temple B'nai Jesus

[Nicole]

Because when you study the Bible you find it is actually pretty clear that the writers of certain parts were motivated to write what they wrote and the way they wrote it on account of their particular political and economic circumstances. As one small example, consider the story of Aaron and the golden calves. Since it seems to have been written by Mushite priests with very specific objectives as to the monarchy of the Kingdom of Samaria and the Aaronid priesthood of the Kingdom of Judah, it is not such a stretch to conclude that it was not written to say that the events in the story actually happened. Rather it is a polemic parable.

And is it not possible that in sources we do take as legitimate, it is quite possible have ulterior motives? The Gallic Invasion as told in Livy's Ab Urbe Condita is most certainly mostly false to try to make the Romans seem like they did better than they did, but we accept that a Gallic Invasion of some sort most likely occured.
Just because the Bible may not be an exact truth, there are certainly some histories beneath some of the "tales".

And you're certainly right many of the other ancient traditions not being historical either. It is certainly no more historical that King Shar Aqun (Sargon) was placed in a basket in the river Euphrates as an infant than that Moses was placed in a basket in the Nile.

The question is, do you allow for the existance of Sargon, or do you deny him as well?

 

[Glen]

To be fodder for AH, something merely needs to be plausible.

The existence of a historical basis for Jesus is plausible.

Therefore it can be used as premise for a POD.

People can debate whether the POD for such an AH would be -

Jesus actually is born and/or
Jesus has a different course and/or
The religion centered on the figure of Jesus develops differently.

So move the debate on the historicity of Jesus to Chat, and let's let people work on the AH concept of the thread.

It is certainly possible that we could see an alternative development of ancient Christianity into a Reformist Jewish Sect rather than a breakaway faith.

 

[Cosmos]

And is it not possible that in sources we do take as legitimate, it is quite possible have ulterior motives? The Gallic Invasion as told in Livy's Ab Urbe Condita is most certainly mostly false to try to make the Romans seem like they did better than they did, but we accept that a Gallic Invasion of some sort most likely occured.
Just because the Bible may not be an exact truth, there are certainly some histories beneath some of the "tales".


The question is, do you allow for the existance of Sargon, or do you deny him as well?

I think people are missing my point here. Of course I think there is an historical basis for King Sargon. And Glen, I think it is plausible that Jesus is based on an historical figure or figures. What is not plausible, and what for this reason I think is indeed appropriate for this thread, is an historical Jesus with all of the far-fetched assumptions built in. In other words, what I am saying is that, because of the Christians any historical kernal for Jesus is often boxed into a very tight time period to the point wherein people who are usual very critical are assuming a religious doctrine to be historical fact - namely in this case that Jesus of the Gospels is based on a DISTINCT, 1ST CENTURY C.E. JEW OF THE TIME OF KING HEROD WHO PREACHED WHAT WERE ESSENTIALLY REFORMED JEWISH TEACHINGS.

This is is a huge assumption, based on various smaller assumptions, which in turn are based entirely on the doctrines of one specific religion. Consequently, its plausibility is certainly in question here.

If you compare Jesus to Moses, the difference is clear. Ask someone when did Moses live and you get many different answers, because his story, like the story of Jesus is timeless. The fact is that Moses would be Moses if based on a figure from 1500 BCE, or 1100 BCE or even 800 BCE, still accepted by people AS Moses of the tanakh. But try doing that with Jesus. Want to search for an historical Jesus, I'd look first to the reign of Alexander Yanav (~103 BCE-76 BCE), a Hellenistic Hasmonean Jewish king who apparently CRUCIFIED some 800 people for their religious teachings, most of them pharisees, many whose name probably were Yeshua, given that it was as common a name in that period in Judea as John Smith is in the US today. On the other hand in writings of the first century CE, IOW during the early Roman period, there IS mention of what seem to be the basis of certain people from the Jesus story. In the undoctored version of Josephus' Jewish Antiquities, he does mention John the Baptist. He does mention a guy called "YEHUDAH OF THE GALILEE" ("Judas"), who he says was thought by many people to be the Messiah. People from the Jesus story mentioned in extrabiblical writings, but not Jesus himself?

Then there are the Gospel writings themselves. Jesus of Nazareth in an earlier story apparently was the same guy as the prisoner, "Barabbas", who in the Greek version of the New Testament is called "Iyesus barabas", IOW Jesus Barabas which for Aramaic-speaking people would have been YESHUA BAR ABBA, which means "Yeshua SON OF THE FATHER." So it would seem that before Jesus was the guy who is kept in jail while a criminal is released, he was the guy who was released. Would that guy qualify as an historical Jesus? So profoundly would this change the story that it is hardly what most people would consider to be an "historical Jesus". It is almost like Moses and the Pharaoh being based on the same person. There is always a way to find some historical basis for almost any character of any tradition as long as you don't mind changing him/her into something entirely different as compared to the story.

