Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2014, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 07:16 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 03:43 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection."

You're implying that because I'm not a believer I fail to understand theological concerns.

No I said, unbelievers typically have a hard time understanding theological concerns. And I mean this in the sense, that since I have a lack of interest in the goings on of the sports world, i have a hard time understanding the conversations between sports fans. I may understand some superficial aspects of it, but that's pretty much all I can muster.

Quote:This is patronising nonsense. I've spent seven years studying the history of the early church. I'm not particularly interested in the ramblings of your theologians.

And this is kind of the problem. Paul's writings are in fact the ramblings of a theologian. Someone who has no interest in Christian theology, and who can barely decipher theological ramblings, is not going to be very good at deciphering Paul's theological ramblings. That's sort of why we can be somewhat dismissive of you in regards to what Paul's theology entails, because it's clearly not a subject you're comfortable with.

Secondly, Paul is addressing the early Christians' theological concerns, and since you lack the sort of imagination to even consider what their theological concerns would be, it's understandable as to why you just wouldn't really get it.

Quote:I'm interested in who Paul was

No, what you've done primarily is argued for what Paul believes, that his theology entailed a belief in spirit being christ, with no connection to a historical being. You claim to be not interested in theology, but at the same time are making claims about Paul's theology, and as you seem to imply this is kind of outside your comfort zone.

Quote:Have a look at the title at the top of this page. It is called the thinking atheists forum. We think and we share ideas off each other.

Atheist and Theist can always discuss theology, or Paul's theology, but years studying history don't carry over on this subject, anymore so than years studying biology, carry over into discussing philosophical concerns.

Most atheists don't have the stomach for theology, because since they are unbelievers it's sort of like having to listen to folks discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So if you're the sort of atheist who would rather tear his eyes out than have to read through the ramblings of a theologian, you likely wouldn't be able to sit through the Pauline epistles either, other than to cut out pieces for your own intended purpose. The problem with this, is that this involves a very superficial if not stupid understandings of these same pieces.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
"Paul was writing letters to various Christian communities regarding issues within those churches. And the primarily theological trouble for these infant communities, in fact it’s still an ongoing issues even in churches today, was in developing a Christology. Or in other words Paul, like many theologians past, and present, is exploring what it means for Jesus to be Christ. His audience is a community of believers, not those outside of it, and he’d likely have been surprised to find that we’re reading his letters today. His audience is a community, that already had some common beliefs."

Paul wasn't "exploring" anything. He knew EXACTLY what he was telling them and what "his gospel" was. Romans 2:16 "This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-10-2014, 07:30 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 07:48 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 07:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 03:43 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection."

You're implying that because I'm not a believer I fail to understand theological concerns.

No I said, unbelievers typically have a hard time understanding theological concerns. And I mean this in the sense, that since I have a lack of interest in the goings on of the sports world, i have a hard time understanding the conversations between sports fans. I may understand some superficial aspects of it, but that's pretty much all I can muster.

Quote:This is patronising nonsense. I've spent seven years studying the history of the early church. I'm not particularly interested in the ramblings of your theologians.

And this is kind of the problem. Paul's writings are in fact the ramblings of a theologian. Someone who has no interest in Christian theology, and who can barely decipher theological ramblings, is not going to be very good at deciphering Paul's theological ramblings. That's sort of why we can be somewhat dismissive of you in regards to what Paul's theology entails, because it's clearly not a subject you're comfortable with.

Secondly, Paul is addressing the early Christians' theological concerns, and since you lack the sort of imagination to even consider what their theological concerns would be, it's understandable as to why you just wouldn't really get it.

Quote:I'm interested in who Paul was

No, what you've done primarily is argued for what Paul believes, that his theology entailed a belief in spirit being christ, with no connection to a historical being. You claim to be not interested in theology, but at the same time are making claims about Paul's theology, and as you seem to imply this is kind of outside your comfort zone.

Quote:Have a look at the title at the top of this page. It is called the thinking atheists forum. We think and we share ideas off each other.

Atheist and Theist can always discuss theology, or Paul's theology, but years studying history don't carry over on this subject, anymore so than years studying biology, carry over into discussing philosophical concerns.

Most atheists don't have the stomach for theology, because since they are unbelievers it's sort of like having to listen to folks discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So if you're the sort of atheist who would rather tear his eyes out than have to read through the ramblings of a theologian, you likely wouldn't be able to sit through the Pauline epistles either, other than to cut out pieces for your own intended purpose. The problem with this, is that this involves a very superficial if not stupid understandings of these same pieces.


Bullshit. Same ole same ole. "You have to read scripture with a bla bla bla spirit"
Was there even a Paul ?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm
Maybe not. Another invented fake personage ?

They are not the "ramblings of a theologian" He was convinced of the gospel he received in his hallucinatory event. No scholar has ever suggested they are "ramblings".
How interesting. I wonder how many of Tomasia's Christian friends would agree that scripture is "rambling" ? There's a new one.

Still waiting for the examples of the biographies Tomasia asserted were similar to the gospels, and the scholars who support that idea.

BTW, Bonhoeffer was an atheist :

"So I read "Letters and Papers from Prison", (ed. Eberhard Bethge, New York: Macmillan Co., 1972), and am shocked that Christians to this day consider Bonhoeffer a Christian martyr, as he obviously was no believer, when he died. He thought of himself a "cultural" Christian in the sense, that today, we call an "empathetic altruist" or Humanist. He actually has a statue in Westminster Abbey, as modern day martyr to Christianity. When he died, he had repudiated traditional Christianity, in every way that term is used, as a belief system.

The letters reveal he was, to the end, lucid, and completely in control of his faculties. He was, in general, not tortured, and in fact stated in the post Easter Letter, (April 1944), the year before his death, that he had come to value and enjoy his solitude, as it gave him uninterrupted time to think, and write. So there can be no claim that he "lost his mind", secondary to harsh prison conditions. He did not consider the time in prison as "time lost". You'll have to read the book to understand his thinking, about that.

There are more letters, from this period, which were eventually published, which are the letters to Maria von Wedermeyer, entitled, "Love Letters from Cell 92", which I have not read yet. They were written to his fiance.

The letters are mostly to and from his parents, and his best friend and student, Eberhard Bethge. In the letters to his mom and dad, (with whom his fiance Maria was living, and often referenced), he continued to talk in familiar theistic "god bless you" types of language, but his serious underlying beliefs, which he spoke to Bethge about, reveal a progress away from both Orthodox Christianity, and traditional Theism. I am left with a final impression, he was what we would call an Agnostic Humanist.

The final letter from January, 1945, (he was executed by hanging on April 9, 1945, for having participated in a plot on Hitler's life), gave his father permission to give his things away to the People's Sacrifice charity. After the Allies arrived, his family kept looking for him, as they did not realize he was dead, until his twin sister in England organized a memorial service for him, and they, somewhat inadvertently, (apparently ??) heard it, and realized he was dead. There is a very sad letter from his older brother describing them looking for him, and arriving at his bombed-out prison, and finding it in ruins. The final letters from his parents, he apparently never answered, as they desperately sought information about him.

Bonhoeffer was a "practical atheist", even while remaining a "cultural Christian", in a "euphemistic" sense. Bonhoeffer denied (in an agnostic sense) the ability to know, (for sure), the truth of the doctrinal tenets of Christianity. He, with Karl Barth, was responsible for what came to be called the "Death of God" theology, (which was documented on cover of Time Magazine, and caused a furor, in the US, and resulted in the highest number of letters they ever received).

He enjoyed writing poetry, (which reminds me of Schiller, ie "theism..but not really"), and he was an accomplished musician, (which, interestingly enough, was almost always associated with his most vivid memories).

So how do I know he was no Christian ?

Bonhoeffer, (in the same way some of the nuns of the LCWR talk about a "post-Christian era"), talked about "moving towards a completely religion-less time", (p.279). He was aware, in his thinking that if the "a priori" foundations of Christianity, were really not the "a priori", that they thought, then the lack invalidates the later forms. It is somewhat tragic he was actually never aware of current, (even at that time), Biblical Archaeology, as it supports his ideas, 100 %. However having attended Tubingen, he must have been exposed to some of it.
"What does that mean ?", he asks. ""It means the foundation is taken away from the whole ...", p.280. He realized his time was running out on his last task, that of "secularizing" God, which he begun to do, and re-interpreting the Bible in that light.
"The god who is with us, is the god who forsakes us". (p. 360 ). "Etsi deus non daretur", (we must live as if god did not exist).

He talks about being influenced by, Karl Barth (1886-1968). Bonhoeffer readily acknowledged "the debt he owes to liberal theology." He said it was impossible to know any objective truth about Christ's real nature and said God was dead. Moreover, Bonhoeffer believed that the (new) "true" Christian was one who immersed his life in the secular world, becoming a secular "Christian". Rejecting the objective unalterable moral standards of the Bible, Bonhoeffer also proclaimed a "situational ethics", (which "raged" as the topic of the day back when, in the 50's-60's) - that right and wrong are determined solely by the "loving obligations of the moment", p. 9-12 and 378; (also Ethics, pp. 38, 186; and No Rusty Swords, pp. 44-45).

