wordy

Kelly, in post #129 you edited in a sloppy way so it looks like me wrote the text in the quote. I did not.

Sheshbazzar

Don't get it do you? your valued Christian texts are nothing more than vile propaganda documents produced by a cult of thieves and murderers.
("by their fruits ye shall know them") what they have to say about the religious beliefs or practices of non-christian Messianic Disciples have been proven to be biased and untrustworthy.
It really doesn't matter how many "names" you add to your list, Add Pope Benedict and J.P. Holding to your list too, but the base material being passed around is still just the same old lying christian crock of bull-shit.

Certainly, here are just a few.

מקים מעפר דל מאשפת ירים אביון להושיב עם־�*דיבים וכסא כבוד י�*חלם כי ליהוה מצקי ארץ וישת עליהם תבל׃



וישע מחרב מפיהם ומיד חזק אביון׃



כי־שמע אל־אביו�*ים יהוה ואת־אסיריו לא בזה׃



פלטו־דל ואביון מיד רשעים הצילו׃



ישפט ע�*יי־עם יושיע לב�*י אביון וידכא עושק׃



יען אשר לא זכר עשות חסד וירדף איש־ע�*י ואביון ו�*כאה לבב למותת׃



כי־יעמד לימין אביון להושיע משפטי �*פשו׃



פזר �*תן לאביו�*ים צדקתו עמדת לעד קר�*ו תרום בכבוד׃



מקימי מעפר דל מאשפת ירים אביון׃



ידעת כי־יעשה יהוה דין ע�*י משפט אבי�*ים׃



עשק־דל חרף עשהו ומכבדו ח�*ן אביון׃



ויספו ע�*וים ביהוה שמחה ואביו�*י אדם בקדוש ישראל יגילו׃



וְכֵלַי כֵּלָיו רָעִים הוּא זִמֹּות יָעָץ לְחַבֵּל ע�*וים בְּאִמְרֵי־שֶׁקֶר וּבְדַבֵּר אֶבְיֹון מִשְׁפָּֽט׃



הע�*יים והאביו�*ים מבקשים מים ואין לשו�*ם בצמא �*שתה א�*י יהוה אע�*ם אלהי ישראל לא אעזבם׃



שירו ליהוה הללו את־יהוה כי הציל את־�*פש אביון מיד מרעים׃ ס



דן דין־ע�*י ואביון אז טוב הלוא־היא הדעת אתי �*אם־יהוה׃



ה�*ה־זה היה עון סדם אחותך גאון שבעת־לחם ושלות השקט היה לה ולב�*ותיה ויד־ע�*י ואביון לא החזיקה׃



עם הארץ עשקו עשק וגזלו גזל וע�*י ואביון הו�*ו ואת־הגר עשקו בלא משפט׃



יטו אביו�*ים מדרך יחד חבאו ע�*יי־ארץ׃



שמ�*ו עשתו גם עברו דברי־רע דין לא־ד�*ו דין יתום ויצליחו ומשפט אביו�*ים לא שפטו׃

wordy

Sheshbazzar, what can we believe in then?

Sheshbazzar

At 5,144 posts you have been around here long enough that you shouldn't need anyone to tell you what to believe in.

Ben C Smith

That may or may not be, but you claimed that those valued Christian texts said that the gospel of the Nazoraeans lacked what would be Matthew 1-2. Are you planning or are you not planning to back up this claim?

And what follows appears to be a list of verses from the Hebrew scriptures containing the word poor in them. No references — thanks for that.

So tell me. How does this list of verses back up your claim that the Nazoraeans were always identified with the Ebionites and called by that Hebrew term? The last item you provided, for example, is Jeremiah 5.28:

שמתו עשתו גם עברו דברי־רע דין לא־דתו דין יתום ויצליחו ומשפט אביותים לא שפטו׃

They are fat; they are sleek. They also excel in deeds of wickedness. They do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor [ebionim].

I also see Ezekiel 22.29 on your list, for instance (more about the people wronging the poor). How do these verses help you? The Nazoraeans do not even appear in them.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
The offending verse:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

The only assertion here regarding Jesus was that he was crucified. The quote indicates that the Galatians now don't believe the assertion. Ben argues that context indicates the meaning of the quote is that the Galatians do not accept Jesus' crucifixion (the means of execution) as having any theological significance. He may be right. But if he is than 3:1 is meant by Paul to be figurative. Keep that in mind.

Let's look at Galatians, all of it, to see what Paul claims as his Sources of information about Jesus:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

The count:

Explicit claim of Revelation = 4

Explicit denial of historical source = 4

Explicit claim of historical source = 0

Remember that in Paul's presumably first Epistle, 1 Thessalonians, Paul never mentions "crucifixion". In Galatians though "crucifixion" is part of Paul's primary contrasting theme. It's not The Law verses a crucified messiah as Ben has claimed though, it's the physical marks of circumcision vs. the spiritual Marks of crucifixion (the objective reader should note that even at this early point in my argument "crucifixion" is used by Paul figuratively).

Regarding the transition of no mention of crucifixion in 1 Thessalonians to a key use of "crucifixion" in Galatians suggests a Paulsibility of different authors which is something more than rampant speculation in a corpus known for forgery.

Another possibility is that for an author who boasts that his only source here is revelation and never historical witness, revelation subsequent to 1 Thessalonians has made him add crucifixion to his Gospel.



Joseph

Toto

Kelly's posts on alternative history have been given their own thread here

Amaleq13

Wrong.

It is also asserted that this was clearly demonstrated or described for them.

It is also an implied assertion that they were previously convinced by this demonstration or display to believe something.

It is also asserted that they no longer believed whatever it was the description had convinced them was true.

To learn what the "something" was they believed, we have to look elsewhere in the letter to find Paul trying to reconvince them to believe that their faith in Christ precluded the necessity of the Law. What we do not find anywhere in Paul's letter is any attempt to convince them that Christ actually was crucified.

Ben C Smith

Paul affirms in 1 Thessalonians that Jesus died on our behalf and resurrected. What subsequent revelation do you suppose would have led him to specify death on our behalf as crucifixion?

The truth is that Paul simply uses death language of Jesus far more often than crucifixion language. Look at Romans; no other epistle goes into the death of Jesus more than this one, yet crucifixion is specified only once (I think).

And, for the record, it is not my position, nor does my position require, nor is my position even really compatible with the notion, that the crucifixion in Galatians 3.1 is figurative. It is, in my view, literal there, and, for Paul, it carries implications.

Ben.

Sheshbazzar

Not a "may or may not be" Ben, the facts of how these christian "authorities" gained and then wielded their power is well documented.

Not "valued Christian text" to me Ben, remember that I above stated that they were; "only fit to be salted with salt and thrown over the fence...."?

As these lying, thieving, murderous christians in their "records" made a wilful practice of substituting "Ebionites" when actually referring to the ("unworthy of the name") Nazarenes, and used gossip and hearsay, mingling and mangling both fact and history in their biased and lying propaganda compositions, it is of little profit to give any credence to their claims, statements, or -versions- of the truth.
Kind of like calling known Mafioso to the witness stand, you may get a record of -tens of thousands, even millions- of pages of their testimony, but most all of it won't be worth the paper that it is written upon

So, no, I won't even go into the details of your "witnesses" accounts, they have perjured their testimony, tampered with the evidence, engaged in bribery and in witness intimidation.
Known liars, thieves and murderers, they have long "taken care of church business" so that the witnesses against their criminal acts all quite conveniently "disappeared".
Even so, it is their own accounts that condemn themselves.

If you want to stuff your hands into, and muck around in their crock of lying shit, all you are going to come up with is their lying shit on your hands.
A man is known by the company he keeps, by whom he chooses to associate himself with, and by whom he calls his friends.

Son, if you can tell shit from Shinola, wash your hands clean of that shit, and escape the snares laid for you by your unsavory 'business associates', Escape, Escape, and deliver yourself from their plots and devices.
Put off those stained and reeking garments, wash and cleanse yourself free from all of this uncleanness.

How you strive to "win" a fight about words, but what is your gain, if in the winning of that fight, you must subvert and betray higher and more enduring principals?

Ah, it is a sad, sad thing, the kh'sed'eem v'ebee'on'eem, do weep to behold, and the tza'dook'eem do all consider.


Are you an "ish tza'deek" ?


As for the rest, the Hebrew, The Netz'ar'eem, read and recite such words in daily hope, and humbly hold no other thought than that they are the ebee'on'eem.
They have never needed the writings of your lying, thieving, murdering, johnny-come-lately christian writers to allocate to them their position, nor to dictate the interpretation of their language and beliefs.
The ebee'on'eem receive the ebee'on, and if they be ebee'on indeed, also are netz'ar'eem indeed.
Not names here Ben, but words Ben, ancient words of enduring significance.


Christianity has wrested the truth, and for a season gained the appearance of having attained the upper hand, but their days are numbered, and now short.
The sword of truth shall yet lay them low, and it shall be done in the light, in the sight of all, and made manifest to all.