"YHWH hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that is wise will not abhor them."
Edenic is from the hebrew word "Aden" which means:
"paradise or pleasure, to live and CONDUCT ONESELF IN A FLEXIBLE HARMONIOUS, NOBLE OR DELICATELY MANNER."
YHWH is the Creator of the Natural Law, which the Adamic Edenic Covenant governs. The covenant is from the mind and Essence of YHWH, which manifests through SPIRIT and INTELLECT. In the beginning the original dietary law was set in place for the Adamic Edenic Family and for every beast, fowl, and that which creepeth upon the earth. Eating of meat was unknown.
“And ALHYM said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat (#H402 oklah/food). And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” Genesis 1:29-30
Early church fathers knew this as well.
“Man’s first food was solely fruit and produce from trees. Man’s guilt subsequently introduced the use of bread (Genesis 3:17-19).The posture of his body shows forth the state of his conscience. As long as man’s conscience did not reproach him, innocence raised him up toward the heavens to pluck his food from the trees. Once sin had been committed, it bowed man down to the soil of the earth to get grain. Still later the use of meat was added.” – Novatian, The Trinity, The spectacles, Jewish foods, In praise of purity, Letters pg. 145
According to 4th century orthodox Christian St. Jerome (Hieronymus), who translated the bible to Latin, he stated that:
“The ark, according to the Apostle Peter, was a type of the Church, in which eight souls were saved. When Noah entered into it, both he and his sons were separated from their wives; but when he landed from it, they united in pairs, and what had been separated in the ark , that is, in the Church, was joined together in the intercourse of the world. And at the same time if the ark had many compartments and little chambers, and was made with second and third stories, and was filled with different beasts, and was furnished with dwellings, great or small, according to the kind of animal, I think all this diversity in the compartment was a figure of the manifold character of the Church. He (Peter) raises the objection that when ALHYM gave his second blessing, permission was granted to eat flesh, WHICH HAD NOT IN THE FIRST BENEDICTION (blessing) BEEN ALLOWED. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Against Jovinianus Book 1:17-18, pg. 360
So far, we see Jerome explains that, Peter is explaining, “It was not until ALHYM gave his second blessing that flesh was allowed, to be eaten (Genesis 9:3).”
However, if you look at Genesis 9:4-5, ALHYM goes on to tell Noah, that flesh and blood are not allowed to be eaten, and that surely your blood of your lives will he require; at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of every man and at the hand of every mans brother. With ALHYM given two different instructions in the same chapter, could it be because the vegetation was destroyed from the flood, so, ALHYM allowed the eating of meat temporarily? Or could have, part of verse 3, been added to the scriptures? These are just hypothetical questions we are asking here, not saying you have to agree?
THINK ON THESE THINGS!
“The eating of flesh was unknown until the deluge. But after the deluge, like the quails given in the desert to the murmuring people, the poison of flesh-meat was offered to our teeth. At the BEGINNING of the human race, WE NEITHER ATE FLESH. But once HaMashiach has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and TURNED THE END INTO THE BEGINNING, we are no longer allowed to divorce, nor are we circumcised, NOR DO WE EAT FLESH.” - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Against Jovinianus vol. VI, Book 1:18
Jerome mentioned that divorce will no longer be allowed. We should recall HaMashiach speaking about this subject, divorce saying:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was NOT THIS WAY FROM THE BEGINNING. I tell you, that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:8
So, we see that divorce was talked about, in your canonized version of your scriptures, however, we do not see HaMashiach talking about, no eating FLESH or Circumcision. Well, just remember the Nazarenes claimed that THESE BOOKS ARE FORGERIES and that they had their own gospel.
Note: Circumcision is part of the covenant. This could be an error on Jeromes part, however, your open to do your own research on this topic.
Also, the earliest followers, of what was coined Christianity, but they actually considered themselves Nazarenes, were equally in accordance to the ways of their predecessors the Essenes. Who were the representatives of HaMashiach according to “THE WAY.”
