Sheshbazzar

That places him one hell of a lot closer to the situation and the known beliefs and conduct of The JEWISH Sect of The Nazarenes, -who were still around and still practicing that form of JEWISH religion- that he described, than you will ever be.
You may not like the evidence regarding the beliefs and practices of The JEWISH Sect of The Nazarenes that he provides, but that is your problem (and is the joke) of you not wanting to deal honestly with the information.

spin

Oh, so you're going to prattle on about Epiphanius's musings and project them into the document found at Dura, a document written in Greek. Let me reiterate: don't joke.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Smelly bull-shit spin, NO, you "HAVE NOT dealt with it" just dodged into your tactic of one liner insults.
I am not the one here "playing with "christian" The JEWISH Sect of The Nazarene's were there first, The term "christian" is a much latter Gentile fabrication (Acts11:26) and is patently an improper anachronism when foisted off on these early JEWISH Messianic believers, most of whom lived out their entire lives without so much as even having heard of the foreign term "christian", and latter when they did finally hear of it, they refused to be incorporated under it as they were proudly and boldly remained adherents of The JEWISH religion.
This makes YOU, and your ilk, the ones that are playing fast and loose with the term "christian", by applying it anachronistically and inappropriately where you ought not.
Yeah, but your willingness to stick your head in a hole and just continue to bleat your nah-nah-nah's, is totally beside the point.
Dealing with the fact that you chose to continue engaging in anachronistically abusing the term "christian", is the point that you are so studiously avoiding.
Yes, but late and in a foreign environment, The Messianic JEWS remained JEWISH and their religion, distinctly a sect of the religion of JUDIASIM and was of not that murderous Johnny-come lately religion called "christianity".

The QUESTION appeared in a context.
Do you even know what the term anachronism means?
Your one-liner jibes are not edifying, only serving to delay having to actually deal with the facts, and add further embarrassment to your position.

spin

The one-liner tells you to deal with the fact that we have clearly four well-known motifs in conjunction that evince what we know of the gospel religion.

Look, cut the believer crap and start with the evidence. Still none up your sleeve, Sheshbazzar.

You still haven't got it yet. I don't GAF what you wanna call it -- you are playing name games. I know all this shit. When you want to deal with the Pauline funneled religion of the dying saviour, who had disciples, who was crucified, who later tradition relates to Zebedee, Salome, Galilee, Joseph of Arimathea, get back to me.

Where did all the messianic Jews go after the defeat of Shimeon??

If you would like to teach me something, try a topic that you can show you know more than me about.

They aren't meant to be edifying, so much as to get you to cut the crap level. I'm not interested in your particular cross to bear. Give me some of your reputed facts and stop just sucking up to bits of Epiphanius that stimulate you.


spin

Sheshbazzar

Yes, absolutely, clearly well-known motifs in conjunction which originated in the tropes and teachings of Messianic JUDIASIM, the original "Gospel" religion of The SECT of the JEWISH "Nazarene" religion, long, long time before there ever was any such thing as a "christian".

These Messianic JEWS, faithful to the Law and The Prophets, and holding to fast JEWISH praxis, did not practice, nor teach, that antinomianism which became the hallmark of "christan" religion.
They were all of an earlier and distinctly different religion, They were JEWS and remained JEWISH, as part and parcel of The JEWISH religion.
Never calling themselves "christian" and never becoming "christianised".

spin

Uhh, evidence? But don't strain yourself.


spin

spamandham

The women at the cross could just be part of the story - grieving women doesn't seem out of place.

But the business about Joseph of Arimathia (and the business about Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross) seems out of place to me.

The context seems to have been lost, which does suggest either a merging of stories, a significant evolution of a story, or perhaps just symbolism which is no longer clear.

Sheshbazzar

Don't look at the elephant in the room spin, just pretend that it doesn't exist.
I am patient, we have waited for near two thousand years for this
"christian" fable to come unraveled. In due time that elephant will be seen and will be acknowledged by the educated.

spin

You're not going to participate, so bye Shesh. :wave:

Sheshbazzar

Yep, ain't it funny that you got the iconography of "two Mary's" approaching a tomb, and "Jesus" and "Peter" walking on water , but not a "cross" to be found anywhere.
Oops, better sidle carefully around that invisible elephants leg