So the Jews were invented by the Persians to control the Levant. So, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.
The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before. They were Jews (Judah) before the Achaemenid Persian empire began. Judah was a tribe of Israel and then became a separate kingdom in 930 BC. The 9th-century Tel Dan stele mentions the House of David, which is admittedly Judahite. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 597 his chronicle calls it Iaahudu (Judah). He then annexed the region and called it the Province of Yehud. Israel Finkelstein estimates that 75% of Jews remained in the province during the diaspora, maybe 50,000 people. I understand that Cyrus subsidized the Jews for political purposes but he didn't invent them.
If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.
a) Only during ellipsis can there be a deviation (life) from a straight path (inception towards) aka rising during fall.
b) Viewing the fall as spooky (specter; ghost) implies ones ignorance of being animated to rise. Breath entering being implies animation; breath exiting being implies ghost leaving.
being an edgy
Only during the edge of knowing (knowledge) can each being transfer from infancy > adult > elderly...that's what living on the edge implies.
I think the AI
Artifice (circular logic) prevents ones mind from thinking natural (straight implication)...
hitting puberty...
...implies one maturing towards inter-course with another aka male/female rise having a fall-in with one another for off-spring aka a further setting apart from one another.
In short...together (fall) apart (rise) aka falling flow/rising form.
How does an invention return?
The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before. They were Jews (Judah) before the Achaemenid Persian empire began. Judah was a tribe of Israel and then became a separate kingdom in 930 BC. The 9th-century Tel Dan stele mentions the House of David, which is admittedly Judahite. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 597 his chronicle calls it Iaahudu (Judah). He then annexed the region and called it the Province of Yehud. Israel Finkelstein estimates that 75% of Jews remained in the province during the diaspora, maybe 50,000 people. I understand that Cyrus subsidized the Jews for political purposes but he didn't invent them.
If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.
Removed for death wishing
Anything formed within flow dissolves aka flows back...
Big spooky ellipsis. I remember being an edgy teen. I think the AI is hitting puberty.
a) Only during ellipsis can there be a deviation (life) from a straight path (inception towards) aka rising during fall.
b) Viewing the fall as spooky (specter; ghost) implies ones ignorance of being animated to rise. Breath entering being implies animation; breath exiting being implies ghost leaving.
Only during the edge of knowing (knowledge) can each being transfer from infancy > adult > elderly...that's what living on the edge implies.
Artifice (circular logic) prevents ones mind from thinking natural (straight implication)...
...implies one maturing towards inter-course with another aka male/female rise having a fall-in with one another for off-spring aka a further setting apart from one another.
In short...together (fall) apart (rise) aka falling flow/rising form.
Removed for rule 1