Bill

The key for me is the parallels between the Nazirite vows and the Essene dedication to extreme ritual purity. It seems difficult to me to not draw the conclusion that James was affiliated with the Essenes. These are key topics all through Eisenman's book, but they are thoroughly discussed in the four chapters in Part III (chapters 10 thorugh 13).

From the sources I linked in my previous post, there seems to be some agreement that there were about 4,000 Essenes in Israel at the time that Josephus wrote (and that figure is repeated by somebody else, who may have drawn it from Josephus; I don't know). Based upon what we now know, it appears to me to be more reasonable to conclude that they were spread out all over the country rather than concentrated in one particular place (and, in fact, the Essene section of Jerusalem is not all that large of a section of the city, according to the maps showing the location where the Essene Gate was excavated).

Other sources indicate that James was the head of a group of 70 to 120 men (the typical size of a Jewish "community" in those days). He might not have been the only (or "highest") Essene leader in Jerusalem in those days (42-62 CE), but he would have been one of only a few, as 500 Essenes (12.5% of the total population of Essenes, just as a guess) would have required only about 4 to 7 "leaders" using the traditional group size. If the assertions are correct that the Essenes had rejected the authority of the Sanhedrim (a point which makes a great deal of sense if you view the story of Jesus versus the Sanhedrim as a sort of a clash between competing communities), then we can get to the point where James is running his own equivalent to the Sanhedrim among the Essenes, and the pieces of the puzzle just start dropping into place (including Eisenman's allegation that James functioned as a sort of "opposition High Priest").

Perhaps I could be persuaded to the opposite view if I knew more about Naziritism outside of the Essene community. And if we knew more about the history of the Essenes and/or about the Nazirite "monks" (who seem to parallel each other; but I don't think we can be truly certain that they are identical without more evidence).

Anyway, until we can learn more of the history of the Jews during the two-and-a-half centuries between (roughly) 180 BCE and 70 CE, I think it is going to be very difficult to sort all of this out. The preserved rabbinical sources aren't a lot of help since it must be conceded that virtually everything there was copied or re-written after the First Jewish War by the surviving faction (probably to cast themselves into a better light, of course....).

== Bill

Rick Sumner

Restoring freedom to the captives, a la Is.61.1, is an action explicitly ascribed to God in Isaiah. 11QMelch replaces God with Melchizedek.

I just provided two sources claiming blaspheme occurred if, and only if, the name of God was uttered. Where are your sources to the contrary?

How can the Passion Narrative, in its present form, be regarded as having anything to do with Jesus becoming the Messiah? It's decidedly later than that.

What do their claims have to do with the birth of Christianity? They're decidedly later than that.

No, what I'm saying is that words and conceptions ascribed later are not indicative of those that gave rise to the movement.

That they ascribe them to Jesus demonstrates exactly nothing for the benefit of your theory, again, it's too late to be considered the concept that gave birth to Christianity.

Here's the problem: Jesus fits in with various Messianic concepts advocated in the first century, including, but not restricted to those I've already cited. You would have me believe that this is nothing but coincidence, and that these Messianic concepts had nothing to do with it. This is entirely too much coincidence to reasonably accept.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

I'll review those chapters, and get back to you on them tomorrow. I'm curious, however, as to whether we should group all Nazrites as Essenes?

4000 would be correct:

And they almost certainly weren't concentrated in one place:

I'll get to the rest after reviewing Eisenman.

Regards,
Rick

Bill

Thanks. And I thought I indicated that I was undecided on that very point (whether there is any kind of equivalence between "Essenes" and "Nazirites").

My take on that question is that these two groups of men are never mentioned in the same places. So, for instance, Josephus mentions Essenes but not Nazirites, and the Jewish records mention Nazirites but not Essenes. Thus, I tend to draw the implication that they at least probably are one and the same, but I don't have anywhere near enough information to assert that I do have "the truth" (whatever that might mean). And the fact that Josephus wrote in Latin and the Jews in Hebrew only adds to the probability that they used two different words to mean the exact same thing.

== Bill

Rick Sumner

Philo does not, (to my knowledge, I'll gladly be corrected if I'm in error) use the distinct term "Nazirite," but does discuss the Nazarite vow in Special Laws I.247-254.

Philo extolls the Essenes at length. If those who displayed "unspeakable holiness" were the same people, we should expect him to say so. He doesn't.

Josephus likewise mentions them in Ant.19.6.9.1

Josephus likewise extolls the Essenes at length. Why does he not make the connection?

It will likely take me longer than expected to get to Eisenman--I'd previously said tomorrow, I think I'll opt instead for by the weekend.

Regards,
Rick

Koyaanisqatsi

As it is was with Moses; a messenger of god doing god's work. But Moses was not considered to be God.

Unless you are going to unequivacably claim that the author of 11QMelch is declaring that Melchizedek is Yahweh/Jehovah (aka, "God") then your point is moot, at best. Deifying someone (i.e., likening them to a god) is not the same as claiming that the someone is God.

Is the author of 11QMelch claiming that Melchizedek is God?

Again, you miss the point (and affirm my own). It is the authors of the NT passion myth who misconstrue Jewish tenets and have the entire Sanhedrin falsely accusing Jesus of blasphemy. Anyone remotely familiar with Jewish laws would agree with you and would therefore never have written a myth in which such a law was so poorly misinterpreted.

