conspiracy theory

[achilles12604]

I was giving some thought to the athiest viewpoint here. I was considering in my mind if my religious bias had blinded me to something obvious. Was this theory more likely than my current one? After reading my following post please tell me :

1) If this theory fits better than the theory that it is more or less true and accurate.
2) WHY one theory is better than the other.
3) What other theories could be possible?
4) Why those theories should be considered.

The theory: The earliest Christians, Paul, James, and the apostles at the least, perhaps more unnamed men, made up Christianity or borrowed ideas from other religions to make up their own. Then they pushed it as truth onto the unknowing masses and gathered a following.



For this theory to be truth, first there must be a why.

Why would these men want to construct a religion of their own which would be considered totally evil by most of the people they were reaching at first? In addition to this, their new religion would be directly against their current beliefs, against the beliefs of their families and society, and would have the end result of excommunicating them from their friends and support structure.

What reason could so many men have for creating something completely out of nothing, which would be so devestating to themselves, physically, financially, and socially?

To this atheists have replied, "How do you know that this is what happened? How can you proove that the early christian's suffered?"

To answer this one simply needs to read Jewish writings or Roman historians. Pliny the younger wrote that every time he discovered Christians, he tourtured and murdered them. Not some of the time. EVERY TIME. The Jewish Pharasee's like Saul, before he converted, were imprisoning Christians. To the Jews, these believers were a mutation of their beliefs. The Talmud has some very strong words about the Christian's. Josephus writes of them being stoned. If any athiest wishes to present the case that Christian's were not persecuted, they must first deal with history.

The next step for validating the conspiracy theory, after determining why these men would have done this, is to see if the facts fit. In other words, does history point to a conspiracy, or truth?

Extra-biblical writings of Jesus :

At first this subject seems to point in great favor of the conspiracy theory. Outside of the bible and writings of the conspirators, there is little support. However, when certain things are taken into consideration, this becomes less and less of a problem. For example, almost all of the writings of this time period were about rulers, wars, conquering countries and other such important things. So should we have expected to see a great deal of writing about a poor man from a really small town in a clountry being ruled by a foreign power? Not really. In fact we should have NOTHING written about him ever. Especially since he never existed.

But we do. We have the writings of a contemporary historian, Josephus. Although his writings are universally thought to have been altered by later Christians, the core of one passage concerning Jesus is thought to be genuine and a second passage is thought to be entirely genuine by most scholars. In addition to this we have Jewish Historians (writers of the Talmud) who by reviewing history determined that a man named Jesus was a magician and was killed by authorities by hanging on a tree.

This is very impressive for a poor tradesman, and this is assuming he even existed. The conspiracy theory doesn't even allow for a man named Jesus at all. Remember that the theory is that these men constructed all of their ideas from other ancient religions. Hence Jesus should have never even formed much less have been refered to by outside sources. This does not boad well for a conspiracy.

The audience :

This is a bigger problem for the conspiracy than the few extra-biblical references. This is because if it was a conspiracy, then the authors spreading these lies should have been shouted down by the masses. Especially since these lies would have been spread within the lifetimes of those men and women who would have known them to be false. After all today you can not convince someone that a building was knocked down by a terrorist if it did not really happen. Those people knew that there was no Jesus or if there were, that he never did anything even close to what these liars claimed.

This is what we should see if it was a consipiracy. However, this is not what we see happened. Instead, this very town where the supposed events happened (but they never did if it was a conspiracy), became the center and brain for the most quickly advancing and totally overcoming religion ever on earth. The Christians (Jewish converts) from Jerusalem, who would have known if these had been wild lies, were so convinced that they faced the aforementioned persecutions to spread the word further.

These men would have known for a fact, that this conspiracy was a bunch of lies. The authorities would have known they were lies and called them just that. But what does history say they called these events? Magic. Demon work. Perhaps the greatest blow to the conspiracy theory is the fact that the enemies of this movement did not say that the conspirators were lying. They explained away the events instead. This leaves us with the understanding that SOMETHING happened which needed to be explained.

The normal athiest answer to this problem is that there is no first hand accounts of the authorities reaction. They do not have any real answer to the masses which converted but should not have believed anything because nothing ever happened. To this, we can reply Josephus commented on the authorities being involved with the later Christian movements and their reactions to the men involved. They called witchcraft, demons and executed those involved. But they never said the most obvious statement if it were all a big conspiracy, "Nothing ever happened."

Later accounts from the Talmud concure with Josephus on this point. They explain him away, but do not deny the Christian movement.

So far we have looked at why the conspirators would have invented a lie which would have brought them nothing but pain, poverty and hardship for both themselves and their families. We looked at the writings of the time and recognized that if this were truely a conspiracy, there shouldn't be ANYTHING extra, yet it is there. We looked at the audience and recognized that the audience SHOULD have ignored the liars because they obviously had nothing to go on. The conspirators were claiming some REALLY OUTRAGEOUS and more importantly, easily disprovable things. They should have been out before they even began. Yet this didn't happen.

Based on just these three points, I suggest that the conspiracy theory is a flop. It is certainly not the most plausible theory if it is even possible. And that is a big if.

[achilles12604]

Hey achilles12604, guess what I found at the library!

The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity by Jeffrey J. Btz

Here's a bit of the review from Publisher's Weekly...

"Btz sees the theologies of James and Paul as contradictory in many points, with Paul distancing himself from his Jewish roots and thus creating a religion that Btz contends was not envisioned by Jesus. Paul, Btz asserts, relegated good works to a secondary position, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. In calling attention to this dichotomy, Btz raises a major question: "In other words, if the first followers of Jesusincluding the apostles and Jesus' own familywere thoroughly Jewish in their belief and practice and opposed to Paul's interpretation of the gospel, then just what is 'orthodoxy' and what is 'heresy'?"

Oh no! What if 'Christianity' as we know it from the NT was invented by Paul, and NOT Jesus?

Then I have serious questions for the Nazarene's, James and the whole gang who still believed in a ressurection, the uniqueness of Jesus, his saving grace, and his miraculous nature.

Why do you insist on believing everything which supports your preconceptions while at the same time, assuming the worst possible interpretation for Christianity?

Notice that many times during my debates with Lotan we discussed the Jewishness of Jesus. Guess what! Jesus was a Jew. Guess what else . . .

I do not hold to all Christian Doctrines nor have I changed my view much at all during our discussions. You have offered absolutly nothing new. If you don't believe me, re-read my discussions with Lotan. We have covered this ground. Some of it is accurate. Some of the assertions do not hold with the literrary evidence which by the way excludes ALL of Paul's letters, Acts and the Gospels. Merely based on the writings of the people in contact with the Nazarenes, we can see all the points I mentioned above.

Now find me something which says James disagreed with Paul about slavation coming through Jesus and that he was not resurrected, preferably from around the first century, then we can talk. Until then, your information has already been gone over.

[Lotan]

Then I have serious questions for the Nazarene's, James and the whole gang who still believed in a ressurection, the uniqueness of Jesus, his saving grace, and his miraculous nature.

But that's part of the problem. It's far from certain that they believed any of those things, at least not the way that they're understood today. If you think that they did "based on the writings of the people in contact with the Nazarenes", by which I assume that you mean NT authors, then you do so against the evidence.

Why do you insist on believing everything which supports your preconceptions...

Umm, what are my "preconceptions" exactly? I'd just love to know.

...while at the same time, assuming the worst possible interpretation for Christianity?

"Worst possible"??? Do you really think so? And what do you think my interpretation is?

I do not hold to all Christian Doctrines nor have I changed my view much at all during our discussions.

That's OK, I'm not done yet. That's why I dragged this thread up to the top again.

Now find me something which says James disagreed with Paul about slavation coming through Jesus and that he was not resurrected, preferably from around the first century, then we can talk. Until then, your information has already been gone over.

Will the New Testament do?

Anyhow, since I was able to find this book at my library, I thought that you might be able to find it at yours as well. Are you game?

[Easyrider]

achilles12604 wrote: Now find me something which says James disagreed with Paul about slavation coming through Jesus and that he was not resurrected, preferably from around the first century, then we can talk. Until then, your information has already been gone over.

Lotan wrote: Will the New Testament do?

Sure. Make your case and don't forget your scriptural references!

[achilles12604]

Then I have serious questions for the Nazarene's, James and the whole gang who still believed in a ressurection, the uniqueness of Jesus, his saving grace, and his miraculous nature.

But that's part of the problem. It's far from certain that they believed any of those things, at least not the way that they're understood today. If you think that they did "based on the writings of the people in contact with the Nazarenes", by which I assume that you mean NT authors, then you do so against the evidence.

