"you are going to have to demonstrate why you believe such a Talmudic group were Muslim followers of Jesus?".
You'd have to demonstrate for me that because they had little study of the Torah, they then had study of the Talmud. Because if they had study of the Talmud, then as the quote puts it, they would not have had little study of the Torah. So either your argument is invalid or the CE is lying. Which is it?
"We are this far into the discussion, and you still haven't brought any texts from the Essenes themselves which speak of their beliefs in Jesus. Please do so. Produce the goods!"
I did, you just pretended not to see them:
"4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]"
Miracle Birth + Word/ Breath from God. Fits in with the Islamic perspective.
"1. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was the Messiah."
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness." - The Complete DSS, Vernes pg 87.
"2. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was born of a virgin."
Quoted above already, MSS Papyri # given.
"3. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not crucified."
"4Q252 5:1-4 [V5/462Ð63, GM/215, WAC/277] A sovereign shall not be removed from the tribe of Judah. While Israel has the dominion, there will not lack someone who sits on the throne of David. For the staff is the covenant of royalty, the thousands of Israel are the feet . . . Until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the Branch of David. For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of royalty over his people for all everlasting generations. . . ."
"1QS 9:11 [V5/100, GM/13Ð14, WAC/139] They shall . . . be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until here shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."
No death, he'd rule the Israelites for everlasting generations, until the Prophet comes and unites with him the Messiah of Israel. Strangely enough, an Islamic belief as well.
"4. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not the son of God."
"1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10] [V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94] She labors in her pains who bears a man. For amid the throes of Death She shall bring forth a man-child, and amid the pains of Hell there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible a Marvelous Mighty Counselor [Isaiah 9:5-6]; and a Man shall be delivered from out of the throes."
Son of God? Nope. God's son? Nope. Man God? Nope.
"5. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not the Divine."
Yes, it's so funny! I spelled someone's name wrong in a paragraph. Such a disaster! Shocking!
"And stop misrepresenting what Clair Tisdall is saying. If you look at the quote carefully that you've ben referring to, Tisdall is speaking about groups throughout different periods who migrated to Arabia, even centuries before the Essenes came onto the scene, or are you going to tell me that every single group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes? After all, you're assuming that this group agreed with EVERYTHING that the Mohammaden authors believed."
If you read his quote, or rather your quote of him, they last time period he gives, is in line with the second temple being destroyed, which fits in with the criteria I've been using all long:
"Based upon those words, you have concluded that it means that Mohammaden authors agreed with everything that this group of Jews believed. Are you going to dare to make that same mistake again? If you do, I will take you to task for it!".
If you read Clair's words, he states that allegedly, we are in agreement with most of their works/ beliefs because we borrowed them. That is explicit. You can take me to task, but it's not going to help you. Seeing as he asserts that our beliefs are so similar we had to copy them, then he is in implicit agreement that our ideologies were similar. This would agree with the Islamic narrative that the Sunnah of a people from a Prophet would differ. So that gives us a leeway of differing with them in some areas.
"Then you have Hadrian (76AD-138AD). The problem with this is glaringly obvious. This group fled from Hadrian between 130 and 135AD from Jerusalem! Since there were no further records of the Essenes after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, the group that fled to Arabia from Jerusalem from 130AD - 135AD were obviously not the Essenes!".
Your argument can be easily disproved, the dates are tentative, but revolve around the Temple's destruction, we know they fled at this specific point in time and shortly thereafter, in which the CE indicates the date of their disappearance as we knew them in Judea/ Qumran to be near the end of the first century not exactly, absolutely in 70 AD:
"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D."
"4 migrations to Arabia are mentioned by Clair Tisdall."
So are you therefore claiming there are only 4 mass Jewish migrations to Arabia? This isn't a spoken debate, but a written, so under the same criteria you held me under previously, I shall ask of you to be honest and do the same. List all the possible migrations and let's look at them. If you are sticking to only these 4 then, you're being dishonest, as we know there were more.
"1 migration occurred before the Essenes existed as a sect. 1 migration occurred after the Essenes had been wiped out."
Your second premise was refuted in my previous comment:
The CE says: "The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D. "
Whereas we do have documents from their caves dating between 132-135 AD from the 2nd jewish revolt, see DSS Bastian Elveren.
I already provided manuscripts for their beliefs, in numerous comments above. Just scroll and you'd have them, this is assuming of course, you are literate.
"Ah Abu. It seems that you're a few steps behind so I'll bring you up to speed. The mentioning of the Septuagint was to show that Jews were not confined to the Dead Sea Scrolls readings but also did use the Septuagint. I was not even addressing whether the Septuagint readings are superior to the Masoretic or DSS texts or not. We know that various Jewish groups rejected Jesus as being the Messiah, so an appeal to Isaiah 7:14 as proof that the Essenes believed in the virgin birth of Jesus does not hold water. And by the way, the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of manuscripts that pre-dated them. I hope you're aware of this. You seriously not trying to assume that the Essenes actually authored Isaiah 7:14 are you?".
What's wrong with you? Either you're drunk or high, otherwise you'd have to provide some logical explanation as to how you could derive such an inane argument from my writing. In any case, I already demonstrated they believed in a miraculous birth from the Word/ Breath of God:
4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]
"Ah, now you want to appeal to the Panarion again. A few posts back you were rejecting Epiphanius' work and used a quote from Bart Ehrman''s book but now you want to invoke him again?".
I didn't reject the Panarion, recall my words from Barth, wherein I stated clearly that I took the claims which were in contradiction with the other Patristics, with a pound of salt.
"How can you derive the Essene's view of the MESSIAH by looking at the Old Testament? Where do you get the idea that the Old Testament speaks of the Essene's view of the Messiah? That the Essenes differed from the Pharisees in their traditions does not tell you what their view of the Messiah actually was!"
I look at the MST and the DSS and they are very similar:
"Compared to the often meaningful divergences between the traditional Hebrew text and its ancient Greek, Latin or Syriac translations, the few variant readings of the Masoretic Bible manuscripts, ignoring obvious scribal errors, mainly concern spelling. By contrast, the Qumran scriptural scrolls, and especially the fragments, are characterized by extreme fluidity: they often differ not just from the customary wording but also, when the same book is attested by several manuscripts, among themselves. In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text." - Complete DSS, Vermes, pg 16.
"What? That's your proof? What a let-down. Abu, all that's telling me is that the Greeks refer to a group of people who live in the same way that the Essenes do, and they call them Pythagoreans."
It states their beliefs were the same which matched other groups:
"In Greece the Pythagoreans, in Egypt the Therapeuts, and in Syria the Essenes."
"That does not make them the same group. If you insist that they are, then I will congratulate you for destroying your case once again. The Pythagoreans were polytheists! Still want to claim that they are the same group? Just because you've got two groups that engage in some similar practices does not make them identical. Abu you really shot yourself in the foot with that one!"
At the time of Josephus we read and accept according to his understanding they are the same. After that they may have differed but during the time of Josephus, we atleast have a uniform belief on their doctrine towards God, which is also bolstered by their anti-Trinitarian dogma:
"They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient." - CE.
"Same beliefs in Egypt ? Congratulations, more polytheism. Keep this up Abu, your Imam will be proud. Oh, in case you didn't catch that, it was sarcasm.".
Again, I can actually provide references for my arguments and link my quotes together with sequitur conclusions, you on the other hand, deny, make some random statement and then an insult at the end of each comment.
"It was to demonstrate their dilgence to preserving their teachings."
They did preserve their teachings, so well, we have them:
"The procedure followed in inquiries into infringements of the Law and the sect’s Rule has been preserved, and the list of faults with their corresponding sentences tells us more about the mentality of the Dead Sea ascetics than any isolated exposition of their doctrine and principles can do." - Ibid, Vermes, pg 30.
You claimed:: "But instead you want us to believe that they basically decided to leave their manuscripts in their caves and abandon them, travelling miles away, with no possibility of passing them onto their children. Nice strawman you made."
So the Qurman scrolls according to your logic, couldn't have been put in caves, hidden from the invading Roman armies, preserved for some 2000 years because they were diligent in their faith? So let's see, if the people who left the scrolls behind weren't diligent Essenes, then who left them there?
So Abu tell me is the Islamic Jesus, a New Mosses? Is the Islamic Jesus Elijah? Also tell us if Jesus is the “Teacher of Righteousness and he is a Messiah” then who are the other Two Messiahs that they were waiting for?
Abu what you have done, what you did in our debate and what you continue to do is take various quotes by various authors and either make a conclusion that they never would do, or ascribe to them a conclusion that they would never dream of.
So Abu tell me is it Geza Vermes position that Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness? Is it Robert Eisermens position that Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness’? How did you conclude that the teacher of Righteousness is in fact Jesus?"
If you read the quote, it brings to light a few questions for you, not for me:
“Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah (Mal. iv, 5; 1 Enoch xc, 31, 37; Matth. xi, 13; xvii, 12), or as a divine guide sent to Israel in the final days (1 Mac. iv, 46; xiv, 41; Jn. i, 21), no doubt identical with ‘the Prophet’ promised by God to Moses (‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you… He shall convey all my commands to them’, Deut. xviii, 15–18; cf. Acts iii, 22–3; vii, 37).
They expected a new leader like Moses, someone who would lead their people to prosperity, this is one of the many roles of the Messiah.
Note that the Jews at Jesus' time were also looking for an Elijah, if we read the NT, that's exactly what the Pharisees did.
Therefore using your quote from Vermes, pg 87 and my quote, they were expecting a Messiah soon, who would be like Moses and lead them, something which their scrolls indicated:
"1QS 9:11 [V5/100, GM/13Ð14, WAC/139] They shall . . . be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."
However his rule (the Messiah(s) of Israel) would end with the coming of the Prophet, which Prophet? Well they weren't expecting one from Israel nor a Messiah from Aaron, but a Prophet, see Deu. 18:18, who would also follow on the path of Moses.
"Funny how you isolate the Zealots. I simply mentioned them to counter the claim that there were only 3 main sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus.I actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia.".
I know you claimed that. Which contradicts your next statement:
"In fact I repeatedly claimed that I could not make a positive identification for this group precisely because we are not given any identification of that group in any source."
So you supposed that the Zealots or an amalgamated group of Jews were the group that migrated, but now you're saying you can't identify the group as such? So either you've changed your position, or figured your evidence was so shoddy you've abandoned your point!
"Furthermore, the debate thesis was “Were the ESSENES the pre-mohammad islamic followers of Jesus” You were debating for the affirmative, thus the burden of proof fell upon you to prove that thesis. It was your job to provide the evidence that the group were Essenes."
You finally realised this, did you? I made the point that I did not have to present any other groups but the Essenes, yet for over 18 comments you chided me for not examining the Zealots and any other groups beside the Pharisees and Sadducees. Do you not see your own hypocrisy?
As for who has to do what. As I told you, I already positively identified the Essenes, your job, well Radical's job was to negate my evidences and prove they weren't. You on the other hand, walked in for him and have decided to positively identify two possible groups. Now I've done my part, so your job is now two fold, refute the arguments I have presented for my group and then demonstrate to me why the groups you chose were the ones who migrated. Simple.
"IRRELEVANT - Not my job to identify the group that left Judea. The group is never identified in any historical source."
See the reference from Josephus who mentions they were present in his time and in numerous areas under different names, as I previously quoted. So yes, there was a historical source which did identify them. Problem?
"Where do you get the idea that this migrating group of Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah? I never asserted such a thing. But since you believe this, I will again ask you for the manuscript evidence."
See my quote from Vermes, that her asserts their Messiah must have already come and secondly that the Messiah was divinely brought into the world, i.e. miracle birth. Who does that sound like to you?
"That a group of Jews who had limited knowledge of the bible, did not establish regular study who brought a limited knowledge of the Talmud, fled to Arabia after the war of 70 AD."
Please tell Royalson this, he thinks they actually brought the Talmud with them. Is he right, or are you? If so, should I adopt his position or yours?
"You then just conclude that they were Essenes because they did not produce any Talmudic authority accept what Mohamadian authors considered. You also base your conclusion that Clair Tinsdale called the Mohamadians Jewish Heretics and that Mohamed borrowed so much of his new religion from the Jews of Arabia. That’s an interesting position Abu since I thought Islam came from ALLAH and not from the Jews. Are you saying that Mohamed got revelation from the JEWS?Abu you then throw in some random quote about the Essenes from I don’t know since you never site a source."
I cited all my sources, why are you being dishonest?
"What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor."
They were very religious, more so than the Pharisees, have you not read Josephus' account of them? It's really explicit all the rituals they did.
"Yes the Essenes where first century Jews so its good to know they held a first century Jewish idea about the Messiah. And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
What is interesting now, is that after having asked for me to prove that the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth, you now claim to have known that. Please provide evidence for me where you proved they believed in a virgin birth, that is the Essenes, specifically. That was one of the 3 pivots of veracity in the debate. Strange enough now, you claim to have known this, so either you hid the fact they did believe this, which is dishonest, or you only now came to know of it, but don't want to concede you didn't, so therefore you must be arrogant. Which is it?
"Abu Geza Vermes does not say the Messiah was already with them. Geza Vermes position is that the Prophet only mentioned once is a “Possible Third Messiah” and that he is the Teacher of Righteousness who is the founder of the Community.
Let's quote Vermes: "If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
Comparing the two parts in the bold with your statement, I do believe you are either lying or trying to deceive yourself. I do emplore you to surrender your spirit of deceit and enter into the truth.
"As far as the broken verse there is only two possible ways it could be read. “He killed” or “Had Killed” or as Robert Eiserman has it “He was killed”.
Quote and cite him and the source which you claim, and then we'd work from there. No evidence, renders no response.
"So you choose was the Mesiah the branch of David Killed or did he Kill someone. So if you disagree with that then take it up with the scholars who have worked on the DSS scrolls I’m sure they would love to laugh at you just as much as we are laughing at you now."
I'm still laughing at you, cite where Eisenmann or Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed, because I showed otherwise:
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
So it's either you agree with the evidence given by Vermes or you're saying Vermes is lying. Which is it?
"So the Kittim are Jews that are being conquered? Wow stretching the bounds of all reason and logic."
Are you dense? I said the opposite, that the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.
"I do not have to deal with your pathetic attempt to run from the debate topic as well as the topic of this discussion. Whether or not the Jews or the Essenes of the first century believed in the suffering of the Messiah or not is irrelevant to the topic."
I think someone's words indicate they are upset. That quote is from the renowned scholar whom you appeal to. The person who has studied the DSS, seeing as he has studied the DSS, and the Essenes are Jews, then this quote is extremely relevant.
"You have to prove that they believed in JESUS that they knew Jesus and now that he was their righteous teacher and all the other nonsensical claims you continue to make."
Awww, someone's really ticked off now, it's actually kind of cute, you've been shot down with so many quotes and references from sources you trusted and now they're backfiring. I already demonstrated two things, both from quotes from Vermes, the first being from The Complete DSS, pg 87 that their Messiah had come and from 4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] that the Messiah was born of a virgin. Problem? For you, yes.
“It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q471b, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).” Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 86). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
“The editor of the second text, Esther Eshel, proposes the more likely interpretation that the speaker of the hymn is the eschatological high priest, first humiliated by his opponents before sharing the glory of the ‘gods’ or ‘holy ones’. Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 342). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
Messiah != High Priest. He made the claim for 3 Messiahs, none of which are called High Priests. Therefore your quotes are useless in this case, just throwing sand in the air to mask your ignorance and shame.
"Was it that group of Essenes that you believe migrated while the ones holding to celibacy were not involved in the migrattion or do you believe it was a combination of the two?".
You need to read the Panarion, Josephus' works and the JE, where those who married returned to the order afterwards, while another subset married and allowed marriage entirely.
"Of course the knowledge of each person would have differed, and the example of wives and children is a good example."
I know. ;-)
"However, it would still be the intent of the Essenes to ensure the preservation of their texts and teachings. However, you want us to believe that they simply cast them aside and moved to Arabia. I'm not sure why you come to this conclusion."
So you're saying it wasn't the Essenes who fled Roman persecution, and hid their writings in their caves in Qumran? Who then were the authors at Qumran?
"Perpetually a lover of truth: Does that truth include what He considers to be the inspired word of God? ".
I don't see why not.
"Equally preserve the books belonging to their sect: Just abandon them in caves?"
See, now your argument supposes if the Essenes loved their books then they wouldn't have left them in caves. The consensus of all DS scholars is that the authors and the persons who lived in Qumran were the Essenes. Essentially, as of now, you're arguing against all of Dead Sea scholarship, textual criticism, historians and archaeologists.
"Their scripture is a part of their tradition, and you believe they simply discarded it and left it in caves."
So the Essenes did not leave their scrolls and papyri in the caves of Qumran, who did then?
"There you've gone and shot yourself in the foot again. So now you're saying that the Mohammaden authors would have considered them unlearned in the scriptures because their teachings would not be preached to them. Haha, so in other words, the Mohammaden authors didn't really get much out of them. So then how can you conclude that they got the beliefs of Jesus out of them? You don't realise how often you keep contradicting yourself Abu. It's quite sad really."
You seriously need to learn how to read. I said if we function with your argument, then working from it we derive the following understanding:
"It’s plausible by your argument as you claim they only kept their doctrine to themselves, therefore to others they would seemed unlearned of their scriptures, as it would not be preached to them. Thanks for proving my argument for me. Now to turn it on you, can you demonstrate if according to you the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots held such a belief or were unlearned in the teaching of the Torah?".
Please learn to read, I am using *your* supposed argument, if you think it's foolish, then you're really exposing the fallacies of your own premises. See? If I accept your arguments, you clearly displayed that we would both be wrong. Good job, kiddo.
"Whether or not they physically had the Talmud in their possession is irrelevant. That this generation would have knowledge of the Talmud infers that they had learnt it from their parents. As such, what we do know is that their forefathers followed the Talmud. You ought to know that the Talmud speaks very negatively of Jesus. Still want to insist that this group were followers of Jesus?"
Where did the forefathers of the Essenes allow the Talmud? This mysterious group of whom you are referring to who migrated, what evidence do you have to suggest they once held and studied the Talmud? It's obvious they had some knowledge, so which group of Jews is this that migrated, but only had some knowledge of the Talmud?
"It does not say tha tthey didn't produce any Rabbinic Authority, it says they didn't produce any Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors."
Which Rabbinic authority do Muslims accept?
"Earlier you suggested that this group would have suppressed their teachings from the Mohammedan authors giving the appearance that they were not well studied by way of applying their oath."
Sorry Royalson, that was *your* argument, I was only using it to see what you'd say if I used your argument. I said, if your argument was plausible, then such and such would be the case. Since you've thus, then demonstrated that the premises derived from your very own argument are fallacious, then you've really proven that your *own* argument was absurd. Good job.
"And again, the fact that this generation in Arabia had knowledge of the Talmud centuries after the migration of their forefathers certainly implies that such Talmudic knowledge had been passed onto them by them. Again, the reference says “no Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors. That does not mean no Rabbinic authority at all. Please read the sources carefully before you form your arguments."
Please note, that the CE states explicitly that the group which migrated, had little study, not the group which came after the group that migrated. You are reading the statement incorrectly. The group which went to Arabia, at that time had little study of the Torah, not the other way around.
"It would be blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be God unless.........He is God! Too bad you made a categorical fallacy and forced the application of a mere creature to Jesus, and yet Abu, there are no texts that you have produced for us so far where the Essenes denied the Deity of Jesus Christ."
I already quoted many texts:
1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10] [V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94] She labors in her pains who bears a man. For amid the throes of Death She shall bring forth a man-child, and amid the pains of Hell there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible a Marvelous Mighty Counselor [Isaiah 9:5-6]; and a Man shall be delivered from out of the throes.
He's called a man, not a son of God, God's son, Jesus, Yeshua, YHWH, just a man.
"Please demonstrate the contradictory attributions of the Church Fathers regarding the subsets of the Ebionites. Then once you've done that, please demonstrate the belief that ONE subset believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Please show me your sources so I can see what you take as valid. Simply trying to dismiss Epiphanius shortly after appealing to him in the same breath by invoking Bart Ehrman does not bode well for your credibility, sorry to say."
See your buddy Radical, who stated the following:
" And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
So he confirms the standard Jewish belief (and the Ebionites were Messianic Jews) held this belief. So is Radical wrong?
Also, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Bart Ehrman is wrong, that they were indeed united in the belief that Jesus was born of a man. I provided two sources (Panarion and Bart) which demonstrate they differed. You therefore have to provide a source which says they were monolithic and unanimous in this position of being born of a man.
Which you did admit, they did differ, so you do agree with me, as you said this a paragraph later:
"And then Epiphanius goes on to EXPLAIN what those differences were"
So they did differ, the belief of Christ being man was not unanimous, therefore you've proven yourself wrong.
"And obviously you would think that the Pharisees are poorly learnt anyway since they misapplied scripture, rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, rejecting Him as being born of a virgin, and believing in his crucifixion!"
What's funny with this is that now you're so desperate, you're defending the Pharisees who hated Christ, when we Muslims love him! So in your haste to deny and attack everything I say, you're now having to say that the Pharisees were well learned and that's why they rejected Christ. Thanks for the anti-Christ position you just took, justifying the Jewish position. How funny.
"Please be aware that you are comparing apples and oranges, for in the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus positively states that He is not the Messiah. Yet in the Gospels, Jesus does not say “I am not good”, rather He asks a question, “Why do you call me good? There is none that is good but God.” Now was Jesus saying He's not good here? No. In fact, He also refers to Himself as the Good Shepherd. With the Gospel of Barnabas however, Jesus says He is not the Messiah. You want to tell me that “I am not the Messiah” does not mean “I am not the Messiah.” "
Illogical reasoning. How does Christ saying he is not good, make him God?
Using the same reasoning. Christ claiming not to be the Christ, makes him Christ.
Simple. I use your logic and you tell me I'm wrong. It's good to see we agree on your logic and rationale.
"Again, Jesus is not claiming He is not good. He is questioning a person about why they call Him good."
If you ask me if I am good and I say, as a Muslim, that none is good but Allaah. Does not make me Allaah?
There we go. So far Royalson, has deemed most of his own arguments false, when I use them to demonstrate my points. Scroll up and see, any point I presupposed that could be plausible, he later says is wrong. Which means his own arguments are against himself.
I presented many manuscript evidences, yet he persists in saying I did not. Royalson, try to debate me in person, log in on Paltalk and do it like a man. ;-)
Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate:
"Admit it Abu, you cited a sentence in Israel Knohl's work, without even realising the intent of his book!".
If you watched the debate, then you would know the opposite is actually the truth. I referenced him a few times in his grasping of the reality of Jesus' life in relation to the Essenes and his functioning among them.
My Response:
No sir, here is what Israel Knohl says about Jesus and the Essenes:
“In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.” - (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
Abu said:
"Now it's funny that you appeal to a view which rests on the "lack of authetic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source" as you say.
Actually, if you read Israel's book, he states that the view of the majority of scholars are aligned with mines, i.e. no suffering Messiah.
"Let's test your consistency Abu - Do you have authentic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source for the Essenes? You talk about going with the majority view."
DSS. Simple.
My Response:
Then show me these 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essene's view of Jesus. This is what I've been waiting for. Show me the goods Abu!
"Let me test you on this line for consistency also - Do the majority of Scholars consider the Essenes to be the one sect to have migrated to Arabia prior to Mohammad ? Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus Christ by way of crucifixion to be a historical event?".
The Essenes also known in Greece as the Pythagoreans, in Egypt as the Therapeuts, and in Syria as the Essenes.So yes, whether you are educated enough to grasp it, they did spread throughout Arabia at varying points in time.
We as Muslims also consider the death of someone in the place of the Messiah to be valid. So someone was crucified, whether or not he's the son of God, a Messiah, a Jewish rebel, a bastard as the Jews claim, or a Prophet is all up for discussion.
My Response:
Again, the Pythagoreans were POLYTHEISTS. Stop appealing to them. You have no idea what you're doing.
Now I asked you plainly if you go with the majority view of the scholars regarding the death of Jesus, since you appealed to the majority opinion. I'm testing your consistency. I will ask you again – Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no? Don't tell me what Muslims consider to be valid. You appealed to the majority view of scholars. Tell me what the majority of scholars say about this matter.
And by the way, while we're on this matter of the majority of scholars, let's say what Israel Knohl has to say about them in his book. These are the people you appealed to with regards to the concept of the rising and dying Messiah to be absent from Judaism:
“the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.8 In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus. (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
So you see Abu, even those scholars who say that the concept was foreign to Judaism say that these things were added after Jesus' death!
Why is it that whenever you appeal to spurious references in books, I only have to look at the context to see that you are either ignorant of the content or are being wilfully deceptive?
"Ok, so you copy/pasted a reference and quote from the back of Knohl's book - The Messiah before Jesus.".
Please don't cast aspersions. Those views are from the introduction. Or for your understanding, in the front of the book.
"Abu do you even realise what you're doing here? Your spitting out these references as if they're supposed to bolster your case.".
They do, I present the case that the Messiah is not one to have been killed and then resurrected, of which Israel states was the majority view in his book.
I have already presented materials from the Zohar, the Talmud, and other Rabbinical quotations which presented the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, by linking the Messiah to Isaiah 53. Then you said – These aren't talking about Jesus, they're talking about other Messiahs. Abu, I am well aquainted with the fact that the Talmud is a book which is very much against Jesus. I am aware that Rabbis who linked Isaiah 53 with the Messiah did not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. That is not the point. I'm simply demonstrating to you that these scholars who assert that there was no concept of a rising and dying Messiah in early Judaism is wrong. The concept of Messianic death and resurrection is there, the dispute is on who the Messiah is. So again, you may appeal to this “majority of scholars” all you like, it does not help you. Especially, as I pointed out earlier, these scholars believe that these concepts were added after Jesus' death. Before you attempt to wield your weapon, you had better take care that it's not pointing back at you first.
Abu said:
"Do you believe Israel Knohl's position? Do you find his arguments credible? If not, then why do you keep quoting the guy when his position goes squarely against your thesis?".
Please read his book or watch the debate between your Theos and I, he opens the book by exploring Jesus' time with the Essenes, something which I would agree with.
My Response: And what does he go on to do Abu? He goes on to explain that Jesus had the belief that he was going to die and rise from the dead after three days because according to Knohl, this is what happened exactly one generation before Jesus. Abu, you took an isolated quote, you didn't even pay attention to it when it mentioned that the scholars believed that Jesus had died!
Let me ask you this question. Do you think there was a concept in early Judaism of a Messiah escaping death by being substituted by someone else? What would the majority of scholars have to say about that one?
When I asked you about the majority of scholars and their position on the death by crucifixion of Jesus, all you could say was that it's up for discussion. I'm asking you a simple yes/no question – Do the majority of scholars believe that Jesus' death by crucifixion was an historical event? Please answer yes or no, and I'll see how honest you are being.
Abu said:
"If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it.".
Those quotes agree with the understanding that there is no historical basis for the claim of a suffering/ dead/ resurrected Messiah, why then, would I not reference them?
My Response:
Let's test these two syllogisms side by side.
Abu says:
1. Israel Knohl says that the majority of scholars believe that the concept of a rising and dying messiah was foreign to Judaism. 2. Therefore Jesus did not die and rise from the dead.
Israel Knohl says:
1. These very scholars say the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was added after Jesus' death. 2. Abu appeals to these very scholars as evidence against the death and resurrection of the Messiah. 3. Therefore Jesus died and is not the Messiah of Islam.
1. Jesus died according to the scholars Abu wants to side with. 2. Abu believes that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion event. 3. I likewise believe that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion event. 4. Therefore Jesus rose from the dead.
You see Abu, we can play these games all day. You have to be more careful about the conclusions you draw from statements in a book. You're not helping your case. You are squirming and twisting and coming up with all kinds of arbitrary criteria. It makes for a very messy presentation.
I can almost predict the kind of response you would make. You would try and make a new syllogism with my beliefs as a Christian against statements from Israel Knohl like this:
1. Royalson appeals to the majority of scholars who say that Jesus died. 2. Royalson believes that Jesus rose from the dead. 3. These same scholars say that the concept of a rising and dying messiah was foreign to Judaism. 4. Therefore Royalson does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
And this is the kind of thing you have been doing all along, you appeal to a source. When I test your consistency on that source you try to force it back on me as if somehow I was the one appealing to its authority and claims in the first place.
No Abu, you are the person that is appealing to this "majority of scholars". You need to be consistent. You need to understand why certain scholars come to the positions that they do. You also need to consider whether the quotes or arguments you appeal to are going to backfire on your position. If they do, it would be wise that you don't invoke them in the first place.
"With regards to Sanhedrin 98b, the purpose if you may recall was not for me to show that Jesus was believed by these Rabbis to be the Messiah, for I certainly do not hold the Talmud as a source of infallible inspiration. It simply is a document the reflects some rabbinical opinions and teachings of its time.".
Sorry, let's apply your own criteria on the use of a citation or reference:
"Now you quoted for me the reference, so I'm going to ask you Royalson, have you read the entire Talmudic works?
Have you read all of the Talmud? have you read the Jewish commentaries on the Talmud? Do you think the Talmud's positions agrees with the Jesus of the Bible? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe in a Jesus Christ who performed miracles? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? What kind of a Jesus does the Talmud present Royalson?
My response: I am well aware of the hateful view the Talmud presents of Jesus. My simple application of it was to respond to your application of Israel Knohl's quote regarding the majority of scholars believing that the concept of a rising and dying Messiah was foreign to Judaism. Thus my issue was not to show whether or not the Talmud believes Jesus is the Messiah. It's plainly obvious that it does not. Jesus was not the issue. The issue was if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah could be found in Judaism. I presented several sources that showed this concept even though the sources rejected Jesus Christ Himself as the Messiah. This is what is known as hostile attestation. To put it simply, if Non-Christian Jews taught the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, then the view of this “majority of scholars” in Israel Knohl's book are in error with regards to the concept. As to whether or not they believe any particular matter about Jesus, that's another issue altogether.
In your case however, your application of Israel Knohl's work was to convey this thought that the majority of scholars believed that Jesus had not died or risen when in fact Knohl explains that these very scholars believe such details were added after ther death of Jesus.
As far as your criteria goes, I have never made it a requirement to read the entire works of a source to provide a citation. If you believe I have made such a requirement, please quote me as saying such. What I do expect however, is that if you are going to cite a source, you will be honest enough with the quotes you give. I have seen you on a number of occasions omit sentences before, after, or even with your quotes which totally destroy your position.
Let me make this clear to you because I think you're getting upset with my calling into question your integrity by citing Israel Knohl the way that you did; When you quoted Israel Knohl, you gave the impression that his position agreed with the very statement you were quoting, and that simply is not the case. Not only so but the majority of scholars mentioned are said to believe that the writings occurred after the death of Jesus. This is the reason given. As such, your appeal to this majority worked against your own position.
The reason I asked if you had read the book you were citing was because each time you gave these references, the contexts destroyed your position.
Examples:
1. You appealed to the panarion of Epiphanius with regards to the virgin birth. When I pointed out that He goes on to mention the alternate views to the natural birth theory, showing a Christ who is Adam, or a Christ who is distinct from Jesus, not once giving the account of being born of a virgin you said that you didn't believe it and jumped to Bart Ehrman to rescue you.
2. When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the beliefs of the Essenes, you completely ommited the mention of sun-reverence, again saying that you did so because you said there's no other reference to it in historical sources. My guess is that the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably referring to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book2, where he writes:
“Nay, on other days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. “ (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 148).
“And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 128).
3. One one occasion, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia that this group produced no rabbinical authority, you ommitted the words that followed: “Beyond that which was considered by the Mohammedan authors.”
4. When you quoted from Epiphanius about the differences of the Ebionites you omitted the very next sentence that gave the reason for their difference, which was their following of the false prophet Elxai. You also ommitted the mention of what the actual different positions were, and none of them were the Islamic position. And your response ? Bart Ehrman. Absolutely amazing.
Abu said:I'm asking you this, because it seems that every time you provide a reference and I go to what the reference actually has to say, destroying your case, you tell me that you don't believe it. If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it."
With that, we have your own argument, collapsing on you.
My Response: No sir, I question your reading of the sources because you mishandle them so badly.
"Furthermore, the link to the being named a leper scholar was found in their applying Isaiah 53 to this person because this one who bears the griefs and sorrows of Israel!
Please try to understand your own God-man/ Demi-god before arguing with me on him, see verse 10:
" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."
So your God made Jesus ill with leprosy is what you're claiming? He was called the leper scholar because he was stricken with the illness.
"We can note that Jesus not only did such, but he likewise mingled with and healed lepers and those of all kinds of diseases. Was Christ ill? Yes, He was dying! I'd call that pretty ill wouldn't you?".
Was he dying of leprosy? What illness was he suffering that caused him to die?
He was ill from the torture, the whipping, the beating, the scourging, and the crucifixion on the cross. Now I've been generous to allow you to utilise that particular translation, but please, don't ignore the many other translations that exist:
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. -NIV
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. - ESV
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. - NKJV
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. - KJV
10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief ; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. - NASB
I hope this conveys the idea clearly enough to you that what is being spoken of is not an illness caused by some kind of pathogenic infection, rather it is speaking of a suffering that was experienced in the torture before and during the cross.
"Did he have children? Yes, spiritually, through the miracle of resurrection. Your questioning reflects the same kind of misunderstanding as Nicodemus in John 3:4."
Please note your logic does not follow through. Either the entire passage points to either spiritual illness and spiritual children or physical illness and physical children. Otherwise, you have to demonstrate where the Jews believed in either or, or neither nor as is the case with your argument.
My Response: This is exactly what I've been talking about. You come up with arbitrary criteria and I have no idea where that comes from. Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?
Examine one of your beloved verses in your Qur'an:
4:171 - O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. - YUSUF ALI.
In this verse Jesus is referred to as Allah's word and spirit proceeding from Him. Is this word and spirit physical or spiritual? How about Jesus? Is He spiritual or physical? I'm asking according to your beliefs as a Muslim. Do you still believe that physical and spiritual concepts cannot abide together?
Abu said:
"I repeat, my citing of these works is not to show that the Talmudic authors believed Jesus to be the Messiah, for they were certainly against Jesus, but the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was certainly not foreign to them. That was my point."
Nothing from Yeshayahu indicates a dying Messiah, suffering perhaps, but dying? No. Cut from the land of the living? Means he was exiled according to the Judaic commentary:
"The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them."
My Response:
Nothing is given as a proof that this is the intention of such words. In fact, there is only one other place in scripture where this language is repeated:
“Moreover, the LORD made it known to me and I knew it; Then You showed me their deeds. But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter ; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, And let us cut him off from the land of the living, That his name be remembered no more." But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, Who tries the feelings and the heart, Let me see Your vengeance on them, For to You have I committed my cause. Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, so that you will not die at our hand "- Jeremiah 18:20-21
It is evident that cut off from the land of the living refers to death. Since Isaiah 53 speaks of crushing this suffering servant, and this one pouring our his soul unto death, I see absolutely no reason why you should find Rashi's explanation valid.
"Finally, considering that the group of Jews that migrated to Arabia brought the Talmud with them."
Nothing indicates they brought the Talmud with them. They had some knowledge of it as the CE indicates but as for bringing it with them? None. Otherwise why would they quote say they had little study of the Torah? That's a contradiction in your reading and thinking.
My Response: Put two and two together Abu. A group of Jews meet the “Mohammaden authors” roughly 500 years after the migation following the destruction of the second temple. This group has some knowledge of the Talmud. Where did that knowledge of the talmud come from Abu? Obviously it must have been handed to them by their parents, and subsequently the grandparents, great-grandparents, an so on all the way back to this group who had migrated. Now I'm going to ask you, how did these descendents, still manage to have knowledge of the talmud even 500 years after the migration to Arabia? Surely this migrating group would have been talmudic abiding Jews. Yet we know that the Talmud presents a negative picture of Jesus. Such would indicate that the migrating group are not the people you're looking for.
"No sir, here is what Israel Knohl says about Jesus and the Essenes:
“In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.” - (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I)."
Whereas he says later on:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,” the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building. The winter sun rises in the east over the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab, which are visible in the distance." - The Messiah Before Jesus, Israel Knohl, pg 5.
So they have a Masjid or in English, a house of prostratin (sujood), they have a prayer (salaah) before the sun rises, an early morning prayer (Fajr salaah), through which they cease praying when the sun is rising (same as in Islam). So if you accept certain element of his book, why not accept that Christ, Jesus was a Muslim performing Fajr Salaah?
"When the reading of Pollio’s letter is finished, the Messiah leaves the royal palace for the Essene Quarter. He enters one of the many ritual baths that exist in the quarter, disrobes, and immerses himself in the bath. After this purification he puts on a white garment given to him by one of the members of his community." - Ibid, pg 7-8.
He then performs Ghusl / Wudhu, or in English ritual purification, the same as in Islam.
"The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest and by the Messiah, who is the nasi (leader) of the community....To the members of the Essene sect, the nasi is the Messiah, destined to rule over all the nations." - Ibid, pg 9.
We then see that he, Jesus, was their Messiah, who lead the blessing of the food among them.
Again, if you're going to appeal to Israel Knohl, atleast make it known you're going to cherry pick what he says Non-Royalson, it's just really funny.
"Then show me these 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essene's view of Jesus. This is what I've been waiting for. Show me the goods Abu!"
I posted this some 12 times in my previous comments, why do you ask, when I have already given? Are you slow of reading or simply ignorant?
See Geza Vermes, Complete DSS, pg 87. See Israel Knohls', The Messiah before Jesus, pp 6-9. See DSS, 1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10] [V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94], 4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428].
"Again, the Pythagoreans were POLYTHEISTS. Stop appealing to them. You have no idea what you're doing."
Actually, to the contrary, Josephus says they are like the Essenes, if we recall from the CE, were strict adherents to Monotheism. He never once states they are polytheists, rather he contradicts you and says they are just like each other, specifically highlighting the differencing in naming:
"The Essens also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere." - Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 10, Paragraph 4.
"Now I asked you plainly if you go with the majority view of the scholars regarding the death of Jesus, since you appealed to the majority opinion. I'm testing your consistency. I will ask you again – Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no? Don't tell me what Muslims consider to be valid. You appealed to the majority view of scholars. Tell me what the majority of scholars say about this matter."
All scholars, even Muslims agree that someone died on the cross. No one denies that. As to the identity of who died on the cross/ stick/ tree, well everyone differs. Was it that Jesus died? Was it a man looking like Jesus (Didymus? as the works of Thomas indicate), was it the son of God, the archangel Michael? Was it the king of the Jews? Was it not Jesus, but some other man? Was it a Jewish rebel? There are many views of who died on the cross. Working with the majority view, we all agree someone died, as for who died, still a mystery to all, seeing as you have no first person verbatim source which explicitly states it was Jesus, you are in a worse off position, because you're affirming it was him in the positive.
"“the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.8 In this book I intend to counter these claims. (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
So you see Abu, even those scholars who say that the concept was foreign to Judaism say that these things were added after Jesus' death!"
I think you need to learn to read. He is citing two views. The majority view of which he disagrees with and then his view. The majority view denies that the Messiah was to suffer and die. The people who hold on to this view, assert that this view of the Messiah developed after Jesus' death, while Israel Knohl is saying he is trying to prove otherwise.
Please learn to read. Othewise Israel's book, should have been, "The Messiah After Jesus", as he would have then been in agreement with the majority of scholars who claim the Messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
Your comprehension skills are piss poor to be honest.
"I have already presented materials from the Zohar, the Talmud, and other Rabbinical quotations which presented the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, by linking the Messiah to Isaiah 53."
Incorrect, none of these sources indicate a dying Messiah, all of them refer to a suffering Messiah, due to an illness which God punished him with. This illness in the Talmud is called leprosy. If that is the case, then your God, Jesus, inflicted a punishment on himself, to make him repent more towards God:
" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand." - Verse 10, Yeshayahu 53.
"Then you said – These aren't talking about Jesus, they're talking about other Messiahs. Abu, I am well aquainted with the fact that the Talmud is a book which is very much against Jesus. I am aware that Rabbis who linked Isaiah 53 with the Messiah did not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. That is not the point. I'm simply demonstrating to you that these scholars who assert that there was no concept of a rising and dying Messiah in early Judaism is wrong. The concept of Messianic death and resurrection is there, the dispute is on who the Messiah is."
If you read the Talmud properly, they were expecting a varying set of Messiahs, one was to also be Elijah, who was to foretell the main Messiah who would unite them all and bring them eternal prosperity. So I'm not deviating from the views of the Jews at that time. You are by claiming that your God-man/ Demi-god was a leper who inflicted disease on himself to make him come closer to God.
"So again, you may appeal to this “majority of scholars” all you like, it does not help you. Especially, as I pointed out earlier, these scholars believe that these concepts were added after Jesus' death. Before you attempt to wield your weapon, you had better take care that it's not pointing back at you first."
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*? In point form:
You claim: Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus. Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position. About a belief he already holds himself.
"Abu, you took an isolated quote, you didn't even pay attention to it when it mentioned that the scholars believed that Jesus had died!"
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*? In point form:
You claim: Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus. Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position. About a belief he already holds himself.
Logic? Absent from you!
And just to rub it in, was do these scholars say?
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
This contradicts you, if you are claiming that these scholars, of one whom he references as Vermes, believes that the view of Christ having to die and suffer was an established view before Christianity, why does he state otherwise? Either you are lying on him, or he's contradicting you.
No Royalson, you are the person that is appealing to this "majority of scholars". You need to be consistent. You need to understand why certain scholars come to the positions that they do. You also need to consider whether the quotes or arguments you appeal to are going to backfire on your position. If they do, it would be wise that you don't invoke them in the first place.
For example in your argument above, you incorrectly perverted (intentionally) Israel's statement.
