metis, I am assuming that you are speaking about the first source. What about the Catholic Encyclopedia?



CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ebionites

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ebionites

"The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3)."

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

Well, with all due respect to the RCC (my wife is, after all, a practicing Catholic), the first line with that link you provided pretty much tells the story:

.

After I read that, I skimmed the rest because I pretty much knew what to expect.

The RCC considers itself to be the "true church" as a direct descendant of the apostolic church, therefore any deviation from the apostolic church then or the RCC now is considered to a greater or lesser degree "heretical".

The irony is that the Ebionites MIGHT have been more in tune with normative Judaism than the apostolic church after a while, and this well may have been occurring before Paul's influence, possibly due to them beginning to deify Jesus. Unfortunately, we simply do not have enough information to confirm or deny this, so there's plenty of room for speculation.

If the Ebionites did not deify Jesus and they continued to uphold and live by the Mosaiic Law, then they would actually be closer to the normative Judaism of the day than the apostolic church, who deified Jesus and believed that Jesus "fulfilled" the Law, thus making the Law obsolete, as the epistles say.

Is there any thing specific in the RCC link that you might want me to address since there's so much that is said there?

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

What is your view on the Encyclopedia's suggestion, that according to Irenaeus, the Ebionite/ Nazerenes regarded Paul as an apostate and their scripture was the Gospel of Matthew? Or did I misunderstand what you meant in this response:

1. " Why isn't there a single source that indicates that Paul is to be ignored and avoided? "

2."The only version of Matthew that we have is the current one, which was written in Koine Greek. There has been a long-standing hypothesis that there was what has been called a "Proto-Matthew" or "Aramaic Matthew" that some theologians think may have been used to help write the synoptics. However, please note that this is only a hypothesis, and we literally knw nothing about that supposed book. "

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

If you wanted, you could ask the same question about the role of Ali in Islam. On the one hand Ali is considered the founder of the Shia movement, regarded as a heresey by Orthodox Sunni. on the other hand he is considered one of the four rightly guided Caliph in the Sunni movement too.


It seems to me, Paul was pushing the envelope on what could be said about Jesus. He had a certain urgency in his voice, possibly to recruit the gentiles. I think he was expecting Jesus to return very soon. So he wanted the name of Jesus on their tongues for a chance at salvation. James may have disagreed with Paul. However, Paulian Christianity may have needed the name of James and others for legitimacy, even if they disagreed with Paulian Christianity, since James represented the family of Jesus and the early leadership of the church. This might be like Islam needed the boy who grew up in the Prophet's household who married his daughter. So the Paulians probably included the least controversial and most antiseptic opinions of James as Sunni Islam does of Ali.

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

I read some of Irenaeus' work a long time ago (30 years+), and I don't recall anything being said by him about the Ebionites, but he was well known as one who attacked the Gnostics. However, it's always possible that what you wrote above slipped by or that I just forgot.


What I was referring to is that which is found in the current Christian canon, along with what we do know about early church history. Paul's letters were widely circulated amongst the various churches long before the gospels were.




I'm not sure what the question is with this. Maybe you can clarify.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I think Paul provided much of the theology, correctly or incorrectly, about Jesus. We have to remember that people did not have Torahs in their home and probably most people were caught up in making a living and providing for their family much as they do today. Martin Marty, the noted Lutheran theologian, has written that he feels the evidence is that most of the apostles and early followers of Jesus weren't that well studied, which would be understandable. Even with Bibles in our homes today, how much theology does the average person likely know? On the other hand, Paul seems to have had a very good education Greek style, which was the best in that day.

For examples, I think there's at least some evidence that Paul very much deified Jesus, put forth the concept of substitute atonement, believed salvation was through him alone, and possibly some other concepts that may have originated or were theologically justified by him. BTW, the deification part could have been a relatively easy transition from Jesus being "of God" to Jesus being "God".




Yes, I agree.



Yep.




I have to believe James was leery of Paul, especially at first. Remember what Paul did before being on the road to Damascus. Also, Paul being the relative outsider he was, coming on like gangbusters and getting more publicity that those who actually knew Jesus personally, might have been a difficult pill to swallow. Us Jews can sometimes have streaks of jealousy .

And we also see James having at least one "issue" with Peter when he catches Peter eating cheeseburgers (not kosher) with gentiles. However, if James became the administrative head of the church, which I think he likely did, then he probably came to accept Paul, otherwise it's way too difficult to imagine for me why members of the church would have anything to do with Paul.


The reason I can't buy it is that there would be way too many people who would know the truth, especially since James was supposedly the administrative head of the church. How could that be invented and then expect to believe a whopping distortion like that? Nope-- no can buy.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Who was stopping Irenaeus from recording that the Nazerenes and Ebionites also regarded James as an apostate? I think he would have mentioned it, if he had the evidence.

Is it possible Paul may have been careful not to teach his message in Jerusalem/ Judaea? Is it possible Paul may have been good at acting like he was Jewish infront of James and refuting rumors against him? Is it possible James may have given Paul the benefit of the doubt and discounted these rumors? Is it possible James may not have seen Paul as a significant threat precisely because, like you, he thought there were too many people who knew the truth? However, is it possible that most of those Nazerenes/ Ebionites who knew the "truth" would have died defending the temple? On the other hand, is it possible Paul's movement suddenlny gained momentum among Gentiles after the destruction of the temple and Paul decided to keep only those accounts of history which minimized the differences between him and James to maintain a continuity between his church and Jesus? I think it is possible.

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

But Paul was Jewish, and a Pharisee at that, but I agree that it's possible, maybe even likely, that James may have given him the benefit of the doubt as you stated. However, the evidence that we do have suggests that Paul eventually became part of the "inner circle", which became evident by his popularity in the early church.

However, there is no doubt in my mind, and apparently yours as well, that Paul sent this early Jewish sect off into a different direction than normative Judaism. Therefore, it should also be of no surprise that there were followers of Jesus that simply did not like that new direction the apostles eventually went in, and they created their own congregations.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I apologize metis, I should have said, "Paul may have been good at acting like he was observing Jewish Law infront of James and refuting rumors against him."

I think these verses were in the back of my mind:

17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

Yes. I tend to think at first Paul may have tried to live with the idea that the apostolic church could have both Jews and gentiles living together with the Jews still adhering to the Law and the gentiles not being required to do so, but that arrangement would have created some significant problems, such as:

What about the kosher Laws when they dine together?

What do they observe if they intermarry?

How can it be a "Jewish" sect if circumcision of the males is not required as specified in Torah?

How do they teach the children if there are two sets of laws and rituals?

Etc.? Etc.?

Somewhere along the line I tend to think that he probably realized that this arrangement simply wouldn't work in the long run. And I think there was plenty of wiggle-room that Jesus may have created about dealing with the Law, which I cannot remember if I posted on this thread (please remind me if I didn't), plus there the issue of Peter's vision whereas all animals were declared "clean", which essentially appear to have negated the kosher Laws for the early church.

My point is that somewhere along the line there was a break from normative Judaism, and I think the break may well have occurred during Paul's time because of the problems and events cited above.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein