The Canaanite Gospels
Christianity began as a movement within the Jewish community. It did not take long for this movement to spread to the Gentile world. At a very early stage of Christian history, the Gentile segment of the Church outnumbered and overpowered the Jewish segment of that community.
Many historians have proposed that this demographic shift that took place in the Church influenced the theology of the Church. These scholars argue that the deification of Jesus became the norm in Church theology only under the influence of Gentiles who brought their pagan ideas with them when they joined the Church.
Daniel Boyarin seems to be disturbed by the possibility that the Christian ideas about God are rooted in paganism and his book; “The Jewish Gospels” is presented as a refutation to this historical model. Boyarin claims that after his own theory is introduced into the discussion; “It won’t be possible any longer to think of some ethical religious teacher who was later promoted to divinity under the influence of alien Greek notions” (The Jewish Gospels, pg. 7). Boyarin goes on to argue that the concept of a divine Messiah has its roots in the Jewish Bible and should therefore be identified as “Jewish” concept.
Modern-day Christians who insist on identifying themselves as Jews have also been disturbed by the position of many historians that proposes pagan origins for the deification of Jesus. These Messianics have seized Boyarin’s latest book and commended it as a positive contribution to the theological and historical discussion.
What these Messianics have failed to notice is that Boyarin still attributes pagan origins to the theology which deifies Jesus. On page 45 of his book, Boyarin argues that the Israelites were part of the ancient Canaanite community and that they inherited some theological baggage from that pagan community. It is to this Canaanite influence on Judaism that Boyarin attributes the theological underpinnings for the deification of Jesus.
According to Boyarin, the theological roots of the trinity are not Greek; they are Canaanite. Either way they are pagan. The fact that the Messianic community grasps so excitedly at this straw that the world of liberal academia has extended to them can only mean one thing; they have nothing else to hold on to.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
I think it has been well documented by other scholars that the origination for the concept of what became known as the “Trinity” came from the Greek bishops who brought with them their Greek philosophies and mixed that into their theology. This heresy of the Trinity was fought by opposing bishops who tried to preserve the original 1st century beliefs of one God. The internal struggle about the Trinitarian issue and other issues came to a head and so the Emperor of Rome commissioned a meeting of the bishops at Nicene in 325 to come to a resolution. He, the Emperor, was behind the Trinitarians all the way and he saw to it they prevailed. That is also where the Nicene Creed came from. All those who didn’t go along with the new creed were excommunicated. Those that spoke out against the trinity belief and remained in the Church were executed.
The last Christian to die (as far as I know) at the hands of the Church for holding this belief contrary to the Trinity was Michael Servetus, or Michel Villenueve, who was a leading Christian theologian and scientist of his time. He was burned at the stake in 1553 by the Church as a heretic specifically for his non Trinitarian belief.
Thank God times are a changing and the views of Christians who hold to the original theology of Jesus and the apostles are being heard.
The pagen roots in christianity are very deep in belief and are word for word dead on! Something like a copy cat killer would be found guilty in a court of law.
Christianity began as a movement within the Jewish community. It did not take long for this movement to spread to the Gentile world. At a very early stage of Christian history, the Gentile segment of the Church outnumbered and overpowered the Jewish segment of that community.
This is the official version, yet I would like to suggest another version: Paganism was, Sun worship was, Mary and Jesus were long time before a Jewish Rabbi Yeshua might have appeared on the scene, as a matter of fact known by other names.
I haven’t verified the statement yet that all or at least most stories we read in the so-called New Testament about Jesus had been taken over from Buddha e. g. (who had lived 500 years before “Christ”) but I’m sure you know more about this information.
The Pontifex Maximus Constantine was a Sun worshipper and the Church fathers did their part to improve the ancient pagan, Babylonian religion. Have you ever thought about the opportunity that the so-called Christian religion only was invented by the pagans to deceive Jews and make them pagan, too? Syncretism means that various (pagan) religions are mixed and elements from other religions are added. What, if only Jewish ideas had been added to the pagan Sun worship in order to make Jews pagan, too with the label “Christian”?
When I was in Jerusalem last March at King David Hotel I was approached by a Jew who wanted to invite me to “Jews for Jesus”. I was brought up in this Christian paganism and thus I kindly rejected the invitation.
Yehoshua occupied Canaan according to ELOHIM’s words. But they didn’t fully obey. They left certain pagans where they were and even cooperated with them. This, unfortunately is a tradition within the Hebrew community to the very day. The House of Israel even became totally pagan. I am longing for the day when HaShem writes HIS Torah on the hearts of the House of Israel and the House of Yehuda. This will be the Brit Chadasha according to Yirmeyahu. This will be a living covenant and the “New Testament” is a short cut that was prohibited by Moshe. The living covenant can’t be burnt but the “New Testament” can.
Please, keep in mind that I was a Christian for over 50 years of my life. Thank you.
Shalom, Shomer
Shomer, Do you have face book account, would you please accept me as your Rf friend? You Say ” Please, keep in mind that I was a Christian for over 50 years of my life.” I would like to know how the change in your belief took place. Would you please right?
Shomer Please correct Rf friend as FB friend in my above message.
No, I don’t have have a facebook account, sorry. Please send a mail to jb_watch[at]yahoo.de, thanks.
“I am longing for the day when HaShem writes HIS Torah on the hearts of the House of Israel and the House of Yehuda.”
I too, Shomer, from the bottom of my heart! And may He write it on my heart, as a called christian gentile by a “short cut”. And clean me from paganism and sin.