You asserted: *He agrees with the majority scholars. *They all agree that the suff/ dead Messiah was a belief before Christ. *Israel Knohl writes a book, then, to refute them, because he believes they are wrong. *His book seeks to establish a suffering Messiah before Jesus.
Something doesn't add up, because either Israel is contradicting himself or you've perverted his statement, rather the correct/ intelligent reading is:
*Vermes and other scholars assert the belief of a suff. then dead Messiah was not known to Judaism:
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
* They claim this belief of a suff. then dead Messiah came after Jesus.
*Israel Knohl writes a book then, to refute them, on a Messiah before Jesus.
*This book to show the converse of what the majority claim is, that is that Jesus did expect to die and suffer.
Again, either you're really desperate to have perverted that quote and then not realise that Israel, cites and gives Vermes' position which invalidates your claim, or you were so dishonest you have to grasp for straws while in the mean time, defaming your own argument.
"Thus my issue was not to show whether or not the Talmud believes Jesus is the Messiah. It's plainly obvious that it does not. Jesus was not the issue. The issue was if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah could be found in Judaism. I presented several sources that showed this concept even though the sources rejected Jesus Christ Himself as the Messiah."
Unless Christ, according to Isa. 53:10, inflicted himself with leprosy (see Talmud), to make himself closer to God, I do believe you don't have the same view as the Jews.
"In your case however, your application of Israel Knohl's work was to convey this thought that the majority of scholars believed that Jesus had not died or risen when in fact Knohl explains that these very scholars believe such details were added after ther death of Jesus."
Already answered above, but since you keep repeating it, I'll have to repeat myself.
You claim: Israel agrees with majority scholars. The belief that Christ was not to suffer and die came after Jesus. Therefore Israel writes a book to refute those scholars. This book is about, the Messiah before Jesus. To demonstrate that the Messiah is supposed to die. If he's in agreement with the majority scholars of their view, then why does he write an entire book refuting their position, about a Messiah before Jesus, who did expect to die?
Either Israel didn't realise he was in agreement with them, or he was writing a book refuting them on a position they already agreed on.
OR
The real reading is: The majority scholars believe that the Messiah was not to suff. and die. Israel disagrees. The majority scholars believe the belief that he had died and was to suffer came after Jesus. Israel writes a book about a Messiah before jesus, to demonstrate he was supposed to die, therefore refuting their claims.
Which is more plausible? Tell me. To further shame you, if one of the scholars that israel cites, i.e. Vermes, says the opposite, i.e. in contradiction to you, then your lie has been exposed:
"“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
"You appealed to the panarion of Epiphanius with regards to the virgin birth. When I pointed out that He goes on to mention the alternate views to the natural birth theory, showing a Christ who is Adam, or a Christ who is distinct from Jesus, not once giving the account of being born of a virgin you said that you didn't believe it and jumped to Bart Ehrman to rescue you."
To the contrary, I demonstrated that this was a belief that was held, by some, not all of them, which later Epiphanius states they differed with him on:
"And at fi rst, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves." - Panarion, pg 133.
So as we see your position was invalid. You had to demonstrate that they all believed in this one position and never deviated from it. Yet we see, quite clearly that they did. So your only argument against them, was thoroughly refuted.
"When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the beliefs of the Essenes, you completely ommited the mention of sun-reverence, again saying that you did so because you said there's no other reference to it in historical sources. My guess is that the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably referring to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book2, where he writes:
“And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 128)."
All of these indicate that they had pre-dawn religious ritual worship. Something that Muslims also do, as I referenced from israel knohl's book:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,”4 the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building."
Israel presents a more proper picture, he denotes there is nothing about son worship, but that they worship before the sun rises. Therefore, no conflicting theology with Islam.
"One one occasion, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia that this group produced no rabbinical authority, you ommitted the words that followed: “Beyond that which was considered by the Mohammedan authors.”
Actually, to the contrary, I never left this phrase out, I even mentioned it in my debate and was a focal point for me. What Rabbinic authority with this Jewish group posses that Muslims accepted? That is why I quoted it. To which you nor your copulation partner, Radical, were ever able to answer.
"When you quoted from Epiphanius about the differences of the Ebionites you omitted the very next sentence that gave the reason for their difference, which was their following of the false prophet Elxai. You also ommitted the mention of what the actual different positions were, and none of them were the Islamic position. And your response ? Bart Ehrman. Absolutely amazing."
To correct you, when we read Epiphanius' statement, he says some of his followers. Does that mean all? Therefore, why do you continue to appeal to the fallacy of hasty generalization. As Bart Ehrman made it clear, we have no first person source from these peoples and the Patristic's claims on them should be taken with a pound of salt.
"He was ill from the torture, the whipping, the beating, the scourging, and the crucifixion on the cross. Now I've been generous to allow you to utilise that particular translation, but please, don't ignore the many other translations that exist:"
Ill from the torture? What sickness/ disease did he have on the cross? They called him the leper scholar because according to their understanding, he was to be afflicted with some sickness. That disease being, leprosy. Instead of appealing to translations, let's go to the source:
חלה to be or become weak, be or become sick, be or become diseased, be or become grieved, be or become sorry (Qal) to be weak, be sick (Piel) to become sick, become ill (CLBL) to entreat, pray, beg (Niphal) to make oneself sick to be made sick to be tired (Pual) to be made weak, become weak (Hithpael) to make oneself sick (Hiphil) to make sick to show signs of sickness, become sick to grieve (Hophal) to be made sick to be wounded
As far as the translations go, the understanding he was made to be sick or diseased are the most prevalent. I checked both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text to derive this understanding based Strong's lexicon.
If you deny the Judaic understanding that he was cursed/ made ill by God with leprosy and intended to mean that the Jewish version is wrong, but yours is right, then on what basis did you think it was okay to quote them?
The Judaic understanding is that he was cut from the land, i.e. exiled because of the plague which afflicted him:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to crush him and to cause him to repent; therefore, he made him ill.
The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them.
Which makes sense, because this is what they did to lepers. So either you accede to the Judaic understanding which you appeal to, or don't reference sources which oppose your entire doctrine.
This is exactly what I've been talking about. You come up with arbitrary criteria and I have no idea where that comes from. Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?
Let's ask you that question, because as I am understanding, you appealed to the Rabbinic Jews' understanding of the Messiah, when I demonstrated that their understanding of him was an anti-thesis to yours, you claimed then that you wanted to demonstrate that the Messiah was to suffer. I have no problem with a Prophet of God having to suffer, for so did ours.
However the problem here, lies within your appeal to authority. Fine and dandy you showed that they believed one of their Messiahs were to be afflicted by God's punishment, which then brings into question, why would God want to punish his Messiah? In Yeshayahu, we read:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.
To make restitution, i.e. to get closer to God. So if you're going to quote Jewish scripture, take it entirely into context please. From my previous comment, I established the Judaic narrative of understanding of a leper Messiah, which you accepted in your Judaic source which you provided as an authority.
With that in mind, your authority and the scripture in itself denote that God is punishing someone, through disease to make him closer to Him. If that is the case, are you saying that Christ was punished by God, to bring Christ closer to God?
It is evident that cut off from the land of the living refers to death. Since Isaiah 53 speaks of crushing this suffering servant, and this one pouring our his soul unto death, I see absolutely no reason why you should find Rashi's explanation valid.
You then went on to reference Yirmiyahu 18:20-21. To be fair, let's go to the Jewish version:
Hearken, O Lord, to me, and hear the voice of those who quarrel with me. . Shall evil be paid instead of good, for they have dug a pit for my life. Remember when I stood before You to speak good for them, to bring back Your wrath from them. Therefore, deliver their children to the famine and spill their blood by the sword, and let their wives be bereaved and widows, and their husbands slain by death, their youths struck by the sword in battle. 18:19-21.
Nothing about being cut from the land of the living. Let's check Christian versions:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
American King James Version Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
American Standard Version Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
Douay-Rheims Bible Therefore deliver up their children to famine, and bring them into the hands of the sword: let their wives be bereaved of children and widows: and let their husbands be slain by death: let their young men be stabbed with the sword in battle.
Darby Bible Translation Therefore give up their children to the famine, and deliver them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of children and be widows; and let their men be swept off by death, their young men be smitten by the sword in battle.
English Revised Version Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
Webster's Bible Translation Therefore deliver their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
World English Bible Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, [and] their young men struck of the sword in battle.
Young's Literal Translation Therefore, give up their sons to famine, And cause them to run on the sides of the sword, And their wives are bereaved and widows, And their men are slain by death, Their young men smitten by sword in battle,
http://bible.cc/jeremiah/18-21.htm
Nothing like what you claim. Therefore, based on your use of translation to demonstrate a point above, we duly note that under the same criteria you have no basis for your understanding from the verse in Jeremiah to Isaiah.
"A group of Jews meet the “Mohammaden authors” roughly 500 years after the migation following the destruction of the second temple. This group has some knowledge of the Talmud. Where did that knowledge of the talmud come from Abu?".
If they were Rabbinic Jews, and as you demonstrated, persons who held closely to their beliefs, see your commentary on Josephus' notes, then your own thesis above is incorrect. So either you go with your previous thesis and they were great studiers of the Talmud or with your new understanding that although they were great studiers, they stopped doing that around Islam's time.
"Obviously it must have been handed to them by their parents, and subsequently the grandparents, great-grandparents, an so on all the way back to this group who had migrated. Now I'm going to ask you, how did these descendents, still manage to have knowledge of the talmud even 500 years after the migration to Arabia? Surely this migrating group would have been talmudic abiding Jews."
Incorrect. If they did in fact make it a pivotal point in their theology to have the Talmud descend throughout their lineage, then little study of the Bible would contradict that. The pieces for the puzzle you are trying to fit together are incoherent and inconsistent. How could they have through oral tradition or otherwise, passed down knowledge of the Talmud, essentially commentary on the Bible from High Priests and not have a proper study of the Bible, along with holding heretical views which contradicted Rabbinic Judaism?
"Yet we know that the Talmud presents a negative picture of Jesus. Such would indicate that the migrating group are not the people you're looking for."
People have knowledge of, and abiding by are two different things. Under your logic, because you have knowledge of the "Islam", as passed down from your teachers, although little in study, that means you're not a real Christian. Do you therefore, grasp how absurd your own reasoning is?
I thought you didn't have any time to debate until after May 26th? Would you like to up the date since you apparently have a lot of time on your hands?
I wouldn't call commenting being a debate. However, I do suppose it may appear as if I have a lot of free time due to me posting in response, the reality is I am busy until after May 25th. The earliest I can meet you is until May the 20th. E-mail me so I can have some proper documentation on this:
I take it you read Geza Vermes' works? Or did you not?
Pg 87 he says from The Complete DSS: "If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
If you read his book, you'd see the other two were pre-cursors to him, like the Elijah - type:
"Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah"
My Response Look everyone Abu is insulting me. He is not addressing me by my proper “TITLE” it’s so horrible oh what am I going to do “he’s gone off into a tirade of personal attacks, sinking so low as to actually mock” my nick. LOL Thanks for demonstarating once again how Muslims have a Higher Standard for the Kuffar then they do for thier ownselves. shakes head. Anyway moving on.
I asked Abu a question on a previous post see below. "So the Kittim are Jews that are being conquered? Wow stretching the bounds of all reason and logic."
He responds… Are you dense? I said the opposite, that the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.
My Response Abu; you are consistent I will give you that. You have demonstrated over and over again your poor reading comprehensions skills, a trait that seems to be common among Muslims. Now you are demonstrating those poor reading comprehension skills when it comes to what you wrote.
Here is what you wrote…. “. However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6.
My Response So “Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples” now turns into “the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.” You then respond to me pointing out your pathetic attempt at trying to change the subject of the debate with a complete non response
Abu Writes Awww, someone's really ticked off now, it's actually kind of cute, you've been shot down with so many quotes and references from sources you trusted and now they're backfiring. I already demonstrated two things, both from quotes from Vermes, the first being from The Complete DSS, pg 87 that their Messiah had come and from 4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] that the Messiah was born of a virgin. Problem? For you, yes.
My Response Problem for me? NO not at all. Problem for you? YES! Because you have a total lack of understanding of the subject matter. First you have not demonstrated that the Essene Messiah had come. Really man read the book, and understand who the “Teacher of Righteousness” is, and most importantly read the dating of 4Q534 or 4QMess ar. The “Teacher of Righteousness” is the founder of the sect, which was founded a few hundred years before Jesus.
You continue to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehensions kills and willful dishonestly when you state.
“Messiah != High Priest. He made the claim for 3 Messiahs, none of which are called High Priests. Therefore your quotes are useless in this case, just throwing sand in the air to mask your ignorance and shame. “ First Geza Vermes does not say just the High Priest it is the “eschatological High Priest”. Who is the eschatological High Priest ? Do you even know what the word eschatological means?
In case you don’t here is the definition from dictionary.com “1. any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the future state, etc. 2. the branch of theology dealing with such matters.” If you have another definition I would be interested in reading it. So what does “LAST.. FINAL… Matters of death, the judgment” mean to you? Christ is the final once and for all High Priest (Read Hebrews), who suffered and was humiliated before he was glorified.
"Yes the Essenes where first century Jews so its good to know they held a first century Jewish idea about the Messiah. And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
He then continues …
What is interesting now, is that after having asked for me to prove that the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth, you now claim to have known that. Please provide evidence for me where you proved they believed in a virgin birth, that is the Essenes, specifically. That was one of the 3 pivots of veracity in the debate
My Response Abu what is interesting is your consistency in not comprehending and misrepresenting what I have said. First I never asked if “the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth,” I asked for you to prove they believed Jesus or The Messiah was born of a Virgin. Big difference. Since you cannot comprehend this I will spell it out for you. Yes a Virgin birth is a miraculous birth, however it is not the only thing that could constitute a miraculous birth. For instance being born of a barren woman, or a woman way past the age of childbearing like Isaac with Sara.
You then continue…
“. Strange enough now, you claim to have known this, so either you hid the fact they did believe this, which is dishonest, or you only now came to know of it, but don't want to concede you didn't, so therefore you must be arrogant. Which is it?”
Whether I knew that the Essenes believed that one of their two Messiahs would have a miraculous birth is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you can prove the Essenes believed Jesus was born of a Virgin. Something you failed to do. Also why would I be limited to asking you questions in a debate to things that I do or do not know. The purpose of the Cross X is to ask you questions to see if you can prove your positive case. Something you failed to do.
I found it interesting that you appealed to Isaiah 7:14 and even demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the biblical language when you stated the word for virgin is Alma and it is always used to refer to a virgin. You really need to spend more time with anti-missionary Zionist Jews. But what is even funnier is that as my brother Royalson pointed out, the Pharasies have Isaaih 7:14 and they don’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. And since you made the claim that the Essenes only disagreed with the Pharisees on matters of festivals that means that Essenes did not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin.
Abu continues to quote me "Abu Geza Vermes does not say the Messiah was already with them. Geza Vermes position is that the Prophet only mentioned once is a “Possible Third Messiah” and that he is the Teacher of Righteousness who is the founder of the Community.”
He then quotes Geza Vermes. Let's quote Vermes: "If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
He then demonstrates his total lack of understanding the subject matter as well as the fact that he has not read Geeza Vermes work. Even though I have continually asked him to do so. He then confuses me with a Muslim when he rights. ”Comparing the two parts in the bold with your statement, I do believe you are either lying or trying to deceive yourself. I do emplore you to surrender your spirit of deceit and enter into the truth.”
My Response First Abu Jesus Christ is the al HAQQ he is The Truth, something you fail to realize. Abu you claim that the “Teacher of Righteousness is Jesus Christ. Well let’s take a look at who the Teacher of Righteousness is. “The search for clues to the origins and story of the movement begins with the Damascus Document because it is a writing particularly rich in such hints. Here, the birth of the Community is said to have occurred in the ‘age of wrath’, 390 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. At that time, a ‘root’ sprung ‘from Israel and Aaron’, i.e. a group of pious Jews, laymen and priests, came into being in a situation of general ungodliness. These people ‘groped for the way’ for twenty years, and then God sent them a ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ to guide them ‘in the way of His heart’ (I, 5–11). The Teacher did not meet with unanimous approval within the congregation, and a faction described as ‘seekers of smooth things’, ‘removers of the bounds’ and ‘builders of the wall’, all metaphors seeming to point to religious laxity and infidelity, turned against him and his followers. The leader of the breakaway party, though accorded a number of unflattering sobriquets, such as ‘Scoffer’, ‘Liar’ or ‘Spouter of Lies’, seems to be one and the same person.”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 54). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.”
He continues “A similar picture emerges from the Habakkuk Commentary with its explicit mention of desertion by disciples of the Teacher of Righteousness to the Liar
So Abu still want to say that the Teacher of Righteousness’ is Jesus Christ when it is clear to just about Every Scholar that the “Teacher of Righteousness” was the sects inspired leader 20 years after they broke away sometime around 200 BC.
Or are you going to say that Jesus Christ was born around 200 BC and lived for over 200 years?
Really ABU READ THE BOOK. You are embarrassing yourself more than usual.
"As far as the broken verse there is only two possible ways it could be read. “He killed” or “Had Killed” or as Robert Eiserman has it “He was killed”.
He then challenges me to cite a source…
Quote and cite him and the source which you claim, and then we'd work from there. No evidence, renders no response.
He quotes me again…
"So you choose was the Mesiah the branch of David Killed or did he Kill someone. So if you disagree with that then take it up with the scholars who have worked on the DSS scrolls I’m sure they would love to laugh at you just as much as we are laughing at you now."
He then challenges me again as he misrepresents what I said…
I'm still laughing at you, cite where Eisenmann or Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed, because I showed otherwise:
My Response Abu first I never said Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed that is Esenmann, and here is the source for that. Biblical Archeology
Secondly I did provide a quote from Vermes and now I will provide even more on (4Q285,)
“Fragment 7, erroneously labelled by some as the ‘Pierced Messiah fragment’, is based on an interpretation of Isa. x, 34–xi, 1, and should be read in connection with 4Q161, frs. 8–10, an Isaiah Commentary from Cave 4, and the Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation (1QSb, V, 20–29), both referring to the triumphant Davidic Messiah, expected to put an opponent, no doubt the king of the Kittim, to death. Only frs. 1, 4, 7 and 8 are suitable for translation.” Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 188). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
He repeats himself again quoting from an early work by Vermes,
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
I already provided 2 quotes from a later work on the DSS documents to which Abu completely ignored and even made the foolish claim that the “Messiah != High Priest. He made the claim for 3 Messiahs, none of which are called High Priests. Therefore your quotes are useless in this case, just throwing sand in the air to mask your ignorance and shame. “:
Since I have already responded to this foolishness in a previous post, I will only say that ABU you proved again that you did not read the book. Here is a more in depth quote from the same page…
“As befits a priestly sect, however, the Priest-Messiah comes first in the order of precedence; he is also called the ‘Messiah of Aaron’, the ‘Priest’, the ‘Interpreter of the Law’ (cf. 1QSa II, 20). The King-Messiah was to defer to him and to the priestly authority in general in all legal matters: ‘As they teach him, so shall he judge’ (4QpIsa=4Q161 frs. 8–11, I.23). The ‘Messiah of Aaron’ was to be the final Teacher, ‘he who shall teach righteousness at the end of days’ (CD VI, 11). But he was also to preside over the battle liturgy (1QM XV, 4; XVI, 13; XVIII, 5) and the eschatological banquet (1QSa 11, 12–21). It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q471b, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).”Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 86). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
He then makes the foolish claim.
So it's either you agree with the evidence given by Vermes or you're saying Vermes is lying. Which is it?
My Response Abu I have no idea why Geza Vermes contradicts himself in two separate works. It could be that he has changed his position on a suffering and humiliated Messiah over the course of 20 years. However it is irrelevant to the debate topic. I am not making the claim that the Essenes believed in a crucified and resurrected Messiah, I am not making the claim that the Essenes knew and believed in Jesus Christ. I am not making the claim that the Essenes where the early Christians. I am not making the claim that they were the Pre Mohamed Followers of Jesus Christ. I let the Essenes be the Essenes. Something you will not do.
"However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6."
Yes, this is what I wrote. However you seem to have a problem with comprehension:
So “Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples” now turns into “the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.”
I seriously am suggesting comprehension classes. To begin with, you partially quoted me in your argument above in comparison with all that I said. For definitions, Bani Isra'il = Jews. So what did I state?
"the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel"
He is going to lead by authority, i.e. subdue any Judaic resistance against him or otherwise (Philistines) and unite the Jews (Bani Isra'il) and bring them back to Israel. Either you are desperately cherry picking quotes to suit your position or I need to purchase a dictionary on your behalf.
"First you have not demonstrated that the Essene Messiah had come."
I did, see The Complete DSS Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg 87.
"Really man read the book, and understand who the “Teacher of Righteousness” is".
See the above source, Geza Vermes explains that this was the Messianic Prophet, that was the exact term used.
"and most importantly read the dating of 4Q534 or 4QMess ar."
It's from the DSS, as it is listed in both Vermes' list of papyri, along with Tov's. What's your problem with them?
"The “Teacher of Righteousness” is the founder of the sect, which was founded a few hundred years before Jesus."
Read pg 87 of Geza Verme's book for a final conclusion, but read age 86 where he explores that possibility, but then finalizes in absolution his point of who the Teacher of Righteousness is.
"Christ is the final once and for all High Priest (Read Hebrews), who suffered and was humiliated before he was glorified."
Hebrews is from the NT, we are using the DSS of the Essenes. In order for your argument to be valid you have to argue from within the doctrine of the Essenes. Otherwise it's called appeal to consequences of a belief. You can't prove otherwise from the Essenes, and in doing so falsify your own position from within your own faith for fear of proving me right.
"First I never asked if “the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth,” I asked for you to prove they believed Jesus or The Messiah was born of a Virgin. Big difference."
I just want you to note your own inconsistency here. So you're asking me to prove they believed the Messiah was born of a virgin, I already referenced 4Q534 or 4QMess ar)[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428], which states the Messiah was born through the word of God and the woman who produces the Mighty Counsellor of Isaiah 9, see 1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10][V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94]. With that in mind, I have proven the virgin birth through a woman who becomes pregnant via the word of God and he is given the title the Elect one of God, which is as we know it, The Messiah.
"Since you cannot comprehend this I will spell it out for you. Yes a Virgin birth is a miraculous birth, however it is not the only thing that could constitute a miraculous birth."
So see your previous quote and this one, in relation to the bold. On one hand you claim, all I had to do was demonstrate a virgin birth from God for a Messiah, I did that, now you're saying you don't want them. A virgin birth of a Messiah doesn't matter to you. So which is it you confused and contradicting individual? Either you accept the virgin birth of the Messiah from the DSS given or you accede to the point that you've been answered.
"I found it interesting that you appealed to Isaiah 7:14 and even demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the biblical language when you stated the word for virgin is Alma and it is always used to refer to a virgin."
So your belief of Alma meaning virgin is interesting to you? Don't you appeal to the same term in Judaic texts to claim it's a Prophecy about Christ? So by using your logic, you are once again left but to condemn your own beliefs.
Abu I don’t know if this was a response to my questions? You wrote… “I take it you read Geza Vermes' works? Or did you not?
Pg 87 he says from The Complete DSS: "If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
If you read his book, you'd see the other two were pre-cursors to him, like the Elijah - type:
"Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah" You keep quoting the same thing over and over again. I just want you to clearify your position if you could just answer simply the following questions with out posting the same quote over and over again.
"First Abu Jesus Christ is the al HAQQ he is The Truth, something you fail to realize."
Failure to win an argument, results in Christian desperation, commonly known as self defensive preaching. I didn't ask about Jesus being "Al Haq" or why you had to appeal to emotions about your belief. Clearly you're losing your mind.
"So Abu still want to say that the Teacher of Righteousness’ is Jesus Christ when it is clear to just about Every Scholar that the “Teacher of Righteousness” was the sects inspired leader 20 years after they broke away sometime around 200 BC."
You really need to learn how to read, see pg 64 - 67 wherein the new covenant with the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness would occur. So they were awaiting another Teacher of Righteousness, whom according to Vermes came at another point in their history after the sect's founding:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness. The evidence available does not permit categorical statements on the sectaries’ views about what was to follow the days of the Messiahs. Some kind of metamorphosis was awaited by them, as is clear from the Community Rule - ‘until the determined end, and until the Renewal’ (iQS iv, 25)." - pg 87, Ibid.
Some he expands on here: "And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart."
And as he has also pointed out, there was a third Teacher of Righteousness found in the DSS, pg 509, the Wicked Priest.
Therefore you have to read in context which Teacher of Righteousness he's referring to. Pages 64-67 discuss the founder of the sect, page 87 discusses the Messianic Prophet as the Teacher and page 509 discusses the Teacher as a Wicked Priest. Your literacy skills are just awful. You're really giving me no choice but to demonstrate how absurd and inane you can be.
"Abu first I never said Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed that is Esenmann, and here is the source for that. Biblical Archeology".
Your link is devoid of working, much like the rest of your arguments.
"Secondly I did provide a quote from Vermes and now I will provide even more on (4Q285,)
“Fragment 7, erroneously labelled by some as the ‘Pierced Messiah fragment’, is based on an interpretation of Isa. x, 34–xi, 1, and should be read in connection with 4Q161, frs. 8–10, an Isaiah Commentary from Cave 4, and the Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation (1QSb, V, 20–29), both referring to the triumphant Davidic Messiah, expected to put an opponent, no doubt the king of the Kittim, to death. Only frs. 1, 4, 7 and 8 are suitable for translation.”
Please learn to read, see the part in bold. The Messiah isn't the one dying, or suffering, the Messiah here is conquering over an adversary. Again, proving my point for me. Good minion, very good.
"Since I have already responded to this foolishness in a previous post, I will only say that ABU you proved again that you did not read the book. Here is a more in depth quote from the same page…"
Please read properly, he isn't referring to the Messianic Prophet who he expounds upon in page 87, see his explanation in page 86:
"It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q47ib, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9). The third figure, ‘the Prophet’, is mentioned directly though briefly...""
He was discussing the other two Messiahs who would suffer, not the Christ of whom I have referred to here:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have"
"Abu I have no idea why Geza Vermes contradicts himself in two separate works. It could be that he has changed his position on a suffering and humiliated Messiah over the course of 20 years."
So suddenly, when the author disagrees with your interpretation of his works, whereupon he qualifies his statement, that he contradicts himself, as opposed to you having misinterpreted the author's intent?
The latter is much more logical, as he never denotes a change in position, therefore his argument is constant. Therefore the proper explanation is that he has contradicted you because you misread, miscommunicated and perverted his quotes and understandings to suit your agenda, which has trickled down to his other writings, thus rendering him in complete contradiction to yourself.
Abu, for the sake of time and not wanting to misrepresent your position, please give me the names for each of the following people:
1. Messiah of Aaron according to the DSS. 2. Messiah of David according to the DSS. 3. Teacher of Righteousness (Founder of the Sect). 4. Teacher of Righteousness (Messianic Priest). 5. Teacher of Righteousness (Wicked Priest). 6. The Prophet.
If you don't know the identity of one of the persons mentioned above, just write unknown. Otherwise, please state the name of the person clearly so I can respond.
Also could you tell me who you where referring to in the response you made to this statement of mine.
My Statement
""What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor."
Your Response "They were very religious, more so than the Pharisees, have you not read Josephus' account of them? It's really explicit all the rituals they did."
Who are the "They" you are referring to? Are "They" the Essenes or the Arab Jews?
Amazingly, after giving Abu ample time to show us manuscript evidence that the Essenes believed JESUS was born of a virgin, that JESUS was not crucified, and that JESUS was not Divine, he quotes manuscript after manuscript completely void of the name of JESUS! Furthermore, the very manuscripts he appeals to presuppose that Jesus was from the tribe of DAVID, something which is not taught in the Qur'an, and He even manages to quote a section which debunks one of the arguments he made against the Deity of Christ in his debate with Radical Moderate. With this in view. Let us examine what Abu had to say...
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Hilarious."
Yes, it's so funny! I spelled someone's name wrong in a paragraph. Such a disaster! Shocking!
My response: I'll let your words speak for themselves:
“I don't know who Abu Shujab is. I am sorry but insisting on calling me by a name I have never used or by a title I don't own is quite pathetic and childish.”
“That wasn't my previous name on Paltalk. My previous name is entirely different: Abu Shujaah is not Abu Shujab , either you're faking ignorance or really can't read. “
“Who is Tinsdale? I referenced Clair Tisdall. I publicly deny using any reference to a Tinsdal in any of my debates. Your deceit knows no bounds. “ “Yes, it's so funny! I spelled someone's name wrong in a paragraph. Such a disaster! Shocking!” “Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate” “Good minion, very good.” “Actually, to the contrary, I never left this phrase out, I even mentioned it in my debate and was a focal point for me. What Rabbinic authority with this Jewish group posses that Muslims accepted? That is why I quoted it. To which you nor your copulation partner, Radical, were ever able to answer.” “@Non-Royalson” “@Radical Immoderate”
Abu said: "And stop misrepresenting what Clair Tisdall is saying. If you look at the quote carefully that you've ben referring to, Tisdall is speaking about groups throughout different periods who migrated to Arabia, even centuries before the Essenes came onto the scene, or are you going to tell me that every single group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes? After all, you're assuming that this group agreed with EVERYTHING that the Mohammaden authors believed."
If you read his quote, or rather your quote of him, they last time period he gives, is in line with the second temple being destroyed, which fits in with the criteria I've been using all long:
My response: Abu, you're not paying attention. There were migrations to Arabia prior to the one after the destruction of the second temple.. Thus, by the time the migration you're talking about happens, there are already a bunch of Jews there, some of whom had been there for 400 years before hand. Likewise, the migration at the time of Hadrian which occurred some time between 130AD-135AD from Jerusalem is obviously not the Essenes either. Let me quote something you had said before: ”As well as, in terms of timing, Islam came later, some few centuries after their migration to Arabia, so that does not mean the Jews who directly migrated at 70 to 99 AD were the ones whom Islamic authors later met. It would have been their children/ descendants, who would not have been nationalistic.”
A couple of points here. Firstly, you say it would have been the children of the migrating Jews who would not have been nationalistic. That doesn't help you Abu, the fact that the Essenes around the time of the destruction of the second temple were this nationalistic group, it wouldn't have been their children who didn't become nationalistic because they wouldn't have made the migration in the first place. Secondly, you give the time period of 70 to 99AD for this migration. But that doesn't help you either, because not only did the migration of the nationalistic Essenes never happen, but the later migration of Jews in 130-135 AD from Jerusalem was obviously at a time when the Essenes no longer existed in Jerusalem. Not only so, but the group that fled Nebuchadnezzar migrated before the Essenes even came into existence! You are assuming that the group that met with the Mohammaden authors were the group that migrated after the second temple, rather than Jews who migrated at any of the other times, before the sect existed, or after. Let's see what Tisdall says once again: "We now turn to the Jews from whom Muhammad borrowed so very much that his religion might almost be described as a heretical form of later Judaism. In Muhammad's time the Jews were not only very numerous but also very powerful in various parts of Arabia. No doubt many of them had settled in that country at different times, when fleeing from the various conquerors - Nebuchadnezzar, the successors of Alexander the Great, Pompey. Titus, Hadrian, and others who had overrun and desolated Palestine. - The original sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdall, page 15."
Clair Tisdall does not single out the Jews who migrated following the destruction of the Second Temple. I defy you to produce a single quote from Clair Tisdall that says that Mohammad and his followers (1) agreed with everything (2) with the group who migrated after the destruction of the second temple.
What does Geza Vermes have to say about the Dead Sea Scrolls being left in the caves? Let's have a look: “Finally, Josephus depicts in vivid language the bravery of the Essenes subjected to torture by the Romans.:
The war with the Romans tried their souls through and through by every variety of test. Racked and twisted, burned and broken, and made to pass through every instrument of torture in order to induce them to blaspheme their lawgiver or to eat some forbidden thing, they refused to yield to either demand, nor ever once did they cringe to their persecutors or shed a tear. Smiling in their agonies and mildly deriding their tormentors, they cheerfully resigned their souls, confident that they would receive them back again. (War 11, 152-3)
Since it would appear from this passage that the Romans were persecuting not individuals, but a group, it is tempting, bearing in mind the archaeologists’ claim that the Qumran settlement was destroyed by the Romans, to associate it with the story of Essenes captured by the Dead Sea. If such a surmise is correct, the sect’s disappearance from history may well have been brought about in the lethal blow suffered by its central establishment during the fateful summer of 68 c e . The fact that no attempt was made to recover nearly 800 manuscripts from the caves confirms, it would seem, such a reconstruction of the end of Qumran and, with the annihilation of its central establishment, of the whole Essene movement."
"Based upon those words, you have concluded that it means that Mohammaden authors agreed with everything that this group of Jews believed. Are you going to dare to make that same mistake again? If you do, I will take you to task for it!".
If you read Clair's words, he states that allegedly, we are in agreement with most of their works/ beliefs because we borrowed them. That is explicit. You can take me to task, but it's not going to help you. Seeing as he asserts that our beliefs are so similar we had to copy them, then he is in implicit agreement that our ideologies were similar. This would agree with the Islamic narrative that the Sunnah of a people from a Prophet would differ. So that gives us a leeway of differing with them in some areas.
My Response:
Abu, thank you for admitting that the two groups did not agree with everything. As a matter of fact, Since the two groups did not agree with everything, how can you maintain that this group believed the same things about Jesus as Muslims do? You cannot. You cannot assert which doctrines they differed upon. Now you've just opened the door to all kinds of groups having migrated to Arabia. Just like the Jewish Encyclopedia says,
"From extensive lists of names it is seen that typically Jewish or Biblical names were in the minority. Even the names of the tribes are purely Arabic, and offer hardly any clue to their origin."
Not only can you not tell us which doctrines they differed upon, but Clair Tisdall even states about this group:
“Early Arabian writers inform us that when Muhammad appeared the Jews were expecting the advent of the Messiah, and used frequently to threaten their enemies with the vengeance which the coming Prophet would take upon them. This no doubt had its influence in leading some among the Arabs, especially the Banu Khazraj of Medina (as Ibn Ishaq says), to accept Muhammad as the Prophet whose advent was predicted.” (Original Sources of the Qur'an, Tisdall, 1905, ch.3, p.16)
There you have it Abu. The Jews in Arabia were expecting the advent of the Messiah! This tells us that they did not consider Jesus as the Messiah! Furthermore, according to Geza Vermes, the Essenes no longer expected the Messiah because he had come in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness!
If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness. (G.Vermes, The complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p.87)
Since you appealed to 4Q252 5:1-4 as your proof-text against the crucifixion of Jesus, it presupposes that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Something that is not taught in the Qur'an. The Islamic idea is that He is from the house of Aaron). Furthermore it supposes that the kingdom is established by Him. If that is the case, there is no more expectation of the messianic prophet or prophetic Messiah.
In short: Essenes: No longer expected a Messiah. Group in Arabia: Were expecting a Messiah.
Abu said: "Then you have Hadrian (76AD-138AD). The problem with this is glaringly obvious. This group fled from Hadrian between 130 and 135AD from Jerusalem! Since there were no further records of the Essenes after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, the group that fled to Arabia from Jerusalem from 130AD - 135AD were obviously not the Essenes!".
Your argument can be easily disproved, the dates are tentative, but revolve around the Temple's destruction, we know they fled at this specific point in time and shortly thereafter, in which the CE indicates the date of their disappearance as we knew them in Judea/ Qumran to be near the end of the first century not exactly, absolutely in 70 AD:
"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D.”
My resposne: You say my argument can be easily disproved. I didn't see you disprove anything. And yes, as the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes, the group disappeared toward the end of the first century! Thank you for confirming that the group which migrated from Jerusalem between 130 A.D. and 135 A.D. were not the Essenes!
In fact, let me quote you: “As well as, in terms of timing, Islam came later, some few centuries after their migration to Arabia, so that does not mean the Jews who directly migrated at 70 to 99 AD were the ones whom Islamic authors later met. It would have been their children/ descendants, who would not have been nationalistic.”
The reason why you wrote 99 AD as the upper limit was because you know that the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. You realise you can't get past 99AD, and yet now you're suggesting a date some 31 – 36 years later! Toward the end of the first century still puts it well before 130 – 135 AD Abu! You're stuck! Not only was the group that fled from Hadrian from Jerusalem, not the Essenes, but the group that fled Nebuchadnezzar were likewise not the Essenes some 400 years beforehand!
"4 migrations to Arabia are mentioned by Clair Tisdall."
So are you therefore claiming there are only 4 mass Jewish migrations to Arabia? This isn't a spoken debate, but a written, so under the same criteria you held me under previously, I shall ask of you to be honest and do the same. List all the possible migrations and let's look at them. If you are sticking to only these 4 then, you're being dishonest, as we know there were more.
My response: I took 4 as a conservative number but indeed there were more than 4 migrations implied by Clair Tisdall. I simply focused on the 4 that were associated with names of rulers from whom the migrators fled. However, your acknowledgement that there were more than 4 migrations only adds to the heavy burden that already works against you, because now you have to deal with more migrations which did not involve the Essenes since their sect was wiped out from Jerusalem toward the end of the first century A.D.
Abu said:
"1 migration occurred before the Essenes existed as a sect. 1 migration occurred after the Essenes had been wiped out."
Your second premise was refuted in my previous comment:
My Response: That is wishful thinking on your part Abu. Again, those who fled from Hadrian, migrated from Jerusalem sometime between 130-135 A.D. That takes the Essenes out of the picture who were wiped out toward the end of the first century.
Abu said: The CE says: "The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D. "
My Response: Exactly, so the Essenes disappeared before the migration from Jerusalem from the Hadrian oppression. Thank you.
Abu said:
Whereas we do have documents from their caves dating between 132-135 AD from the 2nd jewish revolt, see DSS Bastian Elveren.
I already provided manuscripts for their beliefs, in numerous comments above. Just scroll and you'd have them, this is assuming of course, you are literate.
My Response: That some documents from their caves were discovered does not tell you that the Essenes themselves wrote them! Obviously, if the Essenes had been wiped out toward the end of the first century, then it wasn't the Essenes who wrote them! I could not find any resource for DSS Bastian Elveren. Did you spell the name correctly? Also, the group which migrated from 130A.D. - 135 A.D did so from Jerusalem not Qumran. The Essenes are off the radar Abu. You are really stretching things now.
As Geza Vermes puts it: “Essenism is dead. The brittle structure of its stiff and exclusive brotherhood was unable to withstand the national catastrophe which struck Palestinian Judaism in 70ce” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Vermes, G, p. 25)
Abu said:What's wrong with you? Either you're drunk or high, otherwise you'd have to provide some logical explanation as to how you could derive such an inane argument from my writing. In any case, I already demonstrated they believed in a miraculous birth from the Word/ Breath of God:
4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]
My Response:It says He is the Elect One of God. Who Abu? Does the text ever name this person? No it does not! Still no mention of the name Jesus! When I asked you for “explicit 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essenes' view of Jesus, you listed all these manuscipts, none of which mention the name Jesus! Still no mention of a VIRGIN BIRTH. One of the three “pivots of veracity” as you like to call them was not a “miraculous birth” but a Virgin Birth.” Again, the text itself does not contain the words “Are from God”.
Abu said:"Ah, now you want to appeal to the Panarion again. A few posts back you were rejecting Epiphanius' work and used a quote from Bart Ehrman''s book but now you want to invoke him again?".
I didn't reject the Panarion, recall my words from Barth, wherein I stated clearly that I took the claims which were in contradiction with the other Patristics, with a pound of salt.
You never actually quoted a single Patristic Father that contradicted what Epiphanius was saying about the Ebionites. You appealed to him to demonstrate that some Ebionites had disagreements with Ebion and his majority followers about the natural birth by the seed of a man, but when we examined what those differences were, none of them supported your view. The only reason you quoted Bart Ehrman was because you couldn't deal with what Epiphanius actually wrote. It troubled you when I showed you the actual alternate teachings of the Ebionites were. I find it quite hilarious that you depend on this 3rd century patristic writer, but throw him out when I refute you. Not only do you take Epiphanius' writings with a pound of salt when they destroy your position, but you also ADD pounds of salt to other writings, concluding that they say things that they do not actually say.
Abu said: "How can you derive the Essene's view of the MESSIAH by looking at the Old Testament? Where do you get the idea that the Old Testament speaks of the Essene's view of the Messiah? That the Essenes differed from the Pharisees in their traditions does not tell you what their view of the Messiah actually was!"
I look at the MST and the DSS and they are very similar:
"Compared to the often meaningful divergences between the traditional Hebrew text and its ancient Greek, Latin or Syriac translations, the few variant readings of the Masoretic Bible manuscripts, ignoring obvious scribal errors, mainly concern spelling. By contrast, the Qumran scriptural scrolls, and especially the fragments, are characterized by extreme fluidity: they often differ not just from the customary wording but also, when the same book is attested by several manuscripts, among themselves. In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text." - Complete DSS, Vermes, pg 16.
My Response: Abu, looking at the MST and the DSS does not tell us what the Essene's view of the Messiah was. As Radical pointed out, the Essenes believed in at least 2 Messiahs, and possibly a third. Can you tell us which of the 2 or possibly 3 Messiahs you're talking about? Which one of these two or three Messiahs is Jesus, and how do you derive that from the Masoretic Text? Likewise, none of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts that you quoted from even mentions the name Jesus. The Masoretic text is not the only player in the game Abu:
“In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text; others resemble the Hebrew underlying the Greek Septuagint; yet others recall the Samaritan Torah or Pentateuch, the only part of the Bible which the Jews of Samaria accepted as Scripture.” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Vermes,G. , p16.)
