Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2014, 12:41 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Quote:than it's folks who believe that Paul believed in a spirit being Jesus

There are so many holes in the "paul" story that it isn't funny.

The fact is that Justin Martyr, writing to the Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD has never heard of any "paul." He heard of Marcion.....curious, that. But no "paul."
So the guy who supposedly was single-handedly responsible for spreading xtianity to the gentiles, over a century before Justin is unknown by the guy who is writing an "apology" to the emperor?

Tell me another one.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
29-10-2014, 01:46 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
He didn't do the Messiah things. /story

(I don't know why it takes seven pages tho get that. Tongue )

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
29-10-2014, 02:36 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 10:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

RE "We know very little about the Nazarene sect,"

Actually...it's quite obvious YOU know very little about the Nazarene sect. Did you read my spiel on them? It really is quite fascinating history. If you are genuinely interested in the story, and not just here to preach, I'll share more with you.

RE "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."

So you keep saying....yet your only evidence is what's in the gospels (which isn't reliable) and the dubious Carrier argument. That leaves close to no evidence for a first century Nazareth. Explore the topic for yourself on google... I guarantee you, you will end up chasing your tail looking for solid evidence.
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
29-10-2014, 02:49 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2014 04:04 AM by Mark Fulton.)
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.

RE "the writing of James and Paul, who are addressing those already sold on Jesus."

That is a typical Christian assumption that has absolutely no basis in fact. I've already explained to you Paul was writing before the gospels were written, a fact well known and accepted by 99% of scholars, even evangelical types. Ipso facto, there was no "Jesus" when Paul was writing. There may have been a Yeshua, a crucified Galilean militant who was a Jew, and a Nazarene, but NO JEEBUS. There was never a flesh and blood Christian Jesus. Paul invented Christianity, long after Yeshua was dead. Paul's Christ was a ghost... not a flesh and blood once living person.

Now it sounds like you are a committed Christian and therefore this will turn your world upside down, but if you have any interest in the truth and real history, you should think seriously about this.
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
29-10-2014, 03:00 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 10:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

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

Okay… I'll explain it to you, not that I have any real hope that you'll actually read, let alone understand, it. This is why the original family and followers of Jesus would've been opposed to Paul...

Here’s the historical reality. Devout Jews (such as the Nazarenes) despised Paul and rejected his ramblings. The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now. Their messiah wasn’t some savior of souls, but a leader of the Jews who was to herald in a glorious age in which Israel triumphed and pagans recognized the glory of their god, Yahweh. He was to build the temple, (Ezek. 37:26–28) gather all Jews back to Israel, (Isa. 43:5–6) and, importantly, bring an end to Roman rule. He was supposed to end all exploitation, corruption, famine, disease, and war. Paul’s fictional Christ had done none of this!

Paul claimed:
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2;16, KJV) and
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law” (Gal. 3:13, KJV) and
“Before faith came, we were allowed no freedom by the Law; we were being looked after till faith was revealed. The law was to be our guardian until the Christ came and we could be justified by faith. Now that that time has come we are no longer under that guardian, and you are, all of you, sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. All baptized in Christ, you have all clothed yourself in Christ, and there are no more distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, but all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:23–28, NJB.)

Jews didn’t buy this. They wouldn’t be Jewish if they did. They believed - and still do - that the way to find favor with God was to obey “the Law” - that is, the Torah, as allegedly taught by Moses. There’s no mention in their scriptures about an end to the covenant God made with their ancestors on Mount Sinai. Jews regarded the Law almost like a gift from their God, not a curse, or an imposition on freedom. They knew there was no such thing as a “new covenant.” Why would they give up centuries of tradition to believe a renegade like Paul?

Imagine a hypothetical modern analogy; a fanatic from a small cult, such as the “branch davidians,” grabbing a microphone during a Catholic mass at the Vatican, and proclaiming that David Koresh was Jesus’ son, and Koresh’s teachings replaced the sermon on the mount. Paul was behaving like a deluded fanatic.

Paul had an ambivalent attitude to Jewish scripture, which varied with the audience he was writing to. At times he used it to justify his own ideas, such as when writing to “Hellenized” Jews in the diaspora. Yet when writing to Gentiles he claimed large parts of it were redundant.