All the letters are quite good-natured. He seemed a happy fellow. I suspect this may be one of the reason Christians have not given him up, as an apostate. He continues to talk in religious terms, but after reading his definitions, they simply are not. This is somewhat humorous, as even "Christianity Today" praises him. He said : "the concept of God as a "supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness," was a "spurious conception of transcendence," and that "God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated" ! That ain't no Christian. (He also denied the Virgin Birth, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 215). He was an evolutionist (No Rusty Swords, p. 143), and believed that the book of Genesis was scientifically naive and full of myths (Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3). He denied the "verbal-plenary" inspiration of scripture, believing that the Bible was only a "witness" to the Word of God and becomes the Word of God only when it "speaks" to an individual; otherwise, it was simply the word of man/men (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 9, 104; Sanctorum Communio, p. 161). To Bonhoeffer, the Bible was meant "to be expounded as a witness, not as a book of wisdom, a teaching book, a book of eternal truth" (No Rusty Swords, p. 118). He also believed in the value of higher criticism/historical criticism, which is a denial of the inerrancy and authenticity of the Bible (Christ the Center, pp. 73-74). He had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity that "must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith." He also believed that "Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death," and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were "mythological conceptions" as well (Christ the Center, p. 112). "

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-10-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 05:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 04:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Surgery-CalTech

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it. So none then.

BTW : http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11395-nazarite
Since you are completely unfamiliar with that culture, the Nazarites were an ancient group of ascetics, as old as the Moses myths.
So if you're guessing, about a word that possibly references a group that everyone knew about, as opposed to a place no one knew about ... guess what ?

Spot on!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 08:24 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 05:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 01:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Nazarenes were still a powerful force in the late first century. Memories of Jesus the Nazarene were (probably) still strong and had to be undermined.

I just wanted to go back to this early pre-gospel Nazarene sect.

During the time in which Mark was writing, the Nazarene belief were prevalent, enough that Mark couldn't just deny the Nazerene aspect, because people would have noticed, so to say?

If people at the time likely would have already known this particular aspect of the original Nazarene Jesus, than it follows that they likely knew other things about him as well, like the sort of things he said and did, etc... If so, these would also likely appear in Mark, even if modified, since he couldn't just down-right deny them

Quote:The similarities between the name Nazarene and the place Nazareth cannot be explained by sheer coincidence.

Both seem to derive from the root word branch, it can be coincidental in the same way that waterlily and waterbed, waterloo, watermelon are.

But I think what took place, is that Nazarene's derived their name from Jesus being from Nazareth, a point Tertullian made as well.

"But I think what took place, is that Nazarene's derived their name from Jesus being from Nazareth, a point Tertullian made as well."

I've just written 5 pages, for your benefit, discussing who the Nazarenes were, and provided references. I've spent 7 years researching their history, and shared some of that with you. You've totally ignored it, without comment, like a kid with his fingers in his ears, and just repeated what you've always thought, which is just what you've been told in church. Why don't you fuck off and go back to church, where you will hear what you want to hear? You're not learning anything here.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Mark Fulton's post
28-10-2014, 08:30 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 03:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Read the book of James, he may well have been Jesus's brother. There is not one word about the story of Jesus in the book of James. Why not? Because James was written before the gospels and James was a Jew, not a Christian.

You keep insisting on these arguments from silence, but seem to lack an understanding of what's needed to move this from a fallacy to something valid and worth considering.

This is kind of what you did with the Nazareth thing. According to you, the silence on Nazareth prior to at least the late first century, indicates that it likely didn't exist prior to this. Your mind places a lot of weight on silence. For you silence indicates non-existence, non-awarness, except of course when it comes to your own views, where you attempt to fill in the silence with piles and piles of junk. You can't see the dissonance, but that's kind of besides the point.

The only sort of argument from silence that works, is one that can effectively argue that they shouldn't have been silent. That in James's short passage he should have mentioned this or that, but didn't.

It appears you don't seem to understand the change in language, in something like the Gospels, which are attempting to sell Jesus, and the writing of James and Paul, who are addressing those already sold on Jesus.

And this is sort of why I appeal to individuals such as yourself to look at literature similar in this respect, such as sermons, theological books, etc.. addressed to believers, because they are often very similar in this regard. This sort of silence often exists in these writings as well. Many of these theological writings, and speeches are concerned with the over arching themes and aspects of the person and message of Jesus, rather than reiterating minute details. The fact that you seem to be at a loss regarding these sorts of things, shows.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 08:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 03:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Read the book of James, he may well have been Jesus's brother. There is not one word about the story of Jesus in the book of James. Why not? Because James was written before the gospels and James was a Jew, not a Christian.

You keep insisting on these arguments from silence, but seem to lack an understanding of what's needed to move this from a fallacy to something valid and worth considering.

This is kind of what you did with the Nazareth thing. According to you, the silence on Nazareth prior to at least the late first century, indicates that it likely didn't exist prior to this. Your mind places a lot of weight on silence. For you silence indicates non-existence, non-awarness, except of course when it comes to your own views, where you attempt to fill in the silence with piles and piles of junk. You can't see the dissonance, but that's kind of besides the point.

The only sort of argument from silence that works, is one that can effectively argue that they shouldn't have been silent. That in James's short passage he should have mentioned this or that, but didn't.

It appears you don't seem to understand the change in language, in something like the Gospels, which are attempting to sell Jesus, and the writing of James and Paul, who are addressing those already sold on Jesus.

And this is sort of why I appeal to individuals such as yourself to look at literature similar in this respect, such as sermons, theological books, etc.. addressed to believers, because they are often very similar in this regard. This sort of silence often exists in these writings as well. Many of these theological writings, and speeches are concerned with the over arching themes and aspects of the person and message of Jesus, rather than reiterating minute details. The fact that you seem to be at a loss regarding these sorts of things, shows.

James says nothing about his (now) famous brother’s exploits. He doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity, miracles, sacrificial death or resurrection. Let’s imagine ourselves in James’ sandals. If you thought your brother, or your close associate, was a miracle working son of God, and you knew he’d risen from the dead, there wouldn’t be much else worth talking about! All your letters would be laced with excited expletives about supernatural events. James’ letter isn’t, because he didn’t believe bullshit about Jesus.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 09:53 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 08:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 03:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Read the book of James, he may well have been Jesus's brother. There is not one word about the story of Jesus in the book of James. Why not? Because James was written before the gospels and James was a Jew, not a Christian.

You keep insisting on these arguments from silence, but seem to lack an understanding of what's needed to move this from a fallacy to something valid and worth considering.

This is kind of what you did with the Nazareth thing. According to you, the silence on Nazareth prior to at least the late first century, indicates that it likely didn't exist prior to this. Your mind places a lot of weight on silence. For you silence indicates non-existence, non-awarness, except of course when it comes to your own views, where you attempt to fill in the silence with piles and piles of junk. You can't see the dissonance, but that's kind of besides the point.

The only sort of argument from silence that works, is one that can effectively argue that they shouldn't have been silent. That in James's short passage he should have mentioned this or that, but didn't.

It appears you don't seem to understand the change in language, in something like the Gospels, which are attempting to sell Jesus, and the writing of James and Paul, who are addressing those already sold on Jesus.

And this is sort of why I appeal to individuals such as yourself to look at literature similar in this respect, such as sermons, theological books, etc.. addressed to believers, because they are often very similar in this regard. This sort of silence often exists in these writings as well. Many of these theological writings, and speeches are concerned with the over arching themes and aspects of the person and message of Jesus, rather than reiterating minute details. The fact that you seem to be at a loss regarding these sorts of things, shows.

You wrote
"According to you, the silence on Nazareth prior to at least the late first century, indicates that it likely didn't exist prior to this. Your mind places a lot of weight on silence."

In fact, according to you, the silence on Nazareth prior to at least the late first century, indicates that it likely did exist prior to this. Your mind places a lot of weight on silence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-10-2014, 09:56 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 08:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 03:46 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Read the book of James, he may well have been Jesus's brother. There is not one word about the story of Jesus in the book of James. Why not? Because James was written before the gospels and James was a Jew, not a Christian.

You keep insisting on these arguments from silence, but seem to lack an understanding of what's needed to move this from a fallacy to something valid and worth considering.

This is kind of what you did with the Nazareth thing. According to you, the silence on Nazareth prior to at least the late first century, indicates that it likely didn't exist prior to this. Your mind places a lot of weight on silence. For you silence indicates non-existence, non-awarness, except of course when it comes to your own views, where you attempt to fill in the silence with piles and piles of junk. You can't see the dissonance, but that's kind of besides the point.

The only sort of argument from silence that works, is one that can effectively argue that they shouldn't have been silent. That in James's short passage he should have mentioned this or that, but didn't.

It appears you don't seem to understand the change in language, in something like the Gospels, which are attempting to sell Jesus, and the writing of James and Paul, who are addressing those already sold on Jesus.

And this is sort of why I appeal to individuals such as yourself to look at literature similar in this respect, such as sermons, theological books, etc.. addressed to believers, because they are often very similar in this regard. This sort of silence often exists in these writings as well. Many of these theological writings, and speeches are concerned with the over arching themes and aspects of the person and message of Jesus, rather than reiterating minute details. The fact that you seem to be at a loss regarding these sorts of things, shows.

You write
"And this is sort of why I appeal to individuals such as yourself to look at literature similar in this respect, such as sermons, theological books, etc.. addressed to believers, because they are often very similar in this regard."

What fucking nonsense. Do the words primary source mean anything to you? Please go back to church where you belong.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
28-10-2014, 10:22 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 11:24 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 08:24 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I've just written 5 pages, for your benefit, discussing who the Nazarenes were, and provided references. I've spent 7 years researching their history, and shared some of that with you. You've totally ignored it, without comment, like a kid with his fingers in his ears, and just repeated what you've always thought

You are right, I did ignore your lengthy overview of the Nazarene sect at the time, but this wasn't because I put my fingers over my ear, but rather because at the time this appeared as a tangent, and I failed to see the relevance of it, so I ignored responding to it.

But now that we keep going back to them, it's only fair that I reply.

We know very little about the Nazarene sect, and what we do know about their beliefs come from the Church fathers, such as Epiphanius, and Jerome. There also seemed to have been several different early Christian communities that referred to themselves as Nazarenes as well, in fact even today we have a protestant evangelical denomination that refers to itself as the “Church of the Nazarene”. And it seems very likely that this sort of naming, that was sort of quasi-popular, derived from them believing their messiah was from Nazareth of Galilee.

You argue that they didn’t believe in the virgin birth, according to what Epiphanies says about them, yet Jerome stated they did: "They believe that Messiah, the Son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary." —Jerome,  Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine

But this is besides the point, since it’s unlikely that even Paul, Mark, or John believed in the virgin birth either.

But you seem to overstate their view of Jesus, or why they would be in opposition to Paul.

Epiphanius claimed that their ideas are no different from other Christians, other than they declare a strict adherence to the Jewish ritual law:

Quote:"They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion – except for their belief in Christ, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that God is one, and that his Son is Jesus Christ".- —Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.2

Quote:"The Nazarenes... accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law."
—Jerome, On. Is. 8:14

And compared to the orthodox, Nicene view of Jesus, their other vital distinction, besides adherence to the law, is that they subscribed to an Adoptionist view of Jesus. Though they accepted that Jesus was the Son of God, they believed this was a status that he inherited later in his life, that God adopted him as such, rather than him being born with this divine status.

As Ehrman points out:
Quote:"The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human like the rest of us, born as the eldest son of the sexual union of his parents, Joseph and Mary. What set Jesus apart from all other people was that he kept God’s law perfectly and so was the most righteous man on earth. As such, God chose him to be his son and assigned to him a special mission, to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Jesus then went to the cross, not as a punishment for his own sins but for the sins of the world, a perfect sacrifice in fulfillment of all God’s promises to his people, the Jews, in the holy Scriptures."

-Ehrman, Bart D. (2003-10-02). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (Kindle Locations 2177-2181). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Some scholars argue that the Gospel of Mark suggests the writer held an Adoptionist view, some even argue that the writing of Paul are also suggestive of this. But this is open to debate. But the main point here is, that from what we know of Nazarene beliefs, none of it would have been out of sync with the writings of Mark. If Mark was writing his gospel as a counter to Nazarene like beliefs, we would’ve expected to find a strong adoptionist perspective, when in fact this is not what we have, but a gospel that in a sense coddles it. Mark's Jesus would have been a lot less ordinary.

Other than these points of contention with the orthodox tradition, the sources regarding the beliefs of Nazarenes, imply that they were in fact very much the same as those held by other christians. They had “no different ideas”.

Their contentions with Paul should be very obvious, since Paul writes about a similar conflicts with other believers, and that is the role of the Jewish ritual law, which was in fact a very divisive issue at the time. This is also the main issues the early father’s took with them as well. Their theological beliefs didn’t really conflict in any other major way, except in this regard. All the evidence we have is suggestive of exactly this.

Any other narrative you would like to spin, is not supported by the evidence at all, but one being spun with a considerable amount of creative spin, that lacks any real semblance to the facts on the ground.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: