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.

[Lotan]

Lets have it out about the Nazarenes.

Is it 'change the subject time' already?

OK. I'll play, but first let's reminisce a little...

The only people that really count in this debate are those who knew Jesus during his life. The beliefs of those who followed them are relevant only if they can be shown to reflect the ideas of that earlier group.

Granted as I said in my quote. We agree on this point

Points That I think are true about the Nazarenes.

I find it odd that you would place your conclusions in front of your evidence. Before I address your conclusions, I'll address your evidence. (BTW, please notice that I've added my own emphasis to the quotes that you provided.)

-- 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.

IOW they were Jews, not Christians.

-- 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.

And that's important why? We all know the story; Paul's version of Christianity won out in the end. Since you mention it...

"The Chjristians that Muhammad encountered during his days leading caravans around the Arabian Peninsula were largely Jewish Christians who survived among the Arabs. So it is no coincidence that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is remarkably similar to the Jewish Christian understanding." - Jeffrey J. Butz - The Brother of Jesus, p. 176

-- 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.

That's awesome"...neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple..." Sounds like a bunch of wacky heretics making outrageous claims to me!
I don't know if they followed Jeremiah's 'New Covenant' or not, but it would probably make sense if they did...

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31:33

So much for 'free will'.
As for their belief in the resurrection, I wouldn't argue. Epiphanius provides no evidence re the nature of that resurrection belief, so there's no need to beg the question. I have conceded from the start that the original 'Christians' believed Jesus to be the Messiah, just as others believed John the Baptist was, or Theudas, etc. Inherent in that belief is the idea that the messiah is the 'son of God'. David was the 'son of God' too, as was Augustus or Gilgamesh. There are plenty of 'sons of God' in the Bible starting at Gen. 6:2. My wife once did a bible study about 'sons of God' and came up with a whole whack of them. To put it another way, 'Son of God' = mountain, 'son of God' = molehill. That' s what the "Low" christology" is all about...

"To the individual with a low Christology Jesus was just another guy, granted an exceptional guy, but just another guy. It is not that God was really integrally interwoven with Jesus. It is just that Jesus had a particularly strong relationship with God." from here.

-- 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.

I think that Jerome's use of the liturgical formula "...Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again..." tells us more about his theology than that of the Nazareans 300 years earlier. His comments regarding their recognition of Paul are what we would expect since they line up with the story as told in Acts (Jerome was an inerrantist). There is debate as to how wholeheartedly the Nazareans endorsed Paul, with evidence of repeated conflict. Luke's apologetic tendency to smooth over any difficulties between Paul and the Jerusalem church is widely recognized, even by conservatives.

"The author of Acts...has a noted tendency to smooth over fierce battles in the early church." - Raymond E. Brown and John Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, p. 29

Its not only liberal scholars who recognize this. F.F. Bruce even suggests a motive

" It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity." from ECW

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.

"Perhaps" Wow! (BTW, do you know who the author of this page is? I couldn't find it.)

--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).

Thanks!

--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.).

"3rd and 4th centuries" heh? "Late 2nd century"? "Might have"? That's a pretty compelling case, for something.

--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.

You're doing my work for me!
I know that it's that phrase "New Covenant Way" that you think is significant, but you would need to a) show that the author is correct, and b) show that the original Nazareans understood that phrase the way the authors of the NT portray it. You've already provided evidence for a) but the Jeremiac (?) covenant isn't a departure from the law, but rather a closer adherence to it. The New Covenant as found in Paul's letters and the synoptic gospels (but not John, although there is this - I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. John 13:34 {not really new though, see Lev. 19:18}), is given in the context of the 'Last Supper'. There are plenty of reasons to discount this as an historical event. For one thing, theophagy was a practice more befitting of pagan mystery cults. Strictly observant Judahists would have found the idea abhorrent. Also, Jesus actions here (took, blessed, broke, gave) are identical to the story of the loaves and fishes (Mark 6:30-44), and is an indicator that the symbolism of this story is more important than its historical accuracy. There's more, and we could probably do a whole thread just on this subject, but suffice to say that I don't think it ever happened. Here's a bit more...

"Did Jesus, before his death, institute a new Passover meal in which his martyrdom with its separation of body and blood was symbolized by the meal with its separation of bread and wine? On the one hand, Paul certainly knows about such an institution in 1Corinthians 11:23-25. But, on the other, John 13-17 has a last supper with Jesus and his disciples that is neither the Passover meal nor any type of institutionalized symbolic commemoration of his death. Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q Gospel exhibits any awareness of a Last Supper tradition. Finally, the case of Didache 9-10 is especially significant. It describes a communal and ritual eating together, from the second half of the first century, with absolutely no hint of Passover meal, Last Supper, or passion symbolism built into its origins or development." - J.D. Crossan, Jesus - A Revolutionary Biography pp.129-130

--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.

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

--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."

Somebody tampered with the gospels? Say it isn't so!
Since gNazoreans is a rewrite of gMatthew (itself a rewrite of gMark) it's not surprising that it is also theologically similar (If you don't mind Jesus as the Son of the Holy Spirit). I'll admit that it's interesting that the Syrian Nazoreans used such a 'catholic' document, but then again it is 2nd century. I'll look into it more when I have more time. Until then Peter Kirby has a pretty exhaustive article on the subject if you're interested.

-- 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.

About.com? I'm surprised. So Nazarenes in the 3rd-4th century accepted some aspects of the divinity of Jesus? Great! I'm curious about this "split" that the author is referring to. What's that all about? Constantine?

-- 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.

Not everyone thinks that James Trimm is the most reputable of sources. There's nothing new here, though. Just the reports of church historians centuries after the fact. What is it that you find interesting, the bit about ..."the resurrection of the dead..."? It is a common (and orthodox) late Second Temple belief. Jesus followers viewed his 'resurrection' as the first fruits (1Cor. 15) of the general resurrection.

-- 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).

I can find nothing in this to argue against, except to add that although the imminent 'Kingdom of God' would have included gentiles, there is no special reason that Jesus would have needed to "come for" them in order to inaugurate that Kingdom. If you are concerned about the so-called "paradox" Trimm mentions that is probably because like almost everyone else you have taken the Pauline view.

-- 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

That's interesting. I'd like to know the source for that. If that's true then I guess that you could argue that the Nazarenes were blaspheming, then again they have a scriptural basis for using YHWH's name. It sounds like a difference of opinion. It doesn't have much to do with them making "outrageous claims" about Jesus though.

-- 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."

Hey, he's a Roman, what does he know? We know that Paul had a relationship with the Jerusalem church, that's not in dispute. The important question is "what was the nature of that relationship?" Luke's account of Paul's arrest is written in the first person (as an eyewitness) and yet he makes no mention of James or any other Nazarene coming to his defence. Instead they let him hang out to dry.

-- 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.

That's true enough, except that James was top dog, as were his brothers after him. IOW, the Jerusalem church was ruled by dynastic succession, which makes sense if you believe that Jesus' family was of Davidic descent.

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.

1) No problem there.
2) No problem there, either.
3) When? Where? Who? Try to confine your answer to the middle of the 1st century, Jerusalem, among those who knew Jesus while he was alive.
4) To put it mildly! They were ultra-orthodox. They had to be in order to persuade YHWH to come down and save them!
5) And this Nazarene/Ebionite split occurred when? During the first generation? Jesus was such a poor teacher that his original apostles couldn't agree on their beliefs? If there was a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with gentiles then we have to assume that Jesus didn't address the issue.

"We naturally tend to assume that Paul made his point and won the day - Peter admitting his mistake, and the previous practice being resumed. But Paul does not actually say so..if Paul had won, and if Peter acknowledged the force of his argument, Paul would surely have noted this, just as he strenghthened his earlier position by noting the approval of the "pillar apostles" in 2.7-10. In the circumstances then, it is quite likely that Paul was defeated at Antioch...
Whatever the precise facts of the matter then it is evident that there was a much deeper divide between Paul and the Jewish Christianity emanating from Jerusalem than at first appears..." - James Dunn, Unity And Diversity in the New Testament, p. 254

6) Maybe, maybe not. Re the term 'Ebionite'...

"Being "the poor" appears to be the essential dignity held by the congregation in Jerusalem, to be granted and respected by all other Jesus congregations. The absolute use of this appellation in Galatians 2:10 and the fact that it does not need any explanation show that it must have been a title commonly bestowed upon that congregation...
This titulary usage was modelled after other, previously existing...examples in the Jewish Bible....the name "the poor"...is used synonymously with such designations as "pious" and "just". Since the Maccabean wars (second century B.C.E.)..."the poor" had been used as a self-designation by a variety of Jewish groups, all of whom meant to express that they alone were the true devotees, the true Israel, the "Holy Remnant"." - Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem, pp. 33-36
7) Judahist tradition did not include "exhile of Gentials" before Jesus time. They were always welcome, just so long as they followed the Torah and became circumcised. (Circumcision was the mark of their covenant with YHWH) The Nazarenes required circumcision as much as anyone.

"By refusing to share a table with them, the Jewish Christians were showing that they did not think them complete Christians. If they wanted to be fully integrated into the community of the Nazarenes, they had to be circumcised and live according to the law of Moses. Doubtless that is what Paul was referring to when he was criticizing Peter for forcing the pagans to Judaize." - Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, James Brother of Jesus, p. 181

I can't comment on the "naming of God" part since I've seen no evidence for or against besides James Trimms assertion. The rest of this point - "their views of the messiah and other various things." is too vague to respond to or even take seriously.
8) Really? The ECW site gives the date range for gMatthew as 80-100. Is that the book of Matthew you mean? Also, of what use would this book be to the very people who had known Jesus and expected the parousia within their generation? Later Nazarenes may have used variations of gMatthew but that's not relevant.
9) At this early stage the Nazarenes were the Ebionites. Do you think 6 of the apostles had arguments with the other 6? ("Well, he looked pretty divine to me...")
10) Isn't that the same as #1? Besides, as I've pointed out, 'son of God' isn't all that exclusive as titles go.

According to James Dunn, although there is some diversity of belief among Jewish Christian groups they all share three common characteristics...

"1. Faithful adherence to the Law of Moses.
2. The exaltation of James and the denigration of Paul.
3. A christology of "adoptionism" - they all believed that Jesus was the natural born son of Joseph and Mary and was "adopted" by God as his Son upon his baptism by John." - James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, pp 240-242

11) Umm, so?
12) "Paul was thought to be the leader" by who? The evidence is overwhelming that James was the leader and that Paul had to suck up to him. Even Paul admits it. Epiphanius took a different view...

"They declare that he was a Greek....He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daugher of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte [through the Saducee movement, hence his working for the Temple police] and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law."

13) Peter didn't preside over the council, James did. Peter's speech in Acts 15 is pure Lukan invention and contradicts everything that we know about Jesus' original followers.

"We have again and again returned to the fact that nothing which Jesus said or did which bore on the law led his disciples after his death to disregard it. This great fact, which overrides all others, sets a definite limit to what can be said about Jesus and the law." E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 268

"Everything points to the conclusion that the leaders and members of the so-called "Jerusalem Church" were not Christians in any sense that would be intelligible to Christians of a later date. They were Jews, who subscribed to every item of the Jewish faith. For example, so far from regarding baptism as ousting the Jewish rite of circumcision as an entry requirement into the religious communion, they continued to circumcise their male children, thus inducting them into the Jewish covenant. The first ten "bishops" of the "Jerusalem Church"...were all circumcised Jews. They kept the Jewish dietary laws, the Jewish Sabbaths and festivals, including the Day of Atonement (thus showing that they did not regard the death of Jesus as atoning for their sins), the Jewish purity laws (when they had to enter the Temple, which they did frequrntly), and they used the Jewish liturgy for their daily prayers..." - Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, p. 133

"It is clear that James was the leading figure in the Jerusalem church. In spite of this fact, Luke mentions him on only three occasions (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). This is puzzling. Martin Hengel has described the presentation of James in the New Testament as one-sided and tendentious. Luke may have known of the martyrdom of James in the year 62 C.E. but chose not to mention the event because of the prestige attached to James as a martyr...It is as if Luke has pushed James into the background, but, because of his prominence, has been unable to obscure totally his leading role. He sought to minimize the role of James because he was aware that James represented a hard-line position on the place of circumcision and the keeping of the law, a position that Luke himself did not wish to maintain." - John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, p. 235

"Nazarenes continued to exist until about 400 C.E. declaring to the last that Jesus was the Messiah, that he would soon return, that he was the Son of God but not divine himself, that the Jewish law had never been abrogated by him, and that Paul was a deceiver who had perverted Jesus' message." - Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea, (p 818)

Now, here are some of my conclusions...

1. Jesus was a 'Nazarene'.
2. His theology was Pharisaic (works based).
3. James led the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death.
4. James and the Jerusalem church observed the Torah (ALL of it.)
5. The Nazarenes encouraged gentiles to follow the Noahide purity laws in anticipation of the imminent (and quite literal) 'Kingdom of God'.
6. Paul dealt with the Jerusalem church in bad faith and was eventually rejected by them.
7. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple the Pauline version of Christianity gained popularity over the Jewish version which became 'heresy'.

History is written by the winners.

[Easyrider]

Now, here are some of my conclusions...

1. Jesus was a 'Nazarene'.

Born in Bethehem.

2. His theology was Pharisaic (works based).

Let's toss John 3:16 and John 8:24, etc., in the trash then.

4. James and the Jerusalem church observed the Torah (ALL of it.)

Is the reference to the "name of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST" by the Jewish Church Council at Jerusalem being "Torah observant"? Acts 15:26

6. Paul dealt with the Jerusalem church in bad faith and was eventually rejected by them.

Where's this final "rejection" in Scripture? It's not in Acts 15:4.

7. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple the Pauline version of Christianity gained popularity over the Jewish version which became 'heresy'.

I don't see two versions. Most churches preach the same Jesus from the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles without any problem.

Jesus is Lord!

[Cathar1950]

Lets have it out about the Nazarenes.

Is it 'change the subject time' already?

OK. I'll play, but first let's reminisce a little...

The only people that really count in this debate are those who knew Jesus during his life. The beliefs of those who followed them are relevant only if they can be shown to reflect the ideas of that earlier group.

Granted as I said in my quote. We agree on this point

Points That I think are true about the Nazarenes.

I find it odd that you would place your conclusions in front of your evidence. Before I address your conclusions, I'll address your evidence. (BTW, please notice that I've added my own emphasis to the quotes that you provided.)

-- 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.

IOW they were Jews, not Christians.

-- 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.

And that's important why? We all know the story; Paul's version of Christianity won out in the end. Since you mention it...

"The Chjristians that Muhammad encountered during his days leading caravans around the Arabian Peninsula were largely Jewish Christians who survived among the Arabs. So it is no coincidence that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is remarkably similar to the Jewish Christian understanding." - Jeffrey J. Butz - The Brother of Jesus, p. 176

-- 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.

That's awesome"...neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple..." Sounds like a bunch of wacky heretics making outrageous claims to me!
I don't know if they followed Jeremiah's 'New Covenant' or not, but it would probably make sense if they did...

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31:33

So much for 'free will'.
As for their belief in the resurrection, I wouldn't argue. Epiphanius provides no evidence re the nature of that resurrection belief, so there's no need to beg the question. I have conceded from the start that the original 'Christians' believed Jesus to be the Messiah, just as others believed John the Baptist was, or Theudas, etc. Inherent in that belief is the idea that the messiah is the 'son of God'. David was the 'son of God' too, as was Augustus or Gilgamesh. There are plenty of 'sons of God' in the Bible starting at Gen. 6:2. My wife once did a bible study about 'sons of God' and came up with a whole whack of them. To put it another way, 'Son of God' = mountain, 'son of God' = molehill. That' s what the "Low" christology" is all about...

"To the individual with a low Christology Jesus was just another guy, granted an exceptional guy, but just another guy. It is not that God was really integrally interwoven with Jesus. It is just that Jesus had a particularly strong relationship with God." from here.

-- 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.

I think that Jerome's use of the liturgical formula "...Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again..." tells us more about his theology than that of the Nazareans 300 years earlier. His comments regarding their recognition of Paul are what we would expect since they line up with the story as told in Acts (Jerome was an inerrantist). There is debate as to how wholeheartedly the Nazareans endorsed Paul, with evidence of repeated conflict. Luke's apologetic tendency to smooth over any difficulties between Paul and the Jerusalem church is widely recognized, even by conservatives.

