It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
one of the main factors to be taken into account in reviewing the subsequent rapid progress of the new religion was the social revolution. In the minds of the most ignorant of the earliest followers of the public teaching, the greatest hope aroused may well have been the near approach of the day when the "poor" should be elevated above the "rich."
-Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, by G.R.S. Mead, 1900
Epiphanius would have it that the Christians were first called Iessæi, and says they are mentioned under this name in the writings of Philo. The followers of the earliest converts of Jesus are also said to have been called Nazoræi
Of these men of peace, not storing up treasures of silver and of gold, nor acquiring vast sections of the earth out of a desire for ample revenues, but providing all things which are requisite for the natural purposes of life; for they alone of almost all men having been originally poor and destitute, and that too rather from their own habits and ways of life than from any real deficiency of good fortune, are nevertheless accounted very rich, as in truth they are.
- Philo, Every Good Man is Free
[Those who are called Ebionites] They use the Gospel according to Matthew only.
It appears likely that this Aramaic Matthew was somewhat different from the Matthew now in the canon. In particular, the Matthew used by Ebionite Christians would have lacked the first two chapters, which narrate Jesus' birth to a virgin - a notion that the Ebionite Christians rejected. There were doubtless other differences from our own version of Matthew's Gospel as well.
[Those who are called Ebionites] repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.
And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But If you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am rock, the foundation of the church, you now stand.
-testimony from the apostle Peter on the accusations toward Paul, Homily XVII, 19
persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left. They edited Luke 2:33 and Luke 2:48 where Joseph was twice called the 'father' of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited Luke 3:22 where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs. The victors get to write history, and it is Pauline Christianity that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Dude. Good title, but man what a text you got there. On and on and on and I'm waiting to read about the heresy. Like I finally get to the place where you say heresy for the first time and I focus and still I cannot grasp what this heresy is you are talking about here. Is it like a dilution of the original teachings, the dogma or what.
originally posted by: guitarplayer
How does Jesus having brothers negate the virgin birth?
a reply to: greyer
originally posted by: Ignatian
Jesus did not have blood siblings. He may have had half-brothers, and he certainly had cousins, but not brothers.
There is no Aramaic word for cousin, or half-brother. The word they used instead was "brother". When the bible speaks of a brother of Jesus, and a parent other than Jospeh or Mary is mentioned elsewhere in the bible, logic would dictate that person was not a blood sibling of Jesus.
His mother Mary, spouse of The Holy Spirit, was a virgin and remained a virgin her entire life. She was the Ark of the New Covenant. Sinless. Full of Grace.
The first bishop of Rome, St. Peter, was also the first pope.
Peter was crucified along with his brother James the Great in 47 CE
As Christians, we all know that December 25th was not the birth of Christ - yet we still worship on that holiday. So why did they add that in the New Testament?
originally posted by: Akragon
they didn't... December 25th isn't mentioned once in the New testament...
that date was established looong after Jesus died...
Interesting post though...
I would also suggest you read the dead sea scroll texts... they're not NT
And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food
But when they threatened to put him to torture if he would not cease from those words and deeds, he nevertheless said: "It is meet for you rather to cease from your heinous works and cleave unto the Lord your God." And there rose up in anger Simon, an Essæan by extraction, a scribe, and he spake: "We read every day the divine books. 12. But thou, only now come from the forest like a wild animal,—thou darest in sooth to teach us and to mislead the people with thy reprobate words." 13. And he rushed forward to do him bodily violence.
originally posted by: greyer
But listen to what you are saying - God the Son, God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, now God the Mother? That is 4 Gods.
originally posted by: Ignatian
So, how would you describe this "James the Great", his actual relation to Jesus, if I told you who his parents were? If his parents were not Joseph and Mary. Would you still call him His brother, if they had different parents?
Where did I ever refer to Mary as a God? She's the mother of God, incarnate. Spouse of The Holy Spirit. This is mainstream Christianity.
James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot
John 1:42, “So you are called Simon bar-Jona? You shall be called Cephas.” The trouble is, “Simon barjona” would mean “Simon the revolutionary,” even “Simon the terrorist.” Simon the Canaanean (“the Zealot”) is similarly rooted. In the Gethemane scene Simon is said to have been armed. To secure our identification of Simon Kepha as Simon bar Giora, we need only compare the accounts of each at the end of the Neronian period. Both go from Palestine to Rome, and bith are executed there. Josephus makes it very simple. “Simon, the son of Gioras, … had then been led in this triumph among the captives; a rope had also been put upon his head, and he had been drawn into a proper place in the forum, and had withal been tormented by those that drew him along; and the law of the Romans required that malefactors condemned to die should be slain there.” Simon was thrown off the Tarpeian Rock (a clear play on his title Kepha). Mark and Titus were in attendance no less than Vespasian and Domitian. Compare with this scene John 21b:18-19a, which lists the intitial steps of Simon’s execution, matching Josephus: “when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.’ This he said to indicate what sort of death by which he would glorify God.” But there is another version of the death in the Acts of Peter. A later writer has developed it into a crucifixion, assimilating his death to that of Jesus, so that Peter was supposedly hanged upside-down on a cross. The word for “upside down” in Aramaic is interesting: kepha, the very title pinned on the enemy of the Apostle once again.
By the date of 36 CE, the largest religious party in Judea was the Nazarenes. James the Just, the leader of the Hebrew Nazarene Ecclesia in Jerusalem was quickly becoming the most prominent, the most popular, the most sought after religious leader by the Jewish peasants, the majority of the Essenes who had been converted to the Nazarene party by this time, the Zealots and the nationalists who admired James the Just as being a zealot for the law and later the Sicarii who for political purposes of their own were really in defense of James and the Nazarene Ecclesia.
Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
originally posted by: BlueMule
So the heretical, satanic mageia of the Persians allowed the three wise men to predict the birth of Jesus and then follow a star to him where they could shower him with love and sacred gifts? Do I have that right?
They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness that they may obtain loving kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering.
-The Community Rule scroll
originally posted by: FlyersFan
No one in Christianity ... neither Protestant nor Catholic ... call Mary 'God'.
The Holy Trinity is considered Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ONE GOD in three manifestations.
Mary is not part of that.
Among Roman Catholics, the Madonna is recognized not only as the Mother of God, but also, according to modern Popes, as the Queen of the Universe, Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom, and even the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. -Time Magazine 1991
the dramatic spread of this false Virgin Mother doctrine throughout the known world. She was worshipped in Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, China, Japan, and Tibet under different names. Pope Pius XI officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." The Bible specifically states that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Mary is a co-redeemer.
Finally, the cult of the worship of the Virgin Mother is drawing the many Feminists of the New Age Movement into her grasp. Mother and son worship is a perfect example of how Satan has set up a counterfit religion. His plan is to make a copy of Gods plan but make it so that humans will worship him
During the first centuries of the church, no emphasis was placed upon Mary whatsoever. it was not until the time of Constantine- the early part of the fourth century-that anyone began to look to Mary as a goddess. But even at this period, such worship was frowned upon by the church, as it is evident by the words of the Epiphanius who denounced certain woman of Thrace, Arabia, and elsewhere, for worshipping Mary as an actual goddess and offerings cakes at her shrine.Yet, within just a few more years, Mary worship was not only considered by what is known today as the Catholic Church, but it became one of her main doctrines-as it is today.
This article of faith- that Mary is the Mother of God- is present in the Church from the beginning and is not a new creation of the council but the presentation of the Gospel and the Scriptures."
-Martin Luther's Works,
every Catholic knows that Jesus was born of Mary so that He could become Man. If she were some kind of divine being, how could He have derived His humanity from her? We call her the Mother of God because Jesus is God and she is His Mother.
They shall rebuke one another in truth, humility, and charity. Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness. Let him not hate him in the wickedness of an uncircumcised heart, but let him rebuke him on the very same day lest he incur guilt because of him.
I will pay to no man the reward of evil;
I will pursue him with goodness.
For judgement of all the living is with God
and it is He who will render to man his reward.
I will not envy in a spirit of wickedness,
my soul shall not desire the riches of Violence.
I will not grapple with the men of perdition
until the Day of Revenge,
but my wrath shall not turn from the men of falsehood
and I will not rejoice until judgement is made.
originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: greyer
Wow. Thanks for sharing, but wow. You're so wrong! What kind of polemical, ideologically-driven crap do you read? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Your entire conception of religion, myth, mysticism, and mystics such as Jesus is way, way off. Your exegesis is childish, your cross-cultural perception is myopic, you're a paranoid, ignorant extremist. No offense.
But, I love you anyway.
They shall rebuke one another in truth, humility, and charity. Let no man address his companion with anger, or ill-temper, or obduracy, or with envy prompted by the spirit of wickedness.