Identifying the roots of Christianity.

a reply to: glend

Wow.. A Hebrew man.. Jesus... Redefined his and altered his faith... To follow his new interpretations of the Jewish faith (Rabbis in the temple with a young Jesus-Jew, remember)...

Going forward.. to follow His teachings? Christ...ianity... Based on and developed from Hebrew Scripture.

originally posted by: glend"At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

This sounds really familiar. Even investigating truths are met with hostility by people who pretend religion in the United States.

a reply to: glend

Fundamental tenets[edit]
According to E. S. Drower, the Mandaean Gnosis is characterized by nine features, which appear in various forms in other gnostic sects:[22]

1. A supreme formless Entity, the expression of which in time and space is creation of spiritual, etheric, and material worlds and beings. Production of these is delegated by It to a creator or creators who originated in It. The cosmos is created by Archetypal Man, who produces it in similitude to his own shape.

2. Dualism: a cosmic Father and Mother, Light and Darkness, Right and Left, syzygy in cosmic and microcosmic form.

3. As a feature of this dualism, counter-types, a world of ideas.

4. The soul is portrayed as an exile, a captive; its home and origin are the supreme Entity, to which the soul eventually returns.

5. Planets and stars influence fate and human beings, and are also places of detention after death.

6. A saviour spirit or saviour spirits which assist the soul on the journey through life and after it to 'worlds of light.'

7. A cult-language of symbol and metaphor. Ideas and qualities are personified.

8. 'Mysteries', i.e. sacraments to aid and purify the soul, to ensure rebirth into a spiritual body, and ascent from the world of matter. These are often adaptations of existing seasonal and traditional rites to which an esoteric interpretation is attached. In the case of the Naṣoreans this interpretation is based upon the Creation story (see 1 and 2), especially on the Divine Man, Adam, as crowned and anointed King-priest.

9. Great secrecy is enjoined upon initiates; full explanation of 1, 2, and 8 being reserved for those considered able to understand and preserve the gnosis.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: glend

Where did you get these two ideas:

"A religion of pacifism that accepts Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Arambut but rejects the teachings of Abraham and Moses. "

"The Mandaeans are taught to love their neighbours."

a reply to: glend

Given Jesus was a relative of John the Baptist according to Luke 1:67-79. (Elizabeth was the wife of Zachariah, mother of John the Baptist and cousin of Mary who was the mother of Jesus) its likely that Jesus was brought up under the same belief system that John the Baptist and his father Zachariah practised, which was most likely Mandaeanism. A religion of pacifism that accepts Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Arambut but rejects the teachings of Abraham and Moses.

You are partially right but then you strayed somewhat.

Yes John the baptist was indeed a cousin of Jesus and both were born within a year of each other. John's father (Zacharias) was a priest in the Jerusalem temple so we know (according to that account) he was a levite Jew as only the levites were authorized this duty. If you recall, in the gospel of Luke Chapter one, it is told how John's priestly father, Zacharias, had lost and regained his voice and was filled with the Holy Ghost when he prophesied over his son John.

By this account of Zacharias' prophesying, we are to assume that John was a Jew and of the order of the Temple Levites and not of Mandaeanism (or mandaeism) faith. He was prophesied by his father as to be the forerunner of the Messiah and according to the NT MSS he did fulfill that prophesy.

The mandaeans had their own liturgy and priestly order and did not recognize the Jewish temple authority. They were tolerant of John Zebedee but had many prophets of their own order and when John died there were many who forsook John's teachings. They were also known as Sabians and originated in the territory of today's Yemen. They are strictly Arabic in nature and not Jewish.

Now in the NT Jesus praises John and tells us that there is none greater than John, so by this I assume that John was of the same doctrine that Jesus taught. If that be true then John could not possibly be of the mandaean faith.

Have I misunderstood you?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: chr0naut

Clearly Mandaens are post Christian (a heretical Gnostic reaction against Christianity), Christ and John the Baptist could not possibly have been promoting their philosophies.

No thats not clear at all. Their religion is not based on christianity nor is John the Baptist a central figure in their religion. Its very possible that their sect survied in isolation (given one can only join their sect through birthright) from a pre-Christian age. That as astrologers they were given special privelges, providing protection through the ages. Although many believe the magi for example were followers of Zoroastrianism they could have been Mandaen priests expert in astrology.

There is no reason to think Mandaens are Magi (a different ethnically specific religious tradition).

Also the origins of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, the Magi, Christianity and the Mandaens are separated by large amounts of time and have substantial doctrinal differences. To suggest that 'this came from that' is not particularly helpful. The proof of such a proposition is lost to time.

The unquestionable truth is that they are now quite differentiated from each other, legally, spatially, temporally and philosophically.

To simplify my position in regard to this thread, what is an ethnically different John the Baptist and Jesus Christ doing promoting an almost unknown and secretive belief from a tiny population from another country thousands of miles away? Even if you do ignore the issue of the backwards time-line.

The Mandaeans themseleves believe they were are the Sabians mentioned in Torah. Islamic sources tell the the Sabians originally followed the prophet Noah and the second book of Abrahamic tradition, the Zabur. So religions and their theological concepts have never lived in a vacuum. They intermingled and absorbed each others cultural and religous beliefs. Arabic nations absorbed Judiasm and Jews absorbed Arabic beliefs (Zoroastrianism and Mandaeism) through conquests and sharing. With perhaps the War Scroll (1QM) with sons of darkness and sons of lightness burrowed from Mandaeism.

The Mandaeans and their knowledge of Torah would have intermingled well with the essenes that were at odds with the Law of Moses Priesthood that were still practicing sacrifices and offerings which the essenes rejected. I understand you want proof but its hard enough to prove that Jesus existed in Judea much less the Mandaeans.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: glend

Where did you get these two ideas:

"A religion of pacifism that accepts Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Arambut but rejects the teachings of Abraham and Moses. "

"The Mandaeans are taught to love their neighbours."

"A religion of pacifism that accepts Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Arambut but rejects the teachings of Abraham and Moses. "

here

"The Mandaeans are taught to love their neighbours."

MANDAEAN ETHICS AND MORALITY A few words may be devoted to the Mandaean ethics and morality. Unlike other gnostic sects they recognize no strict religious demands or for that matter free thinking. Monogamy and having children are directly prescribed, dispensing of alms (zidqa) is necessary for salvation, and also other works, observance of food laws, ritual slaughter, and rules pertaining to purification, to which belong the baptisms and lustrations. The Mandaeans are taught to love their neighbours. Among other things, a reservatio mentalis is sanctioned when oppressed by alien religions. A detailed 'moral code' is found in the first two sections of The Right Ginza.
Here

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: glend

Given Jesus was a relative of John the Baptist according to Luke 1:67-79. (Elizabeth was the wife of Zachariah, mother of John the Baptist and cousin of Mary who was the mother of Jesus) its likely that Jesus was brought up under the same belief system that John the Baptist and his father Zachariah practised, which was most likely Mandaeanism. A religion of pacifism that accepts Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Arambut but rejects the teachings of Abraham and Moses.

You are partially right but then you strayed somewhat.

Yes John the baptist was indeed a cousin of Jesus and both were born within a year of each other. John's father (Zacharias) was a priest in the Jerusalem temple so we know (according to that account) he was a levite Jew as only the levites were authorized this duty. If you recall, in the gospel of Luke Chapter one, it is told how John's priestly father, Zacharias, had lost and regained his voice and was filled with the Holy Ghost when he prophesied over his son John.

By this account of Zacharias' prophesying, we are to assume that John was a Jew and of the order of the Temple Levites and not of Mandaeanism (or mandaeism) faith. He was prophesied by his father as to be the forerunner of the Messiah and according to the NT MSS he did fulfill that prophesy.

The mandaeans had their own liturgy and priestly order and did not recognize the Jewish temple authority. They were tolerant of John Zebedee but had many prophets of their own order and when John died there were many who forsook John's teachings. They were also known as Sabians and originated in the territory of today's Yemen. They are strictly Arabic in nature and not Jewish.

Now in the NT Jesus praises John and tells us that there is none greater than John, so by this I assume that John was of the same doctrine that Jesus taught. If that be true then John could not possibly be of the mandaean faith.

Have I misunderstood you?

I will use a different tact which hopefully will be a bit clearer. The Mandaeans tell of a young girl called Miriai that converted to Mandaeanism from Judiasm at a tender age that latter becomes a priest under the Mandaean order. If their Miriai is the same Mary from the NT, then it might help explain Jesus missing years. He may have been trained in pacifism under the Mandaean religion.

So instead of obeying the law of MOSES, when Jesus saw a woman about to be stoned for adultery, he stepped in with greater hindsight and said "those without sin throw the first stone" (John 8:7).

So what I am suggesting is that Christianity could be a blending of Mandaean and Jewish theology without being one or the other.

originally posted by: glend

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: chr0naut

Clearly Mandaens are post Christian (a heretical Gnostic reaction against Christianity), Christ and John the Baptist could not possibly have been promoting their philosophies.

No thats not clear at all. Their religion is not based on christianity nor is John the Baptist a central figure in their religion. Its very possible that their sect survied in isolation (given one can only join their sect through birthright) from a pre-Christian age. That as astrologers they were given special privelges, providing protection through the ages. Although many believe the magi for example were followers of Zoroastrianism they could have been Mandaen priests expert in astrology.

There is no reason to think Mandaens are Magi (a different ethnically specific religious tradition).

Also the origins of Zoroastrianism, Judaism, the Magi, Christianity and the Mandaens are separated by large amounts of time and have substantial doctrinal differences. To suggest that 'this came from that' is not particularly helpful. The proof of such a proposition is lost to time.

The unquestionable truth is that they are now quite differentiated from each other, legally, spatially, temporally and philosophically.

To simplify my position in regard to this thread, what is an ethnically different John the Baptist and Jesus Christ doing promoting an almost unknown and secretive belief from a tiny population from another country thousands of miles away? Even if you do ignore the issue of the backwards time-line.

The Mandaeans themseleves believe they were are the Sabians mentioned in Torah.

The Sabians are not mentioned in the Torah. They are mentioned three times in the Qur'an but that is also 400 years after Christianity and 1,900 years after Moses.

Apart from the references in the Qur'an which describe the Sabeans as "people of the book" like Jews and Christians, we do not know much else about them.

Later commentator such as Maimonedes had discourses about how the Sabians ate blood to commune with the spirits, despite the clear injunction in Leviticus 17:10 to not eat blood. What is clear in both Maimonedes and Islamic sources is that the Sabians were idolaters who did NOT follow the Torah and were probably unaware of it.

Islamic sources tell the the Sabians originally followed the prophet Noah and the second book of Abrahamic tradition, the Zabur.

Islamic scholars identify that this book, The Zabur, was actually the Psalms and was 'given' to King David of Israel. We don't actually have the text of the Zabur so comments on its content is entirely speculative.

So religions and their theological concepts have never lived in a vacuum. They intermingled and absorbed each others cultural and religous beliefs. Arabic nations absorbed Judiasm and Jews absorbed Arabic beliefs (Zoroastrianism and Mandaeism) through conquests and sharing. With perhaps the War Scroll (1QM) with sons of darkness and sons of lightness burrowed from Mandaeism.

The War Scroll was from before Christ who was before the Mandaens. Sons of darkness and sons of light existed in Judaic tradition and so a Judaic cult making reference to the sons of darkness and the sons of light is not particularly interesting. The phrase "sons of ..." is a standard Jewish idiom, for example: sons of Belial, sons of destruction, sons of worthlessness, sons of God & etc.

The Mandaeans and their knowledge of Torah would have intermingled well with the essenes that were at odds with the Law of Moses Priesthood that were still practicing sacrifices and offerings which the essenes rejected. I understand you want proof but its hard enough to prove that Jesus existed in Judea much less the Mandaeans.

The word manda in Aramaic is "knowledge" in English and "gnosis" in Greek. The Mandaeans were Gnostic in name and belief, even their god concept approximated the Demiurge.

Since it is clear that the Mandaens today reject the Torah, their knowledge of it, in an academic sense, is demonstrably poor.

Also, according to the Book of Elchasai, written about 100 years after Christ, the local Gnostic community split over acceptance of the Torah. The Mandaeans were those who chose to reject the Torah. This dates their beginnings as post Christian and clearly there are no other evidential sources to oppose it.

a reply to: glend

I will use a different tact which hopefully will be a bit clearer. The Mandaeans tell of a young girl called Miriai that converted to Mandaeanism from Judiasm at a tender age that latter becomes a priest under the Mandaean order. If their Miriai is the same Mary from the NT, then it might help explain Jesus missing years. He may have been trained in pacifism under the Mandaean religion. So instead of obeying the law of MOSES, when Jesus saw a woman about to be stoned for adultery, he stepped in with greater hindsight and said "those without sin throw the first stone" (John 8:7). Text

You have brought to light some very good points to consider. The so called missing years of Jesus is a very sought after subject among scholars. The traditions surrounding this subject are numerous but ignored by most of the Roman Church and their spawned seeds. Actually the missing years of Jesus are very well explained by traditions of the Glastonbury literature and also explains the demise of Jesus' mother Mariam.

Tradition tells us that the husband of Mariam (Joseph) died when Jesus was but a young lad. In the Harlein Manuscripts which are in the British Museum, 38-59, f.193b, and authored by Lionel Smithett in his work [Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury pp 155-156] reveals the genealogy of this Bethany clan. Joseph of Arimathea was the uncle of both Joseph and Mariam. Joseph of Arimathea's daughter [Anna] was cousin of Mariam and it is well accepted that Joseph was obligated to care for both Mariam and Jesus as Mariam became a widow. This was not only obligation but was the Jewish law at that time. So what am I driving at?

Joseph of Arimathea was also known as the Noblis Decurio which was A Roman appointed position of the empire's mines. He was responsible to supply the needed metal [tin] to supply the Roman Empire. Tin was a very scarce and important metal needed for a number of very important uses such as blending with copper to make bronze etc.. The scarcity of this metal finds the Romans mining for tin in Briton where there is a plentiful supply of tin ore.

To make a long story short, Joseph of Arimathea made many trips to oversee these mines operations as well as shipping the tin by both sea and land routes to the Empire of Rome. This brought him to Glastonbury many many times over the course of his duties. Here is where the young Jesus spent much of His time with His uncle in their travels to Briton and back to Jerusalem. There is a house of prayer in Glastonbury where tradition insists that Jesus built the house from wattles by His own hands.

As Jesus was put to death, the house of Annus along with his son in law Caiaphus rounded up the Bethany clan and put them out to sea with out ores or sails. These twelve men and women drifted to the coast of Africa and purchased supplies as well as sail and ores and made their way to Glastonbury where they settled and built wattle huts to survive. From that point they learned of the apostle Philip who was evangelizing throughout the region and sought him out. It was through Philip that they began their evangelizing the Lord Jesus as well as crossing the waters to France. From this the establishment of churches began in Briton and France. Meanwhile back in Jerusalem we see James establishing his synagogue as all of this was happening at the same time.

It is tradition that Mariam, the mother of Jesus, along with her uncle Joseph were two of those who settled in Glastonbury and died in Glastonbury. This work is authored by Lionel Smithett Lewis and titled "St. Joseph Of Arimathea At Glastonbury" and is worthy of any library. I would urge you to purchase a copy in paperback sold on internet. lol Seede

a reply to: glend

So instead of obeying the law of MOSES, when Jesus saw a woman about to be stoned for adultery, he stepped in with greater hindsight and said "those without sin throw the first stone" (John 8:7). So what I am suggesting is that Christianity could be a blending of Mandaean and Jewish theology without being one or the other.

At times it seems very difficult to understand why things happen. Most Christians do not understand that the law that is referenced in most bibles is not as they understand. Before the ten commands were given to the Hebrews, there were seven commands given to Noah and the human family. Those seven laws are still in effect today but within that structure of commands God gave the human race the freedom to execute punishment of disobedience. Each culture had the right to enforce those commands as was needed to govern that body.

When the woman was brought to Jesus and accused as being caught in the act, we must remember one very important thing. The law declared that both the man and the woman be put to death. Now if they had caught this woman in the act then there had to be a man who was also caught in the act. Where was he? He was not brought before Jesus and Jesus knowing the Command knew that it was designed for entrapment and not for piety. As Jesus would not and did not come to judge the living, knew that judgement was not possible and even if it were possible He could not judge the living.

Why could he not judge the living? Because it is appointed to every man to die once and then the judgment. If a man will repent then that sin cannot be judged and if Jesus judged that woman while alive then he broke His own command. What did he do? He told the woman to go and sin no more. Did she repent? We are not told but that is immaterial as there was no man brought forward in the first place. Actually we can not be certain that she did commit adultery as all of the so called witnesses fled the scene. Actually it was a a convoluted event.

But in any event Christianity was not even heard of at this time. Jesus was still alive and under the law Himself but another important fact is ignored. If the Apostle John is correct and Jesus preexisted as the Word of God and was the Creator of this creation and the giver of those same laws, then He also had the right to fulfill those laws. Make them complete. What does that mean? In the days of Moses, if one committed adultery and was convicted and sentenced to death and that one would repent, it made no difference as to the punishment. Those who were found guilty were stoned to death regardless of repenting.

To fulfill or make it justified Jesus introduced Forgiveness. Forgiveness had nothing to do with erasing that law. That law was and is still a law against adultery. It still is a law today in most all civil cultures but the punishments of that law will vary according to the culture. So the command has always been the perfect will of God but Jesus fulfilled that command with forgiveness. Each culture can now enforce that command according to their own understanding.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your response was excellent and hard to refute but I still think that mandaens could be much older than mainstream historians believe. Need more proof though, agreed.

The Sabians are not mentioned in the Torah. They are mentioned three times in the Qur'an but that is also 400 years after Christianity and 1,900 years after Moses.

I got that information from here. There are two different sabean nations mentioned in Torah here. Speculative yes.

Thanks for your well thought out reply.

a reply to: Seede

You are a wonderful wealth of knowledge Seede, thanks for your reply. I remember reading somewhere that Jesus visited England but didn't know why, until your description. I will try hunt down the book.

Thanks for replying.

a reply to: glend



" Mark relates a conversation that Jesus had with a woman in the region of Tyre and Sidon, adding the point that "the woman was a Greek" (Mark 7:26).

The disciples or students of Jesus when writing the New Testament wrote in Greek, a clear indication that their "teacher" also understood the language.

Julius Caesar stated that the Britons used Greek in their commercial transactions. Many of the educated classes in Britain spoke the language fluently. A few, such as Pomponia Graecina, were among Europe's leading scholars in the language.

If Jesus had visited Britain He would have had no language barrier to overcome.

A final indication that Jesus may well have been abroad for some years prior to His ministry is the curious relationship that He had with John the Baptist.

In comparison to the intimate rapport that Jesus had with His own disciples, His relationship with John was somewhat formal

and distant. A clue to the reason for this is given by John when he mentioned: "And I did not know him" (John 1:33).

Although the two men were related and their mothers seem to have been close friends (Luke 1:36-45), they appear to have had little or no contact as adults. Is this an indication that Jesus had been absent from the area for several years prior to His ministry?

Having related the traditions of Jesus' visit to Britain to the considerable circumstantial evidence from the gospels and other sources, one could well say that there may indeed be a gram of truth in the idea that those feet in ancient times did "walk upon England's mountains green."







Considering the Lack of Roman Historical Manuscripts to Support it , Jesus Very Well May have Spent time in Briton during his Ministry .












www.giveshare.org...

Identifying the roots of Christianity.

Or the vine in this case is Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross. What is great about the Christian faith, is that it is found in the book of the Jewish people. The old testament which is the Torah or the Tanakh is riddled with the coming of the Messiah/Savior.

John the Baptist himself is even spoken about in the OT. As for the water baptism there is a like demonstration in the book of Leviticus. As you can see below it was not called baptism then but a holy tradition/ritual. The LORD even trapped the scribes with his question concerning John's baptism.

Leviticus 16:4
4 He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his "body" in "water" and then put them on.

Leviticus
23 “Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting and shall take off the linen garments that he put on when he went into the Holy Place and shall leave them there. 24 And he shall bathe his "body" in "water" in a holy place and put on his garments and come out and offer his burnt

a reply to: glend

I'd say it's older than that, since we know even ancient Mesopotamia tells the same stories. Where they got it from was even older than that but that is where all records of such things stop so it's anyone's guess.

Yeshuah reformed the zealots from anti-Rome warriors to philosophical potheads.

He was a Nazarite, this does not indicate citizenship of Nazareth. The foundation of Christianity (not Churchianity) is the Essenes.

a reply to: BigBangWasAnEcho

The foundation of Christianity (not Churchianity) is the Essenes.

I agree its a possibility but the Essenes never mention Jesus, nor does Jesus mention the Essenes. Some Christian and Essene beliefs are similar but there are also core contradictions such as the iEssene pledge "He is to bear unremitting hatred toward all men of ill repute" and Christianities "Love your enemies".

I think there is a lot interesting overlap with Gnosticism in the early Chiristianity.

Certainly, if you read some of the Nag Hammadi texts you will find a lot more esoteric teachings not seen in the New Testament.

Whether or not the Nag Hammadi texts reveal authentic early Christian teachings is something that is still debated today.

I am however very suspicious of what material was selected and put into the bible (specifically the NT) because men are easily corrupt, and certainly the Roman Empire is no stranger to that. It is very easy to be very selective over choosing certain texts that align with the narrative you want to create/use and easy to ignore the ones that do not.

Men are not infallible, and the people chosen to put this together aren't either.