"The author of Acts...has a noted tendency to smooth over fierce battles in the early church." - Raymond E. Brown and John Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, p. 29

Its not only liberal scholars who recognize this. F.F. Bruce even suggests a motive

" It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity." from ECW

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.

"Perhaps" Wow! (BTW, do you know who the author of this page is? I couldn't find it.)

--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).

Thanks!

--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.).

"3rd and 4th centuries" heh? "Late 2nd century"? "Might have"? That's a pretty compelling case, for something.

--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.

You're doing my work for me!
I know that it's that phrase "New Covenant Way" that you think is significant, but you would need to a) show that the author is correct, and b) show that the original Nazareans understood that phrase the way the authors of the NT portray it. You've already provided evidence for a) but the Jeremiac (?) covenant isn't a departure from the law, but rather a closer adherence to it. The New Covenant as found in Paul's letters and the synoptic gospels (but not John, although there is this - I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. John 13:34 {not really new though, see Lev. 19:18}), is given in the context of the 'Last Supper'. There are plenty of reasons to discount this as an historical event. For one thing, theophagy was a practice more befitting of pagan mystery cults. Strictly observant Judahists would have found the idea abhorrent. Also, Jesus actions here (took, blessed, broke, gave) are identical to the story of the loaves and fishes (Mark 6:30-44), and is an indicator that the symbolism of this story is more important than its historical accuracy. There's more, and we could probably do a whole thread just on this subject, but suffice to say that I don't think it ever happened. Here's a bit more...

"Did Jesus, before his death, institute a new Passover meal in which his martyrdom with its separation of body and blood was symbolized by the meal with its separation of bread and wine? On the one hand, Paul certainly knows about such an institution in 1Corinthians 11:23-25. But, on the other, John 13-17 has a last supper with Jesus and his disciples that is neither the Passover meal nor any type of institutionalized symbolic commemoration of his death. Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q Gospel exhibits any awareness of a Last Supper tradition. Finally, the case of Didache 9-10 is especially significant. It describes a communal and ritual eating together, from the second half of the first century, with absolutely no hint of Passover meal, Last Supper, or passion symbolism built into its origins or development." - J.D. Crossan, Jesus - A Revolutionary Biography pp.129-130

--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.

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

--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."

Somebody tampered with the gospels? Say it isn't so!
Since gNazoreans is a rewrite of gMatthew (itself a rewrite of gMark) it's not surprising that it is also theologically similar (If you don't mind Jesus as the Son of the Holy Spirit). I'll admit that it's interesting that the Syrian Nazoreans used such a 'catholic' document, but then again it is 2nd century. I'll look into it more when I have more time. Until then Peter Kirby has a pretty exhaustive article on the subject if you're interested.

-- 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.

About.com? I'm surprised. So Nazarenes in the 3rd-4th century accepted some aspects of the divinity of Jesus? Great! I'm curious about this "split" that the author is referring to. What's that all about? Constantine?

-- 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.

Not everyone thinks that James Trimm is the most reputable of sources. There's nothing new here, though. Just the reports of church historians centuries after the fact. What is it that you find interesting, the bit about ..."the resurrection of the dead..."? It is a common (and orthodox) late Second Temple belief. Jesus followers viewed his 'resurrection' as the first fruits (1Cor. 15) of the general resurrection.

-- 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).

I can find nothing in this to argue against, except to add that although the imminent 'Kingdom of God' would have included gentiles, there is no special reason that Jesus would have needed to "come for" them in order to inaugurate that Kingdom. If you are concerned about the so-called "paradox" Trimm mentions that is probably because like almost everyone else you have taken the Pauline view.

-- 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

That's interesting. I'd like to know the source for that. If that's true then I guess that you could argue that the Nazarenes were blaspheming, then again they have a scriptural basis for using YHWH's name. It sounds like a difference of opinion. It doesn't have much to do with them making "outrageous claims" about Jesus though.

-- 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."

Hey, he's a Roman, what does he know? We know that Paul had a relationship with the Jerusalem church, that's not in dispute. The important question is "what was the nature of that relationship?" Luke's account of Paul's arrest is written in the first person (as an eyewitness) and yet he makes no mention of James or any other Nazarene coming to his defence. Instead they let him hang out to dry.

-- 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.

That's true enough, except that James was top dog, as were his brothers after him. IOW, the Jerusalem church was ruled by dynastic succession, which makes sense if you believe that Jesus' family was of Davidic descent.

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.

1) No problem there.
2) No problem there, either.
3) When? Where? Who? Try to confine your answer to the middle of the 1st century, Jerusalem, among those who knew Jesus while he was alive.
4) To put it mildly! They were ultra-orthodox. They had to be in order to persuade YHWH to come down and save them!
5) And this Nazarene/Ebionite split occurred when? During the first generation? Jesus was such a poor teacher that his original apostles couldn't agree on their beliefs? If there was a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with gentiles then we have to assume that Jesus didn't address the issue.

"We naturally tend to assume that Paul made his point and won the day - Peter admitting his mistake, and the previous practice being resumed. But Paul does not actually say so..if Paul had won, and if Peter acknowledged the force of his argument, Paul would surely have noted this, just as he strenghthened his earlier position by noting the approval of the "pillar apostles" in 2.7-10. In the circumstances then, it is quite likely that Paul was defeated at Antioch...
Whatever the precise facts of the matter then it is evident that there was a much deeper divide between Paul and the Jewish Christianity emanating from Jerusalem than at first appears..." - James Dunn, Unity And Diversity in the New Testament, p. 254

6) Maybe, maybe not. Re the term 'Ebionite'...

"Being "the poor" appears to be the essential dignity held by the congregation in Jerusalem, to be granted and respected by all other Jesus congregations. The absolute use of this appellation in Galatians 2:10 and the fact that it does not need any explanation show that it must have been a title commonly bestowed upon that congregation...
This titulary usage was modelled after other, previously existing...examples in the Jewish Bible....the name "the poor"...is used synonymously with such designations as "pious" and "just". Since the Maccabean wars (second century B.C.E.)..."the poor" had been used as a self-designation by a variety of Jewish groups, all of whom meant to express that they alone were the true devotees, the true Israel, the "Holy Remnant"." - Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem, pp. 33-36
7) Judahist tradition did not include "exhile of Gentials" before Jesus time. They were always welcome, just so long as they followed the Torah and became circumcised. (Circumcision was the mark of their covenant with YHWH) The Nazarenes required circumcision as much as anyone.

"By refusing to share a table with them, the Jewish Christians were showing that they did not think them complete Christians. If they wanted to be fully integrated into the community of the Nazarenes, they had to be circumcised and live according to the law of Moses. Doubtless that is what Paul was referring to when he was criticizing Peter for forcing the pagans to Judaize." - Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, James Brother of Jesus, p. 181

I can't comment on the "naming of God" part since I've seen no evidence for or against besides James Trimms assertion. The rest of this point - "their views of the messiah and other various things." is too vague to respond to or even take seriously.
8) Really? The ECW site gives the date range for gMatthew as 80-100. Is that the book of Matthew you mean? Also, of what use would this book be to the very people who had known Jesus and expected the parousia within their generation? Later Nazarenes may have used variations of gMatthew but that's not relevant.
9) At this early stage the Nazarenes were the Ebionites. Do you think 6 of the apostles had arguments with the other 6? ("Well, he looked pretty divine to me...")
10) Isn't that the same as #1? Besides, as I've pointed out, 'son of God' isn't all that exclusive as titles go.

According to James Dunn, although there is some diversity of belief among Jewish Christian groups they all share three common characteristics...

"1. Faithful adherence to the Law of Moses.
2. The exaltation of James and the denigration of Paul.
3. A christology of "adoptionism" - they all believed that Jesus was the natural born son of Joseph and Mary and was "adopted" by God as his Son upon his baptism by John." - James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, pp 240-242

11) Umm, so?
12) "Paul was thought to be the leader" by who? The evidence is overwhelming that James was the leader and that Paul had to suck up to him. Even Paul admits it. Epiphanius took a different view...

"They declare that he was a Greek....He went up to Jerusalem, they say, and when he had spent some time there, he was seized with a passion to marry the daugher of the priest. For this reason he became a proselyte [through the Saducee movement, hence his working for the Temple police] and was circumcised. Then, when he failed to get the girl, he flew into a rage and wrote against circumcision and against the sabbath and the Law."

13) Peter didn't preside over the council, James did. Peter's speech in Acts 15 is pure Lukan invention and contradicts everything that we know about Jesus' original followers.

