Some scholars thought that when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they would be the biggest threat to the Church. However, this was not the case. The Vatican is still going strong even though they were found in 1947. This is because they didn’t say much that was really shockingly controversial.
They only showed that Paul’s Christ was not the one-of-a-kind person Christians had been told he was. He was not a god, but one of many rebel Messiahs. In fact, the Scrolls showed that most Jews did not like Jesus and that he was a scandal even among his own people. The people who wrote the Scrolls would not have liked Paul’s Jesus, and they would have been just as likely as Herod or the Romans to shun or kill Jesus. The Scrolls showed that Jesus the man and Christ the god were not even close to being the same person. They also gave some interesting proof that “Jesus” didn’t live when the New Testament says he did.
Joshua the Teacher of Righteousness
Recent discoveries by revisionist historians have been much more controversial and revealing, and therefore possibly more dangerous to the status quo, than anything the Scrolls have to offer. The Egyptian historian Ahmed Osman, who is a revisionist, says that the gospel Jesus lived hundreds of years before the dates that are usually given for his life. During his studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other forbidden documents, Osman found that the Essenes, who are thought to have written the scrolls, never mentioned Jesus or any of the places, events, or people mentioned in the New Testament. Osman found out that the Essenes, who may not have been a “Jewish” sect at all, thought their “Teacher” had lived at least a thousand years before, and that he was probably the same person mentioned in the Old Testament as Joshua, the Son of Nun, whose name comes from the word “Naue,” which means “strong or brave.” In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Joshua is called the “Teacher of Righteousness” to the Essenes (or, more accurately, the Zealots). The later Joshua was thought to be the same person as the original Joshua from the time of Moses.
He was thought to be the Messiah, who would have a hard life and die a martyr. After Moses died, the first Joshua (son of Nun) took over as leader of the Israelites. He was one of the Davids, which means he was a leader of the Israelites (Atonists). Both before and after him, there were people in charge. Benjamin of the House of Judah (Yahud) was called a “LightBearer” or a “Lucifer,” which again refers to a commander or high priest of the sun. The Masonic Order, which is full of Egyptian symbols, uses these kinds of titles to tell its members and chiefs apart.
So, it is clear that if this Joshua was a direct descendant of Moses, he was probably also from Egypt. Then, we might wonder if this is the secret that the Christian leaders wanted to keep hidden and why they burned libraries, persecuted people, and tried to get rid of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Gnostic and Apocryphal texts. Is their Jesus a clean-up job made to make Romans and other Westerners happy? Is he a made-to-order figure, a face for a strong religion that rules the world? And were the persecutions and desecrations done so that people who knew the truth and taught it wouldn’t contradict Rome’s lies? It sure looks that way. We know that the leaders of Christianity wanted people to think of Jesus as a unique person. Their archetype shouldn’t be connected to any other one. He was to be a savior who had nothing to do with the sun gods or heroes of other religions. The connections between their new figure and the old ones had to be cut cleanly. Still, the truth comes out when you look closely at the symbols in both Christianity and Judaism.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they were a big threat to the Christian hierarchs, since these forbidden writings and others found near the Dead Sea do contradict dogmas that have been accepted for centuries. Because of this, it took longer and was harder to translate and publish the different scrolls. Translators were even put in danger and demoted because of what they said. The Scrolls, so the story goes, showed that the “Essenes,” a group of Jews who broke away from the orthodox teachings of the Sadducees and Pharisees in Judea and Palestine, whom they thought were completely corrupt and evil, didn’t want anything to do with those teachings. The Essenes’ main spiritual leader and guide was not called Jesus, but the “Teacher of Righteousness.” He was arrested, punished, and killed because of what a rival known as the “Evil Priest” said about him.
Similarities in the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Gospels
The history of the Essenes and what they believed is too long to tell here. We can only say that the “Teacher of Righteousness” (probably Joshua, the son of Nun, or John the Baptist) looked a lot like the Jesus of the New Testament. In fact, many people who study the Dead Sea Scrolls are sure that he was the man who became known as Jesus. Biblical scholars had a problem with this Essenic teacher because he lived many years before Jesus was said to have preached in the Holy Land. The Essenes’ scrolls show that some parts of the gospels are the same as those that talk about this “Teacher of Righteousness” who lived hundreds of years before Jesus. Even though the similarities are clear, that doesn’t mean that the two men were the same person. It just means that they came from the same place, or that they were both adepts from the same college or mystery school. It can also mean that they were just two more solar heroes in a long line of them. So, we can see that even within the ranks, there was a lot of editing. The Church tried to hide what the Essenes said in their writings, which was that Jesus had been alive before the accepted gospels said he had.
This testimony was not to be taken seriously or used as evidence. No, neither the Holy Roman Empire nor the Church of Constantine would let this “heresy” happen. The Essene “Teacher of Righteousness” was a Jewish “savior” or “wise man” who just looked like the official “savior” of Christianity. But this similarity seems to have been enough for the Church’s machine of lies to start working. Most people interested in the subject, both Christians and Jews, reluctantly accept these sneaky and, in some cases, blatant “in-house” cover-ups, and there are many books on the subject.
The Essenes’ philosophy and the Catholicism of Rome have another big difference. This has to do with the divine feminine principle. Paul’s mixture, which was a mix of Greek and Latin, didn’t care much about the female or feminine.
Copy of earlier Essenic works
God was a man, and the Messiah and Christ were also men. As a heretic, any woman who tried to preach to men was to be put to death. Hypatia, an Alexandrian scholar, was torn to pieces for doing the same thing.
Still, it seems that the early Essenes respected and revered the feminine principle. This was another reason why the Romans did not want the Essenic philosophy to be part of their dogma. Texts that praised the woman Sophia were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These passages make it clear that both Judaism and Christianity have pagan roots. They also show that Christianity doesn’t have much to do with the Essenes’ teachings after all. It is likely that the Acts, Epistles, and Gospels, which tell a story about Jesus that was made up later, copied earlier Essenic works. This theory is backed up a lot more when we realize that the Essene authors, who lived in Palestine, never talked about any of the places, events, or people in the New Testament. Since this is the case, our point is clear. What kind of facts have been hidden, lied about, or changed when it comes to Jesus’ pagan roots, compared to what has happened with much less controversial issues and revelations? The case of the Essenes and their “Teacher” is a great litmus test for figuring out what the Vatican and its groups in Christianity and Judaism are up to. Keeping in mind how ruthlessly and thoroughly the established officialdom got rid of renegade sects (like the Essenes, Bogomils, Cathars, Mandeans, Gnostics, etc.) is a great mental exercise for the revisionist.