So please, don't use the MST as a smoke-screen. I want to see some manuscripts from the Essenes that speak about JESUS. Please provide something! And as for a Judaic Messiah, you are Borrowing outside of the Islamic world-view. Isa is not a Judaic Messiah! He's from Aaron!
"What? That's your proof? What a let-down. Abu, all that's telling me is that the Greeks refer to a group of people who live in the same way that the Essenes do, and they call them Pythagoreans."
It states their beliefs were the same which matched other groups:
"In Greece the Pythagoreans, in Egypt the Therapeuts, and in Syria the Essenes."
"That does not make them the same group. If you insist that they are, then I will congratulate you for destroying your case once again. The Pythagoreans were polytheists! Still want to claim that they are the same group? Just because you've got two groups that engage in some similar practices does not make them identical. Abu you really shot yourself in the foot with that one!"
At the time of Josephus we read and accept according to his understanding they are the same. After that they may have differed but during the time of Josephus, we atleast have a uniform belief on their doctrine towards God, which is also bolstered by their anti-Trinitarian dogma:
"They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient." - CE.
My Response: Josephus says NOTHING about the Pythagorean's beliefs being identical to the Essenes. All it says is that they have the same kind of lifestyle. That's like saying if someone talks about some two groups of farmers are said to have the same kind of life-style that it's automatically saying they have the same kind of beliefs. It doesn't follow Abu. As a matter of fact, your presentation mentioned that the group of Jews that migrated to Arabia adopted the customs and cultural practices of their Arabian neighbours. Does that mean they became pagans? No, of course not. So don't assume that the Pythagoreans departed from polytheism and adopted monotheism, because no historical sources ever mention this.
You also speak about the uniform belief on their doctrine towards God, bolstered by their anti-Trinitarian dogma. Your quote then speaks of them worshipping one God. By referring to this as anti-Trinitarian dogma, you expose a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity which by necessity asserts the existence of ONE GOD. That the Essenes believed in one God does not tell you whether they were unitarian or trinitarian. And as for the Pythagoreans, they were polytheists as I already mentioned so they certainly did not conform to your belief of unitarianism.
Abu said:"Same beliefs in Egypt ? Congratulations, more polytheism. Keep this up Abu, your Imam will be proud. Oh, in case you didn't catch that, it was sarcasm.".
Again, I can actually provide references for my arguments and link my quotes together with sequitur conclusions, you on the other hand, deny, make some random statement and then an insult at the end of each comment.
My response: Excuse me? Where was the insult there? I merely reciprocated the sarcasm you spoke to me.
Abu said:@Royalson, "It was to demonstrate their dilgence to preserving their teachings."
They did preserve their teachings, so well, we have them:
"The procedure followed in inquiries into infringements of the Law and the sect’s Rule has been preserved, and the list of faults with their corresponding sentences tells us more about the mentality of the Dead Sea ascetics than any isolated exposition of their doctrine and principles can do." - Ibid, Vermes, pg 30.
My Response:That quote is not speaking about preserving the Sect's teaching, it's speaking about the preservation of a procedure which followed in inquiries into infringements of the Law and the sect's rule. It also speaks of the preservation of the list of faults with their corresponding sentences. Again, what can we say of the preservation of the teachings of the Essenes into Arabia? Not a shred of evidence. We only know that some group in Arabia had some knowledge of the bible, and talmud and the prayer book.
Abu said: You claimed:: "But instead you want us to believe that they basically decided to leave their manuscripts in their caves and abandon them, travelling miles away, with no possibility of passing them onto their children. Nice strawman you made."
So the Qurman scrolls according to your logic, couldn't have been put in caves, hidden from the invading Roman armies, preserved for some 2000 years because they were diligent in their faith? So let's see, if the people who left the scrolls behind weren't diligent Essenes, then who left them there?
My Response: You assume that the Essenes left them in the caves and migrated to Arabia. You given no evidence that they are the same group that migrated to Arabia instead of having been killed by the Romans. All you have been able to do is show that a group mentioned by Clair Tisdall were said to have had teachings borrowed by Mohammaden authors. We aren't told which teachings these were, especially with regard to Jesus. Like I have said before, you have made a string of assumptions which remain unproven.
Geza Vermes: Essenes no longer expected the prophetic Messiah. Clair Tisdall: Some group expecting a Messiah met Mohammad. Catholic Encyclopedia: Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. Geza Vermes: Essenism died back around 70AD. Jewish Encyclopedia: Hardly any clue as to the origin of the migrating group. Abu: The Essenes met Mohammad !! Royalson: Shakes head.
CC said: "Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate..."
You are a spunky little Muslim, aren't you? By calling me a coward one would assume that you were the one who challenged me. And by pretending that I should have e-mailed you already, one would assume that you are in some kind of a hurry to debate even though, all your rambling posts notwithstanding, you (allegedly) don't have time until after the 25th. Rest assured, I have every interest in debating you: that is why I challenged you; and that is why I called you out for pretending you don't have time to do it sooner.
That is all fine. Personally I like Muslims with mouths like their false prophet. It gives me every incentive to show you what a fight between Godzilla and Bambi would look like.
Abu said: “Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah (Mal. iv, 5; 1 Enoch xc, 31, 37; Matth. xi, 13; xvii, 12), or as a divine guide sent to Israel in the final days (1 Mac. iv, 46; xiv, 41; Jn. i, 21), no doubt identical with ‘the Prophet’ promised by God to Moses (‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you… He shall convey all my commands to them’, Deut. xviii, 15–18; cf. Acts iii, 22–3; vii, 37).
They expected a new leader like Moses, someone who would lead their people to prosperity, this is one of the many roles of the Messiah.
My Response: Very interesting, so Jesus is the “prophet like Moses”. This is assuming of course you are not suggesting that Mohammad is the Messianic Prophet which as you know is nowhere supported in your Qur'an. Abu, congratulations for getting something right! I'm glad that you see that Jesus fulfills the prophecy regarding a prophet like Moses. How many times do we hear from Muslims that Jesus doesn't fit the criteria and that it's speaking of Mohammad instead? I must say, this was one of the more refreshing things that you have said in this dialogue.
However, I find it curious that you state that one of the many roles of the Messiah is to lead his people to prosperity. How did the Isa of the Qur'an do that with the Essenes? The Essenes were wiped out. Off the radar. Is this the kind of prosperity you expect the Messiah to bring?
Abu said: Note that the Jews at Jesus' time were also looking for an Elijah, if we read the NT, that's exactly what the Pharisees did.
Ok let's take a step back for a moment and look at what possibilities Vermes is telling us regarding the identification of “the prophet”:
1. The prophet is an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah. 2. Divine Guide sent to Israel in the final days identical with the Prophet promised by God to Moses.
Which one are you going with Abu? It seems that you're telling us that Jesus fulfilled both roles. However, there's a problem. The first possibility states that the “returning Elijah” is actually a precursor to the Messiah” So if you're saying that Jesus is the prophet, the returning Elijah, then you're by default saying that Jesus is not the Messiah since you would be making him a precursor to the Messiah. That won't work for you.
You also appealed to the Pharisees of the New Testament who were looking for an Elijah. In fact, it doesn't say that the Pharisees were looking for an Elijah, it simply says “others”. We are not told that these “others” are Pharisees or what they are. But yes, Matthew 16:13 does speak of some who were believed Jesus was an Elijah.
We read in Matthew 16:13-14 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Then Jesus asks Peter who gives his confession:
Matthew 16:15-16 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Let us see Jesus's response to Peter's confession:
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
So according to the very passage that speaks of a group of people considering Jesus to be Elijah, has that very Jesus accepting the confession that He is the Son of the living God and that such a revelation came from His Father who is in the Heavens.
Such a Jesus is not a Muslim, since Allah is not the Father of Jesus in the Qur'an. Allah has no Son. Unless you wish to worship Him:
Surah 43:81 Say: "If (God) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship."
The second possibility speaks of this one being the Divine Guide sent to Israel in the final days. Although I admire your concession about Jesus being the prophet like Moses, this one is the Divine Guide. Do you feel comfortable as a Muslim calling Jesus a Divine Guide? Is this a part of your accepted doctrine as a Muslim? This one is being spoken of as an end times figure according to Vermes. The one who comes in the final days to bring in the Kingdom. So did the Essenes believe that Jesus fulfilled that role as Messiah? Could you demonstrate such?
Abu said: Therefore using your quote from Vermes, pg 87 and my quote, they were expecting a Messiah soon, who would be like Moses and lead them, something which their scrolls indicated:
"1QS 9:11 [V5/100, GM/13Ð14, WAC/139] They shall . . . be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."
However his rule (the Messiah(s) of Israel) would end with the coming of the Prophet, which Prophet? Well they weren't expecting one from Israel nor a Messiah from Aaron, but a Prophet, see Deu. 18:18, who would also follow on the path of Moses.
My Response: They weren't expecting a Messiah from Aaron or Israel but a Prophet? But Jesus is a Messiah of Israel!Well if Jesus was that prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18, then who were the two prophet precursors that came before him?
If however, by some warped kind of logic, you're trying to say that Mohammad was the Messianic Prophet and not Jesus then you're presenting a view of Mohammad which is not supported by the Qur'an. The only Messiah ever mentioned in the Qur'an is Jesus, not Mohammad.
And again, the group which had migrated to Arabia were EXPECTING A MESSIAH. Your dots are not connecting Abu sorry to say.
"Funny how you isolate the Zealots. I simply mentioned them to counter the claim that there were only 3 main sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus.I actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia.".
I know you claimed that. Which contradicts your next statement:
"In fact I repeatedly claimed that I could not make a positive identification for this group precisely because we are not given any identification of that group in any source."
My Response: Sorry Abu, I made a typo, I meant to have said that I never actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia. Considering that you found it contradictory to my very next statement I would have hoped you would see that I had made a typo. So here's my challenge to you Abu. If you really do believe that I made a positive identification of the Migrating group as the Zealots, please quote me as saying such. You won't find it. In fact, if you actually recall how Zealots even came into the discussion, it was through my response to your assertion that there were only 3 main groups during the time of Jesus. I stated that the Catholic Encyclopedia that you quoted was speaking of the 2nd century not the time of Jesus. Let's see my post:
1. There were three main sects of Judaism present at the time of Jesus according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: The Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Essenes. My response: Actually there were the Zealots also. But hey, no biggie.
As you can see, I wasn't making a big deal about the Zealots, it was simply to speak of which main groups existed at the time of Jesus. As your quote in italics indicates, you falsely asserted that the Catholic Encyclopedia was speaking of “present at the time of Jesus” when the Catholic Encyclopedia said in the 2nd century BC.
As the discussion developed, the Zealots came up frequently, not to make a positive identification of the group which migrated but simply ask “Why the Essenes and not the Zealots?”, but I also asked, Why not the Pharisees? I also asked, why not the Sadduccees? I also asked, why not one of the smaller groups? Why not a combination of two, three, or several? As such, I was not making a positive identification of the group but simply asking why are you convinced that the group were the Essenes to the exclusion of the above mentioned groups. I hope you are clear now that I do not make a positive case for any particular group when I have said all along that as the Jewish Encyclopedia states, there is hardly any clue as to the origin of this group.
Abu said:
So you supposed that the Zealots or an amalgamated group of Jews were the group that migrated, but now you're saying you can't identify the group as such? So either you've changed your position, or figured your evidence was so shoddy you've abandoned your point!
My Response: My position was never to positively identify the group. That was your job. And you're telling me that I've changed my position or my evidence was so shoddy.
I don't need evidence to identify the group if it is not my position to identify the group. The fact is Abu that you are the one who has been trying to identify the group as Essenes, yet it is you that has not been able to demonstrate to us that the group in Arabia were Essenes. I have not seen anything about what this group specifically believed about Jesus. You have not been able to do that, nor will you be able to.
Abu said: "Furthermore, the debate thesis was “Were the ESSENES the pre-mohammad islamic followers of Jesus” You were debating for the affirmative, thus the burden of proof fell upon you to prove that thesis. It was your job to provide the evidence that the group were Essenes."
You finally realised this, did you? I made the point that I did not have to present any other groups but the Essenes, yet for over 18 comments you chided me for not examining the Zealots and any other groups beside the Pharisees and Sadducees. Do you not see your own hypocrisy?
My Response:
What do you mean I finally realised this? I've been telling you repeatedly for quite some time now that the burden of proof falls upon you. It seems you fail to grasp my point, and that is that you have four main sects and a lot of smaller sects. You were assuming that the group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes due to your faulty reasoning that there was no record of the Pharisees or Sadducees migrating to Arabia. Not only was that initial reasoning of yours faulty due to the fact that there was no record of Essenes ever migrating to Arabia either, but eliminating the Pharisees and Sadducees still left the Zealots as well as all the smaller sects. You tried to give the impression that there was one sect left by your “logical deduction”. In reality, the Essenes were not only not the only sect left in the picture since there were other Jewish sects to consider as possible candidates as well as the Pharisees and Sadducees, but the as the Encyclopedia stated, the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. That means no more records Abu. Your argument about no records of the Pharisees or Sadducees migrating is thoroughly refuted by the fact that there were no more records of the Essenes PERIOD!
Abu said: As for who has to do what. As I told you, I already positively identified the Essenes, your job, well Radical's job was to negate my evidences and prove they weren't. You on the other hand, walked in for him and have decided to positively identify two possible groups. Now I've done my part, so your job is now two fold, refute the arguments I have presented for my group and then demonstrate to me why the groups you chose were the ones who migrated. Simple.
My Response: Your job is far from done. It has barely begun!
I don't need to demonstrate which group migrated because as the Encyclopedia states, there's hardly any clue to their origin. Nothing in historical documents identifies them with any particular sect therefore I see no reason to attempt to make a positive identification of that group.
According to Clair Tisdall, this group was expecting the Messiah, yet for the Essenes, the Messiah had already come.
No mention of the name of Jesus in ANY texts attributed to the Essenes despite your claim to having 1st person explicit verbatim sources.
I can likewise give you a manuscript speaking of a Messianic figure with an eternal kingdom called the Son of God and Son of the Most high. I don't think you'd accept this as referring to Jesus. The name Jesus is nowhere mentioned. Nor is the name mentioned in any of the manuscripts that you have provided.
Abu said: "IRRELEVANT - Not my job to identify the group that left Judea. The group is never identified in any historical source."
See the reference from Josephus who mentions they were present in his time and in numerous areas under different names, as I previously quoted. So yes, there was a historical source which did identify them. Problem?
My Response: Big problem. One of the very groups you appealed to was Pythagoreans. Josephus only says they had the same kind of life-style. No mention of theological beliefs being identical. Pythagoreans were polytheist, not otherwise. No mention by name of the group which migrated to Arabia after the destruction of the 2nd temple. You have given not a single quote identifying that group. The best you could do is produce a quote from Clair Tisdall which you concede does not necessitate identical beliefs. No mention of Jesus in the beliefs of the migrating group. No mention of the name of Jesus in any Essene literature.
Abu said: "Where do you get the idea that this migrating group of Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah? I never asserted such a thing. But since you believe this, I will again ask you for the manuscript evidence."
See my quote from Vermes, that her asserts their Messiah must have already come and secondly that the Messiah was divinely brought into the world, i.e. miracle birth. Who does that sound like to you?
My Response: If the Messiah had already come, then why were the group which migrated to Arabia looking for their Messiah? Also, Vermes puts the dating of that Messiah that had arrived to around 170BC. Your dates are off my friend. Again, we're not asking for merely a miracle birth, we're asking for a virgin birth! Also, I don't see the name of Jesus there. Have you got any manuscripts that mention the name of Jesus?
You see, I can quote from manuscripts too:
1. He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the Son of the Most High like a shooting star. 2. that you saw, so will be their kingdom, they will rule several years over 3. the earth and crush everything, a people will crush another people and nation (will crush) nation. 4. Blank (space left blank in the manuscript) Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from warfare. 5. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and their paths will be righteous. They will judge 6. the earth with truth, and all (nations) will make peace. The warfare will cease from the land, 7. and all (nations) will worship him. The great God will be their help, 8. He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, all of them 9. He will cast them away before him, His dominion will be an everlasting dominion and all the abysses
Is this person, called the Son of God, and Son of the Most high in 4q246 Jesus?
"That a group of Jews who had limited knowledge of the bible, did not establish regular study who brought a limited knowledge of the Talmud, fled to Arabia after the war of 70 AD."
Please tell Royalson this, he thinks they actually brought the Talmud with them. Is he right, or are you? If so, should I adopt his position or yours?
My Response: You seem to think that the concepts of having the talmud and having knowledge of the talmud are mutually exclusive. Why is this? Recall Philip speaking to the Eunuch in the desert, asking if he knew what he was reading. The Eunuch replied saying How can I unless someone teaches me? Here was an example of a person who had a portion of Isaiah but didn't have the knowledge of that scripture. If a Christian speaks to you about the Qur'an and you respond to some of their arguments, one may deduce that you have some knowledge of the Qur'an. Does that negate that you yourself have the Qur'an in your possession? No. I'm not sure why you tried to make these as mutually exclusive concepts.
Abu said:
"You then just conclude that they were Essenes because they did not produce any Talmudic authority accept what Mohamadian authors considered. You also base your conclusion that Clair Tinsdale called the Mohamadians Jewish Heretics and that Mohamed borrowed so much of his new religion from the Jews of Arabia. That’s an interesting position Abu since I thought Islam came from ALLAH and not from the Jews. Are you saying that Mohamed got revelation from the JEWS?Abu you then throw in some random quote about the Essenes from I don’t know since you never site a source."
I cited all my sources, why are you being dishonest?
My Response:
You cite a number of sources, often omitting parts of quotes or taking things out of context. What is clear however is that not a single source from the dead sea scrolls mentions Jesus. We're still looking for one. The manuscripts you've quoted never mention his name.
Abu said: "What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor."
They were very religious, more so than the Pharisees, have you not read Josephus' account of them? It's really explicit all the rituals they did.
My Response:
Try the response again. Radical pointed out that the Jews in Arabia were nominal Jews. Then you jumped to the Essenes. Again you're presupposing they are one in the same. The group in Arabia were skilled armourers. Were the Essenes skilled armourers Abu?
"Was it that group of Essenes that you believe migrated while the ones holding to celibacy were not involved in the migrattion or do you believe it was a combination of the two?".
You need to read the Panarion, Josephus' works and the JE, where those who married returned to the order afterwards, while another subset married and allowed marriage entirely.
My Response:
Interestingly Vermes goes on to talk about a faction of Essenes that broke of from the main sect and were chided for being followers of smooth things. It would be interesting to note whether the original sect which forbade marriage considered the practice of marriage to be among such "smooth things" It would also be interesting to consider what their view of polygamy would have been. At this stage however, I haven't ventured far into such details so I don't wish to speculate too much on this.
Abu said:
"Of course the knowledge of each person would have differed, and the example of wives and children is a good example."
I know. ;-)
"However, it would still be the intent of the Essenes to ensure the preservation of their texts and teachings. However, you want us to believe that they simply cast them aside and moved to Arabia. I'm not sure why you come to this conclusion."
So you're saying it wasn't the Essenes who fled Roman persecution, and hid their writings in their caves in Qumran? Who then were the authors at Qumran?
My Response:
I wasn't making a dispute regarding the authorship of the scrolls in the above remarks which you quoted. What I do dispute is this idea of yours that they would leave such texts in the caves and migrate thousands of miles away. If the intention of the sect is to preserve the teachings, then leaving them behind is totally opposite to what they ought to have done.
Abu said:
"Perpetually a lover of truth: Does that truth include what He considers to be the inspired word of God? ".
I don't see why not.
"Equally preserve the books belonging to their sect: Just abandon them in caves?"
See, now your argument supposes if the Essenes loved their books then they wouldn't have left them in caves. The consensus of all DS scholars is that the authors and the persons who lived in Qumran were the Essenes. Essentially, as of now, you're arguing against all of Dead Sea scholarship, textual criticism, historians and archaeologists.
Just to correct you, it is not the consensus of all DSS scholars that the scrolls were authored by the Essenes. However, for my part I'm not even disputing it in my statement above. I'm saying if they were authored by a sect whose oath it was to preserve its teachings for its sect, it would not abandon their scrolls to travel thousands of miles away. Allow me to quote Geza Vermes once again: “The fact that no attempt was made to recover nearly 800 manuscripts from the caves confirms, it would seem, such a reconstruction of the end of Qumran and, with the annihilation of its central establishment, of the whole Essene movement.” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Vermes, G., p. 66)
"Their scripture is a part of their tradition, and you believe they simply discarded it and left it in caves."
So the Essenes did not leave their scrolls and papyri in the caves of Qumran, who did then?
My Response: Again, understand the context of what I'm saying. I am not disputing the authorship of the scrolls as belonging to the Essenes here, I am simply stating that I don't believe they'd walk away from them because it was a part of their oath to preserve their teaching, their books. What I believe happened was that they were slaughtered by the Romans. There is no record of them after the first century. The reason you believed they made it into Arabia is based upon a quote from Clair Tisdall in which you initially insisted that this migrating group had identical beliefs to the Mohammaden authors and subsequently such beliefs about Jesus. However, as you have conceded that Tisdall's quote makes no such conclusion, you are left back at square one. Nothing has been identified about the group that made it's way to Arabia along with all the other groups that had migrated at different times. Nothing has been identified from the Essenes about their views of Jesus. Only some quotes from manuscripts about an Aaronic Messiah, a Davidic Messiah, A Messiah of Israel, a prophetic Messiah, and so on, but no mention of the Essenes linking such attributions or titles to Jesus.
"There you've gone and shot yourself in the foot again. So now you're saying that the Mohammaden authors would have considered them unlearned in the scriptures because their teachings would not be preached to them. Haha, so in other words, the Mohammaden authors didn't really get much out of them. So then how can you conclude that they got the beliefs of Jesus out of them? You don't realise how often you keep contradicting yourself Abu. It's quite sad really."
You seriously need to learn how to read. I said if we function with your argument, then working from it we derive the following understanding:
"It’s plausible by your argument as you claim they only kept their doctrine to themselves, therefore to others they would seemed unlearned of their scriptures, as it would not be preached to them. Thanks for proving my argument for me. Now to turn it on you, can you demonstrate if according to you the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots held such a belief or were unlearned in the teaching of the Torah?".
Please learn to read, I am using *your* supposed argument, if you think it's foolish, then you're really exposing the fallacies of your own premises. See? If I accept your arguments, you clearly displayed that we would both be wrong. Good job, kiddo.
My Response: Are you able to function with my argument Abu? Did you even provide a refutation? No. You in fact considered it to be quite plausible that they gave the appearance of being unlearned because they would not share with those outside of their group.
Again, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that regular study did not seem to have found a regular home among them. What does that mean Abu? Does that mean that either: 1. They truly were not well studied in the scriptures. Or 2. They were well studied in the scriptures but only gave the appearance of not being well studied?
If you go with number 1, then you will need to explain why a group which is not well studied is believed by you to believe the same things that Muslims do about Jesus such that you rule out this group being anything but Essene?
If you go with number 2, then you will need to explain why this group did not share with Mohammad and his authors if these Essenes were Muslims. Would not Mohammad be a gold card member of this sect? And if they didn't open up all their teachings, did they really accept Mohammad as their prophet? And if they didn't open up all their teachings, how do you come to the conclusion that they had identical views about Jesus?
You ask me about the Zealots or amalgamated group. Again, I don't know the extent of their beliefs or teachings. I don't claim that they agreed with everything the Mohammaden authors believed. This is what you tried to push early on in the game, but I'm glad you're retreating from that position now because you had no way to defend such an assertion.
"Whether or not they physically had the Talmud in their possession is irrelevant. That this generation would have knowledge of the Talmud infers that they had learnt it from their parents. As such, what we do know is that their forefathers followed the Talmud. You ought to know that the Talmud speaks very negatively of Jesus. Still want to insist that this group were followers of Jesus?"
Where did the forefathers of the Essenes allow the Talmud? This mysterious group of whom you are referring to who migrated, what evidence do you have to suggest they once held and studied the Talmud? It's obvious they had some knowledge, so which group of Jews is this that migrated, but only had some knowledge of the Talmud?
My Response: I did not say that the forefathers of the Essenes, I was speaking of the forefathers of those Jews who met with Mohammad and his authors, in other words, the ancestors of the 6th century Jews in Arabia. Because you have this group that meets with Mohammad having knowledge of the Talmud roughly 500 years after the migration of the Jews following the destruction of the second temple, it would seem only reasonable to conclude that they were taught these Jews in Arabia (6th Century AD) were taught by their parents, and their preceding ancestors all the way back to circa. 70AD. Why would the Talmud be considered worthy of such preservation and handing down, whether oral or phyiscally?
Abu said:"It does not say tha tthey didn't produce any Rabbinic Authority, it says they didn't produce any Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors."
Which Rabbinic authority do Muslims accept?
My Response: There you go again, changing words. First you would change the word considered to agreed, now you change from considered to accept. Abu, the fact that the Rabbinical authorities (whatever they may have been) were considered by the Mohammaden authors, does not mean that they accepted those authorities. They considered them! The Essenes believed that Isaac was the child of sacrifice. Do you believe that the group that met with Mohammad and his authors agreed with that? Now you're in a dilemma. If you say they didn't agree with Isaac being the child of sacrifice, then you've disqualified them from being Essenes. If you say that they did agree with this teaching, then you have to concede that they would have disagreed with the Mohammaden authors. You see Abu, since you know that you can't defend this notion of 100% agreement, you likewise cannot defend the notion that this group in Arabia believed the same things that Muslims do about Jesus.
Abu said: "Earlier you suggested that this group would have suppressed their teachings from the Mohammedan authors giving the appearance that they were not well studied by way of applying their oath."
Sorry Royalson, that was *your* argument, I was only using it to see what you'd say if I used your argument. I said, if your argument was plausible, then such and such would be the case. Since you've thus, then demonstrated that the premises derived from your very own argument are fallacious, then you've really proven that your *own* argument was absurd. Good job.
My Response: What I demonstrated is that your position is absurd. Either these people did not have regular study or they only gave the appearance of not having regular study. If they gave the appearance of not having regular study, then they obviously were holding something back from Mohammad & co, showing that he wasn't a goldcard carrying member of their elite sect, and proving that you cannot derive an identical set of beliefs between the two parties. If they truly did not have much study among them, then they were limited in knowledge of the Torah, bible, and prayer book, which again leads us to conclude that you have no way to state emphatically that they had identical beliefs about the scriptures let alone Jesus.
Abu said:
"And again, the fact that this generation in Arabia had knowledge of the Talmud centuries after the migration of their forefathers certainly implies that such Talmudic knowledge had been passed onto them by them. Again, the reference says “no Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors. That does not mean no Rabbinic authority at all. Please read the sources carefully before you form your arguments."
Please note, that the CE states explicitly that the group which migrated, had little study, not the group which came after the group that migrated. You are reading the statement incorrectly. The group which went to Arabia, at that time had little study of the Torah, not the other way around.
My Response:
The group which migrated? So we're pushing the clock back to the first century now? This group had little study of the Torah? And they did not produce any Rabbinical authority beyond that which was considered by the Mohammaden authors in the FIRST CENTURY???? No Abu, this is clearly talking about the descendants of the migrants. It's talking about those Jews in 6th century Arabia.
What Rabbinic authority agrees with Islam?
There's that word agreed! I only see the word CONSIDERED in the reference Abu. Where are you getting this word agreed from?
"It would be blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be God unless.........He is God! Too bad you made a categorical fallacy and forced the application of a mere creature to Jesus, and yet Abu, there are no texts that you have produced for us so far where the Essenes denied the Deity of Jesus Christ."
I already quoted many texts:
1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10] [V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94] She labors in her pains who bears a man. For amid the throes of Death She shall bring forth a man-child, and amid the pains of Hell there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible a Marvelous Mighty Counselor [Isaiah 9:5-6]; and a Man shall be delivered from out of the throes.
My Response:
Again, well done for destroying your baseless argument in your debate with Radical Moderate that the correct rendering of Isaiah 9:5/6 is that the wonderful counselor, mighty God, eternal Father, calls him the prince of peace.
In the quote you have provided above, the Marvelous Mighty Counselor is brought forth from the woman. And We know that Mighty is not in fact applied to the title of counselor but of God, i.e. el gibbor. So the wonderful counselor, mighty God, springs forth from her. Thank you for confirming how bankrupt your position is.
Abu said: He's called a man, not a son of God, God's son, Jesus, Yeshua, YHWH, just a man.
"Please demonstrate the contradictory attributions of the Church Fathers regarding the subsets of the Ebionites. Then once you've done that, please demonstrate the belief that ONE subset believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Please show me your sources so I can see what you take as valid. Simply trying to dismiss Epiphanius shortly after appealing to him in the same breath by invoking Bart Ehrman does not bode well for your credibility, sorry to say."
My Response: Abu, I'm going to assume you made a typo on this one. You don't seriously believe that Jesus is YHWH, right? I'll wait for your response on that one. As for the rest of what you said, you stated that He is called a man. Who Abu? How do you know that the Essenes were thinking of Jesus when they wrote this and not some other expected Messiah? I don't see the name Jesus here. Why is it that after such a long time trying to squeeze this so-called proof that you claimed you could provide in a matter of minutes, we still have nothing from you where the Essenes ever uttered the name Jesus? Have you got anything with His name Abu? If you haven't, just please tell us and stop keeping us in suspense here. Seriously dude, if you can't provide the goods, just let us know and we will happily allow you to walk away from this one and we can all go back to our lives, once again knowing that the Isa of the Qur'an is a myth and not a historical figure.
Abu said: See your buddy Radical, who stated the following:
" And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
So he confirms the standard Jewish belief (and the Ebionites were Messianic Jews) held this belief. So is Radical wrong?
My Response: He said it is a first century belief. He did not say it's the standard Jewish belief. It's amazing how you play gymnastics with people's words Abu. I don't think you even realise it. Again, we are not asking for a miraculous birth but a virgin birth. It's amazing how you keep appealing to the Ebionites in Epiphanius, when Epiphanius never once mentions a virgin birth. He describes those who believe in a birth by the seed of a man, and then those who believe that Christ “put on Jesus” and those who believe that Jesus is Adam. I see nothing about a virgin birth there.
Abu said: Also, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Bart Ehrman is wrong, that they were indeed united in the belief that Jesus was born of a man. I provided two sources (Panarion and Bart) which demonstrate they differed. You therefore have to provide a source which says they were monolithic and unanimous in this position of being born of a man.
Which you did admit, they did differ, so you do agree with me, as you said this a paragraph later:
"And then Epiphanius goes on to EXPLAIN what those differences were"
So they did differ, the belief of Christ being man was not unanimous, therefore you've proven yourself wrong.
My Reponse: I don't know how you can consider Bart Erhman a source on the Ebionites in support of your position. Allow me to quote Bart Ehrman for you:
“Ebionite Christians, however, did not have our New Testament and understood Jesus differently. For them, Jesus was the Son of God not because of his divine nature or virgin birth but because of his adoption by God to be His son.” (Erhman, B., Lost Christianities, p.101)
Abu, is it a Muslim doctrine that Jesus is the adopted Son of Allah? You appealed to Bart Ehrman as a source and I'm throwing him right back at you.
Let's continue with Bart since you like him so much: “It appears that Ebionite Christians also believed that since Jesus was the perfect, ultimate, final sacrifice for sins, there was no longer any need for the ritual sacrifice of animals.” (Ibid, p. 101)
Now I shall quote your Muslim brother, Sami Zaatari: “So according to the Ebionites, Jesus was not divine, he was a man like everyone else, yet what made him special and set him apart was that he was the Jewish Messiah, and that he perfectly followed God's Law. More interesting is that the Ebionites completely rejected Paul; they rejected his writings, his teachings, and considered him an apostate of the Law, and a major heretic! These were not Muslims! No, these were a second century early Christian sect!”
Revisting the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Epiphanius quotes from their Gospel of Matthew:
When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and entered into him. And a voice sounded from Heaven that said: "You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. " And again: " I have this day begotten you". And immediately a great light shone round about the place. When John saw this, it is said, he said unto him : "Who are you, Lord?" And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him: "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." And then, it is said, John fell down before him and said: "I beseech you, Lord, baptize me." But he prevented him and said: "Suffer it; for thus it is fitting that everything should be fulfilled." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7-8)
This is in stark contrast to the Qur'an which teaches:
“They say: "God hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him. - Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him” 2:116 – Yusuf Ali.
Say: "Praise be to God, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17:111 – Yusuf Ali.
It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:35 – Yusuf Ali
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 112:3 – Yusuf Ali
Abu said:
"And obviously you would think that the Pharisees are poorly learnt anyway since they misapplied scripture, rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, rejecting Him as being born of a virgin, and believing in his crucifixion!"
What's funny with this is that now you're so desperate, you're defending the Pharisees who hated Christ, when we Muslims love him! So in your haste to deny and attack everything I say, you're now having to say that the Pharisees were well learned and that's why they rejected Christ. Thanks for the anti-Christ position you just took, justifying the Jewish position. How funny.
My Response: Defend the Pharisees? Actually no sir. I was simply giving an example of Pharisees as a group, of whom some could have given the appearance of being unlearned in the scriptures, which I don't see how you could interpret this as me defending them. If they believed Jesus was not the Messiah, or born of a virgin, do you think they were well learned?
"Please be aware that you are comparing apples and oranges, for in the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus positively states that He is not the Messiah. Yet in the Gospels, Jesus does not say “I am not good”, rather He asks a question, “Why do you call me good? There is none that is good but God.” Now was Jesus saying He's not good here? No. In fact, He also refers to Himself as the Good Shepherd. With the Gospel of Barnabas however, Jesus says He is not the Messiah. You want to tell me that “I am not the Messiah” does not mean “I am not the Messiah.” "
Illogical reasoning. How does Christ saying he is not good, make him God?
My Response: Jesus NEVER said He is not good! He simply asked why the man called him good. And again, Jesus claimed to be the Good Shepherd. So don't tell me that Jesus said He's not good when He never said such a thing!
I want you to tell me whether the following statements by Jesus are a claim to being God:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” - Revelation 22:13 (NIV)
[To the Church in Smyrna] "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. - Revelation 2:8 (NIV)
John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. (NIV)
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Abu said:
Using the same reasoning. Christ claiming not to be the Christ, makes him Christ.
Simple. I use your logic and you tell me I'm wrong. It's good to see we agree on your logic and rationale.
My Response:
That's pathetic Abu. You built a complete strawman. Jesus never said He is not good. I challenge you to show me where Jesus said those words.
Abu said:
"Again, Jesus is not claiming He is not good. He is questioning a person about why they call Him good."
If you ask me if I am good and I say, as a Muslim, that none is good but Allaah. Does not make me Allaah?
My Response: Nice strawman. I never said that simply by uttering the words, “why do you call me good? There is noone who is good except God” it makes a person God. However, taking all of Jesus' words in context, in light of all the claims he made about Himself, we can conclude that when He made this particular utterance, it was not to deny His Deity but rather to point the rich man to it. Let's examine the context of Jesus' words (Mark 10:17:31):
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' " 20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." 28 Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!" 29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields FOR ME AND THE GOSPEL 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
Here we see that the rich young ruler was asking Jesus how he may have eternal life. Jesus pointed the man to the commandments. The ruler replied that he had kept them all. Jesus told the man that he lacked one thing, - Sell your possessions and come follow me. In other words Jesus made following Himself a pre-requisite to obtaining eternal life, in the context of following the commandments. Now where in the commandments does it say to sell your possessions and follow Jesus? It doesn't, what it does say however is that we are to worship God and not take up false gods for ourselves. The fact that the rich ruler walked away sorrowfully tells us that money was his idol. And rather than follow Jesus (worship the one true God), he would rather cling to his idol. We see the theme of money vs God mentioned by Jesus Himself in Mark 6:25 - “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
So let's put this all into perspective. The rich young ruler calls Jesus good teacher and asks him what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks the man “Why do you call me good? There is none good except God?” Jesus then points Him to the commandments. The man states He has kept them, Jesus now in the context of stating that only God is good, now says sell all that you have and follow ME, that this particular thing is what the man lacked in the commandments. Thus it is abundantly clear, that Jesus putting Himself on par with the commandments, namely that one should follow Him (worship God) opens to us Jesus' self awareness of His goodness and Deity.
Now contrast this with the gospel of Barnbas. Unlike the gospel where Jesus, questioned the man's referring to Jesus of good and then going on to demonstrate that He is indeed good, the gospel of Barnabas explicitly has Jesus saying “I am not the Messiah.” Abu had to insert words of his own thinking “that you wish to have” which never appears in the text. I understand Abu, your position is extrememly frustrating for you to defend because it is so completely obviously false.
Now I have demonstrated that your argument was a strawman of the Christian position. You yourself believe that this very strawman you presented is a nonsensical argument. Given that you don't believe the reasoning of the strawman you created, I will now ask for you to be consistent and tell us whether you truly believe that Jesus does not deny His messiahship in the Gospel of Barnabas.
Abu said:
There we go. So far Royalson, has deemed most of his own arguments false, when I use them to demonstrate my points. Scroll up and see, any point I presupposed that could be plausible, he later says is wrong. Which means his own arguments are against himself.
I presented many manuscript evidences, yet he persists in saying I did not. Royalson, try to debate me in person, log in on Paltalk and do it like a man. ;-)
My Response: There you have it folks. Abu has given us the best that he's got. Not a single quote from the Essenes even mentioning the name of Jesus. Not a single quote saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. Not a single quote saying that Jesus wasn't crucified. Not a single quote saying that Jesus was not Divine.
Why would I even need to debate you in person Abu? After your debate with Radical, and ample opportunity for you to present your evidence in written form here you have still failed to provide the goods. What makes you think that a third debate would rescue you from the pit you have found yourself in?
I wonder Abu, if you might like to start sending in the reinforcements or retreat back to base. That's assuming you have reinforcements or some base to retreat back to.
Abu said: Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate:
My Response: Anthony is a coward? He is the one who challenged you to debate. He's the one who wants to bring the date closer for the debate. So tell me, how does that make Anthony a coward??
"No sir, here is what Israel Knohl says about Jesus and the Essenes:
“In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.” - (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I)."
Whereas he says later on:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,” the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building. The winter sun rises in the east over the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab, which are visible in the distance." - The Messiah Before Jesus, Israel Knohl, pg 5.
So they have a Masjid or in English, a house of prostratin (sujood), they have a prayer (salaah) before the sun rises, an early morning prayer (Fajr salaah), through which they cease praying when the sun is rising (same as in Islam). So if you accept certain element of his book, why not accept that Christ, Jesus was a Muslim performing Fajr Salaah?
My Response:
Abu, you misunderstand my position entirely. I do not agree with Israel Knohl's position. Therefore, I don't know what you mean about accepting elements of his book. Which elements of his book did I accept Abu? I made it quite clear from the beginning that I believe that the position he takes in his book is pretty radical. The point I was making to you specifically was that you obscured the fact that Knohl's intention in writing his book was to state why he disagreed with the “majority of scholars” who state that the suffering, death, and ressurection of the Messiah was not a part of the faith in 1st century Judaism.
Now you seem to be quite comfortable in quoting Knohl to suggest that Jesus was a Muslim, practicing the ritual cleansing. I know I am probably sounding like a broken record here, but Where is the name of Jesus in that text? Do you not understand that Knohl's entire thesis rests upon the idea that the Messiah of the Essenes mirrors the self awareness of Jesus with regards to his death and resurrection? As such, the Messiah that Knohl is speaking of here on page 5 which you quoted is NOT Jesus.
In fact, let us view the very quote you gave and examine if this is really speaking about Jesus:
"When the reading of Pollio’s letter is finished, the Messiah leaves the royal palace for the Essene Quarter. He enters one of the many ritual baths that exist in the quarter, disrobes, and immerses himself in the bath. After this purification he puts on a white garment given to him by one of the members of his community." - (The Messiah before Jesus, I. Knohl, pg 7-8).
Which royal palace is this Abu? Any idea? Well we only have to read on straight after your quote to find out: “The members of the sect now gather for their evening meal. The atmosphere and menu here are completely different from those in Herod’s palace.” (Ibid, p. 8)
Wait a second, Jesus and his followers are dining in Herod's palace? Are you sure about that Abu? Herod died before Jesus was even born!
“The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest and by the Messiah, who is the nasi (leader) of the community.22 The baker walks along the length of the table, placing a piece of bread before each person. He is followed by the cook, who gives each member a dish of cooked vegetables.23 First the priest blesses the bread and wine and eats a portion of the bread; then the Messiah blesses the bread and eats some of the piece placed in front of him.” (Ibid, p. 8)
Jesus and His followers are having bread and wine? Is that what the Isa of the Qur'an does?
Let us read further on:
“After the meal, the priest rises and blesses the Messiah as the nasi (leader) of the community: With your scepter may you devastate the land and by the breath of your lips may you kill the wicked one . . . May he make your horns iron and your hooves bronze . . . for God raised you up as a rod for the rulers . . . and he shall strengthen you with his holy name.27 To the members of the Essene sect, the nasi is the Messiah, destined to rule over all the nations. The power would pass into his hands after a war in which the Messiah and his followers defeat the armies of the nations—first of all the army of Rome. The “wicked one” whom the Messiah would kill with the breath of his lips28 is the “king of Kittim,” which is a code name for the Roman Caesar Augustus.” (Ibid, p. 8-9)
Abu, would you care to tell us whether Jesus Christ killed Ceasar Augustus (63BC – 14AD) with the breath of His mouth?
We read on: “This vision is not merely an abstraction. The Messiah and his followers are sitting with a scroll laid out in front of them. On the scroll is a detailed plan for the coming eschatological “war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.” All these activities obviously take place in utmost secrecy. Were King Herod or one of his informers to hear of the aspirations of the Messiah and his followers, or the preparations for war against the Romans, he would undoubtedly sentence them to death.” (Ibid, p.9)
Again, King Herod died before Jesus was born. Sorry Abu, but the shoe doesn't fit!
What's interesting is that your citation left out some very telling details that destroy the notion that this person is talking about Jesus. Let's look at the portion directly before your citation and then I will include the portion you cited in Italics. The omitted section I give in bold for the audience to examine:
The Time: A day in January in the year 18 BCE. The place: Jerusalem, Herod's palace, in the western part of the Upper City, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem, to the south of the palace. "The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,” the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building. The winter sun rises in the east over the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab, which are visible in the distance." - The Messiah Before Jesus, Israel Knohl, pg 5
18 BCE. Nice one Abu. Now do you finally understand that Israel Knohl is not talking about Jesus here but about a supposed Messiah that appeared on the scene a generation before Jesus? I've tried to warn you about this in the past. Hopefully now, you won't make the same mistake again.
Abu said: He then performs Ghusl / Wudhu, or in English ritual purification, the same as in Islam.
Prove it Abu! All kinds of religions have water cleansing before a meal. You are trying to read Wudu back into the Essenes even though it gives very little details about the process itself except that this Messiah takes off his robe and then is given a white garment afterwards. Prove that the purification that he takes is identical to that in Islam! Can you do it Abu?
Abu said:
"The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest and by the Messiah, who is the nasi (leader) of the community....To the members of the Essene sect, the nasi is the Messiah, destined to rule over all the nations." - Ibid, pg 9.
We then see that he, Jesus, was their Messiah, who lead the blessing of the food among them.
My Response:
The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest. And what does that priest do Abu? He blesses the bread and wine. Is that what Muslims do? Do you have priests blessing bread and wine? This is news to me. Please do share. And what does it say about this Messiah destined to rule over the nations? That he would start with the Romans! So I ask you Abu, Did Isa defeat the Romans? Did Isa kill Ceasar Augustus? I do agree with you though. Jesus will rule over the nations. This is a Christian concept, not an Islamic one!
Abu said: Again, if you're going to appeal to Israel Knohl, atleast make it known you're going to cherry pick what he says Non-Royalson, it's just really funny.
My Response: I'm the one cherry picking? Abu, you are the person who appealed to Israel Knohl as a source. Israel Knohl's work does not support your position. I work with the sources you appeal to. I give the fuller quotations where you conveniently omitted them and you say I'm the one cherry picking. Funny that.
Abu said: "Then show me these 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essene's view of Jesus. This is what I've been waiting for. Show me the goods Abu!"
I posted this some 12 times in my previous comments, why do you ask, when I have already given? Are you slow of reading or simply ignorant?
See Geza Vermes, Complete DSS, pg 87. See Israel Knohls', The Messiah before Jesus, pp 6-9. See DSS, 1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10] [V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94], 4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428].
My Response: Abu, none of these sources even mention the name of Jesus! You keep appealing to these fragments and quotations of books, even though none of them mention Jesus, just like this one you tried with Israel Knohl where the “Messiah” spoken of is a contemporary of Herod who died before Jesus was born in the flesh. Abu, you have to stop posting random quotes, and start showing me something that actually mentions Jesus. I want to see His name. Have you got anything at all? How long do I have to wait?
"Again, the Pythagoreans were POLYTHEISTS. Stop appealing to them. You have no idea what you're doing."
Actually, to the contrary, Josephus says they are like the Essenes, if we recall from the CE, were strict adherents to Monotheism. He never once states they are polytheists, rather he contradicts you and says they are just like each other, specifically highlighting the differencing in naming:
"The Essens also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere." - Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 10, Paragraph 4.
My Response: Again Abu, it says they live the same kind of life. It does not say they have the same kind of belief in God! Stop reading into Josephus what he does not say! In your opening statement in your debate with Radical you said, and I quote: “Ultimately they hardly differed from the Arabs whose customs and cultural practices they adopted not only in the matter of tribal life but also in other respects.” If I apply your kind of logic, then it would suggest that the group of Jews who adopted customs and cultural practices in tribal life and in other respects believed the same as these Arabs and were pagans like them!
IAbu said: "Now I asked you plainly if you go with the majority view of the scholars regarding the death of Jesus, since you appealed to the majority opinion. I'm testing your consistency. I will ask you again – Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no? Don't tell me what Muslims consider to be valid. You appealed to the majority view of scholars. Tell me what the majority of scholars say about this matter."
All scholars, even Muslims agree that someone died on the cross. No one denies that. As to the identity of who died on the cross/ stick/ tree, well everyone differs. Was it that Jesus died? Was it a man looking like Jesus (Didymus? as the works of Thomas indicate), was it the son of God, the archangel Michael? Was it the king of the Jews? Was it not Jesus, but some other man? Was it a Jewish rebel? There are many views of who died on the cross. Working with the majority view, we all agree someone died, as for who died, still a mystery to all, seeing as you have no first person verbatim source which explicitly states it was Jesus, you are in a worse off position, because you're affirming it was him in the positive.
My Response: You have avoided answering my question twice now. I will ask a third time with the hope and expectation that you will finally answer. Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no?
Abu said: "“the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.8 In this book I intend to counter these claims. (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
So you see Abu, even those scholars who say that the concept was foreign to Judaism say that these things were added after Jesus' death!"
I think you need to learn to read. He is citing two views. The majority view of which he disagrees with and then his view. The majority view denies that the Messiah was to suffer and die. The people who hold on to this view, assert that this view of the Messiah developed after Jesus' death, while Israel Knohl is saying he is trying to prove otherwise.
My Response: Abu, first of all, I never denied that there were two views being presented, that being the views of the (1) “Majority of scholars” and (2) Israel Knohl. I likewise acknowledge that according to Knohl, the majority believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was not a part of first century Judaism. Also, that these scholars believe such a view developed after Jesus' death. But therein lies your problem Abu. The very scholars you are appealing to, acknowledge Jesus' death. That would suggest a few things to me. That would suggest that they probably don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. So if this “majority” of scholars deny that Jesus is the true Messiah, and yet acknowledge that He died, why would you appeal to them?
But probably more curious than this is why on Earth you would even begin to side with them in the first place when such an argument destroys your position as a Muslim.
I will ask you these 3 questions:
1. Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? 2. Do you believe that Jesus will die some time after His return? 3. Do you believe that Jesus will be resurrected?
If you hold to orthodox Islamic teachings about Jesus, you will have answered yes to all three questions. In other words Abu, you believe in the concept of a dying and rising Messiah because that's exactly what Islam teaches about Jesus, i.e. that He is the Messiah, He will die some time after His return, and He will be resurrected.
Thus, you have unwittingly undermined your very own position by appealing to this majority of scholars. I don't think you even seriously considered the implications of doing such. Be more careful next time Abu.
Abu said:
Now as you concede in your own words, this majority believe that such
Please learn to read. Othewise Israel's book, should have been, "The Messiah After Jesus", as he would have then been in agreement with the majority of scholars who claim the Messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
My Response: I invite you to completely reconsider your entire presentation which is saturated with inconsistency, error, and assumption.
Abu said: Your comprehension skills are piss poor to be honest.
My Response: If I have poor comprehension skills, you have no excuse for such a disgraceful performance Abu.
"I have already presented materials from the Zohar, the Talmud, and other Rabbinical quotations which presented the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, by linking the Messiah to Isaiah 53."
Incorrect, none of these sources indicate a dying Messiah, all of them refer to a suffering Messiah, due to an illness which God punished him with. This illness in the Talmud is called leprosy. If that is the case, then your God, Jesus, inflicted a punishment on himself, to make him repent more towards God:
" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand." - Verse 10, Yeshayahu 53.
My Response: I find it amazing that you provide the quote from Isaiah 53:10, and it says “the Lord wished to crush him, He made Him ill” and then you conclude that it must be talking about Leprosy. This is not speaking about leprosy but death, in fact let's go to verse 4 and 5 in your translation:
4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
Note in verse 4, He bears the illnesses of his people, carrying their pain. And how is he accounted?Not only plague by these “illnesses” but smitten by God! In other words, put to death! What kind of plague did He bear? What kind of illness did He bear? It is the plague and illness of SIN. We read in verse 5 that He was pained BECAUSE of their transgressions, He was CRUSHED because of their iniquities (sins). So, sorry to say Abu, this is not a mere physical sickness of leprosy. The verses themselves testify that the servant underwent death.
And now you're stating that according to my interpretation, God inflicted a punishment on himself, to make Him repent more towards God. It never says that this suffering servant was punished to make Him repent more towards God. On the contrary it says that He bore the sins of His people. It was because of their transgressions that He suffers and dies.
I did find it rather curious that you said that God is punishing this Messiah to make Him repent more to God. Which Messiah is God punishing Abu? Which Messiah do you believe sinned and needed to repent?
Abu said:
"Then you said – These aren't talking about Jesus, they're talking about other Messiahs. Abu, I am well aquainted with the fact that the Talmud is a book which is very much against Jesus. I am aware that Rabbis who linked Isaiah 53 with the Messiah did not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. That is not the point. I'm simply demonstrating to you that these scholars who assert that there was no concept of a rising and dying Messiah in early Judaism is wrong. The concept of Messianic death and resurrection is there, the dispute is on who the Messiah is."
If you read the Talmud properly, they were expecting a varying set of Messiahs, one was to also be Elijah, who was to foretell the main Messiah who would unite them all and bring them eternal prosperity. So I'm not deviating from the views of the Jews at that time. You are by claiming that your God-man/ Demi-god was a leper who inflicted disease on himself to make him come closer to God.
My Response: I never claimed Jesus was a leper. Nor did I ever claim that this suffering was to make Jesus closer to God. You keep building up these strawmen, but they have nothing to do with my position. The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is crushed and smitten, He is put to death. However, since you are fond of your position. Please tell me how becoming a leper makes a Messiah closer to God. Please tell me also why this Messiah is taking other people's physical diseases and is being punished by God. Does any of this sound like Islam to you? Are you happy with your interpretations?
Abu said: "So again, you may appeal to this “majority of scholars” all you like, it does not help you. Especially, as I pointed out earlier, these scholars believe that these concepts were added after Jesus' death. Before you attempt to wield your weapon, you had better take care that it's not pointing back at you first."
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*?
My Response: If your position is that the Messiah is not supposed to suffer and die, then you might as well deny Mohammad, Allah, and the Qur'an.
"So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! - Surah 19:33 – Yusuf Ali.
Who could this verse be speaking about Abu? Jesus? Surely not! According to you, the Messiah is not supposed to die and be raised again!
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310: Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
Oh dear Abu, looks like your Hadith teaches that He is going to die! Do you still want to cling to your majority of scholars?
Abu said:
In point form:
You claim: Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus. Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position. About a belief he already holds himself.
My Response: No, I do not claim that Israel Knohl believes that the view of a dying and rising Messiah came after the death of Jesus. I have never stated such. My point from the very beginning has been that Israel Knohl does not agree with the majority of scholars. His book demonstrates in his opinion that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was a part of first century Judasim, specifically the faith of the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. the Essenes!
Abu said: Logic? Absent from you!
My Response: Try reading more carefully next time Abu. Knohl's book presents the notion of a Messiah before Jesus, one He believes was held by the Essenes, which includes the concept of the dying and rising Messiah.
"Abu, you took an isolated quote, you didn't even pay attention to it when it mentioned that the scholars believed that Jesus had died!"
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*? In point form:
My Response: That's your misinterpretation of what I was saying. I never said that they believe that the details were written after the death of the Messiah. Rather that they believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was written after the death of Jesus. In other words, they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was not there in the past, and then you have a person named Jesus coming along, and some time after his death, people tried to make Jesus into a dying and rising Messiah.
Israel Knohl made the hypothesis that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah actually WAS something taught in Judaism, by a particular branch of Judaism, the group who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. the Essenes. He believes that a “Messiah” of the Essenes died and rose again according to their writings, but that this Messiah lived one generation before Jesus. He thus believes that Jesus himself considered his role to be that of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah, because of that belief through the earlier writings of the Essenes.
As it stands, I do not hold to Israel Knohl's view, nor this “majority of scholars.” Nor should you, because neither party supports your view. Knohl believes the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was a part of the faith of the Essenes. Obviously that would go against your position. Likewise, the “majority of scholars” believe the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was only an after thought, written after the death of Jesus, whom they don't consider to be a Messiah. As I pointed out, if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah is only an after thought, and should be rejected as such, then you need to abandon Islam which teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, that He will die, and that He will rise again.
You claim: Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus. Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position. About a belief he already holds himself.
Logic? Absent from you!
My Response: No Abu. Majority of scholars mentioned by Knohl believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah came only after the death of Jesus. Knohl himself believes that the concept was already there in the Essenes' writing and that such a Messiah came one generation before Jesus.
Abu said: And just to rub it in, was do these scholars say?
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
My Response: Right, so the “majority of scholars”, including Vermes believed that a dying and rising Messiah was an innovation which came after the death of Jesus whom Vermes does not believe to be a Messiah.
Abu said: This contradicts you, if you are claiming that these scholars, of one whom he references as Vermes, believes that the view of Christ having to die and suffer was an established view before Christianity, why does he state otherwise? Either you are lying on him, or he's contradicting you.
My Response: Abu, again you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying that the Scholars, e.g. Vermes agrees with Knohl. I'm saying that these scholars, e.g. Vermes believes that the dying/rising Messiah concept was an innovation that came after Jesus died. Israel Knohl writes his book to refute the claim, showing in his opinion that the Essenes believed in a pre-Jesus Messiah who did die and rise from the dead.
"Thus my issue was not to show whether or not the Talmud believes Jesus is the Messiah. It's plainly obvious that it does not. Jesus was not the issue. The issue was if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah could be found in Judaism. I presented several sources that showed this concept even though the sources rejected Jesus Christ Himself as the Messiah."
Unless Christ, according to Isa. 53:10, inflicted himself with leprosy (see Talmud), to make himself closer to God, I do believe you don't have the same view as the Jews.
My Response: As I have already pointed out, The Lord was pleased to crush Him. This suffering servant was accounted as one smitten by God. Not leprosy. I don't know why you have to insist that the Messiah was punished with Leprosy. Could you name some scholars who support that interpretation? Is that what Allah does with His Messiahs? And how many Messiahs are there according to Islam?
Abu said: "In your case however, your application of Israel Knohl's work was to convey this thought that the majority of scholars believed that Jesus had not died or risen when in fact Knohl explains that these very scholars believe such details were added after ther death of Jesus."
Already answered above, but since you keep repeating it, I'll have to repeat myself.
You claim: Israel agrees with majority scholars. The belief that Christ was not to suffer and die came after Jesus. Therefore Israel writes a book to refute those scholars. This book is about, the Messiah before Jesus. To demonstrate that the Messiah is supposed to die. If he's in agreement with the majority scholars of their view, then why does he write an entire book refuting their position, about a Messiah before Jesus, who did expect to die?
My Response: As I have already explained. I don't believe that the majority of scholars agreed with Knohl. But I also don't believe they agree with you because they believe Jesus actually died.
Abu said: Either Israel didn't realise he was in agreement with them, or he was writing a book refuting them on a position they already agreed on.
OR
The real reading is: The majority scholars believe that the Messiah was not to suff. and die. Israel disagrees. The majority scholars believe the belief that he had died and was to suffer came after Jesus. Israel writes a book about a Messiah before jesus, to demonstrate he was supposed to die, therefore refuting their claims.
My ResponseAnd that is exactly how I interpret what Knohl is telling us. Again how you came to the other interpretation of my words is beyond me. What I did early on was to question your appeal to the citation you gave talking about the majority of scholars saying that this was a foreign concept to 1st century Judaism in your debate with Radical because you gave the impression in the debate that Knohl agreed with this majority of scholars when the converse is the case. What I also find peculiar is that you quoted elsewhere in Knohl's work about the Messiah who disrobes and bathes Himself, giving the impression that Knohl is teaching that Jesus is making some kind of wudu, when in fact, the context identifies the person in question as a pre-Jesus Messiah. You never gave this information in the debate. You simply made these citations, and referencing Knohl's name and book without ever telling the audience what Knohl's position actually was.
Abu said: Which is more plausible? Tell me. To further shame you, if one of the scholars that israel cites, i.e. Vermes, says the opposite, i.e. in contradiction to you, then your lie has been exposed:
My Response: Again, quote me ever stating that these scholars agree with Israel Knohl and His position. I never held such a view.
Abu said: "“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
My Response: Which does nothing to bolster the Islamic concept of the Messiah who is believed will die and rise again at a future time.
"You appealed to the panarion of Epiphanius with regards to the virgin birth. When I pointed out that He goes on to mention the alternate views to the natural birth theory, showing a Christ who is Adam, or a Christ who is distinct from Jesus, not once giving the account of being born of a virgin you said that you didn't believe it and jumped to Bart Ehrman to rescue you."
To the contrary, I demonstrated that this was a belief that was held, by some, not all of them, which later Epiphanius states they differed with him on:
"And at fi rst, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves." - Panarion, pg 133.
My Response: Where does it say virgin birth there? All I see is “conflicting accounts”. Try again Abu.
Abu said: So as we see your position was invalid. You had to demonstrate that they all believed in this one position and never deviated from it. Yet we see, quite clearly that they did. So your only argument against them, was thoroughly refuted.
My Response: On the contrary Abu, it was your job to demostrate that they believed in a virgin birth. Any differences listed did not mention a virgin birth. They mentioned that Adam was Christ, or that Christ put on Jesus, neither position of which you agree with as a Muslim!
Abu said: "When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the beliefs of the Essenes, you completely ommited the mention of sun-reverence, again saying that you did so because you said there's no other reference to it in historical sources. My guess is that the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably referring to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book2, where he writes:
“And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 128)."
All of these indicate that they had pre-dawn religious ritual worship. Something that Muslims also do, as I referenced from israel knohl's book:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,”4 the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building."
My Response: Do Muslims make supplication for the Sun to rise? What is that prayer called Abu? Please quote the words of that prayer for me. And how about the other quote that I mentioned:
“Nay, on other days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. “ (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 148).
Do Muslims dig pits so that they don't affront the Divine rays of light? Please tell me about this Muslim practice and belief about ascribing Divinity and emotion to the Sun.
Israel presents a more proper picture, he denotes there is nothing about son worship, but that they worship before the sun rises. Therefore, no conflicting theology with Islam.
My Response: Then why the mention of Divine rays of light which can be insulted as being the reason they dig pits and enter into them?
Abu said: "One one occasion, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia that this group produced no rabbinical authority, you ommitted the words that followed: “Beyond that which was considered by the Mohammedan authors.”
Actually, to the contrary, I never left this phrase out, I even mentioned it in my debate and was a focal point for me. What Rabbinic authority with this Jewish group posses that Muslims accepted? That is why I quoted it. To which you nor your copulation partner, Radical, were ever able to answer.
Ok Abu, I'm going to quote texts of yours and show that you are not telling the truth:
“ but it does not appear that regular study had found a home among them, nor did they produce any rabbinic authority”
How could they have the Talmud, but then not produce any Rabbinic authority. The Talmud is from Rabbinic authority.
You even tried to use this argument to prove that the group did not have the Talmud with them since the Talmud would be a form of Rabbinic authority.
Abu wrote:
"When you quoted from Epiphanius about the differences of the Ebionites you omitted the very next sentence that gave the reason for their difference, which was their following of the false prophet Elxai. You also ommitted the mention of what the actual different positions were, and none of them were the Islamic position. And your response ? Bart Ehrman. Absolutely amazing."
To correct you, when we read Epiphanius' statement, he says some of his followers. Does that mean all? Therefore, why do you continue to appeal to the fallacy of hasty generalization. As Bart Ehrman made it clear, we have no first person source from these peoples and the Patristic's claims on them should be taken with a pound of salt.
My Response: You seem to work with unequal weights and measures Abu. When I go to Epiphanius which you appealed to for your establishing that some of the Ebionites believed in a virgin birth, even though virgin birth is nowhere mentioned, that is proof enough for you.
When I go on to quote Epiphanius who demonstrates that those who differed from Ebion followed the false prophet Elxai you accuse me of a fallacy of hasty generalization. How is quoting the source you appeal to a form of hasty generalisation? If you don't like Epiphanius, and you consider his words to be unrealiable, then don't quote him to prove that a branch of the Ebionites believed in the virgin birth! If Epiphanius and the church Fathers' words are to be taken with a “pound of salt” then please demonstrate reliable sources outside of the church fathers which demonstrate that the Ebionites believed in a virgin birth. I look forward to it.
"He was ill from the torture, the whipping, the beating, the scourging, and the crucifixion on the cross. Now I've been generous to allow you to utilise that particular translation, but please, don't ignore the many other translations that exist:"
Ill from the torture? What sickness/ disease did he have on the cross? They called him the leper scholar because according to their understanding, he was to be afflicted with some sickness. That disease being, leprosy. Instead of appealing to translations, let's go to the source:
My Response: I have already explained this to you, but I will explain again. The Talmud demonstrates that Judaism taught the concept of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah. Obviously they did not believe that Jesus was that Messiah. One Rabbi refers to this Messiah as a leper scholar. Now I will ask you Abu, since you want to insist on this leprosy issue. Do you as a Muslim consider the Talmud to be an infallible inspired text? I hope for your sake that you say no, because the views of Jesus that are portrayed therein are very negative. Furthermore, as demonstrated, this one takes the sickness of iniquities(sin) of His people upon Himself. Furthermore He is crushed and smitted by God.
Abu said: חלה to be or become weak, be or become sick, be or become diseased, be or become grieved, be or become sorry (Qal) to be weak, be sick (Piel) to become sick, become ill (CLBL) to entreat, pray, beg (Niphal) to make oneself sick to be made sick to be tired (Pual) to be made weak, become weak (Hithpael) to make oneself sick (Hiphil) to make sick to show signs of sickness, become sick to grieve (Hophal) to be made sick to be wounded
My Response: Thank you for demonstrating that being wounded or grieved are within the semantic range.
Abu said: As far as the translations go, the understanding he was made to be sick or diseased are the most prevalent. I checked both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text to derive this understanding based Strong's lexicon.
My Response: Not quite what you were hoping for though was it Abu? Obviously being grieved and wounded are listed as valid renderings. Thank you for proving it to me.
Abu said: If you deny the Judaic understanding that he was cursed/ made ill by God with leprosy and intended to mean that the Jewish version is wrong, but yours is right, then on what basis did you think it was okay to quote them?
My Response: My purpose in quoting hostile sources was to demonstate that the concept of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah most certainly was believed as a concept among Jews of the first century.
Abu said: The Judaic understanding is that he was cut from the land, i.e. exiled because of the plague which afflicted him:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to crush him and to cause him to repent; therefore, he made him ill.
The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them.
Which makes sense, because this is what they did to lepers. So either you accede to the Judaic understanding which you appeal to, or don't reference sources which oppose your entire doctrine.
My Response: So the Messiah is punished with leprosy and then exiled. Can you please tell me which Jewish sources teach this? And why is this Messiah being punished Abu? Is this an Islamic doctrine? Was Jesus punished with leprosy?
“This is exactly what I've been talking about. You come up with arbitrary criteria and I have no idea where that comes from. Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?”
Let's ask you that question, because as I am understanding, you appealed to the Rabbinic Jews' understanding of the Messiah, when I demonstrated that their understanding of him was an anti-thesis to yours, you claimed then that you wanted to demonstrate that the Messiah was to suffer. I have no problem with a Prophet of God having to suffer, for so did ours.
My Response: Err let's ask me that question? Abu, you're the person who objected to spiritual and physical concepts co-existing in a passage of scripture, not I. So rather than asking me the question that I asked you and does not apply to me, why don't you try answer it? I'll ask it again; Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?
As for my having “appealed to the Rabbinic Jews' understanding of the Messiah, it is unfortunate that I have to repeat myself. The only reason I even went to the Talmud, was to demonstrate from a Jewish source, albeit hostile towards Jesus, that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah indeed did exist in 1st century Judaism.
Now you want to reduce its implications to a mere suffering. But Isaiah 53 very clearly teaches the death of the Messiah who is cut off from the land of the living, crushed by God, smitten by God.
I'm glad that you likewise acknowledge the hostile nature of the Talmud. What is interesting however is that your Qur'an borrowed myths from the Talmud, ending up as a part of your Scripture. Amazing how such a book that spews hatred against Jesus becomes a source of Qur'anic inspiration!
Abu said: However the problem here, lies within your appeal to authority. Fine and dandy you showed that they believed one of their Messiahs were to be afflicted by God's punishment, which then brings into question, why would God want to punish his Messiah? In Yeshayahu, we read:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.
To make restitution, i.e. to get closer to God. So if you're going to quote Jewish scripture, take it entirely into context please. From my previous comment, I established the Judaic narrative of understanding of a leper Messiah, which you accepted in your Judaic source which you provided as an authority.
My Response: I'm not sure if your question was intended to be Rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway. You ask why would God want to punish his Messiah? I'm surprised you have to ask. The answer is right there in Isaiah chapter 53:
5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
So the reason why God crushed the Messiah was to heal His people of their transgressions, their iniquities. I see nothing there about crushing the Messiah to make Him closer to God.
Abu said: With that in mind, your authority and the scripture in itself denote that God is punishing someone, through disease to make him closer to Him. If that is the case, are you saying that Christ was punished by God, to bring Christ closer to God?
To bring Christ closer to God? Where do you get that from in the text? It plainly says that He was pained for their transgressions, crushed for their iniquities, and that by His wounds, they are healed.
You then went on to reference Yirmiyahu 18:20-21. To be fair, let's go to the Jewish version:
Hearken, O Lord, to me, and hear the voice of those who quarrel with me. . Shall evil be paid instead of good, for they have dug a pit for my life. Remember when I stood before You to speak good for them, to bring back Your wrath from them. Therefore, deliver their children to the famine and spill their blood by the sword, and let their wives be bereaved and widows, and their husbands slain by death, their youths struck by the sword in battle. 18:19-21.
Nothing about being cut from the land of the living.
My Response: Oh dear, did I say 18:19-21, I meant 11:19-21. To be fair, let's go to the Jewish version:
19. And I was like a lamb and a bull, [that is] brought to the slaughter, and I did not know that they had devised plans about me, "Let us destroy his food with wood, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name no longer be remembered." 20. And the Lord of Hosts is a just Judge, Who searches the kidneys and the heart, "Let me see Your vengeance against them, for to You, I have revealed my cause. 21. Therefore, so says the Lord of Hosts concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, "You shall not prophesy in the name of the Lord, and you shall not die by our hand."
Plain to see Abu, this is talking about killing, plain and simple. Not exile like you tried with Rashi's explanation of Isaiah 53.
My Response: New International Version: 19 I had been like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; I did not realize that they had plotted against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree and its fruit; let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more." 20 But, O LORD Almighty, you who judge righteously and test the heart and mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you I have committed my cause. 21 "Therefore this is what the LORD says about the men of Anathoth who are seeking your life and saying, 'Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD or you will die by our hands'--
My Response: New Living Translation 19 I had been as unaware as a lamb on the way to its slaughter. I had no idea that they were planning to kill me! "Let's destroy this man and all his words," they said. "Let's kill him, so his name will be forgotten forever." 20 O LORD Almighty, you are just, and you examine the deepest thoughts of hearts and minds. Let me see your vengeance against them, for I have committed my cause to you. 21 The men of Anathoth wanted me dead. They said they would kill me if I did not stop speaking in the LORD's name.
My Response: English Standard Version 19 But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was against me they devised schemes, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more." 20 But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, who tests the heart and the mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you have I committed my cause. 21 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, and say, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, or you will die by our hand"--
My Response: New American Standard 19 But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter ; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, And let us cut him off from the land of the living, That his name be remembered no more." 20 But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, Who tries the feelings and the heart, Let me see Your vengeance on them, For to You have I committed my cause. 21 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, so that you will not die at our hand ";
Abu said: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response: King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) 19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter ; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered . 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD of the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying , Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
My Response: 19 I was like a trusting lamb brought to the slaughter. I didn't know that they were plotting against me. They were saying, "Let's destroy the tree with its fruit. Let's cut Jeremiah off from this world of the living so that we won't be reminded of him anymore." 20 O LORD of Armies, you judge fairly and test motives and thoughts. I want to see you take revenge on them, because I've brought my case to you. 21 This is what the LORD says: The people of Anathoth want to kill you. They say, "Don't prophesy in the name of the LORD, or we'll kill you."
Abu said: American King James Version Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response American King James Version 19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judge righteously, that try the reins and the heart, let me see your vengeance on them: for to you have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus said the LORD of the men of Anathoth, that seek your life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that you die not by our hand:
American Standard Version Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
My Response: American Standard Version 19 But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O Jehovah of hosts, who judgest righteously, who triest the heart and the mind, I shall see thy vengeance on them; for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of Jehovah, that thou die not by our hand;
Abu said: Douay-Rheims Bible Therefore deliver up their children to famine, and bring them into the hands of the sword: let their wives be bereaved of children and widows: and let their husbands be slain by death: let their young men be stabbed with the sword in battle.
My Response: Douay-Rheims Bible 19 And I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim: and I knew not that they had devised counsels against me, saying: Let us put wood on his bread, and cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name be remembered no more. 20 But thou, O Lord of Sabaoth, who judgest justly, and triest the reins and the hearts, let me see thy revenge on them: for to thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the Lord to the men of Anathoth, who seek thy life, and say: Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of the Lord, and thou shalt not die in our hands.
Abu said: Darby Bible Translation Therefore give up their children to the famine, and deliver them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of children and be widows; and let their men be swept off by death, their young men be smitten by the sword in battle.
My Response: Darby Bible Translation 19 And I was like a tame lamb [that] is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they devised devices against me, [saying,] Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But thou, Jehovah of hosts, who judgest righteously, who triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of Jehovah, that thou die not by our hand,
Abu said: English Revised Version Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
My Response: English Revise Version 19 But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
Abu said: Webster's Bible Translation Therefore deliver their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response: Webster's Bible Translation 19 But I [was] like a lamb [or] an ox [that] is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for to thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
Abu said: World English Bible Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, [and] their young men struck of the sword in battle.
My Response: 19 But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I didn't know that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit of it, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, Yahweh of Hosts, who judge righteously, who try the heart and the mind, I shall see your vengeance on them; for to you have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, You shall not prophesy in the name of Yahweh, that you not die by our hand;
Abu said: Young's Literal Translation Therefore, give up their sons to famine, And cause them to run on the sides of the sword, And their wives are bereaved and widows, And their men are slain by death, Their young men smitten by sword in battle,
My Response: Young's Literal Translation 19 And I [am] as a trained lamb brought to slaughter, And I have not known That against me they have devised devices: We destroy the tree with its food, and cut him off From the land of the living, And his name is not remembered again. 20 And O Jehovah of Hosts, judging righteousness, Trying reins and heart, I do see Thy vengeance against them, For unto Thee I have revealed my cause.' 21 Therefore, thus said Jehovah concerning the men of Anathoth, who are seeking thy life, saying: Do not prophesy in the name of Jehovah, And thou dost not die by our hands.
Abu said: http://bible.cc/jeremiah/18-21.htm
My Response You know what Abu? I feel kinda bad about that one. I mean it was my typo. I meant chapter 11 instead of 18, and then poor 'ol you went to the trouble of posting all these bible translations for the wrong chapter. Bless your cotton socks! You really were led like a lamb to the slaughter weren't you? I would have thought that if the verse didn't come up right for you, that you would have suspected that I had accidentally typed in the wrong verse reference and tried searching for it but alas, I guess that was asking too much wasn't it?
Abu said Nothing like what you claim. Therefore, based on your use of translation to demonstrate a point above, we duly note that under the same criteria you have no basis for your understanding from the verse in Jeremiah to Isaiah.
"A group of Jews meet the “Mohammaden authors” roughly 500 years after the migation following the destruction of the second temple. This group has some knowledge of the Talmud. Where did that knowledge of the talmud come from Abu?".
If they were Rabbinic Jews, and as you demonstrated, persons who held closely to their beliefs, see your commentary on Josephus' notes, then your own thesis above is incorrect. So either you go with your previous thesis and they were great studiers of the Talmud or with your new understanding that although they were great studiers, they stopped doing that around Islam's time.
My Response: Abu, as far as the Jews in Arabia who met with Mohammad and His companions, I do not know how diligent or well learned they were with regards to the Talmud. What I do know is that the knowledge that they did have was certainly not passed onto them by their Arab neighbours. It would have been passed down from their parents. Considering that the Talmud is a vehemently opposed to Jesus Christ. It would seem curious indeed that knowledge of its contents would be handed down and preserved for 500 years if such people were lovers of Jesus. However, you have concluded that this group were the Essenes with zero evidence.
Abu said: "Obviously it must have been handed to them by their parents, and subsequently the grandparents, great-grandparents, an so on all the way back to this group who had migrated. Now I'm going to ask you, how did these descendents, still manage to have knowledge of the talmud even 500 years after the migration to Arabia? Surely this migrating group would have been talmudic abiding Jews."
Incorrect. If they did in fact make it a pivotal point in their theology to have the Talmud descend throughout their lineage, then little study of the Bible would contradict that. The pieces for the puzzle you are trying to fit together are incoherent and inconsistent. How could they have through oral tradition or otherwise, passed down knowledge of the Talmud, essentially commentary on the Bible from High Priests and not have a proper study of the Bible, along with holding heretical views which contradicted Rabbinic Judaism?
My Response: We don't know how much knowledge they had, but apparently it was limited according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which describes this group as having little study and merely “some knowledge” of the bible, Talmud, and prayer book. The fact that you have this group meeting with Mohammad and his companions who have little study among them, yet some knowledge of the bible and the Talmud, indicates to us that their ancestors who had gone before them, considered the Talmud (and Tanach) worthy of preservation and handing down.
Abu said: "Yet we know that the Talmud presents a negative picture of Jesus. Such would indicate that the migrating group are not the people you're looking for."
People have knowledge of, and abiding by are two different things. Under your logic, because you have knowledge of the "Islam", as passed down from your teachers, although little in study, that means you're not a real Christian. Do you therefore, grasp how absurd your own reasoning is?
My Response It’s one thing for one person to receive some knowledge of a faith that they hate and pass that on. It’s quite another to preserve such teaching for 500 years. And it is reasonable to infer that the group of Jews who did meet with Mohammad had a favourable opinion of the Talmud than a hostile one as we see elements of the Talmud finding their way into the Qur’an itself, despite the Talmud not being an infallible or inspired text.
But now, if I was to use your argument against you, I could simply say that just because this group had knowledge of the Torah, doesn’t mean they believed in it. They could have had a hostile attitude towards it but kept it in their possession to warn their children about it. I don’t believe that was the case for a minute and nor would you. So be consistent, and tell me what this group of Jews was doing preserving the knowledge of a book that spoke so hatefully against Jesus Christ. The Essenes abandon their writings in caves and instead preserve teachings of an anti-Jesus book for five hundred years. Wow. Nice going Abu.
Having surveyed Abu's arguments, I am strengthened even more firmly in my convictions that the Isa of the Qur'an is a myth. There is no historical Isa of the Qur'an. I will assume that Abu has expended his best efforts and has exhausted his best arguments in order to somehow try to establish that the Essenes (or Ebionites) were the Pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. It is rather curious indeed that a Muslim arguing so passionately still is unable to make up his mind which of the two groups were such followers. Indeed, it spits in the face of the Qur'an which states that the true followers of Jesus would be uppermost, that they would prevail over the disbelievers unto the day of Resurrection.
I do not expect Abu to bring anything compelling for the remainder of his posts here. The arguments he has made, the sources he has appealed to, and the quotes he has provided have done absolutely nothing to establish the baseless claim that the Essenes were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. Therefore, I will allow Abu to continue posting here if he so desires but I can guarantee he will not be able to produce a single manuscript from the Essenes ever mentioning the name of Jesus.
The Isa of the Qur'an is not to be found in history. Contrast this with the Jesus of the bible. We have thousands of manuscripts from the New Testament writers. We know where Jesus was born, what His genealogy was, who were His disciples, what His mission was, and what self-awareness He had concerning His Deity and relationship to the Father. We have extra-biblical reports of the early Christians worshiping Jesus Christ, directing hymns and prayers to Him. We have extra biblical reports testifying of His crucifixion. We have extra-biblical reports inferring the empty tomb by accusing the disciples of stealing His body. The amount of testimony we have for the Jesus of Christianity is overwhelming. The evidence for the Islamic Jesus by contrast is not merely scant, it is non-existant!
Lord, open the eyes of those the Muslims who come here. We pray you would show them that you entered into Human History, God becoming flesh, to tabernacle with us. Lord we pray you would tabernacle with them. Bring them to repentance. Cause them to turn from their sin of unbelief. And turn their lips from hatred to praise. Turn their hearts from darkness to light. Turn them from the dead god of Islam to the true and Living God. Grace them we pray! Lord we thank and praise you that those who are in Christ will prevail, will be uppermost, because of your precious blood! Your blood causes us to prevail over your enemy! Your blood preserves us for your testimony! All praise, honor, and glory be thine, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord!
310 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 310 of 310@Royalson,
"you are going to have to demonstrate why you believe such a Talmudic group were Muslim followers of Jesus?".
You'd have to demonstrate for me that because they had little study of the Torah, they then had study of the Talmud. Because if they had study of the Talmud, then as the quote puts it, they would not have had little study of the Torah. So either your argument is invalid or the CE is lying. Which is it?
"We are this far into the discussion, and you still haven't brought any texts from the Essenes themselves which speak of their beliefs in Jesus. Please do so. Produce the goods!"
I did, you just pretended not to see them:
"4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]
He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]"
Miracle Birth + Word/ Breath from God. Fits in with the Islamic perspective.
"1. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was the Messiah."
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever
expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic
Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment
of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person
of the Teacher of Righteousness." - The Complete DSS, Vernes pg 87.
"2. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was born of a virgin."
Quoted above already, MSS Papyri # given.
"3. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not crucified."
"4Q252 5:1-4
[V5/462Ð63, GM/215, WAC/277]
A sovereign shall not be removed from the tribe of Judah.
While Israel has the dominion, there will not lack someone who sits on the throne of David.
For the staff is the covenant of royalty, the thousands of Israel are the feet . . . Until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the Branch of David.
For to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of royalty over his people for all everlasting generations. . . ."
"1QS 9:11
[V5/100, GM/13Ð14, WAC/139]
They shall . . . be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until here shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."
No death, he'd rule the Israelites for everlasting generations, until the Prophet comes and unites with him the Messiah of Israel. Strangely enough, an Islamic belief as well.
"4. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not the son of God."
"1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10]
[V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94]
She labors in her pains who bears a man. For amid the throes of Death
She shall bring forth a man-child,
and amid the pains of Hell
there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible a Marvelous Mighty Counselor [Isaiah 9:5-6];
and a Man shall be delivered from out of the throes."
Son of God? Nope. God's son? Nope. Man God? Nope.
"5. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not the Divine."
See above.
@Royalson,
"Hilarious."
Yes, it's so funny! I spelled someone's name wrong in a paragraph. Such a disaster! Shocking!
"And stop misrepresenting what Clair Tisdall is saying. If you look at the quote carefully that you've ben referring to, Tisdall is speaking about groups throughout different periods who migrated to Arabia, even centuries before the Essenes came onto the scene, or are you going to tell me that every single group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes? After all, you're assuming that this group agreed with EVERYTHING that the Mohammaden authors believed."
If you read his quote, or rather your quote of him, they last time period he gives, is in line with the second temple being destroyed, which fits in with the criteria I've been using all long:
Nebuchadnezzar(605BC - 562BC), Pompey(106BC - 48BC), Titus(31AD - 81AD) Hadrian (76AD - 138AD)
Reading helps, like, a lot.
"Based upon those words, you have concluded that it means that Mohammaden authors agreed with everything that this group of Jews believed. Are you going to dare to make that same mistake again? If you do, I will take you to task for it!".
If you read Clair's words, he states that allegedly, we are in agreement with most of their works/ beliefs because we borrowed them. That is explicit. You can take me to task, but it's not going to help you. Seeing as he asserts that our beliefs are so similar we had to copy them, then he is in implicit agreement that our ideologies were similar. This would agree with the Islamic narrative that the Sunnah of a people from a Prophet would differ. So that gives us a leeway of differing with them in some areas.
"Then you have Hadrian (76AD-138AD). The problem with this is glaringly obvious. This group fled from Hadrian between 130 and 135AD from Jerusalem! Since there were no further records of the Essenes after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, the group that fled to Arabia from Jerusalem from 130AD - 135AD were obviously not the Essenes!".
Your argument can be easily disproved, the dates are tentative, but revolve around the Temple's destruction, we know they fled at this specific point in time and shortly thereafter, in which the CE indicates the date of their disappearance as we knew them in Judea/ Qumran to be near the end of the first century not exactly, absolutely in 70 AD:
"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D."
@Royalson,
"4 migrations to Arabia are mentioned by Clair Tisdall."
So are you therefore claiming there are only 4 mass Jewish migrations to Arabia? This isn't a spoken debate, but a written, so under the same criteria you held me under previously, I shall ask of you to be honest and do the same. List all the possible migrations and let's look at them. If you are sticking to only these 4 then, you're being dishonest, as we know there were more.
"1 migration occurred before the Essenes existed as a sect.
1 migration occurred after the Essenes had been wiped out."
Your second premise was refuted in my previous comment:
The CE says:
"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D. "
Whereas we do have documents from their caves dating between 132-135 AD from the 2nd jewish revolt, see DSS Bastian Elveren.
I already provided manuscripts for their beliefs, in numerous comments above. Just scroll and you'd have them, this is assuming of course, you are literate.
@Royalson,
"Ah Abu. It seems that you're a few steps behind so I'll bring you up to speed. The mentioning of the Septuagint was to show that Jews were not confined to the Dead Sea Scrolls readings but also did use the Septuagint. I was not even addressing whether the Septuagint readings are superior to the Masoretic or DSS texts or not. We know that various Jewish groups rejected Jesus as being the Messiah, so an appeal to Isaiah 7:14 as proof that the Essenes believed in the virgin birth of Jesus does not hold water. And by the way, the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of manuscripts that pre-dated them. I hope you're aware of this. You seriously not trying to assume that the Essenes actually authored Isaiah 7:14 are you?".
What's wrong with you? Either you're drunk or high, otherwise you'd have to provide some logical explanation as to how you could derive such an inane argument from my writing. In any case, I already demonstrated they believed in a miraculous birth from the Word/ Breath of God:
4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath
[are from God]
"Ah, now you want to appeal to the Panarion again. A few posts back you were rejecting Epiphanius' work and used a quote from Bart Ehrman''s book but now you want to invoke him again?".
I didn't reject the Panarion, recall my words from Barth, wherein I stated clearly that I took the claims which were in contradiction with the other Patristics, with a pound of salt.
"How can you derive the Essene's view of the MESSIAH by looking at the Old Testament? Where do you get the idea that the Old Testament speaks of the Essene's view of the Messiah? That the Essenes differed from the Pharisees in their traditions does not tell you what their view of the Messiah actually was!"
I look at the MST and the DSS and they are very similar:
"Compared to the often meaningful
divergences between the traditional Hebrew text and its ancient
Greek, Latin or Syriac translations, the few variant readings of the
Masoretic Bible manuscripts, ignoring obvious scribal errors, mainly concern
spelling. By contrast, the Qumran scriptural scrolls, and especially
the fragments, are characterized by extreme fluidity: they often differ not just from the customary wording but also, when the same book is attested by several manuscripts, among themselves. In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text." - Complete DSS, Vermes, pg 16.
@Royalson,
"What? That's your proof? What a let-down. Abu, all that's telling me is that the Greeks refer to a group of people who live in the same way that the Essenes do, and they call them Pythagoreans."
It states their beliefs were the same which matched other groups:
"In Greece the Pythagoreans, in Egypt the Therapeuts, and in Syria the Essenes."
"That does not make them the same group. If you insist that they are, then I will congratulate you for destroying your case once again. The Pythagoreans were polytheists! Still want to claim that they are the same group? Just because you've got two groups that engage in some similar practices does not make them identical. Abu you really shot yourself in the foot with that one!"
At the time of Josephus we read and accept according to his understanding they are the same. After that they may have differed but during the time of Josephus, we atleast have a uniform belief on their doctrine towards God, which is also bolstered by their anti-Trinitarian dogma:
"They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient." - CE.
"Same beliefs in Egypt ? Congratulations, more polytheism. Keep this up Abu, your Imam will be proud. Oh, in case you didn't catch that, it was sarcasm.".
Again, I can actually provide references for my arguments and link my quotes together with sequitur conclusions, you on the other hand, deny, make some random statement and then an insult at the end of each comment.
@Royalson,
"It was to demonstrate their dilgence to preserving their teachings."
They did preserve their teachings, so well, we have them:
"The procedure followed in inquiries into infringements of the Law and the sect’s Rule has been preserved, and the list of faults with their corresponding sentences tells us more about the mentality of the Dead Sea ascetics than any isolated exposition of their doctrine and principles
can do." - Ibid, Vermes, pg 30.
You claimed::
"But instead you want us to believe that they basically decided to leave their manuscripts in their caves and abandon them, travelling miles away, with no possibility of passing them onto their children. Nice strawman you made."
So the Qurman scrolls according to your logic, couldn't have been put in caves, hidden from the invading Roman armies, preserved for some 2000 years because they were diligent in their faith? So let's see, if the people who left the scrolls behind weren't diligent Essenes, then who left them there?
@Radical Immoderate,
So Abu tell me is the Islamic Jesus, a New Mosses? Is the Islamic Jesus Elijah? Also tell us if Jesus is the “Teacher of Righteousness and he is a Messiah” then who are the other Two Messiahs that they were waiting for?
Abu what you have done, what you did in our debate and what you continue to do is take various quotes by various authors and either make a conclusion that they never would do, or ascribe to them a conclusion that they would never dream of.
So Abu tell me is it Geza Vermes position that Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness? Is it Robert Eisermens position that Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness’? How did you conclude that the teacher of Righteousness is in fact Jesus?"
If you read the quote, it brings to light a few questions for you, not for me:
“Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah (Mal. iv, 5; 1 Enoch xc, 31, 37; Matth. xi, 13; xvii, 12), or as a divine guide sent to Israel in the final days (1 Mac. iv, 46; xiv, 41; Jn. i, 21), no doubt identical with ‘the Prophet’ promised by God to Moses (‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you… He shall convey all my commands to them’, Deut. xviii, 15–18; cf. Acts iii, 22–3; vii, 37).
They expected a new leader like Moses, someone who would lead their people to prosperity, this is one of the many roles of the Messiah.
Note that the Jews at Jesus' time were also looking for an Elijah, if we read the NT, that's exactly what the Pharisees did.
Therefore using your quote from Vermes, pg 87 and my quote, they were expecting a Messiah soon, who would be like Moses and lead them, something which their scrolls indicated:
"1QS 9:11
[V5/100, GM/13Ð14, WAC/139]
They shall . . . be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."
However his rule (the Messiah(s) of Israel) would end with the coming of the Prophet, which Prophet? Well they weren't expecting one from Israel nor a Messiah from Aaron, but a Prophet, see Deu. 18:18, who would also follow on the path of Moses.
@Royalson,
"Funny how you isolate the Zealots. I simply mentioned them to counter the claim that there were only 3 main sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus.I actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia.".
I know you claimed that. Which contradicts your next statement:
"In fact I repeatedly claimed that I could not make a positive identification for this group precisely because we are not given any identification of that group in any source."
So you supposed that the Zealots or an amalgamated group of Jews were the group that migrated, but now you're saying you can't identify the group as such? So either you've changed your position, or figured your evidence was so shoddy you've abandoned your point!
"Furthermore, the debate thesis was “Were the ESSENES the pre-mohammad islamic followers of Jesus” You were debating for the affirmative, thus the burden of proof fell upon you to prove that thesis. It was your job to provide the evidence that the group were Essenes."
You finally realised this, did you? I made the point that I did not have to present any other groups but the Essenes, yet for over 18 comments you chided me for not examining the Zealots and any other groups beside the Pharisees and Sadducees. Do you not see your own hypocrisy?
As for who has to do what. As I told you, I already positively identified the Essenes, your job, well Radical's job was to negate my evidences and prove they weren't. You on the other hand, walked in for him and have decided to positively identify two possible groups. Now I've done my part, so your job is now two fold, refute the arguments I have presented for my group and then demonstrate to me why the groups you chose were the ones who migrated. Simple.
"IRRELEVANT - Not my job to identify the group that left Judea. The group is never identified in any historical source."
See the reference from Josephus who mentions they were present in his time and in numerous areas under different names, as I previously quoted. So yes, there was a historical source which did identify them. Problem?
"Where do you get the idea that this migrating group of Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah? I never asserted such a thing. But since you believe this, I will again ask you for the manuscript evidence."
See my quote from Vermes, that her asserts their Messiah must have already come and secondly that the Messiah was divinely brought into the world, i.e. miracle birth. Who does that sound like to you?
@Radical Immoderate,
"That a group of Jews who had limited knowledge of the bible, did not establish regular study who brought a limited knowledge of the Talmud, fled to Arabia after the war of 70 AD."
Please tell Royalson this, he thinks they actually brought the Talmud with them. Is he right, or are you? If so, should I adopt his position or yours?
"You then just conclude that they were Essenes because they did not produce any Talmudic authority accept what Mohamadian authors considered. You also base your conclusion that Clair Tinsdale called the Mohamadians Jewish Heretics and that Mohamed borrowed so much of his new religion from the Jews of Arabia. That’s an interesting position Abu since I thought Islam came from ALLAH and not from the Jews. Are you saying that Mohamed got revelation from the JEWS?Abu you then throw in some random quote about the Essenes from I don’t know since you never site a source."
I cited all my sources, why are you being dishonest?
"What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor."
They were very religious, more so than the Pharisees, have you not read Josephus' account of them? It's really explicit all the rituals they did.
@Radical Immoderate,
"Yes the Essenes where first century Jews so its good to know they held a first century Jewish idea about the Messiah. And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
What is interesting now, is that after having asked for me to prove that the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth, you now claim to have known that. Please provide evidence for me where you proved they believed in a virgin birth, that is the Essenes, specifically. That was one of the 3 pivots of veracity in the debate. Strange enough now, you claim to have known this, so either you hid the fact they did believe this, which is dishonest, or you only now came to know of it, but don't want to concede you didn't, so therefore you must be arrogant. Which is it?
"Abu Geza Vermes does not say the Messiah was already with them. Geza Vermes position is that the Prophet only mentioned once is a “Possible Third Messiah” and that he is the Teacher of Righteousness who is the founder of the Community.
Let's quote Vermes:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was
no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
Comparing the two parts in the bold with your statement, I do believe you are either lying or trying to deceive yourself. I do emplore you to surrender your spirit of deceit and enter into the truth.
"As far as the broken verse there is only two possible ways it could be read. “He killed” or “Had Killed” or as Robert Eiserman has it “He was killed”.
Quote and cite him and the source which you claim, and then we'd work from there. No evidence, renders no response.
"So you choose was the Mesiah the branch of David Killed or did he Kill someone. So if you disagree with that then take it up with the scholars who have worked on the DSS scrolls I’m sure they would love to laugh at you just as much as we are laughing at you now."
I'm still laughing at you, cite where Eisenmann or Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed, because I showed otherwise:
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
So it's either you agree with the evidence given by Vermes or you're saying Vermes is lying. Which is it?
@Radical Immoderate,
"So the Kittim are Jews that are being conquered? Wow stretching the bounds of all reason and logic."
Are you dense? I said the opposite, that the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.
"I do not have to deal with your pathetic attempt to run from the debate topic as well as the topic of this discussion. Whether or not the Jews or the Essenes of the first century believed in the suffering of the Messiah or not is irrelevant to the topic."
I think someone's words indicate they are upset. That quote is from the renowned scholar whom you appeal to. The person who has studied the DSS, seeing as he has studied the DSS, and the Essenes are Jews, then this quote is extremely relevant.
"You have to prove that they believed in JESUS that they knew Jesus and now that he was their righteous teacher and all the other nonsensical claims you continue to make."
Awww, someone's really ticked off now, it's actually kind of cute, you've been shot down with so many quotes and references from sources you trusted and now they're backfiring. I already demonstrated two things, both from quotes from Vermes, the first being from The Complete DSS, pg 87 that their Messiah had come and from 4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] that the Messiah was born of a virgin. Problem? For you, yes.
“It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q471b, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 86). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
“The editor of the second text, Esther Eshel, proposes the more likely interpretation that the speaker of the hymn is the eschatological high priest, first humiliated by his opponents before sharing the glory of the ‘gods’ or ‘holy ones’.
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 342). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
Messiah != High Priest. He made the claim for 3 Messiahs, none of which are called High Priests. Therefore your quotes are useless in this case, just throwing sand in the air to mask your ignorance and shame.
@Royalson,
"Was it that group of Essenes that you believe migrated while the ones holding to celibacy were not involved in the migrattion or do you believe it was a combination of the two?".
You need to read the Panarion, Josephus' works and the JE, where those who married returned to the order afterwards, while another subset married and allowed marriage entirely.
"Of course the knowledge of each person would have differed, and the example of wives and children is a good example."
I know. ;-)
"However, it would still be the intent of the Essenes to ensure the preservation of their texts and teachings. However, you want us to believe that they simply cast them aside and moved to Arabia. I'm not sure why you come to this conclusion."
So you're saying it wasn't the Essenes who fled Roman persecution, and hid their writings in their caves in Qumran? Who then were the authors at Qumran?
"Perpetually a lover of truth: Does that truth include what He considers to be the inspired word of God? ".
I don't see why not.
"Equally preserve the books belonging to their sect: Just abandon them in caves?"
See, now your argument supposes if the Essenes loved their books then they wouldn't have left them in caves. The consensus of all DS scholars is that the authors and the persons who lived in Qumran were the Essenes. Essentially, as of now, you're arguing against all of Dead Sea scholarship, textual criticism, historians and archaeologists.
"Their scripture is a part of their tradition, and you believe they simply discarded it and left it in caves."
So the Essenes did not leave their scrolls and papyri in the caves of Qumran, who did then?
@Royalson,
"There you've gone and shot yourself in the foot again. So now you're saying that the Mohammaden authors would have considered them unlearned in the scriptures because their teachings would not be preached to them. Haha, so in other words, the Mohammaden authors didn't really get much out of them. So then how can you conclude that they got the beliefs of Jesus out of them? You don't realise how often you keep contradicting yourself Abu. It's quite sad really."
You seriously need to learn how to read. I said if we function with your argument, then working from it we derive the following understanding:
"It’s plausible by your argument as you claim they only kept their doctrine to themselves, therefore to others they would seemed unlearned of their scriptures, as it would not be preached to them. Thanks for proving my argument for me. Now to turn it on you, can you demonstrate if according to you the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots held such a belief or were unlearned in the teaching of the Torah?".
Please learn to read, I am using *your* supposed argument, if you think it's foolish, then you're really exposing the fallacies of your own premises. See? If I accept your arguments, you clearly displayed that we would both be wrong. Good job, kiddo.
Royalson,
"Whether or not they physically had the Talmud in their possession is irrelevant. That this generation would have knowledge of the Talmud infers that they had learnt it from their parents. As such, what we do know is that their forefathers followed the Talmud. You ought to know that the Talmud speaks very negatively of Jesus. Still want to insist that this group were followers of Jesus?"
Where did the forefathers of the Essenes allow the Talmud? This mysterious group of whom you are referring to who migrated, what evidence do you have to suggest they once held and studied the Talmud? It's obvious they had some knowledge, so which group of Jews is this that migrated, but only had some knowledge of the Talmud?
"It does not say tha tthey didn't produce any Rabbinic Authority, it says they didn't produce any Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors."
Which Rabbinic authority do Muslims accept?
"Earlier you suggested that this group would have suppressed their teachings from the Mohammedan authors giving the appearance that they were not well studied by way of applying their oath."
Sorry Royalson, that was *your* argument, I was only using it to see what you'd say if I used your argument. I said, if your argument was plausible, then such and such would be the case. Since you've thus, then demonstrated that the premises derived from your very own argument are fallacious, then you've really proven that your *own* argument was absurd. Good job.
"And again, the fact that this generation in Arabia had knowledge of the Talmud centuries after the migration of their forefathers certainly implies that such Talmudic knowledge had been passed onto them by them. Again, the reference says “no Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors. That does not mean no Rabbinic authority at all. Please read the sources carefully before you form your arguments."
Please note, that the CE states explicitly that the group which migrated, had little study, not the group which came after the group that migrated. You are reading the statement incorrectly. The group which went to Arabia, at that time had little study of the Torah, not the other way around.
What Rabbinic authority agrees with Islam?
@Royalson,
"It would be blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be God unless.........He is God! Too bad you made a categorical fallacy and forced the application of a mere creature to Jesus, and yet Abu, there are no texts that you have produced for us so far where the Essenes denied the Deity of Jesus Christ."
I already quoted many texts:
1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10]
[V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94]
She labors in her pains who bears a man.
For amid the throes of Death
She shall bring forth a man-child,
and amid the pains of Hell
there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible
a Marvelous Mighty Counselor [Isaiah 9:5-6];
and a Man shall be delivered from out of the throes.
He's called a man, not a son of God, God's son, Jesus, Yeshua, YHWH, just a man.
"Please demonstrate the contradictory attributions of the Church Fathers regarding the subsets of the Ebionites. Then once you've done that, please demonstrate the belief that ONE subset believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Please show me your sources so I can see what you take as valid. Simply trying to dismiss Epiphanius shortly after appealing to him in the same breath by invoking Bart Ehrman does not bode well for your credibility, sorry to say."
See your buddy Radical, who stated the following:
" And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
So he confirms the standard Jewish belief (and the Ebionites were Messianic Jews) held this belief. So is Radical wrong?
Also, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Bart Ehrman is wrong, that they were indeed united in the belief that Jesus was born of a man. I provided two sources (Panarion and Bart) which demonstrate they differed. You therefore have to provide a source which says they were monolithic and unanimous in this position of being born of a man.
Which you did admit, they did differ, so you do agree with me, as you said this a paragraph later:
"And then Epiphanius goes on to EXPLAIN what those differences were"
So they did differ, the belief of Christ being man was not unanimous, therefore you've proven yourself wrong.
"And obviously you would think that the Pharisees are poorly learnt anyway since they misapplied scripture, rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, rejecting Him as being born of a virgin, and believing in his crucifixion!"
What's funny with this is that now you're so desperate, you're defending the Pharisees who hated Christ, when we Muslims love him! So in your haste to deny and attack everything I say, you're now having to say that the Pharisees were well learned and that's why they rejected Christ. Thanks for the anti-Christ position you just took, justifying the Jewish position. How funny.
@Royalson,
"Please be aware that you are comparing apples and oranges, for in the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus positively states that He is not the Messiah. Yet in the Gospels, Jesus does not say “I am not good”, rather He asks a question, “Why do you call me good? There is none that is good but God.” Now was Jesus saying He's not good here? No. In fact, He also refers to Himself as the Good Shepherd. With the Gospel of Barnabas however, Jesus says He is not the Messiah. You want to tell me that “I am not the Messiah” does not mean “I am not the Messiah.” "
Illogical reasoning. How does Christ saying he is not good, make him God?
Using the same reasoning. Christ claiming not to be the Christ, makes him Christ.
Simple. I use your logic and you tell me I'm wrong. It's good to see we agree on your logic and rationale.
"Again, Jesus is not claiming He is not good. He is questioning a person about why they call Him good."
If you ask me if I am good and I say, as a Muslim, that none is good but Allaah. Does not make me Allaah?
There we go. So far Royalson, has deemed most of his own arguments false, when I use them to demonstrate my points. Scroll up and see, any point I presupposed that could be plausible, he later says is wrong. Which means his own arguments are against himself.
I presented many manuscript evidences, yet he persists in saying I did not. Royalson, try to debate me in person, log in on Paltalk and do it like a man. ;-)
Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate:
callingchristians@gmail.com
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Admit it Abu, you cited a sentence in Israel Knohl's work, without even realising the intent of his book!".
If you watched the debate, then you would know the opposite is actually the truth. I referenced him a few times in his grasping of the reality of Jesus' life in relation to the Essenes and his functioning among them.
My Response:
No sir, here is what Israel Knohl says about Jesus and the Essenes:
“In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.” - (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
Abu said:
"Now it's funny that you appeal to a view which rests on the "lack of authetic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source" as you say.
Actually, if you read Israel's book, he states that the view of the majority of scholars are aligned with mines, i.e. no suffering Messiah.
"Let's test your consistency Abu - Do you have authentic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source for the Essenes? You talk about going with the majority view."
DSS. Simple.
My Response:
Then show me these 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essene's view of Jesus. This is what I've been waiting for. Show me the goods Abu!
Abu said:
"Let me test you on this line for consistency also - Do the majority of Scholars consider the Essenes to be the one sect to have migrated to Arabia prior to Mohammad ? Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus Christ by way of crucifixion to be a historical event?".
The Essenes also known in Greece as the Pythagoreans, in Egypt as the Therapeuts, and in Syria as the Essenes.So yes, whether you are educated enough to grasp it, they did spread throughout Arabia at varying points in time.
We as Muslims also consider the death of someone in the place of the Messiah to be valid. So someone was crucified, whether or not he's the son of God, a Messiah, a Jewish rebel, a bastard as the Jews claim, or a Prophet is all up for discussion.
My Response:
Again, the Pythagoreans were POLYTHEISTS. Stop appealing to them. You have no idea what you're doing.
Now I asked you plainly if you go with the majority view of the scholars regarding the death of Jesus, since you appealed to the majority opinion. I'm testing your consistency. I will ask you again – Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no? Don't tell me what Muslims consider to be valid. You appealed to the majority view of scholars. Tell me what the majority of scholars say about this matter.
And by the way, while we're on this matter of the majority of scholars, let's say what Israel Knohl has to say about them in his book. These are the people you appealed to with regards to the concept of the rising and dying Messiah to be absent from Judaism:
“the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.8 In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.
(The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
So you see Abu, even those scholars who say that the concept was foreign to Judaism say that these things were added after Jesus' death!
Why is it that whenever you appeal to spurious references in books, I only have to look at the context to see that you are either ignorant of the content or are being wilfully deceptive?
These articles annilhate the claim that the Jews had no conception of a dying/suffering/ressurected Messiah:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/04/decoding-ancients-messiah-before-jesus.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/04/messiah-and-ressurection-sam-shamoun.html
The second article also links to extensive research by Shamoun on this. (it's worth reading)
Admittedly I take this from a skeptical point of view, but the claim that this doesn't BELONG in Judaism is utterly false.
Abu says:
@Royalson,
"Ok, so you copy/pasted a reference and quote from the back of Knohl's book - The Messiah before Jesus.".
Please don't cast aspersions. Those views are from the introduction. Or for your understanding, in the front of the book.
"Abu do you even realise what you're doing here? Your spitting out these references as if they're supposed to bolster your case.".
They do, I present the case that the Messiah is not one to have been killed and then resurrected, of which Israel states was the majority view in his book.
I have already presented materials from the Zohar, the Talmud, and other Rabbinical quotations which presented the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, by linking the Messiah to Isaiah 53. Then you said – These aren't talking about Jesus, they're talking about other Messiahs. Abu, I am well aquainted with the fact that the Talmud is a book which is very much against Jesus. I am aware that Rabbis who linked Isaiah 53 with the Messiah did not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. That is not the point. I'm simply demonstrating to you that these scholars who assert that there was no concept of a rising and dying Messiah in early Judaism is wrong. The concept of Messianic death and resurrection is there, the dispute is on who the Messiah is. So again, you may appeal to this “majority of scholars” all you like, it does not help you. Especially, as I pointed out earlier, these scholars believe that these concepts were added after Jesus' death. Before you attempt to wield your weapon, you had better take care that it's not pointing back at you first.
Abu said:
"Do you believe Israel Knohl's position? Do you find his arguments credible? If not, then why do you keep quoting the guy when his position goes squarely against your thesis?".
Please read his book or watch the debate between your Theos and I, he opens the book by exploring Jesus' time with the Essenes, something which I would agree with.
My Response:
And what does he go on to do Abu? He goes on to explain that Jesus had the belief that he was going to die and rise from the dead after three days because according to Knohl, this is what happened exactly one generation before Jesus. Abu, you took an isolated quote, you didn't even pay attention to it when it mentioned that the scholars believed that Jesus had died!
Let me ask you this question. Do you think there was a concept in early Judaism of a Messiah escaping death by being substituted by someone else? What would the majority of scholars have to say about that one?
When I asked you about the majority of scholars and their position on the death by crucifixion of Jesus, all you could say was that it's up for discussion. I'm asking you a simple yes/no question – Do the majority of scholars believe that Jesus' death by crucifixion was an historical event? Please answer yes or no, and I'll see how honest you are being.
Abu said:
"If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it.".
Those quotes agree with the understanding that there is no historical basis for the claim of a suffering/ dead/ resurrected Messiah, why then, would I not reference them?
My Response:
Let's test these two syllogisms side by side.
Abu says:
1. Israel Knohl says that the majority of scholars believe that the concept of a rising and dying messiah was foreign to Judaism.
2. Therefore Jesus did not die and rise from the dead.
Israel Knohl says:
1. These very scholars say the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was added after Jesus' death.
2. Abu appeals to these very scholars as evidence against the death and resurrection of the Messiah.
3. Therefore Jesus died and is not the Messiah of Islam.
Let's try another one:
1. Jesus died according to the scholars Abu wants to side with.
2. Abu believes that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion event.
3. I likewise believe that Jesus was alive after the crucifixion event.
4. Therefore Jesus rose from the dead.
You see Abu, we can play these games all day. You have to be more careful about the conclusions you draw from statements in a book. You're not helping your case. You are squirming and twisting and coming up with all kinds of arbitrary criteria. It makes for a very messy presentation.
I can almost predict the kind of response you would make. You would try and make a new syllogism with my beliefs as a Christian against statements from Israel Knohl like this:
1. Royalson appeals to the majority of scholars who say that Jesus died.
2. Royalson believes that Jesus rose from the dead.
3. These same scholars say that the concept of a rising and dying messiah was foreign to Judaism.
4. Therefore Royalson does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah.
And this is the kind of thing you have been doing all along, you appeal to a source. When I test your consistency on that source you try to force it back on me as if somehow I was the one appealing to its authority and claims in the first place.
No Abu, you are the person that is appealing to this "majority of scholars". You need to be consistent. You need to understand why certain scholars come to the positions that they do. You also need to consider whether the quotes or arguments you appeal to are going to backfire on your position. If they do, it would be wise that you don't invoke them in the first place.
Abu said:@Royalson,
"With regards to Sanhedrin 98b, the purpose if you may recall was not for me to show that Jesus was believed by these Rabbis to be the Messiah, for I certainly do not hold the Talmud as a source of infallible inspiration. It simply is a document the reflects some rabbinical opinions and teachings of its time.".
Sorry, let's apply your own criteria on the use of a citation or reference:
"Now you quoted for me the reference, so I'm going to ask you Royalson, have you read the entire Talmudic works?
Have you read all of the Talmud? have you read the Jewish commentaries on the Talmud? Do you think the Talmud's positions agrees with the Jesus of the Bible? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe in a Jesus Christ who performed miracles? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? What kind of a Jesus does the Talmud present Royalson?
My response:
I am well aware of the hateful view the Talmud presents of Jesus. My simple application of it was to respond to your application of Israel Knohl's quote regarding the majority of scholars believing that the concept of a rising and dying Messiah was foreign to Judaism. Thus my issue was not to show whether or not the Talmud believes Jesus is the Messiah. It's plainly obvious that it does not. Jesus was not the issue. The issue was if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah could be found in Judaism. I presented several sources that showed this concept even though the sources rejected Jesus Christ Himself as the Messiah. This is what is known as hostile attestation. To put it simply, if Non-Christian Jews taught the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, then the view of this “majority of scholars” in Israel Knohl's book are in error with regards to the concept. As to whether or not they believe any particular matter about Jesus, that's another issue altogether.
In your case however, your application of Israel Knohl's work was to convey this thought that the majority of scholars believed that Jesus had not died or risen when in fact Knohl explains that these very scholars believe such details were added after ther death of Jesus.
As far as your criteria goes, I have never made it a requirement to read the entire works of a source to provide a citation. If you believe I have made such a requirement, please quote me as saying such. What I do expect however, is that if you are going to cite a source, you will be honest enough with the quotes you give. I have seen you on a number of occasions omit sentences before, after, or even with your quotes which totally destroy your position.
Let me make this clear to you because I think you're getting upset with my calling into question your integrity by citing Israel Knohl the way that you did; When you quoted Israel Knohl, you gave the impression that his position agreed with the very statement you were quoting, and that simply is not the case. Not only so but the majority of scholars mentioned are said to believe that the writings occurred after the death of Jesus. This is the reason given. As such, your appeal to this majority worked against your own position.
The reason I asked if you had read the book you were citing was because each time you gave these references, the contexts destroyed your position.
Examples:
1. You appealed to the panarion of Epiphanius with regards to the virgin birth. When I pointed out that He goes on to mention the alternate views to the natural birth theory, showing a Christ who is Adam, or a Christ who is distinct from Jesus, not once giving the account of being born of a virgin you said that you didn't believe it and jumped to Bart Ehrman to rescue you.
2. When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the beliefs of the Essenes, you completely ommited the mention of sun-reverence, again saying that you did so because you said there's no other reference to it in historical sources. My guess is that the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably referring to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book2, where he writes:
“Nay, on other days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. “ (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 148).
“And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 128).
3. One one occasion, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia that this group produced no rabbinical authority, you ommitted the words that followed: “Beyond that which was considered by the Mohammedan authors.”
4. When you quoted from Epiphanius about the differences of the Ebionites you omitted the very next sentence that gave the reason for their difference, which was their following of the false prophet Elxai. You also ommitted the mention of what the actual different positions were, and none of them were the Islamic position. And your response ? Bart Ehrman. Absolutely amazing.
Abu said:I'm asking you this, because it seems that every time you provide a reference and I go to what the reference actually has to say, destroying your case, you tell me that you don't believe it. If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it."
With that, we have your own argument, collapsing on you.
My Response: No sir, I question your reading of the sources because you mishandle them so badly.
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Furthermore, the link to the being named a leper scholar was found in their applying Isaiah 53 to this person because this one who bears the griefs and sorrows of Israel!
Please try to understand your own God-man/ Demi-god before arguing with me on him, see verse 10:
" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."
So your God made Jesus ill with leprosy is what you're claiming? He was called the leper scholar because he was stricken with the illness.
"We can note that Jesus not only did such, but he likewise mingled with and healed lepers and those of all kinds of diseases. Was Christ ill? Yes, He was dying! I'd call that pretty ill wouldn't you?".
Was he dying of leprosy? What illness was he suffering that caused him to die?
He was ill from the torture, the whipping, the beating, the scourging, and the crucifixion on the cross. Now I've been generous to allow you to utilise that particular translation, but please, don't ignore the many other translations that exist:
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. -NIV
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. - ESV
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. - NKJV
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. - KJV
10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief ; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. - NASB
I hope this conveys the idea clearly enough to you that what is being spoken of is not an illness caused by some kind of pathogenic infection, rather it is speaking of a suffering that was experienced in the torture before and during the cross.
Abu said:
"Did he have children? Yes, spiritually, through the miracle of resurrection. Your questioning reflects the same kind of misunderstanding as Nicodemus in John 3:4."
Please note your logic does not follow through. Either the entire passage points to either spiritual illness and spiritual children or physical illness and physical children. Otherwise, you have to demonstrate where the Jews believed in either or, or neither nor as is the case with your argument.
My Response:
This is exactly what I've been talking about. You come up with arbitrary criteria and I have no idea where that comes from. Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?
Examine one of your beloved verses in your Qur'an:
4:171 - O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. - YUSUF ALI.
In this verse Jesus is referred to as Allah's word and spirit proceeding from Him. Is this word and spirit physical or spiritual? How about Jesus? Is He spiritual or physical? I'm asking according to your beliefs as a Muslim. Do you still believe that physical and spiritual concepts cannot abide together?
Abu said:
"I repeat, my citing of these works is not to show that the Talmudic authors believed Jesus to be the Messiah, for they were certainly against Jesus, but the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was certainly not foreign to them. That was my point."
Nothing from Yeshayahu indicates a dying Messiah, suffering perhaps, but dying? No. Cut from the land of the living? Means he was exiled according to the Judaic commentary:
"The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them."
My Response:
Nothing is given as a proof that this is the intention of such words. In fact, there is only one other place in scripture where this language is repeated:
“Moreover, the LORD made it known to me and I knew it; Then You showed me their deeds. But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter ; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, And let us cut him off from the land of the living, That his name be remembered no more." But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, Who tries the feelings and the heart, Let me see Your vengeance on them, For to You have I committed my cause. Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, so that you will not die at our hand "- Jeremiah 18:20-21
It is evident that cut off from the land of the living refers to death. Since Isaiah 53 speaks of crushing this suffering servant, and this one pouring our his soul unto death, I see absolutely no reason why you should find Rashi's explanation valid.
Abu said:
Therefore your argument is invalid.
"Finally, considering that the group of Jews that migrated to Arabia brought the Talmud with them."
Nothing indicates they brought the Talmud with them. They had some knowledge of it as the CE indicates but as for bringing it with them? None. Otherwise why would they quote say they had little study of the Torah? That's a contradiction in your reading and thinking.
My Response:
Put two and two together Abu. A group of Jews meet the “Mohammaden authors” roughly 500 years after the migation following the destruction of the second temple. This group has some knowledge of the Talmud. Where did that knowledge of the talmud come from Abu? Obviously it must have been handed to them by their parents, and subsequently the grandparents, great-grandparents, an so on all the way back to this group who had migrated. Now I'm going to ask you, how did these descendents, still manage to have knowledge of the talmud even 500 years after the migration to Arabia? Surely this migrating group would have been talmudic abiding Jews. Yet we know that the Talmud presents a negative picture of Jesus. Such would indicate that the migrating group are not the people you're looking for.
@Royalson,
"No sir, here is what Israel Knohl says about Jesus and the Essenes:
“In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.” - (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I)."
Whereas he says later on:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun
rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,” the Essenes’ place
of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for
morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building.
The winter sun rises in the east over the Dead Sea and the Mountains
of Moab, which are visible in the distance." - The Messiah Before Jesus, Israel Knohl, pg 5.
So they have a Masjid or in English, a house of prostratin (sujood), they have a prayer (salaah) before the sun rises, an early morning prayer (Fajr salaah), through which they cease praying when the sun is rising (same as in Islam). So if you accept certain element of his book, why not accept that Christ, Jesus was a Muslim performing Fajr Salaah?
"When the reading of Pollio’s letter is finished, the Messiah
leaves the royal palace for the Essene Quarter. He enters one
of the many ritual baths that exist in the quarter, disrobes, and immerses himself in the bath. After this purification he puts on
a white garment given to him by one of the members of his
community." - Ibid, pg 7-8.
He then performs Ghusl / Wudhu, or in English ritual purification, the same as in Islam.
"The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest and by the Messiah, who is the nasi (leader) of the community....To the members of the Essene sect, the nasi is the Messiah, destined to rule over all the nations." - Ibid, pg 9.
We then see that he, Jesus, was their Messiah, who lead the blessing of the food among them.
Again, if you're going to appeal to Israel Knohl, atleast make it known you're going to cherry pick what he says Non-Royalson, it's just really funny.
"Then show me these 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essene's view of Jesus. This is what I've been waiting for. Show me the goods Abu!"
I posted this some 12 times in my previous comments, why do you ask, when I have already given? Are you slow of reading or simply ignorant?
See Geza Vermes, Complete DSS, pg 87.
See Israel Knohls', The Messiah before Jesus, pp 6-9.
See DSS, 1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10]
[V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94], 4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428].
@Royalson,
"Again, the Pythagoreans were POLYTHEISTS. Stop appealing to them. You have no idea what you're doing."
Actually, to the contrary, Josephus says they are like the Essenes, if we recall from the CE, were strict adherents to Monotheism. He never once states they are polytheists, rather he contradicts you and says they are just like each other, specifically highlighting the differencing in naming:
"The Essens also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused
from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do
those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere." - Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 10, Paragraph 4.
"Now I asked you plainly if you go with the majority view of the scholars regarding the death of Jesus, since you appealed to the majority opinion. I'm testing your consistency. I will ask you again – Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no? Don't tell me what Muslims consider to be valid. You appealed to the majority view of scholars. Tell me what the majority of scholars say about this matter."
All scholars, even Muslims agree that someone died on the cross. No one denies that. As to the identity of who died on the cross/ stick/ tree, well everyone differs. Was it that Jesus died? Was it a man looking like Jesus (Didymus? as the works of Thomas indicate), was it the son of God, the archangel Michael? Was it the king of the Jews? Was it not Jesus, but some other man? Was it a Jewish rebel? There are many views of who died on the cross. Working with the majority view, we all agree someone died, as for who died, still a mystery to all, seeing as you have no first person verbatim source which explicitly states it was Jesus, you are in a worse off position, because you're affirming it was him in the positive.
"“the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.8 In this book I intend to counter these claims.
(The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
So you see Abu, even those scholars who say that the concept was foreign to Judaism say that these things were added after Jesus' death!"
I think you need to learn to read. He is citing two views. The majority view of which he disagrees with and then his view. The majority view denies that the Messiah was to suffer and die. The people who hold on to this view, assert that this view of the Messiah developed after Jesus' death, while Israel Knohl is saying he is trying to prove otherwise.
Please learn to read. Othewise Israel's book, should have been, "The Messiah After Jesus", as he would have then been in agreement with the majority of scholars who claim the Messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
Your comprehension skills are piss poor to be honest.
@Royalson,
"I have already presented materials from the Zohar, the Talmud, and other Rabbinical quotations which presented the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, by linking the Messiah to Isaiah 53."
Incorrect, none of these sources indicate a dying Messiah, all of them refer to a suffering Messiah, due to an illness which God punished him with. This illness in the Talmud is called leprosy. If that is the case, then your God, Jesus, inflicted a punishment on himself, to make him repent more towards God:
" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand." - Verse 10, Yeshayahu 53.
"Then you said – These aren't talking about Jesus, they're talking about other Messiahs. Abu, I am well aquainted with the fact that the Talmud is a book which is very much against Jesus. I am aware that Rabbis who linked Isaiah 53 with the Messiah did not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. That is not the point. I'm simply demonstrating to you that these scholars who assert that there was no concept of a rising and dying Messiah in early Judaism is wrong. The concept of Messianic death and resurrection is there, the dispute is on who the Messiah is."
If you read the Talmud properly, they were expecting a varying set of Messiahs, one was to also be Elijah, who was to foretell the main Messiah who would unite them all and bring them eternal prosperity. So I'm not deviating from the views of the Jews at that time. You are by claiming that your God-man/ Demi-god was a leper who inflicted disease on himself to make him come closer to God.
"So again, you may appeal to this “majority of scholars” all you like, it does not help you. Especially, as I pointed out earlier, these scholars believe that these concepts were added after Jesus' death. Before you attempt to wield your weapon, you had better take care that it's not pointing back at you first."
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*? In point form:
You claim:
Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus.
Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position.
About a belief he already holds himself.
Logic? Absent from you!
@Non-Royalboy,
"Abu, you took an isolated quote, you didn't even pay attention to it when it mentioned that the scholars believed that Jesus had died!"
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*? In point form:
You claim:
Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus.
Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position.
About a belief he already holds himself.
Logic? Absent from you!
And just to rub it in, was do these scholars say?
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection
appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
This contradicts you, if you are claiming that these scholars, of one whom he references as Vermes, believes that the view of Christ having to die and suffer was an established view before Christianity, why does he state otherwise? Either you are lying on him, or he's contradicting you.
@Royalson,
No Royalson, you are the person that is appealing to this "majority of scholars". You need to be consistent. You need to understand why certain scholars come to the positions that they do. You also need to consider whether the quotes or arguments you appeal to are going to backfire on your position. If they do, it would be wise that you don't invoke them in the first place.
For example in your argument above, you incorrectly perverted (intentionally) Israel's statement.
You asserted:
*He agrees with the majority scholars.
*They all agree that the suff/ dead Messiah was a belief before Christ.
*Israel Knohl writes a book, then, to refute them, because he believes they are wrong.
*His book seeks to establish a suffering Messiah before Jesus.
Something doesn't add up, because either Israel is contradicting himself or you've perverted his statement, rather the correct/ intelligent reading is:
*Vermes and other scholars assert the belief of a suff. then dead Messiah was not known to Judaism:
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection
appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
* They claim this belief of a suff. then dead Messiah came after Jesus.
*Israel Knohl writes a book then, to refute them, on a Messiah before Jesus.
*This book to show the converse of what the majority claim is, that is that Jesus did expect to die and suffer.
Again, either you're really desperate to have perverted that quote and then not realise that Israel, cites and gives Vermes' position which invalidates your claim, or you were so dishonest you have to grasp for straws while in the mean time, defaming your own argument.
Pathetic.
@Non-Royalson,
"Thus my issue was not to show whether or not the Talmud believes Jesus is the Messiah. It's plainly obvious that it does not. Jesus was not the issue. The issue was if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah could be found in Judaism. I presented several sources that showed this concept even though the sources rejected Jesus Christ Himself as the Messiah."
Unless Christ, according to Isa. 53:10, inflicted himself with leprosy (see Talmud), to make himself closer to God, I do believe you don't have the same view as the Jews.
"In your case however, your application of Israel Knohl's work was to convey this thought that the majority of scholars believed that Jesus had not died or risen when in fact Knohl explains that these very scholars believe such details were added after ther death of Jesus."
Already answered above, but since you keep repeating it, I'll have to repeat myself.
You claim:
Israel agrees with majority scholars.
The belief that Christ was not to suffer and die came after Jesus.
Therefore Israel writes a book to refute those scholars.
This book is about, the Messiah before Jesus.
To demonstrate that the Messiah is supposed to die.
If he's in agreement with the majority scholars of their view, then why does he write an entire book refuting their position, about a Messiah before Jesus, who did expect to die?
Either Israel didn't realise he was in agreement with them, or he was writing a book refuting them on a position they already agreed on.
OR
The real reading is:
The majority scholars believe that the Messiah was not to suff. and die.
Israel disagrees.
The majority scholars believe the belief that he had died and was to suffer came after Jesus.
Israel writes a book about a Messiah before jesus, to demonstrate he was supposed to die, therefore refuting their claims.
Which is more plausible? Tell me. To further shame you, if one of the scholars that israel cites, i.e. Vermes, says the opposite, i.e. in contradiction to you, then your lie has been exposed:
"“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
@Royalson,
"You appealed to the panarion of Epiphanius with regards to the virgin birth. When I pointed out that He goes on to mention the alternate views to the natural birth theory, showing a Christ who is Adam, or a Christ who is distinct from Jesus, not once giving the account of being born of a virgin you said that you didn't believe it and jumped to Bart Ehrman to rescue you."
To the contrary, I demonstrated that this was a belief that was held, by some, not all of them, which later Epiphanius states they differed with him on:
"And at fi rst, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers
have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves." - Panarion, pg 133.
So as we see your position was invalid. You had to demonstrate that they all believed in this one position and never deviated from it. Yet we see, quite clearly that they did. So your only argument against them, was thoroughly refuted.
"When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the beliefs of the Essenes, you completely ommited the mention of sun-reverence, again saying that you did so because you said there's no other reference to it in historical sources. My guess is that the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably referring to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book2, where he writes:
“And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 128)."
All of these indicate that they had pre-dawn religious ritual worship. Something that Muslims also do, as I referenced from israel knohl's book:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun
rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,”4 the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building."
Israel presents a more proper picture, he denotes there is nothing about son worship, but that they worship before the sun rises. Therefore, no conflicting theology with Islam.
"One one occasion, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia that this group produced no rabbinical authority, you ommitted the words that followed: “Beyond that which was considered by the Mohammedan authors.”
Actually, to the contrary, I never left this phrase out, I even mentioned it in my debate and was a focal point for me. What Rabbinic authority with this Jewish group posses that Muslims accepted? That is why I quoted it. To which you nor your copulation partner, Radical, were ever able to answer.
"When you quoted from Epiphanius about the differences of the Ebionites you omitted the very next sentence that gave the reason for their difference, which was their following of the false prophet Elxai. You also ommitted the mention of what the actual different positions were, and none of them were the Islamic position. And your response ? Bart Ehrman. Absolutely amazing."
To correct you, when we read Epiphanius' statement, he says some of his followers. Does that mean all? Therefore, why do you continue to appeal to the fallacy of hasty generalization. As Bart Ehrman made it clear, we have no first person source from these peoples and the Patristic's claims on them should be taken with a pound of salt.
@Royalson,
"He was ill from the torture, the whipping, the beating, the scourging, and the crucifixion on the cross. Now I've been generous to allow you to utilise that particular translation, but please, don't ignore the many other translations that exist:"
Ill from the torture? What sickness/ disease did he have on the cross? They called him the leper scholar because according to their understanding, he was to be afflicted with some sickness. That disease being, leprosy. Instead of appealing to translations, let's go to the source:
חלה
to be or become weak, be or become sick, be or become diseased, be or become grieved, be or become sorry
(Qal) to be weak, be sick
(Piel)
to become sick, become ill
(CLBL) to entreat, pray, beg
(Niphal)
to make oneself sick
to be made sick
to be tired
(Pual) to be made weak, become weak
(Hithpael) to make oneself sick
(Hiphil)
to make sick
to show signs of sickness, become sick
to grieve
(Hophal)
to be made sick
to be wounded
As far as the translations go, the understanding he was made to be sick or diseased are the most prevalent. I checked both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text to derive this understanding based Strong's lexicon.
If you deny the Judaic understanding that he was cursed/ made ill by God with leprosy and intended to mean that the Jewish version is wrong, but yours is right, then on what basis did you think it was okay to quote them?
The Judaic understanding is that he was cut from the land, i.e. exiled because of the plague which afflicted him:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to crush him and to cause him to repent; therefore, he made him ill.
The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them.
Which makes sense, because this is what they did to lepers. So either you accede to the Judaic understanding which you appeal to, or don't reference sources which oppose your entire doctrine.
@Non-Royalson,
This is exactly what I've been talking about. You come up with arbitrary criteria and I have no idea where that comes from. Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?
Let's ask you that question, because as I am understanding, you appealed to the Rabbinic Jews' understanding of the Messiah, when I demonstrated that their understanding of him was an anti-thesis to yours, you claimed then that you wanted to demonstrate that the Messiah was to suffer. I have no problem with a Prophet of God having to suffer, for so did ours.
However the problem here, lies within your appeal to authority. Fine and dandy you showed that they believed one of their Messiahs were to be afflicted by God's punishment, which then brings into question, why would God want to punish his Messiah? In Yeshayahu, we read:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.
To make restitution, i.e. to get closer to God. So if you're going to quote Jewish scripture, take it entirely into context please. From my previous comment, I established the Judaic narrative of understanding of a leper Messiah, which you accepted in your Judaic source which you provided as an authority.
With that in mind, your authority and the scripture in itself denote that God is punishing someone, through disease to make him closer to Him. If that is the case, are you saying that Christ was punished by God, to bring Christ closer to God?
It is evident that cut off from the land of the living refers to death. Since Isaiah 53 speaks of crushing this suffering servant, and this one pouring our his soul unto death, I see absolutely no reason why you should find Rashi's explanation valid.
@Non-Royalson,
You then went on to reference Yirmiyahu 18:20-21. To be fair, let's go to the Jewish version:
Hearken, O Lord, to me, and hear the voice of those who quarrel with me. . Shall evil be paid instead of good, for they have dug a pit for my life. Remember when I stood before You to speak good for them, to bring back Your wrath from them. Therefore, deliver their children to the famine and spill their blood by the sword, and let their wives be bereaved and widows, and their husbands slain by death, their youths struck by the sword in battle. 18:19-21.
Nothing about being cut from the land of the living. Let's check Christian versions:
New International Version (©1984)
So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle.
New Living Translation (©2007)
So let their children starve! Let them die by the sword! Let their wives become childless widows. Let their old men die in a plague, and let their young men be killed in battle!
English Standard Version (©2001)
Therefore deliver up their children to famine; give them over to the power of the sword; let their wives become childless and widowed. May their men meet death by pestilence, their youths be struck down by the sword in battle.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Therefore, give their children over to famine And deliver them up to the power of the sword; And let their wives become childless and widowed. Let their men also be smitten to death, Their young men struck down by the sword in battle.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Now, hand their children over to famine. Pour out their [blood] by using your sword. Then their wives will become childless widows. Their husbands will be put to death. Their young men will be struck down in battle.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
American King James Version
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
@non-Royalson,
American Standard Version
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore deliver up their children to famine, and bring them into the hands of the sword: let their wives be bereaved of children and widows: and let their husbands be slain by death: let their young men be stabbed with the sword in battle.
Darby Bible Translation
Therefore give up their children to the famine, and deliver them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of children and be widows; and let their men be swept off by death, their young men be smitten by the sword in battle.
English Revised Version
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore deliver their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
World English Bible
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, [and] their young men struck of the sword in battle.
Young's Literal Translation
Therefore, give up their sons to famine, And cause them to run on the sides of the sword, And their wives are bereaved and widows, And their men are slain by death, Their young men smitten by sword in battle,
http://bible.cc/jeremiah/18-21.htm
Nothing like what you claim. Therefore, based on your use of translation to demonstrate a point above, we duly note that under the same criteria you have no basis for your understanding from the verse in Jeremiah to Isaiah.
@nonRoyalson,
"A group of Jews meet the “Mohammaden authors” roughly 500 years after the migation following the destruction of the second temple. This group has some knowledge of the Talmud. Where did that knowledge of the talmud come from Abu?".
If they were Rabbinic Jews, and as you demonstrated, persons who held closely to their beliefs, see your commentary on Josephus' notes, then your own thesis above is incorrect. So either you go with your previous thesis and they were great studiers of the Talmud or with your new understanding that although they were great studiers, they stopped doing that around Islam's time.
"Obviously it must have been handed to them by their parents, and subsequently the grandparents, great-grandparents, an so on all the way back to this group who had migrated. Now I'm going to ask you, how did these descendents, still manage to have knowledge of the talmud even 500 years after the migration to Arabia? Surely this migrating group would have been talmudic abiding Jews."
Incorrect. If they did in fact make it a pivotal point in their theology to have the Talmud descend throughout their lineage, then little study of the Bible would contradict that. The pieces for the puzzle you are trying to fit together are incoherent and inconsistent. How could they have through oral tradition or otherwise, passed down knowledge of the Talmud, essentially commentary on the Bible from High Priests and not have a proper study of the Bible, along with holding heretical views which contradicted Rabbinic Judaism?
"Yet we know that the Talmud presents a negative picture of Jesus. Such would indicate that the migrating group are not the people you're looking for."
People have knowledge of, and abiding by are two different things. Under your logic, because you have knowledge of the "Islam", as passed down from your teachers, although little in study, that means you're not a real Christian. Do you therefore, grasp how absurd your own reasoning is?
CallingChristians,
I thought you didn't have any time to debate until after May 26th? Would you like to up the date since you apparently have a lot of time on your hands?
@Anthony Rogers,
I wouldn't call commenting being a debate. However, I do suppose it may appear as if I have a lot of free time due to me posting in response, the reality is I am busy until after May 25th. The earliest I can meet you is until May the 20th. E-mail me so I can have some proper documentation on this:
callingchristians@gmail.com
I guess that means we can expect to hear more about nothing from CC. But hey, whatever keeps him busy (to busy to debate).
@Abu You wrote that the Teacher of Righteousness is Jesus who was among them at that time.
I'm wondering if you can tell us then who the Messiah of David and the Messiah of Aaron are?
@Radical Immoderate,
I take it you read Geza Vermes' works? Or did you not?
Pg 87 he says from The Complete DSS:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher
of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest
that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
If you read his book, you'd see the other two were pre-cursors to him, like the Elijah - type:
"Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of
the Messiah"
@Abu
You wrote….
@Radical Immoderate,
My Response
Look everyone Abu is insulting me. He is not addressing me by my proper “TITLE” it’s so horrible oh what am I going to do “he’s gone off into a tirade of personal attacks, sinking so low as to actually mock” my nick. LOL Thanks for demonstarating once again how Muslims have a Higher Standard for the Kuffar then they do for thier ownselves. shakes head. Anyway moving on.
I asked Abu a question on a previous post see below.
"So the Kittim are Jews that are being conquered? Wow stretching the bounds of all reason and logic."
He responds…
Are you dense? I said the opposite, that the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.
My Response
Abu; you are consistent I will give you that. You have demonstrated over and over again your poor reading comprehensions skills, a trait that seems to be common among Muslims. Now you are demonstrating those poor reading comprehension skills when it comes to what you wrote.
Here is what you wrote….
“. However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6.
My Response
So “Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples” now turns into “the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.”
You then respond to me pointing out your pathetic attempt at trying to change the subject of the debate with a complete non response
Abu Writes
Awww, someone's really ticked off now, it's actually kind of cute, you've been shot down with so many quotes and references from sources you trusted and now they're backfiring. I already demonstrated two things, both from quotes from Vermes, the first being from The Complete DSS, pg 87 that their Messiah had come and from 4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] that the Messiah was born of a virgin. Problem? For you, yes.
My Response
Problem for me? NO not at all. Problem for you? YES! Because you have a total lack of understanding of the subject matter. First you have not demonstrated that the Essene Messiah had come. Really man read the book, and understand who the “Teacher of Righteousness” is, and most importantly read the dating of 4Q534 or 4QMess ar.
The “Teacher of Righteousness” is the founder of the sect, which was founded a few hundred years before Jesus.
You continue to demonstrate your lack of reading comprehensions kills and willful dishonestly when you state.
“Messiah != High Priest. He made the claim for 3 Messiahs, none of which are called High Priests. Therefore your quotes are useless in this case, just throwing sand in the air to mask your ignorance and shame. “
First Geza Vermes does not say just the High Priest it is the “eschatological High Priest”. Who is the eschatological High Priest ? Do you even know what the word eschatological means?
In case you don’t here is the definition from dictionary.com
“1. any system of doctrines concerning last, or final, matters, as death, the Judgment, the future state, etc.
2. the branch of theology dealing with such matters.”
If you have another definition I would be interested in reading it.
So what does “LAST.. FINAL… Matters of death, the judgment” mean to you?
Christ is the final once and for all High Priest (Read Hebrews), who suffered and was humiliated before he was glorified.
@ Abu Part 2
Abu then continues on by quoting me
"Yes the Essenes where first century Jews so its good to know they held a first century Jewish idea about the Messiah. And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
He then continues …
What is interesting now, is that after having asked for me to prove that the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth, you now claim to have known that. Please provide evidence for me where you proved they believed in a virgin birth, that is the Essenes, specifically. That was one of the 3 pivots of veracity in the debate
My Response
Abu what is interesting is your consistency in not comprehending and misrepresenting what I have said. First I never asked if “the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth,” I asked for you to prove they believed Jesus or The Messiah was born of a Virgin. Big difference. Since you cannot comprehend this I will spell it out for you. Yes a Virgin birth is a miraculous birth, however it is not the only thing that could constitute a miraculous birth. For instance being born of a barren woman, or a woman way past the age of childbearing like Isaac with Sara.
You then continue…
“. Strange enough now, you claim to have known this, so either you hid the fact they did believe this, which is dishonest, or you only now came to know of it, but don't want to concede you didn't, so therefore you must be arrogant. Which is it?”
Whether I knew that the Essenes believed that one of their two Messiahs would have a miraculous birth is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you can prove the Essenes believed Jesus was born of a Virgin. Something you failed to do. Also why would I be limited to asking you questions in a debate to things that I do or do not know. The purpose of the Cross X is to ask you questions to see if you can prove your positive case. Something you failed to do.
I found it interesting that you appealed to Isaiah 7:14 and even demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the biblical language when you stated the word for virgin is Alma and it is always used to refer to a virgin. You really need to spend more time with anti-missionary Zionist Jews. But what is even funnier is that as my brother Royalson pointed out, the Pharasies have Isaaih 7:14 and they don’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. And since you made the claim that the Essenes only disagreed with the Pharisees on matters of festivals that means that Essenes did not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin.
@Abu Part 3
Abu continues to quote me
"Abu Geza Vermes does not say the Messiah was already with them. Geza Vermes position is that the Prophet only mentioned once is a “Possible Third Messiah” and that he is the Teacher of Righteousness who is the founder of the Community.”
He then quotes Geza Vermes.
Let's quote Vermes:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
He then demonstrates his total lack of understanding the subject matter as well as the fact that he has not read Geeza Vermes work. Even though I have continually asked him to do so.
He then confuses me with a Muslim when he rights.
”Comparing the two parts in the bold with your statement, I do believe you are either lying or trying to deceive yourself. I do emplore you to surrender your spirit of deceit and enter into the truth.”
My Response
First Abu Jesus Christ is the al HAQQ he is The Truth, something you fail to realize. Abu you claim that the “Teacher of Righteousness is Jesus Christ. Well let’s take a look at who the Teacher of Righteousness is.
“The search for clues to the origins and story of the movement begins with the Damascus Document because it is a writing particularly rich in such hints. Here, the birth of the Community is said to have occurred in the ‘age of wrath’, 390 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. At that time, a ‘root’ sprung ‘from Israel and Aaron’, i.e. a group of pious Jews, laymen and priests, came into being in a situation of general ungodliness. These people ‘groped for the way’ for twenty years, and then God sent them a ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ to guide them ‘in the way of His heart’ (I, 5–11). The Teacher did not meet with unanimous approval within the congregation, and a faction described as ‘seekers of smooth things’, ‘removers of the bounds’ and ‘builders of the wall’, all metaphors seeming to point to religious laxity and infidelity, turned against him and his followers. The leader of the breakaway party, though accorded a number of unflattering sobriquets, such as ‘Scoffer’, ‘Liar’ or ‘Spouter of Lies’, seems to be one and the same person.”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 54). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.”
He continues
“A similar picture emerges from the Habakkuk Commentary with its explicit mention of desertion by disciples of the Teacher of Righteousness to the Liar
So Abu still want to say that the Teacher of Righteousness’ is Jesus Christ when it is clear to just about Every Scholar that the “Teacher of Righteousness” was the sects inspired leader 20 years after they broke away sometime around 200 BC.
Or are you going to say that Jesus Christ was born around 200 BC and lived for over 200 years?
Really ABU READ THE BOOK. You are embarrassing yourself more than usual.
@Abu Part 4a
Abu continues to quote me…
"As far as the broken verse there is only two possible ways it could be read. “He killed” or “Had Killed” or as Robert Eiserman has it “He was killed”.
He then challenges me to cite a source…
Quote and cite him and the source which you claim, and then we'd work from there. No evidence, renders no response.
He quotes me again…
"So you choose was the Mesiah the branch of David Killed or did he Kill someone. So if you disagree with that then take it up with the scholars who have worked on the DSS scrolls I’m sure they would love to laugh at you just as much as we are laughing at you now."
He then challenges me again as he misrepresents what I said…
I'm still laughing at you, cite where Eisenmann or Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed, because I showed otherwise:
My Response
Abu first I never said Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed that is Esenmann, and here is the source for that.
Biblical Archeology
Secondly I did provide a quote from Vermes and now I will provide even more on (4Q285,)
“Fragment 7, erroneously labelled by some as the ‘Pierced Messiah fragment’, is based on an interpretation of Isa. x, 34–xi, 1, and should be read in connection with 4Q161, frs. 8–10, an Isaiah Commentary from Cave 4, and the Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation (1QSb, V, 20–29), both referring to the triumphant Davidic Messiah, expected to put an opponent, no doubt the king of the Kittim, to death. Only frs. 1, 4, 7 and 8 are suitable for translation.”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 188). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
@Abu part 4b
He repeats himself again quoting from an early work by Vermes,
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
I already provided 2 quotes from a later work on the DSS documents to which Abu completely ignored and even made the foolish claim that the
“Messiah != High Priest. He made the claim for 3 Messiahs, none of which are called High Priests. Therefore your quotes are useless in this case, just throwing sand in the air to mask your ignorance and shame. “:
Since I have already responded to this foolishness in a previous post, I will only say that ABU you proved again that you did not read the book. Here is a more in depth quote from the same page…
“As befits a priestly sect, however, the Priest-Messiah comes first in the order of precedence; he is also called the ‘Messiah of Aaron’, the ‘Priest’, the ‘Interpreter of the Law’ (cf. 1QSa II, 20). The King-Messiah was to defer to him and to the priestly authority in general in all legal matters: ‘As they teach him, so shall he judge’ (4QpIsa=4Q161 frs. 8–11, I.23). The ‘Messiah of Aaron’ was to be the final Teacher, ‘he who shall teach righteousness at the end of days’ (CD VI, 11). But he was also to preside over the battle liturgy (1QM XV, 4; XVI, 13; XVIII, 5) and the eschatological banquet (1QSa 11, 12–21). It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q471b, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).”Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 86). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.
He then makes the foolish claim.
So it's either you agree with the evidence given by Vermes or you're saying Vermes is lying. Which is it?
My Response
Abu I have no idea why Geza Vermes contradicts himself in two separate works. It could be that he has changed his position on a suffering and humiliated Messiah over the course of 20 years. However it is irrelevant to the debate topic. I am not making the claim that the Essenes believed in a crucified and resurrected Messiah, I am not making the claim that the Essenes knew and believed in Jesus Christ. I am not making the claim that the Essenes where the early Christians. I am not making the claim that they were the Pre Mohamed Followers of Jesus Christ. I let the Essenes be the Essenes. Something you will not do.
@Radical Immoderate,
"However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6."
Yes, this is what I wrote. However you seem to have a problem with comprehension:
So “Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples” now turns into “the Messiah will lead Israel to conquer all of their land from occupiers.”
I seriously am suggesting comprehension classes. To begin with, you partially quoted me in your argument above in comparison with all that I said. For definitions, Bani Isra'il = Jews. So what did I state?
"the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel"
He is going to lead by authority, i.e. subdue any Judaic resistance against him or otherwise (Philistines) and unite the Jews (Bani Isra'il) and bring them back to Israel. Either you are desperately cherry picking quotes to suit your position or I need to purchase a dictionary on your behalf.
"First you have not demonstrated that the Essene Messiah had come."
I did, see The Complete DSS Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg 87.
"Really man read the book, and understand who the “Teacher of Righteousness” is".
See the above source, Geza Vermes explains that this was the Messianic Prophet, that was the exact term used.
"and most importantly read the dating of 4Q534 or 4QMess ar."
It's from the DSS, as it is listed in both Vermes' list of papyri, along with Tov's. What's your problem with them?
"The “Teacher of Righteousness” is the founder of the sect, which was founded a few hundred years before Jesus."
Read pg 87 of Geza Verme's book for a final conclusion, but read age 86 where he explores that possibility, but then finalizes in absolution his point of who the Teacher of Righteousness is.
"Christ is the final once and for all High Priest (Read Hebrews), who suffered and was humiliated before he was glorified."
Hebrews is from the NT, we are using the DSS of the Essenes. In order for your argument to be valid you have to argue from within the doctrine of the Essenes. Otherwise it's called appeal to consequences of a belief. You can't prove otherwise from the Essenes, and in doing so falsify your own position from within your own faith for fear of proving me right.
@Radical Immoderate,
"First I never asked if “the Essenes believed that their Messiah would be conceived of through a miracle birth,” I asked for you to prove they believed Jesus or The Messiah was born of a Virgin. Big difference."
I just want you to note your own inconsistency here. So you're asking me to prove they believed the Messiah was born of a virgin, I already referenced 4Q534 or 4QMess ar)[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428], which states the Messiah was born through the word of God and the woman who produces the Mighty Counsellor of Isaiah 9, see 1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10][V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94]. With that in mind, I have proven the virgin birth through a woman who becomes pregnant via the word of God and he is given the title the Elect one of God, which is as we know it, The Messiah.
"Since you cannot comprehend this I will spell it out for you. Yes a Virgin birth is a miraculous birth, however it is not the only thing that could constitute a miraculous birth."
So see your previous quote and this one, in relation to the bold. On one hand you claim, all I had to do was demonstrate a virgin birth from God for a Messiah, I did that, now you're saying you don't want them. A virgin birth of a Messiah doesn't matter to you. So which is it you confused and contradicting individual? Either you accept the virgin birth of the Messiah from the DSS given or you accede to the point that you've been answered.
"I found it interesting that you appealed to Isaiah 7:14 and even demonstrated your total lack of understanding of the biblical language when you stated the word for virgin is Alma and it is always used to refer to a virgin."
So your belief of Alma meaning virgin is interesting to you? Don't you appeal to the same term in Judaic texts to claim it's a Prophecy about Christ? So by using your logic, you are once again left but to condemn your own beliefs.
Abu I don’t know if this was a response to my questions?
You wrote…
“I take it you read Geza Vermes' works? Or did you not?
Pg 87 he says from The Complete DSS:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher
of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest
that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness."
If you read his book, you'd see the other two were pre-cursors to him, like the Elijah - type:
"Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah"
You keep quoting the same thing over and over again.
I just want you to clearify your position if you could just answer simply the following questions with out posting the same quote over and over again.
1.Who is the Messiah from the house of Aaron?
2 .Who is the Messiah from the house of David
3. Who is the prophet?
4. Who is the Teacher of Righteousness?
@Radical Immoderate,
"First Abu Jesus Christ is the al HAQQ he is The Truth, something you fail to realize."
Failure to win an argument, results in Christian desperation, commonly known as self defensive preaching. I didn't ask about Jesus being "Al Haq" or why you had to appeal to emotions about your belief. Clearly you're losing your mind.
"So Abu still want to say that the Teacher of Righteousness’ is Jesus Christ when it is clear to just about Every Scholar that the “Teacher of Righteousness” was the sects inspired leader 20 years after they broke away sometime around 200 BC."
You really need to learn how to read, see pg 64 - 67 wherein the new covenant with the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness would occur. So they were awaiting another Teacher of Righteousness, whom according to Vermes came at another point in their history after the sect's founding:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever
expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic
Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment
of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes
the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher
of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest
that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was
no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness. The evidence available does not permit categorical statements on the sectaries’ views about what was to follow the days of the Messiahs. Some kind of metamorphosis was awaited by them, as is clear from the Community Rule - ‘until the determined end, and until the Renewal’ (iQS iv, 25)." - pg 87, Ibid.
Some he expands on here:
"And God observed their deeds, that they sought Him with a whole
heart, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of His heart."
And as he has also pointed out, there was a third Teacher of Righteousness found in the DSS, pg 509, the Wicked Priest.
Therefore you have to read in context which Teacher of Righteousness he's referring to. Pages 64-67 discuss the founder of the sect, page 87 discusses the Messianic Prophet as the Teacher and page 509 discusses the Teacher as a Wicked Priest. Your literacy skills are just awful. You're really giving me no choice but to demonstrate how absurd and inane you can be.
@Radical Immoderate,
"Abu first I never said Vermes says the Messiah was to be killed that is Esenmann, and here is the source for that.
Biblical Archeology".
Your link is devoid of working, much like the rest of your arguments.
"Secondly I did provide a quote from Vermes and now I will provide even more on (4Q285,)
“Fragment 7, erroneously labelled by some as the ‘Pierced Messiah fragment’, is based on an interpretation of Isa. x, 34–xi, 1, and should be read in connection with 4Q161, frs. 8–10, an Isaiah Commentary from Cave 4, and the Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation (1QSb, V, 20–29), both referring to the triumphant Davidic Messiah, expected to put an opponent, no doubt the king of the Kittim, to death. Only frs. 1, 4, 7 and 8 are suitable for translation.”
Please learn to read, see the part in bold. The Messiah isn't the one dying, or suffering, the Messiah here is conquering over an adversary. Again, proving my point for me. Good minion, very good.
@Radical Immoderate,
"Since I have already responded to this foolishness in a previous post, I will only say that ABU you proved again that you did not read the book. Here is a more in depth quote from the same page…"
Please read properly, he isn't referring to the Messianic Prophet who he expounds upon in page 87, see his explanation in page 86:
"It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological
High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation
before being glorified (see 4Q47ib, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).
The third figure, ‘the Prophet’, is mentioned directly though briefly...""
He was discussing the other two Messiahs who would suffer, not the Christ of whom I have referred to here:
"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever
expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic
Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment
of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes
the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher
of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest
that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was
no longer expected; he was believed to have"
@Radical Immoderate,
"Abu I have no idea why Geza Vermes contradicts himself in two separate works. It could be that he has changed his position on a suffering and humiliated Messiah over the course of 20 years."
So suddenly, when the author disagrees with your interpretation of his works, whereupon he qualifies his statement, that he contradicts himself, as opposed to you having misinterpreted the author's intent?
The latter is much more logical, as he never denotes a change in position, therefore his argument is constant. Therefore the proper explanation is that he has contradicted you because you misread, miscommunicated and perverted his quotes and understandings to suit your agenda, which has trickled down to his other writings, thus rendering him in complete contradiction to yourself.
Pathetic.
Abu, for the sake of time and not wanting to misrepresent your position, please give me the names for each of the following people:
1. Messiah of Aaron according to the DSS.
2. Messiah of David according to the DSS.
3. Teacher of Righteousness (Founder of the Sect).
4. Teacher of Righteousness (Messianic Priest).
5. Teacher of Righteousness (Wicked Priest).
6. The Prophet.
If you don't know the identity of one of the persons mentioned above, just write unknown. Otherwise, please state the name of the person clearly so I can respond.
Also could you tell me who you where referring to in the response you made to this statement of mine.
My Statement
""What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor."
Your Response
"They were very religious, more so than the Pharisees, have you not read Josephus' account of them? It's really explicit all the rituals they did."
Who are the "They" you are referring to? Are "They" the Essenes or the Arab Jews?
^-^-^-^____BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP
CLEAR....
^^_^^-______EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP
Royaslon looks like we got a flatliner.
Amazingly, after giving Abu ample time to show us manuscript evidence that the Essenes believed JESUS was born of a virgin, that JESUS was not crucified, and that JESUS was not Divine, he quotes manuscript after manuscript completely void of the name of JESUS! Furthermore, the very manuscripts he appeals to presuppose that Jesus was from the tribe of DAVID, something which is not taught in the Qur'an, and He even manages to quote a section which debunks one of the arguments he made against the Deity of Christ in his debate with Radical Moderate. With this in view. Let us examine what Abu had to say...
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Hilarious."
Yes, it's so funny! I spelled someone's name wrong in a paragraph. Such a disaster! Shocking!
My response:
I'll let your words speak for themselves:
“I don't know who Abu Shujab is. I am sorry but insisting on calling me by a name I have never used or by a title I don't own is quite pathetic and childish.”
“That wasn't my previous name on Paltalk. My previous name is entirely different: Abu Shujaah is not Abu Shujab , either you're faking ignorance or really can't read. “
“Who is Tinsdale? I referenced Clair Tisdall. I publicly deny using any reference to a Tinsdal in any of my debates. Your deceit knows no bounds. “
“Yes, it's so funny! I spelled someone's name wrong in a paragraph. Such a disaster! Shocking!”
“Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate”
“Good minion, very good.”
“Actually, to the contrary, I never left this phrase out, I even mentioned it in my debate and was a focal point for me. What Rabbinic authority with this Jewish group posses that Muslims accepted? That is why I quoted it. To which you nor your copulation partner, Radical, were ever able to answer.”
“@Non-Royalson”
“@Radical Immoderate”
Abu said:
"And stop misrepresenting what Clair Tisdall is saying. If you look at the quote carefully that you've ben referring to, Tisdall is speaking about groups throughout different periods who migrated to Arabia, even centuries before the Essenes came onto the scene, or are you going to tell me that every single group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes? After all, you're assuming that this group agreed with EVERYTHING that the Mohammaden authors believed."
If you read his quote, or rather your quote of him, they last time period he gives, is in line with the second temple being destroyed, which fits in with the criteria I've been using all long:
Nebuchadnezzar(605BC - 562BC), Pompey(106BC - 48BC), Titus(31AD - 81AD) Hadrian (76AD – 138AD)
My response:
Abu, you're not paying attention. There were migrations to Arabia prior to the one after the destruction of the second temple.. Thus, by the time the migration you're talking about happens, there are already a bunch of Jews there, some of whom had been there for 400 years before hand. Likewise, the migration at the time of Hadrian which occurred some time between 130AD-135AD from Jerusalem is obviously not the Essenes either. Let me quote something you had said before:
”As well as, in terms of timing, Islam came later, some few centuries after their migration to Arabia, so that does not mean the Jews who directly migrated at 70 to 99 AD were the ones whom Islamic authors later met. It would have been their children/ descendants, who would not have been nationalistic.”
A couple of points here. Firstly, you say it would have been the children of the migrating Jews who would not have been nationalistic. That doesn't help you Abu, the fact that the Essenes around the time of the destruction of the second temple were this nationalistic group, it wouldn't have been their children who didn't become nationalistic because they wouldn't have made the migration in the first place.
Secondly, you give the time period of 70 to 99AD for this migration. But that doesn't help you either, because not only did the migration of the nationalistic Essenes never happen, but the later migration of Jews in 130-135 AD from Jerusalem was obviously at a time when the Essenes no longer existed in Jerusalem. Not only so, but the group that fled Nebuchadnezzar migrated before the Essenes even came into existence!
You are assuming that the group that met with the Mohammaden authors were the group that migrated after the second temple, rather than Jews who migrated at any of the other times, before the sect existed, or after. Let's see what Tisdall says once again:
"We now turn to the Jews from whom Muhammad borrowed so very much that his religion might almost be described as a heretical form of later Judaism. In Muhammad's time the Jews were not only very numerous but also very powerful in various parts of Arabia. No doubt many of them had settled in that country at different times, when fleeing from the various conquerors - Nebuchadnezzar, the successors of Alexander the Great, Pompey. Titus, Hadrian, and others who had overrun and desolated Palestine. - The original sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdall, page 15."
Clair Tisdall does not single out the Jews who migrated following the destruction of
the Second Temple. I defy you to produce a single quote from Clair Tisdall that says that Mohammad and his followers (1) agreed with everything (2) with the group who migrated after the destruction of the second temple.
What does Geza Vermes have to say about the Dead Sea Scrolls being left in the caves? Let's have a look: “Finally, Josephus depicts in vivid language the bravery of the Essenes subjected to torture by the Romans.:
The war with the Romans tried their souls through and through by every variety of test. Racked and twisted, burned and broken, and made to pass through every
instrument of torture in order to induce them to blaspheme their lawgiver or to eat some forbidden thing, they refused to yield to either demand, nor ever once did they cringe to their persecutors or shed a tear. Smiling in their agonies and mildly deriding their tormentors, they cheerfully resigned their souls, confident
that they would receive them back again. (War 11, 152-3)
Since it would appear from this passage that the Romans were persecuting not individuals, but a group, it is tempting, bearing in mind the archaeologists’ claim that the Qumran settlement was destroyed by the Romans, to associate it with the story of Essenes captured by the Dead
Sea. If such a surmise is correct, the sect’s disappearance from history may well have been brought about in the lethal blow suffered by its central establishment during the fateful summer of 68 c e . The fact that no attempt was made to recover nearly 800 manuscripts from the caves confirms, it would seem, such a reconstruction of the end of Qumran and, with the annihilation of its central establishment, of the whole Essene movement."
Abu said:
Reading helps, like, a lot.
"Based upon those words, you have concluded that it means that Mohammaden authors agreed with everything that this group of Jews believed. Are you going to dare to make that same mistake again? If you do, I will take you to task for it!".
If you read Clair's words, he states that allegedly, we are in agreement with most of their works/ beliefs because we borrowed them. That is explicit. You can take me to task, but it's not going to help you. Seeing as he asserts that our beliefs are so similar we had to copy them, then he is in implicit agreement that our ideologies were similar. This would agree with the Islamic narrative that the Sunnah of a people from a Prophet would differ. So that gives us a leeway of differing with them in some areas.
My Response:
Abu, thank you for admitting that the two groups did not agree with everything. As a matter of fact, Since the two groups did not agree with everything, how can you maintain that this group believed the same things about Jesus as Muslims do? You cannot. You cannot assert which doctrines they differed upon. Now you've just opened the door to all kinds of groups having migrated to Arabia. Just like the Jewish Encyclopedia says,
"From extensive lists of names it is seen that typically Jewish or Biblical names were in the minority. Even the names of the tribes are purely Arabic, and offer hardly any clue to their origin."
Not only can you not tell us which doctrines they differed upon, but Clair Tisdall even states about this group:
“Early Arabian writers inform us that when Muhammad appeared the Jews were expecting the advent of the Messiah, and used frequently to threaten their enemies with the vengeance which the coming Prophet would take upon them. This no doubt had its influence in leading some among the Arabs, especially the Banu Khazraj of Medina (as Ibn Ishaq says), to accept Muhammad as the Prophet whose advent was predicted.” (Original Sources of the Qur'an, Tisdall, 1905, ch.3, p.16)
There you have it Abu. The Jews in Arabia were expecting the advent of the Messiah! This tells us that they did not consider Jesus as the Messiah! Furthermore, according to Geza Vermes, the Essenes no longer expected the Messiah because he had come in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness!
If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness. (G.Vermes, The complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p.87)
Since you appealed to 4Q252 5:1-4 as your proof-text against the crucifixion of Jesus, it presupposes that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Something that is not taught in the Qur'an. The Islamic idea is that He is from the house of Aaron). Furthermore it supposes that the kingdom is established by Him. If that is the case, there is no more expectation of the messianic prophet or prophetic Messiah.
In short:
Essenes: No longer expected a Messiah.
Group in Arabia: Were expecting a Messiah.
Abu said:
"Then you have Hadrian (76AD-138AD). The problem with this is glaringly obvious. This group fled from Hadrian between 130 and 135AD from Jerusalem! Since there were no further records of the Essenes after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, the group that fled to Arabia from Jerusalem from 130AD - 135AD were obviously not the Essenes!".
Your argument can be easily disproved, the dates are tentative, but revolve around the Temple's destruction, we know they fled at this specific point in time and shortly thereafter, in which the CE indicates the date of their disappearance as we knew them in Judea/ Qumran to be near the end of the first century not exactly, absolutely in 70 AD:
"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D.”
My resposne:
You say my argument can be easily disproved. I didn't see you disprove anything. And yes, as the Catholic Encyclopedia quotes, the group disappeared toward the end of the first century! Thank you for confirming that the group which migrated from Jerusalem between 130 A.D. and 135 A.D. were not the Essenes!
In fact, let me quote you:
“As well as, in terms of timing, Islam came later, some few centuries after their migration to Arabia, so that does not mean the Jews who directly migrated at 70 to 99 AD were the ones whom Islamic authors later met. It would have been their children/ descendants, who would not have been nationalistic.”
The reason why you wrote 99 AD as the upper limit was because you know that the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. You realise you can't get past 99AD, and yet now you're suggesting a date some 31 – 36 years later! Toward the end of the first century still puts it well before 130 – 135 AD Abu! You're stuck! Not only was the group that fled from Hadrian from Jerusalem, not the Essenes, but the group that fled Nebuchadnezzar were likewise not the Essenes some 400 years beforehand!
Abu said:@Royalson,
"4 migrations to Arabia are mentioned by Clair Tisdall."
So are you therefore claiming there are only 4 mass Jewish migrations to Arabia? This isn't a spoken debate, but a written, so under the same criteria you held me under previously, I shall ask of you to be honest and do the same. List all the possible migrations and let's look at them. If you are sticking to only these 4 then, you're being dishonest, as we know there were more.
My response:
I took 4 as a conservative number but indeed there were more than 4 migrations implied by Clair Tisdall. I simply focused on the 4 that were associated with names of rulers from whom the migrators fled. However, your acknowledgement that there were more than 4 migrations only adds to the heavy burden that already works against you, because now you have to deal with more migrations which did not involve the Essenes since their sect was wiped out from Jerusalem toward the end of the first century A.D.
Abu said:
"1 migration occurred before the Essenes existed as a sect.
1 migration occurred after the Essenes had been wiped out."
Your second premise was refuted in my previous comment:
My Response:
That is wishful thinking on your part Abu. Again, those who fled from Hadrian, migrated from Jerusalem sometime between 130-135 A.D. That takes the Essenes out of the picture who were wiped out toward the end of the first century.
Abu said:
The CE says:
"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D. "
My Response:
Exactly, so the Essenes disappeared before the migration from Jerusalem from the Hadrian oppression. Thank you.
Abu said:
Whereas we do have documents from their caves dating between 132-135 AD from the 2nd jewish revolt, see DSS Bastian Elveren.
I already provided manuscripts for their beliefs, in numerous comments above. Just scroll and you'd have them, this is assuming of course, you are literate.
My Response:
That some documents from their caves were discovered does not tell you that the Essenes themselves wrote them! Obviously, if the Essenes had been wiped out toward the end of the first century, then it wasn't the Essenes who wrote them! I could not find any resource for DSS Bastian Elveren. Did you spell the name correctly? Also, the group which migrated from 130A.D. - 135 A.D did so from Jerusalem not Qumran. The Essenes are off the radar Abu. You are really stretching things now.
As Geza Vermes puts it:
“Essenism is dead. The brittle structure of its stiff and exclusive brotherhood was unable to withstand the national catastrophe which struck Palestinian Judaism in 70ce” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Vermes, G, p. 25)
Abu said:What's wrong with you? Either you're drunk or high, otherwise you'd have to provide some logical explanation as to how you could derive such an inane argument from my writing. In any case, I already demonstrated they believed in a miraculous birth from the Word/ Breath of God:
4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath
[are from God]
My Response:It says He is the Elect One of God. Who Abu? Does the text ever name this person? No it does not! Still no mention of the name Jesus! When I asked you for “explicit 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essenes' view of Jesus, you listed all these manuscipts, none of which mention the name Jesus! Still no mention of a VIRGIN BIRTH. One of the three “pivots of veracity” as you like to call them was not a “miraculous birth” but a Virgin Birth.” Again, the text itself does not contain the words “Are from God”.
Abu said:"Ah, now you want to appeal to the Panarion again. A few posts back you were rejecting Epiphanius' work and used a quote from Bart Ehrman''s book but now you want to invoke him again?".
I didn't reject the Panarion, recall my words from Barth, wherein I stated clearly that I took the claims which were in contradiction with the other Patristics, with a pound of salt.
You never actually quoted a single Patristic Father that contradicted what Epiphanius was saying about the Ebionites. You appealed to him to demonstrate that some Ebionites had disagreements with Ebion and his majority followers about the natural birth by the seed of a man, but when we examined what those differences were, none of them supported your view. The only reason you quoted Bart Ehrman was because you couldn't deal with what Epiphanius actually wrote. It troubled you when I showed you the actual alternate teachings of the Ebionites were. I find it quite hilarious that you depend on this 3rd century patristic writer, but throw him out when I refute you. Not only do you take Epiphanius' writings with a pound of salt when they destroy your position, but you also ADD pounds of salt to other writings, concluding that they say things that they do not actually say.
Abu said:
"How can you derive the Essene's view of the MESSIAH by looking at the Old Testament? Where do you get the idea that the Old Testament speaks of the Essene's view of the Messiah? That the Essenes differed from the Pharisees in their traditions does not tell you what their view of the Messiah actually was!"
I look at the MST and the DSS and they are very similar:
"Compared to the often meaningful divergences between the traditional Hebrew text and its ancient
Greek, Latin or Syriac translations, the few variant readings of the Masoretic Bible manuscripts, ignoring obvious scribal errors, mainly concern spelling. By contrast, the Qumran scriptural scrolls, and especially the fragments, are characterized by extreme fluidity: they often differ not just from the customary wording but also, when the same book is attested by several manuscripts, among themselves. In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text." - Complete DSS, Vermes, pg 16.
My Response:
Abu, looking at the MST and the DSS does not tell us what the Essene's view of the Messiah was. As Radical pointed out, the Essenes believed in at least 2 Messiahs, and possibly a third. Can you tell us which of the 2 or possibly 3 Messiahs you're talking about? Which one of these two or three Messiahs is Jesus, and how do you derive that from the Masoretic Text? Likewise, none of the Dead Sea Scrolls
manuscripts that you quoted from even mentions the name Jesus. The Masoretic text is not the only player in the game Abu:
“In fact, some of the fragments echo what later became the Masoretic text; others resemble the Hebrew underlying the Greek Septuagint; yet others recall the Samaritan Torah or Pentateuch, the only part of the Bible which the Jews of Samaria accepted as Scripture.” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Vermes,G. , p16.)
So please, don't use the MST as a smoke-screen. I want to see some manuscripts from the Essenes that speak about JESUS. Please provide something! And as for a Judaic Messiah, you are Borrowing outside of the Islamic world-view. Isa is not a Judaic Messiah! He's from Aaron!
