Pe****ta Primacy, Palistinian Prophet, & why Jesus didn't speak Syriac

[godnotgod]

I highly, highly doubt the "Modern Essenes" are anything close to the originals. I doubt they're even Torah observant.

I don't necessarily doubt that there's a connection between "Nazareth" and the "Nazarenes" in terms of them being a particular religious community, but I wouldn't be asserting it as matter of fact. I used to, until I realized the provable evidence is pretty much non-existent.

You had previously brought up a point about some Essenes doing animal sacrifice. This link is a chronology of Essene events, 3 of which indicate animal sacrifices labeled as either interpolations or 'false':

Essene Chronology

 

[Shermana]

You had previously brought up a point about some Essenes doing animal sacrifice. This link is a chronology of Essene events, 3 of which indicate animal sacrifices labeled as either interpolations or 'false':

Essene Chronology

Oh that link totally disproves the Temple Scroll and blows it right out of the water.

I'll bet that guy who looks like the hamburglar in Rootbeer Tapper one day came and slipped the Temple Scroll into the Qumran Documents and then started giggling as he thought of all the chaos it was cause.

Or perhaps Essene.org has...never...heard...of the Temple Scroll? (And the words "Temple scroll" are not to be found on that link).

Or worse, they HAVE heard of it....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Modern Essenes claim that the Nazarenes and the Nazareans (and Nazoreans) are all one and the same.

You didn't want to talk Aramaic primacy in the other thread so if you are going to bring up the Nazarenes here I would ask that you also respond to my last post here, as you refused to respond to a similar post on Aramaic primacy as it was off topic in the thread I posted it in. To make things easier for you, here's the last post in this thread that I am referring to:

What I don't get about this assertion is that, as much as one can bring up manuscript arguments and arguments about the languages and so on (arguments others may not be able to evaluate), all one has to do is look at the translations provided by the Aramiac primacy group. We look at John 20:16 and do we find Mary addressing Jesus with a line like "and she turned to him and said 'rabbuni', meaning rabbi" or even just "...and said 'rabbuni'"? No. We find that like the Greek, the "Aramaic" gospels translate a term that was Aramaic to begin with (probably Hebrew of the day too, but that's irrelevant). Why, if this was the original Aramaic version, do we need a translation of Aramaic? And this happens more than once. I already pointed out that one version of Jesus' last words on the cross, the one in which we find Aramaic in Matthew and Mark, is translated in the "original Aramaic" versions. Again, we have a supposedly original Aramaic version translating Aramaic. In Mark 14:36 the Greek text again gives us first the Aramaic abba and then the Greek equivalent. In the "original Aramaic", there isn't another word to give so we just find a duplicated word instead. We can ignore the non-existence of any manuscript written in the Aramaic of Jesus' day (or knowledge of what exactly this was), the fact that whatever else one wishes to say about the Hebraisms of the gospels (esp. Mark), it's so blatantly obvious that John was written in Greek and to suggest that Paul's letters were originally Aramaic is absurd, and so on. These are all important arguments, it's just that we don't even need them to show how ridiculous Aramaic primacy is. We have the supposedly original Aramaic version copying the Greek by translating Aramaic terms and phrases.

 

[godnotgod]

Oh that link totally disproves the Temple Scroll and blows it right out of the water.

I'll bet that guy who looks like the hamburglar in Rootbeer Tapper one day came and slipped the Temple Scroll into the Qumran Documents and then started giggling as he thought of all the chaos it was cause.

Or perhaps Essene.org has...never...heard...of the Temple Scroll? (And the words "Temple scroll" are not to be found on that link).

Or worse, they HAVE heard of it....

Is there any validity to the charge of interpolation and fraud or not? That's all.

 

[Shermana]

Is there any validity to the charge of interpolation and fraud or not? That's all.

In this case, I'd say the charge of fraud in the Temple Scroll is basically nil. There's nothing really that would indicate this to be the case.

Do you accept the possibility that all claims of Jesus's alleged Essene faction being against Animal sacrifice being fraudulent?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Is there any validity to the charge of interpolation and fraud or not? That's all.

I'll try again. If you want to discuss other topics in this thread, by all means do so but please don't neglect the thread topic entirely especially when you stated specifically that the issues I brought up with Aramaic primacy in another thread should be brought here. So I did.
Once again, thought, look at John 20:16. I don't care which translation of whatever translations you think are from some Aramaic original. Now notice that when Mary addresses Jesus the "Aramaic" versions, like the Greek, have two words there. In English, the translation is usually something like "she turned to him and said "rabbouni', which means 'teacher'". In Greek, John first has the Aramaic and then, natural, a Greek translation as it is in Greek. However, the "Aramaic" versions of John have exactly the same thing, only instead of translating it with a Greek word they translate it with a synonym. Why would an author writing a text in Aramaic feel the need to point out what a word that is so common among Aramaic speakers it became the name for their spiritual leaders? It's like me saying "he's my friend, which means buddy". It makes no sense to translate a word into the same language, but it does if the "Aramaic' versions were translations from Greek. This was in the Greek text so they felt they needed to keep it.

I already went over how, when in Mark/Matthew Jesus' last words one the cross are given first in Aramaic they are then translated. In an Aramaic original, there'd be no need for that. Yet guess what? It's "translated' in the "Aramaic" versions.

Basically, when ever an Aramaic word is transliterated in the Greek NT and then a translation provided in Greek, the "Aramaic" versions do the same thing. Even when a word is not explicitly translated (i.e., there's no word like legetai to indicate something like "which means"), such as when Jesus says "Abba, father" so that the word abba can be understood as "father" to Greek readers who don't know what "abba" means but do know what pater means. In the "Aramaic' versions they just repeated the word.

So let's ignore for now all manuscripts, all arguments that are too technical because they depend upon e.g., understanding the languages in question and there histories, and simply ask why the authors of the supposedly original "Aramaic" gospels would translate words from Aramaic into Aramaic?

 

[godnotgod]

In this case, I'd say the charge of fraud in the Temple Scroll is basically nil. There's nothing really that would indicate this to be the case.

Wasn't the charge of fraud about a fake Torah, in the chronology I linked you to?

450?: Torah (Mosaic Law) compiled from E/J/P/D sources in Babylon. Final crystalization of the False Torah which includes animal sacrifice.

Do you accept the possibility that all claims of Jesus's alleged Essene faction being against Animal sacrifice being fraudulent?

What seems to be most compatible with Essene philosophy is the practice of vegetarianism, coupled with the idea of the life-force being centered in the breath, rather than in the blood. I tend to gravitate toward the notion, as pointed out by one of the sites I lined to, that the vegetarian doctrines were corrupted. This fits with the fact that Paul and Rome set out to destroy the teachings of Yeshua, and to replace them with those of the mystery religions, which included animal sacrifice, a blood/meat Eucharistic rite, and most importantly, an easy practice for the masses to gain salvation, rather than the arduous practices of the Essenes:


1 The Nazarenes -- both the ancient Judaic Nazarenes and the later Christian Nazarenes -- WERE STRICT VEGETARIANS;

2 The Nazarenes believed that the Old Testament books of Moses had been falsified by the fallen orthodox Jewish priesthood and corrupt kings; they believed that Moses indeed gave the true Law, but that the true Law had been removed from the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses) and was preserved only in their own Nazarene scriptures;

3 The Nazarene-Christians claimed that they possessed the original New Testament of Yahshua, written in Aramaic, and it differed from the Catholic New Testament.

In reference to number one above, not only does Epiphanius admit that the Nazarenes "eat no meat", but modern scholars concur; Hugh Shonfield, in The Passover Plot:

"There has been emerging ever clearer evidence that in the Galilean region an ancient Israelitish type of religion persisted in the time of Jesus, defying Judean efforts to obliterate it.... The name he bears, Jesus the Nazorean, has northern sectarian implications.... The name borne by the earliest followers of Jesus was not Christians: they were called Nazoreans (Nazarenes).... They were vegetarians and rejected animal sacrifices."

http://www.essene.org/Essenes_of_Mount_Carmel.htm

The level of spirituality which the Essenes are reputed to have practiced is incompatible with animal sacrifice, just as Buddhist spirituality to which it is linked, is also incompatible. Vegetarianism is compatible with the ethics of higher spirituality that is breath-based, not animal sacrifice, which is a superstitious belief.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

www.essene.org

[apparently THE source for all human wisdom]

Gosh, if it weren't for the Essenes, I wouldn't know anything.

Everything I need to know I learned from www.essene.org.

It is the most interesting website in the world! haha

 

[godnotgod]

www.essene.org

[apparently THE source for all human wisdom]

Gosh, if it weren't for the Essenes, I wouldn't know anything.

Everything I need to know I learned from www.essene.org.

It is the most interesting website in the world! haha

You see, unlike the corrupted Greek NT and modern orthodox Paulanity, the guy at essene.org is a simple spiritualist, and I tend to place more credence in him. Besides that, a lot he says does in fact coincide with what other similar sites also say, so that is an indication he is not just 'making things up'.

(God, I sure made some out of this world green chile and chicken enchiladas for T-giving this year. I used genuine Mexican crema fresca, Greek feta, and cilantro, and ....OMG!...I just ate six w/two Bohemia dark beers and am in Green Chile Chicken Aramaic Essene Heaven!...squawk...)

 

[Shermana]

Wasn't the charge of fraud about a fake Torah, in the chronology I linked you to?

450?: Torah (Mosaic Law) compiled from E/J/P/D sources in Babylon. Final crystalization of the False Torah which includes animal sacrifice.

The Documentary Hypothesis has absolutely nothing that conclusively proves the P source edited in all those animal sacrifice laws, or that the Hamburglar snuck in the Temple Scroll to the Qumran community. If it did, the scholars would be having an utter field day.

Let me tell you, I BELIEVE the Documentary Hypothesis. I BELIEVE The Pentateuch has seen edits and interpolations. What I don't believe however is that the Law itself, the actual commandments, have seen much edit and changing if any at all, if anything some may have been taken out rather than added in.

What seems to be most compatible with Essene philosophy is the practice of vegetarianism,

Within SOME Essenes, for sure.

coupled with the idea of the life-force being centered in the breath, rather than in the blood. I tend to gravitate toward the notion, as pointed out by one of the sites I lined to, that the vegetarian doctrines were corrupted. This fits with the fact that Paul and Rome set out to destroy the teachings of Yeshua, and to replace them with those of the mystery religions, which included animal sacrifice, a blood/meat Eucharistic rite, and most importantly, an easy practice for the masses to gain salvation, rather than the arduous practices of the Essenes:

1 The Nazarenes -- both the ancient Judaic Nazarenes and the later Christian Nazarenes -- WERE STRICT VEGETARIANS;

Says who? Where? What proof? Were you the same guy trying to prove that the Loaves and Fishes episode was interpolated somehow?

2 The Nazarenes believed that the Old Testament books of Moses had been falsified by the fallen orthodox Jewish priesthood and corrupt kings; they believed that Moses indeed gave the true Law, but that the true Law had been removed from the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to Moses) and was preserved only in their own Nazarene scriptures;

Says who? What proof?

3 The Nazarene-Christians claimed that they possessed the original New Testament of Yahshua, written in Aramaic, and it differed from the Catholic New Testament.

And where do we see evidence of this? In what writings?

In reference to number one above, not only does Epiphanius admit that the Nazarenes "eat no meat", but modern scholars concur; Hugh Shonfield, in The Passover Plot:

Was he talking about the Nazarenes or the Ebionites? Not all Ebionites believed the same thing either. And the Church Fathers had very limited interaction with them, they might have assumed a faction of them represented the totality. This would be akin to saying "The Gnostics are all abstinent", when in fact only a few sects of them were.

"There has been emerging ever clearer evidence that in the Galilean region an ancient Israelitish type of religion persisted in the time of Jesus, defying Judean efforts to obliterate it.... The name he bears, Jesus the Nazorean, has northern sectarian implications.... The name borne by the earliest followers of Jesus was not Christians: they were called Nazoreans (Nazarenes).... They were vegetarians and rejected animal sacrifices."

Where is this ever clearer evidence? I agree they were called Nazarenes. However, there seems to have been a difference between the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. The Ebionites were likely a break-off-faction of the Nazarenes, and of those, there were break offs of those Ebionites who were similar to the break-off of the Essenes.

http://www.essene.org/Essenes_of_Mount_Carmel.htm

The level of spirituality which the Essenes are reputed to have practiced is incompatible with animal sacrifice, just as Buddhist spirituality to which it is linked, is also incompatible. Vegetarianism is compatible with the ethics of higher spirituality that is breath-based, not animal sacrifice, which is a superstitious belief.

Does that website once mention the Temple Scroll by chance?

 

[Shermana]

You see, unlike the corrupted Greek NT and modern orthodox Paulanity, the guy at essene.org is a simple spiritualist, and I tend to place more credence in him. Besides that, a lot he says does in fact coincide with what other similar sites also say, so that is an indication he is not just 'making things up'.

(God, I sure made some out of this world green chile and chicken enchiladas for T-giving this year. I used genuine Mexican crema fresca, Greek feta, and cilantro, and ....OMG!...I just ate six w/two Bohemia dark beers and am in Green Chile Chicken Aramaic Essene Heaven!...squawk...)

Does the guy at Essene.org obey the Torah by chance? (Regardless of animal laws).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You see, unlike the corrupted Greek NT and modern orthodox Paulanity, the guy at essene.org is a simple spiritualist, and I tend to place more credence in him. Besides that, a lot he says does in fact coincide with what other similar sites also say, so that is an indication he is not just 'making things up'.

(God, I sure made some out of this world green chile and chicken enchiladas for T-giving this year. I used genuine Mexican crema fresca, Greek feta, and cilantro, and ....OMG!...I just ate six w/two Bohemia dark beers and am in Green Chile Chicken Aramaic Essene Heaven!...squawk...)

Finally! Thanks.

I agree that the simplicity of the Essenes (modern) that you're attracted to has some virtue, but that doesn't make their view on history correct.

One of the reasons why it's simple is they're making stuff up, and when you do that, you can make it as simple as you like.

The Greek NT is complicated because it has a 2,000 year history that completely dominates Western culture and has a strong tradition in the East.

The New Aramaic NT is the product of one man who clearly - despite whatever spiritual accomplishments he has - he is more than a little bit dishonest about his NT and the more general Christian histories.

Also, the historian separates the truthfulness of a religious experience (personal enrichment in Christianity or whatever), theological correctness, and a correct historical interpretation.

The current state of the Greek NT -- all of its edits and the rest of its complicated 2,000 year history does not have any impact whatsoever the determination of its ancient nature. If a document is later edited, it does not make the original more or less ancient. If the Aramaic texts match 99%, it does not mean that it is ancient -- it simply means that there aren't many copies and the texts themselves and they are most likely post the printing press and therefore late. The man making the claim is a liar, and the man who believe it is gullible.

 

[godnotgod]

I agree that the simplicity of the Essenes (modern) that you're attracted to has some virtue, but that doesn't make their view on history correct.

One of the reasons why it's simple is they're making stuff up, and when you do that, you can make it as simple as you like.

.

Your logic is erroneous.

I said 'simple', not 'simplistic'

 

[Shermana]

No, it isn't.

And what makes it anymore relevant than modern day Catholics thinking the original Christians were Catholics?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your logic is erroneous.

I said 'simple', not 'simplistic'

Your reading is worse. I did not say "simplistic," nor is there any possible way to draw that meaning from my post.

 

[godnotgod]

Your reading is worse. I did not say "simplistic," nor is there any possible way to draw that meaning from my post.

You said that "One of the reasons why it's simple is they're making stuff up, and when you do that, you can make it as simple as you like."


Your logic is erroneous. Simple does not mean it is being 'made up'. What is being 'made up' is by simpletons who think no one will notice, is modern Christianity, where the charlatan St. Paul creates, for example, '500 eyewitnesses' to the Resurrection out of whole cloth, and where the 'city of Nazareth' pops into existence rather suddenly in the NT. Then there is the untenable position of some non-chalantly-presented 18 missing years. Not only do simpletons make stuff up like this, but other simpletons believe it.

I trust the author of the essene.org site far more than I do the fabrication that is modern Paulanity, simply (no pun) because his descriptions of spirituality match reality.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You said that "One of the reasons why it's simple is they're making stuff up, and when you do that, you can make it as simple as you like."


Your logic is erroneous. Simple does not mean it is being 'made up'. What is being 'made up' is by simpletons who think no one will notice, is modern Christianity, where the charlatan St. Paul creates, for example, '500 eyewitnesses' to the Resurrection out of whole cloth, and where the 'city of Nazareth' pops into existence rather suddenly in the NT. Then there is the untenable position of some non-chalantly-presented 18 missing years. Not only do simpletons make stuff up like this, but other simpletons believe it.

I trust the author of the essene.org site far more than I do the fabrication that is modern Paulanity, simply (no pun) because his descriptions of spirituality match reality.

Still not there yet.

My argument is not "it is simple, therefore it is wrong." It's wrong because it doesn't practice good historical discipline and much of it is made up, it happens to be simple. They could have made it complex, but they didn't.

 

[godnotgod]

Still not there yet.

My argument is not "it is simple, therefore it is wrong." It's wrong because it doesn't practice good historical discipline and much of it is made up, it happens to be simple. They could have made it complex, but they didn't.

Now you're just being coy.

You went from 'simple because it's being made up'; to:
'simple because it's wrong', which you now deny, but which is the same thing.

It's simple because it doesn't have all the artificial sweeteners and empty calories that modern Christianity has heaped on top of it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Now you're just being coy.

You went from 'simple because it's being made up'; to:
'simple because it's wrong', which you now deny, but which is the same thing.

It's simple because it doesn't have all the artificial sweeteners and empty calories that modern Christianity has heaped on top of it.

It's not my fault that you don't know how to read.

I'd teach you but I'd have to charge.

Just to hold your hand:

1) One of the reasons why it's simple is they're making stuff up,

2) My argument is not "it is simple, therefore it is wrong." It's wrong because it doesn't practice good historical discipline and much of it is made up, it happens to be simple. They could have made it complex, but they didn't.

If the argument were complex, I'd say that they made it up with complexity.

This however is a very simple basic lie intended for simple-minded people. Nothing wrong with that - it's fun to pretend like you understand something [I imagine]. Give your money for a fake. I really don't care.

Say that it has some historical merit, I can tell you why it's wrong. This isn't rocket science - it's the nature of history and reality as the rest of the world knows it. Aramaic is a popular language [at least in academia] and the historical background that you need to know is elementary and widely accessible.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I trust the author of the essene.org site far more than I do the fabrication that is modern Paulanity, simply (no pun) because his descriptions of spirituality match reality.

Boy, that guy won the lottery.