Print Page | Close Window

Was Jesus an Essene?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Forum Name: Questions & Answers
Forum Description: Problems with your history homework or just curious?

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=129674
Printed Date: 19 Jul 2019 at 04:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Was Jesus an Essene?
Posted By: franciscosan
Subject: Was Jesus an Essene?
Date Posted: 27 Jan 2018 at 13:23
Was Jesus an Essene?  I have heard others intimate a connection between Jesus and the Essenes, but I don't really know the arguments pro or con.  Or maybe one should ask, to what degree was Jesus an Essene?  He is Jewish and they're Jewish, is there any more resemblance than that?

I would like hear what people think.



Replies:
Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 29 Jan 2018 at 12:10
The synoptic gospels say that one should not swear.  In other words, one should say what is true, but not swear by god(s) or the hair on one's head (may God strike me bald!).  The prohibition against swearing is a characteristic of the Essenes as mentioned by Josephus.

The synoptic gospels are Matthew. Mark, and Luke.  They share common sources, I forget which or if all have the prohibition against swearing.

John the Baptist is often thought of as an Essene, an ascetic prophetic.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2018 at 14:49
It makes sense that Jesus would be an Essene. Yet "Essene" is Philo's word for them.
What were they known as before 62 AD in Palestine ?-seems important. 


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2018 at 15:52
As I understand it, the Essenes were a sect of Judaism, so does it necessarily follow that Jesus was  an Essene?

Perhaps not.

See  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene" rel="nofollow - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2018 at 23:14
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

As I understand it, the Essenes were a sect of Judaism, so does it necessarily follow that Jesus was  an Essene?

Perhaps not.

See  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene" rel="nofollow - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Essene

IMHO-
If Jesus was a part of any Judean sect it could have only been the Essenes.

Saul of Tarsus, (later known as St Paul) was a Pharisee they lean a bit towards the fascist edge and wanted to wipe out followers of Jesus. 

Saudducee were the ruling class, heavily ritualized and political. Ciaphas, known for turning Jesus over to Pontius Pilate, was a Saudducee.

The Zealots may have liked Jesus but he wasn't pushing a violent overthrow of anything, not his style.

So, Essenes-"children of light" were focused in the spiritual, mystical experience and less of the material world. They were dualistic and I do get hung up on that. 
However, Jesus does criticize the priests of the temple and is angered over the sale of sacrificial animals in the temple. Essenes were waiting for some celestial justice, Jesus is far above revenge.


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2018 at 12:01
Josephus uses the term "Essene."  I don't know if there are any references to Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran), probably not.

Of course, don't forget the Samaritans, who Jesus mentioned in favorable terms (albeit as a way of criticizing Levites and the Priestly cast).  The Samaritans formed in Samaria c. 350 BC and had their own Temple.  They recognized only Torah (Pentateuch), and recognized that the messiah would come from the lineage of Joseph, but not of David.  Samaria is in what was the Northern kingdom of Israel, whereas Jerusalem was in the Southern kingdom of Judea.  Israel was wiped out first, and then later, Judea was conquered, and there was the Babylonian captivity.  They were unified under David and Solomon.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2018 at 12:42
Quote If Jesus was a part of any Judean sect it could have only been the Essenes.

I've emboldened and underlined one word, which, IMHO, makes all the difference. AFAIK, the Bible doesn't mention anywhere that he was or wasn't.

There were obviously some sects that he wasn't a member of. Did he, if he ever existed, have to belong to one of the sects?

Again, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence-either way.



-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2018 at 16:45
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Quote If Jesus was a part of any Judean sect it could have only been the Essenes.

I've emboldened and underlined one word, which, IMHO, makes all the difference. AFAIK, the Bible doesn't mention anywhere that he was or wasn't.

There were obviously some sects that he wasn't a member of. Did he, if he ever existed, have to belong to one of the sects?

Again, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence-either way.


He knew the Jewish Law and he knew the Prophets that's not disputed. Jesus has missing years no accounts offered from age 13 to 30.
Maybe he was in the Dead Sea learning esoteric teachings and ritual.
Jesus leaves us with the most recognized ritual in 2000 years, maybe the Last Supper and Communion are inspired by practices of the Essenes.


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 01 Feb 2018 at 17:28
Quote He knew the Jewish Law and he knew the Prophets that's not disputed. Jesus has missing years no accounts offered from age 13 to 30.

He could also ahve been heavily involved in raising a family and providing for them.


Quote Maybe he was in the Dead Sea learning esoteric teachings and ritual.

Anything's possible.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2018 at 11:59
Anything is possible?  So you acknowledge the validity of miracles?  I mean if you do, cool, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

There are non-canonical stories of him as a young man.

toyomotor, you use absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence way too often..... There is evidence, inside and outside of the New Testament.  There is archaeological evidence, maybe not for what you want, but it is there.  And then there is evidence that we just haven't put together yet, but because yesterday was different than tomorrow, we know it will develop.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2018 at 13:09
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Anything is possible?  So you acknowledge the validity of miracles?  I mean if you do, cool, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

There are non-canonical stories of him as a young man.

toyomotor, you use absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence way too often..... There is evidence, inside and outside of the New Testament.  There is archaeological evidence, maybe not for what you want, but it is there.  And then there is evidence that we just haven't put together yet, but because yesterday was different than tomorrow, we know it will develop.

1. No, you're twisting the point I was making. I was referring to the post only.

2. No, and again I was referring to the post only. I don't believe in miracles or luck.

3. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

4. If the evidence hasn't been put together yet, how to you claim it as evidence?

5. Are you using the Bible, known to be more myth than fact, as your reference?

6. Prove to me that he even existed.

Vanuatu mentioned a 17year period when there is a blank in this person's life, according to......?

I claimed that, if he existed at all, he could have been working to provide for his family, not lollygagging around the synagogues. No more-no less.




-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2018 at 23:19
toyomotor,
Not everyone embraces miracles for me anything is possible, I do believe in miracles & we are talking about belief not facts.
These ideas about Jesus are meant to be argued and beliefs do evolve. The evidence proves that the gospels are authentic works from the time period, archaeology etc. 

Personally I like exploring idea that the crucifixion was a literary event and that Jesus was a historical figure forged into a legend because he was enlightened. 

I don't think we can prove Jesus lived in the same way historians prove facts about ancient history, clearly that has not stopped the persistence of the idea of Jesus. This is an example of how Jesus' lefe story is still evolving. 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/themovement.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/themovement.html
Outside of the New Testament canon, we have only one more extensive narrative of Jesus' suffering and death, and that has appeared in the Gospel of Peter. Now it was known in ancient times that there was such a thing as the Gospel of Peter.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html#eusebius" rel="nofollow - Eusebius  of Caesarea, the earliest church historian at the beginning of the 4th century, tells about the fact that there was a Gospel of Peter which was used by some communities in Syria.But no one really knew what was in this gospel until at the end of the last century papyrus was discovered, which was a small amulet that a soldier had been wearing around his neck and which was given into the tomb of this soldier, and when it was opened up it turned out to be a text that told the story of the suffering and death and resurrection of Jesus. But it is told in such a way that one can assume that it was not dependent upon the canonical gospels that we have. But that at least part of this gospel goes back to the same story, but draws from the oral tradition of the telling of that story


fransicosan, agree, the non canonical writings are more important than the church's version of events.
Jesus would not have necessarily belonged to any sect but then how could he become educated?
I agree if he was involved in a sect it would have been the Essenes because they were healers. 



-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 02 Feb 2018 at 23:56
Franciscosan
Quote toyomotor,
Not everyone embraces miracles for me anything is possible, I do believe in miracles & we are talking about belief not facts.
These ideas about Jesus are meant to be argued and beliefs do evolve. The evidence proves that the gospels are authentic works from the time period, archaeology etc.

1. Believing something doesn't make it so.

2. The Bible was compiled some 300 years after the death of Jesus. True, there are documents which speak to the actuality of events recorded, but Hans Christian Anderson also wrote stories too. I would agree with you that some of the information contained in the New Testament could have a basis in fact, but not all of it.

Quote Personally I like exploring idea that the crucifixion was a literary event and that Jesus was a historical figure forged into a legend because he was enlightened.

3. You mean like the Mahatma Bhudda?

Quote I don't think we can prove Jesus lived in the same way historians prove facts about ancient history, clearly that has not stopped the persistence of the idea of Jesus. This is an example of how Jesus' life story is still evolving.

4. Of course you can't prove that he ever existed, or that his deeds were performed as recorded. I could go along with the fact that he wasn't dead when removed from the cross, was taken to the cave and attended to, and then spirited away by supporters. That is if he ever existed. If his life story is still evolving, what's left to reveal, that he was an interstellar traveller? I like the idea that he, his wife Mary (Magdalene) and their family moved to Southern France where they either founded or became part of the Merovingian family. Prove that it didn't happen!!!

Quote Outside of the New Testament canon, we have only one more extensive narrative of Jesus' suffering and death, and that has appeared in the Gospel of Peter. Now it was known in ancient times that there was such a thing as the Gospel of Peter.  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html#eusebius" rel="nofollow - Eusebius  of Caesarea, the earliest church historian at the beginning of the 4th century, tells about the fact that there was a Gospel of Peter which was used by some communities in Syria.But no one really knew what was in this gospel until at the end of the last century papyrus was discovered, which was a small amulet that a soldier had been wearing around his neck and which was given into the tomb of this soldier, and when it was opened up it turned out to be a text that told the story of the suffering and death and resurrection of Jesus. But it is told in such a way that one can assume that it was not dependent upon the canonical gospels that we have. But that at least part of this gospel goes back to the same story, but draws from the oral tradition of the telling of that story

Nor throughout history was there any mention of Jesus' brother, James (The Just)-what other siblings did he have, I've forgotten. And why was the fact of James' existence kept from us for nearly 2000 years? What else has been kept from us?

 
Quote
fransicosan, agree, the non canonical writings are more important than the church's version of events.
Jesus would not have necessarily belonged to any sect but then how could he become educated?
I agree if he was involved in a sect it would have been the Essenes because they were healers.

So, now if in those days you were educated at all, you must have belonged to a sect? Is that what you're saying?

And what level of education did he achieve?

But once again you've managed to drag us away from the OP.

The question was, "Was Jesus and Essene?"

There's no proof either way.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2018 at 00:32
Quote 1. Believing something doesn't make it so.

Prove it! lol

Quote 2. The Bible was compiled some 300 years after the death of Jesus. True, there are documents which speak to the actuality of events recorded, but Hans Christian Anderson also wrote stories too. I would agree with you that some of the information contained in the New Testament could have a basis in fact, but not all of it.
So do Anderson's stories. Everything we perceive is structured around the facts that we BELIEVE.
Yes some things are more easily believed than others, healthy skepticism and an open mind are necessary.
Yes I do see Jesus as Buddha-type master healer.


Quote I like the idea that he, his wife Mary (Magdalene) and their family moved to Southern France where they either founded or became part of the Merovingian family.
I like that idea too.
Quote Prove that it didn't happen!!!
Why would I try that? I gain nothing.
Quote  Nor throughout history was there any mention of Jesus' brother, James (The Just)-what other siblings did he have, I've forgotten. And why was the fact of James' existence kept from us for nearly 2000 years? What else has been kept from us?
I didn't know this about James, never heard this my friend.

Quote so, now if in those days you were educated at all, you must have belonged to a sect? Is that what you're saying?
It follows that poor people would not be educated in the time of Christ. You disagree?


 






-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2018 at 11:05
Vanuatu

I've mentioned in other posts that agnosticism has come to me later in life.

When I was young, I attended church every Sunday-and listened!

James (The Just) was never mentioned. Nor any suggestion of a more than friendly relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

In fact, the thought of Jesus having siblings would have been heresy.

I agree with your last point, but the son of a humble carpenter, I would have thought, would not have qualified as being wealthy.

All I'm saying, is that there is no proof, either way, of Jesus being an Essene, not that it makes a difference.

So what if he was?

Who started this thread anyway?Wink


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Feb 2018 at 21:27
Quote I agree with your last point, but the son of a humble carpenter, I would have thought, would not have qualified as being wealthy.

Essene would have had a merit based system much like Australian Immigration.
 


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 04 Feb 2018 at 18:02
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Quote I agree with your last point, but the son of a humble carpenter, I would have thought, would not have qualified as being wealthy.

Essene would have had a merit based system much like Australian Immigration.
 

How do you know that?



-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2018 at 03:41
http://www.setapartpeople.com/essenes" rel="nofollow - http://www.setapartpeople.com/essenes
"Covenant Renewals"


Lot's of Rules 'n Reg's. Money wasn't required. The link shows the numbered documents from Qumran related to initiates and origins.
A stranger wouldn't get near the Covenant of Grace until they were deemed worthy. Yet in the community at Qumran, women and children of "Strangers" lived around the Essene. If a Stranger  had  possessions he turned it over (which accounts for all the loot at the site) and he could become an initiate. 


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Feb 2018 at 08:31
It is (probably) necessary but not sufficient that someone be Jewish in order to be an Essene, if someone is not Jewish than they are not an Essene, therefore being Jewish is necessary evidence for being an Essene.  John the Baptist is often characterized as an Essene, Jesus is characterized as a disciple (follower) of John the Baptist, therefore, if John was an Essene, and Jesus was a follower of John, then was Jesus an Essene.
Of course, Jesus could be something else.  Something new.  But wouldn't there be 'Essenism' in Jesus' background?
But as far as John the Baptist is concerned, sure he is not 'called' Essene, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

There are something like 8 to 10 gospels known, 4 canonical, and then others non-canonical.  Plus other sources, but hey, I don't know that you exist, toyomotor;) so how can I be "sure" that Jesus 'existed/exists'?  You wouldn't be skeptical about a claim of someone from antiquity is that claim didn't contain miracle accounts.  Be honest about what is bothering you, you don't like the miracle claims.  No?


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2018 at 11:54
And your proof is?

-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2018 at 13:28
My proof of what?

Scholars divide Jews of the 1st century BC into Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, maybe Hellenized Jews (or Herodians?), there may be others.

John the Baptist as an Essene is something put forth in New Testament class.   Both are ascetic.  Is it certain, no.  Is it something that can be reasonably entertained, yes.

Gospel of Thomas, and fragments of Gospel of Mary are in Nag Hammadi library, plus maybe a couple others in there (Gnostic), Gospel of Judas.  

"Jesus an Essene?" is a question.  One is dealing with inductive evidence, which by its very nature cannot be 100% conclusive.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Feb 2018 at 16:07
Ho hum!!

Does it really matter?

I thought he was a shepherd, son of a carpenter.

 


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2018 at 02:08
Paul definitely takes the Jesus story to a place that the Nazarene Essenes were not going. Paul's idea about Rome and the Law were meant to establish a church and he succeeds at that but Jesus was practicing an arcane spirituality and seeing new ideas.

"In 60 C.E., when incoming procurator Festus indicated that he was willing to hand Paul over to the Sanhedrin for trial, Paul declared himself a Roman citizen and demanded trial before Nero." 
"That Paul was not born a Roman citizen is certain. Most likely he was granted denization papers about 48 CE by Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, whom Paul converted to Christianity and whose name he thereafter adopted (Acts 13:6-12). Paul's prudence in concealing his Roman status for a decade was confirmed by the consequences of his enforced revelation. Jacob [James] had barely tolerated Paul to begin with. At the news that Paul had accepted citizenship from the hated occupying power, Jacob in effect excommunicated him. Envoys were sent from Jerusalem to convert all of Paul's Christian communities to Nazirite Judaism. All cooperation between the Nazirites and Paul's gentile followers ceased, and the way was open for a Christian (John Markos was a Nazirite) to write the Gospel of Mark (as it was later called), which all but repudiated Jesus' Jewishness." 
     - William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus
http://essene.com/Bnai-Amen/qabbal.htm" rel="nofollow - http://essene.com/B'nai-Amen/qabbal.htm


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2018 at 02:10
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Ho hum!!

Does it really matter?

I thought he was a shepherd, son of a carpenter.

 
Yes.
Are you equating Ego = Value?


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2018 at 05:34
I am not sure what Vanuatu is asking, toyomotor, as far as "does it really matter?" 
well it matters, to me, but does not necessarily have to matter for you 
(now that I think of it, I guess that is what Vanuatu is saying?  Vanuatu?)
Jesus would have been a carpenter, trained in the family business, he
might have done some shepherding, although I don't know if the Bible 
describes him actually doing shepherding.  Shepherding becomes
metaphorical, taking care of the flock. fleecing them and turning them
into mutton (well, maybe not the last two things<grin> )

I did not know of the Nazarites.  But, I am sure that there were many,
many Jewish and thus later Christian subgroups.  As the saying goes,
two Jews, three opinions....


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2018 at 06:10
Well subgroups yes, the Judean People's Front , the People's Front of Judea :)

And yes being a prominent figure in the world would not exclude you from being a spiritual teacher it just isn't necessary. 


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2018 at 12:14
Franciscosan & Vanuatu

When I was a regular church attendee, there was never any debate about whether Jesus was an Essene or not.

While, in this day and age it may be of interest to speculate on this, my point is, does it make any difference to the Christian faith or not. I don't think so. Those who believe will continue to do so, while grumpy old agnostics like me will sit and wait for some conclusive proof.

In other posts, I've questioned whether or not Jesus and the whole story was fact or just a bunch of stories to enhance the mystique of a myth. Let's not even touch on the Old Testament which is so obviously, IMHO, fantasy.

Along these lines, I foundan article in Ancient Origins, which broadly suggests that the Jesus story has some fairly close parallels  with stories of people who long preceeded him.

If you're interested, see  http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/tammuz-and-jesus-more-distant-connection-009567" rel="nofollow - http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/tammuz-and-jesus-more-distant-connection-009567




-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 11 Feb 2018 at 12:49
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Franciscosan & Vanuatu

When I was a regular church attendee, there was never any debate about whether Jesus was an Essene or not.

While, in this day and age it may be of interest to speculate on this, my point is, does it make any difference to the Christian faith or not. I don't think so. Those who believe will continue to do so, while grumpy old agnostics like me will sit and wait for some conclusive proof.

In other posts, I've questioned whether or not Jesus and the whole story was fact or just a bunch of stories to enhance the mystique of a myth. Let's not even touch on the Old Testament which is so obviously, IMHO, fantasy.

Along these lines, I foundan article in Ancient Origins, which broadly suggests that the Jesus story has some fairly close parallels  with stories of people who long preceeded him.

If you're interested, see  http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/tammuz-and-jesus-more-distant-connection-009567" rel="nofollow - http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/tammuz-and-jesus-more-distant-connection-009567



Hi toyomotor
Agree. It's the Greek then Romanized view of archetypes and heroes. One also finds "Son of Man" "Son of God" and "The Word" in arcane literature. Who directed the narrative and continued the story? I guess Byzantium did at a critical time.

Certainly likely that hundreds of thousands of people have come and gone from the world having mystic or spiritual strengths that helped people in the their own time. The healers were concerned with preserving knowledge and go to great lengths to keep valuable information secret. The Roman Catholic Church was intent on driving a very specific message about need for redemption.

It's the gospels canonical -and not- which are convincing to me. Even there we see that some mistranslated words and phrases have helped to skew the nature of what Jesus was teaching. Which seems to be Nazarine Essene "Way" as described in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  
**yet there are clear distinctions to be sure


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2018 at 05:45
Is toyomotor a member of the British Commonwealth?  I have never heard it said that toyomotor is a member of the British Commonwealth.  It must not be important.....  Some people would like it to appear like Jesus came out of nowhere, and had no influences other than those expressly stated in Canonical scripture.  Other people of course, might like to explain _away_ Jesus as one of many "dying" god figures in the ancient world.

No, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is not fantasy, besides the laws, proverbs, psalms, apocalypses.  The Hebrew Bible is an example of "history" before history as a genre existed.   The Greeks considered their mythology to be an extension/precursor to their history.  Yahweh is a lot less fanciful than the Olympians, the Iliad or the Odyssey. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 14 Feb 2018 at 10:00
Franciscosan wrote
Quote Is toyomotor a member of the British Commonwealth?  I have never heard it said that toyomotor is a member of the British Commonwealth.

If you've never heard it said, you've probably not seen it in writing either. Yes, toyomotor is a loyal member of the British Commonwealth. Plenty of documentation to confirm that-Google British Commonwealth and Australian Citizens.

Quote No, the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible is not fantasy, besides the laws, proverbs, psalms, apocalypses.  The Hebrew Bible is an example of "history" before history as a genre existed.   The Greeks considered their mythology to be an extension/precursor to their history. 

Now, you have to be kidding me. 

Quote Genesis 5, the Book of the Generations of Adam, lists the descendants of Adam from Seth to Noah with their ages at the birth of their first sons (except Adam himself, for whom his age at the birth of Seth, his third son, is given) and their ages at death (Adam lives 930 years). from Wiki

No-one lives to be 930 years old. And this is only one example. There are a lot more, Methusla for example.

Believe what you like, it's not within my remit to tell you what to believe and what not to believe.




-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2018 at 08:13
You're just jealous because they made it that far, and you (and I) won't:P

But seriously, it was not until recently that the "literal" reading of the Bible came into vogue.  I can understand you getting hung up on passages in Genesis, most people starting at the beginning don't necessarily get any further.  We have Babylonian seal stones that depict a man, a woman, and a serpent, the flood story is in cuneiform sources.  No, those did not "literally" happen, but they do reflect the Babylonian, probably Sumerian and even earlier? cultures world view.
The rules in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy are more sophisticated versions of ancient codes like the Hammurabi Code.  Whereas, the Exodus probably did not happen that way, much of the historical figures in Judges, and Kings are demonstrated by archaeology.  There probably was a real Abram who got sick of the Babylonian gods, rule by committee, and set out on his own.  David and Solomon existed and so did the kings listed after them.  The Babylonian captivity happened and so did the Israelites return.
Much of the historical data has been confirmed by inscriptions and archaeology.  I would suggest that you not get snared by the miracle stories, when looking at the whole.  Now of course, such an account is full of all kinds of biases and slanted stories in all kinds of directions.  But, I would suggest that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 15 Feb 2018 at 22:30
So do you think Jesus was an Essene? Why?

-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 16 Feb 2018 at 11:54
In my opinion, Jesus was _not_ an Essene, but he may have had that background and been building on it.  Just like Jesus was not really a follower of John the Baptist, but according to the gospels, used John as a "springboard" for his own teachings.
I feel that it is certain that Jesus knew about the Essenes, and that he knew more than just a superficial acquaintance.  He could have formerly been an Essene, but I think that that conclusion goes beyond the evidence.  The evidence does not contradict it, but it does not confirm it either.  At least the evidence that I have looked at so far, synoptic gospels, and Josephus' comments about the Essenes.  I have not tried to crunch the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is too much effort for too little potential reward.  Josephus calls the Essenes 'Pythagoreans.'  But looking at the synoptic gospels, Jesus is not a Pythagorean but may be playing off of, and against some of their sayings.  Sayings which admittedly, we are not sure were "Pythagorean," because a lot of stuff was later attributed to Pythagoras and/or the Pythagoreans long after their time.  

To say that Jesus was an Essene would be like saying, Spinoza was a Cartesian, or Marx was a Hegelian.  It may help one understand Spinoza if one knows Descartes, but Spinoza's mature writings don't require it.  It may help one understand Marx if one looks at Hegel and his dialectic, but it is not necessary.  It is just that some things will probably be less obscure if you understand where Marx got it, not that I am wishing Marx on anyone.  I think Marx is a mistake, on the other hand, we have to study our mistakes before we can learn from them.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2018 at 00:28
http://essene.com/History/PythagorasAndNazareans.html" rel="nofollow - http://essene.com/History/PythagorasAndNazareans.html

It doesn't make sense that Jesus would be a 'casual' Essene. No one was casual about becoming an an initiate. Maybe he exceeds the Essene's understanding and moves on to the Abraham/Moses level of mind.

Or maybe he never had to be taught anything spiritually, learned Judaism from an oral history.

If you are going to pick and choose what is "known" about Pythagoras, might as well throw out the lot. We don't know anything factual about Pythagoras. Consider what the Nazarene Essenes have in common with him.  


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 18 Feb 2018 at 12:11
"casual" would not be my word choice.  To pull in a very different example, the Athenian playwright Aeschylus was accused of revealing the mysteries.  Aeschylus proved that he was not initiated into the mysteries and therefore could not reveal them in his plays.  Then all of a sudden the accuser became the accused for the accuser had to reveal the mysteries in order to accuse Aeschylus.  I think of Jesus as someone who was immersed in the flow of the culture, that he would have figured out teachings of the Essenes, not in the sense of factual knowledge, but just having the sense of where they were coming from. Of course, being at that level he could communicate with others on their level as well.  It is like if I was Tom Clancy (author of Hunt for Red October), submariners would be dying to talk to me, for I could tell them something about submarines that even they don't know.  They would assume that I (Tom Clancy) would know more about Submarines than I know and would be free in conversation.  

So I don't know what Jesus' relationship/connection to the Essenes would be, but I would think that he would blow them away with the level of his consciousness.  But, I also think that if he was connected to them, that would not necessarily show up in writings about him (the Gospels).  Remember that he was controversial to the point of being executed, if he was a friend of the Essenes he (or his followers) would not necessarily say so, lest they bring down the Romans on them.

We know a lot about Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, it is just that because of a few miracle stories, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.  A portion of those stories are impossible, I mean _logically_ impossible.  Pythagoras was said to cure a man of murderous rage by playing the lyre and singing, in Tauromenium.  Problem is, Tauromenium wasn't founded until 150 years after Pythagoras.  Stories like that, could be it got garbled in transmission, but I don't think so.  I think that details tell anyone sharp that the story is, let us say, a 'colorful' one.  Other stories having meanings as far as Southern Italian history, that Pythagoras converted the "Daunian" bear (Daunian tribesmen), or destroyed a serpent in Lucania (Sybaris) and a small one in Etruria (the Etruscan Roman kingship.)

Remember that Pythagoras is also around the time of the beginning of history.  So not having a firm (or any) grasp of history, they would probably talk figuratively about enemies being serpents, or threatening barbarians being bears.  Pythagoras is about 532 BC, Herodotus "the father of History" settled in Thurium after it was founded, it was founded in 443 BC in Southern Italy.  There are a few people significant for the development of history before Herodotus, but not many.
But we know a lot more about Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, then we think we know.  However, for a lot of things, we are uncertain.  We don't, in the famous words of that philosopher Donald Rumsfeld, "know that we know."  We have a lot of information, but don't know what to make of it.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 24 Feb 2018 at 09:53
Josephus writes about John the Baptist, and about the Essenes, but he never refers to John the Baptist as an Essene.  I could imagine that someone recounting the story of a controversial figure like John the Baptist, might not want to associate him with the Essenes, lest the Essenes also become controversial.  I am not saying that is what happened, I am saying that one could imagine that there may have been reasons why, in a society where the truth can get you killed, for not telling everything.

But I mentioned Josephus on John the Baptist and on the Essenes, because it is ancient evidence that calls into question modern speculations that John the Baptist was an Essene.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 25 Feb 2018 at 13:32
If it were a question of Josephus vs the gospels of Matthew and Mark (?) who do you find more reliable?
The oldest extant text from J., is 11th century. Matthew is 70 AD, Mark has the earliest record of the death of John the Baptist and the Q source is obviously older being the spoken word source. :)

Some people have observed that Philo and Josephus give contrasting descriptions of the Temple at Jerusalem. A focus (or lack of) on numerology, specific symbolism and different interpretations of symbolism. Such as Bread, Tree of Life, vestments and traditions.

Yes there are lots of reasons to leave things out. How to wrap one's head around an ancient author's clues and omissions?


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 26 Feb 2018 at 10:30
Q source was a _written_ source of sayings, compiled from oral sayings.

The earliest copy of Matthew is probably 5th-6th century.  Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus.

For theology, I would trust Matthew or Mark, the Gospels are not meant to be historical, for history, I would trust Josephus, but not completely.  Josephus is kissing up to the Romans, his work is skewed, but so is any work of ancient history.  I don't know how it compares to Philo, but Philo is a ?philosopher?, not a historian.

We have a relatively free society, where one can say just about anything (although not without consequences), that is not true of antiquity, the Middle Ages, or even most societies today.  The writer has to write in a style that often conceals the true meaning of what they are saying in order to get around the reality of a closed society, and persecution.  The reader, on the other hand, has to "read between the lines" in order to get the true meaning of the writer.  Censors, on the other hand, tend to be stupid and take things at face value.  The writer will often instruct the reader how to read his work.  Dialogues are very useful in exploring an issue, while at the same time concealing the writer's intention in writing the dialogue.  A censor, for example, will assume that one character, (such as Plato's Socrates), represents the true opinion of the author, whereas it can be more complex than that.  The writer will sometimes vehemently criticize opinions that are out of favor by the censors, but in the process, the writer "has to" state and explain what he is criticizing.

Another example, is Russian literary criticism.  Ostensively, the critic is doing an interpretation according to xyz theory of, say, Pushkin, but in doing so the writer brings up an understand of the contemporary situation, in USSR.

The Gospels are something different, I am not sure that there is an exoteric/esoteric element to the NT, or for that matter, the Gospels.  I am not sure, definitely certain sects believed in an esoteric Jesus.

Leo Strauss has written several essays related to this subject, "Persecution and the Art of Writing," "Writing between the Lines"? "Exoteric Writings" ?  (exoteric teachings??)  One thing to remember about Strauss, Strauss's interpretation is probably self-reflexive.  The interpretation that he propounds in his writings, should probably be applied to his own writings.



Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2018 at 00:53
Ok right, no idea that oral histories were eventually written down, only you held that information. Guess that's why you get the big bucks. Philo is irrelevant but do bore us with Plato. Funny the religious philosophers of first century Egypt weren't irrelevant when you bleating about Origen and Clement. 
Ah, Consistency. Or is it intellectual dishonesty?




-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Mar 2018 at 10:34
In scholarship "Q" is a hypothetical source, a written copy of oral sayings.  Q is not "the spoken word source,"  Tom, Dick or Mary is the spoken word source.  I just want to make sure that you are not confused, Vanuatu.<grin>  But, really, there is a search in Biblical scholarship to get as original as you can get.  This is protestant thang, Protestant wanting to get back to early Christianity, whereas Catholicism and Orthodox are mediated (in Protestant eyes) by the Church Fathers.  "Q" meaning Quelle, comes from the German word for "source," they would love to be able to claim an oral source, because that would be more originary than a written source.  That is why I nitpick and correct you.  The "Q" document would be the holy grail of biblical scholarship, if it existed.  The Gospel of Thomas probably comes the closest.
I am not saying that Philo is irrelevant, I am saying I don't know much about him, but I do know that he is not a historian.  He is Jewish, and he is doing philosophical things with his background, just as Origen and Clement are Christian, but Neoplatonists.  I think Philo is also a Neoplatonist, but Jewish in background and his interpretation. obtw, since you asked about Origen and Clement, you should note that while they are Church Fathers, they were not saints.  In other words, in their teachings they taught some things that were later rejected by the canon of the Church.  Origen also cut off his 'nads.  Trying to get away from the temptation of sex or something like that.  Ouch, it hurts just saying that!  I like Clement, I stay away from Origen, especially if he has sharp objects.  btw, Philo also is probably considered a Platonist, but I am not sure about that.
I am afraid that I am just not as omniscient as you obviously expect me to be.  As Dirty Harry says, "a man's gotta understand his limitations."  I do have a limited bag of tricks, and tend to repeat them.  Sorry:(


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 02 Mar 2018 at 23:12
So to recap;

the oral tradition could have been written by "Q" source as many agree it's a possibility

Philo is releveant to the story of the Essenes

Most scholars reject Josephus' mention of Jesus as historical fact

Religious philosophers are only relevant to the development of the faith, not factual historical information.
Is that it?


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 08:15
No, the oral tradition was not written, the written tradition was written.  The oral tradition was probably somewhat fluid, until it was copied down and instantiated.  The "Q" document is theoretical.  In other words, it is some thing (or some things) that scholars hypothesize, but we don't know if there was such a thing (or things) in reality.  But, I am just having fun with you, Vanuatu, just like you are having fun with me.Wink  But in any case, Q did not write the oral tradition....Clap

I have read 'of' Philo, but I have never really read him, if you say he is relevant to the story of the Essenes, I'll take your word for it, and I may chase down references sometime.  There is a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit coming to Denver in March.  I think I have an abridged collection of Philo.

Actually scholars do not reject "Josephus' mention of Jesus as a historical fact." they reject that it was Josephus who mentioned it and consider it an addition, a note in the margin that later got added to the text.  Whether it reflects anything historical is another question.  <grin> I know you know that (and you know that I know that you know), I am just giving you a hard time.LOL

Shopping lists give historical information, historical information can be gleaned from just about anything.  Although sometimes doing so misses the point.  Like when people trade the Truth for a few random facts.  So yes, Philo can be used as a historical source, but I am not sure whether doing _only_ that would do justice to Philo.  It could be like reading the Hebrew Bible (OT), in order to pick out interesting baby names.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 09:38
It's all in fun most assuredly. Wink
Shopping lists and garbage heaps, mass graves too ooze data. Were there ever any remains found at Masada??
 
First, maybe I've mentioned that I grew up strict Catholic, Holy Days, Confession and all the rest including school.
The Christians I knew took a dim view of Josephus. He is the historiographer who is also an apologist that left out key parts of the OT in Antiquities of the Jews. Not to the approval of my associates. Guess I thought Christians were in line on that one. I'm not sure how much Josephus confirms about Jesus.(?)
So, Philo supports what Josephus says about the Essenes and adds more details. Which make Josephus more credible as an -historian. Yet who can say who wrote in the bit about Jesus?
As you said -Jesus' so called missing years were not spent as an Essene- if you accept Philo:
 Thus no Essene is a mere child nor even a stripling or newly bearded, since the characters of such are unstable with a waywardness corresponding to the immaturity of their age, but full grown and already verging on old age, no longer carried under by the tide of the body nor led by the passions, but enjoying the veritable, the only real freedom.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0130Philo.php" rel="nofollow - http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0130Philo.php


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 10:32
There are some written remains (papyrus or parchment) from Masada.  The writing style (letter shape, etc) is very useful because it can be correlated with remains from Qumran, and therefore certain documents can thus be stylistically dated.  I don't know what exactly from Masada is preserved.

When Josephus entitles his work, "Antiquities of the Jews," he is kind of appealing to the Roman veneration of the old.  I think some ancient Jews would have considered a Quisling (or the ancient equivalent).  He, on the other hand, would consider himself a realist, facing the reality of Roman power.  Explaining the Jews to the Romans, but also at the same time implicitly explaining the Jews to themselves, and the Romans to the Jews.  He also places Judaism within the Western Greco-Roman tradition of history.  Yes, the Jews have a particular history of their own, but Josephus places them in the tradition of Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Julius Caesar, Tacitus, etc.

Josephus is not a Christian, and he does not have a Christian agenda.  So people who want support of their religious position are not going to find it being trumpeted from Josephus.

I am probably a pretty poor Christian, got too much pagan learnin' in me.  Also, Jewish teachin's and some Japanese aesthetics.

I think that you can say that the bit (one simple sentence?) about Jesus in Josephus is part of the "manuscript tradition".  It probably got added, possibly inadvertently, and who knows where it came from?

There is an article in a Hershel Shanks anthology, about John the Baptist maybe being a Essene, that I got to read.

Plato said you should be 40 to study philosophy (and yet Socrates is always talking to young men), (or did he say that? Plato's Socrates said that (Republic), but what was Plato's true opinion?).  I believe one should be 40 before studying Jewish mysticism, the Kabbalah.  And, yes one of the advantages of old age is the diminution of the passions. 


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 12:28
Quote I think that you can say that the bit (one simple sentence?) about Jesus in Josephus is part of the "manuscript tradition".  It probably got added, possibly inadvertently, and who knows where it came from?

Actually it's a bit more than that one sentence. I don't think the Last Supper and the Essene communal meal are easily separated.

 Josephus may have considered himself to be following in a tradition of writers, conquered people, seeing a way to preserve their ethnic past without annoying the occupying force.  It would have been a deliberate appeasement right? No accidental obfuscating. 


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 13:43
Josephus was a survivor, and he wanted his people to survive.  He was originally a 'freedom fighter' going against the Romans.  In my understanding he was in group that did a suicide pact (like Masada), he arranged it so he got the long straw, killed the last guy, and was supposed to kill himself, but he didn't and I think he then surrendered to the Romans.  I am not sure what you mean by appeasement, but he presented Jewish culture and history to the Romans, probably acknowledging that Rome was meant to rule.  Remember he is after the destruction of the Temple, and the diaspora.  Judaism _had_ to change, enough with these zealots, thinking that Rome would be overthrown by some political, kingly Messiah.  Rome was brutal, and Judaea did not have the wherewithal to stand up against Rome in its prime.  Godly intervention aside.

I haven't checked, but I think Jesus is mentioned once, in passing, and it is considered a scribal addition.  That does not mean there can't be other connections. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 20:50
In modern day Middle East, the custom of the extended family eating together is still common.

Also, as a mater of Middle Eastern politeness, one should remove their shoes before entering the home, and expect a fairly prolonged conversation, over a cup of tea, about our respective families, our herds and everything but the topic at hand.

Eventually, usually during or after a meal, the business at hand can be discussed, in the absence of the women and children.

What's changed in over 2000 years? Nothing.

The point I'm making is that one need not have been an Essene to partake of a communal meal.

Membership of various sects or groups waxed or waned, dependant on the local Government (Roman) permissions, and the pharisees, whose influence also waxed and wained from being a religeous group, militant political group and finally, a convention of learning.

It was also mentioned in a previous post that Jesus disappeared from the records for a number of years. 
 
In recent years, speculation has arisen that Jesus, during the missing 18 years, travelled extensively through the Middle East perhaps as far as India, China and/or Japan. It has aslo been speculated that he visited Europe, including England, speaking with and learning from the scribes.

So far there has been little evidence to corroborate these trips, but it is said that written records and artefacts exist in India and perhaps China.

But this remains speculation. Various artefacts located, while giving an slight indication this the travelling could be true, I'll wait for the truth-proven.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 03 Mar 2018 at 23:55
There is a highly devoted cult to Jesus in Japan. Not exactly our idea but very interesting.
The Essene communal meal was ritualized it is different in the sense that the a person was selected to lead the meal make the appropriate blessings, drink or eat first and pass along the food.
Very much has changed in our food culture. I don't say we have completely lost the intimacy of the communal meal but it ain't what it used to be.There is more on the meal ritual for later.




-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2018 at 11:10
Have you heard about the (Italian) slow food movement?  But of course, it is the set up of the whole entire society that calls for the fast food culture.  To do slow food, you have to have the time, which, oddly enough, greater convenience and more time savers means less time.

Jesus probably never left Palestine.  The exception in the Bible being Egypt, but Joseph went to Egypt and Moses returned, so I wonder if the Gospels are just evoking the travels of the Jewish people.  No, I know toyomotor, we can't be sure.  But I would say it is beyond a reasonable doubt.  Of course, Mormons think he got to the New World, along with the lost tribes of Israel.  They are nice myths, and by that I don't mean anything so crude as being false.  I don't believe in the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail (at least not the Indiana Jones version), but on the other hand, if such things 'exist' they don't depend on my belief.  You might say I don't disbelieve in it either.

Japan would be a stretch by any imagination, look at where Japan is, in 30 AD, culturally nowhere.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 04 Mar 2018 at 13:32
Franciscosan

Quote Jesus probably never left Palestine. 

How do you know? Answer: You don't.

18 years, or thereabouts, he's out of the picture. He could have travelled through Europe or Asia during that time.

Quote  But I would say it is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

How can you say that when there's no evidence either way.

You're entitled to believe, but not state facts without proof.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2018 at 07:54
Are you say there is one block of 18 years, or several blocks of time which add up to 18 years or what?  And how old was he during this time?  If he is three years old or for that matter, thirteen, he probably is not traveling unless his father is a merchant (which he wasn't).

People _could_ travel great distances in those days, but the majority in antiquity (and the Middle Ages) didn't.  At least that is what I have heard.  I don't see why Jesus would be an exception to that rather than the rule.  The Judaic world is his world, although he may have known some Greek.

There _is_ evidence, there are studies of the ancient world, and there are the Gospels.  You toyomotor seem to be assuming that because there is one (or more) big blocks of time in his life, that he must have done _something_ in that time.  But, maybe the gospels don't report that time because there is nothing really to report.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2018 at 09:49
Quote I am not sure what you mean by appeasement, 

Josephus had remodeled Moses, made him something like a hero in Greek myth. He is taking the Jew out of Moses. And conversely, almost penitently, he begins to build the idea of Moses as the Law Giver. At the time the Pharasees  school did not want to exhault Moses unduly. Josephus indicates that most people who knew of Moses did not know what he was to the Law. Moses is made diminutive by some Greek writers they don't mention him as the one who received the Hebrew Law(Hellenacius, Hecataeus, Diodorus) or they call him "Moso the woman" who received the Hebrew Law(Polyhistor).
-Louis H. Feldman Yeshiva University

Defining Moses is a pretty good apology. Feldman doesn't say that Josephus is appeasing anyone. Just an observation, changing the culture to suit the history admits who has power. Securing veneration for Moses as the one who received the Law from God asserts that spiritually Moses and the Jews are superior.  


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 05 Mar 2018 at 13:12
Franciscosan wrote
Quote Are you say there is one block of 18 years, or several blocks of time which add up to 18 years or what?  And how old was he during this time?  If he is three years old or for that matter, thirteen, he probably is not traveling unless his father is a merchant (which he wasn't).

As I understand it, there seems to be a gap in the recording(?) of Jesus' life from about the age of 14 until about age 30yrs.

If I'm correct, he could have travelled to the Far East and other places. There is apparently nothing to say that he did or he didn't.

Getting back to the OP, if Jesus was an Essene-so what?

And this is not to be taken as an admission by me that there was such a person in history. 


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 06 Mar 2018 at 09:46
There is nothing in Jesus' teachings that show he had familiarity with anything besides Hebrew culture (except to a certain extent, Greek culture which had come to influence Hebrew culture).  He is quoted in Aramaic.  The Gospels are in Greek, but I don't think there is anything that indicates that he knew Greek, unless you count the pun on the name Peter, which only works in translation to Greek, not if it was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.  (Peter, you are my rock).  It also, very conveniently, endorses the foundation of the Catholic Church in Rome.

I don't think many 14 yo are world travelers, even today, unless they are refugees.  So I would doubt that Jesus would have travelled much before he was 18 or 20.  Also, assume that if he ever left, he would not have been heard about for at least a couple of years before his ministry, so say 28 instead of 30.  The probable window for travel (_if_ he travelled) is more like ten years.  Or so it would seem to me.

But, Jesus traveling around and going to temples and learning local lore, sounds like how Pythagoras is described.  In late antiquity, the pagans put up Pythagoras as a rival to Jesus and to Christianity.  So in imagining that Pythagoras is like Jesus, one also comes to imagine that Jesus is like Pythagoras, a world globe trotter who got wisdom from all kinds of places.

Well, of course, toyomotor, you don't care if Jesus was an Essene, because you don't believe in Jesus, neither as a savior, nor as a historical reality.  But, if you believed in Jesus, you might want to get closer to him (again, either as a savior or as 'just' a historical reality), and one to get closer to him would be to understand whether or not he was an Essene, or influenced by the Essenes.

I don't think Jesus was an Essene, but I do think that Jesus was influenced by John the Baptist, and John the Baptist may have been influenced by the Essenes.  But, I haven't read that article yet, (on J. B.), when I do I will let you know.)


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2018 at 20:51
Franciscosan
The article at  http://www-user.slac.stanford.edu/jimstan/quasiconstant.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www-user.slac.stanford.edu/jimstan/quasiconstant.htm is recommended reading for you. The following is only part of the report, and it could answer questions for you, that the rest of haven't been able to explain.

Quote  The logical mind has a strong bias to think in terms of cause and effect.  But to search for a cause for the first effect, the formation of the Universe, leads to a chicken-and-egg conundrum, a synthetic a priori hypothesis.  The time might be ripe to look at some illogical, or at the very least, acausal explanations.

          Here the logical mind has a strong bias to associate “logical” with “true”, and “illogical” with “false”, but Gödel’s incompleteness theorem tells us that there are true propositions which can not be proven within any given logically consistent system.  These propositions are logically discontinuous, or not to put too fine a point on it, illogical but true.    

Consider the universe forming into a flat, featureless, dimensionless, and timeless void.  This is the so-called Big Bang which pops Mass, Energy, Space and Time (MEST) into existence.  In the absence of MEST there is a corresponding absence of physical law.   In the absence of physical law there is nothing to preclude something from happening for no reason.



-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 08 Mar 2018 at 10:49
yeah, toyomotor, except for in the cosmic sense, I am not sure what Godel has to do with the Essenes....  Chicken and the egg I understand, synthetic a priori is something that I think I understand, but I look away for second, and vipp! it disappears.  Godel is much the same way.  And talking about before the Big Bang Events, well that is above my pay-grade.
I would like to have a basic understanding of Godel, but I don't and I don't really want to _get_ the understanding of Godel.  I have a couple of books, but don't quite know what to do with them. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2018 at 13:53
But do you understand what I (and Godel) are telling you?

Godel has nothing, per se to do with the Essenes, but read, in part, what the article says,
Quote  Here the logical mind has a strong bias to associate “logical” with “true”, and “illogical” with “false”, but Gödel’s incompleteness theorem tells us that there are true propositions which can not be proven within any given logically consistent system.  These propositions are logically discontinuous, or not to put too fine a point on it, illogical but true.

In other words, there are answers that can neither be proven or disproven, whether or not they seem logical, ergo Jesus could have been an Essene, but maybe he wasn't.





-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2018 at 08:57
Yes, we can read something like that, but what it means to me is something quite different that what it meant to Godel.  I can parrot it, but I have not done the homework to even follow a decent recap of Godel's work.  Godel is probably talking about true propositions in a mathematical system.  Not so much everyday facts.

But one of the fun things about the real world is that you can have people that are both something, and at the same time not something.  In a sense they stand above the categories.  You have these in riddles, "a man who was not a man, threw a rock that was not a rock, that hit a bird that was not a bird, in a tree that was not a tree."  "A eunuch threw a piece of pumice at a bat that was on a reed."  For Aristotle, having something be something A and not something A at the same time is a problem.  In folklore however, you get things like that sometimes. 


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Mar 2018 at 19:37
So, have we resolved this question?

-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 12 Mar 2018 at 03:35
Quote There is nothing in Jesus' teachings that show he had familiarity with anything besides Hebrew culture (except to a certain extent, Greek culture which had come to influence Hebrew culture).  He is quoted in Aramaic.  The Gospels are in Greek, but I don't think there is anything that indicates that he knew Greek, unless you count the pun on the name Peter, which only works in translation to Greek, not if it was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.  (Peter, you are my rock).  It also, very conveniently, endorses the foundation of the Catholic Church in Rome.

I thought we were talking about Josephus as an appeaser? You asked the question about Josephus.
What do mean about Peter? The master/servant personality?


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 13 Mar 2018 at 06:24
I don't know if Nasorean means the same thing as Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), nor if it has anything to do with Nestorianism.  Of course, a Theban comes from Thebes, but is it Greek Thebes or Egyptian Thebes?  What is the connection, or is there any?  Knowing the name of something is not the same thing as knowing the thing.  I think one should be cautious about forming associations based merely on names.

Nazarite means someone dedicated to God, Samson was a Nazarite.  So maybe some of the Essenes (or all) were Nazarites (nazirite?), and maybe Jesus was a Nazarite, but not all Nazarites are Essene, so being a nazarite would not mean that Jesus was a Essene.  It would make it more likely, but not conclusive.

There are problems with the name Nazareth, Josephus apparently does not recognize any such region.  I don't fully understand all the problems with the linguistics etc, of the names related to Nazareth or Nazarene.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 00:54
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't know if Nasorean means the same thing as Nazarene (someone from Nazareth), nor if it has anything to do with Nestorianism.  Of course, a Theban comes from Thebes, but is it Greek Thebes or Egyptian Thebes?  What is the connection, or is there any?  Knowing the name of something is not the same thing as knowing the thing.  I think one should be cautious about forming associations based merely on names.

Aramaic-nasori
Greek-nazorai
nasoreans -associated with Mark's gospel passages on Baptism. They are the Nazarene /Essenes, healers, exorcists.

nasuraiia-Christian Nasoreans appear in the Gnostic Mandaean brotherhood for whom John the Baptist was an incarnation of I- Oannes , Babylonian water dipper God. At some point John (Yohanna) is called Elijah in the Gospel of Matthew(?), at any rate Gnostics/Mandaeans  pre date John.

Quote Nazarite means someone dedicated to God, Samson was a Nazarite.  So maybe some of the Essenes (or all) were Nazarites (nazirite?), and maybe Jesus was a Nazarite, but not all Nazarites are Essene, so being a nazarite would not mean that Jesus was a Essene.  It would make it more likely, but not conclusive.

There are problems with the name Nazareth, Josephus apparently does not recognize any such region.  I don't fully understand all the problems with the linguistics etc, of the names related to Nazareth or Nazarene.

Appears that Gnostics were heretical sects of Judaism. Dead Sea Zadokites were protecting a bloodline that became known as the Nazoreans. 


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 14 Mar 2018 at 04:26
Quote There are problems with the name Nazareth, Josephus apparently does not recognize any such region.  I don't fully understand all the problems with the linguistics etc, of the names related to Nazareth or Nazarene.

The city name Nazareth did not exist in the time of Christ. Paul says "Way of the Nazarene" he references the OT  "Na-sarrean" Joseph was "Prince of Princes." In Genesis Rachael and Israel have a sonJoseph who is very high- biblical- caliper.

Could Jesus be an incarnated literary or spiritual version of Joseph?
It's been said that if John wasn't Elijah reincarnated then Jesus wasn't the messiah.




-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 10:36
Joseph was probably more important for the Samaritans (in the North), who (I believe) only recognized the Pentateuch.  David and Solomon, and the prophets are more of a (Southern), Judaic tradition, centered of course on Jerusalem and the Temple.  Samaritans start about the 4th or 3rd century BC.  They have their own temple.

I don't see any connection between Jesus and Joseph, other than the family tree in the gospels,  could be there, but I don't see it.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 15 Mar 2018 at 20:25
Quote Was Jesus an Essene?  I have heard others intimate a connection between Jesus and the Essenes, but I don't really know the arguments pro or con.  Or maybe one should ask, to what degree was Jesus an Essene?  He is Jewish and they're Jewish, is there any more resemblance than that?

The above is the OP. Has the matter been resolved?


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 16 Mar 2018 at 07:06
I think that the question has not been answered, at least not directly, 
But, it has been fleshed out a great deal.  I have learned a few new things.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 07:25
Listened to a lecture about beginnings of Judaism, the speaker said that in Josephus describing the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, "Sect" is not the right word.  Pharisee and Sadducees are more like parties or philosophies in general Judaic society, Essenes, however, are more like a sect, numbering something like 4000 at most.
The Pharisees and Sadducees are described as being like Greek philosophical sects.  Pharisees believe in resurrection, and fate.  Sadducees do not believe in resurrection, believe that God is detached from the world, and believe more in free will.  In other words, the Pharisees resemble the Stoics (with Josephus explaining them as favoring the Greek idea of fate, (rather than using the Hebrew idea of providence.) whereas the Sadducees appear (in Josephus' writing) more like the Epicureans.
Josephus was writing for a Greek educated audience, and so he used terminology that was not necessarily correct, but which would resonate with such an audience.  Also, it was a 18th c. English translator that used language, that again is not necessarily correct, but would resonate with _his_ audience, calling the groups, "sects," whereas really only the Essenes were a sect.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 09:19
And?

-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 12:36
I swear, if I showed you a beautiful sunset, you would be saying, "and?"

This thread is about Jesus and the Essenes, therefore the question about what an Essene is, is relevant.  And in order to understand the Essenes, you probably should know about know about the Sadducees and the Pharisees.  Probably our number one source on the Essenes is Josephus (external source, not including the Dead Sea Scrolls), in order to understand Josephus, you probably should understand his biases and his audience, an educated Greco-Roman audience, not so much a Jewish one.  Josephus is using a structure already given him by Hellenistic culture.  Either your stoic-like (Pharisee) or you are Epicurean-like (Sadducee), although there is a very small group (numerically) that are a third possibility, and Josephus talks more about these "Essenes" than he does the others.  The lecturing scholar does not say what these are, but Josephus calls them, "Pythagorean."  I think that one should probably consider them "Pythagorean" as much as the Pharisees are "Stoic," and the Sadducees are "Epicurean."  There is some resemblance, but it is not clear whether it is anything more than superficial.  


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 18 Mar 2018 at 16:33
Thank you.

-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 00:13
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Joseph was probably more important for the Samaritans (in the North), who (I believe) only recognized the Pentateuch.  David and Solomon, and the prophets are more of a (Southern), Judaic tradition, centered of course on Jerusalem and the Temple.  Samaritans start about the 4th or 3rd century BC.  They have their own temple.
Samaritans do live among the Jews at the time of the first temple and after.  

Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I don't see any connection between Jesus and Joseph, other than the family tree in the gospels,  could be there, but I don't see it.
 
Some similarities
http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament/types-joseph.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament/types-joseph.html


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 19 Mar 2018 at 08:24
Ugly subscription pop-up prevented me from reading the page.  But your point taken.  But, it reminds me of how Alexander the Great was supposedly descended from Achilles and Herakles.  It seems to me like it might be harder to find someone in the heroic past that is not related to our current hero (be it Alex. or JC), than it is to find someone related.  [if that makes sense].  Also, David is the root of Jesse, and maybe there is a connection between Jesse and Jesus?  or Joshua.

You mean OT Joseph, not Joseph, Jesus' (mortal) father, I assume?

It is interesting that Samaritans tend to be left out when talking about Judaism.  But from what I have heard, they don't really come into play until the fourth century (second Temple time).  That is probably when their temple is founded, I imagine that their roots go deeper than that.  I wonder if they are a remanent of the Northern Kingdom, or whether their origins are from some other source.  The Northern Kingdom was overthrown by the Babylonians in the 8th c. BC.  You hear that the Northern Kingdom was entirely scattered, but then what is going on with those Samaritans? 

But of course, in the gospels you have good Samaritans, which would kind of be like Trump talking about good illegal immigrants (from Mexico).  In other words, Jesus is saying that "even" a Samaritan has the decency (that a priest or Pharisee doesn't have), of picking someone injured off the road.  Of course, those of us who are familiar with "illegal" immigrants know them to often be decent, hard working, and I am sure Jesus found the same for Samaritans.

Another off-shoot group is the Karaites (Medieval not ancient) which still exist, albeit few.  But antiquity sort of set the stage for the Karaites, which I will address more later.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2018 at 00:22
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Joseph was probably more important for the Samaritans (in the North), who (I believe) only recognized the Pentateuch.  David and Solomon, and the prophets are more of a (Southern), Judaic tradition, centered of course on Jerusalem and the Temple.  Samaritans start about the 4th or 3rd century BC.  They have their own temple.
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-samaritans.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-samaritans.htm

1.       The anti-Jerusalem philosophies of the Samaritans originated with Jeroboam.

a.       This is why we call the Samaritans, "Neo-Jeroboamites". Samaritans carry on the basic traditions that Jeroboam set in order in 931 BC when he set up two pagan worship centers to replace Jerusalem: Bethel and Dan.

b.      The Samaritan temple on Mt. Gerizim venerated the Altar of Joshua which was built on Mt. Gerizim. The Samaritans had chose Mt. Gerizim as their holy place because that is the original location of Joshua’s Altar.

c.       See full outline on  http://www.bible.ca/manuscripts/Samaritan-Pentateuch-SP-Bible-Manuscript-Textual-Variants-Old-Testament-scribal-gloss-error-Deut27-4-Mt-Gerizim-Ebal-Dead-Sea-Scroll-4Q33-Deuteronomy-f.htm" rel="nofollow - Joshua’s altar on Mt. Gerizim NOT Mt. Ebal

d.      A small population that had been deported in 723 BC from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, were brought back by Shalmaneser and they intermarried with the Gentiles.

e.       To the Samaritans, Mt. Gerizim is their "Jerusalem".



-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 23 Mar 2018 at 11:14
"Pagan worship centers" is a pretty slanted term.  The author of the post seemed a little slanted as far as the Samaritans are concerned.  I am reading the article on Samaritans from the Encyclopedia Judaica.  It discusses an older approach to the Samaritans, which seems to be where your author is coming from, presenting as paganized, diluted, etc.  Vs. a newer approach which uses Samaritan sources.  In addition to the Samaritan Pentateuch, there is a Samaritan Chronicles I and II, and Joshua.  There might be others.  I will elaborate on it, after I finish the article.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2018 at 13:29
Weren't they pagans?



-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 25 Mar 2018 at 06:04
No, they weren't pagans, and the golden calf at two sites is like their version of Jerusalem figure of the Seraphim.  The worship of the golden calf in Exodus is probably propaganda from the Jerusalem Temple.

There influences on them from the Babylonians and the Romans, but I don't think they were ever polytheistic or pagan.

Solomon's Temple had idols of other gods in it, from his wives' deities.  This was kind of cleared out with the second Temple.  There may have been idols from other gods in the Gerazim (sp) temple. I don't know.  Things are not as clear cut as we think.

Israel now recognizes the Samaritans as a sect of Judaism.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 26 Mar 2018 at 14:07
This is (one side of) a unique coin in the British Museum (BMC).

This link has a brief overview of the  http://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?board=7.0" rel="nofollow - identification  of Yahweh:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeus_Yahweh.jpg" rel="nofollow - https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeus_Yahweh.jpg


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 27 Mar 2018 at 13:39
Never saw YHWH, possibly, in such fine human form. No prominent appendage.

The meaning of the personal name of the  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Israelite" rel="nofollow - Israelite  God has been variously interpreted. Many scholars believe that the most proper meaning may be “He Brings into Existence Whatever Exists” (Yahweh-Asher-Yahweh). In  https://www.britannica.com/topic/Books-of-Samuel" rel="nofollow - I Samuel , God is known by the name Yahweh Teva-ʿot, or “He Brings the Hosts into Existence,” the hosts possibly referring to the heavenly court or to Israel.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Yahweh" rel="nofollow -


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2018 at 04:47
I like the popeye interpretation, "I yam what I yam."

Don't know about appendages.

There are difference between the philosophical/theological view of God, looking forward, and the anthropological/mythological view of God, looking backward.  God as a tribal deity is very different from God, sole Master of the universe.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 31 Mar 2018 at 11:03
Around  the world, millions of people place their faith in a god or god-like figure.

In almost every case that I can think of, that god has a name, except for Christianity, which has a God, known only as God.

I know some will say that God is also known as Yahweh, and that has already been explained in this post, but why hasn't God have an identity, a name, such as Brian?

And, getting back to the OP, will the question ever be resolved? Does it matter? Would being an Essene or not have an effect on Christianity? And in these days of enhanced archeology and anthropology, why hasn't trace of Jesus' skeleton ever been found?

Perhaps they should start looking in France! 




-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2018 at 07:46
You have an identity, right?  and part of your identity is that you are not me, not him, not her, not it, not they.  But, God (Jehovah, the Lord) is (in) everything, (of) everything.  There is nothing that is not God, so which identity do you want God to have?  

Part of the nature of a cup, is that it is not a ball, it is not a screwdriver, it is not a cat, it is not a breath of fresh air.  God is not, not.

There are two ways of "resolving" something, (1) having a definitive answer, which is harder than most people think (does Atlantis exist), (2) exhausting an issue, and putting it on the back burner to simmer.  That does not mean having "an" answer, but rather having wrestled with it enough, to be satisfied that one has treated the issue as completely as it is going to get for right now.  We may be at that point.

A scholar or a scientist usually doesn't research a question, "because it matters" other than 'mattering' to him or her, it is often the research that comes first, and then the applicability later.

Everybody knows that Jesus was buried in Kashmir....


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2018 at 11:09
Quote Jesus was buried in Kashmir.

Good one.  Thumbs Up

It's a very old belief, but never really explored. 


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 01 Apr 2018 at 15:36
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

I like the popeye interpretation, "I yam what I yam."

Don't know about appendages.

There are difference between the philosophical/theological view of God, looking forward, and the anthropological/mythological view of God, looking backward.  God as a tribal deity is very different from God, sole Master of the universe.

In the primordial IYAM story the ethereal phase of creation usually has a catalyst, yam is the sea and "I" Tzaddi, in the Hebrew alphabet is a fish hook. It is of course also associated with Jesus being a fisher of men. 

(Hebrew Letters I,J and Y are derived from "Yod" the letter "Y" meaning egg or center of light. 
YHVH is Yod He Vau He-some meanings; foundation,male, female, wisdom)
 
When in myth do we see the sole master of the universe ? Not until the Catholic Church(?)

http://thetorah.com/yhwh-the-god-that-is-vs-the-god-that-becomes/" rel="nofollow - http://thetorah.com/yhwh-the-god-that-is-vs-the-god-that-becomes/
Maimonides – Names Derived from Actions
Moses Maimonides or Rambam (1138-1204), Judaism’s chief exponent of the rationalist tradition, holds that all divine names, except the Tetragrammaton, “correspond to the actions existing in the world,”[10]  which reflect the different characteristic the name designates.  As he states, they “derive from actions.”[11] Simply put, since a fundamental premise of his negative theology is that God possesses no attributes, the referent of these names is not God but rather phenomena in the natural word. Since nature is linked to God by virtue of it being His creation, a particular name or attribute is then semiotically reoriented toward God in His capacity as the remotest cause in the long chain of natural causation.  


-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Apr 2018 at 10:23
Actually, "yam" is how Popeye pronounces "am," I am not sure it means anything else.....

There is a long debate in philosophy about whether names are natural or conventional.  Postmodernism in general assumes they must be conventional, therefore we know they must be natural....Wink

It is interesting that Maimonides says names correspond to actions, not to things.  I think that reflects a Hebrew background, instead of an Indo-European language, such as Latin (and Augustine). 

There is a transition, when in Exodus it says, "no other gods before me" that implies there are other
Gods, plus the Egyptian priests were able to keep up and copy the plagues to a certain extent, meaning that they did have some power.  I would say that by late second temple period, YHWH is absolute, but still attached to (only) the Israelites.  That is where you have the Jews taking on the Roman Empire in a Messianic, Apocalyptic fervor.  At the same time, the Christians are arguing for a more universal God, one that not only applies to the Jews, but to everybody.  That is before 'Catholicism,' although it sometimes seems that in the minds of Catholics, there is no such thing as "before catholic".  According to the Orthodox Christians, Orthodoxy came first, then the Catholics came and added all kinds of (extraneous) things, and then the Protestants came, and cut away from the Catholic, but cut back too much.


Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 09 Apr 2018 at 04:30
Was Jesus a Pharisee?
"The Naked Archaeologist" Simcha Jacobvici is featured, among others in a PBS production "The Last Days of Jesus" briefly, it proposes a theory whereby Jesus is an educated teacher who made an attempt to get rid of the Sadducee priests. 

http://www.pbs.org/video/downfall-sejanus-zxyg9t/" rel="nofollow - http://www.pbs.org/video/downfall-sejanus-zxyg9t/



-------------
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 22 Apr 2018 at 12:12
I don't really know "the Naked Archaeologist" but I would worry about sunburn in sensitive areas.
I do not think Jesus could get rid of the Sadducee priests, but he probably wanted to show them as
lacking devotion.  It was a question of legitimacy of those running the Temple, my guess is that it would never have gone so far as unseating the Sadducees.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net