Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?

Religions > Atheism > Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Not-easily-duped"
Date:	18 Oct 2004 01:53:02 PM
Object:	Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.
Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.
.

User: "learner"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	18 Oct 2004 05:39:13 PM

(Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.

Well, it is not that simple. The Ebionites were also not in agreement
with Islam. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding
that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary.

Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Eusebius and Origen confused the Ebionites with another group called
the Nazarenes. Thus it is necessary to be careful about which group
(if there really was more than one) one is refering to.
Origen claimed that he obtained commentaries of Symmachus, an
Ebionite, from a certain Juliana who inherited it from Symmachus
himself. Symmachus attacked the Gospel of Matthew in his commentaries.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

They know more about Jesus than Muhammad ever knew! Muhammad called
Jesus 'Isa [or Esau] - a name that the Jews called Jesus as an insult!
Muhammad was a fraud, and a pretty bad one at that.
Learner
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	25 Oct 2004 02:39:39 PM

(learner) wrote in message

Origen claimed that he obtained commentaries of Symmachus, an
Ebionite, from a certain Juliana who inherited it from Symmachus
himself. Symmachus attacked the Gospel of Matthew in his commentaries.

Westerners theologians were more interested in validating their terminology
SON OF GOD for the whole world than reporting the facts.
They deliberately confused the matter.
By reading Paul and the author of the Qur'an, his theological reversal,
we came to the conclusion that Son of God had nothing to do with
Mary.
We don't know where the writers of the "Gospels" got their facts from.

those facts are superfluous
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	20 Oct 2004 03:09:41 PM

(learner) wrote in message news:<c53bb03c.0410181439.2b8176e5@posting.google.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.

Well, it is not that simple. The Ebionites were also not in agreement
with Islam. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding
that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary.

Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Eusebius and Origen confused the Ebionites with another group called
the Nazarenes. Thus it is necessary to be careful about which group
(if there really was more than one) one is refering to.

Origen claimed that he obtained commentaries of Symmachus, an
Ebionite, from a certain Juliana who inherited it from Symmachus
himself. Symmachus attacked the Gospel of Matthew in his commentaries.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

They know more about Jesus than Muhammad ever knew! Muhammad called
Jesus 'Isa [or Esau] - a name that the Jews called Jesus as an insult!

Muhammad was a fraud, and a pretty bad one at that.

Mohammad was not A FRAUD. Just because you can not make sense of the whole
thing does not make him a fraud.
The Jews want Mohammad to be a fraud so that they may discretdit Jesus
as the Messiah of Israel. They have no choice but accept the fact that
their Mosaic prophecy about the Messiah was fulfilled litrerally
IN Jesus and figuratevely in the son of Amina.
So it not the Son of Mary VERSUS the son of Amina as you guys
shamelessly misreprented. It is an allegory.
It is ok If you have no grasp on the relation
between Jesus and Abu Quasim aka Mohammad
but trying to show off as If you knew what
all this is about is ludicrous at worse.Your book learning is wanting.
By the way what the Qur'an is saying is that the Son of Amina
the Arabian Prophet looks like Muhammad which is a euphemism for Messiah.
To what extent the Arabian prophet, the son of Amina looks
like Messiah?
That is the puzzle you guys failed to solve. YOU KNOW NOTHING BUT JUNKS

Learner

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	25 Oct 2004 02:32:39 PM

(learner) wrote in message news:<c53bb03c.0410181439.2b8176e5@posting.google.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.

Well, it is not that simple. The Ebionites were also not in agreement
with Islam. They rejected the Virgin Birth of Jesus, instead holding
that he was the natural son of Joseph and Mary.

That is according to western source which we say is not credible.
It is likely that the Ebionites did not see the term SON OF GOD
as meaning begotten.
TheY may have thought that Son of God had nothing to do with Mary.
That is the point ISLAM IS MAKING.

Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Eusebius and Origen confused the Ebionites with another group called
the Nazarenes. Thus it is necessary to be careful about which group
(if there really was more than one) one is refering to.

Origen claimed that he obtained commentaries of Symmachus, an
Ebionite, from a certain Juliana who inherited it from Symmachus
himself. Symmachus attacked the Gospel of Matthew in his commentaries.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

They know more about Jesus than Muhammad ever knew! Muhammad called
Jesus 'Isa [or Esau] - a name that the Jews called Jesus as an insult!

Muhammad was a fraud, and a pretty bad one at that.