If you are open-minded about who or what the historical basis of Jesus can be then yes, I would say it is plausible that there was an historical Jesus. Maybe Judas is the real Jesus, for instance, or contributed to an amalgamation of characters that became Jesus (which like the above example is like Moses and the Phraraoh being based on the same person). There can be an historical Jesus, just like there could be an historical Athena, or an historical Yahweh. Search hard enough, look far enough back in time, and you'll find something plausible.

The problem is the assumption of this thread seems to be that, minus the supernaturalism, the storyline of the Christian writings is essentially what happened and that we are dealing with an actual person who lived out the general events of that story. But it's not just that no evidence for such an historically boxed-in character is lacking. It's also that there is NO LACK of actual historical figures between roughy 200 BCE and 100 CE who can easily be the basis for Jesus of Nazareth. And with that much uncertainty, I say it is not plausible at all to take at face value the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth is based on a Jew of Roman-occupied Judea, which is to say it is not plausible to assume that Christianity is a spin-off of Judaism started by a distinct 1st century CE Jew.

 

[Keenir]

I think people are missing my point here. Of course I think there is an historical basis for King Sargon.

DISTINCT, 1ST CENTURY C.E. JEW OF THE TIME OF KING HEROD WHO PREACHED WHAT WERE ESSENTIALLY REFORMED JEWISH TEACHINGS.

hm, maybe you're thinking this is a DBWI thread....which might explain some things.

This is is a huge assumption, based on various smaller assumptions, which in turn are based entirely on the doctrines of one specific religion. Consequently, its plausibility is certainly in question here.

who are Socrates, Lao Tzu, and Sun Tzu? sure they all have books to their names....but what evidence can you provide saying that they lived?

If you compare Jesus to Moses, the difference is clear. Ask someone when did Moses live and you get many different answers, because his story, like the story of Jesus is timeless.

You're confusing "historical story" with "moral story".

Gandhi's teachings are timeless....yet there's a specific person who was Gandhi.

Rome never lacked for enemies, and a number of these enemies were brilliant tactical minds....does that mean that Hannibal Barca was a timeless concept rather than a specific person?

The fact is that Moses would be Moses if based on a figure from 1500 BCE, or 1100 BCE or even 800 BCE, still accepted by people AS Moses of the tanakh.

pft; do you know anything about Ancient Egyptian history? hm?
*curious*

But try doing that with Jesus. Want to search for an historical Jesus, I'd look first to the reign of Alexander Yanav (~103 BCE-76 BCE), a Hellenistic Hasmonean Jewish king who apparently CRUCIFIED some 800 people for their religious teachings, most of them pharisees,

and where were the Romans during all of this?

many whose name probably were Yeshua, given that it was as common a name in that period in Judea as John Smith is in the US today.

Jesus was Welsh?

There can be an historical Jesus, just like there could be an historical Athena, or an historical Yahweh. Search hard enough, look far enough back in time, and you'll find something plausible.

then why are you in this forum to begin with? obviously there is not enough evidence for any historical person's existance, for an ATL to be made.

is not plausible at all to take at face value the Christian claim that Jesus of Nazareth is based on a Jew of Roman-occupied Judea, which is to say it is not plausible to assume that Christianity is a spin-off of Judaism started by a distinct 1st century CE Jew.

you're right....Christianity was started by a vague amalgamation of faceless Jews who lived for three hundred years.

 

[Cosmos]

and where were the Romans during all of this?
.

The reign of Alexander Yanav (Janaeus), who crucified all of those people, comes prior to the arrival of Pompey, so during all of this the Romans aren't there yet. However, the writers of the Gospel narrative, or whatever led to it, set the story in a more recent era, one which was more familiar to them. This is quite common in biblical writing, old tales recast into settings more familiar to the people of the time of the writers.

As for your other comments in the above post, I've already addressed those issues. If you can't figure out why Egyptian history is irrelevant to the importance of the Moses story, I suggest you count backward 48 days worth of grain offerings, open your hagadah, and read it.

 

[Cosmos]

Just because the Bible may not be an exact truth, there are certainly some histories beneath some of the "tales".

BTW, I never said that there weren't. In fact, I even given examples, earlier in the thread, of biblical characters who do seem to be based unequivically on historical figures. I wrote that King Ahab is historical and by now I think you can figure out that I think Moses is a maybe. But when you're talking about alternate history, you should start off with a pretty good idea of what the OTL is. In the case of Jesus starting a new branch of Judaism instead of Christianity, I'd say it's equivalent to asking how things would be if the wolf had suckled Remus ahead of Romulus, instead of Romulus ahead of Remus.

 

[Keenir]

But when you're talking about alternate history, you should start off with a pretty good idea of what the OTL is.

a religious leader by the name of Jesus.

In the case of Jesus starting a new branch of Judaism instead of Christianity, I'd say it's equivalent to asking

don't take this the wrong way, but now I see the other reason why Christians spend over 1500 years persecuting us.

how things would be if the wolf had suckled Remus ahead of Romulus, instead of Romulus ahead of Remus.

Then it would be the sarcofogus of Remus in the middle of a Christian Rome frequented by Middle Eastern and east Asian tourists.

in other words, identical to OTL.

 

[Keenir]

why grain?

The reign of Alexander Yanav (Janaeus), who crucified all of those people, comes prior to the arrival of Pompey, so during all of this the Romans aren't there yet. However, the writers of the Gospel narrative, or whatever led to it, set the story in a more recent era, one which was more familiar to them.

This would certainly explain why the waters of the Reed Sea keep parting, and have been doing so for over two thousand years.

This is quite common in biblical writing, old tales recast into settings more familiar to the people of the time of the writers.

As for your other comments in the above post, I've already addressed those issues. If you can't figure out why Egyptian history is irrelevant to the importance of the Moses story,

I'm not debating the importance of the Moses story itself...I'm debating with you over the importance of when the Moses story was.

For one thing, though 9/10ths of Egyptian history, there was no slavery.

I suggest you count backward 48 days worth of grain offerings, open your hagadah, and read it.

You're assuming all Jews have a hagadah.

 

[Cosmos]

a religious leader by the name of Jesus.

Ahhh. Did you know that the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of a religious leader, Yehoshua, also called Teacher of Righteousness, who gets crucified around 88 BCE? Seems to me that would fit your definition of an historical Jesus. But it is before the Romans get there, IOW when the Hashmonim are still ruling, namely Alexander Yanav.

don't take this the wrong way, but now I see the other reason why Christians spend over 1500 years persecuting us.

The Rambam (Maimonides) would agree with you. He said the Jewish position should be that Jesus of Nazareth existed but was not divine and it's thought he did so as a compromise, seeking to avoid Christian persecution against the Jews.

 

[Cosmos]

I'm not debating the importance of the Moses story itself...I'm debating with you over the importance of when the Moses story was.

That's my point. I don't think its historicity is important for Judaism, although considering historical kernals certainly is interesting. What's important for Jews is the lesson in the story.

For one thing, though 9/10ths of Egyptian history, there was no slavery.

It wouldn't matter if it were 10/10ths of Egyptian history without slavery. The importance of the story to the Jewish People for all of those centuries did not depend on it being true or not. For the sake of how the story came to be written it's probably more significant that Egypt occupied Canaan as part of its empire on and off for more than 400 years during the LBA than that there was slavery going on at some point inside Egypt proper.

You're assuming all Jews have a hagadah.

No, but I am assuming that a Jew with your level of interest in Jewish history has one.

 

[Keenir]

Ahhh. Did you know that the Dead Sea Scrolls speak of a religious leader, Yehoshua, also called Teacher of Righteousness, who gets crucified around 88 BCE? Seems to me that would fit your definition of an historical Jesus. But it is before the Romans get there, IOW when the Hashmonim are still ruling, namely Alexander Yanav.

Hmmmmm, how to break this to you...?....names like "Jesus" while maybe not the most common name ever, or at least in that era, also weren't one-in-a-billion rare.

(now if he'd been named "Cadfael", that's another story....there's only two documents with that name -- and one of those is a book series written nowadays)

The Rambam (Maimonides) would agree with you. He said the Jewish position should be that Jesus of Nazareth existed but was not divine and it's thought he did so as a compromise, seeking to avoid Christian persecution against the Jews.

Not everyone who agrees with the Christians on someone's existance, is colluding with them.

 

[Keenir]

That's my point. I don't think its historicity is important for Judaism,

I see.

It wouldn't matter if it were 10/10ths of Egyptian history without slavery. The importance of the story to the Jewish People for all of those centuries did not depend on it being true or not. For the sake of how the story came to be written it's probably more significant that Egypt occupied Canaan as part of its empire on and off for more than 400 years during the LBA than that there was slavery going on at some point inside Egypt proper.

There was no slaver within any part of Egypt's borders.

in other words, the claim of slavery and servitude are false, for 9/10ths of Egyptian history....only a few pre-Ptolemaic Pharaohs used anything resembling slavery.

No, but I am assuming that a Jew with your level of interest in Jewish history has one.

I'm interested in a lot of history.

(if you like, we can continue this discussion offlist)

its very interesting talking with you, goodsir.

 

[Cosmos]

There was no slaver within any part of Egypt's borders.

in other words, the claim of slavery and servitude are false, for 9/10ths of Egyptian history....only a few pre-Ptolemaic Pharaohs used anything resembling slavery.

Well, the word oved does not have to mean slave. In common usage it simply means worker. Also, the overseers in the story are called sarei mis -officials of mis- which is interesting because in the story of Solomon and Rehavam, the north breaks away into a separate kingdom on account of economic disagreements, particularly on account of the missim, work quotas, or perhaps a taxes, that Solomon and Rehavam have required of their northern subjects to support building projects. It certainly sounds like the Solomon story and the slavery in Egypt story are different takes on the same historical event/s - or that an old, oral tradition based on some gripe with Egypt was updated during the monarchy period to refelct contemporary events.

I'm interested in a lot of history.

(if you like, we can continue this discussion offlist)

its very interesting talking with you, goodsir.

Sure, I'd be happy to continue the discussion off list. Nice talking to you too.