Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 07:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
So I will post this in two places.
My education was in, and continues, in the liberal centers. I realize how shocking some of this stuff must be to a non-scholar literalist.
That's just the way it is. I can't help it.

In Free's introductory thread he said the following : "I'm a history buff and couldn't agree that argument for mythical was
better than the argument that somebody named Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate."

The problem is, in mainline Biblical scholarship, that's not really what is meant by "mythical", or "mythological".
In Biblical scholarship, "mythology", (as authentic), has nothing to do with historicity.

In the last 75 years the mainline schools in Biblical scholarship were not concerned much about the actual existence of a "Jesus", but there was
an intense debate, mostly led by Rudolf Bultmann, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann . Bultmann was a German
Lutheran Theologian, and New Testament scholar, and was a towering figure in Biblical scholarship in the last century. His most famous
work, was titled "Jesus Christ and Mythology". Here's a Google Book copy of it.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesu...UXAAAAIAAJ
He was of course an anathema to literalist Fundamentalists, but nonetheless had a huge, and lasting major influence on mainline Biblical
scholarship, and the church communities, as it gave those who needed a way to remain in their community of faith an alternative to literalism.
Bultmann thought that Jesus DID exist, but that the "Christ" was a mythological concept. The two were NOT self-exclusionary. They were 100 % compatible.

Modern Americans don't really have a concept of "authentic metaphor", or the "authentic use" of Mythology, (or any other of the literary devices for
that matter), especially in the Biblical context. For Americans, either it's literally true, or it has no value. Anything with that label
("mythological") is dismissed as "inauthentic", and fake, as it's not literally historical. Bultmann spent his career disabusing scholars of
that notion. This was one of THE major themes in Biblical scholarship in the last century, and in some quarters, remains so today. For humans
before the modern scientific age, when there was no way to actually record events, the way truth was imparted WAS Mythology. It was THE
authentic way the complex realities of human existence was imparted to the next generation, to others, and truth was taught. For example Aesop's
Fables were authentic myths. They taught very real truths, much as Star Wars is our authentic myth.
Bultmann tried to point out this was the intent of many of the writers of Biblical texts. It was a MAJOR movement in Biblical scholarship, and in some quarters, remains so, especially in liberal centers. Bultmann thought the Biblical texts were 100% "authentic", but needed to be "demythologized" in order to have
meaning for modern people.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=31
http://www.vary.freeuk.com/learning/relt...per06.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/16-8_343.pdf

The famous 20th Century Existentialist Theologian, Paul Tillich was a major follower of Bultmann, and his many books of sermons are evidence of
this non-literalistic approach to scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
Tillich ended up a Professor at Union Seminary, in New York, and also was a leading figure in 20th Century Protestant Theology, and
Existentialism. He was instrumental in the development of the idea of God as the "ground of (all) being", which became so popular in the last
century. One of his most prominent books was "The Courage To Be" in which he took the morality from his friend Martin Buber, (the Jewish
Talmud Philosopher), and incorporated Buber's reminder of the nature of "evil as chaos" which Buber had rediscovered in Genesis, by looking at
the Sumerian/Babylonian myth systems.

Saul of Tarsus says in his Letters that he was taught by no one. He says he directly received his ideas by a divine intervention. The "Christ" in Paul, is NOT the historical Yeshua". In Paul, the "Christ" is an apocalyptic figure. Whether they bear any historical resemblance was irrelevant to Paul.

It is in that context, most of the liberal centers operate today. Harvard, Princeton, Tubingen, (in Germany), Yale, Brown, and the many other non-fundamentalist
centers of learning. In that context, Dr. BB Scott writes and operates, in Tulsa, OK. He is but one of thousands. For these liberals, "mythical" is "authentic
myth", or REAL "truth", being imparted. The word has NOTHING to do with the historicity of the man Jesus. For them, when Jesus BECAME the "Anointed
One", (just as in the Pauline literature), THEN and ONLY THEN did he *become*, (mythologically) IN THE NON-PEJORATIVE sense the "Exalted"
One. Someone who never went to school in a mainline liberal school may have never been exposed to any of this. It's obvious in this case.

As Ehrman says, if the public knew what was going on in real classrooms in real schools, and centers of scholarship they would be shocked. Here we
just have another example of a member of the public who assumed he knew what was going on in Biblical scholarship, and in fact did not. So, it
appears we have another amateur here, who has no real academic exposure to Biblical scholarship, and another American literalist.
Ehrman, BTW, comes from a fundamentalist perspective, and while he has left Theism, his views will be forever colored by it.

Oh well. Carry on. Drinking Beverage

I ask Erxomai to weigh in here, and confirm what I KNOW he knows about all this. He will support at least my general outlines.

