Nazarene Movement and Christianity?

[Aaron S]

Shlama Achi,

Here's my understanding:

The Nazarene movement rejects the progression of traditions coming from Western & Greek philosophies that were prominent in the early all-Gentile church. A big date for us to note is the 4th century and the big name of the time is Constantine (not excluding the dissenters of whom Polycarp wrote). AFAIK, the Nazarene movement rejects a Good News which is devoid of Torah... so what fellowship does the true Good News have with corruptions therein? It's postured that there has been a remnant of Nazarenes through the centuries and the fullness of the restoration of the movement is a sign of the end times.

Personally, I don't believe that the Truth indeed necessitates a complete separation and withdrawal; what needs to happen is a humbling of factions to the Word of Truth and the Good News of a Torah of Freedom and Liberty imparted by the Spirit of Mashiyach. It's tough though, because things as they are now are much different than 2 millenia ago, and it takes a lot of discernment to understand how to respond to today's culture. Our main intention is to not compromise with the word of Elohim, but at the same time, we need to be careful as to not become zealous to the point of abuse (i.e. the religion of the Pharisees).

As far as Trinity goes, you should read Roth's position in this thread.

Regarding what to make of the Nazarene claims: One must understand the Scriptures sequentially: we first read and understand the TaNaKh, then the teachings of Mashiyach (not due to precedence, but because one doesn't study Calculus before learning Algebra). Once one properly understands that of which the Messiah's teachings actually consisted, one can move on to the Epistles and coordinate what they read with the words spoken by Y'shua: Y'shua and Torah go hand-in-hand.

Finally:
Mark 10:17-21; Was Y'shua oversimplifying the Good News, or are these the Kingdom values? (And upon this foundation does the Nazarene movement follow)

[Aaron S]

I'm no expert on the history of all these goings-on. I put in my two cents...however valuable they are to you: but I shall cede to those better versed on the subject. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->

[Burning one]

As far as Trinity goes, you should read Roth's position in this thread.

Do Modern Nazarene movements accept the 325 A.D. Ecumenical council of Nicaea or its re-affirmation using slightly different Semitic terminology under Mar Isaac in 410 A.D.? This is a very serious issue, I want a clear answer. No sidestepping please.

Shlama Rafa,

i'm not trying to side-step, but you will probably find it difficult to get a majority answer to your questions, because there is no "set" belief amongst "Nazarene" movements. there is no standard of faith or credal position that is promoted or maintained, because there is no recognized form authority other than that Yeshuwa is the Head of the Assembly, and the priesthood is comprised of the entire Body. that is a quite generally-accepted belief, i have personally found, but beyond that, you are going to encounter all kinds of positions regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son, and especially so for the calendrical setting of what "Nazarenes" call Passover/Pesach, not Easter.

if you were to ask five "Nazarenes" the same question, you would get five different answers, almost assuredly. heck, you would probably get ten! <!-- s:lookround: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/lookround.gif" alt=":lookround:" title="Look Round" /><!-- s:lookround: --> i can make fun cause i am one! <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: --> but seriously, it is a question you would have to ask on an individual basis, because there is no recognized authority amongst "Nazarenes" other than trying to be diligent to understand and apply the Word as best as is personally possible.

that being the case, i'm willing to discuss my personal perceptions of the things you are wondering about, but they are merely those of one individual who has been wrong many a time in his life and reserves the right to future corrections! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/happy.gif" alt="" title="Happy" /><!-- s -->


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy

[Aaron S]

I wasn't trying to downplay the significance of these questions. They are very important to me also and they do make me wonder, but as Jeremy said, there's no authority (hierarchy) set up to explicitly speak into such questions. Rafa: if you have any thoughts regarding these topics, I'd love to hear what you have to say regarding them. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
It's my belief that Nazareanism strives to pull away from, put bluntly, the erroneous traditions arising from Western dominance, yet it's also apparent to me that many are ignorant of such complications: so in essence, there's a striving more toward an Eastern view of the Scriptures, but there are areas of indecisiveness where people slide back to Western theology due to its ease of access or indoctrination.

Rather than supposing there's a binary relationship between Nazareanism and others, let's express it as a degree of compatibility:
Surely Nazareanism is more compatible with the Church of the East than the Roman Catholic Church.

Rafa: I'm expressing my views here, if you feel my answer is not adequate, please say so but know that I'm sharing my understanding to help further this discussion and try to prompt some answers.

Blessings in Mashiyach,
Aaron

[Aaron S]

I'm saying that the Nazarene movement is incompatible with the traditions stemming from paganism in which the Roman Catholicism is steeped. This is one of the main objectives of the Nazarene movement: stripping back erroneous/unscriptural traditions. If that requires us to be incompatible with a great majority, then so be it. The point I'm saying is that the 'sacraments' therein are not, at their foundations, based upon a misconstrued reading of a verse or a pagan practice. (Yes, this statement, scholastically, is quite weak, but it exhibits my intentions in discourse.)

The Kingdom of Elohim comes about when we dedicate ourselves to the dominion and will of YHWH. What does YHWH ask of us? He has set for us a high standard that we may be brought to perfection in Mashiyach. Y'shua did not come to weaken the Torah: for me this is a major facet of the Good News. If we have in front of ourselves a primary objective to meet the standards for being in communion with (fill in the blank), then we are aiming in the wrong direction.

Finally: I'm not saying that my answer is a distinctive yes or no.
This is actually my major point: no binary answer to this... rather it's grounded in discernment.