Reliability of the Gospels
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2012, 10:24 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
Quote:I can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say here.

You'll have to reword it, because it just doesn't make sense.

"Jeebus" ie the gospels' Jesus, and "the gospels" are the same thing. No goalpost has been moved. And you're still accusing me of logical fallacies, whereas you, in fact, have failed to understand a rather simple concept

The following demonstrates the train of conversation between you and me. Note the bold and underlined text in the exchange.

' Wrote:
' Wrote:
' Wrote:So the “first great theologian of the church” asserted Jesus lived seventy or more years later than what is now stated in the gospels. He obviously knew or made up details about Jesus that contradicted what became the accepted story. This demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late second century.

But the quote of Origen regarding what John said is not in the Gospel record, so you really have no point there. Also, the age of Jesus, if you read it properly, is an old wives tale that stems from his supposed resurrection and subsequent remaining on earth.

The Hindu's have a similar story about Jesus. Apparently, Jesus is buried in India.

Um.....what are you on about? I never mentioned Origin (I was talking about Irenaeus). Whether what Irenaeus wrote is in the gospels or not is irrelevant. He was a very important church father. He should have known how old Jeebus was. Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this.

Below is a simplified version of the conversation.

1. Mark: "This demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late second century."
2. Free: "But the quote of Origen (actually Iraenius) regarding what John said is not in the Gospel record, so you really have no point there."
3. Mark: "Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this."

Since we were talking about the Gospel record evolving, and I demonstrated that you had no point, you then switched it to Jesus evolving.

That can reasonably be construed as Moving the Goalposts since the content of the conversation clearly indicates it.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 10:28 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
14-12-2012, 10:35 PM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 10:38 PM by Xinoftruden.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(04-12-2012 07:34 AM)pianodwarf Wrote:  The gospels are not eyewitness accounts. First of all, they are written in the third person; eyewitnesses write in the first person. Secondly, Matthew, Mark and Luke all copy from each other extensively, in many places almost word-for-word. Eyewitnesses don't do this; they write in their own words. Also, they were all written so much later than the events they allegedly report that it is unlikely the authors were even alive at the time of Jesus' life. Even the earliest of the four, Mark, is generally agreed to have been written no earlier than about 65 CE -- roughly thirty years after Jesus' death -- in a day and age when the average life expectancy was something like 33 years or so. There are other indications as well, such as the fact that Mark makes very basic errors in Palestinian geography. And, of course, Luke himself says he is not an eyewitness.

Even if they were eyewitness accounts, though, they should still be regarded with extreme skepticism. Most people unfamiliar with the topic tend to presuppose that eyewitness testimony is some of the best evidence available, when in fact, it's probably just about the worst. Here is a video I like to use to demonstrate this fact. It's a card trick, where the performers start with a deck of cards that have backs of one color, and turn it into a deck of cards of a different color. Watch closely, and see whether you can spot the trick. I have shown this video to probably several dozen people by now, and thus far, no one has caught it. (I didn't, either, when I first watched it.)




Ip caught the shirt, blouse, table and curtain. I also noticed the gorilla from the basketball video. Then again I'm an aspie so thay may have something to do with it.
damn brackets.

When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.

You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 11:43 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 10:24 PM)Free Wrote:  [quote]I can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say here.

You'll have to reword it, because it just doesn't make sense.

"Jeebus" ie the gospels' Jesus, and "the gospels" are the same thing. No goalpost has been moved. And you're still accusing me of logical fallacies, whereas you, in fact, have failed to understand a rather simple concept

The following demonstrates the train of conversation between you and me. Note the bold and underlined text in the exchange.

' Wrote:Um.....what are you on about? I never mentioned Origin (I was talking about Irenaeus). Whether what Irenaeus wrote is in the gospels or not is irrelevant. He was a very important church father. He should have known how old Jeebus was. Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this.

Below is a simplified version of the conversation.

1. Mark: "This demonstrates that the gospels were still evolving in the late second century."
2. Free: "But the quote of Origen (actually Iraenius) regarding what John said is not in the Gospel record, so you really have no point there."
3. Mark: "Obviously Jeebus hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote this."

Since we were talking about the Gospel record evolving, and I demonstrated that you had no point, you then switched it to Jesus evolving.

That can reasonably be construed as Moving the Goalposts since the content of the conversation clearly indicates it.





Thankyou for not accusing me of a logical fallacy.

I'm not understanding you. I just don't get what you're saying. What has Irenaeus' (please note how to spell his name correctly) quote not being "in the gospel record" have to do with the issue at hand?

My point was that Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, obviously didn't have the canonical gospels(as we know them now) to refer to, because he thought Jesus lived into old age, whereas the gospels all claim, or imply, Jesus was crucified in his 30's. Hence my claim that the gospels, and the "Jeebus" story, hadn't finished evolving when Irenaeus wrote (late second century).

Now ....do you understand my point? Do you think it is valid?

Why do you claim I have "no point?" What goalposts have been moved?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 11:56 PM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 10:28 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  

Thanks for posting this. Free, you need to watch it.

Bart claims the authors were retelling stories they had heard. I disagree. I think Mark's gospel (the first to be written) was probably manufactured de novo.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 12:11 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2012 12:29 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) Quoting John the Elder wrote:

`And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying
John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of
Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but
not in order whatever"

"so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Why did Mark have to recall any thing if Peter was there to help him, and why is it out of order?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 12:28 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2012 12:49 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(14-12-2012 09:50 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:There is secular evidence for the existence of John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin, and for James, Jesus’ brother. John and James were leaders of a Jewish sect, the Nazarenes (discussed later), and Yeshua was their boss between these two.

There is no secular evidence that John the Baptist was related to Yeshua.

There is no secular evidence that John and James even existed, let alone were leaders of the Nazarene sect.

There is no secular evidence that Yeshua knew anyone named John the Baptist, or James and John.

Your argument above does not "loosely" depend on the Gospel accounts, but in reality, it entirely depends on the Gospel accounts.


Quote:The Nazarenes survived for centuries afterwards, weren’t Christians, and they believed Yeshua had existed.

We need actual historical evidence to support this. Please quote.


Quote:There were numerous second century stories about Jesus, some of which still exist, which never made it into the Bible; it seems likely they were based on someone.

Agreed.


Quote:Paul, the creator of Christian theology, claimed he met James and Peter, who may have been the brother and disciple of Yeshua.

Agreed.


Quote:I will prove Yeshua wasn’t as remarkable as the Gospels would have us believe. I think his genuine historical
record, if it ever existed, would have recorded his relative insignificance and been destroyed by evangelical Christians in the second, third, and fourth centuries.

Please provide a reasonable argument supported with historical evidence.
There is no contemporary secular evidence for the existence of Yeshua FULL STOP. So to prove using secular evidence that he was John's cousin is impossible. Yet it is very likely. I will change my wording to "said to be Jesus' cousin"

Why don't you read up about the Nazarenes? I've written a lot about them in the Paul thread, including references. With due respect to you, it's obvious you have a big gap in your knowledge here. You're plainly wrong about James and John...anyone who's read around these topics knows that. Let's talk about it after you've done some reading.

Look...at the risk of being accused of repeating myself, here is all that info, and references, to get you going...

James, Yeshua’s Brother


I’m indebted to Professor James D. Tabor for providing many of the following insights in his book The Jesus Dynasty.


Josephus and other historians mention at least a dozen Jewish leaders from the first century CE who were hailed as messiahs but killed by the Romans or in sectarian fights with their countrymen (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html- overview). Each time, the movements they inspired faded into nothing after the demise of their leader. The movement Yeshua was part of was different, because it definitely didn’t fade away.


To take over the leadership of the Nazarenes (as argued in Chapter 2, it is not correct to call them Christians) was a risky proposition. Both previous leaders, John the Baptist and Yeshua, had been disposed of by the Romans with the help of their agents. They were in desperate need of some powerful direction. James, the younger brother of Yeshua,
delivered it.


Yeshua had been thought of as a potential legitimate king and messiah because it was believed he was of the royal bloodline of David. James was an obvious replacement, as he too was of this bloodline, and of the same flesh and blood as Yeshua through at least one parent in common, their mother. It’s very likely James was the “disciple Jesus loved” (John 13:23 and 19:23–25, NJB), not named because gentile editors wanted to minimize his importance.


