The Restoration of the Qumran Essenes Has Finally Arrived

[KingOystar]

HaShem promised to perserve the remnant of his people who keep his way Ezekiel 6:8-14 . how could a people that disappered long ago be a preserved remnant?

[carlsonap16]

@KingOystar good question. ii'm pretty sure Ezekiel is referring to the first exile and the return hundreds fo years before Christ. The Essenes did not exist at that time. And i'm not convinced that God promised to preserve a spiritual remnant in all times, only tht in some tiems a psiritual remnant was preserved, and in other times, it refers tot he remnant of geneiic Israel being preserved.

[ZviJ1]

Just quit all your babbling... Unlike the real Essenes who were fluent in either Hebrew or Aramaic and lived in Israel, you barely even know these languages yet and live in the US.

You've concocted all sorts of fabrications about Jewish history and Scripture.

You're in urgent need of a shrink and a real, durable purpose.

[carlsonap16]

@ZviJ1 please dont assume whether or not i know Hebrew or Aramaic or other ancient languages. Unless i said somethign in my videos which i am not aware of, you have no right to assume things.

Read the DSS themselves without your scholarly bias. The scrolls themselves reveal that they are the earliest Christians. anything else is ignorant of what their words actually say and their ancient contemporaries remarks..

[ZviJ1]

@carlsonap16 I'm prepared to accept that a very small number of the DSS betray early Xtian pre-Pauline authorship. But to claim all of the DSS are such is utterly laughable.

U apparently echo many of Prof. Robert Eisanmann's claims, but his convictions have many opposers in the scholarly community. If u had tempered your attempts at scholarship with humility you'd readily acknowledge this and much more and not sound like a pompous a**.

Anyways u're still playing Essene from the US. Point made.

[ZviJ1]

@carlsonap16 P.S.: about 3 weeks ago you wrote in a comment below the "Are the Jewish kohanim real priests? No" clip that you intended to learn Hebrew, so your attempt to leave an impression somewhere else so soon afterward that you may know Hebrew is childish and shows a lack of respect for your audience's intelligence. Sonny, you're sadly mistaken if you believe this type of behavior engenders respect toward you from *everyone*.

[carlsonap16]

@ZviJ1 it matters not where you live. the Tanakh and NT declares that all people are required to keep Torah, Jew and Gentile.

[ZviJ1]

@carlsonap16 It's ludicrous to c u castigating me for "assuming things" about u when u concoct ur frivolous understandings of Tanakh at every turn and teach them to commenters as if they're the only way to walk in,as if nobody can tell u're making up your ideas as u go along.For example, at 1st u claim tefillin isnt a scriptural demand but only 1 way to fulfill a command, but after 1 week u insist tefillin is an outright Torah commandment.

Obviously you're a total fruitcake and to b laughed at.

[carlsonap16]

@ZviJ1 huh? i have LWAYS INSISTED TEFILLIN IS A COMMAND OF TORAH. I SAID HOWEVER THAT WEARING A BOX ON YOUR HEAD IS NOT A COOMMAND OF TORAH sorry for capsl ock new keyboard and to otired to go back and uncaps it

[ZviJ1]

@carlsonap16 I don't need to repeat myself. Thx for making my point for me.

Any Qaraite or even Rabbanite with a grasp of the Tanakh's straightforward meaning will laugh at you as they follow you making up silly understandings of the commands in your clips and in comments below them plus your Channel comments.

[carlsonap16]

@ZviJ1 none of them have a grasp of hte straightforward meaning. but anyways our dialogue is pointless because you blindly follow scholars, whereas i don't trust anyone unless they are trustworthy. when one person begins an error, and everyoen repeats it, they are all wrong. and yu have simply kept the errors that everyone has repeated. well done and congratulations. you should be proud.

[ZviJ1]

@carlsonap16 Nah... only u have a lock on God's will as u know me so well for years that u know exactly who I've followed (if any) {snicker}. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells can see you level charges without truly knowing your interlocutor and believe only you're capable of critical thinking and ignoring scholars. The reason the exchange is pointless is the immaturity you demonstrate.

Let's conclude the exchange here in the spirit of the other thread by leaving my comment as the last word.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - It's the same thing, thus why I'm not convinced it is a command to wear a box on head. People say the Hebrew grammar points to a physical 'thing' but even if this is so, that must mean I need to cut my insides out and tie a band around my heart becasue Psalms etc even says to bind the same around my heart. - ?

