Why would Jewish Christians, who suppose kept Torah True, become 'Nazarenes
',
The word "Nazarene" refers to a KNOWN early sect of Jewish Christians. You may as well ask why they'd become Ebionite, their cousin group. The word "Nazarene" is basically "A sect of Torah True Christians", so why wouldn't they become Nazarenes? That's kind of like asking "Why would a Christian become Protestant"? What I believe is that the "Nazarenes" were, in Biblical terms, the most recognized sect of Jewish Torah-True followers of Jesus, along with the Ebionites. I don't think there were too many different names for the similarly minded sects, even if they were still in factions. And there's also the chance that what the Church Fathers wrote about them may have been not entirely accurate, like the Ebionite disdain for meat and wine.
What we know Biblically speaking, is that the authors of the Bible referred to the earliest known group of "Christians" as "Nazarenes". Even Paul was known as the "Ringleader of the Nazarenes", indicating that even before the gentiles were preached to, the "Chrisitans" were being known by this title, there's little reason to believe that only the Pauline version being preached to the gentiles was called "Nazarenes" only later.
necessarily. Why wouldn't they just be Torah True Christians?
Because there were only so many different groups and communities to choose from, and the "Nazarenes" were apparently one of those few, and Biblically speaking, most likely the original.
Why would Torah True Christians want to adhere to your version of the Bible?
Why would Protestants want to adhere to your version?
Besides, what is "My version of the Bible"? They didn't likely have the same "Version of the Bible" as the Orthodox came up with centuries later.
With that said, your question involves essentially proving a negative. Why would they NOT be interested in "My version of the Bible"? I should more likely ask "Why would they follow YOUR version of the Bible".
Try rephrasing your question to be more clear. As far as I'm concerned, I try to figure out what parts of the Bible were authentic and interpolated to the best of my estimation, and I can only imagine that they went with a "Version" that they considered closest to the original, which was most likely 100% Torah True and not interpolated with lawlessness.
Besides, there is evidence among Church Father writings that many of them rejected Paul, some of them only went by Matthew, and other variations among what they believed.
They weren't exactly a completely unified group and just like every other early Christian group prior to the rise of the proto-Orthodox, they had their own arguments and opinions on what was canonical and what wasn't.
Have you compiled your own bible?
I have my own books that I consider Canonical, just like Iraneus and Clement and Origen and others did. You're aware there were numerous competing canons circulating at the time right?
