Anyone know of Nazarene Judaism?

[Nazarene National]

Anyone?

 

[George-ananda]

Nazarene Judaism is the ancient and original
Jewish sect of the original
Jewish followers of Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism.
We believe Yeshua came to be the Messiah of Judaism,
not to create a new non-Jewish religion.

I cheated and looked it up. What does Messiah mean in this context?

 

[Zardoz]

I'm an Ebionite, similar. The term Nazarene is often hijacked by various church movements.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Zardoz , how would you rate this article on the Nazarenes?

 

[wizanda]

Personally think the Essenes, who had made a dedication to be separated to God, are Nazar and Essenes... Which is where the term came from in the Bible Nazarenes.

The early followers of Yeshua were called, "Followers of the Way" or "the Poor ones (Ebionites)".

Using the definition of Christian to refer to these movements in anyway, intermingles numerous religious beliefs, that most of these groups would be shocked at....Specifically:

• jesus coming as a human sacrifice.
• jesus being the 'I Am' statements.
• That you have to drink alcohol, and swear an oath it is a sacrifice.
  
• Believing in jesus to gain salvation.
• That, "there is atonement from the death of the righteous..."
  
• etc....

Basically most of Christianity, from the gospel of John, the teachings of Paul, and Simon the stone (petros).

Curious if people make this distinction when questioning these sects of Judaism, as at their origins, these writings weren't the basis for belief as they are now, and it is interesting to compare the differences, to see what was the original idea of Yeshua..

 

[Nazarene National]

Nazarene Judaism is the ancient and original
Jewish sect of the original
Jewish followers of Yeshua as the Jewish Messiah of Judaism.
We believe Yeshua came to be the Messiah of Judaism,
not to create a new non-Jewish religion.

I cheated and looked it up. What does Messiah mean in this context?

An anointed one to redeem his people. (Mashiach) One who deserves a kingdom or a right. (Shiloh)

 

[Nazarene National]

I'm an Ebionite, similar. The term Nazarene is often hijacked by various church movements.

That is true. The original Nazarene were Torah-observant Jews.

 

[Nazarene National]

Personally think the Essenes, who had made a dedication to be separated to God, are Nazar and Essenes... Which is where the term came from in the Bible Nazarenes.

The early followers of Yeshua were called, "Followers of the Way" or "the Poor ones (Ebionites)".

Using the definition of Christian to refer to these movements in anyway, intermingles numerous religious beliefs, that most of these groups would be shocked at....Specifically:

• jesus coming as a human sacrifice.
• jesus being the 'I Am' statements.
• That you have to drink alcohol, and swear an oath it is a sacrifice.
  
• Believing in jesus to gain salvation.
• That, "there is atonement from the death of the righteous..."
  
• etc....

Basically most of Christianity, from the gospel of John, the teachings of Paul, and Simon the stone (petros).

Curious if people make this distinction when questioning these sects of Judaism, as at their origins, these writings weren't the basis for belief as they are now, and it is interesting to compare the differences, to see what was the original idea of Yeshua..

Well it depends on context. The Nazarene did use the mainstream cannons of Scripture for quite a while. If you read those statements in a Jewish context, it would make sense to a 1st century Nazarene Jew. For example, in Judaism, a righteous human can atone for his people, that belief has existed before the B'rit Chadasha was even written. In Judaism, the Word (Memra or Dabar) is like the "hand of Hashem". It acts a a mediator between the divine and the mortal. So when Yeshua said "I Am" he is refering to himself as the Memra which is a power of Hashem. The premise of Nazarene Judaism is the belief that belief in Yeshua saves. In the Tanakh, you had to believe in "messiahs" and prophets just as we believe in Yeshua. Once seen in a Jewish context, it seems more pliable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the Tanakh, you had to believe in "messiahs" and prophets just as we believe in Yeshua.

What does it mean to "believe in" - for example - Saul or Micah, and where in the Tanakh am I instructed to do so?

 

[George-ananda]

An anointed one to redeem his people. (Mashiach) One who deserves a kingdom or a right. (Shiloh)

What could that possibly look like in the modern world of 2016?

 

[Zardoz]

That is true. The original Nazarene were Torah-observant Jews.

Yes, but I think they would more likely call themselves Ebionites (Poor ones, as in humble - poor in spirit). Nazarene would probably be a label that others would use to refer to them. They would not all be in or from the region of Nazareth anyways, even if the etymology of the name is from place name.

 

[Zardoz]

@Zardoz , how would you rate this article on the Nazarenes?

Pretty accurate, clearly shows that we don't know very much truth about the early Jewish followers of Yeshua, as almost all info comes from the early Roman church. The church labeled them heretics and worked to destroy them, which it accomplished by the fourth century. Nothing drew the ire of the early church as much as those who promoted Torah, and it labeled all who did so as 'Judaisers'.

 

[wizanda]

They would not all be in or from the region of Nazareth anyways

There wasn't a place called Nazareth... Nazar means to be separated to God, like within Nazarite.

Matthew 2:23 and came and lived in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

We've even now created a place called Nazareth to make it fit; yet as saying previously it is more likely that Nazar Essene became one term, and people got confused.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pretty accurate, clearly shows that we don't know very much truth about the early Jewish followers of Yeshua, as almost all info comes from the early Roman church. The church labeled them heretics and worked to destroy them, which it accomplished by the fourth century. Nothing drew the ire of the early church as much as those who promoted Torah, and it labeled all who did so as 'Judaisers'.

Thank you.

I found the following to be somewhat confusing ...

Jerome's Account.

"What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called 'Nazarenes'; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither."

The Nazarenes, then, recognized Jesus, though it appears from occasional references to them that they considered the Mosaic law binding only for those born within Judaism, while the Ebionites considered this law binding for all men (Hippolytus, "Comm. in Jes." i. 12). The Nazarenes therefore rejected Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. Some accordingly declared even that the Nazarenes were Jews, as, for instance, Theodoret ("Hær. Fab." ii. 2: οἱ δὲ Ναζωραῖοι Ἰουδαῖοί εἰσι); that they exalted Jesus as a just man, and that they read the Gospel of Peter; fragments of this Gospel of Peter have been preserved (Preuschen, l.c. p. 13). Aside from these references, Theodoret, however, makes the mistake of confounding the Nazarenes and Ebionites; he is the last one of the Church Fathers to refer to the Nazarenes, who probably were absorbed in the course of the fifth century partly by Judaism and partly by Christianity.

I find the reference to virgin birth confusing. How does one "believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, ... who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven" while exalting Jesus as "a just man" And how can one maintain Jesus to be "the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate" while embracing the Gospel of Peter when:

One of the chief characteristics of the work is that Pontius Pilate is exonerated of all responsibility for the Crucifixion, the onus being laid upon Herod, the scribes, and other Jews, who pointedly do not "wash their hands" like Pilate. However, the Gospel of Peter was condemned as heretical already ca. 200 AD for its alleged docetic elements. Other elements which may have led to its condemnation are its more supernatural embellishments, including astronomically tall angels, the Harrowing of Hell, and the fact that the Cross of Christ itself is portrayed as moving itself out of the tomb and uttering the word "Yes" in response to a heavenly voice.

- Wikipedia: Gospel of Peter

Any thoughts?

 

[Zardoz]

There wasn't a place called Nazareth...

Yes, that's why I said "...even if the etymology of the name is from place name" because the existence of it is in dispute; and no debate is permitted in comparative religion forum, so I wanted to keep it open.

 

[Zardoz]

...
Any thoughts?

Well, as we all know the victors write the history books; so it's not a surprise to me that the roman church would turn Pontius Pilate into a victim almost.and lay the blame with the Jews.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, as we all know the victors write the history books; so it's not a surprise to me that the roman church would turn Pontius Pilate into a victim almost.and lay the blame with the Jews.

So, are you among those who believe that Theodoret erred when he said ...

‘The Nazaraeans are Jews who know Christ as a righteous man, and use the Gospel called “according to Peter”.’
​

... and was confusing the Gospel of Peter with Hebrews?

I guess that my second question would be: Do you accept Peter as authoritative scripture?

 

[Zardoz]

So, are you among those who believe that Theodoret erred when he said ...

‘The Nazaraeans are Jews who know Christ as a righteous man, and use the Gospel called “according to Peter”.’
​

... and was confusing the Gospel of Peter with Hebrews?d

I guess that my second question would be: Do you accept Peter as authoritative scripture?

I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give a meaningful answer right now. I'm moving, and all my books are packed. All I have is a Chumash with Rashi and a Siddur.

As a general principal, I do not accept anything from this period as 'authoritative scripture' without reservation.

Everything is translated, compiled, and repackaged from earlier sources. Anything in those sources not fitting accepted dogma is modified or discarded.

Without access to these sources, I try to recompile them from the available corrupted texts. Separate the 'wheat from the chaff' as it were, to find what I think was the original teachings.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks, @Zardoz. Good luck with the move.