The Interpretation of Scripture

[Cam42]

Isn't this ironic....I just had a conversation about the Ebionite Heresy the other day.

Yes, it is a heresy. It is discussed by our old friend St. Ireneaus. In his work, "Against Heresies."

He says:
[quote]Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God. (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi)[/quote]

Now, the Ebionites should throw a gigantic red flag for you precisely because they only use Matthew's Gospel. You know, the one you have been bashing.

[quote]For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they – for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians – sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired. But he, wishing to test them individually, and fearing lest they might perchance, by taking counsel together, conceal the truth in the Scriptures, by their interpretation, separated them from each other, and commanded them all to write the same translation. He did this with respect to all the books. But when they came together in the same place before Ptolemy, and each of them compared his own interpretation with that of every other, God was indeed glorified, and the Scriptures were acknowledged as truly divine. For all of them read out the common translation [which they had prepared] in the very same words and the very same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this, – He who, when, during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted, and when, after seventy years, the Jews had returned to their own land, then, in the times of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, inspired Esdras the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation. ( III, xxi)[/quote]

[quote]He will judge also the Ebionites; [for] how can they be saved unless it was God who wrought out their salvation upon earth? Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man? And how shall he (man) escape from the generation subject to death, if not by means of a new generation, given in a wonderful and unexpected manner (but as a sign of salvation) by God – [I mean] that regeneration which flows from the virgin through faith? Or how shall they receive adoption from God if they remain in this [kind of] generation, which is naturally possessed by man in this world? And how could He (Christ) have been greater than Solomon, or greater than Jonah, or have been the Lord of David, who was of the same substance as they were? How, too, could He have subdued him who was stronger than men, who had not only overcome man, but also retained him under his power, and conquered him who had conquered, while he set free mankind who had been conquered, unless He had been greater than man who had thus been vanquished? But who else is superior to, and more eminent than, that man who was formed after the likeness of God, except the Son of God, after whose image man was created? (Adv. Haer. IV, xxxiii)[/quote]

[quote]Vain also are the Ebionites, who do not receive by faith into their soul the union of God and man, but who remain in the old leaven of [the natural] birth, and who do not choose to understand that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and the power of the Most High did overshadow her: wherefore also what was generated is a holy thing, and the Son of the Most High God the Father of all, who effected the incarnation of this being, and showed forth a new [kind of] generation; that as by the former generation we inherited death, so by this new generation we might inherit life. Therefore do these men reject the commixture of the heavenly wine, and wish it to be water of the world only, not receiving God so as to have union with Him, but they remain in that Adam who had been conquered and was expelled from Paradise: not considering that as, at the beginning of our formation in Adam, that breath of life which proceeded from God, having been united to what had been fashioned, animated the man, and manifested him as a being endowed with reason; so also, in [the times of] the end, the Word of the Father and the Spirit of God, having become united with the ancient substance of Adam’s formation, rendered man living and perfect, receptive of the perfect Father, in order that as in the natural [Adam] we all were dead, so in the spiritual we may all be made alive. For never at any time did Adam escape the hands of God, to whom the Father speaking, said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” And for this reason in the last times (fine), not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the good pleasure of the Father, His hands formed a living man, in order that Adam might be created [again] after the image and likeness of God. (Adv. Haer. V, i, 3)[/quote]

I think that pretty much defeats the whole Ebionites were right and should be taken seriously thing. They were a heretical sect, regardless of when they began, they were erroneous. Much like you.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Of course! Please note the date of Irenaeus' writing. It was about 180 A.D., long after the early disciples of Jesus were dead. The original disciples, members of the Jerusalem community, were killed or dispursed following the sack of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and most of those remaining after Roman defeat of the Jewish rebellion in 130 A.D. Later, Gentile Christianity developed largely based on Paul's teachings.

And any prior teaching that didn't support its position was labeled "heretical." The Church still does that today with anything with which it disagrees. It has a well established track record of doing so. Even St. Athanasius was excommunicated for heresy at one point.

However, you are overlooking the fact that the Nazarene-Ebionites were the original members of the Church from about 30 A.D. until the Roman defeats. They were directly taught by Jesus himself and the apostles. Hence, theirs were the original Christian beliefs. Comparatively, Iraneus was a latecomer. I'm glad you studied him recently. But you should also study the history of the very early Church.

LittleLes

Edited March 19, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]Of course! Please note the date of Irenaeus' writing. It was about 180 A.D., long after the early disciples of Jesus were dead.[/quote]

AHEM!!!! Attention folks....we are offically now circular. Littleles is now using the tactic of it is too new....again.

Wow...I thought we were past that. St. Irenaeus' writings are authentic. Unfortunately when you can't disprove, which is often, you resort to the same tired, disproven theories. Give that one a rest.

[quote]And any prior teaching that didn't support its position was labeled "heretical."[/quote]

Proof for that statement please.

[quote]Comparatively, Iraneus was a latecomer. I'm glad you studied him recently. But you should also study the history of the very early Church.[/quote]

You are kidding right. St. Iranaeus a latecomer. That actually made me smile. A latecomer to the game would be you. St. Irenaeus is part of the very early Church.

Circular....

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM,

Yes.

You're getting quite mixed up. You just introduced as proof of the claim that the Ebionites/Nazarenes were "heretics" the writings of Irenaeus.

If you wanted to use other 2nd and 3rd century writings to accuse the Ebionites of being "heretics," you might have used "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" or Epiphanius, or Oregin.

However, Acts, which covers the period 30 to about 64 A.D. does not term these early disciples, who did not believe in Christ's divinity, as heretics. At that time they were mainstream disciples.


Little Les

Edited March 19, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]You're getting quite mixed up.[/quote]

No, actually, I am quite clear. They are heretics. They were proven to be so and I just showed you where. If you don't like it, tough. Truth is truth. Hard proof, it is hard to refute.

[quote]If you wanted to use other 2nd and 3rd century writings to accuse the Ebionites of being "heretics," you might have used "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" or Epiphanius, or Oregin.[/quote]

I could have, but since we are already familiar with St. Irenaeus, I decided to stick with his work. It was enough. Your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't refute him or his statement.

[quote]However, Acts, which covers the period 30 to about 64 A.D. does not term these early disciples, who did not believe in Christ's divinity, as heretics.[/quote]

Do you think that there might be a reason that they are not mentioned in Scripture? Could it be that they were contrary to Christ? Hmmm..... I think so.

You've done another end around. How about proving your assumptions? It would be a nice change from your uninformed opinion.

Cam

[Archangel]

[quote]"Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term (Ebionite) did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe Mosaic Law."[/quote]

This quote is out of context. The following sentence is this:

[b]These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics.[/b]

[quote]I more or less agree, then, with the original Christian view of Jesus.[/quote]

If you are agreeing with the Ebionites, then you are agreeing with an "early Christian sect infected with Judaistic errors."

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm[/url]

Edited March 20, 2005 by Archangel

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM,

The term "Nararene" appears in Acts 25:5 where Paul is called "the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". This, of course, was an error. James, the Brother of Jesus, was their leader. So "Nazarenes" was the term most broardly used for the early Christian movement, along with "The Way" (Acts 24:14), Saints, Children of Light, etc.

Hi Archangel,

Thank you for pointing out that the Catholic Encyclopedia (in its explanation - remember the CE is an apologetics text ) says that the Ebionites "gradually drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy...etc. Viewed by current true believers, that's the best face to put on it. But it would be more accurate to say that later Christianity developed a different belief system and drifted away from the original one of the Nazarenes/Ebionites. Keep in mind that first Christian community in Jerusalem headed by James florished from 30 A.D. to about 80 A.D. This was the Nazarene group of which Paul is called the 'ringleader" in Acts .( The term "Christian" developed later, if I recall at Corinth). These first disciples of Jesus were dispursed, initially by the destruction of the Temple under Titus in 70 A.D., and later when the Jewish Insurrection was put down under the Emperior Hadrian in about 130 A.D.

But the Gentile communities (mostly Pauline) and Gnostic Christians survived. The Gnostic communites were also later labeled as heretical. (Unfortunately, main line Christianity had already incorporated John's gospel so they were stuck with it.

LittleLes

Edited March 20, 2005 by LittleLes

[jasJis]

Les,
It's been shown to you repeatedly where you are wrong.
Repeating your statements and ignoring where you have been shown wrong does not make you right.
Please stop being a boor. Nobody here wants to read it.

[Cam42]

[quote]The term "Nararene" appears in Acts 25:5 where Paul is called "the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes". This, of course, was an error. James, the Brother of Jesus, was their leader. So "Nazarenes" was the term most broardly used for the early Christian movement, along with "The Way" (Acts 24:14), Saints, Children of Light, etc.[/quote]

And there it is folks....I give clear evidence that the Ebionites are a heretical sect. Littleles says no they cannot be. I say here is proof by a CHURCH FATHER from the 2ND CENTURY. He says, you are wrong it is too new and not in the Bible. See look at Acts. It is right there, the Nazarenes......

What? We are talking about the Ebionites, not the Nazarenes. Now of course, he will come back and say, "Well, I said Ebionite/Nazarene right off the bat."

Yes, but you abandoned that aspect quickly, when I spoke only of the Ebionites, so did you. You recognized that they were separate. Then you make the joining again, when it suits you.

[quote]But this I confess to thee, that according to the way, which they call a heresy, so do I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets (Acts 24:14)[/quote]

[quote]confiteor autem hoc tibi quod secundum sectam quam dicunt heresim sic deservio patrio Deo meo credens omnibus quae in lege et prophetis scripta sunt (Acts 24:14)[/quote]

[quote]Let them, therefore, saith he, among you that are able, go down with me, and accuse him, if there be any crime in the man. (Acts 25:5)[/quote]

[quote]qui ergo in vobis ait potentes sunt descendentes simul si quod est in viro crimen accusent eum (Acts 25:5)[/quote]

Yeah, those verses are clearly speaking of Nazarenes, because they name them.....uh where?

The only instance of the word Nazarenes occurs in Acts 24:5 where it says:
[quote]We have found this to be a pestilent man, and raising seditions among all the Jews throughout the world, and author of the sedition of the sect of the Nazarenes.[/quote]

Here is what commentary on this passage says:
[quote]St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts, xxiv, 5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: "Concerning this sect [airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted" (Acts, xxviii, 22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: "There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition [aireseis apoleias]". In later Greek, philosophers' schools, as well as religious sects, are "heresies".[/quote]

[quote]But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest; for as concerning this sect, we know that it is every where contradicted. (Acts 28:22)[/quote]

[quote]rogamus autem a te audire quae sentis nam de secta hac notum est nobis quia ubique ei contradicitur (Acts 28:22)[/quote]

[quote]But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pt. 2:1)[/quote]

[quote]fuerunt vero et pseudoprophetae in populo sicut et in vobis erunt magistri mendaces qui introducent sectas perditionis et eum qui emit eos Dominum negant superducentes sibi celerem perditionem (2 Pt 2:1)[/quote]

It is clear that through his own defense in the remainder of Acts 24 that Paul is not the leader of this group, but rather goes to the synagogue to witness to them. As he is standing among them he is arrested and charged with being their leader. Nowhere does Paul say that he is the leader of this sect. This is proven by his statement of witness in Acts 24:14 quoted above.

Sheesh....sola scriptura is a problem.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi Jas Jis,

No evidence has been shown me that I'm wrong. Just constant restatments of the party line by those who, because of their belief system, have to maintain it.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

No CAS,

The Ebionites/Nazarenes were originally one group called originally the Nazarenes or "the Way" both terms found in Acts.

The Ebionite name evolved a bit later arguably from the "poor ones." And a good deal later these names were attached to two slightly divergent groups. I believe this was in the second century, the earliest evidence of the "heretic" claim you are trying to use to discount that fact that they accepted an early Matthew which does not have nativity account and does not describe Jesus as divine.

Reread your Catholic Encyclopedia admission of this point.

But if you would like another on-line reference that should be able to help you understand the terms " Nazarene,Ebionote," try Word Reference at:

[url="http://www.wordreference.com/definition/ebionite.htm?v=b"]http://www.wordreference.com/definition/ebionite.htm?v=b[/url]

LittleLes

Edited March 20, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]No evidence has been shown me that I'm wrong.[/quote]

Let's see....

Scripture
Early Church Fathers
Aquinas
Oecumenical Councils
Papal Documentation
current philosophy
scholastic philosophy


Oh yeah, and I have even used a Protestant once.

You are so wrong. What have you used? Your opinion. That is authoratative. Whatever.

Cam

Edited March 20, 2005 by Cam42

[Cam42]

See, I called it.....

Cam (not CAS) says:
[quote]Now of course, he will come back and say, "Well, I said Ebionite/Nazarene right off the bat."[/quote]



Littleles says:
[quote]The Ebionites/Nazarenes were originally one group called originally the Nazarenes or "the Way" both terms found in Acts.[/quote]


You are sooooooooooooo predictable.

WOW

How about a thoughtful argument. It would prove a bit more of a challenge.

Cam

[LittleLes]

Hi CAM

I continue to use valid historical references. Sorry if they don't support your belief system.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote]I continue to use valid historical references.[/quote]

They are not valid. They are not sound. They are misrepresented. I have shown you how. Now respond to what I have actually said. You can't. I use your own doucmentation to show you your errors......

Cam