volumes of followers does not make it the truth...
Indeed, though on the same token, just because one situation with many followers was based on falsehood does not automatically make others within a minority the epitome of truth. There have been plenty of times others have tried to utilize the imagery of others who were on the margins and willing to choose descent (as Brother Jonathan Merrit noted well in his article entitled
In Praise of Dissent )----even though those in the minority were already shown to be without any real credibility. Sometimes, whereas some things deemed conspiracy theories are more than valid/worth adhering to, there've been other times where many things labeled "conspiracy" are simply bogus...and ALOT of people just go with them parroting "If it's not in the mainstream, it MUST be correct!!!!"
There are some things no one in the majority believes and they are more than fine believing it even when a minority says "It's not true" because they have no basis. If it were not the case, then most of the books within the stores in the UFO Theology/Neo Paganism sections or parts claiming that Jesus was "invented" would be considered "evidence" and we'd be wrong for saying that it doesn't belong in any way as a credible view even when they may say back "You just believe in Yeshua because the Church told you to!!!"
If you've ever seen the film entitled "
Zeitgeist", you'll quickly see what I mean since the film tries to play up on the same quote you offered on truth/lies when it comes to arguing that the Christian religion specifically is mainly derived from other religions, astronomical assertions, astrological myths and traditions, which in turn were derived from or shared elements with others. In furtherance of the
Jesus myth hypothesis, the film (reflective of many others who are considered to be "conspiracy junkies" by some) t argues that the
historical Jesus is a literary and astrological hybrid, nurtured politically. The main thing they'll often parrot back if disbeliving them is "Don't believe in the establishment!!!!!"----but as said before, they use the imagery of those who correctly went against it to make themselves appear in the same way.
The same is possible even when it comes to following the Lord and in what occurred with Messianic Judaism.
To me, there needs to be consideration given on BOTH sides and real study. Those who were early followers of the Lord and called "Christians" at Antioch (of the Nazarene Sect, Acts 24:4-6 and Acts 24:13-15) in Acts 11...they were once a minority--and they were a MAJORITY as well in later times. Both being in both camps did not equate to them having truth simply because of status alone.
Were not the Essenes also known as THE WAY??
They had alot of valid things to offer. However, in discussing them, there needs to be caution...as they did not explicitly believe that Yeshua was the Messiah nor did they advocate a host of things that the Lord stood for. Even with them being in a minority status for many valid reasons, their status alone does not give room for thinking every one of their practices or theology are to be celebrated.
Of course, it's more than reasonable to note that many of those who were Essenes came to join into the camp of believers/influenced them. As said elsewhere, Historically already were the early believers STRINKINGLY akin to the Essenes in practice and why numerous scholars have made clear its illogical to assume the Essenes prescence was not present or that those of the Essene priesthood were not there simply because Scripture doesn't meantion them in comparision to the Pharisees and Sadducees/Herodians or Zealots. The authorized priesthood in Jerusalem (with Caiphas and Ananias) may have been in power but that in no way meant that in those times it was seen as legitimate by all camps. ....including camps in Jerusalem, as not all priests LIVING in Jerusalem participated in the priesthood practiced by those in POWER in Jerusalem.
For more info on the subject of corruption in the days of Judaism/THOSE who were in power, As seen in John 11:45-57, the text makes clear that the Chief Priests and the Pharisees were afraid of the their nation being taken away due to the actions of Christ. And the phrase "Our place" almost certainly refers to the temple (Acts 6:13-14, Acts 21:28). The phrase "The romans will come and take away both our place and our nation" may refer to the feared removal of the Jews' semiautonomous status by the Romans (1 Macc. 5:19). Ironically, what the Sanhedrin sought to prevent by killing Jesus still came to pass when the Romans razed the temple and captured Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Concerning who the Chief Priests are---as referenced in John 11 as well as Luke 9:21-22, Luke 22:52 and Luke 22:54-71 and Matthew 26:57-67---the "chief priests" are not the high priests but rather members of the most prominent priestly families. As it concerns the Jewish high court, it consisted of 71 members----70 elders according to the pattern of Numbers 11:16 plus the high priest as presiding officer. It was dominated by the priestly Sadducees with a Pharisaic minority, represented mainly by the scribes (lawyers) of the court. This is what was referenced in John 7:45-51 when an attempt was made to arrest Jesus. Under the Roman procurators, three wealthy priestly families largely controlled the extremely important position of high priest. Annas was the patriarch of one of these powerful families of high priest (Acts 4:6). Annas was designated as the high priest (much like a U.S President, as high priests seemed to have retained their title for life). He had served in that role earlier (A.D. 6-15) and was the controlling figure in the high-priestly circle, which may also explain why he is given the title in Acts 4:6. His son-in-law Caiaphas was the official high priest at this time, serving A.D. 18-36, and Anna's son John would serve in that role later (36-37). Caiphas also presided over the Sanhedrin during the time of Christ's trial.....as he managed to retain control of the high priesthood gor nearly 18years (c.A.D. 18-36)----Longer than anyone else in the first century (cf. Josephus,
Jewish Antiquities 18.35, 95). He was certainly the high priest during Jesus' ministry, although he also consulted frequently with his father-in-law Annas (John 18:13, Luke 3:2).
