It makes no sense to postulate the existence of an ancient group (presuambly) of Jews who called themselves by a non-existent Hebrew term.
Were the first Christians really Monotheists?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Posts: 887 (06/05/08 08:38:21) |
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
||
|
GammaWaif |
|||
|
Posts: 38 (06/05/08 09:40:54) |
I think the issue is postulating that the name is what they called themselves. It might very well have been hung on them, by their detractors,
the xians and Epiphanius, in paticular.
|
||
|
JohnySkeptic |
|||
|
Posts: 113 (06/06/08 17:40:57) |
"Last I looked we don't use the gospel according to the mythical Matthew."
Not you, but the Jewish Heretics/Cults that existed in the first century. The one that ChibiBug claims to be following. Isn't it ironic that these Ebionite followed only the Gospel of Matthew but did not believe in the Virgin Birth? Maybe the first Book of Matthew never had a virgin story and it could be later addition like many other many corruptions |
||
|
Ben Masada |
|||
|
Posts: 19 (11/30/08 20:41:04) |
ChibiBug wrote:Hi ChibiBug, The Apostles of Jesus were not Christians. They were Nazarenes. Christians originated with Paul in Antioch. That's where and when the followers of Paul started being called Christians. You can read this in Acts 11:26. That was about 30 years after Jesus' crucifixion. All this time the Nazarenes were headquartered in Jerusalem and coexisting peacefully with mainstream Judaism. When Paul showed up in Jerusalem preaching that Jesus was the Messiah or Christ, son of God, and that he had resurrected, he was nearly killed by the regular Jewsfor preaching heresy. Why? How about the Nazarenes? These had no idea of those things about Jesus preached by Paul. Ben |
||
|
ProfBenTziyyon |
|||
|
Posts: 1490 (12/01/08 06:41:30) |
Ben Masada wrote:
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל |
||
|
Netanel |
|||
|
Posts: 1450 (12/09/08 14:13:51) |
Obivously they thought he was the messiah. There is no disputing this, Ben. Yeshu thought he was the messiah (whether ben David or ben Yosef)and his
followers thought so as well. You talk like they could not have thought he was messiah and also been on good terms with the Pharisees. But the fact is that
nearly if not all men who had aspirations of driving out Rome whether by military might or belief that Hashem would perform a miracle fell into the body of
Pharisaic Judaism, which represented all but a few slivers of Jews (ie. Sadducees).
A majority of Jews very well may have thought they were wrong or even witheld judgement altogether at the time, but so long as Yeshu and his followers/students were observant they would not have been any more at odds with other Jews than followers of any other observant military leader or teacher who had messianic aspirations and fell short. Look at how the followers of Yeshu are treated by the GT portrayal of Gamaliel. The fact that the GT obscured that Gamaliel was one of if not the most important Jewish leader (and head of the Sanhedrin) at the time doesn't change the fact that he is portrayed as taking a wait and see approach, and being extremely sympathetic to them, something that would absolutely not happen if they were idolaters or heretics. And the attempted demonization of Pharisees by authors and redactors doesn't change the fact that the GT portrays Pharisees as saving Yeshu's life by warning him that Herod was looking to kill him. These nuggets that go against the grain of the overall message attempting to establish the Pharisees and Yeshu as enemies and at odds are valuable to anyone trying to get a glimpse into a potential grain of truth in a mass of untruth. The GT presents a contradictory picture, and this is not surprising considering it is written by numerous authors with numerous opposing purposes in writing what they are writing. If we take everything in it as truth then this Yeshu was not very observant. Ultimately no Jew's life revolves around what Yeshu was or wasn't. I refrain more recently from saying anything harsh about the guy because of the chance that a real Yeshu did live, was a good Jew, and has been hijacked and had a horrible case of lashon ha-ra perpetuated against him by the gentiles. Or perhaps he wasn't a good Jew and Hashem will or has taken care of the rest.
Last Edited By: Netanel
12/09/08 14:18:47.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
drashi |
|||
|
Posts: 613 (12/14/08 02:03:25) |
Rabban Gamliel I (the elder) is an interesting character according to the Christian literature. From their tradition he also converted, becoming a Christian
and brought many other followers with him. Imagine that, the head of the Sanhedrin, and the Nasi of the Jewish people converting!! One would think that, like
Emperor Constantine, that the entire nation would become Christian. And one would think that there would have been an entire section of Talmudic literature
expressing dismay over this, whereas it is silent.
Writing something doesn't make it so. It never happened. Yes, it is true that Gamliel was a great man who would not impose more prohibitions than the people were willing to handle. http://www.messiahtruth.com/mishna24.html During his period, there were others who claimed to be the Moshiach, and they proved to be false and fell to the side. (There is no evidence that the Jesus character was known by any historian of that time in contrast to those others). Everyone wanted a Moshiach. However, there is no evidence that Gamliel said what Paul reported him to say. Did Paul write anything that was true? Keep in mind that right after the head of the entire Jewish people supposedly tells his students to leave the Christians alone, Paul then turns around and works with the Sadducee priesthood to go against the Nasi! Now, if you publically go against your rebbe and go to work with a group that is corrupt (the Sadducees hated the Pharisees, were pawns of Rome, and bought their way into power) and then go and hogtie Christians and drag them to the very Sanhedrin that you rebbe is in charge of to have them tried....does this not sound a little bit...weird? (Oh, yeah, there is Cherem, or worse as a punishment, for such a person during this period). It gets even weirder if you apply scrutiny upon what this man said. But then, these are the writings of Paul, whose word should always be questioned of having any truth in it. Paul said himself that "All these things [brit milah, Torah, Mitzvot] I needed to treat as dung [a disgusting thing of which I must seperate myself] in order to accept a Christ". He knew that one cannot be a Jew and accept a Christ. At least he spoke one bit of truth. |
||
|
Dannyil |
Stoning | ||
|
Posts: 63 (04/16/09 04:41:27) |
ProfBenTziyyon wrote:Simple: From the root Even - stone.....meaning we can stone anyone we like (sic!) I'm joking of course....but its a nice play on words....albeit a bad one. 
-D
Deut 4:15, Deut 4:35-39, Num 23:19, Deut 24:16, Eze 37, Psa 119 - now go and read it...!
Torah True Judaism |
||
Quick Reply
