Nazarene Space

The Two Paraklitas:
The Messiah
The Ruach HaKodesh
James Scott Trimm

Philo also describes the Word (Logos) not only as the “Son” of the “Father” but as a PARACLETE who is “perfect in all
virtue” and procures “forgiveness of sins” as well as a “supply of unlimited blessings”:

…the twelve stones arranged on the breast in four rows of three stones each, namely the logeum, being also an emblem of that reason (Logos, Word) which holds together and regulates the universe. For it was indispensable that the man who was consecrated to the Father of the world, should have as a paraclete, his son, the being most perfect in all virtue, to procure forgiveness of sins, and a supply of unlimited blessings;
(Life of Moses II, 133-134)

This Greek word (paraclete) is also a Hebrew and Aramaic word also appears in the Mishna:

He who does even a single religious duty
gets himself a single advocate (or comforter Hebrew: paraklita)
he who does even a single transgression
gets himself a single prosecutor.
(m.Avot 4:11a)

And in the Talmud it is used to refer to the sin offering::

R. Simeon said: For what purpose does a sin-offering come? —
[You ask,] ‘for what purpose does a sin-offering come?’
Surely in order to make atonement! —
Rather, [the question is:]
Why does it come before the burnt-offering?
[Because it is] like an intercessor (paraklita) who enters
[to appease the King]: When the intercessor (paraklita)
has appeased [him], the gift follows.
(b.Zev. 7b)

The Jewish Dictionary states:

The sin-offering is like the paraclete before God; it intercedes for man and is followed by another offering, a "thank offering for the pardon obtained" (Sifra, Meora', iii. 3; Tos. Parah i. 1). The two daily burnt offerings are called "the
two paracletes" (Yer. Ber. iv. 7b),
(Jewish Dictionary pp. 514-515)

Now Yochanan, who identifies the Messiah as the Word (logos) in Jn. 1:1-3, 14 and Rev. 19:13 also says of Messiah:

1 My sons, I write these [things] to you, that you do not sin: and if someone should sin, we have an advocate (Paraklita) with the Father, Yeshua the Messiah, the just [One].
2 For He is the propitiation for our sins, and not on behalf of ours only, but also on behalf of [the sins of] the whole
(1st Yochanan (John) 2:1)

The Scriptures also refer to the Ruach HaKodesh as a Paraklita:

And I will ask of My Father, and He will give you another comforter (Paraklita) that will be with you forever:
(Yochanan 14:16 HRV)

But the comforter (Paraklita), the Ruach HaKodesh, whom My Father will send in My Name,
will teach you everything, and will remind you of that which I tell you.
(Yochanan 14:26 HRV)

But when the comforter (Paraklita) comes, whom I will send you from My Father--the Spirit
of Truth who has proceeded from My Father--will testify concerning Me.
(Yochanan 15:26 HRV)

But I tell you the truth: it is profitable for you that I go: for if I do not go, the
Comforter (Paraklita) will not come to you. But when I go, I will send the Comforter (Paraklita) to
(Yochanan 16:7 HRV)

Paul describes the work of these two advocates in Romans Chapter 8:

26 Thus also, the Spirit aids our infirmity, for we do not know what is right to pray for.  But the Spirit prays on our
behalf with groans that are not describable.
27 And He who searches the hearts, knows what is the thinking of the Spirit that prays on behalf of the Set-Apart-Ones, according to the will of Eloah.
28 But we know that those who love Eloah, He aids in everything for good--those whom He before determined to be called.
29 And from the first, He knew them, and marked them out, with the likeness of the
image of His Son: that He might be the firstborn of many brothers.
30 And those whom He before marked, He called, and those whom He called, He justified, and those whom He justified, He glorified.
31 What therefore shall we say concerning these things? If Eloah [is] for us, who [is] against us?
32 And if He did not spare His Son, but delivered Him up for all of us, how will He not give to us everything with Him?
33 Who can accuse the chosen of Eloah? Eloah justifies.
34 Who condemns? The Messiah died and rose, and is at the right hand of Eloah and makes petition on our behalf.
(Rom. 8:26-34 HRV)

The coming of the Ruach HaKodesh is like the burnt offering which must be preceeded by the coming of the Messiah which is like the sin offering.  The Messiah makes petiotion on our behalf and the Ruach HaKodesh prays on our behalf.  

I know that you are out there and that you support this ministry with your prayers.
I cannot tell you how many of you have contacted me over the months and years and told me how important this ministry and this work is.  We appreciate your prayers and your moral support, but now we need you to step up to the plate and back us with your financial support as well.  

Despite all of these and other efforts,donations to this ministry have actually dropped this month.  We are now in the last third of the month, and the paypal counter is only at $390!  We have bills dues and we do not have the funds to pay them.

If you believe in the work we are doing here then now is the time.

We really need you to step forward and do your part.

Please help us bring the message of Messiah and Torah to a lost world and create Scripture study materials for believers.

You can donate by going to the pay-pal counter at or donations can be sent by paypal to

Donations can also be made out to “Nazarene Judaism” and sent to:

Nazarene Judaism
PO Box 471
Hurst, TX 76053

Views: 1098

Comment by James Trimm on May 27, 2012 at 10:11pm

Philo was a believer that Messiah was the logos, the Son of the Father, but he didn't know that Yeshua was that Son.

Comment by ben adam on June 27, 2012 at 6:29am

Shalom aleichem

I am new here, and i just found that you believed in the deity of the Mashiach.

But the  first century  nazarenes did not believe in the trinity nor in the deity of Mashiach, they were pure monotheists as the other jews were, a church father stated that: " They did not deny that the LOrd was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Ghost... but they did not confess that he was God, preexisting Word and wisdom" (Hist. eccl., III, 27,44-45).

Note that they were not ebionites because the ebionites did not believe in the virgin birth, they were clearly nazarenes.

Also, the Mashiach never stated to be YHWH in flesh, he only stated to be the shaliach of YHWH, that he came in YHWH's name and that YHWH, his father was the meshaleach, the only true Elohim who is distinct from him.

"And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true ELOHIM, and Yehoshua hamashiach whom Thou hast sent" Yohanan 17:3

"Blessed be he that cometh in the name of YHWH"

Paul stated that

"there is only one Elohim, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Adon, Yehoshua hamashiach" 1 Corinthians 8:6


It is clear from these passages and from the historical evidences that the Mashiach was not YHWH



Comment by ben adam on June 27, 2012 at 8:00am

I saw your Emunah and You will surely state that

"7. Accepted the diety of Messiah... teaching that Elohim is ECHAD but that there are "many (more than two) 'powers' in heaven" including the Messiah.

They...declare that God is one [ECHAD]...
(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)

The Mishna states that the MINIM taught:

"There are many `powers' in heaven"
(m.San. 4:5)

Clearly the MINIM in this portion of the Mishna were Nazarenes (1)
and not Ebionites, since Ebionites clearly rejected the deity of Messiah.

In the Gemara to this portion of Mishna (b.San. 38b) the Talmud discusses various proof texts that the MINIM used to support their teaching of "many powers in heaven" including the Messiah.

R. Johanan sad: In all the passages which the Minim have taken
[as grounds] for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand.
Thus: Let us make man in our image, (Gen. 1:26)
And God created [sing.] man in His own image; (Gen. 1:27)
Come, let us go down and there confound their language, (Gen. 11:7)
And the Lord came down [sing.] to see the city and the tower; (Gen. 11:5)
Because there were revealed [plur.] to him God, (Gen. 35:7)
Unto God who answereth [sing.] me in the day of my distress; (Gen. 35:3)
For what great nation is there that hath God so nigh [plur.] unto it,
as the Lord our God is [unto us] whensoever we call upon Him [sing.]; (Deut. 4:7)
And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, [like] Israel,
whom God went [plur.] to redeem for a people unto himself [sing.], (2Sam. 7:23)
Till thrones were placed and one that was ancient did sit. (Dan. 7:9)
Why were these [plurals] necessary? To teach R. Johanan's dictum;
viz.: The Holy One, blessed be He, does nothing without consulting
His Heavenly Court (literally "Family") , for it is written, The matter
is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of
the Holy Ones.(Dan. 4:14)
Now, that is satisfactory for all [the other verses], but how explain
Till thrones were placed? (Dan. 7:9) One [throne] was for Himself
and one for David [Messiah]. Even as it has been taught:
One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba's view.
R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Sh'kinah?
Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy.
Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear!
For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity;
this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba,
what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of]
Nega'im and Ohaloth [civil issues]. But one was a throne, the other
a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet (Is. 66:1).
This section of Talmud tells us that the MINIM used Tanak passages
in which Elohim was referenced in a plural form as proof texts for their teaching of "many powers in the heavens". Among their proof texts were Gen. 1:26; 11:7; 35:7; Deut. 4:7; Sam. 7:23 & Dan. 7:9). The Rabbinic Jews dismissed these as examples of Elohim speaking to "His Heavenly Court" (literally "Heavenly Family") i.e. the "watchers" of Dan. 4:14."

