of Pantera didn't necessarily exist until the 2nd century A.D. Some if not many or most might fail to realize the link to the name at Exodus 3:14 which was put there for a reason. The names Hosea and perhaps even Isaiah are related to the discussion. The Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician words for savior and deliverer are 'yeh-shah' and 'howshea'. Add 'yeh' or the like to the beginning of 'howshea' and you get 'yeh+howshea' which is hardly a slur. However "Yehushuah " perhaps you have a point. Referring to someone as a bastard isn't a slur? A bastard according to whose standard?

In Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician the tidbit "shua" can connote: "sink or be bowed down, or humbled". However 'shea' is sometimes transliterated to 'shua'. 'shaua' refers to a 'cry for help'. However 'yeshua' means 'salvation' (rel. fem. noun). Also related are: shoa (free man or noble), yesha (salvation) and teshua (deliverance/salvation).

As for hijinx concerning names and name games of concealing true names, that some ancient Babylonians had complexes over the truth and were prone to demand to be worshiped and prostrated to seems plain in the historical record. No surprise at all if their progeny seem to follow suit. How much from Babylon can be deemed to be reliable? How do first and second century interpretations somehow manage to trump thousands of years of Ancient Old Dynasty Egyptian (remember Moses wrote using ancient Egyptian words) and Hebrew teachings and writings?

The Hidden Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV Connection
Also, one might do well to consider the Idumean attack on Israel (FROM WITHIN) and subsequent taking of Judea (with the help of Rome and Pompey) then capture of the Temple (130BC to 0AD ) and destruction (70AD) in view of your model concerning Nebuchadnezzar [two hundred years vs twenty]. The coming of the one predicated by Israel in Genesis was purposed to thwart Babylonian-Edomite attempts at 'taking heaven' (they couldn't do it by way of the Tower, so they went after the Temple and the Holy of Holies (as a gateway or portal)). All of such preceded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes who besieged the Jerusalem temple and slaughtered a pig there. The same Idumeans (Herodian line) helped siege the Jerusalem temple YET AGAIN ~63 B.C. But that is what Antiocus IV did only a 100 years or so before. Pompey (Roman general) with Hyrcanus (Herodian) help overcome Aristobulus and eventually himself entered the Holy of Holies too!

The problem for the Babylonians is that they weren't necessarily experts in Egyptian. They have attempted to claim origination of that which was written in a language which predates Babylon: fail.



It was an Idumean army that arrived in 68AD. How 'convenient' that the details of the 60 AD to 70AD periods have been left out of the discussion in "Christian churches" for so long. So begs the question: how can the "Jews" (Judeans, those of the house of Judah) that rejected Jesus and who were either taken into captivity or slaughtered at Jerusalem also be the very same "Jews" (Idumeans) who brought an army against Jerusalem together with the Romans? Mind you: Israel was predominantly in captivity or exile at the time.



The main persons arguing are the ones aiming to deny the truth or to overlay (cover) it with something else. Consider those who deny Edomite Herod's slaughter of the Innocents when ancient 350BC text written in latin (for which, 'conveniently', English translations are hardly available online except behind a pricey paywall or campus restricted context) that records Augustus responding to the news of the Slaughter of Innocents perpetrated by Herod and saying that he'd rather be a pig (hus) than one of Herod's sons (huios) (some leave out the text about the slaughter of infants under the age of two years, again, 'conveniently'). When leaders of a religion, philosophy or political system deliberately mislead 'followers' even to the extent of omitting over 160 years from the calendar--for the purpose of concealing the truth--, how reliable can their testimony be? What is there then to argue? Lies vs truth. Yielding to the truth yields fruit, no arguments then.

Consider those who spend lots of time hiding Middle Eastern artifacts in order to thwart proof of Bible historical accuracy. Not to mention that Joseph (Imnhotep) wasn't just an imaginary symbolic figure--he really lived and the evidence is all over the place. Who is arguing but those who want a different 'truth'. If those who tell us that its "all relative" really believed that--they would leave others alone, but they don't tend to unless checked.




Related:

• Yeshua In the Tanakh (The Name of JESUS in the Old Testament)
• The Appearance of Christ in A.D. 68

Back to MJ's opening sentence:

arguments over historical accuracy rarely if ever yield any fruit.

Yet we all study history in order to communicate on the "same page". In the opening videos the studied historian met with somebody in the Q&A reciting a contradiction, You and I read different books.

And so I can get to my point - to reconcile Michael Joseph's approach in a manner so to be edifying, and for the right to be right not to be violated. - Or at least only infringed upon.

There is a point in the Bible, as I study it, that the allegorical metaphor takes over. A rib taken out of Adam and fabricated with dust into Eve is a bit difficult for me to swallow literally. Here again I need to bow homage to carbon-dating; history. The evidence of Jesus being a man who lived in and around Israel and the accounting of the political climate brings the history, fact, law and truth to life for me. Five years of A Course in Miracles without any direct reading of Ken WAPNICK, who commercialized the work product of LSD dosing by Bill THETFORD on victim Helen SCHUCKMAN taught me well that we do not all simply disperse to find our own truths (plural) or even to experience the obvious, that we all settle for the Truth (objective) from our individual perspectives. The Voice of Jesus, directly channeled through Helen by such objective double-blind and scientific means makes it clear on several occasions that there is only One Objective Truth to be found; best expressed that God is Love and to find God one needs to Forgive.

The premise about this Objective Truth is that Communication and Creation are synonyms and so therefore what we are up to here is communicating/creating. In the next sentence or two the Voice explains that only beings of like Order can truly Communicate. This is interesting that we have simultaneously the Thread about Pay to the Order of...

So I was setting in a restaurant with a man, whom I admire his transforms. He is actually the glue holding together the unfathomable manufacturing process of near-infinitely complex machinery. In other words, he interfaces with mechanics and engineers who have never worked in their garages, on their cars. The normal transforms operate in subsets and subsystems that are in turn so complex that they "specialize". This engineer specializes in general. So I feel a certain kinship with this fellow, in that he is invaluable but feared, as the people who need him do not understand why they need him, or how his mind works so that he can actually dance around in genius, completely immune to the finite boundaries of "discipline".

But as I returned to the table he took time to thank me for all he had learned, mostly here, from my writings. That meant the world at the moment. Still does.

So to throw in the towel that we may all seek our own truth strikes me as the cop out resorted to in ACIM when confronted with the National Security Archives reports in MK-ULTRA declassified sub-projects proving Bill was dosing Helen with LSD - "That is your truth, David Merrill." Actually they like to call me Planet, for Planet Merrill so that I can more easily be dismissed.

I propose that this does nothing to avoid the emotional confrontation, only postpones the altercation while we both quietly build our arsenals with more and more history. I say it is better to accept only one objective history and forgive ourselves and each other so immediately we no longer even detect differences in our perceptions as attacks on each other.