As we are now entering an exciting time in Judea, with such players as Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, Cleopatra, and Herod on the scene, it is important to stop and pay attention to an interesting phenomenon. Most of us, when we read history, tend to divide the characters into good guys and bad guys. Who is good and who is bad depends on your own background, but no matter how you feel about the actors on the stage of history, good versus evil is a simplistic way of looking at it. For example, being raised in Israel, my take as a young student was “Rome bad, Judea good.”You might extend it to “Rebels against Rome good, Rome squashing rebellion bad.” Now, after many years of reading history, I can smile at the silliness of this approach and acknowledge that the level of sophistication it shows resembles a video game where you must shoot all the bad aliens. Rebellions in Judea were often extremely stupid and conducted by deranged religious fanatics or power-hungry egomaniacs. The Romans were often extremely harsh and unreasonable, as conquerors often are, but on the other hand, they did not spend their entire time figuring new ways to torment the Jews. Life is complex, and sometimes the Romans were quite reasonable and even friendly.
This has nothing to do with the current Book in Progress, The Golden Rule, but I simply have to post it and this is a good spot for it since it's in a blog form. Someone took one of my books VERY seriously and he is calling me The Devil!!!!! I can't stop laughing. Here it is in its entirety.
Anunnaki Ultimatum: End Of Time: Autobiography And Explosive
Revelations Of A Human Anunnaki Hybrid
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful (Hmmm... this person was ME).
Fair Warning to Christians, October 16, 2012
Amazon Verified Purchase (What's this?)
This review is from:
Anunnaki Ultimatum: End Of Time: Autobiography And Explosive
Revelations Of A Human Anunnaki Hybrid (Kindle Edition)
She equates Ba'al to the supreme lord of the universe and blatantly denies the resurrection of Christ. If the devil were ever to write a disinformation book, this would be it. Don't be fooled. Since the time before the flood the fallen have tried in vain to create the "perfect man" in which to
incarnate, and have not had success. Almost as a "rub your nose" in it event, the True Lord creates the Perfect Man in a barn, while Nibiru hung in the sky as the Star of Bethlehem; a nightlight for his crib. You have to love the irony. :)
Unfortunately, there is no proof for what I am about to tell you about the man who fearlessly spoke to Herod and the Sanhedrin. (See previous segment). From all accounts it seems that the man could have been one of Hillel’s great teachers, Shemaya or Avtalion. However, the time frame is not entirely in order, because judging from the sources, at this date both of them very likely had already passed away. The other option is that it was one of their disciples. The description From Josephus is: “…there was silence and doubt about what was to be done. While they were in this state, someone named Samaias, an upright man and for that reason superior to fear, arose and said...” Variants on the name are Sameas, Samaeus, and Samaios. The name is speculated to be a variant on Shemaya, and indeed it is very similar. To further complicate the issue, he is mentioned elsewhere in Josephus as a disciple of the Pharisee Pollion, and that name is almost certainly a variant of Avtalion. Later, Josephus describes additional encounters between Samaias, Pollion, and Herod, who seemed to have a great respect for them – perhaps, Josephus thought, because of Samaias fearlessness during the trial. If the man was one of Shemaya’s and Avtalion’s deciples, could it have been Hillel himself? Hillel was known as totally fearless in all his doings, and from later events, it is clear that Herod respected and perhaps was even in awe of Hillel. I personally think it was Hillel, but I am not sure; much research is needed on this ancient mystery. If I ever find more evidence, I will certainly reveal it in this book.
Even two thousand years ago, you had to belong to the old boys' club if you wanted to rise to a really high position. The leading Jews in Jerusalem were part of a tight, closed society, and they could not abide Antipater. “That Idumean,” as they called him, considered himself a Jew with every justification, because as mentioned before, the entire population of his country had undergone forced conversion to Judaism around 130 BCE. Considering the fact that the conversion was forced upon the Idumeans by John Hyrcanus, a Hasmonean, it seems most unfair that the pro-Hasmonean Jews would look upon the Idumeans as outsiders, particularly one
like Antipater who seemed to embrace Judaism. But they did. They justified it by stressing that “pious” Jews did not recognize forced conversions as binding. The "old boys" found it expedient to be pious regarding such matters, at least when it served their purpose. But let’s face it, even if Antipater could produce ancestors who came to Judea (then Canaan) with Moses the Law Giver during the Exodus, he would still not be a Hasmonean, and the leading Jews of that period would despise him. For reasons that only they could figure out, only a Hasmonean would be accepted as a ruler, which makes very little sense since tradition dictated that true rulers had to be descendants of the House of David. In truth, they simply were insufferable snobs, using religion as a tool to justify their prejudices. The entire population of Judea, though, liked Antipater and his sons. The fact that they amassed huge revenues for themselves did not bother the common people, probably because unlike the Hasmoneans, Antipater, Phasael, and during his youth, even Herod, did not abuse their power against the population and did not steal their possessions or overtaxed them. And they seemed sane, practical, and down-to-earth, a huge improvement over the Hasmoneans with their streak of madness that would come up every so often to wreak havoc on the population.