Abu said:@Royalson,
"What? That's your proof? What a let-down. Abu, all that's telling me is that the Greeks refer to a group of people who live in the same way that the Essenes do, and they call them Pythagoreans."
It states their beliefs were the same which matched other groups:
"In Greece the Pythagoreans, in Egypt the Therapeuts, and in Syria the Essenes."
"That does not make them the same group. If you insist that they are, then I will congratulate you for destroying your case once again. The Pythagoreans were polytheists! Still want to claim that they are the same group? Just because you've got two groups that engage in some similar practices does not make them identical. Abu you really shot yourself in the foot with that one!"
At the time of Josephus we read and accept according to his understanding they are the same. After that they may have differed but during the time of Josephus, we atleast have a uniform belief on their doctrine towards God, which is also bolstered by their anti-Trinitarian dogma:
"They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient." - CE.
My Response:
Josephus says NOTHING about the Pythagorean's beliefs being identical to the Essenes. All it says is that they have the same kind of lifestyle. That's like saying if someone talks about some two groups of farmers are said to have the same kind of life-style that it's automatically saying they have the same kind of beliefs. It doesn't follow Abu. As a matter of fact, your presentation mentioned that the group of Jews that migrated to Arabia adopted the customs and cultural practices of their Arabian neighbours. Does that mean they became pagans? No, of course not. So don't assume that the Pythagoreans departed from polytheism and adopted monotheism, because no historical sources ever mention this.
You also speak about the uniform belief on their doctrine towards God, bolstered by their anti-Trinitarian dogma. Your quote then speaks of them worshipping one God. By referring to this as anti-Trinitarian dogma, you expose a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity which by necessity asserts the existence of ONE GOD. That the Essenes believed in one God does not tell you whether they were unitarian or trinitarian. And as for the Pythagoreans, they were polytheists as I already mentioned so they certainly did not conform to your belief of unitarianism.
Abu said:"Same beliefs in Egypt ? Congratulations, more polytheism. Keep this up Abu, your Imam will be proud. Oh, in case you didn't catch that, it was sarcasm.".
Again, I can actually provide references for my arguments and link my quotes together with sequitur conclusions, you on the other hand, deny, make some random statement and then an insult at the end of each comment.
My response:
Excuse me? Where was the insult there? I merely reciprocated the sarcasm you spoke to me.
Abu said:@Royalson,
"It was to demonstrate their dilgence to preserving their teachings."
They did preserve their teachings, so well, we have them:
"The procedure followed in inquiries into infringements of the Law and the sect’s Rule has been preserved, and the list of faults with their corresponding sentences tells us more about the mentality of the Dead Sea ascetics than any isolated exposition of their doctrine and principles can do." - Ibid, Vermes, pg 30.
My Response:That quote is not speaking about preserving the Sect's teaching, it's speaking about the preservation of a procedure which followed in inquiries into infringements of the Law and the sect's rule. It also speaks of the preservation of the list of faults with their corresponding sentences. Again, what can we say of the preservation of the teachings of the Essenes into Arabia? Not a shred of evidence. We only know that some group in Arabia had some knowledge of the bible, and talmud and the prayer book.
Abu said:
You claimed::
"But instead you want us to believe that they basically decided to leave their manuscripts in their caves and abandon them, travelling miles away, with no possibility of passing them onto their children. Nice strawman you made."
So the Qurman scrolls according to your logic, couldn't have been put in caves, hidden from the invading Roman armies, preserved for some 2000 years because they were diligent in their faith? So let's see, if the people who left the scrolls behind weren't diligent Essenes, then who left them there?
My Response:
You assume that the Essenes left them in the caves and migrated to Arabia. You given no evidence that they are the same group that migrated to Arabia instead of having been killed by the Romans. All you have been able to do is show that a group mentioned by Clair Tisdall were said to have had teachings borrowed by Mohammaden authors. We aren't told which teachings these were, especially with regard to Jesus. Like I have said before, you have made a string of assumptions which remain unproven.
Geza Vermes: Essenes no longer expected the prophetic Messiah.
Clair Tisdall: Some group expecting a Messiah met Mohammad.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century.
Geza Vermes: Essenism died back around 70AD.
Jewish Encyclopedia: Hardly any clue as to the origin of the migrating group.
Abu: The Essenes met Mohammad !!
Royalson: Shakes head.
CC said: "Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate..."
You are a spunky little Muslim, aren't you? By calling me a coward one would assume that you were the one who challenged me. And by pretending that I should have e-mailed you already, one would assume that you are in some kind of a hurry to debate even though, all your rambling posts notwithstanding, you (allegedly) don't have time until after the 25th. Rest assured, I have every interest in debating you: that is why I challenged you; and that is why I called you out for pretending you don't have time to do it sooner.
That is all fine. Personally I like Muslims with mouths like their false prophet. It gives me every incentive to show you what a fight between Godzilla and Bambi would look like.
Abu said:
“Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah (Mal. iv, 5; 1 Enoch xc, 31, 37; Matth. xi, 13; xvii, 12), or as a divine guide sent to Israel in the final days (1 Mac. iv, 46; xiv, 41; Jn. i, 21), no doubt identical with ‘the Prophet’ promised by God to Moses (‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you… He shall convey all my commands to them’, Deut. xviii, 15–18; cf. Acts iii, 22–3; vii, 37).
They expected a new leader like Moses, someone who would lead their people to prosperity, this is one of the many roles of the Messiah.
My Response:
Very interesting, so Jesus is the “prophet like Moses”. This is assuming of course you are not suggesting that Mohammad is the Messianic Prophet which as you know is nowhere supported in your Qur'an. Abu, congratulations for getting something right! I'm glad that you see that Jesus fulfills the prophecy regarding a prophet like Moses. How many times do we hear from Muslims that Jesus doesn't fit the criteria and that it's speaking of Mohammad instead? I must say, this was one of the more refreshing things that you have said in this dialogue.
However, I find it curious that you state that one of the many roles of the Messiah is to lead his people to prosperity. How did the Isa of the Qur'an do that with the Essenes? The Essenes were wiped out. Off the radar. Is this the kind of prosperity you expect the Messiah to bring?
Abu said:
Note that the Jews at Jesus' time were also looking for an Elijah, if we read the NT, that's exactly what the Pharisees did.
Ok let's take a step back for a moment and look at what possibilities Vermes is telling us regarding the identification of “the prophet”:
1. The prophet is an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah.
2. Divine Guide sent to Israel in the final days identical with the Prophet promised by God to Moses.
Which one are you going with Abu? It seems that you're telling us that Jesus fulfilled both roles. However, there's a problem. The first possibility states that the “returning Elijah” is actually a precursor to the Messiah” So if you're saying that Jesus is the prophet, the returning Elijah, then you're by default saying that Jesus is not the Messiah since you would be making him a precursor to the Messiah. That won't work for you.
You also appealed to the Pharisees of the New Testament who were looking for an Elijah. In fact, it doesn't say that the Pharisees were looking for an Elijah, it simply says “others”. We are not told that these “others” are Pharisees or what they are. But yes, Matthew 16:13 does speak of some who were believed Jesus was an Elijah.
We read in Matthew 16:13-14 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Then Jesus asks Peter who gives his confession:
Matthew 16:15-16 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Let us see Jesus's response to Peter's confession:
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
So according to the very passage that speaks of a group of people considering Jesus to be Elijah, has that very Jesus accepting the confession that He is the Son of the living God and that such a revelation came from His Father who is in the Heavens.
Such a Jesus is not a Muslim, since Allah is not the Father of Jesus in the Qur'an. Allah has no Son. Unless you wish to worship Him:
Surah 43:81 Say: "If (God) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship."
The second possibility speaks of this one being the Divine Guide sent to Israel in the final days. Although I admire your concession about Jesus being the prophet like Moses, this one is the Divine Guide. Do you feel comfortable as a Muslim calling Jesus a Divine Guide? Is this a part of your accepted doctrine as a Muslim? This one is being spoken of as an end times figure according to Vermes. The one who comes in the final days to bring in the Kingdom. So did the Essenes believe that Jesus fulfilled that role as Messiah? Could you demonstrate such?
Abu said:
Therefore using your quote from Vermes, pg 87 and my quote, they were expecting a Messiah soon, who would be like Moses and lead them, something which their scrolls indicated:
"1QS 9:11
[V5/100, GM/13Ð14, WAC/139]
They shall . . . be ruled by the primitive precepts in which the men of the Community were first instructed until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel."
However his rule (the Messiah(s) of Israel) would end with the coming of the Prophet, which Prophet? Well they weren't expecting one from Israel nor a Messiah from Aaron, but a Prophet, see Deu. 18:18, who would also follow on the path of Moses.
My Response:
They weren't expecting a Messiah from Aaron or Israel but a Prophet? But Jesus is a Messiah of Israel!Well if Jesus was that prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18, then who were the two prophet precursors that came before him?
If however, by some warped kind of logic, you're trying to say that Mohammad was the Messianic Prophet and not Jesus then you're presenting a view of Mohammad which is not supported by the Qur'an. The only Messiah ever mentioned in the Qur'an is Jesus, not Mohammad.
And again, the group which had migrated to Arabia were EXPECTING A MESSIAH. Your dots are not connecting Abu sorry to say.
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Funny how you isolate the Zealots. I simply mentioned them to counter the claim that there were only 3 main sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus.I actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia.".
I know you claimed that. Which contradicts your next statement:
"In fact I repeatedly claimed that I could not make a positive identification for this group precisely because we are not given any identification of that group in any source."
My Response:
Sorry Abu, I made a typo, I meant to have said that I never actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia. Considering that you found it contradictory to my very next statement I would have hoped you would see that I had made a typo. So here's my challenge to you Abu. If you really do believe that I made a positive identification of the Migrating group as the Zealots, please quote me as saying such. You won't find it. In fact, if you actually recall how Zealots even came into the discussion, it was through my response to your assertion that there were only 3 main groups during the time of Jesus. I stated that the Catholic Encyclopedia that you quoted was speaking of the 2nd century not the time of Jesus. Let's see my post:
1. There were three main sects of Judaism present at the time of Jesus according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: The Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Essenes.
My response: Actually there were the Zealots also. But hey, no biggie.
As you can see, I wasn't making a big deal about the Zealots, it was simply to speak of which main groups existed at the time of Jesus. As your quote in italics indicates, you falsely asserted that the Catholic Encyclopedia was speaking of “present at the time of Jesus” when the Catholic Encyclopedia
said in the 2nd century BC.
As the discussion developed, the Zealots came up frequently, not to make a positive identification of the group which migrated but simply ask “Why the Essenes and not the Zealots?”, but I also asked, Why not the Pharisees? I also asked, why not the Sadduccees? I also asked, why not one of the smaller groups? Why not a combination of two, three, or several? As such, I was not making a positive identification of the group but simply asking why are you convinced that the group were the Essenes to the exclusion of the above mentioned groups. I hope you are clear now that I do not make a positive case for any particular group when I have said all along that as the Jewish Encyclopedia states, there is hardly any clue as to the origin of this group.
Abu said:
So you supposed that the Zealots or an amalgamated group of Jews were the group that migrated, but now you're saying you can't identify the group as such? So either you've changed your position, or figured your evidence was so shoddy you've abandoned your point!
My Response:
My position was never to positively identify the group. That was your job. And you're telling me that I've changed my position or my evidence was so shoddy.
I don't need evidence to identify the group if it is not my position to identify the group. The fact is Abu that you are the one who has been trying to identify the group as Essenes, yet it is you that has not been able to demonstrate to us that the group in Arabia were Essenes. I have not seen anything about what this group specifically believed about Jesus. You have not been able to do that, nor will you be able to.
Abu said:
"Furthermore, the debate thesis was “Were the ESSENES the pre-mohammad islamic followers of Jesus” You were debating for the affirmative, thus the burden of proof fell upon you to prove that thesis. It was your job to provide the evidence that the group were Essenes."
You finally realised this, did you? I made the point that I did not have to present any other groups but the Essenes, yet for over 18 comments you chided me for not examining the Zealots and any other groups beside the Pharisees and Sadducees. Do you not see your own hypocrisy?
My Response:
What do you mean I finally realised this? I've been telling you repeatedly for quite some time now that the burden of proof falls upon you. It seems you fail to grasp my point, and that is that you have four main sects and a lot of smaller sects. You were assuming that the group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes due to your faulty reasoning that there was no record of the Pharisees or Sadducees migrating to Arabia. Not only was that initial reasoning of yours faulty due to the fact that there was no record of Essenes ever migrating to Arabia either, but eliminating the Pharisees and Sadducees still left the Zealots as well as all the smaller sects. You tried to give the impression that there was one sect left by your “logical deduction”. In reality, the Essenes were not only not the only sect left in the picture since there were other Jewish sects to consider as possible candidates as well as the Pharisees and Sadducees, but the as the Encyclopedia stated, the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. That means no more records Abu. Your argument about no records of the Pharisees or Sadducees migrating is thoroughly refuted by the fact that there were no more records of the Essenes PERIOD!
Abu said:
As for who has to do what. As I told you, I already positively identified the Essenes, your job, well Radical's job was to negate my evidences and prove they weren't. You on the other hand, walked in for him and have decided to positively identify two possible groups. Now I've done my part, so your job is now two fold, refute the arguments I have presented for my group and then demonstrate to me why the groups you chose were the ones who migrated. Simple.
My Response:
Your job is far from done. It has barely begun!
I don't need to demonstrate which group migrated because as the Encyclopedia states, there's hardly any clue to their origin. Nothing in historical documents identifies them with any particular sect therefore I see no reason to attempt to make a positive identification of that group.
According to Clair Tisdall, this group was expecting the Messiah, yet for the Essenes, the Messiah had already come.
No mention of the name of Jesus in ANY texts attributed to the Essenes despite your claim to having 1st person explicit verbatim sources.
I can likewise give you a manuscript speaking of a Messianic figure with an eternal kingdom called the Son of God and Son of the Most high. I don't think you'd accept this as referring to Jesus. The name Jesus is nowhere mentioned. Nor is the name mentioned in any of the manuscripts that you have provided.
Abu said:
"IRRELEVANT - Not my job to identify the group that left Judea. The group is never identified in any historical source."
See the reference from Josephus who mentions they were present in his time and in numerous areas under different names, as I previously quoted. So yes, there was a historical source which did identify them. Problem?
My Response:
Big problem. One of the very groups you appealed to was Pythagoreans. Josephus only says they had the same kind of life-style. No mention of theological beliefs being identical. Pythagoreans were polytheist, not otherwise. No mention by name of the group which migrated to Arabia after the destruction of the 2nd temple. You have given not a single quote identifying that group. The best you could do is produce a quote from Clair Tisdall which you concede does not necessitate identical beliefs. No mention of Jesus in the beliefs of the migrating group. No mention of the name of Jesus in any Essene literature.
Abu said:
"Where do you get the idea that this migrating group of Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah? I never asserted such a thing. But since you believe this, I will again ask you for the manuscript evidence."
See my quote from Vermes, that her asserts their Messiah must have already come and secondly that the Messiah was divinely brought into the world, i.e. miracle birth. Who does that sound like to you?
My Response:
If the Messiah had already come, then why were the group which migrated to Arabia looking for their Messiah? Also, Vermes puts the dating of that Messiah that had arrived to around 170BC. Your dates are off my friend. Again, we're not asking for merely a miracle birth, we're asking for a virgin birth! Also, I don't see the name of Jesus there. Have you got any manuscripts that mention the name of Jesus?
You see, I can quote from manuscripts too:
1. He will be called the Son of God, and they will call him the Son of the Most High like a shooting star.
2. that you saw, so will be their kingdom, they will rule several years over
3. the earth and crush everything, a people will crush another people and nation (will crush) nation.
4. Blank (space left blank in the manuscript) Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from warfare.
5. Their kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and their paths will be righteous. They will judge
6. the earth with truth, and all (nations) will make peace. The warfare will cease from the land,
7. and all (nations) will worship him. The great God will be their help,
8. He Himself will fight for them, putting peoples into their power, all of them
9. He will cast them away before him, His dominion will be an everlasting dominion and all the abysses
Is this person, called the Son of God, and Son of the Most high in 4q246 Jesus?
Abu said:@Radical Immoderate,
"That a group of Jews who had limited knowledge of the bible, did not establish regular study who brought a limited knowledge of the Talmud, fled to Arabia after the war of 70 AD."
Please tell Royalson this, he thinks they actually brought the Talmud with them. Is he right, or are you? If so, should I adopt his position or yours?
My Response:
You seem to think that the concepts of having the talmud and having knowledge of the talmud are mutually exclusive. Why is this? Recall Philip speaking to the Eunuch in the desert, asking if he knew what he was reading. The Eunuch replied saying How can I unless someone teaches me? Here was an example of a person who had a portion of Isaiah but didn't have the knowledge of that scripture. If a Christian speaks to you about the Qur'an and you respond to some of their arguments, one may deduce that you have some knowledge of the Qur'an. Does that negate that you yourself have the Qur'an in your possession? No. I'm not sure why you tried to make these as mutually exclusive concepts.
Abu said:
"You then just conclude that they were Essenes because they did not produce any Talmudic authority accept what Mohamadian authors considered. You also base your conclusion that Clair Tinsdale called the Mohamadians Jewish Heretics and that Mohamed borrowed so much of his new religion from the Jews of Arabia. That’s an interesting position Abu since I thought Islam came from ALLAH and not from the Jews. Are you saying that Mohamed got revelation from the JEWS?Abu you then throw in some random quote about the Essenes from I don’t know since you never site a source."
I cited all my sources, why are you being dishonest?
My Response:
You cite a number of sources, often omitting parts of quotes or taking things out of context. What is clear however is that not a single source from the dead sea scrolls mentions Jesus. We're still looking for one. The manuscripts you've quoted never mention his name.
Abu said:
"What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor."
They were very religious, more so than the Pharisees, have you not read Josephus' account of them? It's really explicit all the rituals they did.
My Response:
Try the response again. Radical pointed out that the Jews in Arabia were nominal Jews. Then you jumped to the Essenes. Again you're presupposing they are one in the same. The group in Arabia were skilled armourers. Were the Essenes skilled armourers Abu?
Abu said:
@Royalson,
"Was it that group of Essenes that you believe migrated while the ones holding to celibacy were not involved in the migrattion or do you believe it was a combination of the two?".
You need to read the Panarion, Josephus' works and the JE, where those who married returned to the order afterwards, while another subset married and allowed marriage entirely.
My Response:
Interestingly Vermes goes on to talk about a faction of Essenes that broke of from the main sect and were chided for being followers of smooth things. It would be interesting to note whether the original sect which forbade marriage considered the practice of marriage to be among such "smooth things" It would also be interesting to consider what their view of polygamy would have been. At this stage however, I haven't ventured far into such details so I don't wish to speculate too much on this.
Abu said:
"Of course the knowledge of each person would have differed, and the example of wives and children is a good example."
I know. ;-)
"However, it would still be the intent of the Essenes to ensure the preservation of their texts and teachings. However, you want us to believe that they simply cast them aside and moved to Arabia. I'm not sure why you come to this conclusion."
So you're saying it wasn't the Essenes who fled Roman persecution, and hid their writings in their caves in Qumran? Who then were the authors at Qumran?
My Response:
I wasn't making a dispute regarding the authorship of the scrolls in the above remarks which you quoted. What I do dispute is this idea of yours that they would leave such texts in the caves and migrate thousands of miles away. If the intention of the sect is to preserve the teachings, then leaving them behind is totally opposite to what they ought to have done.
Abu said:
"Perpetually a lover of truth: Does that truth include what He considers to be the inspired word of God? ".
I don't see why not.
"Equally preserve the books belonging to their sect: Just abandon them in caves?"
See, now your argument supposes if the Essenes loved their books then they wouldn't have left them in caves. The consensus of all DS scholars is that the authors and the persons who lived in Qumran were the Essenes. Essentially, as of now, you're arguing against all of Dead Sea scholarship, textual criticism, historians and archaeologists.
Just to correct you, it is not the consensus of all DSS scholars that the scrolls were authored by the Essenes. However, for my part I'm not even disputing it in my statement above. I'm saying if they were authored by a sect whose oath it was to preserve its teachings for its sect, it would not abandon their scrolls to travel thousands of miles away. Allow me to quote Geza Vermes once again: “The fact that no attempt was made to recover nearly 800 manuscripts from the caves confirms, it would seem, such a reconstruction of the end of Qumran and, with the annihilation of its central establishment, of the whole Essene movement.” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Vermes, G., p. 66)
Abu said:
"Their scripture is a part of their tradition, and you believe they simply discarded it and left it in caves."
So the Essenes did not leave their scrolls and papyri in the caves of Qumran, who did then?
My Response:
Again, understand the context of what I'm saying. I am not disputing the authorship of the scrolls as belonging to the Essenes here, I am simply stating that I don't believe they'd walk away from them because it was a part of their oath to preserve their teaching, their books. What I believe happened was that they were slaughtered by the Romans. There is no record of them after the first century. The reason you believed they made it into Arabia is based upon a quote from Clair Tisdall in which you initially insisted that this migrating group had identical beliefs to the Mohammaden authors and subsequently such beliefs about Jesus. However, as you have conceded that Tisdall's quote makes no such conclusion, you are left back at square one. Nothing has been identified about the group that made it's way to Arabia along with all the other groups that had migrated at different times. Nothing has been identified from the Essenes about their views of Jesus. Only some quotes from manuscripts about an Aaronic Messiah, a Davidic Messiah, A Messiah of Israel, a prophetic Messiah, and so on, but no mention of the Essenes linking such attributions or titles to Jesus.
Abu said:
@Royalson,
"There you've gone and shot yourself in the foot again. So now you're saying that the Mohammaden authors would have considered them unlearned in the scriptures because their teachings would not be preached to them. Haha, so in other words, the Mohammaden authors didn't really get much out of them. So then how can you conclude that they got the beliefs of Jesus out of them? You don't realise how often you keep contradicting yourself Abu. It's quite sad really."
You seriously need to learn how to read. I said if we function with your argument, then working from it we derive the following understanding:
"It’s plausible by your argument as you claim they only kept their doctrine to themselves, therefore to others they would seemed unlearned of their scriptures, as it would not be preached to them. Thanks for proving my argument for me. Now to turn it on you, can you demonstrate if according to you the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots held such a belief or were unlearned in the teaching of the Torah?".
Please learn to read, I am using *your* supposed argument, if you think it's foolish, then you're really exposing the fallacies of your own premises. See? If I accept your arguments, you clearly displayed that we would both be wrong. Good job, kiddo.
My Response:
Are you able to function with my argument Abu? Did you even provide a refutation? No. You in fact considered it to be quite plausible that they gave the appearance of being unlearned because they would not share with those outside of their group.
Again, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that regular study did not seem to have found a regular home among them. What does that mean Abu? Does that mean that either:
1. They truly were not well studied in the scriptures.
Or
2. They were well studied in the scriptures but only gave the appearance of not being well studied?
If you go with number 1, then you will need to explain why a group which is not well studied is believed by you to believe the same things that Muslims do about Jesus such that you rule out this group being anything but Essene?
If you go with number 2, then you will need to explain why this group did not share with Mohammad and his authors if these Essenes were Muslims. Would not Mohammad be a gold card member of this sect? And if they didn't open up all their teachings, did they really accept Mohammad as their prophet? And if they didn't open up all their teachings, how do you come to the conclusion that they had identical views about Jesus?
You ask me about the Zealots or amalgamated group. Again, I don't know the extent of their beliefs or teachings. I don't claim that they agreed with everything the Mohammaden authors believed. This is what you tried to push early on in the game, but I'm glad you're retreating from that position now because you had no way to defend such an assertion.
Abu said:Royalson,
"Whether or not they physically had the Talmud in their possession is irrelevant. That this generation would have knowledge of the Talmud infers that they had learnt it from their parents. As such, what we do know is that their forefathers followed the Talmud. You ought to know that the Talmud speaks very negatively of Jesus. Still want to insist that this group were followers of Jesus?"
Where did the forefathers of the Essenes allow the Talmud? This mysterious group of whom you are referring to who migrated, what evidence do you have to suggest they once held and studied the Talmud? It's obvious they had some knowledge, so which group of Jews is this that migrated, but only had some knowledge of the Talmud?
My Response:
I did not say that the forefathers of the Essenes, I was speaking of the forefathers of those Jews who met with Mohammad and his authors, in other words, the ancestors of the 6th century Jews in Arabia.
Because you have this group that meets with Mohammad having knowledge of the Talmud roughly 500 years after the migration of the Jews following the destruction of the second temple, it would seem only reasonable to conclude that they were taught these Jews in Arabia (6th Century AD) were taught by their parents, and their preceding ancestors all the way back to circa. 70AD. Why would the Talmud be considered worthy of such preservation and handing down, whether oral or phyiscally?
Abu said:"It does not say tha tthey didn't produce any Rabbinic Authority, it says they didn't produce any Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors."
Which Rabbinic authority do Muslims accept?
My Response:
There you go again, changing words. First you would change the word considered to agreed, now you change from considered to accept. Abu, the fact that the Rabbinical authorities (whatever they may have been) were considered by the Mohammaden authors, does not mean that they accepted those authorities. They considered them! The Essenes believed that Isaac was the child of sacrifice. Do you believe that the group that met with Mohammad and his authors agreed with that? Now you're in a dilemma. If you say they didn't agree with Isaac being the child of sacrifice, then you've disqualified them from being Essenes. If you say that they did agree with this teaching, then you have to concede that they would have disagreed with the Mohammaden authors. You see Abu, since you know that you can't defend this notion of 100% agreement, you likewise cannot defend the notion that this group in Arabia believed the same things that Muslims do about Jesus.
Abu said:
"Earlier you suggested that this group would have suppressed their teachings from the Mohammedan authors giving the appearance that they were not well studied by way of applying their oath."
Sorry Royalson, that was *your* argument, I was only using it to see what you'd say if I used your argument. I said, if your argument was plausible, then such and such would be the case. Since you've thus, then demonstrated that the premises derived from your very own argument are fallacious, then you've really proven that your *own* argument was absurd. Good job.
My Response:
What I demonstrated is that your position is absurd. Either these people did not have regular study or they only gave the appearance of not having regular study. If they gave the appearance of not having regular study, then they obviously were holding something back from Mohammad & co, showing that he wasn't a goldcard carrying member of their elite sect, and proving that you cannot derive an identical set of beliefs between the two parties. If they truly did not have much study among them, then they were limited in knowledge of the Torah, bible, and prayer book, which again leads us to conclude that you have no way to state emphatically that they had identical beliefs about the scriptures let alone Jesus.
Abu said:
"And again, the fact that this generation in Arabia had knowledge of the Talmud centuries after the migration of their forefathers certainly implies that such Talmudic knowledge had been passed onto them by them. Again, the reference says “no Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors. That does not mean no Rabbinic authority at all. Please read the sources carefully before you form your arguments."
Please note, that the CE states explicitly that the group which migrated, had little study, not the group which came after the group that migrated. You are reading the statement incorrectly. The group which went to Arabia, at that time had little study of the Torah, not the other way around.
My Response:
The group which migrated? So we're pushing the clock back to the first century now? This group had little study of the Torah? And they did not produce any Rabbinical authority beyond that which was considered by the Mohammaden authors in the FIRST CENTURY???? No Abu, this is clearly talking about the descendants of the migrants. It's talking about those Jews in 6th century Arabia.
What Rabbinic authority agrees with Islam?
There's that word agreed! I only see the word CONSIDERED in the reference Abu. Where are you getting this word agreed from?
Abu said:
@Royalson,
"It would be blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be God unless.........He is God! Too bad you made a categorical fallacy and forced the application of a mere creature to Jesus, and yet Abu, there are no texts that you have produced for us so far where the Essenes denied the Deity of Jesus Christ."
I already quoted many texts:
1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10]
[V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94]
She labors in her pains who bears a man.
For amid the throes of Death
She shall bring forth a man-child,
and amid the pains of Hell
there shall spring from her child-bearing crucible
a Marvelous Mighty Counselor [Isaiah 9:5-6];
and a Man shall be delivered from out of the throes.
My Response:
Again, well done for destroying your baseless argument in your debate with Radical Moderate that the correct rendering of Isaiah 9:5/6 is that the wonderful counselor, mighty God, eternal Father, calls him the prince of peace.
In the quote you have provided above, the Marvelous Mighty Counselor is brought forth from the woman. And We know that Mighty is not in fact applied to the title of counselor but of God, i.e. el gibbor. So the wonderful counselor, mighty God, springs forth from her. Thank you for confirming how bankrupt your position is.
Abu said:
He's called a man, not a son of God, God's son, Jesus, Yeshua, YHWH, just a man.
"Please demonstrate the contradictory attributions of the Church Fathers regarding the subsets of the Ebionites. Then once you've done that, please demonstrate the belief that ONE subset believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Please show me your sources so I can see what you take as valid. Simply trying to dismiss Epiphanius shortly after appealing to him in the same breath by invoking Bart Ehrman does not bode well for your credibility, sorry to say."
My Response:
Abu, I'm going to assume you made a typo on this one. You don't seriously believe that Jesus is YHWH, right? I'll wait for your response on that one. As for the rest of what you said, you stated that He is called a man. Who Abu? How do you know that the Essenes were thinking of Jesus when they wrote this and not some other expected Messiah? I don't see the name Jesus here. Why is it that after such a long time trying to squeeze this so-called proof that you claimed you could provide in a matter of minutes, we still have nothing from you where the Essenes ever uttered the name Jesus? Have you got anything with His name Abu? If you haven't, just please tell us and stop keeping us in suspense here. Seriously dude, if you can't provide the goods, just let us know and we will happily allow you to walk away from this one and we can all go back to our lives, once again knowing that the Isa of the Qur'an is a myth and not a historical figure.
Abu said:
See your buddy Radical, who stated the following:
" And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know."
So he confirms the standard Jewish belief (and the Ebionites were Messianic Jews) held this belief. So is Radical wrong?
My Response:
He said it is a first century belief. He did not say it's the standard Jewish belief. It's amazing how you play gymnastics with people's words Abu. I don't think you even realise it. Again, we are not asking for a miraculous birth but a virgin birth. It's amazing how you keep appealing to the Ebionites in Epiphanius, when Epiphanius never once mentions a virgin birth. He describes those who believe in a birth by the seed of a man, and then those who believe that Christ “put on Jesus” and those who believe that Jesus is Adam. I see nothing about a virgin birth there.
Abu said:
Also, the onus is on you to demonstrate that Bart Ehrman is wrong, that they were indeed united in the belief that Jesus was born of a man. I provided two sources (Panarion and Bart) which demonstrate they differed. You therefore have to provide a source which says they were monolithic and unanimous in this position of being born of a man.
Which you did admit, they did differ, so you do agree with me, as you said this a paragraph later:
"And then Epiphanius goes on to EXPLAIN what those differences were"
So they did differ, the belief of Christ being man was not unanimous, therefore you've proven yourself wrong.
My Reponse:
I don't know how you can consider Bart Erhman a source on the Ebionites in support of your position. Allow me to quote Bart Ehrman for you:
“Ebionite Christians, however, did not have our New Testament and understood Jesus differently. For them, Jesus was the Son of God not because of his divine nature or virgin birth but
because of his adoption by God to be His son.” (Erhman, B., Lost Christianities, p.101)
Abu, is it a Muslim doctrine that Jesus is the adopted Son of Allah? You appealed to Bart Ehrman as a source and I'm throwing him right back at you.
Let's continue with Bart since you like him so much:
“It appears that Ebionite Christians also believed that since Jesus was the perfect, ultimate, final sacrifice for sins, there was no longer any need for the ritual sacrifice of animals.” (Ibid, p. 101)
Now I shall quote your Muslim brother, Sami Zaatari:
“So according to the Ebionites, Jesus was not divine, he was a man like everyone else, yet what made him special and set him apart was that he was the Jewish Messiah, and that he perfectly followed God's Law. More interesting is that the Ebionites completely rejected Paul; they rejected his writings, his teachings, and considered him an apostate of the Law, and a major heretic! These were not Muslims! No, these were a second century early Christian sect!”
Revisting the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Epiphanius quotes from their Gospel of Matthew:
When the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John.
And as he came up from the water, the heavens was opened and he saw the
Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that descended and entered into him.
And a voice sounded from Heaven that said:
"You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased. "
And again: " I have this day begotten you".
And immediately a great light shone round about the place.
When John saw this, it is said, he said unto him :
"Who are you, Lord?"
And again a voice from Heaven rang out to him:
"This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased."
And then, it is said, John fell down before him and said:
"I beseech you, Lord, baptize me."
But he prevented him and said:
"Suffer it; for thus it is fitting that everything should be fulfilled."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7-8)
This is in stark contrast to the Qur'an which teaches:
“They say: "God hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him. - Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him” 2:116 – Yusuf Ali.
Say: "Praise be to God, who begets no son, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" 17:111 – Yusuf Ali.
It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:35 – Yusuf Ali
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 112:3 – Yusuf Ali
Abu said:
"And obviously you would think that the Pharisees are poorly learnt anyway since they misapplied scripture, rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, rejecting Him as being born of a virgin, and believing in his crucifixion!"
What's funny with this is that now you're so desperate, you're defending the Pharisees who hated Christ, when we Muslims love him! So in your haste to deny and attack everything I say, you're now having to say that the Pharisees were well learned and that's why they rejected Christ. Thanks for the anti-Christ position you just took, justifying the Jewish position. How funny.
My Response:
Defend the Pharisees? Actually no sir. I was simply giving an example of Pharisees as a group, of whom some could have given the appearance of being unlearned in the scriptures, which I don't see how you could interpret this as me defending them. If they believed Jesus was not the Messiah, or born of a virgin, do you think they were well learned?
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Please be aware that you are comparing apples and oranges, for in the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus positively states that He is not the Messiah. Yet in the Gospels, Jesus does not say “I am not good”, rather He asks a question, “Why do you call me good? There is none that is good but God.” Now was Jesus saying He's not good here? No. In fact, He also refers to Himself as the Good Shepherd. With the Gospel of Barnabas however, Jesus says He is not the Messiah. You want to tell me that “I am not the Messiah” does not mean “I am not the Messiah.” "
Illogical reasoning. How does Christ saying he is not good, make him God?
My Response: Jesus NEVER said He is not good! He simply asked why the man called him good. And again, Jesus claimed to be the Good Shepherd. So don't tell me that Jesus said He's not good when He never said such a thing!
I want you to tell me whether the following statements by Jesus are a claim to being God:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” - Revelation 22:13 (NIV)
[To the Church in Smyrna] "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. - Revelation 2:8 (NIV)
John 5:23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. (NIV)
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Abu said:
Using the same reasoning. Christ claiming not to be the Christ, makes him Christ.
Simple. I use your logic and you tell me I'm wrong. It's good to see we agree on your logic and rationale.
My Response:
That's pathetic Abu. You built a complete strawman. Jesus never said He is not good. I challenge you to show me where Jesus said those words.
Abu said:
"Again, Jesus is not claiming He is not good. He is questioning a person about why they call Him good."
If you ask me if I am good and I say, as a Muslim, that none is good but Allaah. Does not make me Allaah?
My Response:
Nice strawman. I never said that simply by uttering the words, “why do you call me good? There is noone who is good except God” it makes a person God. However, taking all of Jesus' words in context, in light of all the claims he made about Himself, we can conclude that when He made this particular utterance, it was not to deny His Deity but rather to point the rich man to it. Let's examine the context of Jesus' words (Mark 10:17:31):
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' " 20 "Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy." 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?" 27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." 28 Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!" 29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields FOR ME AND THE GOSPEL 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
Here we see that the rich young ruler was asking Jesus how he may have eternal life. Jesus pointed the man to the commandments. The ruler replied that he had kept them all. Jesus told the man that he lacked one thing, - Sell your possessions and come follow me. In other words Jesus made following Himself a pre-requisite to obtaining eternal life, in the context of following the commandments. Now where in the commandments does it say to sell your possessions and follow Jesus? It doesn't, what it does say however is that we are to worship God and not take up false gods for ourselves. The fact that the rich ruler walked away sorrowfully tells us that money was his idol. And rather than follow Jesus (worship the one true God), he would rather cling to his idol. We see the theme of money vs God mentioned by Jesus Himself in Mark 6:25 - “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
So let's put this all into perspective. The rich young ruler calls Jesus good teacher and asks him what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asks the man “Why do you call me good? There is none good except God?” Jesus then points Him to the commandments. The man states He has kept them, Jesus now in the context of stating that only God is good, now says sell all that you have and follow ME, that this particular thing is what the man lacked in the commandments. Thus it is abundantly clear, that Jesus putting Himself on par with the commandments, namely that one should follow Him (worship God) opens to us Jesus' self awareness of His goodness and Deity.
Now contrast this with the gospel of Barnbas. Unlike the gospel where Jesus, questioned the man's referring to Jesus of good and then going on to demonstrate that He is indeed good, the gospel of Barnabas explicitly has Jesus saying “I am not the Messiah.” Abu had to insert words of his own thinking “that you wish to have” which never appears in the text. I understand Abu, your position is extrememly frustrating for you to defend because it is so completely obviously false.
Now I have demonstrated that your argument was a strawman of the Christian position. You yourself believe that this very strawman you presented is a nonsensical argument. Given that you don't believe the reasoning of the strawman you created, I will now ask for you to be consistent and tell us whether you truly believe that Jesus does not deny His messiahship in the Gospel of Barnabas.
Abu said:
There we go. So far Royalson, has deemed most of his own arguments false, when I use them to demonstrate my points. Scroll up and see, any point I presupposed that could be plausible, he later says is wrong. Which means his own arguments are against himself.
I presented many manuscript evidences, yet he persists in saying I did not. Royalson, try to debate me in person, log in on Paltalk and do it like a man. ;-)
My Response:
There you have it folks. Abu has given us the best that he's got. Not a single quote from the Essenes even mentioning the name of Jesus. Not a single quote saying that Jesus was born of a virgin. Not a single quote saying that Jesus wasn't crucified. Not a single quote saying that Jesus was not Divine.
Why would I even need to debate you in person Abu? After your debate with Radical, and ample opportunity for you to present your evidence in written form here you have still failed to provide the goods. What makes you think that a third debate would rescue you from the pit you have found yourself in?
I wonder Abu, if you might like to start sending in the reinforcements or retreat back to base. That's assuming you have reinforcements or some base to retreat back to.
Abu said:
Also, Anthony is a coward, he never sent the email confirming the debate, here is my address again, tell your minion, if he isn't scared to email me and confirm that post May 25th we can debate:
My Response:
Anthony is a coward? He is the one who challenged you to debate. He's the one who wants to bring the date closer for the debate. So tell me, how does that make Anthony a coward??
Abu said:
@Royalson,
"No sir, here is what Israel Knohl says about Jesus and the Essenes:
“In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus.” - (The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I)."
Whereas he says later on:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,” the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building. The winter sun rises in the east over the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab, which are visible in the distance." - The Messiah Before Jesus, Israel Knohl, pg 5.
So they have a Masjid or in English, a house of prostratin (sujood), they have a prayer (salaah) before the sun rises, an early morning prayer (Fajr salaah), through which they cease praying when the sun is rising (same as in Islam). So if you accept certain element of his book, why not accept that Christ, Jesus was a Muslim performing Fajr Salaah?
My Response:
Abu, you misunderstand my position entirely. I do not agree with Israel Knohl's position. Therefore, I don't know what you mean about accepting elements of his book. Which elements of his book did I accept Abu? I made it quite clear from the beginning that I believe that the position he takes in his book is pretty radical. The point I was making to you specifically was that you obscured the fact that Knohl's intention in writing his book was to state why he disagreed with the “majority of scholars” who state that the suffering, death, and ressurection of the Messiah was not a part of the faith in 1st century Judaism.
Now you seem to be quite comfortable in quoting Knohl to suggest that Jesus was a Muslim, practicing the ritual cleansing. I know I am probably sounding like a broken record here, but Where is the name of Jesus in that text? Do you not understand that Knohl's entire thesis rests upon the idea that the Messiah of the Essenes mirrors the self awareness of Jesus with regards to his death and resurrection? As such, the Messiah that Knohl is speaking of here on page 5 which you quoted is NOT Jesus.
In fact, let us view the very quote you gave and examine if this is really speaking about Jesus:
"When the reading of Pollio’s letter is finished, the Messiah leaves the royal palace for the Essene Quarter. He enters one of the many ritual baths that exist in the quarter, disrobes, and immerses himself in the bath. After this purification he puts on a white garment given to him by one of the members of his community." - (The Messiah before Jesus, I. Knohl, pg 7-8).
Which royal palace is this Abu? Any idea? Well we only have to read on straight after your quote to find out: “The members of the sect now gather for their evening meal. The atmosphere and menu here are completely different from those in Herod’s palace.” (Ibid, p. 8)
Wait a second, Jesus and his followers are dining in Herod's palace? Are you sure about that Abu? Herod died before Jesus was even born!
Let's read some more:
“The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest and by the Messiah, who is the nasi (leader) of the community.22 The baker walks along the length of the table, placing a piece of bread before each person. He is followed by the cook, who gives each member a dish of cooked vegetables.23 First the priest blesses the bread and wine and eats a portion of the bread; then the Messiah blesses the bread and eats some of the piece placed in front of him.” (Ibid, p. 8)
Jesus and His followers are having bread and wine? Is that what the Isa of the Qur'an does?
Let us read further on:
“After the meal, the priest rises and blesses the Messiah as the
nasi (leader) of the community:
With your scepter may you devastate the land
and by the breath of your lips may you kill the wicked
one . . .