“The traditions, too, of the earliest period in the history of Christianity (Nazarenes) coincided with their pre-Christian convictions, since the immediate and accredited representatives of the Founder of the new religion, who presided over the first Christian society (Nazarenes), were commonly held to have been, equally with their predecessors and contemporaries the Essenes, strict abstinence from flesh-eating.” - The Ethics of Diet, by Howard Williams, pg. 56
After taken heed to this information, we then started to think about this, “well let’s see, he came too “TURN THE END INTO THE BEGINNING,” to turn the end into the beginning would mean you would have to go back to what was in the beginning.” So, we then came across that the Church fathers and other text of the first few centuries have documented the Nazarenes of HaMashiach being vegetarians. We thought this to be very interesting, because that would mean he did TURN THE END INTO THE BEGINNING, since in the beginning YHWH stated, “I have given you herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” However, when reading the New Testament, it is made out as if they ate meat. So, we began to search some more, because we said to ourselves, “something is not right!” We then took notice that THE GOSPELS HAD BEEN ALTERED, which explains why they had their own gospel and did not adhere to any of the Greek gospels. Sources on their diet are below. (To learn more about their own gospel click here)
During Paul's trial before Felix, Paul said: “But I confess unto thee, that after 'THE WAY,' which they call heresy, so worship I the POWER of our fathers, BELIEVING ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE LAW AND IN THE PROPHETS.” (Acts 24:14).
Fourth Century Church father Eusebius said:
“From the men as they stand, surely any sensible person would be inclined to consider them worth of all confidence; they were admittedly poor men without eloquence, they fell in love with holy and philosophic instruction, they embraced and persevered in a strenuous and a laborious life, with fasting and abstinence from wine and meat, and much bodily restriction besides, with prayer and intercessions to ALHYM, and, last but not least, excessive purity, and devotion both of body and soul.”- Apostle Arne Horn, The Book of Eusebius #3, Ch7:78, pg. 107
“Nasaraeans, meaning “rebels,” who forbid the eating of any meat and do not partake of living things at all. They have the holy names of patriarchs, which are in the Pentateuch, up through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun, and they believe in them I mean Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the earliest ones, and Moses himself, and Aaron, and Joshua. But they hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch are not Moses’ scriptures, and maintain that they have others besides these.” – The Panarion Book 1, Section 1:19
“It also recognized as fathers the persons in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses who were illustrious for the excellence of their piety—I mean Adam, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi and Aaron, Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. However, it would not accept the Pentateuch itself. It acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation—not this legislation though, they said, but some other. And so, though they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that THESE BOOKS ARE FORGERIES and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers.” – The Panarion Book 1, Section 1:18
“He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the public bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of ALHYM, and asking forgiveness for the people.” Hegesippus, quoted in Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, book 2, 23.5-6
This assertion was repeated by St. Augustine who stated:
“James, the brother of HaMashiach, “lived upon seeds and vegetables, never tasting flesh or wine.”– Epistulae ad Faustum XXII, 3 (The Ethics of Diet, by Howard Williams, pg. 506)
“James was a vegetarian.” – Pro. Robert Eisenman in, James the Just, The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Second century Church Father, Clement said:
“Matthew the apostle used to make his meal on seeds and nuts and herbs, without flesh meat.” Clement of Alexandria, Christ the Educator (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 23), pgs. 107-108
“Matthew the apostle lived upon seeds, and hard-shelled fruits, and other vegetables without touching flesh.” - Clement of Alexandria, Padedagogus Book 2, Chapter 1
