• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jewish Messiah

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
failure to provide data and logic for the claim that Christians did not exist when Paul was going to Damascus
The burden of proof is yours - it comes down to what the essential qualities of a Christian are. From the text we can infer that it's descriptive of disciples who aligned with Paul's accomodation of foreign interests, which was in conflict of with the nationalism of the original disciples of Galilee.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1) AN EXAMPLE OF BEATING A DEAD HORSE IN A RELIGIOUS DEBATE

Clear said :

Given Ebionites failure to provide data and logic for the claim that Christians did not exist when Paul was going to Damascus to persecute them

1) Does ANY reader believe Ebionites claim that Christians did not exist before they were called "Christians? in Antioch?

2) Is there a single reader who believes Ebionites claim that the Christians Paul had persecuted (such as Stephen in Acts 7:60), and the Christians he was sent to damascus to persecute did not exist before antioch?

3) IS there ANY reader who sees supporting data in Ebionites claim that Christians did not exist before they were called "Christians" in Antioch? If you see data and logic in this claim, can you point it out to other readers?

4) Is there ANY reader who can help Ebionite out by providing data and logic that he's been unable to provide in support of his claim that Christians did not exist before they were called "Christians".

If no one can help Ebionite out with data and logic he either cannot or will not provide, then this seems to be another error and another dead horse that needs not be beaten any more. (post #460)



beating a dead horse.JPG





Ebionite NOW claims : “ it comes down to what the essential qualities of a Christian are. (post #461)



2) WHAT IS THE "ESSENTIAL QUALITY" OF THE NOUN “CHRISTIAN”?

DICTIONARIES VERSUS EBIONITE

Oxford Dictionary :
Christian : a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

Merriam-Webster dictionary Christian : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Wikipedia Christian : people who follow or adhere to Christianity

Dictionary.com Christian : a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

Cambridge Dictionary Christian : someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Collins dictionary Christian : A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Websters 1828 dictionary : A believer in the religion of Christ.

Britannica Dictionary : a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Vocabulary.com Dictionary : A Christian is someone whose religious beliefs are based on the teachings of Jesus…




EBIONITES CLAIM TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" IS : :

Ebionite claims : “From the text we can infer that it's descriptive of disciples who aligned with Paul's accomodation of foreign interests, which was in conflict of with the nationalism of the original disciples of Galilee.” Post #461


Though no reader on the forum has indicated belief in or support of Ebionites prior claims when I asked for it, here is yet another claim that I would invite readers to indicate support for if they believe this new claim and want to support his definition of "the essential quality of a Christian".

Is there ANYONE on the forum that believes this new definition of the word “Christian” instead of the typical dictionary meaning?

ANYONE want to try to help Ebionite support his new definition of the word “Christian” instead of the typical dictionary meaning?



3) WHAT EBIONITE MUST PROVE TO READERS


Ebionite, before we go any further in yet another failed claim of yours, YOU need to prove two things to readers. Especially since you’ve had no one respond that they believed in and supported your prior claims when I asked them :

FIRST : Prove to readers that you are NOT an anti-semite that is trying to make Jewish interpretation of religion look irrational and simply argumentative despite not being burdened with data and rational thought.

SECONDLY : Prove to readers you are not simply trying to break a record of “The most debate points lost in the smallest number of posts”.

I do not think you are given points for this distinction.


IF
you first prove these two points, THEN you can tell us why YOUR definition is correct and the typical dictionary definition is incorrect.



Clear
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1) WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A DEAD HORSE IF YOU CAN’T BEAT IT?”


BEATING A DEAD HORSE 04.JPG

Ebionite claimed : “ it comes down to what the essential qualities of a Christian are. (post #461)

Clear replied : “2) WHAT IS THE "ESSENTIAL QUALITY" OF THE NOUN “CHRISTIAN”?

DICTIONARIES VERSUS EBIONITE
Oxford Dictionary :
Christian : a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.
Merriam-Webster dictionary Christian : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Wikipedia Christian : people who follow or adhere to Christianity
Dictionary.com Christian : a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
Cambridge Dictionary Christian : someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Collins dictionary Christian : A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Websters 1828 dictionary : A believer in the religion of Christ.
Britannica Dictionary : a person who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Vocabulary.com Dictionary : A Christian is someone whose religious beliefs are based on the teachings of Jesus…

EBIONITES CLAIM TO THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" IS :


Ebionite : “From the text we can infer that it's descriptive of disciples who aligned with Paul's accomodation of foreign interests, which was in conflict of with the nationalism of the original disciples of Galilee.” Post #461

Though no reader on the forum has indicated belief in or support of Ebionites prior claims when I asked for it, here is yet another claim that I would invite readers to indicate support for if they believe this new claim and want to support his definition of "the essential quality of a Christian".

Is there ANYONE on the forum that believes this new definition of the word “Christian” instead of the typical dictionary meaning?

ANYONE want to try to help Ebionite support his new definition of the word “Christian” instead of the typical dictionary meaning?



3) WHAT EBIONITE MUST PROVE TO READERS
Ebionite, before we go any further in yet another failed claim of yours, YOU need to prove two things to readers. Especially since you’ve had no one respond that they believed in and supported your prior claims when I asked them :

FIRST : Prove to readers that you are NOT an anti-semite that is trying to make Jewish interpretation of religion look irrational and simply argumentative despite not being burdened with data and rational thought.

SECONDLY : Prove to readers you are not simply trying to break a record of “The most debate points lost in the smallest number of posts”.
I do not think you are given points for this distinction.

IF you first prove these two points, THEN you can tell us why YOUR definition is correct and the typical dictionary definition is incorrect. (POST #462)




EBIONITE REPLIED : “Irrelevant. The issue is how the term was used in the context of Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, not how it is used today.” (Post #463)





2) DICTIONARY AND HISTORICAL USAGE VERSUS EBIONITES “DEFINITION” OF THE WORD “CHRISTIAN”



Ebionites "definition" of "Christian" is yet another claim that loses to the dictionaries and the historical data.

The world English dictionaries are actually quite correct instead of your silly definition.

For example, lets look at the actual text.

Below is the Greek of ACTS 11:26 from an NA27 critical bible in Greek.

Immediately one notes that the Alexandrian text uses πρωτως, implying subsequently the disciples were called Christians. Though Acts itself does not tell us by whom the word was coined (Gentiles, Jews, or the disciples themselves), the usage itself is clear that it referred to those who followed Christ.

20231023_125814.jpg


Greek readers will notice the word χριστιανοι has the suffix -ιανοι (from the latin -iani) which denoted the followers of a named person. For example, the Πομπηανοι/Pompeiiani (those who followed Pompey), or καισαριανοι/Caesariani (those who followed Caesar), or the Ηρωδιανοι (those who followed Herod), etc. Even the early latin Christiani had the meaning “the partisans of Christus

The linguist/historian Luedemann points out that this ending of -ιανοι was still used in later centuries. Examples include those who followed Valentine and Simon in the second centuries (the Valentinians and the Simonians, etc.). They were indicated by the same "-ιανοι" ending.

The name Χριστιανος recurs in the New Testament, not only in Acts 26, but in later narratives such as Acts 28 and 1 Peter 4:16, etc. In such places it appears as a name applied to “the followers of Jesus” by others.

Even in the Apostolic Fathers (writings from a time when the apostles were alive or the author could have known an apostle), writers such as Ignatius uses this term for “Christian” frequently (Eph 11:2, Mg4; Rom 3:2; Pol 7:3) etc.

Even the Didache (approx. 50 a.d.) uses the term (7:4) as a self-designation of those who followed Christ.

Tacitus in his account of the fire in Rome (a.d. 64) uses the term (Xρεστιανος) to a populace who were called the disciples χρηστιανοι, and so “the followers of Χρηστος” (Christ).

Greek readers will note the “τοτε” (at that time) in the western text and as Lamouille points out, this seems to connect the use of the name with the origin of the church at Antioch.

The very formation shows that the root Χριστος was understood as a proper name, and not a title.

Also, note the verb Χρηματιζειν. This isn’t simply a synonym of καλειν (to be called) but it was used in official and judicial circles to mean “to bear a legitimate name or title".

Even in usage hostile to the Christians, the Historian Peterson tells us that the Roman provincial government designated the disciples as “belonging to a movement which was led by Χριστος”.

E.J. Bickerman tells us the Christians themselves invented the name “Christian”.

He points out “All these Greek terms…exactly as the Latin words of the same derivation, express the idea that men or things referred to, belong to the person to whose name the suffix is added” (p. 118)

He points out that the verb used in the text (in my picture) εχρηματισαν in the western text is in the active voice, and so has the sense of to “call oneself” rather than to have a name imposed upon by others.

Thus the Christians described themselves “Christians” so as to express their relationship to the Messiah. The adoption of this name also served the purpose of distinguishing this Jewish movement that had accepted the Messiah from the Rabbinic Jews who did not accept the Messiah.

Even the Jewish historian Josephus (born 37/38 a.d.) uses the name Χριστιανοι writing “This was the Christ (ο Χριστος οθτος ην) and “The tribe of Christians names after this man has lasted until the present day (“εις ετι τε νυν των χριατιανων απο τουδε ωμομασμενων ουχ επελιπε το φυλον”). He writes “”Jesus called the Christ” (“Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου”).

The historian Justin Taylor writes “Χριστιανοι is the distinguishing epithet of the disciples of Jesus; they are the followers of one who they claim is ο Χριστος [the Christ], that is the Messiah…”

So, the world dictionaries and their definition of the word "Christian" still win this point as well.



3 )ARE THESE ENDLESS SILLY AND FRUITLESS ARGUMENTS SIMILAR TO AND EXAMPLES OF ANCIENT RABBINIC JEWISH ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE MESSIAH?

I cannot help but find these endless attempts to argue and re-define Christianity in such a way so as to justify the refusal of rabbinic Judaism in their rejection of the Messiah / Christ Jesus.

IF one is to reject Jesus, it should be done based on good data rather than the warping of historical data or based on re-writing historical concepts so as to allow one to feel more justified in rejecting the Messiah.

It feels like the current debate with its strange attempts to warp historical principles and strange interpretation of sacred texts were probably much like the mechanisms involved in ancient rabbinic Judaism attempting to justify rejecting the Messiah.

@Ebionite , you still have not proven to readers that you are not an anti-semite, masquerading as a Jew, but trying to make rabbinic Jews look silly and argumentative and ignorant.


At any rate, this latest claim is yet one more dead horse that doesn’t need to be beat any more.

BEATING A DEAD HORSE 11.JPG




Clear
 
Last edited:

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING A DEAD HORSE IF YOU CAN’T BEAT IT?”
Please feel free to continue to ignore the source text in favour of those who promoted the Roman cult.

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 11:26

All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household.
Philippians 4:22

Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in [his] talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any [man]: for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, [ye] hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
When they had heard [these words], they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.
Matthew 22:15-22

For without cause have they hid for me their net [in] a pit, [which] without cause they have digged for my soul.
Psalms 35:7
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
These seem to be one reason for the expectation:

And having gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he asked of them where the Christ was to be born. And they said to him, In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it has been written by the prophet, "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, in no way are you least among the governors of Judah, for out of you shall come a Governor who shall shepherd My people Israel."
Matt. 2:4-6

And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, being least among the thousands of Judah, out of you He shall come forth to Me to become Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity.
Mic. 5:2
This exception is not from the perspective of the Tanakh. Yes, at the time they expected the prophecy to be fulfilled by the messiah, but Jesus Christ was not a traditional Hebrew messiah.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
This exception is not from the perspective of the Tanakh. Yes, at the time they expected the prophecy to be fulfilled by the messiah, but Jesus Christ was not a traditional Hebrew messiah.
I would like to hear, what do you think is traditional Hebrew Messiah and why?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I would like to hear, what do you think is traditional Hebrew Messiah and why?
The traditional Hebrew Messiah was someone from the lineage of the Hebrew Kings who restores the Kingdom of Israel based on the prophecies in the Torah and brings peace to the nations..
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Without slinging accusations of who is a cult and throwing dead horses at each other. Actually, all the various divisions of early Christianity were accused of being cults.

Ebonites - Ebionite - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Etymology​

Ancient Greek Ἐβιωναῖοι (Ebiōnaîoi), from Hebrew אביונים‎ (Ebyonim, “the Poor Ones”), plural of Hebrew אֶבְיוֹן‎ (ʾeḇyōn, “needy, poor”), itself likely a borrowing from Coptic ⲉⲃⲓⲏⲛ (ebiēn, “poor”).

Noun​

Ebionite (plural Ebionites)

  1. (historical) A member of an early Jewish Christian [ascetic] sect that lived in and around Judea and Palestine from the 1st to the 4th century.

The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian sect[1] that insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites,[2] which they interpreted in light of Jesus' expounding of the Law.[3] They regarded Jesus as the Messiah but not as divine. The Ebionites revered James the Just as the head of the Jerusalem Church and rejected Paul of Tarsus as an apostate towards the Law.[4] Their name suggests that they placed a special value on evangelical counsels about voluntary poverty.

Much of what is known about the Ebionites derives from the Church Fathers, who wrote polemics against the Ebionites, whom they deemed heretical Judaizers.[5][6] Many scholars distinguish the Ebionites from other Jewish Christian groups, e.g. the Nazarenes,[7] while others contest this.

Their scripture is a simpler version of Matthew without the Divine references to Jesus. It is an interesting possible earliest version of the Gospel of Matthew resembling the proposed Q gospel possibly dating from the 2nd century.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
1213 said:
I would like to hear, what do you think is traditional Hebrew Messiah and why?
The Messiah of the Tanakh is the man (not God) who will rule Israel during the last age of the earth, an idyllic time when there is peace between the nations.
" The Messiah of the Tanakh is the man (not God) "
I agree and I rated one's post as winner for the part quoted above by me, please, right?

Regards
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The Messiah of the Tanakh is the man (not God) who will rule Israel during the last age of the earth, an idyllic time when there is peace between the nations.
Who is the man, and to what it is based on? Will it be David?

My servant David shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my ordinances, and observe my statutes, and do them. They shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob my servant, in which your fathers lived; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children, forever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever.
Ezek. 37:24-25

Please tell, who do you think is the David's lord in this:

Yahweh says to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool for your feet." Yahweh will send forth the rod of your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people offer themselves willingly in the day of your power, in holy array. Out of the womb of the morning, you have the dew of your youth. Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind: "You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek."
Ps. 110:1-4
 

1213

Well-Known Member
The traditional Hebrew Messiah was someone from the lineage of the Hebrew Kings who restores the Kingdom of Israel based on the prophecies in the Torah and brings peace to the nations..
Yes, to me interesting question is, why do they think so.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Yes, to me interesting question is, why do they think so.
The Torah describes the Messiah and the fulfillment of prophecy as referring to the Messianic lineage for the King of Israel leading to the Messiah King of Isreal and peace among nations.


There is an alternative interpretation of the Messiah from the universal perspective of the Progressive Revelation of all of humanity reflected in the spiritual evolution of humanity, but neither the ancient tribal perspective of Judaism, Christianity nor Islam would accept this interpretation, because of their exclusive claim of their relationship to God and Creation. These narrow ancient tribal beliefs are in contradiction with the concept of a universal relationship between God, humanity, and Creation.

I consider the Baha'i Faith the belief in the Messianic Progressive Universal Revelation of Human to be the explanation of the Universal 'Source' some call God(s).
 
Last edited:

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
The traditional Hebrew Messiah was someone from the lineage of the Hebrew Kings who restores the Kingdom of Israel based on the prophecies in the Torah and brings peace to the nations..
The star prophecy describes a sceptre, and the star of Bethlehem can be interpreted as a pair of auspicious lunar occultations of Jupiter that signified to ancient astrologers the birth of a king.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The star prophecy describes a sceptre, and the star of Bethlehem can be interpreted as a pair of auspicious lunar occultations of Jupiter that signified to ancient astrologers the birth of a king.
Yes, this was the astrological interpretation at the time, and yes they were expecting a 'King' descendent from the house of David to restore the Kingdom of Israel and bring peace to the nations.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Yes, this was the astrological interpretation at the time, and yes they were expecting a 'King' descendent from the house of David to restore the Kingdom of Israel and bring peace to the nations.
The question of why their expectations were not met can be answered by a careful examination of the prophetic texts that related to that time.

Surely the Lord YHWH will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Amos 3:7
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The question of why their expectations were not met can be answered by a careful examination of the prophetic texts that related to that time.

Surely the Lord YHWH will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Amos 3:7

One factor to consider is what ]secrets(?) are revealed to whom considering there are many conflicting claims over the millennia as to what are the secrets of the prophets.

This is one of the problems that has led me to believe in Universalist perspective where I am not preoccupied as to the servants were to have the revealed secrets.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
One factor to consider is what ]secrets(?) are revealed to whom considering there are many conflicting claims over the millennia as to what are the secrets of the prophets.

This is one of the problems that has led me to believe in Universalist perspective where I am not preoccupied as to the servants were to have the revealed secrets.
The common law approach to interpretation can be useful for prophetic texts. One rule is that an interpretation that is inconsistent, absurd, or repugnant is not the preferred interpretation. The number of potentially viable interpretations can be reduced by Occam's Razor, which favours interpretations that make a minimal number of assumptions about the known facts.

The problem that I have with a univeralist approach is that it's the opposite of being set-apart, qodesh.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
DICTIONARIES VERSUS EBIONITE
The problem with Dictionaries is rigidly the words are used as stones to build walls and throw at those who believe differently.

Ebonite should be simply understood from the perspective of those that believe.
 
Top