from a yahoo groups site:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->geekorthodox_9 <geekorthodox_9@...> wrote:
Atilla,
when 'Jesus' refers to the 'hosts of heaven', or his heavenly army,
this is exactly a Zoroastrian idea. and this is the danger that any
representative of Rome would have seen in this prophet. Josephus
writes about the peace treaty that Tiberius enacted through Vitellius
with the Parthians. Also, earlier in Josephus, when talking about the
origin of the Samaritans, it is said they were transplanted during
the Assyrian invasions; they are from the east, and could have strong
affinities for eastern powers.
Jesus as the Taheb is almost alluded to in GJohn, when the accusation
is made that Jesus is both a Samaritan and demon-possessed. Jesus
answers the possession charge, but not the Samaritan charge. could it
be that this point is not disputed because it could not be disputed.
but it was silently passed over as an evasion of a touchy subject.
cordially,
erik.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->geekorthodox_9 <geekorthodox_9@...> wrote:
Atilla,
when 'Jesus' refers to the 'hosts of heaven', or his heavenly army,
this is exactly a Zoroastrian idea. and this is the danger that any
representative of Rome would have seen in this prophet. Josephus
writes about the peace treaty that Tiberius enacted through Vitellius
with the Parthians. Also, earlier in Josephus, when talking about the
origin of the Samaritans, it is said they were transplanted during
the Assyrian invasions; they are from the east, and could have strong
affinities for eastern powers.
Jesus as the Taheb is almost alluded to in GJohn, when the accusation
is made that Jesus is both a Samaritan and demon-possessed. Jesus
answers the possession charge, but not the Samaritan charge. could it
be that this point is not disputed because it could not be disputed.
but it was silently passed over as an evasion of a touchy subject.
cordially,
erik.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->