|
Post by Gene on Apr 25, 2014 18:07:46 GMT -5
I can sum it up easily: Jesus defended an adulteress, and Paul would have hunted her down and stoned her. ONCE.Well, yes... what would be the use of stoning someone twice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2014 11:59:25 GMT -5
I don't like to second guess things than happened thousands of years ago. I dislike threads like this because after 100 posts, the issue is just as clear as mud.Jesus lived under the law until he died and the veil of the temple was written in twain. Peter, Paul, John etc. lived under the new and living way. But all of them spoke about love, faith, purity etc. I like to focus on the real issues and leave the second guessing alone.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 26, 2014 12:26:13 GMT -5
haha, welcome to religion, blandie! Dubious ~ How true! There are so many different stories connected to religion that it's enough to make her head spin. In fact, I just finished watching a documentary earlier that dealt with numerous Christian dilemmas associated with different accounts we find within the Bible which defies reason and logic.
topdocumentaryfilms.com/christian-dilemmas/
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 26, 2014 12:40:40 GMT -5
You guys jump on hoary junk scholarship like it is something new or something that raises new issues. Paul didn't preach the same gospel as Jesus? Peter didn't seem to think so. Paul focused so much on outward appearance? Out of all the epistles that occupies how many verses? Now Paul is a Greek with a Greek mindset? Where'd that come from? Seems to me that he was born a Roman at the fairly new Roman colony at Tarsus and was raised in Jerusalem as a Pharisee and educated in the school of Gamaliel. Later he even concentrated on newer Roman colonies like at Phillipi and Corinth. So we know exactly what for sure about the Ebionites? Almost nothing is known apart from a very few very brief mentions from centuries later and the rest is nothing more than speculations resting in a leaky boatload of formal and informal fallacies. If Christians under that name ever existed - and that doesn't seem to be established - that group can't honestly be used to show much of anything about the early church or Christianity because there is hardly anything written about them from back then. And ' believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians' - how would anyone know that with the slightest degree of certainty? And Paul would have hunted down an adulteress? Why would anyone jump to that? Paul's the guy who said that Jesus has set us free from the penalty of the Law in Romans 7 which is the only place he mentions an adulteress. Augustine started a Roman Empire purge of Jews? Really? When did this happen? People peddle such crock in tired old fields because it is one of the few ways to get a review in the pop press and make a buck off of the publics gullibility and appetite for sensationalism. Want to make a splash in English lit - make a lit crit-based claim that 4 different people authored Shakespeare's plays. Want to snag a book deal in mid-century history - make a 'new' claim that CIA agents asassinated Kennedy or that the Moon landings were faked. Want to make a pile of cash in climatology or solar science - make a claim that global warming is a bunch of hype. Want to make a splash in theology - make a claim based on stylistic comparisons that Jesus was a woman or use out of context selectivity to claim that Jesus commanded all ministers to follow a certain pattern. It is almost funny how people will leave their skepticism at the door when they come across bunkum that caters to their prejudices. Blandie ~ You brought up a number of topics that were actually discussed in this thread and deserve answers. I found this documentary which I watched this morning answered a few questions for myself as a result of watching this 3-part series on the dilemmas that have arisen within Christianity and how they were addressed back in time. I'm sure you will find it very insightful. I actually found an answer to my question regarding the Ebionites which I found interesting after researching this subject for days to find an answer myself. Hopefully, you will check this out for yourself and see if it helps to answer any of these questions brought up in this thread? As Dubious said earlier ~ "Welcome to religion ~ which fits in so well with the different topics discussed within this documentary on early Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 26, 2014 13:25:18 GMT -5
Back to the thread I don't think that "versus" in the thread topic applies at all. Up until Jesus died and the curtain was torn from top to bottom the old law applied and Jesus fulfilled it in his death. The old law was there because it made us aware of our sin. Jesus provided a solution to sin on the cross. Jesus personally appointed Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles as he appointed the original 12. Paul could personally proclaim the power and grace of Christ - he had experienced it.Ross ~ Perhaps the fact that Paul had actually experienced the grace of Christ in his life through divine revelation, he could present it with such clarity within the different epistles and won many converts to Jesus Christ. However, he was also strongly opposed and suffered persecution from all sides up until his martyred death by beheading by Harold the Great. What I found amazing was the wealth of information pertaining to Paul within the Early Church Father's of the first century and also within the records of Roman historians. What I found confusing, to say the least, was the lack of information regarding Jesus as a historical figure in the first century. There are only a few references to Jesus of Nazareth (referred to as Christus) relating to him being baptized by John the Baptist, having followers, and then being crucified by Pilate, but still having some who still followed his teachings. In comparison to Paul, there's references to him in a number of writings of the ECF's and his teachings became the bedrock of Christianity today, although he never personally met Jesus except in a vision on the road to Damascus in Acts 9. Actually, his writings are primarily the basis of Christian teaching today, although back in the first century he wasn't popular among the early followers of Jesus, especially in Jerusalem, where Jesus' own half-brother, James, was leader in the Church. This I found quite perplexing and it has caused me to wonder as to the reason behind this dilemma. It appears that Peter was actually the mediator between Paul and James from the account within Acts 15 of the Jerusalem Council? Also, there is no doubt that Peter played a major role himself within the Church in Rome from all the historical reports up until his crucifixion. I find this early history of the Christian movement fascinating to research and have learned a lot of things that I never dreamed existed before. The documentary I presented did help to answer a few of my own questions, but it also brought up some others that I had not pondered yet.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+9
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15
topdocumentaryfilms.com/christian-dilemmas/
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 26, 2014 14:46:53 GMT -5
So we know exactly what for sure about the Ebionites? Almost nothing is known apart from a very few very brief mentions from centuries later and the rest is nothing more than speculations resting in a leaky boatload of formal and informal fallacies. If Christians under that name ever existed - and that doesn't seem to be established - that group can't honestly be used to show much of anything about the early church or Christianity because there is hardly anything written about them from back then. To be honest, I think you're overstating the case a bit. We have lots of evidence about the Ebionites, enough to know they began in the mid-first century and continued for several centuries. Irenaeus, Tertulian, Hippolytus, Origen all wrote about them. As well as later Christians, of course: Eusebius, Jerome, especially Epiphanius. There's no doubt they existed and were an early branch of Jewish Christians. What we don't know is whether there was ever a guy named Ebion, as some later church fathers claimed. His name didn't pop up until the third century if I remember right.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 26, 2014 14:59:20 GMT -5
So we know exactly what for sure about the Ebionites? Almost nothing is known apart from a very few very brief mentions from centuries later and the rest is nothing more than speculations resting in a leaky boatload of formal and informal fallacies. If Christians under that name ever existed - and that doesn't seem to be established - that group can't honestly be used to show much of anything about the early church or Christianity because there is hardly anything written about them from back then. To be honest, I think you're overstating the case a bit. We have lots of evidence about the Ebionites, enough to know they began in the mid-first century and continued for several centuries. Irenaeus, Tertulian, Hippolytus, Origen all wrote about them. As well as later Christians, of course: Eusebius, Jerome, especially Epiphanius. There's no doubt they existed and were an early branch of Jewish Christians. What we don't know is whether there was ever a guy named Ebion, as some later church fathers claimed. His name didn't pop up until the third century if I remember right. Dubious ~ I can see you have been studying the ECF's, too, and have come to about the same conclusion that I have regarding these Ebionites. It seems that this group became more prominent within the Church after A.D. 70 and caused a lot of controversy, especially with their disdain for Paul's teachings. They definitely were a "thorn in the flesh" in relation to Paul, since they considered him an apostate and spread uncomplimentary things about him in the different regions where he taught. This documentary goes into more detail regarding their actions and dislike for Paul and his teachings. These Ebionites actually described Paul as being likened to some sort of antichrist within their midst!
I can also see that Nathan has also done some study concerning these early Christian groups and what they taught in the centuries that following the early Christian Church. It definitely seems that the RCC won out and all other groups were considered heretical and efforts were made by the RCC to extinguish their existence through the early Catholic Inquisitions and edicts issued by the Popes. What is equally amazing is that the Protestants continued the same practice of the Inquisitions and did the same thing to the Catholics in return after the Reformation.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Apr 27, 2014 16:27:18 GMT -5
To be honest, I think you're overstating the case a bit. We have lots of evidence about the Ebionites, enough to know they began in the mid-first century and continued for several centuries. Irenaeus, Tertulian, Hippolytus, Origen all wrote about them. As well as later Christians, of course: Eusebius, Jerome, especially Epiphanius. There's no doubt they existed and were an early branch of Jewish Christians. What we don't know is whether there was ever a guy named Ebion, as some later church fathers claimed. His name didn't pop up until the third century if I remember right. I'm not overstating at all and there has been good criticism of the speculativeness of the sensationalistic books and videos over the last years. To be honest I think maybe what is more needed is to actually read those couple-dozen mentions of Ebionites in the pre-Constantine writings. They are online so no one need trouble to go over to the library and leaf through the index. A majority of them are only one-off mentions in lists of unaccepted beliefs and show no first hand knowledge of the group. It isn't even certain that Origien - who is the only early writer who connects the name Ebionite with poor people - is talking about the same group of Jewish Christians as the others because there is no detail or suggestion that their beliefs were any different than other Christians ( De Principiis II:i). From the rest - most of whom repeat what the others say - we could scrawl the total unique information they offer on the back of a fast-food paper napkin - the Ebionites arose from other intervening movements (Irenaeus Adversus Hæreses I:xxvi:2, Tertullian Adversus Omnes Haereses I:iii:2, Hippolytus Refutatio VII:xxii)
- they liked Matthew but regarded Paul as a heretic (Irenæus Adversus Hæreses I:xxvi:2)
- they continued practicing Jewish customs (Irenæus Adversus Hæreses I:xxvi:2, Tertullian Adversus Omnes Hæreses I:iii:2, Hippolytus Refutatio VII:xxii)
- they did not regard Jesus as either God incarnate or as God's son (Irenæus Adversus Hæreses I:xxvi:2, V:i:3; Tertullian De Carne Christi xiv, xviii)
- they thought that because Jesus was a man who became Christ by fulfilling the law that they also could become Christs by fulfilling the law (Hippolytus Refutatio VII:xxii)
After Constantine Jerome and Epiphanius and Eusebius in the 4th and 5th centuries almost certainly didn't have any direct contact with Ebionites as more critical scholars have shown and even so it is said again that the group post-dated the first church at Jerusalem and also the fall of Jerusalem and there is no direct connection shown to the first church at Jerusalem or to other Jewish Christians who were the majority of Christians during that first century or two and the only statement connecting them with Jerusalem at all is that they revered Jerusalem and that was long after the temple had been destroyed. Ephiphanius in the very late 4th and early 5th century restates what others already wrote about Ebionites onto which he sloppily mixes in details about other groups like Pythagorean Elxaiites but mostly adds a bunch of gossipy anecdotes. But on the flimsy foundations of what we barely do know from the ancient writers there has been a lot of over-hyped but worthless volumes of pulp and bytes cranked out by religious and non religious writers alike exactly as I described and it is as much trash scholarship as it is trash theology. Since it is easy enough to cut and paste from the online texts here are the only detailed - if you can call them that - descriptions of the Ebionites and readers would be wise to keep what they say in mind when reading sensationalistic garbage - Irenæus (2nd century)
- Adversus Hæreses
I:xxvi:2. 'Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only and repudiate the Apostle Paul maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetic writings they endeavor to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.' V:i:3. 'Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life.'
- Tertullian (early 3rd century)
- De Carne Christi
xiv. 'This opinion will be very suitable for Ebion, who holds Jesus to be a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God; although He is, to be sure, in one respect more glorious than the prophets, inasmuch as he declares that there was an angel in Him, just as there was in Zechariah.'
xviii. 'He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than "a Solomon" or "a Jonas," - as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him.' - Adversus Omnes Hæreses
I:iii:2 'His successor was Ebion, not agreeing with Cerinthus in every point; in that he affirms the world to have been made by God, not by angels; and because it is written, "No disciple above his master, nor servant above his lord," sets forth likewise the law as binding, of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.'
- Hippolytus (early 3rd century)
- Refutatio
VII:xxii. 'The Ebionæans, however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified. according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, that was named Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments in the law, he would have been that Christ. And that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfill, are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all.'
- Origen (3rd century)
- De Principiis
II:i. 'Here he has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions, receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies "poor" among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites.'
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 27, 2014 17:10:07 GMT -5
Blandie, were you not arguing that the Ebionites may have never existed...? There has been a resurgence of interest lately in Jewish Christianities, conferences dedicated to the topic where the papers presented were collected and published as a book. Anyone interested in the topic should be able to find information, though it's not free.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 27, 2014 17:12:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 18:24:28 GMT -5
You guys jump on hoary junk scholarship like it is something new or something that raises new issues. Paul didn't preach the same gospel as Jesus? Peter didn't seem to think so. Paul focused so much on outward appearance? Out of all the epistles that occupies how many verses? Now Paul is a Greek with a Greek mindset? Where'd that come from? Seems to me that he was born a Roman at the fairly new Roman colony at Tarsus and was raised in Jerusalem as a Pharisee and educated in the school of Gamaliel. Later he even concentrated on newer Roman colonies like at Phillipi and Corinth. So we know exactly what for sure about the Ebionites? Almost nothing is known apart from a very few very brief mentions from centuries later and the rest is nothing more than speculations resting in a leaky boatload of formal and informal fallacies. If Christians under that name ever existed - and that doesn't seem to be established - that group can't honestly be used to show much of anything about the early church or Christianity because there is hardly anything written about them from back then. And ' believers in Jerusalem NEVER called themselves Christians' - how would anyone know that with the slightest degree of certainty? And Paul would have hunted down an adulteress? Why would anyone jump to that? Paul's the guy who said that Jesus has set us free from the penalty of the Law in Romans 7 which is the only place he mentions an adulteress. Augustine started a Roman Empire purge of Jews? Really? When did this happen? People peddle such crock in tired old fields because it is one of the few ways to get a review in the pop press and make a buck off of the publics gullibility and appetite for sensationalism. Want to make a splash in English lit - make a lit crit-based claim that 4 different people authored Shakespeare's plays. Want to snag a book deal in mid-century history - make a 'new' claim that CIA agents asassinated Kennedy or that the Moon landings were faked. Want to make a pile of cash in climatology or solar science - make a claim that global warming is a bunch of hype. Want to make a splash in theology - make a claim based on stylistic comparisons that Jesus was a woman or use out of context selectivity to claim that Jesus commanded all ministers to follow a certain pattern. It is almost funny how people will leave their skepticism at the door when they come across bunkum that caters to their prejudices. Time to wake up Blandie. While orthodox Christians were basking in their self-righteous slumber, they had not a clue what was being hidden from them. Welcome to the information age.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 18:27:24 GMT -5
Back to the thread I don't think that "versus" in the thread topic applies at all. Up until Jesus died and the curtain was torn from top to bottom the old law applied and Jesus fulfilled it in his death. The old law was there because it made us aware of our sin. Jesus provided a solution to sin on the cross. Jesus personally appointed Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles as he appointed the original 12. Paul could personally proclaim the power and grace of Christ - he had experienced it. You have to admit that this is all "Christian" conjecture intended to prove that every writer in the Bible was in full agreement.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 18:28:47 GMT -5
I don't like to second guess things than happened thousands of years ago. I dislike threads like this because after 100 posts, the issue is just as clear as mud.Jesus lived under the law until he died and the veil of the temple was written in twain. Peter, Paul, John etc. lived under the new and living way. But all of them spoke about love, faith, purity etc. I like to focus on the real issues and leave the second guessing alone. You're entitled to your comforts.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 18:36:34 GMT -5
~~ We can see TWO groups emerging within the early Church.... One group follow Peter the Judaizers keeping the Law of Moses, circumcision to be SAVED. Paul's and his followers SAVED by God/Christ alone NOT plus with Old Testament rituals, practices and keeping the law of Moses. The Roman Catholic Church today became followers of Peter, now we see a lot of their teachings have many of Old Testament rituals.
Ah ha! So now you believe what I was telling you about Paul vs. the Apostles. Your next problem is this -- the Roman Catholic Church since the third century has had nothing to do with Peter's theology and has kept none of the Old Testament rituals. Their theology is Paul's and their rituals are virtually entirely Pagan. Before you start expounding on how that came about, you have a lot of reading to do because you cannot imagine how that came about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 19:09:08 GMT -5
Quote - "From the very beginning... there were different Christian groups claiming to represent ‘the truth’... Paul, talks at length about Christian missionaries who preached ‘another gospel,’...these writings have all been lost to posterity. Only Paul’s letters opposing their views survive.” –Bart Ehrman"
Quote - "the Roman Catholic Church since the third century has had nothing to do with Peter's theology and has kept none of the Old Testament rituals"
It's actually the other way around (as so many arguments are.) Paul's church vanished from history, appearing only in inquisitions.
EXAMPLE:
Paul warned, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."
Socrates b 320 said, "The apostles had no thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blamelessness and piety". He blames the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of an old usage, "just as many other customs have been established."
And of my friend Polycarp, who had some connection to the last of the Apostles, John, "in the 150s or 160, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome "with regard to certain things" and especially about the time of the Easter festivals."
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2014 19:48:35 GMT -5
Quote - " From the very beginning... there were different Christian groups claiming to represent ‘the truth’... Paul, talks at length about Christian missionaries who preached ‘another gospel,’...these writings have all been lost to posterity. Only Paul’s letters opposing their views survive.” –Bart Ehrman" Quote - " the Roman Catholic Church since the third century has had nothing to do with Peter's theology and has kept none of the Old Testament rituals"It's actually the other way around (as so many arguments are.) Paul's church vanished from history, appearing only in inquisitions.EXAMPLE:Paul warned, " But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."Socrates b 320 said, " The apostles had no thought of appointing festival days, but of promoting a life of blamelessness and piety". He blames the observance of Easter by the church to the perpetuation of an old usage, " just as many other customs have been established."
And of my friend Polycarp, who had some connection to the last of the Apostles, John, " in the 150s or 160, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome "with regard to certain things" and especially about the time of the Easter festivals." Bert, to be clear, I never said the Roman church got their rituals from Paul -- it was only his theology. They got their rituals from Pagans after Paul was long gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 19:53:46 GMT -5
The RCC et al largely repudiated Paul's theology, and even his ministry, from the get go. Paul, John, Peter and Jude mentioned the problems they were having with these apostate churches. Read Jude in particular.
Sometimes the epistles refer to apostate "Jews" These were either 1 - real Jews 2 - Christians were reverted to Jewish Old Testament practices. like festivals, holy fathers, holy days, symbols etc which the Apostles believed were done away with in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Apr 28, 2014 12:27:37 GMT -5
Blandie, were you not arguing that the Ebionites may have never existed...? There has been a resurgence of interest lately in Jewish Christianities, conferences dedicated to the topic where the papers presented were collected and published as a book. Anyone interested in the topic should be able to find information, though it's not free. I wasn't arguing that they didn't exist but that the possibility that they didn't remains an open question because the word ebionim can simply mean poor ones the chance that the writings refer to something other than a distinct group is as great as the chances that there was a person or not called Ebion. That Irenæus thought there were both a man and a group called after him makes their existence more likely but not sure because he says so little and later writers are more concerned with finding precedents to use in addressing Arian beliefs than much else. By the time of Hippolytus whose Refutatio is considered problematic for this and much else and even more so the time of Jerome etc. such a group may no longer have existed as what is reported is a confused mish mash with beliefs of orthodox Jewish Nazoraeans and gnostics and Elxaiites and other groups being lumped together and confused that shows almost no contact or reliable grasp of the groups being discussed. The firm material on the Ebionites is scant and I quoted it. There hasn't been a scrap of new material uncovered that sheds any new light on the Ebionites so then new and unfounded speculation about them is just that. Time to wake up Blandie. While orthodox Christians were basking in their self-righteous slumber, they had not a clue what was being hidden from them. Welcome to the information age. I've been awake for quite a while thank you and am too old and wary to fall for another conspiracy myth built on shakey premises and obvious errors and selectivism and unsupported speculations and skewed readings and illogical leaps. Don't matter whether this long-answered and refuted tripe comes from the current crop of religious rubbish scholars or irreligious rubbish scholars working the same themes with the same lack of new material to me - I'm not buying. Maybe this is all new and eye opening to you but it is neither new or illuminating unless you take a harder look at what underlies things and stop swallowing sensational claims at face value no matter whether they pander to your beliefs or challenge them. It isn't any harder to look at the source materials yourself than it is to drown yourself in a bunch of sensationalistic claims churned out to butter someones bread and make a splash for their reputation. Nothing's been hidden and this stuff has been available and discussed for centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 28, 2014 13:20:49 GMT -5
I wasn't arguing that they didn't exist but that the possibility that they didn't remains an open question because the word ebionim can simply mean poor ones the chance that the writings refer to something other than a distinct group is as great as the chances that there was a person or not called Ebion. Well, sure. There is also a possibility that Jesus didn't exist. I think our point of contention is over the word "distinct." There's hardly such a thing as a distinct anything in the realm of religion. Try, for example, to get f&w's to agree on a "distinct" doctrine so that they can be classified. Whether you wish to call these Jewish Christians "Ebionites" or "heretical Ebionites" or "Nazarenes" or "followers of the Way" or "Cerinthians," the fact is that some of the Jewish Christians held a heretical view (when compared to the orthodox church of the Fathers who wrote about them). We have lots of evidence that there were such Christians in the early second century, whatever you choose to call them (Ebionites works for me), and that's probably when the schism occurred between Jewish Christians around Pella. The group which split probably were somewhat united or at least tolerant of differences at the time they landed in Pella (yes, I think the Pella Tradition of an escape from Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the Temple is authentic) but doctrinal differences grew. The division most likely occurred over a matter of Christology, with one branch preferring a works-based, adoptionist view--a sort of back-to-Jesus insistence--and the other leaning toward Pauline Gentile Christianity and the high Christology which developed there. Is any of this known fact? No, it's speculation, just like we speculate that Jesus existed. But is there really any of this you disagree with? On what basis?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Apr 28, 2014 14:48:24 GMT -5
Well, sure. There is also a possibility that Jesus didn't exist. I think our point of contention is over the word "distinct." There's hardly such a thing as a distinct anything in the realm of religion. Try, for example, to get f&w's to agree on a "distinct" doctrine so that they can be classified. I think you are overstating now. There is as much evidence for Jesus as there are for many monarchs and other historical figures of that period that have multiple and disparate documentary evidence and anything like the same level of evidence is lacking for Ebion/Ebionites. The F&Ws do agree on a lot and it is doctrine/teaching but they just won't write it down or hold it out for examination or openly discuss and that doesn't make it any less distinct. The early church had a Jewish majority for its first couple of hundred years and nobody disputes this and it is evident in the names of individuals we know from both literature and artifacts. They were never all lumped together as Ebionites and it is a fallacy of the first order to do so as a premise and then to build upon that such as to argue that because of that a split occurred because of a different Christology. There is more convincing speculation and tenuous evidence but for the still baseless conspiracy theories that have Kennedy being shot by CIA/mafia gunmen. The basis is not in speculation but in the direct evidence and I think maybe it is pointless to suggest reading through that for oneself when one has a preference for swallowing gross speculation as fact. There are also more careful analyses than the pseudo-historic pop lit pulp devoted to the subject.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 28, 2014 15:32:49 GMT -5
ETs/President Kennedy by Maurice Osborn 2002. History of the UFO crashed in Roswell, 1947. The Pleiades blond hair/blue eyes human looking aliens species warned the President Eisenhower about the Greys intention taken over the world. (At 023:00) President Kennedy was going to deliver a speech on the existence of ALIENS but THEY assassinated. Listen to the letter he wrote. At (0:40:00). He found out the black projects, drug smuggling and the existence of aliens. He issues an ultimatum to MJ-12, the Secret government Agency in charge, to cease and desist or he will reveal what he has discovered to the public. On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy is assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on the orders of the Secret Government. It should be noted that the vested interests of, not one group, but rather numerous groups involved with the Secret Government, were at stake. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QYpRsWvylE~~~ Kennedy Clashed with CIA/MJ12 www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/exopolitics_kennedy01.htm~~ Chief among these was the escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam that Kennedy wanted to end and was why he was assassinated. There is, however, a more compelling reason for why the CIA wanted Kennedy removal for office. The assassination of President Kennedy directly resulted from his efforts to gain access to the CIA control of classified UFO files. Unknown to Kennedy, a set of secret MJ-12 directives issued by his former CIA Director, Allen Dulles, ruled out any cooperation with Kennedy and his national security staff on the UFO issue. In doing so, James Angleton arranged for a communist defector/Lee Oswald to be involved so as to eventually take the blame and ensure that no thorough investigation would follow by federal or congressional authorities. www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/exopolitics_kennedy02.htmNow that 1 in 5 people in the world have smart phones (1.5 billion) why don't have an every increasing number of alien videos?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 28, 2014 16:13:20 GMT -5
alright, blandie, I give up, lol. Nobody is trying to lump all Jewish Christians together and call them all Ebionites.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 17:17:53 GMT -5
I've been awake for quite a while thank you and am too old and wary to fall for another conspiracy myth built on shakey premises and obvious errors and selectivism and unsupported speculations and skewed readings and illogical leaps. Don't matter whether this long-answered and refuted tripe comes from the current crop of religious rubbish scholars or irreligious rubbish scholars working the same themes with the same lack of new material to me - I'm not buying. Maybe this is all new and eye opening to you but it is neither new or illuminating unless you take a harder look at what underlies things and stop swallowing sensational claims at face value no matter whether they pander to your beliefs or challenge them. It isn't any harder to look at the source materials yourself than it is to drown yourself in a bunch of sensationalistic claims churned out to butter someones bread and make a splash for their reputation. Nothing's been hidden and this stuff has been available and discussed for centuries. I understand why you are saying all this. You do not understand where I am coming from. There was a time when I was probably of the very same mind about these things as you are. You do not know how it was that I came to the place I am now, and I do not expect you to accept anything I tell you about what I have come to understand. But there is something I want you to know. I was not hoodwinked into anything by anyone -- there were things I needed to know so I made it my business to find out. The last thing I ever expected to discover was what I discovered, and there is now no way to undiscover it. And it is not going to go away because there is no one who can competently deny what I have learned. Believe me, I have discarded a lot of garbage along the way, but personal admissions of fraud I take very seriously, especially when it has something to do with my soul's salvation. I regret that people are so disturbed by what I have learned, but if I am going to live honestly I will have nothing else to say for myself.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 17:19:45 GMT -5
Ah ha! So now you believe what I was telling you about Paul vs. the Apostles. Your next problem is this -- the Roman Catholic Church since the third century has had nothing to do with Peter's theology and has kept none of the Old Testament rituals. Their theology is Paul's and their rituals are virtually entirely Pagan. Before you start expounding on how that came about, you have a lot of reading to do because you cannot imagine how that came about. I will try to expound it on page 3 I'm not interested -- I already don't trust your research habits.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 28, 2014 17:26:58 GMT -5
alright, blandie, I give up, lol. Nobody is trying to lump all Jewish Christians together and call them all Ebionites. Dubious ~ Actually, I believe these Ebionites either ceased to exist or merged with the Islam religion during the 7th century. However, they did have some different teachings in relation to Christianity which might be found to be questionable today.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Apr 28, 2014 17:39:07 GMT -5
I tend to think all strands of Jewish Christianity died out by the 5th century, in the face of anti-Semitism. Hard to know, though.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 17:43:34 GMT -5
The RCC et al largely repudiated Paul's theology, and even his ministry, from the get go. Actually, the RCC was not from the get go. There was a church in Rome -- Peter, a Jesus believer, was there. He and his supporters did not approve of Paul and his followers -- so at that get go point the surviving church did reject Paul's theology. It was in the third century that the "Catholic" (or orthodox) church emerged, by political means and for political purposes. And that church formally adopted Paul's theology (with respect to God and the Cristos). That remains to this day, and the popes confirm that. However, Paul, John, Peter and Jude were calling each other apostates. No one referred to themselves as apostates, of course. What are real Jews? There are two kinds. OT style Jews who lived in Palestine and Hellenized Jews who lived in the rest of the Roman Empire who had nothing to do with the Palestinian Jews. They considered each other apostates. These would only be considered apostates by Paul's followers. The Palestinian believers would be delighted. The apostles did not believe these things had been done away with. And we don't know that they even considered Jesus a "Christ" It was Paul and his followers who believed all the OT practices were done away with. Christians have never learned that "Messiah" and "Christ" really weren't the same thing at all.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2014 17:55:13 GMT -5
alright, blandie, I give up, lol. Nobody is trying to lump all Jewish Christians together and call them all Ebionites. Dubious ~ Actually, I believe these Ebionites either ceased to exist or merged with the Islam religion during the 7th century. However, they did have some different teachings in relation to Christianity which might be found to be questionable today. It's entirely possible that they influenced Islam because what is now referred to as Christianity (then practiced in Arabia) and Judaism had great influence on Islam in its formative period. That is the direction that the Jesus-believers from Palestine did migrate. It may also explain why Islam rejects the notion that Jesus was divine, and maintains a Jewish theology with respect to God.
|
|