<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Jun 28 2008, 12:50 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Jun 28 2008, 12:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->..This book first two essays examine the issues. Check page 19 for the Syrian connection to Mohammed.
[right][snapback]83462[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did the phoenician heartland of Syria succumb so easily to the Roman Imperialist project. If I remember correctly, the three divisions which participated in Titus' seige were Egypt, Syriac, and Macedonian. Is there a connection to the supposed Syriacs in Malabar. How did the Persian empire reconstitute itself after Alexander's depradations. If NT is of Roman provenance, then why the need to falsely project OT as Persian provenance, when the predecessors would "logically" be the hellenistic seleucids.
- added later -
Seleucids most closely approximate the missing Israel from history. As has been said, we do not have even a bust of Moshe from an era of rampant imperial narratives - pharoahs, caesars, homer, hannibal, etc etc.. The missing pieces cannot be "rationalised" away as an allergy to art.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>By 100 BC, the once formidable Seleucid Empire encompassed little more than Antioch and some Syrian cities. </b>Despite the clear collapse of their power, and the decline of their kingdom around them, nobles continued to play kingmakers on a regular basis, with occasional intervention from Ptolemaic Egypt and other outside powers. The Seleucids existed solely because no other nation wished to absorb them â seeing as they constituted a useful buffer between their other neighbours. In the wars in Anatolia between Mithridates VI of Pontus and Sulla of Rome, the Seleucids were largely left alone by both major combatants. link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
King of Kings applies to the 1. Persian Shahenshah, 2. Mithridates' vassal Tigranes, and 3. to the Christ Caesar in disguise.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Judaism, "King of Kings" - in Hebrew Melech ha-M'lachim - is a euphemism to refer to God, whose name may not be said. It is usually rendered as <b>Melech Malchei Ha-M'lachim </b><b>(King of Kings of Kings), </b>to put it one step above the title by which Babylonian and Persian kings are referred to in the Bible (specifically in the Book of Daniel).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]83462[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did the phoenician heartland of Syria succumb so easily to the Roman Imperialist project. If I remember correctly, the three divisions which participated in Titus' seige were Egypt, Syriac, and Macedonian. Is there a connection to the supposed Syriacs in Malabar. How did the Persian empire reconstitute itself after Alexander's depradations. If NT is of Roman provenance, then why the need to falsely project OT as Persian provenance, when the predecessors would "logically" be the hellenistic seleucids.
- added later -
Seleucids most closely approximate the missing Israel from history. As has been said, we do not have even a bust of Moshe from an era of rampant imperial narratives - pharoahs, caesars, homer, hannibal, etc etc.. The missing pieces cannot be "rationalised" away as an allergy to art.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>By 100 BC, the once formidable Seleucid Empire encompassed little more than Antioch and some Syrian cities. </b>Despite the clear collapse of their power, and the decline of their kingdom around them, nobles continued to play kingmakers on a regular basis, with occasional intervention from Ptolemaic Egypt and other outside powers. The Seleucids existed solely because no other nation wished to absorb them â seeing as they constituted a useful buffer between their other neighbours. In the wars in Anatolia between Mithridates VI of Pontus and Sulla of Rome, the Seleucids were largely left alone by both major combatants. link<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
King of Kings applies to the 1. Persian Shahenshah, 2. Mithridates' vassal Tigranes, and 3. to the Christ Caesar in disguise.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Judaism, "King of Kings" - in Hebrew Melech ha-M'lachim - is a euphemism to refer to God, whose name may not be said. It is usually rendered as <b>Melech Malchei Ha-M'lachim </b><b>(King of Kings of Kings), </b>to put it one step above the title by which Babylonian and Persian kings are referred to in the Bible (specifically in the Book of Daniel).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->