the original Messianic Judaism?

Rachel Redux

Active member
Elohim has more than one meaning depending on context. It can mean gods (plural), as in the gods of pagans. It can mean the One God (singular). It can mean angels. It can mean human justices. Psalm 82:6 refers to judges who are men, since it indicates that they will die like all men die.
Yes, but YHVH most definitely does call men gods...sons of the Most High in Psalm 82. There's no getting around it.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
Yes, but YHVH most definitely does call men gods...sons of the Most High in Psalm 82. There's no getting around it.
No, you are mistaken. As I already mentioned, the context of the verse is that the word elohim is being used in the sense of judges.

Men are NOT gods. There is only one God -- beside him there is no other.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
No, you are mistaken. As I already mentioned, the context of the verse is that the word elohim is being used in the sense of judges.

Men are NOT gods. There is only one God -- beside him there is no other.
If you are wrong, then, well….(sad face).

The context to me is clearly the God Most High speaking to his council of gods (elohim).

included within that council are his “angels of the presence”, that is, men on earth indwelled by the spirit to carry out his will, men like the Teacher of Righteousness, ”who die like men”.

The Pharisees wouldn’t know the angels of the presence because they don’t know (the God Most High). The Pharisees serve “the god of this [material] world“ (2 cor 4:4), —a world filled with “injustice”.

Thus, the psalmist, like the Essenes, Philo, and Paul, could perceive an intelligible God creating an intelligible world ruled by his divine reason indwelling men on earth. It is to these men, the God Most High speaks, because they are his sons, predestined by him to “inherit all the nations”.

——-

Psalm 82:1-8

This chapter demonstrates that true God and Father (El) condemns Elohim for judging unjustly, then at the last verse raises Elohim to judge the earth, presumably in justice. An ECF attributes this to be the Father (El) speaking to his Son (Elohim). I suggest the first and last Elohim to be YHWH Elohim (Genesis 2:4) and Ruach Elohim (Genesis 1:2) who kills the physical body and gives spiritual life, respectively.

(Psalm 82:1). elōhîm ("god") stands in the council of ’ēl, he judges among the elohim (“gods”).

“This could mean that Yahweh judges along with many other gods as one of the council of the high god Ēl. However it can also mean that Yahweh stands in the Divine Council (generally known as the Council of Ēl), as Ēl judging among the other members of the Council. The following verses in which the god condemns those whom he says were previously named gods (Elohim) and sons of the Most High suggest the god here is in fact Ēl judging the lesser gods.” (Wikipedia)

(2) How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
(3) Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
(4) Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
(5) They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
(6) I said, “You are elohim (“gods”), sons of the el*yown (“Most High”), all of you;
(7) nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.”
(8) Arise, O elohim (“God”), judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations

It is important to note that El (Father) commands Elohim (Son) to rise and inherit the earth, who the bishop Ignatius agrees is the Father, El, commanding his Son, Jesus (or Joshua) the Christ (Ruach Elohim?), to Arise (in Man, “in us”).

“And the Father, who always hears Him, answered and said,
“Arise, O God, and judge the earth; for Thou shall receive all the heathen for Thine inheritance.”
The Father, therefore, who raised Him up, will also raise US up through Him, apart from whom no one will attain to true life.”

(Epistle of Ignatius to the Traloians, chapter 10)
 
Last edited:

American Gothic

Well-known member
to be a child of God you must be born of God
descendants of Adam (and Eve) are born of the will of the Flesh

“And the Father, who always hears Him, answered and said,
“Arise, O God, and judge the earth; for Thou shall receive all the heathen for Thine inheritance.”
The Father, therefore, who raised Him up, will also raise US up through Him, apart from whom no one will attain to true life.”
above makes an interesting point

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1

in Messiah, we are given the right to become, and that is a claim we can affirm now
but I guess it's true fulfillment happens at the resurrection

in Christian view, Messiah was born of the will of God (virgin conception)
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
No, you are mistaken. As I already mentioned, the context of the verse is that the word elohim is being used in the sense of judges.

Men are NOT gods. There is only one God -- beside him there is no other.
Well, the context shows YHVH calling men gods.
Yes, it is in the sense of judges but if you read the entire passage....try reading it in several translations... you know that He's speaking to "the assembly of gods" or the divine assembly. The NASB, a literal translation, says
"God takes His position in His assembly;
He judges in the midst of the gods."
We're the sons of God according to God, himself.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
He judges in the midst of the gods.
We're the sons of God according to God, himself.
I think this a valid comparison that could apply to some (those that have accepted the offer to become a part of God's family)

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.
But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead,
neither marry or are given in marriage, nor can they die anymore,
for they are (or will be if He is specifically meaning future tense) equal to the angels
and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20
- Jesus answering the Sadducees
 
Last edited:

Rachel Redux

Active member
I think this a valid comparison that could apply to some (those that have accepted the offer to become a part of God's family)
Absolutely. I agree!

"The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.
But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead,
neither marry or are given in marriage, nor can they die anymore,
for they are (or will be if He is specifically meaning future tense) equal to the angels
and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20
- Jesus answering the Sadducees
Agreed.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Essenes grouped Pharisees WITH THE Gentiles.
Really? What evidence do you have of this?

Moreover, Pharisees invited Romans in to aid their side in the civil war. So not only theological but political opposition existed between pharisees and essenes.
What evidence do you have? Are you sure you're not confusing sects?

Right, modern christianity evolved from Jewish-christianity, not necessarily for the better.
No, modern christianity evolved from Hellenism, gnosticsm, greatly shaped by the apostate Paul.

The original Nazarenes who were followers of Jesus were pro-Torah, thought of him as a man born naturally, and not divine. Very much in line with the thinking of the Judaism of the time.

It is why I read the Dead Sea Scrolls so much because they arguably are the founders of Christianity in its original form. But they allegorized scripture like Philo and Paul and gnostic Christians.
Who allegorized? The gnostics and Hellenist did, but that wasn't the Pharisees.

I think a case could be made that Phariseeism evolved into modern Christianity because they both interpret scriptures literally, whereas,
I don't see you having a case. Christianity today focuses on types on shadows, conjectures.

Essenes evolved into gnostic christianity because they both allegorized scripture. They also held common tenets, eg, dualism, good versus evil, etc.
Which isn't the Judaism of the time.

It is noteworthy that Pharisees persecuted the Essenes just as Christian orthodoxy persecuted gnostic christianity. The literalizers versus the allegorizers in both cases.
Where do you see this? What we find even in the NT are the Romans, Sadducees, Paul, persecuting the Nazarenes.

News flash! Elohim means gods.
Nothing new here. And?

Psalm 82:6 calls humans gods. So be careful pointing a finger at others when Hebrew scriptures say a lot of things that many ignore.
Bro, I've been talking about Tanakh referring to judges, Exodus 21:6;22:8-9; Moses, Exodus 7:1; angels/messengers, Psalm 8:5-6, the house of David, Zechariah 12:10, as being representatives of the God.

Philo clearly assigns true God status to El, the Most High God.
And who is Philo? The term YHWH elo-him is also used of the true God, Jeremiah 10:10.

And the second and third gods (Elohim, Ruach and YHWH) are metaphorically described as sons of El.
Not in Tanakh. What's your source? Gnostic writings?

What gnosticsm, dualism, Hellenism, etc., ignorantly or purposely mess up is that a person is commonly referred to by multiple terms, but never confused with multiple people, ie, a man as son, father, husband, worker, boss, president, etc.

But actually are the reason and substance from El, respectively, making up all things, aka, creation. So different principles and potencies from El may be personified for instruction but all in all, El is One.
Gnostic writings? Tanakh doesn't teach this at all.

I am not going to argue with you since I know you have one way of seeing things. But there are different ways to describe the same thing depending on which perspective one uses. It rounds out the overall picture to see it from different angles. The allegorizers tended to do that. So for example, Philo refers to the divine reason of El by many titles, depending on the different perspective he is describing. To list a few:
Divine Logos
First born son of god
Mind
Aeon
Spiritual sun
City of god
Viceroy of great king
Idea of ideas
Image of true God, aka, El
Eldest son
Pleroma (English: fullness)
Driver of Ezekiel's “chariot”
Name of god
Dominion
Seeing Israel
Mother city
Father and husband to virtuous souls
Active principle of El
Ideal cosmos
Eldest angel
Angel-chief
And the problem is that you trust in Gnostic sources which along with Helenism, dualism, etc., have messed up a lot of folks.
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Well, the context shows YHVH calling men gods.
Yes, it is in the sense of judges but if you read the entire passage....try reading it in several translations... you know that He's speaking to "the assembly of gods" or the divine assembly. The NASB, a literal translation, says
"God takes His position in His assembly;
He judges in the midst of the gods."
We're the sons of God according to God, himself.
Being that judges act in the role of God is how to understand things, Exodus 21:6;22:8-9. Moses was God before Pharaoh, Exodus 7:1, etc.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Really? What evidence do you have of this?
In the Dead Sea Scrolls over and over and over. Wise goes into detail explaining the history at that time and who the different groups are.