But I used much of your evidence to support these claims. And I thank you for assisting me in my search. It was your evidence that initally taught me that the Nazarenes believed in a resurrection. So far, you have shown me nothing that would prove it was not physical as you keep claiming. It was also your evidence that showed that James and the very earliest church in Jerusalem believed that Jesus saved us from sin, not the law but that the law was a good thing to keep following. So far you have done a lot of my work for me so I am not sure why you say I am against the evidence. . .

I love your evidence, really.

Now find me something which says James disagreed with Paul about slavation coming through Jesus and that he was not resurrected, preferably from around the first century, then we can talk. Until then, your information has already been gone over.

Will the New Testament do?

Anything in there that shows a disagreement of any value or are you still arguing about who to invite to dinner and what should be on the menu?

Anyhow, since I was able to find this book at my library, I thought that you might be able to find it at yours as well. Are you game?

Sure. I'll go look it up. Probably not until next week though. We are just a tad busy here right now. . lots of work to do.

[Lotan]

But I used much of your evidence to support these claims.

Misused it, actually.

It was your evidence that initally taught me that the Nazarenes believed in a resurrection.

Which Nazarenes and when? 4th century Cyprus?

So far, you have shown me nothing that would prove it was not physical as you keep claiming.

No, and I never will. I'll never prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist either. The evidence shows that the original Christians (and Paul too) didn't view it as physical, though. That, plus a little common sense about human nature (and believing everything you read!) pretty much tells the story.

It was also your evidence that showed that James and the very earliest church in Jerusalem believed that Jesus saved us from sin, not the law but that the law was a good thing to keep following.

I'm dying to know...is that your take on the 'Council of Jerusalem'?

Anything in there that shows a disagreement of any value or are you still arguing about who to invite to dinner and what should be on the menu?

Even the observance of those purity regulations should be suspect if these men actually learned differently directly from Jesus. I don't recall that you've shown that they disregarded the law either. Odd.
I do recall that you made this statement...

Tell you what, if you can give me any solid evidence that these men continued to present animal sacrifices in accordance with the law, I will concede the possibility of you being right.

To which I responded with this ("solid evidence")...

Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Acts 21:26

If you were insinuating that they were continuing to sacrifice at the temple to cleanse themselves of sin, then you have a long way to go in proving this aspect.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm stating flatly that the original Christians continued to observe the Torah, including offering sacrifices at the Temple. If the above verse is not clear enough for you then nothing will be.

This is especailly true if you consider that the one or two verses you pulled out, have to overcome massive amounts of writings to the contrary. (chapters in Pauls letters, etc) In a battle of writings, I would win so prove yours are more acceptable than mine.

You have an interesting idea of what "winning" entails, Im sure. Ignore the evidence all you like, it wont go away. Here is more "solid evidence" that you have to ignore...

According to Josephus, James "was much respected even by the Pharisees for his piety and strict observance of the Law"
See? "Strict observance". Not half-assed observance. "Strict observance" would have to include such things as sin offerings and guilt offerings, not to mention the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:3, Deuteronomy 16:1) and two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1). Anything less wouldn't qualify as "strict observance" now, would it. And don't forget the daily morning and afternoon offerings and Sabbath offerings.

And what about the testimony of Clement?

"He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool but of linen. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camels from continually bending them in worship of God and beseeching forgiveness for the people."

Are we supposed to believe then, that James was picky choosy about which requirements of the Torah he would meet?

And there's this bit from Clement too...

"...he drank no wine or intoxicating liquor and ate no animal food; no razor came near his head; he did not smear himself with oil, and took no baths."

IOW, he was a Nazirite. But according to your view he eschewed the the sacrifice of the Nazirites (Numbers 6:9) as well!

James was hardly an isolated case either..

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. Acts 21:20-21
How would you define "zealous of the law"?

[achilles12604]

It was your evidence that initally taught me that the Nazarenes believed in a resurrection.

Which Nazarenes and when? 4th century Cyprus?

Considering the Nazarenes were all but extinct by the fourth century, no I was refering to the Nazarenes led by James formerly known as "The Way."

So far, you have shown me nothing that would prove it was not physical as you keep claiming.

No, and I never will. I'll never prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist either. The evidence shows that the original Christians (and Paul too) didn't view it as physical, though. That, plus a little common sense about human nature (and believing everything you read!) pretty much tells the story.

Ok so long as were clear you have nothing supporting your side other than your opinion.

It was also your evidence that showed that James and the very earliest church in Jerusalem believed that Jesus saved us from sin, not the law but that the law was a good thing to keep following.

I'm dying to know...is that your take on the 'Council of Jerusalem'?

How would you interpret your evidence?

The council of Jerusalem . .

From Lotan post 67
Council of Jerusalem
Held in 51 AD. All living Apostles participated, and Saint Peter presided. The Council decreed that circumcision, dietary regulations, and various requirements of Mosaic law did not apply to Gentile converts. This is vehemently opposed by Judaizers who argued that observance of Mosiac Law was necessary for salvation.

It seems that most of the council agreed that strict observance was not required for salvation while a minority demanded otherwise. Interestingly this minority could have easliy been Pharasees.

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses." (Acts 15:5)

It doesn't strike me as odd that individuals who were trained their entire lives to believe and follow the Laws of Moses would cling to their values. It also explains why James agreed with the councils decision . . .

"Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.4 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." (Acts 15:19-21)

Well my interpretation of the council's decision and James speach here on the decision, is that Salvation comes through Jesus and that observing the Laws of Moses should also be done to keep themselves pure. While some of the pharasee trained people held to tradition, the majority agreed that salvation came through Jesus.

How do you interpret this information?

Anything in there that shows a disagreement of any value or are you still arguing about who to invite to dinner and what should be on the menu?

Even the observance of those purity regulations should be suspect if these men actually learned differently directly from Jesus. I don't recall that you've shown that they disregarded the law either. Odd.
I do recall that you made this statement...

Tell you what, if you can give me any solid evidence that these men continued to present animal sacrifices in accordance with the law, I will concede the possibility of you being right.

To which I responded with this ("solid evidence")...

Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Acts 21:26

Ok I conceed the possibility that some of the Jews held to the traditional beliefs. Lets look at the why, behind this verse. Why did Paul do these things? Was it for religious beliefs as you suggest, or for some other reason . . .

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.

Hmmm . . . So Paul goes ahead and goes along with the laws rules simply to go along with the beliefs of many people who believed in Jesus, but also held to traditional beliefs. In short, peer pressure. But Paul also writes about this . . .

Food Sacrificed to Idols
1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge.[a] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God.
4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Here Paul again says he will do things, whatever they may be, to assist his brothers in their well being and faiths because they do not matter one way or the other.

This is a far cry from the law was required for salvation. A really far cry.

Since James, Peter, and the majority of the council agreed that salvation came through and by Jesus, and at the same time, that adhering to the law was a benifical thing to do, AND Paul doesn't reject it but instead makes it clear that while it is ok to do these things, but it is not necessary for salvation, I think my interpretation covers all of the facts presented and still shows that the early Jewish Christians trusted salvation to a "man."

According to Josephus, James "was much respected even by the Pharisees for his piety and strict observance of the Law"
See? "Strict observance". Not half-assed observance. "Strict observance" would have to include such things as sin offerings and guilt offerings, not to mention the yearly sacrifice of the paschal lamb (Exodus 12:3, Deuteronomy 16:1) and two he-goats on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:1). Anything less wouldn't qualify as "strict observance" now, would it. And don't forget the daily morning and afternoon offerings and Sabbath offerings.

Is this your opinion or what strict adherance is? I would find what the council agreed on to be strict especially considering that none of it was "Needed" for salvation but was desired by traditional Pharasee trained men.

And what about the testimony of Clement?

"He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool but of linen. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camels from continually bending them in worship of God and beseeching forgiveness for the people."

Are we supposed to believe then, that James was picky choosy about which requirements of the Torah he would meet?

You are exaggerating my point. My point was that the early Christians met the standards I attributed to Christian faith. If they also wished to follow traditional ways, then so be it. As Paul 'points out, if a brother wishes to follow the rules plus a lot more, go with it for his sake. There is nothing wrong with Christians following Jewish culture. Hello . . . Jesus was jewish. What is the problem?

[Lotan]

Ok so long as were clear you have nothing supporting your side other than your opinion.

That's not the case at all. There's plenty of evidence against a physical resurrection, there just isn't an infinite amount, which is what the proof of a negative claim would require. Here's Carrier's take on the subject if you need evidence that the resurrection wasn't anything more than dreams and visions.

How would you interpret your evidence?

For starters, I like this bit...

...they wrote letters... 15:23

We might not have any of the writings of the original Christians, but that's "solid evidence" that they existed at one time!

To get to the point though, the decision of James and the council refers specifically and solely to GENTILES, a distinction that you don't seem able to recognize.
Until the council, circumcision of gentiles was being taught by the Jerusalem Christians. (Acts 15:1) and Pharisaic members of the Jerusalem Church had not been instructed otherwise (Acts 15:5).

So, without the instigation of Paul, the rules had not changed for almost 20 years! And even then, they were changed for gentiles only. Those original Christians (all Judahists) had been practicing their religion as they always had. And this is the group, led by James the Just (Righteous) that you believe were blaspheming all over the place?

Also, it's clear that the speeches of Peter and James recorded in Acts 15 reflect the apologetic concerns of the author of Acts. The author of Luke puts the words "we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11) on Peters lips, as an apologetic, but the actions of James who is acknowledged as leader by everyone (including Peter and Paul) clearly contradicts this view.

It seems that most of the council agreed that strict observance was not required for salvation while a minority demanded otherwise. Interestingly this minority could have easliy been Pharasees.

"Seems" that way, but the text says nothing about a minority or majority view. Also, had Jesus done a good job of teaching the apostles, both before and after the 'resurrection' there should have been no difference of opinion. Also, the text says quite clearly that some Pharisees at least, were pro-circumcision (for gentiles). It doesn't say that all the non-Pharisees were anti-circumcision though. James himself may have been a Pharisee.

It doesn't strike me as odd that individuals who were trained their entire lives to believe and follow the Laws of Moses would cling to their values.

And yet they were blasphemers? Were they making "outrageous claims" about Jesus while making sacrifices to YHWH?

While some of the pharasee trained people held to tradition, the majority agreed that salvation came through Jesus.

The "majority"? Which verse is that? These are the original Christians we are talking about, the ones who actually knew (and even grew up with) Jesus. Do you really believe that their notion of salvation "through Jesus" was so dim that it required a vote? Acts 15 says nothing about a majority, minority, consensus, or vote. James says It is my judgment... (Acts 15:19), and that judgement concerned gentiles only.

Ok I conceed the possibility that some of the Jews held to the traditional beliefs. Lets look at the why, behind this verse. Why did Paul do these things? Was it for religious beliefs as you suggest, or for some other reason . . .

Some other reason. Paul had to kiss James' *ss if he wanted to have the Jerusalem Church seal of approval for his mission. The real question is why did James order him to do these things?

So Paul goes ahead and goes along with the laws rules simply to go along with the beliefs of many people who believed in Jesus, but also held to traditional beliefs.

No, "he goes along with the laws rules" because James tells him to.

Here Paul again says he will do things, whatever they may be, to assist his brothers in their well being and faiths because they do not matter one way or the other.

According to Paul. The beliefs of Paul arent the issue here. Only the beliefs of the "earliest Christians" are what count. Paul is a latecomer. (Weve been over this so many times!)

This is a far cry from the law was required for salvation.

That is a good definition of Pauline Christianity. It's also irrelevant.

Since James, Peter, and the majority of the council agreed that salvation came through and by Jesus, and at the same time, that adhering to the law was a benifical thing to do, AND Paul doesn't reject it but instead makes it clear that while it is ok to do these things, but it is not necessary for salvation, I think my interpretation covers all of the facts presented and still shows that the early Jewish Christians trusted salvation to a "man."

Theres that "majority" again! (Are they related to those "mobs" that you have mentioned earlier?)

Bottom line is that the original Christians were not only Jews, but they were especially devout Jews. They could not be strictly observant of the Torah and blaspheme at the same time which pretty much blows a big hole in your claims re the 'conspiracy theory'. Nor did they adhere to the law simply as a matter of custom as you lamely suggest because to do so would be a contradiction of the doctrine of 'salvation by faith alone'. On the contrary they considered themselves to be the vanguard of the Kingdom of God ("pillars" of the new Temple) and believed that a rigorous approach to the law would hasten the eschaton. They did believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah, so in that sense they would have seen him as the son of God, but they would not have claimed that he was the actual Son of God. That would have been blasphemy, and it's a Hellenic concept besides. Furthermore, although they may have believed that Jesus had 'risen' as the first fruits of the general resurrection, they could not have claimed a physical resurrection for the same reasons.

To put it bluntly, they could not have been pious Judahists and also blasphemers at the same time, and they definitely wouldn't have lived long had they tried.

