What were Jesus most important teachings?

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb

originally posted by: St Udio

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb
a reply to: St Udio


There was a Zadokite priesthood that was of the Nazarene sect but no Order of Melchizedek. You might be thinking of the Mormons.

Most scholars are coming to grips with the fact that the Essenes were invented by Josephus. He is the only original historian to mention them and everyone thought when the DSS were found that it was the Essenes who put them there and wrote them.

But it was by default, speculation and wishful thinking that people tried to push this theory.

When you read the Scrolls you can see this is not a pacifist community and definitely not written by a people called Essenes. Zealots is a much more accurate description.

I think you are citing the sanitized history version of the Christianity narrative... the Church=Vatican has 2000 years to sculpt their version of a Christ
perhaps the Nazarene sect was not robust at 3BCE & 33AD, but the Nazirath explanation of Nazarene is something the church confounded the Jesus ministry with --so as to conform better with the 'Story' They wanted the illiterate masses to believe

history is rewritten by the victors, so the fact that Jesus was a rebellious, revolutionary in the realm of religion was transformed to Jesus being the meek, mild, suffering messiah of the State religion in both Rome and Constantinople

No, I am citing the historically accurate non fantasy version.

I don't need to further engage in conversation with you to know you are light years away from figuring out what the unsanitized version even is.

Although I am glad that you are aware of the fact that there is one.

If you want to learn about the historical Sons of Zadok all you have to do is buy a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Order of Melchizedek you speak of is not an earthly order.

But the Sons of Zadok (from the High Priest Zadok) is the closest thing. Zedek as in Melchizedek means righteous and if you read the Scrolls you will find that they gave Elohim status to Melchizedek.

The 'Sons of Zadok' are a family, descendants of the first High Priest in the Solomon's Temple (the first Temple). The roles of different priests in the Temple were originally set out by family in Leviticus and expanded by king David where he set out the 24 courses of the priesthood. If you weren't a descendant of Zadok, you couldn't be a high priest.

The sons of Zadok were not a society based upon a particular religious philosophy and for which one could gain membership.

No Levite priests (descendants of Levi) were of the Order of Melchizedek (a non-Jewish priest-king). It was forbidden for Jews to be both a king and a priest.

"Gave Elohim status to Melchizedek" - what does that even mean? That they thought he was God? No, they thought Melchizedek was a priest, and worthy of accepting the tithe (from Abraham).

a reply to: CabablancaHizb

I feel sorry that you missed the entire point of my post. It ISN'T about law, it's about love, it always has been. After all this time and His words still fall on deaf ears.

originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: CabablancaHizb

I feel sorry that you missed the entire point of my post. It ISN'T about law, it's about love, it always has been. After all this time and His words still fall on deaf ears.

I didn't miss the point I just already mentioned what you said in my OP.

They are called Commandments which is closer to Law than lesson and I excluded the 2 and the unpardonable sin before I proposed my question specifically so someone like you didn't come along and say exactly what you said.

Deaf ears indeed.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb

originally posted by: St Udio

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb
a reply to: St Udio


There was a Zadokite priesthood that was of the Nazarene sect but no Order of Melchizedek. You might be thinking of the Mormons.

Most scholars are coming to grips with the fact that the Essenes were invented by Josephus. He is the only original historian to mention them and everyone thought when the DSS were found that it was the Essenes who put them there and wrote them.

But it was by default, speculation and wishful thinking that people tried to push this theory.

When you read the Scrolls you can see this is not a pacifist community and definitely not written by a people called Essenes. Zealots is a much more accurate description.

I think you are citing the sanitized history version of the Christianity narrative... the Church=Vatican has 2000 years to sculpt their version of a Christ
perhaps the Nazarene sect was not robust at 3BCE & 33AD, but the Nazirath explanation of Nazarene is something the church confounded the Jesus ministry with --so as to conform better with the 'Story' They wanted the illiterate masses to believe

history is rewritten by the victors, so the fact that Jesus was a rebellious, revolutionary in the realm of religion was transformed to Jesus being the meek, mild, suffering messiah of the State religion in both Rome and Constantinople

No, I am citing the historically accurate non fantasy version.

I don't need to further engage in conversation with you to know you are light years away from figuring out what the unsanitized version even is.

Although I am glad that you are aware of the fact that there is one.

If you want to learn about the historical Sons of Zadok all you have to do is buy a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Order of Melchizedek you speak of is not an earthly order.

But the Sons of Zadok (from the High Priest Zadok) is the closest thing. Zedek as in Melchizedek means righteous and if you read the Scrolls you will find that they gave Elohim status to Melchizedek.

The 'Sons of Zadok' are a family, descendants of the first High Priest in the Solomon's Temple (the first Temple). The roles of different priests in the Temple were originally set out by family in Leviticus and expanded by king David where he set out the 24 courses of the priesthood. If you weren't a descendant of Zadok, you couldn't be a high priest.

The sons of Zadok were not a society based upon a particular religious philosophy and for which one could gain membership.

No Levite priests (descendants of Levi) were of the Order of Melchizedek (a non-Jewish priest-king). It was forbidden for Jews to be both a king and a priest.

"Gave Elohim status to Melchizedek" - what does that even mean? That they thought he was God? No, they thought Melchizedek was a priest, and worthy of accepting the tithe (from Abraham).

Obviously you have not studied the same material as I, making this a conversation not worth having.

Had you the knowledge I do pertaining to this you would not be so confused.

You speak of things I have knowledge of as if they were impossible, yet they are true.

I will tell you one thing, the community who left behind the DSS is the community that I speak of who thought of Melchizedek as one of the Elohim and this might not be well known or known to you, but last time I checked that only means you are not aware, not that it isn't true.

The Sons of Zadok is what they called themselves in addition to Nazarenes, Ebionim (Poor Ones) and Sons of Light.

I already know you are going to argue about this as if I am making stuff up because you do every time someone says something you don't know or approve of. Like mushrooms and urine, two things I know are odd and don't choose to question because I don't care.

But I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know what I do and immediately assume that must make it untrue. And I am not going to so don't get your hopes up because I only care that I know.

If ya don't know, now you know.

a reply to: chr0naut

Is it common for you to come across information that you don't know and pretend that it is not true and that you know better than the person who was previously discussing said information, even though you haven't a clue what is even being discussed in the first place?

Because I would lose that. None of the words in your comment have anything to do with my previous comment other than being rooted in ancient Judaism.

You didnt even know who I was talking about or from where comes my information, yet never paused to ponder if maybe I was talking about a topic beyond your personal knowledge before deciding that I was wrong.

When the proper thing to do would have been to first inquire what I am discussing, determine how much you know about the subject and then offer what you know.

If the answer is not much or nothing it is best to not assume that you can debate someone who knows much about said topic.

Logically speaking that is.

originally posted by: chr0naut

So eating Amanita Muscaria mushrooms makes your urine go red and/or sweet?

And also the the disciples consumed high sugar, red berry diets (red berries are usually toxic)?

Reason it out, it is very unlikely.

The problem with "reason" is that it first requires "the exposure to experiences" about which you can then apply the intellect.


Religion as a Product of Psychotropic Drug Use

[QUOTE]
"Among other things he described the use of Amanita muscaria as an intoxicant by the local people. He also noted the following unusual behavior: "The poorer Sort, who cannot afford to lay in a Store of these Mushrooms, post themselves, on these Ocassions, round the Huts of the Rich, and watch the Opportunity of the Guests coming down to make Water; And then hold a Wooden Bowl to receive the Urine, which they drink off greedily, as having still some Virtue of the Mushroom in it, and by this way they also get Drunk."

Von Strahlenberg's observations on urine drinking and other behaviors were considered extremely sensational when they were published in Stockholm and soon thereafter in other parts of Europe."


"Several 18th-and-19th-century reports described the use of Amanita muscaria by different Siberian tribes, and particularly by witch doctors or shamans who used it to achieve "an exalted state to be able to talk to the gods." Interestingly, it was observed that the drinking of drug-containing urine could continue for up to five cycles passing from one individual to another before the urine lost its capacity for intoxication. This was apparently often done because of the relative scarcity of the mushroom, and so preserving its hallucinogenic properties in this way had important practical benefits.

The use of hallucinogenic mushrooms, presumably Amanita muscaria, by the inhabitants of Siberia appears to be a very ancient practice. This is suggested by the discovery of several Stone or Bronze Age rock carvings (petroglyphs) in 1967 in northern Siberia near the Arctic Ocean. These seem to represent mushrooms and women with mushrooms growing out of their heads. This is an area inhabited by the Chukchi people, who were one of the subjects of the 18th-and 19th-century reports on Siberian mushroom use, so it may be supposed that they had used mushrooms continuously over many years. Indeed, the use of Amanita muscaria for its hallucinogenic actions continues in Siberia to this day
[END QUOTE]

There is so much research done on this topic, that one could easily spend months just reading what's already known by visiting various websites and reading research articles and books on the subject.

a reply to: AMPTAH

If I could add, the origins of fasting are to produce euphoria which happens when you are starving to the point of near death.

We live in a stiff shirt age of religion where anything unorthodox is not taken seriously no matter how factual it may be.

a reply to: CabablancaHizb

They are called Commandments which is closer to Law than lesson

Commandments are not law, as they should be written into our hearts because love is what governs them. They are no more law than me deciding to be kind to someone because it's a good thing to do, not because someone told me to.

Commandments were created because man has no capacity for real love. Human beings needed a stone tablet to remind them how to be Good. It's so sad to see a world that invents "laws" to govern that which should be inherent in all of us. Instead, evil is our inheritance.

Deaf, meet blind and naked.

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb

originally posted by: St Udio

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb
a reply to: St Udio


There was a Zadokite priesthood that was of the Nazarene sect but no Order of Melchizedek. You might be thinking of the Mormons.

Most scholars are coming to grips with the fact that the Essenes were invented by Josephus. He is the only original historian to mention them and everyone thought when the DSS were found that it was the Essenes who put them there and wrote them.

But it was by default, speculation and wishful thinking that people tried to push this theory.

When you read the Scrolls you can see this is not a pacifist community and definitely not written by a people called Essenes. Zealots is a much more accurate description.

I think you are citing the sanitized history version of the Christianity narrative... the Church=Vatican has 2000 years to sculpt their version of a Christ
perhaps the Nazarene sect was not robust at 3BCE & 33AD, but the Nazirath explanation of Nazarene is something the church confounded the Jesus ministry with --so as to conform better with the 'Story' They wanted the illiterate masses to believe

history is rewritten by the victors, so the fact that Jesus was a rebellious, revolutionary in the realm of religion was transformed to Jesus being the meek, mild, suffering messiah of the State religion in both Rome and Constantinople

No, I am citing the historically accurate non fantasy version.

I don't need to further engage in conversation with you to know you are light years away from figuring out what the unsanitized version even is.

Although I am glad that you are aware of the fact that there is one.

If you want to learn about the historical Sons of Zadok all you have to do is buy a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Order of Melchizedek you speak of is not an earthly order.

But the Sons of Zadok (from the High Priest Zadok) is the closest thing. Zedek as in Melchizedek means righteous and if you read the Scrolls you will find that they gave Elohim status to Melchizedek.

The 'Sons of Zadok' are a family, descendants of the first High Priest in the Solomon's Temple (the first Temple). The roles of different priests in the Temple were originally set out by family in Leviticus and expanded by king David where he set out the 24 courses of the priesthood. If you weren't a descendant of Zadok, you couldn't be a high priest.

The sons of Zadok were not a society based upon a particular religious philosophy and for which one could gain membership.

No Levite priests (descendants of Levi) were of the Order of Melchizedek (a non-Jewish priest-king). It was forbidden for Jews to be both a king and a priest.

"Gave Elohim status to Melchizedek" - what does that even mean? That they thought he was God? No, they thought Melchizedek was a priest, and worthy of accepting the tithe (from Abraham).

Obviously you have not studied the same material as I, making this a conversation not worth having.

Had you the knowledge I do pertaining to this you would not be so confused.

You speak of things I have knowledge of as if they were impossible, yet they are true.

I will tell you one thing, the community who left behind the DSS is the community that I speak of who thought of Melchizedek as one of the Elohim and this might not be well known or known to you, but last time I checked that only means you are not aware, not that it isn't true.

The Sons of Zadok is what they called themselves in addition to Nazarenes, Ebionim (Poor Ones) and Sons of Light.

I already know you are going to argue about this as if I am making stuff up because you do every time someone says something you don't know or approve of. Like mushrooms and urine, two things I know are odd and don't choose to question because I don't care.

But I don't enjoy arguing with people who don't know what I do and immediately assume that must make it untrue. And I am not going to so don't get your hopes up because I only care that I know.

If ya don't know, now you know.

I do understand and know you were talking about; a theory first proposed by Robert Eisenman as to the nature of the Qumran community.

Part of Eisenman's theory was that Qumran was primarily not Essene but post-Christian, and co-mingled early Gnosticism and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (in which the Zaddikim were priests, and the priests were referred to as Zaddikim to indicate their rank as descendants of the High Priest).

As discussed previously in this thread, that theory seems less likely after accurate carbon dating of the majority of DSS texts places them well before Christ, some, by hundreds of years (like the Isaiah scroll, parts of which have been carbon dated to 335-324 years before Christ).

It is most unlikely that Eisenman, who is a superlative scholar, still holds that his earlier theories are even remotely valid.

In this article from 2010, Eisenman is discussing the way the gospels performed "a neat 180-degree reversal from the position of Qumran". This indicates that Eisenman no longer places the Qumran community as forming their doctrine after Christ, but that Christianity overturned the older and pre-existent dogma of Qumran.

a reply to: chr0naut

Like I said, this is a conversation not worth having because you haven't the knowledge.

I never mentioned any names but if your only technique is to blame the translators then you don't have any other options and are using the most lame technique there is.

Eisenmen has nothing to do with it.

Although he has never backed away from any of his theories and I have my own theories.

This was not a theoretical issue because it isn't a theory it is a fact. Theories are ideas and facts are proven. This has been proven so I don't get why you want to argue something easily confirmable as this is.

NOTHING I said was remotely theoretical and is well known in the DSS scholarly community.

Can't you just deal with the fact, like the rest of the world, that you don't know everything? It is better than concocting lousy arguments about things you aren't knowledgeable about. The texts relevant to this is are closer to the generation of Jesus.

And the Scrolls date from 200bc to 68ad. This is newest consensus.

Now if you want to educate yourself to the point where Google isn't your only teacher and being right your only goal I would be glad to continue this conversation.

Of course that means a cover to cover reading of all published Scroll material and multiple papers written by multiple scholars who are not interested in preserving myths but actual academic knowledge. Since the Bible seems to be what you really care about and you seem to have an interest in defending the literalist approach to it, I don't see this ever happening.

But you are more disinfo than truth and I don't care for that. I don't need a less educated (to this topic) person telling me that I don't know how to learn.

originally posted by: Aedaeum
a reply to: CabablancaHizb

They are called Commandments which is closer to Law than lesson

Commandments are not law, as they should be written into our hearts because love is what governs them. They are no more law than me deciding to be kind to someone because it's a good thing to do, not because someone told me to.

Commandments were created because man has no capacity for real love. Human beings needed a stone tablet to remind them how to be Good. It's so sad to see a world that invents "laws" to govern that which should be inherent in all of us. Instead, evil is our inheritance.

Deaf, meet blind and naked.

So you are so confident you need to insult me?

And rather than understand my point you prefer to argue the difference between commandment and law even though I didn't ACTUALLY call them law, just more law than lesson?

Because I explained my OP so as to exclude 3 specific things and you are still confused about this as if I don't know definitions to words I use?

Damn you got a bug up ya bum.

originally posted by: CabablancaHizb
a reply to: chr0naut

Like I said, this is a conversation not worth having because you haven't the knowledge.

I never mentioned any names but if your only technique is to blame the translators then you don't have any other options and are using the most lame technique there is.

Eisenmen has nothing to do with it.

Although he has never backed away from any of his theories and I have my own theories.

This was not a theoretical issue because it isn't a theory it is a fact. Theories are ideas and facts are proven. This has been proven so I don't get why you want to argue something easily confirmable as this is.

NOTHING I said was remotely theoretical and is well known in the DSS scholarly community.

Can't you just deal with the fact, like the rest of the world, that you don't know everything? It is better than concocting lousy arguments about things you aren't knowledgeable about. The texts relevant to this is are closer to the generation of Jesus.

And the Scrolls date from 200bc to 68ad. This is newest consensus.

Now if you want to educate yourself to the point where Google isn't your only teacher and being right your only goal I would be glad to continue this conversation.

Of course that means a cover to cover reading of all published Scroll material and multiple papers written by multiple scholars who are not interested in preserving myths but actual academic knowledge. Since the Bible seems to be what you really care about and you seem to have an interest in defending the literalist approach to it, I don't see this ever happening.

But you are more disinfo than truth and I don't care for that. I don't need a less educated (to this topic) person telling me that I don't know how to learn.

Still, it would be nice if you provided links or references or links to support your argument.

Making bald faced pronouncements about contentious issues, as if your particular opinion was a universally accepted fact, especially in the light of clearly contradictory evidence, is hardly likely to edify anyone.

I have had an interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls for more than 25 years and used to debate about them with Dr. Barbara Theiring at Sydney University (It is my belief that Robert Eisenman's theories were sparked by his pursuit of Theiring's methods and ideas). The oldest copy of a DSS translation in my library is "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English" (third edition) by G. Vermes, which I bought and first read, completely, in 1991.

I would consider myself to have some degree of background and credibility in the subject matter, more so than someone who a few months ago stated that they didn't even have a copy of the DSS.

a reply to: CabablancaHizb

To Lay Down Thy Life For Another...
To Not Cling To Life... That One May Find It....
To Not Look For Him... For When You Don't... You Find Him...
To Love Thy Enemies...
To Rise On The Third Day...
To Give To Them What Is Theirs... And To God What Is God's...

The Above Things Are, To Me, The Very Reason I Laugh At My Misfortune.

originally posted by: Pinocchio
a reply to: CabablancaHizb

To Lay Down Thy Life For Another...
To Not Cling To Life... That One May Find It....
To Not Look For Him... For When You Don't... You Find Him...
To Love Thy Enemies...
To Rise On The Third Day...
To Give To Them What Is Theirs... And To God What Is God's...

The Above Things Are, To Me, The Very Reason I Laugh At My Misfortune.

Excellent attitude.

A long time ago I was homeless. I had secured a room to rent by the word of a landlord and told to see him in a week when I had the money.

Only when I did he told me he had rented it. Depressed I was but I thought of Job and Jesus ' "do not worry" and prayed thanks to God.

I went to my homeless hangout, a bar my friend was working at ( I hardly drank then and less now) and the landlord came there that evening to tell me he had made a mistake and the room was available.

God gives and God takes. Mostly gives though.

I have gleamed from Jesus teachings that it is important to act honorably, not hold the grudges of men who are determined to stop you from speaking the truth.

No matter how terribly they persecute you. No matter how vindictive they are and to what extent they will go to stop you.

Once you master the science of resurrection they can do absolutely nothing to stop you. Because if they kill one part of you, you will never die.

Eventually they will figure out that they are wrong and have no power over you. You can't kill that which doesn't die.

Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.

a reply to: CabablancaHizb

*sighs* I guess I'm talking to a brick wall. For the record, you started the insults when you assumed I couldn't read your OP. I simply called you out on it by stating that what you said in your OP was incorrect to begin with, which was the reason I even bothered posting in the first place.

The correct question to ask, is "What are your favorite lessons that Christ taught?" because that's what you really wanted an answer to. Christ already gave you the answer to the question you asked. I'm sorry you missed the point of my posts; I wasn't trying to be disruptive or derogatory. What ever it may be that you're looking for, I hope you find it.

Nothing more can be gained from this discussion so I bid you adieu.

a reply to: Aedaeum
That person has already been banned, but may reply to you under a different name.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Seriously? He got banned in between the time we last spoke? Wow....

What did he do?

a reply to: Aedaeum
Don't look now, but I think he even signed up again before you replied to the other account.
As for "what did he do?"- this is the multiple account guy who has already been banned about a thousand times. So good luck expecting a reasonable conversation with him.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ah, okay, well that explains a lot haha. Thanks for the heads up.