First, Min is an hebrew word meaning 'kind', 'species', or 'sort' (for example, the lulav is composed of "four species (of plants)", (arba minim)".). Just as the different kind of plants are called "Minim", the other kind of Jews (appart from Rabbinic Jews) are called Mini by the Rabbis. This include the Nazarenes as well as the saducees, samaritans, gnostics.....

Contrary to the general belief, "Min" is not an acronym for a believer in Yeshua because if it was the case, it would be "Maamin Yeshu Nozri" which is grammatically incorrect because of the abesence of the B' (in). It should therefore be "Maamin b'yeshu nozri" which gives ud the acronym "MBN" different from "Min".

The Minim told here in these passages are NOT the nazarenes, because they wre pure monotheists as the other Jews do.

So who were these Minim told in the Talmud?

They were another jewish-Christian sect called "Jewish gnosticism" who were teaching that God is a triune being composed of "the father, mother and son".

Marcellus was a contemporary of the Church historian Eusebius and he was present with the latter at the Council of Nicea (c. 325). Marcellus claimed a connection between the Trinity and the teachings of the great Gnostic sage, Valentinus (c. 85–150 AD).

“Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures. For he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son and holy spirit.” (B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, pg. 232)

In, we read "

Many religions besides Christianity include a triune deity. The Goddess of modern Wiccans includes Maid, Mother and Crone. The Hindu pantheon includes the Creator (Brahma), the Destroyer (Shiva) and the Preserver (Vishnu). Religions that have a triad of gods often develop family relationships between the members of the triad. This is particularly the case in the Egyptian mysteries with Osiris (Father), Isis (Mother) and Horus (Son), as well as Ra (Father), Pharaoh (Son of Ra) and Ka (the connecting and transmitting Spirit). The Gnostic symbol of the Trinity incorporates these two trinitarian formulae from the Egyptian mysteries—Father, Son and Holy (Mother) Spirit. The Gospel of the Egyptians describes such an emanation of the Trinity: “Three powers came forth from him; they are the Father, the Mother, and the Son.” Here the Mother (Holy Spirit) is the second person of the Trinity, where she might also be identified with the Egyptian Ka. The Gospel of the Egyptians further describes the emanation of a triune series of ogdoads making a total of 24 powers, as described in the Book of Revelation. “And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.”

In the tradition of the Pharaonic succession in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh is a divine king, an Anointed One, a Christos, through the connecting power of the Ka (Spirit) that unites the Father and the Son and passes on to the Pharoah the power and consciousness of the Sun God, Ra. The Pharaoh is called the Son of Ra after receiving the Ka (Hereditary Spirit) of the Father. Also, in the Mass, immediately before the minor elevation, this uniting principle of the Holy Spirit, the Ka, is again invoked. “To whom with Thee, O Mighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, be ascribed all honor and glory, throughout the aeons of aeons.”"

They were clearly gnostics and not nazarenes, the brith chadashah warns us many times about them.

YHWH bless you all

Comment by ben adam on June 27, 2012 at 11:22am

We must first define what the Logos/Miltha means.
I found this explanation on
"John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)

1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.

As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.

Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):

    * speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
    * a statement you make (Luke 20:20 – (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
    * a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
    * preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
    * command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
    * proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’”).
    * message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
    * assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
    * the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles… came together to look into this matter”).
    * revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
    * God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God”).
    * a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
    * an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
    * a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 – NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me”). [1]

The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).

The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:

The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. [2]

It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).

Norton postulates that perhaps “the power of God” would be a good translation for logos (p. 323). Buzzard sets forth “plan,” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. Broughton and Southgate say “thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action.” Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason.

The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”

If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29 and 30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.”

2. Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word:

    * And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Gen. 39:2).
    * And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Ex. 19:17).
    * And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
    * And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps. 2:4).
    * They believed in the name of His word (Ps. 106:12). [3]

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of God’s Word referring to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”

The Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt], from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.” [4] One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos), and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”

3. The logos, that is, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a “spirit-book” somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

4. The last phrase in the verse, which most versions translate as “and the Word was God,” should not be translated that way. The Greek language uses the word “God” (Greek = theos) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities. These include the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4), lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5) and men with great authority (John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). At the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. Thus, the distinction that we today make between “God” and “god” could not be made, and the context became the judge in determining to whom “THEOS” referred.

Although context is the final arbiter, it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “God” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this (see John 10:33). The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “the theos,” and the Word was “theos.” Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,”) the usual meaning would be “god” or “divine.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the logos was divine.”

A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Knew Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.” [5]

5. It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs being propounded by those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” This muthos, these myths, were often irrational, mystical and beyond understanding or explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.

The myths were often incomprehensible, but nevertheless, they had been widely accepted as the “revelation of the gods.” The pervasiveness of the muthos in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament can be seen sticking up out of the New Testament like the tip of an iceberg above the water. When Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra, the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form, and the priest of Zeus came to offer sacrifices to them. While Paul was in Athens, he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods. In Ephesus, Paul’s teaching actually started a riot. When some of the locals realized that if his doctrine spread, “the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (Acts 19:27). There are many other examples that show that there was a muthos, i.e., a body of religious knowledge that was in large part incomprehensible to the human mind, firmly established in the minds of some of the common people in New Testament times.

Starting several centuries before Christ, certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with what they called the logos, a reasonable and rational explanation of reality. It is appropriate that, in the writing of the New Testament, God used the word logos, not muthos, to describe His wisdom, reason and plan. God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood; rather, He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued.

6. In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time John was written, a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity. Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today, so, at the risk of oversimplifying, we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can.

Gnosticism took many forms, but generally Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the “Monad.” The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the “Demiurge,” created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim. The Monad sent another god, “Christ,” to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim. Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.

The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God’s love. God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and, at the same time, refutes Gnostic teaching. It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason, plan, power), which was with God. There was not another “god” existing with God, especially not a god opposed to God. Furthermore, God’s plan was like God; it was divine. God’s plan became flesh when God impregnated Mary.

7. There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that not only refer back in time to God’s work in the original creation, but also foreshadow the work of Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Noted Bible commentator F.F. Bruce argues for this interpretation:

It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God. [6]

The Racovian Catechism, one of the great doctrinal works of the Unitarian movement of the 14th and 15th centuries, states that the word “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the new dispensation and thus is similar to Mark 1:1, which starts, “The beginning of the Gospel about Jesus Christ.”

In the cited passage (John 1:1) wherein the Word is said to have been in the beginning, there is no reference to an antecedent eternity, without commencement; because mention is made here of a beginning, which is opposed to that eternity. But the word beginning, used absolutely, is to be understood of the subject matter under consideration. Thus, Daniel 8:1, “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me AT THE FIRST.” John 15:27, “And ye also shall bear witness because ye have been with me FROM the beginning.” John 16:4, “These things I said not unto you AT the beginning because I was with you. And Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us AT the beginning.” As then the matter of which John is treating is the Gospel, or the things transacted under the Gospel, nothing else ought to be understood here beside the beginning of the Gospel; a matter clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed, namely, the advent and preaching of John the Baptist, according to the testimony of all the evangelists [i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], each of whom begins his history with the coming and preaching of the Baptist. Mark indeed (Chapter 1:1) expressly states that this was the beginning of the Gospel. In like manner, John himself employs the word beginning, placed thus absolutely, in the introduction to his First Epistle, at which beginning he uses the same term (logos) Word, as if he meant to be his own interpreter [“That which is from the beginning…concerning the Word (logos) of life.” 1 John 1:1]. [7]

While we do not agree with the Catechism that the only meaning of beginning in John 1:1 is the beginning of the new creation, we certainly see how the word beginning is a double entendre. In the context of the new creation, then, “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (KJV)

1. Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents. However, that is not the case. What we have learned from the study of John 1:1 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom, plan or purpose of God], and the Word was with God, and
the Word was divine.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by it [the Word]; and without it was not anything made that was made.

2. The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as “it.” It does not have to be translated as “him,” and it does not have to refer to a “person” in any way. A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine pronoun, because like many languages, including Spanish, French, German, Latin, Hebrew, etc., the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns, and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of the noun. In French, for example, a table is feminine, la table, while a desk is masculine, le bureau, and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun. In translating from French to English, however, we would never translate “the table, she,” or “the desk, he.” And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun. We would use the English designation “it” for the table and the desk, in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender.

This is true in the translation of any language that assigns a gender to nouns. In Spanish, a car is masculine, el carro, while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta. Again, no English translator would translate “the car, he,” or “the bicycle, she.” People translating Spanish into English use the word “it” when referring to a car or bicycle. For another example, a Greek feminine noun is “anchor” (agkura), and literally it would demand a feminine pronoun. Yet no English translator would write “I accidentally dropped the anchor, and she fell through the bottom of the boat.” We would write, “it” fell through the bottom of the boat. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard it blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, he blew the trash cans over.” When translating from another language into English, we have to use the English language properly. Students who are studying Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, etc., quickly discover that one of the difficult things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun—something we do not have in the English language.

Greek is a language that assigns gender to nouns. For example, in Greek, “word” is masculine while “spirit” is neuter. All languages that assign gender to nouns demand that pronouns referring to the noun have the same gender as the noun. Once we clearly understand that the gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun, we can see why one cannot build a doctrine on the gender of a noun and its agreeing pronoun. No student of the Bible should take the position that “the Word” is somehow a masculine person based on its pronoun any more than he would take the position that a book was a feminine person or a desk was a masculine person because that is the gender assigned to those nouns in French. Indeed, if one tried to build a theology based on the gender of the noun in the language, great confusion would result.

In doctrinal discussions about the holy spirit some people assert that it is a person because the Bible has “he” and “him” in verses that refer to it. So, for example, John 14:16,17 reads:

John 14:16 and 17
(16) And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
(17) the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

In the Greek language, “spirit” is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun, “it.” So, for example, verse 17 above should be literally translated as: “The world cannot accept it (the spirit), because it neither sees it nor knows it. But you know it, for it lives with you and will be in you.” Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter, not masculine.

If the pronouns in the Greek text are neuter, why do the translators translate them as “he” and “him?” The answer to that question is that translators realize that when you are dealing with a language that assigns genders to nouns, it is the context and general understanding of the subject at hand that determines how the pronouns are to be translated into English as we have seen in the above examples (desk, bicycle, car, wind, etc.). It is amazing to us that Trinitarian translators know that the same neuter pronoun can be converted to an English masculine pronoun (e.g., “it” becomes “he”) but are evidently not as willing to see that a Greek masculine pronoun could be translated as an English neuter pronoun (e.g., “he becomes “it”), if the subject matter and context warrant it. Linguistically, both conversions could be completely legitimate. But any change depends, not on the gender assigned by the Greek language, but rather on the subject matter being discussed. For example, the logos is God’s plan and should be an it,” and “holy spirit,” when used as God’s gift, should also be translated into English as an “it.” To the un-indoctrinated mind, plans and gifts are obviously not “persons.”

Trinitarian Christians believe “the Holy Spirit” is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as “he” in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an “it,” not a “he” in Greek. Similarly, even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language, it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun, “he,” unless it could be shown from the context that the subject was actually a male; i.e., a man, a male animal, or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible). So the question to answer when dealing with “the Word,” “the Comforter” and “the holy spirit” is not, “What gender are the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek language?” Rather, we need to ask, “Do those words refer to a masculine person that would require a “he” in English, or do they refer to a “thing” that would require the pronoun “it”?” When “holy spirit” is referring to the power of God in action or God’s gift, it is properly an “it.” The same is true for the “comforter.”

In Hebrew, “spirit” is feminine and must have feminine pronouns, while in Greek, “spirit” is neuter and takes neuter pronouns. Thus, a person trying to build a theology on the basis of the gender of the noun and pronoun would find himself in an interesting situation trying to explain how it could be that “the spirit” of God somehow changed genders as the New Testament was written.

Because the translators of the Bible have almost always been Trinitarians, and since “the Word” has almost always been erroneously identified with the person of Christ, the pronouns referring to the logos in verse 3 have almost always been translated as “him.” However, if in fact the logos is the plan, purpose, wisdom and reason of God, then the Greek pronoun should be translated into the English as “it.” To demand that “the Word” is a masculine person and therefore a third part of a three-part Godhead because the pronouns used when referring to it are masculine, is poor scholarship.

3. Viewed in light of the above translation, the opening of the Gospel of John reveals wonderful truth, and is also a powerful polemic against primary heresies of the day. We have already seen (under John 1:1) that Gnostics were teaching that, in the hierarchy of gods, the god Elohim and the god Christ were actually opposed to each other. Also active at the time John was written were the Docetists, who were teaching that Christ was a spirit being and only appeared to be flesh. The opening of John’s Gospel shows that in the beginning there was only one God, not many gods. It also shows that this God had reason, wisdom, a plan or purpose within Himself, which became flesh in Jesus Christ. Thus, God and Christ are not at cross purposes as some were saying, and Christ was not a spirit being as others were saying.

The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way: “In the beginning there was one God, who had reason, purpose and a plan, which was, by its very nature and origin, divine. It was through and on account of this reason, plan and purpose that everything was made. Nothing was made outside its scope. Then, this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among us.” Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint.

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (KJV)

1. This verse is a reference to the Father, not to Christ. A study of the context reveals that this section opens in verse 6 by telling us, “There came a man who was sent by God.” We are told, “God is light,” and that God’s light shown through Jesus Christ and made him “the light of the world.” Though God was in the world in many ways, including through His Son, the world did not recognize him. He came unto his own by sending his exact image, Jesus Christ, to them, but even then they did not receive God, in that they rejected His emissary. The fact that the world did not receive Him is made more profound in the context as Scripture reveals how earnestly God reached out to them—He made his plan and purpose flesh and shined His light through Christ to reach the world—but they did not receive Him, even though He was offering them the “right to become children of God” (v. 12).

John 1:14a
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NIV)

1. The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the Word” for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the “Word” in writing had a beginning. So did the “Word” in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: “Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner.” Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a “beginning” that they tried to alter the Greek text to read “birth” and not “beginning,” but they were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read “beginning” (genesis) in Matthew 1:18. “Birth” is considered an acceptable translation of “genesis,” since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read “birth” in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the “beginning” (genesis) of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived. To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.”

2. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, “the Word became flesh,” a statement that seems so obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1, we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At the time of John’s writing, the “Docetic” movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity (“Docetic” comes from the Greek word for “to seem” or “to appear”). Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only “appeared” to be human. Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so. Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians today call this “angel-Christology.” John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God’s plan for salvation “became flesh,” i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man."

The same logic applies to the Miltha found in the peshitta

 because like in greek , miltha in aramaic means

the Divine expression of God's will and mind, proceeeding forth from Him. Like a spoken word, is realating that which the mind has thought.

Messiah was then in Elohim's plan nefore the foundation of the world, and came later to being. The same concept is found in the  other passages of brith hadashah.

Comment by ben adam on June 27, 2012 at 11:24am

we read in

"I need only reference a single Hebraic source to clarify the issue. The clarity of the reference leaves no misunderstanding and removes the veil of deceit so long used by the church to conceal truth.  Below is a quote from Everyman's Talmud - The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages, by Abraham Cohen.  Everyman's Talmud is an excellent little book (if you call almost 400 pages little) that summarizes many of Judaism's primary teachings - a book every sincere student of Scripture should have on their bookshelf.  It should be realized this is the GENERAL, STANDARD HEBRAIC understanding of this issue.  The following quote is on page 347 and is taken from the section which discusses the Messiah in the chapter on the Hereafter.

The belief was general that the sending of the Messiah was part of the Creator's plan at the inception of the Universe.  "Seven things were created before the world was created: Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden (i.e.Paradise), Gehinnom, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah" (Pes. 54a).  In a later work there is the observation: "From the beginning of the creation of the world king Messiah was born, for he entered the mind (of God) before even the world was created" (Pesikta Rab. 152b)

So, here we see how the "pre-existence" of Messiah (christ) was understood by the Hebraic mind. Remember that ALL THE BIBLE'S WRITERS WERE HEBRAIC!  Messiah was "born" in the MIND (thought, motive, plan) of YHVH (God) before creation but did NOT literally exist!  The concept of a PHYSICAL literal pre-existence is arrived at by most Christians only because they have unknowingly (or knowingly) abandoned the Hebraic concept.

I must press this issue.  It's importance is unequaled.  It must be noted how the pre-existence of the Messiah is defined in terms of his (Messiah's) existence in the MIND of G-d since before Creation.  There is absolutely no literal pre-existence assumed at all!

You see, the Hebraic mind is so overwhelmed and awed by the magnificence, power, splendor, and infinite nature of YHVH that it assumes to "exist" whatever is in YHVH's mind long before His "thought" actually physically manifests itself.  The certainty of YHVH's plan (thought) makes it as though the "thought" had already happened.  YHVH's intent or thought or motive or plan is so certain that it is said to "exist" despite its absence in the physical world!  Obviously, since the "intent" or "plan" or "motive" of YHVH has always included the coming Messiah, the Hebraic mind assumes him (Messiah) to have "existed" (in the Mind of YHVH) since before creation!  However, this "pre-existence" was NOT considered literal or physical!

This concept is witnessed from the New Testament.  In Paul's epistle to the Messianic community in Rome we find the following:

Romans 4:17 (NASB)
17 (as it is written, "A father of many nations have I made you" ) in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

The phrase, "calls into being that which does not exist." has as its literal rendering, shown in the center column reference of the NASB, "calls the things which do not exist as existing".  The New King James Version renders this phrase as, "calls those things which do not exist as though they did."  These phrases present PRECISELY the same idea as the Hebraic concept just discussed.  And no wonder, since Paul was a "Hebrew of Hebrews."

So, in his epistle Paul provides STRONG evidence that supports the traditional Hebraic meaning of Pre-existence in his description of YHVH as a "God who ... calls those things which do not exist as though they did."  Therefore, for those that wish proof from the New Testament, you now have it!  Better yet, it comes from the very epistle and the very apostle Traditional Christianity most exalts!  For those of you that prefer the King James Version, it is even more clearly stated as:

Romans 4:17 (KJV)
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

For additional contributions to the New Testament evidence I present regarding the fact that preexistence is not literal, consider the following verses:

1 Peter 1:19-20 NKJV
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained (foreknown, destined) before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
Revelation 13:8 (KJV)
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If we apply the logic of those promoting a literal preexistence of Messiah to this verse we would have to conclude that Messiah was slain upon the execution stake long before Creation!  Obviously, the Lamb (Yeshua Messiah) was not slain until long after "the foundation of the world".  Trinitarians and others promoting the anti-messiah of the Beast hate this verse because of the damage it causes to their incorrect preexistence doctrine.  So, we see hear just one more verse from the New Testament that buttresses my argument that preexistence in the Hebraic, SCRIPTURAL context is NOT a literal preexistence.  Instead it is to be understood as the state of existence in the mind, thought, plan, or motive of God.  God's divine plan included the Lamb (Messiah) before the foundation of the world; however, that Lamb did NOT literally exist until it/he was manifested at his appointed time!"

It is also found in the talmud, but i will discuss it later

These proofs, plus the historical documents about  the beliefs of the  ancient nazarenes make obvious the fact that the Messiah was no preexistent nor divine

They did not deny that the LOrd was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Ghost... but they did not confess that he was God, preexisting Word and wisdom" (Hist. eccl., III, 27,44-45).






Comment by ben adam on June 27, 2012 at 11:40am

In the talmud, we also find this concept of god's plan and thought, were we find the messiah

It was taught: Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: the Tora, Repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah... The name of the Messiah, as it is said: May his name endure forever, may his name blossom before the sun (Psa. 72:17).
Babylonian Talmud, Pes. 54a; B. Ned. 39a

You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born [and] that he emerged in the thought [of God] even before the world was created...
Pesiqta Rabbati (152a, Greater Chapter), edit. by M. Friedmann, p. 152b

Six things preceded the creation of the world. Some of them were [actually] created, and some of them [merely] arose in the thought [of God] to be created. The Tora and the Throne of Glory were created... The Fathers, Israel, the Temple and the name of the Messiah arose in the thought to be created...
Genesis Rabba 1:4

Comment by James Trimm on June 27, 2012 at 3:26pm

>Shalom aleichem

>I am new here, and i just found that you believed in the deity of the Mashiach.

>But the  first century  nazarenes did not believe in the trinity nor in the deity of Mashiach,

>they were pure monotheists as the other jews were, a church father stated that:

>" They did not deny that the LOrd was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Ghost...

>but they did not confess that he was God, preexisting Word and wisdom"

>Hist. eccl., III, 27,44-45). Note that they were not ebionites because the ebionites

>did not believe in the virgin birth, they were clearly nazarenes.

I will have to address the rest of your misinformation later today when I have more time.  However the secion of Eccl. Hist. that you quote specifies that "these are properly called Ebionites" though it may be that this particular group of Ebionites may have believed in the virgin birth (or Eusebius may have thought they did) they are clearly stated to be EBIONITES and thus it cannot be said to be speaking of Nazarenes.

I have more to say later, but I just do not have much time right now.

Comment by James Trimm on June 27, 2012 at 8:28pm

OK ben Adam, I have decided to respond to you by starting a new thread. 

Starting with: The Deity of Messiah Part 1

Comment by ben adam on June 28, 2012 at 7:02am

To James Trimm

Shalom and thanks for replying.

So you tell that those people who are related by Eusebius are  Ebionites.

Here is the complete text written by Eusebius.
"1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance 159to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.825

2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.826

3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name,827 but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed,828 being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.829" Chapter XXVII.—The Heresy of the Ebionites

Eusebius seems to not make any difference between the two group of Ebionites, the un-named second group believes in the virgin birth and the mainline Ebionites deny it. so who is the second group?

The church father Jerôme, In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, said:

"What shall I say about the Ebionites, who pretend to be Christians? Until today, in all the synagogues of the East, there is a sect among the Jews (...) which is far condemned by the Pharisees, they were commonly called Nazarenes, they believe in Christ, son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, and they say it is one that, under Pontius Pilate, suffered and rose again, with whom we also believe, but while they want to be together all Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians. "

It is clear from this testimony that the un-named ones who are told  by Eusebius are the Nazarenes, who were considered as being an Ebionite sect. Remember that Jerome calls the Nazarenes "Ebionites".

Personally,  I totally disagree with the church fathers when they  consider the Nazarenes as being an Ebionite sect, a second-class ebionites. Nazarenes are not ebionites and ebionites are not nazarenes. But they clearly did not make the distinction.

Ebionites, the poor ones, were the essenee believers, they did not make sacrifices, did not eat meat, and had a strict life in which they denied the earthly pleasures and money.They were essenees who came to believe in Yehoshua , and they always mantained the traditional essenee lifestyle.

The nazarenes were pharisee believers, following pharisaic traditions. Unlike Ebionites, they were not all poor, there were even important people (kohanim, rabbis and  rich Judeans) in  their movement.

The ebionites denied Shaul because as mere essenees , they could not understand his teachings who were heavily influenced by Pharisaic Judaism.

Anyway, both groups were strict unitarians Jews who denied the trinity , the divinity and the pre-existence  of Yehoshua hamashiyach.

may YHWH bless you.

Comment by James Trimm on June 28, 2012 at 8:05am

Nowhere do the "Church Fathers" describe "Nazarenes" as an Ebionite sect.  Eusebius never mentions the Nazarenes by name, but if you compare Epiphanius Panarion 29 with Eusebius Eccl. Hist. you will see that Eusebius refers to the early Nazarenes as the "Assembly at Jerusalem".and seeks to claim Christian continuity from them.


You need to be a member of Nazarene Space to add comments!

Join Nazarene Space












© 2016   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service