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
04-11-2012, 06:25 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 08:10 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:40 AM)Free Wrote:  Nonsense? Here's the Wiki article AGAIN, genius, so how about checking out the references & links to the scholars at the bottom? Here's let me actually POST them for you:

Quote:Bibliographic Resources

Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 39-49.
Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77. idem, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.
Bauckham, Richard J. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 469-94.
Carson, D.A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” Dictionary of New Testament Background. Eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. 857-64.
Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Deissmann, G. Adolf. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament. Ed. Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998): 629-46.
Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011.
Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281-97. idem, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Scripture and Truth. Eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. 101-14.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.
Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. idem, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Bulletin Research 8 (1998): 151-66. idem, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917): 288-301.
Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early Christianity. Vol. 8. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
Wall, Robert W. “Introduction to Epistolary Literature.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 10. Ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. 369-91.

[Image: 930495_8823637_lz.jpg]

I'm sorry, but did you not just go on the Wiki page and look at its citations yourself? What is the point of your pussy-ass bitching?

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:31 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 06:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So I will post this in two places.
My education was in, and continues, in the liberal centers. I realize how shocking some of this stuff must be to a non-scholar literalist.
That's just the way it is. I can't help it.

In Free's introductory thread he said the following : "I'm a history buff and couldn't agree that argument for mythical was
better than the argument that somebody named Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate."

The problem is, in mainline Biblical scholarship, that's not really what is meant by "mythical", or "mythological".
In Biblical scholarship, "mythology", (as authentic), has nothing to do with historicity.

In the last 75 years the mainline schools in Biblical scholarship were not concerned much about the actual existence of a "Jesus", but there was
an intense debate, mostly led by Rudolf Bultmann, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann . Bultmann was a German
Lutheran Theologian, and New Testament scholar, and was a towering figure in Biblical scholarship in the last century. His most famous
work, was titled "Jesus Christ and Mythology". Here's a Google Book copy of it.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesu...UXAAAAIAAJ
He was of course an anathema to literalist Fundamentalists, but nonetheless had a huge, and lasting major influence on mainline Biblical
scholarship, and the church communities, as it gave those who needed a way to remain in their community of faith an alternative to literalism.
Bultmann thought that Jesus DID exist, but that the "Christ" was a mythological concept. The two were NOT self-exclusionary. They were 100 % compatible.

Modern Americans don't really have a concept of "authentic metaphor", or the "authentic use" of Mythology, (or any other of the literary devices for
that matter), especially in the Biblical context. For Americans, either it's literally true, or it has no value. Anything with that label
("mythological") is dismissed as "inauthentic", and fake, as it's not literally historical. Bultmann spent his career disabusing scholars of
that notion. This was one of THE major themes in Biblical scholarship in the last century, and in some quarters, remains so today. For humans
before the modern scientific age, when there was no way to actually record events, the way truth was imparted WAS Mythology. It was THE
authentic way the complex realities of human existence was imparted to the next generation, to others, and truth was taught. For example Aesop's
Fables were authentic myths. They taught very real truths, much as Star Wars is our authentic myth.
Bultmann tried to point out this was the intent of many of the writers of Biblical texts. It was a MAJOR movement in Biblical scholarship, and in some quarters, remains so, especially in liberal centers. Bultmann thought the Biblical texts were 100% "authentic", but needed to be "demythologized" in order to have
meaning for modern people.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=31
http://www.vary.freeuk.com/learning/relt...per06.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/16-8_343.pdf

The famous 20th Century Existentialist Theologian, Paul Tillich was a major follower of Bultmann, and his many books of sermons are evidence of
this non-literalistic approach to scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
Tillich ended up a Professor at Union Seminary, in New York, and also was a leading figure in 20th Century Protestant Theology, and
Existentialism. He was instrumental in the development of the idea of God as the "ground of (all) being", which became so popular in the last
century. One of his most prominent books was "The Courage To Be" in which he took the morality from his friend Martin Buber, (the Jewish
Talmud Philosopher), and incorporated Buber's reminder of the nature of "evil as chaos" which Buber had rediscovered in Genesis, by looking at
the Sumerian/Babylonian myth systems.

Saul of Tarsus says in his Letters that he was taught by no one. He says he directly received his ideas by a divine intervention. The "Christ" in Paul, is NOT the historical Yeshua". In Paul, the "Christ" is an apocalyptic figure. Whether they bear any historical resemblance was irrelevant to Paul.

