lcb

Scroll 4Q246 (Eisenman Group) (peer review:Hebrew University;Dead Sea Scrolls -Antiquities Group-Univ.of California at Los Angeles)

Scroll 4Q246 He shall be called the son of God,and they shall designate him son of the Most High.Like the appearance of comets, so shall be their kingdom. For brief years they shall reign over the earth and shall trample on all;one people shall trample on another and one province on another until the people of God shall rise and all shall rest from the sword.

Comparison to Luke 1:32-35, Does anyone see any consistencies?

Toto

From Luke:

There's nothing in Luke 1:32-35 about comets, or kingdoms reigning for brief years and trampling all, or the people of God rising. No strife at all.

Nothing in Scroll 4Q246 about a virgin birth or an angel.

The Scroll talks about a figure that sounds more like the anti-Christ - he is known as the son of God, but he (or they?) reign briefly, strife ensues, and the "people of God" stage a revolution.

The common point is the reference to a Son of God.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

MortalWombat

But there is no reference to the name "Jesus" in this scroll. Christians weren't the first to come up with the title "Son of God." For example, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jew who would have been a contemporary of Jesus (lived ca. 25 BC to ~40s AD), adopted the Platonic view of the Logos into his own philosophy, referring to the Logos as "the Son" and "the first-begotten of God." Sound familiar?

Amen-Moses

In fact "Son of God" was extremely common in Alexandria as Alexander himself was known as such, in fact ALL Egyptian leaders were so named so the title was as common a "King" is in modern usage (going a little further "King" actually indicates one given rule by virtue of birthright from a divine bloodline).

All this seems a little apt at the time we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of death of "The King".

Amen-Moses

Jayhawker Soule

Similarly, as was quoted in another thread:

Ted Hoffman

First of all who is being said will have the
(a)appearance of a comet (a comet is generally dark (carbon)) and will have a
(b) similar kingdom (dark - evil the dead sea scroll says they will trample on all) which will
(c)reign for a short while?
Who are these people?
These are (of course) the sons of god mentioned in Genesis 6 which says they (giants) "reigned" over the earth for a few years - then Noah was chosen and the flood was employed to cut off their reign, they were wicked, took women as they chose and Genesis is specific: it says they ruled for 120 years.
Among these sons of God was one whom they ("they" of course includes their offsprings) designated as the most high.
In Genesis 6:
The sons of god were of course comets and the 120 years is not referring to mankinds lifespan as some have claimed (Methuselah lived for over 900 years). And the excerpt from the Dead sea scrolls above maintains this earliest tradition - that they were like comets.
I beleive the Dead Sea Scrolls retain one of the earliest traditions of Religions (sumerian, akkadian, mesopotamian and Egyptian) which started as exploded-planet cults.
The use of the word comets (or meteorite) in the above excerpt reveals this.
The ancients beleived that God was an exploded planet that fecundated the earth with the pieces of exploded planet(comets), and that mankind arose/ came from from those comets. Its form this concept that the idea of virgin birth arose.

Back to the word comet and its relation to Christ.
We find "the word" in 1 John 1:
1 John 1 :: King James Version (KJV)
In John 1:
This means the word and God were one.
Where else do we find the word?
In Jeremiah 23 :: King James Version (KJV)
Why was the word like fire? Its talking about a comet.
John the Baptist also talked of Baptism of fire. In Baptism, a new life is supposed to emerge forth.
In the Egyptian Coffin Texts it says the following about the word:
Alan Alford When The Gods Came Down pp.
306.
Here too, we see that the word had fire - ie a comet.
A comet, on falling upon the earth, cools and becomes a rock. Did the ancients beleive life could come from a rock?
Deut 32:17
Any other evidence?
Meteorites, come while heated to very high temperatures and when they hit the earth, because of their speed and heat, they sink deep into the earth:
Isiah 55:1
Its simply all there when we look closely.
Now, as for Luke 1:35 How could the holy Ghost come upon Mary and how could a virgin give birth?
God was a planet, the primeval Jesus was a (flood of) meteorites and therefore, logically, since Jesus was NOT a human being, his mother was not a real human. So who was virgin Mary?
The ancients embraced the idea of a sacred marriage in which a falling sky impregnated a fertile earth - which was like a giant womb able to bring forth all sorts of creatures. This idea is clear in a sumerian legend:
Samuel Kramer History Begins at Sumer as quoted by Alan Alford in When The Gods Came Down pg. 388.
This same idea is also clear in the birth of Horus by virgin Isis in ancient Egyptian texts. Osiris, was born in a similar fashion to Samson of the bible. The Egyptian texts describe Isis' conception thus:
Manoahs wife (though not a virgin) also had an angel appear to her in Judges 13 as a precursor to her impending "virgin birth":
In Judges 13: 20-24
and in 24:
The bible basically has dumbed down versions on ancient beliefs, they employed anthropomorphisms to conceal the actual meanings to the Uninitiated, while at the same time, gain acceptance.

The word became flesh by bringing forth mankind.

Let the wise teach the mystery to the wise.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I claim no expertise in the Dead Sea Scrolls or in the Hebrew language. But I can type well. Here is what Geza Vermes has to say in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (pp. 579-577).

And here is the translation of Vermes.

Thus Vermes. Note that Vermes does not translate this passage with the word "comets," which may indicate that the original language is ambiguous (or perhaps that the other translation of the word is incorrect in this context).

best,
Peter Kirby

lcb

Thanks. Some of your comments were more fair and balanced than I expected. Questions:1. can someone here give a biblical definition of the "anti-christ"? and 2. What was the blasphemy that Jesus Christ said which caused the sanhedrin to decide to turn him over to the Roman authorities for crucifixion? 3. Do you think that Jesus Christ knew that referring to himself as the "son of God" would cause them to crucify him? 4. What was the sanhedrins' definition of the term "Son of God"?

not a theist

Many (most?) modern Jesus historians do not accept that this is what caused the Sanhedrin to turn Jesus over to the Roman authorities. The two seminal events that caused it (if that's even the way it happened at all), were more likely that he:
a.) was believed to have threatened the Temple and
b.) caused a disturbance in the Temple precincts during an important feast.
These event probably made the Jewish authorities nervous that he might try to start a riot or an insurrection which would result in Roman troops being called in and to preempt this they handed him over to the Romans. If I recall correctly, this is the position of Meier, Sanders, and Ehrman.
Most Jesus scholars don't believe that calling himself the son of God or the Messiah would have resulted in being crucified.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

lcb

1. would fomenting rebellion or inciting a riot be against the "Roman peace" and actionable under Roman law?
2. would blasphemy against the orthodox judaism of the sanhedrin be a capital offense under jewish law?
3. would claiming to be God or the son of God be blaspehmy under jewish law?
4. Why did the Romans determine that Jesus had not broken the law but the sanhedrin did?