Ted Hoffman

Naah, its to antagonistic. But I am serious - if you really feel strongly about it, heck let the world know - write a book. You could even self-publish .
And what is that in your profile about "sort of a christian"?

Bernard Muller

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions, or so-called arguments, such as:
a) Because GTh parallels of the gospels look simplified, that means they are the earliest.
b) Because GTh parallels of the gospels are in no order (as compared with the one showing in the Synoptics), the GTh sayings are coming from an independant "pile", not from the gospels.
c) Because collection of sayings come first (before narrations), then GThomas (and Q) is early. Main evidence: GTh & Q are early. THAT IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT!!! And Q, in is complete form, is hotly contested as being pre-GMark.

If the primary evidence does not back up your case, then you look a scholarly works. And you build your case on the ones in your favor, ignoring the others, even if the "good" ones arrived to their conclusions (the ones you like) with "maybe", "perhaps", "it is possible", etc.
I saw that many times from apologists.
That does not prove a thing. Actually a long & convoluted work, resting on unproven stack of hypothese, on the musing of selected scholars, is sure to be unconclusive and likely wrong.

Ya, but there are other "enormous" Christian literature dated 2nd & third century, some of which also have rewritten gospels' parallels. So the existence of GTh does not prove a thing. And then Gth is not so enormous. And then other Thomas literatures are later part of 2nd century and beyond.

Ya, but you have aborted your work, so it is pretty hard to judge it (and see it is not assumed).
Are you implying your interrupted study would have been the only one to "prove" parts of GTh are early?

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

Well lets look at the flipside:

Thomas is gnostic so its late!

Building off that nonsense "scholars" like to drool on and say Thomas looks earlier (a CONCESSION) because the editor//author was undoing what the synoptic authors did (assumption of lateness and dependence!!!) Score three for the late and dependent camp

See my critique of John Meier for an example of a mainine scholar who makes these idiotic amatuer blunders.

I got another one, assume IMPLICITLY Thomas was written in one sitting then find any instance of later canonical material or canonical redactional material in THomas and thus it is all late.

Yet another: Anytime THomas shortens a parable he must have shortened the synoptic version. No, THomas couldn't have possibly found the parable in any other source

Or another: implicitly assume canonical Christianity represents all Christianity of the 1st century and thus if THomas has material which does not cohere with synoptic data it must be late. Isn't that a conclusion rather than an argument?

Assume straight-line development of material, ignore provenance and so on! We could go on and on pointing out the flaws with numerous scholar's work on the subject. What do you expect though? They're mainly just a bunch of theologians pretending to do history.

Actually, Tuckett offered the best thoughts on this. His discussion was good but I still find the order important for my case.

But do you realize what you are saying? Thomas looks nothing like the synoptics (point a THomas is simplified) and Thomas (at least almost) completely lacks the synoptic order (point b). Whats left for you to base an argument for Thomas's dependence on? Its latent gnosticism?! At the least I can say the order and content are very different which you can attempt to explain away.

Well, we do have good evidence of earlier collections of sayings, Miracle lists, Q, parable lists and so on. We also know that these lists were assimilated into the canonical Gospels and are no longer extant save through their reconstruction from the Gospels. Thus, since you yourself are so interested in finding trends maybe the data leans against lists being composed from the synoptics when it was the canonicals who engulfed so many various types of lists and documents? I personally wouldn't place too much evidence on this view though.

You fault them for assessing the evidence honestly!? Of course they use things like "maybe","perhaps" and so on. The GOOD scholars realize the limitations the material imposes upon their inferences. This is history not physics. A physics professor does not say maybe the ball with fall with a velocity of x meters per second/per second. A Christian origins professor has to say maybe x happened and maybe we can infer y from it or this seems to have a different tradition history. Don't fault a scholar for correctly realizing the limiations of his source material!

Only two more sections were needed to demonstrate this. 1N most importantly and then 1O would have builf off of that partly.

But there is a lot of material out there which shows that the Torso of THomas has a different tradition-history.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I'm sort of a Christian. I'm not an orthodox Christian but in this culture I live in Christian imagery and mythology is an important part of my religious identity.

My first stop here page on my website gives good background into my panentheist theology:

http://www.acfaith.com/firststop.html

Further, in my critique of the veracity of prayer studies like Byrd's give more incite in the specifics of my Gopd-theology:

http://www.acfaith.com/pray.html

Especially sections three and four.

I don't believe God intervenes in the supernatural sense and violates nature like almost every other theist. I think God works on a personal level through things like prayer and personal experiences. This fits in well with my panentheist outlook which has everything existing withing God rather than outside as in the supernatural theist frame work.

This is why on the fifth page of my study I argued that prayer does in fact work even though in sections three and four I argued that it doesn't work.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

I disagree. It's because of their monotheism that they survived, that I agree with, but it's the continuation of that monotheism, not the development of it, that led to their survival.

Most nations, when defeated, decided that it was because the other nation had stronger gods. The gods of the defeated nation, therefore, were no longer worth worshipping.

Judaism was different. Their god was in control of everything. Conquest and defeat. When they lost, they decided that their god was even more powerful than they imagined, and the invading nation nothing more than his pawn.

God, the Jews concluded, was using this other nation to teach Judaism a lesson. And when they all turned from their evil ways--quit worshipping at Asherah poles and praying to Ba'al--their god would redeem them.

A mentality that, impressively, continues to this day. Some 2700 years after the punishment began.

But the Law says "eye for an eye." I'm not aware of anywhere in the Law that says "If you get slapped, you should expect that."

The distinction between man and god is clear throughout the Tanakh. Man is a worm, God is almighty.

I'd venture that most Jews would have found the sentiment that by striking them you were striking God to be offensive. God was more of a big brother who was going to kick your ass.

If a Roman soldier slapped you, I'd venture that it didn't matter much if you were Jewish or not. You took it dry. Not doing so made you dead. Being dead sucks. In any time. As Woody Allen observed, it's awfully hard to find your slippers, and I'm sure the floor is cold.

Do you have any evidence of this former yet? And if not, aren't you reaching your conclusions before you get there?

I'm curious as to what leads you to conclude that Judaic thought is borne out poorly in Christianity. I'd venture quite the contrary. If the Tanach is the beginning, the OTP and DSS the intermediary step, and Christianity the finale, it flows rather well.

Regards,
Rick

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie,
The logic is shaky in the links but thanks for explaining.

Bernard Muller

Good VINNIE. I approve heartily of the last two sentences.
And about the arguments you specified above, I do not share anyone of those.
And I think that about Meier:
A Christian apologist working from within the Catholic establishment

"But do you realize what you are saying?"
My quote is from the viewpoint opposite to mine. I am the devil advocate here. Do not blame me for that!
"Thomas looks nothing like the Synoptics"
Ya, but also many late 1st cent, or 2nd cent. Christian texts. So either way, that does not prove anything.
I do not make much from any alleged gnosticism in my page. Here is my sentence about it:
"And that's not even considering any (early) Gnosticism! See here for details about GThomas & Gnosticism, logion by logion, with scholars' comments & evidence."
The page I refer to http://www.gospelthomas.com/ includes comments of a few scholars, some pro-gnostic, some anti-gnostic, some pro-early, some pro-late. So it is just a soup, with no clear answer.
As far as my arguments for pro-dependence, **which BTW you snipped away in your critique and/or did not comment anything**, are based mainly on two logions:

a) The one (57) about the weeds parable, which I demonstrated was initially an extrapolation of Matthew from the sower parable of Mark, very obvious in a few ways, such as location and more so the additions in it correspond 100% to a major theme dear to Matthew (and only him among the gospelers) which is further evidenced in other Matthean material (including parables).

b) Part of another one (47) initially from Luke, where again in order to satisfy a particular Lukan agenda, well evidenced in Luke's works, a parable is twisted and added on from a Markan parable.

I also made several comments pointing to the fact Thomas got the tenants parable from GLuke.
Then, about the gospels order, the full logions have two cases of a duo of consecutive pericopes as appearing in all of the Synoptics for one, in GMatthew for the other (and that's the only occurrences of those (contiguous ones), I mean among the gospels parallels).
It just happens, in the two cases, the consecutive gospel pericopes are paralleled in two consecutive Thomas logions, and in the same order!
The chance of that, which I calculated, is one out of 12,000.
That's very revealing for a writer who had all motives to place his logions at random, more so the ones with parallels.

So I do not make my points on Gnosticism, but on the primary evidence. And you do not have anything to match that.

"Well, we do have good evidence of earlier collections of sayings, Miracle lists, Q, parable lists. We also know that these lists were assimilated into the canonical Gospels"

Except for Q, which was likely compiled after GMark, with a lot of its material fabricated then (see here), (some would say it came from GMatthew), we do not have any evidence either some texts you mentioned ever existed (such as the miracles list and the Passion narrative) or, if existing (like some gospel-like fragments) we do not have any evidence they are "early". Maybe scholars like Crossan or Robinson are big fans of that, but that's pure speculations and leap of faith. Those scholars are so eager to have a lot of pre-gospel material, that they assume: if it cannot be proven late, then it is early!
So your claim again is founded on the musing of some scholars (which you said are not historians), not on primary evidence. Actually, you consider the former as the later. Better learn about the difference!
"the data leans against lists being composed from the synoptics when it was the canonicals who engulfed so many various types of lists and documents?"
What data **leans** against ...? Spell it out

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

No, I do not fault them for assessing the evidence honestly. Actually they are honest by using "maybe", "perhaps" in introducing their hypothese. They acknowledge there is no (or so little) evidence to back them up, but the possibility can be thought.

I can say, maybe Atlantis existed (more Blablabla) therefore (more Blablabla) perhaps the Atlantans built the Pyramids (more blablabla). That's honest. I do not say for sure Atlantis existed because I cannot prove it, etc.
The problem is that people like you comes, and because you think (for argument sake, no offence) the conclusion is true, quote me & my conclusion as if it was primary evidence or at least a solid fact.

Let me give you another example, given by yourself, starting from a quote of Patterson:
"Indeed, the apparent gaps in Thomas' narrative **may** indicate that it is an abbeviation of some longer version--but not necessarily Matthew's longer version.
Closer examination of the language used in those Matthean verses without parallel in Thomas **suggests** that Matthew himself is responsible for composing them in just this way. Consider the key words occuring in these verses which later become the subject of Matthean allegorical interpretation of the parable (Matt 13:36-43) . . . the author/editor of Thomas did not know precisely these details because they first arose in the way Matthew conceptualized the parable as an allegory. **Perhaps** Thomas did know a longer version of this parable, and abbreviated it in the telling; but this longer version was not that of Matthew. (Patterson, GThom. & Jesus, p. 46)"

Despite the "may" and "perhaps", and combined with that:
"That all four parables which Thomas shares with Matthew's special material were introduced with a reference to the kingdom **could** indicate that both used a common source. (Koester, ACG, p. 105)", plus another Koester's special:
"This introduction to the parables, not often used elsewhere in Thomas, **might** indicate that at least some of the special parables of the Gospel of Thomas were drawn from the same source from which also the parables shared with Matthew were derived."

My argumentation is ignored, also the ones of "Gartner, Montefiore and Schrage" who "all argue that Thomas' shorter version of this parable is dependent upon that of Matthew".
That does not prevent you to conclude:
"In regards to the parable of the weeds it must be said that it is not certain that "Matthew" created this parable whole cloth or from a Markan parable. In fact, **it is unlikely**."

Certainly, you do not realize "the limitation of his sources material" of your scholars, but my golly, your are going to accept their musing with enthousiasm.

Who are you trying to fool! All what you quoted only leave a very small possibility for your belief to be true. That does not support it at all. However my argumentation (you snipped) is solidly based on primary evidence but that's not even worth even reading it!