Paul, or someone writing in his name in the 50’sCE, stated that he went to Jerusalem to “meet Peter and James, the brother of the Lord” (Gal. 1:19, NJB). This hinted at the important status of James. Later in Galatians, Paul wrote, “So James, Peter, and John, these leaders, these pillars…” (Gal. 2:9, NJB). That James was in charge of the Jerusalem sect and in charge of Peter (Cephas), is convincingly confirmed by the following quote from Paul:


“When Cephas came to Antioch, however, I opposed him to his face, since he was manifestly in the wrong. His custom had been to eat with the pagans, but after certain friends of James arrived he stopped doing this and kept away from them altogether for fear of the group that insisted on circumcision” (Gal. 2:11–12, NJB). Peter was careful to be seen
doing what James wanted.


The book of Acts also portrays James as the leader of the disciples (see Acts 15:19-21.)


Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 CE), the most important early Christian historian of all, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea), wrote that


“James, whom men of old had surnamed ‘Just’ for his excellence of virtue, is recorded to have been the first elected
to the throne of the Oversight of the church in Jerusalem”(Church History 2.1.2).


Saint Jerome, a prolific commentator and translator of early Christian material, quoted from Hegesippus' (a first
century writer) account of James from the fifth book of his lost “Commentaries:”


"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem.
Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the
Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."(De Viris Illustribi).


The “Holy of Holies” was a term referring to the inner sanctuary of the Temple in Jerusalem. Since it was unlawful for anyone but the high priest of the temple to enter it, and then only once a year, this suggests James was considered a defacto high priest. James had obviously managed to achieve a high status among his own people. This must have been referring to a time many years after Yeshua’s death. James was described in terms that emphasized his association with the temple and Judaism. His vegetarianism, unshaven state and wearing of linen were all Essenian
traits. He obviously set a good example of how a pious Essene should live.


Josephus also described James as a pious Jew who was well respected, observed all the obligations of Judaism, and worshipped at the temple.


James was a leading figure in Jerusalem until his death in 62 CE. Yet the Gospel writers and church historians have
deliberately diminished his importance. The reasons are obvious; he was too Jewish, and his beliefs were diametrically opposed to Paul’s proto-Christian theology (discussed next in chapter 4). His existence as leader also blows away the untrue idea that the leadership of the movement was transferred from Jesus to Peter (discussed in chapter 9.)


Let's consider the Nazarene community in the decades after Jesus’ death. The traditional story about this group is in the
book of Acts (discussed in chapter 17), in which they’re portrayed as Christians, but this was a deliberate rewrite of history, as they were Jews loyal to their traditions. The loss of two leaders in close succession, John the Baptist and then Yeshua, must have devastated them. Matthew and John have the disciples going back to Galilee, yet Acts and Luke have the risen Jesus telling them not to leave Jerusalem. What’s clear is that over the next few decades,
they settled in Jerusalem.


There’s no doubt that for them, Jerusalem was a dangerous place. Yeshua had been crucified there, and the Sadducees and a garrison of Roman troops, their sworn enemies, were based there. I think the Nazarenes settled in Jerusalem because they believed in a glorious kingdom of Israel, which had to be established at the center of the Jewish world. Luke explains that this kingdom was still a general expectation when, in the first chapter of Acts, the resurrected Jesus appears:


“Now having met together, they asked him, ‘Lord, has the time come? Are you going to restore the kingdom of Israel?’ He replied, ‘It is not for you to know times or dates that the Father has decided by his own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judea and Samaria, and indeed to the ends of the earth’” (Acts 1:9–12, NJB). The author was writing for a mainly gentile audience one hundred-plus years after Yeshua’s death. At this late time the second coming of Jesus hadn’t happened, so he was advising his readers they’d better not hold their breath waiting. This was in marked contrast to what Paul wrote in the early 50’s CE:


“Brothers this is what I mean: our time is growing short. Those who have wives should live as though they had none, and those who mourn should live as though they had nothing to mourn for; those who are enjoying life should live as though there were nothing to laugh about; those whose life is buying things should live as though they had nothing of
their own; and those who have to deal with the world should not become engrossed in it. I say this because the world as we know it is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:29–31, NJB).