It is in that context, most of the liberal centers operate today. Harvard, Princeton, Tubingen, (in Germany), Yale, Brown, and the many other non-fundamentalist
centers of learning. In that context, Dr. BB Scott writes and operates, in Tulsa, OK. He is but one of thousands. For these liberals, "mythical" is "authentic
myth", or REAL "truth", being imparted. The word has NOTHING to do with the historicity of the man Jesus. For them, when Jesus BECAME the "Anointed
One", (just as in the Pauline literature), THEN and ONLY THEN did he *become*, (mythologically) IN THE NON-PEJORATIVE sense the "Exalted"
One. Someone who never went to school in a mainline liberal school may have never been exposed to any of this. It's obvious in this case.

As Ehrman says, if the public knew what was going on in real classrooms in real schools, and centers of scholarship they would be shocked. Here we
just have another example of a member of the public who assumed he knew what was going on in Biblical scholarship, and in fact did not. So, it
appears we have another amateur here, who has no real academic exposure to Biblical scholarship, and another American literalist.
Ehrman, BTW, comes from a fundamentalist perspective, and while he has left Theism, his views will be forever colored by it.

Oh well. Carry on. Drinking Beverage

I ask Erxomai to weigh in here, and confirm what I KNOW he knows about all this. He will support at least my general outlines.



Yes....you are spot on here Bucky. Paul's Christ was not Yeshua. That may seem like a boring academic point, but in fact places a bomb under the very foundations of Christianity. I find it fascinating. The world should become informed about this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 02:45 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 05:23 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(18-10-2012 06:23 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Paul (aka Saul) of Tarsus was probably the founding figure of what became Christianity. He was an enthusiastic evangelist and, by the standards of the time, a prolific author. His theology is more important than that purportedly taught by Jesus. Without his influence it is probable that Christianity, as we know it, would not exist today. Copies of many of Paul’s letters to various communities have survived and now form roughly one quarter of the New Testament.


Christians worship not Christ, but the teachings of Paul. They are not Christians. They are Paulists.
Hey Logica, I agree with what you're saying, but I want to point something out.

Paul defined Christianity. He invented the idea that Christ was the son of God who was a sacrifice who died for our sins. So, in fact, the followers of Paul are true Christians.

The original followers of Yeshua (Jesus), and Yeshua himself, were never Christians. They were fundamentalist Jews. They were ignored and then snuffed out of history's pages by Paul's mob (who also wrote the gospels). It's a little more complicated than this, but the gist of what I'm saying is true.

My point is that Christians are Paulists (but not followers of the real Yeshua)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 02:46 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Hey Free, do you agree with me about Paul?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 08:10 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-11-2012 02:45 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 05:23 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Christians worship not Christ, but the teachings of Paul. They are not Christians. They are Paulists.
Hey Logica, I agree with what you're saying, but I want to point something out.

Paul defined Christianity. He invented the idea that Christ was the son of God who was a sacrifice who died for our sins. So, in fact, the followers of Paul are true Christians.
That is debatable. I theorize, assuming he even exists, that Jesus Christ actually did, later in his life, believe that he was the son of God. He was an apocalyptic prophet, one of many at the time. To me, it seems much more logical to assume that he and John both fabricated the entire story, up until Jesus' death.

The Jews who followed and believed in Jesus Christ would be Christians. They follow Christ. People who follow the cult dogma and rituals Paul introduced later in the New Testament are Paulists.

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 10:38 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-11-2012 02:46 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey Free, do you agree with me about Paul?
Hi Mark,

I pretty much do. Paul created a religion for the Gentiles, and was rejected by the Jews who followed this Jesus guy. Whatever religion Jesus taught likely died when the Sanhedrin killed his brother James around AD 61.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 05:23 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-11-2012 08:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 02:45 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey Logica, I agree with what you're saying, but I want to point something out.

Paul defined Christianity. He invented the idea that Christ was the son of God who was a sacrifice who died for our sins. So, in fact, the followers of Paul are true Christians.
That is debatable. I theorize, assuming he even exists, that Jesus Christ actually did, later in his life, believe that he was the son of God. He was an apocalyptic prophet, one of many at the time. To me, it seems much more logical to assume that he and John both fabricated the entire story, up until Jesus' death.

The Jews who followed and believed in Jesus Christ would be Christians. They follow Christ. People who follow the cult dogma and rituals Paul introduced later in the New Testament are Paulists.




Hi Logica. Sure is debatable! I respect your opinion and would be interested to hear you talk around the subject. When you say "follow Christ," what does that mean?

I hope you might be interested in the following spiel. It is my opinion about what happened to the followers of Yeshua, who I believe were Nazarenes and fundamentalist Jews. Apologies it is a little lengthy, yet I think it is fascinating history.


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 (c.100-165), Irenaeus, Hippolytus (d. 236 CE), Tertullian (160 – 220 CE), Origen (185-254 CE), 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 is no contemporary evidence to confirm the claim.

Hegesippus (c. 110 - 180 CE), a Christian chronicler of the early Church who may have been a Jewish convert, writes that after the death of James in 62 CE, the Nazarenes selected Symeon (aka Simeon), son of Cleophas, to be their new leader. He was 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 former status and influence after the war. They suffered a chaotic period given that all of their expectations had come to nothing and their numbers had been so 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 the Nazarenes 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 former Emeritus Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History and Archaeology, wrote that after Symeon's death, twelve others followed in turn whose names are preserved down to 135 CE (the time of the Second Jewish Revolt). So there were fifteen leaders of the Nazarene sect after Jesus, all of 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 did not 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 was not 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 is quite 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 is 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 authority over 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 been removed 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.

We can conclude that the Nazarenes were a Jewish sect that, at least in the first century, had strong political ambitions. They did not last more than four centuries after Yeshua’s death, as they were suppressed by the competition. Christianity absorbed Yeshua’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. If Yeshua and his original disciples were alive today, they would be dumbfounded at the distortion of their legacy.

References:

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

Klinghoffer, D. 1965 “Why The Jews Rejected Jesus”. Doubleday.United States Of America.

Lockhart, D. 1997 “Jesus The Heretic”. Element Books. Dorset.

Lockhart, D. 1999 “The Dark Side Of God”. Element Books. Dorset

Schonfield, H. 1969 “Those Incredible Christians”. Bantam. New York.

Thijs Voskuilen and Rose Mary Sheldon co-wrote “Operation Messiah

http://douglaslockhart.com/pdf/THE NAZORAEAN SECT.pdf

http://www.yashanet.com/library/nazarene_judaism.html

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/ebionites.html

http://www.yashanet.com/library/temple/nazarenes.htm .
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
05-11-2012, 05:21 PM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 06:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-11-2012 08:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 02:45 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hey Logica, I agree with what you're saying, but I want to point something out.

Paul defined Christianity. He invented the idea that Christ was the son of God who was a sacrifice who died for our sins. So, in fact, the followers of Paul are true Christians.
That is debatable. I theorize, assuming he even exists, that Jesus Christ actually did, later in his life, believe that he was the son of God. He was an apocalyptic prophet, one of many at the time. To me, it seems much more logical to assume that he and John both fabricated the entire story, up until Jesus' death.

The Jews who followed and believed in Jesus Christ would be Christians. They follow Christ. People who follow the cult dogma and rituals Paul introduced later in the New Testament are Paulists.

When we say "the son of god" it is a misunderstanding. It should be "a" son of son. There were many "sons of god", in Jesus' day, (generals, politicians, prophets), It was a general title or "honorific", such as "he was a good guy". It did not mean he was THE ONLY offspring of god. It meant he was a "righteous man". That's ALL it meant.

Also Mark, (I need to get a reference and post it), but so much of what went on was the interplay as you point out, of the various factions of the Jews. http://www.centralcal.com/crist2.htm The grandson of Gamaliel, forced the synagogues in the 90's to read "Expulsion curses" which are are reflected , (but "set") earlier in the gospels , (also needs reference to follow). Some Jews hated the Nazorenes, and wanted them out, and Gamaliel forced the synagogues, at each service to read a threat, that if they did not give up their attachment to their Jeebus, they had to leave, The fact this happens so late, (in the 90's), is support for what you have written. I'll get the reference, and you can add it to the above. All through the gospels we see the factions of the Jews fighting, and we are so familiar with the words, they slip by, unnoticed. But Jewry was deeply divided into opposing political camps, (as it always was .. upcoming post almost done). The entire history of the Jews in the Bible originates as we see it today, as a direct result of this infighting of the groups, and especially, (in the early texts), the groups of priests, from different locations.

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
05-11-2012, 05:41 PM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(05-11-2012 05:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 08:10 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  That is debatable. I theorize, assuming he even exists, that Jesus Christ actually did, later in his life, believe that he was the son of God. He was an apocalyptic prophet, one of many at the time. To me, it seems much more logical to assume that he and John both fabricated the entire story, up until Jesus' death.

The Jews who followed and believed in Jesus Christ would be Christians. They follow Christ. People who follow the cult dogma and rituals Paul introduced later in the New Testament are Paulists.
When we say "the son of god" it is a misunderstanding. It should be "a" son of son. There were many "sons of god", in Jesus' day, (generals, politicians, prophets), It was a general title or "honorific", such as "he was a good guy". It did not mean he was THE ONLY offspring of god. It meant he was a "righteous man". That's ALL it meant.



That's interesting. Makes things complicated. Christians today have even got Paul's intentions mixed up LOL
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: