Simon Peter the Roman

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Astyanax

My own view is that Jesus was simply appointing a leader among his disciples, someone they could turn to for advice and decisions when their master had left the scene. He wasn't mandating the future Bishops of Rome to exert authority over the whole Christian community or act as arbiters of Scripture and doctrine.

If your view is correct the why was James the Just (Jacob) chosen by Jesus to be the Nasi of the first Christian Synagogue? The gospel of Thomas declares that Jesus chose James before His death to lead His Church. This first church was entirely Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy and Greek and Latin were forbidden to influence the congregation.

Gospel of Thomas
12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

James was the President, High Priest, Nasi for over thirty years with John being second and Peter being third in rank of the congregation.

You forgot to say congregation in Jerusalem, not the congregation in Rome.

a reply to: Astyanax

Latest thinking? If i was to go back a hundred years, i would have the same answers as i would have a hundred years into the future, the present only makes a purpose not a meaning.

originally posted by: bally001
With due repect. Please explain why we all still suffer if the almighty is a kind loving god

Bally,

Never forget, God isn't the reason for the suffering, WE are...

Also keep in mind that God sees things that we cannot see.

Abortion is a perfect example, see post here.

This life is a preparation for the next...

Fire on the Altar MP3

Maybe you’ve never thought about it that much, but one of the main reasons you were placed on this planet was to be tested by God...

HOW CAN I FIND GOD?

"Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy ... Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter ... therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator." (1 Peter 4:12)

Notice in the first verse that the Lord is specifically targeting our faith when He allows trials to come our way. He really hammers home this point when He says that our faith in Him is even more precious than any of the gold of this earth. He then makes an extreme statement when He says that this faith will then be "tested by fire."

Having your personal faith levels in the Lord tested by fire is not something most people want to hear or talk about in this current day and age. ...many pastors have decided not to talk or teach about this topic because it is so uncomfortable to talk about...

God is not causing all of these bad things to happen, thereby causing this kind of horrible suffering. Since the Bible tells us that there is no darkness in God, there is no way He could cause some of these bad and horrible things to occur.

These bad and horrible things are all occurring because of the Adamic curse that is still in operation on this earth. And until that curse is fully and finally removed when we get the New Heaven and New Earth, a certain amount of physical, mental and emotional suffering will not only be a part of this world and life, but it will also be a part of our individual and personal walks with the Lord.

This is why every single Christian needs the knowledge, revelation and understanding on this entire part of the walk with our Lord - so they can properly handle this type of adversity and suffering when it does come their way.

WHY PEOPLE GO THROUGH TRIALS

“God has tried to get through to us…. We have been a big disappointment to God because we have just consistently refused to listen to God.”

“As a pastor, people say ‘why does God allow this [evil]…. That question is predicated on a false assumption. God doesn’t want any of these things to happen. It’s all against God’s will. It’s our perverse nature, our sinful nature that allows these things to happen, that causes these things to happen. If we were following God’s will they wouldn’t be happening.

So we tend to ascribe to God all of the bad things that happen, and take responsibility for the good things that happen, when in reality it’s just the opposite.

God wants us to live in harmony with one another and in harmony with the creation. And the conflict and suffering we are experiencing in this world is of a human origin, not originated by God.

When Jesus came into the world it was a great opportunity for the whole world to find a new way of living and interacting with one another. And we all have failed.

And I would lay the greatest responsibility upon Christianity itself…. They were the ones that were given the clear transmission of what God’s desire was.

God is unhappy with humankind, unhappy with the way the world is going, unhappy with the way God’s beautiful creation is being treated. And God is intervening in a very direct way in the world today. And God and the angels are about trying to promote a spiritual awakening.”

Francis Chan - Suffering
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: booyakasha
peter is the Jew Peter. Jupiter. The rock. Jesus is the Sun. The giver of life, the light of the world, Gods only SUN.

All the characters in the bible are literary symbols of stars, planets, and constellations.

DING, DING, DING!!!!!!!!

LOVE this !!!

The symbolism of the Bible is of no coincidence either.

"The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Mason's marks than the Cathedral of Strasbur" Manly P Hall

The church is built upon lies ( Sorry Christians).

All myths derive from the Heaven's.

As above so below.

What you see up there manifests down here.

ETA in a ?

Wasn't Jesus said to bring the sword and the second coming he will bring truth?

a reply to: Ove38

TextYou forgot to say congregation in Jerusalem, not the congregation in Rome.

The reason I did not go any further is that I am not sure of what the Catholic tradition dictates.
James was Nasi of the Jerusalem Synagogue till his death in 62 CE. Peter was with the synagogue till after James was murdered and supposedly went to Rome with Paul. The persecution took control against the Christians in 66-70 CE, and it is believed (but not certain) that Peter died in 65 to 66 CE.

Regardless of how it is interpreted there is only a window of about three years in which Peter could have established any sort of congregation in Rome and even then it would have been short lived. Lots of unanswered questions about this first pope thing. If you have any would love to hear it. LOL --

a reply to: Seede

The Gospel of Thomas is not canonical. The position I articulated is that of most established branches of Christian belief. Freelancers who like to invent their own religion and call it Christianity may have other views.

As an unbelieving but knowledgeable observer, I do not regard American born-again cults and idiosyncratic personal belief systems as Christianity.

a reply to: Astyanax

The Gospel of Thomas is not canonical. The position I articulated is that of most established branches of Christian belief. Freelancers who like to invent their own religion and call it Christianity may have other views. As an unbelieving but knowledgeable observer, I do not regard American born-again cults and idiosyncratic personal belief systems as Christianity.

I realize the Gospel of Thomas is not accepted as canon but there is also much literature verifying the Gospel of Thomas.

Quote
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History - “Now Jacob the brother of the Lord, who, as there was many of this name, was termed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received the government of the Community with the apostles. This apostle was consecrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head; he never anointed himself with oil or used a public bath. He alone was allowed to enter the Holy place. He never wore woolen, only linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone, and was often to be found upon his knees and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as a camel’s …And indeed, on account of his exceeding great piety, he was called the Just (i.e. Tzaddik) and Oblias (i.e. Ophla-am), which signifies Justice and the People’s Bulwark; as the Prophets declare concerning Him.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II. i as quoted by Hugh Joseph Schonfield The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and -Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 147-148).
Unquote

It is also from Rome that we also hear this same truth as Thomas has told us.

Quote
It was Clements, the third bishop of Rome that we find these remarks that Jacob (James) was called “the supreme supervisor, who rules Jerusalem, the holy Community of the Hebrews, and the communities everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God.” and was called or addressed as “Lord Jacob” (Epistle of Clement to Jacob, preceding the Clementine Homilies., quoted by Hugh Joseph Schonfield in The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p148)
Unquote

We then see where Peter was not the first Bishop or Nasi of God but it was the Hebrew James who was chosen by God.

Quote
There were elected 70 representatives called Elders, with an initial cabinet of fifteen, which included a Council of twelve with three Leaders. The Sanhedrin and the Essenes had a similar structure in which:

1. the High Priest was called the Nasi,
2. his Deputy High Priest was called the Sagan, and the
3. Chief Office of the Religious Court was called the Ab Beth-Din.

Yet this was also adapted closer to the model of Jesus’ ministry, in which the three leaders, Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and his brother, John were part of the Twelve. In the Nazarene Congregation, the “pillars” as Paul called them, were Peter, James (Jacob) the brother of Jesus, and John.

The political structure of the newly organized Nazarene Ecclesia the:
1.Apostle James (Jacob) the Just became the High Priest (Nasi), who is presented in Acts of the Apostles as a “wise interpreter of scriptures who presides over the Council and gives his rulings” (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)
2. The Apostle John became the Deputy (Sagan) as from his priestly background he could deal with doctrine and congregational organization issues and
3.The Apostle Peter became the Chief Officer of the Religious Court (Ab Beth-Din), or the general supervisor, the chief propagandist or evangelist (fame at Pentecost) and pastoral director.
Un quote

We do not need the Gospel of Thomas to verify the Jesus movement during the first thirty three years of its history and we do not need literature canonized by the Romans to establish truths. The Romans were the very ones who established their Christianjity by murder and theft. These are they that established their canon and should be the very ones called Freelancers.

a reply to: Seede

Eusebius was a tool for the empire. He did some shady things at Nicea at his Emporers request.

The human heirarchy is not a part of the true ecclesia. There is one high priest. Not another man. James, at least as told by Eusebius would be an antichrist just as all the other clergy are. We need no mediators. We need no high priests. That is part of the judaising, old wineskins, old ways, worldly, dead man religion. Aka the institutional church, at that time Rome, but now the majority of Christendom follows the empire model of church aka the circus (same root word!), this church is the whore of Babylon. Or the unfaithful daughter/bride of Ezekiel 16. Spreading her legs to other men like high priests and pastors and bishops.

a reply to: zardust

I never knew the connection between church and circus, that's really interesting. I googled it and sure enough the two words are related.

Clowns are the main attraction of circuses, clown means "clumsy" or "professional jester", and in turn jester means "to recite a tale". So a clown could be interpreted as a jester who recites a tale clumsily. If you look hard enough at the bible, you'll start to see the "clumsiness" of its writing, giving itself away as a perversion of the truth.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. The more I learn the more I'm convinced that the bible isn't the whole truth, only a half truth.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Cheers mate. Didn't finite my meaning but your answer covers aspects. Basically I was trying to put across that I find the good believing people suffering unspeakable demise.

The same peope that follow their god, lord, leader or what ever diety people idolise. The good suffer most.

Time now whatever diety that the good people believe in steps up to the plate and ends their suffering towards the first person or third party.

Tragically this isn't happening across the board hence people will lose faith and the product is occuring now. Wish I was a Word Smith to get my point across.

My thanks again for your response,

my kindest regards,

Bally

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So just to add to that, the word "church" is not in the bible. The greek word that is used is ecclesia, which meant assembly, like a public assembly, a gathering of people, a body of people. But then we get this word church which has no etymological connection to the Greek, or a meaning that is like what was intended.

The word church is a tool of the empire, a co-opting of the body of Christ. It has come to mean a building or institution.
Examples:
"I go to church", "are you going to church?", "you don't go to church?", "how can you be a christian if you don't go to church?" etc.

My point is not that the bible is in error (in this case), but that the original design has been co-opted, which is a body of people joined together like a living temple, where the glory of God is manifested in unity and love (john 17) in the bond of peace. Each brings their gifts to each other, in equality. Not as one man glorified above the rest, blathering on about his opinions of god every sunday, and being raised to position of mediator between god and men. And especially not referring to the 501c3 corporate mark that literally subjects the "church" to the empire.

The institutional church is run exactly as the kingdoms of this world. Look at all the war supporting 'mericans. Most are evangelical christians, who are worshiping the satanic god of this world, not the Father of Jesus. The beast is already here, it was and is and wasn't. Its not a "real" thing people. It is the Iron machine of war and destruction, the spirit of empire, of subjugation, poverty, control, division. It is the kingdom of this world as Jesus said.

But his kingdom is not of this world. It does not work on the same principles. The ecclesia also is not to run on the same principles. And it doesn't. The ecclesia is the bride. The "church" is the whore of babylon. The whore operates just like the empire. Its riches, and subjugation (of minds, and dollars, and time), support of war, dividing between us and them, creating false doctrines of hell that blaspheme the name of God, creating heirarchy's that elevate one man over another (Call no man father), that create disunity in the body (those on stage or clergy, vs the masses who sit an take it).

For those who don't believe me, just look at the fruits of this poison. We have many who vehemently believe that America is a christian nation. America doesn't look anything like what Jesus taught, or his apostles for that matter. What it looks mightily like is Rome, even adopted the ole Eagle as our standard. Well I'll give them the term christian, divorce that whore from Christ, and let the whore and the beast copulate.

For me there is the one body, which encompasses all people, and all living beings in the universe (and potentially all things), one head of that body which is the divine logos, the image of God. There is no church to go to or be a member of, that is the old way. There are no rituals, or magic incantations(sinners prayer) that need be said. We don't need any dudes in fancy fish hats, or trendy glasses and a goatee, to bring us to God, or God to us. We don't need to enter into the house of the Lord. For we are the house of the Lord. We are the bride. The seed dwells in us, and the new life is growing, until the birthing of the Sons of God.

The kingdom of God is in YOU and ME. There is no God "out there". No heaven to go to. We are the literal body of God. We are one with him in all but our carnal(ego) mind. Thats why we don't need no stinking circus to go to. No dead stone temples to build, or multi-million dollar worship centers.

BTW the word church and circus get their name from Circe. The witch with a cup of enchantments that turn men into swine in the Odyssey. Yes the empire named his woman(church) Circe. You still find the remnants of this word in Kirke, which is what churches are called in Great Britain.

originally posted by: Seede
.........................

Yet this was also adapted closer to the model of Jesus’ ministry, in which the three leaders, Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and his brother, John were part of the Twelve. In the Nazarene Congregation, the “pillars” as Paul called them, were Peter, James (Jacob) the brother of Jesus, and John.

The political structure of the newly organized Nazarene Ecclesia the:
1.Apostle James (Jacob) the Just became the High Priest (Nasi), who is presented in Acts of the Apostles as a “wise interpreter of scriptures who presides over the Council and gives his rulings” (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)
2. The Apostle John became the Deputy (Sagan) as from his priestly background he could deal with doctrine and congregational organization issues and
3.The Apostle Peter became the Chief Officer of the Religious Court (Ab Beth-Din), or the general supervisor, the chief propagandist or evangelist (fame at Pentecost) and pastoral director.
Un quote

We do not need the Gospel of Thomas to verify the Jesus movement during the first thirty three years of its history and we do not need literature canonized by the Romans to establish truths. The Romans were the very ones who established their Christianjity by murder and theft. These are they that established their canon and should be the very ones called Freelancers.

It is very clear where your religious beliefs were born.

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Seede

Eusebius was a tool for the empire. He did some shady things at Nicea at his Emporers request.

The human heirarchy is not a part of the true ecclesia. There is one high priest. Not another man. James, at least as told by Eusebius would be an antichrist just as all the other clergy are. We need no mediators. We need no high priests. That is part of the judaising, old wineskins, old ways, worldly, dead man religion. Aka the institutional church, at that time Rome, but now the majority of Christendom follows the empire model of church aka the circus (same root word!), this church is the whore of Babylon. Or the unfaithful daughter/bride of Ezekiel 16. Spreading her legs to other men like high priests and pastors and bishops.

I agree.The word "circus" encapsulates the meaning of the Christian Church very succinctly.

originally posted by: Seede
The political structure of the newly organized Nazarene Ecclesia the:
1.Apostle James (Jacob) the Just became the High Priest (Nasi), who is presented in Acts of the Apostles as a “wise interpreter of scriptures who presides over the Council and gives his rulings” (Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)
2. The Apostle John became the Deputy (Sagan) as from his priestly background he could deal with doctrine and congregational organization issues and
3.The Apostle Peter became the Chief Officer of the Religious Court (Ab Beth-Din), or the general supervisor, the chief propagandist or evangelist (fame at Pentecost) and pastoral director.

A cultist Nazarene eglesia eh? What a load of BS. All of these people were married with children, and they drank plenty of wine. Only Saul Paulus is known to have been a Nazarean during this time (as well as John the Baptist, but he were already dead for a long time), and Paul's vows seems to have been related to countering and to infiltrate and disrupt (see Acts 21:17ff) early Christendom on behalf of these priests, which he must have succeeded with, apparently by abolishing the central concepts within Torah among the Christians, so the Sanhedrin releases him from his vows and duties towards the end of Acts, together with four other Nazarean monks.

1 Heb. נשיא («Nasi'») originally means vapour, so in the sense of leadership it is in the meaning of rising as vapours rises (compare with Heb. verb «Nasa», to rise— like a rocket to Mars) — above the rest. Whether this was a word used as a title by the early Christians, I have no idea, but apparently James the Just was the chosen candidate by Jesus, NOT for the Christian Church, but for the Sanhedrin, the Jewish government in Jerusalem, like the city council and the closest you'd come a Jewish national assembly in Roman occupied Palestine. James was Jesus' brother. The word used by Luke in Acts is Presbyter, as in Priest, or even High-Priest and relates him to the Sanhedrin that in fact had Jesus tortured and handed over to Pilate for execution. Hebrew word used for these guys is the adjective Heb. «Zaqen», Elder.

2 The title you use here «Sagan» could more correctly be used about Herod and Pilate as Roman «Prefects» which is what the word seems to mean. Sure you don't mean «Zaqen» an Elder? See above.

3 This sounds very unlikely indeed. Abbed comes from Aram. «Abba», Father (compare with Lat. Pater) and was used as a Christian title from around 400 AD as for the head of a monk monastery. As far as Jesus was concerned we should call no one on Earth Father but our «Abba» in heaven.

Sounds awfully unrealistic all of these titles and this supposed Christian Church having existed in the time of Jesus and his disciples. I think you read more into these stories than what is healthy. The Roman Church was Paul's idea. Jesus was into Jewish politics and attended public debates between representatives from the priesthood and the scribes on one hand and the politicians from several political parties on the other hand, the Pharisees and the Sadducees in particular. He had no intentions of anything outlandish. He left the gentiles to eat crumbs at his feet, he had no plans of bringing his political project abroad. He called foreigners dogs even. He was quite racist.

a reply to: zardust

The human heirarchy is not a part of the true ecclesia. There is one high priest. Not another man. James, at least as told by Eusebius would be an antichrist just as all the other clergy are. We need no mediators. We need no high priests. That is part of the judaising, old wineskins, old ways, worldly, dead man religion. Aka the institutional church, at that time Rome, but now the majority of Christendom follows the empire model of church aka the circus (same root word!), this church is the whore of Babylon. Or the unfaithful daughter/bride of Ezekiel 16. Spreading her legs to other men like high priests and pastors and bishops.

True and well spoken. LOL

a reply to: Rex282

It is very clear where your religious beliefs were born.

You have neglected to acknowledge the quote and Unquote by the source. The source being "The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)" - Not my story but the source of which you did not quote.

If you have another historical account of the first thirty three years of the Jesus movement then by all means post it here. My post did not state that this was anything other than a historical account of which is written that Peter was not the first authority in the Jesus movement. You still have the same problem of not understanding.

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: Seede

Eusebius was a tool for the empire. He did some shady things at Nicea at his Emporers request.

Not so sure. Eusebius was sort of a rebel, siding with among others saint Arius in the subject of the divinity of Jesus as compared to his heavenly father.

The human heirarchy is not a part of the true ecclesia.

If we are to sum up Jesus' preaching, it is about about equality and freedom from authority, a sort of Mosaic anarchistic utopia in the shape of a nation existing between its people, NOT above people (ex. Sermon of the Mount and Matt 23). Jesus told us not to call anyone leader and that we should treat each other like fellows regardless of status, not because of authority, but by sharing the same respect and love he showed us. Jesus was an outspoken rival of the school of Hillel, stating that the Torah was tough enough if not these people should narrow the gates of salvation even more and demonstrated his disagreement with their Talmud teachings many times, like by walking the maximum length allowed on Sabbath from Jerusalem to the Olive Mount and his endless discussions about what should be considered work on the Sabbath and other things. Jesus was an anti-authority anti-hierarchy kind of guy. The word of the Torah spoke for itself. The kingdom of God exists between its subjects, and God is the only authority, and since God is Love, Jesus says: Love each other! I mean, how hard can it be?

now the majority of Christendom follows the empire model of church aka the circus (same root word!), this church is the whore of Babylon. Or the unfaithful daughter/bride of Ezekiel 16. Spreading her legs to other men like high priests and pastors and bishops.

The early Christians met together in people's homes and since they were persecuted by both Rome and the Jewish elite, their fraternity was one of secrecy, and one founded on equality and freedom from authority, to rather live out the liberty of being just and do right. Paul on the other hand, worked to expose and break up these early communities, by seeding schism and power-struggles, and making sure they played along his ideas of authority and hierarchy, and that the Church would grow to become a Roman ecclesiastical power hub. Babylon.

Babylon is seen riding a scarlet beast (a Terion). The Presby-Terion of the Roman Church is the Roman Curia (compare with the word Church and also for that matter the word Circus which I suppose comes as bread as well) where back in the day, Caesar gathered his Senators to act out the highest authority in Rome. When the Pagan Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the Church recycled the Roman Curia to be replaced by the Pope on top to replace Caesar, together with the Scarlet-robed Cardinals by his table to replace the Senators, who also elect the Popes in Conclave to confer with the elect of the Johanites AKA Knights of Malta, the Roman Church's still-existing military general staff. The Roman Curia is still to this day the highest authority of the Roman Church. The Roman church is the Latin Lupa in disguise, and it doesn't stop with politics, they practise the worship of the exact same Pantheon, only disguised in the names of saints and prophets.

I think the word for Mass is the same as for Mazzaroth, it's about astrology and the Imperial Pantheon, ancient oaths and vows, Mazza- refers to astrological stars and constellations as seen in Heb. «Mazel» (Mazel tov: Good Luck/lit. Lucky Star) Star/Constellation. Compare with the Catholic Missal, the day-by-day lithurgical manual that is nothing but the duties of daily sacrifices made to their Abomination of Desolation, the good lord himself displayed in his most humiliating moment of agony and disgrace.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Church comes from Gr. «Kyriakos», genitive of «Kurios», the Lord, as in the Lord of the Roman Curia who was originally Caesar and his Senators, but which today is replaced by the Pope and his Cardinals. Compare with the central liturgical expression «Kyrie Eleison» which is repeated three times during mass (seems to have survived in the protestant, orthodox churches too actually) in order to— in much the same method used in magic— to turn the head of the Mass (i.e. priest/pope) into an embodiment of the Trinity. This is pretty wicked stuff actually, and they keep on doing it even though it is clear they are performing pagan magic right in front of their subjects who all agree in full submission.

ETA: This is what the Vatican says herself:

www.vatican.va...

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.

CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9

Compare with en.wikipedia.org... on Curia in general and en.wikipedia.org... on Curia Julia.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

A cultist Nazarene eglesia eh? What a load of BS. All of these people were married with children, and they drank plenty of wine. Only Saul Paulus is known to have been a Nazarean during this time (as well as John the Baptist, but he were already dead for a long time), and Paul's vows seems to have been related to countering and to infiltrate and disrupt (see Acts 21:17ff) early Christendom on behalf of these priests, which he must have succeeded with, apparently by abolishing the central concepts within Torah among the Christians, so the Sanhedrin releases him from his vows and duties towards the end of Acts, together with four other Nazarean monks.

The source states that the political structure of the newly formed Ecclesia (congregation) was James, John and Peter. It did not reference these three as being Nazarite but describes these three as being Nazarene's. It is my understanding that in this case a Nazarene is a title of distinguishing a person as what we now understand as a Christian. A Nazarene is a title whereas a Nazarite is one who takes a vow

Numbers 6:2-3
(2) Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall make a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself unto Jehovah,
(3) he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any juice of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.

The source did not say that James,John and Peter were Nazarites but said they were Nazarene's. There is evidence that both James and Peter were married.

Saul/Paul was not a leader of this first structure and had nothing to do with the the formation of the first Jesus movement. Saul/Paul was a Nazarite till he then became a Nazarene. Yes, after Saul/Paul became a member of the Nazarene's he was discharged from the Sanhedrin of which he was indeed a member.

By the way, John the Baptist was also a Nazarite and also a Nazarene.

a reply to: Seede

Sounds to me like splitting hairs and making sense through nonsense, but fair enough. Nazarene Nazarite, well what do I know? You are at least partly right, perhaps even entirely, a star for the effort anyway You are right in that there is a distinction to be made. For Jesus wasn't a Nazarite, but Joseph solved the problem with a supposed Nazarite prophecy concerning his son, by settling down in Nazareth, to ease the burden so to speak, thus Matthew 2:23: And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. [ESV]

As far as I know there was no town of Nazareth in the days of Jesus, it's sort of mystery. There is also the thing with the Lake of Genezareth. Doesn't seem to have existed IRL. Perhaps these names are part of the secret Jesus shared with his closest followers, like some mystical reference to some Arcadia or Fountain of Life, a secret society of freethinkers governed by fun and love. With a lake you can walk across, and a mystical city named cleverly to cover up for any shame or apparent shortcoming for its citizens. A way of thinking that gets you through the day. Like a boss.

The word used in the Septuagint for nazarite (Judges 13:5 of Samson) is «Nazir Theou» or "Nazarite to God" (capital N) in my parallell LXX. There is indeed a distinction to be made between what Jesus would mean by Nazarene and what Moses meant by Nazarite. I had understood the thing with Jesus not really being a Nazarean monk, but haven't really given it much attention. There is indeed a morphological distinction to be made, evident in the text