Sure Vinnie, all based on assumptions, unproven hypothesis stacked above other unproven hypothesis, with musing of your "good" scholars about possibilities, your dreamed up stratifications, your own selection of Q1 & T1?
Here is about stratification of Q (not even about GThomas!):
>> One of those, John Kloppenborg, probably the best known in this field, considerably changed his "model" and acknowledged candidly "I might say at this point that I regard my stratigraphic proposals in 'Formation of Q' and 'Excavating Q' as interesting bits of guesswork ..." (Synoptic-S, On-line Seminar, Oct. 2000) <<

Sure, Vinnie

Best regards, Bernard

Koyaanisqatsi

In other words, my understanding is based on my understanding? Is that your argument?

To what end, other than in line with my theory (the calculated and deliberate subversion of Monotheist dogma)? Monotheism defines Judaism. It's even in their commandments from their god. Without it, you no longer have Judaism. For even a "radical Jew" to propose that there is more than one god is to propose that the very foundation of their religious beliefs is false and their prophets and elders were liars or frauds.

The Jewish messiah (if there is only one) was never a savior of men's souls, much less a god. Just read the same prophets the NT authors use as supporting Jesus' messiah-hood (for lack of a better term). The "messiah" of Daniel, for example, is a destroyer of humanity and come to end the redemptive power of sacrifice prior to flooding the Holy land to kill all who were not annointed. "He" is the polar opposite of what the NT claims of its messiah. Even the most radical Jews of the area would know this intimately, so it makes even less sense that they would attempt to subvert the orthodoxy by positing their Messiah had come in order to hide from authority (which Jesus does repeatedly) and preach a doctrine of love of oppression (the Sermon on the Mount).

Both Isaiah and Daniel (the two primary prophets the NT authors have Jesus quoting in support of his messiah-hoodness) state quite clearly that when their god sends this messenger, "he" is a physical destroyer of all enemies of god's chosen, as well as the destroyer of all those within god's chosen (i.e., the Jews) who were not redeemable. In other words, his presence on earth means that god's judgment has been rendered and the sentence will be carried out and actual, physical bodies will be mass murdered (in Daniel it's a flood).

The Jewish messiah is by no means a savior; he is their executioner who arrives on the scene after the judgement of god has been made. His presence marks the end of oppression and the enemies of the chosen people; not the love of it or them.

What "possibility?" That radical Jewish factions were intent on subverting the absolute foundation of their religious beliefs? That they were intent on contradicting their own God's commandment as given to Moses?

Regardless, since we're talking about the Jesus cult, a review of the alleged "Q" material and the subsequent use of this material in the formation of the NT dogma (as well as the Essene's "Righteous One") clearly shows that the majority of the teachings were against the substrata of their dogma (i.e., the dietary, hygiene and marriage laws). Even Mark (the alleged originator of the passion myth) devotes the first three chapters (and more, throughout) to having Jesus assail these laws before anything else.

To put it more correctly, it was a conclusion derived from the argument. That's how these things work.

No.

Is not my theory that Paul was a part of the fraud?

What has Paul got to do with what Jesus allegedly said and preached? Paul isn't the one in Mark rewriting almost every Jewish law (at the same time it is claimed that not one line will be changed).

Or, in keeping with my theory, you have a Roman attempt to subvert Judaism as part and parcel to their attempts at sublimating the region.

[quote]ME: To strike a blow at the very foundation of Judaism (monotheism) meant it must have come from a non-Jewish source, IMO. Someone who had a motive to corrupt Judaism and enough understanding of the tenets and teachings of Judaism to see the "chink in the armor" (so to type) that would afford such an assault.

That's right, because it didn't work on the Jews. The Jews (by and large) saw through it as being so obviously wrong about Messiah prophecy and their tenets of monotheism. The gentiles, however, were conditioned to believe in pantheism and had many myths of a sacrificial savior.

This merely supports the idea that christianity was a non-Jewish concoction designed to subvert its fundamental belief structure in order to destabilize the region in order to convert the area to more Romanesque beliefs.

I respectively disagree, but then, I must ask, are you basing this on your present understandings of first century sources?

Actually, my theory is not just "likely," it is par for the course for just about any occupying force to destroy the local belief structure as a predicate to indoctrination into the ruling belief structure.

Just open any history book and you'll see this pattern applied over and over and over again whenever an occupying force infiltrates and annexes global regions.

I have. In fact, it's one of the books I base my theory upon, because his analysis is, IMO, flawed. Or shall we say, "narrow?"

Koyaanisqatsi

Pardon my dyslexia. It's late and I've been filming interesting altercations with the police outside my window while sipping vodka....

How can one continue it if it wasn't first developed and wouldn't the "continuation of that monotheism" mean reaffirmation of it from generation to generation?

Are you trying to argue that "continuation" equates with "augmentation," and if so, how does one augment what is already considered absolute? You can't get more absolute than one God. Introducing pantheism to monotheism would therefore be a step backward, not a step forward.

Right...so, it was the continuation of their monotheism and not their destruction of monotheism that defines what it means to be Jewish. Thus, it makes no sense (from a Jewish perspective) to reject monotheism in favor of christianity, a pantheistic dogma (however convoluted).

Within the dogma as it applied only to the governing laws of the Jewish people, not to any non-Jewish oppressors. Jewish laws did not apply to anyone who was not Jewish. Those who were not god's chosen people would be destroyed by their god. Those who followed the Jewish cult had their own laws that applied only to them. Anyone who was not of the Jewish cult would be dealt with directly and swiftly by their god.

An "eye for an eye" only applied to how Jewish people were to adjudicate other Jewish people.

It's not a matter of expecting it. It's a matter of religious indoctrination. Their god had chosen the Jewish people to be the most oppressed (in keeping with the notion that this was borne out of a slave's mentality). But anyone who oppressed god's chosen people would receive god's wrath and be destroyed by god.

Read Daniel.

Exactly. Thus, god would not ever come in the form of a man. God, to them, was/is absolute and unquestionable and has nothing to do with being a man or masquerading as a man. He is the judge of man and the executioner of man (in the form of his messengers). He is inviolate as are his laws, so for anyone to come along and claim that they are either god or god's messenger and not fulfill any of the prophecies that Daniel or Isaih (in particular) allegedly foresaw or to change any of god's laws would be a fraud.

They would and did. They knew that by striking them one was strking god and therefore, god will destroy them for their transgression.

Remember that to Jewish cult members, there are Jews and then there are the enemies of god. Period. There is no middle ground. You were either chosen by god (i.e., "Jewish"), or you were an enemy of god (i.e., "non-Jewish" and those within the Jewish cult who were bad). Jewish people were concerned only with obeying the laws of their god as they applied to each other, not to the enemies of god (i.e., non-Jews). Non-Jewish people (the "non" chosen) did not follow the laws of their god and were therefore destined to be destroyed by their god. In other words, none of their concern.

This is what a dogma resulting from being a slave generates; "we" are chosen and all the rest are god's enemies. If you weren't Jewish, you were destined to be destroyed by the Jewish god.

In a sense, yes. Which is why the Sermon on the Mount, for example, would have been (and clearly was) rejected by the Jews in the region as a "message" from a false prophet. If their "messiah" had come to Earth at that time, then it would have meant that the Romans, in particular, would have all been murdered by this messiah. According to Jewish dogma, all non-Jews were to be completely erradicated by their messiah as a preparation for god's kingdom on earth.

No Jew at that time would have accepted the idea that their messiah had come in order to tell them to love their enemies because it meant that they were "blessed" by god! They were already "blessed by god" for the simple reason that they were Jewish. That's what it meant to be god's chosen.

From a Jewish perspective, the Sermon on the Mount would have been (at best) a tautology.

Thus, Mark or Matthew (or rather the authors of Mark and Mattew, or any of the NT authors who ascribed words to Jesus) and, especially, Paul saying what he allegedly said is evidence (IMO) of a Roman propaganda initiative that failed, or, at the very least, yet another fraud attempting to exploit the ignorant for his own power issues.

