Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Chaotic Muslem

Sects Formation In Christianity And Judaism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You know, that's actually a tricky question, because we really don't know much about the ancient Notzrim/Netzarim. Their leadership died out in 135 C.E., and all we know about them is from bits and pieces of Christian literature and a few obscure references in the Talmud. In regard to the Talmud, there is debate as to whether or not it is speaking about the Christian Jesus. If we assume that is, then he (and by extension his followers) was accused of sorcery and leading Israel astray with idolatry (San 43a). That is why they were labeled "minim". Some scholars (like Ehrman) argue that this was recorded hundreds of years after the fact, and it is more relevant to the contemporary polemics of the day rather than a historical account. So, I don't have a definitive answer, but I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that's actually a tricky question, because we really don't know much about the ancient Notzrim/Netzarim. Their leadership died out in 135 C.E., and all we know about them is from bits and pieces of Christian literature and a few obscure references in the Talmud. In regard to the Talmud, there is debate as to whether or not it is speaking about the Christian Jesus. If we assume that is, then he (and by extension his followers) was accused of sorcery and leading Israel astray with idolatry (San 43a). That is why they were labeled "minim". Some scholars (like Ehrman) argue that this was recorded hundreds of years after the fact, and it is more relevant to the contemporary polemics of the day rather than a historical account. So, I don't have a definitive answer, but I hope this helps.

Isn'Pasagians an extention to Nazarenes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so. They don't appear until the 12th century. While they may have held some similar beliefs, I think there is scant/no evidence that they were a continuation of the original 1st century Netzarim (some scholars point to them as proof that the Nazarene sect did in fact survive until the 12th century, but I disagree)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us reflect previously,

 

The catholics such as I like any holy person, will know that having a beard was stated in the old testament, thousands of years ago. So of course we have no need to think that the phenomenon was taken particularly from the muslim identity as refered to earlier, as you may have seen..

 

Ps. I have a question to ask please; what text was islam formed upon before the prophet mohammed, peace be upon him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. I have a question to ask please; what text was islam formed upon before the prophet mohammed, peace be upon him.

 

 

There was no Islam before the Prophet although according to another definition of the word, every religion from God was Islam. 

 

Every prophet taught the religion of God, in other words Islam.

 

I think that evil wants division between believers of different type. Can we please address this.

 

 You are absolutely right  brother.

 

But vilification of Islam by non-Muslims is far, far more common than vilification of other religions by Muslims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that's actually a tricky question, because we really don't know much about the ancient Notzrim/Netzarim. Their leadership died out in 135 C.E., and all we know about them is from bits and pieces of Christian literature and a few obscure references in the Talmud. In regard to the Talmud, there is debate as to whether or not it is speaking about the Christian Jesus. If we assume that is, then he (and by extension his followers) was accused of sorcery and leading Israel astray with idolatry (San 43a). That is why they were labeled "minim". Some scholars (like Ehrman) argue that this was recorded hundreds of years after the fact, and it is more relevant to the contemporary polemics of the day rather than a historical account. So, I don't have a definitive answer, but I hope this helps.

 

This article claims that they survived until the fifth century 

 

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.

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11393-nazarenes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic,

Quote from Post 10:
Martin Hengel, in Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, clearly thinks James was the leader of the early Church while Peter either faded or fled.
After the withdrawal of the “twelve,” James, at the head of the elders, was able to take over complete control of the Jerusalem community. Given this situation in Jerusalem, the only possibility for Peter . . . was to move out into the Greek-speaking Diapora, where we can see his activity in Antioch and Rome, and at least his influence in Corinth. . . . Nevertheless, the succession of apostles and elders marks inner changes in the Jerusalem community which resulted in James and the elders taking over the leadership, gradually suppressing Peter and the older group of apostles . . . (96-96, 115)

Response: --- This is quite erroneous, as though there was some power struggle among the Apostles, when there was none.

Jesus had said to the Apostles in Mark 16:
15 “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.”

Peter was the main spokesman on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 when three thousand Jews accepted the Gospel Message, who were from other countries, --- The Day of Pentecost was the large celebration at Jerusalem where all able bodied Jewish men were required to attend, so thousands were there for the Feast and Celebration.

This started a great reveival among the Jews, because within a week or two they would return nto their own country and their own community, and spread the Gospel from there.
An Apostle is, --- ‘One sent forth,’ --- so they were to go out from Jerusalem, which they did. (I have a little booklet that tells where they went,
But Peter and John remained in Jerusalem for some time in the Jerusalem Church with James, the brother of Jesus.

This James was not an Apostle, but was the Pastor of the Jerusalem Church from its beginning, until he died sometime before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in AD 70.
Peter traveled to some of the areas where the Jews came from on the Day of Pentecost, to strengthen the believers there, --- and the first letter from Peter was written to:
“The Pilgrims of the dispersion In Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bythinia,” --- which indicates that he had visited them.

The Romans and the Jews were both persecuting the Christians in Jerusalem, and especially the Apostles who were still there, because they continued doing miracles, as in Acts chapters 3-6, and this infuriated the Jews in Acts 6:
7 And the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, AND A GREAT MANY OF THE PRIESTS WERE OBEDIENT TO THE FAITH.

They stoned Stephen, even though the Jews had no authority to kill anyone as they were under the Roman rule, and continued this way in Acts 12:
1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.
2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3 And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also.
--- (Peter was put in prison and you have to read the verses to see how the Lord delivered him from prison, --- but he went to the house of the Mother of Mark, where they were praying for his release.

After he came to the door, he didn’t go in because the soldiers would be looking for him the next day, so he said in Acts 12:
17 Motioning to them with his hand to keep silent, he declared to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren.” And he departed and went to another place.

--- (Notice that the Apostle James, the brother of John had been killed in verse 2, so, when he said, "Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren," --- this James was the brother of Jesus who was the Pastor of the Church in Jerusalem

At that point Peter had to ‘get out of town,’ and later he and Mark went to Rome where they ministered to the Romans, and that is where Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek.

--- There was no succession from either Peter or James. --- Later, Paul and Luke went to Rome as well where they served for the rest of their lives. Luke wrote his Gospel in Rome, and perhaps finalized it in Greece, since Luke was a Greek historian.

Placid
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic,

Is there any concept in Christianity about the authority over religion? What dose it entail?

Response: --- I am not sure I understand the question, so I will answer it two ways.
In the Gospels, when Jesus said to the Apostles, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel,” there was no one person over anyone else.
They used the Jerusalem Church as their home base until they went out in the different directions, so there was no ‘head office, or ‘head official.’

Each Church that was established was autonomous. They were independent because of the distance separating them, so the Apostles would establish Churches, appoint leaders from the spiritual men to lead the Church, then they would travel to another area, to start another Church. --- As there were more Churches, they would travel back and forth between them, and later write letters to them, as Paul did to the different Churches in Asia Minor, and as Peter did to the Churches in the areas he had traveled to, as it says in 1 Peter 1:
1 To the pilgrims in ‘Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia.’
This would be a ‘circuit letter’ that would be passed from one Church to another.


About 300 AD, the Roman Government made contact with some Church leaders who had been persecuted for years, and they agreed to forming a new Church with the Government, called the Roman Catholic Church, --- The word ‘catholic’ meant ‘universal.’ --- So they declared that Church as ‘universal,’ and it became dominant over all of the small independent Churches in the various cities and communities.

The new Church continued to persecute the smaller Churches who didn’t agree with their new doctrines (like the trinity doctrine), so this drove a division between the Roman Church and the Evangelicals. --- The Roman Catholic Church was fashioned after the Pharisaic leadership with priests and bishops, and a high priest, the Pope. --- This dynasty was involved in wars and marred the name of Christianity, because “Jesus was the Prince of Peace.”
There were no Christian wars in the New Testament, and Jesus taught the Message of Peace and Love.
--- The infamous Crusades that were blamed on Christianity were from the Church gone astray, --- those that committed atrocities in the name of the Church, were not Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church fell into disfavor because of its greed and unscrupulous means of raising money, as well as its immorality, and in the 1500’s Martin Luther, a young Monk, wanted to reform the Church from the inside, but was rejected, and put out of the Roman Church and threatened with death.
--- There were many who agreed with him and the movement spread, to become the Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s and later.
--- It was because of this that many present day denominations started in different countries, The Lutherans in Germany, The Mennonites, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Brethren, Nazarene, Anglican, Presbyterian, and many Gospel Churches, in various other countries.

These denominations did not split off from a main Church body as a lot of critics like to say, but again they were separated by distance.
As they grew, the various Churches had joint meetings or Conventions together, and the different denominations have their own government.
--- The best comparison of the Evangelical denominations is to the original ‘Twelve tribes of Israel,’ who each had their own governments, but who all worshiped the same God and the same Directives.

There are disagreements in some doctrines, and the emphasis on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, --- but Salvation is by Faith, not by doctrines or Spiritual gifts.
--- The only split is between the Evangelicals and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches who have changed their teaching from the teaching of the Gospel and the New Testament.

Will give the second answer later.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our prophet also said :Spread Quran. This shouldn't negate other things he said about leadership.

And there was no churches in early Christianity, they used to use synagogues for worship.

The church was called Bay'ah in Quran which is a name used by Arab Christians as well. It carries the meaning of contract, deal and covenant and they relate this word to this verse:

23You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

Which is similar to a verse in Quran

If this contract is from God then it should meet the utmost perfection. Contracts should be clear with clear conditions .they are usually done by 2 individuals . If this is from God then he must have left a person who shall do the contracts. You know, legal representative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chaotic,


Jesus said in John 8:
12 “I am the light of the world, he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
He says again in John 9:
5 “As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

--- So, in saying, “as long as I am in the world,” which indicates there would be a time when Jesus would no longer be physically, in the world.

From the time He was born till his ascension, the focus was always on Jesus.
He was the theme of the Gospels because the Gospel writers knew Him and lived with Him. --- After His ascension, He was no longer physically in the world, and in the Book of Acts, the name, Jesus Christ, was reversed and is generally Christ Jesus. --- From then on, the emphasis was on Christ.

It says in 2 Corinthians 5:
19 “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”

There is no place where it says “God was in Jesus, reconciling the world unto Himself," because Jesus had a human body which was not eternal.
--- But if we identify the Word which came down from heaven with Christ, who was not human, but who indwelt Jesus in His earthly ministry, then it is easy to identify that the Word that came from heaven was Christ.
--- Notice again what it says in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angel said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him (God) his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

Notice that it said, The Word came down from Him (God) --- and it said His name will be Christ Jesus.
--- So it was the Word that was ‘of those nearest to God.’


It says in Ephesians 6:
23 “Christ is the head of the Church, and He is the Savior of the body.”
In John 1:1 it said, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God
3 All things were made through Him.

--- So the Word was with God from the beginning and was the ‘beloved Son of God, --- which it verifies in these verses in Colossians 1:
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

To show the conclusion of Christ being preminent over all except Almighty God, I will give this from 1 Corinthians 15:
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, THAT GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.

So Christ is the head of the Church, and leads true believers by the Holy Spirit.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But vilification of Islam by non-Muslims is far, far more common than vilification of other religions by Muslims. 

I don't know if this true or not.  Here, no religion is vilified but we always poke fun at each other like "those stinky Christians need to take a shower" or "those Muslims need to find a woman instead of a goat".  It's just jokes and nobody really means it or takes it seriously.  I don't see vilification of any religion with serious intent to hurt the other.  Maybe it different where you live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

baqar, on 14 Oct 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

"But vilification of Islam by non-Muslims is far, far more common than vilification of other religions by Muslims."

If we compare Islam and Christianity globally today I think it may be true. The reason for this is probably that Christian countries generally have freedom speach and a free press and Muslim countries dont. But this mean that muslims in Christian countries are free to vilificate as Christians are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be right, Andres. 

 

But there is yet another reason - perhaps more pertinent.

 

Muslims fully believe in and respect Jesus but Christians have no particular regard for Muhammad. 

 

So while an Islam-hating Christian can lash out at Islam to his heart's content, the Muslim does not have that privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...