<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> As an independent researcher into the Jesus Mysteries, I have read
>a broad spectrum of subjects and authors, both old and new. I would
>like to share with the forum, a segment from the introduction to
>Kamal Salibi's 'Who was Jesus: A Conspiracy in Jerusalem?' which I
>feel succinctly describes the process that I have used in my studies.
>I am not a certified historian, and most assuredly not a scholar in
>biblical languages, or the Bible as through seminary or priestly
>training. That said, Salibi describes the research process better
>than I have ever seen it written --
>
> "I am not a specialist in New Testament scholarship, but a teacher
>and historian with some experience in research. In our discipline, we
>are trained to read texts, sentence by sentence and word by word, to
>determine exactly what they say and imply. When we want to research a
>particular subject, the first thing we do is read the basic texts in
>this way. Then we begin to make preliminary assumptions, visualizing
>different possibilities and trying to relate them to one another, to
>discover which ones fit together best. Next, we form a hypothesis: a
>proposition or set of propositions which are provisional and help to
>guide us in our investigation. To discover whether or not our
>hypothesis is valid, we proceed to search for evidence that may
>support it. If we fail to find such evidence, we drop the hypothesis
>and try another.
> "If all the hypotheses we can think of fail, we give up the search
>and turn to another subject. On the other hand, if we do find enough
>evidence to support a given hypothesis, no matter how absurd it may
>seem at first glance, we go ahead and examine and cross-examine this
>evidence until we are satisfied with its accuracy. We then move
>further forward to develop our hypothesis into a theory: a coherent
>explanation for our findings which stands to reason, but whose status
>is still conjectural -- that is to say, no more than that of an
>informed and logical guess.
> "By its very nature, our discipline cannot be entirely free from
>speculation in providing interpretions of past situations and
>events. . ."
>
> And here is where the fight begins. In studying the events
>surrounding the Jesus story and events leading up to the revolt, I
>have read many modern scholars (Eisenman, Golb, Silverburg, Maccoby,
>etc.) I have also read the Dead Sea Scrolls translated,the Nag
>Hammadi library, numerous books on the Gnostics, ancient magic, pagan
>religions, The Twelve Caesars, Eusibius, and I have looked into the
>ancient histories of much of the Middle Eastern lands. I am of the
>firm conviction that Christianity was not a particulary unique idea
>until the assignment of the awaited messiah was placed on a dead man
>whose body supposedly disappeared. <b>This variance is, in my
>estimation, what marked the distinction between the pagan religions
>forever awaiting a messiah, and the altered belief system into the
>one that said this messiah had already come and that he would be the
>last. </b>By the accceptance of this doctrine, the forever awaiting the
>messiah syndrome was effectively quashed over the centuries, but its
>immediate effect was felt in Rome, whose leaders had its hands full
>from time to time with the appearances of presumed messiahs leading
>and sparking revolts. I agree with the scholars who suggest that the
>Last Days/End Times so corrupted by fundamentalist Christians,
>actually referred to the end of the astrological age which to many
>people in the ancient world was an era of change, usually through
>destruction, much like the five Mayan ages.
> My theory is that there was a wide conspiracy to formulate this
>new 'unified' religion and it was spearheaded under the name Yahad.
>Robert Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus refers to the Yahad
>organization as the "Unity Group". I theorize that Yahad was in fact
>an empire-wide movement towards religious syncretism, which may have
>been started under another name as early as the 4th-3rd century BC,
>during and after the reign of Alexander the Great. It is reported by
>Josephus that the Therapeuts were in every city in the empire, and I
>suggest that its through this therapeutic network that the Yahad
>process towards syncretism was being formulated. In light of this, i
>may mean that what was happening at or near Qumran was not uniquely
>or specifically a local Jewish phenomenon. Norman Golb, in 'Who Wrote
>the Dead Sea Scrolls' reveals that there were at least 500 different
>different forms of handwriting which indicates a very large number of
>scribes from different places involved in the process of editing and
>composing the texts. I suggest that the Nag Hammadi library should
>also be considered as part of the Yahad organization if what I
>theorize is true, despite the apparent theological differences
>between the two camps. Within a syncretic movement, such doctrinal
>differences are to be expected while still in its formulative
>period.
> Within the framework of this theory lies Rome which, despite all
>appearances, was in fact a very religion oriented state. At least
>facial evidence for this can be found in the self proclaimed title of
>Julius Caesar as Pontifex Maximus, or high priest. This title was
>subsequently used by many (if not all) the subsequent Caesars. That
>the Christian movement made Rome the virtual center of its primary
>operations early on suggests that there may have been more Roman
>involvement than previously thought.
>
> This is my opener - let the arrows fly!
