It is currently Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




 Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:31 am 
PX,

Thank you for your compliments as well; and now I don't have to send the assassins after you for distorting my name :biggrin: (Hee, hee).

I agree with you that this is a Sitchin site; I have been attempting, in my dense way, to begin to draw nets around other relevant information and reel it into our discussion threads.
To answer one of your most recent questions to me: Sitchin himself makes educated guesses that Yahweh is indeed Enlil or Enlil's youngest son, the Hittite "Storm God" Ishkur. The characteristics of the OT God fit the "personality" of Enlil flawlessly--IF it is kept in mind that through "compression" and editorial revision, The Lord and Yahweh in the OT are often confused with each other when in fact they are two separate beings. Not only have my own educational background and my strong poetic intuition additionally helped me to understand this, but the great scholar Sir Laurance Gardner whom I've mentioned before has completely confirmed what I'll take as the fact that Yahweh was, indeed, Enlil, the Annunaki "Lord of the Command". And, I guess I should point out that in his most recent book, "The Lost Book of Enki", Sitchin demonstrates that while Ziusudra (Noah) became "Enki's boy", so Abraham became "Enlil's boy". Abraham was made the "Father of a Nation" by decree of Enlil because even the wrathful and jealous Enlil felt gratitude in his heart towards Abraham (Abram) because he had been the leader of a military coalition which prevented armies sympathetic towards Prince Mardok (eldest Annunaki son of Enki and the god of Babylon) from capturing for him the Spaceport in the Sinai. Abraham was the son of Tirhu, a priest of oracles in Ur, Nippur, and Harran. Because of this lineage, it is virtually certain that there was at least a little Annunaki blood in Abraham, making him "worthy" to be the Father of a Nation on Earth--a Nation "chosen" and led by Enlil. There was such hostility between the Hebrews and the Egyptians, for instance, because Egypt was "Enki Land" (Enki being called "Ptah" in the Coptic language).

I often think Jesus was an Essene; but I still have reservations about that. But it's definite that the Essenes had a major influence upon the NT gospels no matter what. The "link" I see between Jesus/The Essenes and the Annunaki is an archetypal/ritualistic one. With the departure of the Annunaki ca. 400 BCE, humankind became confused about what do to. I don't know if this is what always happens between appearances of Nibiru, or if the Annunaki completely left for the first time since their arrival; and if they did, I don't know if they're going to come back. Anyway, Sitchin makes clear in "When Time Began" that calendars were created to keep track of festivals and venerations, not to merely "track the seasons" as any farmer can do by instinct and intuition alone. Ritualistic timekeeping was created to link Mankind to the Gods. So the fanatical ritualism of the Essenes makes perfect sense in that light; except that the Essenes never saw any gods, because the gods were gone. So what did they have for knowledge and philosophy? Olden day archives and stories and poems. Through the process which is known as Midrash, new "up-to-date" commentary was made by the educated on old writings and ideas. This is the very process by which the gospels and Acts and Revelation came into being. Because the gods were suddenly, inexplicably gone--and because Nibiru itself was not, but was temporarily hidden behind the Sun--then it was natural for Mankind to think that "any second, they'll be back, and we need to be ready". But in the gods' continued absence, without their guidance, humanity starting making stuff up.
Nibiru was last viewed from Earth in 25 C.E. (it was leaving the vicinity). This is recorded by Seneca. When it was seen, the fervor about the gods' imminent return heightened. More scrambling for more revisions and updating ensued. The Gospels and the Letters of Paul had not even been conceived of yet, and Jesus was still alive. Rome was still the great power. The writers and editors began to absorb the charged atmosphere around them; it made its way into their writings (of course), and through writings into idea and notion and behaviour. The last sighting of Nibiru became a special, portentious star which had "really been seen" at Jesus' birth; qualities attributed to Emperor Augustus became the domain of Jesus; Jesus became Mithrais, the dying-and-rising god whose cult flourished in the Empire. Jesus had been a rebel, a revolutionary who thought for himself; he had been unaccepted by most. So those who followed his ways wrote of him and gave him a "good rap". A real, real good rap.
Did Jesus have any bloodline descent back to David (who, of necessity, was at least somewhat Annuanaki)? This is debatable. Did he also/or have bloodline descent back to Levi? Again, there is room for doubt. But one thing is abundantly clear: he was not the "one and only begotten son of God". There is no such thing. And there was no "virgin birth" to bring him about. His "specialness" came later, as his life and his ideas unfolded. But whatever his actual link to the Essenes, he definitely had contact with them somehow; and since they were "guarding and preserving the knowledge" bestowed upon Mankind by the gods (especially by Enlil, though they'd absorbed much Greek thought about mathematics, which would ultimately stem from Enki), then Jesus would have taken up "godlike" ideas, too.

