Could Abraham be from the Vedas?

[Minimalist]

Blimey Min! I've never seen you so loquacious. I'm going to start calling you Max!

I can get real worked up about history, Ish.

You have to ask yourself: why is it that that same story (the dying and resurrecting Godman) was told over and over again in so many cultures? Why are there so many similarities between the Jesus story and so many others, including Mithras? Could it be that this story, like the others, was not to be taken literally but told for another purpose? These other similar stories were initiation stories, told to adepts who underwent metaphysical transformation over a period of days (the best known one taking place in the Eleusian fields in Greece; that’s the Greeks - the same guys who translated so much of the Bible from the original Hebrew).

I'm comfortable with the idea that the story was re-cycled by virtually every culture that came in contact with it. The names were changed to make them fit into that culture. Ezekiel (early 6th century BC) mentions worship of Tammuz (another dying-rising god) in the OT as being worshipped in Jerusalem, so the idea had spread that far at least and, it is not terribly difficult to imagine that if the idea spread from Sumeria, it also reached Egypt because both the Assyrians and Persians overran that country.

In that sense, the quest to find the earliest manifestation of the tale becomes important. Much flowed from it.

[Minimalist]

The revolts of Jesus time were just too much.

Except, as noted above, there was not a great deal of trouble "in Jesus' time." That is the fly in the ointment. The early first century was relatively quiet.

Now, since the earliest gospel ("Mark") is usually dated to after 70 it would be fair to say that someone writing then would have a fairly good understanding of the troubles of the preceeding 30 years and might well have assumed that those conditions also applied under Tiberius and Augustus but we are hard pressed to find evidence of any widespread trouble. Let's remember that Augustus gave the Judaeans what they wanted. They petitioned to have Archelaus removed and to become a directly ruled part of the Roman Empire. Herod Antipas in Galilee maintained an independent kingdom as did another brother, Phillip, in Iturea for many years.

Let's also recall the most fundamental contradiction in the gospels: The Nativity. "Matthew" has Herod the Great playing a major role. Herod died in 4 BC. "Luke" has P. Sulpicius Quirinius conducting the census but Quirinius did not become governor until 6 AD. Serious revolts against the succession of Herod's sons in 4 BC caused the Romans to intervene with the legions from Syria to secure their puppets' thrones. If "Matthew" is right, Jesus would have been a baby.

Small scale riots broke out when the Roman census in 6 AD was conducted. If Luke was right, Jesus would have been a baby.

Here is an excerpt from Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" Book 18, Chapter 2.

2. As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened. As the Jews were celebrating the feast of unleavened bread, which we call the Passover, it was customary for the priests to open the temple-gates just after midnight. When, therefore, those gates were first opened, some of the Samaritans came privately into Jerusalem, and threw about dead men's bodies, in the cloisters; on which account the Jews afterward excluded them out of the temple, which they had not used to do at such festivals; and on other accounts also they watched the temple more carefully than they had formerly done. A little after which accident Coponius returned to Rome, and Marcus Ambivius came to be his successor in that government; under whom Salome, the sister of king Herod, died, and left to Julia, [Caesar's wife,] Jamnia, all its toparchy, and Phasaelis in the plain, and Arehelais, where is a great plantation of palm trees, and their fruit is excellent in its kind. After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

I've bolded the names of the 4 praefects mentioned. Coponius came out from Rome in 6 AD with Quirinius. Valerius Gratus' 11 year term ended in 26 when he was succeeded by Pontius Pilate. In that entire 20 year span Josephus mentions no fighting, beyond the trouble concerning the census which he had discussed earlier. But even more, none of this would have been of any concern to "Jesus" who the texts claim was a Galilean. Galilee remained under the kingship of Herod Antipas until 39AD, at least 3 years after the last possible date for the crucifixion (Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36.) Galilee was prospering under Antipas. He built extensively at Sepphoris and Tiberias. Where was the trouble?

I can certainly agree with your assertion that the Roman yoke was mild.

As noted in Monty Python's "Life of Brian:"

Reg: Yeah. All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?!
Xerxes: The aqueduct?
Reg: What?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
Commando 3: And sanitation.
Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
Matthias: And the roads!
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
Commando: Irrigation.
Xerxes: Medicine.
Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...
Commando 2: Education.
Commandos: Ohh...
Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
Commando 1: And the wine.
Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
Commando: Public baths.
Loretta: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Francis: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this!
Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, pea-- Shut up!