There were definately cases of class warfare/favoritism within the priesthood--and those without power often had to live on the sidelines or be outsted. It's one of the reasons (coupled with the corruption of the priesthood) why many Essenes had left Jerusalem and chose to live in the Desert
The lower ranks of the priesthood numbered in the thousands, of whom many were POOR and may have been attracted to Christians by their charity, under the guidance of thr newly appointed deacons. This is said in light of Acts 6:7 when it notes how many priests came to faith in Messiah ---as some have noted those specific priests who came to salvation were of the Essene camp. One can consider the concept of Ronin Samurai, as that may aid in making more sense on the issue. For in Japan, there was a dominant class of Samurai loyal to one leader/clan or dynasty whereas the Ronin were those who were not employed by dominant groups.....often rouge and on their own, yet still considered "Samurai" and with others who were alongside them. It was the same with many of the priests who did not have the same mobility as the priestly families who were rich/had power due to being DOMINANT. There were many Essenes who still did buisness in Jerusalem during the era of the Pharisees and Sadduccess, influencing. And yet, as they lived a COMMUNAL life, they would not have had as much economic power. With the believers living RADICALLY in their lifestyles and ensuring others were provided for, it would have been very attractive to priests from the Essene world.
With Acts 6:7 on the large crowd of
cohanim ("priests") becoming obediant to the faith, what needs to be kept in mind is that although most of the
cohanim are presented in the New Testament as being opposed to Yeshua, this was not true of all. There were holy men in the priesthood such as the father of John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-25, Luke 1:57-59).....and as it concerns the theory that the
cohanim coming to believe in Yeshua were not part of the establishment---being instead those who had become disenchanted with it and had gone off to join the Essenes in Qumara---the reasoning is that the theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls is much closer to the New Testament than that of the
Tz'dukim who controlled the Jerusalem priesthood.
Of course, since the activity of the Messianic believers had not yet spread to other parts of the Land than Jerusalem, one could make a case that the
cohanim becoming obediant to the faith at this time in Acts 6:7 were those who made it their buisness to be in Jerusalem, rather than retreat to the desert. For God can reach the hearts even of people whose usual ties and associations might be expected to lead them to an opposing stance.
Of course, it could also be said that God already had others not in Jerusalem who were bringing the Good News to others. Luke 9:49-50 and Mark 9:38-41 comes to mind....as there was a believer who was outside the circle of the Twelve and the disciples were quick to criticize those belonged to Christ and yet did not belong to their group. At the time, the disciples/Christ were already outside of Jerusalem.....as seen in Mark 9:38-43 when he goes past Galilee (the "Ghetto" of Jesus's time) and warns them of his impending suffering in Jerusalem to come.. .and yet, beginning at Capernum, Jesus was apparently diverted from the more direct route when Samaritans refused him access (Luke 9:51-56). As seen in Mark 10:1, he went into the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan---possibly choosing to travel through Perea....before later pasing through Jericho and proceeding to Jerusalem.
In light of how Qumran served as a study site for the Essenes, a Jewish sect existing in Jesus's day, located at the edge of the Judea Wilderness as isolated community, the Essenes would have been able to live out their beliefs in separation from other religious groups of their time and await the last days. Not far from Qumran, the oases of Jericho and En Gedi provided desert homes for other ancient people. The Dead Sea was also nearby, with the land of Moab easily visible on its eastern shore.....and as Jesus travled at one point past Jericho.
It would be amazing to see if Jesus passed by them at some point/introduced them to himself!!!
With the man whom Jesus told the disciples to leave alone due to his preaching their message (Mark 9), if a man could be found so far outside of Jerusalem who was preaching the Gospel, then there's no need supposing that there were not others preaching to those in Desert areas where the Essene Priests would have been----with converts being gathered.
All of that said, I think it needs to be noted that the Essenes were not the only "margin" group who came to the Lord since priests could've come from differing camps as well........as there were priests that were even within the camp of the Zealots, the sister group alongside the Pharisees under Hasidim. For more info, one can go here to
"The Zealots | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site" ( )..and As said best by the ministry of "Follow the Rabbi" ..as seen
here and
here:
The Pharisees, passionately devoted to God, were apparently content to condemn idolatry and strive to separate themselves from all religious contamination. Though on occasion they became the object of brutal repression for their stubborn refusal to accept any of the pagan practices of the emperor, they seem to have been reluctant to use violence to advance their cause (at least until after Jesus' time).
The Zealots had a different view of serving God (1). Occasionally the Romans conducted a census of their subject lands to determine the taxable resources of these peoples. To the Jews who believed they and their land belonged to Yahweh, a census reminded them that they were the "possession of Rome." The fact that Roman emperors (thought to be divine and worshiped in some of the Gentile towns of the land) ordered the censuses added to the bitterness of the Jews toward taxation. They belonged to God and were not to honor anyone else but him.
You and I have discussed before the mindset of the Zealots/its implications for us today, if you recall the thread entitled
Chanakuh, Pacifism and Presentations of Christ as a Militant ...Zealots were a minority group just as the Essenes were--and they also felt that they were representing the Way of the Lord fully, even as it concerns living as they felt the Messiah would have them. Of course, I'm certain we'd ALL be not comfortable if they were looked to as the example for how we're to be simply because the majority didn't accept them at the time.....
When I consider the ways that other groups were on the margins as well whom we'd probably all disagree with sharply if they came in the name of the Messiah and claimed that Messianic Jews should physically fight back against all who go against the Lord's Law, including with the use of domestic terrorism/as much violence as possible----as the Zealots did---it can be odd to me that others may idealize the Essenes if trying to make the point that it's okay to be "lone wolves" within Judaism. For many camps could've been easily labeled "lone wolves" and yet we'd quickly stand against them and advocate for their going with the majority view that we all deem correct....and yet, if there's a view we accept which the majority may not like, we can look to a minority group that's to our liking and say "See how they lived out their faith alone!!!" (as the Essenes did).
Just some thoughts..
I'm used to dual languages every day, sometimes with a third in the mix, and even services with two or three languages at once. It can work! I've seen it work just fine. I can understand (I guess) that they want to cater to the majority group, especially if the pastor there struggles with German. 
I'm wondering if perhaps that was the issue. 
Probably was, considering how strange that email seemed to read.
)