Well, first of all, Jesus was not "the" messiah as both of us agree. There wasn't a singular messiah; there were many messengers who had different roles. In Daniel, the description of the one carrying the name "messiah" could not have been referring to Jesus, yet Jesus (allegedly) invokes Daniel by name to support his messianic claims.

In Isaiah, there are several messengers of god who arrive on the scene at the end times, none of which are applicable to Jesus, yet Mark, in particular, has Jesus (and others) quoting Isaiah almost left and right to substantiate his messianic claims.

The synoptics were allegedly written at and around the time of the Jewish uprisings (a biased misnomer, IMO, since it was the Romans who instigated the war by originally thinking they could conquer and change the region). They get several basic Judaic tenets wrong and paint a picture of Judaism and, in particular, Judaic messianic prophesies incorrectly.

Indeed. As I've mentioned several times now, they coincide almost perfectly with the eruption of Jewish resistance to Roman occupation and betray a lack of knowledge at best and a misconstrued interpretation at worst of basic Jewish dogma and messianic legitimacy (not to mention painting the Sanhedrin and Jewish orthodoxy as almost complete idiots when it comes to their own dogma).

I'm tired of repeating what I've already printed, so please go back to just about any one of my prior posts for the answer to that question. It is my theory that the Romans co-opted the early Jesus cult's mythology, poorly augmented it to become anti-Judaic/pro-Roman mythology and disseminated it in a failed attempt to destabilize adherence to Jewish orthodoxy; the predominant, ruling beliefs as they saw it.

Think like a Roman, then read the synoptics and you'll see what I'm talking about.

As you have pointed out (and I agree), there were many Jewish factions in the region who no doubt were debating all forms of Jewish tenets/dogma, with particular emphasis on dietary and hygiene laws as well as debate on what form their "messiah" would take and what that means, etc., etc.

In other words, same old same old.

But the exsitence of various cult factions does not mean anything other than within the cult. Such debates continue to this day within all forms of Judaism as well as Christianity, but both of those cults have one thing in common. Jews don't question the existence and supremacy of their god (aka, Yahweh/Jehovah) and Christians don't question the existence and supremacy of their god (aka, Jesus).

The synoptics contain the alleged details of what Jesus actually said and did and present the passion narrative so central to Christianity. Almost all of the teachings of Jesus are contained in the gospels (such as the Sermon on the Mount and the details of the trials and resurrection). As most scholars these days agree, Mark is the first one who created the details of the myth and is considered no less a holy, god-inspired messenger by theists than any other NT author.

So if the author of Mark is in any way an influential character in the creating of the christian mythology, then what he wrote is just as legitimate as what anyone else wrote, yes? Same is true for Matthew (allegedly writing ten years after the wars of 80 C.E., if memory serves).

It is irrelevant to my theory what was going on within early Jewish factions, other than as more information mining opportunities for whoever it was assigned to create this new dogma. We're both agreeing that the mythology was concocted; we're just disagreeing on who concocted it and what their motives may have been.

Thus, the most influential writings (the ones labeled as "canon") are more relevant to what I am arguing and less relevant to what you are arguing (whatever that actually may be).

We also both agree that none of this happened in a vacuum and there were no absolutes. This is why the conveniences and the discrepencies of the gosples, in particular and the alleged timing of their authorship in relation to the events of those times is so suspect. IMO, of course.

As I conceded before, I have no doubt there was a Jesus cult (not to be confused with what we today call "christianity"), led by a reformist/anti-orthodox Rabbi, who, if there is any shred of truth to the passion mythology, was most likely crucified by the Romans for seditionist acts (aka, a "freedom fighter"). I can even imagine that his followers deified Jesus and likened him unto a god, a common enough cousin to martyrdom as to be almost inseperable, unless one factors in that Jewish indoctrination is such that God is supreme and inviolate; on a plane that is axiomatically higher than any other being within his kingdom.

At least to the orthodox Jewish ruling class and the majority of its followers (aka, the citizens the Romans were attempting to envelope into their fold).

Remember the socio-political events that were going on during this time of impotent religious debate and then factor in the obvioulsy mounting Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation, culminating in the 80 wars.

If you need a more concrete example, just look to what is happening in Iraq right now (and bear in mind this is an anology that applies to Islamic dogma as well as Jewish dogma). We, the Roman military, sent in our shock troops to conquer the region and they primarly allowed it to happen (since they had little choice) knowing that once Goliath stood tall in the desert sun, he could be brought down by a child throwing a rock. This mentality/strategy is well known to all desert nomadic tribes (which is also why the World Trade Center could be brought down by box-cutters).

Just as we are dealing with this strategy (and losing) in Iraq, so to were the Romans dealing with it and needed to know what it was that allowed a defeated people (as the Romans saw the Jews) continue to act as if no defeat had happened. The answer came in the fannatical brainwashing of their cult; a cult used to and borne out of oppression (aka, a slave theology).

Thus the anthropomorphic God concept equated with a human totalitarian dictator, who is more powerful than any slave master could be. Their god was the ultimate slave master and the Jewish people were his "chosen."

Both Daniel and, in particular, Isaiah (hell, the majority of the OT that discusses these matters) go into great detail about how the enemies of the chosen people are the enemies of their god and how their god will destroy their enemies by sending messengers down to earth to actually and physically destroy them (and all those non-annointed Jews).

Such militaristic violence would, naturally, appeal to a militaristic occupying regime, yes? Thus it makes perfect sense that they would be the ones who use such imagery as the basis for their propaganda; merging what they've incorrectly interpreted from a study of mainstream Judaism with a local upstart Rabbi who they had killed and turned into a marty for "freedom fighters" in the region; freedom fighters that would incite others resulting in the "uprisings" of 80 C.E.

They knew this resistance movement was growing and that they would have to (most likely) deal with it on a militaristic scale eventually, so intelligence operations (just like we do today and all nations have done throughout recorded history) were deployed to find out what could be used against them prior to and during the assaults. How do you subvert fannatical devotion to a monotheist dogma?

Well, certian radical factions were invisioning what their messiah (their "savior" m'lord) would be and there was this local Rabbi resistance leader we killed who is getting a lot of press (in fact, his followers act in "his name") so why not use their own weapons against them?

Again, as we both agree, nothing happens in a vacuum. There are dynamic elements involved, but to the arrogance of the Roman Empire, that region would have be no more a problem than any other conquered region. Until it became so, due to the fanaticism that their religion bred.

Yet you're dismissing the key doctrinal elements of that movement that allegedly culminated in the creation of the passion narrative. You're saying that the only thing that mattered was what was written by the sources you quote and the stories in the synoptics I quote held no great relevance to the movement. Yet it is in those stories that the majority of Jesus' sayings and actions exist and divinity/messiah-hoodishness are established from Jesus his self (based on incorrect references to OT prophets).

The "movement" that you are talking about could just as easily have been what I contend (that Jesus was nothing more than a martyred freedom fighter), since we have no evidence of what actually happened in Jesus' lifetime (ouside of the claims of the synoptics).

You are discussing theological debates within reformist, splinter Jewish cult factions and I am attempting to deconstruct what most likely happened from the accounts depicted in the passion narrative, but neither of us have any idea what actually happened to the "real" Jesus.

All we have for Jesus's actual sayings and life (allegedly) are the gospels and a few vagueries from Paul and other NT authors largely corroborating (or repeating) the same stories and wisdom sayings found in the gospels.

Thus, we are both concerned with how the gospels were written and reflect on the "true" nature of the Jesus cult, however indirectly and we both agree that the myth was created. What we're not seeming to connect on is who created it and why they did so.

You, however, seem to be arguing that the Jesus movement (aka, mythology) was created by the Essenes (or some other first century faction), so I'm curious as to why you think they would create something like this and actually ascribe it to the life of Jesus (which, once you rule out the gospel accounts, results in almost no details of his life at all)? Are you saying that these factions actually knew Jesus or about him and actually considered him to be the Jewish messiah (a misnomer that we both agree upon, since there was no singular messiah)?

If so, then how do you account for the passion narrative fraud and its incorrect reliance on Isaiah and Daniel, primarily, to substantiate messianic claims of their fraud?

Do you simply dismiss Daniel and Isaiah as false prophets or something?

"Christianity" doesn't exist without the passion narrative. A cult of followers of a Rabbi named Jesus who was hung from a tree after being stoned to death for blasphemy is all that can be derived from Paul (as well as a debate on a physical, bodily resurrection as opposed to a spiritual transformation), but none of this explains the existence of the gospel accounts.

You just seem to think that the gospel accounts can be discarded, due to their late date. Again, none of this exists in a vacuum, so for you to claim that the early Jesus cult is what culminated in "christianity" without the gospel accounts is disengenuous at best.

If you want to discuss what the Jesus cult was, that's one thing. Mack's assessment of the Q material would be a good start. I agree, it was probably just a faction of Essene cult thinking who saw their Rabbi being either murdered by the Romans for being a seditionist or killed by the Sanhedrin for committing blasphemy, but if that's the case then we're going to the Gnostics who believed that, in essence, all Jesus was saying was that we are all god and god is in us all and there is no such thing as a "messiah" other than the fact that we are all "messiahs" in one way or another.

But then, we're no longer talking about "Christianity" now are we. If Jesus was not the Christ as claimed to be through reliance on Isaiah and Daniel, primarily, then we're talking about Jesusism (cue porno music).

Well, going by what you've quoted, so does anyone who simply proclaims they are of god and speaking god's words. The quotes you cited could literally apply to any Rabbi or false prophet.

The prophecies that are primarily ascribed to directly substantiating Jesus' claims, however, are Isaiah and Daniel.

Not in the slightest. The quotes you cited could just as easily apply to any of us, including myself. My words are the words of god and those who read them will follow the Koy messiah. All join the Thrill Kill Cult of Koy!

All seriousness aside, you would have me believe that the quotes you cited apply only to Jesus, contradicting what the authors of the gospel accounts have Jesus state were his prophets and inexplicably discounting the details of Jesus' life as presented primarily in the gospel accounts. You dismiss the prophetic sources Jesus invokes in the gospel accounts, yet seem to affirm that the other aspects of the gospel accounts (the events allegedly surrounding Jesus' life and teachings) do apply as evidence that other messianic prophecies are to take precedent.

So what, then (dismissing the gospels as you do), did Jesus actually say or do to fulfill non-Daniel/non-Isaiah accounts and why do you dismiss Daniel and Isaiah as messianic prophets?

For you. It would be easier, of course, if you simply removed your unwarranted use of the word "coincidence" and instead apply a modicum of critical thinking to the actual events that would have been going on during that time and in that region, being under Roman control.

We're not talking about a great nation of hundreds of millions of like minded people. We're talking about a mainstream religious stronghold that ruled the majority of the followers of the overall cult, that had within it certain factions all basically agreeing on the one central tenet; monotheism.

This region was under invasive, oppressive, military control of the Roman Empire, who were never successful in controlling and assimilating the people of that region into Roman ideology, due, arguably, to the fanatical devotion to their religion, regardless of the internal debates of doctrine and dietary laws and so on that may have been occuring and obviously were within the various cult factions.

In the reality of day-to-day life, the Jews were all one under the oppression of the Romans, just as the "Christians" are all one from an atheist/islamic/jewish perspective, regardless of the twenty thousand or so cult splinters.

This, I contend, is evidenced in the synoptic fraud that nonetheless overcame or supplanted whatever original Jesus cult may have been a focal point of first century reformist Judaism that you claim is the actual Christian movement.

The gospels are a perversion at the very least of whatever movement may or may not have taken any kind of hold within the more reformed Jewish factions and my theory is concerned with who perpetrated that perversion and to what end.

Get it now?

Rick Sumner

He's claiming that Melchizedek has powers usually ascribed to YHWH.

No, your point, explicitly stated, was that claiming to be God was blaspheme. Now I'm asking for sources, and you're attempting to avoid the question. Either you have them, and you were right, or you don't, and you were wrong. Which is it?

What he wrote does not take precedence over the millieu in which he wrote, and in which Christianity arose.

"Concocted" takes on a completely different connotation that what I'm saying--so we're really not agreeing at all. You're saying "concocted," I'm saying "developed."

Nonsense. For your argument to hold, you need to look at all possible sources, and rule out those that don't fit. You're ruling them out arbitrarily.

And this concocted God had nothing to do with Judaism, despite strong parallels to the Messianic thought of the age (cf 4Q521, Psalms of Solomon, et al.), by sheer coincidence, because he wasn't Jewish. Right.

The War ended in 70 CE. And it doesn't make sense, because you're still ignoring the context.

No, what I'm saying is that they both held relevance in the movement, but that one can't be understood without the other--even that isn't apt, as it connotes factions rather than a millieu, which is a far more accurate assessment.

There's quite the jump from a martyred freedom fighter (which, incidentally, I'd disagree with as well, but that's another issue entirely) to a Roman conspiracy. It doesn't follow, and you're not providing the necessary intermediary evidence.

I neither stated nor implied it was created by the Essenes, and certainly haven't restricted myself to Qumranic documents. Again, it sprang from a millieu, not warring factions.

The same way I've accounted for the "fraud" the entire time--that was what they felt would best sell, and to a large degree what they believed, in whatever fashion, to be "true."

Nonsense. As you just noted, Christianity existed for Paul--but Paul doesn't have a Passion narrative.

You keep building these strawmen. What I said is that they are too late to give us a sound understanding of what led to Jesus becoming the Messiah--they have benefit, to be sure, but they're also written with the authors individual theological agendas.

I would argue forcibly that Jesus and his earliest followers were *not* Essene. The very notion of even eating in the same room as Gentiles, a la Peter, much less at the same table, a la Paul, would have appalled an Essene.

Nonsense. You've lost track of what's been quoted. I refer you again to 4Q521 and Psalms of Solomon 17.

Nonsense. Have you raised the dead as of late? Brought people to their knees by the power of your word?

Again, you've lost track of what's been quoted in what context. I direct you, a third time, to 4Q521 and Ps.Sol.17--those were what was quoted in the context of Messianic expectation. I can add to that list, if you'd like.

Nonsense. I didn't say they applied only to Jesus--this is yet another strawman. I said belief in the validity of those quotes is what led to Jesus becoming the Messiah--people believed he fulfilled those prophecies.

I've done neither. More strawmen.

Speaking of critical thinking, you might want to pay attention to what my argument is--you seem to be arbitrarily restating it to whatever you find it easiest to argue against.

The rest of your post in no way addresses my concerns. I'll reiterate:

Jesus, as depicted in the gospels, has a great deal in common with many Messianic expectations--such as those depicted in the Psalms of Solomon or 4Q521. You contend that Christianity is not continuous with Judaism, and that these Jewish Messianic expectations are not a source for the narrative of Jesus. For this to be the case, we must envision a grand coincidence, by which your Roman conspirators happened to strike upon these Jewish Messianic expectations by blind luck. This is all but impossible, and it is far more reasonable to presume that these direct and indirect parallels are the result of Christianity drawing from Judaism.

Regards,
Rick

Koyaanisqatsi

As did Moses. So your answer to my question is that you are not unequivocably claiming that the author is claiming that Melchizedek is God.

Thank you for at least indirectly conceding my point.

Speaking of strawmen... My point was and is and always shall be that the authors of the gospel accounts got basic Jewish tenets and messianica prophecy wrong and that this is evidence of, most likely, Roman intelligence propaganda more so than it is evidence of organic extension of Jewish dogma.

I have now pointed this out to you at least five times. Kindly do not continue to stuff this strawman.

Your straw is showing.

So you claim.

Was it a myth or not? Myths are concocted and developed, so if we're both agreeing on myth, then your semantic hair splitting is moot.

False. I'm using the sources that the NT authors primarily have Jesus himself invoke as the substantiation of his messianic claims as evidence of Roman fraud. Daniela and Isaiah do not prophesy Jesus in any way, shape or form, yet these are the two primary messianic prophets that the authors of the gospels have Jesus invoke.

This concocted god was Yahweh/Jehovah of the OT and therefore had everything to with Judaism.

It did? That's the first I've heard of it. As I recall, it began in or around 80 C.E., but I could be wrong.

Since we have no real idea when Mark was actually written and everything still coincides to roughly the same time period and, more importantly, the Jewish resistance movement would have been escalating to a point where an actual military intervention of this nature was inevitable, the same argument applies.

What "context" would that be? That Daniel and Isaiah were not messianic prophets and that the authors of those myths were correct to base his messianic claims on their prophecies so predominantly as to actually quote them directly? In Matthew's case, by name?

Again I will ask you, upon what do you base your dismissal of Daniel and Isaiah as legitimate Jewish messianic prophets and how do you account for their reliance in gospel accounts? Why would Jesus invoke their specific prophecies if neither applied to Jesus? Almost the entirety of Mark's messianic claims come from Isaiah, yes? Why would that be and why wouldn't it have been corrected as the obvious mistake that it was and is?

Do you agree that reliance on either Daniel or Isaiah as messianic prophets prophesying Jesus's life and time was incorrect or do you affirm that both Daniel's and Isaiah's prophesies apply to Jesus' life and times?

It's very simple. Either Daniel prophesied Jesus or he did not. Likewise with Isaiah. So did they?

How can I when you dismiss anything I present as not being applicable because you have determined it is not applicable?

Not to mention all of these annoying strawmen you're creating instead of addressing my actual arguments.

"It" can't "spring" from anything, if it is the truth. The truth is the truth. Either Jesus was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy or he was not. Considering we both agree that there was no singular "messiah" of Jewish messianic prophecy, we've got a problem. And further considering that the primary sources invoked to substantiate Jesus' messianic claims are Isaiah and Daniel (by name, no less), then we have my theory.

So, in other words, it's all a crapshoot and nothing about Jesus' actual life and times matter. Only beliefs; aka, mythology. Well, fine by me. I'm just more interested in who wrote the fraudulent myths of the passion narratives. If you want to concentrate on who wrote the fraudulent myths of the early Jesus cult (and wish to dismiss the only alleged details of what Jesus actually said and did as recorded in the gospels) then I have no problem with that.

We're both agreeing (yet again) that the gospels have no bearing on any earlier Jesus cult. My question goes to who wrote them and why they did.

Then "christianity" didn't exist for Paul; a cult of Jesus did. What existed for Paul was a radical Rabbi who he heard was (at best) stoned to death for blasphemy and hung on a tree (according to tradition, apparently) by the Sanhredrin, who then came back from the dead and it was Paul who so grossly misconstrued messianic prophecy in order to preach anti-Judaism. This fits, too, with my theory, with Paul being the primary Roman intelligence agent who infiltrated the region in order to subvert orthodoxy with proclamations (largely to non-Jews or, at least, non-orthodoxy Jews; aka, the mainstream) that a dead Rabbi was actually the Messiah (again, an impossibility to anyone who was familiar with actual Jewish messianic prophecy).

As we both agree, there was no single "messiah" to Jewish messianic prophecy. There were to be many different messengers of god who were to perform various acts during their time on Earth, none of which apply specifically and only to a Rabbi named Jesus who had a cult following. At best, Paul was mistakenly confusing martyrdom with Messiah and is more an indictment of Paul's understanding of Judaic messianic prophecy than anything else.

Jesus could not have been the Christ, since there was no one individual Christ that any Jewish theologian could point to as being a definitive definition of what "the" Christ would be.

Regardless and again, it only points more to a deliberate fraud than it does to any kind of historical account of an actual Jewish messiah/god on Earth that was either co-opted by the later authors of the passion narrative or instigated by Paul, which.

Somebody created and fostered the lies at the base of the Jesus cult. For Paul to have read whatever he read or heard whatever he heard about a Rabbi named Jesus and to conclude that he was "the" Christ (something that didn't exist in a singular, ultimate form) is, again, more fodder for my theory than anything else.



Pot? Kettle. Black.

Ok, enough of this. Either Jesus was the Messiah (an impossibility) or he was not. There was no "becoming" the Messiah, unless you are conceding that the whole thing was fraud.

Was there a consensus on a single "messiah" in Jewish messianic prophecy or not?

You've unjustly dismissed both Daniel and Isaiah as authorities on messianic prophecy and claimed that other authors take precedent, so what is your argument? That everyone got it wrong and therefore there was no prophecy at all, but merely divergent conjecture as to what could or could not be a messiah of god who would arrive at the end times and therefore Jesus is nothing more than one more cog in that messianic milieu?

You keep alluding to the notion that everything prior was leading up to affirming Jesus as "the messiah," at the same time that you dismiss (without warrant) any of the direct claims that Jesus allegedly maid to support such messianic prophecy, throwing into the mix a vague, generalized conglomeration that Paul, apparently concluded was Jesus.

If that is the case, then explain to me why later allegedly "christian" authors (the most historically influential, by the way) ascribe prophesies to Jesus that in no way prophesy Jesus?

Remove the word "theological" and you've got my theory. Continue to apply it and you've got nothing more than a handful of cultists all forcefully declaring that only their own interpretation is the right interpretation, regardless of how directly wrong it is.

I tell you what. Let's save some time. Name the only messianic prophets that matter. Your generalizations are noted and unjustified, so go into the specifics and make your case for who prophesied the specifics of Jesus' existence and how those prophesies can only apply to Jesus.

You've already dismissed Daniel and Isaiah without legitimate reason so we know they're out. Who prophesied the specific events of Jesus' life that establish him to be the Jewish Messiah (sic)? If you say it was a conglomeration of sources, then kindly acknowledge that you are negating the efficacy of prophecy at least.

Either a prophet is right and their visions were inspired by god or they are wrong and they are false prophets. So which were right and which were wrong?

If all you're talking about are divergent beliefs, then all you're talking about are myths that have no bearing on any claims of veracity, so tread lightly, unless you (as I) know the whole thing is an obvious fiction, because, again, all we're doing is arguing about who wrote certain parts of the fiction and what they're motive was for writing it.

Yet you quoted the hymn of the Righteous One; a concept that was initially Essene, yes?

Nevermind. As with almost all of this, it's irrelevant to the question of who wrote the passion narrative and why they wrote it.

So we're back to dietary laws.

And I reiterate my point. The quotes you cited could literally apply to any Rabbi or false prophet.

Kindly demonstrate how your quotes can only apply to Jesus. Oh, but don't use the details or sayings of Jesus' life from any of the gospel writers, if you please (that includes the Sayings Gospel Q, by the way). You've ruled them out, remember?

Yes, I did. Not "of late" though. I, like Jesus, raised the dead some time ago.

Innumerable times throughout my life (including on this very board).

Oh, wait. I'm sorry, I thought you were speaking in a sort of generalized "miliieu" and not actually ascribing legitimacy to any one prophet's account. Though I have both raised the dead and brought people to their knees by the power of my words, so those two elements are true.

By all means. Add as many as you like and then explain to me how Danial and/or Isaiah are not included on that list as well as how anything your prophets say specifically and exclusively applies only to Jesus' life and teachings without relying on the gospel accounts (or the basis of those accounts; the "Q" material) and any derivative of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and sayings to support any claims that only Jesus was the Christ (a misnomer we both agree does not exist in any singular form, so please account for that little snafu too).

Then your entire polemic is clearly false, since nothing "leads to" Jesus "becoming" anything. He is either the Messiah or he is not. If he claims that he has fulfilled the visions of Daniel, then he is a fraud. If he claims that he has fulfilled the visions of Isaiah, then he is a fraud.

If others claim that he has fulfilled either Daniel or Isaiah then they are frauds.

Yes or no?

Did Jesus' life and times fulfill the prophesies of either Isaiah or Daniel. I don't give a rat's ass about any other alleged prophets, so you can discard them right here and now. Answer this question and we can end this stupidity.

Did Jesus' life and times fulfill the prophesies of either Isaiah or Daniel? Yes or no?

Ok, this is just getting childish (again), so I'll ask you one more time so that you have two direct questions that you can only answer "yes" or "no" to and nothing else. That way we rule out any false claims of my building strawmen.

Did Daniel prophesy Jesus' life on earth and the events surrounding that life? Yes or no?

Did Isaiah prophesy Jesus' life on earth and the events surrounding that life? Yes or no?

You now have two specific and direct questions that require you to do nothing more than type "yes" or "no," and no false accusations on your part about non-existent strawmen need cloud your answers. Since you won't be able to actually just answer "yes" or "no," your evasions will be noted, of course, so have at it.

I'm pretty sure the Kettle just called the A.C.L.U. on that one.

Well, now you know how it feels.

Who cares? So do I. Am I, therefore, the Jewish "Messiah" (sic)?

The only thing that would matter to my theory is who Jesus allegedly claimed was prophesying his existence, yes, and whether or not such a claim was substantiated by those prophets. In the two primary cases (Isaiah and Daniel) the claims are demonstrated to be false. Neither Isaiah nor Daniel prophesied Jesus.

Which, again, could apply to anyone who merely made the claim, "These apply to me."

So, a simple counter application of your own objection. Why do you consider the Psalms of Solomon and 4Q521 to be more legitimate than Jesus' own (alleged) invocation of Isaiah and Daniel?

Could it be because you agree with me that the gospel accounts got it wrong?

False in a minor, but important way. I contend that the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and events do not demonstrate a fulfillment of messianic prophecy (according to the prophets Jesus allegedly claims legitimize his messianic claims), or, for that matter, a "new covenant" of any kind.

I further contend that this is evidence of obvious fraud, most likely perpetrated by Romans intent on co-opting (incorrectly) certain Jewish beliefs in order to create a (failed) attempt to subvert Jewish orthodoxy in the region as part and parcel to an occupying force's propaganda efforts to subdue and "break" the oppressed populous for inclusion into the new, reigning regime.

Aka, S.O.P. for any occupying force throughout all of recorded human history. Destroy their beliefs and their minds will follow.

Just keep typing "expectations" as if that will get you out of it. It's enjoyable, really. Daniel did not have "expectations" nor did Isaiah. They had either prophesies that were "true" or hallucinations/dreams that were therefore irrelevant.

Either Daniel prophesied Jesus' life and events or he did not. Same with Isaiah. So what's your verdict and remember that Jesus (allegedly) affirms that their prophecies were true and that he is the fulfillment of those prophecies (an impossibility that we both agree upon, so there you go).

