In Response To: Eisenman, Pope, and Atwill ()

I'm not trying to deconstruct anything about your work or trying to change your opinion or trying to be a smarty pants or anything. I've been reading this site regularly since you first posted it. I am truly grateful for your work, as well as Eisenman, Atwill, Rohl, Osman etc. who have contributed to the overall understanding of these issues of semitic dynastic succession. I was a little insulted when you said "I thought you read Eisenman" and was merely pointing out that my opinion about Silas' identification should not be the sine qua non about my understanding of these issues, or whether I've read Eisenman. You should hear some of my other ideas!(LOL)

We got on this jag after my reference to masonry/templars. The issue goes back over 900 years prior to the Herodian era, and relates to Solomon and Hiram and the distinction between Israel and Judah, and what happened as a result of that i.e.: the secret which was lost. It has a political and economic context. It has to do with the money, where they got it, and the mechanisms of social control that arose from it. It's really too much to go into here.

I'll say General Silas was Silas of Acts and that General Saulus was Saul/Paul. But we have to be careful when we read Josephus, just as we are when we read Exodus or any other scriptural or historical document when we have multiple contexts.

All the Best.

Responses To This Message