"We have again and again returned to the fact that nothing which Jesus said or did which bore on the law led his disciples after his death to disregard it. This great fact, which overrides all others, sets a definite limit to what can be said about Jesus and the law." E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 268

"Everything points to the conclusion that the leaders and members of the so-called "Jerusalem Church" were not Christians in any sense that would be intelligible to Christians of a later date. They were Jews, who subscribed to every item of the Jewish faith. For example, so far from regarding baptism as ousting the Jewish rite of circumcision as an entry requirement into the religious communion, they continued to circumcise their male children, thus inducting them into the Jewish covenant. The first ten "bishops" of the "Jerusalem Church"...were all circumcised Jews. They kept the Jewish dietary laws, the Jewish Sabbaths and festivals, including the Day of Atonement (thus showing that they did not regard the death of Jesus as atoning for their sins), the Jewish purity laws (when they had to enter the Temple, which they did frequrntly), and they used the Jewish liturgy for their daily prayers..." - Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, p. 133

"It is clear that James was the leading figure in the Jerusalem church. In spite of this fact, Luke mentions him on only three occasions (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). This is puzzling. Martin Hengel has described the presentation of James in the New Testament as one-sided and tendentious. Luke may have known of the martyrdom of James in the year 62 C.E. but chose not to mention the event because of the prestige attached to James as a martyr...It is as if Luke has pushed James into the background, but, because of his prominence, has been unable to obscure totally his leading role. He sought to minimize the role of James because he was aware that James represented a hard-line position on the place of circumcision and the keeping of the law, a position that Luke himself did not wish to maintain." - John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, p. 235

"Nazarenes continued to exist until about 400 C.E. declaring to the last that Jesus was the Messiah, that he would soon return, that he was the Son of God but not divine himself, that the Jewish law had never been abrogated by him, and that Paul was a deceiver who had perverted Jesus' message." - Hyam Maccoby, Revolution in Judaea, (p 818)

Now, here are some of my conclusions...

1. Jesus was a 'Nazarene'.
2. His theology was Pharisaic (works based).
3. James led the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death.
4. James and the Jerusalem church observed the Torah (ALL of it.)
5. The Nazarenes encouraged gentiles to follow the Noahide purity laws in anticipation of the imminent (and quite literal) 'Kingdom of God'.
6. Paul dealt with the Jerusalem church in bad faith and was eventually rejected by them.
7. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple the Pauline version of Christianity gained popularity over the Jewish version which became 'heresy'.

History is written by the winners.

I guess my work is done. I have actually read a number of your sources and a few others by such authors as Sanders, Eisenman, Brandon, Maccoby, Mack, Crossan, Meier and others and they all seem to pretty much make persuasive arguments as nicely summarized by Lotan. I suppose Lotan could go in to detail and read the books to you so you could argue word for word from some conservative scholar that agrees with you. But I would think you would get the point. It seems what is often called a refutation is really a dispute that is ignored and denied. Quoting some scholar that agrees with you while ignoring the dispute is not a refutation or even evidence. It is sidestepping the argument and ignoring the point.
The only thing I would like to add that Lotan briefly covered is the communion and Paul.
If you read the passage you notice Paul received it from the Lord.
Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. He had visions of the "Christ" whom he identified as Jesus or even "God saves".
As Paul likes to point out in some of his letters he likes to claim he got things right from the "Christ" (spirit/vision) and not from men (surely a denigration of the "pillars" of the assembly and Jesus disciples). I find it interesting that it ends up almost word for word in the largely Pauline gospels and seems to be something appalling to a Jew yet right at home with the Mystery Cults practiced in his hometown of Tarsus.
Splendid job Lotan and It is nice to see some one else has enjoyed those readings. I anticipate the other appreciative responses I am sure you will receive.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (English Standard Version)

23For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for[a] you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

[achilles12604]

[

quote="achilles12604"]Points That I think are true about the Nazarenes.

I find it odd that you would place your conclusions in front of your evidence. Before I address your conclusions, I'll address your evidence. (BTW, please notice that I've added my own emphasis to the quotes that you provided.)[/quote]

Ok this should be interesting.

-- 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.

IOW they were Jews, not Christians.

True. They were Jews that broke away from traditional jewish beliefs, perhaps not completely, but the break was there. Hence they were something new. Something that held basic Jewish culture and traditions as well as following the teachings of Jesus.

-- 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.

And that's important why? We all know the story; Paul's version of Christianity won out in the end. Since you mention it...

"The Chjristians that Muhammad encountered during his days leading caravans around the Arabian Peninsula were largely Jewish Christians who survived among the Arabs. So it is no coincidence that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is remarkably similar to the Jewish Christian understanding." - Jeffrey J. Butz - The Brother of Jesus, p. 176

Ok . . . now real point made here. Moving on.

-- 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.

That's awesome"...neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple..." Sounds like a bunch of wacky heretics making outrageous claims to me!
I don't know if they followed Jeremiah's 'New Covenant' or not, but it would probably make sense if they did...

But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD. I will place my law within them, and write it upon their hearts; I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer. 31:33

So much for 'free will'.
As for their belief in the resurrection, I wouldn't argue. Epiphanius provides no evidence re the nature of that resurrection belief, so there's no need to beg the question. I have conceded from the start that the original 'Christians' believed Jesus to be the Messiah, just as others believed John the Baptist was, or Theudas, etc. Inherent in that belief is the idea that the messiah is the 'son of God'. David was the 'son of God' too, as was Augustus or Gilgamesh. There are plenty of 'sons of God' in the Bible starting at Gen. 6:2. My wife once did a bible study about 'sons of God' and came up with a whole whack of them. To put it another way, 'Son of God' = mountain, 'son of God' = molehill.

Ah yes, but look at John the Baptist denying being the messiah. Also look at Jesus and how many times he is refered to as "the son of Man." as well as the son of God. How many other people claimed to be both the son of Man (daniel reference) and the son of God? Did your wife look that up? Jesus was claiming something unique. Something special. And unlike John the Bastist, he took on the title, not set it aside. Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah. When John's followers thought this, John himself set them straight.

That' s what the "Low" christology" is all about...

"To the individual with a low Christology Jesus was just another guy, granted an exceptional guy, but just another guy. It is not that God was really integrally interwoven with Jesus. It is just that Jesus had a particularly strong relationship with God." from here.
[quote="Wikipedia"

]

Thats fine. We already established that there was a conflict of beliefs even among the earliest followers. I have no issue with this source saying that some held a low christology when I have others ( Ancient Paths ) which point out the disagreement and that there were others that held a high Christology. The Nazarenes and the Ebonites were divided and there were even divisions among these groups as to what to accept. I have no trouble seeing how some people would believe the stories about Jesus while others (Who were perhaps related to people on this very forum) would deny anything they did not personally see. To them, others telling them what they saw was not good enough. Even Thomas doubted. Hence we see various acceptance even at the earliest stages. What would be strange is if within just a couple (5 or so) years, stories about him had become so legendary that all the miracle stories had been invented and passed along so well that it convinced many of the early followers of a higher christology while skeptics still held a low christology. What caused the group that believed in Jesus miracles and "high" christology to do so if NOTHING warranted such beliefs? Remember you only have a very few years to work with for your legend development.

By the way, since the source quoted is a non-theist and hostile source, here is another which says almost exactly the same thing, yet you will notice that the summary conclusion is missing. Perhaps someone was inserting their opinion at that point? Maybe? Just something to think about.

Epiphanius characterizes them as neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple, but adds that they recognized the new covenant as well as the old, and believed in the resurrection, and in the one God and His Son Jesus Christ. 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.

http://www.infobadger.com/articles/Nazarene

-- 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.

I think that Jerome's use of the liturgical formula "...Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again..." tells us more about his theology than that of the Nazareans 300 years earlier. His comments regarding their recognition of Paul are what we would expect since they line up with the story as told in Acts (Jerome was an inerrantist). There is debate as to how wholeheartedly the Nazareans endorsed Paul, with evidence of repeated conflict. Luke's apologetic tendency to smooth over any difficulties between Paul and the Jerusalem church is widely recognized, even by conservatives.[/quote]

Well they must have endorsed him enough to send him as their primary missionary to the rest of the world. As I asked you earlier, "Why would they have sent someone they vihimently disagreed with? You keep pushing that these people rejected Paul and his teachings, yet then they send him out as one of their primary missionaries? Why?