Considering what was going on in that region during this whole time, however, the likelihood that Paul, in particular, was nothing more than a "converted Jew" seeking to subvert Jewish Monotheism is tenuous at best. He states categorically (if one accepts authorship) that "Jews" (note the plural and not the specific) have earned god's wrath for murdering god's son (who is also god). Paul indicts all Jews by claiming that they conspired to kill their own Messiah; something that would be impossible to do according to OT Jewish dogma.

No man could possibly stop or kill a messenger of the Jewish god and god would never have sent a messenger in order to be killed by men. Such a concept simply does not and can not exist within Jewish dogma.

God was/is absolute. Whatever messengers god sends are doing god's work. That man could kill one of god's messengers would have been anathema (as it historically was) to any Jew; be he "radical" or "reformed." There simply is no questioning of the Jewish god's absolute supremacy in Jewish scripture.

Remember, the Romans were not just there to "keep the peace" as no occupying army is ever just there to "keep the peace." That's simplistic propaganda 101. The sole purpose of conquering a region is to consume that region and envelop them into the fold. Pilate's mandate would have been, "Make these people Roman citizens." Period. The fact that he couldn't is evidenced both in the manner in which he slaughtered the Sammaritans and in how the "higher ups" had to send in troops in 80 C.E. to quell what obviously must have been escalating Jewish resistance.

Put yourself into the Middle East right now and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. The very first thing we did in regard to Iraq was to convince our people and their people that Saddam Husein was "worse than Hitler." That's an actual quote, by the way, from Bush, Sr. Whatever is worshipped by the people you have conquered must be destroyed first and foremost.

Why do you think the American government set an official price on every buffalo killed within America at the time just prior to expansion into the western provinces? Because there was such a demand for buffalo meat in D.C.? No, because they represented not only the primary food source for the native American indians, but also a religious icon. Destroy their beliefs and their minds will follow.

Or so goes the first tenet of any occupying force. We hired people (and by "we" I of course mean the governing force at that time) to slaughter without regard every single buffalo that was seen roaming the plains. Why? Certainly not to provide sustenance to hungry settlers. The corpses rotted where they lay. The purpose of the slaughter was to show the Indians that their beliefs were false and that our beliefs were "true."

The American governing body at that time officially sanctioned the systematic slaughter of all indigenous buffalo in order to demoralize and destroy the native Indian belief structure as a precursor to further enslavement into our ideals.

See, this is where the "victors write the history" comes into play. It must be assumed that any written document of any period of history (let alone the period we're talking about) has been tainted by those who conquered the region. Not assumed as true, but assumed to be a factor and a much more critical (and far less romanticised) account should be discerned.

The area we're discussing was conquered by the Romans, which meant that anything that was once under somebody else's control was now to become Roman. They were the occupying force in the region and anything that was once non-Roman must now become Roman. But changing Jewish cult members into Roman citizens proved too difficult (again as evidenced by the slaugher of the Sammaritans that ultimately marked Pilate's demise, if you can trust Roman history, as well as the attempted quelling of Jewish uprisings in 80 C.E.).

The Jews in that region never became Roman citizens. Their religious beliefs would never allow such a thing. So, the Romans did what every occupying force has always done; attempted to destroy the belief structure that allowed them to be so resolute.

The only problem being, of course, that it didn't work and the majority of Jewish people saw right through it. That's why it worked on gentiles more than it worked on Jews.

The Jews (if they acknowledged it at all) saw it for what it was; a fraud. Just as they have done for the subsequent two thousand years.

Exactly. Which is why a doctrine of loving your enemies because their oppression meant you were blessed and you would inhereit the earth makes no sense coming from their alleged messiah. When the messiah comes, the enemies of god's chosen are to be annihilated by that messiah; brutally and physically destroyed. The messiah of the OT is by no means a savior to all mankind; "he" is the phsyical embodiment of the wrath of god and "his" presence means that all of those Roman slaps will now be paid for in blood.

All Romans would have been systematically murdered by the Jewish Messiah because they weren't annointed Jews. According to Daniel, this absolute destruction would have happened within a matter of weeks of the arrival of the Jewish messiah.

The Jewish messiah was a mass murderer of all those who were either not Jewish or were Jewish and not annointed.

Read Daniel. I recommend Young's Literal Translation so you can avoid (as much as possible) christian apologetics; the very existence of which, by the way, proves fraud, IMO.

To a certain degree, yes, as I've just presented. The same "evidence" that the NT authors pervert into an attempt to legitimize their own myth (Daniel and Isaih, primarily) as well as an assessment of human political history.

I defy anyone to point to a conquering force that did not in some way attempt to subvert the belief structure of the indingenous peoples of their occupied conquests. Germany, Russia, China, Korea, Tibet, North America, South America, etc., etc. Hell, throw a rock into just about any nation and you'll find that any conquering, occupying force of that region attempted first and foremost to subvert and supplant the indigenous belief structures (as you indirectly concede earlier).

The only thing is that Judaism can not be subverted precisely because (IMO) it is the only monotheist cult in the world of its kind.

Do I have a "smoking gun?" A Roman document that states, "I am the Roman author of Mark" or, "My name is Paul and I am a Roman operative?" No.

It's a theory that I think fits human interactions far more intelligently than any alternative.

Since religion is the opiate of the masses, there must also be a drug dealer who cultivates those opiates and sells them to the masses, yes? An unbiased analysis of the tenets of Christianity and the overtly incorrect basis it has in a demonstrably incorrect assessment of Judaic dogma yields both possible and probable alternatives.

Once mythology is granted, one needs to look at who is most likely to have created that mythology and to what end? Who would be served by such a mythology? Not the Jews, certainly. So if it isn't the Jews, then who?

Well, all one needs to do is to then look to the victors and see how the Roman Empire grew by becoming the Holy Roman Empire (which exists to this day; we just call it Catholocism). Who controls the minds of the majority of, at least, Western humanity beyond local, state and national borders? And, more importantly, how is this control maintained?

Through cult indoctrination. Remember that America is the only country to pretend that we have religious tolerance (all evidence to the contrary) and even that is a thinly veiled lie. Ours is a predominantly christian nation that came about as a direct result of christian progroms; both in Europe and here in North America.

No, quite the reverse. My "conclusions" (as all valid conclusions are) are derived from a non-biased assessment of what is available.

Primarily, the gross misinterpretations of Judaic messianic prophecy and, secondarily, the assault on Judaic law; both coinciding perfectly with the Roman occupation and mounting Jewish resistance that culminated (to some degree) in the war of 80 C.E.

From what perspective? Certainly not from a Jewish perspective. The fulfillment of OT prophecy would have been a messenger of god coming to earth and annihilating all non-Jews (and all non-annointed Jews). That is the only purpose of the Jewish messiah (as prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah). That would have meant that if Jesus were the Jewish messiah (as the authors of the NT claim he was based on Daniel and Isaiah, primarily) then the Romans, in particular, would have been mass murdered; their lifeless bodies primarily washed away (at least from Daniel's "prophecy") in a flood.

The NT is the antithesis of the Jewish covenant; not the "finale."

And the Tanach was not the "beginning," it was the absolute. Everything that followed it was merely governing laws; not divine substantiation. There is only one god who is supreme to Judaism and everything else is utterly subordinate to that god. The triune god of christianity does not and can not exist in Judaism and the "messiah" of god prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah is by no means a savior of all mankind; "he" is the (physical) destroyer of all non-Jews (and those non-annointed Jews within god's chosen).

No Jew (radical, reformed or otherwise) in the region would have accepted any claim to the contrary, much less a claim of divine/messiah-hood. Their "messiah" was nothing more than the physical weapon of god to be used against all non-Jews. The Romans would not have suffered a "spiritual" death of any kind since they were not the chosen people. Had Daniel's or Isaiah's "messiah" arrived on Earth at that time, it would have meant the systematic mass slaughter of their physical beings with (according to Daniel) a flood in the final week of that messiah's mission on Earth.

According to the OT, the fulfillment (or "finale") of god's plan was to destroy every non-Jew on Earth (or, at least, in that region). Period. The enemies of god therefore still exist. And, again according to the OT (indirectly), that would include christians.