Whew! I'm exhausted! Anyone else have some ideas?


(Edited by Brant at 2:02 pm on Mar. 2, 2002)


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2002 4:23 pm 
"According to the consensus view, [the Dead Sea Scrolls concerning the 'Teacher of Righteousness'] were claiming, in either 63 BCE (unlikely) or after CE 6, that the OT prophecies had been fulfilled in the Teacher, who for them had lived a century or even two centuries previously. When people claim that scripture is full of prophecies about contemporary events, they mean their own time, not 100 or 200 years before. I heard that President Reagan in his time announced that events then happening in Jerusalem were a fulfilment of the prophecy of Armageddon. If Bush holds the same opinion, he would be applying it to here-and-now!"

--theologian Barbara Thiering


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2002 4:37 pm 
The 550 days of the Apocryphon of James give a nice piece of calendar, supplying historical information. It says that the Saviour appeared to James and Peter 550 days after his resurrection. They asked him, "Have you departed and removed yourself from us?" and he replied, "No, but I shall go to the place from whence I came. If you wish to come with me, come." They replied, "If you bid us, we come."

For more orthodox present-day scholars, this is pure fantasy, a product of the 3rd century CE. I always wonder why fantasists would give such exact figures. I beg to differ, knowing that stones will be thrown at anyone who takes these imaginative works literally. On the basis of the solar calendar of 364 days, this period is 4 days longer than 1½ years. It would give a date in September, CE 34, at the end of the 4 day extensions from the 31st (these described in my book, complicated, but accounting for the date of Good Friday). Jesus 'ascended into heaven' - returned to the monastery - 4 days after Good Friday. He is here saying that he is not yet fully enclosed, there was a transition period after the years for dynastic marriage spent outside. James and Peter are offered the chance of entering the same 'pure' celibate life, but are not yet ready for it.

--theologian Barbara Thiering


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 03, 2002 2:26 pm 
Thinking of the theorized connection between the 3 Magi and "Zoroastrian Priests"...:wink:

There is, in fact, a connection between pre-Christianity and early Mithraism,
going a long way back.

As you know, Mithraism is believed to come from the Aryans. The name may
perhaps be from Persian 'mihr' meaning 'Sun'. Mithras appears in
Zoroastrianism as a divinity who formed a link between Ahura Mazda , 'Light'
and Angra Mainyu, 'Darkness'. Plutarch: "Zoroaster...declared that
among all the things perceptible to the senses, Oromazes (Ahura Mazda) may
best be compared to light, and Areimanius (Angra Mainyu), conversely, to
darkness and ignorance, and midway between the two is Mithras; for this
reason the Persians gave to Mithras the name of 'Mediator'."

It was seen from the beginning of Scrolls research that a line runs from
Zoroastrianism, especially its Zurvanite sect, through 1QS, through the
Johannine literature, to the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache. The common
elements in all are the light-darkness dualism and the associated ethical
dualism, with distinctive imagery linking them.

The Zurvanites, as pointed out by Michaud, were a form of
Zoroastrian heterodoxy, with a greater emphasis on time than is found in the
Gathas. It was from Time (Zurvan) that good and evil and light and
darkness were born. Zurvan had offered sacrifices for 1000 years in order to
have a son, but at the last minute a doubt on the value of the sacrifices
overcame him, and as a result both Ohrmazd (Ahura Mazda, light, good) and
Ahriman (Angra Mainyu, darkness, evil) were born. Because of the original
unity, there would be an end of the present world order, with differing
estimates of how many thousand years it would last.

These elements are found in 1QS 3, with its light- darkness dualism, and
personalities governing the two ethical alternatives (the Prince of Light,
the Angel of Darkness). The two spirits offer two ways, for the generations
of truth arising from a spring of light, while the generations of iniquity
come from a source of darkness. 1QS expects a Visitation in the future that
would destroy all evil (4:12-14).

--Barbara Thiering

(Edited by Brant at 11:27 am on Mar. 3, 2002)


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2001 6:10 am
Posts: 80
Location: East Coast
Twilli75,

(to impregnate Mary with (a cloned embryo?) would have been quite an undertaking)

Mary was a virgin according to the scriptures. Was she impregnated with a clone, artificially inseminated with all necessary goodies on behalf of both parents, or was Jesus half human with her share of genes involved?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2002 5:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:28 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Pheonix,AZ
In answer to the question "What about Jesus?", I submit the following explanation: Mary was impregnated by Yahweh, the God of the Herbews." Toward that conclusion, please consider the following scriptures:

" Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) It should be noted that Sitchin attests to the veracity of the Old Testament prophets, including Isaiah, whose future telling accuracy he has reported in several of his books. Christians beleive that this was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. Non- Christian Jews beleive the messiah is yet to come.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ (messiah) was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."(Matt 1:18)

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (Matt 1:20)

And the angel answered and said to her, "the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35 )

Mary was not a host for an embroyo. Her egg was fertilized by the Holy Spirit. Was the Hebrew God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, an Annunaki? I'm not sure, yet.
I've read no explanation of Him as being one of the gods of the Nibiru. If Zecharia Sitchin is correct, Yahweh was/ is the only true God, " the God even of the Elohim themselves." (Page 242 The Cosmic Code)

It would seem reasonable, if the Elohim could create the First Adam, in their likeness, from the genes of a god and a homo erectus, that a complete Second Adam from
a female human being and the Holy Spirit of Yahweh could be the next upgrade. Remember that the Elohim (Annunaki) with held reproduction abilities from the first Adam, also longevity (eternal life). Whoever gave it all to them didn't withhold it forever, if at all.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him to come. ( Rom 5:14)

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. ( 1 Cor 15:22 )

And so it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor 15:45)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2002 10:33 am 
"Thanks for two comments on the gospels, one concerning their perceived
disagreement with each other, the other concerning their alleged late date.
These are now two items of faith for conservative scholars. In the 19th
century, these were radical advances, condemned as wicked heresy by
literalists who believed in the inerrancy and transparency of scripture. But we
move on, as a result of new knowledge.

I wish that others
who condemn it a priori would admit that they have not done the work on it. It
is capable of testing - a concept that is very difficult in theological
circles.

Thanks to Barbara for this splendid article, though - as said in the
last paragraph - we are supposed to know it all....:o

First of all, I agree in the hidden nature of Jesus' historic life. More spectacular is that he is almost not mentioned by the
historians of the time. That must mean that his life was quite
ordinary and not to call any attention to, as the period seems to be
quite well documented in many details. Josephus hardly mentioned
the man....

Forgive me, if the following is too wicked, but some philosophies
have rumoured in my mind for years, as I have also been in doubt
on the surface stories of OT - and not least the way the churches
have delt with this heritage!

Up through history we have had many expectations of a new
coming Messiah, but all of them failed to show up as did also the
great Armageddon. Especially around year 1000 and year 2000
expectations were strong. I'm sorry not to be able to point out the
sources for such expectations, but they must be somewhere since
they can be "read" and published (even with exact dates on!) so
often.

Funny (peculiar) how this Messiah-thing, Saviour, Creator and even
God is always materilized to be persons. If I'm right, muslims are
more to the observation that their Allah is more "The All",
"Everything", actually the belief in itself. That's also why they ban
that Jesus should be "Son of..".

