J.F. Gaul

Some scholars have claimed that James, son of Alphaeus, led his own sect of Jewish Christians in the late 1st century and early 2nd century, in opposition to the Christians who followed Paul's teachings. The Ebionites, as they were called, accepted only the book of Matthew, maintained the Laws of Moses (except animal sacrifice), and taught that Jesus was a prophet or possibly an angel, not the Son of God.

Does anyone know anything else about this sect, or possibly other sects led by former followers of Jesus with heretical doctrines?

aa5874

How could the Ebionites accept the Gospel of Matthew and still claim Jesus was NOT the Son of a God?

There is something fundamentally wrong about your statement.

The Gospel of Matthew declares that Jesus is the Son of the God of the Jews.

Matthew 3.17-18 Matthew 17.1-5 Matthew 16.15-16 What version of Matthew did the Ebionites really accept? In gMatthew, Jesus is regarded as the Son of God.

J.F. Gaul

"Son of God" could have many different meanings. Most frequently in the Old Testament, "Son of God" is used to denote one anointed by God. Only in the book of John is it specifically noted that Jesus was the "only begotten son" of God.

aa5874

I didn't realise that "Son of God" in gMatthew was different to "Son of God" in gJohn.

When the so-called Peter claimed Jesus was "the son of the living God" as stated in gMatthew, what then does the author mean?

Jedi Mind Trick

I subscribe to the idea that James and the Jerusalem church represented the true tradition of Jesus and that Paul was a Roman and not Hebrew at all, certainly not a Pharisee as he claimed. I side with the Ebionites. It is all there in the bible itself; the apparent conflict between James and Paul and Luke (a friend of Paul) tries his damnedest to smooth it over for the reader, but there it is barely covered up. It is so apparent to me now and I even recognized it as a Christian, I just played the Ultra-Dispensationalism card to get out of the mess.

J.F. Gaul

Your guess is as good as mine. I do, however, find it perfectly plausible that the earliest followers of Jesus did not believe he was divine or the messiah, and that that aspect of Christianity was introduced by Paul. Christian sects with different beliefs about Jesus were everywhere at the time; the Ebionites were around since about 30 AD. The "true" church of Pauline Christianity only became so because of the numbers of its adherents and the church's tendency, once it gained power as an institution, to actively crush heresy. Modern Christians like to pretend that Christianity was a unified, brotherly "underground" movement. In reality, early Christianity was terribly sectarian, much more than it is even now, and only through a stroke of opportunity and advertising did today's "orthodox" Christianity arise.

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=aa5874;5440382]If you are referring to John 1:14, John does not describe Jesus as "the only begotten son". The author of GJohn speaks only of Jesus being μονογενής -- which means "only" and then in the sense of "unique" and "beloved". (see BDAG; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213-19; FCGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284-87.

The idea that John 1:14 speaks of Jesus as the only begotten son comes from the Vulgate, which in turn has influenced the KJV and other translations. But it is not in the Greek text of GJohn.

And even in the Vulgate "only begotten" has nothing to do with sex or the act of procreation. It means -- just as it does when it is used in Gen. 22 and Heb 11:17 of Isaac, who was not Abraham's only sexually engendered son, "beloved", "special". Moreover, since ἀγαπητός in the LXX renders יחיד with reference to Isaac, Abraham’s “only” son, the author of GJohn is not really expressing here a Christology that is different from the Synoptics who have Jesus being declared the ἀγαπητός Son in their accounts of the baptism of Jesus

It's not.

One thing it does not mean is "off spring of God", no more than does the identification in Matthew of "peacemakers" and those who love their enemies as those who will be proclaimed by God himself as his "Sons", or when Israel is called Son of God, as it is in various OT passages, or when the term "Son of God" is applied in Wisdom 2 to the righteous sufferer.

Here's a suggestion for you aaa man. Go read a critical commentary on the Gospel of Matthew.

Jeffrey

aa5874

Well, if the Ebionites were around since 30 CE, this would mean they were not using using gMatthew, at least initially, since gMatthew is believed to have been written sometime after gMark or after 70 CE.

I find the information coming from Church writers to be filled with errors. These Church writers' chronology and characters are all extremely dubious.

J.F. Gaul

The Ebionites recognized Matthew as the only legitimate gospel. This doesn't mean that they had to come after Matthew, it only means that they found the Gospel of Matthew most in line with their doctrines.

This is true.

aa5874

Now, if you really think that the information from the Church writers were dubious, then consider this:

There was no gospel called Matthew until late 2nd century.