>
>David Newby<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
>a broad spectrum of subjects and authors, both old and new. I would
>like to share with the forum, a segment from the introduction to
>Kamal Salibi's 'Who was Jesus: A Conspiracy in Jerusalem?' which I
>feel succinctly describes the process that I have used in my studies.
>I am not a certified historian, and most assuredly not a scholar in
>biblical languages, or the Bible as through seminary or priestly
>training. That said, Salibi describes the research process better
>than I have ever seen it written --
>
> "I am not a specialist in New Testament scholarship, but a teacher
>and historian with some experience in research. In our discipline, we
>are trained to read texts, sentence by sentence and word by word, to
>determine exactly what they say and imply. When we want to research a
>particular subject, the first thing we do is read the basic texts in
>this way. Then we begin to make preliminary assumptions, visualizing
>different possibilities and trying to relate them to one another, to
>discover which ones fit together best. Next, we form a hypothesis: a
>proposition or set of propositions which are provisional and help to
>guide us in our investigation. To discover whether or not our
>hypothesis is valid, we proceed to search for evidence that may
>support it. If we fail to find such evidence, we drop the hypothesis
>and try another.
> "If all the hypotheses we can think of fail, we give up the search
>and turn to another subject. On the other hand, if we do find enough
>evidence to support a given hypothesis, no matter how absurd it may
>seem at first glance, we go ahead and examine and cross-examine this
>evidence until we are satisfied with its accuracy. We then move
>further forward to develop our hypothesis into a theory: a coherent
>explanation for our findings which stands to reason, but whose status
>is still conjectural -- that is to say, no more than that of an
>informed and logical guess.
> "By its very nature, our discipline cannot be entirely free from
>speculation in providing interpretions of past situations and
>events. . ."
>
> And here is where the fight begins. In studying the events
>surrounding the Jesus story and events leading up to the revolt, I
>have read many modern scholars (Eisenman, Golb, Silverburg, Maccoby,
>etc.) I have also read the Dead Sea Scrolls translated,the Nag
>Hammadi library, numerous books on the Gnostics, ancient magic, pagan
>religions, The Twelve Caesars, Eusibius, and I have looked into the
>ancient histories of much of the Middle Eastern lands. I am of the
>firm conviction that Christianity was not a particulary unique idea
>until the assignment of the awaited messiah was placed on a dead man
>whose body supposedly disappeared. <b>This variance is, in my
>estimation, what marked the distinction between the pagan religions
>forever awaiting a messiah, and the altered belief system into the
>one that said this messiah had already come and that he would be the
>last. </b>By the accceptance of this doctrine, the forever awaiting the
>messiah syndrome was effectively quashed over the centuries, but its
>immediate effect was felt in Rome, whose leaders had its hands full
>from time to time with the appearances of presumed messiahs leading
>and sparking revolts. I agree with the scholars who suggest that the
>Last Days/End Times so corrupted by fundamentalist Christians,
>actually referred to the end of the astrological age which to many
>people in the ancient world was an era of change, usually through
>destruction, much like the five Mayan ages.
> My theory is that there was a wide conspiracy to formulate this
>new 'unified' religion and it was spearheaded under the name Yahad.
>Robert Eisenman in James the Brother of Jesus refers to the Yahad
>organization as the "Unity Group". I theorize that Yahad was in fact
>an empire-wide movement towards religious syncretism, which may have
>been started under another name as early as the 4th-3rd century BC,
>during and after the reign of Alexander the Great. It is reported by
>Josephus that the Therapeuts were in every city in the empire, and I
>suggest that its through this therapeutic network that the Yahad
>process towards syncretism was being formulated. In light of this, i
>may mean that what was happening at or near Qumran was not uniquely
>or specifically a local Jewish phenomenon. Norman Golb, in 'Who Wrote
>the Dead Sea Scrolls' reveals that there were at least 500 different
>different forms of handwriting which indicates a very large number of
>scribes from different places involved in the process of editing and
>composing the texts. I suggest that the Nag Hammadi library should
>also be considered as part of the Yahad organization if what I
>theorize is true, despite the apparent theological differences
>between the two camps. Within a syncretic movement, such doctrinal
>differences are to be expected while still in its formulative
>period.
> Within the framework of this theory lies Rome which, despite all
>appearances, was in fact a very religion oriented state. At least
>facial evidence for this can be found in the self proclaimed title of
>Julius Caesar as Pontifex Maximus, or high priest. This title was
>subsequently used by many (if not all) the subsequent Caesars. That
>the Christian movement made Rome the virtual center of its primary
>operations early on suggests that there may have been more Roman
>involvement than previously thought.
>
> This is my opener - let the arrows fly!
>
>David Newby<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->