As I see it, the revival-theory could merely be belief - Christianity -
itself, not a reincarnation of anybody. This could fullfill all the
prophets' sayings on "new world-order" and things like that. By the
help of The Dead Sea Scrolls (and the Pesher) all the lies could be
pulled away from nowadays Christianity, but it might have a
resurrection in a purer, simpler and stronger form. Jesus then
recognized as the intelligent and progressive guy he undoubtedly
was, but not Gods' Son, and thus making a way for ceasfire with
both muslims and jews. The three great religions in peace! As a
surplus, most of the basic elements for many New Religions would
also disappear, as it shows they were founded on lies."

--religion researcher John Thomasen in a response to and about Barbara Thiering's work


  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:11 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
Only some of the references to Jesus' existence outside Biblical reference:

These historic references being:

<ol>
<li>The Roman historian Tacitus, who, writing between 115-117 A.D. had said the following, ""They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home." From his Annals, xv. 44. This evidence was from an atheist.


<li>Suetonius, personal secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), spoke of Christians and the fact that they were expelled from the city of Rome by Claudius in 49 AD because they were teaching Christ. Acts 18:2 states that Aquila and Priscilla came to Corinth from Rome because Claudius had driven the Jews out of Rome. And Christianity was known to been introduced to the world by Jews.

<li>Mention of Jesus can also be found in Jewish Rabbinical writings from what is known as the Tannaitic period, between 70-200 A.D. In Sanhedrin 43a it says: "Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days previously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning, because he has practiced sorcery and led Israel astray and enticed them into apostasy. Whoever has anything to say in his defence, let him come and declare it.' As nothing was brought forward in his defence, he was hanged on Passover Eve


(Edited by Tripp at 1:26 am on Mar. 8, 2002)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 4:14 am 

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:34 am
Posts: 39
(Edited by Tripp at 1:29 am on Mar. 8, 2002)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2002 11:03 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:28 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Pheonix,AZ
Thanks, Tripp. :) What else do you think?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2002 8:33 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 8:07 am
Posts: 1
Location: Spain
Quote:
Quote: from PXMiles on 12:55 am on Mar. 2, 2002
Brent,

Thanks for two complements! You are very well read, and you write well, too. I appreciate that you are still, as I am, seeking the "Truth," where ever it can be found. That's why we found this Zecharia Sitchin website.

While it would be fun to discuss the various reasons for apparent inconsistencies in the numerous accounts about Jesus's life and His impact on this planet, why the canonical Gospels do not not all focus on the same things, how many of the revisions and redactons have taken away significant teachings and the effects used to control mankind, it would take us, and others who might read what we have to say, away from the question asked: What about Jesus?"

I agree with you in that persons should be aware that the Bible, as we have it today, is but a fraction of the recorded writings, much of which would be more convenient (In my openion )if they were all contained in one book. Unfortunately, since they are not, persons will have to seek out the knowledge and come to understanding through their own research and analysis. Fortunately, the Internet is a vehicle that can easily give us all access to The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), the Essenes ( the Jewish sect of which I think Jesus may have been a member) writings, the Book of the Prophet Enoch, and many other works which were formerly "Lost", or withheld. I hope you will agree that we should encourage others to get busy searching out their own Truths. Sitichen's contributions to our understanding of how the Nibiru connection has been misunderstood, denied, and ignored by scientists and theologians are very significant. Let's attempt to address our discussion around his works. O.K., Brent?

You said in an earileir post: "there are certainly links between Jesus and the Annunaki. They simply are not as "direct". I am most interested in your thinking about that. I agree with you that there is no reason for Jesus to be an E.T. nor "really Enki" for those links to exist. I think Enki has been given a "bad rap" and falsely called Satin when, in fact, he gave mankind a genetic upgrade in he Garden of Eden. I wouldn't be suprised if Jesus was another upgrade to the species whereby he added the longevity (eternal life) to mankind's ability to have. He said: "I come that you might have life, and that more abundantally."

