You May Just Be a Noahide

a reply to: pthena
Thank you

A Nazarene is what Jews and the Bible call the first Christians. Sorry but I was under the impression that was a well known fact. Christianity has made the term obscure but it is what the real followers of Yeshua the Nazarene were called. In the Hebrew tongue Notzrim is Nazarene and what the Jews still call Christians because that is what a follower of the Nazarene was called.

Paul however was not welcome by the Nazarenes and had to start his own Roman Church because the Jews despised him. Tarsus had no known community of Pharisees and Gamaliel was against violence towards and a friend of the Nazarenes, Paul never had a reason to stop becoming a Pharisee (if he actually was one) to follow the Nazarenes and his story is baffling and inconceivable from a Jewish perspective and hilarious in its own because it is believed by so many despite the conflict between Paul and the Nazarenes and subsequent split off into Christianity from the natural Jewish movement of the Nazarenes.

Paul is more of a joke to Jews than anything to take seriously enough to fume about in anger. The Christians who follow Paul are of no significance to Jews and they actually don't hate Jesus' Nazarene movement at all. Not a universal statement of course but it is Rome they despise, not Yeshua. Hell they still have followers of a self proclaimed Messiah from hundreds of years ago who infiltrated everything when theirs was forced to convert to Islam.

Paul is the religious equivalent of a fart joke.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

Muslims still call Christians Nazarines also, ISIS paints an Arabic letter N on the doors of Christian homes when they find one in the territory they control. Initially Christians also went by followers of the Way, that was another indentifying claim. The Bible says believers were first called Christians at Antioch, Syria. It was adopted because the Romans considered it a mocking term to followers of Jesus, and the Christians adopted it out of spite I think.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Why bring Isis and the Muslims into a conversation with the Arabic language as an excuse?

Arabic is a Semitic language and people who would and do share similarities with Hebrew culture in the Mid East in language and religious cultural belief including Jesus and him being a Nazarene would explain why Arabic as a language sounds similar without bringing Islam or Isis into the equation.

IS is a Militant group and not a religion or a language. They are trying to become a sovereignty not a church.

So you say that the word for Christian is similar in Arabic and Hebrew? Semitic peoples and language, no surprise or big Isis conspiracy involved.

Islam is not a language but since you mention it they absolutely love Jesus or Issa as they call him. They believe he is THE Messiah and the Qur'an says more about the Virgin Mary than the New Testament. They LOVE Jesus and Mary, LOVE.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I guarantee that a thread exists you can go to and talk Isis but they aren't involved in this here conversation so I don't see any reason to bring them up.

Semitic language similarities have always existed because they come from the same places and revere the same prophets and God and in Palestine whenever Europe doesn't get involved (those days are over) they all three N,M and J got along just fine. Crusades put an end to the peace first and it recovered again to be destroyed in the late 1960's because of Europe again.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

My point about ISIS was that they still refer to Christians as Nazarenes to this day, they paint an Arabic letter N to designate their homes when they are found. You'll see a lot of people with the Arabic letter N on Facebook or Twitter for thei min photo and it's a show of support for the Chraitians being martyred in the Middle East.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

My point about ISIS was that they still refer to Christians as Nazarenes to this day, they paint an Arabic letter N to designate their homes when they are found. You'll see a lot of people with the Arabic letter N on Facebook or Twitter for thei min photo and it's a show of support for the Chraitians being martyred in the Middle East.

My point is Isis had no place in this discussion. Arabic, Islam but your mention of Isis was out of place almost as if you look for a reason to shout Isis and can't separate a Militant group from its much older religion.

My American mind won't allow such an obvious error of opinion go unnoticed or mentioned because very few Muslims are Isis fighters and most hate them with a passion but you don't seem to know that so I won't hold it against you for blindly associating two things in a double standard fashion that would never apply to a warring Christian nation with the same cause. Crusades didn't stop they metamorphosed into plots and schemes under the cry of commie or terrorist. Such nonsense doesn't belong in a religion thread.

So awesome that you noticed that Arabic uses a form of Nazarene to describe Christians similar to Hebrew as that was your only relevant point to anything I was discussing and I would like to state that Muslims LOVE Jesus, LOVE him and Mary and that the Qur'an speaks of Mary more than the Bible does.

I see a brotherhood of faiths not a war of book related issues. You get how 3 things can be equal well that applies to Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the decent nations of the world including parts of America like mine.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And I could also add that Islam also sees Paul as a false prophet and them never adapting to the word Christian makes sense because that was the Greco-Roman version of Yeshua/Issa and not the Semitic version. Islam is a lot like the Nazarene movement that never accepted Paul except they had an Old Testament Yeshua style prophet and a New Testament Yeshua style prophet in one in Mohammed and history is what it is but the actual teachings of Islam are very reasonable and practical if you are not already biased by your preconceptions you would be surprised how peaceful it actually is when taught purely.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

A Nazarene is what Jews and the Bible call the first Christians

And the only place that appears is in Acts 24:5 when Paul is accused of being a ringleader:

5For we have found this man to be a plague, an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

In my country Nazarenes are a Denomination which split from the Methodists which split from Church of England which split from Roman Catholic Church.

As far as I'm concerned people who use the term Nazarene as a Jewish group of Torah thumping Jesus followers are speaking of a rhetorical device loosely based upon an actual Jewish sect which disappeared in the 4th Century. If there actually are groups of people today who fit the description would you please give me a link to their website?

ETA

What I mean is this: there is a hypothetical group called Nazarene. Their doctrinal statement seems to be:

1) James good / Paul bad
2) Torah good / Paul bad
3) Jesus Messiah good / Jesus part of godhead bad
4) Jesus son of Mary good / Jesus son of god bad

If there is an actual group that meets together as a church I'd like to know who they are, otherwise, like I said, I will consider it as a rhetorical device and not actual people.

ETA MORE

All I would have to do is add two more lines and we would be talking about Islam:

5) Abraham good / Ezra bad
6) David good /Solomon bad (I'm probably wrong about this one)

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

Okay, forget ISIS..

Many people in Islam still refer to Christians as followers of the Nazarene.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Many people in Islam still refer to Christians as followers of the Nazarene.

Does that include Trinitarian Paul reading Christians?

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

A Nazarene is what Jews and the Bible call the first Christians

And the only place that appears is in Acts 24:5 when Paul is accused of being a ringleader:

Once is enough to know. How many times must it be used to be true? Biblically speaking we know once is all it takes to know that the first Christians were called Nazarenes and Poor/Ebionim/Ebionites and they are all gone by the days of Athanasius because they would not accept Paul. Who wanted to be a Nazarene but couldn't and started Christianity. It may not be the loudest song sung but it can be proven so I only need one time.

Jesus and John both spend time secretly for some reason with the Nazarenes or as English clumsily puts it "in Nazareth." A Christian is called today a Nazarene but they don't deserve the honor. They extinguished the Nazarenes which is well documented by deeming them heretics .

5For we have found this man to be a plague, an instigator of insurrections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.

In my country Nazarenes are a Denomination which split from the Methodists which split from Church of England which split from Roman Catholic Church.

As far as I'm concerned people who use the term Nazarene as a Jewish group of Torah thumping Jesus followers are speaking of a rhetorical device loosely based upon an actual Jewish sect which disappeared in the 4th Century. If there actually are groups of people today who fit the description would you please give me a link to their website?

ETA

What I mean is this: there is a hypothetical group called Nazarene. Their doctrinal statement seems to be:

1) James good / Paul bad
2) Torah good / Paul bad
3) Jesus Messiah good / Jesus part of godhead bad
4) Jesus son of Mary good / Jesus son of god bad

If there is an actual group that meets together as a church I'd like to know who they are, otherwise, like I said, I will consider it as a rhetorical device and not actual people.

ETA MORE

All I would have to do is add two more lines and we would be talking about Islam:

5) Abraham good / Ezra bad
6) David good /Solomon bad (I'm probably wrong about this one)

I honestly only wanted to tell you that Jews aren't mad at Paul like you said and what beef they have with him is due to his illegitimately claiming to be a Pharisee and disciple of Gamaliel.

The Nazarene/Christian denominational naming is of little real significance to me personally as I am neither. I never claimed that a Jewish branch of Nazarenes survived the purges of Rome either so don't ask me to name the name of groups I never claimed existed. My point was headed in the opposite direction as the Jews as a whole were evicted from Jerusalem with James dead and if not for Peter would have died out completely by the second century. His association with Titus Flavius Clemens of Rome was preserved by the Nazarenes/Ebionites in Recognitions along with a great deal of information showing Paul was a total nobody until the heretic Marcion shows up with some cry baby letters that he probably wrote himself and are full of hate and make a mockery of Jesus as some human sacrifice that was not a Nazarene belief.

Paul has his own seperate teachings without a doubt. They don't agree with Jesus and they are the problem with Christianity so don't get sick of hearing about anti Pauline Christianity because it's ressurecting itself.

Some enjoy a healthy dose of logic and don't feel like inventing for Paul reasons for why he isn't just a cranky Roman citizen who hates the Jews and made up a story about meeting Christ who taught him and only him the "true" Gospel .

And for why people would ever believe that he was telling the truth, why James disliked his teachings and then they start with the lies.

I would choose to be a Nazarene over a Christian and find no fault with those who reject Paul because I know how valid their reasons are.

Yeah Paul is an idiot but I don't blame the Nazarenes for that and I have no problem with Judaism. If you are foolish enough to call yourself a Noahide it's your own damn fault.

The Jews aren't even Semitic peoples anymore so they don't care about history just who is stupid enough to believe their's. A lot of people have been bamboozled but I don't hate them for doing what Christianity has been forever which is dominating the world and bending people to their will.

I ain't dumb enough to fall for it or ignore it so I read the scriptures of all religions and the books of the philosophers and mystics and study history and plan for the future.

Noah, Paul and all that is history and I don't see too many people concerned with the Bible or Christianity today that cares about Noahide law.

I descend straight from Seth and not through the line of Enoch. My people survived the flood with no boat. I am not a Japhethite, Hamite or Shemite.

a reply to: pthena

Of course

a reply to: pthena

Also Islam honors all the Jewish prophets of the OT, Zoroaster and other non Jew prophets so I don't get why Ezra, Solomon or David is an issue they honor all 3.

Solomon may have been a sorcerer who gave the queen of Sheba a flying carpet but his model of polygamy is always adored by the wealthy classes and even the Christian downplays the wickedness of Solomon by calling the hexagram the Star of David when it is of Solomon.

David is just less of an anti-hero than Solomon although I like Solomon better myself. I enjoyed the Testament of Solomon and book of Raziel type stuff is all inspired by the par excellence sorcerer Solomon.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

They extinguished the Nazarenes which is well documented by deeming them heretics .

There is a certain time limit on how long a movement can sustain itself. A movement of Torah-Prophets-Writings based teachings with a Messiah figure who is to bring in the glorious earthly messianic kingdom with Judahites as the elite citizens over even the kings of the nations in this generation, can only last a few generations.

My point was headed in the opposite direction as the Jews as a whole were evicted from Jerusalem with James dead and if not for Peter would have died out completely by the second century. His association with Titus Flavius Clemens of Rome was preserved by the Nazarenes/Ebionites in Recognitions

So is Recognitions a book that people can read to discover the truth of the matter?

I would choose to be a Nazarene over a Christian and find no fault with those who reject Paul because I know how valid their reasons are.

So you would choose to preach Torah-Prophets-Writings based teachings with a Messiah figure who is to bring in the glorious earthly messianic kingdom with Judahites as the elite citizens over even the kings of the nations in this generation?

Or am I totally not understanding what you mean by Nazarene?

ETA

Is this what you're talking about?

Clementine literature (also called Clementina, Pseudo-Clementine Writings, Kerygmata Petrou, Clementine Romance) is the name given to the religious romance which purports to contain a record made by one Clement (whom the narrative identifies as both Pope Clement I, and Domitian's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens) of discourses involving the Apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history.

a reply to: pthena

Recognitions is sacred scripture, just like the Bible and I am sure has a mixture of truth and myth just like the Bible, Vedas, etc. It just happens to be a defunct sects scriptures but that means it also has been less tampered with so a great deal of truth is in its pages.

Recognitions of H & R is the only part I have read and am in the middle of the Simon vs Peter debate on theology and God, while the prior chapters explain the points of the Old Testament this is an actual theological debate of polytheism vs monotheism and good vs. evil and their sources.

I would not call a history book but it definitely teaches history in Biblical and allegorical fashion. You can trust it as much as you can trust the Bible, that's the best answer I can give you.

And hey it is a great looking book from the scholars select series of ancient writings that supply us with writings of the Stoics, Philo, Plutarch and the 8 volume ante Nicene fathers series that has Justin Martyr(vol 1.) and Clement of Alexandria (2.) and I plan on filling my shelf up with a new book every month. 3-7 I am not interested in just 2 and 8 but all 8 are valued by Catholics and near deuterocanonical status is attributed to these ancient pre Canonical Christian writings so you are welcome to form an opinion, mine is they are valuable historical relics of a sect that can't speak for itself anymore and has much to add to the story of the Apostles of Christ than just Acts and some angry letters by the first self hating Jew Paul.

And they make more sense than anything Paul ever wrote (pseudepigraphally or not) and make his lil letter writing campaign to those already fleeing his bs teachings look like the diary of a mad fiend.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

They extinguished the Nazarenes which is well documented by deeming them heretics .

There is a certain time limit on how long a movement can sustain itself. A movement of Torah-Prophets-Writings based teachings with a Messiah figure who is to bring in the glorious earthly messianic kingdom with Judahites as the elite citizens over even the kings of the nations in this generation, can only last a few generations.

My point was headed in the opposite direction as the Jews as a whole were evicted from Jerusalem with James dead and if not for Peter would have died out completely by the second century. His association with Titus Flavius Clemens of Rome was preserved by the Nazarenes/Ebionites in Recognitions

So is Recognitions a book that people can read to discover the truth of the matter?

I would choose to be a Nazarene over a Christian and find no fault with those who reject Paul because I know how valid their reasons are.

So you would choose to preach Torah-Prophets-Writings based teachings with a Messiah figure who is to bring in the glorious earthly messianic kingdom with Judahites as the elite citizens over even the kings of the nations in this generation?

Or am I totally not understanding what you mean by Nazarene?

I think you misunderstood. I don't think I am preaching, I am not religious I just like ancient writings more than today's books. I don't believe that a Messiah has been a Judahite specific teaching ever. Zoroaster spoke about one hr was Persian.

Before the NT David, Solomon, Joshua and Cyrus were all Messiahs and THE Messiah is a Christian invention based on a belief that the Old Testament says that 1 will come.

Before that all Kings and High Priest's were Messiahs to the Judahites and the belief was originally that each would come, 2 Messiahs like Joshua and Yeshua, a warrior and a priest. How it became a singular Messiah is a mystery that only speculation can answer but the Jews of today don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and are waiting still for both after the bar Kochba let down and Svi I don't think they will be announcing the arrival of the Messiah this time.

ETA

Is this what you're talking about?

Clementine literature (also called Clementina, Pseudo-Clementine Writings, Kerygmata Petrou, Clementine Romance) is the name given to the religious romance which purports to contain a record made by one Clement (whom the narrative identifies as both Pope Clement I, and Domitian's cousin Titus Flavius Clemens) of discourses involving the Apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history.

It is, Clementina right here is the writings themselves including enough Apocrypha to last til Kingdom come if you wish to read it. Always the best way to form an opinion is to study it yourself and find out what it says. I wouldn't be the type to say I know the truth but the book is a priceless gem that survived the flames of Athanasius because Clement was exiled to a Slavic nation, and that is who preserved much of our known Apocrypha( the Slavic languages and people) translated from Greek.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

I just like ancient writings more than today's books. I don't believe that a Messiah has been a Judahite specific teaching ever. Zoroaster spoke about one hr was Persian.

Before the NT David, Solomon, Joshua and Cyrus were all Messiahs and THE Messiah is a Christian invention based on a belief that the Old Testament says that 1 will come.

Before that all Kings and High Priest's were Messiahs to the Judahites and the belief was originally that each would come, 2 Messiahs like Joshua and Yeshua, a warrior and a priest. How it became a singular Messiah is a mystery that only speculation can answer but the Jews of today don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and are waiting still for both after the bar Kochba let down and Svi I don't think they will be announcing the arrival of the Messiah this time.

All righty then. I was beginning to think I would have to walk away from this thread all defeated like. You saved me from that at least.

ETA

Thanks for the link.

Clement was exiled to a Slavic nation, and that is who preserved much of our known Apocrypha( the Slavic languages and people) translated from Greek.

I've got two paperback books of early Pseudepigrapha. One was written before Nag Hammadi Library was published in English. Most of the works (excerpts) were from Slavic sources.

a reply to: pthena

Lost books of the Bible and Forgotten books of Eden? I have that too. It's also in and if you want to spend the 20-30$ you can buy vol 8 of the Ante Nicene fathers writings and you would own the entirety of Judahite (non Gnostic)New Testament Apocrypha in one book.

You would have to purchase 1&2 Enoch and you would have it all. 3 Enoch will come with but is a huge transition into Kabbalist writings about Metatron and Rabbinical in origin, but a good read nonetheless.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

Lost books of the Bible and Forgotten books of Eden?

That's the one. I still have it. Haven't read it since the '70s though. Don't remember any details, just that the sources were Slavic. I also have The Other Bible, edited by Willis Barnstone. It has mostly excerpts from the longer pieces of literature. Haven't read all of that even.

a reply to: pthena

I enjoyed the story of Adam and Eve, both books and have read many, many versions but that one is my favorite because it is a good story with interesting details and answers some serious questions like why does God want to become human and die for us, in a way that makes more sense than anything I have heard to this day.

The 12 Patriarchs is another Clementine/Ebionite writing with scraps of earlier versions even found in the caves of Qumran. 2 Enoch is also in there and underated as it has a legitimate link to 1 Enoch culturally and is just as good if not better. The whole body of work except for a few books weren't written to pass as earlier scripture they were as well intentioned as any selected canon I think it was more of an issue of what groups writings got accepted than quality of authorship or inspiration. The Catholic Church had nothing to lose by including these books but they kept them for the priesthood as secret books. Apocrypha is a tainted word and more a statement of true content that needs to be kept secret than its interpreted definition of spurious. When you get down to it every book has the same Pseudepigraphal character and a dangerous door lies on the other side of topic of deciding what is the word of God and rejecting what could be.

I think the creators of concepts such as Noahide law see the benefits in dividing people and turning them on each other and act in a way that will encourage their own supremacy as a race and are not going to succeed by Noahide law. I find it lacking in necessity with the Gentile designation acknowledged by Gentiles/Goyim.

But they just like how they can dominate the weaker Christian Church and ask for money for Israel and have cultivated full blown Christian -Zionism which should make the mind burst but for some reason gets little attention.

I actually have been calling myself a Sethite half jokingly for quite some time now and it confuses people so I keep doing it.