Challenge accepted.

 

"For now, it's worth noting that scientists have discovered another class the of unexpected evidence that suggests, to many leading physicists at least, the need to revive a God or design hypothesis. As John Polkinghorne notes, "We are living in an age where there is a great revival of natural theology taking place. That revival of natural theology is taking place not on the whole among theologians, who have lost their nerve in that area, but among the scientists."" Polkinghorne further observes that although this new natural theology generally has more modest ambitions than the natural theology of the Middle Ages, a profound intellectual shift has nevertheless begun to take place."

"That revival of natural theology is taking place not on the whole among theologians, who have lost their nerve in that area..."

Well?

Challenge accepted.

And this guy?

Deserves tons of credit:

Gerald Schroeder

Every last bit of that had to be so precise?

 That it's just improbable to be an accident.

If just one of those buttons, slider bars etc is off by the least lil bit?

No universe.

Do you honestly think you could play around with those knobs, buttons, and slider bars enough to have everything end up just like it needed to be for universe creation?

The probability of that happening is so staggering as to be negligible.

(so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant.)

Fair

enough.

Challenge accepted.

You wont know when or where.

Have fun.

Remember

 

about a year ago when I said:

Challenge accepted

?

Yup...

These guys...

 

Now that Satan knows the theologians are coming after his henchmen??

Using science to do so no loess?

I told ya:

Challenge accepted

"That revival of natural theology is taking place 

not on the whole among theologians, 

who have lost their nerve in that area..."

(Yeah not this one BTW, 

I kinda wanna lead the charge so to  speak)

Certain cosmologist are gonna look at any little glimmer of hope 

they can find to do away with the current cosmological model.

They have been trying for a long time 

because they simply do not like the theistic implications 

of what they are seeing. 

This is why some are so excited about:

"Some scientists speak of a “crisis in cosmology.” They have a good reason."

"The standard model of cosmology has a big new problem: 

Some galaxies seem to be too old."

(If they only 

"seem"?

to be to old?

And we do not know for certain?

Because we do not have the 

Spectroscopy

results yet?

How exactly is not knowing for certain a crisis exactly?)

"However, new images from the James Webb Space Telescope found galaxies far more distant (and, hence, far older) than what the standard model of cosmology predicts. The new data provide compelling evidence that the model might need to be updated."

(Updated, not thrown away, the current cosmological model has been through this a few time in it's history. Gotta concentrate here on:

"found galaxies far more distant 

(and, hence, far older)"

 

Redshift is good for distance

Spectroscopy is more accurate for age.

One of those is mentioned in this article. 

The other isn't.

Take a guess which one is which.

Yeah...Redshift is mentioned, 

Spectroscopy isn't.

Now ask yourself why that might be?

"Some galaxies seem to be too old

"the model might need to be updated"

There is absolutely nothing conclusive as of yet 

but that is not the way this is being presented.

WHY?

"Now that Satan knows the theologians are coming after his henchmen"

:-).

Keep in mind this was a very small area of space that was observed, 

about the size of the moon in the night sky.

And it was a small sample, (six galaxies in total out of billions? Millions?, I cant remember, but it was a lot)

that warranted further investigation.

The JWST wasn't pointed in that direction of the sky for very long,

and the Spectroscopy results are not in yet.

Hence:

"Some galaxies seem to be too old

"the model might need to be updated"

But that is not the manner in which things are portrayed in this piece at all.

"The phrase “crisis in cosmology” is finding its way into a growing number of blogs and podcasts. But what is behind this crisis, and how seriously should we take it?"

(Not at all until the Spectroscopy results come in.)

"...there seems to be a mismatch between how old these first galaxies appear to be and how long ago the age-redshift relation tells us they must have formed. Well-formed galaxies are appearing too early for the story we told above to fully play itself out."

(Catch the subtlety there?

"appear to be"

vs.

"are appearing"?)

"The Big Bang model of cosmology shows us a Universe that is evolving rather than static and eternally unchanging. It is not under question in any serious way."

(Amen, thank you :-)

"What these new JWST results do throw into question 

is the story about that evolution 

that the standard model of cosmology tells us."

So:

"Some galaxies seem to be too old

"the model might need to be updated"

"a mismatch between 

how old 

these first galaxies 

appear to be 

and how long ago the age-redshift relation

 tells us they must have formed."

First of all:

Ecclesiastes 3:11

God Set Eternity in the Heart of Mankind

He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity 

(Ignorance, darkness, unknowable etc)

 in their heart, 

without the possibility that mankind will find out the work 

which God has done from the beginning even to the end.

and:

Psalm 74:16-18

The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun.

Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: 

thou hast made summer and winter.

Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O Lord, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.

Some things 

we are just not gonna ever get past 

or understand.

And?

 If these six galleries are confirmed to be as old as they "appear to be"?

Then I'm gonna come right back with:

"The universe is indeed a hologram."

Thats not me.

Thats cosmology's golden boy

The Universe is a hologram: Stephen Hawking's final theory, explained by his closest collaborator

"Hawking’s final theory of the Big Bang provides a bold and surprising answer. It envisages the Universe as a holographic projection.

In a familiar hologram, a third dimension of space emerges from the lines and scribbles on a screen. In the cosmos-as-hologram idea, which has become the talk of the town among theoretical physicists, it is the dimension of time that can be holographically encoded."

Awesome.

Who exactly did the 

"holographic encoding" 

then?

Remember:

Information 

(encoding in this instance)

is always a sign of conscience, sentient, intelligence, a brain, an intellect.

Everywhere we have ever observed

information?

This has always been the case.

Information simply doesn't "evolve".

So who/what encoded the Hologram then?

Choose carefully, 

eternity is at stake.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

― Robert Jastrow, 

God and the Astronomers

Indeed.

This theologian?

Is fine with however old these galaxy's may turn out to be.

It's the portraying them in a light that they currently dont deserve that I got a problem with.

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."

Robert Jastrow

They are painted in a corner alright.

And honey?

Im gonna beat em like a drum with their own methods.

Promise.

"That revival of natural theology is taking place 

not on the whole among theologians, 

who have lost their nerve in that area..."

(Yeah not this one BTW, 

I kinda wanna lead the charge so to  speak)

It's

 kinda what we been doing 

since Vietnam if you isn't noticed by now.

Meanwhile with all eyes on Iran.

America Is Planning to Withdraw From Syria—

and Create a Disaster

The create a disaster part that is.

Rev 13:2-4

The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

(Isis?

Trump?

Take your pick at this point 

what does it matter?

Point is its an evil that every time you try and kill it off 

it keeps coming back because it's not done fulfilling Gods plan.

So take your pick, 

It's here.

And Thats the point.

"The Islamic State has regained its momentum, and the Biden administration might inadvertently give it another boost."

(Well of course, lord knows we need to create another war so we can run some munition stocks down some more so some defense contractors can make some more $ getting contracts to fill them back up etc just ad infinitum at this point...who we kidding anymore?)

"By Charles Lister, a senior fellow 

and director of 

the Syria and Counterterrorism and Extremism programs 

at the Middle East Institute."

"Since Hamas’s brutal attack against Israel on Oct. 7 and the resulting Israeli military campaign in the Gaza Strip, tensions and hostilities across the Middle East have reached fever pitch. And with such a complex regional crisis playing out, it should not come as a surprise that the Biden administration is reconsidering its military priorities in the region."