Once again, we're both interested in the reality of it all. That means, of course, that you must grant that "messianic prophecy" does not exist and that what these cult members were actually engaged in (including the whole lot, of course) was, at best, wishful thinking that their visions or dreams contained some sort of actual meaning/relevance.

In other words, either Daniel/Isaiah were "true" prophets or they were "false" prophets. There is no middle ground. This also applies to your own messianic sources, of course, so you be the judge. Were they all privy to pieces of the truth that culminated in Jesus' physical embodiment of what they were all generally thinking about (and if so, then why invoke any specific OT prophet, such as Jesus allegedly does in Matthew, at least), or were these the true, complete visions as imparted by their god?

Myth, or non-fiction? If non-fiction, then which ones were writing non-fiction or which parts of what the others were writing were non-fiction and upon what do you base this conclusion? Don't say the gospels or base anything upon the details of Jesus' life depicted in the gospels, of course, since you can't just say some of this was true and some of that was true according to whatever I want to be true. Well, you can, but it would be, obviously, dismissed.

You have presented other messianic descriptions that could apply to anybody (including myself) in the attempt to claim supremacy (or at least primary dependency) of messianic prophesy. Neither Daniel's vision nor Isaiah's vision applies to Jesus' life and times as chronicled and attested to in the various authors of the NT mythology (including, accordingly, Paul), so they are both ruled out as legitimate messianic prophets.

So, who are the "legitimate" messianic prophets and what aspects of their prophecy were "true" and what aspects of their prophecy were just, let's say, "hit and miss?"

If you'll recall, this event happened, allegedly, so speculation in that regard is over and the use of terms like "expectations" are little more than misidirection. Jesus was on earth and he died. If you are claiming (as others have) that he was the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy, then detail what prophecy only could apply to Jesus and why that particular prophet was "correct" and the others were "incorrect."

I'm tired of generalities, so start listing the specifics and how they are legitimate as opposed to anything else that was actually claimed by the authors of the christian cult as being legitimate (from Jesus' mouth, no less).

Essenes had been around for how long? How many lesser, non-mainstream factions of Judaism existed at that time and prior? Why were the Gnostics considered heretics?

It's very simple. The Romans take over the region and have no idea (just like the Russians and the Americans) of the fanatical beliefs in the area and how that devotion will effect the occupying attempt to assimilate the population into being good little Romans. They encounter resistance that embarasses them and their empiracal arrogance. They analyze the situation and see that the ignorant masses they are enslaving adhere doggedly to a particular cult. Within that cult, they see divergent beliefs that they incorrectly think they can exploit in order to subvert the beliefs of the average citizen. They concoct the propaganda and do the equivalent of air-dropping leaflets into the region they are occupying. It doesn't work, so they send in the troops and slaughter as many indigenous "soldiers" as they can.

You do recall from extra-biblical accounts that Pilate slaughtered the Sammaritans in an unsuccessful attempt at quelling uprisings and his actions subsequently resulted in his disgraced removal from his post and, allegedly, finally in his suicide, yes?

Let me try to put everyting into historical perspective. Everyone in that region were in an open-aired Roman jail as far as Romans were concerned. They were all conquered slaves who were to be indoctrinated and consumed by the ever expanding Roman Empire as standard operating procedure. They fought back, however, in any way they could and it resulted in another slaughter (or so the Romans hoped). They were a poeple who would not bow down to Roman supremacy because their cult beliefs did not allow them to do such a thing.

So the Romans came up with a (failed) way to subvert those beliefs. They took a local, dead Rabbi and turned him into the very "messiah" they had all been debating ever since the first messianic prophesies were made.

It's not like messianic prophecy was a new concept to Judaic beliefs, regardless of what was happening at that particular time within various cult factions. As Bill has pointed out, such debates had been raging in the region for several decades if not thoughout the entirety of Judaic beliefs.

Jewish scholars do nothing but debate Jewish laws and Jewish tenets. This didn't just start in one C.E.

Better yet, just open a textbook and read what we did to the native American Indians and you'll see my point. Destroy their beliefs and their minds will follow. This is the number one propaganda influx that corresponds with just about every single occupying force the world has ever known. Whatever the local beliefs are, exploit and destroy them in any way possible.

S.O.P.

That local factions provided the Romans with a means (however failed) to subvert their mainstream beliefs (i.e., give them their messiah and make it seem as if the Jewish leaders and chief priests killed him) and you've got textbook occupying propaganda.

We're not talking about sophisticated people from the Roman perspective. We're talking about primarily nomadic, desert dwelling slaves. It would be the equivalent (in Roman arrogance) of Harvard invading, conquering and ruling over the state of Arkansas. Their beliefs and culture would be considered simplistic and childish and the supremacy of the Roman way of life would have been unquestioned by Roman occupying forces. The Roman Empire was the embodiment of world culture and sophistication and everything that wasn't Roman would have been considered as the equivalent of you or I talking to first graders (if that).

Just as we are deadly wrong about Iraq, the Romans were deadly wrong about Jerusalem. So something had to be done and brutal military oppression didn't seem to be working in the way it had worked for any other conquered region.

See where the basic, simple, realistic logic of all of this is going? When we look back on history, it all becomes a blur of decades if not centuries, but at that time, a year was a year and five years were five years and resistance efforts were monthly if not daily events that were growing and growing and growing, no matter what local garrison rule did. The wars of 70 C.E. (to use your dating) did not, likewise, spring out of a vacuum. That kind of massive military involvement would have been escalating more and more and more as Pilate's (or whoever was there) dictatorial rule was being more and more undermined.

