It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hijacking of Jesus. Paulianity and the Middle of the Road Doctrine

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Did Paul hijack the teachings and story of Jesus for political reasons? Is this the original Christian Conspiracy?

I believe he did and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which precede Paul, may help to substantiate that claim. Now, religious scholars are publishing books to bring that very disturbing point home.


Jesus needs saving, once again, from his followers. This time, however, it is not from those he preached to or from one of his most loyal supporters who, the Bible says, betrayed him.

It's the Christians who came later.

-snip-

Wilson, a religious studies professor at York University, says the discovery last century of lost gospels such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, which scholars are only now beginning to understand, have led to a flourish of books on the origins of Christianity.

"We now know more about early Christianity than we did even 15 years ago," Wilson says in an interview.

-snip-

A close reading of the story of Jesus – some drawing on lost gospels not included in modern Bibles – reveals that he was not trying to establish a new religion in his name, Wilson says, but to show his followers how to resist Roman domination and remain Jewish. That, Jesus taught, could only be done through strict adherence to the Torah, known to most Christians as the Old Testament, according to Wilson.

But such teachings contrast sharply with the message of Paul, who never met Jesus but claimed to have been visited by him in a mystical experience on the road to Damascus after Jesus's crucifixion.

Wilson says Paul told followers not to follow the Torah. He argued that salvation could only be achieved by accepting Jesus as the son of God.

www.thestar.com...



Paul needed to find the middle road in order to bring about peace between the followers of the Torah in Jerusalem and their Roman overlords. The teachings of Jesus and the story of his life were 'revised' by Paul in an attempt to bring the two sides together.

In effect, Christianity as we see it today, is not based on what Jesus taught, but instead what Paul thought.

Wilson calls it Paulianity.

Thoughts?

 


Added "Hijacking of Jesus" to title and (2) accorded Wilson for the term Paulianity.

[edit on 22/3/08 by masqua]




[edit on 23/3/08 by masqua]




posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
So they think he changed words in the gospels?

Why would the Jews want to kill Jesus if he followed the torah strictly?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
masqua, i agree entirely with you on this topic. the books of paul contradict jesus. this is a very important thread.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I like the term you coined Paulianity. I personally have always questioned the writings of Paul in the New Testament and their place in Christianity. There is no doubt that Paul and his writing have a very specific agenda and that is in the creation of The Church.

THe problem with this is of course is all of the problems that that manifested though the the creation of the Church which unfortunately evolved into an organization that suffered every possible form of corruption such as greed, power, control, etc.

I always felt that Jesus (from what I interpreted from the gospels) was very anti church. His message was one of Love and Forgiveness and I always felt that he wanted people to pray and develop a personal relationship with God on their own which was not dependent on a church or church leader. This is why I feel he railed on Judaism and upset the pharisees so much.

I disagree with the article in that he wanted people to be necessarily be a good Jew, I believe he wanted people to be "Good" period. And Religion itself should not get in the way of being a good person.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Sorry Double Post

[edit on 22-3-2008 by CyberTruth]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Shawn B.

So they think he changed words in the gospels?

Why would the Jews want to kill Jesus if he followed the torah strictly?


Not entirely true; (ie.) the Gospels were written after Paul began his interpretation. Luke, for instance, in both the Gospel of Luke and in Acts of the Apostles, inserts Pauline Christianity into the beliefs of their early Jewish followers.

As to the Jews wanting to kill Jesus, imo, it was the Romans with the aid of those among the Jews, who wished to keep the peace with their conquerers. It was definitely not the faithful 'Followers of the Torah', but rather those apologists for the Romans during their occupation of Jerusalem. The splitting of allegiances between those who resisted and those who accepted had happened before, after the Hellenic wars, when the Greeks, under Alexander the Great, conquered the area and established control.

 



theBLESSINGofVISION


masqua, i agree entirely with you on this topic. the books of paul contradict jesus. this is a very important thread.


Thank you. I hope to be able to count on your knowledge and interpretations to augment my own understanding on this topic.

 



CyberTruth

I like the term you coined Paulianity.


Further research shows me that Barrie Wilson also used the term. In honesty, I did 'invent' myself when I started this thread, but in a case of pure co-incidence, I have subsequently found an interview with Wilson ( March 15, The Globe and Mail) where he mentions 'Paulianity' in his book. I have the transcript of the interview with Michael Valpy, but a paid subscription to it is required to the on-line article for non-members.

I'll have to edit the OP to remove the reference to my coining of the phrase. In the title of this thread, however, the name is completely viable.




I personally have always questioned the writings of Paul in the New Testament and their place in Christianity. There is no doubt that Paul and his writing have a very specific agenda and that is in the creation of The Church.


And Luke. Don't forget him.



THe problem with this is of course is all of the problems that that manifested though the the creation of the Church which unfortunately evolved into an organization that suffered every possible form of corruption such as greed, power, control, etc.


I couldn't agree more. Grist for the conspiracy mill writ a thousandfold over.


I always felt that Jesus (from what I interpreted from the gospels) was very anti church. His message was one of Love and Forgiveness and I always felt that he wanted people to pray and develop a personal relationship with God on their own which was not dependent on a church or church leader. This is why I feel he railed on Judaism and upset the pharisees so much.


His message was of Love and Forgiveness, yes. However, the overiding principles of his ministry were embodied in the art of healing, both in the idea of the Twin Spirits of mankind (good and evil) as well as Apocalyptic prophecy. (more on this later)


I disagree with the article in that he wanted people to be necessarily be a good Jew, I believe he wanted people to be "Good" period. And Religion itself should not get in the way of being a good person.


A point we'll have to re-visit. It certainly does matter as to how we 'see' a historical Jesus (which Paul studiously avoids in The Letter to Galatians) as he preached to the people of His time. But, it should also be looked at from the context of what the Mythical Christ represented to the Jews for centuries previous to the time of Jesus.

Until I actually get my hands on Barrie Wilsons book How Jesus Became Christian, I'll be using the following texts to back my side of the debate;

- The KJV, Old and New.

- The Other Bible - Ancient Alternative Scriptures (Harper Collins/HarperSanFrancisco)

- The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English by Geza Vermes, Penguin Books (1998 edition)

- The Dead Sea Scrolls - by Wise, Abegg and Cook - [Harper Collins/ HarperSanFrancisco (1999)]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
i see a few big problems with your theory. first of all the dead sea scrolls have very little to do with jesus or christianity. you'll have to explain to me how they enlighten us about the early christian church.

secondly, the gospels, in both canonical and non-canonical texts, portray jesus set against the religious establishment time and again. even if he didn't intend a whole new religion he certainly didn't wish to encourage people towards traditional judaism.

thirdly, paul didn't have the last word as regards the teachings of jesus, he was contemporary to the apostles, he couldn't possibly have single handedly corrupted the teachings of christ to the extent you claim.


lastly, i have a piece of advice for you before you continue on your studies, read the gospels, then read them again, then look up the meaning of all the words you don't understand (not an insult, i didn't understand a lot of them), then read them again. then read every other early christian writing you can (heres a good site to start) and only then read stuff like "how jesus became christian", when you know for sure what the author is taking out and leaving in.

i'm not saying your wrong, i have a lot of sympathy for your view and i'm not a big fan of paul, but if you're to make a good point and not be mislead by half truths you should be sure of the basics.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



i see a few big problems with your theory. first of all the dead sea scrolls have very little to do with jesus or christianity. you'll have to explain to me how they enlighten us about the early christian church.


~bolding mine~

That the DSS (Dead sea scrolls) have little to do with Christianity is the point of this thread. I agree entirely with that assessment.

That the DDS has much to do with a historical Jesus, however, is also the point of this thread.

The difference being that Christianity is not truly based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, but on Paul's interpretations and twisting of those teachings as a 'middle way'... pleasing to both the Romans and the Elite of Judaism who wished to 'get along' with those Roman overlords. That is the conspiracy of the OP.

On the Essenes:

Point #1 must be what the word itself may mean: from the Greek Essaioi or Essenoi and also Essini in Latin. Both may be pertinent since the Ptolomaic Greeks ruled the area throughout the period of the Essenes up until the Roman conquest, which was then concurrent with the time of a historical Jesus. The meaning of the word 'Essene' is 'Pious' or 'The Healer'.

There seems to have been a determined effort by scribes of the time to NOT use actual names, but instead naming the 'meaning' of these people. Titles such as 'Liar', 'scoffer' or 'Young Lion' were used instead. However, extracting from roman records, one can tentatively assume who the primary characters of any given time during the period might have been. IE. Jonathon Maccabaeus is quite likely the original Wicked Priest at the outset of the sect.

Midrash: S: (n) ((Judaism) an ancient commentary on part of the Hebrew scriptures that is based on Jewish methods of interpretation and attached to the biblical text

Interpretation, through the Old Testament, as in relation to actual people and events, was more important to Judaic scribes than a historical record. The Romans and the Greeks before them are invaluable due to their desire to keep records. In fact, the whole idea of a historical Jesus Christ as opposed to a mythical Christ may largely be laid at the feet of Romans. I prefer a historical Jesus myself, but without any real concrete proof, it is to be based solely on my own personal bias.

The Essenes, throughout their 220 years of existence (c.150 BCE-70CE), had, as their spiritual leader a 'Righteous Teacher', and, as a counterpart, a designated enemy; the 'Wicked Priest'. Some unclear references to who the Teachers of Righteousness or Wicked Priests may have actually been are contained in the DDS, but never clearly enough to be certain. Scholars still vary, but the implications of the DDS have only just now begun to be significant, The meddling of the clergy and the squabbling between Catholic, Protestant and Judaic researchers of the BBS over 6 decades, coupled with the painfully slow release of their findings (for whatever conspirationally based reasoning) on the DDS make the impact of the scrolls a very new experience indeed.

Some online teasers;




The Righteous Teacher

*Since the archaeological discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946, the word "Essene" has made its way around the world--often raising a lot of questions. Many people were astonished to discover that, two thousand years ago, a brotherhood of holy men and women, living together in a community, carried within themselves all of the seeds of Christianity and of future western civilization. This brotherhood--more or less persecuted and ostracized--would bring forth people who would change the face of the world and the course of history. Indeed, almost all of the principal founders of what would later be called Christianity were Essenes--St. Ann, Joseph and Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus, John the Evangelist, etc.
Leaders with Unique Dimensions
"Jesus' group and the Essenes [Yahad] were shaped by the galvanizing force of one prophetic and charismatic person: specifically Jesus and the Righteous Teacher. Both of these reformers were committed to scripture, exhibited an obsessive love of God, and were unusually dedicated to his will, as they understood it, regardless of the opinions of other Jewish leaders. Both expressed their strong egos with a sense of pride toward others but with stunning humility in relation to God. Both demanded of their followers unswerving faith in their claim of special revelation, unique teachings, and leadership. Only Hillel seems comparable to these unique dimensions shared by Jesus and the Righteous Teacher, but he was not charismatic and prophetic as they were."
- James H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), p. 19

*Since the archaeological discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946, the word "Essene" has made its way around the world--often raising a lot of questions. Many people were astonished to discover that, two thousand years ago, a brotherhood of holy men and women, living together in a community, carried within themselves all of the seeds of Christianity and of future western civilization. This brotherhood--more or less persecuted and ostracized--would bring forth people who would change the face of the world and the course of history. Indeed, almost all of the principal founders of what would later be called Christianity were Essenes--St. Ann, Joseph and Mary, John the Baptist, Jesus, John the Evangelist, etc.

*The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and our growing knowledge of the Essene community that produced them, gives us one of the most important pieces of evidence for the diversity of Jewish life and thought in the time of Jesus. Now, it has sometimes been suggested that Jesus, himself, or maybe even John the Baptist, were members of this group. And that can't be proven at all. But what the Essenes and the Qumran scrolls do show us is the kind of challenges that could be brought against some of the traditional lines of Jewish thought, and even the operation of the Temple itself. So if one of our perspectives is that there is this growing tension in Jerusalem, the Essenes are probably the best example of how radical that questioning of Temple life might become.

*There were anciently two branches of Essenes - the Ossaeans and the Nazorean. The southern Ossaeans were known as the B'nai-Zadok, or "Children of Zadok." The northern Nazorean were known as the B'nai-Amen, or "Children of God."

-snip-

It was into the ancient and mystical B'nai-Amen Temple of the Nazorean that Jesus was born; as it is written: "He shall be called a Nazorean!" (Matthew 2:23).
www.essene.com...




Paul's doctrine of Jesus is a daring departure from Judaism. Paul was advocating a doctrine that seemed to have far more in common with pagan myths than with Judaism: that Jesus was a divine-human person who had descended to Earth from the heavens and experienced death for the express purpose of saving mankind. The very fact that the Jews found this doctrine new and shocking shows that it plays no role in the Jewish scripture, at least not in any way easily discernible.

www.positiveatheism.org...





The motive force behind the Jewish Resistance was the Jewish religion. This is a difficult point for the modern reader to grasp because we are not used to thinking of religion as a political, activist, revolutionary force. Also, the picture of the Jewish religion given in the New Testament is that of a rigid Establishment clinging to the status quo.... There is no indication in the New Testament of any conflict between Jewish religion and Roman power. In fact, the whole issue of Roman power is played down to such an extent that there is hardly a hint of any opposition to Rome. The aim of the Gospels is to present the revolutionary issue of the day as between Jesus and the Jewish Establishment. The fact that there was a Roman Establishment against which revolutionary forces existed is veiled so that the Establishment against which Jesus rebelled can be represented as entirely Jewish.

www.positiveatheism.org...


Also, for 'light' reading;
www.essenespirit.com...


secondly, the gospels, in both canonical and non-canonical texts, portray jesus set against the religious establishment time and again. even if he didn't intend a whole new religion he certainly didn't wish to encourage people towards traditional judaism.


Which religious establishment? The one as represented by the 'Roman accepting' elite who ruled Jerusalem and the Temple or the ones who refused the yoke of the Romans (like Jesus) and were subsequently scattered in the desert (in places like Qumran), writing their scrolls before the Romans could kill them all. Some of the groups actually survived for a few centuries (ie, the Ebionites to 400 CE)


thirdly, paul didn't have the last word as regards the teachings of jesus, he was contemporary to the apostles, he couldn't possibly have single handedly corrupted the teachings of christ to the extent you claim.


But he did survive Jesus, hunted James and the disciples and their followers into the desert. Paul wasn't the least interested in the man Jesus, but rather in setting the myth of Jesus as the foundation of his church. All he does is quote His teachings and insert a "mystical version of a risen Christ", as Barrie Wilson states. It was Paul who said that the followers of Jesus did not have to obey the Torah in Galatians.



lastly, i have a piece of advice for you before you continue on your studies, read the gospels, then read them again, then look up the meaning of all the words you don't understand (not an insult, i didn't understand a lot of them), then read them again. then read every other early christian writing you can (heres a good site to start) and only then read stuff like "how jesus became christian", when you know for sure what the author is taking out and leaving in.


Thank you for your advice. I will read your the material provided to me in your link.

That said, I should tell you my religious teachings started bfore the age of 5 under the stern tutelage of my grandfather, a Calvinist Dominee, after which my father, an equally dour and strict Calvinist, took over until I was old enough to leave the familial home. Then I started my own personal life-long interest in as many various faiths as I could cram into my skull in order to come to my own unique understanding of what true religion means. Now, at past 60 years and retired, I have the freedom to thoroughly pursue the dream of maybe realizing what it all means TO ME. I could state some of those gelling beliefs, but I doubt it is relevant to the topic at hand.

In answering questions in this thread, I will only use what I have found in the writings of men and woman far more enlightened than myself (with proper references) in speaking to the topic here. The list of some of those books are in a post above, but that list will be added to as needed.

The DDS, the relationship of them to a (perceived) historical Jesus and the effects of Paul's manipulations after his revelation on the road to Damascus are part of what Barrie Wilson's book (still unread) is about. It's release is recent and is also a result of his own contemporary studies into the DDS, such as I myself have read. There are many others yet to be named here who are on a similar path.

What may come out of it all is anyones guess, but it IS important, if only that we come to better understand ourselves through the process.


i'm not saying your wrong, i have a lot of sympathy for your view and i'm not a big fan of paul, but if you're to make a good point and not be mislead by half truths you should be sure of the basics.


Not just the basics, but the small niggling details as well. (the Devil dwells there, as they say)







[edit on 23/3/08 by masqua]

[edit on 23/3/08 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Reply to Original Post:
That so called news article is interesting.
Not for some so-called facts it presents, but on the increadable twisting of how to understand development in "understanding" early christianity.
"We inderstand more than we did sixteen years ago.....", well, I hope so.
The implication is that we had to gain an understanding of the dead sea scrolls, in order to be able to see how to understand christians.
Sounds rediculous. So far, no on has been able to prove any link between the Essenes and Jesus. Now, that would be real headlines, "Jesus proven to be Essene".
What took them so long was how to manufacture a diabolical plan to use these texts to help destroy christianity.
It is missleading for this article to imply that Paul only "met" Jesus on the road to damascas. That was just the first time. Paul was led by God in the most direct way possible and had been taken to the highest realms of Heaven to be instucted by Jesus.
A simple way to understand this whole thing is to ask yopurself, "What has happened in christianity, since Jesus was around, that could be so significant as to make the life of Jesus un-important, or not the central point, to the religion ?"

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
(heres a good site to start)


Interesting that your list begins tentatively around 30-60 CE compared with the fact that the scribes workings on the DSS actually ended at the same time, after the Romans having crushed the sects at Qumran. Had it not been for the hurried hiding of those leather scrolls in the caves surrounding that community, they would have completely wiped out that important Pre-Christian knowledge and interpretation of the Old Testament.

Pauline Christianity would, if that hadn't happened, stand entirely without challenge today.




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Thank you for this thread. I actually had an idea of starting a very similar topic.

Last year I was taking a religious texts class with a Franciscan father. I brought up the idea of Yeshua ben Yoseph and Miryai being the actual saviors, yet they were only prophets not god.

I told him the true "Bethlehem" actually existed in the North at Mount Carmel. This is the true birthplace of Yeshua, not in the South.

I explained to him the significance of Yeshua and Miryai's purity before birth. Their families were bred for their holiness. They did not eat meat, ever and practiced a very strict version of the religion.

Essenes of Mount Carmel

The Nazarene Way

The Order of Nazarean Essenes



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
So far, no on has been able to prove any link between the Essenes and Jesus. Now, that would be real headlines, "Jesus proven to be Essene".
What took them so long was how to manufacture a diabolical plan to use these texts to help destroy christianity.


You have your cronology wrong; the DSS were written before the time of Paul, both just prior and centuries prior, since the Essenes existed between 150BCE and 70CE.

Sorry, misunderstood you

It was that it threatened the established faiths, not the other way around.



What has happened in christianity, since Jesus was around, that could be so significant as to make the life of Jesus un-important, or not the central point, to the religion ?"


It is not the historical Jesus Christ that is important to Christians, but that he died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead. There's a difference. The teaching of Christ survive, both in the DDS and in the NT, but with a twist. One of them being that Jesus taught that Jews should turn away from the Torah.

[edit on 23/3/08 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
It is not the historical Jesus Christ that is important to Christians, but that he died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead. There's a difference. The teaching of Christ survive, both in the DDS and in the NT, but with a twist. One of them being that Jesus taught that Jews should turn away from the Torah.


Uh, prove it?

Mod edit-Please read: One-line posts

[edit on 3/23/2008 by Cuhail]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


First, any citicism of your post should not be take as my agreeing with the OP.
Just some nit-picking, sorry.
Jesus did sy that the pharisies sit in the seat of Mose, Jesus said to do as they say but not to do as they so. You can think of it like this, criticizing president Bush does not make you anti-american, because Bush does things to subvert the constitution.
So, criticizing the "leaders" of Israel does not mean, neccessarily, that you are against the system. The system had been hijacked by a bunch of hypacrits.
As ror Paul, the other apostiles were not exacty intelectual giants and Paul did have a huge influince in the christian movement.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by chromatico

Originally posted by masqua
It is not the historical Jesus Christ that is important to Christians, but that he died on the cross for their sins and rose from the dead. There's a difference. The teaching of Christ survive, both in the DDS and in the NT, but with a twist. One of them being that Jesus taught that Jews should turn away from the Torah.


Uh, prove it?

Your terse and uninformed 1-liner reply helps nothing. The ideas expressed both in the Opening Post and subsequent posts are only a beginning of things.

Try instead to formulate a reasonable question rather than an ill-mannered cynical remark, please.

On the subject of proving anything at all, there are many hard working scholars, both historians and theologians, who are the ones who will prove anything that happened 2000 years ago.

That is the point of this exercise... to research the information that THEY have brought forward... not my opinions or supposed truths.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


There is, to me, a contradiction in the gospels, as to where Jesus was born.
One gospel says that angels told the shepards that, "...in the city of David...".
The city of David was the old city of Jerusalem, that he built after capturing Jerusalem.
Bethleham was a villiage, and was never a "city".

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jmdewey60]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I was watching Search For the Arc, last night on History channel.
At one point in the show, one person was building the case for his theory.
He said, "There is evidence that points in this dirrection. Now, understand, that evidence is not proof."
I thought that was very interesting, and is a phiosophy that all seekers for the truth should keep in mind.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I won't apologize for asking for proof. Ever. You didn't give it to us in your first post, you merely made some allusions to apocryphal and heavily debunked "Gospels". The Gospels as they appear in a mainstream Bible are history, if they weren't, they would have been debunked by the Jews, who had every reason in the world for debunking them.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I totally agree. There is so much information out there that has been suppressed for so long. One of which was the idea that Christ was an Essene following in the footsteps of Manahem the Messiah or Master of the Essenes of Qumran. Little do people realise that the Essenes were the mediators and Judges between the Davidian and Levite factions of the Church of Jerusalem. The Levites (the lineage of Mary) were the priestly nobility, the Davidian side the kingly or governmental side (lineage of Joseph). The Essenes represented the God aspect (shalom-aka top of the Trinity-Triangle) of the tripartite aspect of the church of Jerusalem and were the white robed healers, or what some Christians would later call witches as they prayed and made folk healing remedies or healed by laying of the hands and use of crystals. The reason they were the true head of the Church of Jerusalem was that they were nuetral to the politics openly (yet in secret they wanted to overthrow Rome influences as brought out by the Dead Sea Scrolls) The reason they had such high esteem from both Gentiles and Jewish peoples is they entered the Essene sect by volunteerism, they gave away and shared their wealth, only owned what they needed and followed their hearts for the healing of people. The controversial thing about the Essenes that PAUL deleted so much about them in his writings (anethematized by Constantine) was that they accepted that a soul after death was redeemed according to Karma and was born again through the mercy of the Christed principle of an eternal soul.. otherwise called reincarnation. Woman had a role in Essene faith similar to Algonquins natives in North America. 7 Tree of Peace Tribes. Constantine knew this as well when he brought together the 17 factions of Christians followers at the time to unite them under one agreed doctrine..later becoming the Catholic Church... resulting in... they simply deleted the references to the Essenes from their version of one book or new Torah, and the importance the Essenes had as the God part of the Triangle within the Church of Jeruselem. God-Essenes, Govt- Davidian, Faith- Levites. A good read is the 1994 book : The Hidden Scrolls: Christianity, Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Neil Asher Silberman, published by G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. Also The Messiah before Jesus, The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Israel Knohl, University of California Press, 2000. In addition a good read is: The Hiram Key: Pharoaohs, Freemasons and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus, by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, Element Books 1997. Published in UK by Century Books, Random House. Alot of neat stuff is in these books. None of the sensationalized crap that is bias to support pre conscieved notions or fit what they beleive is right. These books, most authors found out that what they thought they would find to support their bias.. that they were wrong and found it imperative that people get their facts right. Enjoy folks!!!



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Yechidah
 


Suppressed? Or scoffed at rightly because it was totally inaccurate?

Mod Edit: One-line posts. Please read.




[edit on 3/23/2008 by Cuhail]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join