I can't help believing every word this guy says (from a historical point of view). Thanks to all the scholars who take their work seriously and are willing to share their knowledge indiscriminately.
The most true thing he said was that all the Bible scholars of today disagree with each other and fight and hate each other over figuring out who were those people at Qumran and even when did live. And then there is another group of scholars that like to make up fan fiction where all the different characters in the New Testament were part of Qumran.
This backdrop looks like the Long Beach Alamitos Bay Marina, just down the road from his beloved California State University Long Beach. I miss Dr. Eisenman. He was a favorite professor of mine at CSULB in the late 1970's. He was a master lecturer. I loved him. He swiped a lectern from another room on campus and brought it to classroom LA1-301, where he chained it to the lecturer’s desk so no one could abscond with it. It is there to this day, still smudged where he would always grasp it at the top. I think they leave it there, still chained, in his memory.
Fascinating interview. This is the 3rd time I've listened to the entire interview and with all great teachers, the more I listen, the more I learn. I will listen to it again. Thanks.
I can say from personal experience, that having to teach a subject is the best way to learn a new subject. I once heard a professor say that he would only teach courses that he knew nothing about. That way he was always learning something new.
@@AndreBentrup why , because he doesn't fit your italian superman definition of christ. You already got your antipaters mixed up. Please make yourself look an even bigger fool than you do already.
If I am not mistaken, Dr. Eisenmen even confessed in one live video interview not so long ago on how he himself endure very long-time faith struggling after he found out all the hidden truth from that great qumran project findings. He deserved highest respect for his works, commitment, brilliance, and overcoming that reality check with his new-found deepest inter connected faith. The prove simply that he can only speak, feel, and understand his faith only to himself but not to others. For others that keep on doubting or forcefully argue on the subject, better to start finding their own "who" in the "faith" name that pretty close within inner self's heart.
Dr. Eisenman brings the era of Palestinian Christianity to life. We get the entire Herodian dynasty living, worshipping and debating. The Messianic outlook of Christianity is repeatedly revealed. I have been reading this man since 1998. He is a wonderful addition to the scholarship that is Christianity.
Robert Eisenman is real, authentic, a scholar, and tells what Righteousness Really Is. Until we really do our research and come to terms with History we will be running around for endless centuries with these religious doctrines doing nothing for humanity.
OH REALLY? He HATES, DESPISES, DISRESPECTS PAUL, and reduces his scholarship credentiasls by doubting the very Pauline letters thatr the most liberal scholars agree upon written 50-60- AD. Many Scholars have James at 48 !!. You know a large reason Paul's Gospel was accepted? Because the letter of Acts attest's to Paul's miracles and powers while James is in Jerusalem, keeping dietary laws and trying to burden the Gentiles with them. What good then did Jesus'[ sacrifice do, James? READ ACTS 15 where PAUL:, PETER, BARNABAS are p[rteaching the rexact same Gospel!! PETER AND PAUL the SAME!! You know why Paul would say Eisemann can't see the obvious? Because Paul in Romans tell us the Jews are blinded FOR A TIME, and Eisemann, I HAVE NEVER HEARD HIM SAY A DISCLAIMER- I AM A UNBELIEVING/ SKEPTIC of JEWISH HERITAGE! - He acts as though he has zero bias' but I can see them clearly. What Jew is not affected in a very serious way by his being born aJew- from Wo0ody Allen on!! JEW? And is a LAW LOVER and LOVES JAMES because he was still stuck on law keeping as salvific,(LIKE HIS DEAD SEE GROUP- mWHO SOME HOW “KNOW THE TRUE WAY- BOXING GOD IN” while Paul taught that the Law is Just, Holy and Perfect, but impossible to keep- and be saved by!! THIS IS PAUL'S GOSPEL_ THe very same that Jesus taught, Paul revealed further, and has the creds to back it up. Now tell me- WHAT CREDS DID JAMES HAVE, SO THAT EISEMANN CALLS HIM HEAD OF THE CHURCH, and FAVORS OVER PAUL!! NAME ONE CREDENTIAL and it better not be the one that is against God's law, that James preaches against. WHILE BEING THE RECEIVER OF!! Oh I would have loved to debate this biased Paul hater, who had never even read the NT Scriptures until he taught a course on them!
The level of Knowledge that he has I mean its not attained by a press of a switch, its through years of reading, travelling, understanding, seeking, Observing etc I mean Wow.....Pure Genius
My approach: I saw somebody on the subway in NYC reading their Bible with a book called Read your Bible in a Year. I thought to myself what a great idea. Every year in January I started out in Genesis. In December, I ended up in Revelations. During the year I would get behind, but I always made a point of finishing. Then I found a Read your Bible in 90 days. This I did with the NIV because it was a much quicker riead than my favorite KJV. I was not trying to memorize things, just tried to keep the material in my head. So I read the Bible over and over and over. So now, I can spot biblical themes and trends in other literature. This works!
I just enjoy hearing about the mortality of Christ. For Christ to have two brothers, James and Thomas, means that his divinity was manufactured by Rome. The revelation that Paul was related to Herod, the Roman king, calls into question the entire New Testament. Clearly, it is a Roman document.
I came to this interview researching Paul being a false apostle and from the Herodian family... But I wasn’t prepared to learn soo much ... What am I supposed to do now?!!
Look in to Islam. Islam accepts all the authentic teachings of Jesus whilst rejecting Paul and his version of Christianity. Read the chapter of Mary (Surah Maryam) in the Quran. You can search online for it.
You can also ask questions on EF Dawah about any religion. They go live every Thursday and Sunday evening 9.30pm UK time. Also check out Blogging theology
@@summer5145 Didn't the same thing happen with Islam? Within a few decades after the death of Muhammed, there were multiple civil wars & all his descendants (Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Hussain) were ruthlessly killed. What came later would go onto define the orthodoxy. Thousands of hadiths were fabricated & back projected back to him & his companions to obfuscate the original teachings. It's really tragic.
Robert Eisenman has written the two the best and most interesting books on history I have ever read or owned, 'James the brother of Jesus' and 'The New Testament code'. James was such a riveting book that I started it again as soon as I had finished it and, the new Testament code is so interesting that I read every page twice (I am reading it currently 'slowly!). I am not new to the subject of those two books and at first it was quite a pleasure to read a book (James) that explained to me my own uncoordinated, jumbled half known ideas, I also came to realise through Eisenmans work that I knew less than 0.2% of what I read about the subject! Another book that has got Eisenmans finger prints all over it and is a great 250/300 page long exciting page turner is the 'Dead sea scrolls deception' by Baigent & Leigh (he helped them write it, and deserves his name on the authors list!). R. Eisenman was also instrumental in bringing into the mainstream the idea of St Paul as the Herodian spy/agent. I even ended up watching all of his classes that he had put online on RUclips, its just a shame that you can't sit exams after taking all of his different classes on Biblical studies. Go Eisenman!!!
It is very interesting that he includes Islam in the big picture, albeit whatever his presumption and biasness are. The 'connections' between DSS and Islam.. needs a further open minded exploration...
Sounds like the same kind of claim that Muslims put forth about having 'raisins' form on their foreheads from the friction generated by placing their head to the ground during prayer many, many times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_bump
Following up on agreeing with you on the James comment, from the book ' James the brother of Jesus', it was a game changer for me in how the author critically analylzed Paul & his relationship with the other 12. And the scripture as proof or serious considerations of him in his arrogance and motivations.
Your on to something there for sure. However what sparked that belief system and what it very quickly mutated into is questionable. There was a very strong urge to suppress and coverup aspects concerning the revolts of the first and second century. They seem to go hand in hand with the ascension of Christianity. A Roman, Alexandrian scam that masked the True Esa or Essus. Forgive me. Ralph Ellis got my wheels spinning on that one. I haven't done so as of yet but I think it would be interesting to explore both the Syrian Orthodoxy and the Syriac histories for even more information. How deep is the rabbit hole I wonder. No wonder man feels he has to rely on faith . The world is full of s##t .
Actually Jesus did ask them to follow his brother after him.. His brothers - James or Peter Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to *my God and your God* . ' ”John 20:17
Wow! What an interesting interview, and an extremely interesting professor. His thoughts are worth consideration This interview helps me understand this man's passion with regard to the study of Christianity and Judaism at the end of the "Second Temple" period.
Basic problem identified - Israel is not in Europe. I was reading a book by this author - but now I know something about his background and opinions - I have closed the book.
I agree what you say about Paul.....He lead Christianity astray.Perhaps he was blinded by the Darker fallen angel of the Good Lords....the same one who blinded Job.
Fallen angel? There are no “fallen angels” in the Tanakh or Judaism in general. The angel in Job you speak of only does God’s will. The dualism you speak of is only found in the New Testament and Christianity. Mostly likely “borrowed” from Zoroastrianism.
I have a little question. In one of the gospels Jesus calls that woman unclean and I think a pig or dog. But if Roman elites wrote the gospels then why would they put that dead Sea Scrolls sounding thing in there? At 103 Eisenman talks about this concerning the scrolls community
Here is what I think about that. People in mystery cults thought they were special, and other people, not in their cult, were like dogs, pigs or other animals. So, shocking as it seems to us, people of that day would have heard it before, "You're not in our cult, you're not one of us." In fact, Jews talk that way to this day about non-Jews. Goyim. Means cows.
Encountering his work was a slap in the face for me. The record needle went, "brrrtt." Big irony, though: It seems to me that the attitude towards the Mosaic law Eisenman describes around 47:30 is pretty close to what St. Paul puts forward.
Consider that Yehushua was telling Peter that the Gospel, Yehushua being the Savior, is the rock on which he would build His church, not Peter as the leader.
Prof Eisenman work alienated him from modern day Jews and Christians, and made him loved and respected by all muslims who knows his work. That tells you something.
Odd question, but can someone tell me whether this was shot at Marina del Rey in Los Angeles? I looked for Faith Overhaul contact information but didn't find anything. Thanks.
Question, Dr. Eisenman said he doesn’t believe the Dead Sea scrolls are second century BCE, due to a conflict with the Maccabees. What do you say to Dr. Rachel Ellior’s approach, which states that the Hasmonean dynasty did collude with the Roman Magistrate? As a matter of fact, what then do we make of document called False Prophets in Israel, 4Q339, which specifically states that John son of Simon is a false prophet. Some claim this is a reference to John Hyrcanus, whose father is Simon Thassi, during the second century BCE. Is that correctly interpreted? Dr. Eisenman also mentioned not being allowed to marry. How then are we suppose to interpret document called The Secret of The Way Things are, 4Q410, 4Q412-13, 4Q415-421, 4Q423, 1Q26, when it says, “If you would marry a wife in your poverty, take her from the Children of Light... from the secret of the way things are. When you are untied, love together with your fleshly helper... For as the verse says(reference to Genesis 2:24), A man should leave his father and his mother and adhere to his wife and they will become one flesh. He has made you to rule over her, so... YaOh (ιαω) did not give her father authority over her, He has separated her from her mother, and into you He has given authority... He has made your wife and you into one flesh.” What then are we suppose to make of these clear references to encourage marriage?
There was no such place called Palestine in the time of Jesus. It was called Judea or Israel. Palestine was a pejorative term used by the Romans. who wanted to wipe out the term Judea after the destruction of Israel in 70 AD. C'mon Dr. Eisenman, you should know that.
When asked "What drew him into this field of study" He states nothing (While holding the devil horn sign with his Left hand...Luciferian much?) Yeshua is the way and the truth. Full Stop.
Arna, thanks for your comments and question. Sorry for my delayed response. To your question about Paul... I would say it certainly seems the potential is there. We know he states he was a Pharisee of Pharisees and active in persecuting the followers of Jesus and likely John's followers as well. Both Jesus and John were among the Essene Zealot groups. And, as Galileans, their religious positions put them at odds with Judah's tribal and political control under the Pharisees and priests ruling over Jerusalem and it's provinces with the assistance of Roman treaties. Paul was a Roman Pharisee. Can't get more controversially apposed to the Zealots than that in my opinion.
I'm not convinced that the Dead Sea Community of the relevant time 'equals' James's 'Jerusalem' Community, but certainly the two must have been at least 'nodding acquaintances' of one another ...
Thank you for this. I'm not saying I agree with every point made, but I thoroughly resonate with not giving any respect at all to Herodians and their ilk.
@@tayrowell until 1838 THIS Order was Not Questioned , someone in 1838 does Not get to decide that the Facts we have Now do not matter . Since that time much has been translated from the DDS and church history.
@@lindasc48 It wasn't questioned because the Church wanted to keep everyone ignorant of the facts and has always worked hard to do so. You cannot leave the facts to those with an ax to grind - those so willing to deceive. They have shown their hand over millennia. Coming out of the Dark Ages, into the Enlightenment, and the willingness to research and question, I am not surprised one bit that Matthew wasn't the first. Reading them, it is obvious that Mark is first. That's why I put way more stock in critical scholars who use actual history, texts, and non-canonical sources to piece together the truth. I never trust Church people to be honest about these sorts of things. They seem quite allergic to it.
@@lindasc48 No you haven't. You have passed on church hogwash, very lazily. Secular people will continue to drag you folks, either willingly, or unwillingly, closer to the truth. Your fictions are a thing of the past
Science is not about certitude, it can never be so. Religion, however, is." [para] ~ James Lovelock, independent scientist. Eisenman's reputation will grow long after he's gone and I hope he keeps it up a long as possible. Very important work. Yes, morality is inherent, though maybe perversely so in the sociopath and psychopath. Homo sapiens are hardwired for religion (which I do not equate with spirituality). Though many then discount the value of what's called 'organized religion'. I believed as much until recently being exposed to interesting work, almost 100 yrs old, by J.D Unwin. One of his works, published in 1934 with a forward by Aldous Huxley, explains, at least to me, the indispensable importance of organized religion to the success of society & culture (success is amoral). The book is "Sex & Culture". Unwin's is not the only work along these lines. It's one of the many ignored by intellectuals. Addressing 'high & low behavior'. This is religion, spirituality, ethos. You have a 'faith' doctor.
I had to edit this comment, after another RUclips viewer jumped on my shit about my opinion regarding this video. So, here's a better response to this: Just because a person doesn't agree with this video-does not make them uneducated. But, the experience has made me wiser. My view is this-I'm with you Lord, no matter what.........................If other people want to view faith objectionably? That's their right. But, COUNT ME OUT
If he is, at the very least he is therefore objective...you place yourself at a massive disadvantage if you fail to listen to him. He has an amazing academic background. By finding fault with him, you are admitting to your own lack of education.
I tend to think the dead sea scrolls were multiple groups. Essenes, Christians, and other Jews. think about it all these text in these caves. what happened in AD 70? there were many that would flee. and the Christians were told to flee to the mountains by Christ when this happens as spoke in the Olivet discourse. Why i am guessing this I read through the Dead Sea Scrolls book- "Cave of Treasures" that text seems extremely Christian. I mean i doubt its that Jewish at all. The text seems to read as of the Messiah has came. the Jewish group was still awaiting the messiah. The Christians knew He was already here. That being said, Simeon I bishop of Jerusalem, is who the Damascus Document could be talking about - could be , wont say for certain. Being that he was the bishop of Jerusalem when the events of AD 70 happened. Simion the son of Mary and Clopas. Clopas Josephs (Jesus' father) brother. It couldn't have been James leading the early church in AD 70 - he was already beheaded years before this point. However the next bishop on the list is Simeon I who was over the church of Jerusalem from AD 62- 107. Remember at most he was just a child at the crucifixion. which means at most he was in his 80's when he died. in his early 70's at the least.
Notice the contempt he has for people interested in Christianity. They don't know! They don't anything. You could feed them poop on a paper plate, they wouldn't know not to eat it.
8:50 It's not Palestinian anything. Love Eisenman's work but I have always found it irresponsible to use this term within this particular point in time. Actually inaccurate.
It was called Judea Palestina. So palestine is perfectly fine for modern American. Jesus was not called Jesus. Paul was not called Paul. None of the names were english. The man has studied this as a proffessor for years. He knows what hes talking about.
Why is that? The word “Palestine” has been discovered on a Luwian tablet dating to 1500 BCE. So, Eisenman referring to it as “Palestinian Messianism” would be accurate.
@@Logik1002 Wrong. The name Palestine is the Latin form of the word Phistia. The two names were spliced by the Roman Emperor Hadrrian in 135 A.D. Philistia or Philistine was infact a real nation. But it has become a modern day myth that it is connected to the entity referred to as the Paswstinian people. They are not a nation. Never were a Nation and if people are going to insist on associating them with the peoples of 1500 B.C. you mentioned the least we can do is explore this point. First of all let it be known that even semi modern day Bibles use the term Palestine in a way that is misleading. The nation identified is Philistia not Palestine. This is not just a matter of translation but a matter of misrepresentation. A deception has been created without direct intention. The Philistines or Philistia are not an indication that the Palestinians are a sovereign nation. if the term Palestine is used today it should be used in the context in which it was established . As a territory NOT a nation. It was never a Nation. Philistia was. Hadrian renamed Judea after the state of Philistia that had antagonized Israel a millennium previous to that point . What point? The point of closure Hadrian was imposing on 100 yrs of open revolt from the Jewish zealots and rebels . It was the completion of their humiliation after the Bar Kochba revolt that would finally end the disputes. But the point to make here is that Philistia was a name of a people that had long since left the historical stage and had been dissolved into several political and tribal identities since then. They simply did not exist as a sovereign entity in Hadrians day. The implimant of the title was symbolic. Philistia had already been no more than a memory for 1000 yrs in the 2nd century Roman occupation. But even when it was real, what was it? It happened to be like the Phoenicians a coastal invasive entity that came from the West over the sea. When Philistia established itself it had forced both the states or tribes of Judah and Dan east away from the coast. In the dominance of Amelek,Moab and Ammon (ancient Canaan, which was also not a country but a territory containing states) Philistia was the smallest next to Israel in territory at the time. They were the expected and natural antagonist to Israel. This was simply a struggle for 2nd place. Where was Philistia? Philistia was located roughly in the same area of modern day Gaza today. It by no means represented or occupied land around the river Jordan east or west, but I digress. In short it represented the second smallest states in ancient Canaan. To attribute it to modern day notions of a so called Palestinian people is a brainwashed concept. In fact before 1948 even Jewish people who lived in the land identified themselves as Palestinians. Lol. Because once again the area was identified as a territory NOT a country or a people of particular culture,ethnicity or political affiliation. All a 20th century delusion of mass misrepresentation. The people were not unified as a Palestinian nation or identity. They never were. Never held sovereignty or a form of democracy outside of one imposed from the various political powers throughout history. Again, Palestine is not a country. Never was. Even when the British created the state of Jordan of which the Pasestinian territory was a part of it was in a vaccum. There was no unity of identity outside of being Arab. The modern concept or notion of Arabs in the territory being a Nation or entity along those lines didn't creep in until the implementation of a specific Jewish state was put in motion. Automatic resentment. Lol. There are people among our younger generation out there that believe there were no Jews living in the land before the so called Zionist movement. It's a joke. And if the West thinks Saudia Arabia,Jordan, Egypt or Iraq ever wanted a Palestinian state they are on crack. Even Muslims living or even born in the West today with all their virtue signaling and ignorance do not represent the mindset of the very people they wish to protect or support. It's a mess. Free Free Palestine. Free Free Palestine. Lol. Whatever. So called Palestinians (well the smart ones )enjoy more freedoms, opportunity, education and health care in Israel than outside of it in ANY of the Arab nations surrounding them. That's a fact. PALESTINE IS NOT A COUNTRY AND NEVER WAS. THE NAME PALESTINE WAS DERIVED FROM WAS HOWEVER BUT THE CONNECTION TO THAT STATE IS RIDICULOUS. Not only was that entity nothing more than a sliver on the map of Canaanite map but if Palestinians knew more about these people and their idolatrous identity and despicable practices they would never make the claim to dependency again. But that is another issue all together. This has nothing to do with who was there first and all that yarn. As far as I can see neither party can claim ultimate indigenous rights. However it should be noted that along with many other actual Nations Israel or Judea is now in its third commonwealth. The Palestinian people or so they are called have had 1900 yrs to arrange and establish a unified National identity of governance before the 48 establishment of Israel. So the question screams out at us. What the hell was stopping them? It wasn't Israel? It was the fact that the people didn't care. This entity sat or squatted under the rule of the various Empires and political powers throughout history. It changed its face and name so many times it leaves ones head spinning. Philistines, Moabites,Edomites,Assyrians,Amalekites etc etc etc etc , splitting, joining, dividing, up down all around. If one wanted to talk of bloodlines that is one thing but a cohesive National identity? Please. But although it is clear there is a problem that cant be ignored the old expression still remains. You cant polish a turd. Gaza was given to them on a silver platter and within the week Hamas and the P.L.O. were at EACH OTHERS throats. How quickly we forget. As long as they can not truly govern themselves they will simply apply their energy to antagonism and random assaults . Its hopeless. So if we are talking about a territory fine but the identity of a Nation based upon that word is nonsense. Historically garbileegook. If anything, they are Jordanians. So fkd up it takes other people to give them a name. And in the case of Palestine it wasn't even intended. If the Arabs in the land would get hip to the facts they might get somewhere in self determinations. But I doubt it. The state of Israel will never be accepted and even if Israel was wiped off the map all over again ,Palestine will not unify as a new Arab state. Not only do they not know how to achieve that but the surrounding states will never accept that. In fact I'm willing to bet the farm they would be more hostile to Palestinians than they are to modern day Israel. What a mess. 🤮
I'd like to know what Eisenman has to say about the Mandaeans...and now that it's apparent the John the Baptist was their teacher of righteousness, and that they were aposed to Jesus and the movement he started, and later led by St. James, his brother.
Well...yeah? He's being interviewed and asked to present HIS controversial views. That's... the point. You don't interview the guy who disagrees with consensus...to hear him talk about consensus.
@46:30, "love thy neighbor" & "love thy enemy" are not identical "loves" nor mutually exclusive ie "love" is said in many ways; such that the pervasive modern understanding of Christian "love" is the most simplistic and idiotic conceptual reduction. Please, stop, Eiseman. If the oldest and most local Christians to the Christian genesis are continually at war with divers neighbors, then perhaps that behavior is consistent with "original & authentic" Christianity? Or is "love thy enemy" an unambiguous commandment to pacifism?
Well we have Josephus, but he calls Judah by the Latinized version of the Greek name; Theudas. The Greek version is Thaddeus. It means “like flowing water” because he was baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist. Josephus says he was beheaded, but that was how they executed Roman citizens. They had another method for non-citizen rebel leaders…
30:15 well Thomas is the Aramaic name for Judah Thaddeus. Thomas is Judah Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus. The problem with that, of course, is that James (Jacob) and Judah are twins. Judah Thaddeus is at least 3 different apostles; Thomas, Jude, Thaddeus of Edessa. And The Gospel of Thomas was part of Nag Hamadi, but a LOT of scholars think it’s originally from Syrian where the Thomasine communities were.
43:37 in “some way.” Like say…Saul throwing him from the Temple Mount? He survives the fall, and THEN he gets bludgeoned to death, either by a club or by stoning.
44:30 I consider myself a Christian and it actually GREATLY helped my faith. Knowing the REAL people, this family, flaws and all, who did what I would’ve done and resisted Rome, and then fell victim to plots by collaborators. I’m Germanic, and the very same century a man named Arminius resisted Rome in Germania. He was trained as a Roman Soldier, though, so he succeeded mightily, until he was betrayed by other Germanic nobles who were given great wealth and power by Rome to assassinate him. It wasn’t just Judea that wanted Romans to go the f home. And it wasn’t just the Jews who Rome killed off in droves for resisting. It’s far more in line with the historic reality of Roman brutality and expansionism than “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” And the Truth is always rewarding, no matter how comforting the lie might “feel.”
Moses was a liar. The Indo-Europeans had an idea of Right Order and you can find it many places as right thought, right speech, right actions. Roman Catholics taught their kids this, with all those venial and cardinal sins.
@DJ Most people say there was no Moses, he is a fictional character, but if there was, he lied about Jews building pyramids, about Pharaoh's men drowning, about wandering in the desert for forty years, and about God giving him laws on a mountain top. That was Hammurabi who got laws from Shamash.
@DJ Jews invented a God that worships Jews. The God of Israel. Same as the Devil. Judeo-Christianity was invented last century by the Zionists to make Christians worship the Jews. Tragic. The early Christian religion was handed over to pagan men and they invented Pagano-Christianity, which brought in all the pagan customs and traditions and ideas. This was excellent. Started to come to an end around 1890. Didn't survive the 1960s. Like everything else that was good and true.
A contrary view on Ebionites, claiming they split from the Nazarenes, the original Jewish Christians, after the Fall of Jerusalem. Listen to the end, first, where he sums it all up. Then replay from the start. ruclips.net/video/734A0lm6mAo/видео.html
For He's six foot two His eyes are blue He walks across my swimming pool Has anybody seen my Lord He's a fine guy from Palestine He done changed my water into wine Has anybody seen my Lord So if you run into those baby blues all duded in white Let Him know I' m ready to go all I need is the time an flight So coochie cue am Jewish too I'm sitting in this lousy pew Has anybody seen has anybody seen My Lord
MY RESPONSE TO EISENMAN'S CHARACTERISATION OF "THE GOSPELS" AS UNHISTORICAL "LITERATURE" by P.J. Oh My comments are being directed in response to Professor Robert Eisenman's comments in these interviews: ruclips.net/video/eWFTGKBd6J8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/6j08tUHrkVI/видео.html While I have been continually intrigued by much of what Eisenman says in these interviews and his books, I am disappointed that someone who is supposed to be an expert in the early Jamesian community would fail to talk about the apparent discrepancies the Ebionites and Nazarenes had with some of those Zealot communities - not to mention differences between those so-called Qumran communities themselves. Granted, accounts of these groups are somewhat scant, but it would appear reasonable to believe that the early so-called "church fathers" were not misrepresenting the facts when they claimed that the Ebionites adhered to an early form of the gospel of Matthew that had originally been written in Hebrew, from which later translations into other languages were made. This would beg the question of why an early community that is law-observant to the point of rejecting Paul, whom they perceived to be a teaching against the Torah, would have composed a document that apart from its ending appears very similar to the gospel of Matthew we find in most Bibles - if the sections quoted by such early church figures is any indication. One of the reasons Eisenman's views appear somewhat crude, simplistic and overstated is that it is somewhat dubious that Eisenman casts such strong contrasts between the ideological views expressed in the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and those communicated in the gospels. I believe Norman Golb's criticism of the so-called Qumran-Essene hypothesis needs to be taken seriously whenever we talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus; because it is untenable to think all the various theological opinions could have been espoused by any single community. Thus if we assume Golb was correct in contending that the Scrolls were actually documents transported from the Temple Library to the "Judean hills" (cf. Yeshua's statement in Matthew 24 that those in Judea should flee to the Judean hills; thus it seems that the recovery of tbe Dead Scrolls should prove that his prophecy or prescription had come to pass) - if we assume that Golb is correct, this calls for a much more nuanced view of the theology adhered to by these communities and those held by the Jamesian community. I think Eisenman's claim that Yeshua would not have ever commanded his hearers to "love your enemies" is rather crude. If this were something made up in order to empower Rome, we should never find the emphatic statement upholding the Torah in Matthew 5:17-19, even in the same "Sermon on the Mount" where we also find the teaching to "love your enemies"! I would imagine that Eisenman might be inclined to believe that Yeshua said the Torah-upholding statement; so on what basis would he reject the belief that Yeshua said the latter? If he rejects it primarily or solely on the phrase "hate the sons of the pit" found in a foreign document, this doesn't seem justifiable based on the reasons Eisenman provided. Yeshua also said that he who doesn't hate his family isn't worthy of him (Luke 14:26; Matthew 10:37). But of course he was talking in relative and conditional terms and saying that whenever there are conflicting interests and values, we need to defer to our Master - so he wasn't commanding us to hate our family in any absolute sense. So, while we of course must love our families, in comparison to our love for YHVH, our prescriptive family loyalties are comparable to hate. Thus it is easy to jump to simplistic conclusions based on such words as "love" and "hate". Furthermore, it is important to be more reflective when it comes to the tensions found within the teachings of Yeshua himself. According to the gospels the one we call the Prince of Peace said "Do not think I have come to bring peace" (Matt 10:34). Is this an absolute statement, or was Yeshua rather talking about the fact that he came to expose ideological contrasts between the Torah that he upheld and all manner of false representations of Torah made by collaborators of Rome such as the Pharisees and establishment Sadducees? After all, in a Biblically faithful sense, love, hate, peace or war can take on many forms other than what we normally associate with these words. We also have to consider whether Yeshua was teaching that he would not be establishing any millennial reign during his earthly life; but that this would have to wait until he returns with tens of thousands of his followers in the future battle between the righteous and forces of wickedness - and here Eisenman has again drawn the hasty conclusion that the Zealots and Sicarii ended up being proven wrong in their hope that they would be victorious. Yet, I don't think the leaders of the Jamesian community were under any illusions that the Messianic kingdom would be set up immediately - otherwise how could we explain the vision of the future battle described by John in Revelation? In some ways, it is interesting to compare Yeshua, his ethos and community on the one hand with the likes of Bonhoeffer and the Abwehr, which was the underground resistance against Hitler. For a very long time, Bonhoeffer resisted joining the Abwehr, even though one of his relatives had continually asked him to join. This resistance was because of his moral principles as a pacifist, which was apparently informed by the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, he ultimately decided that it would be betrayal of one's moral identity as a pacifist to stand idly by while the world's greatest threats to peace was committing so many atrocities. And this explains why he took a two-pronged approach: cooperating with those who were planning on exacting righteous violence on the the leaders of Third Reich while still "feeding the sheep" by promoting ethics of the Kingdom message. It was Bonhoeffer who declared "life is its own justification". While some might consider it a striking paradox or irony that one who is utterly committed to such a peace-based principle feels he needs to destroy or kill those who so seriously threaten life - I would insist that the latter is the only reasonable response for one truly committed to a peace based on the ethic promoted in the Bible. This is where Eisenman's speculative reasoning doesn't do justice to the legacy of James and Yeshua. While it is probably true that the Sicarii were being directed by James, and that these Zealot groups were even attempting to kill Paul, what Eisenman calls the historical "we" portion of Acts also has James and the disciples addressing Paul as "brother", which also appears in 2 Peter 3. (This might indicate that at least initially they might have hoped that Paul might at some point actually convert to true Torah-observant faith, as if through performing a Nazarite vow, he might come to admire the ethic of the Nazarites and Nazarenes. Of course we cannot rule out other motives James might have had to order Paul to do this; since anyone who would have witnessed Paul perform such a vow would no longer have believed Paul any more if he had decided to make any more anti-Torah teachings - and thus an anti-Torah Paul would have lost his entire constituency in Jerusalem.)(Could this explain why most of Paul's ministry seemed to centre on the Greek world where apparently he could create a network of faith communities rivaling the Messianic movement led by James?) Furthermore, since it is rather unlikely that James had direct access to Paul's letters or knew for certain that letters attributed to Paul were actually written by him, this could have served as a way to test Paul before ordering a formal trial, which some believe actually occurred later in Ephesus, the community of which is commended in Revelation 2 for testing those claiming to be apostles and finding them to be false. So even if James were almost certain that the accusations against Paul were probably true, he still extended "due process" to Paul by allowing him go distance himself publically from any anti-Torah attitude that might be associated with him. I believe Paul was closely monitored by James from then on and of course we can deduce that Paul never passed his probation, because he never succeeded in obtaining the letters of commendation to certify him as an evangelist, even according to his own implied admission and rationalisation for why he doesn't need such letters of commendation (Paul declares that his listeners are themselves his commendation: thus Paul spiritualises the concept of what it means to be commended by claiming in effect that it is the followers of the evangelist that determine what is commendable rather than the overseer. But of course Paul's claim would be dubious if the basis of whether to commend anyone as an evangelist of the Way taught by Yeshua was unwavering adherence to the Torah and Yeshua's kingdom message, neither of which is clearly and consistently evidenced in Paul's writings). Nevertheless, it is clear that James' actions show consistency with the teachings of Yeshua who said that we need to be circumspect when we judge and that we should not make rash judgements in defiance of the Torah's protocols. I would guess that if it could have been established under Torah law that Paul had in fact taught against the law of Moses, Paul would have been excommunicated formally then and there and not later as Eisenman contends. Thus we can say James has extended "love" to Paul, even this same person that the Ascents of James would imply is the one who attacked him and left him for dead. James' complete compliance to Torah and to Yeshua's ethic is in evidence by the behaviour described in Acts. (continued below) Copyright 2020 P.J. Oh
Another way in which Eisenman's characterisation of the gospels as "literature" is problematic is that he seems to have failed to adequately consider the possibility that some of the gospels were composites of various sources. For instance, it is likely that the post-resurrection accounts were politicised and editorialised, because the claim to have seen the risen Messiah (early or at all) was very important when justifying a claim to apostolic succession; therefore it would be easy to understand why these post-resurrection accounts are so different. But nobody who wishes to tell lies can do so with impunity in a social environment where there are so many eyewitnesses to Yeshua's ministry; so we must concede that the majority of what is declared in the gospels, at least its original form, must have been believed as true by those who wrote them. In such a context, no liar can successfully lie unless he creates an overwhelming "yes response" first. This "yes response" would have already been present if the testimony of actual eyewitnesses had already been recorded in the bulk of the document that Rome probably redacted for its own ends. As Dr. David Sim has observed, there appear to be many anti-Pauline themes in the book of Matthew. So this would suggest that at least Matthew was written in reaction and in contradiction to the teachings of Paul. But as Rome would have no interest in doing so, we cannot reasonably conclude that these were Roman compositions in their entirety, even if we grant that the so-called Trinitarian baptismal formula found in chapter 28 was probably a later redaction intended to promote Roman doctrine and promote syncretism (The fact that none of the contents of the entire 28th chapter appear until the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices, which are dated to the fourth century, when syncretistic religion was being promoted during Constantinian rule - this fact would further support the view that these were later redactions meant to support Catholic doctrine.) Therefore, the evidence for redaction and editorialising doesn't translate to composition of the entire document, especially because we have testimony from the early fathers that an early community called the Ebionites rejected Trinitarian doctrine and the writings of Paul. Thus any claim that parts in the gospels are unreliable must be based on several important considerations, most notably how such parts should be evaluated from the perspective of the Torah, and whether they serve to empower Rome while undermining adherence to the Torah Yeshua upheld. A gospel that undermines Roman power more than empowers it cannot be justifiably said to have been composed under direction of Rome. Relatedly, all claims about where the falsehoods actually have probably been written into gospels must be based on a thorough reflection of the tensions and ambivalent/paradoxical/ironic elements present with the kingdom message itself. For me it seems the differences between the Zealot groups mostly centred on what is the proper method of bringing about the kingdom: brute force or soul force? The same sort of conflict between the MLKs and the Malcolm Xs of this world were probably also evident in the time of Yeshua and James. Let's not be under any illusions that Bonhoeffer had any great assurance that the Abwehr would "succeed" any more than the Zealots groups did. Neither were probably operating under such illusions although probably both were praying for miracles. Yet, I would imagine all people of principle have different notions of how to measure success; and being successful at doing what the law requires is the only "winning" that matters in the Kingdom. It is the victory that Yeshua's message is all about: the Father lovingly sees us when we fall to the ground; because He cares for His entire creation. So ultimately it doesn't matter which empire wins in battles of swords, because the war between the righteous and the wicked is only won by recognition that YHVH is the Elohiym of the living and not the dead - and these are spiritual designations just as "children of light" and "the people of the pit" are. Ultimately, the lesson James and Yeshua taught is this: those who love and follow YHVH will have the last laugh at the resurrection of the dead; so whatever happens before then is immaterial. There is another important consideration: Some have explained why those crucified along with Yeshua could not have been common robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for political criminals, not common thieves. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that these were part of the group called "lestai" or bandits, who stole from Romans and their collaborators and gave the booty to the poor. They felt this is what was needed to rectify the social injustices and oppression perpetrated by Rome. This is why we need to consider what it meant for the mob to demand the release of one such insurrectionist or bandit instead of Yeshua. I would imagine that the fact that a militant insurrectionist named Yeshua bar Abba (referred to as "Barabbas") was the one the mob demanded released would suggest that most of the militant Zealots would probably not have favoured Yeshua. They might have considered him rather useless for their aim of overthrowing Rome. So it is a big stretch to say that the militant Zealots and James and Yeshua would all have held a similar ideology. Eisenman claims that Yeshua was crucified on the basis that he was viewed to be an insurrectionist, and he implies that he was of the militant or violent kind. But I think there are other explanations. Yeshua's kingdom message would have threatened the Jewish elite collaborating with Rome because this was a community that resisted the Pharisean suppression the Romans used to oppress the actual Torah-observant Jews. And as Yeshua gave the people hope of a life beyond the visible world, of course it would be difficult to control such people by means of physical force. This would best explain why Yeshua was crucified. Eisenman's claim that the gospels are intended to cast all blame on the Jews seems somewhat inconsistent in this respect. While I believe there are some parts of the gospels that are propping up Roman authority, such as the claim that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem in order to comply with a Roman census (although the more obvious reason would be to make the pilgrimage for a Holy Freast such as Sukkot), this is too broad a generalisation to claim that all the gospels in their entirety were designed to make people compliant with Rome. Ultimately, I think Eisenman has fallen into the same error that many Jews have fallen into: the failure to reconcile the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53 and the victorious King of Kings that would defeat the enemies of the elect. It would be presumptuous for us to impose on YHVH and His Son our own agenda and timing in contradiction of the Tanakh we commonly claim to believe. Copyright 2020 P.J. Oh Any correspondences may be sent to p.amos.oh@gmail.com
2 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter since the "church fathers" didn't quote from it in the 2nd/3rd centuries. However, they fought against the gnostics who were using Paul's letters to strengthen their cause. That might be why 2 Peter was written.
Firstly; a historical Jesus, the Christ? Section 'B. 9. Bishop of Kition, Cyprus, and Lazarus of Bethany is one in the same person? a. According to Scripture and Eastern Orthodox Tradition | the Cypriot Church, Lazarus of Bethany was compelled to seek refuge away from Jerusalem to avoid the anger of the high priests and the pharisees, who wanted to kill him, the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed in Jesus (John 12:10-11). The Raising of Lazarus of Bethany; the initial church, it is Orthodox Church Tradition that he was elected orthodoxwiki.org/Lazarus#Bishop_of_Kition | With archaeological and theology citation. b. Little more is known about Lazarus after the Resurrection and Ascension; except that during his thirty years after his resuscitation he never smiled or joked except on one occasion, recorded in the orthodoxwiki.org/Synaxarion. c. The first tomb of Lazarus in Bethany remains as a site for pilgrims to this day. The second tomb on the island nation of Cyprus was found in Kition ca. 890 CE, with his relics inside, bearing the inscription: “Lazarus, the friend of Christ.” i. Again; scholars have supported the observation that an authentic ancient patina (the thin bio-chemical layer that forms on the surface of the material as the object ages) has been found within the inscription engravings, indicating that the entire line of the inscription is authentic, at least in terms of age. ii. scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=bishop+of+kition+cyprus+lazarus&btnG=' _docs.google.com/document/d/1DwjIJoUdzkBJYE1sxMk791DAW4YJFDrk6-sVzjVrlfM/edit?usp=sharing
Professor Eisenman will never really understand the Bible without faith. The Holy Spirit is not a 'mechanism.' His books contain countless unfounded speculations based on this lack of understanding. However, much of his research is relevant, short of jumping to far-fetched historical theories and conclusions, based on word simularities. Also, his books need serious editing because of endless repetitions and convoluted sentence structures.
I can agree with you. Unfortunately, we have biased people on both sides of the spectrum. Nevertheless, Paul is the only person in the entire Bible who speaks from an anti-law perspective and it's disgusting. I can't see how people trust Paul.
@@admin8784 the same reason God permits many things. You have the law and Prophets that testify to God's will. What yill you choose? Behold, life and death has been set before us. To obey God or not to obey God. The same thing happened in Eden. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life. We all have the decision to either obey God or disobey him.
Jesus, or whatever his name is or was, and his brother James were members of the Qumran Essenes or, at least, heavily influenced by their teachings? And James' epithet "the Just" and Jesus' as "the Messiah" is all the proof you need? Really? That's quite a stretch. And the other "evidence" presented by Eisenman to back up his claims, like the two being like-minded brothers who were both known to be righteous and wound up crucified because of it, is purely circumstantial and speculative at best. Not evidence; presumptions. And then he has the gall, the hutzpah to suggest that so-called Christians of today, following a religion in peace and love, are merely dupes of a Roman-concocted cult, because Jesus and James, if they did indeed exist, were anything but peace-loving mystics, they were vicious zealots, intolerant radicals, messianic militants, like the so-called Sacarii, out for blood. Pretty f'in ridiculous, if you ask me. And I'm no Christian apologist. Anything but.
@@karaool so who is Jesus? After all that, it sounds like you have some pretty strong opinions even though you are “anything but” a Christian apologist
The one and only true Son of God and, as such, our Lord and Savior. At least, according to the Christians I know. But I am no professed Christian myself, so why ask me?@@tylerdavis520
The true God for me is the conscience,If my conscience is clean then I am pure,The most important things are the things that should not be done, not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, Not gossip, and so on and so on,,If you lie at night in bed to sleep and you know that you have not done evil all day and your conscience is clear, then you are Gd Himself,,,,,
So long as a criminal thinks/believes his deed is not criminal, he's pure? Sorry, gotta do better than that. Human Brains are highly susceptible to error-prone thinking which leads to a pre-determined usually useful or pleasurable conclusion. Furthermore, how do you know you're not dealing with a faulty brain in the first place? I do not mean that insultingly, but just as a matter of epistemology. Using a faulty brain as a self-testing mechanism for that very self-same faulty brain is a terrible way to go. False negatives and false positives will be everywhere due to such faults, and it's questionable whether you could ever write a program (methodology) that could actually work logically in such a way as to function validly in a logically correct way around the faults.
1:09:50 "I don't know what faith is"..... really? You should do the works of Abraham, that is from an historical perspective. You know the dead sea scrolls about righteousness and the one Hebrew God. Yes, they are apocalyptic writings becuase its a fight for your soul. You claim that Paul's writings are hellenistic, but yet he himself claimed to be a Pharisee and spent time in Damascus preaching against Jews that did not want to accept that Christ had appeared (see Acts chp 9). I will pray for you... and for those who choose to deny the true power of the God of the Living, blessed is His name.
@@exillens Seems anyone who wants to debate the scripture has to rely on the scriptures... even Dr. Eisenman. Starting in Genesis, the whole if human kind was on a doward trajectory... not much has changed, until the "literary" tale of a righteous man who died for His people... (even YHWH doesn't force you to believe) but there will always be those who will claim righteousness over another due to thier works. Yet reading the rest of the Torah.... most of which details destruction, and admonishments of an unrighteous people, of those who were "choosen", only the Zadok line was granted a covenant of peace due to zelousness for God (Num 25: 11 & 12), which Messiah also was a descendant. So the forest is hard to see through the bramble bushes.... especially when the focus is worldly and leads away from self sacrifice, Matt 16: 21-24.
@@jdpmail3000 Peter and James would never eat non kosher meats or mingle with centurions. Do you have anywhere in Paul's epistles or in the NT outside of Acts where Paul and James agreed on the same Hellenistic theology? Acts was a late 1st, early 2nd century book put together with stories to make Paul and James sects get along for early church political reasons. Very little in it is verifiable with other sources. In Paul's very own epistles he expresses his disdain for the disciples and trivializes Mosiac law and admits he says whatever to whomever for his agendas. You don't know your scripture or any understanding of scholastic exergesis hence your crude conclusions. This is where you say the holy ghost inspired the bible and would never put contradicting or false information in it🤦🏻♂️
@@exillens I suppose my crudeness comes from not being taught by main stream churchs or seminaries, and i dont even have affiliations with any house of worship. That, i guess, is where i can come to my own conclusions, right or wrong. Except that over the course of history someone, men or groups thereof, have created the very text we and everyone else reads, canonical or otherwise. Now whether they are all considered Holy.... who decides? A single person? Did Moses actually write the entire Torah? However in them it seems that a common human experience, with all its failures, traverses the span of time. It just happens to be a certian lineage of people that worshipped the one true God and His ability to save them from theirselves. I do believe that YHWH has used persons and groups, both Israelites, Jews, and other nations to fulfill His will....that is evident throughout the scriptures that some purport to know. Jame's epistle is addressed to the 12 Tribes of Israel and is again trying to teach them not to behave in a wicked manner. Did YHWH hide His light in a corner? Paul was sent to preach Messiah and His work, as well as James, that i believe they both agree. Therefore their agenda is the same, how they go about it is different. The Maccabees are the Herodian supporters, which denied the true and rightful Kingship and Priesthood. Paul is an example of Yeshua's saving power. Even Peter in his epistle recognizes it as well. But at the end of day, we all sleep.
@@jdpmail3000 I don't care about your beliefs about what god you feel is best. Irrelevant. I asked do you have supporting scripture outside of Acts that dispute Paul's claims in his own writings concerning his negative views and relationship with James and their Torah adherence? Also, nowhere in the Torah even claims Moses wrote it nor does the alleged Moses have a verse claiming he did. You need to up your knowledge from Sunday school level before coming on here
I can't help believing every word this guy says (from a historical point of view). Thanks to all the scholars who take their work seriously and are willing to share their knowledge indiscriminately.
Me too. His ideas really add up. I am Muslim and his interpretation of the link between Jameseins and Islam is brilliant.
Thank God for people like Robert Eisenman ❤️🙏
The most true thing he said was that all the Bible scholars of today disagree with each other and fight and hate each other over figuring out who were those people at Qumran and even when did live. And then there is another group of scholars that like to make up fan fiction where all the different characters in the New Testament were part of Qumran.
I do not even believe myself all the time, I get it wrong all the time, I think we all do
Eisenman's works are genius, timeless, fascinating, challenging, explosive and life changing❗Thank you Dr Elsenman👍
Wisdom from Eisenman: When you have to teach, teach, teach, you concurrently learn, learn, learn.
This backdrop looks like the Long Beach Alamitos Bay Marina, just down the road from his beloved California State University Long Beach. I miss Dr. Eisenman. He was a favorite professor of mine at CSULB in the late 1970's. He was a master lecturer. I loved him. He swiped a lectern from another room on campus and brought it to classroom LA1-301, where he chained it to the lecturer’s desk so no one could abscond with it. It is there to this day, still smudged where he would always grasp it at the top. I think they leave it there, still chained, in his memory.
Fascinating interview. This is the 3rd time I've listened to the entire interview and with all great teachers, the more I listen, the more I learn. I will listen to it again. Thanks.
@Faisal Siraj Yes, I agree with you, my cousin. But there really is no need to go on and on about it.
Salam.
@Faisal Siraj Reason yes. Debate no. There seems no reason to debate one so set in his ways that he will not budge.
@Faisal Siraj Now you sound like a Republican. Always accusing others of what you are guilty of.
@Faisal Siraj You are talking to yourself again.
@Faisal Siraj Believe me when I tell you you're wasting your time. Move on.
I can say from personal experience, that having to teach a subject is the best way to learn a new subject.
I once heard a professor say that he would only teach courses that he knew nothing about. That way he was always learning something new.
Robert Eisenman is the Man
@@AndreBentrup why , because he doesn't fit your italian superman definition of christ. You already got your antipaters mixed up. Please make yourself look an even bigger fool than you do already.
If I am not mistaken, Dr. Eisenmen even confessed in one live video interview not so long ago on how he himself endure very long-time faith struggling after he found out all the hidden truth from that great qumran project findings. He deserved highest respect for his works, commitment, brilliance, and overcoming that reality check with his new-found deepest inter connected faith. The prove simply that he can only speak, feel, and understand his faith only to himself but not to others. For others that keep on doubting or forcefully argue on the subject, better to start finding their own "who" in the "faith" name that pretty close within inner self's heart.
Dr. Eisenman brings the era of Palestinian Christianity to life. We get the entire Herodian dynasty living, worshipping and debating. The Messianic outlook of Christianity is repeatedly revealed. I have been reading this man since 1998. He is a wonderful addition to the scholarship that is Christianity.
@Chris Johansen thank you. Christians are delusional. They hear what they want
Outstanding interview. Thank you for your books and decades of work!
Thank you for your studies they opened up a entire new would for a few of us. Help us do this thing the right thing .
Robert Eisenman is real, authentic, a scholar, and tells what Righteousness Really Is. Until we really do our research and come to terms with History we will be running around for endless centuries with these religious doctrines doing nothing for humanity.
OH REALLY? He HATES, DESPISES, DISRESPECTS PAUL, and reduces his scholarship credentiasls by doubting the very Pauline letters thatr the most liberal scholars agree upon written 50-60- AD. Many Scholars have James at 48 !!. You know a large reason Paul's Gospel was accepted? Because the letter of Acts attest's to Paul's miracles and powers while James is in Jerusalem, keeping dietary laws and trying to burden the Gentiles with them. What good then did Jesus'[ sacrifice do, James? READ ACTS 15 where PAUL:, PETER, BARNABAS are p[rteaching the rexact same Gospel!! PETER AND PAUL the SAME!! You know why Paul would say Eisemann can't see the obvious? Because Paul in Romans tell us the Jews are blinded FOR A TIME, and Eisemann, I HAVE NEVER HEARD HIM SAY A DISCLAIMER- I AM A UNBELIEVING/ SKEPTIC of JEWISH HERITAGE! - He acts as though he has zero bias' but I can see them clearly. What Jew is not affected in a very serious way by his being born aJew- from Wo0ody Allen on!! JEW? And is a LAW LOVER and LOVES JAMES because he was still stuck on law keeping as salvific,(LIKE HIS DEAD SEE GROUP- mWHO SOME HOW “KNOW THE TRUE WAY- BOXING GOD IN” while Paul taught that the Law is Just, Holy and Perfect, but impossible to keep- and be saved by!! THIS IS PAUL'S GOSPEL_ THe very same that Jesus taught, Paul revealed further, and has the creds to back it up. Now tell me- WHAT CREDS DID JAMES HAVE, SO THAT EISEMANN CALLS HIM HEAD OF THE CHURCH, and FAVORS OVER PAUL!! NAME ONE CREDENTIAL and it better not be the one that is against God's law, that James preaches against. WHILE BEING THE RECEIVER OF!! Oh I would have loved to debate this biased Paul hater, who had never even read the NT Scriptures until he taught a course on them!
Dr. Eisenman is the Columbo (remember Peter Fauk?) of biblical scholarship.
The level of Knowledge that he has I mean its not attained by a press of a switch, its through years of reading, travelling, understanding, seeking, Observing etc I mean Wow.....Pure Genius
My approach: I saw somebody on the subway in NYC reading their Bible with a book called Read your Bible in a Year. I thought to myself what a great idea. Every year in January I started out in Genesis. In December, I ended up in Revelations. During the year I would get behind, but I always made a point of finishing. Then I found a Read your Bible in 90 days. This I did with the NIV because it was a much quicker riead than my favorite KJV. I was not trying to memorize things, just tried to keep the material in my head. So I read the Bible over and over and over. So now, I can spot biblical themes and trends in other literature. This works!
I just enjoy hearing about the mortality of Christ. For Christ to have two brothers, James and Thomas, means that his divinity was manufactured by Rome. The revelation that Paul was related to Herod, the Roman king, calls into question the entire New Testament. Clearly, it is a Roman document.
That's why the texts were all written in Greek, the language popular in the Roman Empire at the time.
@@PatriceBoivin the early Church fathers themselves admited that they had corrupted translations of the original Gospel.
@@PatriceBoivinCould have been written by pro-Roman Jews?
Very interesting....thank you Mr Eisenman
I love how he ended that, "You know too much for your own good."
I came to this interview researching Paul being a false apostle and from the Herodian family... But I wasn’t prepared to learn soo much ... What am I supposed to do now?!!
Look in to Islam. Islam accepts all the authentic teachings of Jesus whilst rejecting Paul and his version of Christianity. Read the chapter of Mary (Surah Maryam) in the Quran. You can search online for it.
You can also ask questions on EF Dawah about any religion. They go live every Thursday and Sunday evening 9.30pm UK time. Also check out Blogging theology
@@summer5145 Didn't the same thing happen with Islam? Within a few decades after the death of Muhammed, there were multiple civil wars & all his descendants (Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, Hussain) were ruthlessly killed. What came later would go onto define the orthodoxy. Thousands of hadiths were fabricated & back projected back to him & his companions to obfuscate the original teachings. It's really tragic.
Carnal nonsense
@@dbr295They were Christians until the third Caliphate. Original Holy Land was in Petra, not Mecca. I'm not joking.
Thank you very much for all your efforts and telling me truth
Robert Eisenman has written the two the best and most interesting books on history I have ever read or owned, 'James the brother of Jesus' and 'The New Testament code'.
James was such a riveting book that I started it again as soon as I had finished it and, the new Testament code is so interesting that I read every page twice (I am reading it currently 'slowly!).
I am not new to the subject of those two books and at first it was quite a pleasure to read a book (James) that explained to me my own uncoordinated, jumbled half known ideas, I also came to realise through Eisenmans work that I knew less than 0.2% of what I read about the subject!
Another book that has got Eisenmans finger prints all over it and is a great 250/300 page long exciting page turner is the 'Dead sea scrolls deception' by Baigent & Leigh (he helped them write it, and deserves his name on the authors list!).
R. Eisenman was also instrumental in bringing into the mainstream the idea of St Paul as the Herodian spy/agent.
I even ended up watching all of his classes that he had put online on RUclips, its just a shame that you can't sit exams after taking all of his different classes on Biblical studies.
Go Eisenman!!!
On which channel did you watch his classes?
@@malenejensen2995 ruclips.net/user/EisenmanLecture
@@malenejensen2995 you can look them up and you'll find them
Can't watch this one enough. Twice a year is not sufficient.
It is very interesting that he includes Islam in the big picture, albeit whatever his presumption and biasness are.
The 'connections' between DSS and Islam.. needs a further open minded exploration...
.. and let the truth prevails..
Do you think Islam is the “truth”?
I remember reading that James prayed so much as was so often on his knees for his people that his knees looked like the knees of a camel!
Likewise.
Sounds like the same kind of claim that Muslims put forth about having 'raisins' form on their foreheads from the friction generated by placing their head to the ground during prayer many, many times. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_bump
Following up on agreeing with you on the James comment, from the book ' James the brother of Jesus', it was a game changer for me in how the author critically analylzed Paul & his relationship with the other 12. And the scripture as proof or serious considerations of him in his arrogance and motivations.
Looks like he should have prayed harder ..
"Aboriginal Christianity." I love it!
Your on to something there for sure. However what sparked that belief system and what it very quickly mutated into is questionable. There was a very strong urge to suppress and coverup aspects concerning the revolts of the first and second century. They seem to go hand in hand with the ascension of Christianity. A Roman, Alexandrian scam that masked the True Esa or Essus. Forgive me. Ralph Ellis got my wheels spinning on that one. I haven't done so as of yet but I think it would be interesting to explore both the Syrian Orthodoxy and the Syriac histories for even more information. How deep is the rabbit hole I wonder. No wonder man feels he has to rely on faith . The world is full of s##t .
The people who translated the Bible knew more about the meanings of the words at that time than we could possibly know today.
Actually Jesus did ask them to follow his brother after him..
His brothers - James or Peter
Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to *my God and your God* . ' ”John 20:17
Wow! What an interesting interview, and an extremely interesting professor. His thoughts are worth consideration This interview helps me understand this man's passion with regard to the study of Christianity and Judaism at the end of the "Second Temple" period.
Basic problem identified - Israel is not in Europe. I was reading a book by this author - but now I know something about his background and opinions - I have closed the book.
Thank you for your work!!!!!
Interesting. When i look up Acts 21:20. It doesnt say we are Zealots of the law. Instead the bible says They are Zealots of the Law and not Paul
Baruk Haba Bashem YAHUWAH RAPHA NISSI ELOHAI TSEVA’OTH!!!!! Shalom Mishpacha.
I agree what you say about Paul.....He lead Christianity astray.Perhaps he was blinded by the Darker fallen angel of the Good Lords....the same one who blinded Job.
Robert Clement blinded Job? I wasn't aware Job got blinded... hmm.
Fallen angel? There are no “fallen angels” in the Tanakh or Judaism in general. The angel in Job you speak of only does God’s will.
The dualism you speak of is only found in the New Testament and Christianity. Mostly likely “borrowed” from Zoroastrianism.
@@wantanamera You sound uneducated. The dead sea scrolls prove you wrong. Belial is talked about many times in the OT
I have a little question. In one of the gospels Jesus calls that woman unclean and I think a pig or dog. But if Roman elites wrote the gospels then why would they put that dead Sea Scrolls sounding thing in there? At 103 Eisenman talks about this concerning the scrolls community
Here is what I think about that. People in mystery cults thought they were special, and other people, not in their cult, were like dogs, pigs or other animals. So, shocking as it seems to us, people of that day would have heard it before, "You're not in our cult, you're not one of us." In fact, Jews talk that way to this day about non-Jews. Goyim. Means cows.
Why there is no questions about Mary Magdalene and why she was put into the gospels?
Encountering his work was a slap in the face for me. The record needle went, "brrrtt." Big irony, though: It seems to me that the attitude towards the Mosaic law Eisenman describes around 47:30 is pretty close to what St. Paul puts forward.
Consider that Yehushua was telling Peter that the Gospel, Yehushua being the Savior, is the rock on which he would build His church, not Peter as the leader.
Was Nicodemus of new testament gospels a Sadducees priest ?
Prof Eisenman work alienated him from modern day Jews and Christians, and made him loved and respected by all muslims who knows his work. That tells you something.
Muslims must be desperate if they need to make this man a hero. He ended the interview basically calling them violent nutjobs
Odd question, but can someone tell me whether this was shot at Marina del Rey in Los Angeles? I looked for Faith Overhaul contact information but didn't find anything. Thanks.
Question, Dr. Eisenman said he doesn’t believe the Dead Sea scrolls are second century BCE, due to a conflict with the Maccabees.
What do you say to Dr. Rachel Ellior’s approach, which states that the Hasmonean dynasty did collude with the Roman Magistrate?
As a matter of fact, what then do we make of document called False Prophets in Israel, 4Q339, which specifically states that John son of Simon is a false prophet.
Some claim this is a reference to John Hyrcanus, whose father is Simon Thassi, during the second century BCE. Is that correctly interpreted?
Dr. Eisenman also mentioned not being allowed to marry. How then are we suppose to interpret document called The Secret of The Way Things are, 4Q410, 4Q412-13, 4Q415-421, 4Q423, 1Q26, when it says, “If you would marry a wife in your poverty, take her from the Children of Light... from the secret of the way things are. When you are untied, love together with your fleshly helper... For as the verse says(reference to Genesis 2:24), A man should leave his father and his mother and adhere to his wife and they will become one flesh. He has made you to rule over her, so... YaOh (ιαω) did not give her father authority over her, He has separated her from her mother, and into you He has given authority... He has made your wife and you into one flesh.”
What then are we suppose to make of these clear references to encourage marriage?
There was no such place called Palestine in the time of Jesus. It was called Judea or Israel. Palestine was a pejorative term used by the Romans. who wanted to wipe out the term Judea after the destruction of Israel in 70 AD. C'mon Dr. Eisenman, you should know that.
Hi Shlomo.
scholarly, worth pondering, though a sound in the wilderness of Judeo-Christian Machiavellianism !!!!!!!
When asked "What drew him into this field of study" He states nothing (While holding the devil horn sign with his Left hand...Luciferian much?)
Yeshua is the way and the truth. Full Stop.
Excellent iview
My soul delights!!
Do you think that Paul was instrumental in the deaths of John the Baptist and Jesus?
Arna, thanks for your comments and question. Sorry for my delayed response. To your question about Paul... I would say it certainly seems the potential is there. We know he states he was a Pharisee of Pharisees and active in persecuting the followers of Jesus and likely John's followers as well. Both Jesus and John were among the Essene Zealot groups. And, as Galileans, their religious positions put them at odds with Judah's tribal and political control under the Pharisees and priests ruling over Jerusalem and it's provinces with the assistance of Roman treaties. Paul was a Roman Pharisee. Can't get more controversially apposed to the Zealots than that in my opinion.
I'm not convinced that the Dead Sea Community of the relevant time 'equals' James's 'Jerusalem' Community, but certainly the two must have been at least 'nodding acquaintances' of one another ...
Thank you for this. I'm not saying I agree with every point made, but I thoroughly resonate with not giving any respect at all to Herodians and their ilk.
I'm trying to pay attention but all I can think of is how cold the poor man looks.
Wonder what he thinks of the forgeries
Could the scrolls have been the library of John the Baptist?
possibly. John spent a lot of time with the Essenes. and John didn't immerse people up the Jordon river but down near the dead sea
Tantalising isn't it ?
The Nazarene Acts of the Apostles by Jackson Snyder
@@christinecrawford3866 *Ebionites
Matthew in the Gospels was the 1st written and was used in the Church Before Jerusalem fell.
Not true. Mark was first.
@@tayrowell until 1838 THIS Order was Not Questioned , someone in 1838 does Not get to decide that the Facts we have Now do not matter . Since that time much has been translated from the DDS and church history.
@@lindasc48 It wasn't questioned because the Church wanted to keep everyone ignorant of the facts and has always worked hard to do so. You cannot leave the facts to those with an ax to grind - those so willing to deceive. They have shown their hand over millennia. Coming out of the Dark Ages, into the Enlightenment, and the willingness to research and question, I am not surprised one bit that Matthew wasn't the first. Reading them, it is obvious that Mark is first. That's why I put way more stock in critical scholars who use actual history, texts, and non-canonical sources to piece together the truth. I never trust Church people to be honest about these sorts of things. They seem quite allergic to it.
@@tayrowell Continue to research Please I have told you what History says .
@@lindasc48 No you haven't. You have passed on church hogwash, very lazily. Secular people will continue to drag you folks, either willingly, or unwillingly, closer to the truth. Your fictions are a thing of the past
This would only be controversial to Christians at this point.
Science is not about certitude, it can never be so. Religion, however, is." [para] ~ James Lovelock, independent scientist. Eisenman's reputation will grow long after he's gone and I hope he keeps it up a long as possible. Very important work. Yes, morality is inherent, though maybe perversely so in the sociopath and psychopath. Homo sapiens are hardwired for religion (which I do not equate with spirituality). Though many then discount the value of what's called 'organized religion'. I believed as much until recently being exposed to interesting work, almost 100 yrs old, by J.D Unwin. One of his works, published in 1934 with a forward by Aldous Huxley, explains, at least to me, the indispensable importance of organized religion to the success of society & culture (success is amoral). The book is "Sex & Culture". Unwin's is not the only work along these lines. It's one of the many ignored by intellectuals. Addressing 'high & low behavior'. This is religion, spirituality, ethos. You have a 'faith' doctor.
I had to edit this comment, after another RUclips viewer jumped on my shit about my opinion regarding this video. So, here's a better response to this: Just because a person doesn't agree with this video-does not make them uneducated. But, the experience has made me wiser. My view is this-I'm with you Lord, no matter what.........................If other people want to view faith objectionably? That's their right. But, COUNT ME OUT
If he is, at the very least he is therefore objective...you place yourself at a massive disadvantage if you fail to listen to him. He has an amazing academic background. By finding fault with him, you are admitting to your own lack of education.
I tend to think the dead sea scrolls were multiple groups.
Essenes, Christians, and other Jews.
think about it all these text in these caves.
what happened in AD 70?
there were many that would flee.
and the Christians were told to flee to the mountains by Christ when this happens as spoke in the Olivet discourse.
Why i am guessing this
I read through the Dead Sea Scrolls book- "Cave of Treasures" that text seems extremely Christian. I mean i doubt its that Jewish at all. The text seems to read as of the Messiah has came. the Jewish group was still awaiting the messiah. The Christians knew He was already here.
That being said, Simeon I bishop of Jerusalem, is who the Damascus Document could be talking about - could be , wont say for certain. Being that he was the bishop of Jerusalem when the events of AD 70 happened. Simion the son of Mary and Clopas. Clopas Josephs (Jesus' father) brother.
It couldn't have been James leading the early church in AD 70 - he was already beheaded years before this point.
However the next bishop on the list is Simeon I who was over the church of Jerusalem from AD 62- 107. Remember at most he was just a child at the crucifixion. which means at most he was in his 80's when he died. in his early 70's at the least.
just a thought.
What is the wee portion
OK I got it ...It is the we and I syndrome as Paul refers to himself alot.
@@christinecrawford3866 It's referring to the book of Acts where the author begins speaking in first person around chapter 16. "We"
You were going sail.
Notice the contempt he has for people interested in Christianity. They don't know! They don't anything. You could feed them poop on a paper plate, they wouldn't know not to eat it.
Having fun, Robert? Sounds like you are
8:50 It's not Palestinian anything. Love Eisenman's work but I have always found it irresponsible to use this term within this particular point in time. Actually inaccurate.
True, we really shouldn't be lending credence to the herodian "Syria palaestina" moniker
It was called Judea Palestina. So palestine is perfectly fine for modern American.
Jesus was not called Jesus. Paul was not called Paul. None of the names were english. The man has studied this as a proffessor for years. He knows what hes talking about.
Why is that? The word “Palestine” has been discovered on a Luwian tablet dating to 1500 BCE. So, Eisenman referring to it as “Palestinian Messianism” would be accurate.
@@Logik1002 Wrong. The name Palestine is the Latin form of the word Phistia. The two names were spliced by the Roman Emperor Hadrrian in 135 A.D. Philistia or Philistine was infact a real nation. But it has become a modern day myth that it is connected to the entity referred to as the Paswstinian people. They are not a nation. Never were a Nation and if people are going to insist on associating them with the peoples of 1500 B.C. you mentioned the least we can do is explore this point. First of all let it be known that even semi modern day Bibles use the term Palestine in a way that is misleading. The nation identified is Philistia not Palestine. This is not just a matter of translation but a matter of misrepresentation. A deception has been created without direct intention. The Philistines or Philistia are not an indication that the Palestinians are a sovereign nation. if the term Palestine is used today it should be used in the context in which it was established . As a territory NOT a nation. It was never a Nation. Philistia was. Hadrian renamed Judea after the state of Philistia that had antagonized Israel a millennium previous to that point . What point? The point of closure Hadrian was imposing on 100 yrs of open revolt from the Jewish zealots and rebels . It was the completion of their humiliation after the Bar Kochba revolt that would finally end the disputes. But the point to make here is that Philistia was a name of a people that had long since left the historical stage and had been dissolved into several political and tribal identities since then. They simply did not exist as a sovereign entity in Hadrians day. The implimant of the title was symbolic. Philistia had already been no more than a memory for 1000 yrs in the 2nd century Roman occupation. But even when it was real, what was it? It happened to be like the Phoenicians a coastal invasive entity that came from the West over the sea. When Philistia established itself it had forced both the states or tribes of Judah and Dan east away from the coast. In the dominance of Amelek,Moab and Ammon (ancient Canaan, which was also not a country but a territory containing states) Philistia was the smallest next to Israel in territory at the time. They were the expected and natural antagonist to Israel. This was simply a struggle for 2nd place. Where was Philistia? Philistia was located roughly in the same area of modern day Gaza today. It by no means represented or occupied land around the river Jordan east or west, but I digress. In short it represented the second smallest states in ancient Canaan. To attribute it to modern day notions of a so called Palestinian people is a brainwashed concept. In fact before 1948 even Jewish people who lived in the land identified themselves as Palestinians. Lol. Because once again the area was identified as a territory NOT a country or a people of particular culture,ethnicity or political affiliation. All a 20th century delusion of mass misrepresentation. The people were not unified as a Palestinian nation or identity. They never were. Never held sovereignty or a form of democracy outside of one imposed from the various political powers throughout history. Again, Palestine is not a country. Never was. Even when the British created the state of Jordan of which the Pasestinian territory was a part of it was in a vaccum. There was no unity of identity outside of being Arab. The modern concept or notion of Arabs in the territory being a Nation or entity along those lines didn't creep in until the implementation of a specific Jewish state was put in motion. Automatic resentment. Lol. There are people among our younger generation out there that believe there were no Jews living in the land before the so called Zionist movement. It's a joke. And if the West thinks Saudia Arabia,Jordan, Egypt or Iraq ever wanted a Palestinian state they are on crack. Even Muslims living or even born in the West today with all their virtue signaling and ignorance do not represent the mindset of the very people they wish to protect or support. It's a mess. Free Free Palestine. Free Free Palestine. Lol. Whatever. So called Palestinians (well the smart ones )enjoy more freedoms, opportunity, education and health care in Israel than outside of it in ANY of the Arab nations surrounding them. That's a fact. PALESTINE IS NOT A COUNTRY AND NEVER WAS. THE NAME PALESTINE WAS DERIVED FROM WAS HOWEVER BUT THE CONNECTION TO THAT STATE IS RIDICULOUS. Not only was that entity nothing more than a sliver on the map of Canaanite map but if Palestinians knew more about these people and their idolatrous identity and despicable practices they would never make the claim to dependency again. But that is another issue all together. This has nothing to do with who was there first and all that yarn. As far as I can see neither party can claim ultimate indigenous rights. However it should be noted that along with many other actual Nations Israel or Judea is now in its third commonwealth. The Palestinian people or so they are called have had 1900 yrs to arrange and establish a unified National identity of governance before the 48 establishment of Israel. So the question screams out at us. What the hell was stopping them? It wasn't Israel? It was the fact that the people didn't care. This entity sat or squatted under the rule of the various Empires and political powers throughout history. It changed its face and name so many times it leaves ones head spinning. Philistines, Moabites,Edomites,Assyrians,Amalekites etc etc etc etc , splitting, joining, dividing, up down all around. If one wanted to talk of bloodlines that is one thing but a cohesive National identity? Please. But although it is clear there is a problem that cant be ignored the old expression still remains. You cant polish a turd. Gaza was given to them on a silver platter and within the week Hamas and the P.L.O. were at EACH OTHERS throats. How quickly we forget. As long as they can not truly govern themselves they will simply apply their energy to antagonism and random assaults . Its hopeless. So if we are talking about a territory fine but the identity of a Nation based upon that word is nonsense. Historically garbileegook. If anything, they are Jordanians. So fkd up it takes other people to give them a name. And in the case of Palestine it wasn't even intended. If the Arabs in the land would get hip to the facts they might get somewhere in self determinations. But I doubt it. The state of Israel will never be accepted and even if Israel was wiped off the map all over again ,Palestine will not unify as a new Arab state. Not only do they not know how to achieve that but the surrounding states will never accept that. In fact I'm willing to bet the farm they would be more hostile to Palestinians than they are to modern day Israel. What a mess. 🤮
FRANKANDSTERN the tablet was presented by the Oriental Institute. The proof is written in stone. Go look it up.
I'd like to know what Eisenman has to say about the Mandaeans...and now that it's apparent the John the Baptist was their teacher of righteousness, and that they were aposed to Jesus and the movement he started, and later led by St. James, his brother.
Eisenman presents only one side of the story .....
Well...yeah? He's being interviewed and asked to present HIS controversial views. That's... the point. You don't interview the guy who disagrees with consensus...to hear him talk about consensus.
What’s the other side?
He destroyed the other side
@46:30, "love thy neighbor" & "love thy enemy" are not identical "loves" nor mutually exclusive ie "love" is said in many ways; such that the pervasive modern understanding of Christian "love" is the most simplistic and idiotic conceptual reduction. Please, stop, Eiseman. If the oldest and most local Christians to the Christian genesis are continually at war with divers neighbors, then perhaps that behavior is consistent with "original & authentic" Christianity? Or is "love thy enemy" an unambiguous commandment to pacifism?
Its too bad that modern mindlessness can't separate their half witted grasp on geopolitics FROM THIS MAN AND HIS ACTUAL STUDIES. Annoying.
20:02 his name was Judah.
Named after his father; Judah of Galilee.
Well we have Josephus, but he calls Judah by the Latinized version of the Greek name; Theudas. The Greek version is Thaddeus. It means “like flowing water” because he was baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist.
Josephus says he was beheaded, but that was how they executed Roman citizens. They had another method for non-citizen rebel leaders…
“I swear I’m not lying”-Saul the Liar
30:15 well Thomas is the Aramaic name for Judah Thaddeus. Thomas is Judah Thomas, the twin brother of Jesus. The problem with that, of course, is that James (Jacob) and Judah are twins. Judah Thaddeus is at least 3 different apostles; Thomas, Jude, Thaddeus of Edessa.
And The Gospel of Thomas was part of Nag Hamadi, but a LOT of scholars think it’s originally from Syrian where the Thomasine communities were.
43:37 in “some way.” Like say…Saul throwing him from the Temple Mount?
He survives the fall, and THEN he gets bludgeoned to death, either by a club or by stoning.
44:30 I consider myself a Christian and it actually GREATLY helped my faith. Knowing the REAL people, this family, flaws and all, who did what I would’ve done and resisted Rome, and then fell victim to plots by collaborators.
I’m Germanic, and the very same century a man named Arminius resisted Rome in Germania. He was trained as a Roman Soldier, though, so he succeeded mightily, until he was betrayed by other Germanic nobles who were given great wealth and power by Rome to assassinate him.
It wasn’t just Judea that wanted Romans to go the f home. And it wasn’t just the Jews who Rome killed off in droves for resisting.
It’s far more in line with the historic reality of Roman brutality and expansionism than “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” And the Truth is always rewarding, no matter how comforting the lie might “feel.”
Moses was a liar. The Indo-Europeans had an idea of Right Order and you can find it many places as right thought, right speech, right actions. Roman Catholics taught their kids this, with all those venial and cardinal sins.
@DJ Most people say there was no Moses, he is a fictional character, but if there was, he lied about Jews building pyramids, about Pharaoh's men drowning, about wandering in the desert for forty years, and about God giving him laws on a mountain top. That was Hammurabi who got laws from Shamash.
@DJ Jews invented a God that worships Jews. The God of Israel. Same as the Devil. Judeo-Christianity was invented last century by the Zionists to make Christians worship the Jews. Tragic. The early Christian religion was handed over to pagan men and they invented Pagano-Christianity, which brought in all the pagan customs and traditions and ideas. This was excellent. Started to come to an end around 1890. Didn't survive the 1960s. Like everything else that was good and true.
Great that I rejected Christianity...
RIGHTIOUSNESS = Hillel "That which is hateful to you, do not to your fellow"
Call the white van.
John 5:39
Awesome
What about enoch?
He walked with god.
and didn’t write a book ..
A contrary view on Ebionites, claiming they split from the Nazarenes, the original Jewish Christians, after the Fall of Jerusalem. Listen to the end, first, where he sums it all up. Then replay from the start. ruclips.net/video/734A0lm6mAo/видео.html
For He's six foot two
His eyes are blue
He walks across my swimming pool
Has anybody seen my Lord
He's a fine guy from Palestine
He done changed my water into wine
Has anybody seen my Lord
So if you run into those baby blues
all duded in white
Let Him know I' m ready to go
all I need is the time an flight
So coochie cue am Jewish too
I'm sitting in this lousy pew
Has anybody seen
has anybody seen
My Lord
MY RESPONSE TO EISENMAN'S CHARACTERISATION OF "THE GOSPELS" AS UNHISTORICAL "LITERATURE"
by P.J. Oh
My comments are being directed in response to Professor Robert Eisenman's comments in these interviews:
ruclips.net/video/eWFTGKBd6J8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/6j08tUHrkVI/видео.html
While I have been continually intrigued by much of what Eisenman says in these interviews and his books, I am disappointed that someone who is supposed to be an expert in the early Jamesian community would fail to talk about the apparent discrepancies the Ebionites and Nazarenes had with some of those Zealot communities - not to mention differences between those so-called Qumran communities themselves. Granted, accounts of these groups are somewhat scant, but it would appear reasonable to believe that the early so-called "church fathers" were not misrepresenting the facts when they claimed that the Ebionites adhered to an early form of the gospel of Matthew that had originally been written in Hebrew, from which later translations into other languages were made. This would beg the question of why an early community that is law-observant to the point of rejecting Paul, whom they perceived to be a teaching against the Torah, would have composed a document that apart from its ending appears very similar to the gospel of Matthew we find in most Bibles - if the sections quoted by such early church figures is any indication.
One of the reasons Eisenman's views appear somewhat crude, simplistic and overstated is that it is somewhat dubious that Eisenman casts such strong contrasts between the ideological views expressed in the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and those communicated in the gospels. I believe Norman Golb's criticism of the so-called Qumran-Essene hypothesis needs to be taken seriously whenever we talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus; because it is untenable to think all the various theological opinions could have been espoused by any single community. Thus if we assume Golb was correct in contending that the Scrolls were actually documents transported from the Temple Library to the "Judean hills" (cf. Yeshua's statement in Matthew 24 that those in Judea should flee to the Judean hills; thus it seems that the recovery of tbe Dead Scrolls should prove that his prophecy or prescription had come to pass) - if we assume that Golb is correct, this calls for a much more nuanced view of the theology adhered to by these communities and those held by the Jamesian community.
I think Eisenman's claim that Yeshua would not have ever commanded his hearers to "love your enemies" is rather crude. If this were something made up in order to empower Rome, we should never find the emphatic statement upholding the Torah in Matthew 5:17-19, even in the same "Sermon on the Mount" where we also find the teaching to "love your enemies"! I would imagine that Eisenman might be inclined to believe that Yeshua said the Torah-upholding statement; so on what basis would he reject the belief that Yeshua said the latter? If he rejects it primarily or solely on the phrase "hate the sons of the pit" found in a foreign document, this doesn't seem justifiable based on the reasons Eisenman provided. Yeshua also said that he who doesn't hate his family isn't worthy of him (Luke 14:26; Matthew 10:37). But of course he was talking in relative and conditional terms and saying that whenever there are conflicting interests and values, we need to defer to our Master - so he wasn't commanding us to hate our family in any absolute sense. So, while we of course must love our families, in comparison to our love for YHVH, our prescriptive family loyalties are comparable to hate. Thus it is easy to jump to simplistic conclusions based on such words as "love" and "hate".
Furthermore, it is important to be more reflective when it comes to the tensions found within the teachings of Yeshua himself. According to the gospels the one we call the Prince of Peace said "Do not think I have come to bring peace" (Matt 10:34). Is this an absolute statement, or was Yeshua rather talking about the fact that he came to expose ideological contrasts between the Torah that he upheld and all manner of false representations of Torah made by collaborators of Rome such as the Pharisees and establishment Sadducees? After all, in a Biblically faithful sense, love, hate, peace or war can take on many forms other than what we normally associate with these words. We also have to consider whether Yeshua was teaching that he would not be establishing any millennial reign during his earthly life; but that this would have to wait until he returns with tens of thousands of his followers in the future battle between the righteous and forces of wickedness - and here Eisenman has again drawn the hasty conclusion that the Zealots and Sicarii ended up being proven wrong in their hope that they would be victorious. Yet, I don't think the leaders of the Jamesian community were under any illusions that the Messianic kingdom would be set up immediately - otherwise how could we explain the vision of the future battle described by John in Revelation?
In some ways, it is interesting to compare Yeshua, his ethos and community on the one hand with the likes of Bonhoeffer and the Abwehr, which was the underground resistance against Hitler. For a very long time, Bonhoeffer resisted joining the Abwehr, even though one of his relatives had continually asked him to join. This resistance was because of his moral principles as a pacifist, which was apparently informed by the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, he ultimately decided that it would be betrayal of one's moral identity as a pacifist to stand idly by while the world's greatest threats to peace was committing so many atrocities. And this explains why he took a two-pronged approach: cooperating with those who were planning on exacting righteous violence on the the leaders of Third Reich while still "feeding the sheep" by promoting ethics of the Kingdom message. It was Bonhoeffer who declared "life is its own justification". While some might consider it a striking paradox or irony that one who is utterly committed to such a peace-based principle feels he needs to destroy or kill those who so seriously threaten life - I would insist that the latter is the only reasonable response for one truly committed to a peace based on the ethic promoted in the Bible.
This is where Eisenman's speculative reasoning doesn't do justice to the legacy of James and Yeshua. While it is probably true that the Sicarii were being directed by James, and that these Zealot groups were even attempting to kill Paul, what Eisenman calls the historical "we" portion of Acts also has James and the disciples addressing Paul as "brother", which also appears in 2 Peter 3. (This might indicate that at least initially they might have hoped that Paul might at some point actually convert to true Torah-observant faith, as if through performing a Nazarite vow, he might come to admire the ethic of the Nazarites and Nazarenes. Of course we cannot rule out other motives James might have had to order Paul to do this; since anyone who would have witnessed Paul perform such a vow would no longer have believed Paul any more if he had decided to make any more anti-Torah teachings - and thus an anti-Torah Paul would have lost his entire constituency in Jerusalem.)(Could this explain why most of Paul's ministry seemed to centre on the Greek world where apparently he could create a network of faith communities rivaling the Messianic movement led by James?)
Furthermore, since it is rather unlikely that James had direct access to Paul's letters or knew for certain that letters attributed to Paul were actually written by him, this could have served as a way to test Paul before ordering a formal trial, which some believe actually occurred later in Ephesus, the community of which is commended in Revelation 2 for testing those claiming to be apostles and finding them to be false.
So even if James were almost certain that the accusations against Paul were probably true, he still extended "due process" to Paul by allowing him go distance himself publically from any anti-Torah attitude that might be associated with him. I believe Paul was closely monitored by James from then on and of course we can deduce that Paul never passed his probation, because he never succeeded in obtaining the letters of commendation to certify him as an evangelist, even according to his own implied admission and rationalisation for why he doesn't need such letters of commendation (Paul declares that his listeners are themselves his commendation: thus Paul spiritualises the concept of what it means to be commended by claiming in effect that it is the followers of the evangelist that determine what is commendable rather than the overseer. But of course Paul's claim would be dubious if the basis of whether to commend anyone as an evangelist of the Way taught by Yeshua was unwavering adherence to the Torah and Yeshua's kingdom message, neither of which is clearly and consistently evidenced in Paul's writings). Nevertheless, it is clear that James' actions show consistency with the teachings of Yeshua who said that we need to be circumspect when we judge and that we should not make rash judgements in defiance of the Torah's protocols. I would guess that if it could have been established under Torah law that Paul had in fact taught against the law of Moses, Paul would have been excommunicated formally then and there and not later as Eisenman contends. Thus we can say James has extended "love" to Paul, even this same person that the Ascents of James would imply is the one who attacked him and left him for dead. James' complete compliance to Torah and to Yeshua's ethic is in evidence by the behaviour described in Acts.
(continued below)
Copyright 2020 P.J. Oh
Another way in which Eisenman's characterisation of the gospels as "literature" is problematic is that he seems to have failed to adequately consider the possibility that some of the gospels were composites of various sources. For instance, it is likely that the post-resurrection accounts were politicised and editorialised, because the claim to have seen the risen Messiah (early or at all) was very important when justifying a claim to apostolic succession; therefore it would be easy to understand why these post-resurrection accounts are so different. But nobody who wishes to tell lies can do so with impunity in a social environment where there are so many eyewitnesses to Yeshua's ministry; so we must concede that the majority of what is declared in the gospels, at least its original form, must have been believed as true by those who wrote them. In such a context, no liar can successfully lie unless he creates an overwhelming "yes response" first. This "yes response" would have already been present if the testimony of actual eyewitnesses had already been recorded in the bulk of the document that Rome probably redacted for its own ends.
As Dr. David Sim has observed, there appear to be many anti-Pauline themes in the book of Matthew. So this would suggest that at least Matthew was written in reaction and in contradiction to the teachings of Paul. But as Rome would have no interest in doing so, we cannot reasonably conclude that these were Roman compositions in their entirety, even if we grant that the so-called Trinitarian baptismal formula found in chapter 28 was probably a later redaction intended to promote Roman doctrine and promote syncretism (The fact that none of the contents of the entire 28th chapter appear until the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices, which are dated to the fourth century, when syncretistic religion was being promoted during Constantinian rule - this fact would further support the view that these were later redactions meant to support Catholic doctrine.) Therefore, the evidence for redaction and editorialising doesn't translate to composition of the entire document, especially because we have testimony from the early fathers that an early community called the Ebionites rejected Trinitarian doctrine and the writings of Paul. Thus any claim that parts in the gospels are unreliable must be based on several important considerations, most notably how such parts should be evaluated from the perspective of the Torah, and whether they serve to empower Rome while undermining adherence to the Torah Yeshua upheld. A gospel that undermines Roman power more than empowers it cannot be justifiably said to have been composed under direction of Rome.
Relatedly, all claims about where the falsehoods actually have probably been written into gospels must be based on a thorough reflection of the tensions and ambivalent/paradoxical/ironic elements present with the kingdom message itself. For me it seems the differences between the Zealot groups mostly centred on what is the proper method of bringing about the kingdom: brute force or soul force? The same sort of conflict between the MLKs and the Malcolm Xs of this world were probably also evident in the time of Yeshua and James. Let's not be under any illusions that Bonhoeffer had any great assurance that the Abwehr would "succeed" any more than the Zealots groups did. Neither were probably operating under such illusions although probably both were praying for miracles. Yet, I would imagine all people of principle have different notions of how to measure success; and being successful at doing what the law requires is the only "winning" that matters in the Kingdom. It is the victory that Yeshua's message is all about: the Father lovingly sees us when we fall to the ground; because He cares for His entire creation. So ultimately it doesn't matter which empire wins in battles of swords, because the war between the righteous and the wicked is only won by recognition that YHVH is the Elohiym of the living and not the dead - and these are spiritual designations just as "children of light" and "the people of the pit" are. Ultimately, the lesson James and Yeshua taught is this: those who love and follow YHVH will have the last laugh at the resurrection of the dead; so whatever happens before then is immaterial.
There is another important consideration:
Some have explained why those crucified along with Yeshua could not have been common robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for political criminals, not common thieves. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that these were part of the group called "lestai" or bandits, who stole from Romans and their collaborators and gave the booty to the poor. They felt this is what was needed to rectify the social injustices and oppression perpetrated by Rome. This is why we need to consider what it meant for the mob to demand the release of one such insurrectionist or bandit instead of Yeshua. I would imagine that the fact that a militant insurrectionist named Yeshua bar Abba (referred to as "Barabbas") was the one the mob demanded released would suggest that most of the militant Zealots would probably not have favoured Yeshua. They might have considered him rather useless for their aim of overthrowing Rome. So it is a big stretch to say that the militant Zealots and James and Yeshua would all have held a similar ideology.
Eisenman claims that Yeshua was crucified on the basis that he was viewed to be an insurrectionist, and he implies that he was of the militant or violent kind. But I think there are other explanations. Yeshua's kingdom message would have threatened the Jewish elite collaborating with Rome because this was a community that resisted the Pharisean suppression the Romans used to oppress the actual Torah-observant Jews. And as Yeshua gave the people hope of a life beyond the visible world, of course it would be difficult to control such people by means of physical force. This would best explain why Yeshua was crucified. Eisenman's claim that the gospels are intended to cast all blame on the Jews seems somewhat inconsistent in this respect. While I believe there are some parts of the gospels that are propping up Roman authority, such as the claim that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem in order to comply with a Roman census (although the more obvious reason would be to make the pilgrimage for a Holy Freast such as Sukkot), this is too broad a generalisation to claim that all the gospels in their entirety were designed to make people compliant with Rome.
Ultimately, I think Eisenman has fallen into the same error that many Jews have fallen into: the failure to reconcile the "Suffering Servant" of Isaiah 53 and the victorious King of Kings that would defeat the enemies of the elect. It would be presumptuous for us to impose on YHVH and His Son our own agenda and timing in contradiction of the Tanakh we commonly claim to believe.
Copyright 2020 P.J. Oh
Any correspondences may be sent to p.amos.oh@gmail.com
2 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter since the "church fathers" didn't quote from it in the 2nd/3rd centuries. However, they fought against the gnostics who were using Paul's letters to strengthen their cause. That might be why 2 Peter was written.
Firstly; a historical Jesus, the Christ?
Section 'B. 9. Bishop of Kition, Cyprus, and Lazarus of Bethany is one in the same person?
a. According to Scripture and Eastern Orthodox Tradition | the Cypriot Church, Lazarus of Bethany was compelled to seek refuge away from Jerusalem to avoid the anger of the high priests and the pharisees, who wanted to kill him, the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed in Jesus (John 12:10-11).
The Raising of Lazarus of Bethany; the initial church, it is Orthodox Church Tradition that he was elected orthodoxwiki.org/Lazarus#Bishop_of_Kition | With archaeological and theology citation.
b. Little more is known about Lazarus after the Resurrection and Ascension; except that during his thirty years after his resuscitation he never smiled or joked except on one occasion, recorded in the orthodoxwiki.org/Synaxarion.
c. The first tomb of Lazarus in Bethany remains as a site for pilgrims to this day.
The second tomb on the island nation of Cyprus was found in Kition ca. 890 CE, with his relics inside, bearing the inscription: “Lazarus, the friend of Christ.”
i. Again; scholars have supported the observation that an authentic ancient patina (the thin bio-chemical layer that forms on the surface of the material as the object ages) has been found within the inscription engravings, indicating that the entire line of the inscription is authentic, at least in terms of age.
ii. scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=bishop+of+kition+cyprus+lazarus&btnG='
_docs.google.com/document/d/1DwjIJoUdzkBJYE1sxMk791DAW4YJFDrk6-sVzjVrlfM/edit?usp=sharing
26:45
Professor Eisenman will never really understand the Bible without faith. The Holy Spirit is not a 'mechanism.' His books contain countless unfounded speculations based on this lack of understanding. However, much of his research is relevant, short of jumping to far-fetched historical theories and conclusions, based on word simularities. Also, his books need serious editing because of endless repetitions and convoluted sentence structures.
I can agree with you. Unfortunately, we have biased people on both sides of the spectrum. Nevertheless, Paul is the only person in the entire Bible who speaks from an anti-law perspective and it's disgusting. I can't see how people trust Paul.
@@MinisterRedPill agreed. But why God allowed this?
@@admin8784 the same reason God permits many things. You have the law and Prophets that testify to God's will. What yill you choose? Behold, life and death has been set before us. To obey God or not to obey God. The same thing happened in Eden. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life. We all have the decision to either obey God or disobey him.
The good Doctor is a mess...
Jesus, or whatever his name is or was, and his brother James were members of the Qumran Essenes or, at least, heavily influenced by their teachings? And James' epithet "the Just" and Jesus' as "the Messiah" is all the proof you need? Really? That's quite a stretch. And the other "evidence" presented by Eisenman to back up his claims, like the two being like-minded brothers who were both known to be righteous and wound up crucified because of it, is purely circumstantial and speculative at best. Not evidence; presumptions. And then he has the gall, the hutzpah to suggest that so-called Christians of today, following a religion in peace and love, are merely dupes of a Roman-concocted cult, because Jesus and James, if they did indeed exist, were anything but peace-loving mystics, they were vicious zealots, intolerant radicals, messianic militants, like the so-called Sacarii, out for blood. Pretty f'in ridiculous, if you ask me. And I'm no Christian apologist. Anything but.
What are you?
@@tylerdavis520 A seeker for and lover of...wisdom and truth! Although I tend to be a little thick and lazy.
@@karaool so who is Jesus? After all that, it sounds like you have some pretty strong opinions even though you are “anything but” a Christian apologist
The one and only true Son of God and, as such, our Lord and Savior. At least, according to the Christians I know. But I am no professed Christian myself, so why ask me?@@tylerdavis520
His works ultimately come down to an opinion and have as much intrinsic value as Pookie and Ray Ray.
"Q"
The Gospel Of Thomas May Be The Q Document.
The true God for me is the conscience,If my conscience is clean then I am pure,The most important things are the things that should not be done, not to kill, not to steal, not to lie, Not gossip, and so on and so on,,If you lie at night in bed to sleep and you know that you have not done evil all day and your conscience is clear, then you are Gd Himself,,,,,
So long as a criminal thinks/believes his deed is not criminal, he's pure? Sorry, gotta do better than that. Human Brains are highly susceptible to error-prone thinking which leads to a pre-determined usually useful or pleasurable conclusion. Furthermore, how do you know you're not dealing with a faulty brain in the first place? I do not mean that insultingly, but just as a matter of epistemology. Using a faulty brain as a self-testing mechanism for that very self-same faulty brain is a terrible way to go. False negatives and false positives will be everywhere due to such faults, and it's questionable whether you could ever write a program (methodology) that could actually work logically in such a way as to function validly in a logically correct way around the faults.
Do you conscience created the world?
@@brenosantana1458quality question. Who do you think created all this?
@@tylerdavis520 The God of Jesus created.
1:09:50 "I don't know what faith is"..... really? You should do the works of Abraham, that is from an historical perspective. You know the dead sea scrolls about righteousness and the one Hebrew God. Yes, they are apocalyptic writings becuase its a fight for your soul. You claim that Paul's writings are hellenistic, but yet he himself claimed to be a Pharisee and spent time in Damascus preaching against Jews that did not want to accept that Christ had appeared (see Acts chp 9). I will pray for you... and for those who choose to deny the true power of the God of the Living, blessed is His name.
Acts is your document of proof lolol
@@exillens Seems anyone who wants to debate the scripture has to rely on the scriptures... even Dr. Eisenman. Starting in Genesis, the whole if human kind was on a doward trajectory... not much has changed, until the "literary" tale of a righteous man who died for His people... (even YHWH doesn't force you to believe) but there will always be those who will claim righteousness over another due to thier works. Yet reading the rest of the Torah.... most of which details destruction, and admonishments of an unrighteous people, of those who were "choosen", only the Zadok line was granted a covenant of peace due to zelousness for God (Num 25: 11 & 12), which Messiah also was a descendant. So the forest is hard to see through the bramble bushes.... especially when the focus is worldly and leads away from self sacrifice, Matt 16: 21-24.
@@jdpmail3000 Peter and James would never eat non kosher meats or mingle with centurions. Do you have anywhere in Paul's epistles or in the NT outside of Acts where Paul and James agreed on the same Hellenistic theology? Acts was a late 1st, early 2nd century
book put together with stories to make Paul and James sects get along for early church political reasons. Very little in it is verifiable with other sources. In Paul's very own epistles he expresses his disdain for the disciples and trivializes Mosiac law and admits he says whatever to whomever for his agendas. You don't know your scripture or any understanding of scholastic exergesis hence your crude conclusions. This is where you say the holy ghost inspired the bible and would never put contradicting or false information in it🤦🏻♂️
@@exillens I suppose my crudeness comes from not being taught by main stream churchs or seminaries, and i dont even have affiliations with any house of worship. That, i guess, is where i can come to my own conclusions, right or wrong. Except that over the course of history someone, men or groups thereof, have created the very text we and everyone else reads, canonical or otherwise. Now whether they are all considered Holy.... who decides? A single person? Did Moses actually write the entire Torah? However in them it seems that a common human experience, with all its failures, traverses the span of time. It just happens to be a certian lineage of people that worshipped the one true God and His ability to save them from theirselves. I do believe that YHWH has used persons and groups, both Israelites, Jews, and other nations to fulfill His will....that is evident throughout the scriptures that some purport to know. Jame's epistle is addressed to the 12 Tribes of Israel and is again trying to teach them not to behave in a wicked manner. Did YHWH hide His light in a corner? Paul was sent to preach Messiah and His work, as well as James, that i believe they both agree. Therefore their agenda is the same, how they go about it is different. The Maccabees are the Herodian supporters, which denied the true and rightful Kingship and Priesthood. Paul is an example of Yeshua's saving power. Even Peter in his epistle recognizes it as well. But at the end of day, we all sleep.
@@jdpmail3000 I don't care about your beliefs about what god you feel is best. Irrelevant. I asked do you have supporting scripture outside of Acts that dispute Paul's claims in his own writings concerning his negative views and relationship with James and their Torah adherence? Also, nowhere in the Torah even claims Moses wrote it nor does the alleged Moses have a verse claiming he did. You need to up your knowledge from Sunday school level before coming on here
Allow me to propose 'Revelation Ch.25' by EdwardKMicheal as an authentic witness to our Christ Yeshua. kdag
PlymouthUK
2024Feb8th