Salvation from what?

[PaulS]

Following an article recently posted on here written by progressive Christian Quaker pastor, Phil Gulley, the question was asked about what exactly it is that Christians think that Jesus needs to save us from.  Now I think Phil was more referring to the quality of life we may lead and that Jesus' influence could bring about a greater quality (Phil doesn't believe any longer in an eternal hell), but I know that's not what traditional Christianity has taught.  TC teaches that we are all going to hell, except for those who have the good sense to believe that Jesus dying on the cross was an act of God, required in order that God may accept those who believe this act was on their behalf, so they alone will pass through to the pearly gates.

Now I get that generations of people before the early 1800's did not have the knowledge to understand that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, or that humans exactly like you & I have actually been walking this earth for at least 150,000 years, and our 'lesser developed' ancestors some 5-7 million years before that.  It seems to me that the only genuine way to reconcile traditional Christian teachings of mankind requiring 'salvation' in the traditional sense) is to completely deny evolution, and the existence of homo sapiens for some 150,000 years.

When traditional Christians so convincingly believe that God wants them to accept Jesus Christ as their saviour in order to make it to Heaven, do they not stop to ask themselves what God had in mind for humans for the other 148,000 years or so? But if they do, how on earth can they reconcile 150,000 years of needing to be saved, with the existence of one person only about 2000 years ago?

[romansh]

While what Jesus thought what we need saving from is an interesting question, what we think we need saving from would be far more interesting.

There is some evidence that Jesus was an Essene, a Jewish sect who were determinists ... and by implication that did not believe in free will. This apparently was why Jesus kept butting heads with Pharisees, a sect that did believe in free will.

So if, Jesus thought we did not have free will, it makes being saved an interesting concept.

If anyone needs more info on this, PM @Ogdin or take a look at Dr Lott's youtube in the free will thread.

[PaulS]

15 hours ago, romansh said:

So if, Jesus thought we did not have free will, it makes being saved an interesting concept.

I'm pretty convinced these days that Jesus didn't expect people to be 'saved', but rather was telling them the time was at hand for God to restore his authority over the earth and mankind, so start living now (in Jesus day) as though God was already in charge.  It wasn't until after Jesus' death and when it was obvious the Kingdom wasn't coming in their lifetime as promised, that representations of Jesus and his message began to change into what we now see as the Jesus cult and Christianity.

[romansh]

Paul ... your reply seems to indicate that Jesus somehow believed we had free will and that god will take control at some point. Who or what did Jesus think was in control during his time?

 

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, romansh said:

Paul ... your reply seems to indicate that Jesus somehow believed we had free will and that god will take control at some point. Who or what did Jesus think was in control during his time?

 

I think Jesus was an apocalypticist - he thought a major act of God was about to occur (in people's lifetimes at the time) which would see God's Kingdom installed on earth and the powers of evil would be overthrown.  Those who aligned with the powers of evil would be destroyed, and those who followed God would survive and rule.  Jesus was telling people to align themselves with God before it was too late.  So to this end, yes, I do think that Jesus believed people had free will and the ability to choose which path to follow. Dualism is/was a typical trait of apocalyptic thought in Jesus' day, and belief in dualism correlates with belief in free will.

[romansh]

While dualism may well have been typical of the time, was Jesus typical of Jewish tradition? He may well have been apocalyptic, but that does not rule out other flavours as well.

Quote

Josephus (in 93AD) describes this division among the Jews in Antiquities 13:171 saying:

"Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly."

There is good reason to believe that this is the basic teaching of Jesus that was later distorted. Many scholars see parallels with him and Essene thinking, and certainly the other two categories are explicit opponents of Jesus in the NT.

The above is a quote from Dr Lott that I filched from Facebook. Who happens to have posted on this site that the Admin and mods have somehow neglected to welcome.

What does Bart say about Jesus and Essene?

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, romansh said:

While dualism may well have been typical of the time, was Jesus typical of Jewish tradition? He may well have been apocalyptic, but that does not rule out other flavours as well.

No, it doesn't rule out other flavours, and it is likely Jesus was his own kind of apocalypticist (which is what probably made him stand out at the time and thereafter - maybe he thought he was the Messiah, maybe he didn't).  Jesus perhaps thought nobody had free will and when the apocalypse came and that those lucky enough to have been mandated by fate would be the ones to inherit the new kingdom.  But to me, his messages throughout the Gospels seem to indicate people are to make a decision as to what side they want to be on, before it's too late.

Another reason why I think Jesus likely believed in free will, was his apparent belief that people could be forgiven by God under certain circumstances - not that 'all' automatically would.  For me, if Jesus thought nobody had free will, then I think it's reasonable that Jesus would expect 'all' to be forgiven.  After all, what fault is it of a Roman Governor if he has no free will in determining whether to follow the path of evil or good? Why would he need 'forgiving' of something that was not in his control?

7 hours ago, romansh said:

What does Bart say about Jesus and Essene?

Here's a little about how Bart Ehrman compares Jesus to Essene thought:

One of the reasons scholars occasionally associated Jesus with the Essenes is that he, like them, preached a thoroughly apocalyptic message.  The present age, in both their views, was controlled by forces of evil; but God was soon to intervene to destroy the forces of evil and bring in a good kingdom on earth to be run by his messiah (or messiahs).   There was soon to be a mass destruction of all that was opposed to God and the people and kingdoms that aligned themselves with these alien forces.  And included among those to be wiped out were the leaders of Israel.

Since this message, in rough outline, was found in both Jesus and the DSS, doesn’t that make it plausible that Jesus was a member of the community where the scrolls were found, in a place called Qumran in the Judean dessert?

There are in fact very solid reasons for thinking Jesus was not a member of the Qumran community or any other group of Essenes.   For starters, our only sources for Jesus (however many you count) never say anything about him belonging to a group of apocalyptically minded Jews before his ministry, and in fact never mention the Essenes, at all.  They are the only major group of Jews from the time not mentioned in the NT (contrast Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, zealots, etc….).

That in itself is not particularly decisive of course.  But it should give one pause.  More important is this.  We know from the DSS that the reason this community was located in isolation in Qumran, out away from civilization, was because of the particular religious views of the community.  These Essenes believed that since the world around them had grown so corrupt, they needed to separate themselves from it.  Even the Jewish leaders – those running the Temple in Jerusalem, for example – were lost in the eyes of God; and the mass of Jewish people were a polluted race.   These Essenes believed that it was important for them to preserve their own purity in the face of the impure world around them, and they located to the desert precisely so they would not be contaminated by the sinners of the rest of the world.

This is precisely the opposite approach of Jesus.  He too thought the end was coming soon.  But he was not interested in preserving his own ritual and moral purity in the face of widespread corruption.  He shows very little concern at all for Jewish purity regulations (either of the Essenes or the Pharisees, whom, by the way, the Essenes considered to be lightweights).  And rather than remove himself from the sinners of the world, Jesus mixed and mingled with them.  So much did he do so that he was roundly accused and slandered for being friends with the lowlifes, the tax collectors (notorious sinners) and prostitutes.   Morever, Jesus thought these were the ones who were going to inherit the kingdom, not the highly religious and morally and ritually pure.   This was a very, very different kind of apocalyptic thinking from that reflected in the DSS.

John the Baptist too believed in taking his message to the sinners.  He and Jesus agreed with the Essenes that the end was coming soon and people needed to prepare.  But there idea about what it took to prepare was quite at odds.   They would have seen each other as getting the message precisely wrong.  Jesus did not learn his views at Qumran (neither did John).  On the contrary, he would have seen the Qumran community as completely missing the boat.

[tariki]

Salvation from what? Or for what? I peep in occasionally then withdraw. But this thread and its question seemed to align with some rambling I have indulged in elsewhere under yet another screen-name....i.e. "Telegram Sam", this in honour of the glam rock star of the 70's Marc Bolan, who was "born to boogie". 

Well, whatever, I'll cut and paste my two posts from this other forum as my contribution to keeping this Forum alive (or maybe killing it stone dead given the reception of some of my rambling)

Here we are:-

Under my thread title of "What is the point' I wrote:-

Way back when I broke away from an extreme form of Christianity (the usual "born again" onewayers) I said to one of the brethren that I subscribed to Universalism. ALL were to be saved (whatever "saved" might mean......😀 ) His response was then "what is the point"? If such is so, why evangelize? Why a Bible?

Whatever I now think of this man, he had a good question. Why? In fact, why anything at all?

The same question, yet in another context, another culture, another Faith, was that of the 13th century zen master Dogen. If the teaching of Original Enlightenment is true, if all is Buddha Nature, then why practice? Why did the Buddha's of old still meditate, still teach, still reach down into samsara with gift bestowing hands, minds and hearts?

I always love finding correspondances between our World's Faith Tradition (in fact across all traditions, philosophy, whatever, even atheist) As I see it it brings forth one meaning of the (itself) widespread idea that in "every particular is the universal". Every question involves all questions. Find one answer and all are found. Which may sound mystical mumbo jumbo - perhaps it is - but I see it as pointing towards truth. We all have our life koan (both problem and answer, yet beyond concept)

Jumping forward, I think the answer is simply Love. The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart once said:-

Love has no why.

Which kills all questions stone dead. There is no "why" to love. If we love then the questions are over. Only the actions that come forth from our mind/hearts remain.

Now, I put love with Universalism. The base is that we are all one. What comes to one will come to all. If our minds divide, if they judge, if in any way at all it is "us" and "them", then there can be no love. The Great Way is beyond differentiation

Letting go of my own questions is the difficult part, yet I see now, more and more, the significance of the Pure Land myokonin Saichi, who wrote:-

Not knowing why, not knowing why! That is my support, not knowing why! That is the Namu-amida-butsu!

May true Dharma continue.
No blame. Be kind. Love everything.

(A break, before posting this.....)

 

I've been trying to process a few thoughts about all this, but difficult amid certain confusions and demands of my day to day life. Obligations and demands. But really, not much to complain about.

But thoughts on "meaning" or the lack of it, of Love having no why. What is the alternative to there being in fact, NO meaning as such? The alternative to our not knowing why?

In some quote that I cannot trace there was some guy who said that he would rather pursue/seek Truth than to know it, or be handed it on a plate. I get his drift, and yet this still seems to imply that there is in fact A truth out there somewhere waiting to be discovered. And what when it is? When it is found and known?

I think of dear old Spike Milligan who would often at the end of a comic sketch in Q6 simply stand still, hands by his sides, and mutter:-"What do we do now? What do we do now?" Very funny. But after discovering truth, what then? Is our own purpose determined?

These questions suggest to me why I find the more "eastern" ways of seeing/knowing more suggestive of answers. Where "Being" is more "emptiness" than substantial in any sense.

For Dogen mind was at once knowledge and reality, at once the knowing subject and the known object, yet it transcended them both at the same time. In this nondual conception of mind, what one knew was what one was —and ontology, epistemology, and soteriology were inseparably united. (I thank Hee-Jin Kim for this summation)

Or:- "We are what we understand" and our acts flow accordingly.

Hee-Jin Kim again (deep stuff, but I have found it worth pondering in between cracking further levels of Soda Candy Crush Saga).....

To cast off the body-mind did not nullify historical and social existence so much as to put it into action so that it could be the self-creative and self-expressive embodiment of Buddha-nature. In being “cast off,” however, concrete human existence was fashioned in the mode of radical freedom—purposeless, goalless, objectless, and meaningless. Buddha-nature was not to be enfolded in, but was to unfold through, human activities and expressions. The meaning of existence was finally freed from and authenticated by its all-too-human conditions only if, and when, it lived co-eternally with ultimate meaninglessness.


"Love has no why" (Meister Eckhart)

Atheist nihilism meets the Faith Traditions of our world! True seeing, true knowledge is not to believe some Truth. Faith is not belief. Faith lets go, belief clings. Faith unites, beliefs divide.

About 20 or so years ago I read a quote, this from a zen guy Yun-men. He was asked:- "What are the teachings of a whole lifetime" and he answered:- "An appropriate statement." I never really understood and yet as Dogen has said, where we do not understand, there is our understanding. I think I can see it now. Each moment is new if within radical freedom, we answer each moment according to our understanding, and the answer we give is absolute, there, then - but for no other moment. Which in a certain way answers the conundrum of "absolute" v "relative".

Well, thats it. The grandchildren will be there when I get home. Chaos! Lunches to get, dinners to cook.

To anyone stumbling upon this waffle, and perhaps thinking "what a load of crap", that is just the way it is. Complex? No, I think the Bible is correct when it predicts that "a little child shall lead them." Things are very simple, yet sadly we tend to complicate everything.

 

END OF CUT AND PASTE

Well, that's it. As I've said before, not much interested in debate as such or even in defending anything I've said. Things move on and I simply find expressing myself therapeutic, which in the way of "no-calculation" is very much the prime objective. It sure beats screaming or jumping in the river, which is often my first instinctive reaction to the ways of this world.

Thanks.

Hope you are all doing fine. 

 

[PaulS]

14 hours ago, tariki said:

Way back when I broke away from an extreme form of Christianity (the usual "born again" onewayers) I said to one of the brethren that I subscribed to Universalism. ALL were to be saved (whatever "saved" might mean......😀 ) His response was then "what is the point"? If such is so, why evangelize? Why a Bible?

I have previously experienced the same and it seems to me that such people feel it's "unfair" that everyone gets saved.  They don't feel "justice" is served.  Strange from a religion that supposedly puts love above all else, but then again, their primary teaching is that it is okay for the vast majority of humankind to suffer eternal torment because they didn't make the right 'decision' in their short three score years and ten here in this life.

[tariki]

Hi Paul, so unfair!

Strange that with the great commandment to love your neighbour as yourself, the perfection of the Christian life is reached when one is able to live in eternal bliss while most of your "neighbours" are in torment. 

[tariki]

Another evolution of certain Christian thought is how the "every hair on your head has been numbered" verse is used as showing how "the Lord" loves the individual human being. This somehow morphs into the so called "aesthetic balance" within Eternity, with "the saved" testifying to, and glorifying, the mercy of God, while "the lost" testify to his justice. A wondrous vision - where the uniqueness of each and every human being is subsumed within what some theologians see as some eternal work of art!

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, tariki said:

Strange that with the great commandment to love your neighbour as yourself, the perfection of the Christian life is reached when one is able to live in eternal bliss while most of your "neighbours" are in torment. 

I asked my mother this once - "Mum, how will you feel in this wonderful place called Heaven whilst your only son is suffering eternal torment and pain in Hell?"

She replied that she would feel "Sad", before my Father jumped in a reassured me that I'd be going to heaven because I gave my life to Jesus when I was 14!  I'm a little skeptical that Jesus having my life for some 4 years is enough of a qualifier though!

But if it is, I guess I'll just feel 'sad' for my wife, children and most other people whom I love dearly then!

[tariki]

22 hours ago, PaulS said:

 

She replied that she would feel "Sad", before my Father jumped in a reassured me that I'd be going to heaven because I gave my life to Jesus when I was 14!  

Ah ha! He of the "once saved always saved" variety. A constant theme on Fundamentalist Forums. Arguments back and forth but as usual solving nothing, certainly never deciding anything. Which is the end result of believing that a book has said it all, that we only have to understand it correctly to open up all the doors. Which itself leads to the purely circular "I understand correctly, me being the true christian and thus the Spirit guides me correctly as promised." 

[PaulS]

21 hours ago, tariki said:

"I understand correctly, me being the true christian and thus the Spirit guides me correctly as promised." 

I do miss being so damned certain of everything though! :)

[romansh]

On 4/9/2023 at 8:53 PM, PaulS said:

One of the reasons scholars occasionally associated Jesus with the Essenes is that he, like them, preached a thoroughly apocalyptic message.  The present age, in both their views, was controlled by forces of evil; but God was soon to intervene to destroy the forces of evil and bring in a good kingdom on earth to be run by his messiah (or messiahs).   There was soon to be a mass destruction of all that was opposed to God and the people and kingdoms that aligned themselves with these alien forces.  And included among those to be wiped out were the leaders of Israel.

Since this message, in rough outline, was found in both Jesus and the DSS, doesn’t that make it plausible that Jesus was a member of the community where the scrolls were found, in a place called Qumran in the Judean dessert?

There are in fact very solid reasons for thinking Jesus was not a member of the Qumran community or any other group of Essenes.   For starters, our only sources for Jesus (however many you count) never say anything about him belonging to a group of apocalyptically minded Jews before his ministry, and in fact never mention the Essenes, at all.  They are the only major group of Jews from the time not mentioned in the NT (contrast Pharisees, Sadducees, chief priests, zealots, etc….).

That in itself is not particularly decisive of course.  But it should give one pause.  More important is this.  We know from the DSS that the reason this community was located in isolation in Qumran, out away from civilization, was because of the particular religious views of the community.  These Essenes believed that since the world around them had grown so corrupt, they needed to separate themselves from it.  Even the Jewish leaders – those running the Temple in Jerusalem, for example – were lost in the eyes of God; and the mass of Jewish people were a polluted race.   These Essenes believed that it was important for them to preserve their own purity in the face of the impure world around them, and they located to the desert precisely so they would not be contaminated by the sinners of the rest of the world.

This is precisely the opposite approach of Jesus.  He too thought the end was coming soon.  But he was not interested in preserving his own ritual and moral purity in the face of widespread corruption.  He shows very little concern at all for Jewish purity regulations (either of the Essenes or the Pharisees, whom, by the way, the Essenes considered to be lightweights).  And rather than remove himself from the sinners of the world, Jesus mixed and mingled with them.  So much did he do so that he was roundly accused and slandered for being friends with the lowlifes, the tax collectors (notorious sinners) and prostitutes.   Morever, Jesus thought these were the ones who were going to inherit the kingdom, not the highly religious and morally and ritually pure.   This was a very, very different kind of apocalyptic thinking from that reflected in the DSS.

John the Baptist too believed in taking his message to the sinners.  He and Jesus agreed with the Essenes that the end was coming soon and people needed to prepare.  But there idea about what it took to prepare was quite at odds.   They would have seen each other as getting the message precisely wrong.  Jesus did not learn his views at Qumran (neither did John).  On the contrary, he would have seen the Qumran community as completely missing the boat.

I pointed this passage out. The reply:

 I don’t know why some scholars equate essenes with the dead sea community. Josephus talks about them being in every city, not isolated in the desert. He talks about their communal living in wats that are very similar to the stuff in various parts of the New Testament.

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

I pointed this passage out. The reply:

 I don’t know why some scholars equate essenes with the dead sea community. Josephus talks about them being in every city, not isolated in the desert. He talks about their communal living in wats that are very similar to the stuff in various parts of the New Testament.

Josephus does talk about them being in every city, but he also describes them to an extent that most scholars equate the Dead Sea Scroll Community with Essenes. Here's just one Google quote:

"The vast majority of Dead Sea Scroll scholars are committed to the so-called Essene hypothesis—the belief that the scrolls (or at least those scrolls regarded as “sectarian”) were written by the Essenes, an exotic Jewish movement described at some length by the ancient Jewish historian Josephus.

The Essene hypothesis is based primarily on the writings of Josephus. It is the supposed similarities between Josephus’s description of the Essenes and what we find in the scrolls that leads to the supposedly ineluctable conclusion."

So I guess that's the main reason, but it certainly doesn't mean that Essenes weren't also living amongst civilisation as well, as is clear from Josephus.  It's like lumping all 'Christians' into a single Mormon sect.  I think Bart acknowledges that where he says above "There are in fact very solid reasons for thinking Jesus was not a member of the Qumran community or any other group of Essenes." So he's acknowledging that Essenes exist beyond the DSC community.

But whether living in cities or in Qumran, Essenes were a stand-alone sect that had beliefs Bart thinks didn't align with Jesus - principally their distancing of themselves from the rest of the community (even whilst they lived amongst the general population).

[romansh]

[124] They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of or of shoes till be first torn to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.

Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895.

Tufts University provided support for entering this text.

 

a link here

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, romansh said:

[124] They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of or of shoes till be first torn to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.

Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895.

Tufts University provided support for entering this text.

 

a link here

Not sure what we're discussing now.  I don't think anybody is calling Qumran an Essene capital (is that what you're getting at?) and yes, they lived scattered throughout the country. And what Josephus is talking about here is all within the Essene sect - i.e. he is talking about how Essenes interact with other Essenes. Interestingly, Josephus seems to either not know that the Qumran community existed, or he didn't feel they were worth writing about.

Yes, Essenes lived in places other than Qumran.  Lots of scholars think Qumran was an Essene community (contrary to your friends uncertainty as to why).  Essene beliefs, according to Bart, didn't align with Jesus' - mainly it would seem around free will (Essenes believed in fate whilst Jesus encouraged repentance and forgiveness - it would seem), and their practices concerning how much to be involved in society (Essenes distanced themselves from society for purity's sake, Jesus got down and dirty with the lowlifes of society).

[romansh]

On 4/21/2023 at 3:06 PM, PaulS said:

Yes, Essenes lived in places other than Qumran.  Lots of scholars think Qumran was an Essene community (contrary to your friends uncertainty as to why).

@Ogdin did not say Qumran was not an Essene community. To me says the opposite.

On 9/13/2022 at 5:57 AM, Ogdin said:

... relating to the Essenes as described by Josephus and as relating to the total determinist community that is witnessed in the dead sea scrolls from the Qumran jewish sect.

We are 'here' because:

1.  It has been postulated that Jesus was a determinist like the Essenes.
2. Jesus's teachings are at odds with Pharisaic and Sadducaical teachings.
3. Some scholars think John the Baptist was an Essene.
4. If Jesus did not believe in 'free will' then that puts a different light on much that goes on in the texts.

Just as an aside here is a bit from ChatGPT ...

Quote

 

There are several scholars who have suggested that John the Baptist may have been an Essene or influenced by Essene teachings. One of the earliest proponents of this theory was the 19th-century biblical scholar Ernest Renan. In his book "The Life of Jesus," Renan argued that John the Baptist was an Essene who had a significant impact on Jesus' teachings and ministry.

Other scholars who have supported this theory include Edmond Bordeaux Szekely, an early 20th-century scholar who claimed to have discovered an ancient Essene gospel called the "Essene Gospel of Peace," and John Allegro, a British scholar who was part of the team that translated the Dead Sea Scrolls. Allegro argued that John the Baptist and Jesus were both influenced by Essene teachings and that the Qumran community, which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, was an Essene community.

However, not all scholars agree with this theory. Some argue that the similarities between John the Baptist and the Essenes can be explained by their shared focus on ritual purity and asceticism, which were common themes in Jewish thought at the time. Others point out that the New Testament does not explicitly mention John the Baptist's connection to the Essenes.

In conclusion, while there is some debate among scholars about whether John the Baptist was an Essene or influenced by Essene teachings, it remains a topic of ongoing research and discussion.

 

These other scholars tend not to be modern per se.

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

We are 'here' because:

1.  It has been postulated that Jesus was a determinist like the Essenes.
2. Jesus's teachings are at odds with Pharisaic and Sadducaical teachings.
3. Some scholars think John the Baptist was an Essene.
4. If Jesus did not believe in 'free will' then that puts a different light on much that goes on in the texts.

That's interesting about JtB - I didn't realise there was speculation he could have been an Essene.  I guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility that as an Essene, John's practice of ritual bathing, later somehow became 'baptism' of others in the biblical texts we have. 

For me, using an Occam's razor approach to what we think we know about Jesus - his whole ministry seems to be about 'seeking forgiveness' from God.  Again I would say that seeking forgiveness doesn't seem to align with thinking that we don't have free will.  If we don't have free will, what do we need to be forgiven of?

Maybe Jesus' message was later transformed by writers?  Maybe Jesus was a 'different' type of Essene?

[romansh]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Maybe Jesus' message was later transformed by writers?  Maybe Jesus was a 'different' type of Essene?

And this brings me back to my mantra. What reasons do we have to try and decipher the interpretations of scribes years after the death of a mystic Jew, where these scribes may or may not have had a good handle on where Jesus was going with all this? 

This brings me also to the work of Weyler who used his journalistic talents to ascertain what Jesus might have said. Here are a few lines grouped by topic:

Otherwise, avoid rules and follow the truth you discover yourself.
Act from awareness, not habit or convention.
Don’t blindly repeat rituals.
Don’t trust those with spiritual pretensions.
Question those who presume to speak for God.

Discover the truth for yourself! Look around and try and work out how the universe ticks.

[PaulS]

5 hours ago, romansh said:

And this brings me back to my mantra. What reasons do we have to try and decipher the interpretations of scribes years after the death of a mystic Jew, where these scribes may or may not have had a good handle on where Jesus was going with all this? 

I agree the 'detail' may be challenged, but the overarching message and ministry of Jesus - of him being an apocalyptic prophet and urging the Nation of Israel (maybe gentiles to) to repent and seek God's forgiveness before it's too late, is a pretty widely accepted understanding of Jesus.  Again, why would anyone need forgiveness if they don't have free will?

[romansh]

Filched from Ogdin's facebook page

Quote

This is called "Realized Eschatology," coined by C.H. Dodd in 1935 to describe these peculiar and early teachings in the text which speak that the kingdom is already present.

This is innovated on top of the Jewish Essene Determinism which attributed all to God but, in the first century, still held that the world was not right and was awaiting a resurrection to fix all the errors. Jesus merely noted that this was inconsistent and, if God held total and constant dominion over the cosmos, everything was ALREADY and ALWAYS precisely as God wanted it.

Yes, the apocalypse does seem in contradiction with the "kingdom is already present".

Edited April 24, 2023 by romansh

[PaulS]

13 hours ago, romansh said:

Yes, the apocalypse does seem in contradiction with the "kingdom is already present".

I don't know if it is a contradiction IF Jesus believed that the Kingdom was already present, albeit not yet in it's entirety - i.e. the King is present but hasn't yet ousted those against him that are also currently present in his Kingdom.  Ultimately the King will reign supreme - but in the interim there's a few bugs to work out.

But again, I don't see Jesus as accepting that everything was ALREADY and ALWAYS precisely as God wanted it, simply because he seemed to encourage people changing behaviours, seeking forgiveness, repenting of their sins, etc.  It seems to me to be a strong theme throughout what is attributed to Jesus as his Ministry.  Perhaps he 'accepted' that their was evil, and that God allowed that to exist, but ultimately he seemed to say that God wanted people to choose to behave a certain way.

[romansh]

If we go to my Rex Weyler link, where Weyler used his journalistic skills and quoted everything that could be reasonably (in his opinion) ascribed to Jesus, then there is nothing apocalyptic in those 27 lines or so.

If he accepted that there was evil then why are told not to judge? Divvying things into good and evil is judging.