Yisroel, I agree completely. You articulated my main frustration with this book and the way it was recommended to me by a number of Messianic Jewish friends.
On the other hand, in many issues I believe it is fair for apologists to point out that certain ideas were accepted by Jewish voices and authorities before and after the time of Jesus, not only being invented or accepted by Christians. This doesn’t immediately prove those ideas to be legitimate, but it really helps to clarify and contextualise the discussion. As far as I can see, when the rabbis are quoted for this purpose, it is sometime out of context; sometimes not.
To say that God should be understood in the way that Boyarin portrays his double-god is perverse, however it’s explained. Any Jew or Christian who holds to such a view is very mistaken.
Seems a lot of Christians today are ashamed of Jesus and try to deny him, while yet still following him. Christians are more confused & divided than ever. While the basis of most of their beliefs comes from the NT, often they can’t agree on which NT is correctly translated & which is the “devil’s bible”. Which Jesus, of all the different Jesuses should one belueve in? They have only one NT (for the most part) and most don’t reject most of that NT, but some believe Paul, servant of Jesus, “invented Christianity although Jesus never meant to “start a new religion”. But they don’t reject the “Pauline/Christian” beliefs interspersed in Jesus’ gospels. In the same NT text, some see a “Greek Jesus” (corruption?) but also a “Hebrew Yeshua” (the “real Jesus”). Which verses are which Jesus is largely subjective. What happened to the Jesus church (the “1st century church” and his “Jewish” followers) before the first Christians, those Gentiles? Is that what Gamaliel meant when he prophesied that the movement would soon collapse? They faded away & replaced by Jesus & the Christians. The “corruption” some see because of Constantine was already there in the middle of the 1st century c.e. (when supposedly most of the NT was written) & definitely in the 2nd.
It started “as a Jewish movement”? But which Jews and what was their true beliefs? Maybe Philo or Josephus in the 1st century c.e. can tell us something about these “Jewish pre-Christians”? Philo in Egypt wrote about “Therapeutae”, a Greek term for worshippers, particularly of an Hellenistic Egyptian god, Serapis. The emperor Hadrian supposedly remarked that “The Christians and the worshippers of Serapis are the same.” The “church historian” Eusebius, in the fourth century AD, agreed that Philo referred to a Christian order, and one that certainly influenced Christianity.
And Philo connects them with the Essaioi or Essenes. And we know (or theorize) about an Essene community (supposedly originated in Egypt & influenced by far eastern religion?) The Essene’s admission of new members were essentially those found in later Hellenistic and Roman religious groups. The Essenes were like monks & early Christian ascetics. This is from wikipedia; “Essenes lived in various cities but congregated in communal life dedicated to asceticism, voluntary poverty, daily immersion, and abstinence from worldly pleasures, including (for some groups) celibacy. Many separate but related religious groups of that era shared similar mystic, eschatological, messianic, and ascetic beliefs. These groups are collectively referred to by various scholars as the “Essenes”.
If you’re interested in speculation (?) about Jesus, James and the “Way of Righteousness”, Essenes, Qumran, Ebionites, Zealots, “NT codes”. etc read books by Robert Eisenman. In a book by Robert Feather, Jesus & John “the baptist” were members of or associated with the Essene community at Qumran. In the “Copper Scroll” found at Qumran, the numbering units and weights used were not of Canaanite or Judaean origin, but Egyptian! Feather attempted to show a direct, continuous physical link extending back from the time the Essenes settled at Qumran (around 150 BCE) to the Egyptian dynasty period of the Pharoah Akhenaton. Some of the 1st Christians travelled to Egypt & were quite active there. Feather notes that these Christians built their 1st churches “near or around sacred Akhenaton locations.”. In the 1940’s, a number of Christian Gnostic writings (50 texts written about 350-400 c.e.) were found at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. It should come as no surprise that “kings” or magi (magicians, astrologers) from “the East” are the ones to confirm & honor the birth of their lord.
According to wikipedia, the Church Father Epiphanius (4th century c.e.) divides the Essenes into 2 main groups, the Ossaeans and the Nazareans, plus 4 or 5 other smaller sects. “The Nazareans were “Jews” from Gileaditis, Bashanitis and the Transjordan.” The Nazareans believed Moses received laws, but “some other laws”, which were not the Torah that the Jews had and which the Nazareans believed were a fiction. It is unknown what set of laws those “real laws of Moses” were. Though they supposedly kept much of the Jewish observances, they would not offer sacrifice nor eat meat. The Ossaeans were “Jews” who originally came from Nabataea, Ituraea, Moabitis and Arielis, the lands beyond the Salt Sea. They, like the Nazareans, forbid the “books of Moses”.
Ebionites Christians were said to be of 2 types; gnostic & non-Gnostic. The so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was of the gnostic strain.
Eusebius, to further justify official establishment of the Sunday Sabbath, stated that early Christians, beside honoring “the resurrection day of the lord”, had worshipped a moon goddess on Sunday.
There are many different theories of who Jesus was, from a zealot like “Judah the Galilean” or the “Egyptian” to an Essene to a Pharisee to a Cynic, etc. Jesus had many faces depending upon who viewed him. Christians aren’t all alike & can have totally opposite beliefs on certain issues. Differences now & differences 1900 years ago. The NT proves Trinitarianism, but Unitarians disagree, while they disagree with each other on the unity or what “One God” means. They disagree on what “the law is” and then disagree on whether that “law” is obsolete or done away with or not. Some reject the “Talmud”, saying it is not “real Jewishness” (“man’s word added on to God’s word”) yet they follow the Talmud in many areas “because it is Jewish” & “Jesus was Jewish”. But Sadducees were also Jewish, so claims of “Jewishness” validates neither a person nor their set of beliefs. And the NT is “God’s word” and somehow was not added onto the original word of God, the accepted canon of those times. And Christian sermons & “midrash” & creeds & laws are acceptable (& to some it is ok to accept the Mishnah, etc) but the Talmud is not, since somehow it “over-rides the Bible”.