Yeshua had died over a decade before Paul appeared on the scene, and I think would have been perplexed and offended by the idea that his death could somehow give Gentiles a ticket to heaven. He hated the Romans, (they did nail him to a cross!) and never imagined that Yahweh, whom he never regarded as his temporal sire, would grant them a place in heaven!

Jesus said,
“Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them but complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved” (Matt. 5:17–18 JB.) Paul and Jesus contradicted each other! So much for biblical infallibility! (http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm).

Many people today insist that Jesus came to do away with the Jewish Law. They’re not considering Jesus’ words, but Paul’s (or Paul’s proponents like Luther or Calvin.)

Most Jews believed God dwelt in the temple, in Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Paul made a cavalier dismissal of the importance of Israel by suggesting that all believers become a temple for God:
“And that is what we are—the temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:15, NJB) and
“Didn’t you realize that you were God’s Temple” (1 Cor. 3:16 JB.) He was trying to expand God’s seat of power out of Jerusalem and into the whole known world. Yet for most first century Jews this downplayed the importance of the temple, the geographical pivot of Judaism.

Jews thought they were Abraham’s descendants and God’s special people. Yet Paul claimed:
“Those therefore who rely on faith receive the same blessing as Abraham, the man of faith.” (Gal. 3:9, NJB,) and
“Merely by belonging to Christ you are the posterity of Abraham, the heirs he was promised” (Gal. 3:29, NJB.) He wanted believing Gentiles to consider themselves God’s chosen, so that they too were special, and weaken the patriotic fervor of Jews by downplaying their exclusivity.

Throughout Paul’s travels, he was initially welcome in synagogues because he masqueraded as a traditional Jew, but after Jews heard what he had to say, he was rejected, sometimes even beaten and pelted with rocks; a repetitive pattern portrayed in Acts. They liked to think they were a chosen race, superior in all ways, and in God’s eyes, to the pagan hordes. These Jews must have imagined Paul was upsetting their God, and the whole Jewish community would suffer as a consequence. Is it any wonder they physically attacked him? Jesus’ own people were attacking Paul because he was promoting Christian ideas, a fact that should raise eyebrows in today’s churches.

In the decades Paul was preaching, the Nazarenes were expanding into a significant force under James’ leadership in Jerusalem. They also enjoyed a strong membership among Jews throughout the empire. They definitely didn’t preach the divinity of Christ, nor intend to start a new religion. Paul, when he wasn’t pretending to be one of them, considered them competitors. He got very upset when he encountered rival missionaries, who were probably Nazarene, and complained bitterly about them hijacking “his” converts. He cursed them, using the undeniable truth of his own gospel as justification:
“I am astonished at the promptness with which you have turned away from the one who called you and have decided to follow a different version of the Good News. Not that there can be more than one Good News; it is merely that some trouble makers among you want to change the Good News of Christ; and let me warn you that if anyone preaches a version of the Good News different from the one that we have already preached to you, whether it be ourselves or an angel from heaven, he is condemned” (Gal. 1:6–9, NJB.) He sounds like an upset child whose best friend has gone off to play with someone else. It’s ironic that he was accusing his adversaries of the very thing he was guilty of - preaching a fabrication! He clearly undermined Yeshua’s family and disciples behind their backs. He was surprised and angry to find himself competing with them for people’s allegiance. They were treading on what he considered his turf. How dare they preach old-fashioned Jewish theology and disrupt his mission to set up communities of believers! Those annoying war-mongering Jews promoted subversive fantasies about a messiah, but today’s God had revealed to him the real Christ, the up-to-date modern Christ! He, not them, was plugging the “good news.” He claimed he knew what the flexible, expansionist, less violent, less Judaic God expected in these modern, pro-Roman times. He thought of himself as an educated, savvy sophisticate who knew a stack more about selling religion than the old fashioned anti-Roman bumpkins from Jerusalem!

The two faced Paul probably tried to ingratiate himself with the Nazarenes when in their company, but they became implacably opposed to him, as verified by the verbal confrontation described in Galatians chapter two, and the adamantly anti-Pauline assertions in James’ letter.

Paul knew he wasn’t a popular figure amongst traditional Jews. In his letter to the Romans he expressed his nervousness that the Nazarenes in Jerusalem might reject him, which, if the story in Acts is true, is precisely what happened. James summoned Paul to Jerusalem when it became apparent Paul was preaching against the Torah, and sent him to the temple to be purified and prove he was still a true Jew, (see Acts 21, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 21&version=KJV) which led to Paul’s so called arrest and eventual transportation to Rome. James, Jesus’ brother, effectively terminated Paul’s missionary career!

When Paul was forced to admit that he was a Roman citizen, his cover was well and truly blown. Nazarenes were implacably opposed to Rome. According to Acts, Roman authorities had to dedicate considerable resources (500 soldiers) to protect him from angry Jews. They were looking after one of their own. That’s about the same number of soldiers who arrested Jesus.

Paul wasn’t deterred. He kept writing letters from Rome.

His modern-day reputation as an honest evangelist, and the implication he taught Yeshua’s message, have no foundation, yet they’ve become part of Christian tradition, largely because of Acts, written some time in the early second century. Paul’s legitimacy must have lacked credibility, so the author had Jesus’ ghost appear to Paul on the road to Damascus, which was obviously a fiction, as was the story of Paul becoming best friends with Jesus’ disciples. The author even tried to shore up Paul’s status by having him (and his handkerchief) perform a number of miracles. Yet Paul failed to mention Jesus’ ghost or his own miracles; impossible omissions if they were true. Paul revealed many personality traits in his letters, but genuine modesty definitely wasn’t one of them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 03:13 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(29-10-2014 02:36 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE "We know very little about the Nazarene sect,"

Actually...it's quite obvious YOU know very little about the Nazarene sect. Did you read my spiel on them? It really is quite fascinating history. If you are genuinely interested in the story, and not just here to preach, I'll share more with you.

Yes, I read your entire spiel. Then I went back and read the few sources we have regarding the Nazarene sect and their beliefs, and I showed you why your whole spiel was utter BS.

Here's the nice thing about the internet, nearly all the writings of the ancient world that we have, are easily accessible for anyone with an internet connection. When you want to sit there and claim such and such person believed this, it only takes a few clicks to check this out, and note when someone is pulling shit out their ass.

You merely stated that I know very little about the Nazarene sect, and yet you can't even argue any of the points I made on them. When you can do that, come back to me, and we can see if your accusation that I know less about them than you, actually holds up.

Quote:That leaves close to no evidence for a first century Nazareth. Explore the topic for yourself on google...

We have the inscription of Caesarea Maritima, that dates Nazareth to the 1st century. And even though this was mentioned to you on several occasions, you have offered nothing to dispute this.

So what now, are you going to argue that it was some sort of forgery? If you have something to contribute regarding this, I want to hear it from you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 03:23 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 10:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

"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."

You have a profound ignorance about what the Nazarenes believed. Apologies for having to repeat myself, but you just don't seem to have got it yet.

The Nazarenes
Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene” (http://www.essene.com/What is a Nazarene.htm.) As mentioned, Nazareth the village probably didn’t exist in Yeshua’s time. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY). Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations. The bible made it clear the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.

“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.) An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village.

Hugh Schonfield, who devoted his life to studying Judaism and Yeshua, claims Nazarenism was an ancient version of Judaism. (http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A”Hugh J.Schonfield” AND subject%3A”Nazarenes”). He thought the original founder of the Nazarene sect may have been a Jewish-Arabian prophet named Essa in approximately 400 BCE. So, if he was right, they were already well established in Jesus’ time.

Many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essenian sect at Qumran. One might consider the Nazarene sect a strongly developed messianic form of “Essenism.” (http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/TrimmNazars.htm).

John the Baptist, (who wasn't from Nazareth)Yeshua’s family, disciples ( and also worked from Nazareth either) and followers (from all parts of Galilee) were all Nazarenes. The “pillars” Paul refers to (James, Peter, and John) in his second letter to the Galatians, were the leaders and key figures of this group after Yeshua’s death. They too were Jews, not Christians. They practiced circumcision, believed in baptism, and were strict about the Sabbath. They were vegetarians who didn’t approve of the slaughter of animals, either for food or sacrifice. They developed their own “Halacha,” which was their interpretation of the Torah. They were true believers in the power and glory of Israel, saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and were vehemently opposed to the Romans. I think they were zealots, willing to take the Romans on, which was why the Roman world considered a Nazarene “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over.”

They considered the temple was the house of God, but were opposed to the Sadducees who they regarded as Roman collaborators. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. Many ordinary Jews and Pharisees would have considered the Nazarenes brothers in the struggle against Rome.

Yeshua became their chief after John the Baptist’s death, and he remained in charge for (probably) a few years. Leadership was inherited from blood relations, which explains it passing from John the Baptist to Yeshua, and after Yeshua’s death, on to James, his brother.

James and the other Nazarenes didn’t think Yeshua was the son of God, or that he needed to die to save anyone from their sins (http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/nazarenes.htm). They believed he was a (human) prophet who they hoped could be Israel’s messiah.

We read very little about this group in the pages of history because mainly Gentiles wrote that history, and the early Christians ignored the Nazarenes, or wrote them off as heretics, or tried to claim that some of them believed in the divinity of Christ. I think the modern reader interested in Jesus should be interested in their story.
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
29-10-2014, 03:30 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(29-10-2014 03:00 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The idea that their mysterious, perfect, one and only God could be incarnated in a Christ was unthinkable to them. They couldn’t imagine that their God could die, or that a Christ’s death somehow addressed man’s sins. For them the kingdom of God promised in scripture never was in a hypothetical heaven, but was to be on earth in the here and now.

Here you are pulling shit out youf ass. What ancient sources are you deriving this from? That the Nazarenes believed this? Is it Jerome, Epiphanius? Who?

Both of these sources state that their views where very much the same, except in the particular areas that I mentioned earlier. Even Paul, who is writing in opposition to similar christian groups, states his argument with them was over the role of the ritual laws, and not any other point.

So if you have some ancient sources regarding the beliefs of the Nazarene's beside the ones I mentioned, that present something different, please bring them forward.

Yes, I know I cut out the bulk of your post regarding Paul's view of the law, but I'll return to that later.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2014, 03:36 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(29-10-2014 03:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 02:36 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  RE "We know very little about the Nazarene sect,"

Actually...it's quite obvious YOU know very little about the Nazarene sect. Did you read my spiel on them? It really is quite fascinating history. If you are genuinely interested in the story, and not just here to preach, I'll share more with you.

Yes, I read your entire spiel. Then I went back and read the few sources we have regarding the Nazarene sect and their beliefs, and I showed you why your whole spiel was utter BS.

Here's the nice thing about the internet, nearly all the writings of the ancient world that we have, are easily accessible for anyone with an internet connection. When you want to sit there and claim such and such person believed this, it only takes a few clicks to check this out, and note when someone is pulling shit out their ass.

You merely stated that I know very little about the Nazarene sect, and yet you can't even argue any of the points I made on them. When you can do that, come back to me, and we can see if your accusation that I know less about them than you, actually holds up.

Quote:That leaves close to no evidence for a first century Nazareth. Explore the topic for yourself on google...

We have the inscription of Caesarea Maritima, that dates Nazareth to the 1st century. And even though this was mentioned to you on several occasions, you have offered nothing to dispute this.

So what now, are you going to argue that it was some sort of forgery? If you have something to contribute regarding this, I want to hear it from you.

Listen grasshopper, I've spent an estimated 15,000 hours researching this shit and have written a book about it.

You obviously had never heard of the Nazarenes (because you thought the term referred to the fact that Jesus was allegedly from Nazareth). You've now spent 10 minutes on Google, and are now telling me what "we" know about the Nazarenes. Like most ignorant people, you just don't know how much you don't know.
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
29-10-2014, 03:40 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(29-10-2014 03:36 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Listen grasshopper, I've spent an estimated 15,000 hours researching this shit and have written a book about it.

You obviously had never heard of the Nazarenes (because you thought the term referred to the fact that Jesus was allegedly from Nazareth). You've now spent 10 minutes on Google, and are now telling me what "we" know about the Nazarenes. Like most ignorant people, you just don't know how much you don't know.

So in other words you got nothing, other than you wasted 15,000 hours of your life in order to peddle bullshit?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: