Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents) -- Utah's Religion Debate

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:26:54 05/24/08 Sat
Author: XXXXX
Subject: Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents)
In reply to: Lord Veritas 's message, "Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents)" on 21:38:13 08/07/05 Sun

>Hello again, Sheepdog,
>You mentioned that there were other texts that did not
>make it into the Bible. Please put all info about
>those here. To help you get started, I suggest you
>tell us how the Gospel of Thomas could have been
>written by Thomas when he was killed more than five
>decades before it was written. Write as much as you
>need to write about the subject here, so that you will
>no longer have to use this as a distraction from the
>salvation doctrine argument, either.
HUH ?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents) -- Capital Rendition, 09:45:24 03/20/09 Fri

Regarding the "Nazarene" prophecy":

5. For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no rasor shall come on his head: FOR THE CHILD SHALL BE A NAZIRITE UNTO GOD FROM THE WOMB; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
6. Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:
7. But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: FOR THE CHILD SHALL BE A NAZIRITE TO GOD FROM THE WOMB TO THE DAY OF HIS DEATH.
(Judges 13)

A "Nazarene" was one from "Nazareth", which was the the Nazirites. At the time of the prophecy, there was no Nazareth; at the time of Christ, it was a colony of northern Essenes (distinct from the more ascetic southern Essenes of Qumran), the primary inheritors of the Naziritic traditions (though the Pharisees has a ritual mimicking it, referenced in Acts in one of Shaul's/Paul's visits to the Temple).

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents) -- CR (again), 09:49:41 03/20/09 Fri

>A "Nazarene" was one from "Nazareth", which was the
>[town of] the [women] Nazirites.

Board software deleted angle-bracketed words.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: Rants about the "lost gospels" (another exploration of one of Sheepdog's tangents) -- XXXXX, 16:29:41 07/15/09 Wed

>>A "Nazarene" was one from "Nazareth", which was the
>>[town of] the [women] Nazirites.
>
>Board software deleted angle-bracketed words.
HUH ?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]