I would reply to Apollodorus myself, but you are doing an excellent job already explaining the major points, especially that last post.

Thanks. I may not bother responding much longer. It's been fun but it gets tedious. I haven't decided whether he can't see when he is wrong or just won't admit.

I have received enough support from different members to quiet any concerns that I might be the one getting it wrong and not being able to see it. And, of course, in his somewhat more sophisticated version of "I know you are but what am I?" that he plays this is likely to be what he says or maybe even genuinely believes.

I think it is obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The fact is that the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won. This may be inconvenient to anti-Christian activists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Get over it.

When Alexander in 333 BC conquered the Persian Empire including what had earlier been the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the country fell under Greek control and influence (though this influence had started earlier). Jews were attracted to Greek culture, went to the theater, frequented gymnasiums (which also functioned as educational institutions), attended sporting events, participated in sacrifices to the Greek Gods, adopted Greek names and customs, and studied Greek literature and philosophy.

Greek education which included classical literature like Homer conferred equal rights with the Greeks. At Alexandria Jews underwent initiation into the Hellenistic mystery cults. Elsewhere Jews participated in sponsoring Dionysian festivals (Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism).

In Judea itself, in addition to many ethnic Greeks (Yevanim), there were growing numbers of Hellenized Jews (Misyavnim), estimated to have amounted to about a third of the population.

Whilst traditionalist Jews felt that the Hellenists threatened their culture, the Hellenists thought that the traditionalists held back cultural and religious progress. This resulted in tensions between Judaism and Hellenism and led to a civil war between the two groups, the Maccabean revolt, and the rise to power of the Hasmonean dynasty (140 BC - 37 BC).

However, though the Hasmoneans were Jews, it would be wrong to believe that this was the end of Greek influence. Judea remained at first a vassal of the Greek Seleucid Empire (which controlled Syria and Babylon), its kings bore the Greek title of basileus, minted coins with Greek symbols, had royal palaces with Greek architectural features (including heated bathhouses, swimming pools, and triclinia with dining couches), and the entire administration was run by people with Greek names.

Under the Hasmoneans the Hellenization process gradually resumed and Hellenistic-influenced, Greek-language literature, e.g., the Book of Wisdom, began to appear at this time.

As Hengel points out:

Under the later Hasmoneans the leading circles in Jerusalem again came more strongly under the influence of Hellenistic culture. Hellenistic education and style of life once again gained ground in Jerusalem even before Herod. Herod himself seems to have been to the Greek elementary school in Jerusalem, in which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy were probably instructed. At an advanced age he then pursued philosophical, rhetorical and historical studies under the direction of Nicolaus of Damascus; he also had his sons brought up completely in the Greek style.
That Homer was recognized as the canonical book of Greek education in Jewish Palestinian circles even later is shown by the criticism made by the Sadduccees, reported in Jad. 4.6 and coming from the first century AD - ‘We object against you Pharisees that you say that the holy scriptures make the hands unclean whereas the books of Homer (ספרי המירם) do not make the hands unclean.’ Here the term ‘books of Homer’ is probably already a stereotyped description of Greek literature in general, and we may see here a sign that it had found a way into the everyday language of Palestinian Jews a long time before.

Greek thought was available not only through books like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey but also through the dramatic performances held at the theaters in the Greek cities of Galilee and other parts of Roman Palestine, and through traveling philosophers and missionaries. After all, Palestine was a Roman province. Herod I (72 BC – 4 or 1 BC) had renovated and expanded the Jerusalem Temple, but he also introduced games and spectacles, and built theaters and hippodromes in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Jericho, with the clear aim of culturally integrating Palestine with the rest of the empire.

There is no doubt that fundamentalist rabbis were opposed to such developments, but the political leadership was fully aware that it could not afford to isolate the country or risk being perceived as anti-Roman by Rome.

Both the Greek city of Sepphoris (the capital of Galilee rebuilt by Herod’s son Antipas) and the nearby town of Nazareth (located at only three miles distance), were close to the ancient trade route between Egypt and Damascus. Like Sepphoris, Capernaum, which was at the center of Jesus’s ministry in Galilee, was a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual city. Dora, situated on the coast west of Nazareth (about 11 miles away), was a Pagan Greek city with large Hellenistic temples, etc.

Moreover, Alexandria which had a large Jewish community, was the cultural center of the Hellenistic world, as well as home to several popular religious cults. Though located in Egypt, it was within easy reach from Palestine with which it had close trade and cultural links.

By the time of Jesus, Hellenism was a considerable cultural force in Roman Palestine. Notwithstanding “the laws of Moses”, written or oral, Judaism was not a strictly codified, monolithic religion. Different groups and individuals had different attitudes toward Greek culture and religion. Greek thought was far from universally proscribed and access to it was available to those who had an interest in widening their cultural and spiritual horizon.

In any case, key NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant at the time of Jesus and there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on his teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians. On the contrary, it is more consistent with the evidence to regard Jesus as a teacher operating within an already-Hellenized social and cultural environment.

I think it is obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The fact is that the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won. This may be inconvenient to anti-Christian activists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Get over it. — Apollodorus

See below:

There is no doubt that fundamentalist rabbis were opposed to such developments, but the political leadership was fully aware that it could not afford to isolate the country or risk being perceived as anti-Roman by Rome. — Apollodorus

Let's look more closely. You said:

He got killed by the Temple Taliban precisely because of his unorthodox teachings like being the Son of God and equal with God — Apollodorus

In Matthew "King Herod" attempts to have Jesus killed when he was born. He asks:

Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?

(2.1)

This was not fundamentalist rabbis but the Roman established king of the Jews who was threatened by "the one who has been born king of the Jews". Herod's concern was not religious. In fact, Herod, being thoroughly Hellenized, seemed to have little or no regard for Judaism. As you quote:

Herod himself seems to have been to the Greek elementary school in Jerusalem, in which the sons of the Jewish aristocracy were probably instructed. At an advanced age he then pursued philosophical, rhetorical and historical studies under the direction of Nicolaus of Damascus; he also had his sons brought up completely in the Greek style.

According to the gospel of Luke, Pontius Pilate sent Jesus to Herod. When Herod sent him back to Pilate, they became friends, when before they had been enemies (Luke 23:6-12) Their friendship had nothing to do with fundamentalist rabbis but with political expediency. Like Herod, Pilate was hated by the Jews.

If Pilate gave into pressure from the Jews it was not for religious reasons but as a matter of expediency. According to the gospel of John, Pilate was threatened:

If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.

(19:12)

While the Jewish authorities might have wanted him dead, they had no authority sentence him to death. Pilate had no regard for the Jews or their religion. He acted in order to save his own precarious position. He had Jesus crucified in Roman fashion.

In any case, key NT teachings — Apollodorus

You are still trying to avoid the issue. Where does the influence of Hellenism on Judaism extend to belief in 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?

Let's look more closely. — Fooloso4

Yep, let's look more closely at your confused and irrational statements! :lol:

I said "he got killed by the Temple Taliban", i.e., by the high priest and his allies who persuaded Pilate to execute Jesus as related in the NT.

I never said "he got killed by Herod". Herod wanted to eliminate a child believed by some to be the rightful "King of the Jews". However, he didn't kill Jesus because Jesus was taken to Egypt by his family and returned after Herod's death (Matthew 2:20-1) while still a young child.

Herod simply feared a potential challenger to the throne. Very simple and easy to understand IMO. And nothing whatsoever to do with Herod being "pro-Roman" or "anti-Jewish" or anything!

Incidentally, Pilate didn't send Jesus to the Herod who had ordered the killing of the children of Bethlehem but to his son, Herod Antipas.

Also, Pilate didn't sentence Jesus for his own religious reasons, but for the religious reasons of the Temple Taliban who objected to Jesus' claiming to be the Son of God. That's why he washed his hands and said “I am innocent of this man’s blood; It is your responsibility!” (Matthew 27:24). As far as Pilate was concerned, he wanted to avoid civil unrest instigated by the Temple Taliban.

And yes, the fact is that ultimately, the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won.
Which shows why fanaticism isn't a good idea and why Jesus' more inclusive views were right.

Nope, I'm not "avoiding" anything at all. YOU are denying the fact that NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant in Hellenistic tradition at the time of Jesus and before, which is why there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on Jesus' teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians.

The Greek origin of most of these teachings is precisely why they were rejected by fundamentalist rabbis, even though some of them, e.g., "Son of God" do occur in the writings of the Essenes and even in the Hebrew Bible and in Ancient Egyptian inscriptions:

During the period of David and Solomon (tenth century B.C.), the most formative period for Israel’s monarchy, close ties existed between Tanis, the 21st Dynasty capital, and Jerusalem […] These seals suggest that Israel looked to Egypt for inspiration regarding kingship. Israel’s fledgling monarchy had no royal archetypes of its own to draw on, and Egypt was its closest and most influential neighbor. It seems natural that Israel would appropriate language and motifs of kingship that were compatible with its monotheistic worldview.

Son of God - From Pharaoh to Israel’s Kings to Jesus, Biblical Archaeology Review, 13:3, 1997

Egyptian inscriptions read:

“[Sun-God] Re has installed the King
on the earth of the living
for ever and ever …”

And the king is called the “beloved and only Son of God”

‘AXIAL’ BREAKTHROUGHS AND SEMANTIC ‘RELOCATIONS’ IN ANCIENT EGYPT AND ISRAEL

Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (Egyptian Hymns and Prayers) (uzh.ch)

The OT states in very clear and unambiguous terms that the Israelites demanded to have "a king like all other nations" (1 Samuel 8:4-5). And that's exactly what they got, see David and Solomon (Psalm 2:6-7):

I have set my king upon my holy mountain of Zion. I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me [King David], ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [i.e., created or appointed] You

So, if Jesus was a descendant of King David as stated in Matthew 1:1-16, then he was correctly following tradition!

Moreover, the OT says:

The Lord Himself shall give you a sign, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7: 14).

So, arguably, the NT does have a point in some key respects.

Unfortunately, the dictatorial Temple Taliban were control freaks who thought they could control what people believed and history shows where that led to - the Temple was obliterated and its location is currently under the control of a new Taliban with the same outdated ideas .... :grin:

I said "he got killed by the Temple Taliban", — Apollodorus

Yes, you did. But he didn't. He was sentenced by Pilate and the sentence was carried out by Roman soldiers in Roman fashion, crucifixion. Not by the high priest and his allies.

I never said "he got killed by Herod". — Apollodorus

And I never said you did.

Herod simply feared a potential challenger to the throne. — Apollodorus

Hence my point about political expedience. The real issue for both Pilate and Herod was political. It has nothing to do with religion.

Also, Pilate didn't sentence Jesus for his own religious reasons, but for the religious reasons of the Temple Taliban who objected to Jesus' claiming to be the Son of God. — Apollodorus

That is not the story the gospel of John tells. Why would Pilate carry out the wishes of the Jewish leaders?

As far as Pilate was concerned, he wanted to avoid civil unrest instigated by the Temple Taliban. — Apollodorus

Are you claiming he did not have the power to prevent or stop civil unrest?

And yes, the fact is that ultimately, the Temple Taliban lost and Hellenistic-influenced Christianity won.
Which shows why fanaticism isn't a good idea and why Jesus' more inclusive views were right. — Apollodorus

It is simply not true that history is always determined by those with more inclusive views and fanaticism never prevails.

Nope, I'm not "avoiding" anything at all. YOU are denying the fact that NT teachings like “son of God”, “moral and spiritual perfection”, “resurrection and immortality”, etc., were already extant in Hellenistic tradition at the time of Jesus ... — Apollodorus

Once again you try to erase the fact that Jesus was Jewish. You have not provided any evidence that the influence of Hellenism on Judaism extended to belief in 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. Such beliefs run counter to Jesus' Jewish beliefs. They are not Jewish beliefs, they are pagan.

there is no logical necessity to assume that they must have been retroactively superimposed on Jesus' teachings by later “Hellenized” Christians. — Apollodorus

Once again, 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'. It has nothing to do with retroactively superimposing anything on Jesus teachings. It was simply the way they understood the teachings of Jesus as they heard it as it was told to them.

The Greek origin of most of these teachings is precisely why they were rejected by fundamentalist rabbis, even though some of them — Apollodorus

First of all, it is not because the are of Greek origin but because they are beliefs that are contrary to Judaism. Second, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, it is likely that Jesus, who stresses the law and the prophets would have rejected it as well.

"Son of God" do occur in the writings of the Essenes and even in the Hebrew Bible — Apollodorus

Yes, we went through this before. More than once. You are actually demonstrating my point. The Gentiles, and you as well, understood 'Son of God' in a pagan sense that is foreign to Jewish literature and tradition, especially as it was at this time.

The article you link to refutes your claim and supports mine:

In ancient Israel, kings were also called sons of God. The Bible quotes Yahweh, Israel’s one God, saying of David, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Samuel 7:14) and, more generally, “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill…You are my son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:6–7).

It seems natural that Israel would appropriate language and motifs of kingship that were compatible with its monotheistic worldview

The language of kings is appropriated and used to refer not to gods but to human kings.

So, if Jesus was a descendant of King David as stated in Matthew 1:1-16, then he was correctly following tradition! — Apollodorus

So, once again you have undermined your own argument. If Jesus was a descendant of King David, then Jesus was a descendant of a man. A son of God in the sense consistent with Judaism, a man not a god or a literal son of God.

So, arguably, the NT does have a point in some key respects. — Apollodorus

And what is that point? Taking a statement from Isaiah and telling a story of the virgin birth of Jesus in order to make it appear that Isaiah was talking about him is an example of retroactive superimposing Jesus on Isaiah. Except one problem, the man's name is Immanuel not Jesus. Of course apologists attempt to explain this discrepancy away

More on the trial of Jesus: Trial

If we wish to understand what lies behind this version of the story, we have to remind ourselves once again that Mark—the oldest Gospel, though the second in the Canon—was written in Rome at a time (around the year 70 of the current era) when the small community of Christians living there was in constant danger of persecution. Already in the 40's, Christian missionary preaching had provoked the Emperor Claudius to expel all Jews from the capital city, those who believed that the Messiah had appeared and those who did not share such a belief (the Romans were as yet unable to distinguish between messianist Jews—that is, Christians—and other Jews), and in Nero's reign the persecution of the Christians took an even grimmer form. Since Mark was composed either at the end of Nero's reign or shortly afterward, the evangelist had every reason to try to ingratiate himself and his co-religionists with the Romans. The fact that Jesus had been sentenced to the cross by Pilate—a death penalty which carried opprobrium in Roman eyes, as being reserved for the most heinous crimes, and for slaves and despised foreigners—could not be concealed. But the evangelist could portray Pilate as having been unwilling to pass a death sentence and as having recognized the innocence of the man whom Christians now worshipped. For this purpose Pilate had to be presented as acting under Jewish pressure against his own better conviction. The evangelist's tendency was not “anti-Semitic,” as some might say; it was defensive and apologetic. He was concerned with promoting the fortunes of his little group, and was anxious to avoid suspicion and counter hostility on the part of the authorities. Accordingly, he presented the Roman authority of Jesus's own day, Pontius Pilate, as professing that he had found “no fault in this man.” The writer of the Second Gospel and those who came after him never realized what results this shift in the responsibility for Jesus's crucifixion would have in future generations.

Many Christian scholars:

.. will say that the political accusation was a “trumped-up charge,” invented by the Jewish authorities of the day who had found Jesus “worthy of death” for religious reasons, but who could not act on their own authority because while the Sanhedrin had the right to pass sentences of death, it had no right to carry out such sentences. This argument is faulty. At the time when Judaea was under procuratorial rule, from the year 6 to the year 66 C.E., Jewish law courts did pass death sentences upon Jewish inhabitants of Israel, and did carry out such sentences on their own authority, without referring the cases to the Roman political administrator of the country.

... Even in later centuries, several Fathers of the Church preserved knowledge of the fact that in the time of Jesus Jewish law courts in Judaea exercised unlimited jurisdiction over Jews who were being tried for capital offenses. Origen describes the condition of the Jewish judiciary after the year 70, and explains that it lost its capital jurisdiction as a result of the victory of Roman arms in that year. In another passage, Origen mentions that Jewish law courts continued to administer the death penalty even after the year 70, but were now compelled to do so clandestinely in order not to risk a conflict with the Roman rulers whom they were defying.

... Still later, Augustine of Hippo, when commenting on the passage of the Fourth Gospel which denies the Jewish leaders any right to carry out sentences of death, offers the following explanation: “This is to be understood in the sense that the Jews could not carry out an execution because they were celebrating a festival.” Thus according to Augustine, the Jews of Jesus's time were not deprived of the right to put sentences of death into effect; they voluntarily refrained from exercising it on a holy day. John Chrysostom of Antioch has the same explanation.

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'. — Fooloso4

It should be noted that Paul himself readily admits the differences between a resurrected savior and the expectations of the Messiah as was hoped for by the first witnesses. The transfer of the promise of protection from one chosen people to another (as noted upthread regarding the Letter to Corinthians) is the ultimate form of differentiation. The efforts of the Church Fathers was devoted to claiming an ancestry while cancelling it.

If they were all at the same summer camp, why did Paul bother to back-date the story to claim the inheritance?

It should be noted that Paul himself readily admits the differences between a resurrected savior and the expectations of the Messiah as was hoped for by the first witnesses. — Paine

Paul had to tie in the fact that Jesus was crucified. Jesus' crucifixion was central to Paul's story of the Messiah. The claim that it was necessary for the messiah to die, to suffer, to be sacrificed by God for our sins is not something found in the accounts of the messiah in the Jewish scriptures.