[kbs2244]

Hey!
I am not anti-Roman (or pro Jew, for that matter) We in the Western World owe them a whole lot.
And the fact that most of the Empire was pretty quiet at Jesus time is what made Judea such a sore spot to the Romans.
The Jews were arguably better off then they ever had been. The Roman peace gave them the ability to be merchants of stuff from Britain to India.
But, like Monty’s “Reg” the Jews just didn’t get it.
It wasn’t the Christians that were causing the problems. They were not Jewish patriots. (Part of Jesus’ teaching was to be “no part of this world.” In other words, “Stay out of politics.”)
Because of that teaching the “True Believers” left Jerusalem (it was no longer important to them religiously) for Pella, across the Jordan, in between the Roman sieges.
Since Pella was not part of the Roman province of Judea, they were “out of bounds” when the Romans came for real in 70.
The Christian Diaspora was well underway in 70. There were few in Jerusalem.

[Minimalist]

But, like Monty’s “Reg” the Jews just didn’t get it.

Dangerous to generalize. The Romans usual method of pacifying a region was to co-opt the leading citizens by granting Roman Citizenship and other perks. If that didn't work and those people caused trouble they were eliminated....eventually.

One could theorize that that the upper classes (of which Josephus' family was definitely a member) saw the 'wider world' concept of being with the Romans rather than against them. As you suggest, 'money talks and bullshit walks.'

The Romans' usual plan does not seem to have been as effective in Judaea and a fair part of that failure may have been that they revoked the previous concessions that had been granted and became harsher and harsher masters. The reason for that could probably get someone a PH D in history and is not going to be satisfactorily dealt with on a message board, unfortunately.

[kbs2244]

Oh come on, lets try!
We have gotten from Abraham to Jesus, that is a pretty good spread.
What can a few more years and details do to hurt?

BTW, isn't that conquering tatic what the Goths used against Rome on the conquest of Gual? "Just keep on doing what you were doing. Just send the taxs to us, not them."

[Ishtar]

The Romans' usual plan does not seem to have been as effective in Judaea and a fair part of that failure may have been that they revoked the previous concessions that had been granted and became harsher and harsher masters. The reason for that could probably get someone a PH D in history and is not going to be satisfactorily dealt with on a message board, unfortunately.

Come on Min, I'd like to know more about this.

[Minimalist]

Okay. You’ll be sorry.


There were effectively 3 kinds of provinces in the Empire when Augustus reorganized things.

Imperial provinces which the Emperor ruled through the appointment of Governors. These provinces tended to be the militarily sensitive ones such as Germany, Syria, and Moesia (Balkans). 3 or 4 legions were stationed in these provinces. Single legion provinces, such as Egypt, Carthage, & Asia also existed. All of these areas' governors reported to the Emperor and generally served 3 year terms.

The rest were senatorial provinces and tended to be governed by Senatorial class appointees. They generally governed for one year. These governors would raise small auxiliary forces to maintain order....more or less as a police force.

In 14 BC there also existed the independent kingdom of Herod the Great in Palestine. Although both sides understood that Herod was a Roman lackey, Herod was free to rule his kingdom as he saw fit, providing he did not start a war which the Romans would be obliged to help him win and that he paid whatever tribute was agreed to. There was no Roman governor or colonial administration. The military governor of Syria was nearby in case Herod forgot. When Herod murdered a couple of his children, Augustus is reputed to have joked “better to be one of Herod’s pigs than one of his sons.” A little Roman humor.

In the provinces in which the Romans directly ruled corruption was understood. Tax farming led to many abuses until Augustus did away with the practice. It is not generally known that direct taxation of Roman citizens in Italy had been abolished in the middle of the second century BC. Hence, the gospel claim that there was a world wide census for purposes of taxation is manifestly false. There was never any such decree and Augustus, shrewd politician that he was, knew better than to tax the people he relied on for support in Italy. Everybody else was fair game and governors were also quite willing to take bribes from various business interests or percentages of the profits.

From the earliest expansion of the Republic the Romans had used both the carrot and the stick for their “conquests.” Various rights were extended to communities or withheld from others as an inducement to become “Romanized.” When they expanded into non-Italian cultures they used a scaled back version of the process. The propertied classes were always the ones who had the most to lose in any revolt and the Romans set about co-opting them by the granting of citizenship or other rights. These new Romans, men of importance in their own communities, were expected
to set an example of cooperation with the new order. That they benefitted economically from such cooperation was probably not lost on them. The system generally worked. Revolts were rare and serious revolts were very rare. The people might be crushed by taxation but they had no one to complain to and no one to lead them as their own nobility was gleefully working with the Romans.

As has been mentioned the Romans seemed to prefer using the Herod family to govern Palestine.
Augustus did grant the petition of Judaea to remove Herod’s son, Archelaus in 6 AD and made it a praefecture, goverened by a praefect of Equestrian rank because Judaea was too insignificant to be worthy of a senator. Herod Antipas remained ruler of Galilee, however, until his ouster in 39.
Philip, the third tetrarch, maintained Iturea until his death in 33 or 34 AD.

The Romans had granted significant concessions in terms of religion and home rule to Judaea. The praefect maintained his headquarters at Caesarea. A small garrison was maintained at the Antonia fortress. The rest were at Caesarea. In total, Pilate’s force was about 5 cohorts and a cavalry wing...roughly 3,000 men.

Around 40 AD, serious anti-Jewish rioting broke out in Alexandria. The complaint of the rioting Greeks was that the Jews were getting special treatment. Caligula, then Emperor, decided to revoke the favorable treatment and ordered his praefect, Petronius, to install statues of him in the temple. Petronius, no fool, elected to stall rather than try to hold the province with 3,000 men and before he had to carry out the order, Caligula was assassinated.

In 39, Caligula a boyhood friend of Herod Agrippa, had removed Antipas and made Herod Agrippa king of Galilee and when Claudius succeeded to the throne( 41), he restored Judaea to Agrippa thereby recreating Herod’s dominion. In a very odd sense, Herod Agrippa could be said to be The Messiah. He reunited all of Israel. He rid them of direct Roman presence. He even restored the Temple. And he was an annointed King. One has to admit, he got a lot closer than Jesus did to meeting the conditions.

In any event, Agrippa died and the Romans reverted to assigning procurators to the entire region. However, this restoration took place without the former concessions granted by Augustus and Tiberius. Trouble broke out in Galilee, which had never had the pleasure before of direct Roman rule, and Roman repression followed swiftly. Josephus recounts a series of problems cropping up in this time and with Claudius more interested in Britain his lieutenants did not do anything to settle matters down. Twenty years later, Nero directed his local commander Gessius Florus to seize the temple treasury and the war was on.

In a very real sense this constant desire of the Romans to find someone else to be responsible for Palestine was a contributing factor. There was never a prolonged period of stability in which the Roman system, which worked so well elsewhere, could take root. They probably should not have restored Judaea to Herod Agrippa. But they did.

[kbs2244]

Great background Min.
I have only one nit to pick.
(This all assumes a Biblical view of history. But that was the accepted view in Judea at the time.)

Was Herod Agrippa a Messiah? Yes, in the sense that he was anointed. But that was by a very politically involved High Priest. One who did not pay much attention to the bloodline needed to be a member of Jewish Royalty.

With his bloodline, there was no way Agrippa could be considered “The” Messiah.

The bloodline of “The” Messiah was pretty well spelled out. He had to be a descendent of King David. That was the importance of the two different genealogies given in the Gospels of Jesus. One on his mothers side and one on his fathers side.

But the Herods were not Hebrews, let alone descendents of David, they were Edomites. Not exactly friends of the historical Hebrews. The argument between them went back to the Exodus when the Edomites would not let the Hebrews pass through their territory. They forced a long detour by the Hebrews on their way to the “promised land” and raided them along the way.

The Edomites had the Judaic religion forced on them in about 125 BC when the Maccabees got the upper hand in the continuous regional war. It was at this time that the Herods became influential. Antipas I was made Governor of Idumea. As a result his son, Antipas II become a wealthy man, got involved with the church politics of the Judaic religion, courted the Romans, and ended up a governor of Judea. Thus his son, Herod the Great, who he had sent to Rome for school, was in a good position to be allowed to continue on as a ruler by the Romans. He was definitely “connected,” and from all accounts a pretty smart guy in his younger years.

But those differences between the backgrounds of the Herods and the Hebrews was one the Romans never really understood, any more then the did the difference between the Hebrews and Samaritans. From the Roman point of view, if you had basically the same religion, and lived in the same area, your were all the same. They thought they were doing the Jews a favor by giving them one of their own as a semi-independent King.

But the Hebrews were more into genealogy then the present day Mormons. In spite of their support from the Priests the people never accepted the Herods as rulers because of this. Their rule was always on shaky ground. The major reason Herod the Great rebuilt the Temple on the scale he did was to placate this resistance. He was responsible for Augustus giving the Jews special privileges that caused the riots in Alexandria. But they were simply not Hebrews and therefore had no right to rule.

At least that is the way I understand it.

BTW, The temple was the repository for all these family histories. But when the Romans burned the Temple in 70 all those records were lost. Thus no Jew could prove what tribe he was from, or even if, in fact, he was a Jew. That is the reason the current Judaic religion has a Rabbi (Teacher) but no Priests. Priests had to come from the tribe of Levi, and no one can prove that linage.

[Minimalist]

On another board (Jesusneverexisted.com) there is a Jewish guy who supplied this web site once. I keep it on Favorites for just these occasions.

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askr ... ssiah3.htm

Why did the majority of the Jewish world reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why did the first Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah?

Answer


It is important to understand why Jews don't believe in Jesus. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that's available, the better-informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:

5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

My propagandizing for Herod Agrippa was my idea of a little humor.

[kbs2244]

Point taken on the humor. I fell for it.

The Christian reply to your posted Jewish, website, is that the Jews where, and still are, looking for a literal, political (“earthly”) fulfillment of those prophesies, when, in fact, they were meant to be spiritually fulfilled.

Remember that, while Jesus made the symbolic, incoming King, ride into Jerusalem on an ass, he also ran away from a crowd that wanted to grab him and anoint him as a King replacing Herod. He did not want to be the king of an “earthly” Israel, but of a “Heavenly” one.

This definitely gets into the religious side of things, but the thing that most of the Jews of both Jesus day and the present consistently missed understanding, was that the Messiah’s appearance would make obsolete the whole “Law of Moses” that they base their entire existence on. It has been their creed, and fed their egos, for a couple thousand years. They could not, and cannot, let go of it.

That was the major reason for their going after the Christians; “They speak against the Law of Moses.”

It is the same corner the Fundies have painted themselves into. Literal interruption of things meant to be symbolic.

[Minimalist]

The Christian reply to your posted Jewish, website, is that the Jews where, and still are, looking for a literal, political (“earthly”) fulfillment of those prophesies, when, in fact, they were meant to be spiritually fulfilled.

Yes, that is certainly the Christian, canonical version of events. I'm not about to tell Jews how to be Jews, though. Not my problem.

My own view is that Christianity seems to have moved to separate itself from Judaism around 70AD because at that precise moment in time the Romans were still wiping the blood off their swords in Jerusalem so, it was not a great time to be a Jew in Palestine. Of course, many scholars doubt that the first gospel (Mark) was even written in Palestine because the author made a number of geographical mistakes.

Perhaps they should consider Harry Truman to be the Messiah. After all, he was instrumental in re-establishing Israel.

[Digit]

it was not a great time to be a Jew in Palestine. Of course,

Politically there never has been a good time to be a Jew Min. Browsing Google the other evening I came across a post that blames the Jews for the worldwide increase in food prices!
I kid you not.

[Minimalist]

[kbs2244]

Well, I don’t know about “never.”
Solomon reportedly milked it for a while with the Queen of Sheba.

I do agree with you, Min, on the 70 date. Like I said, most of the Christians bailed out of Jerusalem in the 4 years between the 66 and 70 Roman campaigns.

They did seem to have a hard time giving up their Jewish roots however. When things settled down, it seems the “Home” congregation was located back in Jerusalem.

There was also a big argument over whether all the non-Hebrew people Paul was bringing in had to get circumcised before they could be baptized as Christians. Paul came back to, and it was argued at, this Jerusalem congregation. (As a final turning of their backs on “The Law of Moses,” the decision was no, they did not have to be circumcised.)

Early Christianity was kind of wild and woolly. The Southern Mediterranean from Egypt to Libya was a real hot bed of “converts” with their own opinions. Hence the “Coptic.” (This area is where the merging of the cross into Christianity came from.) Even during his lifetime Paul complained about many not following the “true” straight and narrow.

It wasn’t until Charlemagne demanded central control, and by extension, agreed upon tenants, that we got to our historical universal (catholic) church.

But in the background there was always the “Eastern Church,” and then came Luther,.....


Meanwhile, did we ever decide where Abraham came from?
Most of the Mid-East claims him as their forefather. Not many Christians, or Jews I would bet, know the account recorded at Genesis 25:1 where, after Sara died, he took another wife, Keturah, and had 6 sons by her. That gave him seven “legal” sons (born from by a “married” wife. Isaac by Sara, and these 6) as well as Ishmael (born by a slave, and father to the Arabs.) I would live to see a DNA check of the southern and eastern Mediterranean area for his genes.

[Minimalist]

Meanwhile, did we ever decide where Abraham came from?

Most archaeologists doubt his existence.