unknown4

Has anyone read this before? Here's a link with a translation: http://virtualreligion.net/iho/escha...ml#Melchizedek

I've seen other links which have more info, one supposedly referencing something in the book of Daniel which some believe is something in the Daniel 9:24-27 verses. I've also seen the claim that it identifies Melchizedek with Michael, but I haven't seen that in any translation I've read.

The translation I refer to above refers to "the last year of Jubilee" [whichever number], while I've seen another, such as here, http://www.gnosis.org/library/commelc.htm, which this Melchizedek shall proclaim "this decree in the first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods."

If one reads the translation I just gave, one can see there's similarity between that and what the NT says about Jesus. As to what date these fragments are dated, I'm not entirely sure.

Anyway, the translation at gnosis says the "Day of Atonement shall follow after the 10th Jubilee period", "and by his might he will judge God's holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom".

I see a somewhat interesting correlation in the time involved, Jesus supposedly preaching around 28CE, which could be in the "first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods", and that "the Day of Atonement shall follow after the 10th Jubilee period", "and by his might he will judge God's holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom", correlating that with the destruction of the Temple around 70CE.

Do you think that some of the reason for the destruction of the Temple could have been thoughts like these, the idea that the "end times" were supposed to be around 70CE, the establishment of a righteous kingdom, and some were trying to get that to occur at least partially by their own power by fighting the Romans, and "heretics" among the Jews? That would be kind of interesting to think that the story of Jesus was actually based on an actual preacher, during the "first week of the 10th jubilee period", like around 21CE-28CE. If so though, this would seem to argue against the idea that this "preacher" died on a cross for "atonement though", since the "Day of Atonement" and the "righteous kingdom" were supposed to come after the 10th Jubilee, which would have been decades after Jesus supposedly was crucified. Also, the book of Hebrews says Melchezidek was like Jesus, not that he was Jesus himself, doesn't it?

Just my ramblings perhaps, but I just found it an interesting correlation.

John A. Broussard

Lets do some more ramblings. My take on it is that this passage from the old testament, and the entire old testament for that matter, became a part of early christian doctrine merely to buttress the church's claim that Jesus was something special--in this case the Messiah referred to occasionally in the OT. As the church became more and more of a Church, the OT was really a source of embarassment, more and more de-emphasized, with the focus switching to the NT, especially its Petrine elements and truth residing in the papacy and most certainly not in the OT.

Comes the reformation, and we're back to reconciling OT and NT. With higher criticism of the bible emerging in full strength by the 18th century, most christians simply write off the OT as an intriguing collection of not very edifying myths. The reconciliation you mention above is pretty much now the province of fundamentalist theologians. The average fundamentalist simply believes, period.

Wallener

I believe there is sufficient evidence to say what you describe was, indeed, happening. A retired IDF general penned the phrase "Bar Khoba Syndrome" to describe the parallels between certain modern Israeli elements and the rebels who, onced holed up in Jerusalem by the Really Pissed Off Romans, set fire to their own stores of food to force the people into a final confrontation. The idea, as far as can be reconstructed, is that you intentionally create a "win outright or perish utterly" situation to force G-d's intervention based on the promise to keep a "remnant" alive.

Hope that makes sense (not the theory, my description of it ). Fundamentalism and Apocalyptica is a dangerous combination, no matter what the formulation of the underlying belief.