Sheshbazzar

A small comment on the so-called "Nomina Sacra" and other various "Holy" abreviations, names, and titles that are employed -among gentiles- in the written transmission of The Bashar. ("Good News")
It is the custom of Nazarenes to read, recite, and pronounce these terms in accordance with the Word(s) of that preaching which they receive from the lips of the Basharim, and hear with their -ears- (and enter into their "hearts").
There being hundreds of "Versions" of "The Bible" circulated, produced in a multitude of languages, the -gentile substituted- "names" and "titles" are not pronounced amongst those who remain faithful in the accurate conveyance of The Word of Life.
The SHibboleth stands inviolate among all men, in all times, and everywhere.
Countless billions of empty words are spoken, written, and recited. Yet only one word is given, and only one word is required.
Some -few- will "order their speech aright", and "frame to pronounce it right", and some multitudes, The majority, will NOT;
Too proud, too arrogant, too vain and too self-centered, to ever submit to a minority that they esteem as being of lesser authority.

Amazing, the number who are wise in the wisdom of this world, and of the learned in accord with that perverted "knowledge" of this age,
Who -just don't, and never will get it.-
(and for all the same reasons that those Ephraimites of old, failed the test at the passage)

True Nazarenes, like Gileadites, remain despised as "fugitives".

No, you don't have to faithfully speak, but if you won't, there will come a Day of Reckoning, and a price to pay at that "Jordan".

There is nothing concealed that shall not be revealed, nor hidden, that shall not be brought to light.

J-D

There is no justification for requiring that evidence has to be 'archaeological' or 'scientific' before it counts as evidence. You have just made up this rule because it seems to give you an excuse for ignoring inconvenient facts. That is no reason to take it seriously.

And you have never presented any evidence, archaeological or scientific or any other kind, to support your theory. All the archaeological data you point to as being compatible with your theory is, as I have pointed out repeatedly, just as compatible with alternative theories. As between your theory and alternative theories it is not evidence either way--that is, it is not evidence against your theory and for an alternative, but it is also not evidence for your theory and against alternatives. So you still have no evidence for your theory. That being so, the evidence against your theory does not have to be particularly strong to knock it down.

J-D

If that last sentence means that at some point you're going to explain plainly what you're talking about, and why, instead of restricting yourself to cryptic remarks apparently designed only for cognoscenti, that would be nice. But I doubt it.

Sheshbazzar

Still -"just don't get it"- do you?
No, that last sentence has little at all to do with me personally, but very much to do with the subjects being discussed within this thread.
If you insist on only viewing history through a "Christian tinted", (tainted) glass, your views will continue to be distorted by false paradigms.

The sect of The Nazarenes were not "christians", and never will be, in spite of "christian history"s, and some forum members attemps to impose such a claim.

My remarks are not all that cryptic, certainly anyone attaining to a level of education that permits them to participate in this forum, ought to be able to read about and comprehend the implications of the word "SHibboleth".
"Can a Greek speak "shibboleth"? The question elicits an evasive "the Greek lacks the letters needed to represent, or to convey such a pronunciation"
But that was not the question, The question specifically being "CAN a Greek speak "shibboleth"? .....(Could an Ephraimite?)
Note that Paul never addresses his letters to a general audience, nor attempts to convert unbelievers by writing , but only addresses such groups as he has personally visited, and personally spoken his word to.
Undoubtedly Greek speakers, (and any other languages) CAN say "Shibboleth", if one come among them and teach them how to so pronounce.

Hand a true Nazarene any "Version" of The Bible you may choose, and when they read from it, they will not pronounce "christ" where ever it occurs on the written page, but rather will read and pronounce as "messiah".

Other sacred "names" and "titles" are likewise treated distinctively, but most particularly that ONE NAME, which is above every other name which is named.

Despite "christian" claims, bought hook-line-and sinker by the unwary, The Greek name "Iasus" or "Jesus" et. al. is NOT the same, NOT a "translation of", nor at all the equivalent to that distinct original name that was, and is yet spoken, and into which Name all true Nazarenes are fully immersed.
The SHibboleth stands, inviolate, and inviolatable, ONE, among all men, in all times, and in all languages everywhere.

This is what will eventually be revealed and be brought to light, and become manifest unto all men everywhere.

avi

A day or two ago, I inquired, {post 422} (in response to spin's suggestion that two frescoes, referenced in the book authored by Clark Hopkins (or via: amazon.co.uk), further refuted, ostensibly, MountainMan's contention that Christianity, as we understand it, originated with Constantine) as follows: spin's otherwise very learned and appropriate reply, did not mention the Nazarenes, and therefore, I tried again, {post 425} once more seeking to link spin's suggestion to Sheshbazzar's earlier post, explaining that Nazarenes were also prominent in the area of Dura Europos:
Today, Sheshbazzar offered his response to the question of nomina sacra:
As one of those, who is willing to pronounce doitishimashite, or shibboleth, but who remains largely ignorant of most things, I confess to having failed to understand much of Sheshbazzar's first post today. His second, was a tad easier to follow:
Yes, I don't get it.
Ok, I acknowledge being quite dense. Here's what I think you may have been writing, or maybe not....
I interpret Sheshbazzar's post today, as indicating that no self-respecting Nazarene would ever use Greek, for anything, therefore, in answer to my questions, I think Sheshbazzar is affirming support for spin's idea that the frescoes described in Hopkins' book, are definitely NOT Nazarene in origin, and therefore, must have been commissioned by one of the many different Christian groups. Well, I had thought it was a possibility....

:notworthy:

spin

Shezhbazzar's religious commitments about the nazarhnoi/nazwraioi are not based on evidence, but desires and retrojections. Please check the archives on the subject of the term and see some of the discussion. We merely have christian texts to argue from.

The separation of nazarhnoi/nazwraioi from christians is totally irrelevant to the o.p., that being that the existence of the evidence from Dura Europos falsifies mountainman's theory, ie christian evidence before his claim of Eusebian genesis. (And quibbling over the use of the term "christian" rather than "Nazarene" misses the claim of mountainman, for it still assumes the existence of that which we call "early christianity", though you, following Sheshbazzar's whims, might want to call it the religion of the "Nazarenes". This is merely a name game, which leaves the theory-falsifying content intact.)


spin

J-D

Well, yes, that was my point. I don't get it. And so long as you obstinately refuse to elucidate, I never will get it.I don't see how, but on your track record it is sadly unlikely that you're going to explain.I'm not sure which 'false paradigms' you have in mind. I'm not a Christian, I've never been a Christian, and I have never got my ideas about history from Christians.I never said that 'the sect of the Nazarenes' were Christians. I don't know which 'sect of the Nazarenes' you're talking about.I don't understand your remarks. You appear to treat my failure to understand you as some sort of moral failing on my part, which I find slightly offensive.The question apparently has some esoteric significance to you, impenetrable to me. I could have said 'I don't know how to answer your question, because I don't understand what you're getting at'. Instead, I made a guess at what it might possibly mean. Evidently it was a wrong guess. But guessing wrong is not evasion.Evidently this observation has some significance to you, but again it eludes me.Again, these observations seem to have some significance to you which eludes me.But your meaning is not, apparently, going to be revealed and made manifest by you, here, now. So if your purpose in posting here is not to communicate something to us, what is it?

Sheshbazzar

NOT
But first note avi, that my "Still-just don't get it"-do you?" response was in reply to J-Ds post (#443), actually I thought that you were beginning to "get it".

Nazarenes converse in whatever language they are born to, and normally conversant in, be it Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Spanish, English, or any other language.

Many "self-respecting Nazarenes" have spoken, and yet do speak in Greek while yet being careful to "put a difference" and to distinguish between the common (profane) -gentile-supplied (substitute) names and titles, and the ancient Scriptural sacred Names and Titles. The former commonly appearing in -the worlds- best selling Book, the latter conveyed by the employment of particularities of speech from person to person.
Born and raised in "christian" society and environment, I had not heard, had not known, nor understood, that any such distinction even existed, until that day when a man ("John" was his name) took pity upon my sorry state of ignorance and confusion, and opened his mouth, speaking what I had never before read nor heard.
And whether I live in beliefe of The Scriptures, or outside of the belief of The Scriptures, that imparted information still stands every test of truth.

By previous posts within this thread it ought to have been made quite clear that spin and I do not see eye to eye with regard to the significance of the Dura Europos finds. I most certainly DO NOT "affirm support for spins idea..."

Under the status quo he finds it very easy to marginalize and down-play the fact that the Nazarenes were not christians, and that christians did not at all evolve from The Sect of The Nazarenes, but rather arose as an independent -gentile- religious movement, and the resulting quasi-pagan "religion" stood (and yet stands) in a direct opposition to, and in an ongoing enmity towards that ancient and original Nazarene faith.

As for "the claim of mountainman", I have already in several places, stated that I find his theory on the origins of the "christian" religion to be faulty on several counts.

What spin seems to fail to recognise, is that I do not place the beginnings of the Gentile "christian" religion within the 1st century, but rather far earlier, with the translating of of The LXX, and with gentile reactions to the promises made to these self-same gentiles that were always within The Law and The Prophets, but locked up in unreadable (to most) Hebrew, but now through the LXX, finally made easily accessible to a far wider, non-Jewish, non-Hebrew speaking audience.
The LXX in using the Greek word "christ" as a translation of "messiah" would produce many gentiles who wanting to be partakers in those wonderful promises, would hold to a belief in this "christ" of the Jews religion, and hang around the Jewish synagogues, like so many dogs seeking scraps under the table. As even their own "christ" also refers to them.
Shibboleth and sibboleth is much more than "quibbling" or a "name game".
"Early Christiaity", and the religion of The Jewish sect of The Nazarenes were two entirely different religions with utterly differing theologies and practices.

The error of attempting to conflate them as being of the same religion on the basis of a few shared stories, is as far out of line as attempting to claim that Islam and Christianity are both the same religion, and that claiming otherwise is just engaging in a "name-game".

avi

Thank you Sheshbazzar, for your well written response, I understand the situation, a bit more clearly.
With regard to the original post of this thread, could the Nazarenes have prepared frescoes with these images, or, in your opinion, are the wall decorations evidence that this household could not have been Nazarene? In other words, could a Jewish sect, living adjacent to a synagogue in a small town situated on the west bank of the Euphrates river, eighteen hundred years ago, have constructed such images, and/or written such graffiti, or, in your opinion, are frescoes depicting these themes, artistic endeavors, creation of which would violate Jewish/Nazarene customs and tradition?

"ancient", but not predating Christianity, correct? i.e. Nazarene, meaning branch, from Nazareth, right?, i.e. dating from birth of Jesus, whereas,
Or, have I once again, misunderstood?

spamandham

If you would like it to be eventually revealed, why not just go ahead an reveal it in straightforward terms, rather than cryptic allusions?

I'm going to take a guess that you think the Nazarenes were the continuation of Ephraimites?

- the cross, is then a symbol of crossing the river Jordan
- baptism represents that same journey
- the 'gospel' is actually a single mystical word

...feel free to stop me at any point, or continue