the original Messianic Judaism?

American Gothic

Well-known member
Essenes, Qumran community, Dead Sea Scrolls, extrabiblical History, testaments of early patriarchs, "the Way"
prophecy, Israel, the Jewish people from a Messianic (Jesus) perspective, "The Chosen" tv series,
Cal-Mex food, skateboarding, pre-WOKE youth culture, etc. etc.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Looking at Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" book
he's a professor in North Carolina
he is by his own admission specifically against the "fundamentalist, Evangelical" Christian view
but you can learn from your opponents


he roundly rejects the view of Jesus "mythicists" that He was not a historical person
and as a secular scholar he has interesting view about 1st century Judaisms

after discussing Pharisees and Sadducees, he says this about Essenes (Qumran anyway)
"Ironically, the one Jewish group from Jesus' day that we are best informed about happens to be the one
not mentioned in the New Testament" pg. 279
He seems to have missed the obvious, that the Christians of the early first century were the Essenes by another name.

1) The early Christians called themselves “The way” just as the Essenes did.
2) The early Christians practiced the sacraments of baptism and Lords Supper as the Essenes did.
3) The early Christians allegorized scripture as the Essenes did.
4) The early Christians were persecuted by Pharisees as Essenes were.
5) The early Christians held a dualistic theology as the Essenes did.

Also, by deduction the one sect of Judaism not named in the Gospels is the Essenes which parallels the Christians in many ways. Obviously different names were used for the same sect (the Essenes never call themselves by that name). The other two sects of Judaism, namely, the Pharisees and sadducees, are named in the Gospels.

I think Ehrman has gotten old or working with old information. You should check out Dohertys book, Jesus:neither God nor man.
 
Last edited:

American Gothic

Well-known member
1) The early Christians called themselves “The way” just as the Essenes did.
I think this is true

2) The early Christians practiced the sacraments of baptism and Lords Supper as the Essenes did.
I'd call them Ordinances, and affirm they were taken from pre-existing Jewish rituals

3) The early Christians allegorized scripture as the Essenes did.
I'm sure we disagree here some, but we know that already

4) The early Christians were persecuted by Pharisees as Essenes were.
to certain extant, Yes

5) The early Christians held a dualistic theology as the Essenes did.
not sure what you specifically mean here, but there is all the Darkness vs. Light stuff

check out Doherys book, Jesus:neither God nor man
I'll see if I can
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
I think this is true


I'd call them Ordinances, and affirm they were taken from pre-existing Jewish rituals


I'm sure we disagree here some, but we know that already
just for the record,
“Now this may be interpreted allegorically:…” (Gal 4:24)

The Essenes used the pesher method of interpreting scripture which is another name for allegorizing scripture.

to certain extant, Yes


not sure what you specifically mean here, but there is all the Darkness vs. Light stuff
some examples from the New Testament
dark vs light
Jesus vs satan
spirit vs flesh
old creation vs new creation
old covenant vs new covenant

From the Essenes
Prince of Darkness vs Prince of Truth
spirit vs flesh
light vs dark

In both theologies there is “the God Most High” or the “one true God and Father” in whom the duality is immanent maintaining a unity.

I'll see if I can
He demonstrates in detail the Gospel Jesus as a mythical composition versus the epistles of Paul where Yeshua is the name of a heavenly divine being associated with the Holy Spirit which indwells the saints.

For the record,
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 cor 3:17)

”the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (phill 1:19)

”For God (Ruach Elohim], who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone IN our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 cor 4:6)
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
just for the record,
“Now this may be interpreted allegorically:…” (Gal 4:24)
sure, things can be typological/symbolic and prophetic

The Essenes used the pesher method of interpreting scripture which is another name for allegorizing scripture.
anyone who studies Scripture has to use interpretive methods to a certain extant

In both theologies there is “the God Most High” or the “one true God and Father” in whom the duality is immanent maintaining a unity.
I don't know what you mean by a duality view of God
to my understanding, the literature kept a Qumran affirms Triune concepts of God

He demonstrates in detail the Gospel Jesus as a mythical composition versus the epistles of Paul where Yeshua is the name of a heavenly divine being associated with the Holy Spirit which indwells the saints.
I think this sort of view of the Gospels and of Jesus is abnormal
I view Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct aspects of the one God
 

docphin5

Well-known member
sure, things can be typological/symbolic and prophetic


anyone who studies Scripture has to use interpretive methods to a certain extant

I don't know what you mean by a duality view of God

to my understanding, the literature kept a Qumran affirms Triune concepts of God


I think this sort of view of the Gospels and of Jesus is abnormal
I view Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct aspects of the one God

Divine Triad
The duality of the Essenes are the TWO divine principles at enmity with each other in THIS AGE. But the two at enmity in THIS AGE are WITHIN the unifying third principle, namely, the Most High God. He lies at the heart of all things maintaining a unity. This is the divine triad of the Essenes explicitly described in the DSS.

Trinity
Christian orthodoxy says the trinity are three persons making up one God. The Trinity was a later variant of the Divine Triad. In the Trinity the enmity of the two principles under the Father is replaced with perfect harmony. In addition, they replace “the El” with YHWH Elohim, make Jesus the only begotten Son, and identify the Holy Spirit as the third principle. The difference between the Essene’s Divine Triad and orthodoxy’s Trinity is largely due to the Gospel stories being taken as literal events. Put the Gospels in their proper perspective as mythical esoteric stories and the Essenes Divine Triad comes into view.

For example,

If the Gospel story is myth and Paul’s formal description (in his epistles) of Jesus being the Holy Spirit is true, which I believe it is, then the mythical Gospel Jesus and Paul’s inner Jesus can be reconciled presuming that the Gospel Jesus is written esoterically to personify the INNER JESUS of the saints, (specifically, Paul, in this case for he was a revelatory teacher), —the inner Jesus equated by Paul to be the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is (=) Jesus/Joshua. If Paul and the Essenes are on the same page then those two line up to be one principle, one “person” of the Divine Triad.

Now we just have to sort out the other two principles. Follow the line of thought here.

IF the saints have an INNER JESUS, associated with the Holy Spirit, personified in the Gospel story as the mythical man Jesus, then the flesh of the saints would be personified as well as the “body“ of the Gospel Jesus, aka, the only begotten Son of God.

Stay with me Just a bit longer.

Again, In the Gospel Jesus (not Paul’s Jesus) we have the sum (=) of the duality personified and mythically represented as the 1) Holy Spirit and (+) the 2) material body or flesh of the (“only begotten son of God”), —the two principles at enmity with one another. Right?, for what does Gospel Jesus say, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all.” (John 6:63). Again, the flesh must die, the only begotten son of god must die for what? For sin! In the Gospel stories we see the enmity of the duality esoterically represented, the spirit versus the flesh of the mythical Gospel Jesus, which is EXACTLY what the founders of Christianity taught. Furthermore, please note that when the Gospel Jesus was mythically represented as dying on the cross, it was his flesh or body left hanging there dead and lifeless, whereas, the Spirit returned to his heavenly Father. The body and spirit of Christ were divided at death, that is, the flesh or body of Christ and the spirit of Christ

Set the Gospel stories aside for a moment and think only of its esoteric meaning.

If the flesh or material world or body of the Christ or only begotten Son of God is at enmity with the Holy Spirit or spirit of Jesus, then who is the only begotten son of god or flesh and furthermore, who is the heavenly Father? The latter is easily identified as “the Most High God” or “the El.” The former is arguably YHWH Elohim. Why? Because he forms the body or flesh of the saints and condemns them to death forever. There is no avoiding his curse in THIS AGE! He is the adversary to the Holy Spirit IN THIS AGE. He is the only begotten Son of God in heaven who died for sin, —his sin! What sin? The original sin: Denying the “the Most High God”, rebelling against his heavenly Father, in heaven. YHWH Elohim is the body of Christ who spoiled his heavenly nature and now forms the nature or body of Christ that dies for sin, —in US!

Therefore, given this rough sketch of how the divine triad developed into the Trinity, largely due to the Gospel myths being taken literally, we can perceive how the Trinity should parallel the Divine Triad as espoused by the founders of Christianity, namely, the Essenes.

1) The Most High God >> one true God and Father, “heavenly Father”
2) YHWH Elohim >> Only begotten son of God who died for sin forming and killing flesh of Christ, father of imperfect flesh condemned to die
3) Ruach Elohim >> Holy Spirit or Inner Jesus of the Saints bringing order to the “body of Christ”, freeing the spirits from death, and transmuting the “body of Christ” to its former glory, champion to the saints, prince of truth
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
so you think dual aspects of creation are a part of God?
Absolutely. He is at the heart of all things as a force of love. When we look deep enough, he is there, even through the storms, through the darkness, through the pain. Does not scripture say God's champion descended into hades to preach to the spirits there, open the gates, and set them free? So much majesty in scripture pertaining to us!

 

docphin5

Well-known member
is God distinct from the Creation?

"(He) upholds all things by the word of His power" Hebrews 1
I would say so, but what he is in himself cannot be known for he is beyond comprehension. Therefore, what we know of him is perceived from what he has created, his power and his wisdom. I thinks that is what Paul said when he wrote,

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” (Romans 1:20)
 

docphin5

Well-known member
How do you discern what is to be taken Allegorical, and what should be taken differently?
I think we must first know what is true in front of us before we can discern the sublime things above. Both in the Gospel of Thomas and in the canonical Gospels Jesus is attributed with saying that knowledge of earthly things precedes knowledge of heavenly things. So science would be a good start, eg, The TV show, “wonders of the Universe”, by Brian Cox, a British astrophysicist. But I am a little biased because my training and profession were in biomedical science.

A pious, virtuous soul also contributes to discernment because there is a direct association between a moral consciousness and the Holy Spirit. Theoretically, if one grows a moral consciousness then the spirit of truth grows as well, and he reveals the Christ in scripture. It is probably why Paul exhorted us to dwell on things that are holy whenever possible rather than waste our time on vain things, although, I must confess, I do like the occasional movie with little value but a lot of action. Ha ha! I am guilty of watching (and enjoying) John Wick movies.

Finally, brothers,
whatever is true,
whatever is honorable,
whatever is just,
whatever is pure,
whatever is lovely,
whatever is commendable,
if there is any excellence,
if there is anything worthy of praise,
think about these things.

What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
” ( Phil 4:8)

There may be other ways but these two stand out to me.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
anything you think Science/the World is getting wrong?
Not really, as long as it is quality science, meaning results independently verified and/or peer reviewed. The more independent studies support the same conclusion, the more likely the results are true. Evolution is one of those true things that evangelical Christianity has opposed which may contribute to quenching the inner spirit, given he is “the Spirit of Truth.” If we choose poorly then he is pushed further away.
yes, I understand the dichotomy of relationship with Popular culture
 

docphin5

Well-known member
anti-Evolution can go too far

you don't think Darwinism has gone too far?
Nope. BTW, nobody in science today uses the term Darwinism or talks about Darwin. Science has built upon the original ideas of Darwin so much that Darwin is no longer relevant to the science behind evolution. The only people who talk about Darwinism or Darwin are fundamentalist Christians. You give yourself away as to who you listen to when you use those buzz words which means you aren’t listening to the actual scientists. I think fundamentalist Christians talk about Darwin so much because they don’t want to talk about the modern science which supports evolution.
 

American Gothic

Well-known member
Nope. BTW, nobody in science today uses the term Darwinism or talks about Darwin. Science has built upon the original ideas of Darwin so much that Darwin is no longer relevant to the science behind evolution. The only people who talk about Darwinism or Darwin are fundamentalist Christians. You give yourself away as to who you listen to when you use those buzz words which means you aren’t listening to the actual scientists. I think fundamentalist Christians talk about Darwin so much because they don’t want to talk about the modern science which supports evolution.
what known/well established Theory has replaced it?

what mechanism has now replaced decent with modification/genetic mutation and natural selection
as the accepted primary agent(s) of biological change?
 
Top