Some (Jewish or Christian) sects or cults “long dead” or almost forgotten, are being “resurrected” or re-vitalized in this “New Age (Ebionites, Gnostics, Nazarenes, etc). One of these is Karaitism, which supposedly is only “scripturally” based (not “Rabbinic”). Traditionally very opposed to Christianity, but now some, or a “cultish type” leader or 2, think “Yeshua” is acceptable, because he is not the ‘Christian Greek Jesus’ & he is not “Rabbinic” (except to those who believe in a “Rabbi Yeshua” & maybe a “Rav Shaul”). I learned in a book called “Sacred Trash: The Lost & Found World of the Cairo Geniza” that the “founder of the Karaites” did not actually believe that there should be “No Talmud”, but instead, that everyone should write “their own Talmud”. Everyone decides for themselves what is right & what is wrong. No surprise that one of his main disciples later rejected some of his teachings.
Your entire argument is based on a false premise. If you take away the premise, the argument falls. To paraphrase your argument: there were theological disagreements among the first followers (the Apostles) of Jesus as to just who he was. However, In fact, they all knew him as the Messiah, the Son of God. To think anything else is totally in error of the facts and pure conjecture as there is no evidence to back up any other point of view. In fact all of the evidence points strongly in the direction that all the Apostles were in total agreement.
It is well documented by historians that disagreements among Christians as to who he was didn’t arise for a couple hundred years. It wasn’t even until the year 325 when we see the first Trinitarian Creed. The creed before that, the Apostles creed which dated to about the year 150 – 200 was non-controversial. It, the Apostles’ creed (I call it that only by convention) was not even around during the time of the Apostles of course but it is just another proof amongst the mountain of evidence that there was general agreement. The Apostles’ creed did go through some reiterations all the way up to around the year 800, but it was seen first as I said well before the Nicene creed of 325 which is the first appearance of the Trinity.
So in summary we see that even up to the year 150 there was agreement as to Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God nothing more nothing less. And it was not until the year 325 that all that changed.
True after Acts 15 and 21 . but not before. Also the term “Son of God” was applied to Solomon definitely not The divine son, and Son of God in the New Testament was seen as the human birth originating supernaturally but not the trinitarian definition. Not that aonly the Solomon definition is Kosher. the other is traif
For the record, the trinity doctrine was not formulated until 381 CE at The Council of Constantinople. Before then, the separate and co-equal “person-hood” of the holy spirit was not a doctrine. The Council of Nicaea dealt only with the issue of the deity of Jesus, not the issue of three co-equal members of the christo-pagan godhead.
I was just thinking… it seems like there are only two different ways of believing that Jesus is God while also being in relationship with God. One is that Jesus is an expression or revelation of God within creation, not standing eternally beyond nature. This would mean that as an individual entity he is created and not the creator, so he can’t be believed to be God. Or you could say that Jesus in his very self is eternal and outside creation, being himself God and not merely a revelation of God. In that case, Jesus is distinct from the Father, because a relationship is an engagement of selves. In that case, Jesus and God are of the some ‘uncreated’ substance, and have the same purpose… but even so, how is this different from saying that there are two creators?
In the end, we can only go with what is revealed to us. We know that God has revealed himself to us in a relationship. Most Christians emphatically do not imagine that they have multiple relationships of worship, and yet there is a distinction in ‘persons’ of the God they are praying to. So, when Christians have only one relationship with God, that can only be the case if the people in the trinity are felt to be merely faces, expressions, or personas of the one God. The problem is that the New Testament portrays a relationship between Jesus and the Father, in which Jesus is a real person, a genuinely human soul, though Christians believe his selfhood is uncreated. Many Christians don’t notice the tension, or know God so truly that they are unwilling to doubt their faith but know no other revelation him, and truly are in relationship with one God. Still, if the trinity is not true and Jesus is not God, then to imagine God this way is unnatural and broken.
David on 14 Jun @1447. Which of my arguments is my “entire argument” & which is based on a false premise? I am not an apologist, & I am not defending my own beliefs, so I don’t need to “cherry-pick verses” or “re-write history”. I raise questions & I may point out errors of others. I can discuss other ideas without agreeing with them, so I may use words like “supposedly”, or “they taught”, “they speculate”, etc. For instance, I am a Unitarian, but I don’t have to distort what Trinitarians believe and I don’t have to lie (or overlook or “blind myself”) about the history of that creed.
So, on the trinity idea the year 325 is only part of the story. Nothing usually springs up out of nowhere & developes “overnight”. Let’s go to the ccel.org (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) web site. In Systematic Theology -Vol 1, Part 1, Chap VI – The Trinity, we see that Origen, one of the earliest Church fathers, already began to develope a doctrine against the Monararchism & the Unitarian “heresies”. Praxeas of Asia Minor taught the doctrine in 200 c.e., Noetus of Smyrna in 239ce, Beryl, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia around 250ce, & especially Sabellius of Ptolemais in about 250 ce. But, Origen’s principles were seen as inconsistent with the “true divinity of Christ”. And then Arius of Alexandria came along & taught that the “Son” was not eternal, came after the Father, & was not “created from the substance of God”. Those were not new ideas either. BTW the apostles creed is first mentioned post-Nicene.
You seem to suggest (like many do today) that there is a big gap in the history of the church from about 30-70ce to about 325ce or until Constantine. Or all was “sugar & spice” within the church until “Constantine’s” or the “Roman Catholic Church’s” corruption & “virtually overnight takeover of Jesus’ “true church”. But if Jesus didn’t mind the paganization & “gross corruption” of his “The Way”, why should we?
The questions I would like to ask depends upon when one believes that the texts of the NT were first written and how much & when, corruption entered the NT texts, if ever. Because different people have their different theories that makes sense to them, but might not to others. Read or glance over Vol 1 of the Early Church fathers (pre-Nicene history of Christianity), or visit a site like earlychristianwritings.com or some book on Christian heresies (like the one on the Armchair Theologians book series). You can’t will-away that documentation for my “premises” that easily.
And maybe a casual reader of the NT will not see heresies or strife and theological disagreements among or between different individuals, sects or factions of Christians or Yeshua/Jesus followers, but some of us are not that naive or “blind”. If those disagreements & heresies only popped up a couple of hundred years after Jesus, they shouldn’t be showing up in unaltered texts that later became the canonical NT books. There shouldn’t even be a small fraction of adverse documention in the 2nd century ce.
Dear Naaria;
Thank you for your comments. They are good questions, and many would benefit by looking into them.
Thing many do not realize is that Judaism and the Nazarene sect started out as two Jewish approaches to life and to HaShem. When it became dominated by the Gentile/Pagan followers, there were many changes. I shall only state the important items from the Old Testament/Tanach.
The Tanach has G-d saying no human sacrifices, but the basis for the Christian belief is that Jesus is a sacrifice for our sins. Cannot be, as human sacrifice is out. Also, one is only able to repent/take care of his sins, no substitute allowed according to the Tanach.
Two more items; multiplicity of the divine, and a human considered divine. Here, again, cannot be.
Because of the changes I mentioned above, from what is and what is not allowed according to what G-d says in the Tanach, we have distinct theologies. So maybe a Christian is saved by the ideas they hold to, but a Jew looses his salvation, if he goes to an other faith-religion.
Also, sadly, there is a lot of finger pointing within the Christian faith, and historically, much violence. Jesus meant well, and I wish his philosophy had been followed, but the above items, as well as several others, cancelled the job, and we still wait for one to come and do the job-right.
I thank you and everyone else for your comments. I respect all religions, without exception, and wish we could all live in peace.
Shalom;
Yechiel
Luke 1:26. Now in the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth.
City of Nazareth was never mentioned once in the Hebrew Scripture. I dont understand where ‘Luke’ got this city from. in the Hebrew Scripture, Can someone tell me how many cities were in Galilee before and after Jesus came?
Hi Delou
In Dewarim 4:1-2 we find a warning not add anything to the Torah, not even a new testament – think about it!
@all:
The word >gospeleuangeliongood news<. I read my Christian Bible and discover that in the Torah we definitely find good news. When you keep this directions you will be blessed, you won't die, you will be head and not tail etc. Is this good news? For sure, it is!
2Ko 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
This is a clear statement by the Christian hallow St. Paul that (his own) other gospel will be warmly accepted. He simply declares the Torah as expired, his own gospel is valid now and if someone else might come in the future and bring another Jesus, another Holy Ghost and another gospel it would be wrong. But since 2000 years the world never saw another Jesus (Spirit, Gospel) and the Christian Gospel was accepted. Thus there must be something wrong with this gospel!
Dear Shomer;
Pauls are a dime a dozen now days. We have had someone (actuallly more than one) trying to tell us that the Bible and the Constitution are outmoded. Believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn…
Anyway, accept this, politics is aas much a part of the sacred writings as belief. So be careful, as there are tose who want what they want, not what G-d wants.
Shalom;
Yechiel
Hi Yechiel
When you read thoroughly, you read in my posting exactly what you have written. Christians would like to kill me for such a statement! St. Paul brought another gospel, a gospel offending the Torah. Proof: Pagans love the other gospel to the very day and when you don’t love it – shakehands! Me neither!
Shabbat Shalom
Shomer
Dear Shomer;
Two Torah centered minds meeting. B”H
he says what He wants, but it is not correct for some, so they try to change it. When most gentile in Europe could not read, it worked. Now, Euro-American Gentiles can read, and we see a change. Wonder why?
Thank you, and Shalom, Shomer;
Yechiel
The concept of “good news” might be quite problematic. For one, it suggests a report of events that is or rather was quite limited in nature. For what is news, but “something having a specified influence or effect”? When you hear “news” than you weren’t personally affected by the events for those things weren’t “news to you”. The “promises of the messiah” are things that you do not need to be told about 2nd or 3rd hand nor by an individual that is part of of a very small band of individuals. Even the “gospels” say that if the messiah has come here (outside your little village or town) or over there (a town a few miles down the road), don’t go there for it is only a false prophet. The “Jewish Messiah” will not come “like a thief in the night” & go about stealing or snatching up people like some “aliens from outer space”. He is not a secret given to a very “elite” few that needs to be spread by a very few (the NT disciples are often pictured as not all that “elite” but as “dense” & “uncomprehending fools”). And it is up to the individual to determine whether the “news” is good, bad, or “just neutral, but new” information.