one sample from one page,
”It is clear that the Flattery Seekers are the Pharisees,“…

”The rule of the Flattery Seekers is portrayed here as fully equal to the tyreannical domination of the Assyrians of old.”

(Wise, A new translation, the Dead Sea Scrills, pg 246)

What evidence do you have? Are you sure you're not confusing sects?
All in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Moreover, it is documented history, so a good history book will tell you the same.

No, modern christianity evolved from Hellenism, gnosticsm, greatly shaped by the apostate Paul.

The original Nazarenes who were followers of Jesus were pro-Torah, thought of him as a man born naturally, and not divine. Very much in line with the thinking of the Judaism of the time.

Who allegorized? The gnostics and Hellenist did, but that wasn't the Pharisees.
The Essenes allegorized scripture just like Philo and Paul did. Thanks for confirming my earlier point that the Pharisees do not allegorize scripture.

Instead, the Pharisees ADD oral law or tradition to deconflict contradictory, impossible passages and meanings. IOW, they presume the scripture is intended to be historical so the Pharisees, like Christian orthodoxy, set about deconflicting contradictions in alleged history, through oral law, commentaries, eisegesis, etc.

The allegorizers approached scripture as allegory with a hidden, esoteric meaning, therefore, they interpreted it. Contradictions and impossibilities do not matter, in that case. The technical term for it in Judaism is “pesher”.

It is two entirely different methods for deriving a meaning from scripture. Pharisees did it one way and the Essenes did it another way resulting in two entirely different interpretations of Hebrew scripture.
I don't see you having a case. Christianity today focuses on types on shadows, conjectures.
My point was that, generally speaking, Christian orthodoxy takes Hebrew scriptures as historical events just as the Pharisees do, whereas, the Essenes took Hebrew scriptures as allegory just as gnostic Christians did. the method of interpreting scripture passed from Essenes to gnostic Christians, eg, Paul, and from Pharisees to Christian orthodoxy. Gnostic Christians, to include Paul, are more like the Essenes than they are the Pharisees.

The Dead Sea Scrolls debunk the erroneous idea that gnosticism followed orthodoxy. The fact now stands affirmed that the proto-orthodox Christians came after and corrupted the original Jewish Christianity founded by the Teacher of Righteousness (aka, “John the Baptist”) who allegorized scripture and predicted the coming Messiah(s). He instituted water baptism for all, to include the Pharisees, most likely as a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He was leading the Lord’s Supper before the Common Era. He was applying the pesher approach to scripture for its secret, hidden meaning. He held a dualistic theology just like gnostic Christians. The origins of Christianity is about to be rewritten. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I sense the restoration of glad tidings began by the TOR. It is no coincidence that nation Israel was freed from foreign rule around the time the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Which isn't the Judaism of the time.
Beg your pardon, but the Essenes were likely serving as high priests in the temple before the Pharisees came to power. In fact, they likely supported the Hasmonean rulers per Wise, before Salome Alexandra came to power in 76 B.C. It was the Hasmoneans who began the Melchizedek priesthood when the second Temple stood.

Where do you see this?
It is actual history up to 200 B.C.

What we find even in the NT are the Romans, Sadducees, Paul, persecuting the Nazarenes.


Nothing new here. And?

Bro, I've been talking about Tanakh referring to judges, Exodus 21:6;22:8-9; Moses, Exodus 7:1; angels/messengers, Psalm 8:5-6, the house of David, Zechariah 12:10, as being representatives of the God.

And who is Philo? The term YHWH elo-him is also used of the true God, Jeremiah 10:10.
You need to catch up on history if you want to speak intelligently about second temple Judaism.

Not in Tanakh.
Oh, yeah?
(Psalm 89:6).
For who in the skies compares to Yahweh,
who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of Gods (bênê ’Ēlîm).

What's your source?
Philo, who was an educated, well connected, Jew living in Alexandrai who wrote a lot about the interpretations of Hebrew scripture circulating in his time.

Gnostic writings?

What gnosticsm, dualism, Hellenism, etc., ignorantly or purposely mess up is that a person is commonly referred to by multiple terms, but never confused with multiple people, ie, a man as son, father, husband, worker, boss, president, etc.


Gnostic writings? Tanakh doesn't teach this at all.


And the problem is that you trust in Gnostic sources which along with Helenism, dualism, etc., have messed up a lot of folks.
One mans heretic is another mans prophet.
 
Last edited:

American Gothic

Well-known member
The Dead Sea Scrolls debunk the erroneous idea that gnosticism followed orthodoxy. The fact now stands affirmed that the proto-orthodox Christians came after and corrupted the original Jewish Christianity founded by the Teacher of Righteousness (aka, “John the Baptist”) who allegorized scripture and predicted the coming Messiah(s).
I just don't buy the allegory view

Simon Magus is by some considered the father of the Gnostic schools.
He wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit in Acts 8

I've read there was an Essene-ish group or break off groups in Alexandria that introduced odd Monastic activities

I also don't ascribe to when God first created things there was chaos, and then He made order out of chaos
I'd assume it was an ordered creation that became chaotic due to rebellion of some kind
I think the opposite of a Gnostic view
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
I just don't buy the allegory view
It does not matter whether you buy it or not. The FACT is that the Essenes used the peshar approach to interpreting Hebrew scriptures. They were dualistic in theology.

Simon Magus is by some considered the father of the Gnostic schools.
considered by, guess who?, Iraneus, Hippolytus, etc., i.e., the Roman church, to be the father of gnostic schools > 150 C.E. But not a single gnostic ever heard of Simon the Magician. Read the Nag Hammadi and the so-called “heretics”, all claim Paul as their founder.

Something does not make sense.

The whole origin of Simon THE magician begins with Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles is largely considered a composition NOT based on actual history. It conflicts with Paul’s actual letters in historical events.

The Tubin school in Germany made a case that “Simon” the Magician is actually a cypher for Paul the apostle.

So when all this was going down in real history the Essenes were split between James in Jerusalem and Paul outside Jerusalem.

James, and his supporters, possibly the Ebionites or Nassenes, wrote polemics against Paul which possibly included “The Circuits of Peter” in which James sent Peter to Paul’s churches to counter Paul‘s freedoms in Christ. Subsequent to the death of Paul and James, and the destruction of the Temple, the “circuits of Peter” was over worked by the proto orthodox Roman church to become the Clementine Homilies.

The point being that “Simon”, according to the Tubin school, was invented as a cypher for Paul, because Jewish-Christians did not want to be associated with Paul who was convicted by Nero as a Jewish dissident.

Can you imagine the scrutiny today in America of anyone associated with Osama bin Laden? Your phones would be tapped. Your businesses watched, etc. so Jewish Christians in Asia minor did not want that scrutiny having been founded by Paul (Not that Paul advocated terrorism, but Jews in general were perceived by Romans as dissidents). It was easier to invent Simon as a cypher for Paul and avoid that unnecessary suspicion.

He wanted to buy the power of the Holy Spirit in Acts 8
Acts of the Apostles is NOT considered reliable for historic purposes. It is considered by many scholars as a composition detached from any existing documents.

According to one scholar, the haters in jerusalem characterized Paul’s donations to the “poor men”, aka, Ebionites, in Jerusalem as buying his credentials as an apostle. Therefore, the Acts of the Apostles confounds Simon with Paul and takes on a different meaning depending upon one’s opinion of Paul.

I've read there was an Essene-ish group or break off groups in Alexandria that introduced odd Monastic activities
I would not be surprised if the Therapeuta of Alexandria Praised by Philo were associated with the Essenes in Palestine, because they both worshipped at the rising and setting of the sun, according to Philo.

