Littlejohn

.

The following message was posted by me on the WEB page http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0370Ebionites.php and it is related to issue 'Ebionites', which is discussed, for the note, in this site.


What Ebionites?

When speaking of the Ebionites, attention must be paid to the fact that the one Ebionite WAS NOT an 'univocal' reality, as in the days when the heresiologist fathers were writing, there were existing TWO distinct Ebionite sects (see Eusebius of Caesarea): ie the one that refered itself to James the Just of Jerusalem and the one that referred to Jesus of Nazareth. Latest sect took origin, in practice, with Paul's preaching in the Ionian provinces of Asia Minor (see Acts of the Apostles). Before that, there was only one sect in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor, namely that of 'jacobite Ebionites' (by James the Just), and it resided at Hierapolis of Phrygia.

The views that had the two Ebionite sects about Jesus, were conflicting between them (see Eusebius), since the 'jacobite Ebionites' considered Jesus as a common man, who was born like all the other men (ie, by a father and a mother earthly), while the other sect, that pro-jesuan, said that Jesus became a 'son of God' by adoption, at the time of his baptism. It is obvious that was the sect of the 'jacobite Ebionites' which rejected the Apostle Paul, and NOT that of the 'jesuan' Ebionites!

I apologize for my uncorrect english...I'm italian.

Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

.


Taking as a pretext this message posted by Huon, I would draw the attention of the reader about the fact that those who will read CAREFULLY - what, according to the facts, has NEVER been done by any erudite - the so-called 'MURATORI CANON', a document, according to official estimates, compiled in the second half of the second century, can not help but realize that NONE of the current Pauline Epistles, may have been written by the character known to history as 'Paul of Tarsus' (in reality, in addition to NOT have been called 'Paul', no even was of Tarsus!), since he, almost certainly, died before the year 70.


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

Surely, Papias of Hierapolis (far from having been a 'catholic-christian'!!) was a member of the sect of 'ebionite-jesuan' Gnostics(*) and NOT that of the 'jacobite-Ebionites', otherwise he would have been very careful not to speak well of Jesus, since the descendants of the second century of the followers of both sects, were in stark contrast to each other (they were so probably already in the first century)

________________________

(*) - to keep in mind that the author of the famous' Antimarcionita Prologue ', referring to Papias wrote: "... what you wrote about the 'ESOTERICS'..", he intending with that the job in 5 volumes of Papias, entitled' Explanation of oracles of Jesus'. There is no doubt that 'oracles' and 'esoteric' terms make express reference to the Gnostic world, namely what was the REAL environment in which Jesus of Nazareth moved himself!


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

For a most expositive completeness, I would like add that albeit all of 'Pauline' letters we today know have an absolute pseudo-epigrafic character (ie written by 'unknown', and then attributed to the character of 'synthesis' known to history as 'Paul of Tarsus'), in fact into some of them there is a little of material that once, almost surely, belonged to one or more letters written by the true Paul of Tarsus. But just even in one of them there is a bit of the material that the 'alter ego' of Paul of Tarsus, namely Paul /Shaul, wrote between years 35 and 40.

Furthermore, it is not farfetched hypothesis that between Seneca and Paul of Tarsus may have been there an effective and modest exchange of letters (two or three at most). Of course, those 'collated' by the forger clergy, and today still known to exegetes of any 'color' (religious and secular), are nothing more than a vague 'simulacrum' as the real ones actually written by Paul of Tarsus.

In the historical reality, the character that the counterfeiter fathers of the origins have hid behind the disconcerting pseudonym 'Paul of Tarsus'(*), also wrote many more letters than those who still today are attributed to him ....


______________________________

(*) - He, in fact, was not called Paul, and nor was from Tarsus, albeit claiming to be from an extra-palestinian town, which, however, was NOT in effect that by which he came from, since he was a native of Palestine. (as do Paul/Shaul, his 'alter ego')


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

"..showed the Council of Jamnia (c. 90CE) is irrelevant to the dating of gJohn, as the word "minim" refers of heretics who were enjoined to leave the synagogues."

I am grateful to Adam because he has raised this question that, albeit in another form, I thought raise myself by some time.

In truth, the argument is MUCH more important than what Adam might think. In fact, the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia of the first 90s, not only provides valuable information for the purposes of Christian exegesis, but in practice it confirms the legitimate hypotheses about what happened in the decades before it was founded the catholic-Christianity (Rome, 140-150).

Among the many important things that were decided in the rabbinical synod, there was also the composition of the well known 'Blessings of Jamnia'. In one of these, I think the fourteenth, it is contained the so-called 'curse against the MINIM'.

Between all copies of this rabbinic document (the 'Document of Jamnia') now in circulation, only some of them (I think 8 or 9) contain, together with the term 'minim' (from 'minuth', heresy), even the Nazarenes term which, as is well known, is still used by the Jews to indicate the catho-christians. (or simply 'Christians')

According to the most common rules of paleographic and textual-criticism science, it is generally assumed that the copies of the texts that contain a greater amounts of material, are those most recent, rather than what contain less of such a material (in practice, it is believed that the material in more than one has been added at a later time).

From all this, then, it is possible to make some legitimate and rational speculations in this regard. First of all, the Jews of the early centuries of our era, made a clear distinction between 'minim' (heretics) and 'Nazarenes'(*), and secondly, because of the rule of the added material which over, it is therefore clear that to the rabbis who gathered in Jamnia in the early 90's, was completely unknown the figure of the 'Nazarene/Christian' [v. Note (*)].

All this is not surprising at all, because the CATHO-CHRISTIANITY (now simply 'Christianity) was founded in Rome (and NOT in Palestine!!) about 50 years after the Rabbinical Synod of Jamnia! ..

But then, who were the 'minim' against which the rabbis of the time even felt the urgent to convene a dedicated synod ? .... It is a truth not yet conquered by the erudite world, because of the fatal flattening of scientific research on models and stereotypes invented and proposed by the counterfeiter fathers of about 19 centuries ago!

We will see later what an important reality it was ....


________________________________________

(*) - ie what are now the Christians for the Jews. In fact, until about the middle of the second century of our era, the 'Nazarene' word had for the Jews the same meaning who still it has for us today: namely, a component of the Nazarene community, differentiated from the main-stream of Judaism time. While the reality catholic- Christian (from which the current attribute 'Christian') dates back to the first half of the second century AD, the figure of the 'Nazarene' was known to the Jews from about 6 centuries: namely from the great monotheistic reform inaugurated from king Josiah and by his high priest Helkya at the late seventh century BC.


Littlejohn S

.

SkyGuy

A lot of people tend to think that Cayce was a Medium. Actually, he was an Extra-Large.

Littlejohn

Octavian Augustus was considered a god incarnate by the Romans and so they built temples to worship him, and also of the priestly castes were born to administer his cult.

Since I do not believe in incarnate gods, I conclude that everything that was written about Augustus is the result of mere mythological fantasy, and that the same character never existed, but invented by the counterfeiter fathers of the catho-christianity, in order to persuade the faithful of the first church about the thesis of the birth of Jesus during the 'false' census ordered by Octavian.

I hope I was convincing, even because here the figure of Edgar Cayce 'non c'entra una beata mazza'!..(here figure not in any way).


Greetings


Littlejohn S

.

Huon

I did'nt know that Octavian Augustus was a jewish Messiah...
Littlejohn, you should not mix up history and mythology, or, do it pleasantly.

Littlejohn

"..I did'nt know that Octavian Augustus was a jewish Messiah..."


Why, you knew that he was an incarnate god? ....


Littlejohn S

.

Littlejohn

The above is an excerpt of the message #40, posted by 'steve_bnk'.

In order to settle any illation, pretextuous or not and any attempt to undermine what I'm exposing by years with all childish criticisms, I would like to add the one below.

Concerning Allan Kardec, another person took as a target by my 'censors', NOTHING of what he has written or said has been a source of data for my research!...

Kardec has simply made a 'kind' of prophecy (whose origins are completely difficult to me to understand) that struck me deeply and inspired me to continue my research with the ultimate in commitment.

For what concerns instead the figure of Edgar Cayce, took as a pretext by 'Skyguy' for his intervention, things are in this way: Cayce made a statement that has a certain relevance for what concerns the exegetical aspect, concerning the origins of Christianity. This his affirmation, has aroused my legitimate curiosity, and it has been thus that I started doing research on.

To my amazement, I not only found that the allegation made by Cayce corresponded with historical truth, but I could also take note of yet another, shocking deception and historical manipulation on the part of counterfeiter fathers of the origins

Nothing of what he wrote Cayce on religious questions, has been the source for my data, the recovery of which, incidentally, is the result of over 16 years of very intense researches and of great sacrifice on my part, and NOT the Cayce's visions!..

That said, now everyone can make all the illations they want. People with common sense will know how to evaluate them ...


Littlejohn S

.