[Cathar1950]

achilles12604:

Considering the Nazarenes were all but extinct by the fourth century, no I was refering to the Nazarenes led by James formerly known as "The Way."

The Nazarenes continued many either joined the Orthodox Church that spiritualized the promises for the afterlife or they went back to Judaism because Jesus failed to appear or fulfill the prophecies.

achilles12604:

Here Paul again says he will do things, whatever they may be, to assist his brothers in their well being and faiths because they do not matter one way or the other
This is a far cry from the law was required for salvation. A really far cry.

That is why they departed from Paul and went around trying to correct his gospel. They demanded letters of introduction.

[achilles12604]

Ok Lotan and cathar . . .

Lets have it out about the Nazarenes. :2gun:

Points That I think are true about the Nazarenes.

1) They accepted Jesus as the coming messiah that was foretold to them.
2) The believed in the resurrection of Jesus
3) Some of them accepted Jesus divinity, some did not.
4) They all still loved and held to their Jewish heritage
5) The Nazarenes accepted Paul unlike the Ebonites
6) The Nazarenes predated the Ebonites
7) The Nazarenes broke with several Jewish traditions such as exhile of Gentials, naming of God, their views of the messiah and other various things.
8) They believed and used the book of Matthew in their worship
9) The Nazarenes accepted more of the divinity than the Ebonites
10) Jesus was both the messiah and the son of God.
11) God was one being.
12) Paul was thought to be the leader of the Nazarenes while he was later rejected the ebonites
13) Peter was part of this movement, yet the council of Jerusalem which he presided over decided that salvation came through Jesus and not the law.

Here is my evidence to support these claims. What are your arguments and evidence?


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

-- The Nazarenes (Hebrew: נצרים) were a group of followers of Jesus of Nazareth who like the Ebionites were noteworthy for refusing to follow Christianity in its complete break with Judaism.

-- Some of the church fathers refer to groups with such titles, but there is little further evidence of these groups' existence, beliefs or activities, after the onset of Islam.

-- According to Epiphanius the Nazuraioi dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jews from Jerusalem, immediately before its destruction in year 135. He calls the Nazuraioi "complete Jews" and characterizes them as neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple before adding that they considered themselves to be living in Jeremiah's "new covenant" (Jer.31:31-34) as well as the original. They believed in the resurrection, and in The One God, The Father and his son the Messiah. He cannot say whether their christological views were identical with those of Cerinthus and his followers, or whether they differed at all from his own but is evident that they can not have accepted the "High" christology adopted by the church and were closer to having a "Low" christology.

-- In the 4th century Jerome also refers to Nazuraioi as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, he said that though they believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, "desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other". He said they used the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, but, while adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded circumcision, sabbaths, foods and the like, they did not refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul or the rights of Gentile Christians (See Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah, ix. I). These facts agree with Epiphanius' distinction of them from the Ebionites who did refuse to recognise the apostolicity of Paul (Epiphanius, Panarion 30), though Jerome himself confuses them with Filaster's Nazorei in Galaatides.

http://www.ancientpaths.org/APJTnazandeb.html

-- Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

-- They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, accepting non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21).

-- Later, when Christianity developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and gradually lost its Jewish roots and heritage, largely severing its Palestinian connections, the Gentile, Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes as two separate groupsand indeed, by the late 2nd century there might have been a split between these mostly Jewish followers of Jesus. The distinction these writers make, (and remember, they universally despise these people and call them "Judaizers") is that the Ebionites reject Paul, and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or "divinity" of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They describe the Nazarenes more positively as those who accept Paul (with caution) and believe in some aspect of the divinity of Jesus (virgin born, etc.).

-- I use Ebionite/Nazarene as an historical designation to refer to those original, 1st century, largely Palestinian, followers of Jesus, gathered around Yaaqov (James) in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the Torah, but saw themselves as part of the New Covenant Way inaugurated by their "True Teacher" Jesus. James is a key and neglected figure in this whole picture. As the blood brother of Jesus, authority and rights of guidance were passed on to him.


-- How the earliest group/s viewed Paul is unclear. By some reports he was tolerated or accepted as one who could go to the Gentiles with a version of the Nazarene message (Acts 15, 21). Others apparently believed he was an apostate from the Torah and founder of a new religionChristianity.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/g ... reans.html

-- The Gospel of the Nazoreans is an expansion of the Gospel of Matthew, translated from Greek into Aramaic or Syriac.
In The Other Gospels, Cameron notes the sources that are available: "The first reference to the Gospel of the Nazoreans was made ca. 180 C.E. by Hegesippus (a church writer whose five-volume 'Memoirs' are now lost, preserved only in a few quotations in the writings of Eusebius). Fragments are preserved in the works of Origen (early in the third century) and Eusebius (early in the fourth century); Epiphanius (late in the fourth century) attests to the existence of this gospel, but does not quote from it. Most of the fragments that are to be assigned to the Gospel of the Nazoreans come from the writings of Jerome (ca. 400 C.E.), who incorrectly identifies this gospel with the Gospel of the Hebrews, but who, his testimony notwithstanding, certainly had firsthand knowledge only of the Gospel of the Nazoreans."Cameron also makes these observations on provenance and dating: "The Gospel of the Nazoreans was composed sometime after the Gospel of Matthew and before the first attestation of the text by Hegesippus. Its provenance is most likely western Syria, where Matthew was probably composed and the Nazoreans were still at home in the fourth century. The theology reflected in the extant fragments is not at all 'heretical,' but is closely aligned with and dependent upon the developing theology of the emerging 'catholic' church. The variant readings witness to the instability of gospel texts and gospel manuscripts in the first few centuries C.E. Most of all, the Gospel of the Nazoreans demonstrates the continuing use and expansion of gospel traditions within a group of Jewish Christians."


http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/naza ... arenes.htm

-- Definition: Nazarenes were early, Jewish adherents of Christianity. The Nazarenes were followers of John the Baptist and then James the Just, brother of Jesus. The word Nazarene comes from a Hebrew word for branch and may be the first term used to describe followers of Jesus. When the split came between Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus by the 3rd-4th century, the Nazarenes fared better than the Ebionites in the estimation of the Gentiles, because the Nazarenes accepted some aspects of the divinity of Jesus.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dyna ... 2Fnazb.htm

-- The first believers in Y'shua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes" or in Hebrew "N'tzarim" (Acts 11:19; 24:5). The "church father" Jerome (4th Cent.) described these Nazarenes as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." (Jerome; On. Is. 8:14). The fourth century "church father" Epiphanius gives a more detailed description:
But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Y'shua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

-- The common wisdom is that on the one side you have Jews and Judaism, and on the other you have Gentiles and Christianity. However in the first century there were literally hundreds of thousands of Jewish followers of Y'shua (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 6:7; 9:31; 21:20) they were zealous for the Torah (Acts 15:19-21; 21:17-27) and met in synagogues (James 1:1, 2:2). The big question then was, had Y'shua come for the Gentiles as well (Acts 10; Acts 15). The greatest paradox in history eventually occured, for today people question how one can follow Y'shua and remain Jewish. Today we are seeking to put Y'shua back into the context of first century Judaism. Nazarene Judaism is a spiritual renaissance, a revival, a return to the pure faith of first century Nazarenes. A return to the Tenach and to the root of the olive tree (Rom. 11).

-- Nazarenes are Yahwists and do not feel compelled to completely censor the use of the Name (Jer. 23:27). They were in some cases martyred for publicly reciting a drash of Ps.110:1-2 in which the Name was used while connecting Y'shua to the right hand of YHWH

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/nazaebion.html

-- In Acts we are specifically told this was the name of the sect. In Paul's trial before Felix in Caesarea, the lawyer for the prosecution, Tertullus made his remark:
Acts 24:5
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is the ring leader of the Nazarene sect."
http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/nazarenes.html

-- According to Acts 1:13-16, the group initially had about 120 members, including Jesus' mother Mary and all of his brothers. The two main leaders were Simon Peter and James the Just (the oldest brother of Jesus). During an early meeting, a man named Matthias was chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot in the inner circle of the original twelve disciples.

[Cathar1950]

Lets have it out about the Nazarenes.

Fine but I am including the Ebonites. Also we need look at first century tradition not 4the century. Now we need to also factor in the Nazarites.

-- According to Epiphanius the Nazuraioi dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jews from Jerusalem, immediately before its destruction in year 135. He calls the Nazuraioi "complete Jews" and characterizes them as neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple before adding that they considered themselves to be living in Jeremiah's "new covenant" (Jer.31:31-34) as well as the original.

Just for beginers this is disputed by both Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus and the Zealots : a study of political factor in primitive Christianity. by S. G. F. Brandon,
Among others.