The Dead Sea Scrolls: James vs Paul

a reply to: Seede

Good for you for googling dead sea scrolls and reading a few articles on the internet.

Sons of Zadok connects to the priestly order of Melchizedek. Melchi Tzedek, Zadok, Zadokites, Zaddikim and the Zaddik or Just one James.

We know the Qumran civilization had a leader called the Zaddik, or righteous one. This is the formal title for the Teacher of Righteousness and was James title which became in English, James the Just(Zaddik).

So you should stop talking about the Scrolls like you have read them, because by stating that they are from 200BC you show your lack of knowledge about the scrolls. They are from a period spanning a couple of hundred years and the oldest scrolls are from roughly 200BC

But they were most likely left behind or had no living person to retrieve them in the years of the rebellion that climaxed in the demise of the Israelites in the Holy Land and nobody found them until the 1940's.

So it's completely plausible what Eisenman states. He isn't anti-Paul he just connects the scrolls with the book of acts in a very convincing way and the story of acts is about Paul vs James. That's a fact.

a reply to: ElementalFreeze

Good for you for googling dead sea scrolls and reading a few articles on the internet. Sons of Zadok connects to the priestly order of Melchizedek. Melchi Tzedek, Zadok, Zadokites, Zaddikim and the Zaddik or Just one James. We know the Qumran civilization had a leader called the Zaddik, or righteous one. This is the formal title for the Teacher of Righteousness and was James title which became in English, James the Just(Zaddik). So you should stop talking about the Scrolls like you have read them, because by stating that they are from 200BC you show your lack of knowledge about the scrolls. They are from a period spanning a couple of hundred years and the oldest scrolls are from roughly 200BC But they were most likely left behind or had no living person to retrieve them in the years of the rebellion that climaxed in the demise of the Israelites in the Holy Land and nobody found them until the 1940's. So it's completely plausible what Eisenman states. He isn't anti-Paul he just connects the scrolls with the book of acts in a very convincing way and the story of acts is about Paul vs James. That's a fact.

In all of your splendor you still have said nothing. You have given no source to your claim of the teacher of righteousness as being the Nazarene James the brother of Jesus. You have no idea of what you are talking about regardless of your chest beating and you also have no idea of Eisenman's theology which was your first rant. I have probably given away more books than you are even aware of including dead sea scroll material.

So now back from the distraction that is common here on ATS. Where is your source that I have asked three times for you to produce? The reason I showed you the article was simply to show you a source. That is far more than what you have shown other than beating up air.

You made the above statement that - Quote " He isn't anti-Paul he just connects the scrolls with the book of acts in a very convincing way and the story of acts is about Paul vs James. That's a fact." Unquote --

That quote shows me exactly how much you think you know and how much you do not know. You had best go back to your books (whatever they are) and learn before you speak. In fact here is a excerpt from Wiki which is readily available to all who wants to to read it and which shows that that you have no idea what you are talking about. Eisenman is exactly as I have said. His purpose is to use his fame to discredit the Christian NT.

Quote In reference to R.H. Eisenman --
"He sees parallels between the political, religious and ethical stance of these sectarian documents and that of James the brother of Jesus, whom he identifies as the scrolls' Teacher of Righteousness, and sees 'the Wicked Priest' and 'the Man of Lying' as two different adversaries of the scroll community, the Wicked Priest being the High Priest Ananus ben Ananus, James' executioner, and the Man of Lying, St. Paul."
Unquote

Need any more be said? What I postulated from the onset is not only common knowledge but is also in his book of 1985 titled "The Righteous Teacher." Perhaps you may want to get a copy and add it to your vast knowledge of the dead sea scrolls.




When

a reply to: Seede

What is your point? I like Eisenman, I like his theory and I am into his work.

Paul is most likely not the Wicked priest and is the lying spouter.

I don't believe I said otherwise and if I did it was a goof because I am well aware that he thinks they are separate people.

At least I don't have to use other people's quotes to make a point. If you can't use your own words then this is not the thread for you.You have stated your opinion and that is all. Besides googling a few things real quick and posting it as if it was your knowledge then quoting someone and going nowhere with it.

Come back when you have actually studied the scrolls themselves and don't have to quote and do Google searches.

a reply to: Seede

A few texts from cave 4 refer to historical individuals. Syrian king Demetrius Eukairos(reigned 95-78 b.c.), King Alexander Janneus of Israel (103-76 b.c.), Queen Salome Alexandra of Israel (76-67 b.c.), King John Hyrcanus II (63-40 b.c.) and Roman General Aemilius Scaurus (active in Israel in 63 b.c)., confirming that the Scrolls are close enough to the first century to include some events up until roughly 68 a.d. I'm in the process of reading the first comprehensive translation by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg, JR., and Edward Cook. I also have and am reading the previously unpublished material translated by Eisenman. Two books, well worth the 25 dollars if you ask me.

a reply to: ElementalFreeze

What is your point? I like Eisenman, I like his theory and I am into his work. Paul is most likely not the Wicked priest and is the lying spouter. I don't believe I said otherwise and if I did it was a goof because I am well aware that he thinks they are separate people. At least I don't have to use other people's quotes to make a point. If you can't use your own words then this is not the thread for you.You have stated your opinion and that is all. Besides googling a few things real quick and posting it as if it was your knowledge then quoting someone and going nowhere with it.

There is nothing amiss in reading scholarly papers and I have never said there was. My point ? My point is that there are some professionals who will not separate facts with their theology and Eisenman is one of those professionals. There are too many professionals who use their platform to intermingle their own theology with facts and then present it to ignorant people who cite the authors theology as fact. The universities of America are full of that crap.

You came on to me with a scolding that I some how insulted Eisenman's professional integrity which was not the case at all. It was his anti biblical theology that was and is the issue. What you do not seem to understand is that all of this dead sea scroll literature is also theology the very same as the biblical theology. The difference being that you read Eisenman's theology as though somehow factual and then accept one man's theology against hundreds of linguists and thousands of manuscripts. That is insanity. That is not the real world. As was said before, Eisenman nor any of his fellow scholars have the autographs to verify their theology and present it as factual. It simply sells books to guys like you and it is disingenuous to do so. You can find this sort of crap in the science world also but it does not mean that there is not also science which is segregated from theology. An honest person wold state whether the material is theoretical or factual.

Do you understand the ramifications of the theory that Jesus did not die as it is stated in hundreds of manuscripts and thousands of translators work? And you would accept this Eisenman's theology against over 5,000 Greek texts alone? You do have a problem and it is very serious.

End of conversation -------------------------------

a reply to: Seede

I know you read my last message which proves the latest of the scrolls are closer to the first century than your mistaken belief about the dates of the scrolls at 200 b.c., and that is not from the work of Eisenman. You chose to reply to the least important message I sent you because to reply to the other would mean facing the fact that you were wrong and it can be proven.

Are you also wrong about Eisenman? I would say yes. His qualifications speak for itself and his work in translating the unpublished scrolls was groundbreaking.

Paul could be the lying spouter, Ananas the Wicked Priest and James a Teacher of Righteousness. Who knows, it could have been Yeshua himself? But it's a theory, and a theory doesn't make a person deserving of your insults. You care more about preserving the official story than you do about the truth, I can see that in your comments.

But it's in the bible that Paul and James had a beef and Paul went on his own. Eisenman's work brings to light the fact that nobody wants to discuss:

Paul was not a friend of the followers of Jesus and made up a whole new religion out of the myth of the Christ instead of the teachings of Yeshua.

You are guilty of not agreeing with a theory and attacking the integrity and sanity of it's author because you don't and don't want to agree.

Eisenman might be a little controversial, but controversy comes more from telling the truth than it does from lying. He is not a laughingstock or looked at as unreliable or dishonest in scholarly matters, and reputation is crucial in his field.

Some of the original translators find him a nuisance because he doesn't follow the preferred hypotheses of the official team of translators whose theories have been proven wrong many times. The official team had an agenda and the only agenda Eisenman had was getting the scrolls to the world and adding to the field of Scroll scholarship what was needed, new theories.

But I am sure you are a scholar yourself and perfectly qualified to judge the work of other DSS scholars.

If not you're just a j.a. talking crap with opinions behind your words and not learned knowledge.

Anything you have added to this thread has been about your opinion or was freshly googled info and someone else's opinion.

You obviously don't know jack about the scrolls. You haven't read them or studied them. You only have one reason for even coming to this thread, to spew your negative uneducated and unimportant opinion.

You must be a fundamentalist Christian.

a reply to: Seede

I am guessing but I think you are a follow the rules of official mainstream theology Christian. Everybody has individual beliefs not seen in church doctrine, but I bet for the most part you believe the approved version of events and interpretations of scripture and accept as fact what the bible says. I don't see you pouring through scripture looking for the lies of the past 2000 years so you can better know the truth. Or dropping a previously held belief because you find information that proves or suggests heavily that you were wrong and someone lied. You probably accept fundamental Christian theology with all its flaws and deceitful ways. You take the form of the Bible that comes from the money changers who rely on certain misinterpretations like a motor relies on oil in order to properly monetize the myth of Jesus and the fear of hell. Whether or not you belong to a church or have a pastor you follow essentially what is taught in those churches if you follow mainstream theology. And these organizations have been full of deceit since Paul founded the Roman "gentile" faction apart from the apostles claiming to have had a mystical experience and to have received divine knowledge from Jesus himself. There is not a single divine revelation in any of his writings. Not one thing to give him credibility as a prophet of God. He fulfills the role of false prophet prophecied about by Jesus in Matthew 24:23-29 perfectly as well as being the prototypical wolf in sheeps clothing which is fitting as he claims to be of the tribe of Benjamin who was prophecied long ago to be a ravening wolf. Besides assuming the title of apostle illegitimately he has no other claim to said title and violates the sacred number 12 by suggesting he is # 13.

I could write a book, but Christian theology is under scrutiny a joke unless you remove the Pauline hero angle and understand he is a wannabe, reject, mole and all around hypocritical double talking teacher of false doctrines.

A "Spouter of lies" if ever there was one. Maybe they are prophecies (the scrolls that talk about the spouter) and they came true and are mixed in with some historical documents or are historical documents and refer to Paul. The endless possibilities are fascinating and individual theories are are as good as the official (read : enforced, regulated) interpretations and often better.

And Eisenman is a reputable academic and one of the worlds most formidable DSS Scholars. He is the antithesis of the translator under Vatican or Israeli dominion and free to...be honest.