The idea that Jesus is God undermines this story. Paul's God could neither physically suffer nor die. If Jesus is God or a manifestation of God then Jesus' suffering and dying was a sham, pretend, an act. Show business.

And, of course, his resurrection was a new invention. While the idea of resurrection was not new, it was new to the promise of a messiah. New because death had never been part of the story.

Your first and last paragraphs make sense of the differences between views.

I am not sure if the middle paragraph does. The focus on suffering is clear in Paul's testimony. He did not claim it made sense.

I am not sure if the middle paragraph does. The focus on suffering is clear in Paul's testimony. He did not claim it made sense. — Paine

Although Paul used the term 'kurios', that is, Lord, he did not claim that Jesus was God.

There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. — Corinthians 8:4-6

What comes from God comes through Jesus. Some interpret John to be saying that Jesus is God. The Nicene Creed is clear that Jesus is God. For Paul, Jesus is a man who suffered physically, but God does not suffer physically. With the claim that Jesus is God either God can suffer physically and die or there is an irreconcilable contradiction between saying that Jesus suffered and Jesus is God.

To recap, it is beyond dispute that all or most of Jesus’ teachings are consistent with Hellenistic tradition which was on the rise at the time.

Equally beyond dispute is that Herod I a.k.a. Herod the Great, ruler of Judea, was a Hellenized client of Rome. He had received a Greek education at the Greek school at Jerusalem attended by the Jewish aristocracy, bore the Greek title of basileus, minted coins with Greek inscriptions and symbols including sunburst, and built theaters, hippodromes, and large Pagan temples at Caesarea, Sebaste, and Omrit (or Caesarea Philippi, according to Josephus).

The Temple of Caesar Augustus at Caesarea Philippi - Associates for Biblical Research

It goes without saying that the theaters and hippodromes built by Herod were not exclusively for a Roman and Greek audience but also for Greek-speaking and Hellenized Jews, and represented avenues through which Greek culture could spread to the non-Greek population, in addition to Greek gymnasiums and schools, travelling philosophers and spiritual teachers, etc.

The historical and archaeological evidence clearly indicates a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual background to the Jesus story – with Greek as the universal medium of communication.

Indeed, what makes Jesus’ teachings unique and lends them a genuinely universal character that goes beyond ethnic and cultural boundaries, is that they are not only consistent with Hellenistic tradition but some of them, e.g., “son of God”, are equally consistent with Jewish and Egyptian tradition.

The Israelites admittedly had no king and had expressly requested a king to be appointed over them “like all other nations” (1 Samuel 8:4-5). The foremost nation at the time was Egypt whose kings controlled Canaan. Therefore it was entirely logical for the Israelites to borrow the Egyptian model of kingship which was the most authoritative, most ancient, and most prestigious at the time.

In Ancient Egyptian tradition, the king or pharaoh was both head of state and supreme religious authority. Being responsible for maintaining divine order on earth, the king was a manifestation of God and actually referred to as “Son of God”. The Sun-God Ra (or Re) being the chief deity, “Son of Ra” became official title of Ancient Egyptian kings.

Kings David and Solomon’s being called “Son of God” in the OT is entirely consistent with the Israelites’ adoption of the Egyptian model of kingship, and indeed, with Solomon’s and the kings of Judah’s observance of a solar cult as described in the OT.

In the same way different people today have different conceptions of God, various interpretations of this solar cult existed, ranging from the Sun being seen as a symbol or metaphor for a monotheistic deity, to the Sun being seen as a manifestation of a chief deity in a polytheistic pantheon. After all, it is highly doubtful that the majority of the Israelite population which consisted of uneducated farmers and shepherds, would have grasped such abstract concepts as an invisible, all-powerful, and sole deity.

In any case, as shown by the archaeological evidence (Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun) and by OT statements, the Israelite God Yahweh was indisputably associated with the Sun for many centuries, including during the Hellenistic period and well into the Christian era.

Regarding Jesus’s claim to be the “Son of God”, if he was a descendant of King David, which he may well have been, he had a legitimate claim to that title.

Indeed, according to Jewish tradition, King David had been born in Bethlehem, which is why the NT refers to it as “the City of David” (Luke 2:4), and the future Christ, Messiah, or Savior King was expected to be a descendant of King David.

It follows that if Jesus was a descendant of King David, Israel’s first divine king and “Son of God” (Psalm 2:7), then he was correctly described, or described himself, as “King of the Jews” and “Son of God”. And if the people, including Herod, believed (rightly or wrongly) that Jesus was a descendant of David, then it made perfect sense for Herod to fear being dethroned and to seek Jesus’ death. After all, Herod also ordered the killing of his own son.

Interestingly, in support of the claim that Jesus was the expected King of the Jews and the Messiah, the NT not only invokes Jesus’s birth in the City of David (Bethlehem), but also refers to Isaiah’s prophecy that “a virgin shall give birth to a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Why would Jesus be called “Emmanuel”? Matthew 1:23 states that this word (“Immanuel” in Hebrew) means “God (El) is with us”.

However, “Imn” is the Egyptian spelling for Amun (Sun-God Amun-Ra), which means that in an Egyptian-Israelite context, and considering the Egyptian origin of Israelite kingship, “Emmanuel” can be interpreted as “Amun-u El”, i.e., “Amun (Amun-Ra) is El (the Lord). (See A. S. Yahuda, The Language of the Pentateuch in its relation to the Egyptian, Vol. 1, p. xxvi.)

We must further consider that El was the supreme Canaanite deity who, as stated in the OT, was the original God of the Hebrews (who were themselves Canaanites):

And Elohim spoke to Moses and said: I am Yahweh. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai but by my name, Yahweh, I was not known to them. And I also established my covenant with them (Exodus 6:2-4).

Clearly, at the time when the Hebrews were “in Egypt”, and before the covenant, their God was El. And El’s symbol was the bull - which may also have been influenced by similar Egyptian cult images. Thus it makes perfect sense for the Hebrews to have made and worshiped a golden calf (figurines of which have been excavated in Israel) at Mount Sinai and to have said “This, O Israel, is your God who brought you out of Egypt” (Exodus 32:3). This is supported by the fact that their leader Aaron had no hesitation in complying with their request and immediately made the statue and announced a religious festival.

As for Moses, he was an Egyptian (or Hebrew brought up as an Egyptian). Therefore he naturally spoke no Hebrew (which is why he used Aaron as translator) and had little knowledge of Hebrew religion, which is why it was necessary to be explained to him who God El was.

If Moses did actually become angry on descending from the mountain, and this is not a later interpolation, he couldn’t have been angry with the Hebrews for "going Pagan" as they merely followed their ancestral, Canaanite religion. He was angry because he had expected them to follow the new religion which he clearly regarded as superior.

What religion this was is impossible to determine at present given that the “laws of Moses” were “discovered” many centuries later. However, it seems reasonable to assume that he had been initiated into the higher forms of Egyptian religion during his childhood at the royal palace and that, therefore, (a) this religion was a higher form of the cult of Amun-Ra, knowledge of which was reserved to royalty, and (b) it was more evolved than the religion of the Hebrews.

In any case, it makes sense for Amun-Ra, the supreme God of Egypt, to be equated with El, the supreme God of the Hebrews. And, as already noted, even after the Hebrew God came to be called “Yahweh” instead of “El”, he continued to be associated with the Sun, especially on more popular levels of the religion, and was described as riding on and above the clouds, while his name was read “Adon/Aten” which in Egyptian religion referred to the Sun Disc or Orb (Itn) as a symbol of the deity.

Moreover, Egyptian amun (imn) literally means “hidden” which refers to the “hidden” or “unseen” aspect of God. Egypt’s supreme deity Amun-Ra was a self-created being with two aspects, a visible one represented by the rising and mid-day Sun (Ra), and an invisible one represented by the setting and night Sun (Amun).

On a higher level, therefore, “Emmanuel” specifically equates the Hebrew God El with the Egyptian God Amun. In connection with Jesus, this refers to the revelation of a doctrine that was, or had become, “hidden”, “secret”, or suppressed among the Jews. Indeed, the cult of Amun had spread far beyond Egypt, so that in addition to the Hebrew Amun-El there was also a Greek Amun-Zeus or Zeus-Amon, whom Alexander the Great regarded as his divine father. Jesus represented the spirit of that religious renaissance in Israel and sought to initiate a movement that was at once timeless and in line with the cultural and spiritual developments of his time.

Though Jewish writings like the Babylonian Talmud tend to refer to Jesus (Hebrew “Yeshu”) in derogatory terms, they seem to link him with Egypt, by claiming that “Jesus the Nazarene went to Alexandria, Egypt, and practiced magic (i.e. worked wonders)” or “brought magic from Egypt”, and by referring to him as “Jesus son of Joseph Pandira/Pantera” (Sanhedrin 107b; Hullin 2.22-3).

Such references were later removed under Christian pressure. However, “Pandira/Pantera” is very obviously a non-Hebrew word and, in view of the Egyptian context under consideration, the Egyptian royal epithet “Pa-Ntr-Ra” (“The-God-Ra”), by which Egyptian kings were known, must be regarded as a more likely alternative. Thus “Jesus son of Joseph (and) Pandira (Pa-Ntr-Ra)” clearly refers to his having a human and a divine father, a fact Justin Martyr alluded to in defense of Christian teachings (1 Apology 21).

The adoration of new-born Jesus by “three wise men from the east” bearing gifts (Matthew 2:1-11) is another tradition reminiscent of Egypt, as royal vassals and allies from lands to the east of Egypt used to bring gifts to the Egyptian rulers (and less often, if at all, to Hebrew ones).

As stated earlier, Nazareth is another element in the NT narrative that connects Jesus with Egypt, Nazareth being situated on the ancient trade route from Heliopolis (the City of the Sun) in Egypt to Damascus in Syria.

Indeed, the whole narrative from Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt in infancy or youth, and the various teachings pointing to Egyptian religion, to Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, suggests the true historical origins of Christianity, emerging from Egypt and proceeding via Hellenistic Palestine to Damascus, Athens, Rome, and beyond ....

To recap, it is beyond dispute that all or most of Jesus’ teachings are consistent with Hellenistic tradition which was on the rise at the time. — Apollodorus

Saying it is beyond dispute does not make it so. The fact of the matter is, we do not have any reliable, direct evidence of his teachings. We can, however, piece some things together.

What is not in dispute is that he was seen by his followers as the messiah. This is not part of the Hellenistic tradition.

Whatever influence you might imagine Hellenistic tradition had on Jesus you have not provided any evidence that extended to his teachings regarding the law. If we accept the authenticity of Paul's account, his dispute with Peter shows that James and the Jewish Christians sided with Peter against Paul regarding the law. Jesus' disciples would not have learned from Jesus' teachings to disregard the law.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus was a Jew and no amount of Hellenic influence can change that. If he was thought by his followers to be the messiah, this was a Jewish messiah. Not God's son in a biological sense. Not a son in the pagan sense of a god impregnating a woman. Not a half man half god or full god. A man.

Why would Jesus be called “Emmanuel”? — Apollodorus

It is an attempt to use the prophecy in Isaiah to support the claim that Jesus is the messiah. But the virgin in the prophecy does not name him Jesus. In addition the gospels of Mark and John say nothing about virgin birth.

the whole narrative from Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt — Apollodorus

This is a story told only in Matthew,. Luke tells a different story that contradicts this. Although some scholars claim Matthew's story is reliable, others reject it. In any case Matthew does not tell us how long they stayed there, only that they returned when Joseph had a dream assuring him it was safe to return. That they stayed there long enough for Jesus to be influenced by Egyptian beliefs and practces is completely without supporting evidence.

Your continued attempt to separate Jesus from Judaism is suspect. Of course Egypt plays a role in Judaism. Much of Genesis and Exodus takes place in Egypt. What you seem unable to grasp is that Egypt is used as a foil. It is not a matter of accepting Egyptian beliefs and practices but rejecting them. The story of Judaism is not about assimilation to Greece or Rome or Egypt.

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. — Sermon on the Mount

"You" does not refer to the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians. Those he is addressing, the Jews, sons of their father in heaven, stand apart. They are the chosen people because they adhere to the laws and prophets. Jesus' teaching is not about assimilation but about shining a light and standing as an example for other nations to follow.

I wasn't thinking of it in terms of whether a god can suffer but focusing on the claim that Paul's encounter with the resurrected Jesus was with the one said to be the fulfillment of the prophecies.

It is in the sense of being a chosen people that doesn't fit the Hellenistic imagination of how the divine interacts with man and community. The 'choice' involved leads man and community to becoming an instrument of purpose and intent for the Lord. Paul recognized that the one element he could not provide Gentiles through his manifestation of Spirit rising above the Law is the promise of the Covenant.

Apollodorus' desire to marginalize the influence of Judaism is similar to Marcion, the church father, who declared Christians and Jews worshiped different gods. Marcion was denounced by the others because that would separate Christians from the narrative of a God who is changing the world of men through his instruments. That participation in the change is why Augustine condemned Athens but praised the 'city' of the Israelites. The City of God is the vanguard of the change.

...focusing on the claim that Paul's encounter with the resurrected Jesus was with the one said to be the fulfillment of the prophecies. — Paine

That, of course, is true. Paul quite ingeniously came up with a new version in which death was not a sign of the failure of Jesus to fulfill the prophecies but the way in which they were fulfilled. Two keys points: 1) The death of the messiah becomes a necessary condition for the fulfillment. 2) It is not the people who are saved but the individual who might not even be of the people of Israel.

That participation in the change is why Augustine condemned Athens but praised the 'city' of the Israelites. The City of God is the vanguard of the change. — Paine

This is what Apollodorus misses when he rejects the distinction between Athens and Jerusalem. He points to Kavka for support, but completely misunderstands the project. For Kavka the messiah is yet to come. The messiah is for him the people rather than one person. In this sense he reverses Paul. It is not the hope that the passive, helpless individual will be saved but that the actions of the people will save the world.

The anti-Christian position seems to be that Christianity is a criminal perversion of Judaism that shouldn’t have existed and must not be allowed to exist. This has its roots in the more extreme forms of Second-Temple Judaism which advocated the extermination of everyone who failed to comply with the newly-discovered “laws of Moses”:

When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19).

Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, because they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and He will swiftly destroy you. Instead, this is what you are to do to them: tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, cut down their Asherah poles, and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His prized possession out of all peoples on the face of the earth (Deuteronomy 7:3-6)

If a man or woman among you in one of the towns that the LORD your God gives you is found doing evil in the sight of the LORD your God by transgressing His covenant and going to worship other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven—which I have forbidden— and if it is reported and you hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly, and you must bring out to your gates the man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you must stone that person to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

This subsequently resulted in the Temple Taliban’s demand that Jesus be executed for his “blasphemous” teachings, and finds its most recent manifestation in Islamic extremism and Shariah law.

The Koran says:

And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush (Al-Tauba (9), 5)

However, Talibanism and Jihadism are based on a false narrative fabricated by fundamentalist priests after the construction of the Second Temple and enforced only gradually, over the following centuries. In other words, Mosaic Judaism did not exist in Judah at the time of David and Solomon, and only took shape in the late Persian and Hellenistic periods.

Indeed, as demonstrated by the mounting evidence produced by archaeologists, historians, and other scholars, the notion that the Hebrews were obediently complying with the “laws of Moses” is complete nonsense, particularly as they had no knowledge of such laws (given that they were admittedly “discovered” in the days of King Hezekiah) and that they continued to follow their traditional Canaanite religion until the destruction of the First Temple.

The Israel Antiquities Authority’s website on the OT texts found at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) states:

Strikingly, some biblical manuscripts feature differences from the standard Masoretic biblical language and spelling. Additions and deletions in certain texts imply that the writers felt free to modify texts they were copying.

And according to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

Indeed, admissions of forgery are found in the OT text itself:

How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8).

In fact, the Book of Jeremiah appears to have originally been composed in the 500’s BC by Jeremiah, son of the priest Hilkiah, who had allegedly “discovered” the “laws of Moses”, and it was heavily edited by generations of scribes into the second century BC:

The book as a whole has been heavily edited and added to by followers (including perhaps the prophet's companion, the scribe Baruch) and later generations of Deuteronomists (M. D. Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 300).

And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism, attempts were also made to suppress the history of Christianity.

It is a well-known fact that a popular form of religion from the Classical era onward was mystery cults consisting in secret teachings and practices that were observed in addition to those of conventional religion.

Though not a mystery religion as such, Christianity does have some elements in common with Classical mystery traditions. To begin with, the Gospels are full of symbolism pointing to esoteric content.

For example, it is clear that Jesus’ statements such as “I am the Light of the world” (Eimi to Phos tou kosmou), have more than one meaning. To a first-century AD person, the words “light of the world” meant, in the first place, the light of the Sun which illuminates the world.

On a higher level, “Light of the world” can refer to the Light of Truth that reveals a higher knowledge to those who are able to perceive and understand it.

As related in the NT, Jesus himself often taught in parables and, when asked about it by his disciples, he replied:

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand (Mark 4:11-12)

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul says:

But we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom (he apokekrymmene sophia), which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinth 2:6-8).

And in the Second Epistle:

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18)

Similarly, Origen makes many references to mysteries, e.g., “the secrets of wisdom and the mysteries of knowledge”, and stresses the secret meaning of Scripture:

Then there is the doctrine that the scriptures were composed through the Spirit of God and that they have not only that meaning which is obvious, but also another which is hidden from the majority of readers. For the contents of scripture are the outward forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things. On this point the entire Church is unanimous, that while the whole law is spiritual, the inspired meaning is not recognised by all, but only by those who are gifted with the grace of the Holy spirit in the word of wisdom and knowledge (On First Principles I 8).

Commenting on Paul’s Epistles above, Origen says:

And, speaking generally, we have, in accordance with the apostolic promise, to seek after ‘the wisdom in a mystery’ …. (On First Principles IV, II.6)

And:

The perfect shall behold the glory of the Lord ‘face to face’ by revelations of mysteries” (I IV, 1).

Indeed, the Classical mystery traditions were not only known as “the mysteries” (ta mysteria), but also as “the perfections” (telea or teletai), due to the fact of being the rites or instructions through which the initiate attained the ultimate goal of life (telos) by becoming perfect (teleos).

And becoming morally and spiritually perfect was also the goal of Jesus’ teachings:

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

While in the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection. This is one of the key distinctions that sets Christianity apart from Temple Judaism.

Perfection in Christianity, as in Hellenistic philosophy, is not to be attained through religious rituals and sacrifices, but through an inner conversion or transformation (metanoia) or, in Plato’s words, a “turning around of the soul” (periagoge) towards a higher reality:

This organ of knowledge [inner eye] must be turned around from the world of becoming together with the entire soul, like the scene-shifting periact in the theater, until the soul is able to endure the contemplation of essence and the brightest region of being (Rep. 518c).

This inner conversion, transformation, or “turning around of the soul” is only possible through a refocusing of attention away from this world and toward the next.

Like the philosophical life of Classical tradition, Christian life is a life oriented toward the next world and toward moral and spiritual perfection as a means of achieving everlasting life in Paradise in the company of God and other divine beings (Angels or Gods).

In contrast, the Hebrew Bible has no clear reference to life after death and it is not known whether Moses, the founder of Mosaic Judaism, even believed in afterlife at all. If he did, the OT does not say.

In any case, the reorientation toward afterlife advocated by Christianity, shows the common ground the new religion shared with the mystery traditions. And, like the latter, the former seems to have mainly developed in urban areas such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Caesarea, etc.

According to Luke,

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and the news about Him spread throughout the surrounding region. He taught in their synagogues and was glorified by everyone (4:14-15).

He clearly could read from scripture and, as Luke states, “All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips” and “Jesus told them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well, because that is why I was sent. And He continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea” (Luke 4:43-44).

Jesus’ actions are inconsistent with the claim that he was an ignorant and uneducated peasant. In fact, as a member of the urban artisan class he most likely was literate and had a sufficient degree of education to be able to discuss religious matters with leading members of the urban community.

Already at the age of twelve, we are told that:

They found Him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers (Luke 2:46-47).

Indeed, the urban artisan class was far from ignorant and uneducated. Artisans naturally sought an urban setting in which to pursue their professional career because it offered a broader patronage system. But the same urban setting that had greater economic potential, also offered greater opportunities of acquiring knowledge, including literacy and contact with the educated classes, and even with other cultures.

Archaeological evidence from first-century Galilee shows a degree of familiarity with writing even in small villages, for example, Aramaic words and even Greek abecedaries inscribed on local ossuaries and ceramic pottery. Another key evidence indicating close interaction between Jewish and non-Jewish communities is provided by the use of Roman and Tyrian coins in addition to local ones.

In sum, the presence of Roman and Greek communities, as well as Hellenized Jews in Roman Palestine, the widespread use of the Greek language, the theaters, gymnasiums, hippodromes, and Pagan temples built by Herod the Great, the Hellenistic-Roman-style cities built by his son Herod Antipas, the cults of Dionysus and Heracles observed for centuries at nearby Scythopolis, Tyre, and Alexandria, etc., etc., all show that it makes little sense to claim that no Greek influence on Jesus’ teachings was possible.

After all, Israel is a very small country and, with people traveling and communicating, exchange of information including cultural interchange, becomes inevitable.

The anti-Christian position seems to be that Christianity is a criminal perversion of Judaism that shouldn’t have existed and must not be allowed to exist. — Apollodorus

This hyperbolic rant has nothing to do with anything that has been said by anyone here.

This subsequently resulted in the Temple Taliban’s demand that Jesus be executed for his “blasphemous” teachings — Apollodorus

No educated person today would perpetuate this pernicious accusation unless they have an ulterior motive. If the Jewish authorities demanded he be put to death they would have stoned him.
THIS

And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism — Apollodorus

First of all, the Hebrew Bible is not a history book by the standards and practices of contemporary history. Second, it is not surprising that a group of books written over a long period of time contains changes reflecting various beliefs. Only some sort of fundamentalist would think otherwise.

Do you think what was said about Jesus, what he said and what he did, did not change during the time before and during the time the gospels were written?

...attempts were also made to suppress the history of Christianity. — Apollodorus

Evidence and specifics are needed.

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God

And do you think 'you' includes you? What do you know of the kingdom of God? Do you think you are excluded from the majority of readers Origen refers to? If there are mysteries you do not have access to them. At best this shows that you do not understand the NT to the extent it contains mysteries.

While in the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection. This is one of the key distinctions that sets Christianity apart from Temple Judaism. — Apollodorus

Before posting stuff you make up it would be a good idea to do a little research:

In the Hebrew text, the word perfect is tamîm (Strong's #8549), and its basic meaning is "complete" or "entire." It does not mean "perfect" as we think of it today, as "without fault, flaw, or defect." Other English words that translate tamîm better than "perfect" are "whole," "full," "finished," "well-rounded," "balanced," "sound," "healthful," "sincere," "innocent," or "wholehearted." In the main, however, modern translators have rendered it as "blameless" in Genesis 6:9.

This does not mean that Noah never sinned, but that he was spiritually mature and that he had a wholehearted, healthy relationship with God, who had forgiven him of his sins, rendering him guiltless. The thought in Genesis 6:9 extends to the fact that Noah was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries in spiritual maturity. In fact, the text suggests that he was God's only logical choice to do His work.

The New Testament concept of perfection, found in the Greek word téleios (Strong's #5056), is similar to tamîm. Perhaps the best-known occurrence of téleios occurs in Matthew 5:48: "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Certainly, Jesus desires that we become as flawless as we can humanly be, using the utter perfection of the Father as our model, but His use of téleios suggests something else. His aim is that a Christian be completely committed to living God's way of life, maturing in it until he can perform the duties God entrusts to him both now and in His Kingdom. In harmony with this idea of spiritual growth toward completion, téleios is well translated as "mature" in I Corinthians 2:6, and in Hebrews 5:14, itis rendered as "of full age." — Perfection

In contrast, the Hebrew Bible has no clear reference to life after death and it is not known whether Moses, the founder of Mosaic Judaism, even believed in afterlife at all. If he did, the OT does not say. — Apollodorus

Again, it would be a good idea to do some research first. Neither the Hebrew Bible nor Judaism ends with Moses. It is from Jewish sources that Jesus the Jew inherited the idea of resurrection and life after death.

“But your dead will live; their bodies will rise.
Those who live in the dust will wake up and shout for joy! — Isaiah 26:19

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. — Daniel 12:2

Jesus makes me go Empedocles!!!

Both claimed to be God in one way or another.

The messiah is for him the people rather than one person. In this sense he reverses Paul. It is not the hope that the passive, helpless individual will be saved but that the actions of the people will save the world. — Fooloso4

I wouldn't say that this redemptive action is completely missing in Paul. The community of Christians is said to be the new chosen people. The way they treat each other is central to them becoming instruments of the Spirit. Augustine presents them as agents of change in the world. As a defender of Pauline Christianity, Kierkegaard focused on this element in his Works of Love as a response to the command to love that ties the Sermon on the Mount to the faith of the single individual.

Kierkegaard also addressed the limits of the 'Hellenic' but did not claim ownership of an inheritance, as Paul did, to make his argument. In his Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard compared truth as something we already have the capacity to know to a truth that requires us to be changed in order to be made aware of.

The idea of Plato's recollection describes the first condition. The divine aspect of our being emerges as we separate it from the dross of unimportant pursuits. Learning expressed as recollection says this inborn condition relates to what has already been created.

The second condition requires an encounter with a being who provides what our inborn nature does not. As an expectation, it is directed toward a future redemption. Expressed this way, the relationship of the individual to the community is not established yet. This aspect is reflected in how different denominations of Christianity place importance on the order in this world as it relates to the vision of another one.

I wouldn't say that this redemptive action is completely missing in Paul. — Paine

It is true he talks about rightful action:

... works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up — Ephesians 4:12

But to be a part of the whole is not an act of redemption.

