Jesus was a Gnostic

Everyone thinks Jesus is from Nazareth. But Nazareth was not a town then. Jesus the Nazarene would be the proper translation. Jesus was a Nazarene or Nazirite, Hebrew Nozrim. Samson was a Nazirite, it was an ancient ultra Orthodox sect of Jews that take special vows and they were well known in that day for their righteousness. They were intimate with the Ebionim/Ebionites (The Poor)who were led by James. They were also intimate with the radically Apocalyptic Zadokites who believed that if they followed certain oaths that angels would wage war with Rome and establish a world run by them, the sons of light as they were collectively known.

Nazarenes and Ebionites, Jesus sect and James sect, were the first "Christians" as we call them now. It gets no closer to true succession than those two groups of Christians.

And the Romans declared them Gnostic heretics and abolished (slaughtered) both groups by 300AD ish.

Which means Jesus was a Gnostic!

The Zadokites most likely perished at Masada, although I don't believe that they committed suicide.

Imagine what might have happened with Jesus' teachings if this persecution in the 300s had never happened...

Good thread/topic

Blue Wolf

I like the idea of Jesus.
He's a cool character.

originally posted by: Caroline13456
Imagine what might have happened with Jesus' teachings if this persecution in the 300s had never happened...

Good thread/topic

Blue Wolf

Thanks! I think it would be about Jesus, James, the Apostles and the Roman Pauline influence would not exist.

EDIT:

I have a book that is 800 pages of Gospels, Acts and Clementine/pseudo-Clementine Apocrypha that is fascinating and I have a link that has the whole book.

When I read it I feel like I am reading scripture, the work is fascinating and little known but I can't just read the same book for the rest of my life I WANT MORE!!

Ebionite scripture

Simon Magus is in it, Thomas,Thaddaeus,Bartholemew, Andrew and more. Peter, James. Check it out.

a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

Hi!! Who are you, what is it that is persisting if I might inquire? I should ignore you but I am very curious what the bejrbus your hoping aboot¥=😠

Well, welcome to the thread Jesus was a Gnostic, I am the OP and did you wish to inquire about anything pertaining to the discussion?

Questions are welcome, debate, whatever you wish but I gave you a star so you cheer up, and maybe you and I can share knowledge.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
Everyone thinks Jesus is from Nazareth. But Nazareth was not a town then. Jesus the Nazarene would be the proper translation. Jesus was a Nazarene or Nazirite, Hebrew Nozrim. Samson was a Nazarite it was an ancient ultra Orthodox sect of Jews that take special vows and they were well known in that day for their righteousness. They were intimate with the Ebionim/Ebionites who were led by James. They were also intimate with the radically Apocalyptic Zadokites who believed that if they followed certain oaths that angels would wage war with Rome and establish a world run by them, the sons of light as they were collectively known.

Nazarenes and Ebionites, Jesus sect and James sect, were the first "Christians" as we call them now. It gets no closer to true succession than those two groups of Christians.

And the Romans declared them Gnostic heretics and abolished (slaughtered) both groups by 300AD ish.

Which means Jesus was a Gnostic!

Nazareth was a small town that did exist then. House from Jesus’ time excavated.

Nazirite does not equal Gnostic.

Ebionites are mainly a second century Messianic Jewish group and these are no actual writings or archaeological evidence that they were led by James the Just (although it may have been possible). Since they were a 'Christian' group, it is unlikely that pagan Rome would have made a distinction about their beliefs being any different from other Christian groups.

They all existed about the same time, some groups were allied, others opposed to each other, but the distinctions between their beliefs are quite clear.

a reply to: chr0naut

I would expect you to say all this and try and engage in a debate.

Let me state this:

I said what I said because I know it to be correct. Stating it isn't true or acting like an expert is not going to change my mind about anything. Neither is a link. Let's just say I disagree because I have learned enough to make an educated decision based on the material I have read.

And didn't Google it 5 minutes ago.

a reply to: chr0naut

You have shown that anything else than your opinion is incorrect and you know everything. But you don't get what I am saying if you suggest I said Nazirite equals Gnostic.

My rationale was clear. Nazarenes were declared Gnostic, Jesus was a Nazarene as James was an Ebionim. Your 200ad crap is proven wrong buy the fact that they are prominently mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even mentioned in the Bible if you are clever enough to find it.


Drops mic, walks off stage.

Irrespective of what his beliefs were, the important part of history is that Rome co-opted the belief system and indoctrinated the entire western world. The closest this Planet has been to a single Control Grid is the Catholic Church, its expansive control system is lead by the Jesuits who clandestinely run everything. This is little known and the very persuasiveness of this entity goes largely unknown to the general public.

You can argue forever what he said, did and believed in but you can't prove it concretely, I have long thought Jesus was not what is taught historically as the Romans triumphed against the Jews and wrote the History Books but the fact his name still stands the test of time speaks volumes for his influence.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

I would expect you to say all this and try and engage in a debate.

Let me state this:

I said what I said because I know it to be correct. Stating it isn't true or acting like an expert is not going to change my mind about anything. Neither is a link. Let's just say I disagree because I have learned enough to make an educated decision based on the material I have read.

And didn't Google it 5 minutes ago.

I have known about the assertion that Nazareth may not have existed in the 1st century and about the excavation that proved it wrong, since 2009 when it made headlines.

I am not an expert on Gnosticism. That is why I use Google search. Regardless, some of the things I have found refute what you say and have fairly impressive credibility.

It doesn't matter what method I used to find the information, nor how long I have known. Those issues are rather weak deflection. The facts remain.

You generalize too far, equating things that are at odds with each other, as being the same.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

I would expect you to say all this and try and engage in a debate.

Let me state this:

I said what I said because I know it to be correct. Stating it isn't true or acting like an expert is not going to change my mind about anything. Neither is a link. Let's just say I disagree because I have learned enough to make an educated decision based on the material I have read.

And didn't Google it 5 minutes ago.

I have known about the assertion that Nazareth may not have existed in the 1st century and about the excavation that proved it wrong, since 2009 when it made headlines.

I am not an expert on Gnosticism. That is why I use Google search. Regardless, some of the things I have found refute what you say and have fairly impressive credibility.

It doesn't matter what method I used to find the information, nor how long I have known. Those issues are rather weak deflection. The facts remain.

You generalize too far, equating things that are at odds with each other, as being the same.

You want mainstream truth to be confirmed as bad as others do and will go to literally any means to preserve the image maybe because Paul said he was not a sinner if lying ... whatever he said.

All that you hear is rigged hoaxes and pious lies.

I don't much care about your opinion on my opinion or your negative purpose.

I merely stated a few facts and made a good observation of them

But you will argue anything then you make me bombard you with the truth until you go away.

I'm not in the mood for shenanigans today. Gnostic isn't bad, Nazarene isn't bad, nothing bad is going on so I don't know why you are such a Buzz Killington but try and have fun for once or join a convent I don't know...JK .😇

originally posted by: mazzroth
Irrespective of what his beliefs were, the important part of history is that Rome co-opted the belief system and indoctrinated the entire western world. The closest this Planet has been to a single Control Grid is the Catholic Church, its expansive control system is lead by the Jesuits who clandestinely run everything. This is little known and the very persuasiveness of this entity goes largely unknown to the general public.

Zionism and Jesuitism seem to be the pinnacles of clandestine power. The Pope is a Jesuit, first Jesuit Pope. So both Pope's are Jesuits.

You can argue forever what he said, did and believed in but you can't prove it concretely, I have long thought Jesus was not what is taught historically as the Romans triumphed against the Jews and wrote the History Books but the fact his name still stands the test of time speaks volumes for his influence.

Exactly right. I am just a scripture junkie and love every story, version or anything based around Judaism and the first 3 centuries after Christ or AD and there is more than just the New Testament. I try and get people to read the harmless books if you can benefit spiritually because if you want to get down and honest it is a miracle that people accept the limited material as sufficient when a tomes worth of Apocrypha exists. 3 Tomes, more likely.

It's always about peace and self improvement and wisdom, knowledge.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

You have shown that anything else than your opinion is incorrect and you know everything. But you don't get what I am saying if you suggest I said Nazirite equals Gnostic.

My rationale was clear. Nazarenes were declared Gnostic, Jesus was a Nazarene as James was an Ebionim. Your 200ad crap is proven wrong buy the fact that they are prominently mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and even mentioned in the Bible if you are clever enough to find it.

Drops mic, walks off stage.

Of course the Nazirites are mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Nazirite oath is outlined in Numbers 6:1-21 - in the Torah. It has been part of Judaism from the start. The Nazirites were dedicated to the one true God, YHWH. They didn't believe in Aeons, a Demiurge, an underworld, Abraxas or a female deity called Sophia. Nazirites were ultra-orthodox Jews.

The Gospels tell us that Jesus lived compliant with the Nazirite oath. There are no reliable documents that tell us that James was Ebionite or that they even existed in the first century. James may have been an Ebionite but there is no documentary evidence of the fact.

The statement is unsubstantiated and insistence that such an unsubstantiated statement is the case, is opinion, not fact, no matter how emphatically you believe it.

a reply to: chr0naut

The Gospels tell us that Jesus took the Nazirite oath.

Erm... they do?

that wouldn't be Matt 26 you'd be referring to would it?

Both the name Jesus and Gnostic are modern terms.

In the Nag Hammadi writings he was referred to as 'The Savior'. They are probably some of the earliest Christian writings.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: chr0naut

The Gospels tell us that Jesus took the Nazirite oath.

Erm... they do?

that wouldn't be Matt 26 you'd be referring to would it?

No oath was mentioned but he does study with the Nazarenes and so does John the Baptist. And the chapter is called"secret life of Jesus at Nazareth" but it is not part of the original just the title of the chapter.

Jesus forbids oath taking and says all who take oaths are of the evil one.

Nazarites are forbidden to touch the dead
Your assumption fails completely
Jesus touched the dead, recorded history

Try again