The Nazarenes, led by James, also called themselves “saints” or “followers of the way” or “the faithful” or “disciples”
or “the poor” or the “children of light.” They saw themselves as preparing “the way” for the return of Yahweh as described in Isaiah:


“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa. 40:3, KJV). They saw themselves as God's chosen people, and were true believers in the power and glory of Israel. As already mentioned, many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essenian sect at Qumran. The Nazarenes had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. The Roman world considered any member of the Nazarenes “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over” (see Acts 24:5), with good reason, as they were xenophobic and militant. All other Essenes and zealots throughout Judea would have regarded them favorably, as would many Pharisees and common Jews.


They were fundamentally opposed to Paul’s doctrine, didn’t accept him as an apostle, and quite correctly considered him an annoying heretic allied to the gentile world. They were, therefore, strongly opposed to what became Christianity. The evidence for this is discussed in forthcoming chapters.


Some early church fathers claimed the Nazarenes wrote an early Hebrew version of Matthew’s gospel, from which Jesus’ genealogy is derived, but one without the pro-gentile changes. That would definitely have made an interesting read, but not surprisingly, no copy has survived. It would bear only a passing resemblance to what has become today’s Gospel of Matthew.


The author Douglas Lockhart believes that by the time James died in 62 CE (discussed in chapter 5) the Nazarenes had boosted their numbers to about eight thousand by recruiting Jews. Some Nazarenes were sent out as missionaries to other cities. Peter went to Antioch (as described in Galatians 2). These missionaries are supposed to have even got as far as Rome. It’s a reasonable assumption that they founded the community there to which Paul wrote in an attempt to introduce himself (and his novel proto-Christian theology) in his famous letter to the Romans.


Some Christian historians don’t accept that James and Yeshua’s original disciples were Nazarenes. The writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, have made a deliberate choice not to discuss them, despite the fact they are mentioned in the Bible and by some church fathers. Ithink the encyclopedia’s authors would have some seriously difficult explaining to do if Catholics around the world started learning about James and the Nazarenes. Their story continues throughout the rest of this book.


References;


Tabor, J. 2006 “The Jesus Dynasty”. Harper Collins. London.


Eisenman, Robert H. “James the Brother of Jesus:
The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea
Scrolls”



This Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon “Operation
Messiah”



http://www.thenazareneway.com/james_the_..._jesus.htm


http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/siljampe.htm


http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/james.html


http://www.philipharland.com/Blog/2009/01/15/podcast-37–jewish-followers-of-jesus-part-1–ebionites/


http://web.me.com/joehogarty1/A_History_...pe/rss.xml



What Happened to the Nazarenes?



“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.”


(Hugh Schonfield)

The Nazarenes were the bona fide disciples of Yeshua. Much of their history is missing because the early Christians were zealous in destroying their record. Yet the tale of what happened to them can be pieced together.


James sent missionaries as far away as Rome in the 40s CE.


Paul, who masqueraded as a Nazarene, sent what is now a famous letter to the Romans urging them to obey their Roman rulers. Yet his teachings were at odds with Nazarene doctrine. From their perspective, Paul was a rank outsider. 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 them for the great fire of 64 CE, and executed them. Christians today often incorrectly call Nero’s casualties Christians, whereas they were, if this really happened, Nazarenes. There is a Christian tradition that Peter was crucified at this time in Rome, but there’s 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 either the brother or the first cousin of Jesus.


During the first Jewish war of 66-70 CE, some of the Nazarenes may have fled across the River Jordan to Pella. Yet many of them probably tried to defend Jerusalem and therefore perished. They might have expected Jesus to return in all his glory to save Jerusalem. That didn’t happen, and they must have been bitterly disappointed.


The Nazarenes never recovered their status and influence after the war. Their numbers had been decisively decimated. Yet the remaining rebels reorganized and moved back into Jerusalem in 72 CE.


Prior to 80 – 90 CE, the Nazarenes were still worshipping in synagogues alongside Pharisees. Yet they soon began to be viewed 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 imagined the Nazarenes were Christians. After this time a deep schism started to form between Pharisees and the Nazarenes. By 90 CE, Nazarenes were shut out from some synagogues. I suspect some Jews opted out of Nazarenism because opposing Rome was dangerous.


In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesaria wrote of the grandchildren of Jesus’ brother Jude, who were living in Galilee during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (81–96 CE). (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm, book 3, chapter 20). He says they 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, a formerEmeritus 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 whom 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 ancient Nazarene church. 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.


Eusebius wrote that they didn’t fight in the second war (135 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 Nazarene church headed by Yeshua’s relatives continued as a movement that some Jews joined. They were well respected in their own locales. From the historian Julius Africanus (160–240 CE), we learn that they took pride in their Davidic descent and circulated the genealogy that now stands at the head of Matthew’s Gospel. They moved northeastward, eventually making their way to the Tigris-Euphrates basin, spreading throughout Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia.


The early Christians considered the Nazarenes a heretical sect, so they 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). This term wasn’t used by Christians prior to Irenaeus, who 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.) “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).


Eusebius considered them 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). It’s apparent that Irenaeus and Eusebius depicted them honestly.


Gentile Christians came to refer to them indiscriminately as “Jewish Christians,” another misnomer, because they never
were Christians.


The gospel of Matthew that Irenaeus that refers to was probably the same gospel that Jerome (342–420 CE) and Epiphanius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13393b.htm) 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’s possible that this was how some facts about Yeshua the Nazarene insurrectionist made it into the gospels.


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 Pauline church.


The Emperor Constantine appointed Sylvester as the head bishop of the universal church in 313 CE. According to the Irish Jesuit historian Malachi Martin, 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 kilometres west of Rome. The fact that Sylvester thought it necessary to meet with them suggests that he was curious. Yet he
initiated the meeting with the intention of exerting his pontifical authorityover them.


The Nazarene leaders who appeared before Pope Sylvester thought they represented the true legacy of Yeshua. They were, after all, his blood relations, as there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from Yeshua's own 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 of authority must have come as a surprise to Sylvester, who refused their demands.They were told that Jesus’ church had moved to Rome, and that they had no jurisdiction. Sylvester must have known his church was the foreign impostor, but that didn’t 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 after this date. Inevitably the few remaining believers petered out.


The Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong political ambitions. Christianity
stole Yeshua the Nazarene’s identity, and reinvented him, not only as its founder, but also as God incarnate and the savior of the world. Christians then denied the Nazarene’s real link with Jesus. The Nazarenes struggled on for four
centuries after Yeshua’s death, when Christians snuffed them out. If Yeshua and his original disciples were alive today, they’d 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://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE
NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf



http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html
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
15-12-2012, 01:04 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 12:11 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) Quoting John the Elder wrote:

`And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying
John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of
Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but
not in order whatever"

"so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Why did Mark have to recall any thing if Peter was there to help him, and why is it out of order?
Eusebius is famous for his lying ability.

This was his weak, pathetic attempt to link Mark's gospel with a disciple.

There is no such link.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 01:19 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 01:04 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(15-12-2012 12:11 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  About the origins of the Gospels, Papias (as quoted by Eusebius) Quoting John the Elder wrote:

`And this the Presbyter used to say [this is in the plural implying
John the Elder would employ this argument multiple times in defense of
Mark's Gospel]: "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but
not in order whatever"

"so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis

Why did Mark have to recall any thing if Peter was there to help him, and why is it out of order?
Eusebius is famous for his lying ability.

This was his weak, pathetic attempt to link Mark's gospel with a disciple.

There is no such link.
Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_M...nd_sources

oddly enough

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_for_Jesus#Eusebius

Eusebius is considered the most likely perpetrator of the claimed mention of Jesus in Josephus.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2012, 02:57 AM
RE: Reliability of the Gospels
(15-12-2012 01:19 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(15-12-2012 01:04 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Eusebius is famous for his lying ability.

This was his weak, pathetic attempt to link Mark's gospel with a disciple.

There is no such link.
Smile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_M...nd_sources

oddly enough

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_for_Jesus#Eusebius

Eusebius is considered the most likely perpetrator of the claimed mention of Jesus in Josephus.
If you haven't read my post at #84, check it out for a fascinating explanation of the origin of the gospels
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: