Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 07-01-2013, 06:35 PM

Are you saying Eusebius gave a list that did not start with James and Simon, both listed several times in the New Testament and James in Josephus? The Christian writers wrote before any more bishops came.

Robert Tulip · 07-01-2013, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

... The Gospel references to Nazareth are actually references to the old Jewish holy religious group the Nazirites, described in Numbers and Kings, and counting in their number Samuel, Samson and John the Baptist. This group was proscribed by Rome, and therefore the Gospel authors found it expedient to claim that references to the Nazarenes were geographical rather than ideological. ...

When was this?

Toto, as I said, these comments are my opinion. This explanation of the central role of the Nazarenes is the account of Christian origins that I find the most plausible and coherent hypothesis against all the evidence. If a better explanation exists then readers are welcome to attempt to falsify my views.

Rene Salm shows there was almost certainly no Nazareth at the time of Christ, on the basis of archaeological evidence. The Church of the Annunciation is built on top of Roman tombs, showing that the site is late. Other late artefacts such as lamps are wrongly described by apologists as Herodean, in a desperate effort to spin up evidence where none exists. We clearly see systematic deception about Nazareth, with a broad refusal to consider the evidence of its invention as a Potemkin Village for Christian political propaganda.

The Nazarenes were a Jewish holy order with origins going back to the Nazirites mentioned in the Torah at Numbers 6. The Wikipedia entry on the Nazarene Sect says “According to Epiphanius in his Panarion, the 4th-century Nazarenes were originally Jewish converts of the Apostles[18] who fled Jerusalem because of Jesus' prophecy on its coming siege (during the Great Jewish Revolt in 70 AD). They fled to Pella, Peraea (northeast of Jerusalem), and eventually spread outwards to Beroea and Bashanitis, where they permanently settled (Panarion 29.3.3). The Nazarenes were similar to the Ebionites, in that they considered themselves Jews, maintained an adherence to the Law of Moses, and used only the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, rejecting all the Canonical gospels.” (DCH has mentioned this above)

My assertion that the Nazarenes were proscribed by the Romans is an extension of the claim by Epiphanius that they fled Jerusalem for fear of the Romans. People do not flee if they are friends of invaders, and especially not if their views on politics are considered by the invaders as subversive.

The key point here is that unless the real Nazarenes were under some sort of political interdict it is hard to produce a logical reason why the Gospels invented Nazareth as the home town of their invented archetypal Nazarene figurehead Jesus Christ. The question then arises what the motive was for the Gospel authors to conceal the real identity of the Nazarenes by claiming that Jesus came from Nazareth. If Nazareth did not exist, the town name is code for something else, with the only realistic candidate the religious organisation the Nazarenes. Nazareth is allegorical, a politically acceptable way of referring to the actual Nazarenes with plausible deniability.

There must have been reasons to conceal this Nazarene organisation in the public mention of Christ’s origins in the Gospels. We know that the tension between Rome and Jerusalem had steadily grown. A central factor in this tension was the refusal of Jews to accept the moral legitimacy of Empire through participation in imperial rituals. Who would have felt this moral repugnance more strongly than the secret holiest group among the Jews, the Nazirites? As the Nazarites/Nazarenes constructed a moral vision to understand the apocalyptic destruction of their world brought by the Roman invasion, and by the Greek invasion before it, their sense that God is revealed through the kingly house of David, in what Isaiah called the branch of Jesse, must have been central.

Jesus the Nazarene, the mythical anointed saviour of the Jews, is allegorically prophesied in Isaiah 11, with the midrashic pun “yi•shai ve•ne•tzer” meaning “Jesse’s Branch”. Yi•shai ve•ne•tzer is understood in Christian theology as a prediction of Christ, and has at least enough rhyme with Jesus of Nazareth to suggest a tantalising linguistic connection.

The various words relating to Nazareth in the Bible include netser – the branch, natsar – the watchers, Nazirite – the holy ones set apart, and Nazarene, the sect who fled Jerusalem as the Romans advanced. Readers are justified to put these central terms together, in the context of the inability to find any evidence of Nazareth at the time of Christ. The most likely explanation is that all these central concepts of faith are indeed linked to each other.

The next question, relating to the source of Nazareth in Natsar or Watcher, is what they watched, and how this watching led to the construction of the Christ Myth. This is where cosmology is central, with the observation of the slow change of the heavens producing a universal story.

Toto · 07-02-2013, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

When was this?

Toto, as I said, these comments are my opinion. This explanation of the central role of the Nazarenes is the account of Christian origins that I find the most plausible and coherent hypothesis against all the evidence. If a better explanation exists then readers are welcome to attempt to falsify my views.

I think it is best to label your hypotheses as what they are. You stated that the Romans had proscribed the Nazirites as if it were a known fact.

Quote:

Rene Salm shows there was almost certainly no Nazareth at the time of Christ, on the basis of archaeological evidence. ...

The Nazarenes were a Jewish holy order with origins going back to the Nazirites mentioned in the Torah at Numbers 6. ...

My assertion that the Nazarenes were proscribed by the Romans is an extension of the claim by Epiphanius that they fled Jerusalem for fear of the Romans. People do not flee if they are friends of invaders, and especially not if their views on politics are considered by the invaders as subversive.

I'm not sure if the claim that Christians fled Jerusalem is such a solid fact. It's possible, or it is possible that it was invented as an explanation for why Christians could not be found in Jerusalem. But even so, it is not clear that they fled because they thought they were in particular danger from the Romans, as opposed to fleeing because they didn't want to be in the middle of a war, or even because they did not support the Jewish rebels and were afraid of them.

Quote:

The key point here is that unless the real Nazarenes were under some sort of political interdict it is hard to produce a logical reason why the Gospels invented Nazareth as the home town of their invented archetypal Nazarene figurehead Jesus Christ. . . .

I don't see it as that hard. The gospels are full of mysteries and symbolism.

Quote:

There must have been reasons to conceal this Nazarene organisation in the public mention of Christ’s origins in the Gospels. We know that the tension between Rome and Jerusalem had steadily grown. A central factor in this tension was the refusal of Jews to accept the moral legitimacy of Empire through participation in imperial rituals. Who would have felt this moral repugnance more strongly than the secret holiest group among the Jews, the Nazirites? As the Nazarites/Nazarenes constructed a moral vision to understand the apocalyptic destruction of their world brought by the Roman invasion, and by the Greek invasion before it, their sense that God is revealed through the kingly house of David, in what Isaiah called the branch of Jesse, must have been central.

This still doesn't differentiate the Nazirites from Jews in general.

I'll leave the rest of your post to someone who knows more Hebrew than I.

Robert Tulip · 07-02-2013, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

it is best to label your hypotheses as what they are. You stated that the Romans had proscribed the Nazirites as if it were a known fact.

As I noted, immediately before the comment that you quoted I said "My opinion about the implications for Christian origins is as follows." I'm sorry if that did not make it clear enough that it was my opinion.

Considering this question of a possible Roman attitude towards Nazirites, consider the story of the beheading of John the Baptist. According to the Synoptic Gospels, Herod agreed to this beheading at the request of the dancing girl traditionally known as Salome. Josephus says in Antiquities of the Jews that Herod killed John, "lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his [John's] power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise)," and that many of the Jews believed that the military disaster that fell upon Herod was God's punishment for his unrighteous behavior. (source)

Was John a Nazirite? The Catholic Encyclopedia says "Nazarites appear in New Testament times ... Foremost among them is generally reckoned John the Baptist, of whom the angel announced that he should "drink no wine nor strong drink". He is not explicitly called a Nazarite, nor is there any mention of the unshaven hair, but the severe austerity of his life agrees with the supposed asceticism of the Nazarites."

The traditional image of John and of Jesus as long-haired yoghurt and locust eaters places them within the distinct Samsonite Nazarite tradition. The comments of Josephus about John strongly suggest that the Nazirites were leaders in fomenting anti-Roman sentiment. Usually the Romans had little tolerance for such people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

it is not clear that they fled because they thought they were in particular danger from the Romans,

But that is the most plausible conclusion from the above sources about John the Baptist, apparently a leading Nazirite who was executed by Rome for fomenting sedition, described by Josephus as feared by the Romans as a rebel leader.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

The key point here is that unless the real Nazarenes were under some sort of political interdict it is hard to produce a logical reason why the Gospels invented Nazareth as the home town of their invented archetypal Nazarene figurehead Jesus Christ. . . .

I don't see it as that hard. The gospels are full of mysteries and symbolism.

Excuse me if I see your comment as defeatist. I am trying to work towards a coherent logical understand the origins of Christianity. Your comment suggests that Nazareth may just be a symbolic mystery, implying that perhaps no logical explanation of it is possible, giving up on the possibility of making scientific sense of the text. By contrast, I am suggesting that Nazareth makes perfect theological sense within a mythicist understanding of it. Nazareth indicates all the cognate terms, natsar, netser, nazirite, nazarene, which together describe the secret watchers of the Davidic tradition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This still doesn't differentiate the Nazirites from Jews in general.

Read Numbers 6

Quote:

The Nazirite

1The Lord said to Moses, 2“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of dedication to the Lord as a Nazirite, 3they must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or other fermented drink. They must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4As long as they remain under their Nazirite vow, they must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

5“ ‘During the entire period of their Nazirite vow, no razor may be used on their head. They must be holy until the period of their dedication to the Lord is over; they must let their hair grow long.

6“ ‘Throughout the period of their dedication to the Lord, the Nazirite must not go near a dead body. 7Even if their own father or mother or brother or sister dies, they must not make themselves ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of their dedication to God is on their head. 8Throughout the period of their dedication, they are consecrated to the Lord.

9“ ‘If someone dies suddenly in the Nazirite’s presence, thus defiling the hair that symbolizes their dedication, they must shave their head on the seventh day—the day of their cleansing. 10Then on the eighth day they must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 11The priest is to offer one as a sin offeringa and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for the Nazirite because they sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day they are to consecrate their head again. 12They must rededicate themselves to the Lord for the same period of dedication and must bring a year-old male lamb as a guilt offering. The previous days do not count, because they became defiled during their period of dedication.

13“ ‘Now this is the law of the Nazirite when the period of their dedication is over. They are to be brought to the entrance to the tent of meeting. 14There they are to present their offerings to the Lord: a year-old male lamb without defect for a burnt offering, a year-old ewe lamb without defect for a sin offering, a ram without defect for a fellowship offering, 15together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and a basket of bread made with the finest flour and without yeast—thick loaves with olive oil mixed in, and thin loaves brushed with olive oil.

16“ ‘The priest is to present all these before the Lord and make the sin offering and the burnt offering. 17He is to present the basket of unleavened bread and is to sacrifice the ram as a fellowship offering to the Lord, together with its grain offering and drink offering.

18“ ‘Then at the entrance to the tent of meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that symbolizes their dedication. They are to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering.

19“ ‘After the Nazirite has shaved off the hair that symbolizes their dedication, the priest is to place in their hands a boiled shoulder of the ram, and one thick loaf and one thin loaf from the basket, both made without yeast. 20The priest shall then wave these before the Lord as a wave offering; they are holy and belong to the priest, together with the breast that was waved and the thigh that was presented. After that, the Nazirite may drink wine.

21“ ‘This is the law of the Nazirite who vows offerings to the Lord in accordance with their dedication, in addition to whatever else they can afford. They must fulfill the vows they have made, according to the law of the Nazirite.’ ”

See also information about the Nazirite Samson at
http://bible.cc/judges/16-17.htm and
http://bible.cc/judges/13-5.htm

Toto · 07-02-2013, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

...

Was John a Nazirite? ...

Perhaps he was, but he was not executed because he was an ascetic or for religious reasons - but because he was a potential threat, or perhaps because he criticized the divorce/marriage of Herod.

Quote:

The traditional image of John and of Jesus as long-haired yoghurt and locust eaters places them within the distinct Samsonite Nazarite tradition.

Yoghurt? Yoghurt is the product of an organized farm economy. John lived in the desert on bugs and honey. Jesus, on the other hand, was not an ascetic.

Matt 11:18-19
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.'
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is proved right by her deeds."

Quote:

The comments of Josephus about John strongly suggest that the Nazirites were leaders in fomenting anti-Roman sentiment. Usually the Romans had little tolerance for such people. ...

This is where I think your speculation goes awry. Josephus does not connect John's execution to Nazirites in general. John's execution had to do with his potential as a political rival. Jospehus does not describe any actions against Nazirities in general.

Quote:

Excuse me if I see your comment as defeatist. I am trying to work towards a coherent logical understand the origins of Christianity. Your comment suggests that Nazareth may just be a symbolic mystery, implying that perhaps no logical explanation of it is possible, giving up on the possibility of making scientific sense of the text. ...

I do not think that "no logical explanation is possible." I think that the logical explanation for Nazareth may just involve word play, and the origins of Christianity may be more complex and less straightforward.

Davka · 07-02-2013, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

John lived in the desert on bugs and honey.

Actually, the "locusts" may well have been locust beans - or, as we call them, carob pods. Perhaps John had a sweet tooth?

Clivedurdle · 07-02-2013, 08:27 AM

Are not Buddhist preachers and christing with cannabis oil also behind this superstitio? It was called an oriental cult very early on.

I think the rituals involved eating and drinking and singing hymns through the night in caves and then going out into the sunlight at dawn. The best caves faced East.

The stories and theology and buildings probably followed the cultic practices.

aa5874 · 07-02-2013, 08:29 AM

Let me expose the invented fallacies of Eusebius’ Church History regarding Bishops of Jerusalem.
It will be seen that the Bishops of Jerusalem is most likely a monstrous fable.
Eusebius gave a list of all 15 Bishops of Jerusalem from around c 62 CE to 135 CE and claimed there were NO more Jews who were Bishops after the time of Hadrian when he expelled Jews from Jerusalem c 135 CE.

Church History 4.5.3

Quote:

3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.

Let us concentrate on the first 2 Bishops—James and Symeon .

1.An Apostle James, the Lord’s brother, was Bishop up to c 62 CE.
There is NO Apostle James, the Lord’s brother, in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

It is claimed or implied James died around c 62 CE or AFTER Festus a procurator of Judea was dead. See Church History 2.23.2

2.Symeon, a Son of Clopas, was Bishop from c 62 to c 110 CE about 48 years and died when he was 120 years old.

There is NO Symeon or Simeon in the Entire Canon who was a Son of Clopas.

Church History 3.32.3

Quote:

3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”

The first 2 Bishops are unknown in the Gospels and Symeon was Bishop up to 120 years of age.

Let us concentrate on the LAST 13 Bishops.

3. Justus was Bishop AFTER the matryrdom of Symeon c 110 CE.

Church History 3.35.1.

Quote:

But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem.

From c 110 CE to c 135 CE, in about 25 years, there were 13 bishops of Jerusalem based on Eusebius’ Church History.

The claims by Eusebius in Church History about the 15 Bishops of Jerusalem c 62-135 CE are monstrous fables and were not corroborated by the Canon or any earlier Christian or non-Christian writer of antiquity.
There was NO character called James the Lord’s brother in the Gospel.

Eusebius ADMITTED Clement claimed there were TWO JAMESES.

Church History 2.1.4

Quote:

……..But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded..

We have the list of the TWO JAMESES in Gospels and NONE of them is James the Just or the Lord’s brother.

Mark 3

Quote:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach , 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter;

17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him..

The Bishops of Jerusalem as stated in Church History are inventions using fictitious characters even unknown in the Gospels or by Jesus if he did exist.

Jesus, if he did exist, ordained TWO JAMESES--James the Son of Zebedee and James the Son of Alphaeus.

There is no corroborative evidence that Jews were Bishops or members of the Jesus cult in any century and for hundreds of years in antiquity.

Clivedurdle · 07-02-2013, 08:31 AM

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l...ddhist&f=false

Buddhism in Christendom Or Jesus the Essene (1887)
By Arthur Lillie

Adam · 07-02-2013, 10:11 AM

I suppose aa's #598 is a response to my #591 that refuted his #590. His #590 remains refuted. There are lots of Simons and lots of men named James in the New Testament, even in the Synoptic gospels. aa cannot properly claim that the first two bishops of Jerusalem were unknown to Christian writers. See especially Acts 15:13-21 regarding James.

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

07-01-2013, 06:35 PM	#591
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Are you saying Eusebius gave a list that did not start with James and Simon, both listed several times in the New Testament and James in Josephus? The Christian writers wrote before any more bishops came.

07-02-2013, 08:27 AM	#597
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Are not Buddhist preachers and christing with cannabis oil also behind this superstitio? It was called an oriental cult very early on. I think the rituals involved eating and drinking and singing hymns through the night in caves and then going out into the sunlight at dawn. The best caves faced East. The stories and theology and buildings probably followed the cultic practices.

07-02-2013, 08:31 AM	#599
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l...ddhist&f=false Buddhism in Christendom Or Jesus the Essene (1887) By Arthur Lillie

07-02-2013, 10:11 AM	#600
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	I suppose aa's #598 is a response to my #591 that refuted his #590. His #590 remains refuted. There are lots of Simons and lots of men named James in the New Testament, even in the Synoptic gospels. aa cannot properly claim that the first two bishops of Jerusalem were unknown to Christian writers. See especially Acts 15:13-21 regarding James.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.