Roman intelligence operatives and liasons would have been sent to find out what Pilate was doing wrong and what would need to be done in order to make things right. It's not like the NT version of things, where the Romans were just ineffective dupes who had no idea how to rule a conquered region and fell prey to the fearful whims of a gathered crowd anymore than what's going on right now in Iraq. The troops would be entrenched and omnipresent and their way of life would be imposed more and more and more on the region, the intent of which, of course, being the eventual envelopment of all indigenous population into the Roman Empire.

Centuries old religious debates would have occured in exactly the same way they have always occured; by individuals within various cults. It is therefore ridiculous to say the Essenes thought this and the Jews thought that as you quite correctly pointed out, because the whole thing would have been an ongoing, decades old debate.

But the gospels, in particular are an end to that debate, unlike any other NT claims. The gospels declare themselves to be the "eyewitness" accounts (in various ways) of what Jesus actually said and did. The vagueries of Paul and the divergent accounts of apostilic attestation took (and take) secondary place to the specific details of the gospel accounts.

Yes, this allegedly began (or, more appropriately, culminated in the writing) some forty years after Jesus' alleged death, which is more than enough time for it to have been a Roman concoction or an extension of the original Jesus cult.

So what was written and how does it track back to Judaism and, more importantly, how does it fulfill the Jewish covenant with their god; how does it legitimately represent a "new" covenant, as incongruously claimed? Does it make any sense that such a "new" covenant would spring up at that particular time and with that particular Rabbi, with the dogma that is outlined in that "new" covenant? Does this "new" covenant in any way fulfill the old, as prophesied by the authors of the old?

You should know, by now, my answer to those questions. It would be as absurd as suggesting that it's time now to write a Third Covenant today (Mormonism notwithstanding); a Third Covenant, by the way, that almost categorically negates the first two (as the alleged NT negates the OT theology).

Again, you're the one that is conflating a timeline here and making it seem as if Judaic debate on issues of Judaism were something unique or new to that particular time (in the general sense).

If the Essenes, for example, had been formulating the Rightous One for even a hundred years, that's a tremendously long time to be debating within one's own small circle such a concept and still doesn't make any sense as to why anyone would have heard of what Jesus actually did (and not aggrandized, biased accounts) and concluded (Essenes notwithstanding) that Jesus was "the" messiah. Yet, as you point out, Paul is allegedly proclaiming Jesus to be "the" Christ (sic) and creating an entire thriving cult among primarily non-Jews and/or "Hellenized" Jews (aka, pantheists, IMO) within just twenty years after Jesus' death.

He supposedly only "preached" for three years and that's all it takes for the Sanhedrin to be so terrified by his presence as to indirectly proclaim him to be the messiah (sic) and do everything in theri power (including making some sort of pact with their Roman oppresor) to insure his death (inexplicably)?

A death that no Jewish cult member would think possible, if, indeed, this were a messenger sent by god? As you point out with Melchy, he "replaced" god and freed the captives. So why did Jesus do nothing of the kind? Why would Jesus be talking about constructs that weren't in Jewish dogma (like heaven and the after life)? And why, more than anything else, would the fulfillment of messianic prophecy (no matter who you invoke) be telling his followers to love oppression because it meant they were blessed by god (something they already were) and would inherit the earth thousands of years into the future? How would a messenger of god be captured and killed by the enemies of god; the enemies of the Jewish people?

Nothing about Jesus' life would have been equated with Jewish messianic prophecy, either in the first century or any subsequent century as has been demonstrated for two thousand years (at least) by the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars and Jewish people.

What you call "christianity" did not exist in the first century or any century, for that matter, since what you are calling "christianity" was, at best, long dead radical thought within long dead cults at best. The original Jesus cult did not "transform" into christianity, it "transformed" (if anything) into Gnosticism, which died long ago as a final death rattle of the original Jesus cult and had little to nothing to do with a physically resurrected "way" to God.

Only the later incarnations of the Roman Empire took advantage of this anti-Judaic mythology, because, IMO, it took root in the people it was not meant to take root within. It was a failed experiment that nonetheless still had value years after it was abandoned by Roman operatives, being the enslavement theology that it is and was.

I'm out of memory for this rant so I'll finish the rest in the next post.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, by careful and intelligent consideration. That's the point. It was deliberate and carefully considered. It just didn't work the way they hoped it would.

Not in the slightest, as the totality of socio-political machinations attests.

Then explain why it represents the antithesis of Judaic tenets and an extremely low percentage of Jewish followers lend it any credence at all.

The messiah (if there is a conglomerate) was a messenger of god whose presence on earth meant the end of Jewish suffering and the beginning of god's reign on earth. Christianity, as history amply proves, fulfills none of that.

Your argument (if I may) is the old argument; that the NT is a "new" covenant. The problem being, of course, that no "new" covenant was ever needed, nor justified, regardless of what a handful of fringe, reformist Jews may or may not want to see happen at any given point in time.

Especially when you factor in Paul's declarations that the Jewish people (in general) had acrued God's wrath for killing his "son!" Nothing about the "new" covenant coincides with traditional (or even radical) Jewish theology and certainly not that the followers of this "new" Judaism were to consider their elders and chief priests to be murderers of their messiah/god.

That is simply absurd and only further supports my contention, IMO.

Orpheus42

Roll up them sleeves, then