yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (12/16/84)
Regarding the ancient N'tzarim, 2 points either have not been made or readers have failed to note them (I suspect the former since NO readers appear to be aware of them). The N'tzarim are documented to have believed as follows: 1. Only Matthew was regarded as a supplement to Torah. The remainder of what is now called the 'New Testament' was not accepted. (The "Christian patriarch/'historian'" Eusebius notes also that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew). 2. Paul eventually became apostate from Torah and was rejected. 3. They observed Sabbath, circumcision and other parts of Torah and followed the Jewish way of life, Jewish interpretations, etc. 4. They denied the preexistence of Y'shua as God. 5. They called Y'shua a son of God (not necessarily THE son of God as is implied in Christian interpretations. All Jews are sons of God. 6. There is controversy, even among Christian "historians" regarding whether or not the N'tzarim believed in the virgin birth. Hence, it is not certain that they did believe thusly. 7. One of the earliest groups to become apostate from the N'tzarim and become a "spin-off" group from them were the Ebionites. Whenever there is no documented contradiction between a belief of the Ebionites and a belief of the N'tzarim, we should more likely suppose they shared the beliefs in common rather than that the N'tzarim inclined toward paganism of the Roman Empire and anti-Torah-ism which the reader, by now, should recognize was impossible historically. Thus, the following subset of beliefs documented for the Ebionites were probably common to the N'tzarim as well: a. They faced Jerusalem when they prayed b. They held the observance of Torah as necessary for salvation c. They rejected the virgin birth d. They held Y'shua to be a mere man e. They maintained that Y'shua had to earn his title of messiah by keeping Torah These beliefs of the Ebionites are not the only documented beliefs of the Ebionites. However, their other beliefs were in contradiction to documented N'tzarim beliefs. The logic here is that a statement that "John has brown hair" does not imply that Jim does not have brown hair. If they are related, the likelihood is that Jim probably also has brown hair... though it is speculative. Anyone who is committed to following the authentic teachings of this early Jewish group has no alternative but to follow the earliest documented teachings and to disregard interim corruptions by the Christians. Since the early N'tzarim eventually found "Paul" to be an apostate, it is obvious why they would not have included his writings along with Matthew. Quotes from "Paul" when they conflict with known N'tzarim beliefs and Jewish beliefs (since it is widely acknowledged that they did follow Torah and the Jewish ways and interpretations of Torah) are therefore no more relevant than similar quotes from "church fathers" of the counterfeit religion. Similarly, interpretations from outside of Judaism and the Jewish ways are likewise misrepresentations. To reiterate again: there is no link-up between the Christians who were killing those N'tzarim who would not abandon their observance of Torah and those same N'tzarim whom they were killing. Until Christians deal with that, as they have not and cannot, the rest is futile for them and this is, therefore, directed rather to those others who HAVE come that far. PS. I have slightly more time at the moment. I will look up that edition of the Interpreter's Dictionary which acknowledges that Christians did indeed change the manuscripts of the "New Testament" to read as they wanted it to.... Abingdon, 1962, p 595, heading is "TextNT". That they wanted it to read in an anti-Torah (antinomian) way is found in Parkes, Bagatti, and many others.