You said before, it was for the money. Still want to hold that excuse? The fact that the council of Jerusalem, not only concurred that salvation came through Jesus (a council lead by Peter on which James also presided), but they then sent Paul out to spread this same message. Strange if your interpretation of the evidence is accurate. But it makes much more sense if my interpretation is correct.

"The author of Acts...has a noted tendency to smooth over fierce battles in the early church." - Raymond E. Brown and John Meier, Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, p. 29

Its not only liberal scholars who recognize this. F.F. Bruce even suggests a motive

" It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity." from ECW

This section from ECW (I didn't find it but I'll take you word for it), doesn't seem to have anything to do with Luke trying to smooth over the churches problems. On the contrary it is talking about how the accusers of Paul had discredited THEMSELVES before the Romans. I'm not sure how this section has anything to do with the Gospel writers trying to smooth things over. It seems here that it is the Jews who have smoothing to do but then you may not have posted the entire excerpt. Or more likely I may have simply missed your point.

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.

"Perhaps" Wow! (BTW, do you know who the author of this page is? I couldn't find it.)

It is from about.com. I decided to chose several atheist sites just os you wouldn't accuse me of bias. In fact I chose almost exclusively atheist sites. See how nice I am? I believe the writer of this particular piece is James Trimm although I may be mistaken. It is included in the same section as other writings by him so I am assuming. In either case, I can find similar quotes on several sites so this isn't isolated.

--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).

Thanks!

Just being honest. I can fully endorse that the early Christians held onto Jewish customs and beliefs. I also point out that they were also engaging in actions which were entirely ANTI-jewish like speaking the name of God himself and welcoming non-Jews into their ceremonies. Apparently, these jews were Zealous. They were also not acting within the traditions of their fellow Jews so somethings were totally different. You see yet?

Jews can be zealous for their faith, yet at the same time hold new beliefs and new ideas like I have been saying and you seem to keep denying. Yes they were zealous. They were also full of new ideas and beliefs.

--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.).

"3rd and 4th centuries" heh? "Late 2nd century"? "Might have"? That's a pretty compelling case, for something.

I'm simply quoting the what the sources say. You can deny whatever you wish to. I won't even try and stop you.

Ancient Paths wrote:
--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.

You're doing my work for me!
I know that it's that phrase "New Covenant Way" that you think is significant, but you would need to a) show that the author is correct, and b) show that the original Nazareans understood that phrase the way the authors of the NT portray it. You've already provided evidence for a) but the Jeremiac (?) covenant isn't a departure from the law, but rather a closer adherence to it. The New Covenant as found in Paul's letters and the synoptic gospels (but not John, although there is this - I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. John 13:34 {not really new though, see Lev. 19:18}), is given in the context of the 'Last Supper'. There are plenty of reasons to discount this as an historical event. For one thing, theophagy was a practice more befitting of pagan mystery cults. Strictly observant Judahists would have found the idea abhorrent. Also, Jesus actions here (took, blessed, broke, gave) are identical to the story of the loaves and fishes (Mark 6:30-44), and is an indicator that the symbolism of this story is more important than its historical accuracy. There's more, and we could probably do a whole thread just on this subject, but suffice to say that I don't think it ever happened. Here's a bit more...

"Did Jesus, before his death, institute a new Passover meal in which his martyrdom with its separation of body and blood was symbolized by the meal with its separation of bread and wine? On the one hand, Paul certainly knows about such an institution in 1Corinthians 11:23-25. But, on the other, John 13-17 has a last supper with Jesus and his disciples that is neither the Passover meal nor any type of institutionalized symbolic commemoration of his death. Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q Gospel exhibits any awareness of a Last Supper tradition. Finally, the case of Didache 9-10 is especially significant. It describes a communal and ritual eating together, from the second half of the first century, with absolutely no hint of Passover meal, Last Supper, or passion symbolism built into its origins or development." - J.D. Crossan, Jesus - A Revolutionary Biography pp.129-130

Oh good, first you simply deny what the evidence said, then you doubt historical events because Crossan (who thinks Jesus body was eaten by dogs) tries to compare the supper with entirely symbolic material. Then he says quite boldly

Neither the Gospel of Thomas nor the Q Gospel exhibits any awareness of a Last Supper tradition.

Fabulous. Ok well Mr. Crossan, how on earth do you know what Q says beacuse IT DOESN"T EVEN EXIST!!? And the Gospel of Thomas is from the mid 2nd century, and is full of Gnostic ideas and half sayings that Jesus supposedly said. I also find it interesting that Crossan happens to be a big purponent of the Jesus seminar, a group which decides what Jesus did or did not say based on 7 factors specifically designed to take as much of the christology away from Jesus before evaluating him as it possibly can. Example of one of their "Pillars of Scholarly wisdom". If it has supernatural overtones, it is entirely impossible.

No wonder these guys get the results they do. If I have to chose a number between 1 and 10 and I said that numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and 10 didn't count before I ever had to pick, guess what number I would pick? this is exactly what Crossan and the seminar do. And yes I think that their work is so outrageously speculative and biased to the core, that it is total junk. Having read just to page 33 of "The Five Gospels" I could see them stack the deck so the only possible outcome was the one they were trying to get in the first place. Yea, Crossan is REALLY a great scholar. But then he proves this when he quotes the Q, and yet no one has ever found this hypothetical Q.

Does this seem strange to anyone?

achilles12604 wrote:
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.

The bottom line. . . .

1) No problem there.

Ok . . .

2) No problem there, either.

Thank you.

3) When? Where? Who? Try to confine your answer to the middle of the 1st century, Jerusalem, among those who knew Jesus while he was alive.

I'm basing this opinion on . . .

-- 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.).

And here is further evidence on this subject.

Ebionites were a heretical group centered in Palestine that existed after Bar Kochba's revolt was put down by Rome around 135 A.D. The Ebionites emphasized the unity of God and His role as Creator of the universe. They held fast to Jewish law and believed it to be the highest expression of His divine will. They believed His law was still binding on man and was to be completely obeyed. Ebionites regarded Christ as a human being, not God the Son. Jesus achieved a measure of divinity when the Holy Spirit came upon Him at His baptism. They used Matthew's gospel and naturally, disliked the teachings of Paul. They taught Christians were held to the law of Moses and that physical circumcision was an essential ingredient to salvation. From Here

Notice that even the Ebonites, who were by far the greater critics, acknowledge that Jesus had divnity place upon him at his baptism. What would make them think this unless after Jesus basptim he did things no man could do?

PS - more to show a difference of opinion between the Nazarene's and the Ebonites . . .

"They practiced a rigorous asceticism and stressed the binding character of the Mosaic Law. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the Ebionites settled in Transjordan but remained outside the mainstream of Christianity. They are often identified with the Nazarenes, a similar sect described by 4th-century writers" Groiler's Encyclopedia CR Rom 1996 (same page as above)

You see. . . even the Ebonites who denied that Jesus was God, acknowledged divinity being placed upon him as some point in time. hence point 3: Some of them accepted Jesus divinity, some did not. Actually, now I guess I have a better point than before. I guess now I can say that they all attributed divinity to him, but from different places and in different ways. Hmmm . . .

4) To put it mildly! They were ultra-orthodox. They had to be in order to persuade YHWH to come down and save them!

What makes you say that they persuaded YHWH to come down? Where did this come from?

5) And this Nazarene/Ebionite split occurred when? During the first generation? Jesus was such a poor teacher that his original apostles couldn't agree on their beliefs? If there was a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with gentiles then we have to assume that Jesus didn't address the issue.

"We naturally tend to assume that Paul made his point and won the day - Peter admitting his mistake, and the previous practice being resumed. But Paul does not actually say so..if Paul had won, and if Peter acknowledged the force of his argument, Paul would surely have noted this, just as he strenghthened his earlier position by noting the approval of the "pillar apostles" in 2.7-10. In the circumstances then, it is quite likely that Paul was defeated at Antioch...
Whatever the precise facts of the matter then it is evident that there was a much deeper divide between Paul and the Jewish Christianity emanating from Jerusalem than at first appears..." - James Dunn, Unity And Diversity in the New Testament, p. 254

Uh . . . ok. Shall we go straight to the source?

5) And this Nazarene/Ebionite split occurred when? During the first generation?

Jesus is teaching things and many people walked away because his teachings were to hard for them. There were splits even as he was teaching.

