Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RHEMtron
i know that was lengthy, but any thoughts?
|
Since there is so much here, I'm going to keep my comments very brief. Much of the article I agree with, but I'm mainly just going to focus in on that which is questionable. BTW, the two most common terms for this group were "the Way" and the "Followers of the Nazarene" (not just "Nazarines").
Quote:
|
It would probably come as a shock to most Christians today that the original followers of Jesus were never called Christians. They were called Nazarenes... It was in Antioch that the words "Christian" was first used, to describe the followers of Paul! (Acts 11:25)
|
Not likely to be true. The term "Christian" was a name that was given to the movement by outsiders, and most scholars that I'm familiar with think it was a derogatory name that was eventually adopted to the movement sometime in the 2nd century.
Quote:
|
Nazir means "a holy man of God". Nosri can mean "one who guards or watches over." All these possibilities goes to show that the original term for followers of Jesus was one that was heavily loaded with meanings which were different from the term "Christian".
|
One requirement of a nazir is the total avoidance of alcohol. If Jesus turned water into wine as alleged in the gospels at Cana, this would indicate he was not a nazir. Also, it appears that Jesus had taken on a liberal Pharisee approach that considered the letter of the Law to be less important than the direction of the Law, which is something a nazir would never agree with.
Quote:
|
We find, even in Luke's largely reworked account of the Jerusalem council that James' leadership was implied. For it was he who decided on the issue with the words "I rule" or "My judgment is" (Acts 15:19). We find in Galatians the incident where Peter was ordered by James to stay away from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:12). It was James, who was the leader of the first church of Jesus in Jerusalem.
|
James' connection between the Ebionites and "the Way" is too difficult to call with any certainty of being correct. There's no doubt that James is having trouble with the rather loose interpretation of the Law, which would also be evidenced by Peter's actions btw, but there's the possibility (and I think the probability) that James eventually came around to that more liberal interpretation since he eventually becomes recognized as the leader of the apostolic group (not the Ebionites). However, I will not bet my house on this.
Quote:
|
As the early Church Father, Hegesippus, relates, James was famous for his strict observance of the Jewish law and for undertaking vows which are normally taken only by the most devout Pharisee. [13] As James, Peter and, presumably, many of their followers knew the earthly Jesus, it is hard to imagine that these actions would be contrary to Jesus' teachings. It was more likely that they were doing what Jesus, when he was alive, commanded them to do... Despite Paul's attempts to bribe his way back with an offering of cash collection from his Gentile congregations, James and his church never accepted Paul back into the fold.
|
The scenario above is highly unlikely. Even though there is some dispute occurring over the issue of the Law, the fact that Paul had at least three conferences that we know of with the apostles would seem totally absurd if he's an outsider. Why would they meet with Paul and discuss anything with him if he was not somehow a part of them? Why are Paul's books in such wide circulation in the early church which is even attested to in at least one of the epistles? Why isn't there a single source that indicates that Paul is to be ignored and avoided?
Quote:
|
When the Nazarenes were persecuted they were persecuted by the Sadducees, a sect already hostile to the Pharisees...The accusations made in Acts that the Pharisees persecuted the Nazarene are just as untrue as the similar accusations made in the gospels in connection with Jesus himself. The Pharisees had no reason to persecute the Nazarenes. They were not teaching any doctrine which was opposed to Pharisaic Judaism.
|
Jesus was also sharply questioned by many of the Pharisee leaders as well, and it appears that the main issue is dealing with the Law and how Jesus perceives it, especially the "oral law" and the "building a wall around the Torah" that most mainline Pharisees believed in. Also, the gospels also mention about Jesus at one point, and the apostles later, being kicked out of synagogues, which were Pharisee congregations that Sadducees generally avoided.
Quote:
|
The beliefs of the Nazarenes (soon deprecatorily called the Ebionites-the poor ones-by the developing orthodox-catholic church) [19] were all we would have expected based on our earlier analysis of Jesus and his actual teachings. Their beliefs contradicted those of the Christians on many points.
|
We know very little about the Ebionites, but what we do know is that they were reluctant to take the liberal approach to the Law. And there are aspects of Jesus' teachings, if recorded accurately, that do violate at least the letter of the Law.
Quote:
|
We know from Saint Jerome (c342-420) that the Nazarenes even have their own gospel in Aramaic, known as the Gospel of the Nazarenes or the Gospel of the Hebrews, which contained saying attributed to Jesus not found in the canonical gospels.
|
Actually we do not know if they survived much beyond the beginning of the 2nd century.
Quote:
|
The few remaining believers declaring to the last man that Jesus was the messiah but not God and that Paul was a deceiver who taught his own theology, not Jesus'.
|
I'd love the author to provide a single source whereas Paul is specifically mentioned as a "deceiver" or words to that effect.
Quote:
|
One man, Paul, took his name and expounded his own theology that developed the heretical doctrine which was called Christianity.
|
This makes no sense whatsoever for reasons previously mentioned, plus some others. The author is simply playing the "we/they" game and using Paul as a scapegoat for the "they". And what is most important is that the apostles were not involved with the Ebionites with the possible exception of James.
Sorry to be so brief, but we can talk about any one or more of what is being discussed here in more detail. The author's positions here on the church versus the Ebionites is quite shallow and highly overblown by all indications. Essentially, it's just another conspiracy theory.
BTW, just to mention that I am not a Christian.