Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Jax » Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:11 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:17 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 7:09 am
.
Lots of work. Hats off Ben!
Thanks!
I second that. :cheers:

You really should get this published. Just zayin. :D

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by cora » Thu Mar 18, 2021 5:13 pm

Bernard,
My question is: what does nazoreans mean then ???? I am lost.
I don't remember what video it was, I don't take notes. Why do you not believe me when I quote him? You want to check up on me? You think I am lying? Have you got so little trust in people? That is worrying.
So Bart Ehrmann is IMO like a naïve child, or he has some hidden agenda. But at least he recognised an historical fact. If you have better information, please tell me and everybody when and where the 4 gospels were talked about and quoted from before. (meaning not 1 line from 1 text).

I am not a god, I am just an investigator. But according to the reactions on your website, you must be at least a demi-god. Do you think so yourself too?
The more I read on this forum, the more I see myself as being an exception. I thought I could talk here about my findings. But I can't.
Should I really repeat Ehrman's blunders here? Writing that there were many papers from 30-70, on which the gospels are based? Which are not there.
Saying that Paul did not have to talk about Jesus' life, because everybody knew it already? Please!!!!!!! He simply invents it on the spot. If I would be able to talk with him, I would be done with him in half an hour. But he does not accept mail from people without a PhD. Which says enough.
On the other hand that Richard Carrier also produces nothing interesting, don't you agree?

You name as your subject: THE REAL JESUS. Actually that is wrong. It means you assume a Jesus already, from the NT. But it has not been proven that a Jesus existed at all, except from the gospels. Which could just be fake, written in someone's interest (which actually is the case). I am not trying to insult you, I am just wondering what you want. As I see it you want to write about the gospel Jesus from the catholic church, who certainly existed. Why? Because the catholic church says so. I do something totally different. I do not study the content of the NT. I want to find out all the circumstances in which the NT was written: who wrote it, when was it written, and why was it written. What was all happening between 0 and 200? When did the catholic church start? What was before? Who was living when exactly? This means reading and reading and searching. Also on the internet yes, if you don't mind. There is there much better information than in the books of Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier and the whole forum together. This is called historical study. By which you can find answers that are not in the bible themselves. I mean, the NT I know by now. It is not about the content. It is about what happened and where it comes from. And now I am done I know also a lot more about the content.

In the past I studied history at the University. The large books we had to learn, like "Europe in the Middle Ages" were simply text. No notes, no references to sources, no telling where it came from. Just text. Learning 10 books for an exam, the same. Then we had to write ourselves. That goes as follows: you get a subject, often in the form of a question, and a list of books you must use. You read and search, trying to answer the question and everything about it, you make notes. When you are done, YOU WRITE THE STORY. You don't make notes, you do not tell where it all comes from, it has to be a normal, fluent reading. In the back you make a list of the books you have used. Practical all history books work like that. I had to do it that way, and I still do it that way. It is the only way I know.
In history is the word story. It is always about telling a story. So I tell parts of my story here, proud that I have found so much new. And get heavily criticised or ignored. Mostly ignored. I don't get that. People should be happy, but they rather remain ignorant, and turn their back on me. I don't get that trouble about evidence and giving sources. Like I said I am doing an historical investigation, I read and I search, I find things again and again, I write them down, I search on, I find new things, and in the end it becomes a story. You can leave it to me to discern between serious articles and bull shit. That is my job. I don't have to give ancient sources, which most of the time are not there anyway. And I don't have to present evidence for everything I say. The evidence is already being weighed in the investigation. That is how we do that. That does not mean that I have wild opinions, or am speculating. Not at all. Everything is investigated as historians do, and I shit on comments from people who do not understand how I work. Who have no idea about working in history, who do not even know what history is. Who think that staring in the gospels day in day out brings anything new or exciting. The last 100 years prove It doesn't. But they go on. They are actually really dumb. And I have to say that your telling me all the time in the past, that you can prove me wrong with evidence, is ridiculous. Your evidence comes from the NT itself and the catholic church. The catholic church you can never trust of course, they have everything to loose. And the NT is no evidence of anything, except of what the writer wanted exactly. And who is the writer? There are 2. And Mark and Mathew are not biographies, but catholic propaganda and theology. I suppose you let Marcion out of you study? Too bad, because he was one of the most important persons of the 2nd century.

I started reading one of your chapters, and I think it is not bad what you pick out of the gospels until now. Not bad at all. I cannot follow what Nasarenes are exactly. I have never heard of them. That from my study follows a picture which is totally opposite of what you and I always had thought, that is not my fault. That comes out of the investigation. And therefore I support it.
Latest discovery: Justin Martyr invents the name Jesus. Paul and Marcion had another name. This name still exists. He wrote: the name means Man or Jesus. They took Jesus. In that sense Jesus did not exist at all, because they gave him the name Jesus, Justin and Irenaeus.
greetings, Cora

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:23 pm

to Cora,
My question is: what does nazoreans mean then ???? I am lost.
I don't know myself. But I think that "Nazarene" might be an invention of "Mark" meaning: from Nazareth
I don't remember what video it was, I don't take notes.
In order to assert something, you need to have precise evidence to back you up.
Many times, when I started to investigate the matter, I did not take notes.
But when I came to write about it with some certitude, I had to track down where I found the evidence and then display it. This is what I wrote as part of my methodology (stated in http://historical-jesus.info/author.html):
p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.

So Bart Ehrmann is IMO like a naïve child, or he has some hidden agenda.
That's opinions, not proven facts.
If you have better information, please tell me and everybody when and where the 4 gospels were talked about and quoted from before.
I already explained that: read http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

I won't spend the night answering your post, but I hope to continue tomorrow.

Cordially, Bernard

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by cora » Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:25 am

To Bernard,
I looked through your evidence (which is so important to you) and I got scared. I asked for gospels to be talked about, not for sentences. Entire gospels with a name. They are not there. Only Irenaeus names four gospels and quotes from them, like I said. It is by now known that Irenaeus gave them names. Any gospel writer would put his name on it, why not. So only in 185 there are coming names and nobody knows who they are. It is Irenaeus who is explaining that. How does he know names if they are all anonymous? Even Justin has no names. Irenaeus comes after Justin. He invents them, cannot be different logically. And he invents who they so-called are.
I cannot go through everything, but I shall mention a few persons of your evidence:
1. Papias does not exist. If he existed, the text is from the man who cannot write without lying in every sentence, Irenaeus. Papias is hearsay, Eusebius had to get him from others. So you get Irenaeus says that Papias says. Hearsay. Irenaeus is proving the existence of the apostles, and placing Mark and Mathew back in time.
2. The pastoral letters are not from Paul. I guess 80% of the scholars knows that. I think it has been known for 100 years now. Luke is brought to the foreground in them. Irenaeus wrote them, I mean he left with 10 letters and he comes back with14.
3. The letter Peter2 is from Irenaeus. The other one is from the 4th century.
4. Aristides I looked up myself. From him is one sentence left, from which he seems a friendly gnostic teacher speaking of love.
5. Basilides I looked up myself. In his extensive writing is one sentence which might be from Mathew.

Aso, aso. I don't know where you get your information but it is fake. You are probably following the catholic church. Never do that, because they lie. You say you find evidence so important. But you haven't even checked the information yourself. You just repeat catholic liers and call that evidence with a big mouth, and "proving me wrong with evidence". And all the time you have not even looked for things YOURSELF. Let alone to look for what other people say about it. And that can not be forgiven. That is completely stupid. And now you are cheating people with your "evidence". How can you do that? Because you are too lazy to look things up? Very bad. Or because you are a fundamentalist catholic, who thinks the church is always right? Do you not know who they are? Just repeating catholics I would call a sin. Even defending them makes you totally unreliable. Unreliable with a big mouth. That is my opinion. If I were you I would remove that page with "evidence" and think again.

About some more or less quotes: do you know Paul? He had a gospel, and he left it to Marcion. This started being spread. Do you know John? John was a friend of Paul and he wrote a gnostic gospel, because the one Paul had was not gnostic at all. But with Paul's message in it. Also this gospel was being spread. Any quotes that look familiar come from these 2 gospels. We are talking about gnostic chrestians now. They are not strange. They are only teaching (spiritual) life after death. In the universe, near god the father. Do I have evidence for that? Yes I do, I found it myself, and the more pieces you find, the more you can put together. I saw you had 2 lines for Marcion. And the people where the story originally came from are also mentioned. And by the way, the good message (eu aggelion) is the soon coming of the kingdom of god. (And NOT the coming of Jesus Christ on earth). See you, Cora.

hakeem
Posts: 647
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by hakeem » Fri Mar 19, 2021 9:55 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Mar 18, 2021 7:23 pm
to Cora,
My question is: what does nazoreans mean then ???? I am lost.
I don't know myself. But I think that "Nazarene" might be an invention of "Mark" meaning: from Nazareth
Actually it is gMatthew alone which claims Jesus was a Nazarene because of prophesy. As usual there is no such prophecy in the OT.

Matthew 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.


Bernard Muller
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:41 am

to hakeem,
Actually, according to the Greek, "Nazorean" is what shows in Mt 2:23, such as:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazorean.

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 647
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by hakeem » Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:04 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:41 am
to hakeem,
Actually, according to the Greek, "Nazorean" is what shows in Mt 2:23, such as:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazorean.

Cordially, Bernard
So there is no Nazarene in gMark and no prophecy about a Nazorean or a Nazarene in the books of the prophets. This is evidence that Gospel writers were not composing history.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:33 pm

to Cora,
I looked through your evidence (which is so important to you) and I got scared. I asked for gospels to be talked about, not for sentences. Entire gospels with a name.
The NT gospels did not need to have a name in order to be quoted.
And you asked also for "and quoted from before". I supplied that. Irenaeus is not the only one quoting from them. Before him, Justin also quoted the NT gospels. And before Justin, others did the same.
1. Papias does not exist. If he existed, the text is from the man who cannot write without lying in every sentence, Irenaeus. Papias is hearsay, Eusebius had to get him from others. So you get Irenaeus says that Papias says. Hearsay. Irenaeus is proving the existence of the apostles, and placing Mark and Mathew back in time.
2. The pastoral letters are not from Paul. I guess 80% of the scholars knows that. I think it has been known for 100 years now. Luke is brought to the foreground in them. Irenaeus wrote them, I mean he left with 10 letters and he comes back with14.
3. The letter Peter2 is from Irenaeus. The other one is from the 4th century.
4. Aristides I looked up myself. From him is one sentence left, from which he seems a friendly gnostic teacher speaking of love.
5. Basilides I looked up myself. In his extensive writing is one sentence which might be from Mathew.
Here you go again: speculations, assumptions with no evidence for back up. However you have:
"The pastoral letters are not from Paul". We all know that. Also not from Paul are Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians.

Aristides, in his Apology, offered a condensed story of the human Jesus as found in the NT gospels.
Basilides also quoted pieces of gLuke & gJohn.

And in the first century, 1 Clement, the Didache, epistle of Barnabas, and Revelation also quoted or paraphrased gospels.
But I don't think you read that far in my webpage http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

And the Epistola Apostolorum (written before Justin) we have:
In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh [according to gJohn]: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body [according to gLuke and/or gMatthew], begotten of the Holy Ghost [according to gMatthew], not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem [according to gLuke] and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it.
...
Thereafter was there a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and they bade him with his mother and his brethren, and he changed water into wine. [according to gJohn]
5 ... He raised the dead, he caused the lame to walk: him whose hand was withered he caused to stretch it out, and the woman which had suffered an issue of blood twelve years touched the hem of his garment and was healed in the same hour. And when we marvelled at the miracle which was done, he said: Who touched me? Then said we: Lord, the press of men hath touched thee. But he answered and said unto us: I perceive that a virtue is gone out of me. Straightway that woman came before him, and answered and said unto him: Lord, I touched thee. And he answered and said unto her: Go, thy faith hath made thee whole [according to gMatthew, gLuke and gMark]. Thereafter he made the deaf to hear and the blind to see; out of them that were possessed he cast out the unclean spirits, and cleansed the lepers. The spirit which dwelt in a man, whereof the name was Legion, cried out against Jesus, saying: Before the time of our destruction is come, thou art come to drive us out. But the Lord Jesus rebuked him, saying: Go out of this man and do him no hurt. And he entered into the swine and drowned them in the water and they were choked [according to gMatthew & gMark].

Thereafter he did walk upon the sea, and the winds blew, and he cried out against them (rebuked them), and the waves of the sea were made calm [gMatthew & gMark]. And when we his disciples had no money, we asked him: What shall we do because of the tax-gatherer? And he answered and told us: Let one of you cast an hook into the deep, and take out a fish, and he shall find therein a penny: that give unto the tax-gatherer for me and you [according to gMatthew]. And thereafter when we had no bread, but only five loaves and two fishes, he commanded the people to sit them down, and the number of them was five thousand, besides children and women. We did set pieces of bread before them, and they ate and were filled, and there remained over, and we filled twelve baskets full of the fragments, asking one another and saying: What mean these five loaves? [According to gMatthew, gLuke and gMark]

And there are more of that: read http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... lorum.html
Aso, aso. I don't know where you get your information but it is fake. You are probably following the catholic church. Never do that, because they lie. You say you find evidence so important. But you haven't even checked the information yourself. You just repeat catholic liers and call that evidence with a big mouth, and "proving me wrong with evidence". And all the time you have not even looked for things YOURSELF. Let alone to look for what other people say about it. And that can not be forgiven. That is completely stupid. And now you are cheating people with your "evidence". How can you do that? Because you are too lazy to look things up? Very bad. Or because you are a fundamentalist catholic, who thinks the church is always right? Do you not know who they are? Just repeating catholics I would call a sin. Even defending them makes you totally unreliable. Unreliable with a big mouth. That is my opinion. If I were you I would remove that page with "evidence" and think again.
More assumptions again: and these texts do not belong to the catholic church, and I am not a Christian, and I am not defending that church. Actually my findings on the historical Jesus would make me heretical for that church and others.
To get informations on the early Christian texts see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Your hatred for the catholic church is not evidence backing up your speculations.
About some more or less quotes: do you know Paul? He had a gospel, and he left it to Marcion. This started being spread. Do you know John? John was a friend of Paul and he wrote a gnostic gospel, because the one Paul had was not gnostic at all. But with Paul's message in it. Also this gospel was being spread. Any quotes that look familiar come from these 2 gospels. We are talking about gnostic chrestians now. They are not strange. They are only teaching (spiritual) life after death. In the universe, near god the father. Do I have evidence for that? Yes I do, I found it myself, and the more pieces you find, the more you can put together. I saw you had 2 lines for Marcion. And the people where the story originally came from are also mentioned. And by the way, the good message (eu aggelion) is the soon coming of the kingdom of god. (And NOT the coming of Jesus Christ on earth).
More speculations. You wrote: "Do I have evidence for that? Yes I do, I found it myself, and the more pieces you find, the more you can put together."
Can you spell out that evidence? If you cannot, you are talking BS.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3907
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:27 pm

to Hakeem,
So there is no Nazarene in gMark and no prophecy about a Nazorean or a Nazarene in the books of the prophets.
For your first sentence, you are absolutely right.
gMark has no 'Nazorean', gMatthew has only 'Nazorean', gLuke has one 'Nazorean' and two 'Nazarene'. gJohn has four 'Nazorean' and one 'Nazarene'. Acts has seven 'Nazorean' and no 'Nazarene'. So 'Nazorean' in gMatthew appears also in gLuke, more so in gJohn and Acts.
In Acts 24:5, Paul is said to be a leader of the sect of the Nazoreans.
It seems to me a Jewish sect whose members were called "Nazoreans" was existing when the gospels were written.

But, according to https://i-cias.com/e.o/mandeans.htm. Complete text on Encyclopaedia of the Orient: Mandeans
"The only surviving Gnostic religion, now with not more than 20,000 adherents, living in southern Iraq and south-western Iran. They are often called the Christians of Saint John, as he is held as a very sacred person, but not indispensable, in their theology. Their name is Aramaic for 'knowledge', i.e. a translation from the Greek 'gnosis'.

TEACHING and PRACTICE
John the Baptist is central in their teaching, as a representative for their faith. Jesus is also central, but he plays a totally different role than in religions like Christianity and Islam, and is a false prophet, almost depicted as evil.
[this appraisal of Jesus probably dates from the early years when communities of latter followers of John the Baptist were competing against the early (Jesus based) Christianity]
` ... Baptism is central to the cult of Mandeans, and the Mandean sanctuary, Mandi is a very simple, and small, house with slanting roof. In front of this a pool, connected to a nearby river, is placed. This one, called 'Jordan', is used for baptism. The whole area is surrounded by a high fence or a wall. Baptisms are performed on Sundays, and every believer pass through this several times every year. Mandean baptism can be compared to the Christian communion, and the Muslim prayer, salât. ...
The ethics of Mandeans are not all too different from Jewish ethics, and the same rules applied to all. Monogamy, dietary laws, ritual slaughtering, alms-giving are central acts. Death is the day of deliverance, the soul leaves the body, and starts on a dangerous journey to the realms of light. It is only Mandeans and non-sinners who manages to pass the whole journey — everyone else ends in hell. This hell is not everlasting, at the end of the world, a judgement is made on who will be wiped out for ever, and who will rise to the realms of light.

ORIGINS and HISTORY
... The Mandean religion could be pre-Christian, or it could date to 1st or 2nd century AD. It could actually be John the Baptist who founded the sect, or they could be a continuation of the Jewish sect that John the Baptist belonged to (guessed to be the Esseneans). Elements of the languages indicate that the community is of Jewish origin. One of the texts of the Mandeans tell about a flight of a group called 'Nasoreans', from areas that probably were in today's Jordan, to the Mesopotamian region, in the times of the Jewish wars following the destruction of Jerusalem in year 70 AD. The Mandeans appears first to have gained a strong position in Babylon, ..."

Cordially, Bernard

cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Of Nazirites & Naṣoraeans.

Post by cora » Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:33 pm

Bernard,
I am speculating again? And you have evidence? I told you already what is wrong with your "evidence". I am afraid you don't know what evidence is. Because you are not investigating anything. You are just copying texts and thinking you are great. When I look up Aristides on the Wikipedia, is that speculating? I don't think so. But for your pleasure I looked on the site you gave. And you know what? It is still one sentence. They come from Jesus Christ, and it all about love and benevolence. Gnostic a I said. So by now you are simply lying.
I told you where those quotes come from, but you know nothing of history so you don't understand, so you just shout speculation again. The letter Clement comes from Irenaeus, as found in rome in 165. Nobody knew what it was, but Irenaeus knew it exactly, Clement 96 AD. Clement does not exist. Revelation is heavily forged, and comes from Irenaeus in 185. I can go on for ever. I even read the Epistola Apostolorum. 1. that is a pseudo-writing, by someone else. 2. That is not from before Justin. I date from the text. It is catholic. We have the so-called resurrection, we have a lot from Acts. Their is agreement among scholars that the Acts were not seen before 200. So the writing is from after 200, and wrongly dated in the list. Which happens a lot. If you knew history you would know, but you just copy including the date. Not critical at all. You cannot place the content in time. No wonder you think the gospels are from 70-100. And Jesus probably lived really in 30.
If you are not a Christian, why do you behave like that? And now I am talking bullshit. Do you really think I am going to try to convince you of my findings? You cannot even be convinced of simple facts, that other people long time know. I only talk with friendly people. I tried to talk with you in the hope we could have a normal conversation without you shouting speculation all the time. This has not been possible. You lie, you cheat, you copy, and you think you are great. You cannot date yourself, because you know nothing about the time in which it is playing. You repeat what you find. You probably do not even know what Gnosticism is. If this has nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus, you are probably behaving all the time like that, thinking you are perfectly right always. It will be a way of living. Have much fun.
I have had enough personally. Don't contact me ever again. Cora.

Post Reply