The miracles that Moses performed were not the result of him being more than human. The metaphysical connection is the power of God.

This is not to say that some may have seen things differently. Judaism never had the dogmas and "official" doctrines that Christianity does. — Fooloso4

Yep true.. However, the Torah seems to be a product of about the 600s-400s BCE, with the prophets ranging from 800s-200s BCE (Daniel being one of the later ones) not the 1200s BCE. That being said, it isn't very far down the line of its compilation that we see a lot of variations start to take place regarding its interpretations.. So Daniel is already an oddity (along with Ezekiel), regarding its more elaborate metaphysical visions. Daniel is especially nebulous, especially in regards to Son of Man.. We also know that apocrypha like the Book of Enoch seems to also have been popular and puts Enoch in the light of a hero person who becomes an angel.. Angels in general become quite a popular motif, not just in the apocrypha communities but in Rabbinic circles as evidenced by quotes I just presented. It is not a stretch that by the time of the 1st century angelic associations with a messiah would be prominent. It may be one "kosher" view of a messiah in that the messiah is not "quite" divine, but is very much blessed with the spirit of the divine in some metaphysical way, but not quite divine himself, if that makes sense. If an man can ascend to an angel, it can be a weird notion, but perhaps angel descend to at least be a spiritual mouthpiece through a man. That sort of thinking.

Angels as warriors
In the Bible there are some references to angels acting as warriors, and protectors of all that is good. One of these references is The Book of Daniel which contains four apocalyptic visions. However, in Daniel 10:13, it makes reference to a sort of battle between the prince of the kingdom of Persia and the speaker who is believed to be Gabriel. Here Gabriel tells Daniel that the chief of princes, Michael, helped him in the opposition he was facing from the prince of the kingdom of Persia. Thus, both angels are acting as warriors for the good against the bad opposition from the prince of the kingdom of Persia. In addition, in Daniel 12:1, the speaker, Gabriel says that the angel Michael is the protector of the Israelite people and is a great prince.[8]

Angels as teachers in Jewish apocalyptic literature
Angels in the roles of teachers become especially important in Jewish apocalyptic literature, in such books as Daniel, Zechariah, and 4 Ezra, which feature enigmatic and terrifying prophetic visions experienced by unknowing humans who need heavenly guidance to understand what they have witnessed; no longer does prophecy come with full or immediate understanding.[11] Rather, a type of commentary or explanation of the vision is provided through the figure of an interpreting angel, whose teachings dispel the ignorance of the prophet and allow him to better understand, and thus better propagate, the knowledge of the end times that his vision contains.[12]

Such knowledge of the apocalypse had both heavenly and earthly implications, and assumed a great deal of importance to the oppressed people of Israel at the time, who needed explanations for why God would let them go through so much hardship; thus, the knowledge was “good.”[13] Because of the bizarre features of the visions contained in such apocalyptic literature, interpreting angels assume the roles of teachers rather than just messengers; instead of just conveying information, they must explain it.[12]

As teachers, they convey the full might and authority of heaven, while being able to comfort their distressed human charges in a more relatable way than if the prophets were directly spoken to by God. Thus, angels as teachers function as relatable interpreters and testaments to God's power, while also increasing His transcendence.[12] Most of all, they were important in establishing human prophets in their proper role as comforters, with “good” knowledge, to the people of Israel.

In 4 Ezra, the interpreting or teaching angel is Uriel. When Ezra expresses his distress about issues that would be similarly preoccupying Jews of his time—namely, why God would allow His chosen people to suffer under the oppression of the Gentiles—Uriel is sent from heaven by God to help relieve his ignorance. In the passage, Ezra argues with Uriel about matters of justice in a way that he never could with God; however, the angel argues back with a series of riddles that eventually show Ezra the misguidedness of his thinking (4 Ezra 3:1-4:21). Importantly, Uriel does not simply transmit information or “speak at” Ezra; the two are engaged in an animated dialogue that reflects that of a teacher and a student, with the former guiding the latter to a realization.[12] Ezra could never argue with God the way he argues with Uriel; however, this argument and its accompanying emotional catharsis is partially what leads him to discover the truth and main message of the passage on his own.

In Daniel, angels also assume the roles of interpreters and teachers, notably in their abilities to explain visions concerning the eschaton, and help human prophets unknot knowledge from it. In Daniel, it is the archangel Gabriel who is sent down from heaven by God to explain Daniel's perplexing visions and help relieve some of his distress (Daniel 8:16-17). In Daniel 7-12, the good knowledge that is transmitted to Daniel and thus to the rest of the population, is that the earthly events that have been so oppressing the Jewish people are being mirrored in heaven, and that justice will eventually reign in the form of a final battle pitting the armies of heaven against evil forces, which will be vanquished.[14]

However, Daniel is only aware of this information due to the assistance of Gabriel, who teaches him the correct interpretation of his vision, and encouraging him when he falters (Daniel 8:15-27). This role of angels is mirrored in Zechariah, where angelic interpretation and teaching is necessary to unravel the bizarre visions that the prophet witnesses. In the passage, the angel literally walks through Zechariah's visions with him, explaining and teaching him as they go along so that Zechariah properly understands God's intended meaning (Zechariah 1:9-5:11).[9] — Angels in Judaism Wikipedia

Readers of the OT tend to focus on the creation story in Genesis. But the fact is that there are numerous references to creation in Psalms. Psalms is also one of the OT books where some interesting defining characteristics of the biblical God are found. In addition to being described as a luminous force and as “covering himself with light as with a garment”, he “rides on the clouds as on a chariot”, he makes his ministers “a flaming fire”, and the hills “smoke at his touch” (Psalm 104).

In ancient religions, the Sun-God is often associated with a mountain (or pair of mountains) from which he is said to rise. For example, the Ancient Akkadian Sun-God Shamash rises from a great mountain and lights up the world. The God of Israel also resides on a hill, namely Mount Zion (Isaiah 8:18; Psalm 74:2).

Zion (Zi-On) may be derived from Hebrew ṣiyya ("desert") and Egyptian Iwnw or Wn Thus, “On of the Desert”, an Ancient Egyptian city and center of the cult of the Sun-God Aten, known as Heliopolis (City of the Sun) in Hellenistic times.

1 Samuel 6 relates that the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem from Beth Shemesh (House/Temple of the Sun). There are several places of that name in Israel, but Beth/Beit Shemesh also refers to the Egyptian city Iwnw/Wn a.k.a. Heliopolis, above.

2 Samuel 5:7-9 states that king David “took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David … So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David.”

There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. However, there is plenty of evidence for an Egyptian pharaoh called Thutmose (Twt-Ms, “son or heir of Twt) III whose name in Hebrew would be Dwd (Dawid/David). We know from the original royal archives that Thutmose III led a series of military campaigns into Canaan (see Battle of Megiddo) and Syria, in which the Ark of the Sun-God (a portable shrine holding the statue of the God, or a miniaturized replica of it mounted on a pole like a standard) was carried at the head of the advancing army:

Year 23, 1st month of the third season, day 19 - Proceeding northward by my majesty, carrying my father Amon-Re, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt), [that he might open the ways] before me, and my father Amon strengthened the arm [of my majesty] …

- Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 236

Thutmose (Dawid-Mose) III was one of Egypt’s greatest rulers and military leaders, comparable to Alexander the Great. It is highly unlikely that the Israelites who lived next door to Egypt and whose land (Canaan) was an Egyptian colony for many centuries, would have failed to preserve some memory of him. After all, they did remember Pharaoh Necho II defeating and killing King Josiah at Megiddo a few centuries later (2 Kings 23:28-29).

Therefore, it seems that the OT has preserved some of Thutmose's memory, but under the Hebrew version of the name (Dawid). Moreover, Thutmose belonged to Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty whose founder was Ahmose (Aa-Mose or Ia-Mose) I, another notable Egyptian ruler whose name connects the OT narrative with Egypt.

In any case, key factors that shouldn’t be ignored include the following:

The Hebrews came to Canaan from Egypt where the Sun-God Aten was the principal deity, and Akhenaten’s cult had the Sun-God as sole deity.

The Ark was reportedly brought to Jerusalem from a place called “House/Temple of the Sun” (1 Samuel 6).

The First Temple was built by Solomon who was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh and who built shrines to the Sun-God.

When the Temple was dedicated, it got filled with the light of God which was so strong that the priests could not stay inside the temple to do their work (1 Kings 8:11).

The temple structure excavated at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows established pre-Israelite temple architecture with east-facing entrance to enable the rising sun to illumine the cult statue located in the interior.

When Josiah (640-609 BC) became king, he found horses and chariots, which the previous kings of Judah had dedicated to the Sun, at the Temple entrance (2 Kings 23:11), and his successors continued the same “Pagan” practices all the way to the destruction of the Temple by Babylon in 587 BC.

The fact is that though regarding the Sun as a deity is condemned in the OT, it is also described as official practice of Israelite kings from Solomon to the destruction of the First Temple. And if Sun worship was practiced, it stands to reason that there were also prayers and hymns to the Sun. The similarity of OT psalms to parallel texts from the Akkadian and Egyptian traditions is indeed striking:

O Shamash, noblest and most lordly among the gods, sublime leader, guide, Judge of heaven and earth, not changing in his command, O Shamash, who controls darkness, who provides light for the people, O Shamash, when you set, the peoplesʼ light is darkened, O Shamash, when you rise, the four quarters brighten …

- B.R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, p. 644

Indeed, even in later religion, the Sun in said to be under the control of God, which makes all its actions the actions of God. Whether the Sun acts independently as a deity in its own right or under the control of a higher deity, makes little difference to mankind in practical terms.

All facts considered, I think it stands to reason that references to the Sun (Shemesh) such as Psalm 84:11 may constitute evidence of the divinity of the Sun among the Israelites. If we think about it, the chances that an Israelite who saw the Sun in everyday life as a deity and built shrines to it, would have seen it any differently in a hymn, are pretty slim, not to say nonexistent. Of course, things may have changed many centuries later, when the text was edited to put a more "Yahwist" spin on it.

In the final analysis, it is evident that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value, and that, by comparison, the NT is more consistent and more credible. This is why outdated mythologies must be corrected by attested facts. A major source of resistance to truth is religious fanaticism as manifested among other things by the Muslim authorities’ refusal to allow excavations at the Temple Mount and other important archaeological sites.

Freud may be right, after all. The mysterious death and burial of Moses may be the expression of some Israelites' wish to bury his true identity and their past. But truth tends to come to light eventually ....

I wonder if there is a connection between an increased emphasis on the difference and distance between man and God. Is there a parallel between the increase of distance and an increase in the appearance of angels as intermediaries.

The idea just occurred to me. I have not tried to find support for it. One problem in doing so may be later redaction. Note the ambiguity between Genesis 18:1 and 2:

The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.

Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

Is 2 a redaction reflecting later beliefs?

Is 2 a redaction reflecting later beliefs? — Fooloso4

Hey, very well could be. But it was still angels visiting man.. I think the trend towards the end of the Bible and post-Biblical (apocrypha and Merkabah literature), was for Man to visit the Divine Realm, passing through various angels to get to the highest echelons.. But again, perhaps there were ideas of going back and forth... I could be off with my speculation.. It is purely piecing together possibilities. Son of Man perhaps was simply a metaphor for Israel or Mankind.. But there does seem traditions in various areas as Son of Man referring to a protector Angel..

“While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

11 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

The Interpretation of the Dream
15 “I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. 16 I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this.

“So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: 17 ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. 18 But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’

19 “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. 20 I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully. 21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. 24 The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. 25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.

26 “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’

28 “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.” — Daniel 7

You must remember the context within the story is that Daniel is basically enslaved in Babylon and having a dream vision.. Thus it makes sense to talk about evil empires (the beasts) falling away and the holy people of Most High (my guess is the Israelites, or the righteous amongst the Israelites) will rule forever at the End of Days kind of thing..

So again, "that like a son of man" could be simply "Israel" or "the Kingdom of Israel". However, in Enoch 1 we see Son of Man as an actual character.. Most historians believe this to be pre-Christian.. but must have had a huge influence if it was on the proto-group..

[Chapter 48]

1 And in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness Which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom: And all the thirsty drank of them, And were filled with wisdom, And their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. 2 And at that hour that Son of Man was named In the presence of the Lord of Spirits, And his name before the Head of Days.

3 Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, Before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits.

4 He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, And he shall be the light of the Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart.

5 All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, And will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of Spirits.

6 And for this reason hath he been chosen and hidden before Him, Before the creation of the world and for evermore.

7 And the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits hath revealed him to the holy and righteous; For he hath preserved the lot of the righteous, Because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, And have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of Spirits: For in his name they are saved, And according to his good pleasure hath it been in regard to their life.

8 In these days downcast in countenance shall the kings of the earth have become, And the strong who possess the land because of the works of their hands, For on the day of their anguish and affliction they shall not (be able to) save themselves. And I will give them over into the hands of Mine elect: As straw in the fire so shall they burn before the face of the holy: As lead in the water shall they sink before the face of the righteous, And no trace of them shall any more be found. 10 And on the day of their affliction there shall be rest on the earth, And before them they shall fall and not rise again: And there shall be no one to take them with his hands and raise them: For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and His Anointed. The name of the Lord of Spirits be blessed. — Enoch

Also, Son of Man in the form of Metatron (not just Enoch as the first two books but the name of the angelic being itself is associated with Metatron), is seen in Enoch 3.. Enoch 3 is written much later and is interesting in that it is RABBINICAL in nature.. That is to say, the ascent to heaven is through a famous Talmudic Rabbi..:

Rabbi Ishmael said :

(1) When I ascended on high to behold the vision of the Merkaba and had entered the six Halls, one
within the other:

(2) as soon as I reached the door of the seventh Hall I stood still in prayer before the Holy One,
blessed be He, and, lifting up my eyes on high (i.e. towards the Divine Majesty), I said :

(3) " Lord of the Universe, I pray thee, that the merit of Aaron, the son of Amram, the lover of peace
and pursuer of peace, who received the crown of priesthood from Thy Glory on the mount of Sinai,
be valid for me in this hour, so that Qafsiel*, the prince, and the angels with him may not get power
over me nor throw me down from the heavens ".

(4) Forthwith the Holy One, blessed be He, sent to me Metatron, his Servant ('Ebed) the angel, the
Prince of the Presence, and he, spreading his wings, with great joy came to meet me so as to save me
from their hand.

(5) And he took me by his hand in their sight, saying to me: "Enter in peace before the high and
exalted King3 and behold the picture of the Merkaba".

(6) Then I entered the seventh Hall, and he led me to the camp(s) of Shekina and placed me before
6the Holy One, blessed be He, to behold the Merkaba.

(7) As soon as the princes of the Merkaba and the flaming Seraphim perceived me, they fixed their
eyes upon me. Instantly trembling and shuddering seized me and I fell down and was benumbed by
the radiant image of their eyes and the splendid appearance of their faces; until the Holy One,
blessed be He, rebuked them, saying:



(8) "My servants, my Seraphim, my Kerubim and my 'Ophanniml Cover ye your eyes before
Ishmael, my son, my friend, my beloved one and my glory, that he tremble not nor shudder ! "

(9) Forthwith Metatron the Prince of the Presence, came and restored my spiritand put me upon my
feet. — Enoch 3

“covering himself with light as with a garment” — Apollodorus

The more you attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you dug the deeper down you go. It follows from your claims that the sun covers "himself" with light. Why would the sun cover "himself" with light? Is the light of the sun not enough? Does it need light to cover its light?

In ancient religions, the Sun-God is often associated with a mountain (or pair of mountains) from which he is said to rise. For example, the Ancient Akkadian Sun-God Shamash rises from a great mountain and lights up the world. The God of Israel also resides on a hill, namely Mount Zion (Isaiah 8:18; Psalm 74:2). — Apollodorus

You are not the only one who can play this juvenile game:

The "Fool on a the Hill" also lives on a hill.

But a hill top is not a mountain top. Davy Crockett was born on a mountain top.

an Egyptian pharaoh called Thutmose (Twt-Ms, “son or heir of Twt) III whose name in Hebrew would be Dwd (Dawid/David). — Apollodorus

What is your source? The Hebrew letter dalet (with the dot) דּ is pronounced as 'd' not as 'th'. In addition, 'th' in the first part of Thutmose is not the same as the 't' at the end. There are, however, different pronunciation guesses. Most pronounce the first part differently than the last.

Thutmose I (sometimes read as Thutmosis or Tuthmosis I, Thothmes in older history works in Latinized Greek; Ancient Egyptian: ḏḥwtj-ms,[2] Tʼaḥawtī-mīsaw, pronounced [tʼaˈħawtij ˈmisˌaw] — Wiki

Therefore, it seems that the OT has preserved some of Thutmose's memory — Apollodorus

First, there is about a 400 year gap between Thutmose lll and King David. Second, it there is a connection it would not be a matter of preserving Thutmose's memory but of erasing it.

The Ark was reportedly brought to Jerusalem from a place called “House/Temple of the Sun” (1 Samuel 6). — Apollodorus

Beth Shemesh was named by the Canaanites.

The First Temple was built by Solomon who was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh and who built shrines to the Sun-God. — Apollodorus

It is not clear whether this an attempt to distort the truth in order to save your failed argument or simply a reflection of your ignorance.

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. — 1 Kings 11:4

This is not evidence of Jewish worship of a sun god or any other god other then the God of the people. Solomon turned away from his God. That is the point. See God's response to what Solomon did.

The temple structure excavated at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows established pre-Israelite temple architecture with east-facing entrance to enable the rising sun to illumine the cult statue located in the interior. — Apollodorus

The East, the Hebrew word means "the direction of the rising sun", does not derive its significance from pre-Israelite temple architecture. The garden of Eden was planted in the east. (Genesis 2:8) God was not following established pre-Israelite temple landscape architecture.

Indeed, even in later religion, the Sun in said to be under the control of God, which makes all its actions the actions of God. — Apollodorus

Once again you undermine your own argument. If the sun is under the control of God then clearly the sun is not God.

Whether the Sun acts independently as a deity in its own right or under the control of a higher deity, makes little difference to mankind in practical terms. — Apollodorus

We are not talking "in practical terms", but the question of worship.

All facts considered, I think it stands to reason — Apollodorus

Correction: it stands to your perversion of facts and reason.

In the final analysis, it is evident that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value, and that, by comparison, the NT is more consistent and more credible. — Apollodorus

Your "final analysis" does not even begin to address the lack of consistency and credibility in the NT.

It seems that the more you're attempting to "think" the more you're demonstrating your inability to do so! :smile:

Why would Yahweh need to cover himself with light? Or ride on the clouds, make his ministers “a flaming fire”, make the hills “smoke at his touch”, etc., etc.?

Why would Yahweh need to reside on a hill like other deities in the region?

Thutmose's memory was erased by preserving it in a distorted form, as suggested by eminent Egyptologists and other scholars who know what they are talking about and don't require your opinion.

Beth Shemesh may have been named by the Canaanites. But the Hebrews were Canaanites:

The word Canaanites serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations—both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups—throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan ... archaeological data suggests that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature

Canaan - Wikipedia

And Beth Shemesh was also the Hebrew name for the Egyptian city On a.k.a. Heliopolis.

The fact that English "Jesus" is phonetically distinct from Greek Iēsoûs and Aramaic Yēšūa, does not mean that it doesn't refer to the same person. Likewise, "Twt"/"Dḥwtj" (Thut) and "Dwd" (Dawid) are phonetically sufficiently close to represent distinct yet related pronunciations of the same name.

Or take English "David" and Arabic "Dāwūd". Different pronunciations of the same name. There is nothing unclear about this.

The issue is not whether Sun worship was "against the rules" but that it was practiced for many centuries. The OT (2 Kings 23:5) indisputably states that the kings of Judah including Solomon, dedicated horses and chariots to the Sun and appointed priests to serve the Sun and other deities. This is corroborated by the archaeological and other evidence (see J G Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun).

The Solomon-era temple excavated at Tel Motza has nothing to do with "the Hebrew word for the direction of the rising sun", but with the fact that its entrance is oriented toward the east, a common feature in Near East temple architecture intended to allow sunlight to enter the temple at sunrise:

Excavations in Motza (2012) unearthed the Tel Motza temple, a large building revealing clear elements of ritual use, dated to the 9th century BCE. A rare cache of ritual objects found near the building included tiny ceramic figurines of men and animals. An analysis of animal bones found at the site indicated that they belonged only to kosher animals.
A wide, east-facing entrance in the wall of the public building is believed to have been built in accordance with temple construction traditions in the Ancient Near East: the sun rising in the east would illuminate an object placed inside the temple, symbolizing the divine presence

Tel Motza - Wikipedia

These are well-known and undisputed facts, that don't need your approval.

The Sun was originally regarded as a deity in its own right and later as controlled by a higher deity. Again, this is a historical fact, not a contradiction.

I am not going to bother addressing any of this again. Your tenuous connections sinks under their own weight.

More importantly all of this is nothing more than an attempt to bury the real issues regarding Judaism at the time of Jesus and the pagan influences of Christianity. Judaism had changed significantly by this time.

First you attempt to bypass Judaism and go straight from neoPlatonism to Jesus. When that failed you attempt to make Judaism indistinguishable from other religions.

First you attempt to bypass Judaism and go straight from neoPlatonism to Jesus. When that failed you attempt to make Judaism indistinguishable from other religions. — Fooloso4

Yep.. We have to be careful to understand the stability and solidity of ideas in the right context of their time period. By the time of the Second Temple, Judaism went from a henotheistic religion with heterogenous traditions to a very strong covenantal based/commandment based one. This is the Judaism Jesus would know. Retroactive mythologizing had already taken place by the time of the return from Babylon as to how Israelite history was perceived. It was to be perceived as a covenant that goes back to the figure of Moses, with commandments, to an immaterial godhead, with pilgrimage festivals to a central Temple location in Jerusalem, etc. Except in variations like Philo's clearly Hellenistic influences in the diaspora, this was the core of Judaic thought.

"Twt"/"Dḥwtj" (Thut) and "Dwd" (Dawid) are phonetically sufficiently close to represent distinct yet related pronunciations of the same name. — Apollodorus

I almost forgot "Todd the Polka King". Here we see both T and D. Some pronounce this Dot. This has caused a great deal of confusion because he had a sister named Dot. And as if that was not enough they had a brother named Tad, although some insisted that Tad and Todd were actually the same person. One intriguing piece of evidence is a scrap of paper that says: "Dat polka playa", clearly showing that T and D are just different pronunciations of the same letter. Which explains why when the two or three of them were young they were called tots.

There are a few things touched on here in Francesca Stavkakopoulou's "God: An Anatomy". A few key points,(pages 386-387):

As the pantheon of gods shrinks to one, the angels proliferate. The idea that this god is the source of both good and evil is rejected. Evil is ascribed the agency of some of the angels. She points to the book of Job. Job asks his wife:

Shall we receive the good from God and not receive the bad? — Job 2:10

"The Satan" is introduced by a second writer as part of a junior council of gods. It is the Satan and not God who becomes responsible for Job's afflictions. And, I might add, our own.

From about the third century BCE the anonymous divine messengers became a hierarchical organization of angelic beings, headed by powerful archangels, with distinct roles and personalities. Most prominently Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael. On the other side a group of malevolent supernatural adversaries of God.

According to Stavrakopoulou this overtly dualistic view was not widespread but developed within certain scribal circles, and was a prominent feature of apocalyptic groups convinced the end times were approaching, where the final battle between good and evil would be fought. By the end of the first century CE, these apocalyptic groups had come to include some of Jesus' devotees, many of whom held that humans were not only naturally inclined toward wrongdoing, but dangerously vulnerable to demon-induced sin, from which only Christ could deliver them. — Anatomy of God, p. 387

Yes, but of course this is all basically accepted as consensus.. The question is to what extent the apocalyptic angels were widespread in all Jewish circles. For example, did Pharisees put a lot of stock in angels. Though I acknowledge the fact that the Talmud was written much later, I think the passages about Metatron in the Talmud and Enoch 3 show that it indeed was thoroughly part of most sects by the 1st century.. not just pockets of apocalyptic/Essenic movements. These were major themes there were diffused throughout.

I think there has been a tendency in modern times to ensure that emphasis on angels were simply a Christian thing.. But it could have come from the same Judaic pool. The very major difference became when groups started separating the commandments (Ezra/Nehemiah's centrality of Mosaic Law of Second Temple Judaism reconstruction), from the mystical.

This is especially expected when Jewish Christianity (30-135 CE, very small early followers and family based near Jerusalem) became Gentile Christianity (timeline overlapping with Jewish Christianity from Paul.. 50 CE-325 CE and beyond), and the covenantal/commandment nature of an ethnic-based religion of the people of Judah (Judaism) gave way to universalist tendencies that were created from the synthesis of various figures like Paul and the Book of John, and early Church Fathers in general, creating the new religion, layer upon layer.. to become the basis for full-fledged "Christianity" representative of the Nicene Creed. Simply put, ethnic-based commandments were not useful to Gentiles who had no use for it.. Much easier to retain and emphasize were the mystical elements as influenced by Daniel/Enoch/Apocalyptic literature....

We can maybe speculate:

Sadducees...very little mystical influence.. commandments were central, but most purity laws were simply belonging to Priestly class.. more Epicurean version of reality as the here and now.. perhaps simply pre-Second Temple Judaic ideas of God's efficacy only matters in THIS life...makes sense for the Elite who were more interested in current power structures that maintained their authority).

Pharisees...a moderate amount of mystical influence... commandments were central, purity laws to be followed by all Jews (Ezra's Constitution), mystical elements influenced by Zoroastrianism/Persia.. End of Times, resurrection, angels, souls, etc.

Essenes/apocalyptic groups... varying views of commandments from more extreme versions than Pharisees (Dead Sea Scroll sect which may have just been a breakoff Sadducees that disagreed with lax version in Jerusalem), to more emphasis on mystical elements only..

I believe the mythos of the mystical elements (such as hierarchies of angels) had such a hold on certain populations, that rabbis feared that people would only be preoccupied with these speculations and not the commandments. That is why they condemned the average person from speculating what is above and below and beginning and end of time. Note, that they didn't deny such things, they just didn't want it to overtake the commandments and their centrality to Second Temple (and post Temple) Judaic practice. They still held such views as sacred and practiced Merkabah "ascent" mystical practice whereby they tried to ascend the heavens, encountering certain angels, for some theosophical vision of the Divine Chariot.

That being said, I think Jesus fit into this broader Jewish context.. He had studied the Law and major debates to some extent (possibly Hillelite Pharisee), but was also influenced by the major trend of angeology.. So the Son of Man imagery was useful to identify with.. This was the redeemer and protector angel of Israel, come to show man the Final Days.. Surely, if a man sees himself as a represenative (in some way) of this angel, then this gives an even more urgent impetus on the messiah's part.. In a way, Jesus is trying to check all the boxes that were popular at the time for what the messiah was to be..

1) Descended from David (check.. even if that can never be confirmed.. but it couldn't be denied! At the least, Joseph was probably not a Kohein or Levite, which means he could just be Judah/Israelite)

2) Had proper view of the Law [of course contingent to being convinced by it].. (check, Hillel-style common man view of commandments.. You can heal on the Sabbath, etc.).

3) Heralding the Kingdom of Heaven and trying to appeal to the poor and Lost Sheep of Israel..

4) Challenging corrupt forces and Empires that were controlling Israel and Jerusalem.. check

5) Son of Man redeemer come to herald the End of Times..Check!

There are various other ways too..

Of course, Jesus died and the End of Times did not occur and this posed an existential dillemma for a group centered around a charismatic leader.

Anyways, I just wanted to highlight some of these points in how Jesus fit into the context of his time.

I am not going to bother addressing any of this again. — Fooloso4

Yep, you've already exposed your total ignorance of the subject, so there is no need to do it again. :grin:

However, the fact is that the OT not only says that Yahweh (Adonai) is the Sun and the protector of his followers, but also calls him “the Sun of Righteousness”:

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD (Adonai) of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness (Shemesh sadaqah) arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD (Adonai) of hosts (Malachi 4:1-3)

In Mesopotamian religion, i.e., right next door to Israel/Canaan, the Sun-God Shamash was the God of truth, justice, morality, and healing.

Shamash was said to ride through the heavens in his sun chariot and see all things that happened in the day. Therefore, he knew everything and enforced divine justice on earth.

The Sun-God was symbolically represented as a winged Sun Disk throughout the region (Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia) and as such was used for protection.

Representations of the winged Sun Disk occur on the cult stand from Taanach near Megiddo (11th-10th centuries BC) and other artifacts from across the country attesting to the prevalence of a solar cult in Israel.

The winged Sun Disk even appears on the seals of the kings of Judah in the period the OT was composed (700's and 600's BC):

The winged solar disk appears on Hebrew seals connected to the royal house of the Kingdom of Judah. Many of these are seals and jar handles from Hezekiah's reign, together with the inscription l'melekh ("belonging to the king"). Typically, Hezekiah's royal seals feature two downward-pointing wings and six rays emanating from the central sun disk, and some are flanked on either side with the Egyptian ankh ("key of life") symbol. Prior to this, there are examples from the seals of servants of king Ahaz and of king Uzziah.

Winged Sun – Wikipedia

As the Book of Malachi that calls Yahweh/Adonai "Sun of Righteousness" was composed in the 400’s, this shows the enduring influence of the pre-exilic Sun cult, promoted by the kings of Judah, on post-exilic Judaism. Moreover, as the Sun-God continued to be officially worshiped in next-door Egypt where there were large Jewish communities, and Israel at the time was under Persian and later Greek rule during which the Sun was an important deity, this influence persisted for several centuries and re-emerged in the early centuries AD as can be seen from Hellenized Jewish synagogues with representations of the Greek Sun-God Helios.

The Metamorphosis of the Sun God in Ancient Synagogues in Israel – Haaretz

Note that this was in Israel, NOT Alexandria!

Obviously, the importance of the Sun in Jewish thought decreased over time, but its central place in earlier forms of Judaism is indisputable, as shown by Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun) and many other scholars.

Incidentally, it is a well-known fact (except, perhaps, to the blind and the unthinking) that the Sun surrounds or “covers” itself with its own light “as with a garment”, which is precisely why it has always been represented as a disk or orb surrounded by rays of light!

So, I think Psalm 104 makes perfect sense in a solar context, unless you can explain to us why Yahweh is riding on clouds and making the hills smoke:

O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who maketh the clouds his chariot (Psalm 104) … Let God arise, Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens … O sing praises unto the Lord; To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens (Psalm 68:1-4, 32-33) … Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud; He is coming to Egypt … (Isaiah 19:1) … There is no one like the God of Jeshurun (Israel), Who rides the heavens to help you, And in His excellency on the clouds … (Deuteronomy 33:26)

Anyway, your vehement denial of established facts can only serve to expose your ignorance and your inability to think. But feel free to converse with your alter ego who, unsurprisingly, seems to relish your counterfactual claims .... :smile:



The history of Ancient Israel is inextricably intertwined with that of Egypt, though not in the way that is usually assumed.

The Bible states that Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph already lived in Egypt. It also says that Moses was born in Egypt and raised at the royal palace, that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, that he could not speak Hebrew, etc. Indeed, his very name is Egyptian, as recognized by Philo and Josephus.

But history shows that there is much more to the story if we take into account the Egyptian side of it which is missing in the OT narrative.

Pharaoh Ahmose (or A-Moses) I is one of Egypt’s most celebrated rulers. In the second millennium BC, Lower (North) Egypt and part of Upper (South) Egypt were controlled by foreign rulers of Eastern (Levantine) origin, known as Hyksos.

Ahmose/A-Moses, the ruler of Upper Egypt, liberated the North from the foreign rulers, united the country, thus establishing the New Kingdom of Egypt, and restored Egyptian control over Canaan. From the 1500’s BC, Canaan was firmly under Egyptian control. Thus, there would have been no Hebrew population in Egypt capable of invading and taking over Canaan at the time of Moses (13th century BC), and there is no evidence whatsoever that there was.

According to the Book of Kings (re-edited in the 500's BC), the law of Moses was mysteriously "discovered" in the Temple in the late 600's BC during the reign of king Josiah (2 Kings 22:8).

If Moses existed as described in the OT, he may or may not have introduced a new religion. But this religion was not widely known or observed until many centuries after Moses, according to some scholars not until the 2nd century BC.

This was followed by a long period of increasingly Hellenized Judaism:

Hellenistic Judaism was very different from the Rabbinic Judaism that would later supplant it. Prayer and reading of scripture was in Greek, not Hebrew. The practices and beliefs were also very different, if we take the writing of the first-century philosopher Philo as representative. Though lacking any central leadership, the rituals probably varied quite a bit from community to community. Also, a synagogue was headed not by a rabbi but by an archisynagogos (“head of the synagogue”) and a council of elders (presbyteroi).
This form of Judaism is alien to us because it did not last. After flowering in the fourth and fifth centuries – as attested by the synagogues built in this period – Hellenistic Judaism collapsed and disappeared, together with the Roman society in which it existed - Haaretz

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time, most Jews had no reason to resist Hellenistic influence, though a small nationalistic-minded group may have done so. Jesus was definitely not one of them.

In any case, Hellenistic influence on Jesus and on the Greek-speaking Jewish community in general (e.g., Philo) is evident not only from language and culture, but also from well-known philosophical concepts like “perfection”.

In the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions. In contrast, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

To strive to become perfect, to see the truth perfectly, etc. is exactly what Plato thought centuries before:

Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise (Theaetetus 176a-b).

And therefore it is just that the mind of the philosopher only has wings, for he is always, so far as he is able, in communion through memory with those things the communion with which causes God to be divine. Now a man who employs such memories rightly is always being initiated into perfect mysteries and he alone becomes truly perfect (Phaedrus 249c).

The aim of becoming perfect or godlike is common to Greek philosophy and Christianity alike, and I think it is safe to say that this is due to Hellenistic influence, and that Jesus used a blend of religious and philosophical currents to convey his message, most likely in the universal language of the time which was Greek.

The question is to what extent the apocalyptic angels were widespread in all Jewish circles. — schopenhauer1

According to Stavrakopoulou it was not at that time widespread. Of course much of the evidence for such beliefs comes from written works, that is from scribes. These works reflect their views and not necessarily what initially were more commonly accepted views. In what she writes she does not identify scribal circles and apocalyptic groups with particular sects,

I think there has been a tendency in modern times to ensure that emphasis on angels were simply a Christian thing. — schopenhauer1

She places the development of changing beliefs in angels in the third century BCE and eschatological beliefs in the second century BCE, well before Jesus.

layer upon layer. — schopenhauer1

An important layer is pagan belief in human gods and offspring of men and gods. We do find the sons of gods and daughters of women in Genesis 6. Whatever this might mean, such a thing was not part of Jewish beliefs during the time of Jesus. We do find, however, the pagan misunderstanding of the HB term 'son of God' and 'sons of God'

That is why they condemned the average person from speculating what is above and below and beginning and end of time. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, leave it to the professionals. I think there was probably more that a little jockeying for power and authority here.

In a way, Jesus is trying to check all the boxes that were popular at the time for what the messiah was to be.. — schopenhauer1

I think it is an open question how much are things ascribed to him rather than things he took to be true of himself.

Of course, Jesus died and the End of Times did not occur and this posed an existential dillemma for a group centered around a charismatic leader. — schopenhauer1

And the explanations his followers found to overcome what might have been the end rather than the beginning for them was quite a feat!

I think it is an open question how much are things ascribed to him rather than things he took to be true of himself. — Fooloso4

Well, and that is the main argument we are discussing, right? So my whole post earlier was about whether Son of Man as a redeeming angel could have been a realistic view in 1st century Judaic thought, and I believe it was. I don't even think it would have, by default, even be opposed by Pharisaic thought, pace evidence in Enoch 3 and the Talmud's description of Metatron and ascent literature. In other words, were there certain "trends" at various times in Jewish history for how the Messiah was to present himself? I think there is good argument for yes.

Look at examples like Abraham Abulafia, and Solomon Molko, two kabbalist-mystical type messiah claimants versus Bar Kochba or David Reubeni, two militaristic-type claimants.

Even though Rashi, a highly revered Rabbi of France, is much later in Rabbinic Judaism (1000s CE), he may have preserved earlier traditions with his commentary on Daniel where he indeed stated that the one like a son of man is indeed the Messiah.. Then in the Babylonian Talmud itself you have this passage:

In Sanhedrin 98a of the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Alexandri tries to solve the contradiction of Daniel's vision and Zechariah's vision of the Messiah.. He said that if the Messiah is deserved then he comes from clouds in Heaven like in Daniel, and if not deserved, riding on a donkey like in Zechariah.. You can clearly see the writers trying to make Jesus a messiah for all the en vogue conceptions as such.. Probably from traditions where these rabbis got their traditions.. So it is clear based on this evidence that the one like a son of man was indeed interpreted as the Messiah even in Rabbinical Judaism, as is shown in the Talmud and Rashi.

Yep, you've already exposed your total ignorance of the subject, so there is no need do it again. — Apollodorus

Anyone who reads through this knows what's what.

However ... — Apollodorus

Do you think that by repeating this yet again it becomes true? You attempt to give a literal reading to something that makes no sense when read literally.

Obviously, the importance of the Sun in Jewish thought decreased over time ... — Apollodorus

And yet you go on and on and on. None of this makes any difference to the issues you are trying to bury. Namely, the influence of paganism on Christianity. Whatever views may have been held hundreds of years earlier, does not address the view of Judaism at the time of Jesus.


From the article in Haaretz:

“At the time, it was evidently considered permissible to use imagery of people, animals and even pagan godsas long as it was in the service of Jewish tradition and adopted Jewish meaning,” says Prof. Moti Aviam, an archaeologist at Kinneret College and an expert on ancient religious structures. (Emphasis added because of your deceptive habit of skipping the parts that run counter to your fabrications)

They would have presumably objected to representations of pagan gods, however, hence the solar deity in the synagogues was meant to represent the God of Israel, most scholars agree.
(Emphasis added)

Aviam suggests that Helios doesn’t represent Yahweh per se but the sun. “Together with the moon and stars, the 12 months and seasons, the image is representative of the power of god in the universe he created,” he says.

(Yup, more stuff you skipped)

All of this stands in opposition to your claim that they worshipped the sun as a god.

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time — Apollodorus

It is not a given. It is a claim you have failed to substantiate. The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. They did not accept a trinity of gods.

To strive to become perfect — Apollodorus

The term had a specific meaning:

In Jewish scripture certain individuals such as Abraham and Noah are referred to as perfect because of their obedience to God. In these passages perfect is used as a synonym for complete, and perfect obedience to God is simply complete obedience to God./quote]

Now your game of word association may reveal something about your psychological make-up but says nothing about Judaism at the time of Jesus. — Wiki Matthew 5:48

So it is clear based on this evidence that the one like a son of man was indeed interpreted as the Messiah even in Rabbinical Judaism, as is shown in the Talmud and Rashi. — schopenhauer1

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you making a distinction between a son of god and a son of man? And/or between a son of man and one like a son of man?

I don't know how much of an of emphasis was put on distinctions between these terms.

Angels do in some cases to look like men. The story of Abraham's visitors is puzzling. The Lord appeared but when Abraham looked up he saw three men. A bit later:

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. — Genesis 18:22

Genesis 19 begins:

The two angels arrived at Sodom ...

Is this just two stories joined together without due care? Or is the ambiguity intentional? Are they men or like a son of man? Men or angels? Perhaps it has something to do with what you suggested earlier, to keep the average person from speculating. Or maybe such speculation leads not just the average person but rather human beings from speculating about divine matters.

In most cases 'son of man' refers to a human being. I do think it possible that some regarded son of man as it referred to the messiah as a reference to an angelic rather than human being. But this creates all kinds of problems if one also regards Jesus as the messiah and that he suffered and died on the cross.

Then again, perhaps none of these issues was of much concern. What was of concern an anointed one who would save or redeem the righteous or the people. I think it is even possible that Jesus' disciples may have held differing beliefs and expectations of the kingdom at hand.

All of this stands in opposition to your claim that they worshipped the sun as a god. — Fooloso4

The OT says they did in the First Temple period!

And you're obviously unable to grasp the concept of "Hellenistic Judaism". Regarding Hellenized synagogues in Israel, the Haaretz article says very clearly:

These shuls and their mosaics only seem strange when compared to the later synagogues of Rabbinic Judaism, but they are perfectly in line with the Roman cults of the period. Indeed, Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult.

So in this respect the existence of the zodiac and the portrayal of the Jewish god as a solar deity in synagogues was in line with the general thrust of Roman religion during the period.

The bottom line is that it’s hardly surprising that Roman-Byzantine synagogues portrayed the sun, or Yahweh as a solar deity: The Jews who prayed there were essentially Romans and this is how the Romans of the period envisioned and portrayed the supreme god.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-the-metamorphosis-of-the-sun-god-in-ancient-synagogues-in-israel-1.9157775

No one is saying that the Jews worshiped the Greek or Greco-Roman Sun-God, though some Jews may have done just that, in the same way some modern Jews worship Jesus.

But the Jewish God they worshiped was "portrayed as a solar deity", exactly as in the First Temple period and before, because that was how Hellenistic Judaism, the dominant form of the religion, conceived of God at the time.

The article states in unambiguous terms:

It was not Rabbinic Judaism, which would eventually become Judaism as we know it but at the time was only taking shape on the sidelines of the Jewish world. The Jews who prayed in these and other synagogues belonged to what was then the mainstream of Judaism but is now long forgotten: Hellenistic Judaism.

Can't you read??? Rabbinic Judaism, or what you counterfactually choose to imagine Judaism "must have been" at the time, did not exist. It's something that emerged centuries later, after the decline of Hellenistic influence and the rise of Christianity and Islam.

I bet you even walk on all fours. Or maybe on a zimmer frame .... :smile:

No one is saying that the Jews worshiped the Greek or Greco-Roman Sun-God — Apollodorus

You said:

If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero. — Apollodorus

And:

Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following ...God equated to the Sun — Apollodorus

And:

Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible we find statements like “God is the Sun”: — Apollodorus

And:

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time — Apollodorus

You are trying to backpedal on your claim that they worshipped the literal sun.

It should be noted that the temples in question were built between 1,500 and 1,700 years ago. Long after the period in question. You skipped over this important fact. The article you are relying on said:

As Roman religion was changing, so too was the religion of Judea. Following the destruction of Second Temple Judaism in the disastrous anti-Roman revolts in the 60s and 130s C.E., the dominant form of Judaism practiced in Judea at the time, a Judaism centered around the Temple, disappeared. Hellenistic Judaism became the dominant form of Judaism in the Holy Land in the following centuries, as the mosaic-adorned synagogues attest.

The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus.

As to the Roman cult:


EMPEROR WORSHIP, the Roman cult established during the reign of Augustus, first in the provinces but not in Italy, and practiced throughout the Roman Empire. It is the direct continuation of the Hellenistic worship of the ruler. Emperor worship first appeared in Palestine during the reign of *Herod the Great. Although it was completely unacceptable to the Jewish population, Herod could nevertheless not afford to lag behind other vassal princes in establishing the cult. Roman Cult

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you making a distinction between a son of god and a son of man? And/or between a son of man and one like a son of man? — Fooloso4

Basically.. one like the son of man in Daniel was ambiguous but popular interpretation was that it represented the messiah.. That this figure was later also attached with angelic being (like Enoch/Metatron), and the Jesus was (at least portrayed as) some sort of representative of this son of man figure who was to herald the End of Times.

But this creates all kinds of problems if one also regards Jesus as the messiah and that he suffered and died on the cross. — Fooloso4

Oh sure, it all has to be retroactively justified.. but I am just arguing that people could have thought of him as a sort of "Son of Man" representative.. Adapted to this title perhaps.. some special status conferred to him.

Then again, perhaps none of these issues was of much concern. What was of concern an anointed one who would save or redeem the righteous or the people. I think it is even possible that Jesus' disciples may have held differing beliefs and expectations of the kingdom at hand. — Fooloso4

Well, I agree there were differing beliefs of the characteristics of a messiah. I actually think the Gospel writers were trying their best to fit him into various versions of popular messianic belief (descended from David, riding a donkey on his way into Jerusalem, Son of Man title, etc.).

Matthew 13:37,41-42

He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of man.... The Son of man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Luke 18:31-34, Mark 10:32-34, Matthew 20:17-19

Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.” But they understood none of these things; this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know the things which were spoken.

Mark 14:62 (ESV), Matthew 26:64 (at his Trial before the Sanhedrin)

And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven

Matthew 24:30 states:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Matthew 25:31-32 states:

But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit upon his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered in his presence, and he will separate them as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goat

Again, look at Sanhedrin 98a again and see that this at least matches up with the Rabbis' interpretation of Messiah coming on clouds of Heaven (if deserved) and a donkey (if not deserved).

You are trying to backpedal on your claim that they worshipped the literal sun. — Fooloso4

You are confused. First they worshiped the Sun as God, then God as the Sun, and then God as God. And later some turned to Marx .... :smile:

The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus. — Fooloso4

Nonsense. It became more influential after Jesus, but it started centuries earlier. The region had been under Greek control from around 300 BC:

All Judaism after the conquests of Alexander was Hellenistic Judaism. The Hellenistic period begins with the conquests of Alexander, but when did it end? In one sense, it continued under the Romans and even encompassed the Byzantine period, ending only with the Islamic conquest.

Lester L. Grabbe, Hellenistic Judaism

As to the Roman cult — Fooloso4

Nope. NOT "the Roman cult", but "a Roman cult".

Indeed, Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult

It was a form of the Roman cult. Or, more precisely, a Greco-Roman cult (hence "Hellenistic Judaism") in which the Jewish God was artistically represented as the Greek Sun-God and, presumably, associated with the Sun, just as among Christians Jesus was represented in a similar way to God Apollo, i.e., as a beardless young man with long hair and a solar halo around his head:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/%22The_good_Shepherd%22_mosaic_-_Mausoleum_of_Galla_Placidia.jpg

The Jewish population, though not the Christian, was everywhere exempted from the loyal duty of emperor worship. Following the destruction of the Second Temple there was a tendency among the rabbis to mitigate various laws concerning idolatry, which was no longer considered a threat to the Jewish community. Nevertheless these same rabbis continued to reject any compliance with the imperial cult.

Emperor Worship - Jewish Virtual Library

Though Jews adopted aspects of the Roman or Greco-Roman cult, it doesn't mean they adopted emperor worship. There is nothing unclear there except to the ignorant and the confused ....

First they worshiped the Sun as God, then God as the Sun, and then God as God. — Apollodorus

More backpedaling. When you say:

Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following ...God equated to the Sun — Apollodorus

that is quite different than saying that at one time Judaism had such beliefs.

The article places the rise of Hellenistic Judaism after the death of Jesus.
— Fooloso4

Nonsense. — Apollodorus

So, the article you present as authoritative is nonsense? You even quoted from it:

After flowering in the fourth and fifth centuries – as attested by the synagogues built in this period

Nope. NOT "the Roman cult", but "a Roman cult" ... It was a form of the Roman cult. — Apollodorus

No particular Roman cult is the Roman cult. The Roman cult is a term that cover the particular cults. Such hairsplitting is tediously argumentative.

Nevertheless these same rabbis continued to reject any compliance with the imperial cult.

There you go. Once again you undermine your own argument!

Though Jews adopted aspects of the Roman or Greco-Roman cult, it doesn't mean they adopted emperor worship. — Apollodorus

Exactly! And yet you underline that the article said it was a Roman cult.

The question remains in what way Judaism in the time of Jesus was influenced by paganism? Not by worshipping the sun and not by worshipping a man. Unless you can identify these pagan practices and beliefs at this time then any pagan influence evident in Christianity was foreign to Jesus' Judaism.

The more you attempt to dig yourself out of the hole you dug the deeper down you go. — Fooloso4

:lol:

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Common sense 101!

From what I can see, the only one that is backpedaling here – to pre-kindergarten levels of discourse – is you! :rofl:

For your information, Haaretz isn’t “my authority”, I merely quoted the article as an example of mainstream knowledge of which you appear to be ignorant.

By “Judaism” I meant Judaism in its historical form in the period under discussion, i.e., from its beginnings in Ancient Canaan, not Modern Judaism which is a totally different story!

“A Roman cult” can be ANY cult observed by inhabitants of the Roman Empire, e.g. the worship of a particular deity. “Imperial cult” is the worship of the emperor. They are two TOTALLY different things. Hellenistic Judaism was the former but not the latter. Very simple and easy to understand - to normal people, that is.

Hellenistic Judaism “flowered” in the 4th and 5th centuries in the sense that it increased in influence and appeal, not that it started at that time! A plant sprouts, grows, and flowers at successive points in time without ceasing to be the same plant. Hellenistic Judaism was established before Jesus, it was growing at the time of Jesus and flowered after him. Are you sure English is your first language???

If a person’s presumed existence is unsupported by independent evidence, then that person is likely ahistorical.

History has records of a pharaoh Ah-Mose(s) I, who was Egypt’s national hero, but not of a Hebrew leader of that name. In fact, “Moses” itself is an Egyptian word meaning “son” or “heir” (“ms”) to which the Greek ending “-es” was later added, as already recognized by Philo and Josephus.

ms – Wiktionary

Egyptian “ms” (Hebraized as “moshe” and Hellenized as “moses”), was often added to the name of a deity to form a personal name. In this case, Ah-Mose(s) birth name was “Jah” or “Aah” (the word for “moon”) + “ms”. On being crowned king, he assumed the official title Nb-Pehti-Re (“Lord-Strength-Sun”).

The OT does mention a prophet Amos and an “Amoz”, but the information provided is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the origin of the name or the identity of the character(s). Quite possibly, Amos/Amoz is a distorted memory of Ah-Mose(s) as is Moses himself. It must be remembered that as pharaoh, Ah-Mose(s) was not only the head of the Egyptian state, but also the religious leader.

Another OT name that may be linked to Pharaoh Ah-Mose is King Mesha of Moab. However, as with Moses and Amos, the evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions.

All that can be said is that, unlike the historical Pharaoh Ah-Mose who was Egypt's political and religious leader, the Hebrew Moses is a legendary and, possibly, ahistorical figure.

Indeed, having been under Egyptian control for centuries, the whole of Canaan and particularly the Israelites (who allegedly had lived in Egypt) must have preserved some memory of a great leader like Ah-Mose in the same way Persians preserved memories of Alexander the Great, for example.

However, just as Alexander in Persia’s national memory became Iskandar/Sekandar and son of a Persian king, not a Greek, so also Israelite memory of Ah-Mose gradually began to fade and was reconstructed centuries later when a new national consciousness had rendered Jewish history inconvenient or embarrassing and a conscious effort was made to erase and rewrite it to fit a new political and religious ideology. The result was that Ah-Mose became Moses.

Additionally, as the OT text was composed centuries after the supposed time of “Moses”, and underwent subsequent editing, it is impossible to form an objective idea of the kind of religion he introduced, if any. This means that “the religion of Moses” is necessarily a retroactive construct.

This being the case, all we can do is to go by what evidence we have. The OT (2 Kings 22:8) states that “the book of the laws of Moses” was mysteriously “discovered” in the Jerusalem Temple by a priest named Hilkiah in the reign of King Josiah (c. 641-609 BC). We are also told that on the basis of that book the “original religion of Moses” was reinstated.

Now this event supposedly took place at the end of the First Temple period. Indeed, the Book of Kings was apparently composed in the 600’s BC and edited in the 500’s BC, after the destruction of the Temple.

So, what had been the religion of the Israelites prior to the "discovery of the laws of Moses"? The OT tells us exactly. It was a polytheistic religion centered on a solar deity (Sun-God) and his female consort Anath or Asherah a.k.a. “Queen of Heaven”. On the Island of Elephantine, there was even a Jewish temple dedicated to Yahweh and Anath.

Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine - JSTOR

The OT also states that Sun worship was introduced by King Solomon, the builder of the First Temple, and promoted by his successors, the kings of Judah. This logically means that Sun worship formed a central part of Judaism throughout the First Temple period (957 BC to 587 BC), in other words, for the entire history of Judaism as official religion of the Jewish state!

The “Queen of Heaven” is equally mentioned as a central deity. Following the destruction of the First Temple and the deportation of the Jews to Babylon, Hilkiah’s son Jeremiah wrote his own book in which he described the religion of the Jews:

The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes to the Queen of Heaven (Melekheth ha-Shamayim), [i.e., sacrificial cakes in her image] and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods (Jeremiah 7:18).

Jeremiah condemned this and cited it as the reason for the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians. But in the same book we are told that the people in fact rejected the “religion of Moses” which the priestly elite apparently sought to enforce, as well as the claim that God was punishing them for following traditional religion:

We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm (Jeremiah 44:17).

This is a point also made by leading archaeologists like Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) who note that the periods corresponding to the reign of “renegade kings of Judah” were actually periods of relative peace and prosperity, which is inconsistent with claims of “divine displeasure”. Indeed, it makes little sense for God to allow traditional religion for centuries and then suddenly show his “wrath” and “punish” the people by sending in the Babylonians.

Many Israelites incorporated these aspects of religious practice—a female consort, carved images of the divinity—into the worship of their god, Yahweh. They did this even long after Solomon is said by the Bible to have built an exclusive home in Jerusalem for Israel’s god.

Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel · The BAS Library

As a matter of fact, the existence of a Goddess cult in Israelite religion has been suppressed for many centuries with words like “grove” being routinely substituted for “Asherah” in OT translations:

The name Asherah appears forty times in the Hebrew Bible, but it is much reduced in English translations. The Vulgate in Latin provided lucus or nemus, a grove or a wood. From the Vulgate, the King James translation of the Bible uses grove or groves instead of Asherah's name. Non-scholarly English language readers of the Bible would not have read her name for more than 400 years afterward – Asherah Wikipedia

In addition, archaeological evidence shows that Jewish homes had house altars for cult images, like all other peoples in the region.

It follows that the modern concept of ancient Judaism as “the religion of Moses” is a highly idealized, i.e., imaginary one that is inconsistent with the evidence and with logic alike.

What remains to be considered is the religion of the Second Temple. The Temple was rebuilt in 516 BC. But at this point Judah was a province of the Persian Empire, the Persians having taken over the Babylonian Empire. So, the official religion of the empire was Zoroastrianism and traditional religion continued to be observed throughout the region.

Cult images seem to have gradually disappeared from Jewish homes, but there were still scriptural references to Yahweh associating him with the Sun and, in 333 BC Alexander conquered the Persian Empire, initiating the Hellenistic period that produced Hellenistic Judaism:

Hellenistic culture had a profound impact on the customs and practices of Jews, both in Judea and in the diaspora. These inroads into Judaism gave rise to Hellenistic Judaism which sought to establish a Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition within the culture and language of Hellenism - Wikipedia

The evidence shows that the Hebrews were Canaanites and that their original religion and culture were Canaanite in character. In addition, Canaan was controlled by Egypt for many centuries, followed by Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. While the majority of the population naturally preserved its ancestral, i.e., Canaanite religion, the political leadership was influenced by the religions of their successive overlords (see the kings of Judah’s Sun-God seals), and this influence may have spread to some extent to the rest of the population.

In any case, there is no evidence that Judaism in its current form existed at any time in Ancient Israel. Hellenistic Judaism was a Jewish-Greco-Roman cult. And Rabbinic Judaism only began to replace Hellenistic Judaism in the 500’s AD.

So, the Judaism of Jesus’ time was not very different from Greco-Roman or Hellenistic religion. There was a central Temple at Jerusalem where animal sacrifice was practiced as in Greek and Roman religion. There was no emperor worship. God Yahweh was worshiped but he was probably associated to some extent with the Sun which was a prominent deity throughout the region as it had been for centuries, and which explains why Palestinian Jews saw Hellenistic representations of the Sun-God (or Yahweh as the Sun) in their synagogues as entirely acceptable and normal.

If this had been such a “scandalous” practice as some believe today, there would have been records of strong opposition to it. But no such opposition existed, because Jews were largely Hellenized, however inconvenient this may sound at present.

The problem, then, is cultural and psychological. People start with a retroactive construction of Judaism as a purely monotheistic and uniquely “Jewish” religion introduced in Canaan by “Moses” and his followers, and from this they extrapolate all kinds of conclusions that are not only unsupported but positively contradicted by the evidence. For example, the claim that the Jews (or their Hebrew/Canaanite ancestors) rejected all external influence.

The truth of the matter is that Hebrew religion and culture were heavily influenced by the religion and culture from which they emerged, i.e., the religion and culture of Canaan and surrounding areas. We know that the Hebrew calendar was borrowed from Babylon and that the Hebrew months were later given Babylonian names which they bear to this day:

Rabbi Hanina said: the month names came up with them from Babylon (Jerusalem Talmud, Rosh HaShanah 1:2, 56d).

As Canaan had been under Egyptian control for many centuries, the Hebrews prior to the adoption of the Babylonian calendar seem to have used an Egyptian-style calendar in which the months were referred to by numbers. Similarly, though Passover is said to commemorate the Exodus from Egypt, it also has parallels in the Egyptian spring festival Shemu and the Babylonian New Year’ festival (which fell in the month of Nisannu, March/April).

Even the term “messiah” (Hebrew mašíaḥ) seems to be of Egyptian origin, the word msh (messeh) being connected with the ritual anointing of Egyptian kings. As the OT states, the Israelites, who admittedly did not have a king until that time, specifically requested to have a king “like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5).

Like all other peoples, Jews have always borrowed from other cultures and continue to do so. It’s time to let go of silly prejudices and acknowledge that the teachings of Jesus and his disciples may well have been influenced by Hellenistic concepts such as striving to become morally and spiritually perfect (teleios) as taught by Socrates and Plato, that are not found in the Hebrew Bible but appear in Greek-influenced Jewish thinkers of the first century AD like Philo of Alexandria.

Even resurrection (anastasis) has close parallels in Greek religion:

In ancient Greek religion a number of men and women became physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead. Asclepius was killed by Zeus, only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. According to Herodotus's Histories, the seventh century BC sage Aristeas of Proconnesus was first found dead, after which his body disappeared from a locked room. Later he found not only to have been resurrected but to have gained immortality - Wikipedia

Early Christians were naturally aware of this. For example, Justin Martyr wrote:

When we say Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus (1 Apol. 21).

Ultimately, by incorporating teachings from various traditions such as those of Greece and discarding others, Christianity was able to offer a powerful and timely message with a universal appeal, thus becoming a world religion, whilst Judaism in its Rabbinic form went in the opposite direction, rejecting Hellenism and remaining a self-centered national cult increasingly focused on the “Exodus” and “law of Moses” narrative.

By “Judaism” I meant Judaism in its historical form in the period under discussion, i.e., from its beginnings in Ancient Canaan, not Modern Judaism which is a totally different story! — Apollodorus

What is the "period under discussion'? From its beginning around 1250 BCE to the temples you point to build between 1,500 and 1,700 years ago?

“A Roman cult” can be ANY cult observed by inhabitants of the Roman Empire, e.g. the worship of a particular deity. “Imperial cult” is the worship of the emperor. They are two TOTALLY different things. — Apollodorus

Have you forgotten what is at issue? You pointed to the article about the temples which were not built until 1,500 to 1,700 years ago and underlined that Hellenistic Judaism is best understood as a Roman cult in order to support of your claim that:

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time, most Jews had no reason to resist Hellenistic influence ... But the Jewish God they worshiped was "portrayed as a solar deity", exactly as in the First Temple period and before, because that was how Hellenistic Judaism, the dominant form of the religion, conceived of God at the time.

The issue is not different Roman cults but rather what significance Hellenistic Judaism being a Roman cult had for the question of pagan belief in Judaism at the time of Jesus. This is a central question. You have not addressed it. Instead you have gone on page after page after page attempting to bury it

Hellenistic Judaism “flowered” in the 4th and 5th centuries in the sense that it increased in influence and appeal, not that it started at that time! — Apollodorus

Correct. See the definition of 'rise':

The rise of a movement or activity is an increase in its popularity or influence. — Rise

The start of a movement is not the rise of the movement. But such semantic differences distract from the issue. The question is how influential Hellenism was for Judaism at the time of Jesus?

The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. They did not accept a trinity of gods.

You obviously have zero knowledge or understanding of textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter.

I think I have demonstrated (1) that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value and (2) that the notion that the Jews in general were resistant to Greek thought or impervious to its influence is total bogus.

As per the OP, the issue at hand is Greek influence on Jesus. IMO Jesus' belief in moral and spiritual perfection (Matthew 5:48), resurrection and immortality (John 11: 25-25), Hades (Matthew 16:18), etc., is best explained as Greek influence.

The Jewish religion did not accept the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men. They do not accept the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god. — Fooloso4

Well, that's precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to Greek influence on Jesus and other Christians!!!

So, I think what you urgently need is someone to teach you English. Or maybe a psychiatrist. So long & take care, Mr Foolo .... :smile:

You obviously have zero knowledge or understanding of textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter. — Apollodorus

An internet search followed by cut and paste is not textual criticism, archaeology, history, epigraphy, or anything else for that matter other than cut and paste.

Time after time I have pointed to your misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misrepresentation. But you just ignore it and more on to something else. I could point them out but what would be the point. You would not acknowledge and move on to something else. Although sometimes you do come back to it and repeat the same thing.

I think I have demonstrated (1) that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value ... — Apollodorus

You may be the only one who has argued otherwise. For example:

If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero. — Apollodorus

The Psalms are not a theological doctrine. The fact of the matter is the Psalms are metaphorical.

that the notion that the Jews in general were resistant to Greek thought or impervious to its influence is total bogus. — Apollodorus

First, the statement contains weasel words such as "in general". What is at issue is something specific, something you continue to evade. Greek names and Greek language are not the same a theological influence. Second, there is evidence of resistance. I pointed to an example from Proverbs. Of course you ignored it.

As per the OP, the issue at hand is Greek influence on Jesus. IMO Jesus' belief in moral and spiritual perfection (Matthew 5:48) — Apollodorus

None of the examples you cite show a clear influence on Jesus. They do not show an influence on Jesus' Judaism. They show an influence on the authors of the NT texts. No one has dispute that influence.

I addressed the concept of perfection. Once again you ignored it and now repeat the same false claim. The term had a specific meaning:

In Jewish scripture certain individuals such as Abraham and Noah are referred to as perfect because of their obedience to God. In these passages perfect is used as a synonym for complete, and perfect obedience to God is simply complete obedience to God.

— Wiki Matthew 5:48

Perfect obedience to God is not the result of Greek influence.

resurrection and immortality — Apollodorus

In typical fashion you omit what does not fit your claim. Right above what you quoted from Wiki is a section on resurrection in ancient religions in the Near East including Egypt and Canaan, that is, in the lands the ancient Israelites. The influence does not come from the Greeks.

Hades — Apollodorus

Jesus might have used the term if he was addressing a Greek audience, but is more likely to have used the term 'Sheol' when talking to Simon Peter. The author is likely to have know the Hebrew Scriptures from Greek translation where Sheol is translated as Hades.

Well, that's precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to Greek influence on Jesus and other Christians!!! — Apollodorus

No, that is precisely why these beliefs must be assumed to be due to the Greek influence on pagan Christians!!! If Jesus preached strict adherence to the Laws and prophets he would not have accepted
the existence of men who become gods or gods who become men or the idea that God impregnated a woman who gave birth to a man/god.

Keep digging.

If Jesus preached strict adherence to the Laws and prophets he would not have accepted the existence of men who become gods or gods — Fooloso4

If you keep swallowing and regurgitating your own illogical garbage and digging yourself in deeper and deeper, you'll soon drown in your own crap.

If Jesus had preached "strict adherence to the Laws and prophets" as understood by the religious authorities, he wouldn't have got killed by them in the first place, you twat!

He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God (John 5:18,10:25-38) which the Temple Taliban twisted into charges to the effect that he claimed to be the "king of the Jews" in order to get the Roman authorities involved and have him executed.

Jesus' teachings also included moral perfection instead of rituals and sacrifices (Matthew 5:48); resurrection and immortality (John 11: 25-25); future life in paradise instead of Sheol (Luke 23:43), etc. As pointed out by Justin Martyr, such teachings were already found in Hellenistic tradition.

I think it is evident from Jesus' statements that he was a pretty open-minded person who took the best from all traditions to forge a powerful and inspiring message to the world.

Obviously, his teachings were rejected by Jewish fundamentalists and extremists, but they were accepted by sufficient numbers of Jews and non-Jews to start a religious movement that sought to unite all believers and establish a universal faith, which is exactly what Christianity became.

You refuse to accept this because, as a committed anti-Christian, you like to paint Jesus (and, presumably, all Jews) as a narrow-minded and petty fanatic who couldn't have been a Christian and who would have rejected everything "Pagan" or Greek including language, philosophy, and culture!

It certainly doesn't make sense for Christians to have "falsified" and "Paganized" the teachings of some Jewish fundamentalist when many other religious teachers of all denominations and creeds were available for that purpose. In fact, they could have easily composed a random set of teachings and claimed that they came from God as others had done before, even without a teacher.

It follows that your spurious claims are not only unsupported by the evidence, but they don't stand to reason. So, as far as I am concerned, you haven't got a leg to stand on. But you can keep walking (or digging) on all fours if it makes you happy .... :grin:

If Jesus had preached "strict adherence to the Laws and prophets" as understood by the religious authorities, he wouldn't have got killed by them in the first place — Apollodorus

There were no laws forbidding capital punishment and plenty of cases where it was given as the proper response to infractions.

He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God (John 5:18,10:25-38) — Apollodorus

You ignore historical sources and appeal to the gospel of John.

As pointed out by Justin Martyr, such teachings were already found in Hellenistic tradition. — Apollodorus

And appeal to a Christian apologist born 100 years after Jesus. In any case, you've got it backwards. Martyr tells a story of an old man who corrected his Platonism and told him of the Hebrew prophets:

more ancient than all those who are considered philosophers ... who alone saw an declared the truth to mankind — Dialogue with Trypho 7.1-2

I think it is evident from Jesus' statements that he was a pretty open-minded person — Apollodorus

You may think so, but if we accept the Sermon on the Mount as indicative of his views, he was more rigorous and demanding than the Pharisees.

Obviously, his teachings were rejected by Jewish fundamentalists and extremists, but they were accepted by sufficient numbers of Jews and non-Jews to start a religious movement that sought to unite all believers and establish a universal faith, which is exactly what Christianity became. — Apollodorus

Without Paul's claims about the Law and his conversion of Gentiles it is likely there would be no Christianity. His teachings run counter to Jesus'. According to Matthew Jesus said:

Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritan’s, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. — Matthew 10:5-6

(Matthew 10:5,6 ESV).

This is consistent with what Paul says about his split with Peter.

As previously pointed out, which of course you ignored because it runs counter to your claims:

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. — Matthew 7

This is not Paul's message of salvation through faith or belief. It is a matter of obedience to the law and prophets. A matter of being perfect. In Hebrew: Tamim

You refuse to accept this because, as a committed anti-Christian, you like to paint Jesus (and, presumably, all Jews) as a narrow-minded and petty fanatic who couldn't have been a Christian and who would have rejected everything "Pagan" or Greek including language, philosophy, and culture! — Apollodorus

When you cannot adequately defend your claims you resort to personal and false accusations. Disagreeing with you does not make me anti-Christian. I paint Jesus as a man, not a god. This is against the Nicene Creed, but what was decided at the councils never was and is still not accepted by all Christians.

What you may presume about my view of "all Jews" finds no support in anything I have actually said, and is very far from my actual opinion. It has, however, been noted by several participants in this discussion that you have attempted to erase Judaism, going right from neoPlatonism to Jesus as if Judaism is little more than a collection of foreign influences. This seems like a case of projection on your part.

You might have some success with your rhetorical tactics might work with some but I have been quite clear and consistent in saying that what is at issue is not "everything Pagan" but theological claims about divinity.

It certainly doesn't make sense for Christians to have "falsified" and "Paganized" the teachings of some Jewish fundamentalist when many other religious teachers of all denominations and creeds were available for that purpose. — Apollodorus

What makes no sense is your claim. It is not as if Christians went in search of someone whose teachings they could falsify and paganize. The Jewish followers of Jesus believed he was the Messiah. It was largely gentiles, under the influence of Paul, who brought their pagan beliefs to bear on their understanding of the messiah and God. It was these pagan beliefs that informed and so deformed the Jewish notion of a 'son of God'.