Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2016, 07:34 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:02 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  As for your houses sorry you strike out again the AAI official report says nothing about first century housing

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalsix.html

That's would likely come as a surprise to the excavation director at AAI, Archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, whose quote in the article I cited. And well as elsewhere.

"Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls."

"Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls.

""This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said. A young Jesus may have played around the house with his cousins and friends, she said. "It's a logical suggestion."


"Alexandre said workers uncovered the first signs of the dwelling in the summer, but it became clear only this month that it was a structure from the era of Jesus.

Alexandre's team found remains of a wall, a hideout, a courtyard and a water system that appeared to collect water from the roof and supply it to the home. The discovery was made when builders dug up the courtyard of a former convent to make room for a new Christian center, just yards away from the Basilica.

It is not clear how big the dwelling is — Alexandre's team have uncovered about 900 square feet of the house, but it may have been for an extended family and could be much larger, she said."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=121724812

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I don't believe that if Nazareth is existed that proves that Jesus existed. I just think those who claim that Nazareth existed are either liars, ignorant, or plain dishonest. I wouldn't even be discussing Nazareth, if one of your pathetic buddies didn't suggest it didn't exist at the time. So don't cry mercy for them now, when their arguments start to fall apart.

Again you are attacking the individual and making assumptions. Or so it seems to me. For example you think I am unfamiliar with Mark. Actually I take him seriously and read his posts. I also read the responses. Many of which are emotional rather than focussed on the actual argument or point being made. Some of your recent posts show this to be true. Resorting to calling people liars and such.

As a result Tomasia, these responses do not support your arguments. You would best be served by focussing on the debate.

I have read your responses and I am sorry to say this, but they appear uneducated on the subject matter at hand. This is just my opinion, and I do hope it helps you, but stay on topic and stop insulting people who believe you have a lack of evidence.

You may or may not know I stay away from the Physics threads. I read them, but I rarely post. The reason is because it is a subject I do not know.

I do however know a great deal about Rome and the history of xianity. So I post within that subject matter. One can tell when one knows what he or she is doing.

Thus far, since the reign of Constantine there have been many schisms, wars, iconoclasms, slaughters etc with the sects of xianity itself. Indeed Constantine became so angry with them all he ordered a meeting to sort it out.

To this day it remains a mess, due to conflicting passages and disagreements regarding interpretations. One can easily suggest the author was quite confused. Hard to believe this from a being so powerful he/she created the entire cosmos.

Would you not agree?

Surely this great being could write out plainly what he meant. And yet whenever someone like Pop's leaves a passage supporting his views I show one at odds with it.

Dumas is a greater author than the creator of the universe? Hardly likely, wouldn't you say?

And yet you get angry with us for doubt? Doubt in this case seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You would do well to read Milton's Paradise lost. Milton went out of his way to prove god great. He failed and Satan himself became the hero of that vast and epic poem.

Because you lack facts to support your superstition, that is no reason to call us names. Indeed, these are your failings, not ours.

Kindly remember that.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
21-07-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 07:02 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  As for your houses sorry you strike out again the AAI official report says nothing about first century housing

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalsix.html

That's would likely come as a surprise to the excavation director at AAI, Archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, whose quote in the article I cited. And well as elsewhere.

"Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls."

"Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls.

""This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said. A young Jesus may have played around the house with his cousins and friends, she said. "It's a logical suggestion."


"Alexandre said workers uncovered the first signs of the dwelling in the summer, but it became clear only this month that it was a structure from the era of Jesus.

Alexandre's team found remains of a wall, a hideout, a courtyard and a water system that appeared to collect water from the roof and supply it to the home. The discovery was made when builders dug up the courtyard of a former convent to make room for a new Christian center, just yards away from the Basilica.

It is not clear how big the dwelling is — Alexandre's team have uncovered about 900 square feet of the house, but it may have been for an extended family and could be much larger, she said."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=121724812


Sigh you misread me again i meant that nothing in AAI report backs there Yardends wild claims did you even read the article i linked ?

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:22 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Sigh and again tommy your ignorance shows

1. the mount is a expectation as it's built on the holy grounds of Jerusalem and land that by it's very nature is holy thou the burning of the corpses of criminals was common

2. Bodies in Jerusalem as in underwent extensive cleansing anyway as the sort of people buried there tended to be wealthy enough to afford such treatment and even the lesser classes could afford greater attention this would not be so in a small village which tended to bury there dead well outside there cities as they didn't have the resources and in many cases they simply burned the dead as getting a priest to sit with the dead was costly

Can you quote the Jewish religious laws here, indicating how far the graves have to be? And where the rule is dependent on how much the bodies have been cleaned? Since the cemetery I cited negates your earlier suggestion, and you want to label it as exception.

How many other cemeteries are exceptions here?

The mount of olives is not the only Jewish Cemetery in Jerusalem, there are several of them. I guess they're all exception too? How about the one in Hebron another exception?

The rules here governing Jewish Burials, don't say anything about distance:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...stone.htm, in fact family plots are permissible.

How long are you gonna keep your charade up?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 06:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why is everyone seem more obsessed with his Master's, rather than than his arguments regarding historicity. I'm guessing because people here have done a shit poor job of arguing against his position, that they figure if they can find some way to attack the man, that's preferable.

I asked about his master's degree because of this post (# 1192):

(19-07-2016 01:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I am a seasonal instructor. I have a Masters. The reason they call it a "Masters" is because I am a master of the subject, which is an expert. It's what is required here where I work.

This was in response to a poster who asked what his education background was.

I asked what his Master's was in, because he did not state that in his post. This seemed a bit odd. If one is going to use a degree/title to bolster an argument, then one would use the best statement of that degree/title. Saying "a Master's Degree in History" adds more credence than simply saying "a Master's Degree.

Now, I could have gone the route that some posters usually take. I could have answered for him, or decided for myself what he was doing. However I would rather be accurate and the best way to do that is to ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate people.

Now, I did have to ask several times to get a response. I'm assuming that GoingUp simply didn't see my short posts amongst the longer posts surrounding it. However, eventually he did see and respond to my question. I responded back and indicated that he had answered my question and that I was satisfied.

Other posters, with more knowledge of history than myself, have chosen to continue the discussion. Since GoingUp cited his education as supporting evidence for his position, a discussion of that education is not unreasonable.

Considering the minute details discussed in the credentials and veracity of ancient historians, it is not surprising that modern historians are given a similar treatment.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 08:02 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 08:09 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:46 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 07:34 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's would likely come as a surprise to the excavation director at AAI, Archaeologist Yardena Alexandre, whose quote in the article I cited. And well as elsewhere.

"Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls."

"Based on clay and chalk shards found at the site, the dwelling appeared to house a "simple Jewish family," Alexandre added, as workers at the site carefully chipped away at mud with small pickaxes to reveal stone walls.

""This may well have been a place that Jesus and his contemporaries were familiar with," Alexandre said. A young Jesus may have played around the house with his cousins and friends, she said. "It's a logical suggestion."


"Alexandre said workers uncovered the first signs of the dwelling in the summer, but it became clear only this month that it was a structure from the era of Jesus.

Alexandre's team found remains of a wall, a hideout, a courtyard and a water system that appeared to collect water from the roof and supply it to the home. The discovery was made when builders dug up the courtyard of a former convent to make room for a new Christian center, just yards away from the Basilica.

It is not clear how big the dwelling is — Alexandre's team have uncovered about 900 square feet of the house, but it may have been for an extended family and could be much larger, she said."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=121724812


Sigh you misread me again i meant that nothing in AAI report backs there Yardends wild claims did you even read the article i linked ?

You mean the article by Rene Salm the non-archaeologist, that doesn't actually quote anything from the AAI, or links to the article? Apparently he's supposed to be a more reliable source, than the fucking excavation director of the dig.

If you don't realize Rene Salm is the guy who wrote a book on Nazareth didn't exist, and what even funnier is that he quotes his suppose prominent archaeologist friend, who isn't named, and who also at the end of his supposed email to Salm, endorses everyone to purchases Salm's book, lol.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 08:13 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 07:22 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Sigh and again tommy your ignorance shows

1. the mount is a expectation as it's built on the holy grounds of Jerusalem and land that by it's very nature is holy thou the burning of the corpses of criminals was common

2. Bodies in Jerusalem as in underwent extensive cleansing anyway as the sort of people buried there tended to be wealthy enough to afford such treatment and even the lesser classes could afford greater attention this would not be so in a small village which tended to bury there dead well outside there cities as they didn't have the resources and in many cases they simply burned the dead as getting a priest to sit with the dead was costly

Quote:Can you quote the Jewish religious laws here, indicating how far the graves have to be? And where the rule is dependent on how much the bodies have been cleaned? Since the cemetery I cited negates your earlier suggestion, and you want to label it as exception.

No it wasn't as i clearly said if the body is cleansed it can be buried close by as the in the mount. but the mount as all cemeteries( which you didn't bring up you only brought op the mount )in the holy city thus it's clean .But as i said a modest of poor village outside the holy city would likely not bury the dead so close as they would not be able to afford the cleansing. as for law i said nothing about laws it's a custom based on the belief that the dead were unclean .



Quote:How many other cemeteries are exceptions here?

see above


Quote:The mount of olives is not the only Jewish Cemetery in Jerusalem, there are several of them. I guess they're all exception too? How about the one in Hebron another exception?

see above

Quote:The rules here governing Jewish Burials, don't say anything about distance:

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...stone.htm, in fact family plots are permissible.

see above

How long are you gonna keep your charade up?

How long are going to maintain the presumption of understanding my culture and heritage better then i do considering (I'M A FUCKING JEW)

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
21-07-2016, 08:17 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 08:00 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(21-07-2016 06:29 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why is everyone seem more obsessed with his Master's, rather than than his arguments regarding historicity. I'm guessing because people here have done a shit poor job of arguing against his position, that they figure if they can find some way to attack the man, that's preferable.

I asked about his master's degree because of this post (# 1192):

(19-07-2016 01:37 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  I am a seasonal instructor. I have a Masters. The reason they call it a "Masters" is because I am a master of the subject, which is an expert. It's what is required here where I work.

This was in response to a poster who asked what his education background was.

I asked what his Master's was in, because he did not state that in his post. This seemed a bit odd. If one is going to use a degree/title to bolster an argument, then one would use the best statement of that degree/title. Saying "a Master's Degree in History" adds more credence than simply saying "a Master's Degree.

Now, I could have gone the route that some posters usually take. I could have answered for him, or decided for myself what he was doing. However I would rather be accurate and the best way to do that is to ask the appropriate questions to the appropriate people.

Now, I did have to ask several times to get a response. I'm assuming that GoingUp simply didn't see my short posts amongst the longer posts surrounding it. However, eventually he did see and respond to my question. I responded back and indicated that he had answered my question and that I was satisfied.

Other posters, with more knowledge of history than myself, have chosen to continue the discussion. Since GoingUp cited his education as supporting evidence for his position, a discussion of that education is not unreasonable.

Considering the minute details discussed in the credentials and veracity of ancient historians, it is not surprising that modern historians are given a similar treatment.

I don't think you pay attention. When atheists here find their arguments being chopped in half, the start going after the poster, asking what his credentials are, whether he has a degree, etc. Goingup from what I remember only indicated his credentials not to his bolster his arguments, but by the instigation of others.

I've been on the same end here, lol, and even fucked with such repeated request, which got annoying after awhile, by laying claim to degree at a Diploma mill.


Not to mention there's a variety if autodidacts here who like to bolster their bad arguments, by appealing to their extensive study in that particular area, like GoodwithoutGod trying to pass of his lies about Philo, appealing to supposed research in to that area.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 08:21 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2016 08:27 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 08:13 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  How long are going to maintain the presumption of understanding my culture and heritage better then i do considering (I'M A FUCKING JEW)

Who gives a fuck if you're cultural Jew, doesn't make you an expert of Jewish burial guidelines.

So that's all your have huh, an appeal to your cultural leanings, but no actual Jewish religious laws, or guidelines you can cite that support you claim about how far away burial sites need to be? Particularly when your earlier claims were disproven by the Mount of Olives site.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2016, 08:29 AM
RE: Contemporary Accounts of Jesus
(21-07-2016 04:09 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 07:05 PM)GoingUp Wrote:  What part of "your extremist views" wasn't specific enough for you?


They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes.

However, that doesn't mean that some of those teachings failed to come down to us. Things are not as black and white as you seem to have a propensity to view them.

The Christianity we have today has a mixture of the teachings of the Nazarenes, the doctrine of Paul the apostle, sprinkled with Orthodox and Hellenistic Judaism, flavored with Mithra-ism, Gnosticism. and likely another half dozen myths and legends thrown in the pot to create a stew fit for any gullible fool.

The gospel records likely do have many of the original teachings of Jesus, but the narrators included the implausible to embellish this man to make him more attractive to a culture that was already predisposed to beliefs in gods that defied normal human capabilities; the Greco-|Romans.

The thing is, Mark, is that Christianity probably has some small degree of truth to it in regards to some of the things Jesus said. It's not as black and while as it being fraudulent or true, because it doesn't even matter. What matters here is answering questions the best we can according to the evidence, and hoping that we approximate the truth according to the evidence, and according to what is reasonable, in the interests of history, and only history.