Learner

User: "1MAN4ALL"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	19 Oct 2004 03:35:11 PM

(Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

Many people have been called sons of God in the Bible:
1. Adam: "...the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the
son of Adam, the son of God."
2. Ephraim: "I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son."
(Jeremiah 31:9)
3. Jacob: "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is
my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22)
4. David: "I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does
wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted
by men." David is also called "begotten" son of God. "Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten you." (Psalms 2:7)
5. Solomon: " He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He
will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the
throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." (I Chronicles 22:10)
SONS OF GOD
1. "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and
they married any of them they chose." (Genesis 6:2)
2. "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which
cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'
11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and
they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for
great will be the day of Jezreel." (Hosea 1:10)
Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ," says:
"During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded
as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of
sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already
before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean
something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it
is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or
accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former
times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in
the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no
metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a
unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the
Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim)
goes back to Jesus himself". There seems to be only two places in the
Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God." They are
in John chapters 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible"
says: "Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful." Regardless, we
have already seen what is meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus
is referred to as the "son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times
in the books of the Bible. What was he trying to tell us by constantly
repeating and emphasizing to us throughout the New Testament "I am a
human being," "I am a human being," "I am a human being"?. What had he
foreseen? Think about it!.
So how did the expression Son of God came into existence? The Actual
Greek word
used is "pias" or "paida" which mean; "servant, child, son,
manservant." Some
translations of the Bible, such as the popular King James Version,
have
translated this word as "Son" when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh)
and
"servant" for most everyone else, while more recent translations of
the Bible
such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) now honestly translate it
as
"servant." As we shall see in later chapters, the RSV was compiled by
thirty two
Biblical scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating
Christian
denominations from the "most" ancient Biblical manuscripts available
to them
today. Chances are that no matter what your church or denomination you
are able
to name, that church took part in the correction of the King James
Version of
the Bible which resulted in the RSV.
The exact same word "pias" is attributed to Jacob(Israel) in Luke 1:54
and
translated as "servant": "He hath helped his servant Israel, in
remembrance of
his mercy;." It is also applied to King David in Luke 1:69, and once
again, it
is translated as "servant": "....the house of his servant David;"
(also see Acts
4:25). However, when it is applied to Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:13, Acts
4:27), NOW it
is translated as "Son." (notice that it is not only translated as
"son" but as
"Son".)
All of mankind are the servants of God. If a man were to own another
man then
that man would be his servant. Obviously this servant would be held in
a lower
regard than this man's own children (or himself). We do not usually
find people
telling their sons (or themselves): "come here my servant," or "Go
over there my
servant." Let us compare this with what God has to say about Jesus
(pbuh):
1. Matthew 12:18: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen."
2. Acts 3:13(RSV): "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath
glorified his
servant Jesus."
3. Acts 4:27(RSV): "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus,
whom thou
hast anointed...."
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	20 Oct 2004 06:48:35 PM

(1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0410191235.6a87e932@posting.google.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

Many people have been called sons of God in the Bible:

1. Adam: "...the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the
son of Adam, the son of God."

2. Ephraim: "I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son."
(Jeremiah 31:9)

3. Jacob: "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is
my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22)

4. David: "I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does
wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted
by men." David is also called "begotten" son of God. "Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten you." (Psalms 2:7)

5. Solomon: " He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He
will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the
throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." (I Chronicles 22:10)

SONS OF GOD

1. "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and
they married any of them they chose." (Genesis 6:2)

2. "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which
cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'
11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and
they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for
great will be the day of Jezreel." (Hosea 1:10)

Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ," says:

"During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded
as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of
sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already
before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean
something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it
is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or
accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former
times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in
the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no
metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a
unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the
Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim)
goes back to Jesus himself". There seems to be only two places in the
Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God." They are
in John chapters 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible"
says: "Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful." Regardless, we
have already seen what is meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus
is referred to as the "son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times
in the books of the Bible. What was he trying to tell us by constantly
repeating and emphasizing to us throughout the New Testament "I am a
human being," "I am a human being," "I am a human being"?. What had he
foreseen? Think about it!.

So how did the expression Son of God came into existence? The Actual
Greek word
used is "pias" or "paida" which mean; "servant, child, son,
manservant." Some
translations of the Bible, such as the popular King James Version,
have
translated this word as "Son" when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh)
and
"servant" for most everyone else, while more recent translations of
the Bible
such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) now honestly translate it
as
"servant." As we shall see in later chapters, the RSV was compiled by
thirty two
Biblical scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating
Christian
denominations from the "most" ancient Biblical manuscripts available
to them
today. Chances are that no matter what your church or denomination you
are able
to name, that church took part in the correction of the King James
Version of
the Bible which resulted in the RSV.

I don't really care what part of the bible you quote.
My point is that what Paul means by Son Of God is not what Luke means.
and Paul seems to have the right interpretation of Son of God and his writing
older than Luke. Thus is solved any discrepancy.
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	20 Oct 2004 06:41:17 PM

(1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0410191235.6a87e932@posting.google.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

Many people have been called sons of God in the Bible:

1. Adam: "...the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the
son of Adam, the son of God."

2. Ephraim: "I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son."
(Jeremiah 31:9)

3. Jacob: "Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is
my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22)

4. David: "I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does
wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted
by men." David is also called "begotten" son of God. "Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten you." (Psalms 2:7)

5. Solomon: " He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He
will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the
throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." (I Chronicles 22:10)

SONS OF GOD

1. "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and
they married any of them they chose." (Genesis 6:2)

2. "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which
cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'
11 The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and
they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for
great will be the day of Jezreel." (Hosea 1:10)

Grolier's encyclopedia, under the heading "Jesus Christ," says:

"During his earthly life Jesus was addressed as rabbi and was regarded
as a prophet. Some of his words, too, place him in the category of
sage. A title of respect for a rabbi would be "my Lord." Already
before Easter his followers, impressed by his authority, would mean
something more than usual when they addressed him as "my Lord.".... it
is unlikely that the title "Son of David" was ascribed to him or
accepted by him during his earthly ministry. "Son of God," in former
times a title of the Hebrew kings (Psalms 2:7), was first adopted in
the post-Easter church as an equivalent of Messiah and had no
metaphysical connotations (Romans 1:4). Jesus was conscious of a
unique filial relationship with God, but it is uncertain whether the
Father/Son language (Mark 18:32; Matt. 11:25-27 par.; John passim)
goes back to Jesus himself". There seems to be only two places in the
Bible where Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself as "son of God." They are
in John chapters 5 and 11. Hastings in "The dictionary of the Bible"
says: "Whether Jesus used it of himself is doubtful." Regardless, we
have already seen what is meant by this innocent title. However, Jesus
is referred to as the "son of Man" (literally: "Human being") 81 times
in the books of the Bible. What was he trying to tell us by constantly
repeating and emphasizing to us throughout the New Testament "I am a
human being," "I am a human being," "I am a human being"?. What had he
foreseen? Think about it!.

So how did the expression Son of God came into existence? The Actual
Greek word
used is "pias" or "paida" which mean; "servant, child, son,
manservant." Some
translations of the Bible, such as the popular King James Version,
have
translated this word as "Son" when it is attributed to Jesus (pbuh)
and
"servant" for most everyone else, while more recent translations of
the Bible
such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) now honestly translate it
as
"servant." As we shall see in later chapters, the RSV was compiled by
thirty two
Biblical scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating
Christian
denominations from the "most" ancient Biblical manuscripts available
to them
today. Chances are that no matter what your church or denomination you
are able
to name, that church took part in the correction of the King James
Version of
the Bible which resulted in the RSV.

The exact same word "pias" is attributed to Jacob(Israel) in Luke 1:54
and
translated as "servant": "He hath helped his servant Israel, in
remembrance of
his mercy;." It is also applied to King David in Luke 1:69, and once
again, it
is translated as "servant": "....the house of his servant David;"
(also see Acts
4:25). However, when it is applied to Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:13, Acts
4:27), NOW it
is translated as "Son." (notice that it is not only translated as
"son" but as
"Son".)

All of mankind are the servants of God. If a man were to own another
man then
that man would be his servant. Obviously this servant would be held in
a lower
regard than this man's own children (or himself). We do not usually
find people
telling their sons (or themselves): "come here my servant," or "Go
over there my
servant." Let us compare this with what God has to say about Jesus
(pbuh):
1. Matthew 12:18: "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen."
2. Acts 3:13(RSV): "The God of Abraham, and of Isaac,.... hath
glorified his
servant Jesus."
3. Acts 4:27(RSV): "For of a truth against thy holy servant Jesus,
whom thou
hast anointed...."

We all know that Son of God has nothing to do with Mary. It is just a gentile
terminology used to describe the Messiah of Israel which also means King.
That is also how the gentiles referred to their rulers as a mark
of honor and dignity. Thus Caesar was called son of God.
Remember that before the Scriptures you quote from the NT was written down
Jesus was Son of God in the gentile world.
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	20 Oct 2004 06:59:45 PM

(1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0410191235.6a87e932@posting.google.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

We know that Islam is a marketing tool used by the Torah observers
jews to sell their version of their Messiah to the Arabs based on the
Mosaic prophecy which states that Messiah is a prophet like Moses
Deut 18:15.
In that the Qur'an is nothing more than the Torah interpreted. Since the Torah
forbid the jews to never associate God with any human, It is no wonder
the Qur'an repeat the same.
WE ARE SAYING WITH RUMI THAT THE ARABS ARE NOTHING BUT THE JEWISH CHRISTIANS
PUPPETS.
" oH you foolish puppet, popping up from your box
you call out to the world this is mine..." Rumi
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	20 Oct 2004 06:43:27 PM

(1MAN4ALL) wrote in message news:<ba13f877.0410191235.6a87e932@posting.google.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in message news:<bbba7302.0410181053.646cc664@posting.google.com>...

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that
the Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not.
That is called Misrepresentation.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

Many people have been called sons of God in the Bible:

This is why the Nicea Creed which used "begotten" to explain Son Of God
is inapropriate.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	18 Oct 2004 04:42:37 PM

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:53:02 -0700, Not-easily-duped wrote:

It is unlikely. You can't be pro-Torah and use pagan terminology that the
Torah itself forbid. That is violating Moses Law that no jew Christian
would be willing to do.Ref Act 15.
Eusebius and the West want us to believe incorrectly that in Jerusalem the
only debate about Jesus was whether He was the Son Of God or not. That is
called Misrepresentation.

Don't trust westener's source too much regarding JESUS.

Oooooookay.
(Where the hell did THAT come from?)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.

User: "AnonMoos"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	18 Oct 2004 09:31:35 PM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:53:02 -0700, Not-easily-duped wrote:

[...]

Oooooookay. (Where the hell did THAT come from?)

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on cross-posting
about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...
--
SAUDIA OMNIS IN PARTES TRES DIVIDENDA EST! Free Arabia by
splitting the Saudi tyranny into its three natural parts:
Hejaz-alHarameyn, Nejd-Wahhabistan, and Gulf-Petrolia.
Murderers are not Martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	19 Oct 2004 09:38:36 AM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:53:02 -0700, Not-easily-duped wrote:

[...]

Oooooookay. (Where the hell did THAT come from?)

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on cross-posting
about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem.
Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at Jerusalem?
This is the first Christian document ever issued.
.

User: "AnonMoos"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	19 Oct 2004 10:32:02 AM

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem. Can't
you read the decree of the first Christians Council at Jerusalem?
This is the first Christian document ever issued.

I'm looking at Acts 15 right now, and it basically contains an
endorsement of Paul (whom you seem to dislike so much), and at Acts
15:28-29 contains a brief summary of what later came to be known as
"Noahide laws". I fail to see what's "Islamic" about that!
Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you cross-post to
"alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely to productive or
constructive discussions!
--
Some Qur'an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi �dkhuluu �l-'arDa
�l-muqaddasata �llatii kataba �llaahu lakum" 17:104 waqulnaa ... libanii
'israa'iila "�skunuu �l-'arDa" || In English: Moses said, "My people,
go into the Holy Land which God has assigned to you!" And we said to the
Children of Israel, "Inhabit the land!" http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	20 Oct 2004 06:34:20 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem. Can't
you read the decree of the first Christians Council at Jerusalem?
This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who??? How about the dietary Law
in the document that Paul overlooked.
He told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market place.
He does not look like he was endorsed.
Yet the Muslims live by that dietary Law.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you cross-post to
"alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely to productive or
constructive discussions!

User: "AnonMoos"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	21 Oct 2004 02:17:01 AM

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem.
Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

How about the dietary Law in the document that Paul overlooked. He
told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market place.
He does not look like he was endorsed. Yet the Muslims live by that
dietary Law.

The Noahide law enjoins all of humanity to refrain from idolatry,
adultery, and eating of animal blood, but does NOT forbid eating of
pigs. By contrast, Muslim law forbids eating of pigs. So it seems
that Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29 seems to be closer to the Noachide
commandments than to Islam.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you cross-post to
"alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely to lead to
productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??
--
Some Qur'an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi �dkhuluu �l-'arDa
�l-muqaddasata �llatii kataba �llaahu lakum" 17:104 waqulnaa ... libanii
'israa'iila "�skunuu �l-'arDa" || In English: Moses said, "My people,
go into the Holy Land which God has assigned to you!" And we said to the
Children of Israel, "Inhabit the land!" http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	21 Oct 2004 10:47:25 AM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem.
Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

Are we discussing the decree of the Apostles or are you just tossing around
your deconstextualized opinion about noahide Law?
You forget that Islam was supposed to proptect Moses'Law which
forbid the consumption of pig as opposed to Paul who declared that
Moses'Law was now irrelevant with the advent of the Messiah/Christ.
You need to stay within the debate.
My point is this: Catholicism/orthodoxy is consistent with the teaching
of Paul while Islam is consistent the decree of the APOSTLES and the
teaching of the pharisees regarding the Torah.
Both groups agree on one thing: Jesus was the Messiah predicted by Moses
in Deut 18:15.
What is your point?

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you cross-post to
"alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely to lead to
productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??

User: "AnonMoos"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	21 Oct 2004 04:12:31 PM

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem.
Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

How about the dietary Law in the document that Paul overlooked.
He told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market
place. He does not look like he was endorsed. Yet the Muslims
live by that dietary Law.

I'm talking about the fact that if you look at the actual words of
chapter 15 of the Book of Acts in the New Testament (a passage which
YOU chose to bring up, Dupie), then we clearly find that the earliest
Christian council did not choose to forbid gentile converts to
Christianity from eating pork. Therefore this first Christian council
(which you seem to set so much store by) favored Paul over the law of
Moses for non-Jews -- and so early Christianity does not seem to
particularly resemble Islam.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you cross-post
to "alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely to lead to
productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??

--
The non-Dhimmi affirmation (9:29): لن نعطي
الجزية ولسنا
صاغرين (٢٩ We will fight for
our freedom! Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	22 Oct 2004 08:47:36 AM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4178263F.405E2ADB@io.com>...

and so early Christianity does not seem to
particularly resemble Islam.

YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE JEWS CONVERTS ABANDONNED ALL THE SUDDEN
THEIR OWN CULTURE. If the gentile converts did not need judaism, the jeewish
converts needed gentilism either.
Again the jewish version of early Christianity did resemble Islam so much.
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	22 Oct 2004 08:39:27 AM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4178263F.405E2ADB@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem.
Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

How about the dietary Law in the document that Paul overlooked.
He told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market
place. He does not look like he was endorsed. Yet the Muslims
live by that dietary Law.

Then again, the reporters did not tell all. He did not tell us whether
or not the pharisees did agree on that settlement. All what we know
is that the same pharisees were still persecuting Paul for his teaching
according to Paul himself. My point is this, there was a pharisaic
version of Christianity going on in Israel at Paul's time. and another
version referred to as apostolic. NO PHARISEE NEED PAUL TO CELEBRATE
THE MESSIAH OF ISREAL.
We all know that the Pahrisees would never agree with Paul no matter how
many councils it takes and their version of Christianity would always
defend Moses'Law -Circumcision and not eating pork-
that that Christianity later evolved into Islam is not
well documented in History.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you cross-post
to "alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely to lead to
productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??

User: "AnonMoos"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	22 Oct 2004 03:10:54 PM

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4178263F.405E2ADB@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

(Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

the delusion that early Christianity resembled Islam,

Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

How about the dietary Law in the document that Paul overlooked.
He told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market
place. He does not look like he was endorsed. Yet the Muslims
live by that dietary Law.

The Noahide law enjoins all of humanity to refrain from idolatry,
adultery, and eating of animal blood, but does NOT forbid eating
of pigs. By contrast, Muslim law forbids eating of pigs. So
Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29 seems to be closer to the Noachide
commandments than to Islam.

I'm talking about the fact that if you look at the actual words of
chapter 15 of the Book of Acts in the New Testament (a passage
which YOU chose to bring up, Dupie), then we clearly find that the
earliest Christian council did not choose to forbid gentile
converts to Christianity from eating pork. Therefore this first
Christian council (which you seem to set so much store by) favored
Paul over the law of Moses for non-Jews -- and so early
Christianity does not seem to particularly resemble Islam.

Then again, the reporters did not tell all. He did not tell us
whether or not the pharisees did agree on that settlement.

That was a CHRISTIAN meeting. At the time, the Pharisees thought that
Christians were an obscure minor heretical Jewish sect, like many
others. Those who were not part of the Christian community did not a
come to the meeting, did not agree to anything and were not asked to
agree to anything.

My point is this, there was a pharisaic version of Christianity
going on in Israel at Paul's time.

Not really. There was a majority of Christians who had been Jews
before becoming Christians, and a growing minority of non-Jews who
wished to become Christians without becoming Jews in the strict sense.
That was what the meeting in Acts 15 was all about. Those who called
themselves Christians were considered heretics by the Pharisees.

and another version referred to as apostolic. NO PHARISEE NEED PAUL
TO CELEBRATE THE MESSIAH OF ISREAL. We all know that the Pahrisees
would never agree with Paul no matter how many councils it takes and
their version of Christianity would always defend Moses'Law'
-Circumcision and not eating pork-

I have no idea what you're talking about. At the time of Acts 15, the
Jewish Christians were dominant, and they chose NOT to impose the
requirements of circumcision and not eating pork on the gentile
Christians (that's what Acts 15 is all about). Within just a few
decades after the events of Acts chapter 15, gentile Christians became
predominant within Christianity. Pharisees who "celebrated" Jesus as
"the Messiah of Israel" were Christians, and not Pharisees any more.

YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE JEWS CONVERTS ABANDONNED ALL
THE SUDDEN THEIR OWN CULTURE.

Nope -- Jewish Christians continued to refrain from eating pork after
Acts 15. However, after the Jewish revolts, the Jewish Christians
became a small uninfluential community in Transjordan, while gentile
Christianity gained ever more converts.

that that Christianity later evolved into Islam is not well
documented in History.

Because it didn't happen! Islam "branched off" from both Judaism and
Christianity, but there is no particular close resemblance between
Islam and early Christianity.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you
cross-post to "alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely
to lead to productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??

--
Hamas motto: لا إله لهم
إلا الموت،
�حماس� رسول
الموت (The death-worshipping cult)
Murderers are not martyrs! http://symbolictruth.fateback.com/
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	23 Oct 2004 02:46:52 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4179694E.

So you are saying that despite the Council at Jerusalem,
despite Paul ranting
in Galatians, the Jew remained jews and the gentiles remained gentiles?
One Christ/Messiah but two communities living side by side with two
different costums?
This is the point I have been making... The jews failed to win over the
gentiles but they remained Christians within their own cultural heritage.
That is to say they remained jews.
HOWEVER, you should be reminded that the size of the commuinity matters
little. Compared to the vast majority of people living in the Greeco-Roman
world, the jews will always look like a small community.
So basically, Paul won over the Gentiles while the jews won over their
own brethen as attested in Act 15.
That Paul Christianity evolved into Catholicism/Orthodoxy
is well documented in history.
Jewish Christianity evolving into Islam is not and this is
what we are tracking down.
The jews could easily influence their cousin Arabs as they both
circumcise according to the ritual of Abraham. The only difference
is that the jews were monotheist while the Arabs were polythieists.
This is where a Rabbi was needed to preach the Gospel according
to the pharisees: Islam.
So Islam is basically the jewish christians marketing plot. NOTHING ELSE
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	23 Oct 2004 03:09:04 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4179694E.FA502DB@io.com>...

Because it didn't happen! Islam "branched off" from both Judaism and
Christianity, but there is no particular close resemblance between
Islam and early Christianity.

Yes early jewish Christianity resembles Islam so much
The Christianity of those jews who advocated
Jesus as the Christ/Messiah of Israel while remaining faithful
to the Abrahamic circumcision and the customs of Moses.
As those jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah/Christ of Israel
so are the Muslims.
As those Jews were still circumcising their boys, so are the Muslims.
as those Jews could not eat pork, neither can the Muslims
As those Jews wash their face and hands as a ritual cleaning, so do the Muslims
as those Jews could stone an adulterer
If they had a state to enforce that Law,
so do the Muslims with their Sharia Law.
As the Jew-christians could give one out of ten of their income If they
had a state, so do the Muslims with the Zakkath.
As the Jew-Christians saluated the advent of their Messiah three times
in a day, so do the Muslims.
As the Jew turned to Jerusalem for prayer, so did the early Muslims
community even though they later changed their quibla.
You must have a strange definition of Christianity.
Christian is the one who acknowledges that JESUS IS THE CHRIST/MESSIAH
of Israel regardless doctrines or dogmas
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	23 Oct 2004 03:20:51 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4179694E.FA502DB@io.com>...

Because it didn't happen! Islam "branched off" from both Judaism and
Christianity, but there is no particular close resemblance between
Islam and early Christianity.

Islam "branched off" from both Judaism and Christianity?
So did the early jewish Christianity?
They were no longer jews as they accepeted Jesus as the Messiah/Christ
but on the other, they were not really Christians in the "sense Paulien
du mot" as they circumcised and followed Moses and again went
to their synaguogues as usual.
The Jewish council of Jamnia tried to settle their case. You've better do
some resaerch on it.
Later on when the Chief Rabbis in the synaguogue introduced some
prayers cursing Jesus just to embarrasse the Jewish Christians, they
were now on their own. What was needed was a powerful state to back up
their own doctrines. Mohammad provided the state
.

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	23 Oct 2004 01:47:20 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4179694E.FA502DB@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4178263F.405E2ADB@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

the delusion that early Christianity resembled Islam,

Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

How about the dietary Law in the document that Paul overlooked.
He told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market
place. He does not look like he was endorsed. Yet the Muslims
live by that dietary Law.

The Noahide law enjoins all of humanity to refrain from idolatry,
adultery, and eating of animal blood, but does NOT forbid eating
of pigs. By contrast, Muslim law forbids eating of pigs. So
Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29 seems to be closer to the Noachide
commandments than to Islam.

I'm talking about the fact that if you look at the actual words of
chapter 15 of the Book of Acts in the New Testament (a passage
which YOU chose to bring up, Dupie), then we clearly find that the
earliest Christian council did not choose to forbid gentile
converts to Christianity from eating pork. Therefore this first
Christian council (which you seem to set so much store by) favored
Paul over the law of Moses for non-Jews -- and so early
Christianity does not seem to particularly resemble Islam.

Then again, the reporters did not tell all. He did not tell us
whether or not the pharisees did agree on that settlement.

My point is this, there was a pharisaic version of Christianity
going on in Israel at Paul's time.

But the author of Acts referred to them as the "believers of the party
of the pharisees". So, If they were Christians and that is my point,
they had their own version of Christianity.
Paul says, they preached a different gospel as they require their
disciples to circumcise and follow the Law of Moses. Epistle to Galatians.
If Christianity is Pauline, then those were not christian and you may call
them heretic but again heretic by what standard?
If Christianity is not Pauline as the PHARISEES UNDERSTOOD it,then
Pauline Christianity is heretic.
You assume wrongly that there were some set of harmonized doctrines
one could adhere to in order to be christian. But that was not the case.
It was a kind of competition and the epistle to the corinthians pointed
it out.
I am wondering what kind of Bible you are reading from. You are just
defending one side on the story, and that is close to Faith.
I am making an intellectual inquiry and it is called sound Scholarship.
You've better stick to the text

YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE JEWS CONVERTS ABANDONNED ALL
THE SUDDEN THEIR OWN CULTURE.

that that Christianity later evolved into Islam is not well
documented in History.

Because it didn't happen! Islam "branched off" from both Judaism and
Christianity, but there is no particular close resemblance between
Islam and early Christianity.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you
cross-post to "alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely
to lead to productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	23 Oct 2004 01:17:36 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4179694E.FA502DB@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4178263F.405E2ADB@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

the delusion that early Christianity resembled Islam,

Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

How about the dietary Law in the document that Paul overlooked.
He told the Corinthians to eat whatever they found in the market
place. He does not look like he was endorsed. Yet the Muslims
live by that dietary Law.

The Noahide law enjoins all of humanity to refrain from idolatry,
adultery, and eating of animal blood, but does NOT forbid eating
of pigs. By contrast, Muslim law forbids eating of pigs. So
Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29 seems to be closer to the Noachide
commandments than to Islam.

I'm talking about the fact that if you look at the actual words of
chapter 15 of the Book of Acts in the New Testament (a passage
which YOU chose to bring up, Dupie), then we clearly find that the
earliest Christian council did not choose to forbid gentile
converts to Christianity from eating pork. Therefore this first
Christian council (which you seem to set so much store by) favored
Paul over the law of Moses for non-Jews -- and so early
Christianity does not seem to particularly resemble Islam.

Then again, the reporters did not tell all. He did not tell us
whether or not the pharisees did agree on that settlement.

So you are saying that Christian community included the pharisees, Right?
This is the point I have been making. THE REPORTER TELLS US ABOUT
SOME BELIVERS from the party of the pharisees or some pharisees
who believe... Acts 15
That is enough evidence there was no harmonized doctrines to adhere to
in order to be Christians. The pharisees at the Council came with
their understanding of Moses' prophecy on the MESSIAH/Christ and they
sure departed with the same conviction that the gentiles should be circumcised
and be told to obey the Law of Moses. If anyone says otherwise, he is
an obscurantist
Again Christianity comprises Paul's doctrines for the gentiles versus
pharisees doctrine for the same gentiles, hence Catholicism/Paulism
versus Islam/Pharisaism

My point is this, there was a pharisaic version of Christianity
going on in Israel at Paul's time.

YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE JEWS CONVERTS ABANDONNED ALL
THE SUDDEN THEIR OWN CULTURE.

that that Christianity later evolved into Islam is not well
documented in History.

Because it didn't happen! Islam "branched off" from both Judaism and
Christianity, but there is no particular close resemblance between
Islam and early Christianity.

Meanwhile, maybe you could tell us why it is that you
cross-post to "alt.atheism", when this is certainly not likely
to lead to productive or constructive discussions!

Why is it that you cross-post to alt.atheism, Dupie??

User: "Not-easily-duped"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	23 Oct 2004 01:25:35 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4179694E.FA502DB@io.com>...

How did a jew become christian at that time?
Were those "believers fromt he party of the pharisees" who wanted the gentiles
to be circumcised and be told to obey Moses'Law, were those pharisees at
the meeting christians or not?
What kind of bible are you reading from?
THE TEXT CLEARLY SAYS THAT THE PHARISEES WERE BELIVERS IN JESUS AS THE
MESSIAH/CHRIST OF ISRAEL, WHY DO YOU OVERLOOK THAT FACT?
.

User: "1MAN4ALL"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	21 Oct 2004 01:29:04 PM

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41753372.C8A41938@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the delusion
that early Christianity resembled Islam, and he insists on
cross-posting about it. Don't ask me why he includes alt.atheism...

You call biblical fact a delusion? Then you 've got problem.
Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

Endorsement of who???

Acts 15:19 endorses Paul's missionary work to non-Jews.

I again question not only your self-proclaimed expertise but also your
logic. I have referenced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws as
you do not believe anything I say.
"Here are some quotes from the encyclopedia:
"The seven laws are first mentioned in Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:4 and
TalmudSanhedrin 56a/b:
"1. Do not murder.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not worship false gods.
4. Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally
interpreted to include incest, sodomy, male homosexual sex acts and
adultery)
5. Do not eat anything of the body of an unslaughtered animal (see
Kashrut).
6. Do not blaspheme.
7. Set up courts and bring offenders to justice."
Now nowhere does it say that EVERYTHING is allowed except for pork.
Just because these laws do not ban something, it does not mean that
one should not abide by other religious laws that are in existence. If
anything, some say that these laws are against Christianity. The same
encyclopedia says, "Critics of the Noahide laws contend that insisting
upon a basic set of moral laws is quite contrary to religious
pluralism. This holds true especially in light of the fact that the
adoption of the Noahide Laws as an enforceable legal code would
(according to most authorities) criminalize activities common to
religions other than Judaism (such as belief in the Trinity, the
worship of Jesus and the use of crucifixes, religious pictures, the
Eucharist at the Mass etc)."
.

User: "AnonMoos"
Title: Re: Did The Ebionites Ever Use The Term Son Of God As Eusebius Affirmed?	21 Oct 2004 04:42:20 PM

(1MAN4ALL) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<4177626D.A7E006F@io.com>...

Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:

AnonMoos <anonmoos@io.com> wrote in message news:<41747C87.9FBC9681@io.com>...

"Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped)" is under the
delusion that early Christianity resembled Islam.

Can't you read the decree of the first Christians Council at
Jerusalem? This is the first Christian document ever issued.

I again question not only your self-proclaimed expertise

Please don't twist my words -- I've never claimed to be an expert in
New Testament exegesis or theology (though I know more than enough to
handle Dupie)! Where I did claim to be close to an expert in many
respects was Semitic linguistics. Whether I am or not, I'm far closer
to being an expert than you are there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws

Whatever -- I didn't claim that the passages Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29
contain actual Jewish Talmudic Noahide law. To spell out in full
detail what I was implying: The passages Acts 15:20 and 15:28-29
contain universalist and "proto-natural-law" type thinking of the same
type which was later to lead to the Jewish Talmudic Noahide laws.

3. Do not worship false gods.
4. Do not be sexually immoral
5. Do not eat anything of the body of an unslaughtered animal

Yep, that's certainly the general gist of verses Acts 15:20 and
15:28-29 in the New Testament. Notice that pigs are not mentioned
either in your source or in the New Testament passage.

Now nowhere does