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. — Ephesians 4:30

The day of redemption is not something Christians are responsible for. It is coming and one can either be a part of it or not. It seems as if there are competing forces within us:

The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. — Romans 8:6

The Spirit may be in you but it is not of you. In other words, you are not in the driver's seat. We can, however, go along for the ride.

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short.

For this world in its present form is passing away. — 1 Corinthians 7:29 and 31

It is not by one's own actions that they save or are saved, not by one's actions that the are redeemed or can redeem the world. It is not up to us. And, of course, the world in its present form has not passed away. The bus never arrived.The first generations of Pauline Christians believed it would happen in their lifetime, but as time went on it was eventually pushed to some future time that has not been disclosed.

Your points regarding the differences between the views are well taken.

My purpose in bringing up Kierkegaard, however, was that he underscores how the universal nature of the truth, as Paul spoke of it in the Greek understanding, needed the narrative of the messianic to become the expectation of 'this cosmos' giving way to the kingdom of heaven. This observation does not sort out what those expectations were or could be now. It does focus the question of how to understand the messianic in the legacy of the Greek view of the world. The more one insists that the true purpose of Christianity can only be expressed in those terms, the more one is left to explain why Paul's claim of the inheritance of the Covenant was unnecessary. That is not a problem of sorting out what is Greek versus Judaism but a problem of how Christians understand their own beliefs.

Could you clarify a few things?

What did Paul say about the Greek understanding of the universal nature of truth?
How does the narrative of the messianic relate to this?
Is it that the advent of the kingdom of heaven seems to be at odds with the cosmos, the well ordered whole?
How does this relate to the Covenant? Is this part of the problem of Christian self understanding?

The overwhelming evidence is (a) that the OT narrative is largely mythical and (b) that even its true teachings have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.

As stated in the Wikipedia article on the Exodus,

The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the story in the Book of Exodus is best understood as a myth and cannot be treated as history in any verifiable sense.[4] Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say that archaeology has not found any evidence for even a small band of wandering Israelites living in the Sinai: "The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable [...] repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence" – Exodus - Wikipedia

The total lack of evidence is not the only problem of the Exodus narrative. It is generally accepted that the material presented in the Book of Exodus is a blend of different and often contradictory strands that has undergone successive redactions.

For example, the Pharaoh refuses to let the Hebrews go, but relents after a series of plagues have visited Egypt (9:14 - 12:31).

However, even though he allows them to go, he pursues them with a large army (14:6 ff.).

At the same time, the Pharaoh is said to have “driven out” the Hebrews (12:39).

According to yet another strand in the same chapter, the Hebrews leave in goodwill and depart with gifts from their Egyptian neighbors including silver, gold, and clothing (12:35), etc.

There are numerous other problems. It is claimed that God appeared to Moses “in a burning bramble bush” (Exodus 3:2). Why would God hide in a bush? And why would he “appear” and “hide” at the same time?

So, to a rational person, the story is not credible. This is why it is imperative to get to the bottom of it and see what the whole mythology is actually trying to hide and why.

To begin with, as shown by Finkelstein & Silberman, it is impossible for 600,000 Israelites to have spent 40 years in the Sinai desert (that separates Egypt and Canaan) without leaving a trace. Yet no evidence whatsoever has been found. On the contrary, the available evidence positively contradicts the OT version of events.

The heroic figure of Moses confronting the tyrannical pharaoh, the ten plagues, and the massive Israelite Exodus from Egypt have endured over the centuries as the central, unforgettable images of biblical history. But is it history? Can archaeology help us pinpoint the era when a leader named Moses mobilized his people for the great act of liberation? Can we even determine if the Exodus – as described in the Bible – ever occurred?
As we will argue in later chapters, the Israelites emerged only gradually as a distinct group in Canaan, beginning at the end of the thirteenth century BCE. There is no recognizable archaeological evidence of Israelite presence in Egypt immediately before that time … The earliest mention of Israel in an extrabiblical text was found in Egypt in the stele describing the campaign of Pharaoh Merneptah – the son of Rameses II – in Canaan at the very end of the thirteenth century BCE … The Merneptah stele refers to a group of people already living in Canaan. But we have no clue, not even a single word, about Israelites in Egypt …
From the time of the New Kingdom onward, beginning after the expulsion of the Hyksos, the Egyptians tightened their control over the flow of immigrants from Canaan into the delta. They established a system of forts along the delta’s eastern border and manned them with garrison troops and administrators … The border between Canaan and Egypt was thus closely controlled …
The possibility of a large group of people wandering in the Sinai peninsula is also contradicted by archaeology … One may argue that a relatively small band of wandering Israelites cannot be expected to leave material remains behind. But modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meagre remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Indeed, the archaeological record from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in such eras as the third millennium BCE and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. There is simply no such evidence at the supposed time of the Exodus in the thirteenth century BCE.
The conclusion – that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) … (The Bible Unearthed, pp. 48-63).

As the OT itself relates, the land of Canaan (comprising modern Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, southern Syria, and Transjordan) was home to various ethnic groups. The Philistines are said to have originated in Caphtor (Crete) (Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4) and appear to have settled in southwestern Canaan in the 12th century BC. They were soon assimilated into the local population, but preserved distinct cultural features for many centuries.

Most of the other groups, including the Hebrews, were local Semitic groups (related to the Phoenicians, Arameans, and Arabs) who had inhabited Canaan from times immemorial, to which Eurasian settlers were added between 2500 and 1000 BC. DNA data shows that modern Lebanese are genetically closest (more than 90%) to the Ancient Canaanites, and this is supported by the archaeological data.

In addition to being a great regional power, Egypt was also a prosperous country thanks to its Nile delta to which many people from adjacent areas migrated in times of drought and famine. One such group were the Hyksos (Egyptian Hekau Khasut, Foreign Rulers), originally from Canaan, who settled in the eastern part of the delta and eventually took over Lower (North) Egypt.

In around 1570 BC, Ahmose I, ruler of Upper (South) Egypt retook the North from the Hyksos and expelled them from the country, chasing them all the way to their southern Canaanite city of Sharuhen (near Gaza) which Ahmose besieged and razed.

Most writers in antiquity, including Josephus (Contra Apion I.90), tended to identify the Hyksos with the Hebrews. However, this has been ruled out for a number of reasons, such as the early date and the fact that the Hyksos culture was urban and connected with maritime trade and, therefore, inconsistent with the agricultural and pastoral culture of the Hebrews.

Nevertheless, an event of such magnitude must have left traces in the collective memory of Canaan and may have served as a basis for the Exodus myth (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times; Assmann, From Akhenaten to Moses). Ahmose himself, as head of state and supreme religious authority, may have inspired the Moses character in the OT narrative.

What is certain is that, as shown by the archaeological and historical evidence, Canaan at the time of the supposed “Exodus” was firmly under Egyptian control, which means that no “Israelite conquest of Canaan” could have taken place.

As Finkelstein & Silberman put it:

If, as we have seen, the Israelite Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, what of the conquest itself? The problems are even greater. How could an army in rags, traveling with women, children, and the aged, emerging after decades from the deset, possibly mount an effective invasion? How could such a disorganized rabble overcome the great fortresses of Canaan, with their professional armies and well-trained corps of chariots? … As with the Exodus story, archaeology has uncovered a dramatic discrepancy between the Bible and the situation within Canaan at the suggested date of conquest, between 1230 and 1220 BCE. Although we know that a group named Israel was already present somewhere in Canaan by 1207 BCE, the evidence on the general political and military landscape of Canaan suggests that a lightning invasion by this group would have been impractical and unlikely in the extreme … (pp. 72, 76).

1230-1220 BC is the date suggested by scholars simply because (a) Exodus 1:11 mentions Israelite laborers involved in the construction of the city of “Raamses” which seems to refer to the city Pi-Ramses (“The House of Ramses”) built by Ramses II (ruled 1279-1213 (BC), and (b) the stele of Ramses’s son Merneptah mentions Israelites in Canaan at the very end of the century. While Hebrew and other Canaanite laborers employed in the Egyptian construction trade would have been pretty normal, “Israelite conquests” of (Egyptian-controlled) Canaan can be safely ruled out.

Still, the fact is that the myth of Moses exists and it must exist for a reason. So, it is right to look for some explanations for its existence. Given that Egypt was the dominant power, it seems reasonable to look at Egypt for the answer.

From the time of Ahmose I to Ramses III, Canaan was under increasing Egyptian control. Among the many pieces of evidence showing who was in charge of Canaan, one in particular illustrates the situation, namely a basalt statue of Pharaoh Ramses III seated on his throne, found at Beth-shean in North Israel, and dating from 1184-1153 BC.

Beth-shean (Scythopolis in the Hellenistic period) was a center of Egyptian administration in northern Canaan after its conquest by Thutmoses III, and the Egyptians built a succession of Egyptian-Canaanite-style temples there where Egyptian and Canaanite deities were worshiped. Temple construction was continued by Thutmoses’ great-grandson Amenhotep III who also built temples in other Canaanite cities where Egypt held garrisons. As Jerusalem (Urusalim) had an Egyptian garrison, it is likely that it also had an Egyptian temple. If so, a logical location for its construction would have been the Temple Mount ….

As the OT states, King Solomon was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh:

And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the LORD, and the wall of Jerusalem round about (1 Kings 3:1).

This raises two important questions: (1) who was this son-in-law of the pharaoh and (2) what kind of temple might the pharaoh’s son-in-law build?

If Solomon was a Hebrew, the chances of his being the son-in-law of the pharaoh are as good as non-existent. This is because, as Egypt was the dominant power, it was customary for other monarchs in the region to give their daughters in marriage to Egyptian kings, but not the other way round. This is expressly stated in the correspondence between the Egyptian pharaoh and other kings (the so-called “Amarna Letters”) in which the latter complain that “since earliest times no daughter of the king of Egypt has ever been given in marriage” (Letter 4, from Kadasman-Enlil I of Babylon to Amenhotep III).

These pharaohs' private letters expose how politics worked 3,300 years ago - National Geographic

Moreover, at the time under consideration, there was no Hebrew kingdom with the resources to build the kind of sumptuous temples and palaces as the OT alleges King Solomon to have done. On the contrary, Finkelstein, Silberman, and others dispute the very existence of a unified monarchy to begin with, the kingdom of Israel, with the capital at Shechem, and the kingdom of Judah, with the capital at Jerusalem, having developed independently of each other and after the supposed time of David and Solomon (1010 – 931 BC).

Finkelstein & Silberman explain:

The material culture of the highlands in the time of David remained simple. The land was overwhelmingly rural – with no trace of written documents, inscriptions, or even signs of the kind of widespread literacy that would be necessary for the functioning of a proper monarchy. From a demographic point of view, the area of the Israelite settlement was hardly homogenous. It is hard to see any evidence of a unified culture or centrally administered state.
The area from Jerusalem to the north was quite densely settled, while the area from Jerusalem to the south – the hub of the future kingdom of Judah – was still very sparsely settled. Jerusalem itself was, at best, no more than a typical highland village …
The fascination of the Deuteronomistic historian of the seventh century BCE with the memories of David and Solomon may be the best if not the only evidence for the existence of some sort of an early Israelite unified state …
The historical reality of the kingdom of David and Solomon was quite different from the tale. It was part of a great demographic transformation that would lead to the emergence of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel – in a dramatically different historical sequence than the one the Bible describes …. (pp. 142-145).

As no kingdom of Israel (or Judah) existed at the supposed time of Solomon, this takes us right back to the possibility, or probability, that the biblical “King Solomon” was himself an Egyptian king.

The ideal candidate for this role seems to be Amenhotep III who is known to have built many temples not only in Egypt but also in Canaan. A particular type of Egyptian temple consisted of (1) an entrance hall, (2) an inner chamber, and (3) a raised shrine. Other key elements included a porch flanked by towers, and winged figures referred to as “cherubs” in the OT (1 Kings 4:23-8). Outside Egypt, Canaanite temples followed the same tripartite plan, but incorporated a blend of Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Syrian-Phoenician, and other elements.

The city of Shiloh, situated halfway between Jerusalem and Shechem, was the Israelites’ main cult center before the construction of the First Temple at Jerusalem, and the Ark is said to have been housed in a temple or sanctuary there before being moved to Jerusalem (1 Samuel 1:3). Similar temples in Egyptian-Canaanite style, dating from the fourteenth century BC, also existed at Beth-shean and may well have served as models for the First Temple. Temples with similar shrines in Palestine, Syria, and elsewhere were constructed into the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Going further back in time, we find pharaohs Thutmose III and Ahmose I, who also controlled Canaan, and who may have served as models for David (Twt/Dwd) and Moses (Ms/Moshe), respectively. During the reign of Ramses III (1186–1155 BC), Canaan was invaded by a coalition of foreign groups including Philistines (Peleset). Ramses successfully prevented the invaders from taking Egypt, but the Philistines settled in southwestern Canaan (“Philistia”) and then extended their rule northward into the Jezreel Valley and beyond, thus bringing most of Canaan under their control.

As Philistine power declined over the following centuries, Egyptian, Philistine, Assyrian, and local rulers were competing for control of Canaan, and it was against this background that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah gradually emerged in the highlands stretching from the Judean Hills in the south to Upper Galilee in the north. However, together with Philistine territories, they soon fell under Assyrian domination and in about 750 BC the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria, with part of its population being deported and another part fleeing to Judah. Judah itself avoided destruction by paying tribute, but Assyria was defeated by Babylon, and the Babylonians began to compete with Egypt over control of the region. In 587 BC Jerusalem was sacked by Babylon and destroyed along with the Temple, and some of the population was carried into captivity.

While there is some extrabiblical evidence for later Israelite rulers, there is none for David and Solomon, and even less for “Moses”. This suggests that David and Solomon were legendary figures modeled on Egyptian pharaohs, which is supported by the Israelites’ demand to be ruled by a king “like all other nations”, by the first Israelite king and his son (David and Solomon) being referred to by the title “son of God” in the Egyptian manner (Psalm 2:6-7), by Solomon’s marriage to a pharaoh’s daughter, etc.

The very name Solomon is traditionally interpreted as being derived from Hebrew shalom (“peace”) which refers to Solomon’s peaceful reign: “They called him Solomon (peace) because there was peace in his days” (Targum Sheni). However, this corresponds to Egyptian Amenhotep (Amn/Imn-Htp) which means “Amun is At Peace”, and in Hebrew this would be Shalom-Amun, abbreviated as Shelomoh/Shlomoh.

As explained earlier, the OT equates the Egyptian God Amun with the Hebrew God El in the phrase “Emmanuel/Immanuel” (Imn-u-El). Imn/Amn in Egyptian religion was the invisible or “hidden” supreme deity symbolized by the setting and midnight Sun, whose visible aspect (Ra) was symbolized by the rising and midday Sun.

The cult of Amun-Ra attained its highest point during the reign of pharaoh Akhenaten, when the God came to be worshiped as the sole deity, represented as a solar disk or orb. Egyptian pharaohs were not only heads of state but also religious leaders. As an Egyptian prince or pharaoh, “Moses” was naturally initiated into the highest teachings or mysteries concerning the supreme deity known as Aten/Adon to the initiated and as Amun-Ra to ordinary believers.

The cult of Aten was eventually suppressed by the priestly class and Egypt reverted to its established religion. It is entirely conceivable that a leader of the Aten religion, who was a member of Egyptian royalty, recruited followers from among various ethnic minorities, including Hebrews, and this gave birth to or inspired a new monotheistic religion in Canaan and elsewhere.

Moreover, if the founder of the new religion was a member of the royal family or even a pharaoh, he would have been in a position to promise Canaan (or, more likely, a certain territory within Canaan) to his followers in exchange for adherence to the tenets of his religion. Indeed, a pharaoh would have been regarded as “divine”, which would explain why the Sinai Covenant is believed to have been a contract between the followers of the new faith and God, and why the first two monarchs of this group were referred to by the title “son of God”.

At the same time, the true identity of the “Unseen Deity” remained “hidden” to the majority of the population who continued to worship the Sun (or some other celestial body, meteorological phenomenon, or anthropomorphic concept) as God.

In Egypt itself, the secret of the true God was preserved among members of the priestly class and was revealed to initiates from all over the Ancient World, including to Greek sages like Thales and was passed on to Plato, Aristotle, and their royal disciples like Alexander and his successors who regarded themselves as “sons of Amun-Zeus (Zeus-Amon)”.

Jesus himself represented the same tradition based on truth, justice, and ethical conduct. This is why he is correctly referred to as “Son of God”, “Light of the World”, “The Truth”, and “Embodiment of Righteousness, Holiness, and Redemption”, etc. Moreover, the Truth not only had been hidden (or suppressed by fundamentalist rabbis and Temple priests) but remained (and remains) hidden to most people. Hence the OT reference to the “Hidden God (Amun) is El” and “birth from a virgin” (Isaiah 7:14) which is itself a play on the word alma which can mean “young girl” but also “the hidden one”.

Similarly, the Greek aletheia (“truth”) literally means “un-hidden” or “not hidden” (a, “not” + letho, “to be hidden”) and refers to Jesus being the visible or manifest aspect of the unseen, hence “the light of the world” that makes the truth known to those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear” (Matthew 11:15). It follows that, however inconvenient this may be to anti-Christians, the NT seems to be fundamentally correct when analyzed in the proper cultural and religious context.

Moreover, truth is not only ethical and religious, or philosophical/metaphysical/spiritual, but also religious-historical. By suppressing Jesus, the Temple Taliban also sought to suppress the history of the origins of the true faith originally professed by the prophets of old and disseminated by philosophers and spiritual teachers down the centuries.

However, truth eventually comes to light and, given that the OT itself admits that the Religion of Righteousness, which is the eternal divine truth, originated in Egypt and was taught to the Israelites by an Egyptian (or Hebrew raised as an Egyptian), it becomes clear that its true origins can no longer be suppressed – excepts in certain quarters where darkness is preferred to light and untruth to truth ….

The overwhelming evidence is (a) that the OT narrative is largely mythical and (b) that even its true teachings have been misinterpreted and misunderstood. — Apollodorus

Let's compare this to what you said in your last post before this one:

And in the same way the OT authors and later editors felt free to modify the true history of Judaism — Apollodorus

To which I responded:

the Hebrew Bible is not a history book — Fooloso4

It is nice to see that I have helped you learn from your mistake. It is telling, however, that you did not bother to even check in order to find that overwhelming evidence before making your accusation about modifying "the true history of Judaism".

Your claim that Jeremiah 8:8 is an admission of forgery is not supported by the text or the scholarship. First it should be noted that a ‘scribe’ does not mean simply someone who copies text. A scribe is a scholar and teacher.

Jeremiah’s condemnation of the scribes is part of a larger condemnation:

From the least to the greatest,
all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
all practice deceit. — 8:10

God has forsaken the people and Jeremiah is urging them to turn back to God. (8:4-5) It is in this context that we should interpret “a lying pen”. Jeremiah makes a distinction later used by Paul for a different purpose. He opposes what the scribes write with their pens to the law God writes in the heart. (31:33) The scribes “have the law” but have “handled it falsely”. (8:8)

A lying pen might refer to what they teach or it may be that what they do puts the lie to what they have written down. In the latter sense, by their actions they have falsified what is written. Having the words from the pen does not make one wise. The law must be internalized.

The total lack of evidence is not the only problem of the Exodus narrative. — Apollodorus

If the story is " a myth and cannot be treated as history in any verifiable sense" then the lack of evidence is only a problem for someone like you who misunderstands and misinterprets it as historical.

Why would God hide in a bush? And why would he “appear” and “hide” at the same time? — Apollodorus

The answer to the first question:

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.” — Exodus 33:20

As to the second question, God hides in the way he appears. God is not a burning bush.

So, to a rational person, the story is not credible. This is why it is imperative to get to the bottom of it and see what the whole mythology is actually trying to hide and why. — Apollodorus

You are still confusing history and mythology. Why would you attempt to apply historical standards to what you acknowledge is mythological? And what is behind your accusation of hiding something?

As no kingdom of Israel (or Judah) existed at the supposed time of Solomon, this takes us right back to the possibility, or probability, that the biblical “King Solomon” was himself an Egyptian king. — Apollodorus

This makes no sense. You argue that the kingdom of Solomon did not exist and conclude that this king without a kingdom was an Egyptian king. Except you go on to question the existence of Solomon. A king without a kingdom who did not actually exist was actually an Egyptian king.

As an Egyptian prince or pharaoh, “Moses” was naturally initiated into the highest teachings or mysteries — Apollodorus

Is this the"Moses" who you say did not exist?

Moreover, if the founder of the new religion was a member of the royal family or even a pharaoh — Apollodorus

Judaism traces its roots back to the patriarch Abraham, from Ur of the Chaldees. Although Abraham may not have existed, the story points to an origin of Judaism that is not Egyptian.

In Egypt itself, the secret of the true God — Apollodorus

A tenuous conspiracy theory.

Jesus himself represented the same tradition based on truth, justice, and ethical conduct. — Apollodorus

The tenuous threads fray. The attempt to link Jesus to the Egyptians based on the universal concepts of truth, justice, and ethical conduct is nothing more than pulling shit out of your ass.

... it becomes clear that its true origins can no longer be suppressed — Apollodorus

What is clear is that the origins of Judaism are unknown. However murky those origins are, by the time of Jesus Judaism has distinguished itself from paganism.

Why you are hellbent on creating conspiracy theories intended to portray the Jews as the enemies of the light and truth also seems clear, even though you attempt to hide behind a thin and cracked veneer of scholarship. If it is not clear to anyone they need look no further than your touting the work of
Kerry Bolton

So, after all, in this case at least it is true that:

truth eventually comes to light — Apollodorus

What did Paul say about the Greek understanding of the universal nature of truth? — Fooloso4

Paul was not the philosopher Augustine was. The understanding of truth Paul worked with was for the purpose of translating between the Gentiles and the Jews. In the Letter to the Romans, the Creator is said to have 'etched the good into every heart'. The experience of conscience as an individual is still true with or without the crisis that the event of Christ has brought forward. But the acceptance of that 'good', which all can receive from the conditions of their birth, does not account for the 'shortness of days' that expects "this cosmos" to be replaced by another. This movement requires more than a universal good of a person to be recognized because that life is happening within a process where there is an interaction with the Creator who can change the cosmos and the creatures within it.

Paul depicts the experience of the Gentiles as providing only an isolated view of a single cosmos

Centuries later, Kierkegaard says that once one has left the cosmos of the world as being what it already is, it is a departure, whether one follows Paul or not. If the condition for experiencing truth is outside of one's innate package, then one cannot use that package as a testimony for it.

How does this relate to the Covenant? Is this part of the problem of Christian self understanding? — Fooloso4

As you have observed elsewhere, there is more than one 'Christian' answer or question regarding these matters. I am trying to see the matter through Paul's eyes even though I do not accept his testimony as my own.

Your question is worth its own discussion. On this topic of 'how Greek was Jesus', I just wanted to point out that as an 'article' of faith, Paul insists on the differences between Greek and Jewish legacies even as he unifies them in his particular vision of the Kingdom of Heaven. No matter how far one can or cannot get by studying the historical context, the proponents of a 'nothing but Greek' thesis has the author of much of what is commonly understood to be Christian standing in the way.

This movement requires more than a universal good of a person to be recognized because that life is happening within a process where there is an interaction with the Creator who can change the cosmos and the creatures within it. — Paine

I have not looked into it, but on the one hand Paul seems to accept the possibility of obedience to the law at least for some, but on the other even here grace plays a role, that is, obedience is made possible by grace.

Centuries later, Kierkegaard says that once one has left the cosmos of the world as being what it already is, it is a departure, whether one follows Paul or not. — Paine

Is he saying that when we no longer accept the world as it is and as all that is, we have already made a departure from it, moved beyond it to other possibilities?

If the condition for experiencing truth is outside of one's innate package, then one cannot use that package as a testimony for it. — Paine

If I understand this correctly, I see two points. First, the truth is not accessible by our own efforts. Second, without experiencing truth anything we think or imagine it to be will not only fall short of it but will lead us astray.

the proponents of a 'nothing but Greek' thesis has the author of much of what is commonly understood to be Christian standing in the way. — Paine

One of those proponents here also includes the Egyptians in his efforts to bypass and exclude Judaism from our understanding of Jesus. In his case it is him more than anything else that stands in his way.

If I understand this correctly, I see two points. First, the truth is not accessible by our own efforts. Second, without experiencing truth anything we think or imagine it to be will not only fall short of it but will lead us astray. — Fooloso4

Our efforts are required but more is needed beyond those. The limits of self-sufficiency are not a cancellation of them.

Kierkegaard did not say that it leads one astray, necessarily. It is more of a kind of horizon where the past and present is related to what has been created can be seen as something given to us whereas a relationship to the future cannot be approached that way. One cannot propose that one is in need of a condition that one lacks if one already knows what that condition is.

One of those proponents here also includes the Egyptians in his efforts to bypass and exclude Judaism from our understanding of Jesus. In his case it is him more than anything else that stands in his way. — Fooloso4

There is something weird and dark about the desire to rip out Judaism, root and branch. That program does not offset the need for testifying what one believes. Being 'Christian' is not a result of saying what it is not.

Kierkegaard did not say that it leads one astray, necessarily. It is more of a kind of horizon where the past and present is related to what has been created can be seen as something given to us whereas a relationship to the future cannot be approached that way. — Paine

We should consider how this relates to:

the desire to rip out Judaism, root and branch. — Paine

It is an inherited prejudice. A deep seated hatred that continues to be perpetuated. There is no rebirth without death. Will the future bring death to this hatred or is it necessary for the death of this hatred to bring forth the future?

Before posting this I decided to look into Kierkegaard's attitude toward Judaism. Peter Tudvad's 2010 Stadier paa Antisemitisms Vej: Søren Kierkegaard og Jøderne (Stages on the Way of Antisemitism: Søren Kierkegaard and the Jews) shows Kierkegaard shared the prejudice against the Jews that we are dealing with here.

It is a dark stain across most of the Protestant denominations.