I also don't ascribe to when God first created things there was chaos, and then He made order out of chaos
Frankly, it does not matter what you ascribe to. You deny evolution which is a proven fact of our world. We do not get to choose the reality we want. We must accept the reality we were given.

I'd assume it was an ordered creation that became chaotic due to rebellion of some kind
I think the opposite of a Gnostic view
Great topic for discussion as long as we realize it is opinion until proven true by reality, evidence, or reason.
 
Last edited:

American Gothic

Well-known member
The FACT is lol
the developing heretical views and the Chruch responses to them can be followed in


later Roman Catholic theological development can be followed in


a partial chain of connection between Apostles and some of their disciples possibly goes

Peter/Paul/John ---> Clement of Rome ----------- Tertullian ---> Ciprian

John ---> Polycarp ---> Justin Martyr ---> Titian
-----------Polycarp ---> Irenaeus
--------------------------Irenaeus ---> Hippolytus
--------------------------Irenaeus ---> Caius

John ---> Ignatius

Mark ---? ---> Pantaenus ---> Clement of Alexandria ---> Origen ---> Gregory

Paul ---? ---> Mathetes
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
In the Dead Sea Scrolls over and over and over. Wise goes into detail explaining the history at that time and who the different groups are.

one sample from one page,
”It is clear that the Flattery Seekers are the Pharisees,“…

”The rule of the Flattery Seekers is portrayed here as fully equal to the tyreannical domination of the Assyrians of old.”

(Wise, A new translation, the Dead Sea Scrills, pg 246)
And the flattery seekers is also a general term used of al outsiders of the sect. Wise uses a subjective definition here. But, given that the Essenes were a sect that practiced ascetism, and avoided women contrary to Torah, etc., I don't take too seriously what they had to say.

All in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Moreover, it is documented history, so a good history book will tell you the same.
The issue is interpreting that so-called history.

The Essenes allegorized scripture just like Philo and Paul did. Thanks for confirming my earlier point that the Pharisees do not allegorize scripture.
The Pharisees used much allegories in teaching lessons much like Jesus used parables. Just like any other group, within them there was a wide spectrum.

Instead, the Pharisees ADD oral law or tradition to deconflict contradictory, impossible passages and meanings.
No, oral law were the judgements and verdicts allowed per Torah, Deut 17:8-13. Are you thinking of something else?

IOW, they presume the scripture is intended to be historical so the Pharisees, like Christian orthodoxy, set about deconflicting contradictions in alleged history, through oral law, commentaries, eisegesis, etc.
Not necessarily. Even within the ranks of Rabbi Akiva and Ishmael there were disagreements.

The allegorizers approached scripture as allegory with a hidden, esoteric meaning, therefore, they interpreted it. Contradictions and impossibilities do not matter, in that case. The technical term for it in Judaism is “pesher”.
There's also pardes.

It is two entirely different methods for deriving a meaning from scripture. Pharisees did it one way and the Essenes did it another way resulting in two entirely different interpretations of Hebrew scripture.
I don't doubt that. The issue is the essenes and christianity were outside of normal Judaism and not a continuation of it.

My point was that, generally speaking, Christian orthodoxy takes Hebrew scriptures as historical events just as the Pharisees do, whereas, the Essenes took Hebrew scriptures as allegory just as gnostic Christians did. the method of interpreting scripture passed from Essenes to gnostic Christians, eg, Paul, and from Pharisees to Christian orthodoxy. Gnostic Christians, to include Paul, are more like the Essenes than they are the Pharisees.
Ok, but Christian orthodoxy today is nothing like judaism today nor what it was back then,

The Dead Sea Scrolls debunk the erroneous idea that gnosticism followed orthodoxy.
No disagreement here.

The fact now stands affirmed that the proto-orthodox Christians came after and corrupted the original Jewish Christianity founded by the Teacher of Righteousness (aka, “John the Baptist”) who allegorized scripture and predicted the coming Messiah(s). He instituted water baptism for all, to include the Pharisees, most likely as a fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.
Water baptism was a common practice amongst Jews for several reasons. Marital purity, cleansing from the dead, nazarite vows, etc. John provided nothing new.

The rest to follow...
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
the developing heretical views and the Chruch responses to them can be followed in


later Roman Catholic theological development can be followed in


a partial chain of connection between Apostles and some of their disciples possibly goes

Peter/Paul/John ---> Clement of Rome ----------- Tertullian ---> Ciprian

John ---> Polycarp ---> Justin Martyr ---> Titian
-----------Polycarp ---> Irenaeus
--------------------------Irenaeus ---> Hippolytus
--------------------------Irenaeus ---> Caius

John ---> Ignatius

Mark ---? ---> Pantaenus ---> Clement of Alexandria ---> Origen ---> Gregory

Paul ---? ---> Mathetes
If you only read the history written by the Roman church then of course, they will appear to have rode in and saved the day, just like North Korean children are taught that they were saved from evil America by their Dear Leader. The great thing about liberal democracies today and critical thinking is we can actually question the “approved history” and investigate sources of information and compare them with what we were told.

The conclusion: a lot of information was left out by the Roman church. A lot was covered up. But all one has to do is dig a little to discover what is under the surface. But many people, to include yourself, do not want to know the truth because they prefer superstitions and myths instead. For you, evolution is false because you want it to be false and there are religious leaders willing to tell you it is false. But objective Scholars tend to dig into the details because they are motivated by the truth. What they find sometimes is extremely interesting presenting an entirely different perspective.

Remember the parable of the guy who finds a treasure in a field? What does he do?

He does NOT say, I will leave it for someone else to find. He does not say, it would be too much work to dig it up. He does not say, I will leave it for another day.

Instead, he says, I will sell all my belongings in the world and buy the field so that I may recover what is in it for it is the most valuable thing to me. My friend, if you glean anything from the Dead Sea Scrolls, glean this: the Essenes valued Truth beyond all things. In fact, they served the Prince of Truth. Truth is the treasure buried in a field and the man willing to sell all he possesses to own it will find the God of knowledge.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Beg your pardon, but the Essenes were likely serving as high priests in the temple before the Pharisees came to power.
Not if they practiced abstention from women as they appear they did.

In fact, they likely supported the Hasmonean rulers per Wise, before Salome Alexandra came to power in 76 B.C. It was the Hasmoneans who began the Melchizedek priesthood when the second Temple stood.
Per Wise. Melchizedek is a reference to King David and his sons, Psalm 110, 2 Samuel 8:18.

It is actual history up to 200 B.C.
Presumed.

You need to catch up on history if you want to speak intelligently about second temple Judaism.
You have stated nothing new.

Oh, yeah?
(Psalm 89:6).
For who in the skies compares to Yahweh,
who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of Gods (bênê ’Ēlîm).
Sons of God aren't divine, all are created. The natural forces, angels, are gods too, Psalm 104:3-4, etc.

Philo, who was an educated, well connected, Jew living in Alexandrai who wrote a lot about the interpretations of Hebrew scripture circulating in his time.
Of Hellenistic views.

One mans heretic is another mans prophet.
You need to know who the true prophets are.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
And the flattery seekers is also a general term used of al outsiders of the sect. Wise uses a subjective definition here. But, given that the Essenes were a sect that practiced ascetism, and avoided women contrary to Torah, etc., I don't take too seriously what they had to say.


The issue is interpreting that so-called history.


The Pharisees used much allegories in teaching lessons much like Jesus used parables. Just like any other group, within them there was a wide spectrum.


No, oral law were the judgements and verdicts allowed per Torah, Deut 17:8-13. Are you thinking of something else?


Not necessarily. Even within the ranks of Rabbi Akiva and Ishmael there were disagreements.


There's also pardes.


I don't doubt that. The issue is the essenes and christianity were outside of normal Judaism and not a continuation of it.


Ok, but Christian orthodoxy today is nothing like judaism today nor what it was back then,


No disagreement here.


Water baptism was a common practice amongst Jews for several reasons. Marital purity, cleansing from the dead, nazarite vows, etc. John provided nothing new.

The rest to follow...
Point of information.

1) Essenes had members who were married. In fact, there are instructions in the Dead Sea Scrolls for those who are married.

2) Water baptism was required by all, to include the Pharisees, to become a member of the Yahad, ie., the community belonging to the Essenes. Such a requirement was considered an insult by Pharisees. Simply, we are not talking about washing one’s hands or even conversion to Judaism, but conversion by ALL to the community belonging to “the Way”, which, of course, we all know as the sacrament of baptism required by ALL to become Christians.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
If you only read the history written by the Roman church then of course, they will appear to have rode in and saved the day,
Catholicism (theologically) saved the day? hardly

replacement theology? no thanks
dominionism? no thanks
sacramentalism? no thanks
pagan practices disguised in "Christian" trappings? no thanks

Roman Catholicism and Islam, or factions thereof, come together as part of the
eventual global mystery religion

theological questions and disputes could be solved by
asking an Apostle, or a disciple of an Apostle or checking their written work
similar to Judaism theology being compared to the Ancient works
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
<snip>
So when all this was going down in real history the Essenes were split between James in Jerusalem and Paul outside Jerusalem.

James, and his supporters, possibly the Ebionites or Nassenes, wrote polemics against Paul which possibly included “The Circuits of Peter” in which James sent Peter to Paul’s churches to counter Paul‘s freedoms in Christ. Subsequent to the death of Paul and James, and the destruction of the Temple, the “circuits of Peter” was over worked by the proto orthodox Roman church to become the Clementine Homilies.

The point being that “Simon”, according to the Tubin school, was invented as a cypher for Paul, because Jewish-Christians did not want to be associated with Paul who was convicted by Nero as a Jewish dissident.

<snip>
I wanted to provide a reference to the assertion made above because it is a critical piece of the puzzle.

“In particular, “Recognitions [of Clement]” 1.27–71 draws from a source that was a Jewish-Christian refutation of Luke’s Acts of the Apostles and blamed Paul not only for the failed mission to the Jewish nation, which was on the way to be baptized, but also apparently for the death of James the brother of Jesus. This fascinating source material has been studied elsewhere.2 The present study will focus on the actual novel, the Circuits of Peter,”
(JEWISH CHRISTIANITY OF THE PSEUDO-CLEMENTINES, F. Stanley Jones)

Jones is referring above to the “Recognitions of Clement”, where Saul is associated with the “enemy”, of James, Peter, and John, aka, “Simon the Magician”.

IOW, it suggests that in the original source material before being over worked by the Christian orthodoxy, Saul, the apostle = Simon the Magician = the enemy.

Recognitions of Clement
When James, Peter, and John were appealing to the high priest of the Temple for Yeshua the anointed, someone interjected that James, Peter, and John were in league with Simon the Magician. The proceedings fell into chaos and James was subsequently martyred.

Presently, James is accused by a Pharisee of being in league (Essenes?) with Simon (Saul?) and subsequently killed.

Immediately after martyring James, the high priest tasks Saul with harassing “the way”: “the enemy [Saul] had received a commission from the high priest that he should arrest all who believed in Jesus, and should go to Damascus (Qumran?) with his letters, …he should make havoc among the faithful…”

Presently, the enemy of Peter, James, and John is Saul, the apostle presumably before conversion and before revealing the mysteries to the Gentiles, and not requiring them to Judaize.

Two paragraphs later, Peter recounts,

“I detailed how James standing on the top of the steps, had shown the whole people …that Jesus is the Christ; …an enemy did all those things which I have already mentioned, and which I need not repeat.”
(Hatten, Recognitions of clement, pg 56-57)

Presently, the enemy, aka, Saul, is referred back to Simon the Magician. Peter is blaming Saul, aka, Simon, aka, the enemy, for James’ death. For Saul was not only the enemy of “the way” BEFORE his conversion, but also, AFTER his conversion, according to James, since Paul revealed the mysteries to Gentiles without requiring them to Judaize. James taught the efficacy of ritual purity versus Paul who taught freedom from ritual purity (“works of the Law”), by faith in Christ.

This really is the crux of the issue, that is, whether Gentiles were required to convert to Judaism and perform the “works of the Law”. The Pharisees mandated it, James was ok with some of it, but Paul/Simon/the enemy was throwing a wrench in the arrangement between the Pharisees and the leader of the Essenes in Jerusalem, namely, James. So the Pharisees had James killed and persecuted members of the way in Palestine. From Peters perspective, Saul/Paul/ Simon/the enemy was the cause of James’ death.

Apparently, the Christian overwriter of the original source overlooked this association when editing the original source, namely, “the circuits of Peter”. Otherwise, he probably would have removed it.
 
Last edited:
Top