Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andersbranderud · 06-28-2008, 07:45 AM

Huon,
About the ebionites - they are note the same group as the Netzarim:

"Ëvyonim; destitute (plural), Hellenized to Εβιωναιους (Ebionaious; Ebionites).

What little is known about the Ëvyonim is found in the early Church literature, by Greek-speaking Hellenists, almost exclusively gentile, who had no grasp whatsoever of Hebrew or Judaism. Their knowledge was limited to what was conveyed to them in Greek. Since the Ëvyonim were Hellenist, they were [a] apostates by definition (as Hellenists) and [b] the first and earliest "Jewish" group with which the earliest Christians could communicate. Eusebius specifically notes (EH III.xxvii.2) that there were a number of groups and he knew no better than to lump all of them together, though noting that they were distinctly different, under the same name: Ëvyonim, acknowledging that he doesn't know which is which; nor is he clear about the differences between them.

Information about the Nәtzârim, as contrasted with the Ëvyonim, must be derived from the description of Dërëkh י--ה given in 4Q MMT in order for the Nәtzârim to have been accepted in the 1st-century Pharaisaic community in the first place as well as to remain there, at enmity with the Christian Church, until the Christian Church extirpated them in 333 C.E.

Eusebius constructively calls all of the Church's pre-135 C.E. Jewish precursors sons of Sâtân: "But others, the Wicked Demon, when he could not alienate them from G*od's plan in Christ, made his own, when he found them by a different snare. The first Christians [sic] gave these the suitable name of Εβιωναιους (Ebionaious; Ebionites) because they had poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. They held him to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband. They insisted on the complete observation of the Law, and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it." Note that this represents, on the one hand, the earliest Hellenist apostate spin-off from the Nәtzârim known by the Church and, on the other hand, the apostate spin-off prototype of the Christian Church. Thus, this describes the first and earliest hybrid proto-Christian group known by the Church between the Nәtzârim and the Church."

quote: www.netzarim.co.il - check Glossaries at the first page.

Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism
www.netzarim.co.il

GakuseiDon · 06-28-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader – a Pharisee.

I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – I believe he was the Messias (he was not divine, he was a human like us) – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.
He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir′ yâm. He had twelve followers. He taught in the Jewish orthodox synagogues.

Wow! He sounds a lot like Jesus!

Huon · 06-28-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Huon,
About the ebionites - they are note the same group as the Netzarim

I simply explored the text of one of your quotes :

Quote:

Backup of claim:
"The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius further documented (EH III.xxvii.4-6) that the original Nәtzarim accepted only the Jewish Tana"kh as Bible and only The Netzarim ("their own") Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) as an authentic account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua, never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT."

So, IF you have nothing in common with the Ebionites (and you know that better than I do, of course), you should avoid mentioning Eusebius EH III.27...

GakuseiDon · 06-28-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Huon,
About the ebionites - they are note the same group as the Netzarim:

I think the Nazerenes were a branch of the poor ol' Ebionites.

Huon · 06-28-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Huon,
About the ebionites - they are note the same group as the Netzarim:

I think the Nazerenes were a branch of the poor ol' Ebionites.

That's what I thought until I found this excerpt of a book by Dr James D. Tabor, Nazarenes and Ebionites :

Quote:

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 groups—and 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.). What we have to keep in mind in reading these accounts from the Church fathers is that they are strongly prejudiced against this group(s) and claim to have replaced Judaism entirely with the new religion of Christianity, overthrowing the Torah for both Gentile and Jew.

So, they could be two different species, or two varieties of a same species...

spamandham · 06-28-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Backup of claim:
"The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius further documented (EH III.xxvii.4-6) that the original Nәtzarim accepted only the Jewish Tana"kh as Bible and only The Netzarim ("their own") Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) as an authentic account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua, never accepting the the 2nd-4th century, heavily gentile-redacted (Greek), NT."

But this doesn't tell us that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the original Matthew. The church fathers seem to be arguing the other way around.

EH III.xxvii presents the Ebionites as heretics who had removed teachings.

Toto · 06-28-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

No robots,
I only accept sources that are Scholars in the world’s leadings universities.

It is a well-settled issue that Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a was a Pәrush•i′ (Pharisee) . The consensus of virtually all historians in every leading university of international stature confirms that Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a was a Pәrush•i′ . None of the other sects had "rabbis" and he was identified by the Pәrush•i′ title of that time and place (i.e., Rib′ i). There's no dispute among serious historians about that point.

So why do you neglect what serious historians say?

Anders Branderud
Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism
www.netzarim.co.il

Please name these scholars? Are you ignoring almost all of the scholars listed here?

Why assume that the term "rabbi" was not a later addition to the text?

Solitary Man · 06-28-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader – a Pharisee.

Matthew was not originally written in Hebrew. Hebrew Matthew is a later text, translated, it looks like, from the Latin in early Medieval Europe and heavily redacted.

And the Pharisees are not exactly Orthodox, although the Orthodox today developed from Pharisaic Judaism (with modification).

Quote:

I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – I believe he was the Messias (he was not divine, he was a human like us) – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.

If he was the Messiah, why aren't the prophecies fulfilled yet?

Quote:

Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah. The teachings of Christianity are anti-Torah.

Paul cannot be said to be "anti-Torah", and even Greek Matthew (the original Matthew) isn't exactly anti-Torah.

Quote:

Ribi Yehoshua is called a Ribi in the earliest source documents of gospel of Matthew, and only Pharisees were called that. The scroll 4Q MMT – found in the Qumran cave – makes it clear that the Pharisees practiced Torah including the Oral Law.

Once again with the faulty assumption on Matthew.

lpetrich · 06-28-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader – a Pharisee.

I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – I believe he was the Messias (he was not divine, he was a human like us) – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.
He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir′ yâm. He had twelve followers. He taught in the Jewish orthodox synagogues.

Wow! He sounds a lot like Jesus!

In fact, I think that andersbranderud is member of some Jews for Jesus sect, but one in which Jesus Christ was a 100%-human mainstream Jew instead of some heretic and god-human hybrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Surely Ribi Yehoshua would have had the same practice as the rest of the pharisees, otherwise he would have been excluded from the pharisees.

Christ stood in opposition to the Pharisees just as Socrates stood in opposition to the sophists. ...

Or the writers of the Gospels were members of some anti-Pharisee faction. I see no good reason to be gaping-minded about the Gospels.

Larry Fox · 06-29-2008, 11:07 AM

Sorry andersbranderud, did I miss something or do you accept any text as canonical in addition to the Torah/Tanakh/Talmud?

You mentioned a lost Hebrew Gospel, but do you have any texts written by Ribi Yehoshua or the Netzarim upon which you base your beliefs?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2008, 07:45 AM	#11
andersbranderud Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Täby, Sweden Posts: 14	Huon, About the ebionites - they are note the same group as the Netzarim: "Ëvyonim; destitute (plural), Hellenized to Εβιωναιους (Ebionaious; Ebionites). What little is known about the Ëvyonim is found in the early Church literature, by Greek-speaking Hellenists, almost exclusively gentile, who had no grasp whatsoever of Hebrew or Judaism. Their knowledge was limited to what was conveyed to them in Greek. Since the Ëvyonim were Hellenist, they were [a] apostates by definition (as Hellenists) and [b] the first and earliest "Jewish" group with which the earliest Christians could communicate. Eusebius specifically notes (EH III.xxvii.2) that there were a number of groups and he knew no better than to lump all of them together, though noting that they were distinctly different, under the same name: Ëvyonim, acknowledging that he doesn't know which is which; nor is he clear about the differences between them. Information about the Nәtzârim, as contrasted with the Ëvyonim, must be derived from the description of Dërëkh י--ה given in 4Q MMT in order for the Nәtzârim to have been accepted in the 1st-century Pharaisaic community in the first place as well as to remain there, at enmity with the Christian Church, until the Christian Church extirpated them in 333 C.E. Eusebius constructively calls all of the Church's pre-135 C.E. Jewish precursors sons of Sâtân: "But others, the Wicked Demon, when he could not alienate them from G*od's plan in Christ, made his own, when he found them by a different snare. The first Christians [sic] gave these the suitable name of Εβιωναιους (Ebionaious; Ebionites) because they had poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. They held him to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved righteousness merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband. They insisted on the complete observation of the Law, and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it." Note that this represents, on the one hand, the earliest Hellenist apostate spin-off from the Nәtzârim known by the Church and, on the other hand, the apostate spin-off prototype of the Christian Church. Thus, this describes the first and earliest hybrid proto-Christian group known by the Church between the Nәtzârim and the Church." quote: www.netzarim.co.il - check Glossaries at the first page. Anders Branderud Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism www.netzarim.co.il

06-29-2008, 11:07 AM	#20
Larry Fox Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: London, England Posts: 8	Sorry andersbranderud, did I miss something or do you accept any text as canonical in addition to the Torah/Tanakh/Talmud? You mentioned a lost Hebrew Gospel, but do you have any texts written by Ribi Yehoshua or the Netzarim upon which you base your beliefs?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.