Our religion is based on Truth.

Truth comes from God, so a person who says they preach the Religion of Truth should preach a religion based on Truth.

However, Truth is not a complicated creation, as some philosophers try to explain by reinterpreting the facts. Truth is simple, so that everyone can easily see where the Truth is.

If I told you now that I only have 2 coins and another 3 coins arrived, so I have 5 of these coins.

Let's assume that someone passed it on after some time, but with an error, so adding 2 and 3 resulted in 6. Someone was surprised, but wrote it down and the letter spread because this person published it.
Although it is clear that something is wrong, a person who does not know what I meant and what this teaching meant, begins to interpret it in their own way.

Let's assume that a group appeared that tries to explain that the 6th coin is a coin that was hidden and was always there - quite an interesting claim, excusing, but false, because it was built on a lie. They came to this conclusion based on a lie.

Yet another says that the 6th coin was a borrowed coin, hence I did not include it in the information about the two coins - it can also explain the lie, but neither one nor the other is true, because it is based on a lie, hence in order to learn the Truth, we must base ourselves on the Truth.

Then, let's assume there is one person from group of my friends says: "you have a mistake there, hence you should correct it, because it is not as the author said", because he has the words, where I said that there was a mistake there.

So who is from the Truth? The one who analyzes, or the one who was from me, because he knew me and knows what I wanted to say? Already in this simple example it can be seen that false teachings can arise, hence think about the people who create such false teachings, not under the influence of God's Will, but of their own interpretations.

The apostle is a messenger. A messenger who corrects the sender considers himself better than the sender, hence he is not a true messenger. Therefore we should not interpret in a way that has not been passed on to us by people who know the Truth, because we can come to false conclusions.
And two from the example undertook such an interpretation, dispersing instead of saying the Truth.

The deceiver will not have a lesser punishment than the people deceived, and this results from the principles of justice. And the people deceived will also not be able to explain themselves, just as Eve could not say that the serpent deceived her, because the Lord Yeshua said that He is the Way, the Truth, the Life.

Hence the search for the Lord Yeshua begins with the search for the Truth, as we find the Truth, and the Truth will illuminate the Way for us, and the Way leads to Life.
We will not find the truth in the fog of missleadings, but only in those who learned it from the Lord Yeshua, or His Disciples, who can teach the teachings of the Lord Yeshua.

Falsehood in the Scripture (Torah, Bible, etc.)

There is a falsehood in the Bible - a statement that someone may agree with or disagree with, but we are able to show it with a few examples.

But the simplest is an example from the gospel: "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", but there is more. Someone might say that this is God's Law. If so, why did the Lord Yeshua say that he did not come to change the Law? This suggests to you that this was never part of God's Law. But there are more falsehoods of this type in the Bible.

So how do we determine what is the Truth? Based on our feelings, what is better? But because of the feeling of a "better" solution there are murders, wars, etc.
Do you think that someone who kills another person in the name of religion does not think that they are doing good? Or a deceiver? They are also often convinced that this is the best solution.

Therefore, when there is too much falsehood, it covers our eyes like smoke, that we cannot know the Truth, we need someone from the outside who knows the Truth.

Therefore, we need the Word of Truth, to know what is the Truth, and the Truth comes from God, the Lord Yeshua gave it to us, the Spirit of Truth taught it.

And now I can tell you that there are many false sentences in the Bible, there are many blasphemous sentences and entire false teachings, but we do not publish here, because there are deceivers who would probably use this, just to deceive more people.

Wolves in sheep's clothing

There are sheep who decided to interpret things themselves, without a Shepherd, and then they try to catch others with their teachings, gaining more people and glory from people. But the blind leading the blind into the pit will fall. Hence we have to be careful. We can teach as much as we have been taught, pass on as much as has been passed on to us.

Deceivers say they have the Holy Spirit

The Spirit of Truth is the Spirit of Truth, it is based on the Truth. If someone has the "Holy Spirit" and sins, it means that they did not have the Holy Spirit, because if they had the Holy Spirit, they would not sin, and this results from the fact that when they sin, the Spirit who would be with them would sin with them, which is false.

Someone may say that sometimes they have the Spirit of Truth - if sometimes they have it, sometimes they do not, then how is he different from other people who sometimes tell the truth, sometimes they do not tell the truth? Can they then be the Source of Truth? The Lord Yeshua is the Source of Truth and His teachings are the source of Truth, but His teachings are not you

About Us

We are a handful of Jews who study and practice the teachings of the early church.

We use two names: Nazarenes and Ebionites.
Internally, we call ourselves Nazarenes, from Yeshua the Nazarene, our Lord, and that is how we would prefer to be called.

To distinguish ourselves externally from the "Nazarenes" who are from the Pauline church and have nothing to do with us, although they are quite popular, we use the name Ebionites.
The name Ebionites comes from אֶבְיוֹנִים or ebionim, which means poor, describing the community of Jews who believe in Our Lord Messiah Yeshua, who keep the Laws of God, as well as the teachings of the Jerusalem church.
We believe that the teachings we have are teachings from the Jerusalem Community - James the Brother of the Lord, we are also Jews, and the name poor refers to certain teachings related to our faith.

Do you have to become a Jew to be a Nazarene?

Yes, the Law for Nazarenes has not lost its validity, but we also have interpretations of the scriptures that are read according to the teachings of the Apostles.
Christians and Jews can read in the prophecy of Isaiah 56, it is said that pagans can join the people of God by accepting His Laws and Sabbaths (holidays). If you accept the Laws and Sabbaths that are with the Jews, we become Jews.
Lord Yeshua was the Messiah, and as we know, Messiah is the title of the King of the Jews. So it is difficult to accept Messiah Yeshua as Lord without being a Jew.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Or in One God.

We believe in God as He was given by the Apostles.

We are not another menu item where a person can imagine that God should look like this and not otherwise and choose.
You can know about God as much as He Himself said about Himself, because there is no position from which we could observe God, nor words that could truly justly define God.

Are your teachings true?

We believe that God taught us to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and true teaching must rely on the truth that comes from the Lord Yeshua. Many teachings that we have but do not publish are based on understanding, which is why anyone who learns about them is surprised that people do not see this, how blind they are.

But the beginning begins with the fact that someone must seek the Truth, focusing on self-denial, because the truth sometimes contradicts what we imagined and seeing it, it is simply hard to believe, but there are no words to refute the Truth. We do not publish writings so that they are not used by deceivers.

Are there many of you?

No, very few, but don't worry, more than one person ;)

Are you different from Messianic Jews?

Yes, we have texts that are not in the canon of Messianic Jews, we completely reject Paul of Tarsus as a false prophet, so you will not find in our collection of writings any letters that can be easily attributed to Paul of Tarsus or his teachings.

By cutting out Paul, you have nothing

By cutting out Paul, it turns out that other apostles start saying that whoever sacrifices himself for God is not left with nothing, there are whole volumes of teachings that are based on the truth.

If you had the Truth, there would be many of you

In the days of Noah, there were many unrighteous people, and Noah was righteous. The majority of them did not help many, Noah's justice did.

We do not wonder why few people know the Truth, but apparently that is how it was supposed to happen.

There are so many copies of the Bible, it can't be that there are falsehoods

Many copies, many versions, many canons.

In ancient times, the Iliad is considered the most popular, does that mean it is true?

Do you have anything in common with others who call themselves Ebionites/Nazarenes?

Everyone can call themselves whatever they want, we call ourselves Nazarenes after Yeshua the Nazarene, and Ebionites (ebionim) through science, and this results from our teachings, not a matter of attributing ourselves to a specific group.
We have teachings that we believe come from the Jerusalem church, led by James the Brother of the Lord, hence there are no guesses in our teachings.

We are not "Nazarenes" from the Pauline branch, and we consider Paul a false prophet, nor are we people calling themselves "Ebionites" and claiming that the Son of God was born during baptism, or describing the world in a philosophically complex way, defining a good/bad god, etc.

Our teachings are based on the Truth

Can anyone become a Nazarene?

No, only the one whom God calls to us will be willing to deny himself and submit to God's Will.

What must be done to be a Nazarene?

Educate yourself, accept Messiah Yeshua as Lord, receive Baptism in Living Water, observe the Law of God and the teachings of Lord Yeshua.

Can everyone be convinced?

People are prone to falling in love with bad people, they will not change their minds, although they see that there are other better people. Due to a similar state of mind, people choose badly and even if they see it, they persist in their choice.

Is abortion morally good?

Below we present how to find the answer, it is divided into a few sub-items that discuss issues related to the topic.

Morality

The question is what is morality? Morality defines what is good and what is bad.

So the question is what is good? Something that is just is definitely good, because if it is not just, it is definitely not good.

So the question is what is just? Something based on truth is just, because something based on falsehood is not just.

Truth

The beliefs of the Nazarenes operate on Truth, which is why we talk about truth, because Lord Yeshua is the Truth, the Way, the Life.
Truth is a double-edged sword, it can accuse me as well as you and it does not depend on the people and is always true and constant, but to obtain it, sometimes you have to deny yourself. Here you will learn the answers to something that you can determine by yourself whether it is true and just, although it may turn out that it is not entirely what we want.

Is truth different oppsite answers? Truth is always one, and falsehood offers many possibilities.

Does truth depend on our views? If it depends on our views, it can take many forms, so truth cannot depend on our views.

Is truth a consensus? Consensus means that it is generally accepted, but it does not mean that it is the only one. Therefore, it cannot be Truth, because truth is always the one answer. Therefore, this criterion for determining truth is false.

When determining truth, should we take into account the feelings of others? No, because truth is independent of feelings and cannot be manipulated by them. If truth were defined based on feelings, it would mean that it would have many variants depending on feelings, which means that this criterion is not truth, but falsehood.

When determining truth, should we take into account the opinions of authorities? No, because it would mean that truth is not absolute truth, but something that is a matter of recognition. For some person the authority will be one person, for another another, therefore the answer could depend on the recognition of the speaker presenting it. Therefore, one answer would take on many contradictory variants, therefore such a method is not the path to truth.

So having a few tools let's start the analysis....

Can a woman decide about her body because she has inalienable autonomy that allows her to get rid of a fetus?

Sometimes people say that a woman has an "autonomy" that is inalienable, this means that regardless of her actions (e.g. intercourse and giving a new life), she always has autonomy and can decide about her body and this is morally good, let's ask ourselves, is this so?
As we know, if a woman is dangerous, she will be detained and perhaps even shot by the police, therefore the claim of inalienable autonomy is false, because along with her actions she suffers consequences.
Similarly, if she has an accident, she may suffer bodily harm, regardless of whether she wanted it or not, therefore she suffers consequences.
Therefore, if we base justice on falsehood, it is not justice, therefore it is not good and cannot decide about morality.

Therefore, every action has consequences, and consequences are the result of accepting the risk associated with the action. Therefore, every action means accepting the consequences resulting from the action, and the argument presented in the title is false and cannot be the basis of a fair system, and is an unfounded claim.

But it is also easy to disprove it in many ways, if such a woman has the right to control her body, then for example let her endure migraines, induce her period (so that it comes exactly at a given minute), etc. If she does not have the ability to decide in these cases, it means that her ability to decide about her own body is limited, even biologically, hence the claim about the possibility of full decision about her body is false.

Is sex for pleasure?

Biologically, sex is for procreation, so the purpose of sex is to conceive a new organism, so it is naive to have intercourse and say that you did not know about the possibility of creating a child, because reproductive organs, as the name suggests, have some purpose.

A woman who has intercourse is aware that she can get pregnant.

Does using "protection" mean that it was an accident and therefore she may not suffer the consequences?

Let's assume that a woman is crossing a motorway, she knows that cars are driving fast, but she has good glasses, so she can see long distances and plan properly and thanks to this approach she has managed to cross it many times without problems.

But if there was an accident, does the fact that her glasses are fogged up and she could not see through them mean that she is not responsible and will not suffer the consequences for her act?

So on a similar principle, it is true that a problem with contraception is not an excuse for the lack of responsibility for sexual intercourse, which serves the creation of life.

But there is someone there who showed up uninvited

So let's see if this is true.

A child is created by the union of an egg and a sperm. So where did the child get the sperm and eggs from? Who provided them? So can we say that the child was there uninvited? Just because someone tried to bypass the rules for the sake of pleasure doesn't mean that the rules of biology have stopped working. It is naive to say that this is not a consequence of the actions of parents who were not clever enough.

But it is unfair that I have to carry someone

So let's see if this is fair.

There are people responsible for the child who conceived it. But does the child have the right to use the mother's body during pregnancy?

Let's examine this and if not, then it is indeed unfair, but if it is, then the claim made in the topic is false.
To consider this case, let's analyze another one:
A man broke his neighbor's arms and legs, should he be held responsible for bringing his neighbor to a state where he is dependent on other people?

If so, then similarly with a fetus - parents deciding to have sex know that someone may be created. Someone who will need their help to survive. This person did not want to be placed in such a state, so the state in which the child is placed is the result of the parents' decision.

Is it therefore fair for a person who:
- was placed by their parents in conditions where they need help,
- did not push themselves into the world, and is the result of the parents' actions,
to be killed/murdered just because the parents do not want to face the consequences?

A child is a result of the parents' actions and is not responsible for their actions, therefore it would be unfair for the child to be held responsible for their actions.

But is it a human being? After all, there are claims that it is a fetus, and a fetus is not a human being

To find the Truth, one must consider whether life is a continuous process?
If life is a continuous process, then it has only one beginning and one end.
The beginning is the beginning of life, the end is death.
Knowing that life is initiated, the question is, when does new life begin?
As we know, the earliest moment of new life is the union of a cell with a sperm, therefore this is the beginning of life, because later there is continuity until death. A sperm alone will not create a child, nor will an egg cell, hence their union is the earliest moment - that is, the beginning of life.

So the question arises, is this life at every stage a human being? If so, then the beginning of humanity comes from the beginning of life, if someone thinks otherwise - then let's define when the beginning of life as a human being is.

So when is the beginning of humanity?

Short answer:
- if the beginning is defined by the consensus of certain agreements, it means that it expresses the views of a certain group, but it is not the only one. The majority view is the majority view, and this is not the same as truth. Hence, the beginning of humanity, which defines the right to life, cannot be based on something that may or may not be true. Justice based on "maybe the truth", may be unjust, hence it is not just.
- if the beginning is defined based on the time from conception, it means that a fetus at the same stage of development will sometimes be counted as a human being, and sometimes not - depending on the rate of growth. Because a fetus that develops more slowly will be a human being even if it is in an earlier phase of development, than a fetus that develops more quickly and is in the same stage of development, but before the time of recognition as a human being. So a fetus at a given stage of development will be called a "human being" at one time, and a "fetus" at another time, depending on the rate of development. The truth is always certain, hence a true definition based on such a criterion is not possible, therefore it is not a fair definition.
- if the beginning is defined based on the level of development of the fetus, we are not able to say exactly when a given level of development of the fetus is. What can be a certain level for some person, might not be for others. Therefore a fetus that has already been established as a "human being" by one person, might not be considered as a "human being" by another person. Truth is not a matter of recognition and does not depend on who said it. Therefore, recognition cannot be a factor in determining humanity, because it is not always true.

We know that an adult is a human being, humanity is a continuous state with a beginning and an end and lasts throughout life. If we cannot define the state based on time from the beginning of life, consensus, or level of development, this naturally means that it is independent of these factors.

So what can be the beginning that is independent of time from procreation, level of development and consensus?
Such a beginning of humanity is the beginning of life, therefore a human being becomes a human being at the moment of procreation.

If we accept other definitions of the beginning of humanity, then they will not be based on truth, if they are not based on truth, it means that they will not be just, if they are not just, they will not be good, if they are not good, they will not be moral either.

But is this an abortion of a fetus, not a human being?

If we terminate a human being's life, it means that we either kill or murder a human being, regardless of the age at which we do it.

But such definitions do not take into account the feelings of the person performing the abortion

Yes, truth is independent of feelings. If we took into account the feelings of people who do not want to take consequences for their actions, it would mean that we are not just, and therefore we are not good either. A judicial system based on this could not convict any criminal, because criminals also have traumas, health problems as a consequence of their actions.

But if I take the "Emergency contraception" pill as a preventive measure, nothing will happen, because there could also have been no fetus

If the "emergency contraception" pill makes it harder for the embryo to implant, then that's also an abortion.

To check whether we are responsible for potential abortion, I think this example will explain: 
if we were shooting at the neighbor's gazebo - we know that it might appear, but we don't know when. The fact of shooting means that if the neighbor does appear, we are guilty of murder, because we didn't have to shoot, and we could have expected someone.

But a pill that makes it harder for the embryo to implant is nothing bad

Hindrance of implantation is similar to the perpetrator in the example of the neighbor who refuses to make amends for putting him in a difficult situation. Therefore, the claim from the topic is false.

Okay, but what about rape?

Analyze it yourself using the following example and judge for yourself: 

there was a woman who was severely beaten by an unknown man and he abused her very much. One day he handcuffed his son to her, whom he did not want. Is it fair for the woman to kill this son? After all, he is the son of a that man. When you consider this, add the fact that he is also the woman's son and what should she do then? And how would you assess her actions if she hurts the child?
Answer this question for yourselves, because the truth is not necessarily what we want.

My partner forced me, is it my fault?

There is murder and killing. Murder is for one's own reasons, killing is due to certain circumstances that contributed to it. The sin can be one's own or someone else's. If someone forced someone to do something and the person would not normally do it, it is known that it is not the same as murdering a child resulting from one's own desire. It is fair that the person who deceives should not have a lesser punishment than the person deceived, therefore the main culprit is the person who is the source of the sin and this is how it will be considered at the final judgment, because the cause of the sin will be verified.

I had an abortion and I regret it, will God forgive me?

God is good and just, it is not given to us to judge who will have what kind of future, but God is also good and merciful and gives us the opportunity to convert. We are still alive, even if we do something bad, so we have a chance to change our life, but the change must be true.

Will the child forgive us?

If a child did something bad and regretted it very much, would you forgive them? If so, then assume that a soul without sin is very good and better than us. There is no "birth sin", hence the soul of such a child is without sin.