May he make your horns iron
and your hooves bronze . . .
for God raised you up as a rod for the rulers . . .
and he shall strengthen you with his holy name.27
To the members of the Essene sect, the nasi is the Messiah,
destined to rule over all the nations. The power would pass into
his hands after a war in which the Messiah and his followers defeat
the armies of the nations—first of all the army of Rome. The
“wicked one” whom the Messiah would kill with the breath of his
lips28 is the “king of Kittim,” which is a code name for the Roman
Caesar Augustus.” (Ibid, p. 8-9)
Abu, would you care to tell us whether Jesus Christ killed Ceasar Augustus (63BC – 14AD) with the breath of His mouth?
We read on:
“This vision is not merely an abstraction.
The Messiah and his followers are sitting with a scroll laid out in
front of them. On the scroll is a detailed plan for the coming eschatological
“war between the Sons of Light and the Sons of
Darkness.”
All these activities obviously take place in utmost secrecy.
Were King Herod or one of his informers to hear of the aspirations
of the Messiah and his followers, or the preparations for
war against the Romans, he would undoubtedly sentence them to
death.” (Ibid, p.9)
Again, King Herod died before Jesus was born. Sorry Abu, but the shoe doesn't fit!
What's interesting is that your citation left out some very telling details that destroy the notion that this person is talking about Jesus. Let's look at the portion directly before your citation and then I will include the portion you cited in Italics. The omitted section I give in bold for the audience to examine:
The Time: A day in January in the year 18 BCE.
The place: Jerusalem, Herod's palace, in the western part of the Upper City, and the Essene Quarter of Jerusalem, to the south of the palace.
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,” the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building. The winter sun rises in the east over the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab, which are visible in the distance." - The Messiah Before Jesus, Israel Knohl, pg 5
18 BCE. Nice one Abu. Now do you finally understand that Israel Knohl is not talking about Jesus here but about a supposed Messiah that appeared on the scene a generation before Jesus? I've tried to warn you about this in the past. Hopefully now, you won't make the same mistake again.
Abu said:
He then performs Ghusl / Wudhu, or in English ritual purification, the same as in Islam.
Prove it Abu! All kinds of religions have water cleansing before a meal. You are trying to read Wudu back into the Essenes even though it gives very little details about the process itself except that this Messiah takes off his robe and then is given a white garment afterwards. Prove that the purification that he takes is identical to that in Islam! Can you do it Abu?
Abu said:
"The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest and by the Messiah, who is the nasi (leader) of the community....To the members of the Essene sect, the nasi is the Messiah, destined to rule over all the nations." - Ibid, pg 9.
We then see that he, Jesus, was their Messiah, who lead the blessing of the food among them.
My Response:
The participants sit at a long table headed by a priest. And what does that priest do Abu? He blesses the bread and wine. Is that what Muslims do? Do you have priests blessing bread and wine? This is news to me. Please do share. And what does it say about this Messiah destined to rule over the nations? That he would start with the Romans! So I ask you Abu, Did Isa defeat the Romans? Did Isa kill Ceasar Augustus? I do agree with you though. Jesus will rule over the nations. This is a Christian concept, not an Islamic one!
Abu said:
Again, if you're going to appeal to Israel Knohl, atleast make it known you're going to cherry pick what he says Non-Royalson, it's just really funny.
My Response:
I'm the one cherry picking? Abu, you are the person who appealed to Israel Knohl as a source. Israel Knohl's work does not support your position. I work with the sources you appeal to. I give the fuller quotations where you conveniently omitted them and you say I'm the one cherry picking. Funny that.
Abu said:
"Then show me these 1st person verbatim sources speaking about the Essene's view of Jesus. This is what I've been waiting for. Show me the goods Abu!"
I posted this some 12 times in my previous comments, why do you ask, when I have already given? Are you slow of reading or simply ignorant?
See Geza Vermes, Complete DSS, pg 87.
See Israel Knohls', The Messiah before Jesus, pp 6-9.
See DSS, 1QH 11:7-10 [older Scrolls editions number this 3:7-10]
[V5/259, GM/331, WAC/94], 4Q534 or 4QMess ar) [V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428].
My Response:
Abu, none of these sources even mention the name of Jesus! You keep appealing to these fragments and quotations of books, even though none of them mention Jesus, just like this one you tried with Israel Knohl where the “Messiah” spoken of is a contemporary of Herod who died before Jesus was born in the flesh. Abu, you have to stop posting random quotes, and start showing me something that actually mentions Jesus. I want to see His name. Have you got anything at all? How long do I have to wait?
Abu said:@Royalson,
"Again, the Pythagoreans were POLYTHEISTS. Stop appealing to them. You have no idea what you're doing."
Actually, to the contrary, Josephus says they are like the Essenes, if we recall from the CE, were strict adherents to Monotheism. He never once states they are polytheists, rather he contradicts you and says they are just like each other, specifically highlighting the differencing in naming:
"The Essens also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused
from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere." - Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter 10, Paragraph 4.
My Response:
Again Abu, it says they live the same kind of life. It does not say they have the same kind of belief in God! Stop reading into Josephus what he does not say! In your opening statement in your debate with Radical you said, and I quote: “Ultimately they hardly differed from the Arabs whose customs and cultural practices they adopted not only in the matter of tribal life but also in other respects.” If I apply your kind of logic, then it would suggest that the group of Jews who adopted customs and cultural practices in tribal life and in other respects believed the same as these Arabs and were pagans like them!
IAbu said:
"Now I asked you plainly if you go with the majority view of the scholars regarding the death of Jesus, since you appealed to the majority opinion. I'm testing your consistency. I will ask you again – Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no? Don't tell me what Muslims consider to be valid. You appealed to the majority view of scholars. Tell me what the majority of scholars say about this matter."
All scholars, even Muslims agree that someone died on the cross. No one denies that. As to the identity of who died on the cross/ stick/ tree, well everyone differs. Was it that Jesus died? Was it a man looking like Jesus (Didymus? as the works of Thomas indicate), was it the son of God, the archangel Michael? Was it the king of the Jews? Was it not Jesus, but some other man? Was it a Jewish rebel? There are many views of who died on the cross. Working with the majority view, we all agree someone died, as for who died, still a mystery to all, seeing as you have no first person verbatim source which explicitly states it was Jesus, you are in a worse off position, because you're affirming it was him in the positive.
My Response:
You have avoided answering my question twice now. I will ask a third time with the hope and expectation that you will finally answer. Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus by way of crucifixion to be an historical event? Yes or no?
Abu said:
"“the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.8 In this book I intend to counter these claims.
(The Messiah before Jesus, Page 2, Knohl, I).
So you see Abu, even those scholars who say that the concept was foreign to Judaism say that these things were added after Jesus' death!"
I think you need to learn to read. He is citing two views. The majority view of which he disagrees with and then his view. The majority view denies that the Messiah was to suffer and die. The people who hold on to this view, assert that this view of the Messiah developed after Jesus' death, while Israel Knohl is saying he is trying to prove otherwise.
My Response:
Abu, first of all, I never denied that there were two views being presented, that being the views of the (1) “Majority of scholars” and (2) Israel Knohl. I likewise acknowledge that according to Knohl, the majority believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was not a part of first century Judaism. Also, that these scholars believe such a view developed after Jesus' death. But therein lies your problem Abu. The very scholars you are appealing to, acknowledge Jesus' death. That would suggest a few things to me. That would suggest that they probably don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. So if this “majority” of scholars deny that Jesus is the true Messiah, and yet acknowledge that He died, why would you appeal to them?
But probably more curious than this is why on Earth you would even begin to side with them in the first place when such an argument destroys your position as a Muslim.
I will ask you these 3 questions:
1. Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah?
2. Do you believe that Jesus will die some time after His return?
3. Do you believe that Jesus will be resurrected?
If you hold to orthodox Islamic teachings about Jesus, you will have answered yes to all three questions. In other words Abu, you believe in the concept of a dying and rising Messiah because that's exactly what Islam teaches about Jesus, i.e. that He is the Messiah, He will die some time after His return, and He will be resurrected.
Thus, you have unwittingly undermined your very own position by appealing to this majority of scholars. I don't think you even seriously considered the implications of doing such. Be more careful next time Abu.
Abu said:
Now as you concede in your own words, this majority believe that such
Please learn to read. Othewise Israel's book, should have been, "The Messiah After Jesus", as he would have then been in agreement with the majority of scholars who claim the Messiah was not supposed to suffer and die.
My Response:
I invite you to completely reconsider your entire presentation which is saturated with inconsistency, error, and assumption.
Abu said:
Your comprehension skills are piss poor to be honest.
My Response:
If I have poor comprehension skills, you have no excuse for such a disgraceful performance Abu.
Abu said:@Royalson,
"I have already presented materials from the Zohar, the Talmud, and other Rabbinical quotations which presented the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, by linking the Messiah to Isaiah 53."
Incorrect, none of these sources indicate a dying Messiah, all of them refer to a suffering Messiah, due to an illness which God punished him with. This illness in the Talmud is called leprosy. If that is the case, then your God, Jesus, inflicted a punishment on himself, to make him repent more towards God:
" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand." - Verse 10, Yeshayahu 53.
My Response:
I find it amazing that you provide the quote from Isaiah 53:10, and it says “the Lord wished to crush him, He made Him ill” and then you conclude that it must be talking about Leprosy.
This is not speaking about leprosy but death, in fact let's go to verse 4 and 5 in your translation:
4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed. 5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
Note in verse 4, He bears the illnesses of his people, carrying their pain. And how is he accounted?Not only plague by these “illnesses” but smitten by God! In other words, put to death! What kind of plague did He bear? What kind of illness did He bear? It is the plague and illness of SIN. We read in verse 5 that He was pained BECAUSE of their transgressions, He was CRUSHED because of their iniquities (sins). So, sorry to say Abu, this is not a mere physical sickness of leprosy. The verses themselves testify that the servant underwent death.
And now you're stating that according to my interpretation, God inflicted a punishment on himself, to make Him repent more towards God. It never says that this suffering servant was punished to make Him repent more towards God. On the contrary it says that He bore the sins of His people. It was because of their transgressions that He suffers and dies.
I did find it rather curious that you said that God is punishing this Messiah to make Him repent more to God. Which Messiah is God punishing Abu? Which Messiah do you believe sinned and needed to repent?
Abu said:
"Then you said – These aren't talking about Jesus, they're talking about other Messiahs. Abu, I am well aquainted with the fact that the Talmud is a book which is very much against Jesus. I am aware that Rabbis who linked Isaiah 53 with the Messiah did not consider Jesus Christ to be the Messiah. That is not the point. I'm simply demonstrating to you that these scholars who assert that there was no concept of a rising and dying Messiah in early Judaism is wrong. The concept of Messianic death and resurrection is there, the dispute is on who the Messiah is."
If you read the Talmud properly, they were expecting a varying set of Messiahs, one was to also be Elijah, who was to foretell the main Messiah who would unite them all and bring them eternal prosperity. So I'm not deviating from the views of the Jews at that time. You are by claiming that your God-man/ Demi-god was a leper who inflicted disease on himself to make him come closer to God.
My Response:
I never claimed Jesus was a leper. Nor did I ever claim that this suffering was to make Jesus closer to God. You keep building up these strawmen, but they have nothing to do with my position. The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is crushed and smitten, He is put to death. However, since you are fond of your position. Please tell me how becoming a leper makes a Messiah closer to God. Please tell me also why this Messiah is taking other people's physical diseases and is being punished by God. Does any of this sound like Islam to you? Are you happy with your interpretations?
Abu said:
"So again, you may appeal to this “majority of scholars” all you like, it does not help you. Especially, as I pointed out earlier, these scholars believe that these concepts were added after Jesus' death. Before you attempt to wield your weapon, you had better take care that it's not pointing back at you first."
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*?
My Response:
If your position is that the Messiah is not supposed to suffer and die, then you might as well deny Mohammad, Allah, and the Qur'an.
"So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! - Surah 19:33 – Yusuf Ali.
Who could this verse be speaking about Abu? Jesus? Surely not! According to you, the Messiah is not supposed to die and be raised again!
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:
Narrated AbuHurayrah:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.
Oh dear Abu, looks like your Hadith teaches that He is going to die! Do you still want to cling to your majority of scholars?
Abu said:
In point form:
You claim:
Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus.
Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position.
About a belief he already holds himself.
My Response:
No, I do not claim that Israel Knohl believes that the view of a dying and rising Messiah came after the death of Jesus. I have never stated such. My point from the very beginning has been that Israel Knohl does not agree with the majority of scholars. His book demonstrates in his opinion that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was a part of first century Judasim, specifically the faith of the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. the Essenes!
Abu said:
Logic? Absent from you!
My Response:
Try reading more carefully next time Abu. Knohl's book presents the notion of a Messiah before Jesus, one He believes was held by the Essenes, which includes the concept of the dying and rising Messiah.
Abu said:
@Non-Royalboy,
"Abu, you took an isolated quote, you didn't even pay attention to it when it mentioned that the scholars believed that Jesus had died!"
Again, your reading of Israel Knohl's introduction is funny. Why would the scholars he be writing against, hold that before the death of the Messiah, he was not supposed to suffer and die, and then you are claiming Israel says they say this belief was added after his death, only for Israel to go write an entire book, to refute them, about a Messiah *before Jesus*? In point form:
My Response:
That's your misinterpretation of what I was saying. I never said that they believe that the details were written after the death of the Messiah. Rather that they believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was written after the death of Jesus. In other words, they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was not there in the past, and then you have a person named Jesus coming along, and some time after his death, people tried to make Jesus into a dying and rising Messiah.
Israel Knohl made the hypothesis that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah actually WAS something taught in Judaism, by a particular branch of Judaism, the group who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. the Essenes. He believes that a “Messiah” of the Essenes died and rose again according to their writings, but that this Messiah lived one generation before Jesus. He thus believes that Jesus himself considered his role to be that of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah, because of that belief through the earlier writings of the Essenes.
As it stands, I do not hold to Israel Knohl's view, nor this “majority of scholars.” Nor should you, because neither party supports your view. Knohl believes the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was a part of the faith of the Essenes. Obviously that would go against your position. Likewise, the “majority of scholars” believe the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was only an after thought, written after the death of Jesus, whom they don't consider to be a Messiah. As I pointed out, if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah is only an after thought, and should be rejected as such, then you need to abandon Islam which teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, that He will die, and that He will rise again.
Abu said:
You claim:
Israel and Scholars believe this denial view of a dying and suffering Messiah came after Jesus.
Therefore Israel decides to write a book refuting this majority position.
About a belief he already holds himself.
Logic? Absent from you!
My Response:
No Abu. Majority of scholars mentioned by Knohl believe that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah came only after the death of Jesus. Knohl himself believes that the concept was already there in the Essenes' writing and that such a Messiah came one generation before Jesus.
Abu said:
And just to rub it in, was do these scholars say?
“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection
appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
My Response:
Right, so the “majority of scholars”, including Vermes believed that a dying and rising Messiah was an innovation which came after the death of Jesus whom Vermes does not believe to be a Messiah.
Abu said:
This contradicts you, if you are claiming that these scholars, of one whom he references as Vermes, believes that the view of Christ having to die and suffer was an established view before Christianity, why does he state otherwise? Either you are lying on him, or he's contradicting you.
My Response:
Abu, again you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying that the Scholars, e.g. Vermes agrees with Knohl. I'm saying that these scholars, e.g. Vermes believes that the dying/rising Messiah concept was an innovation that came after Jesus died. Israel Knohl writes his book to refute the claim, showing in his opinion that the Essenes believed in a pre-Jesus Messiah who did die and rise from the dead.
Abu said:
@Non-Royalson,
"Thus my issue was not to show whether or not the Talmud believes Jesus is the Messiah. It's plainly obvious that it does not. Jesus was not the issue. The issue was if the concept of a dying and rising Messiah could be found in Judaism. I presented several sources that showed this concept even though the sources rejected Jesus Christ Himself as the Messiah."
Unless Christ, according to Isa. 53:10, inflicted himself with leprosy (see Talmud), to make himself closer to God, I do believe you don't have the same view as the Jews.
My Response:
As I have already pointed out, The Lord was pleased to crush Him. This suffering servant was accounted as one smitten by God. Not leprosy. I don't know why you have to insist that the Messiah was punished with Leprosy. Could you name some scholars who support that interpretation? Is that what Allah does with His Messiahs? And how many Messiahs are there according to Islam?
Abu said:
"In your case however, your application of Israel Knohl's work was to convey this thought that the majority of scholars believed that Jesus had not died or risen when in fact Knohl explains that these very scholars believe such details were added after ther death of Jesus."
Already answered above, but since you keep repeating it, I'll have to repeat myself.
You claim:
Israel agrees with majority scholars.
The belief that Christ was not to suffer and die came after Jesus.
Therefore Israel writes a book to refute those scholars.
This book is about, the Messiah before Jesus.
To demonstrate that the Messiah is supposed to die.
If he's in agreement with the majority scholars of their view, then why does he write an entire book refuting their position, about a Messiah before Jesus, who did expect to die?
My Response:
As I have already explained. I don't believe that the majority of scholars agreed with Knohl. But I also don't believe they agree with you because they believe Jesus actually died.
Abu said:
Either Israel didn't realise he was in agreement with them, or he was writing a book refuting them on a position they already agreed on.
OR
The real reading is:
The majority scholars believe that the Messiah was not to suff. and die.
Israel disagrees.
The majority scholars believe the belief that he had died and was to suffer came after Jesus.
Israel writes a book about a Messiah before jesus, to demonstrate he was supposed to die, therefore refuting their claims.
My ResponseAnd that is exactly how I interpret what Knohl is telling us. Again how you came to the other interpretation of my words is beyond me. What I did early on was to question your appeal to the citation you gave talking about the majority of scholars saying that this was a foreign concept to 1st century Judaism in your debate with Radical because you gave the impression in the debate that Knohl agreed with this majority of scholars when the converse is the case. What I also find peculiar is that you quoted elsewhere in Knohl's work about the Messiah who disrobes and bathes Himself, giving the impression that Knohl is teaching that Jesus is making some kind of wudu, when in fact, the context identifies the person in question as a pre-Jesus Messiah. You never gave this information in the debate. You simply made these citations, and referencing Knohl's name and book without ever telling the audience what Knohl's position actually was.
Abu said:
Which is more plausible? Tell me. To further shame you, if one of the scholars that israel cites, i.e. Vermes, says the opposite, i.e. in contradiction to you, then your lie has been exposed:
My Response:
Again, quote me ever stating that these scholars agree with Israel Knohl and His position. I never held such a view.
Abu said:
"“Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”
G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.
My Response:
Which does nothing to bolster the Islamic concept of the Messiah who is believed will die and rise again at a future time.
Abu said:
@Royalson,
"You appealed to the panarion of Epiphanius with regards to the virgin birth. When I pointed out that He goes on to mention the alternate views to the natural birth theory, showing a Christ who is Adam, or a Christ who is distinct from Jesus, not once giving the account of being born of a virgin you said that you didn't believe it and jumped to Bart Ehrman to rescue you."
To the contrary, I demonstrated that this was a belief that was held, by some, not all of them, which later Epiphanius states they differed with him on:
"And at fi rst, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers
have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves." - Panarion, pg 133.
My Response:
Where does it say virgin birth there? All I see is “conflicting accounts”. Try again Abu.
Abu said:
So as we see your position was invalid. You had to demonstrate that they all believed in this one position and never deviated from it. Yet we see, quite clearly that they did. So your only argument against them, was thoroughly refuted.
My Response:
On the contrary Abu, it was your job to demostrate that they believed in a virgin birth. Any differences listed did not mention a virgin birth. They mentioned that Adam was Christ, or that Christ put on Jesus, neither position of which you agree with as a Muslim!
Abu said:
"When quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia on the beliefs of the Essenes, you completely ommited the mention of sun-reverence, again saying that you did so because you said there's no other reference to it in historical sources. My guess is that the Catholic Encyclopedia was probably referring to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book2, where he writes:
“And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sun-rising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 128)."
All of these indicate that they had pre-dawn religious ritual worship. Something that Muslims also do, as I referenced from israel knohl's book:
"The Messiah gets up early in the morning, before the sun
rises, and goes to the “House of Prostration,”4 the Essenes’ place of assembly and prayer in Jerusalem. In this building, high up on a hill, all the members of the community have gathered for morning prayers. After prayers the Messiah leaves the building."
My Response:
Do Muslims make supplication for the Sun to rise? What is that prayer called Abu? Please quote the words of that prayer for me. And how about the other quote that I mentioned:
“Nay, on other days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. “ (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 2, 148).
Do Muslims dig pits so that they don't affront the Divine rays of light? Please tell me about this Muslim practice and belief about ascribing Divinity and emotion to the Sun.
Abu said:
Israel presents a more proper picture, he denotes there is nothing about son worship, but that they worship before the sun rises. Therefore, no conflicting theology with Islam.
My Response:
Then why the mention of Divine rays of light which can be insulted as being the reason they dig pits and enter into them?
Abu said:
"One one occasion, when quoting from the Jewish Encyclopedia that this group produced no rabbinical authority, you ommitted the words that followed: “Beyond that which was considered by the Mohammedan authors.”
Actually, to the contrary, I never left this phrase out, I even mentioned it in my debate and was a focal point for me. What Rabbinic authority with this Jewish group posses that Muslims accepted? That is why I quoted it. To which you nor your copulation partner, Radical, were ever able to answer.
Ok Abu, I'm going to quote texts of yours and show that you are not telling the truth:
“ but it does not appear that regular study had found a home among them, nor did they produce any rabbinic authority”
How could they have the Talmud, but then not produce any Rabbinic authority. The Talmud is from Rabbinic authority.
You even tried to use this argument to prove that the group did not have the Talmud with them since the Talmud would be a form of Rabbinic authority.
Abu wrote:
"When you quoted from Epiphanius about the differences of the Ebionites you omitted the very next sentence that gave the reason for their difference, which was their following of the false prophet Elxai. You also ommitted the mention of what the actual different positions were, and none of them were the Islamic position. And your response ? Bart Ehrman. Absolutely amazing."
To correct you, when we read Epiphanius' statement, he says some of his followers. Does that mean all? Therefore, why do you continue to appeal to the fallacy of hasty generalization. As Bart Ehrman made it clear, we have no first person source from these peoples and the Patristic's claims on them should be taken with a pound of salt.
My Response:
You seem to work with unequal weights and measures Abu. When I go to Epiphanius which you appealed to for your establishing that some of the Ebionites believed in a virgin birth, even though virgin birth is nowhere mentioned, that is proof enough for you.
When I go on to quote Epiphanius who demonstrates that those who differed from Ebion followed the false prophet Elxai you accuse me of a fallacy of hasty generalization. How is quoting the source you appeal to a form of hasty generalisation? If you don't like Epiphanius, and you consider his words to be unrealiable, then don't quote him to prove that a branch of the Ebionites believed in the virgin birth! If Epiphanius and the church Fathers' words are to be taken with a “pound of salt” then please demonstrate reliable sources outside of the church fathers which demonstrate that the Ebionites believed in a virgin birth. I look forward to it.
Abu said:
@Royalson,
"He was ill from the torture, the whipping, the beating, the scourging, and the crucifixion on the cross. Now I've been generous to allow you to utilise that particular translation, but please, don't ignore the many other translations that exist:"
Ill from the torture? What sickness/ disease did he have on the cross? They called him the leper scholar because according to their understanding, he was to be afflicted with some sickness. That disease being, leprosy. Instead of appealing to translations, let's go to the source:
My Response:
I have already explained this to you, but I will explain again. The Talmud demonstrates that Judaism taught the concept of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah. Obviously they did not believe that Jesus was that Messiah. One Rabbi refers to this Messiah as a leper scholar. Now I will ask you Abu, since you want to insist on this leprosy issue. Do you as a Muslim consider the Talmud to be an infallible inspired text? I hope for your sake that you say no, because the views of Jesus that are portrayed therein are very negative. Furthermore, as demonstrated, this one takes the sickness of iniquities(sin) of His people upon Himself. Furthermore He is crushed and smitted by God.
Abu said:
חלה
to be or become weak, be or become sick, be or become diseased, be or become grieved, be or become sorry
(Qal) to be weak, be sick
(Piel)
to become sick, become ill
(CLBL) to entreat, pray, beg
(Niphal)
to make oneself sick
to be made sick
to be tired
(Pual) to be made weak, become weak
(Hithpael) to make oneself sick
(Hiphil)
to make sick
to show signs of sickness, become sick
to grieve
(Hophal)
to be made sick
to be wounded
My Response:
Thank you for demonstrating that being wounded or grieved are within the semantic range.
Abu said:
As far as the translations go, the understanding he was made to be sick or diseased are the most prevalent. I checked both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text to derive this understanding based Strong's lexicon.
My Response:
Not quite what you were hoping for though was it Abu? Obviously being grieved and wounded are listed as valid renderings. Thank you for proving it to me.
Abu said:
If you deny the Judaic understanding that he was cursed/ made ill by God with leprosy and intended to mean that the Jewish version is wrong, but yours is right, then on what basis did you think it was okay to quote them?
My Response:
My purpose in quoting hostile sources was to demonstate that the concept of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah most certainly was believed as a concept among Jews of the first century.
Abu said:
The Judaic understanding is that he was cut from the land, i.e. exiled because of the plague which afflicted him:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to crush him and to cause him to repent; therefore, he made him ill.
The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them.
Which makes sense, because this is what they did to lepers. So either you accede to the Judaic understanding which you appeal to, or don't reference sources which oppose your entire doctrine.
My Response:
So the Messiah is punished with leprosy and then exiled. Can you please tell me which Jewish sources teach this? And why is this Messiah being punished Abu? Is this an Islamic doctrine? Was Jesus punished with leprosy?
Abu said:
@Non-Royalson,
“This is exactly what I've been talking about. You come up with arbitrary criteria and I have no idea where that comes from. Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?”
Let's ask you that question, because as I am understanding, you appealed to the Rabbinic Jews' understanding of the Messiah, when I demonstrated that their understanding of him was an anti-thesis to yours, you claimed then that you wanted to demonstrate that the Messiah was to suffer. I have no problem with a Prophet of God having to suffer, for so did ours.
My Response:
Err let's ask me that question? Abu, you're the person who objected to spiritual and physical concepts co-existing in a passage of scripture, not I. So rather than asking me the question that I asked you and does not apply to me, why don't you try answer it? I'll ask it again; Who told you that a passage cannot contain both spiritual and physical concepts together?
As for my having “appealed to the Rabbinic Jews' understanding of the Messiah, it is unfortunate that I have to repeat myself. The only reason I even went to the Talmud, was to demonstrate from a Jewish source, albeit hostile towards Jesus, that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah indeed did exist in 1st century Judaism.
Now you want to reduce its implications to a mere suffering. But Isaiah 53 very clearly teaches the death of the Messiah who is cut off from the land of the living, crushed by God, smitten by God.
I'm glad that you likewise acknowledge the hostile nature of the Talmud. What is interesting however is that your Qur'an borrowed myths from the Talmud, ending up as a part of your Scripture. Amazing how such a book that spews hatred against Jesus becomes a source of Qur'anic inspiration!
Abu said:
However the problem here, lies within your appeal to authority. Fine and dandy you showed that they believed one of their Messiahs were to be afflicted by God's punishment, which then brings into question, why would God want to punish his Messiah? In Yeshayahu, we read:
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.
To make restitution, i.e. to get closer to God. So if you're going to quote Jewish scripture, take it entirely into context please. From my previous comment, I established the Judaic narrative of understanding of a leper Messiah, which you accepted in your Judaic source which you provided as an authority.
My Response: I'm not sure if your question was intended to be Rhetorical, but I'm going to answer it anyway. You ask why would God want to punish his Messiah? I'm surprised you have to ask. The answer is right there in Isaiah chapter 53:
5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
So the reason why God crushed the Messiah was to heal His people of their transgressions, their iniquities. I see nothing there about crushing the Messiah to make Him closer to God.
Abu said:
With that in mind, your authority and the scripture in itself denote that God is punishing someone, through disease to make him closer to Him. If that is the case, are you saying that Christ was punished by God, to bring Christ closer to God?
To bring Christ closer to God? Where do you get that from in the text? It plainly says that He was pained for their transgressions, crushed for their iniquities, and that by His wounds, they are healed.
Abu said:
@Non-Royalson,
You then went on to reference Yirmiyahu 18:20-21. To be fair, let's go to the Jewish version:
Hearken, O Lord, to me, and hear the voice of those who quarrel with me. . Shall evil be paid instead of good, for they have dug a pit for my life. Remember when I stood before You to speak good for them, to bring back Your wrath from them. Therefore, deliver their children to the famine and spill their blood by the sword, and let their wives be bereaved and widows, and their husbands slain by death, their youths struck by the sword in battle. 18:19-21.
Nothing about being cut from the land of the living.
My Response:
Oh dear, did I say 18:19-21, I meant 11:19-21. To be fair, let's go to the Jewish version:
19. And I was like a lamb and a bull, [that is] brought to the slaughter, and I did not know that they had devised plans about me, "Let us destroy his food with wood, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name no longer be remembered." 20. And the Lord of Hosts is a just Judge, Who searches the kidneys and the heart, "Let me see Your vengeance against them, for to You, I have revealed my cause. 21. Therefore, so says the Lord of Hosts concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, "You shall not prophesy in the name of the Lord, and you shall not die by our hand."
Plain to see Abu, this is talking about killing, plain and simple. Not exile like you tried with Rashi's explanation of Isaiah 53.
Abu said:
Let's check Christian versions:
My Response:
Yes let's !
Abu said:
New International Version (©1984)
So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword. Let their wives be made childless and widows; let their men be put to death, their young men slain by the sword in battle.
My Response:
New International Version:
19 I had been like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter; I did not realize that they had plotted against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree and its fruit; let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more." 20 But, O LORD Almighty, you who judge righteously and test the heart and mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you I have committed my cause. 21 "Therefore this is what the LORD says about the men of Anathoth who are seeking your life and saying, 'Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD or you will die by our hands'--
Abu said:
New Living Translation (©2007)
So let their children starve! Let them die by the sword! Let their wives become childless widows. Let their old men die in a plague, and let their young men be killed in battle!
My Response:
New Living Translation
19 I had been as unaware as a lamb on the way to its slaughter. I had no idea that they were planning to kill me! "Let's destroy this man and all his words," they said. "Let's kill him, so his name will be forgotten forever." 20 O LORD Almighty, you are just, and you examine the deepest thoughts of hearts and minds. Let me see your vengeance against them, for I have committed my cause to you. 21 The men of Anathoth wanted me dead. They said they would kill me if I did not stop speaking in the LORD's name.
Abu said:
English Standard Version (©2001)
Therefore deliver up their children to famine; give them over to the power of the sword; let their wives become childless and widowed. May their men meet death by pestilence, their youths be struck down by the sword in battle.
My Response:
English Standard Version
19 But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter. I did not know it was against me they devised schemes, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name be remembered no more." 20 But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, who tests the heart and the mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you have I committed my cause. 21 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, and say, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, or you will die by our hand"--
Abu said:
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Therefore, give their children over to famine And deliver them up to the power of the sword; And let their wives become childless and widowed. Let their men also be smitten to death, Their young men struck down by the sword in battle.
My Response:
New American Standard
19 But I was like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter ; And I did not know that they had devised plots against me, saying, "Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, And let us cut him off from the land of the living, That his name be remembered no more." 20 But, O LORD of hosts, who judges righteously, Who tries the feelings and the heart, Let me see Your vengeance on them, For to You have I committed my cause. 21 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, "Do not prophesy in the name of the LORD, so that you will not die at our hand ";
Abu said:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response:
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter ; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered . 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD of the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying , Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
Abu said:
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Now, hand their children over to famine. Pour out their [blood] by using your sword. Then their wives will become childless widows. Their husbands will be put to death. Their young men will be struck down in battle.
My Response:
19 I was like a trusting lamb brought to the slaughter. I didn't know that they were plotting against me. They were saying, "Let's destroy the tree with its fruit. Let's cut Jeremiah off from this world of the living so that we won't be reminded of him anymore." 20 O LORD of Armies, you judge fairly and test motives and thoughts. I want to see you take revenge on them, because I've brought my case to you. 21 This is what the LORD says: The people of Anathoth want to kill you. They say, "Don't prophesy in the name of the LORD, or we'll kill you."
Abu said:
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response:
King James Bible 2000 Bible (©2003)
19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter ; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered . 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD of the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying , Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
Abu said:
American King James Version
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response
American King James Version
19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judge righteously, that try the reins and the heart, let me see your vengeance on them: for to you have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus said the LORD of the men of Anathoth, that seek your life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that you die not by our hand:
Abu said:
@non-Royalson,
American Standard Version
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
My Response:
American Standard Version
19 But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O Jehovah of hosts, who judgest righteously, who triest the heart and the mind, I shall see thy vengeance on them; for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of Jehovah, that thou die not by our hand;
Abu said:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Therefore deliver up their children to famine, and bring them into the hands of the sword: let their wives be bereaved of children and widows: and let their husbands be slain by death: let their young men be stabbed with the sword in battle.
My Response:
Douay-Rheims Bible
19 And I was as a meek lamb, that is carried to be a victim: and I knew not that they had devised counsels against me, saying: Let us put wood on his bread, and cut him off from the land of the living, and let his name be remembered no more. 20 But thou, O Lord of Sabaoth, who judgest justly, and triest the reins and the hearts, let me see thy revenge on them: for to thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the Lord to the men of Anathoth, who seek thy life, and say: Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of the Lord, and thou shalt not die in our hands.
Abu said:
Darby Bible Translation
Therefore give up their children to the famine, and deliver them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of children and be widows; and let their men be swept off by death, their young men be smitten by the sword in battle.
My Response:
Darby Bible Translation
19 And I was like a tame lamb [that] is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they devised devices against me, [saying,] Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But thou, Jehovah of hosts, who judgest righteously, who triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith Jehovah concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of Jehovah, that thou die not by our hand,
Abu said:
English Revised Version
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, and their young men smitten of the sword in battle.
My Response:
English Revise Version
19 But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
Abu said:
Webster's Bible Translation
Therefore deliver their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death; let their young men be slain by the sword in battle.
My Response:
Webster's Bible Translation
19 But I [was] like a lamb [or] an ox [that] is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with its fruit, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, O LORD of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for to thee have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the men of Anathoth, that seek thy life, saying, Prophesy not in the name of the LORD, that thou die not by our hand:
Abu said:
World English Bible
Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and give them over to the power of the sword; and let their wives become childless, and widows; and let their men be slain of death, [and] their young men struck of the sword in battle.
My Response:
19 But I was like a gentle lamb that is led to the slaughter; and I didn't know that they had devised devices against me, [saying], Let us destroy the tree with the fruit of it, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered. 20 But, Yahweh of Hosts, who judge righteously, who try the heart and the mind, I shall see your vengeance on them; for to you have I revealed my cause. 21 Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the men of Anathoth, who seek your life, saying, You shall not prophesy in the name of Yahweh, that you not die by our hand;
Abu said:
Young's Literal Translation
Therefore, give up their sons to famine, And cause them to run on the sides of the sword, And their wives are bereaved and widows, And their men are slain by death, Their young men smitten by sword in battle,
My Response:
Young's Literal Translation
19 And I [am] as a trained lamb brought to slaughter, And I have not known That against me they have devised devices: We destroy the tree with its food, and cut him off From the land of the living, And his name is not remembered again. 20 And O Jehovah of Hosts, judging righteousness, Trying reins and heart, I do see Thy vengeance against them, For unto Thee I have revealed my cause.' 21 Therefore, thus said Jehovah concerning the men of Anathoth, who are seeking thy life, saying: Do not prophesy in the name of Jehovah, And thou dost not die by our hands.
Abu said:
http://bible.cc/jeremiah/18-21.htm
My Response
You know what Abu? I feel kinda bad about that one. I mean it was my typo. I meant chapter 11 instead of 18, and then poor 'ol you went to the trouble of posting all these bible translations for the wrong chapter. Bless your cotton socks! You really were led like a lamb to the slaughter weren't you? I would have thought that if the verse didn't come up right for you, that you would have suspected that I had accidentally typed in the wrong verse reference and tried searching for it but alas, I guess that was asking too much wasn't it?
Abu said
Nothing like what you claim. Therefore, based on your use of translation to demonstrate a point above, we duly note that under the same criteria you have no basis for your understanding from the verse in Jeremiah to Isaiah.
My Response:
*Chuckle*
Read and weep my friend.
Abu said:
@nonRoyalson,
"A group of Jews meet the “Mohammaden authors” roughly 500 years after the migation following the destruction of the second temple. This group has some knowledge of the Talmud. Where did that knowledge of the talmud come from Abu?".
If they were Rabbinic Jews, and as you demonstrated, persons who held closely to their beliefs, see your commentary on Josephus' notes, then your own thesis above is incorrect. So either you go with your previous thesis and they were great studiers of the Talmud or with your new understanding that although they were great studiers, they stopped doing that around Islam's time.
My Response:
Abu, as far as the Jews in Arabia who met with Mohammad and His companions, I do not know how diligent or well learned they were with regards to the Talmud. What I do know is that the knowledge that they did have was certainly not passed onto them by their Arab neighbours. It would have been passed down from their parents. Considering that the Talmud is a vehemently opposed to Jesus Christ. It would seem curious indeed that knowledge of its contents would be handed down and preserved for 500 years if such people were lovers of Jesus. However, you have concluded that this group were the Essenes with zero evidence.
Abu said:
"Obviously it must have been handed to them by their parents, and subsequently the grandparents, great-grandparents, an so on all the way back to this group who had migrated. Now I'm going to ask you, how did these descendents, still manage to have knowledge of the talmud even 500 years after the migration to Arabia? Surely this migrating group would have been talmudic abiding Jews."
Incorrect. If they did in fact make it a pivotal point in their theology to have the Talmud descend throughout their lineage, then little study of the Bible would contradict that. The pieces for the puzzle you are trying to fit together are incoherent and inconsistent. How could they have through oral tradition or otherwise, passed down knowledge of the Talmud, essentially commentary on the Bible from High Priests and not have a proper study of the Bible, along with holding heretical views which contradicted Rabbinic Judaism?
My Response:
We don't know how much knowledge they had, but apparently it was limited according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, which describes this group as having little study and merely “some knowledge” of the bible, Talmud, and prayer book. The fact that you have this group meeting with Mohammad and his companions who have little study among them, yet some knowledge of the bible and the Talmud, indicates to us that their ancestors who had gone before them, considered the Talmud (and Tanach) worthy of preservation and handing down.
Abu said:
"Yet we know that the Talmud presents a negative picture of Jesus. Such would indicate that the migrating group are not the people you're looking for."
People have knowledge of, and abiding by are two different things. Under your logic, because you have knowledge of the "Islam", as passed down from your teachers, although little in study, that means you're not a real Christian. Do you therefore, grasp how absurd your own reasoning is?
My Response
It’s one thing for one person to receive some knowledge of a faith that they hate and pass that on. It’s quite another to preserve such teaching for 500 years. And it is reasonable to infer that the group of Jews who did meet with Mohammad had a favourable opinion of the Talmud than a hostile one as we see elements of the Talmud finding their way into the Qur’an itself, despite the Talmud not being an infallible or inspired text.
But now, if I was to use your argument against you, I could simply say that just because this group had knowledge of the Torah, doesn’t mean they believed in it. They could have had a hostile attitude towards it but kept it in their possession to warn their children about it. I don’t believe that was the case for a minute and nor would you. So be consistent, and tell me what this group of Jews was doing preserving the knowledge of a book that spoke so hatefully against Jesus Christ. The Essenes abandon their writings in caves and instead preserve teachings of an anti-Jesus book for five hundred years. Wow. Nice going Abu.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Having surveyed Abu's arguments, I am strengthened even more firmly in my convictions that the Isa of the Qur'an is a myth. There is no historical Isa of the Qur'an. I will assume that Abu has expended his best efforts and has exhausted his best arguments in order to somehow try to establish that the Essenes (or Ebionites) were the Pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. It is rather curious indeed that a Muslim arguing so passionately still is unable to make up his mind which of the two groups were such followers. Indeed, it spits in the face of the Qur'an which states that the true followers of Jesus would be uppermost, that they would prevail over the disbelievers unto the day of Resurrection.
I do not expect Abu to bring anything compelling for the remainder of his posts here. The arguments he has made, the sources he has appealed to, and the quotes he has provided have done absolutely nothing to establish the baseless claim that the Essenes were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. Therefore, I will allow Abu to continue posting here if he so desires but I can guarantee he will not be able to produce a single manuscript from the Essenes ever mentioning the name of Jesus.
The Isa of the Qur'an is not to be found in history. Contrast this with the Jesus of the bible. We have thousands of manuscripts from the New Testament writers. We know where Jesus was born, what His genealogy was, who were His disciples, what His mission was, and what self-awareness He had concerning His Deity and relationship to the Father. We have extra-biblical reports of the early Christians worshiping Jesus Christ, directing hymns and prayers to Him. We have extra biblical reports testifying of His crucifixion. We have extra-biblical reports inferring the empty tomb by accusing the disciples of stealing His body. The amount of testimony we have for the Jesus of Christianity is overwhelming. The evidence for the Islamic Jesus by contrast is not merely scant, it is non-existant!
Lord, open the eyes of those the Muslims who come here. We pray you would show them that you entered into Human History, God becoming flesh, to tabernacle with us. Lord we pray you would tabernacle with them. Bring them to repentance. Cause them to turn from their sin of unbelief. And turn their lips from hatred to praise. Turn their hearts from darkness to light. Turn them from the dead god of Islam to the true and Living God. Grace them we pray! Lord we thank and praise you that those who are in Christ will prevail, will be uppermost, because of your precious blood! Your blood causes us to prevail over your enemy! Your blood preserves us for your testimony! All praise, honor, and glory be thine, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord!
Amen!
Post a Comment