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot Notice the command that its also supposed to write them on the gates of the city.Messiah in NT condemns people for wearing big tzitzit & big phylacteries.If He didn't approve of phylacteries as a commandment,He would have said just the fact that they were wearing phylacteries.Also the ancient Essenes understand it as a literal fulfillment.Revelation of John understands it to be literal, with the Antichrist requiring people to take the mark of the beast & bind it on their arm and head.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - you haven't addressed my question though, I'm awear of what you just cited. I'm talking about those other scriptures in the psalms etc that say to bind them on your heart, if we use the same interpretation we need to cut our physical heart out and wrap a strap or whatever around it - but thats silly, but for consistancy if this command is ALWAYS a physical sign (without ecception) aswel as the spiritual then that is what we would have to do. For this reason I doubt the box.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot the answer is the passage says to bind words to your body, whereas the psalms say bind truth into your mind. its not a matter of literal vs metaphorical. you must literally bind truth into your mind, and you must literally bind words to your forehead and arm. the key is that "bind" does not refer literally to physical structures, but refers to bringing together into one combined package. the hebrew is not "heart" but "mind" it means.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - I'm still not convinced, I still see this as a glaring inconsistancy. I can never accept a teaching unless all percieved inconsistancies are broken down. it's called a mental stronghold and everyone has them! That's why if trying to get anyone to believe anything you sometimes have to break down certain things they believe. With this one I haven't ever been given a good and consistent answer to accept this interpretation as definet.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot i would suggest ur interpretation rests entirely on a mistranslation of the hebrew word "leb" as heart, when it doesn't ever mean heart.you'd be surprised how much the translators completely destroy the Hebrew when translating the Bible.i also suggest ur misidentifying "bind" as a physical word when i suggest that the hebrew does not refer to something physical but always refers to a metaphysical thing.

the context also indicates i'm correct because it says to write it on the gates.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - I'm not saying the words mean physical, thats what alot say, and if you physically bind something on head cus gramar then its defo physical. it does say on gates yes but again, i cant put something on my heart. Leb / lev does mean heart, but it also means OTHER things like many words in hebrew.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - Pro 3:3 Let notH408 mercyH2617 and truthH571 forsakeH5800 thee: bindH7194 them aboutH5921 thy neck;H1621 writeH3789 them uponH5921 the tableH3871 of thine heart:H3820 ---if it's Physical only then are we suposed to wear a necklace with scripture too? LEB also menas center or inner being according to the concordance, so you could interpret/twist that to mean waistband too, meaning center. Bit of a long shot but you see what i mean.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - Pro 6:21 BindH7194 them continuallyH8548 uponH5921 thine heart,H3820 and tieH6029 them aboutH5921 thy neck.H1621 - another example. So does this mean with your interpretation you have to wear a necklace now? I cant force my chest open and wear a pyhsical one on my heart so again for consistancy i can only see it meaning bind the commands on your heart as a metaphorical / spiritual way. Im not saying its wrong to do the physical but still not convinced you HAVE to.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - Pro 7:3 BindH7194 them uponH5921 thy fingers,H676 writeH3789 them uponH5921 the tableH3871 of thine heart.H3820 - fingers now too, so that could be rings, or the end of the teffillin.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot the word for bind is never physical. its always metaphysical. metaphysically bind things to your mind, and metaphysically bind things to your body. in context, we learn that we are to metaphysically bind physical things to our bodies, whereas in other contexts we are to bind metaphysical ideas to our minds. Proverbs doesn't say neck; the Hebrew does not mean neck.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - Strongs concordance says throught or neck - good enough for me. "metaphysically bind to mind" exactly, I see it the same way, but when you bind something to your body then it's Physical, that's all I mean. You can't mentally bind a mental non material thing to your body without it ending up a physical thing.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot the concordance doesn't say what the Hebrew is. I know the Hebrew and it doesn't say neck. i guess this is what i'm trying to say: the hebrew for bind is not material or immaterial. it doesn't refer to either of them. it refers to one thing that can be both material or immaterial

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - Ok, so it's a case of interpret it however you want, either or and both.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot Hebrew is always ambiguous as its supposed to be. English translations usually try to simplify it for the reader by picking and choosing what they think the passage is talking about, but this is dishonest translation, yet they all do this. they actually think their translations are good even though they know they are intentionally changing what the text says for what they perceive to be the benefit of the reader.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - I agree with avery word on this, however, if a translator HAS to pick a word, (which of course he has to) then you can't expect any translation to be 100% perfect at every point. Personally I think translations should have things like, "In the begining was/is the word/miltha/logos/emination/in­struction/teaching/" etc, so then you could see several nuances. Or maybe an asterix and footnotes giving loads of meanings at most of these key words.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot there are translations like that, such as the amplified bible. but i truly believe that i have discovered the way to translate 100% unbiasedly. this however makes it difficult to understand, but i include footnotes which explain in great detail what i believe the translation means.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - I hertfully do not believe we can geta translation that is 100% as good as the original text, but I do believe that using several translations (literal best IMO) and mixing that woth concordances/lexicons and looking at different family manuscript lines and even learning Hebrew (we both are) , doing that I think is the best bet and we can overcome many issues this way. Sticking to 1 translation and saying its perfect like the KJV Onlyists is misguided I rekon. I liked the AENT.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot my contention is this: if every translator translated properly, if you took a group of thousands of translators, and isolated them from each other, they would all come up with the same translation. i know this is controversial opinion of mine, but i think i can back it up with linguistic evidence forthcoming. i am doing translation as we speak. right now i'm doing the Hebrew manuscripts of the Law of Moses.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - You rejected part of Mosheh's Law you said?? Didn't the translators of the septuigint isolate from each other? I still think you'd get differencies. What's the main difference between , "carl said to him" and "carl spoke to him" and "carl worded to him" "to him carl spoke" "to him spoke carl" etc - sod all, it conveys the same.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot I reject Deuteronomy, but as it stands, it is crucial in re constructing the original Deuteronomy so i will be translating the original Deuteronomy alongside with the summary.

my basis of translation eliminates the issue you cited. i translate it with the same word order you see in the Hebrew and the same order of fixes.

regarding the LXX; that is the legend that 70 of them were isolated and all produced the same text.

[carlsonap16]

@carlsonap16 aka the summary being the current Deuteronomy

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 LXX, yeah, that was the story I was refering to. Even if you translate something in the same order though, doesn't that confuse people?  ""In beginning created/filled God et the heavens and et the earth/land" Surely most people woul have trouble? and as I were saying you can have several words for one word, so for speak you could translate said instead, but both correct.

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot it is confusing, but i think everyone is morally obligated to learn Hebrew, and my translation is the closest thing to Hebrew without someone actually knowing Hebrew. this is genesis 1:1 "1:1: at-shake-one-(s)he create-one-he shapes-he assign-one-he define-lofts-he and-assign-one-he define-firm-one-she. " thus my style of translation will be confusing if you are not intending to learn Hebrew. but for someone who is learning or already knows Hebrew, it will make sense.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - Sounds like you've been smoking wacky backy. Don't know how to take that seriously to be honest, authough it might show a few things lesser known deep within thet text (like kabbalah and letter flipping etc) it still sounds like sometihng the local bum down the street cooked up. care to elaborate?

[carlsonap16]

@sparkshot that's what the Hebrew literally says. i will send you my commentary of verse one in youtube email momentarily.

[sparkshot]

@carlsonap16 - ok, thanks, will take a look.

[IWannabeJew]

This has already been attempted by numerous groups.  Try qumran DAWT com

[carlsonap16]

@IWannabeJew I just browsed their site and they are not true Essenes.  They refer to themselves as Qumran but are far from Qumran. They reject the NT, which Essenes did not. They also religiously fellowship/endorse with non-Essneses, so it is clear they are not true Qumranites.

[IWannabeJew]

@carlsonap16 You aren't a true Essene, either. And show me where the Essenes had any fragments of the NT.

[carlsonap16]

@IWannabeJew they are Kairites. Oh hey, i didnt see it was you. how are things?

[IWannabeJew]

@carlsonap16 They didn't start out Karaites. They started out Messianics, just like you.  And where do you get that the Essenes were Nazarenes? And does this mean that you are forbidding membership to gentiles, or are you just being redundant when you say Nazarene Israel?

[carlsonap16]

the music for this video came together partially by no intent of mine. As in, i had copied and pasted several music options from garage band, and then recorded over or deleted most of them. but a few were left over. and the few that were left over i kept whatever was there and as an afterthought added it into it because i needed more music for the recording. it came together surprisingly well =D

[paulgem123]

So the book of Thomas was among the Dead sea scrolls? The Essene's at least part of them rejected Paul's writings, Do you?

[carlsonap16]

@paulgem123 Sorry for being confusing. The Gospel of Thomas was not found at the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, the Gospel of Thomas says there were only five books of the Law of Moses in my belief. Since there is another book in the DSS which claims to be the fifth book of Moses, either that book is the original and Deuteronomy is not, or Deuteronomy is the original and that DSS book is not.

[paulgem123]

@carlsonap16 So what is this community the you are speaking of?

[carlsonap16]

@paulgem123 As to Paul, to my knowledge, it was the Ebionite Essenes and not the Nazarene Essenes that rejected Paul's writings. a few scholars even suggest the possibiliaty that tiny fragments of Paul's letters were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls in Greek in cave seven te hfamous greek cave, but almost all scholars reject this identification.

[TrustinJC]

Interesting. I'll be watching with interest to see how this movement grows.

[carlsonap16]

@TrustinJC restoration Dedicated to Lavern =D