“He continually fasts and prays, and abstaining from the eating of flesh and the drinking wine, he eats only bread with salt, drinks only water, and wears the same garment in fine weather and winter, accepting nothing from anyone, and gives whatever he has to others.” – Acts of Thomas, chapter 20
First Century Church Father, Pliny the Younger said:
Pliny the Younger statement has been confirmed by Clement, who was Peters scribe, Peter described his way of living to Clement of Rome, he wrote this:
“I live,” he declares, “upon bread and olives only, with the addition, rarely, of kitchen herbs.” -The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh-eating, Howard Williams, pg. 56
Peter said: “I live on olives and bread, to which I rarely only add vegetables.” - Clementine Homilies 12.6; also see, Recognitions 7.6
Second century Church Father, Clement said:
“The apostle Peter lived on grain and fruit, and his followers strictly adhered to a harmless, innocent diet.” – The Lives of the Saints (October), S. Baring Gould, pg. 460
Peter said: “Wherefore, as then you were deceived by the forerunner Simon, and so became dead in your souls to God, and were smitten in your bodies; so now, if you repent, as I said, and submit to those things which are well-pleasing to God, you may get new strength to your bodies, and recover your soul's health. And the things which are well-pleasing to God are these: to pray to Him, to ask from Him, recognizing that He is the giver of all things, and gives with discriminating law; to abstain from the table of devils, not to taste dead flesh, not to touch blood; to be washed from all pollution; and the rest in one word,—as the God-fearing Jews have heard, do you also hear, and be of one mind in many bodies; let each man be minded to do to his neighbor those good things he wishes for himself.” – Clementine, Homilies 7.4, 7.8
In 1974, Francois Bovon and Bertrand Bouvier discovered together the “Xenophontos Manuscript” of the “Acts of Philp (Xenophontos 32)" on Mt. Athos in Greece, in the library of Xenophontos monastery. The manuscript consists on of 141 folios of paper and was found in the 10th century, however, the manuscript was copied in the 14th century, but the original text dates from the fourth century and itself reflects earlier traditions.
These traditions, within the manuscript, are different in many ways from what we know today. The manuscript describes a community of celibate vegetarians. – Acts of Phili: A new Translation, by François Bovon and Christopher Matthews
Philip is mentioned several times in the New Testament, but little is known about him from canonical sources.
Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have tended to preserve these accounts, even though they do not have the status of sacred scripture. This is because the apostles (except for Judas Iscariot) are also saints, and in order to celebrate their feast days, the churches needed information about their lives on which to base ceremonial and iconographic traditions.
But these apocryphal texts have themselves been subject to editing by Church authorities in order to bring the liturgical and theological elements in line with orthodox doctrine. The revisions tend to leave out passages that reveal the diversity of practice and belief that characterized early Nazarenes (Christianity).
Bovon found the manuscript describing Philip’s exploits in the Xenophontos monastery, founded in the 10th century. The manuscript was copied in the 14th century, but the original text dates from the fourth century and itself reflects earlier traditions.
These traditions are different in many ways from later Church practices. For example, instead of the Eucharist with its ceremonial consumption of bread and wine, Philip’s fellow Christians simply sat down to a common meal of vegetables and water. Church leadership was democratic rather than hierarchic, and men and women served equally as priests. In fact, the manuscript describes Philip and the apostle Bartholomew traveling from town to town with Philip’s sister, a woman named Mariamne. Bovon believes this woman to be Mary Magdalene.
The community described in “The Acts of Philip,” also seemed to follow ascetic (celibate) practices more extreme than those reflected in New Testament sources. The group insisted on strict vegetarianism and sexual abstinence among its members.
“The asceticism was not just a moral issue,” Bovon said. “They believed that living a pure life was a way to better communicate with ALHYM.”
Asceticism is intended to remove distractions between the believer and ALHYM.
The word asceticism comes from the Greek askesis which means practice, bodily exercise, and more especially, athletic training. The early Christians (Nazarenes) adopted it to signify the practice of the spiritual things, or spiritual exercises performed for the purpose of acquiring the habits of virtue. Asceticism shall not be identified with mysticism. For although genuine mysticism can’t exist without asceticism, the reverse is not true. One can be an ascetic without being a mystic. Asceticism is ethical; mysticism, largely intellectual. Asceticism has to do with the moral virtues; mysticism is a state of unusual prayer or contemplation. They are distinct from each other, though mutually co-operative. Moreover, although asceticism is generally associated with the objectionable features of religion, and is regarded by some as one of them, it may be and is practiced by those who affect to be swayed by no religious motives whatever.
“John the Baptist too was one of these same persons who were consecrated to God, for “He drank neither wine nor strong drink.” - Epiphanius; Panarion 29.5.7
Also, according to Epiphanius, he said there is an exclusive claim about what John ate in “The Gospel According to Matthew.”
“John never ate meat.” – Church historian Hegesipp according to Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius (Book 2), chapter 23
The Slavonic edition of Josephus’ book, “The Wars of the Jews,” gives a testimony that John the Baptist was a vegetarian, and this comes from Josephus. However, it is not the standard version that everyone uses. In the standard version, Josephus does not specifically comment on his lifestyle in the Greek version of the Antiquities. However, in the Slavonic edition, Josephus’ said:
“His mouth knew not bread nor did he even taste the unleavened bread at Passover, saying that it was in remembrance of ALHYM, who had delivered the people from servitude, that it had been given to eat for escape, since the journey was urgent. Wine and fermented liquor he would not allow to come near himself, and he detested the eating of all animals [meat]. And he denounced all injustice. And for his needs there were tree shoots <and locusts and wild honey.>” - Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version pg. 259
It has been suggested, for example, that the term translated as locust should be translated as “locusts beans,” i.e. carob pods (a type of fruit), which is prominent throughout that part of the world.
“And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; for the Spirit of ALHYM hath led me on, and I live on cane and roots and tree-food. -The Slavic Josephus account of the early Christian history along with its parallels, Dorpat, 1908. Pg. 104
So, you might be wondering, where the Slavonic edition was translated from? There is extant in a number of MSS. a Slavonic or Old Russian translation of the War. In this version there are no less than eight pieces referring to John the Baptist, HaMashiach, and the first Christians (Nazarenes). These remarkable passages, of which the Greek text shows no trace, have been excerpted and the Slavonic text of them critically established by the collation of four MSS.
What is an MSS?
A manuscript (abbreviated MS for singular and MSS for plural) its an handwritten document.
Carob Locust Bean
In this part we want to share with you all "WHAT HAPPENED?"
Abstinence from meat, was somewhat spread during the first through the fourth centuries, however, when fasting was practiced it was praised, but it came to a point, if someone was found permanently rejecting the animal flesh, then it would be associated with “HERESY."
”Nazarenes, were persecuted for their faith at the hands of the Jews and the Romans. Paul was one of their persecutors (Acts 9:1-9, 1 Cor. 15:9) before he became a follower of “THE WAY” (Acts 24:14). Over time operating with corrupting influences of wealth and power and not with a mind of humanitarian reasoning, caused abandonment to the True Gospel. Humanitarianism and Human Dietetics finds no place in religion.
According to Epiphanius he stated that the Ebionites claimed that the Apostle Peter had been a vegetarian and had ordered for his followers to abstain from eating meat. However, this made Epiphanius upset, he felt the Ebionites, who were a branch from the Nazarenes, had changed everything in the “Travels of Peter,” written by Clement. To therefore, suit themselves and slander Peter in many ways. However, could the Ebionites be right? Who had ministered to Bithynia? The apostle Peter himself. Since, this was one of the places, he had addressed his first letter to believers (1 Peter 1:1).
What Happen in Bithynia?
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of the Bithynia-Pontus area in northwestern Asia Minor, wrote a letter (Epistulae X.96) to the Roman emperor Trajan about the Nazarenes in Pontus, dated 112 C.E. Pliny raises some issues. The letter reports a RENEWAL in pagan observances had taken place. Pliny rejoiced that temples once deserted are now being filled, sacred rites are being renewed, and “food for the sacrificial victims,” is once more finding a sale. Whereas, up to recently, a buyer was hardly to be found. Take notice that Pliny said, the temples were once DESERTED and that food for the sacrificial victims, is once more FINDING A SALE. We raise the question:
Why were the temples once Deserted and why was the food for the sacrificial victims, once more
FINDING A SALE?
Remember, the Ebionites claimed Peter to be a vegetarian and according to 1 Peter 1:1 Peter ministered to Bithynia, the same area Pliny the Younger, was Roman governor who said, the temples were once deserted and that food for the sacrificial victims, is once more finding a sale.
The Nazarenes were spreading the gospel, that’s why, causing a mass conversion for “THE WAY,” temples were becoming deserted and the food, for sacrificial purposes, weren’t selling. Markets, that were selling animals for sacrificing to the Roman gods or just for eating, weren’t making any money, so the Roman government felt there was a need for some form of persecution, because it was not only putting idol worship to an end, but it was also effecting business.
Pliny, informs Trajan, that through torture and execution he has successfully suppressed the Nazarenes who had persuaded the local population of Bithynia not to eat the corpses of slaughtered animals, and therefore caused financial losses to the meat industry in that region of the Roman Empire. Pliny also informs Trajan, that all of the Nazarenes abandoned their practices, after Pliny issued an edict upon Trajan’s instructions.
This might be hard to believe, but being a vegetarian was a brutal tradition in history. Hundreds and thousands of vegans and vegetarians have been persecuted and killed by the church, with the right to initiate legislative action for centuries. Why? Because, the Roman Church felt that ALHYM had given man dominion over the earth and had provided animals for him to eat. For example, there was a group that were called the Cathars. This name was given to them by their enemies. The Cathars called themselves “bonhommes” (good men) The Cathars disapproved of killing animals and lived as vegetarians (sound familiar?) They worshipped the Hebrew God of the Old Testament, their view on the Roman Church was they believed they had corrupted their own scriptures, invented new doctrine and abandoned the beliefs and practices of the Early Church/Nazarenes (We will touch more on this). Cathars saw themselves as TRUE followers of the Early Church (Nazarenes).
According to “The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism, by Colin Spencer, p 162-163 it states:
“Archbishop Ariberts, who traveled around Italy, reached Turin and heard of, what he considered “HERESY” in the castle of Monteforte. He asked that one of the heretics, Gerard, be brought to him and asked for an account of their beliefs. When the archbishop found out their beliefs, he sent soldiers to the castle and arrested them all, including the countess, and took them to Milan, where they were ALL BURNT, some leaping into the flames gladly.”
There have been some that have denied that the Church executed people for refusing to kill animals. Well, let’s investigate this. There is an extract from a document called, “Gesta Episcoporum Leodiensium,” from the time period 1043-1048, translated from Latin into English. It reveals one of the earliest cases of people being executed for refusing to kill a chicken. It reads:
“After much discussion of their vagaries and a proper excommunication for obstinacy in error, they were also sentenced to be hanged. When we carefully investigated the course of this examination, we could learn no other reason for their condemnation than that they refused to obey some one of the bishops when he ordered them to kill a chicken.” – “Heresies of The High Middle Ages,” Cited by Walter Wakefield & Austin Evans (Columbia, 1991) p 93
Also, at Goslar in 1052, heretics were brought before the Emperor Henry III by Godfrey of Upper Lorraine. Among other wicked Manichean doctrines, they condemned all eating of animals, and with the agreement of everybody present he ordered them to be hanged.
According to “The Inheritance of Rome: A History of Europe from 400 to 1000, By Chris Wickham, states:
“Spanish bishops persecuted Priscillianists, a very marginal sect; vegetarianism itself, a standard ascetic trait, was a little suspect in Spain because Priscillianists refused meat, and the 561 council of Braga required vegetarian clerics at least to cook their greens in meat broth, to show their orthodoxy.”
Pope John III was one of those Spanish bishops. In 561, he announced an anathema against heretics, especially vegetarian Priscillianists, at the Council of Braga II. He stated:
“If anyone considers the foods of the flesh unclean, which God has given for the use of men; and, not for the affliction of his body, but as if he thought it unclean, so abstains from these that he does not taste vegetables cooked with meats, just as Manichaeus and Priscillian have said, let him be ANATHEMA.” – Pope John III
Who is Priscillian?
“(AD 340-385) Priscillian was a Christian bishop, was considered a Manichean, judged guilty of sorcery and immorality, and was executed. Priscillians crime was to aim for higher spiritual perfection through ASCETICISM: he outlawed all sensual pleasure, marriage, and the consumption of wine and meat. Genuine writings by Priscillian discovered late last century prove that his teaching owed little to Mani, but everything to his own eccentric interpretation of Biblical text. Both Priscillianism and Manicheanism were dangerous perversions of an exalted form of Christian living, for the Desert Fathers had become a fashionable ideal. Accounts of these Christian hermits living in the desert wilderness, surviving on a few berries and roots, became popular reading, influencing women of noble birth in Rome.” - The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism, by Colin Spencer, p 143
If you have been following us so far with this history, you should be able to see similarities between the Priscillianism and Manicheanism lifestyle and Essenes and the Nazarenes lifestyle. Could the Priscillianism and Manicheanism have been following the lifestyle of the Essenes and Nazarenes? Could they have been persecuted for doing so?
"The Roman and Byzantine churches outlawed the practice of vegetarianism and considered its practitioners as heretic." – The Vegetarian Agenda by Sonny Desai
These writings are the first translations of one of the oldest dated manuscripts (MS), obtained from the British Library. They are translated from the original Syriac manuscripts (the language that was being spoken, by the Israelites, after Babylonian captivity), which had written on one of them, the year 411/412CE. The translation has the Recognitions (books 1-3), and the Homilies (books 10-14). The title of this work was cut away from the MS. The text is in the form of letters and these letters were written to James, the brother of HaMashiach, and head of the early Jerusalem congregation. Clement, who was a Roman, meets the Apostle Peter through Barnabas. Peter liked Clement so much, because when Barnabas was in Rome preaching the gospel Clement kept Barnabas safe from others that despised Barnabas teachings and because of Clement zeal to know the TRUTH. Clement had the permission to become Peter’s scribe while traveling and the writings had to be sent to James, in whom Peter is ordered to report too, to let him know his accounts while traveling. Also, one of the accounts that was written about is when Peter held an argument with Simon Magus (the sorcerer), for three days. However, before this dispensation, Peter explains to Clement what happened in the wilderness, after the children of Israel came out of Egypt.
Peter explained to Clement, that Moses was the one who permitted Israel to sacrifice, after he saw that Israel made a golden image in the likeness of an idol in Egypt called “Apis.’ He realized that it was impossible for Israel to remove their passions for idol worship, because of the prolonged time in Egypt. So, he brought them into the vast wilderness. So that, within the time frame of forty years, those evil customs they learned in Egypt, that were within their hearts, would eventually be circumcised through the institution of the Law. So, he allowed them to sacrifice under one condition, they had to sacrifice to the Name of ALHYM. So that, half of their passions would be cut off, and then they could receive correction of the other half, at another time by the hand of another. That’s when he told them that the most High would raise up a Prophet, like himself, and that this Prophet should give himself over to DESTRUCTION.
Note: page from The Gospel of Barnabas 4:1, explaining how Yahusha gave up his body to destruction. The same thing that Peter stated, from the Syriac Clementine Recognitions and Homilies.
However, the only reason why all of this was arranged for them was so that, when one fitting would come, they would understand that ALHYM WANTS KINDNESS and NOT SACRIFICES. Then, afterward the Prophet WHO SAYS THESE THINGS shall be sent to them, and those who believe in him shall be guided by the Wisdom of ALHYM to a strong place of the land for the sake of LIFE, and they shall be kept safe of the account of the war that thereafter comes upon them for the destruction of those who, because of their doubt, are disobedient. Peter goes on to say, that even before the coming of this Prophet, who was prepared to come for the sake of the ABOLISHMENT OF SACRIFICES, there were many times this war had come upon Israel and they REMAINED IN CAPTIVITY and WERE REMOVED TO ANOTHER PEOPLE so that, from that time, they would not have the place wherein the Lawgiver permitted them to sacrifice. He went on to tell Clement, when Israel kept the Law WITHOUT SACRIFICES, THEY WERE SAVED, but when they return to their place, AFTER OFFERING SACRIFICES, they were TURNED OUT AND EXPELLED FROM IT, as they should again ABSTAIN WITHOUT SACRIFICING. So, though they were late to understand this, IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR A FEW. However, even the knowledge of these few who found it important was being tried by the multitudes thinking.
"Now therefore, when the time arrived for the Prophet to be revealed, that Moses proclaimed would come, because of the Mercy of ALHYM, that Prophet would FIRST INSTRUCT ISRAEL TO CEASE AND ABSTAIN FROM SACRIFICING, however, so they would not think they were being cheated of the remission of sins by means of sacrifices, BAPTISM BY WATER WAS APPOINTED FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Rec. 1:35-37, 39)
Take notice that Peter said, IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR A FEW and that the knowledge of those few, who found it important, WAS BEING TRIED BY THE MULTITUDES THINKING. Who could be the few Peter is referring to? So far, the only few, at that time that are documented, who found it unlawful to sacrifice were the Essenes, Nasaraeanes, and Ebonites (branch from the Nasaraeanes), for none of them WOULD NOT OFFER SACRIFICES OR EAT MEAT, in their eyes it was UNLAWFUL TO EAT MEAT OR MAKE SACRIFICES WITH IT.
· Nasaraeanes – “THEY WOULD NOT OFFER SACRIFICES OR EAT MEAT, in their eyes it was UNLAWFUL TO EAT MEAT OR MAKE SACRIFICES WITH IT.” Epiphanius; Panarion 19:1 19; 18:1,3-5
· Essenes – “They are called Esseni, because of their saintliness. They DO NOT SACRIFICE ANIMALS, regarding a REVERENT MIND as the ONLY TRUE SACRIFICE.” Author Ewing quotes Philo in, The Prophet of the Dead Sea Scrolls
· Ebionite – “And they say he (Peter) abstained from flesh and dressed meat as they do, and any other dish made from meat—since both Ebion himself, and Ebionites, entirely abstain from these… Since it is a product of the congress and intercourse of bodies, we do not eat it.”” Epiphanius; Panarion 2:30:15,3
Looks like Peter and Epiphanius are saying the same thing. So, why would Clementine Homilies be called
HMMM…Moving right along.
According to the other, Clementine Homilies manuscripts that have been translated and are housed at the Royal Library at Paris, and a complete manuscript of the twenty Homilies housed at the Ottobonian Library in Rome, there is something quite curious about these translations, especially on the topics about the Law and Sacrificing.
Peter informs Clement, before Peter goes before the public to debate Simon, that the Law is corrupted:
“For the Scriptures have had joined to them MANY FALSEHOODS against ALHYM on this account. The prophet Moses, having by order of ALHYM, delivered the law…to certain men, some seventy in number…after a little, the written law had added to it certain FALSEHOODS contrary to the law of ALHYM…the wicked one having dared to work this for some righteous purpose.” Homilies II, Chap. XXXVIII
Peter then explains to Clement that Simon was plotting to speak on those chapters, against ALHYM, that are added to the Scriptures. However, Peter did not wish to speak in public about the chapters that were added:
”…For we do not wish to say in public that these chapters are added to the Bible, since we should thereby perplex the unlearned multitudes…For they, not having the power of discerning, would flee from us as impious; or as if not only the blasphemous chapters were false, they would even withdraw from the word.”
Homilies II, Chap. XXXXIX
Peter tells Clement:
“…For today, before the discussion, you shall be instructed concerning the chapters added to the Scriptures.”
Homilies II, Chap. XL
During the debate with Simon, Peter explains that the sayings accusatory of ALHYM were not written by a PROPHETIC HAND and they appear opposite to the hand of ALHYM:
“Thus, the sayings accusatory of ALHYM…both are rendered void, by opposite sayings…and are refuted by creation…they are not written by a PORPHETIC HAND…also they appear opposite to the hand of ALHYM, who made all things. Then said Simon: How can you show this?”
Homilies, Chap. XLVI
Peter then answers, stating:
“The Law of ALHYM was given by Moses WITHOUT WRITING, to seventy wise men…but after that Moses was taken up, it was written by someone, but NOT BY MOSES. For the Law itself it is written, And Moses died; and they buried him…But how could Moses write that Moses died? And whereas in the time after Moses, about 500 years or thereabouts, it is found lying in the temple, which was built, and after about 500 years more it is carried away, and BEING BURNT IN THE TIME OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR, IT IS DESTROYED; and thus being written after Moses, and often lost, even this shows the foreknowledge of Moses, because he foreseeing its disappearance, did not write it; but THOSE WHO WROTE IT, being convicted of ignorance through their not foreseeing its disappearance, WERE NOT PROPHETS.” -Homilies, Chap. XLVII
These statements that Peter is making about the Law are very interesting, because according to Epiphanius this is the same thing that the Nasaraeans knew and followed:
“They hold that the scriptures of the Pentateuch (first five books) are NOT MOSES scriptures, and maintain that they have others besides these. They recognized the fathers, the persons, in the Pentateuch from Adam to Moses, however, they would NOT accept the first five books itself. They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received legislation (laws), NOT THIS LEGISLATION (LAWS) THOUGH, they said, but some other… They claimed that these books are FORGERIES and that NONE OF THESE CUSTOMS WERE INSTITUTED BY THE FATHERS. This was the difference between the Nasaraeans and the others.” Epiphanius; Panarion 19:1 19; 18:1,3-5
Peter tells Simon:
“But that HE (the most High) IS NOT PLEASED WITH SACRIFICES, is shown by this, that those who lusted after the flesh were slain as soon as they tasted it, and WERE COSIGNED TO A TOMB, so that it was called ‘THE GRAVE OF LUSTS.’ He then, who at the first was DISPLEASED WITH THE SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS, not wishing them to be slain, DID NOT ORDAIN SACRIFICES as desiring them; NOR FROM THE BEGINNING DID HE REQUIRE THEM. For neither are SACRIFICES ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS, NOR CAN THE FIRST FRUITS BE PRESENTED…” Homilies, chap. XLV
Peter is once again speaking on Sacrificing, just as we read above in the Syriac homilies, but now he talks about those who lusted after the flesh. These statements that Peter is making about Sacrificing are very interesting, because once again, according to Epiphanius this is the same thing that the Nasaraeans knew and followed:
…They keep all of the observances, however, THEY WOULD NOT OFFER SACRIFICES OR EAT MEAT, in their eyes it was UNLAWFUL TO EAT MEAT OR MAKE SACRIFICES WITH IT. Epiphanius; Panarion 19:1 19; 18:1,3-5
After careful observation, of Epiphanius statement, the brutal tradition in history that took place against those who were labeled ‘HERETICS,’
just because they would not sacrifice and eat flesh, compared with Peters explanation of the Law and Sacrificing, makes one raise the question:
Are Clementine Homilies really ‘PSUDEO’?
This is a question we are asking, not saying you have to agree?