What do you see?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2002 4:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:28 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Pheonix,AZ
cgold, Welcome aboard!
You quoted and re-posted a response I'd made to one of Brant's posts, although I called him by the wrong name. What you didn't do was express your own thinking. I see that you became a member today. From Spain, even. Glad you found us. Where did you find out about this dissussion board? Hope to see you again soon.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:48 pm 

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:22 pm
Posts: 4
Location: Red Cliff, Wisconsin
Fun to read your thoughts about if Jesus was Enki or who? In the LOST REALMS book starting on page 184.....Heading the pantheon was the ruler of Nibiru, ANU whose name was synonymous with "heaven" for he resided on Nibiru. His spouse , also a member of the Twelve, was called ANTU. Included in this group were the two principal sons of ANU: E.A. (Whose house is water), alias EN.KI, Anu's firstborn, BUT not by Antu; and EN.LIL (Lord of the Command) who was the HEIR Apparent because his mother was ANTU, a half sister to ANU.

Ea was also called in the Sumerian text EN.KI (lord earth), for he had led the first mission of the Anunnaki from Nibiru to Earth and established on Earth their first colonies in the E.DIN (Home of the Righteous Ones) - the bibical Eden. It continues...but first my thought, about the gronological order; if that the first born of a sister/wife is the heir...Just like Abraham with Sara who begat Issac,...for Sara was Abraham's sister, the daughter of his father, tho not of his mother, ..she became his wife. To be pure the marriage must be between siblings...as was the royal line of Nibiru. Also the royal line of many cultures including the Pharoahs.
And Lot's daughters made him drunk so that they could have children and continue the family line.
Enki was a great scientist, whose epithets and symbols often implied his being crafty, a metallurgist-all words that found their linguistic equivalent in the term "Serpent". To the Nahuatl he was known as the Plumed Sepent.... his Egyptian name was PTAH (the developer). His first born (twins?) was MAR.DUK (son of the bright mound), whom the Egyptians called RA....and NIN.GISH.ZI.DA. (lord of The Tree of Life) also know as Thoth by the Egyptians and Quetzalcoatl (the Feathered Serpent).
We know that Enki, with the help of Ninti (She who gives Life, a.k.a. Serpent Woman) "created" humans.

So, it looks to me like Enki was the creator and the Serpent, (and his family members also known as some sort of Serpents), and the one who instructed Ziusudra (Noah?) to build the submersible ship (ark). Enlil was enraged when he found that man had survived the Deluge, but relented and said that man must be enabled to proliferate and prosper and be treated no longer as a slave, but as a partner. So? This sounds like Enlil was the one who would inherit after Anu. Seems like Enlil had the final word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Eloheim, plural Gods of equal power? Yes?
Anyway I am a new member to this site and I have always been searching for a physical knowledge of God. I really didn't belive in God.. I don't have faith, but maybe now I feel that with all of our physical findings that maybe there is a God. Maybe HE or They really will come back to us.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:08 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:59 pm
Posts: 1
Location: South Carolina
Hello, I am a new member, just joined today but have been a faithful fan of Zaharia Sitchin for a few years now. I have in my possesion almost all of his books and have read all that I have. I think that I am going to enjoy this forem very much. I feel that I can learn a lot from others like myself who has this desire to find out who we really are and why we're here. I started my investigation off by purchasing books about Jesus. I needed to know who this man was that I grew up worshiping. This lead me on a long and exciting journey that I believe I will be on until I leave this earthly realm. I look forward ti the discussions among friends. Thank you all for allowing me to be a part of something great!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2003 2:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:25 pm
Posts: 8
Just imagine a theater-play being used to instruct...


Some have asked, "Just what did Jesus teach?" It is the question that is often asked, by people who can accept that a healthy religion does not have to depend on belief in miracles or in a divine-human person. I can agree that it does not work, religiously, to reduce Jesus to a sage. That is all the more the case when it is known – as is often guessed – that many of the sayings attributed to him were not his, but came from wise men preceding him. It is another of the contributions of the Pesher [the discovered "decoder document" for the New Testament writings] to show the steps in the process.

The historian Eusebius (CE 260-340) quotes a previous writer Papias, whom he greatly underestimates as "a man of very little intelligence". (Papias gave space to matters that were being suppressed in Eusebius’ time, such as the story of the daughters of Philip concerning a man named Justus Barsabas who drank poison but suffered no ill effects. H.E. 3, 39, 9). According to Papias’ account of the writing of the gospels, "Matthew collected the oracles (logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could." (H.E. 3, 39, 16).

The same term, logia, appears in Acts 7:38, in a chapter which appears to be dealing with the story of the patriarchs and Moses but is giving a concealed account of the history of the ascetics in the 1st century BCE and early 1st century CE. They used the names of OT figures as pseudonyms for their own leaders. Its sets of 40 years give dates. The ‘year 40’ of v.36 brings the dating to CE 6. The figure in v. 38 appeared ‘in the church (ekklçsia) in the wilderness’, and gave logia zônta, ‘living oracles’, or in pesher terms, teachings that were used in instruction of bishops, who received ‘life’. The setting in the ‘church’, earlier than Jesus, makes it likely that these logia are the same as those of Matthew, an early set of teachings in the Hebrew language.

Matthew’s gospel contains the Sermon on the Mount, often cited as the essence of Christianity. Its wisdom is in many ways continuous with the known teaching of Hillel the Great, who opened up Judaism to proselytes. Its liberal form of Judaism is characteristic of Diaspora Sadducees, those who did not focus on the Jerusalem temple (Acts 7:48-50). The same liberalism was found among Hellenists, who admitted women to the fellowship of the sacred meal, that is to the ministry (Acts 6:1). A feature of Matthew’s gospel is its addition of detail and stories about women (Mt 10:35; 14:21; 25:1-13).

I have presented the evidence that the Scrolls offer, that an organised form of the ascetic mission was established under Herod the Great, with its leaders using the names of the patriarchs, ‘Abraham’ (Hillel), ‘Isaac’ (Menahem), and ‘Jacob’ (Heli, the grandfather of Jesus, whose father was the ‘Joseph’). They were teaching Diaspora Jews their updated kind of Judaism called the ‘New Covenant’, and also instructing interested Gentiles. A body of teaching was prepared, suitable for higher members being educated to the level of bishops. This teaching would have constituted the ‘living oracles’ that were again presented to the ekklçsia in CE 6.

Jacob-Heli, patriarch of the west, was given the task of instruction of Gentiles, and his descendants were to continue after him. Jesus inherited the role, with revolutionary results, making Gentiles equal to Jews and then separating them into a new institution. It would have been Jesus’ work to repeat the logia as part of the accepted curriculum in the educational institutions.

The genuine original sayings of Jesus are found in John’s gospel which, I believe, he composed himself shortly after the crucifixion [whereat Jesus did not physically die]. Its thrust is on action – the action of releasing the institution from Jewish control. The ‘miracles’ record how he broke down the Qumran rules step by step, and the sayings are directed at Jesus’ right to act as a priest and high priest without levitical birth. His doctrine of the priesthood of all believers gave independence from the Jewish priesthood, even that of liberal Sadducees.

The Synoptic gospels, written in the following decade, are directed at modifying Jesus’ radicalism, retaining some links with Judaism. Peter, still revering the Annas priests, set the example in Mark. He added the new form of parables, not found in John, recording the previous Jewish history.

The retention of the best aspects of Judaism was mainly due to Matthew Annas, who should rank with Jesus as one of the heroes of the story. One of the five Annas brothers who enjoyed brief terms as high priests in the temple, he was a man of much greater political wisdom than his pompous elder brother Jonathan Annas. Jonathan admitted that himself when he declined Agrippa I’s offer of a return to the high priesthood, saying, "I have a brother, pure of all sin against God and against you, O king. Him I recommend as suitable for the honour" (Ant. 19:315). Matthew became high priest in CE 41, his reign reflecting the new friendship with Rome encouraged by the emperor Claudius. It was in his time that the term ‘Christian’ was introduced in Antioch (Acts 11: 26). It was Peter’s term, expressing his view that Jesus was only the Christ, the Messiah of Israel, a subordinate of the Annas priest, and should not claim to be the Messiah of Aaron.

Matthew Annas was, I suggest, the sponsor of Matthew’s gospel, the special concern of which was to restore value to hellenised Judaism. He did not write it himself, but we have the account of the person who did act as the compiler and scribe. He was James Niceta, the brother of John Aquila, whose history is given in the Clementine literature. James Niceta was the author of part A of Revelation, its chapters 8:6 to 14:5. In Rev 10:1-11 he gives the account of the next stage of Matthew’s Logia:

"Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from Heaven, wrapped around with a cloud……He had a little book (biblaridion) open in his hand…When he called out, the seven thunders sounded. And when the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from Heaven saying, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down’. …In the days of the trumpet call to be sounded by the seventh angel, the mystery of God…should be fulfilled. Then the voice which I had heard from Heaven spoke to me again, saying, ‘Go take the book (biblion) which is open in the hand of the angel…So I went to the angel and told him to give me the little book (biblaridion), and he said to me, ‘Take it and eat; it will be bitter to your stomach, but sweet as honey in your mouth.’ And I took the little book (biblaridion) out of the hand of the angel and ate it; it was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter."

The chronology, giving sets of seven years through ‘trumpets’ and ‘angels’, brings this event to September CE 43. It was the sixteenth birthday of the young Agrippa II, being celebrated in Ephesus when he was on the way to Rome. He was the ‘mighty angel’ being vested by the Cloud, a name for a priest. His father Agrippa I was present, as ‘Heaven’, a name used for one claiming the place of the Zadokite. Present also was Matthew Annas, ‘Thunder 7’, a name for the Annas priests when they were associated with Samaritan Magians called ‘Lightning’ (Mt 28:3, Lk 10:18). James Niceta and John Aquila were called ‘Sons of Thunder’ (Mk 3:17). James Niceta was the ‘I’ of the narrative, the servant and scribe of Thunder 7, Matthew.

James Niceta set out to record what Thunder 7 said, that is, he was about to write Matthew’s gospel, translating the Logia from Hebrew and adding the further material that Matthew and his advisers offered. But a voice from Heaven, Agrippa I, forbade him to write it. In September CE 43 the capricious Agrippa, quarrelling with the Roman governor Marsus, had become anti-Roman and dismissed Matthew Annas (Ant. 19, 338-342). For this reason, he banned Matthew’s book.

After another season, however, further events enabled ‘the mystery of God to be fulfilled’. A ‘mystery’ was the name for a book with a pesher (Mk 4:11, Rev 1:20; 17:7). Matthew’s Gentile following had gone as far as declaring independence of Agrippa, using the new name ‘Christian;’, and Matthew’s gospel was to be published to celebrate the event. It was in the form of a biblion (v. 8), a bound book, replacing the scroll form (there is evidence that bound books were in use in the 1st century).

It was necessary, however, to do something about the biblaridion, the ‘little book’, which had been given to the young prince on his birthday. That name was used for John’s gospel, whose teaching was far more radical than the Synoptic school would allow. James Niceta was told to take it and ‘eat’ it. The meaning was that his kind of Gentile ascetics, using the name Christian, were to swallow up the Gentile monastics led by John Mark, the sponsor of John’s gospel. It was in the following year that John Mark separated from Paul’s party, and would not be reconciled with them until many years later (Acts 13:13; 20:7-12). The Synoptic school won, transferring to Rome under Peter. John’s gospel was taken over by them and attributed to another John, John Aquila. The suppression of its early history was the reason that Eusebius believed that it had been written last (H.E. 3, 24, 7).

The ‘bitterness’ of the book in the stomach was an allusion to the poison plot against Agrippa in which both the Sadducees and Samaritans were currently engaged. It would take effect the following March, CE 44, when Agrippa, making messianic claims on a rooftop in Caesarea (Ant. 19, 343-246, Acts 12:20-23), was ‘eaten by worms’ (poisoned with a mixture including snake poison) and died. According to Acts 12: 23 he was ‘struck by an angel of the Lord’, Simon Magus, because he did not give the glory to God (had dismissed Matthew Annas, called ‘God’ as a Sadducee high priest).

Our record is about actions rather than wise teachings. But perhaps the actions themselves have something to teach us. ~Barbara Thiering


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron