Dead Seas Scrolls & Early Christians, Zealots, Jesus
Blake's Books: Click on book to access for free
2012: ETA- Science Commentary and Sci-fi Stories
From the Agenda- Scifi Fantasy about Dolphs
The point of view that Jesus was either the spiritual leader of the Jewish resistance against Rome, or just the leader, perhaps the Messiah, in Maccabee tradition, or a upper class Jew, who did have a claim to the throne, hence King of the Jews, if a revolution against Rome were successful, has been well explored in fiction and New Age research (i.e. loose and hypothetical, more than proven), but who has the funds to prove such an hypothesis and it does make interesting reading.
The Bible, I read it twice in its entirety, has always confused me, particularly parts of the New Testament, given that Jesus was the Son of God and all forgiving, then why did he make quite a few militant statements? Leaders of Christianity can explain these away with smoke and mirrors, but they are there in black and white. And by the way, the Jews were not mistaken in expecting the Messiah to be a militant leader, given that the Messiah, was modeled after Judah Maccabee, the leader who threw off the Greek yoke. Is that why the Maccabees are left out of the Bible, we might see a connection, and begin to question it. All of this is not a condemnation of Christianity, which I think has a strong spiritual and philosophical basis.
The first author who I read who proposed that Jesus was connected with the Zealot, anti-Rome movement, was Brandon (1967), Jesus and the Zealots. It's been a while since I read it, but mainly by deconstructing the biblical text, he arrives at the surprising, at the time, conclusion that Jesus was strongly associated with the anti-Roman forces. The text suggesting this is not minor either. For starters, both of his associates, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot (Iscariot taken from the Jewish sect that assassinated Romans and their Jewish conspirers) wear names of the Jewish resistance movement. I suggest reading Brandon, even if you are already well wound up on these theories.
In my opinion, the best overview of Jesus as different from the catholic view would be The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, by Baigent and Leigh. They, as Eisenman, from whom they borrow from emmensely, tend to focus less on Jesus and more on the strife between Paul and James, brother of Jesus. They make the whole idea readable for most of us, while Robert Eisenman builds the case from volumes of research, and the further deconstruction of the New Testament, and the correlation of words in the Dead Sea documents and the Bible. Eisenman writes in a professorial manner, including vocabulary, convoluted syntax, and repetition, but he is worth reading. I suggest the collection of papers which has been collected under the title The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, then if you want more, the much longer and convoluted, James, Brother of Jesus.
While Eisenman tends to pursue what happened to Christianity after Jesus was crucified, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, is other books, Messianic Legacy and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, pursue what happened to his family tree. I've read other authors who pursue that as well and come up with interesting deconstructions of biblical text, for example: Why did the disciples come to Jesus and tell him that the wine was gone at the wedding feast? Why would it be his concern, unless he were a member of one of the families involved in the marriage? An interesting thought.
Does early Christianity, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Kumran have anything to do with Templars, Masons, Kaballah, and Rosicrucians? Answer: Maybe, many copies of the Book of Enoch were found in the Kumran caves. This connection left for another page.
It is my opinion that there is adequate evidence to support the following beliefs:
Jesus, associated with and had a strong following among the anti-Roman revolutionary groups.
The people who lived at Kumran had a strong association with the temple, of why would the copper scroll (describing where all the temple treasures were buried) be found in a cave at Kumran.
The people at Kumran had a strong association with the people at Masada, Zealots, they both had collections of the same scrolls, indicating that their belief systems drew strongly from the same sources.
The original form of Christianity was Jewish and it conformed with all the Jewish laws. Greek form of Christianity prevailed because it was inclusive of anyone, and did not demand adherence to Jewish law, among other things. There were philosophical conflicts between the Greek and Jewish Christians.
Jesus had royal linage on both sides of his family, it says so in the Bible, so he might well have been in line to be king, should the revolution have been successful before he was crucified.
James, Jesus's brother was also a folk leader, and head of the Christian movement immediately after the crucifixion, but strictly along religious lines.
Paul modified Christianity to appeal to non-Jews. It seems to me that this ended up being a good thing, but we'll never know what Jewish Christianty would have been like because it was wiped out, probably because of its anti-Roman stance.
|Related Authors Links: Baigent, Butler, Eisenman, Hancock, Knight, Leigh, Lomas, Van Dšniken|