Oh, do I have a story to tell of the conspiracy of religion - the truth about the invention of Christianity [Christians, please understand I in no way intend to insult or offend you]
35 2017-10-24 by Spin1
So, this will take some explaining. Most have no clue what I'll be speaking about. Although much of this comes from a variety of sources and research, the majority corresponds to the ideas by Robert Eisenmann, the best anti-establishment Dead Sea Scrolls scholar. He has a book "James, the Brother of Jesus" and its sequel "The New Testament Code".
To skip to the point, and offer the thesis: *PAUL, THE FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY, WAS A ROMAN-HERODIAN, WORKING ON THEIR BEHALF, TO PACIFY THE HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY JEWS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF JAMES THE JUST, "BROTHER OF THE LORD", HELPING MURDER JAMES, HIS MESSIANIC FOLLOWERS, AND ALL OPPOSITION TO ROME, AND INSTEAD OFFERING A PEACEFUL, PRO-ROMAN, HEAVENLY SPIRITUALISM AS OPPOSED TO THEIR REVOLUTIONARY, ANTI-ROMAN, APOCALYPTIC ZIONISM.
Let us begin. Much of the information of the period comes from Josephus, a NATIVE PALESTINIAN with INTIMATE first-hand knowledge as he turned against the Jews and led a contingent of the Romans in Gamela in the War/Uprising. It is worth noting that Josephus writes that most of the history of the period was defective due to either FLATTERY TO THE ROMANS AND HATRED OF THE JEWS. Ok, now we can begin.
First, let us set the scene and get a few facts straight. We are speaking about first century Palestine. What most people do not understand, is that FC Palestine was a hotbed of insurrection, war, oppression, strife, constant battling between SEVERAL factions, but broadly separated by this demarcation: submission to, or resistance to, Rome.
If you were to read the New Testament, you would come away with the idea that Palestine in this time was full of fishermen and the poor peacefully roaming the countryside, discoursing in the wilderness like Greek teachers and performing miracles of love and peace.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Jerusalem, the temple, and the High Priesthood were all PLACED there by the Herods, the Roman puppet kings of the region. The multitudes of the Jews HATED this, as they considered this defilement of the temple, as all temple service was essentially polluted by a High Priesthood that "doesn't keep the Law" and converses and intermingles with the Romans and Herodians, "Sons of the Pit", basically demonic figures to these Jews, full of adulteresses and murderers and villains.
Enter James the Just. If you were to read the New Testament, you'd know very, very little of James. At one point he is called the brother of the Lord, by none other than Paul himself. It's worth noting that Paul's letters, especially the earliest such as Galatians, is often a truer, first-person account of real experiences, and should be given primacy over other NT books, such as the Gospels and Acts [in my opinion, the latter is the most devious, disgusting, vile trick ever played upon the human race. Genuinely.] In Galatians and other letters, Paul refers to the LEADERSHIP OF JERUSALEM as a central triad, or pillars, of James, Cephas, and John. Sometimes described as James, PETER, and John.
James was not a High Priest. He was not an establishment priest. He was the OPPOSITION High Priest, the leader of the vast multitudes in Jerusalem and Palestine, whose names are varied, but who call themselves "The Poor", "The Many". Another name? The Essenes. Much disinfo has leaked out about who "the Essenes" were. Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were hyper-messianic, hyper-revolutionary, hyper-anti-Roman Jews who "made a way in the wilderness."
Sound familiar? Josephus describes this faction with scorn: "For deceitful people and rogues, in a show of divine inspiration, busying themselves with revolutionary matters and upheavals, were persuaded by the mobs to be possessed, and leading them out into the desert SO THAT GOD WOULD SHOW THEM THE SIGNS OF THEIR IMPENDING FREEDOM." Familiar?
Many would jump in. "James wasn't important. James wasn't the brother of Jesus, he was a half brother! or a cousin! He was a minor figure in the Bible!"
Wrong, actually. It was taken pretty much for granted by all involved at the time that James was a) the true blood brother of another, called Jesus b) the opposition High Priest with more clout in Jerusalem and Palestine to be FEARED by the Establishment, for James had the entire population on his side. Only in later centuries would the "Church fathers", as "Christianity" was being solidified, did a disinfo campaign about James really kick into high gear. You even have Church fathers corresponding with one another FURIOUS about their research into James, because it really embarrasses the entire narrative they had created for doctrinal reasons. "Jesus can't have a blood brother. Mary was a perpetual virgin. He must be a cousin. Or comrade."
So perhaps the most important man of FC Palestine is forgotten, erased from history.
The Romans were brutal in this period. They crucified Jews by the thousands, perhaps dozens of thousands. This wasn't purely religious. It's because these Jews were what the Romans called "Sicarii", or "Zealots". They wielded curved blades, the sicarius, and FORCIBLY circumcised anyone who spoke about the Torah in public and wasn't circumcised. They were tortured by the Romans, but were noted to never relent, never speak against their God, never eat forbidden foods, to scorn death and take all pain for their God, all in resistance to Rome.
The Romans goaded and taunted these masses often, creating mobs and riots and crushing them with an iron fist.
Enter Saulus, I mean, Saul, I mean Paul.
Paul OPENLY ADMITS to "persecuting the way" in its infancy. One must recognize that "Christianity" as "The Way" is really not a good framework to udnerstand this. Christianity became what it was literally decades, if not centuries, later.
The question becomes, what was "The Way". What was the "Christianity" being persecuted by Paul? He, and the NT, and all of the Church would have you think it was the followers of Christ in the decades after his death.
They'd be wrong.
"The Way" was indeed a Messianism, an Apocalyptic worldview such as Christianity. However, it had nothing to do with Jesus, and everything to do with James. "Jesus", at least as a man, is completely absent from the correspondence. Instead, "The Way", was James, his multitude of followers, preaching a HYPER-JEWISH, HYPER-REVOLUTIONARY, HYPER-MESSIANIC worldview that was obsessed with prophecy and the Torah, in the wilderness of Palestine.
Now here it is: the big enchilada.
There exists a couple documents called "The Pseudoclementines." Most establishment scholars completely dismiss these as"romance fiction." In the Pseudoclementines, there are two works - The Homilies, and the Recognitions. These works are almost exactly, word-for-word the same. Almost. There are a couple differences, but the Recognitions contains a section deleted in the Homilies. The fact that the Homilies are in Latin, and the Recognitions in Syriac, and purport to tell the story from the point of view of Clement of Rome who traveled to Palestine and met Peter himself to hear his story, attests to primacy of the Recognitions over the Homilies.
In the Recognitions is a section that is the first-hand account of Peter telling Clement that before Clement arrived, [this is in the early 40s] there was a day like any other, in which James, like Jesus afterward, is depicted as discoursing with the multitudes on the steps of the temple, preaching and answering their questions.
Suddenly, a man only named "The Enemy" walks into the midst of the people on the temple with a gang of his compatriots. The Enemy begins shouting, yelling, at James, shouting for his compatriots to stop him from speaking. The Enemy "grabs a burning stick from the fire on the temple steps, and begins hitting some of the men around him" and his fellows also grab sticks and begin beating the men on the steps. This creates a RIOT, with people being beaten and rocks thrown, and IN THE MIDST OF THE FIGHTING, THE ENEMY GRABS JAMES, AND THROWS HIM FROM THE TEMPLE STEPS, AND JAMES HITS THE GROUND, BREAKING HIS LEGS.
The fighting explodes, and can only be contained by a Roman contingent. The followers of James take his body, believed to be dead, and FLEE FROM JERUSALEM, INTO THE WILDERNESS, TOWARD THE LAND OF DAMASCUS, PURSUED BY THE ENEMY AT THE COMMAND OF THE ESTABLISHMENT HIGH PRIESTS.
Astonishingly, in a footnote at the end of the Recognitions, there is a lone line, that says, in effect, "The Enemy went by the name Saulus."
Beautiful. No wonder the Latin version, "The Homilies" deleted this section, and no one mentions the Recognitions. How embarrassing for the Church to know this exacts.
I ask you, friends. Does this sound familiar to you?
Let me remind you with the Acts of the Apostles.
At a certain point, one Saul is introduced, exactly as a "Gentile believer" named Stephen is preaching about Christ and then stoned to death by Jews for his blasphemy.
Then, Saul creates a riot, "dragging women out of their homes" and arresting "those following The Way." He openly admits this, to "persecuting the way." The question is, what is the Way? He will have you believe it to be Christianity as we know it.
Then, Saul travels "on the Road to DAMSCUS", where he has his infamous vision of Jesus Christ in Heaven, who imparts to him his "true Gospel."
The story doesn't end there. There is quite a lot of evidence in Eisenmann's work, that Paul doesn't stop at Damascus, but travels to "Antioch." The Church would have you believe this is the Antioch we know, but there were actually 5 different Antiochs, and it is fairly well proven that instead, he actually went to Edessa, one of these Antiochs. There, a Queen named Helen, wanted to convert to Judaism. Paul and another Ananias conversed with the Queen, preaching their NEW gospel, not the Jewish religion, not The Way of James, but instead a wholesale new Gospel of peace, love, Roman acceptance.
You will notice the Gospels and Acts have several episodes that seem to go out of their way to paint the Romans in as best a light as possible. Paul admits in his own letters and his portrayal in Acts as staying with Romans/Herodians for years at a time, "preaching his Gospel to them."
Do you really expect me to believe, that Paul is persecuting the messianic Jews of James, then begins his decades long journey of meeting with Queens, Roman governors, Roman centurians, "preaching his Gospel of Jesus Christ?" He is conversing with them all right, but more like "collaborating" with them.
He even admits so. The entire NT corpus of Paul's letters is him denigrating and insulting the Jews. At the time, when it became apparent to James [who, remember, did not die from "the enemy", but instead fled to the desert to re-establish the community] sent his agents, such as Peter in the Pseudoclementines, to challenge this "new Gospel" being preached. Paul keeps meeting with people and telling them his Gospel while claiming the Jewish faith for himself, and so he is in fact recalled to Jerusalem to answer for this. EVEN IN ACTS, PAUL IS PORTRAYED AS ARRIVING IN JERUSALEM AND HAVING TO PAY A PENALTY OF SHAVING HIS HEAD AND PAYING FOR OTHERS' TEMPLE SERVICE.
He is asked to explain himself. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, "The Liar" or "The Enemy" is mentioned often. He is said to have "walked into Jerusalem and before the entire congregation blasphemed about the Law, God, and our faith."
As Acts would have it, this meeting went well, and James just gave a couple instructions for Gentiles. No, no, no. This is a hyper Jewish, hyper-Torah-following faction. The "New Gospel" of Paul WAS outrageous to these people.
Re-read the New Testament friends, even the Gospels, with an open mind, and ask yourself: Why does Paul, and the writers of the Gospels, constantly talks about a) circumcision, b) table fellowship with Gentiles, c) following the Law in general?
Well, the obvious answer is because Christanity is a fulfilmment of the Law and so Gentiles don't have to do those things, etc etc etc, doctrine doctrine doctrine.
But, then, ask yourself, what is the REAL consequences of such a "gospel"? Why would PETER, "JESUS"'S CLOSEST COMPATRIOT, NEED IN ACTS A "TABLECLOTH VISION" TO TELL HIM "OH ACTUALLY IT'S OKAY TO EAT WITH THAT ROMAN CENTURION, DON'T SEPARATE CLEAN AND UNCLEAN"???? Wasn't Jesus supposed to have said the exact same thing, during his life, something Peter would have known?
Why does Paul spend an inordinate amount of time in his letters (to whom, you should ask [perhaps someone like that Queen Helen who Paul is trying to convert?]) trying to convince his audience that circumcision is unnecessary, table fellowship is fine, "no foods are forbidden for me", and in fact INSULTING those who hold such opinions as "those with weak consciences"?
Why are there letters IN QUMRAN, with the Dead Sea Scrolls, addressed to a foreign king, delineating the details for his conversion/salvation, making a point over these very same things, insisting they ARE necessary for his salvation, as are any points of the Law?
Why is Paul, who "claims Jewish heritage" as all Herodians do, saying the most insulting, horrifying, vile thing to those of "his own kin" or faith? He LITERALLY SAYS that when Moses descended with the tablets from Mt Sinai, he wore a veil, not to hide the glory of god from shining and burning the people when they looked upon it, but TO DECEIVE THEM AND HIDE THE FACT THAT THE GLORY OF GOD HAD BURNT OUT?
I'm not sure one founder of a religion has said something so denigrating about another founder in all of human history.
I implore you who love reading history, love a historical mystery - read this book, James the Brother of Jesus. This is only 1/20 of that 1000 page book.
What we have with the New Testament, is a systematic overwriting of real history to pacify an entire region, to turn the population to Roman subjugation. You'll notice how "Samaritans" feature prominently in the Gospels, all in good terms. Samaritans were the other huge factions in Palestine along with the Jews. These Samaritans had religious beliefs of their own, very, VERY similar to the Christianity of Jesus - it's obvious that they were being flattered and turned toward this new religion to slowly turn demographics away from the Jews, who were eventually massacred and dispelled from the area for centuries after the destruction of their temple in 70 AD.
What we have here, in the NT, is polemics and mythmaking to COMPETE with a different religion, The Way of James and the Essenes, the Poor, the Ebionim, in the wilderness of Palestine and Damascus and Arabia. They wrote letters condemning one another, letters to kings and queens to try to convert them for their cause.
Even traditional Judaism at it exists today, BIRTHED IN THE AFTERMATH OF THIS PERIOD AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE, is merely and overwrite of AUTHENTIC JUDAISM OF THE PERIOD.
The founder of Rabbinical Judaism, Yohanan ben Zacchai, fled Jerusalem, prostrated himself in front of Vespasian, THE DESTROYER OF JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS, applying the Messianic star prophecy to HIM, something so blasphemous and the HEART of the "The Way" of James and his followers, that Yohanan was allowed to live and found his academy which would birth modern Rabbinic Judaism, which is much, MUCH less hardline than the Zealots of James, the Poor, the Essenes.
The entirety of Acts, and even the Gospels, is a way to distort REAL history and create an idealized, Hellenistic, peaceful view of the times, offering a heavenly Man-God figure that would have offended the Zealots who "Could never bring themselves to call any man Lord." Part of the Torah and these Zealots insistence was ABSTENANCE FROM BLOOD, which becomes THE central imagery of Paul's new religion, drinking the cup of his Lord's own blood, and eating his body. The Gosepl has Jesus, "a Jew", never washing his hands, "eating with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors" [code and vocabulary used by Zealots of the time to refer to Romans and Herodians], forgiving sins, touching lepers and those with open wounds, and in general, intermingling with Gentiles and distancing himself from the Jews.
Is it not obvious that Paul and his lackeys are writing polemically to denigrate these Jews who hated him, hounded him, and opposed him? The NT uses coded language like "Pharisees" to ostensibly refer to the Establishment Jews, but THE ESTABLISHMENT JEWS were on the Herodian/Roman side, and would never act the way they do in the NT. The ZEALOTS, JAMES, THE POOR, THE MANY, now they would indeed act as Paul describes the Pharisees. They would "nitpick" over the Law. They would indeed call out his blasphemy
I will leave it at that - but there is so so so so much more to this that I haven't even gotten into that would only bolster all this.
So, friends, let me know what you think. Happy reading.
102 comments
1 Purplehazefx1111 2017-10-24
I stopped reading at so , soooooo
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Cmon man. It's interesting.
1 Balthanos 2017-10-24
I found it to be interesting. Words scare some people these days.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Are you a speed reader by chance? Lol
1 Balthanos 2017-10-24
..Not like a bonerfied speed reader, but I took the courses, have the scrolling tool, and threw away the T-shirt.
1 bradspals 2017-10-24
This could be riveting but I'll never know.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Really? It's long, but it's really a fascinating topic.
1 Trump_My_Ride_Or_Die 2017-10-24
Are u jewish by chance? Just wondering.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
I'm not! Catholic by birth at least, Irish-French Canadian heritage.
I would align myself to no organized religion at all.
1 Balthanos 2017-10-24
No such thing really.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Lol, I know. I just mean to say I don't come from a Jewish heritage at all, unless so far back that I/ my family is unaware of.
1 Balthanos 2017-10-24
It technically follows the female line and I'm not sure if practicing another religion matters. So if your Mother's mother was Jewish you would technically be as well.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
True, I did know that. I can trace my lineage back at least as far as the early 1800s in Ireland AND France, and both are Catholic aaaall the way back, so I'd say I'm confidently not Jewish. lol
1 DonnaGail 2017-10-24
It is Sun worship. Simple as that.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Not really. I find the Bill Cooper reading of the situation as PART of it, but not precisely connected to the FOUNDING of the material. Most of the doctrinal stuff gets worked out by the "Church" in the next couple centuries.
It is absolutely true though, and part of the evidence, that Paul's "Christ Jesus" is closer in resemblance to a Greek, maybe Egyptian deity/ conception of spirituality, and would be COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the milieu of Palestine at the time.
1 DonnaGail 2017-10-24
I think it is all about astronomy/astrology. Watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9f0XU_S78&t=4s
1 birdman5000 2017-10-24
can you summarize the various politics/design/ideology/machine of each of these groups? i find it's informative to examine historical events with the context of the motivations of each group. for example, what was it about the Roman system that coalesced people into it if there were other systems around that were more humanist?
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
I'll certainly try!
It demarcates basically along the lines of subjugation or resistance to Rome.
On one hand, you have Romans, Herodians, Establishment Priesthood (who were imported from Babylon after the Babylonian Exile and considered to be illegitimate and "polluted") - on the other, you have "The Jerusalem Church", lead by James until his death by stoning (by the Establishment Priests, I will add, in a manner very very very similar to Jesus' "trial"), making up the vast majority of the Jewish population in Jerusalem and surrounding Palestine.
It would take quite a long time to trace out the lineage of this latter faction, but essentially, they were known as "Nazoreans" "Nazirites" "Rechabites" - you will notice with "Nazirite", it is transformed into "of Nazareth" and applied to Jesus, but "Nazirite" in essence referred to "separating oneself from others and uncleanliness" and "being Holy from birth" - and their whole "thing" was 1) Keeping the Commandments of their Father and Ancestors. That means proper temple service, proper hygiene, proper contact with unclean persons, proper diet, etc etc etc. These people were called The Poor because they voluntarily remained poor so they could "love their neighbor as themselves", the "Royal Law according to the Scriptures", their most important point. That is what the word "Righteousness" means to them, loving one another as themselves, which means not making economic distinctions with one another, having property, wealth, etc etc.
Sound familiar?
I implore you to read The Letter of James, noticeably different than ALL other books of the New Testament. While probably not actually written by James, it certainly gets his and his followers' ideology correct. It rails against greed and "wealth" of people who can only be Romans and Herodians, his chief antagonists. Christians have long disdained this letter of James, because it contradicts other "Pauline" letters. While Paul and his corpus hammer it home that FAITH and "BELIEVING" are primary in the faith, "James" says "Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?"
This is WHOLLY JEWISH, and not at ALL what we consider "Christian". "Works" is PRIMARY to James and his Jewish followers. "Works" meaning LISTENING AND DOING THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD. Not works in Catholicism, which is just various rituals.
James' faction was very, VERY messianic. The Dead Sea Scrolls are filled with "pesherim", or "commentaries" on sections of the Scriptures, all of which are very messianic and sometimes shoved into the NT to try to bend it to mean "Jesus Christ" is being referred to, but almost ALWAYS out of context of the original, which is messianic in the JEWISH sense, of a JEW come to Israel and make holy war and lead God's armies against the forces of Evil.
Except THIS messiah wasn't "other wordly" or "Christ" (a word and concept that those of Palestine would have no recognition of), he was a man, flesh and blood like all others, but simply the "True Prophet", an ideology that survived (and as Eisenmann points out, probably THROUGH the desert groups such as this, who eventually transmitted their ideas into what eventually became Islam, which harbors much of the same HYPERmilitancy of this group in "jihad" and the like) into Islam, the exact same as Moses, Elijah, Ezekial, etc etc etc, all men but also prophets, SONS OF GOD. This phrase, "son of god" exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but isn't referring to a Christ-like supernatural being, but instead, ALL OF THOSE IN JAMES' GROUP, WHO KEEP THE LAW, ALL GOD'S COMMANDEMENTS, AND PRACTICE UNSWERVING RIGHTEOUSNESS, THESE ARE ALL SONS OF GOD. The Messiah is simply "the True Prophet", a mix of both David, an earthly warrior-king, and Elijah/Ezekiel, a prophet that can perfectly understand the "Mysteries of Heaven."
Well. The Romans can't have a population constantly revolting against them, who demand they will live under no rule but for their Messiah who is going to come and KILL THE ROMANS AND SET THEM FREE. You have to understand, this population is like a modern Jihading Islamic population. It's a hotbed of insurrection, and all their prophets and leaders are teaching them that any second now, they will be shown the signs of the end times and they will wage holy war to end the age and live forever in the resurrection afterward (worth noting that the whole idea of resurrection is coming FROM THIS JEWISH GROUP! the Establishment Jews at the time, and I believe mainstream Judaism to this day, denies any type of Resurrection).
Just look at the final battle of the war, in 73 AD. The Siege of Masada. These Zealots, the same faction of James, commit mass suicide, "knowing" they will be resurrected. Buried with them are all sorts of scrolls detailing their obsession with resurrection and their belief in it.
So, basically, you have the Romans and their puppets trying really hard to maintain control over their conquered lands, and a population that constantly declares its own sovereignty and the number one issue of the day, PAYING TAXES TO THE ROMANS, something they refuse to do.
Isn't it hilarious, that in the Gospels, Jesus goes out of his way to say "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar"? The implication being - pay your tax, your God wants you to do it, they're two separate things! There is an earthly realm, and a heavenly realm, separate the two! The Zealot Jamesians would have been bursting at the seams to read a suggestion that a "popular Jew" would be walking around Palestine suggesting such things and actually have a following.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-24
wow fascinating thank you.
re: Islam. i was watching a video the other day by a guy who traced how it developed. a rich Roman elite woman in her 40s who lived in a nunnery had a much younger Mohammed as a servant and they eventually married. subsequent to this event he rose to fame. with this rise he also used the same symbology, parables, and designs as found in Rome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB4LqaAGxuY
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Yes, Islam as we know it is really a mixture between Pauline Christianity and Jamesian "Christianity", if you can really call it that.
Muhammad himself is said to have conversed with these "wilderness" groups in Arabia, the seeming descendants of the factions of James. They were spread all over Arabia, so much so that in like, 1100, a Spanish traveler documented his time in the region, and he encountered "a community of Jews" in the desert, who "baptized" themselves daily in cold water, were obsessed with astrology, and "Mourned for the destruction of Zion and the temple", all strong indicators that this is one such community of James that was diaspora'd into the wilderness from Jerusalem in the wake of the war/ temple being destroyed.
Muhammad certainly was in contact with several such communities, spread as they were across the entire Arabian peninsula.
Worth taking into account are "The Ebionites", a religious sect that can't really be distinguished from the followers of James, although they were a couple centuries afterward. "Ebionites" from the word "Ebionim" meaning "The Poor", the name for James' followers.
All that we know of "The Ebionities" are from CHRISTIAN writers of the Early Church as it was really beginning to flesh out its doctrine, and they are denigrated for their beliefs, mainly that: 1) they REVERED the name/character of James, 2) they specifically call Paul "the enemy", much like the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the writer of the Pseudoclementines, 3) the ONLY Christian Gospel they accept is an altered version of Matthew, called variously "The Gospel of the Ebionites" "The Gospel of the Nazoreans", "The Gospel of the Hebrews," in which the beginning where Jesus' birth is described and Mary is said to be a virgin, for they believed that Jesus was simply, like Muhammad later, the "True Prophet", and he wasn't "God's son" in the sense that he is of divine substance
Honestly, I consider this stuff fascinating too, as you can tell
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
Not that I know what I am talking about, but this is the kind of thing that 'new chronology' corrects. IF it's true, then this may be a clue that these groups are indeed one and the same or concurrent, rather than centuries apart.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Hmm, "new chronology"?
As in, the idea of overlapping time periods that were separated by later historians misunderstanding and translating texts?
I've looked into it, and while fascinating, idk if I'd ever be able to reconcile it with history as I know it, which is fairly well-connected in a seamless way.
I'm not so sure there is a "problem" with the chronology of the Ebionites, to be honest. They're just the descendants of the same movement, which, while persecuted into extinction IN JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE, still existed in "the wilderness of Damascus", or Arabia.
Still interesting though.
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
Yeah that was more an asterisk, it popped out at me as a synchronicity. I think it's mostly the middle ages that are supposedly messed with.
If anyone wants more info...
http://www.anatoly-fomenko.com
I came across it through this set of links & post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/6fblqu/buried_first_floors_19th_century_cataclysm/?st=j952mswp&sh=4b2a43ac
This person comes to it via these buried buildings. But yeah, the idea is most historians and even carbon dating processes (!), use mainly a single historian, as a primary source. Everyone kind of trusts his chronology of events and trusts the monks that copied old manuscripts. There is instance after instance of original documents getting burned down to the ground, but fortuitously there is a copy that has been spared.
Perhaps most intriguing are the historical records of dissenters opposed to the official historical narrative, including Isaac Newton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronology_of_Ancient_Kingdoms_Amended
1 AutoModerator 2017-10-24
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
See, I'm FASCINATED by the concept, and while I don't actively believe it, I am subscribed to things like /r/alternativehistory where things like this are discussed all the time.
I DO believe there are chronology conspiracies, especially the cataclysm at the beginning of the 1800s that changed the skies and created a world wide winter, I just don't know how far I could go with it.
The real problem is I've never been shown a convincing piece of evidence for the whole New Chrono theory, like I've never been presented with two historical series of events and characters that are basically the same/ identical to make me go "now THAT is strange"
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
This is fascinating, thanks for sharing this info. I'm still wrapping my head around it tbh. I've also recently heard that Xr and Islam are the same, or have the same roots. I think it was a video on New Chronology showing instances of overlap of Arabic motifs in Xr art. Really, a lot to consider here.
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
I've always been suspicious of Pauline agenda, it was clear that he was pushing an angle and co-opted the movement. I just never really understood to what end. Is the book and author you referenced the best intro to this topic?
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Not only is it "the best" intro into the topic, as far as I can tell, it's the ONLY really serious, really rigorous examination of the topic.
You have a few dozen other books that kind of nibble away at the points Eisenmann gives, but alawys juuuust slightly missing the point, or the real big underlying truth of it all. So yeah, there are other books that look at Paul and "inventing Christianity", but NOTHING like Eisenmann, whose work led to the releasing of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the public and breaking open all the missing puzzle pieces that finally shed light on the reality of the situation.
Most scholars/researchers didn't have the DSS, and now that they're out, they're simply DISMISSED by establishment scholars, because they really do complicate too much for too many people's liking.
Just a warning, the book James, the Brother of Jesus, is long, and dense, and sometimes repetitive. But I genuinely was shocked, SHOCKED to learn what I did from it. Everything I wrote here can be found because of that one book, and he delineates it all much better than I can.
I absolutely rec it, if you're committed to learning about the topic.
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
Thanks I really do appreciate the rec. I almost went down the route of academic religious studies, but my path turned elsewhere. I was and still am intrigued by the DSS and the alternative and untold point of view.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Hi - I forgot to mention:
Eisenmann has released UPDATED versions of his two volumes about this topic, in which he CUTS OUT THE FAT/ SOME OF THE REPETITION in order to present a more streamlined look at the situation. I think the total pages of the abridged versions are like 600 pages compared to the 2000 pages total I've read.
You should grab the first volume and read it. I have no idea if "cutting out the fat" substantially harms his message, because I really, REALLY enjoy the detail he outlines in his original, whole works, but I trust Eisenmann to portray his stances and research as best as possible.
Here's a link for the first volume, which corresponds to his original book James, the Brother of Jesus, except in abridged form.
https://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Dead-Scrolls-ebook/dp/B00854KURQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1508871430&sr=8-2&keywords=robert+eisenman
Have fun if you decide to buy it. I know it's a bit expensive.
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
Thank you, this sounds like a deep dive into a really interesting world. I'm glad there is a kindle version that isn't too much!
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Check out my other comments in this post, I mention the connection between Islam-Christianity.
It's true that Mohammad was an ideological descendant of BOTH Pauline Christianity AND Jamesian "Christianity", though it's inappropriate to call it that.
He took Jesus and Pauline "faith" from Christianity, yet retained the Jamesian emphasis on WORKS (James' works were of the Torah, but Mohammad's works were simply "following the commandments of God such as those given to Abraham, not Moses' laws").
1 GSF1212 2017-10-24
Yep just read it right after I commented :)
1 Weirdoldhippy 2017-10-24
There are many current christians who totally reject Paul (Saul) and his letters. For many John the baptists taught a more sound theology. In the words of James the just; May you always find the Peace that only comes from Peace, the Love from Love, the Grace from Grace, Faith from Faith, and Life from holy Life. James was as wise as his brother.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
John the Baptist is a whole conversation on his own, and fits right into this whole story of the time. John taught a "Piety/Righteousness dichotomy", that is Piety to God/ Righteousness toward your fellow man. Sound familiar?
In fact, all of Jesus' "love" talk, is just him espousing John the Baptist's ideology, which is the same as the Zealot/Jamesian ideology I'm detailing.
1 Darzin_ 2017-10-24
Can you name some denominations? I would be really interested in learning more about contemporary Christianity which rejects Paul.
1 cutlass_supr3me 2017-10-24
Jesus came to set us free from Religion. In fact, it was the Religious that hated Him and had Him murdered on a cross.
1 RMFN 2017-10-24
OP were you sent by the money changers?
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
lmao, I know how it looks. But hey, I'm just being sincere about the research I and others have done.
In fact, it's not hard to interpret what I'm saying as detailing a ROMAN conspiracy of domination. There's a whole sub for it, /r/romerules, yeah?
1 the_spanish_archer 2017-10-24
Your posts nail things down really well. Bravo.
Make sure you read all of John's posts: http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot.com
His main site is where it's all laid out: https://sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/
His work took many years to compile. It amplifies all that you detail here and adds in some missing stuff. He goes way into the Syrian connection and more.
I like the info you posted about the Arabs and how they connect to Catholicism. It's laid out very simply. Not many people have been able to explain the facts well on the net.
Your posts here are the perfect synopsis!
1 the_spanish_archer 2017-10-24
Note how John ties in real archaeology to cement the facts: http://origins-of-christianity.blogspot.com/2017/10/from-messianic-judaism-to-rabbinic.html
See the zodiac mosaics at the bottom and the details of where they are from? "This is all imperial policy at work."
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Thanks for the links, I'll check them out soon. I also agree with your virtual reality point - think how easily history has been written already! Soon it won't even matter! History will just be whatever we decide it is. Evidence won't matter one lick!
1 ABrilliantDisaster 2017-10-24
Time to get flogs
1 bradok 2017-10-24
I read through your entire post. I do not have enough background in the various Jewish sects and history, as I am more of a Classicist myself. to really respond well. I want to thank you for taking the time to write out your opinions, I've seen some in these comments dislike the length of your post and have been criticized myself recently for making a self-post in which I took time to explain my philosophy and interpenetration of a certain problem, don't feel bad for doing that. Those who want to engage will do so. That being said, I do have a couple of questions:
Could you cite the relevant passages? Spent 13 years in Private school and have read the NT from Matthew to Revelations (though this was years ago), and do not recall this at all.
Classical scholarship of the day doesn't claim these were peaceful times. It's pretty clear from historical record that first the Greek and then Roman occupations caused great strife within the Holy Land and incredibly division among the Jewish people.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Thanks for the kind words.
The problem with writing this whole thing up, and I don't mean to sound smug or full of myself or anything, is that I have actually read all this stuff, so I know all this stuff, and I'm trying to relay it all to a bunch of people who have no conception of what I'm talking about, don't know the finer points of it all, and so I have to both CONVINCE people using evidence they have no context for, and so I also have to explain the context, and then a post just balloons to this length.
To answer your first question, 2 Corinthians 3:13
"...herefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at the end of what was fading away. 14But their minds were closed. For to this day the same veil remains at the reading of the old covenant. It has not been lifted, because only in Christ can it be removed.…"
Paul is specifically talking about "what was fading away" was the power of God, in a phrase, because of enslavement to "the Law". In many many other places he talks of enslavement to the law, to circumcision, and outlines that the Law enslaves, while this new gospel sets you free.
It's such a hard thing to talk about, because people read such beautiful words as Paul's and are captivated by them, but they themselves don't realize HE IS SPEAKING IN A HISTORICAL CONTEXT, ABOUT REAL PEOPLE, IN A REAL POLITICAL SITUATION.
As to your second point, I mean sure, there are levels to what people portray it as, but I mean, in the early 30s, Jesus and thousands/hundreds of followers would not just be wandering the Galilean countryside performing miracles like that. "Galilee" and Samaria were rife with Jewish/Samaritan strife and warfare between the two groups, constantly agitated by Roman authorities who wanted any reason to swoop in and start crucifying those pesky Jews.
I just find that you pretty much find none of that in the NT, or at least the Gospels, and in fact, Romans are portrayed as virtuous and "above the fray", something so far from the truth as to be horrifying in the implication. Especially Pontius fucking Pilate, who Josephus regards as so brutal in his persecution of the Jews that he is recalled back to Rome to answer for his actions.
1 LittleRedBugs 2017-10-24
'No eye has seen or ear has heard.' I'm sure you've come across this phrase of idea in your studies. I'd like to note on what you believe 'was fading away', and perhaps give you another point of view. Consider the simple facts. Moses leaves a large group of people, to go up on a mountain. He stays on the mountain for some time, then descends with two tablets on which he has written some laws. As a rationale human being, I've never seen God with my own eyes. I've never heard God speak into my own ear. God is not physical, in the way we see other human beings or animals and plants. I'm not going to believe that Moses saw God with his own eyes or heard him speak into his ear. So, what was Moses doing up there? He wasn't looking at God. He wasn't hearing God. Why did he leave the crowd of people and go all the way up on a mountain to be with God? He went to be alone with God, but how did he experience God? The only option available is that he 'prayed' to God which is the safe answer, but anyone that has ever meditated, will give you a more direct answer: he was in a deep state of meditation, deep in thought, focusing all his energy into writing down the law to give to his people, of whom he was the leader. How can I believe this or say this like it's a fact? Well, I won't claim to be the authority, I wasn't there 1000s of years ago...BUT from the description given by Paul, and a description that is through-out scriptures of the Torah, the new testament, and take a lot of other religious writings, "who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelite from GAZING AT THE END OF WHAT WAS FADING AWAY". I encourage you to be more concrete in your analysis, more simple, more direct to the story that's being explained. A man, Moses, hides his face, after coming down from being on a mountain, alone, for a long time 'praying' or 'communing' with God, because he doesn't want people to see his eyes or his face. He was emotionless. His face was 'struck' by God. He was completely detached from the physical world.
The veil was a selfish act to restrict access to God, by keeping truth and knowledge from everyone in the tribe. Jumping to the NT, Jesus 'tears the veil' because he rejected the restrictions to God, and preached that all of mankind was worthy of communion, communication, experience, of God, welcomed to hear what was being 'spoken'.
I would not necessarily disagree with you, that many 'leaders' in the church, in religions, in government, in society, restrict access to God. We can talk about possessions, resources, and money too, but the most powerful form of suppression is mental suppression and control. Having a hierarchy of 'Who can talk to God, who does God give authority too' etc, basically, the structures of men, hides the truth that Jesus freely taught to those who were ready and willing to receive it.
It's a shame, but conversations like this, are not welcome in most churches because of the 'hierarchy' and 'worthiness' to reveal truths. Most disciples I've met today default to 'the holy spirit is the teacher' and act as though they are not allowed to share what they've been taught to other people; which is very much crafted by Paul-ian dogmas. It may be hard to fathom, but in a sense, I would be 'persecuted' by the church for trying to give an explanation as I just did.
Well, anyways, just wanted to share my point of view. The truth is that Jesus said to glorify God and love your neighbors. Men can't tell you how to glorify God. It's up to you to decided, meditate, pray, what ever really, how you think and feel God is telling you to act and do in this world. Some may say, well that leaves the door open to just 'make up the law as you go along'. Not so much. I think we can look to teachers of the law, people that propose law, merits, tenants, rules, and such, and we can in our own self, mediate, pray/ what ever, and generally come to proof within ourselves whether or not something if Good or Bad, Holy or Evil, Godly or not. Perhaps Moses writes down 'you must share your wife with the priest', cmon now, let's be real, 'that shit would not fly'. All in all, all laws, tenants, dogams, must be accepted on human terms, and are selfish in and of themselves, but selfish in a sense of human rights, that everyone has the right to this law. So, the scriptures are truly guidelines to follow, but guidelines to meditate on, ponder, think, try out, experience. It's more about improving yourself and your life, and in return, improving the lives of those around you.
I've kind of extrapolated a small detail of your post, but it just struck me to give you an explanation. Most 'Christians' and some disciples are cautious to expose their views for being labeled crazy, mental, ill, etc etc, but modern science is slowly catching up and providing proof for many things taught in the bible, and taught in many other religious texts. I'll openly state that Moses was mediating. Communing with God is focusing your mind of the spiritual plane so to speak, the higher frequencies our eyes can't see, and ears can't here. The focus is to deny the body, because most people's minds can only focus on the physical plane. This is why 'prayer' is taught. This is why Moses, and later Jesus, would retreat away from other people, to be alone, fast, pray, meditate, to practice using their mind to focus beyond physical stimulation. Paul 'never cease praying'. It's a practice, that takes "time" to master, to be simultaneously connected to the physical world, the '5 senses', but also to be connected 'spiritually'. To always be in a meditative state, while still living day by day.
Anyways, probably went over board on this comment. I'll end with this: It you seek the truth in honesty and sincerity, you will find The Way. There may be only 1 disciple in a crowd of 1000 Christians, but if you are searching, you will 'feel' they are there, and they will 'feel' you are there. I myself know and understand the adventure of document hunting, paper reading, and the like, but I promise you that it will never suffice your hunger. Times change, years pass by, but true disciples of The Way, and the teachings of the Christ, will persist through because in and of themselves, these principles are natural law and a natural state of human consciousness.
Beyond the dogmas, the stories of old, the misconceptions, the hiding of truths, if I could impart one scripture with you, the path to life is to know love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control, and to know how they manifest within YOU.
Praise be to God. I hope you find the peace you seek in your studies!
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Thank you so much for your well-articulated response, I appreciate it very much.
Would it shock you that after everything, I actually consider myself to be... Christian?! Yes, it's a "Christianity" that would never be accepted by most "practitioners", and it's more of an esoteric Christianity, probably a bit more "psycho-analytical" and "symbolic", but my Christianity nonetheless.
I agree with literally 100% of what you wrote, and I thank you for writing it all up and articulating it well. I definitely did NOT intend with this big write up to imply one belief system is greater or worse than another - I simply wanted to offer a genuine, earnest line of research that I've spent a lot of time delving into. History is INCREDIBLE, the GREATEST STORY EVER (NEVER?) TOLD. I think true history is even more astounding than the history we all normally and popularly accept.
I agree, and I agree with Paul (if it was actually Paul who had this thought and wrote it - I have my doubts) on this point, insofar that a historical Moses and a historical Exodus and a historical "reception of the Covenant on Mt Sinai" is concerned. I genuinely consider myself a Christian, and therefore, I at least often myself in symbolic agreement with "Paul" or "Paul's Jesus."
Question - are you familiar with the Gospel of Thomas? I understand that many sects and peoples and gnostics talk about this book, but I implore you to read it, it's very short. It's just a list of sayings by Jesus, like a slightly longer Sermon on the Mount. I find this text fascinating. It's labeled a "gnostic text" by outsiders, but I genuinely find no basis for such a label - the "theology" found in this Gospel is what I would call "low christology", meaning the Jesus in it is 1) not claiming to be the literal son of god, 2) not claiming to be the messiah, 3) not claiming any mystical, "heretical" revelations. The Gospel is BEAUTIFUL, in that it is simply a more grounded, longer Sermon on the Mount.
But what gets truly interesting about this Gospel is that it's just a list of sayings. THIS format, a list of sayings, was VERY popular at the time, and actually attests to its VERY EARLY creation. Some even speculate that the Gospel of Thomas, or something very similar, IS ACTUALLY THE SOURCE OF SAYINGS BY "a Galilean preacher Jesus" then used in all of the New Testament Gospels. You'll notice in Thomas, Jesus actually has many sayings and parables that make it into the NT, but then there are ALSO some that DON'T make it in.
I read this Gospel of Thomas, and I'm struck by how "buddhist" it is. All the writings concerning the buddha take the form of "dialogues" or "sayings" between Buddha and his disciples gathered around him. And that's EXACTLY what Thomas, and the Sermon of the Mount are. And I think the historical, genuine teachings of a man who we would eventually name Jesus can be found in those writings. I view Jesus like the Buddha, an incarnated and divine "gift" for a group of people at a place in time and history to attempt to offer the light, love, compassion, a better way, a new message. The gift disappears as quickly as it appears, and it blinks into the world, then out of the world just as quick - leaving the disciples to frantically write what they were told and guard the secret of divine wisdom until they may share it.
I actually think a "Jesus" existed roughly around the time he's said to have, and Paul came around after the fact and used the rumor of a Samaritan redeemer (a close reading of history reveals the Samaritan's theology called EXACTLY for what Jesus would later be, which explains why the New Testament goes out of its way to preach and appease Samaritans) to spread his new gospel to compete with the zealot Israelites of James. AFTER THE WAR, when the books of the New Testament were being written, Paul's "letters" were either forged or modified by the circle of mystic Greek, Roman, Egyptian poets who ACTUALLY wrote the New Testament (and encoded within it genuine and divine knowledge) to give a "face" to their new "religion", Christianty: Paul the Apostle.
I've gone on too long now, whoops.
1 LittleRedBugs 2017-10-24
Oh, you are fine. I enjoy reading! It was hard to tell your background without directly asking! :) Something I don't do as much any more (directly asking spirituality backgrounds).
I am familiar with the text, and I've read it quite few times.
I've spent time speculating why these truths, texts, and theologies are excluded from the, shall we say, public-exchange in churches among non-believers, new believers, and those just starting off on their faith. It can be a great burden to seek these sayings and have them manifest in your life. It's also difficult to find a disciple, at least in my area, that is willing to study these passages and discuss them. One of the more intriguing verses:
"Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. 2 But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"
LOL and good luck finding someone that's into Solomon Magiks. :-D
Oh well, some days I feel 'in the club' and some days 'out of the club'. From your self-described 'esoteric Christianity'. I suspect you know what I mean.
As a bonus cookie, not sure if you are into rock music or metal, but here is a song titled 'When Two Are One'. I heard the song in my younger teenage years, and I think it's actually an interpretation of some of the 'secret' gospels.
Anyways, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TORVT3lIIFs to me, it perfectly describes a sort of 'awakening' or actually meditating/praying and trying to live out some of the scriptures. The video also has lyrics for reading ;)
In fact, check out the entire album 'lead paper sails', particularly this song too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRvO8xfMAI
If you've got the time, watch the lyric videos. Tell me the underlying themes don't seem similar to Gospel of Thomas, and other books of the like.
Not to say these are christian bands, music, albums, or there is any mention of Jesus, but damn. Hahah, musicians seem to be able to get away with saying so much more than your typical 'preacher'.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Thanks for the music recs, I'll check those out soon -
As for the verse you mentioned ("Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. 2 But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"), is this a reference to "the inner mirror?" I've actually just come across this mirror term/concept.
I've recently come across a few verses and poems across cultures that speak of the inner mirror, the "true" self or soul or spirit. It's captured my attention, at least, and I've been trying to exploring the paths this leads to. At the most basic sense, I suppose it is a recognition that the soul is just the mirror of god, and it is not your own likeness, rather god's, the divine's - and so when we have a rusty or dusty mirror, that is only because we are in the way, we are the ones dirtying up our perfect, inner mirror whose only duty in all of creation is to reflect that which shines on it.
On the flipside - it's quite difficult to find a teacher. I suppose that's the beauty of the internet, though, I get to discuss things like this with people like you, and I grow even more than I would've in my own ruminations.
[[[oh no he thinks I'm a freemason play it cool]]] ;)
Speaking of...
1 LittleRedBugs 2017-10-24
I'll get back to you as soon as I can, possibly tonight. Got a lot going on today :)
1 imaginarybayou 2017-10-24
Ill read through this post tomorrow, too dense for me rn. But based on your thesis, you seem to be in the ballpark of the Flavian conception of Christianity. https://youtu.be/HS0WSEuousE
1 venCiere 2017-10-24
Your take on Paul is completely wrong. Thesis debunked.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
You'll notice how you wrote an opinion, without any elaboration, then declared I was "debunked"
You sure about that? You know it's not shameful to be presented with new information and change your worldview. Everyone has ideology, but you can overcome it, I believe in you.
1 venCiere 2017-10-24
Where to begin... Paul WAS Jewish and did not promote Rome. He was in chains in Rome until his death. His relationship with Peter was complicated but harmonious. That happens when a covenant change has occurred and the new one is becoming understood.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Oh yeah? Because he says quite a few anti-semitic things in his letters for someone to "be Jewish." Oh, well you're claiming he's "of Jewish descent" at least, yeah? Well... he calls himself "a Banjaminite", a "Hebrew", but he never, not once, calls himself a Jew. He DOES say he will put on THE APPEARANCE OF A JEW, when he's in the presence of Jews, and as a Gentile when he is with Gentiles, but that in fact is evidence AGAINST him being Jewish.
It's worth noting that "Benjaminite" was a claim made BY ALL HERODIANS, wishing to justify their claim as Kings of Palestine and Judea, but WERE NOT CONSIDERED JEWS BY JEWS THEMSELVES.
That's the point. Paul is claiming Jewish heritage so as to intermingle with them. Take off your ideological blinders and look at Paul's actions. Quite literally the opposite of what any Jew would do. He 1) denigrates them at every turn, 2) preaches a Gospel that is an affront to everything they hold dear, and worst yet, 3) openly persecutes them.
Well, I can lie too. He openly promoting his audiences to PAY TAXES TO ROME, interpreting "the Royal Law according to the Scriptures" in the Jamesian wording of "love your neighbor as yourself" to mean PAY YOUR TAXES TO ROME.
LMAO. "Not promoting Rome."
Wrong, again. There is no record of his death. Not a single record. He says he goes to Rome, where he is "under house arrest" (?) yet is free to come and go as he pleases, meeting and conversing with all sorts of people in Caesar's household, "preaching his new Gospel to him."
Nice try.
Well, according to PAUL. Again, I have to ask, really? The whole point I'm making is that Paul is literally lying, and that his version of history is demonstrably untrue, and maliciously so. Isn't it funny that the Gospels all portray Peter as "weak" and "blind" to the message being delivered? Why is Peter singled out so ardently to be portrayed as weak? EVEN IN ACTS, suddenly Peter has words put in HIS OWN MOUTH that echo the "blood libel" of Jews murdering Jesus and all their prophets.
Echoes of Paul, more like, whose letters say the exact ting and pretty much invented such a libel.
If you'd like to talk about Peter, and I mean, the actual historical Peter, I can, because I know quite a bit. I just get the feeling you know less than you're presenting, and are simply repeating doctrinal, orthodox history, in which case, this isn't going to go the way you think.
1 venCiere 2017-10-24
Paul claimed he was a Pharisee, trained by Gamaliel and zealous for the Jewish traditions. No one would be able to find fault with him. And, indeed, he persecuted the church. How a Pharisee would not be considered Jewish is not clear to me.
Paul was commissioned to reach the Gentiles. So, he intermingled with both Jews and Gentiles. Many of his letters deal with the new departure from the Law to grace in Christ. It is not denigrating Jews, it is explaining the new covenant in Christ. He used his Jewish roots to find common ground with Jews, it was not an 'appearance' as you imply it.
Some of Paul's last letters describe his being close to dying, passing on responsibilities to Timothy. House arrest does not mean he could come and go 'as he pleased.' It is obvious from his letters this was not so.
Even the Lord Jesus commanded, 'give to Caesar what is caesar's and give to God what is God's' --regarding taxes.
The gospels were not written by Paul, and in fact they were written later. Paul's letters are the most 'in real time' record of the Lord's walk on earth.
I don't know why you think Peter is portrayed as weak. He was the apostle who led the Jewish church. He just did not write that many letters, probably bec he did not travel as much as Paul. I have no hierarchy that holds Peter or Paul over each other.
The 'blood libel' is ridiculous. Jesus laid down His life. No one could take it from Him. I'm not sure what you are implying by that accusation. If Paul is blaming the Jews, it would include himself, since he also was Jewish and even persecuted Christ's church.
I would love to know more about Peter... and James and all the other men who followed and carried on the Lord's way. But, I have to warn you I only accept the scriptures as reliable sources.
This division among the apostles is perhaps possible. They did argue who would be greatest and sit at Jesus' right hand in eternity. But, I would hope the Holy Spirit and maturity would have caused them to have a more holy and humble attitude, as they were taught by our Savior.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
You want me to reinforce your world view, regardless of what reality might be? No thanks. I appreciate the response, and I'll write up a fuller response, but you admitting that no matter what, you're already considering no such challenge to the ideas you have, whether or not they are true or not, is rather unfortunate.
Again, as I put in the title of this post, I in no way want to upset Christians by offering a reading of history that implies the ideas they hold most dear are in fact lies, but if you really aren't even open to hearing anything counter to what you already think, I'm not sure why you came into this thread. I know the Christian doctrine. I know orthodoxy. You telling it to me is redundant. I had to know those things BEFORE i did more research into it.
1 venCiere 2017-10-24
There are so many sources that claim to bring truth. I have recently even doubted Martin Luther. But the Lord has defined His word as authoritative over all. If you know Him, you should remember that.
I don't know about orthodoxy, but I find the scriptures are internally robust in holding out the truths of God's message of salvation and living holy lives. That really is the most important thing --that ppl know they are valued by God enough for Him to die for them.
You bring up things easily countered by the scriptural record. If you are going to find a discrepancy, it's going to have to be in the approved source.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Do you not see the cognitive dissonance here? Nothing would "be approved" by "authorities" if it in fact was too discordant with their ideology. You wont find anything contradictory IN THE APPROVED SOURCES, BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS DISAPPROVED, BECAUSE IT'S CONTRADICTORY.
Everyone is free to think what they want, man, so I wont denigrate you. Just know I'm not here to offend you, or take anything from your faith. My faith is of Piety and Righteousness as well, so I won't argue with you further.
1 venCiere 2017-10-24
Well it's just that the one who approves is what makes the difference. If it is God, then what can you say? You are asking a Christian to disregard this detail. Yes, I guess that's an impasse. Thanks for being gracious.
I do know there is a conspiracy guy that only accepts the words attributed to being spoken by Jesus as truth. The Babylon series guy. Hmmmm.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
That's Bill Cooper.
I want to make it clear I'm not denigrating any faith. In fact, though, in my research and opinion, The New Testament isn't "true", per se, I do admit that the advice/ wisdom within it IS AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, and in fact, I would consider myself Christian, just in no way that any mainstream Church would accept. I at the very least put a lot of stock in the wisdom of the Word; and I believe in a loving Father, that wishes for me to love him and love my fellow man, so at least on the surface, we aren't so different at all, even if technically you wouldn't accept my faith as "real".
1 venCiere 2017-10-24
God is the one that knows our hearts and knows who His sheep are, and you sound like one of His to me, for what that's worth. So we'll agree to agree His word is a source of high quality wisdom and He is worthy of our trust. Blessings to you.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Thank you, bless you too man
1 dustin_cropsirkils 2017-10-24
If Gods word is written by man.. wouldn't that make everything man has written "Gods word"? Which would mean that focusing all your energy and efforts into one source of gods writings is severely limiting yourself to only one frame of reference and one fairly cluttered interpretation.
<3 Love is god, god is Love. <3
1 orrery 2017-10-24
I'm working on trying to determine if you believe Jesus is a real person or not when Jesus is no different from fictional characters like Forest Gump.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
If you read through my entire post, and think I'm focusing at all on Jesus, you missed the point entirely.
I have my own speculations about the historical Jesus, but he is less important of a character as James, who was completely written out of history by Roman/Pauline writers to hide the real history of the region. You'll notice Paul doesn't know Jesus personally, because he was gone before he came to the scene, but he DOES know of a character CALLED Jesus sometime before, who was well known enough for him to know of his existence, in fact, he knows his brother James. Some would say his brother James is actually the only real authenticity of there being a real Jesus, but the "real Jesus" would have been NOTHING like Paul/Luke presents him, but he'd be the exact same kind of guy as James, a JEWISH ZEALOT MESSIANIST preaching anti-Roman, pro-Revolutionary ideals, not "hey man love your enemy man", which, is obviously just Paul's words and ideas put into the character of Jesus he's inventing.
1 orrery 2017-10-24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0WSEuousE
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
This video has been rec'd in another comment, and I'll surely watch it, but I'm not sure it precisely matches up with my research or not.
It IS true that Paul openly admits that he "is speaking spiritual things spiritually" and is "allegorizing" in his letters, which predate all other books in the NT, so it isn't a huge leap in logic to see that the NT writers were writing fanciful, malicious allegories overwriting the history of the period.
There's even a whole section in the book I'm recommeding in this post detailing Paul's Roman/Herodian/Greek contacts, many of which were VERY literate, many being poets themselves, so it's not hard to see how the NT writers had at their command very talented, artistic people writing for them.
1 orrery 2017-10-24
Let me know when you're done watching it, your research lines up in a lot of ways so you should find it interesting.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Sure thing, I'll watch later tonight and get back to you if I have any new thoughts
1 KingLittlefinger 2017-10-24
Are you familiar at all with Ralph Ellis? He has a lot of books on the first century and claims the historical Jesus was a king from Edessa that was attempting a revolution in Jerusalem. A lot of his theories dovetail with some of what you post here, and resonated with me for that reason. I would highly suggest looking into his interviews on YouTube if you haven't heard of him.
He also has some interesting ideas about the Hyksos in Egypt and some of the pharaohs that share many similarities with Jews mentioned in the Bible.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO-
But now I think I have to, because in Eisenmann's work, huge swaths of the books are concerned with "the conversion of Queen Helen of Edessa and her son Prince Izates [Prince Isaac]."
Izates is given A LOT OF ATTENTION by James' community in the 30s, with James sending out an envoy/teacher/messenger to Edessa to deliver letters to the Queen/Prince.
This is eventually transformed and glossed over in Acts with "Judas Barsabbas" (who, I and Eisenmann contend, is actually "Judas Thomas", the brother of James, the brother of Jesus) to "go to Antioch" and deliver letters and confront Paul over his "teaching a new Gospel", summoning him back to Jerusalem to answer for this.
In other sources, Judas Thomas becomes "Thomas", who has various legends of him "travelling East" as far as India! Obviously, these notices are descending from the actual men sent to Edessa to first convert the King of Adiebene and his Queen Helen of Edessa, whose son, Izates, also has his OWN conversion story, OVERWRITTEN IN ACTS, and considered VERY, VERY IMPORTANT to the Jamesian community.
This "Prince Izates" is said to have been reading the Old Testament books with his younger brother, when a "Zealot teacher" saw this and said "Do you understand what you are reading?" and telling him that what he is reading is that he must listen to all of God's commandments to be loved by him, including being circumcised.
Izates and his brother IMMEDIATELY convert, and are circumcised.
It is WORTH NOTING, that at Qumran [the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls], there is a LETTER ADDRESSED TO AN ARAB KING OF MESOPOTAMIA, detailing what it means to be a loyal convert and to follow God's commandments.
Edessa is in the homeland of Abraham, and so Izates and his family would be very concerned with this figure. THAT IS WHY in this Qumran letter, the writer TAKES THE WHOLE TIME EXPLAINING WHY THIS KING (PRINCE?) MUST BE LIKE ABRAHAM, AN EMULATE HIM, AND LISTEN TO THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD.
Isn't it quite interesting that Paul ALSO spends some time in his letters detailing the salvationary state of Abraham and Isaac, Izates' namesake, "reckoned righteous by his faith?"
Depending on the timeline used, which admittedly is murky, could Prince Izates be this "King of Edessa", newly converted TO ZEALOT, JAMESIAN JUDAISM, RATHER THAN PAULINE/ROMAN/HERODIAN FACTIONS?
Quite interesting!
1 KingLittlefinger 2017-10-24
Yes, Ralph makes the argument that the Biblical Jesus is this Prince Izates (which he pronounces "EE-sits") and that essentially Josephus Flavius takes the story of Izates the revolutionary and waters it down to a message of peace and love and obedience in order to pacify the Jews for the Romans.
It's been awhile since I've listened to the interviews, but he goes on quite a bit about how muddied the timeline of the first century is and how he believes the history of Josephus is mostly true, but the decades and locations that he writes about are changed and slanted in a Roman bias.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Fascinating. It does mess around with the timeline a little too much for my taste, but if Ralph can convincingly prove certain timeline changes, I could definitely see it.
For instance, the MAIN problem i'd have with "Izates being Jesus fomenting revolution" is that after Paul comes onto the scene, he seems to be aware of a man who he calls Jesus who lived and died PRIOR TO HIMSELF. In his earliest letters, he evinces no knowledge ABOUT this man, other than his name, his crucifixion, and resurrection, and that he has a brother named James, the High Priest of the Jerusalem Church [though he really tries to hide this last part].
The problem with Izates-Jesus, is that Izates is said to have died around 55 AD. Paul would intimate knowledge of Izates, and his mother, because he in all likelihood as Eisenmann points out, probably had a hand in trying to convert them [to which religion, it's worth asking, but at the very least it seems to be a "Judaism" without "enslavement to the Law".]
So I don't know if I can reconcile Izates being Jesus knowing that Jesus' activities were PRIOR to Paul coming onto the scene in the mid-late 30s.
Have you heard of Judas the Galilean? Now HE has always been my speculation for "the real Jesus". His timeline matches up slightly better, AND Josephus and other sources even attest to his revolutionary activities, leading to the first uprising against Rome against the Census [yeah, the one in the NT around Jesus' birth].
His death is NEVER mentioned, only his descendants, who are eventually beheaded or crucified. Plus, interestingly enough, Judas the Galilean's partner in crime in these endeavours is named "Saddok" by Josephus. Well "Saddok" is just a bastardized "Zaddik", which means "Righteous One", the name that James the Just is known as in Palestine, "Just" simply being the Latin translation of "Righteous". So you have a duo of Judas the Galilean and his partner the Zaddik - much like Jesus and his brother, James.
1 KingLittlefinger 2017-10-24
I've went back and listened to one of the interviews today now that my curiousity has been re-piqued, and Ralph actually mentions Eisenman in it in regards to some of his views on Mary Magdalene.
But yes, he also mentions a Jesus (at least that's what it sounds like he's saying) of Galilee, and that he was the opposing leader of the army that Josephus Flavius meets in battle. He also makes a few points of why the Biblical Jesus must be in the AD 60's or early 70's based on certain events that Josephus attributes to him. I can't remember what exactly, but he lines the timeline up with a siege of Jerusalem in 68-70AD.
He also ties it into the Star Prophecy, how it belonged to Jesus, and how Jesus's ultimate goal with the rebellions was to become emperor of Rome. Apparently there are coins depicting Edessan kings with a battle helmet that have small spikes all over them, thus their "crown of thorns" and that's why he was crucified with that and a purple garment, which was reserved for emperors/royalty, because he was being mocked as a pretender to the Roman throne.
I haven't read his books, only listened to the interviews, but I'm going on Amazon now and ordering both he and Eisenman's books on this time period. It's fascinating to me.
1 Babble610 2017-10-24
hey what are the names of the books. also super interested as a history nerd
1 KingLittlefinger 2017-10-24
Just type Ralph Ellis into Amazon, he has a bunch. I haven't actually read any, I just listen to all of his interviews on YouTube which are all really good. But he goes from Ancient Egypt, through the Roman Empire, and even into Arthurian legend.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-24
what do you think became of these Jamesians? where are their descendants now?
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Simple answer: they became Muslim. Not joking.
One has to remember that juuuust on the other side of the Dead Sea, and Judea, is just Arabia. Lots of "arabs." Persians/ pagans/ zoroastrans, lumped together by romans as "arabs". But these various kingdoms, these Arabs, are also called by the Jamesian Dead Sea Scrolls as "the Peoples", also used for Gentiles generally, showing that even these arabs are just foreigners to the Jamesians.
But these Arab peoples feature PROMINENTLY IN THIS PERIOD, a sad fact the Romans/Paul overwrote. In effect, those overwrite deleted some heroic/ tragic history for both Jewish and Arabic people.
The Arabs in the DSS are called variously "the violent ones of the Gentiles" and the "joiners", people "latching onto our community, in the process of conversion and following our laws and faith". They are OFTEN ON THE SIDE OF THE JEWS. At least, the Jamesian Jews. Not the establishment, Herodian Jews.
The conversion of the Arab King of Adiabene, His wife Queen Helen of Edessa, their son Prince Izates, and their ENTIRE ROYAL FAMILY WITH THEM, converted to JAMESIAN, ZEALOT, REVOLUTIONARY JUDAISM!
They even send aid in a famine that devastates Palestine, WINNING GLORY FOR HELEN AND IZATES FOR ALL TIME, earning themselves two MASSIVE burial obelisks at their death from the Jews, standing centuries, something certainly unusual.
These Arabs JOIN IN THE WAR ON THE JAMESIAN, ZEALOT side against Rome. The descendants and cousins literally take up arms for Jerusalem and their God and People. The majority of the Arabs simply align with the Jamesians and follow them but, for one reason or another, still aren't considered fully "in". They were in a somewhat tenuous alliance, the multitude of Arabs and Jews. One war hero, Niger of Perea, was a black Arab, a hero for the Jews until something in which the zealots considers him a turn coat, and so he is LED THROUGH JERUSALEM, BEING WHIPPED AND LASHING HIS BODY (reminiscent of Jesus, anyone?)
After the war, Jerusalem was liquidated and slowly hellebores, the whole region really. The Jamesians fled FURTHER INTO ARABIA AND MESOPOTAMIA. They existed for centuries in their own communities, with their "strange, idiosyncratic practices", but still Jewish, still Jamesian. But the populations of the greater area were exposed to these ideas even more. The whole of Arabia had these "mourners for Zion" in disparate, hidden cave communities, where no standing structures were built, no wealth acquired.
Enter Muhammad 600 years later. While not a 1:1 copy, it is an ideology heavily influenced by both Pauline Christianity, as by now Christian ideas had also spread far and wide, but also Jamesian Judaism/Christianity, plus his own religious experiences. He became a war lord, really a religious emperor general in many ways, which is MORE THAN ENOUGH to convince this population, saturated with Jewish Jamesian ideology over the past 6 centuries but not understanding real fine points of the Jamesian Jews, that Muhammad WAS THE TRUE PROPHET, THE MESSIAH, THE DAVID-ELIJAH REBORN, a real man, like the Jamesians believed.
But the authentic Jamesians wouldn't convert, if it could even be called that, but simply stayed in their own communities, always separate from all other people. Later travelers encountering them sometimes didn't even perceive that these people were "Jews", a testament to the real differences between the Jamesians, the prevailing "Judaism" known at the time, and what we recognize as Judaism now, instead calling them "star gazers" obsessed with "the names of their angels" and "daily ritual baptism."
Note: some of these ideologies still exist in the Middle East, in various, influenced enclaves where locals still believe certain things the Jamesians believed, unique among their sect.
1 Babble610 2017-10-24
fascinating. Would love to read more
1 the_spanish_archer 2017-10-24
Just some quick rambling points:
This spilled over into the Arab population as a whole:
https://www.space.com/21532-arab-nations-astronomy-renaissance.html
Yeah yeah, what about BEFORE the 9th Century eh? Everybody repeats the party lines.
They "worship" a freakin meteor stone at Mecca basically.
Also, a Muslim convert dude from Vermont told me that Saudi Arabians have taboos against being dirty and sweaty etc. Some hyper cleanliness thing going on. There are rituals with water they do daily (face washing related etc.)
Muhammad came into Mecca and destroyed 600+ idols that were stored in the Kaaba. Did the idols there depict "angels"? One of the main idols had something to do with Venus (of course). They kept the black stone though lol.
1 1618b 2017-10-24
before i start reading all this, i have to ask if there are sources listed to support this?
1 LupusRexVidar 2017-10-24
You misunderstand the word Jew. It is a horrible bastardisation slang for Judean, Idumean, and Judah.
Israel ten tribes became the scythians, and then moved over the caucus mountains to Europe. In the time of Isa, they were dispersed around Greece, Arabia, Roman and ect. Hebrews were ancient white and Arabish. (I woulden't go was far as the whole aryan thing.)
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
I do know all of that, Robert Eisenmann points that all in one way or the other.
The only thing I'd contend with in your comment is the "at the time of Jesus the Hebrews had become poverty stricken and forced into sin." That's not entirely true, unless you are still going by what the NT says.
It's true that The Poor were abused by the Pharisees of the Temple "robbed openly" by those amassing wealth and treasures on behalf of the Herodian High Priests, and there were numerous riots and fights in and around the temple because of this.
The "Hebrews" weren't poverty stricken, it was the Jamesian faction who SELF-IMPOSED A CODE OF POVERTY, and all they wanted was proper temple service, but the High Priesthood wouldn't leave them alone and robbed them with what little they had.
1 LupusRexVidar 2017-10-24
Hmnn, that's interesting. I'll look into it more.
1 Whoden 2017-10-24
TLDR
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
I see most of your posts are just one-sentence comments.
May I suggest you a. don't come into this sub, which values honest examination of facts and history, b. don't comment "tldr" just because YOU are infantile enough to not be able to take a few paragraphs c. take a look around, and realize you are contributing to the dumbing-down of the entire world population, as you are actively DENIGRATING a post for "being too long"
Lmao.
1 Whoden 2017-10-24
Light the match and burn it down.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Oh, you're one of those. How quaint.
1 Whoden 2017-10-24
Your smug arrogance has opened my eyes. I shall Endeavor to change. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Says the person commenting "tldr" on a post IN A CONSPIRACY FORUM THAT TAKES THE TIME TO DETAIL A CONSPIRACY.
Lmao, man, lmao. So sad.
1 Neubeowulf 2017-10-24
Please excuse my ignorance. What does TLDR mean? Thank you.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
"too long didn't read"
1 Jesus_is_Reality 2017-10-24
Paul suffered greatly for Jesus Christ. Paul was a man who tossed away his career, his reputation, his life for the glory of God.
"For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." (ACTS 9:16) (God speaking about Paul)
Paul's own testimony: "I speak as concerning reproach, as though we had been weak. Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also. Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." (2 Corinthians 11:21-27)
"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not." (2 Corinthians 11:23)
Peter's testimony that Paul was a fellow Christian and that God had given him great wisdom:
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16)
The Dead Sea Scrolls are heretical texts that we should give no heed to. Pick up a KJV Bible my friends and go to town.
1 Rubulisk 2017-10-24
I assume you have read Joseph Atwill's work? If not, I suggest you do so.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
I haven't! I only know of the basic theory of "Caesar's Messiah", but it absolutely fits right into what I've researched.
I'll add it to the books I should read, thank you
1 donotspeak 2017-10-24
u/AhuwahZeus could you please share your thoughts on this?
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
OP here - username sounds familiar, though looking through his posts I don't recognize anything.
Did you read through my whole post? I know it's quite a lot of information to absorb all at once, so I don't expect someone too, but I can expand on anything specific you might want to know more about.
1 donotspeak 2017-10-24
i am eastersealin, we've spoke before, i really enjoy your post, it makes sense to me, but i am not very educated, u/AhuwahZeus has a lot of knowledge on history and puts alot of work into exposing rome, so i'm just curious about his thoughts on this
thanks for the response though, and happy holidays friend :)
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Merry Christmas! I look forward to hearing u/AhuwahZeus and whatever he has to add
1 Darzin_ 2017-10-24
That was a great post and a fantastic read! I was wondering if you could clarify a few things and point me toward a few sources for further reading.
The first is you mention some echos of Essene beliefs being present still in Arabia and mention travelers not recognizing their beliefs as Jewish could you point me to some of these travelers accounts. You said there is a Spanish account of them?
Also you mention some of the echos of Jamesian belief are still present in middle east communities the only group I could think of would be the Mandeans that might fight this profile but there are a ton of little sects in Syria and Turkey , so which groups are you referring to that exist now, or if not groups what folk beliefs have the echo of these beliefs?
You mention a lot of things I'm unfamiliar with about 1st century Palestine, for example the term Herodian, from context I'm guessing it means something like Romanized Jew, or is it more specifically a follower of the dynasty of Herod? Also you mention the priesthood being Roman appointed and James leading a kind of dissident priesthood, where can I learn more about that? Some of your post seems to conflate the Essenes and the Ebionites which I had always viewed as two separate groups was there a relationship between the two and can you recommend any reading on that?
I can't seem to find it now but did you reference a Herodian official named Saulus? Maybe in something referring to Josephus?
Regarding the Dead Sea scrolls most scholars seem to place them before Christ. is there justification for placing them after?
You mention some books dancing around this could you list some other authors who come close to this topic even if they don't draw the same conclusions Eisenmen does.
I know those are a lot of questions, but I'm really interested in learning more about this topic. Thanks!
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Thank you for the reply! I LOVE expanding on this topic, so ask away. Although, not -literally- being an actual expert, I'm bound to be more familiar with some lines of thinking than others, as obviously some will interest me more than others.
Yes, though it would be fair to say that most* of these groups have been destroyed by time and demographics, and though I'm by no means knowledgable about all present groups in the Middle East, throughout history groups have been found in Arabia,Iraq,Iran referred to as Elchasaites, Sabaeans, Manichaeans, Masbuthaeans, Sampsaeans, and some others. Now, since literature is sparse, there is no way to know whether these groups are even truly DIFFERENT from one another, since many come from similar linguistic roots (like Sabaean, Sampsaean, Masbuthaean) referring to THE FACT OF THEIR COLD-WATER DAILY BATHING/BAPTISM. Plus, these groups were recorded hundreds/thousands of years from one another, so some appear more similar than others, others seem almost word-for-word the exact and direct recipient of the Jamesian community.
The daily ritual cold-water bathing was one of the most noted and important aspects of the Jamesian community. In fact, quite a lot of the New Testament seems to be LITERAL PARODY of this. "Holy Water Baptism" "being poured down on our heads" is a far cry from the literal water baptism of the Essenes/Jamesians. (Also! Important! John the Baptist!!!)
So various travelers have noted in the Middle East the existence of "communities in the wilderness" that were noted to 1) perform the daily ritual water baptism, 2) pray facing the sun every morning, 3) hyper-religiously documenting the stars 4) keeping pristine records of "the names of their angels", and 5) wearing ONLY BLACK and "Mourning for Zion which has fallen". All of these are exact attributes of the Jamesians of the first century and even earlier, the "sect" and lineage that James himself came from (an even LONGER story!)
Two different documenters, a century apart, came across these groups and called them either "Babylonian star worshippers" or "the remnants of the Jews who had been exiled in Babylon." They skirted this line to outside observers of being Jewish, yet also "magical" of some kind, being astrologers in the desert, in essence.
To give you a sense of the way the writers of the NT were so creative in their storytelling, compare the historical fact (verifiable) with what is in the New Testament.
Actual verifiable history - SIMON BAR CLEOPHAS, 2nd in Command of the "Jerusalem Church" (read: the later Latin name for the Jamesian community), 2nd only to James himself, a Zealot Jamesian obsessed with purity (really, the Jamesians were LITERALLY religious zealots) is summoned to King Herod's Palace(different from original Herod the Great) somewhere in the 50s, early 60s where he is specifically said to be doing is "observing to make sure all things are being done in accordance to The Law (the Torah). Simon, 2nd in Command, the most senior Disciple of the Jerusalem Church under James (sound familiar?) is a Zealot representing the Zealot Essene community and stance. What would he have been observing at Herod's Palace? Herod's daughter, the PRINCESS of the royal family ruling Judea, had divorced a man who had specifically circumcised himself and converted to Judaism to marry her, and INSTEAD TURNED AROUND AND SHACKED UP WITH THE ROMAN GOVERNOR FELIX. This was ATROCIOUS to the Jamesians, who IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS, literally wrote about "Prostitutes" (clear slang about these Herodian princesses) and how these sins would invite climactic and apocalyptic judgment on the nations for engaging with such sinners. So Simon is brought to Herod's Palace, sees these "Jews" are in clear violation of Jewish Law with TWO different Herodian princesses who leave their husbands to start fucking Roman commanders and governors, and is sent back home with a gift. Few years later, Jewish Revolt and everyone dies.
WHAT IS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT: Simon, oh sorry I mean PETER, 2nd only to Jesus (Paul?), his greatest Apostle, First Bishop of His Church, travels to Caesarea (the Roman town of governance, since no Roman governor would EVER step foot near Jerusalem) and "visits a Roman centurion Cornelius", where the night before he visits the Roman, Peter is contemplating how "Jewish Law forbids me from mingling and keeping table fellowship with those of another race (<-the way you can tell its not actually written by a Jew is because the phraseology is what OUTSIDERS IMAGINE Jewish Law is)" but oh! Would you look at that! Simon, I mean Peter, is given a "rooftop vision" of a dove descending from heaven holding a tablecloth, and Peter "learns to not separate clean from unclean" and he meets with the Roman and they have a great time. Splendid.
Obvious parody, obvious polemic, obvious propaganda is obvious. Don't ya think?
Well, Paul's original name is Saulus, and my thesis is that he himself is an Herodian official. But other than the detective work I'm laying out, a Saulus IS found in Josephus. I will present what Josephus says of this Saulus, and YOU decide if he is speaking about our Paul.
Here's actually excerpts from Robert Eisenmann writing about this subject, Paul and Josephus' Saulus:
"...there are notices in Josephus about a member of the Herodian family named "Saulus," again not a very common name in this period. This Saulus plays a key role in events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Not only is Saulus the intermediary between "the men of Power [the Herodians], the principal of the Pharisees, the chief priests, and all those desirous for peace" (i.e., peace with the Romans), Josephus also describes him as "a kinsman of Agrippa."
"It is curious that in the Antiquities, following Josephus' description of the stoning of James and the plundering of the tithes of the poor priests by the rich chief priests, Josephus refers to Saulus as leading a riot in Jerusalem. For its part, the Book of Acts refers to the riotous behavior in Jerusalem of "Saulos,"..."
So this Saulus is described by Josephus as being some kind of person of status between both Romans and Herodians, but also whatever Jewish community in the city. Paul fits this to a T in this theory. Plus, this Saulus is ALSO pictured as departing to "answer for his actions in Judea regarding the disturbance there" JUST BEFORE THE WAR IN THE 60S, JUST AS PAUL IS PICTURED AS DOING IN THE NT!
Great question, but the answer is that the premise is flawed. The Dead Sea Scrolls is a LIBRARY of vast writings. Some are simply copies of Old Testament books, some are copies of other religious writings. Some are hymns, songs, "poems", etc. Perhaps the most important are the "pesharim" or "commentaries" which are commentaries on specific passages from the OT, so like a verse from Isaiah or Ezekiel or Elijah (their favorite prophets in the DSS and the Jamesians).
SPECIFICALLY IMPORTANT about these "original" writings, are what seems to be in them is that they are taking SPECIFIC passages from the OT and APPLYING! the passages to their times (first century). They had their books and kept to them by the letter, so when it seems like the prophecies were coming true right before their eyes, they got excited. Very excited. Messianic excited. Apocalyptic excited. Thats what is in the DSS, exploding Messianism preparing for an IMMINENT end times and "visitation from God" to smote "all the Sons of Seth" and deliver his earthly messiah king, a la David. It's similar to how people apply the Books of Revelation to our times right now, except they all literally believed it and were ready to make war against Rome for it. So while you have some older writings in the DSS, most important stuff in there is clearly being written from 0-60AD.
In fact, A LOT of the detective work done to conclude all these things about this conspiracy I'm detailing in this post specifically CAME from Eisenmann's realization that these DSS writings were not only circle-jerking their religion, but DOCUMENTING LITERAL, UN-ADULTERATED HISTORY through the lens of their religion.
So we get a window into the actual worldview of a Messianic, Jihading Jewish Zealot who felt ready to "throw off the Roman yoke" and bathed out in the desert and whipped up into a frenzy ready to stampede and destroy the Romans. Pretty interesting.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
Really? It's long, but it's really a fascinating topic.
1 Spin1 2017-10-24
I do know all of that, Robert Eisenmann points that all in one way or the other.
The only thing I'd contend with in your comment is the "at the time of Jesus the Hebrews had become poverty stricken and forced into sin." That's not entirely true, unless you are still going by what the NT says.
It's true that The Poor were abused by the Pharisees of the Temple "robbed openly" by those amassing wealth and treasures on behalf of the Herodian High Priests, and there were numerous riots and fights in and around the temple because of this.
The "Hebrews" weren't poverty stricken, it was the Jamesian faction who SELF-IMPOSED A CODE OF POVERTY, and all they wanted was proper temple service, but the High Priesthood wouldn't leave them alone and robbed them with what little they had.