Spectacular events spread quickly (weeks or months not years or decades) and those events aren’t usually accompanied with morals or lessons or preaching about how the events should be interpreted. That analysis might come much later. So if Paul is preaching or rather just disseminating “news”, to non-Jews or “Gentiles”, why does he also need to teach Torah (as some believe) or anti-Torah (as others believe)? One might suggest that most of those “Gentiles” were already “God fearers” and knew quite a bit about Torah or “law” as some consider it? The NT shows that he (or the NT writers) had to “de-program” these non-Jews (and Jews).
>The concept of “good news” might be quite problematic. For one, it suggests a report of events that is or rather was quite limited in nature. For what is news, but “something having a specified influence or effect”? When you hear “news” than you weren’t personally affected by the events for those things weren’t “news to you”.<
I understand that you misunderstand the concept of "good news". The Greek word "euangelion" is a combination from "eu" (good) and angelion (message) and the English word "angel", too, was derived from this "angelion". E. g. after a war a runner ran from the front to the capital and told the people "euangelion". So everyone knew that the war was over and won.
The Roman catholic hallow St. Paul has invented a message he called "euangelion". But to me it turns out to be bad news, even worst news. I imagine I were the HOLY one and I had told mankind an eternal gospel. Now such a pagan makes up his own mind, calls me a liar and pretends that his "gospel" is the true gospel now – you see that this effects everybody who thinks that the "gospel" of St. Paul is the truth?
The "new Testament" contains scriptures like "The gospel of Saint Matthew" e. g. – Was the Levite Matitjahu a Roman Catholic hallow? "Gospel" (or "good news") is a label with a promise that it cannot keep. I have torn the label off and discarded it as I have seen the result.
Shabbat Shalom
I have little misunderstanding of “euangelion” or of the NT’s use of “good news”. I studied it, but I disagree with it; it is not Torah. It was not I who tried to show “euangelion” or “good news” in the OT.
Euangelion (neut. singular) is rarely found in the sense of “good tidings” outside of early Christian literature. Homer used it, not as referring to the message (or the messenger), but to “the reward given to the messenger.” In Attic Greek it always occurred in the plural and generally referred to “sacrifices or thanks offerings made in behalf of “good tidings””. In the Septuagint Greek translation of parts of the OT, euangelion is found in 2Kings 4:10, where it also is used to mean a “reward given for good tidings”. (In 2 Kings 18:, euangelion is feminine singular). Hebrew words that are often translated as “good tidings” is used in Isaiah a few times, but “euangelion” in the sense of the “good news” itself belongs to a later period. It is not until the writings of the apostolic fathers (e.g., in Didache & Clement) that euangelion is used as referring to a book which sets forth the life and teaching of Jesus. In the NT, euangelion occurs over 75 times with a meaning of “good news”. Euangelion is quite distinctively a NT word, and has little to do with the common or classic Greek uses of the word.
What at first was simply a literary allusion to prophesy, easily came to represent the actual message which Jesus proclaimed. So Mark, uses euangelion of the Septuagint (Mk 1:14. “heralding the euangelion of God”) to represent the “good news”. Paul teaches that same message. In the gospels, the word euangelion is used only by Matthew and Mark. Luke uses the verb form twenty-six times in Luke-Acts, and the noun twice in Acts. In the Fourth Gospel there is no trace of either verb or noun.
Euangelion is found a total of sixty times in the writings of Paul. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul clearly sets forth he message of primitive Christianity, where he says, “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” So not just he, but THEY or WE (including the so-called Jerusalem church), heard & preached the same “good news”. Paul tells how he laid before the apostles at Jerusalem the gospel which he had preached. Far from finding fault with the message, they extended to him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9). So the disciples of Jesus-Yeshua had no problem with “pagan Roman Paul” the Jew & his “gospel”.
Your dislike for “the Roman Catholic Church” perverts your view of history and of the NT text. The “Levite Matitjahu” was as much a “Roman Catholic hallow” as “Pharisee Rav Paul”. No one knows who wrote “the Gospel of Matthew”, but it is a fact that the Roman Christian church attributed it to the disciple Matthew. Why would a “Levite Matthew” collect taxes for pagan Rome as he supposedly does according to “his own words”? Why would the later “Gospel of the Hebrews” (believed by some “Matthew fans” to be the “pre-corrupted” “original Gospel of Matthew”), be reported by the church historian Eusebius, as Greek Gnosticism-like?
Yahweh says :” there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior: there is none but me.” ” I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior” Isaiah 43:3 Jews believe in the first part that there is only one God Yahweh and besides him there is non but Unfortunately Jews believe there is a ” savior ” other than Yahweh. This wrong belief of Jews in a savior other Yahweh culminated in the belief that Jesus is that “savior ” or Messiah. Jew cannot blame Christians or gentiles for this wrong idea that Jesus or any other individual can be a messiah.
Daniel,
I consider you an unmet-friend because I can see you are saying that out of a loyalty to look to God alone as your help.
Please understand though that we don’t believe that we will be saved, spiritually or physically, in any way, through the strength of a mere human. We do believe that our King is God and that is is His help we look up to find. And in that belief, when we expect Him to restore David’s kingdom through a non-divine, human king, every single part of the glory, the strength, and the rescuing is going to be attributed to God.
We believe forgiveness comes from God, and restoration from exile for the Jews comes from God, as does the restoration of the whole world. The fact that He will fulfill His promise to David and raise up a descendant of his again on the throne of Israel does not mean that this person will be our ‘saviour’, any more than Moshe was the saviour of the Israelites from Egypt.
PS I saw your comment to Shomer… I’ll tell you I also was a Christian for the first 22 years in my life. It’s a hard thing for me that God let me grow up in that situation, but I thank Him for the many blessings of closeness and truth that He has given me every day of my life with Him.
By the way… do you believe in the Hebrew Bible? Because it talks there about the messiah (anointed king) coming, as a promise from God. Or if you don’t believe in the prophetic books, but you do believe that God commanded things to Israel, what do you believe in about that?
Shalom Annelise,
This is a very good question! First and foremost I believe that the “NT” contains two different “Jesuses”; one Jewish Rabbi Yeshua BarYosef and one Christian semi-God as a graven image in a amger and on an crucifix, called “Jesus Christ” because some of his statements were Jewish, others pagan/Christian.
Further I don’t call HaShem “God” any more since “God” is a pagan expression, too.
Jeshajahu 65:11 ואתם עזבי יהוה השׁכחים את־הר קדשׁי הערכים לגד שׁלחן והממלאים למני ממסך׃
….mentions the Christian, pagan “Gad” and everyone who prays not to HaShem any more but to this “Gad” or “God” will be numbered to the sword (V12). Moshe had prohibited to take away from his words or to add to his words a “New Testament” e. g. (read Devarim 4:1-2).
To me the Tanakh is inspired, 1st Torah, 2nd Neviim, 3rd Ketubim whereas Daniel and Job I consider novels in part three. Christian Bibles show a perfect disorder between 2 and 3. I mean, the “NT” is inspired, too, but the spirit of inspiration is a different spirit. As a Christian, you are not allowed to see where your beliefs really came from and that Constantine was the founder of your religion and not a Jew. In the “OT”, Y-H-V-H was mistranslated “LORD” and ELOHIM was mistranslated “God”. Nowhere in the “NT” I find ELOHIM, Adonai, HQBH, HaShem, Y-H-V-H or another reference to the HOLY ONE – but a pagan, Greek “Theos”. There are actually two opposing “Gods” between the same book covers known as “The Holy Bible”. But the pages between the covers are holy only because it was printed so on the covers in golden letters.
In Jeremiah 31, HaShem speaks that (V 33) …. I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God (orig. ELOHIM, not Theos) , and they shall be my people.
This will be the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant)! But think about this; the Roman Catholic hallow St. Paul declared the Torah (Rom 10:4/Galatians) expired, and now, in the last days, HaShem puts this “invalid” Torah in the inward of the house of Israel.
The anointed King was always anointed according to Torah requirements. But now, there appears a “King of the Jews” in the so-called NT who never was anointed. He is in Greek called “anointed” (Christos) although no pagan ever was allowed to be anointed according to the Torah. Hesekiel 37:24 clearly declares who the King in Israel will be after the restoration of both houses – and I cannot read anything about a Christian “J.” there, sorry.
Annelise; What was the promise God made to David ? David said his son Solomon ” “I am about to go the way of all the earth,” he said. “So be strong, show yourself a man, 3 and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, 4 and that the LORD may keep his promise to me: ‘If your descendants watch how they live, and if they walk faithfully before me with all their heart and soul, you will never fail to have a man on the throne of Israel.'”. What do you understand from it? Did his descendants Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements,? If they didn’t keep his commandments Is God liable to keep the promise God made with David in which there is a condition that if his descendants walk in his ways and keep his decrees and commands ?
Daniel
The Jewish bible speaks of a messiah but it is not the same messiah as the Christians believe. You also cannot credit the Jewish nation for so many believing that Jesus is the messiah. I think you’ll s find out the opposite is true. On the right hand side of this page under “categories”. Click on “messiah” the answers to many of your questions are all right there.
Agreed, exactly.
LarryB,
….not the same messiah! Very true! A mashiach is someone who was anointed according to the Torah requirements. The composition of the ointment was given in the Torah, the anointer was given (high priest) and it was given that no gentile/pagan may even smell the ointment. Now, where was a pagan semi-God, called “J.”, anointed according to Torah requirements in the so-called New Testament? If he only had smelled the ointment he would have been dead prior to his crucifiction. This guy, two minutes before his ascention was so megalomaniac that he pretended he was given all power in Heaven…. Who has all power in Heaven and on Earth? ElShadai does, but never a Roman Catholic semi-God who was a son of a “holy” virgin. Or was he maybe “anointed” with the “holy” ghost? I do know that where there are ghosts there it is haunted. Ruach is something totally different!
The expression “Christ” (Greek “Christos”) is translated in Englisch as “anointed one”. But hey – the Christian religion knows a baby sprinkling and other nonsense and the last anointing you obtain in the Catholic church when you are dead. And they believe it saves from the eternal furness, hell, condemnation or so, that is not more than a Roman Catholic invention. Others believe they only need to believe in a graven image called “J.”. I do know this because I used to believe some of these doctrines, too. A Christian (Greek “Christianos”) is someone who belogs to a Christ (anointed one) who evidentially never was anointed, neither the Jewish nor Christian way. Cool, isn’t it?
Thanks for pointing out the correct term- mashiach.
you are confusing the word used in Hebrew here for savior . The word is moshiah not moshiach (one anointed -which requires anointing with oil) Further more moshiah can refer to any one who saves a person . It can be a life guard ,fireman ,or even rin tin tin. In this verse we must understand that only G-d is capable of being a Divine savior who can eternal salvatjon .(eternal life) No man can be this kind of moshiah(savior) Jews are not referring to the messiah as one who saves from sin and grants eternal salvation . Further more in other savings such as rescuing a child from drowning the human savior could not have succeeded in his mission with out the will of Hashem so all forms of saving a person can not take place unless directed by the one G-d ,so when that fireman saves a person or that hostage negotiator saves someone it is really G-d doing the saving . The messiah however must be a human and is not G-d on the flesh . He is an ordinary person who is exceptionally righteous . No where in the torah does it say he can bring atonement or that he can die for ones sins . This was never his mission . His mission is to gather the Jews back to their land build the third temple bring all Jews back to torah observance and bring the world to the true knowledge of the one G-d which will sorely lacking until his arrival . No person has ever fulfilled that , Therefore the messiah (moshiach ,not moshiah)has not come yet and we have no idea who he is or what his name will be .
until he is revealed in such a way that it will be obvious to every one that he is the long awsaited moshiach
Larry B :- you are right to say “The Jewish bible speaks of a messiah but it is not the same messiah as the Christians believe”. I agree to you. But the question is who is the messiah according to Jewish Bible? First of all what is the meaning of the Hebrew word “Messiah”?
Daniel, forgive me for asking, but are you asking from the “Jewish Bible” David’s bible, or the bible you have written? P.S. Is it in print yet? Thank goodness there are no Mormans here, I’d be pulling my hair out.
Daniel or. Daniel Paul K what ever name you are using this week, you bring up a good point. Just by being here.
–I believe these dates are right–
Jewish Torah arrived in the year 2448
Christ was born 3758
” I’m not sure what year the co advocate (Mary) was born. Probably about 16 years prior to christ birth. Although, She was not considered co advocate until I think the 1980’s.
Islam. 4370
Mormon bible 5590
Daniel Paul K. Bible. 5773, “I’m hoping you finally get published this year”.
One would think this would end at some point. I wonder what fathers Moses was talking about in
D. 32:7. “Think back on the days of old, think over the years, down the ages. Question your father, let him explain to you, your elders, and let them tell you”.
I have not written any New Bible. But I have written a different interpretation for the gospel of the Kingdom of god. to prove that Jesus was killed not for claiming he is the messiah but questioning Jewish tradition “son of David would be Messiah ” and for preaching “do not believe in any individual who would come claiming he is the messiah”. Jesus didn’t claim he is the messiah, in fact Jesus charged his disciples they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ. It is not Jesus it is Christians who say Jesus is Messiah. Jesus told the Jews do not believe in any individual who may come claiming he is the ,messiah who or what will come is the kingdom of God. This kingdom is called kingdom of god because in this kingdom Yahweh the living God is the King. On earth only one nation will say ” Yahweh is our king “.. Messiah means “anointed one “. Kings and priest were anointed with oil. But Yahweh anoints his servant with his spirit. See. Isa.42:1 “”Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations.” Yahweh has very clearly stated who is his servant.Yahweh says “”You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”. Who is the real messiah,the one anointed by a priest or by prophet with oil or the one anointed by Yahweh with his holy spirit?
There is much evidence to show that Christianity existed long before Constantine. So neither he nor the Christian bishops of his time “invented Christianity” overnight and from scratch. And both, that church history and Jewish rabbinic literature, show that there is little evidence that a “Rabbi Yeshua bar Yosef” was ever known by Jews, or else, that only a few heretical, Hellenistic influenced Jews in the diaspora followed “his teachings”. And that history shows that those few Jewish followers of Jesus or “Yeshua” (Ebionites or “nazarenes”), held views that were almost similar to those of non-Jewish Christian views of Jesus. Where they differed was primarily in the keeping of Torah law and Jewish holidays, traditions, and rituals. Today, most Christians see absolutely no difference between Jesus and “Rabbi Yeshua”. Jesus & Yeshua are one and the same. The differences that you want to see between the “2 Jesus’es” are combined into their belief in one and only 1 Jesus. And it is only heretics “doing the work of the devil or the anti-Christ” that will argue that “Jesus is 2”, since subjectively dividing the NT into 2 “different NT’s” will bring about a fall.
More believable than the “invention of Christianity” by Paul or Constantine, and more congruent with events in the 1st century c.e., is the “invention of Rabbi Jesus or Yeshua”, is the theory of Joseph Atwill, who wrote “Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus”. He sets out to show that the Roman imperial family, the Flavians (Vespasian, Titus, etc.) created Christianity and that they skillfully incorporated a satire of the Jews in the gospels and in the book, “Wars of the Jews” (written by Flavius Josephus, the Jew “adopted” into the Roman Flavian royal family). Though the Flavians, the Herods, and Alexanders ended the Jewish revolt and even destroyed the Temple of the God of the Jews, they did not destroy the God of the Jews, nor did they end the messianic hope of the Jewish people or the will of the Jewish rebels to fight in the future for their freedom. So, it is logical that the Hellenists, Romans, and Caesars who believed in man-gods would not be upset, if the idea of a god who became a man (not hostile to Rome) and who would return to heaven, would establish itself among the Jews and perhaps replace old, antiquated Jewish ideas about God. Worth looking into it at least.
There are many dozens of theories about Jesus, because there is no true foundation of the “real Jesus” or “real Yeshua”. The “Jesus puzzle” hasn’t been pieced together by dozens of speculations, dozens of faces and theories of Jesus, dozens of gospels (including the 4 canonical ones, which contradict each other in many places), so instead of a Roman paganism answer or a Greek paganism answer or a Jewish Jesus heresy because of baalism’s influence, we can go further back and accept that the gospels of Jesus/Yeshua may indeed have had their true origin from the infuence of Canaanite paganism according to Boyarin.
Here, in Switzerland, I am living close to an area with a Roman Catholic majority. You can tell the difference by just driving along. There, on the road sides you every now and then find a crucifix, a graven image of “Jesus” hanging on a wooden cross.This is the “1 Jesus”, you can see, Yedidiah. But I see that there was one “Jesus” e. g. who said this; “Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” And the other one said; “Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them….” I mean, between “few” and “all nations”, there is a vast difference. While “Yeshua” had Jewish concepts, “Jesus” was pagan over and over. I do know that there are people that deny these facts. I do know, that there are people that say “Yeshua” yet meaning “Jesus”. They just put a Hebrew label to a Chritian doctrine – that’s it.
The Christian religion was even before Christ. Right. And it was long before Christ, in ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece….! Mary and Jesus and Trinity e. g. are known from there already, just by other names. Constantines invention was the mixture between this concept and others in his empire. In order to save his dominion he needed a united economical or religious empire. One economy was not possible, so he chose the latter idea. And this political-religious system works ’till today.
If Constantine I wanted “unity”, he would have also been much more tolerant & conciliatory toward Jews. And he would have favored the Marcionite churches which were very prominent at that time and perhaps a majority toward the east. Before Constantine I, the Roman Empire had already split into 2 in about 285 c.e. Christianity didn’t solidify his rule over both the eastern and western empire. Nor did it play a part in his establishing the capitol of Rome in “New Rome” or Byzantium or what was later called Constantinople in Turkey. Nor does your explanation explain why Constantine I was not a Christian (and according to some legend not even baptized until he was on his “death bed” and only then to be “safe” just in case the Christian god was the real god). Nor why the Christian Church did not become the “official” religion of the empire until Theodosius I’s reign, over 40 years & 5-6 (?) emperors after Constantine I’s death. Nor does your theory explain most of church history for almost 200 years before Constantine and why most of the principle beliefs of Christianity were already in place during those years and before him or Eusebius. Nor why the NT (the books and most of the text) of the Coptic, Syriac, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman or “western Orthodox” churches are pretty much the same. Quite a bit of myth has grown around Constantine I according to sources mentioned in Wikipedia. We might logically say that the Church has used Constantine more for its benefit
There are many different faces of Jesus and your Matt 7:14 quote does not sound like that of a Jewish messiah (one who would try to bring all the Jews and all the “lost tribe of Israels” together and usher in God’s kingdom on earth). He often does not act or talk like David might have or a Davidic messiah should have. Nor does it sound quite like the Jesus of the hypothetical Q1 gospel. Nor does the “Jewish Jesus” always sound like that from the “Qumran sect” writings. But Matt 7:14 does make Jesus sound like the Greek cynics who did teach & preach in the Decapolis, 10 Greek cities established in part of the Galilee and westward. Since no one has any writings of Jesus or of any “Yeshua”, nor can anyone clearly or definitely show writings by his students, than what either he believed is unknown. Strange that Rabbi ben Zakkai, who lived in and around the “hometown of Yeshua or Jesus in his lifetime”, had nothing to say about Yeshua or Jesus or his teachings or his disciples, either positively or negatively or otherwise.
The 2nd paragraph should end with, ” We might logically say that the Church has used Constantine I more for it’s benefit, than the other way around. They made him into a saint. But then, tyrant Pilate, the executioner of Jesus, was changed into a “good guy” in the NT and even made a saint in some churches, as well.”
Shomer: Ezekiel 37:24 says ” ” ‘My servant David will be king over them,” But the Jews believe Son of David will be king over them,. Most interestingly scripture very clearly says
” Yahweh is the king of Israel”. It seems to be confusing.. Would you please explain who would be the king of Israel according to your opinion?
Hashem is the only one that is aveenu malcaynu our father our king . However the heavenly king will appoint a ruler that will establish the rule of the Divine king over the earth . He is called Dovid because he will be a descendant from Dovid . He is referred to as Dovid . because he is like a clone of his great ancestor Dovid . The Hebrew word Dovid means beloved one . In thd way that Dovid was precious to G-d so will his descendant moshiach ben Dovid be precious .
The trinity doctrine is stoic eastern, not Canaanite. It first came to exist because of a gnostic called Valentinus.
From Chapter 35 on “the Trinity” in the book published in 1882, called “Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions” by T. W. Doane (and in several other sources) we see that in many religions of the world, a trinity doctrine existed or exists (even in the pre-Colombian Americas, which were not influenced by Christians nor in no way influenced the Jesus story). The Trinity is found in the east, India (Brahma -father, Vishnu son, & Siva -holy spirit and the Hindu creator, preserver & destroyer) and China, but also in the Assyria (Marduk) and with the ancient Chaldeans (the Memra had many names or descriptions also used for Jesus- word of god, 1st begotten son of god, eternal bread from heaven, priest, intercessor, Man, the light, a substitute for god, etc), Phoenicians, Persians (Oromasdes, Mitras, & Ahriman), the ancient Greeks, ancient pagan Romans (“First god, then the Word, and then with them, the spirit), the Vandals, the Scandinavians (Odin, Thor, & Frey), and many others, including the Egyptians. Maybe Jesus was ignorant of other people’s beliefs, Jews like Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, Egypt knew of these some of the trinitarian religions and “deity concepts”, and so did many early Christians, both the ordinary, earliest followers of Jesus or the fathers of the church of Yeshua./Ieosous.
The trinitarian view of the deity is said by some early church fathers to have come from Egypt and claimed that Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Plato taught the doctrine of the trinity which was drawn from the writings of Orpheus (Chamber’ Encyclopedia, article on Orpheus).