User talk:John Carter/Ebionites

Quotations I view the quotations from Irenaeus, etc., as a given. On that basis, the following abridged articles have the material specifically relating to the apparent time of origin of the group, any asserted relationship with James, and any relationships with other similar groups, like the Nazarenes, as well as any other information which they might contain which would be relevant to an encyclopedia article. The verbatim articles are, clearly, verbatim.

=Personal opinions= For what it might be worth, considering that there are questions about objectivity of editors, here is my own, personal, opinion regarding the matter.

It has only recently been decided that it is mainstream to believe that Jehovah was seen by pre-exilic Jews at least as married to the Asherah. It was a not uncommon practice for people to preform ritual reenactment of the mating of the gods. The Vestal virgins are considered one example of such. It would not be unheard of, were such a ritual to have been practiced by the Jews, for it to continue without a great deal of attention. Mary might have been involved in one such ritual. If she were to have been impregnated then, it probably wouldn't be out of line according to the theories of Eliade and others for such a child to be described as a "son of the god". It is also possible, although unlikely, that Mary could have been some sort of chimera of a conjoined male and female. I have no way of knowing whether virgin birth under such circumstances is likely, given the little extant research on the subject I've seen. However, considering Mary had apparently just recently hit puberty, such might be possible.

Jesus, to my eyes, probably was the heir to the crown of David, had that dynasty been in power. Perhaps being the purported son of Joseph and Mary, who was also of the house of David, if a different part of the family, made his Davidic "percentage" higher than that of anyone else; I don't know. This would however account for the flight to Egypt, the Holy Innocents, etc., as attempts of Herodians to kill off the potential opposition.

I think when he returned, he may well have taken the Nazirite oath, which would presumably make him not a challenge to the throne during that time. If he did take the oath, I think the term was either nonspecified or at least three years, the apparent period of his ministry. His status as heir presumptive (or whatever the correct term would be), however, would certainly help him get attention to his "ministry". His calling for the "kingdom of God" certainly might help draw attention as well, given his status. However, the Jewish people were beginning to have questions, didn't look forward to seeing a potential war, and Judas may have been tired of waiting for Jesus to "manifest" his status as heir. Whatever. In any event, Jesus was brought before Pilate.

I personally think Pilate may have even offered Jesus the job as king, a bit of a "last temptation"(?), replacing the Herodians, because Jesus said "render unto Caesar" (all Pilate probably cared about anyway) and the House of David was probably more popular than the House of Herod. If the offer was made, Jesus turned it down. This might account for the strength of Pilate's claim that Jesus wasn't guilty of claiming to be king, if he turned the job down when it was offered by Pilate. It might also account for the plaque or whatever on the cross.

Anyway, at Jesus's death, the Gospels mention miracles taking place. Certainly, Christians might have interpreted even normal events as extraordinary under the circumstances, that don't mean much.

In time, particularly after the collapse of the Temple in 70, when I think it likely every known member of the House of David somehow died, of course by pure accident, riiight, the Jews realized their dream of a Davidic king was pretty much over, and had ended with Jesus. This was something they didn't particularly want to dwell on or talk about, considering, well, they had killed him. The Christians, seeing Jesus as being more than just the Davidic heir, didn't want to overemphasize possibly confusing politics and, well, "rub it in" to the Jews either, so they didn't talk about it much either. And, of course, documentation, if there was any, was probably destroyed, accidentally of course, by the Romans.

We wind up with two groups of people who, for their own purposes, don't want to discuss the possible fact that this individual may have been a kind of royal heir. Without such mention in any documents, that information would be lost to history.

4 x Jewish-Christian Gospels pages
Hi. I've never written on a side user/discussion page before so I don't know if this will work. I've noticed your edits now and then and you seem to me like someone with their head screwed on. If you've read Schneemelcher or any other mainstream source on the Jewish-Christian Gospels you'll probably judge that the 4x Jewish-Christian Gospels pages are in their current state a bit of a freak show. I'm not sure you'd want to get involved, I'm just mentioning it incase you're not looking there. I'm walking away I'm afraid... Have tried to introduce mainstream (i.e. not got the hots for the subject) content. No go area. If this note on your page is a distraction/intrusion apologies. best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)