Dan Santa 2003:
“there is no doubt that Jesus would not accept Deuteronomy, in fact, he was clearly pushing for the 5 books of Moses.”
Steefen:
Jesus would not accept Deuteronomy. Instead, Jesus pushed for the 5 Books of Moses.
The 5 Books of Moses ARE the Torah: Genesis Exodus, Leviticus, AND DEUTERONOMY.
Stephen said
Steefen, any time you spend arguing with Dan is wasted. He thinks we’re all deluded Satanists. I went over to his blog so the rest of you don’t have to. It’s loathsome and vile. If he posted some of that stuff over here he would get banished to outer darkness.
As it is a thread devoted to proving that Jesus wasn’t a Jew is merely stupid.
Steefen:
He’s trying to say The Renovated Second Temple of King Herod the Great was marked by a religion that had gotten away from a Hebrew Religion: Tabernacle > 1st Temple > 2nd Temple. Instead of saying how this happened, he just says Jesus was reacting to it: a Galilean reacted to it He doesn’t explain how the United Kingdom split but the northern kingdom got it right.
There weren’t 12 Temples, one for each tribe. The Levites were priests. The Tribe of Judah was to provide royal leadership and the hereditary line of Kings for Israel. There was one Temple not 12 separate Temples. Kings from Judah means Kings of Jews. Herod the Great got it right: he was King of the Jews, those in Judaea and those outside of Judaea.
So, taking one of the Elohim, Yahweh, taking one from the pantheon of El (as Yahweh usurped El there in Canaanite lingo) and calling him Father is HIGHLY questionable. So, Yahweh and Hellenism equals Heavenly Father ! ! ! Torah History plus Hellenistic philosophy equals Heavenly Father ? ? ?
Or Yahweh in Torah History plus Hebrew or Jewish Apocalypticism plus Middle Platonism = Heavenly Father is HIGHLY questionable, especially with the Heavenly Father sacrificing the Son like in the Torah–the actions of this Heavenly Father harkens back to Yahweh anyway.
So, Jesus living close to Hellenistic Sepphoris learned some Hellenstic concepts and through syncretism perceived God in palatable way.
Who said Jesus went to Alexandria and studied under Philo or something equivalent?
dansanta2003 said
Serene said
Whatever being a Jew or Jewishness was considered to be, no Jewish teacher or authority has ever contested Jesus’ Jewishness.
I just think he’s bicultural — Jewish and Nabataean, which were simply the two borderless, intermarried, lead cultures of the First Century Transjordan. I don’t think that someone who just stacks stone walls speaks like Jesus does in quotes. I think that he’s an actual son of a handmaid to a Lord. The people with the duties of a Lord in the area seem to be of partly or fully Nabataean lineage, and that’s where the influence would likely come from.
If someone calling themselves the Son of God is a real, historical person, why can’t the Kingdom of God be a real, historical kingdom?
Of course the Jewish teachers, neither liberal bought-off professors (coughBartcough), would ever contest Jesus’ Jewishness. When I learn about Jesus in history at school, I remember reading: Jesus was a person born in modern day Palestine territory. I don’t remember the other things, only if I’ll ever get my hands on that manual, but the term used in almost all of the cases was hebrew. Sometimes the word “iudeu” was uttered, especially when talking about what INRI stood for. But I think the religion of Jesus was called “the ancient Hebraic religion”. Modern Israel was not recognized at that time; and “Judea” was the name of a Roman Provence. The kingdom of Judah never existed, never was mentioned, – this is what I remember, I might be wrong.
And this is what I believe: that sometimes along history, somebody hijacked who Jesus was. I believe that Jesus, in liberal academia today, is presented as a modern Jew, as a psychological operation, to combat antisemitism. Likewise for Christianity, it is portrayed as being a branch of Judaism. It’s like the ancient Jews birthed Christianity while continuing to exist and to be today’s Judaism. This is false. Modern Judaism is based on the Talmudic writings that occurred after Jesus, 2-3 centuries, literally in the aftermath of Christianity taking movement. Some people try to pose themselves as fore-fathers of Jesus and Christianity to:gain sympathy and tolerance
look more important than what they are and
gain validity in their religion (getting Christians to acknowledge that even without Jesus they can be saved – while the Protestant movements are already pozzed, real Christianity like the Catholics did not backed off so far).“The Kingdom of God” cannot be a specific kingdom in history, because it is simply the future kingdom, where the Creation will be restored, people will be awaken in restored bodies to live for ever on the restored earth, along side with Jesus, as their King. This is what Jesus thought; and I find this simple idea to be so subverted and the waters so muddied by people like Bart, that average people do not understand this. This idea is specific to Jesus (and to Christianity), as Jews (be them Pharisee or Sadducee) did not believe in this; they believed the soul goes to God, without retaining the deceased personality, because the person is the body that simply returns to earth upon dying. For the Jews of that time “life everlasting” was simply the Jewish tribe living on the face of the earth for ever, each generation spawning another generation and so on; the individual doesn’t matter, only the tribe. Jesus came with the original idea (“original” meaning copied from the Greeks) that a man can become a [demi]god.
DavidFord said
In short, the consistent Jewish position across centuries is that Jesus was a Jew who went astray or whose followers later developed ideas unacceptable to Judaism.
No prominent Jewish teacher is known for arguing that he was not Jewish at all.
Yes. And if you wonder why, read above.
Sure, the goals might be morally good, but the method is not; and saying that “Jesus was a Jew” omitting intentionally all the technicalities behind it proves that the utterer is pushing some kind of nefarious agenda that contains half-truths, distortions, and lies.
People like simple stories. The worldwide reading level is probably third grade, imo. (Time magazine is written at the sixth-grade level.) Therefore thousands of years of successful interalliances, intermarriage, geographical movement and change gets summed up into simple identity groups.
Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity share a very important pivot:
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice.“
The Second Temple’s Burnt Offering had been fully destroying as many as 300,000 herd animals a year without utilizing their meat or leather while Judaeans famously had cyclical famines. This ends when the first Rabbi, Rabbi ben Zakkai quotes the same verse as Jesus, called rabbi in the Gospels.
International governance coalitions frame being a savior to an underdog to justify their actions, especially ex post facto; that underdog rises and becomes an overdog to the next underdog.
Example: Germans — not considered white by Ben Franklin. Germany became a country fairly recently (named after the Germanic tribe that — looking at DNA results — had largely generationally drifted farther West). Germany had a Turnip Winter, and then “Babylon Berlin” unfortunately became a bottleneck for millions of people fleeing the East. The Eastern Europeans (origin by region, not ethnicity) did not necessarily exhibit the level of ‘development’ that the Central Europeans did in regards to womens rights, animal rights, even economic development, which themselves tended to be less ‘developed’ than the Western Europeans (again origin by region, not ethnicity) who had gone on to form America.
As govs learn to work with these cycles better, they can negotiate the exoduses and esoduses better. It’s good to see things from a systemic perspective to look at how to advance people’s lives stable-y.
Steefen said
Dan Santa 2003:
one thing to be addressed, which is John 10:34. I found this to be a a lousy argument, just because Jesus said yours and not ours.
Steefen:
Is it not written in your Law
You have to follow your Laws, I don’t-I’m the outsider in this gathering.
You find that lousy. It’s accurate.
You find accuracy lousy.
You’re saying Jesus is an outsider.
Jesus says he’s not part of that group.
You’re saying your position is lousy.
Introduction, Body, Conclusion: so, your introduction is poor, the body of you what you’re saying is lousy. Two out of three are dysfunctional. You’ve already lost.
You’ve spoken against the introduction and the claim. You’re trying to get people to agree with a conclusion you’ve already trashed.
For goodness sake, lad, but even this comment looks to be generated by an AI. It looks like an AI who misfired, it supposed to write an Introduction, Body, Conclusion, but it didn’t provide. If you are a real person and not an AI bot, please don’t use AI in your answers. Otherwise, I will ignore your comments. Thank you.
Stephen said
Steefen, any time you spend arguing with Dan is wasted. He thinks we’re all deluded Satanists. I went over to his blog so the rest of you don’t have to. It’s loathsome and vile. If he posted some of that stuff over here he would get banished to outer darkness.
As it is a thread devoted to proving that Jesus wasn’t a Jew is merely stupid.
Robert, can you please remove this troll out from my thread and delete his comments? He is trying to distract users from the topic with moronic statements, personal attacks, off-topic things etc. He never contributes anything. I understand that based on your rules I, as a thread owner, can I ask that. Thank you.
Steefen said
Dan Santa 2003:
“there is no doubt that Jesus would not accept Deuteronomy, in fact, he was clearly pushing for the 5 books of Moses.”
Steefen:
Jesus would not accept Deuteronomy. Instead, Jesus pushed for the 5 Books of Moses.
The 5 Books of Moses ARE the Torah: Genesis Exodus, Leviticus, AND DEUTERONOMY.
Yes, my friend. That was my point. Jesus preached the 5 books of Moses which contained Deuteronomy. Therefore, when Jesus says “your” law when speaking to the Pharisees, referring to a verse from Deuteronomy, that means it was Jesus’ law as well. That means that “your law” wasn’t exclusive to the Pharisees. Jesus does here an emphasis, a way of speech, a figure of speech, in a polemic, to get Pharisees to agree. That is like like a lawyer, trying to argue against his lawyer that presented parts of a law, says: “but isn’t written in your law that you presented today that x, y, y?” But that law covers both lawyers since they are part of the same jurisdiction.
Steefen said
Dan Santa 2003:
“The Kingdom of God” cannot be a specific kingdom in history, because it is simply the future kingdom, where the Creation will be restored.
Steefen:
Where does Jesus say that?
Well, that’s a different topic. I have written a couple of lengthy articles on the subject, this is ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of them, but keep the discussion on the subject.
Steefen said
So, Jesus living close to Hellenistic Sepphoris learned some Hellenstic concepts and through syncretism perceived God in palatable way.
Yes, that is my belief. That was the new thing that Jesus was bringing at the table. Looking at the complete picture, it looks like Christianity is a religion of the Greeks, when they encountered ancient Middle-Eastern beliefs, especially the Hebrew Bible, and kicks out of the founding question the ancient Jews.
Serene said
1. People like simple stories.2. The worldwide reading level is probably third grade, imo.
3. Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity share a very important pivot:
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”
4. The Second Temple’s Burnt Offering had been fully destroying as many as 300,000 herd animals a year without utilizing their meat or leather while Judaeans famously had cyclical famines. This ends when the first Rabbi, Rabbi ben Zakkai quotes the same verse as J
5. Jesus, called rabbi in the Gospels.
6. Example: Germans — not considered white by Ben Franklin.
7. The Eastern Europeans (origin by region, not ethnicity) did not necessarily exhibit the level of ‘development’ that the Central Europeans did in regards to womens rights, animal rights, even economic development, which themselves tended to be less ‘developed’ than the Western Europeans (again origin by region, not ethnicity) who had gone on to form America.
8. It’s good to see things from a systemic perspective to look at how to advance people’s lives stabley.
1. People like archetypal stories. Sometimes, these stories push agendas.
2. And the understanding, too.
3. Not relevant to the discussion.
4. Yes, they were using sacrifice of food, and famine in its aftermath, in order to control population. It was means of population control.
5. This is another definition that is abused in order to push the same agenda mentioned by me above. Rabbi simply means master or teacher. That’s it. If you call your grandmother elderly does that mean she took part of writing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? It’s not a title from an institution. It’s just a word. Only later, probably 1-2nd centuries, it became a title, when it became solidified with a more rising structure of the Phariseism, which became Judaism today. Rabbi remained a title in modern Judaism. But it wasn’t so then. It is an anachronism. It is abused in order to present Jesus as a modern Jew or Christianity just a branch of Judaism.
6. Correct. There are multiple tribes of Germans, some of them are the Saxons. Franklin was talking about his race, the Anglo-Saxons. He was excluding the other ones. The bavarians are swarthy, for example. Arnold Schwarzenegger is quite brown, despite having blue eyes and a germanic face; his name literally means something “black”, probably a “the black forest lumberjack”.
7. The Eastern European are of different races as well. The Slavic race mainly, for example. This thing can be traced clearly in DNA. Different race => different culture. Hence, Jesus, as of a different race, gave a different teaching than of the Jews. Sure, combined, syncretic etc, but it was still set aside.
8. No idea what you’re trying to say, I guess my English is limited.
>> I understand that based on your rules I, as a thread owner, can I ask that.
You certainly are entitled to ask.
Whether your request will be honored is an entirely different question.
Just as I am entitled to ask you to desist from antisocial posting, but I have no reason to hope I will get what I ask.
Dan Santa 2023
For goodness sake, lad, but even this comment looks to be generated by an AI. It looks like an AI who misfired, it supposed to write an Introduction, Body, Conclusion, but it didn’t provide. If you are a real person and not an AI bot, please don’t use AI in your answers. Otherwise, I will ignore your comments. Thank you.
Steefen:
The comment was not generated by an AI.
I am glad to be ignored by you.
Jesus is matrilineally Jewish, not a different race. Inheriting Jewish identity by the mother is a well-known thing.
In Rome at that time afaik, Jewish was defined by at least one court as ‘someone who was circumcised’, so at that time that included Arab and some Egyptian people, too, as an external definition.
Germany the nation generally maps to Hallstat Celt DNA, along with adjoining parts of the Netherlands, Italy and hill country France. Celtic, like the people that conquered the ‘less-developed’ peoples in the British Isles until the Angles and the Saxons rose over them:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Maybe it’s easier in America to see someone as bicultural — seeing that they had a cultural influence by another group. Identity is also like a Venn diagram where some interests intersect to form that identity, but others do not. My longest relationship so far was with Hannah Einbinder’s cousin, and she just shouted Free Palestine at the Emmys.
I have been treated so warmly and so well — saving my butt even — by Western, Coastal Jewish people that it would sound like miracles
So anyway, Jesus says the Kingdom of God was coming in their lifetime.
Well, First Century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that the Kingdom of Nabataea had decided to prepare for a war with the tetrarch of Galilee-Peraea, Herod Antipas (who is known as “King” Herod to his people in the Bible) for breaking the marital alliance of his first marriage with his daughter (Phaesalis) that had resulted in not giving some towns in Moab back. These towns were likely petitioning to be returned to Nabataea as they were known to be kind, and good at running things well (per Strabo.)
This is right, exactly before Jesus’ first mission starts — the one to the Jews.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This historian Josephus connects John the Baptist protesting the second marriage with Herodias (platter person) from the Jewish law pov with this war. And how when the war is finally won (by 36 CE at latest) that some Jewish people say that God punished Herod for the John the Baptist thing via this war.
An earlier Nabataean king had already united some factions of Jews and Arabians (Arabians are under Nabataean leadership) in a prior conflict per Josephus, so it’s probably the most common sense explanation imo to say that some factions of Jews united with Nabataeans and potentially used the descriptors:
• “Kingdom of God” for the judicial arm (Nabataea, as the king judges the Jewish High Priest in Maccabees. They had a divinized king ancestor they venerated as “** you do not have permission to see this link **” The personal name would be private to most though, just like the Jewish god)
and
• “Kingdom of Heaven” for the Jewish refugee location area (Haran) which was under Nabataean aegis, and from where the auxilliaries doing the fighting are typically recruited from (southern Syria), and which had a universalist “Lord of Heaven” titulary deity.
Steefen:
This is about as close as I’m going to get to what you’re saying Serene:
- Ancient Greek Root: The name comes from the Greek word ouranios (οὐράνιος), which is derived from ouranos (οὐρανός), meaning “heaven” or “sky”.
- The Royal Spouse: Urania married King Ptolemy of Mauretania. Ptolemy was a highly prominent ruler in Roman high society and held an illustrious lineage as the son of Juba II and Cleopatra Selene II—making him the only grandson of Cleopatra VII of Egypt and Mark Antony. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The Daughter: Around 38 AD, Urania gave birth to a daughter named Drusilla of Mauretania. Princess Drusilla was likely named in honor of Roman Emperor Caligula’s sister, Julia Drusilla. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Porphyry said
>> I understand that based on your rules I, as a thread owner, can I ask that.
You certainly are entitled to ask.
Whether your request will be honored is an entirely different question.
Just as I am entitled to ask you to desist from antisocial posting, but I have no reason to hope I will get what I ask.
Robert please delete the comment above and this comment, mine, as well, so the thread will be clear of every distraction.
I wish to say that they are welcome to post on-topic whatever they want, but the thing is, is that they can’t. They’ll just continue to harass me, distract the others, divert the attention, make personal attacks, call names etc. In this case, his comment is off-topic, mean spirited, and he also brags he can apply for a double standard, which proves he is an impossible dialogue partner. He is here just to thrash, like his partner, Stephen.
Thank you.
Steefen said
Steefen:
The comment was not generated by an AI.
I am glad to be ignored by you.
Not sure why, because neither of us had off-topic nor personal attack remarks towards each other (unlike the schmucks above).
You actually did post a video that raised some important points in Jesus’ non-Jewishness.
You also mentioned the “yours” instead of “ours” saying from John 10:34, however we disagree if it represents a proof – I argued that it’s not, it’s just a figure of speech of Jesus.
But please don’t respond like you’re automated bot.
Serene said
Jesus is matrilineally Jewish, not a different race. Inheriting Jewish identity by the mother is a well-known thing.
ALL lineages are patriarchal. Either Jewish or non-Jewish.
My longest relationship so far was with Hannah Einbinder’s cousin, and she just shouted Free Palestine at the Emmys.
Sincerely, I do not care what is happening there, as long as a) don’t bring that shiet here and b) I’m not contributing to it. So far, both of these 2 are fragrantly threaded upon. I will not say more on the subject, because this is not the place.
Serene said
So anyway, Jesus says the Kingdom of God was coming in their lifetime.
This is false and this is an instrument part of the pozzed academic scholars’ book bag that they use to defame Jesus and to present him as a failed apocalyptic prophet. Absolutely nowhere Jesus predicts that it will happen in his lifetime. In fact, if you read the gospels, especially Matthew’s, then Mark’s secondly, you would observe how Jesus creates a new priesthood class and organize them and even tells them what to preach. The episode is called “feeding the people”. The 5 fish is an allegory to the 5 books of Moses. Giving food = preaching to people. Why would Jesus establish a priesthood class, train it for the long future, while talking about apocalypse during his life time? Makes no sense!
HEROD THE TETRARCH MAKES WAR WITH ARETAS, THE KING OF ARABIA, AND IS BEATEN BY HIM AS ALSO CONCERNING THE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
That’s Jewish myths. I don’t believe it’s history.
some factions of Jews united with Nabataeans and potentially used the descriptors:
• “Kingdom of God” for the judicial arm (Nabataea, as the king judges the Jewish High Priest in Maccabees. They had a divinized king ancestor they venerated as “Obodas the God.” The personal name would be private to most though, just like the Jewish god)
and
• “Kingdom of Heaven” for the Jewish refugee location area (Haran) which was under Nabataean aegis, and from where the auxilliaries doing the fighting are typically recruited from (southern Syria), and which had a universalist “Lord of Heaven” titulary deity.
That’s a stretch. There is a very sophisticated and weird explanation. Jesus’ Kingdom was referring to the after-life. I don’t think it was ever called “of heaven”. It was placed on earth. It was an earthly Kingdom based on the restored Creation, on a new earth. Read the gospels. It is mainly called “the Kingdom of God”. Matthew is the only New Testament writer who uses the “Kingdom of Heaven” phrase.
Steefen said
This is about as close as I’m going to get to what you’re saying Serene:
Urania means “heavenly” or “of heaven” rather than strictly meaning the noun “heaven” itself. [1]
I don’t see the connection.
>> he also brags he can apply for a double standard
I won’t take up the other complaints at this time.
But I will point out that you misunderstood me here. I was not bragging that I could take refuge under a double standard. I was suggesting that your request for Stephen’s comments to be removed lacks merit.
And as to my attitude towards you as a dialogue partner, I feel like I was about as transparent on that score as I could possibly have been earlier.
I will summarize, in somewhat less heated language, what I said earlier in case anyone needs it for the record: I do not think dansanta2003 contributes anything positive to this forum. He has been insulting and dismissive of the members of this community from the beginning. I do not understand why this community feels the need to subject ourselves to his continued disrespect. Which is to say, in short, if it were up to me, I would have banned you shortly after you showed up casually hurling insults.
But I will point out that you misunderstood me here. I was not bragging that I could take refuge under a double standard. I was suggesting that your request for Stephen’s comments to be removed lacks merit.
Stephen’s humorous aside was rather apt.
I mean if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
I will summarize, in somewhat less heated language, what I said earlier in case anyone needs it for the record: I do not think dansanta2003 contributes anything positive to this forum. He has been insulting and dismissive of the members of this community from the beginning. I do not understand why this community feels the need to subject ourselves to his continued disrespect. Which is to say, in short, if it were up to me, I would have banned you shortly after you showed up casually hurling insults.
He’s been nothing but trouble from the get-go. A bad-faith poster.
And not to drop another saying unnecessarily, but his cries of foul (pun intended) about his being harassed bring to mind: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Serene said:
Inheriting Jewish identity by the mother is a well-known thing.
Indeed it is.
It does make one wonder why anyone would deny this to be the case.
I would love to write about all the amazing things American, Coastal Jewish people did for me someday if anyone would listen
If you start a thread on it, I’d love to listen.
Thank you BJH 🙂 I’ll start a thread on it in the near future most likely.
So, First Century Jewish Historian Josephus makes the Essenes out to be very virtuous Jews; he’s constantly praising them, and the Jewish sect of Essenes don’t follow Second Temple Moses law per Epiphanius of Salamis:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
According to ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Epiphanius describes each group as following:
The Nasaraean—they were Jews by nationality—originally from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan … They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws—not this law, however, but some other. And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books are fictions, and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers. This was the difference between the Nasaraean and the others …** you do not have permission to see this link **
After this Nasaraean sect in turn comes another closely connected with them, called the Ossaeans. These are Jews like the former … originally came from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis, and Arielis, the lands beyond the basin of what sacred scripture called the Salt Sea … Though it is different from the other six of these seven sects, it causes schism only by forbidding the books of Moses like the Nasaraean.** you do not have permission to see this link **
Where I perceive that these Jewish people may have intercultural influence is because Epiphanius defines Essenes by two groups — one living in the Herodian dynasty-controlled, Israelite areas and one living in the Nabataean Arab-controlled, Ishmaelite areas. Together, that’s basically one geographical region. A group living between Israelites and Ishmaelites is ripe for syncretism on the basis of their common perceived origin, Abraham. This is why I’ve highlighted that Jesus distances himself by always using “your” not “our” regarding Moses’ law.
Serene said
So, First Century Jewish Historian Josephus makes the Essenes out to be very virtuous Jews; he’s constantly praising them, and the Jewish sect of Essenes don’t follow Second Temple Moses law per Epiphanius of Salamis:
I don’t hold Josephus as being a real historian. I believe he was a man of his time, and like any other “historian”, he would record folk beliefs, mythology and stories as history. Thus said, we have nothing on the Essenes. They also don’t appear in the Bible, which lead “scholars” to say: well, that’s because Jesus and his followers were Essenes and that’s why they are only mentioning the Pharisees and Sadducees, because they’re talking about people who debate with, but not mentioning themselves. I find this to be very ridiculous. It is of child-like naivety. So we have nothing on them, and what we have are naive constructions, assumptions and hypotheses.
If such sect ever existed, it seems to be of monastic nature; they would abstain from meat eating, pure vegetarian, they would pray all day, remain celibate – which is similar to the Egyptian (Coptic) or Greek first Christians. There is a thing that always follow regarding these type of sects: they all go extinct. Having no families, they disappear quickly. I presume this is what happened with the Copts and the best if not the entirety of ancient Greek nobles. Hence, the Essene sect disappeared too and very likely without leaving traces of who they are and what they do.
Therefore, any scholar who talks on the subject must be regarded with highest level of skepticism. Whoever says about those 3 sects in ancient Judaism, the Pharisees, Sadducces and Essenes, that is a construction relying on a single “historian” that was writing hearsay myths in his book. We can’t never talk about them on the levels of rigor demanded by history.
Except the thing that I mentioned above: a sect like this disappears fast, and there is a second one: they had to had the Law, the 5 book of Moses, they had to follow it, and in addition to it, they had an extra-tightening laws that arguably not supersede the Mosaic Law, just extended it or made it harder. If Moses allowed one divorce, they would never marry so the divorce won’t be possible; if Moses allowed eating meat but paying the sacrifice required, they wouldn’t eat the meat in order to avoid “paying back to God” the sin of eating that meat by performing the sacrifice. They had to follow the Mosaic Law simply because there isn’t anything else…
A group living between Israelites and Ishmaelites is ripe for syncretism on the basis of their common perceived origin, Abraham. This is why I’ve highlighted that Jesus distances himself by always using “your” not “our” regarding Moses’ law.
As I answered to the AI guy, I strongly believe John 10:34 to be a way of speech; Jesus was debating Pharisees so he accentuated “your law”, like the very own set of laws that you brag to observe. But that part of law is still from the Mosaic Law, which Jesus instructed to be preached undeniably, so it was Jesus’ law as well. If Jesus was an Essene, he would still follow the Mosaic law, and he does, and sometimes even apparently even tightens it, making it harder, just like an Essene would do.
Because Josephus was mentioned, I observed that he talks many times about Galilee as separate from Judah and about people of Galilee separate from the Jews; sometimes he does use “Jews” as a general term.
1. He does speak of Galilee separately
He frequently describes Galilee as its own region, with its own borders, cities, and people.
Examples from The Jewish War and Antiquities show Josephus giving geographical descriptions of Galilee distinct from Judea.He also uses “Galileans” to refer to people from Galilee — sometimes geographically, sometimes as a distinct social/ethnic group.
2. But he also uses “Jews” (Ioudaioi) as a general term
Modern scholarship shows Josephus eventually applies Ioudaioi (“Jews”) to the entire people, not only those from Judea.
He uses it as a broad ethnonym for all Jews, including Galileans.
Reading some of the sources for the AI answer above, I can quote from ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
Galilee, a beautiful and very fertile country, is justly praised by Josephus (“B. J.” iii. 3, § 2).
As early as Old Testament times the population of this region was greatly mixed; and it became more so after the downfall of the Ephraimitic kingdom. During the Maccabean struggle the Jews of Galilee constituted such a small number that they could all be brought to Jerusalem (I Macc. v. 23).
Characteristics of Galileans. The inhabitants, partly pagan, partly Jewish, are said to have been quarrelsome and of a disobliging disposition (Ned. 48a; Tosef., Giṭ. vi.).
The Galileans were more solicitous of their honor than of their property (Yer. Ket. iv. 14).
It is said in the Talmud that Jose b. Joezer of Zeredah and Jose b. Johanan of Jerusalem declared the country of the nations (“Ereẓ ha-‘Ammim”) unclean (Shab. 14b, 15a). Rashi understands by “Ereẓ ha-‘Ammim” the country of the Gentiles-that is, the country outside of Palestine; but Kaminka concludes that Galilee is meant, the name being similar to the Biblical “Gelil ha-Goyim.”
It was literally called “the country of the goyim” and marked as unclean by the rabbis.
dansanta2003 said
I don’t hold Josephus as being a real historian. I believe he was a man of his time, and like any other “historian”, he would record folk beliefs, mythology and stories as history. Thus said, we have nothing on the Essenes. They also don’t appear in the Bible…
To start, the Pharisees and Sadducees don’t appear in the Hebrew Bible, either. They are Second Temple factions appearing during a breakaway time.
Essene is an exonym — ie, what other people called them. This is likely from the “doers/makers of Torah” phrase that the Qumran Essenes sometimes described themselves by, as they have a scribal facility and archive.
The Qumran Essenes, which is one group within the Essenes (a group preparing for a defensive war, and Jewish law required abstinence in preparation for war) called themselves primarily the Sons of Light:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus speaks of the Sons of Light:
The people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the sons of light.” (Luke 16:8)
“While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.” (John 12:36)
In their text 45Q21, the Qumran Essenes/Sons of Light also reference Isaiah, just like early Christianity does where it’s so prominent there that it’s nicknamed the “Fifth Gospel”. Isaiah 60:7 basically says that the top two Ishmaelite tribes, The Nebaioth and the Qedarites, will bring tribute to a king raised up from the stump of Jesse — meaning Jesse’s lineage.
Q45Q21
For the heavens and the earth will listen to His Messiah… He will heal the wounded, and raise the dead, and bring good news to the poor…”
The Mandaeans, who claim John the Baptist as their teacher, record that an event like this happened in Jerusalem, in the First Century, using copypasta from the Gospels.
Imo, they split recounts of Jesus’ life through their lens of dualism — one, the perceived faults of the Jesus movement are attached to his ‘deadname’, and two, it’s the common scholarly take that his good works are recounted under the epithet which is translated “Excellent Manifestation,” Enoch Uthra. Imo this would be in order to be able to retain their scripts in the Parthian empire, who were Roman Christianity’s enemy.
Enos (Anos)-Uthra comes and proceeds to Jerusalem, clothed as with a garment in water-clouds. . . . He emerges and comes during the years of Pilate, king of the world. Enos-Uthra comes into the world with the powers of the sublime King of Light. He heals the sick and opens (the eyes of) the blind, makes the lepers clean, raises the crippled and the lame so that they can move, he makes the deaf and dumb to speak and gives life to the dead.
The use of an epithet instead of a name to conceal an identity that was politically sensitive is demonstrated in Isaiah 14:2, where scholarly consensus is that it refers to a king of Babylon.
That John the Baptist is an Essene/Son of Light that is in some way connected to the Qumran Essenes is the take of several reasonable scholars. Josephus also wrote of a non-celibate Essene community, I thiiink near Mount Carmel, which is a mountain associated with Elijah, a Jewish person who lived in a part of the Transjordan that was historically Arab for that period. It is my opinion that Mary is likely a part of that movement, and that Jesus is raised up to a higher status as a representive of the syncretism/interpretio/universalism that is historically required in the type of position described in the Book of Isaiah.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)