If there was a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with gentiles then we have to assume that Jesus didn't address the issue.

More or less. The cannanite woman is on exception. Also when Jesus sent out his followers to Isreal. This was another place where he addressed gentile belief. Jesus made is clear at least a couple times that his mission was to Isreal, and their mission was to the world. Just read the source and your questions are answered.
'

6) Maybe, maybe not. Re the term 'Ebionite'...

"Being "the poor" appears to be the essential dignity held by the congregation in Jerusalem, to be granted and respected by all other Jesus congregations. The absolute use of this appellation in Galatians 2:10 and the fact that it does not need any explanation show that it must have been a title commonly bestowed upon that congregation...
This titulary usage was modelled after other, previously existing...examples in the Jewish Bible....the name "the poor"...is used synonymously with such designations as "pious" and "just". Since the Maccabean wars (second century B.C.E.)..."the poor" had been used as a self-designation by a variety of Jewish groups, all of whom meant to express that they alone were the true devotees, the true Israel, the "Holy Remnant"." - Dieter Georgi, Remembering the Poor: The History of Paul's Collection for Jerusalem, pp. 33-36

Ok . . . good description of the Ebonites. Does not address, (or even hint at) a connection with the Nazarenes. Also, notice that there were other congregations not named here alive and well at the same time.

7) Judahist tradition did not include "exhile of Gentials" before Jesus time. They were always welcome, just so long as they followed the Torah and became circumcised. (Circumcision was the mark of their covenant with YHWH) The Nazarenes required circumcision as much as anyone.

"By refusing to share a table with them, the Jewish Christians were showing that they did not think them complete Christians. If they wanted to be fully integrated into the community of the Nazarenes, they had to be circumcised and live according to the law of Moses. Doubtless that is what Paul was referring to when he was criticizing Peter for forcing the pagans to Judaize." - Pierre-Antoine Bernheim, James Brother of Jesus, p. 181

I can't comment on the "naming of God" part since I've seen no evidence for or against besides James Trimms assertion. The rest of this point - "their views of the messiah and other various things." is too vague to respond to or even take seriously.

Argh! I found two or three pages addressing this issue, yet now I can't find them. Oh well, I will simply move on after saying that there are at least a couple sites which cited the name thing. In fact there was an entire document written just for that specific difference. Of course now I can't find it . . .

8) Really? The ECW site gives the date range for gMatthew as 80-100. Is that the book of Matthew you mean? Also, of what use would this book be to the very people who had known Jesus and expected the parousia within their generation? Later Nazarenes may have used variations of gMatthew but that's not relevant.

Hmmm . . . you bring out a great point which I haddn't thought of before. I know that you non-theist love to cite ECW as absolute truth and fact, but this is not necesarily true. Remember that I pointed out that much of their dating is based on the assumption that Mark post wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem to make it look like Jesus had prophesied about it. But this is an assumption and worse it is assuming that an author was flat lying. Without this assumption, the only evidence for dating lies with Acts' and Paul which would make the Gospels much closer to the events then ECW gives them credit. But then again, assuming the worst and looking for conspiracies seems to be par for the course with non-theists. . .

Anyway, if they were flurishing between 30-80 AD and they were in fact using the Gmatthew, then this would show that the G matthew was in fact written before 80AD. Interesting point.

9) At this early stage the Nazarenes were the Ebionites. Do you think 6 of the apostles had arguments with the other 6? ("Well, he looked pretty divine to me...")

As I showed from another site, even the ebonites attributed divinity to Jesus but they denied that Jesus was god. Divinity it would seem was not in question. The question was the origin of the divine attributes. This explains the ressurection beliefs, the salvation beliefs, and a few other things. See how it all fits nicely?

10) Isn't that the same as #1? Besides, as I've pointed out, 'son of God' isn't all that exclusive as titles go.

According to James Dunn, although there is some diversity of belief among Jewish Christian groups they all share three common characteristics...

"1. Faithful adherence to the Law of Moses.
2. The exaltation of James and the denigration of Paul.
3. A christology of "adoptionism" - they all believed that Jesus was the natural born son of Joseph and Mary and was "adopted" by God as his Son upon his baptism by John." - James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, pp 240-242

Ah good, I am so glad that James Dunn thinks so. Shall I pull some scholars which think differently or is it obvious that there is a difference of opinion concerning these traits to different degrees?

13) Peter didn't preside over the council, James did. Peter's speech in Acts 15 is pure Lukan invention and contradicts everything that we know about Jesus' original followers.

Huh? Lets look back at the evidence YOU put forth earlier . . .

Post 67
Well its all about Torah observance isnt it? Isnt that what this thread is about? All those heretical claims being made by the earliest Christians? Except that those earliest Christians were devout Judahists. Paul says "they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" and then goes on a rant about "the law" for the next two chapters. Does that sound like everyone was seeing eye to eye? The differences between Pauls view and that of the Jerusalem bunch are expressed concisely here

"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."

Actually, my arguement works even better if James did preside. However, you should probably make up your mind on the matter before we continue.

His decree is the point. Salvation comes through Jesus, not through obeying every aspect of the law, especially in this case, circumcision.

As for Peter's speach being made up, well you have a pattern of believing what you want and comming up with some really great (or far out) evidence to support them. What is your evidence for this claim?

"It is clear that James was the leading figure in the Jerusalem church. In spite of this fact, Luke mentions him on only three occasions (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). This is puzzling. Martin Hengel has described the presentation of James in the New Testament as one-sided and tendentious. Luke may have known of the martyrdom of James in the year 62 C.E. but chose not to mention the event because of the prestige attached to James as a martyr...It is as if Luke has pushed James into the background, but, because of his prominence, has been unable to obscure totally his leading role. He sought to minimize the role of James because he was aware that James represented a hard-line position on the place of circumcision and the keeping of the law, a position that Luke himself did not wish to maintain." - John Painter, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, p. 235

Interesting. Even more evidence for an early date from Luke and Acts. Lets see, first there was Paul's death not being mentioned, now James death isn't mentioned . . . Hmmm? Sounds a lot more like a date of pre or early 62AD for Acts just like the evil apologists have been saying all along.

1. Jesus was a 'Nazarene'.
2. His theology was Pharisaic (works based).
3. James led the Jerusalem church after Jesus' death.
4. James and the Jerusalem church observed the Torah (ALL of it.)

My only exception to any of this is the (ALL of it). In fact I may not even have a problem with that. However, it is quite clear that for gentiles to be saved, they did not have to adhere to ALL of it, so it lends support to my opinion that the Law was not as important for salvation as Jesus was.

5. The Nazarenes encouraged gentiles to follow the Noahide purity laws in anticipation of the imminent (and quite literal) 'Kingdom of God'.

EEHH . . . . perhaps. I would be careful not to assume to much about the purity laws simply because of the importance of traditions for the Jews and the decision of the Council of Jerusalem.

6. Paul dealt with the Jerusalem church in bad faith and was eventually rejected by them.

Once again I only see them squabbling over small matters. But then that is in the eye of the beholder huh?

7. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple the Pauline version of Christianity gained popularity over the Jewish version which became 'heresy'.

Ok.

[Goat]

Dr. John McRay (archaeologist at Wheaton College) is quoted in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ" (1998)...

"An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call 'micrographic' letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod [4 B.C.]" (page 101).

"...It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses...It's not uncommon to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there's no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius." (page 102).

So McRay is happy to cite the "great deal of work" done by the "eminent" nutbar Vardaman and then draw conclusions based on the same "great deal of work" done by the 'eminent" nutbar Vardaman. Either McRay was simply dishonest, or to be charitable, he may have been irresponsible. I either case his apologetic bias has gotten the better of whatever claim to 'scholarship' he may have had. If someone like Crossan or Ehrman had ever based their conclusions on the work of a quack like Vardaman apologists would never shut up about it.

Did you see the following on page 102 of Strobel's "The Case for Christ"?

Quote (Strobel): "Other scholars have pointed out that Luke's text can be translated, 'This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria,' which would also resolve the problem." (Reference was "Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, page 185).

From "When Critics Ask," page 185:

It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria." In this case, the Greek word translated "first" (prōtos) is translated as a comparative, "before." Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading.
Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties . Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill.

Yes, those people who claim the bible is inerrent, and need to resolve that contradiction say so. However, there are several problems with that.

1) They are making an 'if/then/maybe' aobut the translation of 'first'.
2) There is no real evidence that Quirnius was govenor before.
3) It does not make sense in context to have it mean 'before'.
4) There is no evidence that Augustus would have had the authority to order a cencus in Judah before 6 ce.
5) Luke would not have used that to mark the timeframe if he meant for a time period over 9 years early.
6) There is no evidence of an earlier census that would effect the inhabitants of Judah by the roman empire before that.

The attempt at apologetics on this make things so contorted and complicated that it just tears at the fabric of credibility all togather.

Goat -

There are a few thing untrue about your points.

1) They are making an 'if/then/maybe' aobut the translation of 'first'.

No objections

2) There is no real evidence that Quirnius was govenor before.

But Quirnius was the commanding general for the past decade or more in syria and he had a lot of experience. The Governer Cyrus (I think) comming in was brand new and inexperienced.

Isn't it likely he would have asked for help with this task especially since Quirinius was so experienced with the people and had been given the authority to conduct a census back in 23 BC?

4) There is no evidence that Augustus would have had the authority to order a cencus in Judah before 6 ce

On the contrary. . .

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

The Deeds of the Divine Augustus

By Augustus

Written 14 A.C.E.

Translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

Not only could he, but he in fact did right at 8BC.

6) There is no evidence of an earlier census that would effect the inhabitants of Judah by the roman empire before that.

Once again see above.

Well, you are misrepresenting things.. not on purpose, I am sure, but misreprenenting things.

1) The census in 8 BCE dealt only for Roman citizens. This eliminates the inhabitants of Judah. My point stands. In 8 BCE, the inhabitants of Judah were not Roman Citizens.

2) For Quirinius , you are grasping at straws, and doing 'if/then/maybe'. First of all, the previous cencus was for Roman Citizens, and the second point, Luke specifically said 'When Quirinius first became governor of Syria'. That happened specifically in 6 c.e, and that census was recorded by both Josephus and Cassius Dio. There is no evidence that Quirinius had anything to do with a census in 8 bce.

Your own quotes elimate the cencus of 8bce having to deal with Judah.

[achilles12604]

Dr. John McRay (archaeologist at Wheaton College) is quoted in Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for Christ" (1998)...

"An eminent archaeologist named Jerry Vardaman has done a great deal of work in this regard. He has found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call 'micrographic' letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod [4 B.C.]" (page 101).

"...It means that there were apparently two Quiriniuses...It's not uncommon to have lots of people with the same Roman names, so there's no reason to doubt that there were two people by the name of Quirinius." (page 102).

So McRay is happy to cite the "great deal of work" done by the "eminent" nutbar Vardaman and then draw conclusions based on the same "great deal of work" done by the 'eminent" nutbar Vardaman. Either McRay was simply dishonest, or to be charitable, he may have been irresponsible. I either case his apologetic bias has gotten the better of whatever claim to 'scholarship' he may have had. If someone like Crossan or Ehrman had ever based their conclusions on the work of a quack like Vardaman apologists would never shut up about it.

Did you see the following on page 102 of Strobel's "The Case for Christ"?

Quote (Strobel): "Other scholars have pointed out that Luke's text can be translated, 'This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria,' which would also resolve the problem." (Reference was "Geisler and Howe, When Critics Ask, page 185).

From "When Critics Ask," page 185:

It is possible that Luke 2:2 reads, "This census took place before Quirinius was governing Syria." In this case, the Greek word translated "first" (prōtos) is translated as a comparative, "before." Because of the awkward construction of the sentence, this is not an unlikely reading.
Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties . Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill.

Yes, those people who claim the bible is inerrent, and need to resolve that contradiction say so. However, there are several problems with that.

1) They are making an 'if/then/maybe' aobut the translation of 'first'.
2) There is no real evidence that Quirnius was govenor before.
3) It does not make sense in context to have it mean 'before'.
4) There is no evidence that Augustus would have had the authority to order a cencus in Judah before 6 ce.
5) Luke would not have used that to mark the timeframe if he meant for a time period over 9 years early.
6) There is no evidence of an earlier census that would effect the inhabitants of Judah by the roman empire before that.

The attempt at apologetics on this make things so contorted and complicated that it just tears at the fabric of credibility all togather.

Goat -

There are a few thing untrue about your points.

1) They are making an 'if/then/maybe' aobut the translation of 'first'.

No objections

2) There is no real evidence that Quirnius was govenor before.

But Quirnius was the commanding general for the past decade or more in syria and he had a lot of experience. The Governer Cyrus (I think) comming in was brand new and inexperienced.

Isn't it likely he would have asked for help with this task especially since Quirinius was so experienced with the people and had been given the authority to conduct a census back in 23 BC?

4) There is no evidence that Augustus would have had the authority to order a cencus in Judah before 6 ce

On the contrary. . .

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

The Deeds of the Divine Augustus

By Augustus

Written 14 A.C.E.

Translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

Not only could he, but he in fact did right at 8BC.

6) There is no evidence of an earlier census that would effect the inhabitants of Judah by the roman empire before that.

Once again see above.

Well, you are misrepresenting things.. not on purpose, I am sure, but misreprenenting things.

1) The census in 8 BCE dealt only for Roman citizens. This eliminates the inhabitants of Judah. My point stands. In 8 BCE, the inhabitants of Judah were not Roman Citizens.

2) For Quirinius , you are grasping at straws, and doing 'if/then/maybe'. First of all, the previous cencus was for Roman Citizens, and the second point, Luke specifically said 'When Quirinius first became governor of Syria'. That happened specifically in 6 c.e, and that census was recorded by both Josephus and Cassius Dio. There is no evidence that Quirinius had anything to do with a census in 8 bce.

Your own quotes elimate the cencus of 8bce having to deal with Judah.

I'm not sure how my quotes eliminate anything at all. Surely you don't suggest that Ceaser manually counted everyone all by himself? Therefore he had to have governers to help him and governers had to have help from others below them. What better person to assist than a general who had been in the region for over a decade, knew the towns, the people and had military control of the area?

As for the census not counting Judah, this case is far from closed. The truth is no one is 100% sure who was counted. After all Judah was refered to as a Roman provance. It had a Roman Procrator and Roman Governers. So just because they were Jewish, you are assuming that they were not counted. I admit that ceaser writes that his census included Roman citizens. But couldn't this also include provinces under Roman control? This would make sense especially for tax purposes, which is the main reason why a census is conducted.

Your Mr. Carrier pointed out that the census was conducted every 14 years in Egypt because this was the legal timeframe for a man to start paying taxes. Since the Jew's also paid taxes to Rome, why wouldn't they be included in a census?

[Goat]

Goat -

There are a few thing untrue about your points.

1) They are making an 'if/then/maybe' aobut the translation of 'first'.

No objections

2) There is no real evidence that Quirnius was govenor before.

But Quirnius was the commanding general for the past decade or more in syria and he had a lot of experience. The Governer Cyrus (I think) comming in was brand new and inexperienced.

Isn't it likely he would have asked for help with this task especially since Quirinius was so experienced with the people and had been given the authority to conduct a census back in 23 BC?

4) There is no evidence that Augustus would have had the authority to order a cencus in Judah before 6 ce

On the contrary. . .

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

The Deeds of the Divine Augustus

By Augustus

Written 14 A.C.E.

Translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

Not only could he, but he in fact did right at 8BC.

6) There is no evidence of an earlier census that would effect the inhabitants of Judah by the roman empire before that.

Once again see above.

Well, you are misrepresenting things.. not on purpose, I am sure, but misreprenenting things.

1) The census in 8 BCE dealt only for Roman citizens. This eliminates the inhabitants of Judah. My point stands. In 8 BCE, the inhabitants of Judah were not Roman Citizens.

2) For Quirinius , you are grasping at straws, and doing 'if/then/maybe'. First of all, the previous cencus was for Roman Citizens, and the second point, Luke specifically said 'When Quirinius first became governor of Syria'. That happened specifically in 6 c.e, and that census was recorded by both Josephus and Cassius Dio. There is no evidence that Quirinius had anything to do with a census in 8 bce.

Your own quotes elimate the cencus of 8bce having to deal with Judah.[/quote]

I'm not sure how my quotes eliminate anything at all. Surely you don't suggest that Ceaser manually counted everyone all by himself? Therefore he had to have governers to help him and governers had to have help from others below them. What better person to assist than a general who had been in the region for over a decade, knew the towns, the people and had military control of the area?

As for the census not counting Judah, this case is far from closed. The truth is no one is 100% sure who was counted. After all Judah was refered to as a Roman provance. It had a Roman Procrator and Roman Governers. So just because they were Jewish, you are assuming that they were not counted. I admit that ceaser writes that his census included Roman citizens. But couldn't this also include provinces under Roman control? This would make sense especially for tax purposes, which is the main reason why a census is conducted.

Your Mr. Carrier pointed out that the census was conducted every 14 years in Egypt because this was the legal timeframe for a man to start paying taxes. Since the Jew's also paid taxes to Rome, why wouldn't they be included in a census?[/quote]

Are you purposely being dense? In 8 BCE, Judah did not have a roman Procrator , or a Roman Govenor. It had a King. That king has Herod the King. It was not a provance of Roman at that time. That happened specifically in 6 C.E., when the first census was taken, and Herod the Palastinian was removed from control. In 8 bce, the inhabitants of Judah were NOT Roman citizens. Until 6 c.e., Rome did not tax the inhabitants of Judah. It got it's money via tribute paid by the Kingdom of Judah.

That is why when Rome DID start taxing Judah directly, you had a revolt by the Zealots, lead Jesus the Galilean, as described in Josephus's works.

[Easyrider]

Are you purposely being dense? In 8 BCE, Judah did not have a roman Procrator , or a Roman Govenor. It had a King. That king has Herod the King. It was not a provance of Roman at that time. That happened specifically in 6 C.E., when the first census was taken, and Herod the Palastinian was removed from control. In 8 bce, the inhabitants of Judah were NOT Roman citizens. Until 6 c.e., Rome did not tax the inhabitants of Judah. It got it's money via tribute paid by the Kingdom of Judah.

That is why when Rome DID start taxing Judah directly, you had a revolt by the Zealots, lead Jesus the Galilean, as described in Josephus's works.

The linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

You've got no case, Goat.

[Goat]

Are you purposely being dense? In 8 BCE, Judah did not have a roman Procrator , or a Roman Govenor. It had a King. That king has Herod the King. It was not a provance of Roman at that time. That happened specifically in 6 C.E., when the first census was taken, and Herod the Palastinian was removed from control. In 8 bce, the inhabitants of Judah were NOT Roman citizens. Until 6 c.e., Rome did not tax the inhabitants of Judah. It got it's money via tribute paid by the Kingdom of Judah.

That is why when Rome DID start taxing Judah directly, you had a revolt by the Zealots, lead Jesus the Galilean, as described in Josephus's works.

The linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius'--see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Q.

And, while we are talking about Greek here...the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--Pilate, Festus, Felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.] My point is...nothing is really out of order here...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

You've got no case, Goat.

The invalid attempt by the inerrent christians to change what the Greek means does not change the fact that the census in 8 bce was for Roman citizens only, and that the inhabitants of Judah were not Roman citizens.

Nor does it change the fact that there is NO evidence what so ever that Quirinius was governor of Syria before 6 c.e.

The pitiful attempts to try to fit a census in earlier has been falsified many many times. It is just the inerrant Christians CAN not accept that the Gospel of Luke contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and have to go through hoops to try to reconcile them. They make up history, they change the meanings of words, and they LIE.

In addition to making claims about Quirinius that are irrelevant, and in addition to trying to making an inaccurate claim about the syntax in
the gospel of Luke about his phrase, that does not address the points I made.

So, your claims of 'my having no point' are refuted, and no only that, you have no point yourself, except some delusional apologists that have no meaning or value, except take up lots of words on a page.

[achilles12604]

Goat -

There are a few thing untrue about your points.

1) They are making an 'if/then/maybe' aobut the translation of 'first'.

No objections

2) There is no real evidence that Quirnius was govenor before.

But Quirnius was the commanding general for the past decade or more in syria and he had a lot of experience. The Governer Cyrus (I think) comming in was brand new and inexperienced.

Isn't it likely he would have asked for help with this task especially since Quirinius was so experienced with the people and had been given the authority to conduct a census back in 23 BC?

4) There is no evidence that Augustus would have had the authority to order a cencus in Judah before 6 ce

On the contrary. . .

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

The Deeds of the Divine Augustus

By Augustus

Written 14 A.C.E.

Translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

Not only could he, but he in fact did right at 8BC.

6) There is no evidence of an earlier census that would effect the inhabitants of Judah by the roman empire before that.

Once again see above.

Well, you are misrepresenting things.. not on purpose, I am sure, but misreprenenting things.

1) The census in 8 BCE dealt only for Roman citizens. This eliminates the inhabitants of Judah. My point stands. In 8 BCE, the inhabitants of Judah were not Roman Citizens.

2) For Quirinius , you are grasping at straws, and doing 'if/then/maybe'. First of all, the previous cencus was for Roman Citizens, and the second point, Luke specifically said 'When Quirinius first became governor of Syria'. That happened specifically in 6 c.e, and that census was recorded by both Josephus and Cassius Dio. There is no evidence that Quirinius had anything to do with a census in 8 bce.

Your own quotes elimate the cencus of 8bce having to deal with Judah.

I'm not sure how my quotes eliminate anything at all. Surely you don't suggest that Ceaser manually counted everyone all by himself? Therefore he had to have governers to help him and governers had to have help from others below them. What better person to assist than a general who had been in the region for over a decade, knew the towns, the people and had military control of the area?

As for the census not counting Judah, this case is far from closed. The truth is no one is 100% sure who was counted. After all Judah was refered to as a Roman provance. It had a Roman Procrator and Roman Governers. So just because they were Jewish, you are assuming that they were not counted. I admit that ceaser writes that his census included Roman citizens. But couldn't this also include provinces under Roman control? This would make sense especially for tax purposes, which is the main reason why a census is conducted.

Your Mr. Carrier pointed out that the census was conducted every 14 years in Egypt because this was the legal timeframe for a man to start paying taxes. Since the Jew's also paid taxes to Rome, why wouldn't they be included in a census?

Are you purposely being dense? In 8 BCE, Judah did not have a roman Procrator , or a Roman Govenor. It had a King. That king has Herod the King. It was not a provance of Roman at that time. That happened specifically in 6 C.E., when the first census was taken, and Herod the Palastinian was removed from control. In 8 bce, the inhabitants of Judah were NOT Roman citizens. Until 6 c.e., Rome did not tax the inhabitants of Judah. It got it's money via tribute paid by the Kingdom of Judah.

That is why when Rome DID start taxing Judah directly, you had a revolt by the Zealots, lead Jesus the Galilean, as described in Josephus's works.

Ah goat my friend. . .

In 64 BC Pompey created the Roman province of Judaea.

Here is a clip from infidels.org

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... hap27.html

Check out the graph about 1/4 of the way down.

2 Pompey decisively influenced Rome's involvement in Asia Minor, Syria, Judea, Egypt. Following Pompey's settlement, Syria was created a province (64 BCE), and Judea lost its Hellenistic cities while retaining a semblance of self-rule (63 BCE).

http://www.chass.toronto.edu/~prchrdsn/ ... d_arch.htm

The independent Jewish kingdom of the Hasmonaeans had, in 63 BC, fallen unintentionally into Roman control as a result of a series of events triggered when both contenders in a Hasmonaean civil war appealed to the Roman general Pompey for assistance.

http://www.sbuniv.edu/~hgallatin/ht3463aa04.html


Oh wait . . . 1 more that really drives the point home.

How and why did the Romans become involved in the eternal internal wars and dissensions which characterized Palestine?

This story really starts with the conflict between the Sadducees and Pharisees, which culminated in the rise to power of the Hasmonean (Sadducee) king Judah Aristobulus, the first Hasmonean to use the title of king. He lasted only one year and was succeeded by his brother Alexander Jannai, under whom the rift between the people widened, eventually erupting into such serious conflict that Rome intervened.

Pompey, Romes conquering hero, was leading a successful campaign in Armenia at the time, but on hearing of the civil war marched south, took Jericho and went on to Jerusalem, which he captured after a three months siege. Pompey put Jerusalem under tribute to Rome. The year was 63 BC.

http://www.rapidttp.com/milhist/vol061wc.html




So no to answer your question I am not

purposely being dense

.

If you don't trust your own sources, then I am at a lost as to how to convince you that Rome was controling and taxing Judah well before 8BC.