"It should be cause for significant concern, however, that this could involve a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. While no definitive decision has been made to leave, four sources within the Defense and State departments said the White House is no longer invested in sustaining a mission that it perceives as unnecessary. Active internal discussions are now underway to determine how and when a withdrawal may take place."

"Notwithstanding the catastrophic effect that a withdrawal would have on U.S. and allied influence over the unresolved and acutely volatile crisis in Syria, it would also be a gift to the Islamic State. While significantly weakened, the group is in fact primed for a resurgence in Syria, if given the space to do so."

The unprecedented international intervention launched in 2014 by the United States and more than 80 partner nations to defeat the terror group’s so-called territorial state was remarkably successful, with the final pocket of territory in Syria liberated in early 2019.

But the situation in neighboring Syria is more complex. With approximately 900 troops on the ground, the United States is playing an instrumental role in containing and degrading a persistent Islamic State insurgency in northeastern Syria, 

(See Rev 13:2-4 listed above.)

working alongside its local partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

"Yet the threat remains. Early on Jan. 16, an Islamic State rocket attack was launched on an SDF-administered prison holding as many as 5,000 Islamic State prisoners, triggering a mass breakout attempt. While that operation was ultimately foiled, the U.S. deployment also plays a vital role in stabilizing an area in which 10,000 battle-hardened Islamic State militants are detained within at least 20 makeshift prisons and a further 50,000 associated women and children are held in secured camps. As the U.S. Central Command has repeatedly warned, keeping the Islamic State’s “army in waiting” and its “next generation” secured is a vital U.S. national security interest.

(Cause thats something everybody knows about.)

"While U.S. troops and their SDF partners have managed to contain the Islamic State’s recovery in Syria’s northeast, the situation is far more concerning to the west—on the other side of the Euphrates River, where the Syrian regime is in control, at least on paper."

"In this vast expanse of desert, the Islamic State has been engaged in a slow but methodical recovery, 

(See Rev 13:2-4 again)

exploiting regime indifference and its inability to challenge a fluid desert-based insurgency. In the past few years, 

the terrorist group has also reestablished 

an operational presence in regime-held Daraa 

(See Rev 13:2-4 again)

in southern Syria and 

markedly expanded the scale, scope, and sophistication of its operations throughout the central desert, temporarily capturing populated territory, seizing and holding gas facilities, and exerting considerable pressure around the strategic town of Palmyra.

(See Rev 13:2-4 again)

"In eastern and central Syria, the Islamic State’s shadow influence has returned. The group has reestablished a complex extortion operation, extracting so-called taxes from everyone from doctors and shopkeepers to farmers and truck drivers. With increasing frequency, the Islamic State is issuing them bespoke extortion demands based on acquired knowledge of local business revenue streams. In some cases, Islamic State-branded receipts are issued and when required, and threats are sent to cell phones and relatives."

"While much of this activity was initially focused on rural Syria, it is now urban, and in many rural areas, the Islamic State is increasingly recognized as a shadow authority. These far less visible activities may not make media headlines, but they are the core ingredients for a resilient and deeply embedded terrorist insurgency.

(Do I even have to say it at this point?)

"While the Islamic State remains far from where it was in 2013 and 2014, the group retains concerning capabilities, plenty of confidence, and a newfound sense of momentum. War in Gaza and a spiraling regional crisis are adding fuel to its fire and creating opportunities for the terror group to exploit the situation for its own advantage."

"While there is little that U.S. forces can do to alter Islamic State activities within the regime-controlled regions of Syria, U.S. troops are the glue holding together the only meaningful challenge to the Islamic State within a third of Syrian territory. Were that glue to disappear, a significant resurgence in Syria would be all but guaranteed, and a destabilizing spillover into Iraq a certainty."

"With Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani now publicly pushing for a U.S. withdrawal in his own country, some hope remains that the U.S. military’s presence in Iraqi Kurdistan could sustain counter-Islamic State operations, including next door in Syria. This may explain why Iran’s proxies have so frequently targeted U.S. forces stationed at Erbil International Airport in recent weeks."

"However, shifting counter-Islamic State coordination from Baghdad to Erbil would present its own complications, sharpening intra-Kurdish tensions between the regional government of Masoud Barzani and the PKK-linked SDF administration in northeast Syria, likely triggering unfavorable Turkish interference. Emboldened by a sense of victory in Iraq-proper, Iran and its proxies in this scenario would then undoubtedly sharpen their attacks on U.S. troops in Syria, seeking their withdrawal too."

"Ultimately, events since October have placed the U.S. deployment in northeast Syria on a fraying thread—hence recent internal consideration of a Syria withdrawal. Given the disastrous consequences of the hurried exit from Afghanistan in 2021 and the impending U.S. election later this year, it is hard to grasp why the Biden administration would be considering a withdrawal from Syria. No matter how such a withdrawal was conducted, it would trigger chaos and a swift surge in terror threats. But there can be no denying the clear sense in policy circles that it is being actively considered—and that it has been accepted as an eventual inevitability."

"Some within the U.S. government are currently proposing a collaborative arrangement between the SDF and Syria’s regime to counter the Islamic State as an apparent path towards a U.S. withdrawal. That would not only be a phenomenal boon to the Islamic State, but simply impossible on its own terms. Part of the SDF may have periodic contact with Assad’s regime, but they are far from natural allies. The regime would never allow the SDF to sustain itself, and Turkey would do everything possible to kill what remained."

"The last time that the Islamic State surged in Syria, in 2014, it transformed international security in profoundly negative ways. Should a U.S. withdrawal precipitate a return to Islamic State chaos, we will be relegated to mere observers, unable to return to a region that we will have placed squarely under the control of a pariah regime and its Russian and Iranian allies."

Dr. R.G. Lee's list of conversion excuses and questions

21. Excuse

"Please don't talk to me about it."

Answer: I am simply bringing God's message to you. "Thou therefore gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee: be not dismayed at their faces, lest I confound thee before them" (Jeremiah 1:17). "And go, get thee to them that are in captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak to them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear" (Ezekiel 3:11).

22. Excuse

"I am my own boss."

Answer: Wise men and women receive counsel. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12). "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." (Proverbs 12:15). The straight way is the best way. " 

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

The easiest thing in the world to get is a wrong answer.

23.Excuse

"Frankly I am skeptical about the whole matter."

Answer: Are you honestly looking for answers? Will you accept evidence as it would be accepted before a court of law? Are you an inquirer or spiritual subversive? Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the creator." (Romans 1:25). "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." (Romans 1:28).

Jesus Christ threw out this challenge: He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because you are not of God." (John 8:47)

Compatibility Axioms Cont

Compatibility Axioms

It takes a lengthy courtship for her to figure out how to both succeed with a man 

and even if he’s really worth it.

If he won’t honor her values, standards, and expectations before conquest, he likely won’t afterward.

Conquest convinces him that he’s worthy enough for her; he need not try harder. She’s left to prove  that she’s more worthy for him but without her greatest ‘convincer’.

If he won’t romance her before they get into foreplay and intercourse, he likely won’t learn to do it for their future together.

(Why should he? He didn't have to before)

Courtship works best when he’s the seller and she’s the buyer. He convinces her of his worth.

Marriage works best when he’s the buyer and she’s the seller. She convinces him of her worth.

The harder she is to conquer, the more trophy-like she appears to him. 

A man’s love is based on respect for an extraordinary woman who outshines most others. She becomes extraordinary in his eyes as he penetrates her pleasant friendliness and works hard to impress her, hold her attention, and otherwise prove himself worthy of her. Her attractiveness just gets the ball rolling. 

If after they marry she waters down her help, support, gratitude, and encouragement for who and what he is, she may also want to research where the local exes recovery group is meeting.

(It's what you've always accepted :-)

A man’s natural loyalty lies primarily with his job or whatever he must do to earn self-admiration and satisfy his sense of significance. The right and extraordinary woman can make a satisfactory and permanent accommodation. 

If she expects her feminist leanings, attitude, and political expectations to override his natural masculine behaviors, her value to him will diminish over time.

A man’s respect for women generally and one in particular is not essential for a temporary relationship, but it is for a permanent one. Women are the same regarding men and one man.

A man’s respect for women generally and one in particular is not essential for a temporary relationship, but it is for a permanent one. Women are the same regarding men and one man.

After a couple’s first sex together, the man assumes control of their sexual agenda as conqueror’s right, or else he moves on.

(Except on occasion lol, you know what I'm talking about :-).

Men respond to feminine women by becoming more responsible, which encourages women to become more feminine. 

Feminine behavior attracts men to rise above themselves and accept domestic and fatherly responsibility. A woman’s feminine spirit makes her appear vulnerable and challenges good men. One will admire himself with thoughts of taking care of her.

If she makes it easy for him to know her, she makes it hard for him to keep her. Mystery captivates.

(Yep)

The only window of opportunity to change a man opens before and closes after his sexual conquest of her. What she screws is what she gets...

Men as hunter-conquerors like tough targets, difficult game, hard-to-get prizes that first challenge and later provide frequent reminders of their manliness. The woman that makes it easy for him to understand her—or to take up residence with her—trains him against her best interests. 

Virtual virginity means keeping her legs crossed before marriage. It puts her in the buyer’s seat and forces a man to be the seller, to make himself worthy of her instead of the other way around. Men don’t truly appreciate what they don’t earn. 

Yup...

 

Calling Russia's Attack 'Unprovoked' Lets US Off the Hook

"Full scale invasion"

and 

"Unprovoked"

WAR.

Why are those phrases so ubiquitous in our media?

Russia had more reason(s) to invade Ukraine than we did Iraq.

But you will never hear that.

"The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine."

In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling “the current US-led effort to expand NATO…a policy error of historic proportions.” They predicted:

"In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, 

will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, 

undercut those who favor reform 

and cooperation with the West 

[and] bring the Russians to question 

the entire post-Cold War settlement."

(Is that not exactly what happened?)

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (5/2/98) in 1998 asked famed diplomat George Kennan—architect of the US Cold War strategy of containment—about NATO expansion. Kennan’s response:

"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else."

"Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong."

Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.

"US planners were warned again in 2008 by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

"Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.  Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.  In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face."

The Maidan Coup of 2014

"A major turning point in the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship was the 2014 violent and unconstitutional ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2010 in a vote heavily split between eastern and western Ukraine. His ouster came after months of protests led in part by far-right extremists (FAIR.org, 3/7/14). Weeks before his ouster, an unknown party leaked a phone call between US officials discussing who should and shouldn’t be part of the new government, and finding ways to “seal the deal.” After the ouster, a politician the officials designated as “the guy” even became prime minister."

The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting the divisions in Ukrainian society to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org, 1/28/22). In the aftermath of the overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.

"The New York Times (2/24/22) and Washington Post (2/28/22) both omitted the role the US played in these events. In US media, this critical moment in history is completely cleansed of US influence, erasing a critical step on the road to the current war."

(It's kinda what we do yo.)

"For example, at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, Putin elaborated on what he considered to be the main military threat from US/NATO expansion to Ukraine:

It is extremely alarming that elements of the US global defense system are being deployed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching the Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security.

The United States does not possess hypersonic weapons yet, but we know when they will have it…. They will supply hypersonic weapons to Ukraine and then use them as cover…to arm extremists from a neighbouring state and incite them against certain regions of the Russian Federation, such as Crimea, when they think circumstances are favorable.

Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge? This is the problem: We simply have no room to retreat."

Having these missiles so close to Russia—weapons that Russia (and China) see as part of a plan to give the United States the capacity to launch a nuclear first-strike without retaliation

(Which is what Russia and China now have:

"the capacity to launch a nuclear first-strike without retaliation"

and that's why all the 

"Not wanting to escalate"

things with Russia from this Administration.)

—seriously challenges the cold war deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction, and more closely resembles a gun pointed at the Russian head for the remainder of the nuclear age. Would this be acceptable to any country?"

"Media refuse to present this crucial question to their audiences, 

instead couching Putin’s motives in purely aggressive terms."

(100% Truth)

"Refusal to Deescalate

By December 2021, US intelligence agencies were sounding the alarm that Russia was amassing troops at the Ukrainian border and planning to attack. Yet Putin was very clear about a path to deescalation: He called on the West to halt NATO expansion, negotiate Ukrainian neutrality in the East/West rivalry, remove US nuclear weapons from non proliferating countries, and remove missiles, troops and bases near Russia. These are demands the US would surely have made were it in Russia’s position."

(It's on here somewhere, that I thought we ought to at least sit and talk with him about a new security arrangement in Europe. Pretend (and I know its a stretch) for a second that Mexico is Ukraine and we are Russia. Honestly, What do you think would we have done?)

"Instead of addressing Russian concerns about Ukraine’s NATO relationship, the US instead chose to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, exacerbating Putin’s expressed concerns. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t help matters by suggesting that Ukraine might begin a nuclear weapons program at the height of the tensions.

After Putin announced his recognition of the breakaway republics, Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled talks with Putin, and began the process of implementing sanctions on Russia—all before Russian soldiers had set foot into Ukraine.

Had the US been genuinely interested in avoiding war, it would have taken every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead, it did the opposite nearly every step of the way."

("The most wayfaring nation the world has ever seen.", I think I remember somebody sayin...)

"NATO’s open door policy is simply accepted as an immutable policy that Putin just needs to deal with. This very assumption, so key to the Ukraine crisis, goes unchallenged in the US media ecosystem."

"The strategic case for risking war

"It’s impossible to say for sure why the Biden administration took an approach that increased the likelihood of war, but one Wall Street Journal piece from last month may offer some insight.

The Journal (12/22/21) published an op-ed from John Deni, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by the US and allied governments that serves as NATO’s de facto brain trust. The piece was provocatively headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine.” Deni’s argument was that the West should refuse to negotiate with Russia, because either potential outcome would be beneficial to US interests."

"If Putin backed down without a deal, it would be a major embarrassment. He would lose face and stature, domestically and on the world stage."

"But Putin going to war would also be good for the US, the Journal op-ed argued. Firstly,  it would give NATO more legitimacy by “forg[ing] an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe.” Secondly, a major attack would trigger “another round of more debilitating economic sanctions,” weakening the Russian economy and its ability to compete with the US for global influence. Thirdly, an invasion is “likely to spawn a guerrilla war” that would “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity and reducing Russia’s soft power globally.”

"In short, we have part of the NATO brain trust advocating risking Ukrainian civilians as pawns in the US’s quest to strengthen its position around the world."

(Well we wouldn't do that now would we?

Vietnam.

Iraq

Afghanistan etc...)

"It is impossible to know for sure whether the Biden administration shared this sense that there would be an upside to a Russian invasion, but the incentives are clear, and much of what these op-eds predicted is coming to pass."

"None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did."

"Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point."

(omnicide

the destruction of all life or all human life (as by nuclear war) As our understanding grows, so does the horror. What we face now is not merely slaughter or genocide, but "omnicide," the obliteration of all humans and all living species.)

PUT A LIL MORE SUCCINCTLY:

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."

Straight from the Mindenhall Reference Bible.

 

BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS

the four hundred years between the prophecy of Malachi and the advent of Christ are frequently described as "silent," but they were in fact crowded with activity. Although no inspired prophet arose in Israel during those centuries, and the Old Testament was regarded as complete, events took place which gave to later Judaism its distinctive ideology and providentially prepared the way for the coming of Christ and the proclamation of His Gospel.

THE PERSIAN PERIOD

The Jews fared well under Persian rule. Cyrus had given them per- mission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their Temple and, although they met opposition from the inhabitants of Palestine, it was dedicated during the reign of Darius the Great. Ezra the scribe, and Nehemiah, the layman, sought to strengthen the Palestinian Jewish community and encourage their loyalty to the Law of God. For about a century and a half after Nehemiah's time the Persian Empire exercised control over Judea, and the Jews were permitted to observe their religious institutions without interference. Judea was ruled by High Priests who were responsible to the Persian government, a fact which insured the Jews a large measure of autonomy. At the same time, however, it made a political office of the priesthood and sowed the seeds of future trouble. Contests for the office of High Priest were marked by jealousy, intrigue, and even murder. Johanan, son of Joiada (Neh. 12:22), is reported to have slain his brother Joshua within the Temple precincts.

Johanan was succeeded as High Priest by his brother Jaddua, whose brother Manasseh, according to Josephus, married the daughter of Sanballat, governor of Samaria. It was at this time that a Samaritan temple was built on Mount Gerizim which, rather than Zion, was regarded as sacred by the Samaritan community. The sanctuary on Mount Gerizim was destroyed by the Hasmonaean ruler John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.) but the mount itself continues to this day to be regarded as sacred by the Samaritans. The woman of Samaria wished to dispute with Jesus concerning the merits of the rival holy places, but the Saviour chose to emphasize the spiritual attitude of the worshiper rather than the place of worship (cf. John 4:20). The Sanballat of Josephus cannot have been the same individual as the man of the same name mentioned by Nehemiah (4:1). Josephus does, however, appear to reflect a valid tradition for a temple seems definitely to have been built on Mount Gerizim about this time.

Persia's failure to conquer Greece encouraged subject peoples to seek their independence. Egypt was constantly attempting to throw off the Persian yoke and Judea, geographically between the two powers could not escape involvement. During the reign of Artaxerxes III (Ochus) many Jews were implicated in a revolt against Persia. When it failed, the Persians deported them to Babylonia and the southern shores of the Caspian Sea.

Jews had long been in Egypt. Following the murder of Gedaliah, the prophet Jeremiah was forced to join a group of refugees who sought asylum at Tahpanhes in the eastern Delta (Jer. 43:4-13), and other Judeans doubtless found their way to Egypt to avoid capture by Nebuchadnezzar. Migration continued during the Persian Period, and by the fifth century before Christ a Jewish colony of mercenary soldiers was located at Elephantine Island, near modern Aswan, at the First Cataract of the Nile. Contrary to the Mosaic Law, these colonists built a temple for themselves, and they combined their devotion to the God of their fathers with pagan elements. The Elephantine Jews had correspondence with the Samaritans as well as the Judeans.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT

Persia never succeeded in subduing the Greeks, but an heir of Greek culture, Alexander of Macedon, eventually brought to an end the Persian Empire. Alexander was not simply a power-mad despot. A pupil of the philosopher Aristotle, he was thoroughly convinced that Greek culture was the one force that could unify the world. In 333 B.C. he passed from Macedonia into Asia Minor and defeated the Persian armies stationed there. Then he moved south- ward through Syria and Palestine to Egypt. Tyre and Gaza each offered stubborn resistance, but delays did not discourage Alexander, they simply strengthened his determination to win. There was no need for a campaign against the Jews and, indeed, legend makes Alexander a friend of the Jewish people. Jaddua, the High Priest, is said to have come out to meet Alexander, telling him of Daniel's prophecy that the Greek army would be victorious (Dan. 8). Although historians do not take the story seriously, it does illustrate the friendly feelings between the Jews and the Macedonian conqueror. Alexander permitted the Jews to observe their laws, granted them exemption from tribute during Sabbatical Years and, when he built Alexandria in Egypt (331 B.C.), he encouraged Jews to settle there and gave them privileges comparable to those of his Greek subjects.

Alexander was welcomed into Egypt as a deliverer from Persian oppression. His victorious armies retraced their steps through Palestine and Syria, then moved eastward. The cities of Babylon and Persia fell to Alexander, and he pressed on as far as the Punjab region of India. Although mighty in battle, it was Hellenistic culture rather than Macedonian rule that was Alexander's legacy to the Middle East. He determined to found a new city in each country of his empire which would serve as a model for the reordering of the life of the country as a whole along Greek lines. Materially speaking, this meant the erection of fine public buildings, a gymnasium for games, an open air theatre, and whatever would approximate the life of a Greek city-state. Individuals were encouraged to take Greek names, adopt Greek dress and the Greek language in short, to become Hellenized.

The material aspects of Hellenism must have seemed at- tractive for large segments of the population. Trade and commerce brought wealth to the new merchant class. Libraries and schools were welcomed by the scholar. Better housing and better food brought about a rise in the standard of living. Many in Israel, as elsewhere, were glad to accept this veneer of Greek culture. If idolatry had been the stumbling block to Israel in the pre-exilic period, Hellenism was the great post-exilic temptation. A third century B.C. writer observed, "In recent times, under the foreign rule of the Persians, and then of the Macedonians, by whom the

Persian Empire was overthrown, intercourse with other races has led to many of the traditional Jewish ordinances loosing their hold." Many Jews took Greek names, accepted a school of Greek philosophy, and tried to combine the wisdom of Greece with the faith of their fathers. Others resisted Helenism and became more and more engrossed in the their Law.

At the age of thirty-three, Alexander died in Babylon For a number of years the future of the Near East was uncertain, but the generals succeeded in dividing the among themselves and the tide of Hellenism increased While the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria fought among themselves for land and power, they in complete agreement concerning their social and cultural mission. The historian W. W. Tarn says that Alexander "so changed the world (that) nothing after him could be as it was before."

THE PTOLEMIES

Following the death of Alexander, Judea was first subject to Antigonus, one of his generals, but it quickly fell another general, Ptolemy I, surnamed Soter, "Deliverer" who seized Jerusalem on a sabbath day in 320 BC. Ptolemy, whose kingdom centered in Egypt, dealt kindly with the Jews. Many of them settled in Alexandria which continued to be an important center of Jewish thought for many centuries. Under Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) the Alexanderian Jews translated their Law (i.e., the Pentateuch) into Greek This translation was later known as the Septuagint from the legend of seventy (more correctly seventy-two, six from each of the twelve tribes) who were sent from Judea to produce the Greek translation of the Hebrew Law.

The Jews in Palestine enjoyed a period of prosperity during Ptolemaic times. Tribute was paid to the, government in Egypt, but local affairs were administered by High Priest who had been responsible for governing their people Persian times. The greatest figure among the Jews of Ptolemaic period was Simon the Just, the High Priest who is the subject of highest praise in the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus, which calls him, "Great among his brethren and the glory of his people." He is credited with rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem which had been demolished by Ptolemy I, and is said to have repaired the Temple and directed the excavation of a great reservoir to provide water for Jerusalem in times of drought and siege. In addition to his reputation as High Priest, Simon is also regarded as one of the great teachers of ancient Judaism. His favorite maxim was, "The world rests on three things, on the law, on Divine Service, and on Charity" (Pirke Aboth, i. 2). The identity of Simon the Just poses a historical problem however. A High Priest known as Simon I lived during middle of the third century, and Simon II lived about 200 B.C. One of these is doubtless the Simon the Just of Jewish tradition and legend.

During Ptolemaic times the priestly families of Oria Tobias became bitter rivals. The house of Tobias was Egyptian and represented the wealthy class of Jerusalem society. It may have been related to Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh. 2:10; 4:3, 7; 6:1-19) who gave so much trouble to Nehemiah. A papyrus from the time of Ptolemy II speaks of a Jew named Tobias who was a cavalry commander in the Ptolemaic army stationed at Ammanitis, east of the Jorden. Archaeologists have discovered a mausoleum from the third century B.C. at 'Araq el-Emir in central Jordan, with the name "Tobiah." The Tobiahs are thought to have been tax collectors, occupying the same function as the New Testament publicans.

Josephus states that Onias II refused to pay Ptolemy IV twenty talents of silver, which was evidently the tribute demaned of the High Priests. By refusing payment, Onias to have renounced allegiance to Ptolemy. Joseph, a of the house of Tobias, then succeeded in having appointed tax farmer for the whole of Palestine. The "tax farmer" had to go to Alexandria each year to bid for the renewal of the license to gather taxes. Joseph held this post for twenty years, under the Ptolemies and, after the victory of Antiochus, III, under the Seleucids.

SELEUCIDS

The Syrian rulers are termed Seleucids because their kingdom, one of the successor states to Alexander's Empire, was by Seleucus I (Nicator). Most of the early rulers bore names of Seleucus or Antiochus, and they ruled Antioch on the Orontes River. The energetic ruler Antiochus III, surnamed "the Great" waged a series of battles with Egypt until, in 199 B.C., he wrested Palestine from the Ptolemies after the Battle of Panion, near the sources of the Jordan River. This marked the beginning of ta of Jewish history for, while the Ptolemies had been tolerant of Jewish institutions, the Seleucids determined to enforce Hellenism upon the Jews.

The crisis came during the reign of Antiochus IV, surnamed Epipbanes, who found allies in the Hellenistic party in Judea. In the early days of the reign of Antiochus IV, Jerusalem was ruled by the High Priest Onias III, a descendent of Simon the Just, and a strictly orthodox Jew. The Jews who looked with favor on Greek culture opposed Onias and espoused the cause of his brother Jason. By promising larger tribute to Antiochus, Jason succeeded in having himself appointed High Priest. Although Antiochus looked upon the High Priesthood as a political office which he had a right to fill as he pleased, pious Jews thought of the priesthood as divine in origin and considered its sale to the highest bidder a sin against God. 

Jason encouraged the Hellenists who had sought his election- A gymnasium was built in Jerusalem, Greek names became commonplace, and Hebrew orthodoxy was considered obscurantist and obsolete. Yet Jason argued with his close companion and fellow-Hellenist, Menelaus, of the tribe of Benjamin, who offered higher tribute to Antiochus than that by Jason, and had himself installed as High Priest.

The orthodox Jews who had been scandalized when Jason med High Priest, were more deeply disturbed when Menelaus, a Benjaminite with no claim to priestly office, was installed. Jason raised an army to back his claim to the High Priesthood, and Menelaus courted the favor of Antiochus. The Syrians, who were campaigning against Egypt, felt it essential to maintain effective control of Palestine. Antiochus staged a sneak attack on Jerusalem one sabbath day (when the orthodox would not fight), and slaughtered a large number of the enemies of Menelaus. The city walls were destroyed and a new fortress, the Akra, was built on the the citadel.

Antiochus determined to remove all traces of orthodox Jewish faith. Israel's God was identified with Jupiter, and a bearded image of the pagan deity (perhaps in the likeness Antiochus) was erected on the Temple altar, where swine offered in sacrifice. Jews were forbidden, under penalty of death, to practice circumcision, sabbath observance, or the celebration of the feasts of the Jewish calendar. Copies of the Scriptures were ordered destroyed. The laws were enforced with the utmost cruelty. An aged scribe named Fleazar was flogged to death because he would not eat swine flesh.

By force of arms Menelaus continued as High Priest and the Hellenizing party gained a victory. Yet the Hellenizers had gone too far, and their very zeal to annihilate the old order proved their own undoing. The orthodox were willing to die for their faith, but all were not convinced that they should die passively.

THE MACCABEAN REVOLT

The oppressed Jews were not long in finding a champion. When the emissaries of Antiochus arrived at the village of Modin, about fifteen miles west of Jerusalem, they expected the aged priest, Mattathias, to set a good example to his people by coming forward to offer a pagan sacrifice. When Mattathias refused, a timid Jew came forward to perform the sacrifice. The enraged priest approached the altar and slew both the apostate Jew and the emissary of Antiochus. With his five sons, Mattathias destroyed the heathen altar and then fled to the hills to avoid reprisal. Others of orthodox persuasion joined the family of Mattathias in waging guerrilla warfare on the Syrians and the Hellenistic Jews who supported them. The orthodox would not fight on the sabbath day, with the result that they were at a distinct military disadvantage. On one sabbath a band of the orthodox was surrounded and slaughtered, for they would not defend themselves. Following this episode Mattathias suggested the principle that fighting in self-defense is permissible on the sabbath day.

Soon after the beginning of the revolt, Mattathias died. He had urged his followers to choose as military leader his third son Judas (Hebrew Judah) known as "the Maccabee," a word usually interpreted to mean "the hammer." The choice was a good one, for more and more Jews rallied to the cause. The Maccabees, as the followers of Judas were called, were able to hold their own against a series of Syrian armies thrown against them. By a surprise night attack, Judas annihilated an army of Syrians and Hellenistically minded Jews at Emmaus, and then marched toward Jerusalem with the booty he had seized. The Maccabees entered the city and took everything except the Akra. They entered the Temple and removed all the signs of paganism which had been installed there. The altar dedicated to Jupiter was removed and a new altar erected to Israel's God. The statue of Jupiter was ground to dust. Beginning with the twenty-fifth of Kislev (December) they celebrated an eight day Feast of Dedication, known as Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights. In this way they marked the end of the three-year period during which the Temple had been desecrated.

Peace was short-lived, however. The Syrian general Lysias defeated the Maccabees in a battle near Jerusalem, and besieged the city itself. During the siege, however, Lysias learned of trouble at home and made an offer of peace to the Jews. The laws against the observance of Judaism would be repealed and Syria would refrain from interference in the internal affairs of Judea. Menelaus was to be removed from office and the high priesthood given to a mild Hellenizer named Alcimus. Lysias promised that Judas and his followers would not be punished. The walls of Jerusalem would be razed, however.

A council comprising Maccabean army officers, respected scribes, and elders of the orthodox party was convened at Jerusalem to determine the action to be taken. Against the counsel of Judas the peace terms were accepted. Alcimus became High Priest; Menelaus was executed, and Judas left the city with a few followers. The fears of Judas proved correct, however, for Alcimus seized and executed many of the orthodox party. Loyal Jews again turned to Judas and the civil war was renewed. Judas, with an ill-equipped army of eight hundred men, met a large Syrian army and died in battle. Thus the first phase of the Maccabean struggle was ended.

Jonathan, a brother of Judas, fled across the Jordan with several hundred Maccabean soldiers. They  were ill-equipped to wage battle, but the next victories were in the field of diplomacy. Two pretenders to the Sryian throne each sought help from the Jews. the man best able help from the Jews. They saw in Jonathan the man best able to raise and lead a Jewish army. By playing a delaying action, Johnathan was able to support the winning candidate and at the same time make treaties with Sparta and Rome. Before the war was over, Jonathan was High Priest, governor of Judea, and a member of Syrian nobility. His brother Simon, became governor of the Philistine coastal area. Jonathan  was able to promote the internal prosperity of Judah., and when he died his brother Simon succeeded him as ruling High Priest.

  Simon was advanced sin years when he came to the throne. His major victory was in the field of diplomacy, for by recognizing Demetrius as rightful king of Syria  he secured for the Jews immunity from taxation which amounted to an acknowledgement of independence. Simon was able also to starve out the Syrian garrison at the Akra and to occupy the cities of Joppa and Bethsura. In recognition of his wise rule, the leaders of Israel named Simon, "leader and High Priest forever until there shall arise a faithful prophet." Simon was the last of the sons of Mattathias, and this act legitimized a new dynasty      which is termed Hasmonaean, presumably derived from an ancestor of the Maccabees named Asmonaeus or, in Hebrew, Hashmon. In 134 B.C., Simon and two of his sons were murdered by an ambitious son-in- A third son, John Hyrcanus, managed to escape and succeed his father as hereditary head of the Jewish state.

THE HASMONAEANS

The Syrians recognized the government of John Hyrcanus on condition that he consider himself subject to Syria and promise help in Syrian military campaigns. Certain coastal cities annexed by Jonathan and Simon were also to be relinquished. The efficient rule of Hyrcanus, however, quickly effected the re-conquest of these cities and the addition of Idumaea (Old Testament Edom) to Judean territory. These conquests insured the use of ancient trade routes by the merchant class, but they posed problems to the religiously oriented Jews. Hyrcanus compelled the Idumaeans to become circumcised and accept the Jewish faith, a practice which later Judaism disavows. There is something ironical in the thought of a grandson of Mattathias forcing religious conformity on a people conquered by Jewish arms! Hyrcanus also campaigned in Samaria where he destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim. The success of Jewish arms might be applauded by the nationalistic element in Judea, but the religious fervor of the earlier Maccabees was no longer evident.

Before John Hyrcanus died in 104 B.C., the borders of the state had been extended on every side. The Maccabean struggle was long past and new rivalries developed. The older Hellenists were discredited, but their ideas were perpetuated in the party of the Sadducees. The orthodox of Maccabean times became the Pharisees of pre-Christian Judaism and the New Testament. Hyrcanus, himself, was devout and law-abiding, but his children had little sympathy with traditional Hebrew thought. They numbered themselves among the aristocrats, and they came to look with disdain on the rigidly orthodox Pharisees. Ironically these heirs of the Maccabees became thoroughly Hellenized.

The death of John Hyrcanus precipitated a dynastic struggle among his children. His eldest son, who preferred his Greek name Aristobulus to his Hebrew name Judah,  emerged as victor and cast three of his brother into prison.-two of whom are thought to have starved to death. Another brother was murdered in the palace. In the short reign of but one year, Aristobulus pushed the borders of Judea north to Mount Lebanon and took the title of king to himself. His life was cut short, however, by drink, disease and  the haunting fear of rebellion.

At the time of Aristobulus' death he had but one brother living, and he was in prison. Although his Hebrew name was Jonathan, history knows him by his Greek name Alexander Jannaeus. Under Jannaeus the policy of territorial expansion continued. The frontiers of Judea were extended along the Philistine coast toward the Egyptian frontier and  in the Transjordan region. The Jewish state approximated the territory controlled by Israel in the days of David  Solomon. It included the whole of Palestine and adjacened areas from the borders of Egypt to Lake Huleh, north of the Sea of Galilee. Perea in Transjordan was subject to Jannaeous as were the cities of the Coastal Plain except for  Ascalon.

The territories were incorporated into the Hasmonaean kingdom were, for the most part, quickly Judaised. The Idumaeans came to exercise an important place in Jewish life, and Galilee became an important center of Judaism. The Samaritans, however, continued to resist assimilation and ocities such as Apollonia and Scythopolis (Old Testament Beth-shean) with only a small Jewish element in their population kept their non-Jewish character.

Partisan strife, however, marred the reign of Alwxander Jannacus, who showed open contempt for the Pharisees precipitating civil war. The Pharisees accepted aid from the Syrians in their conflict with Jännaeus and for a time Jewish independence was in the balance. When the Pharisees felt that they had gained their point they withdrew their alliance with Syria and hoped for a Jewish state that would be both free of foreign control and tolerant of their viewpoint. Jannaeus, however, sought out the leaders of the rebellion and crucified eight hundred Pharisees. Tradition says that Jannaeus repented on his death-bed, instructing Salome Alexandra to dismiss his Sadducean advisors and reign with the help of the Pharisees. The tradition may have no historical basis, but Alexandra did turn to the Pharisees for support.

Salome Alexandra had been married successively to Aristobulus and to Alexander Jannaeus. The widow of Hasmonaean rulers, she reigned in her own right for seven years. She was a woman of seventy when she came to the throne, dividing royal responsibilities among her two sons, Hyrcanus, the elder son, became High Priest and his brother Aristobulus received the military command. Her brother, Simeon ben Shetab, was a leader among the Pharisees and this fact may have disposed her to seek peace between the opposing factions of Judaism.

Under Alexandra, the Pharisees had their opportunity to make a constructive contribution to Jewish life. In many areas, particularly education, they were eminently successful. Under the presidency of Simeon ben Shetah the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Council of State) decreed that every young man should be educated. A comprehensive system of e education was inaugurated so that the larger villages, towns and cities of Judea would produce a literate, informed people. This education was centered in the Hebrew Scriptures.

 The wounds of earlier strife were not healed during Alexandra's reign. Although the Pharisees were happy in their  new-found recognition, the Sadducees were resentful of the fact that they had lost power. To compound the problem, the Pharisees sought to avenge the massacre of their leaders by Alexander Jaanaeus. Sadducean blood was spilt and the makings of another civil war were in the air.

The Saadducees found in Aristobulus, the younger son of  Jannaeus and Alexandra, the man they could support as successor. He was a soldier and appealed to the party that dreamed of imperial expansion and worldly power. Hyrcanus, the elder brother and rightful heir, was acceptable to the Pharisees. With the death of Alexandra the partisans of the two sons were ready for a showdown.

When his mother died, Hyrcanus (II) who had been serving as High Priest succeeded him to the throne, but his Aristobulus led an army of Sadducees against Jerusalem. Nether Hyrcanus nor the Pharisees were ready for war, and Hyrcanus surrendered his honors to Aristobulus (II) who became king and High Priest. Hyrcanus and Aristobulus thereupon vowed eternal friendship, and Aristobulus eldest son Alexander married Hyrcanus' only daughter Alexndra. Peace between the brothers was short-lived, however. Hyrcanus had to flee and Antipater, governor of  Idumaea espoused his cause. With civil war threatening, Pompey appeared with his Roman Legions to insure the peace of Judea and further the aims of Rome.

THE ROMANS

When Pompey suspected Aristobulus of planning to rebel against Rome he besieged Jerusalem and, after three months, breached the fortifications, entered the city, and reportedly slaughtered twelve thousand Jews. Pompey and his officers entered the Holy of Holies in the Temple, but he did not touch its costly furnishings and allowed Temple worship to continue. Jerusalem, however, was made tributary to the Romans and the last vestige of Jewish independence was removed. Judea was incorporated into the Roman province of Syria and it lost the coastal cities, the district of Samaria, the non-Jewish cities east of the Jordan. Hyrcanus was named Ethnarch of Judea, including Galilee, Idumaea and Perea and was confirmed again as High Priest. A yearly tribute was due Rome. Aristobulus and a number of other capyives were taken to Rome to grace Pompey's triumph. During the voyage, however, Aristobulus' son Alexander escaped and attempted to organize a revolt against Hyrcanus. With the aid of the Romans, however, Hyrcanus was able to his challenge to his authority.

During the years of strife between Aristobulus (II) and Hyracanus (II) the Idumaean governor Antipater (or Antipas) took a lively interest in the politics of Judea. Antipater was bitterly opposed to Aristobulus, partly through fear and partly because of his friendship for Hyrcanus. It appears that Hyrcanus relied much on Antipater, and that he was virtually the power behind the throne of Judea. The Jews resented the influence of Antipater almost as much as they smarted under Roman sovereignty. Although the Idumaeans had been incorporated into the Jewish state by John Hyrcanus, they had never been assimilated and ancient rivalries were not forgotten.

In the crisis which followed the murder of Julius Caesar, Antipater and his sons showed loyalty to the new regime of Cassius by zealously collecting tribute. Herod, a son of Antipater, was given the title Procurator of Judea with the promise that he would one day be named king. When Anthony defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, Asia again fell into the hands of a new regime. Herod, however, quickly changed loyalties and bribed his way into favor with Anthony. The eastern part of the once mighty Persian Empire was occupied by a people known as Parthians who had never been subdued by Rome. In 41 B.C. they attacked Jerusalem and made Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II both king and High Priest. Herod, the son of Antipater, who had inherited the throne of Judea at the death of Hyrcanus, was forced to flee to Rome. There he won the favor of Anthony and was officially named "King of the Jews," although the title would have meaning only after the Parthians were driven out. Herod returned to Judea with Roman arms and triumphantly entered Jerusalem as king.

Herod's rule spanned the eventful years from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. He is best known as the king who feared the birth of a rival "King of the Jews" and caused the murder of infants in Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus. While that act of Herod cannot be documented from secular records, his other atrocities are well known. He had ten wives in all, and the Emperor Augustus is reported to have commented of his family life, "I'd rather be Herod's hog than his son." The hog was an unclean animal, and would not be butchered, but Herod's wives and children were violently removed when they interfered with his plans or were suspected of disloyalty.

Although detested by his Jewish subjects, Herod did seek to win their favor. He built and rebuilt cities throughout the land: Samaria became Sebaste in honor of Augustus; Straton's Tower became Caesarea with a harbor protected by a mole, and a wall with ten towers. Fortresses, baths, parks, market places, roads, and other luxuries of Hellenistic culture were part of his building program.

In the eighteenth year of his reign (20/19 B.C.), Herod began the work of rebuilding, on a grand scale, the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The main edifice was built by priests in a year and a half, but the work on the entire complex of courts and buildings was not completed until the procuratorship of Albinus (A.D. 62-64), less than a decade before it was totally destroyed by the armies of Titus (A.D. 70). Herod's death followed quickly the birth of One who was to challenge Herod's right to the title, "King of the Jews." With the death of Herod-which no one mourned-the intertestamental period comes to an end and we move into the New Testament..

THE JEWISH SECTS

The Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and Zealots which play so important a part in the Gospel records, all have their origin during the two centuries before the birth of Christ. They represent different reactions to the continuing clash between Hellenism and Jewish religious life. While the Maccabean struggle had settled the political problem of the relationship between the Syrian Seleucids and Judea, it forced upon Judaism the necessity of determining its own relationship to the outside world.

THE PHARISEES

A party bearing the name of Pharisee is first mentioned. during the reign of John Hyrcanus (134-104 B.C.), and it is evident that even then there was an antagonism between the "orthodox" Pharisee and the more open-minded Sadducee. The word Pharisee means "separated one," and the name probably meant, in the first instance, one who had separated himself from the corrupting influence of Hellenism in his zeal for the Biblical Law. Josephus says that the Pharisees "appear more religious than others, and seem to interpret the laws more accurately."

Pharisees were punctilious in observing the laws regarding ceremonial purity. For this reason they could not purchase items of food or drink from a "sinner" for fear of ceremonial defilement. Nor could a Pharisee eat in the house of a sinner, although he might entertain the sinner in his own home. Under such circumstances the Pharisee would provide the sinner with clothes to wear, for the sinner's clothes might be ceremonially impure.

With a sincere desire to make the Law workable within the changing culture of the Greco-Roman world, the Pharisees developed systems of tradition which sought to apply the Law to a variety of circumstances. During the first century before Christ two influential Pharisaic teachers gave their names to two schools of legal thought. Hillel was the more moderate of the two, ever considerate of the poor and willing to accept Roman rule as compatible with Jewish orthodoxy. Shammai, on the other hand, was more strict in his interpretation and bitterly opposed to Rome. His viewpoint ultimately found expression in the sect of Zealots whose resistance to the Romans brought on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The Talmud preserves the record of three hundred sixteen controversies between the schools of Hillel and Shammai.

Tradition, in Pharisaic thought, began as a commentary on the Law but it was ultimately raised to the level of Law itself. To justify this teaching it was maintained that the "oral law" was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai along with the "written law" or Torah (Pirke Aboth, 1.1). The ultimate in this development is reached when the Mishna states that oral law must be observed with greater stringency than the written law, because statutory law (i.e., oral tradition) affects the life of the ordinary man more intimately than the more remote constitutional law (the written Torah) (M. Sanhedrin, 10.3).

In addition to the charge that Pharisaism involved little more than a concern for the minutia of the Law, the New Testament affirms that tradition had largely neglected the real intent of the Law (Matt. 15:3). As in many worthy movements, the early piety of those who had separated themselves from impurity at great cost, was exchanged for an attitude of pride in the observance of legal precepts.

Men such as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, and Saul of Tarsus represent some of the nobler souls from the Pharisaic tradition in the New Testament. To Saul, later Paul the apostle, the Pharisee represented the epitome of orthodoxy, "the most straitest sect of our religion" (Acts 26:5). Pharisaism began well, and its perversion is a constant reminder that self-complacency and spiritual pride are temptations to which the pious are particularly susceptible.

THE SADDUCEES

Although Pharisees and Sadducees are frequently denounced together in the New Testament, they had little in common save their antagonism to Jesus. The Sadducees were the party of the Jerusalem aristocracy and the High Priesthood. They had made their peace with the political rulers and had attained positions of wealth and influence. Temple administration and ritual was their specific responsibility. The Sadducees held themselves aloof from the masses and were unpopular with them.

The Pharisaic attempts at applying the Law to new situations were rejected by the Sadducees who restricted their concept of authority to the Torah, or Mosaic Law. They did not believe in resurrection, spirits, or angels (cf. Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8). Their faith was largely a series of negations with the result that they left no positive religious or political system.

While the Pharisees welcomed proselytes (Matt. 23:15), the Sadducean party was closed. None but members of the High Priestly and aristocratic families of Jerusalem could become members. With the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, the Sadducean party came to an end. Modern Jud ism traces its roots to the Pharisees.

THE ESSENES

Essenes and Pharisees both trace their roots to the orthdox leaders of Maccabean times who stood their ground against Hellenism. Pharisees maintained a strict orthodoxy within the framework of historical Judaism. They maintained their separation from defilement, but not from the Jewish community itself. Even though the Temple worship was conducted by Sadducees, the Pharisees esteemed it a basic part of their religious inheritance. While the Pharisee might hold himself aloof from "sinners," he lived among them and coveted their esteem.

A more extreme reaction against the influences which tended to corrupt Jewish life was taken by a sect which the ancient writers Philo, Josephus, and Pliny call the Essene They seem to have lived for the most part in monastic communities such as the one which maintained headquartered in Qumran, near the northwest corner of the Dead Sea

In seeking to explain Judaism to the Greek-speaking world, Josephus spoke of three "philosophies"-those the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. The term "Essene" seems to have had quite an elastic usage, including various groups of monastically minded Jews who varied among themselves in certain of their practices. Pliny says that the Essenes avoided women and did not marry, but Joseph speaks of an order of marrying Essenes. The excavations Qumran indicate that women were enrolled in the Qumran community.

Ancient writers speak favorably of the Essenes, who lived a life of rigor and simplicity. Members of the community studied Scripture and other religious books. Each Essene was required to perform manual labor in order to make the community self-supporting. Community of goods was practiced, and strict discipline was enforced by an overseer. Those groups which renounced marriage adopted boys at an early age in order to inculcate and perpetuate the ide of Essenism. Slavery and war were repudiated.

The Essenes welcomed proselytes, but the novice was required to undergo a period of strict probation before he could become a full-fledged member. Numerically Essenes were never large. Philo says that there were four thousand of them, and Pliny speaks of a community north En Gedi, corresponding to the Qumran area. That there were other settlements is clear, for we are told that all members of the sect were welcome in any of the Essene colonies.

Nothing certain is known of the early history of the sect for, like all reform movements, it traces its origins back remote times. Philo states that Moses instituted the Order and Josephus says that they existed "ever since the ancient times of the fathers." It is certain that the Essene movement was at one time an extreme protest against the corruptions which were apparent in pre-Christian Judaism and that ultimately many members withdrew from the Palestine community life and sought spiritual purification in places such as the Qumran area.

Regarding themselves as the only true, or pure Israel, the Essenes refused to cooperate with what they believed to be the corrupt religious observances at the Jerusalem Temple. The carefully regulated life at the Essene center seems to have served as a substitute for the Temple in the eyes of pious Essenes. The strictness of Essene discipline and the rigidity with which the Law was enforced are stressed by all who write about them. Josephus says that they were stricter than all Jews in abstaining from work on the sabbath day. A passage in the Damascus Document (which seems to be Essene in origin) says that it is unlawful to lift an animal from a pit on the sabbath day. Such a view was considered extreme even by legalistic Pharisees (cf. Matt. 12:11).

The absence of Essenes from the main streams of Jewish life doubtless accounts for the fact that they are not mentioned in the New Testament or in the Jewish Talmud. Although the high morality of the Essenes is indeed commendable the teaching and practice of Jesus was diametrically opposite to the legalism and asceticism of the Essenes. Although the Essenes considered that contact with a member of their own group of a lower order was ceremonially defiling, Jesus did not hesitate to eat and drink publicans and sinners" (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:34). Although obedient to the Mosaic Law, Jesus had no sympathy for those who made of the Law a burden instead of  a blessing. The sabbath, according to Jesus, was made for man and it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day (Matt 12:1-12; Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:6-11; 14:1-6). 

Jesus denounced abuses in the Temple and prophesied its destruction, but He did not repudiate the Temple services. He came to Jerusalem for the great Jewish feasts, and after His resurrection, disciples still made their way to the Temple at the hour of prayer (cf. Acts 3). While asceticism and monasticism early gained a foothold in Christian thinking, Christianity in its earliest period was in no sense an ascetic movement. The ministry of Jesus was largely to the "common people" who were rejected by Pharisee and Essene alike. Jesus was not ashamed to so associate with the people of His generation that the self-righteous called Him a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners (Matt. 11:19).

OTHER SECTS

The New Testament mentions Herodians (Mark 3:6; Matt. 22:16) and Zealots (Luke 6:15), groups of Jews at opposite ends of the political spectrum. The Herodians appear to have been Jews of influence and standing who were well disposed to the Herodian rule and, as a result, to the Romans who supported the Herods. The Zealots, on the other hand, were super patriots who determined to resist Rome at all costs. Their fanaticism brought on the war during which the army of Titus destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple (A.D. 70).

One of the things that happened during this :

400 years

(Sorry

Had too :-).

was 

the development of the Roman road system 

really took off.

It was the internet of it's day. It spread ideas, cultures, and different peoples from far and wide throughout the empire, it increased the flow of goods and services etc.

Think about it,

If you are about to send humanity it's redeemer? Didn't there need to be an easier way to communicate across vast distances that a road system would have enabled that didn't exist prior?

What good is sending a redeemer if the people couldn't spread the word about it as easy?

Christianity would have taken off regardless. The road system just made it easier.

Side note:

I tried taking pictures of this material from my bible and then uploading them to google pics and then using OCR (optical character recognition, my good buddy AI :-) to copy the text from and to paste in the post but...it didn't work so well lol. So I had to have the library staff copy the material, email it to me in a PDF, download it, open it up lol, take a screenshot, upload the screenshot to google pics and then get the text to copy and paste for the post.

Anyway(s) I dont think there are very many copies of that Mendenhall bible floating around, so it's just my way of sharing some of the material that's in it.

I dont think a bible app 

gonna give you that info yo :-).

Just sayin.