If you want to look at things through the a single lens of what is fraudulent, then no one can stop you. But the truth is that you are totally missing the bigger picture that can only be seen with both eyes wide open, seeing only what is there, with no bias to taint the portrait.

"They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes."

Oh dear FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm How embarrassing for you that you are so self righteous and patronising, yet you are clearly profoundly ignorant about the history of the Nazarenes. Nazarenism did not fade away after James, as you imply. Here is the real history (with apologies to those who have read this before.)

What Happened to the Nazarenes?

The Nazarenes were Yeshua’s bona fide disciples. Much of their history is missing, probably because early Christians destroyed it. Yet their tale can be pieced together.

Hugh Schonfield points out the Nazarenes were not Christians.

“It is to the Nazarene records that we ought chiefly to look for our knowledge of Jesus, and we must regard Nazarenism as the true Christianity. As the Nazarenes throughout the period of personal recollection and down to the third generation, that is to say at least seventy five years after the death of Jesus, denied his deity and his virgin birth, we must recognize that these are alien doctrines subsequently introduced by a partly paganized Church, as Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century more or less admits. The Church, which received them, had no other course open than to belittle the Nazarenes and denounce them as heretics. The historian here has no difficulty in detecting the real heretics.”

It is probable that Paul, the founder of Christian theology, masqueraded as a Nazarene in the 50’s and early 60’s; at least he did so when he was associating with traditional Jews. Once Paul was accepted into Jewish communities, he tried to replace messianic Nazarene doctrine with his own pro government perspective.

To all true Nazarenes, Paul was a heretic and a traitor to Judaism. The cordial relationship between Paul and the Nazarenes described by the author of Acts was merely an attempt to connect Paul with an historical Jesus and was a fiction. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, (d. 236 CE) Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, (c. 310 – 403 CE, bishop of Salamis) and Jerome all confirmed that the Ebionites (as the Nazarenes were later called, see below) opposed Paul as a false Apostle.

The Roman Emperor Nero may have blamed and persecuted the Nazarenes in Rome for the great fire of 64 CE. Christians today often incorrectly call Nero’s casualties Christians. There is a Christian “tradition” that this was when Peter was crucified, but there is no contemporary evidence to confirm the claim.

Hegesippus, (c. 110 - 180 CE) a Christian chronicler of the early Church, who may have been a Jewish convert, writes that after the death of James in 62 CE, the Nazarenes selected Symeon, (aka Simeon) son of Cleophas, to be their new leader. He was one of Yeshua’s relatives, possibly a cousin.

During the first Jewish war of 66 - 70 CE, some of the Nazarenes are said to have fled across the Jordan River to Pella. Yet many of them probably tried to defend Jerusalem and therefore perished. The survivors must have been bitterly disappointed by the defeat. The remaining rebels moved back to Jerusalem in 72 CE. They never regained their pre war status and influence.

Prior to 80 – 90 CE, the Nazarenes were still worshipping in synagogues alongside Pharisees. Yet many of their fellow Jews now viewed them as trouble causers, probably because of their nationalistic ambitions. The Pharisaic Jews referred to them as “minim” (Hebrew for heretic.) A heretic is someone who still remains within the faith, but believes in elements not acceptable to the orthodoxy, so mainstream Jews never considered the Nazarenes as Christians. A deep schism between the Nazarenes and other Jews formed, and by 90 CE, Nazarenes were excluded from some synagogues. It is likely that some Jews opted out of Nazarenism, and others were intimidated by it, because opposing Rome was dangerous.

In his “Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius of Caesaria, the father of early Christian history, wrote of the grandchildren of Jesus’ brother Jude, who were living in Galilee during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, (81–96 CE, Vespasian’s son and Titus’ younger brother.) (book 3, chapter 20.) Eusebius says Jesus’ relatives became dynastic leaders of various “Christian” (a misnomer) churches, and continued to be so up until the time of the Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE.)

Kamal Salibi, at the time an Emeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History and Archaeology, wrote that after Symeon’s death, twelve others followed in turn whose names are preserved down to 135 CE (the time of the Second Jewish Revolt.)

So there were fifteen leaders of the Nazarene sect after Jesus, all of who were circumcised Jews and relations of Jesus. The word “Desposyni” was reserved uniquely for Jesus’ blood relatives and literally meant “belonging to the Lord.” They governed the Nazarenes. Each carried one of the names traditional in Jesus’ family: Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Symeon, Matthias, and others, although no later Desposynos was ever called Yeshua.

Sextus Julius Africanus’ reference to the “Desposyni” is also preserved by Eusebius:

“For the relatives of our Lord according to the flesh, whether with the desire of boasting or simply wishing to state the fact, in either case truly, have handed down the following account...Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own igno- ble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae. A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.

Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth.”
(Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiae, 1:7:11.)

Eusebius also preserved an extract from a work by Hegesippus, (c.110–c.180) who wrote five books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. The extract refers to the period from the reign of Domitian (81–96 CE) to that of Trajan, (98–117 CE) and includes the statement that two Desposyni brought before Domitian later became leaders of the churches:

“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labor. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labor, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church.

When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trojan.”
(Eusebius, Historica Ecclesiae, 3:20.)

Eusebius also wrote that the Nazarenes did not fight in the second war (132-6 CE) against the Romans, as they considered Simon bar Kochba, the Jewish commander, to be a false messiah.

After this war, the fifteenth Nazarene leader was exiled with the remaining Jewish population when the Emperor Hadrian banned all Jews from Jerusalem.

Over the next few centuries, the Nazarenes headed by Yeshua’s relatives continued as a movement that some Jews joined. They were well respected in their own locales. They moved northeastward, eventually making their way to the Tigris-Euphrates basin, spread- ing throughout Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so ignored and later suppressed them. Justin Martyr denigrated their beliefs. The developing orthodox Catholic Church deliberately called them the “Ebionites,” “the poor ones” (although Jews did not consider this term derogatory; in fact they used the term to refer to the righteous.) Christians prior to Irenaeus did not use this term.

Irenaeus wrote
“Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates.”
These men were Gnostics who believed Jesus was a very human teacher. Irenaeus continues:

“They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practice circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God” (Against Heresies 1:26.)

The Gospel according to Matthew that Irenaeus refers to was probably the same Gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius called the “Gospel of the Nazarenes/Hebrews,” which was written in Aramaic. Jerome mentions that he made translations of it into Greek and Latin. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, no significant part of this Gospel survives today. Some scholars believe that it was loosely linked to canonical Matthew, which fits with Matthew being the most pro-Jewish Gospel of the four. It is possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the Gospels.

Eusebius considered the Nazarenes heretics because

“... they regarded [Jesus] as plain and ordinary, a man esteemed as righteous through growth of character and nothing more, the child of a normal union between a man and Mary; and they held that they must observe every detail of the Law—that by faith in Christ alone they would never win Salvation” (Ecclesiastical History 3.7.)

Hugh Schonfield would say that it was Eusebius who was the real heretic.
Irenaeus and Eusebius, both fervent Christians, depicted the Nazarenes correctly as a Jewish sect.

Gentile Christians came to refer to the Nazarenes indiscriminately as “Jewish Christians” because of their link with Jesus, yet this was another misnomer, because they never were Christians.

By the beginning of the fourth century, the Roman Catholic Church was becoming dominant and there were confrontations with Jews, including the Nazarenes. With the Synod of Elvira, held in 306 CE, prohibitions against eating, marriage, and sex with Jews were enacted in the Roman Empire. Nazarenes were included in this ban, which in effect excluded them from all social and religious association with those in the growing Gentile Christian church.

The Emperor Constantine appointed Sylvester as the head bishop of the Catholic Church in 313 CE. According to the Irish Jesuit historian Malachi Martin,235 a meeting took place in 318 CE in Rome between Pope Sylvester I and the Desposyni. Sylvester provided sea travel for the Nazarene leaders as far as the Roman port of Ostia, thirty kilometers west of Rome. The fact that Sylvester thought it necessary to meet with them suggests that he was curious, yet it is obvious he initiated the meeting with the intention of exerting his pontifical authority over them.

The Nazarene leaders who appeared before Pope Sylvester quite rightly thought they represented Yeshua’s true legacy. They were, after all, his blood relations, part of at least three well-known lines of legitimate blood descent from Yeshua’s family. They were eight in number, and Joses, the oldest of them, spoke on their behalf. They bluntly refused to recognize the Roman church as having any authority, and made the following demands:

(1) That the confirmation of the Christian bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria be revoked;
(2) That these bishoprics be conferred on members of the Desposyni;
(3) That the Law be reintroduced, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts, and
(4) That Christian Churches resume sending money to the Desposyni Church in Jerusalem, which was to be regarded as the “Mother Church.”

Such bold claims must have come as a surprise to Sylvester, who refused their demands. They were told that the leadership of Jesus’ church had moved to Rome, and that the Nazarenes had no jurisdiction.

Sylvester must have known his church was the impostor, but that did not concern him. The politics of power were more important than the truth. This was the last known formal dialogue between Christian and Nazarene leaders.

A few years later Nazarenes began to surface in southern Upper Egypt. In this remote locale, far from the center of Gentile Christianity, they continued to practice their beliefs.

In 364 CE, the Catholic Council of Laodicea decreed anathema on any “Jewish Christians” who continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Historical references to Nazarenes became scarce thereafter. The few remaining believers petered out.

What is appealing about the real story of Yeshua and the Nazarenes is that modern people can relate to it. We all have major concerns about organizations, and the way the Catholic Church, as an organization, treated the Nazarenes some 1700 years ago is an ancient example of what many people dislike about institutions. Whether an organization is a university, a government department, or a Church, their members often put the survivorship, growth and social standing of the organization in front of any controversial facts, or interesting truths, that may emerge. The Catholic Church today, for example, always protects its power, finances, people, and profile above all else. Embarrassing truths are dealt with professionally so as to leave as little damage to the organization as possible. In the first few centuries of Christianity, the Nazarenes’ claims, and their legacy, were not seen as a real threat to the Church’s autonomy. The Catholic Church barely flinched to deal with the Nazarene’s concerns. Respecting an honorable group of people was not an ethic that drove the early Church when deal- ing with powerless minorities. That legacy and modus operandi is very apparent in understanding the way the Church has operated throughout history and still operates today, for example in the Vatican’s attitude to homosexuality, the way they continue to not totally respect women (half their congregation) and their attitude towards the victims of child sexual abuse perpetrated by their own members.

To summarize, the Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong anti Gentile political ambitions. Christianity, something quite separate, rather ironically became a religion for Gentiles. Christianity stole Yeshua the Nazarene’s identity to create Jesus, and reinvented him, not only as its founder, but also as God incarnate and the savior of the world. Christians then suppressed the Nazarenes, who struggled on for about four centuries before they disappeared.

If Yeshua, his family, and his original admirers could speak today, they would be dumbfounded at the distortion of their legacy.

References:
Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to
Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” Klinghoffer, D. 1965 “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. Doubleday.
United States Of America.
Lockhart, D. 1997 “Jesus The Heretic”. Element Books. Dorset. Lockhart, D. 1999 “The Dark Side Of God”. Element Books. Dorset Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York. Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4kTNS18ses
http://ia600401.us.archive.org/34/items/...shFollower sOfJesusPart1-Ebionites/Podcast3.7JudeanFollowersOfJesusPart1- Ebionites.mp3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ebionites
http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf
http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/ebionites.html
http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm for the above information.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=b7bnvXrC47AC&pg= PA152&lpg=PA152&dq=Julius+Africanus,+desposyni,&sou rce=bl&ots=SKzFZ8tcXu&sig=cN-lLGGfHPzmMfpnjuvw- W2fqY4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VkzWUMmCEO6ViQePwIHQBg&v ed=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Julius%20Africanus%2C%20 desposyni%2C&f=false
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jVyz...AC&pg=PA29 6&dq=hegesippus,+symeon&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jU7WUICTJa-UiQ fp7oGICg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hegesippus %2C%20symeon&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews http://www.conorpdowling.com/library/council-of-elvira http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0370Ebionites.php http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...ippus.html

You just wasted a shit load of time addressing something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You and your false conclusions about what I am talking about continue to demonstrate to me why no one on the planet will ever take anything you write seriously. Ever.

You simply cannot understand what you are reading, and put it into the context of the conversation.

Here's again is what i said:

"They did die with James, as far as what the whole story regarding those teachings involved. And we will never know what what said and taught in its entirety, because I feel that James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes."

James was probably the last true master of the Nazarenes in regards to being a catalyst in the propagation of their doctrine in its entirety. We can ascertain this by the fact that after his death we do not see anybody else in any kind of state of reverence in regards to the Nazarene school of thought. Nor do we see much else of anything in regards to the doctrine of the Nazarenes, aside from a few mentions from the early church fathers.

Therefore, whatever the entire doctrine of the Nazarene was, it most likely died with James as he was the heir apparent to Jesus.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with how long the Nazarene existed after the death of James. Nothing whatsoever.

Now let's see if you will once again ignore the point of what I said and post a shit load of crap from Wiki again that will have absolutely nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: