Oliver,
>> your religiosity and your fine ability to conceive abstracts mathematically are linked <<
I am not sure what you mean by religiosity, but yes, a person’s world view and his/her specialisation are always linked. A doctor or psychologist will have a different insight into, say, faith and the associated tenets, than a physicist like Polkinghorne, or a mathematician.

>> a manifold can reside across multi-verses <<
Manifolds (carrying, say, a pseudo-Riemannian structure, like those used to model space-time in Einstein’s GR) are pure mathematical concepts that - mathematical Platonists believe - have their own independent existence, hence “reside“ in a world of their own, independent of the physical world (see e.g. Penrose). The Multiverse, if it exists apart from our universe, still belongs to the physical world, and manifolds “reside“ in them as little as the telescope you look through at Alpha Centauri “reside“s in that stellar constellation.

>> manifold ... and the conception of Theism are both abstracts? <<
I ma not sure I understand what you mean. My previous remarks about the relation between mathematics and the physical world are independent of what one thinks about the existence of God (irrespective of how you define both “existence” and “God”).

However, you are right in the sense that what I know (or think I know) about the relation between the mathematical and physical worlds INSPIRES my understanding of the rationale behind my faith, i.e. the relation between the world of theological concepts and dogmas, and the Transcendental that they are supposed to refer to. If you like, for me mathematics helps me to follow Anselm‘s maxim about my faith seeking understanding. Nevertheless, this is a strictly personal inspiration that I would not like to turn into some kind of universal recipe for finding that understanding.

My understanding of the historical Jesus (if this is possible), Oliver, is one needs to understand Judaism , and more particularly, Jewish Messiahism. In comparing the 'divine' aspect of Alexander III and Jesus Christ contrasting between the temporal vs spiritual (metaphysical?) needs to be made.
Modern scholars discern four kinds of messianology in the years between 170 BCE and 140 CE.
1. The Messiah as military leader
2. The Messiah as sage
3. The Messiah as high-priest
4. The 'prophet like Moses'

Jesus of Nazareth and Simon ben Kosiba are the only Jewish leaders who are positively identified as Messiahs in Jewish sources. In stories about Jesus, however, we notice that although his followers identify him as the Messiah, Jesus consistently responds ambivalently.

It is quite likely John the Baptist was inspired by the idea that the Messiah was to be someone like Moses. The Aramaic adaptation of the story of the Exodus shows God protected the Hebrews - rendered as protection by Moses and the Messiah, who will be the Hebrews' heavenly guide. The Messiah and Moses were thought to have come into existence before God created the universe (e.g., First book of Enoch 48.3). Therefore, the Messiah can be called 'son of God' and 'first-begotten' (Hebrews 1.6).

Ambivalence within Christianity towards Judaism exists; on the one hand it gives account of an allegedly outdated ritualism, but on the other, a panorama of awesome history, a source of authority and blessing whereby the Church must display itself as the new Israel or the 'true' Judaism - something, quite arguably, as promoted by the Apostle Paul but not Jesus. Both Jesus and Paul seemed aligned to the tenets of the Pharisees who were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires. Modern scholarship suggests they (the Pharisees) were a dedicated group upholding religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. Some Christian interpretation, undoubtedly deviates from this through narrow and isolated reading of the Gospel narrative.

Relda,

As you correctly observe, there is reason to believe that the early Christians and the Pharisaic branch of Judaism had much in common and may have had sympathies with each other up to the time of the Jewish revolt of AD67.
Antipathy between the two groups arose from the Christians' decision to retreat from Jerusalem to Pella prior to Titus' invasion of Jerusalem. This was regarded by the Jews who remained to defend Jerusalem as an act of betrayal and apostasy.
Since most Christian writings post-date the revolution and destruction of the Temple it is quite possible that much of this antipathy has been projected back to Jesus' own time. The genuine Pauline letters pre-date the revolt.
The identification of Bar Kochba, the second century revolutioary leader, as Messiah would have further exacerbated negative feelings between Jews and Christians.

Waterboy,
The subject of Jewish-Christianity, the middle ground between rabbinic Judaism and so called Pauline Christianity, is probably quite as fascinating as it is complex. I found your comments interesting.

Between the first and sixth centuries, the manifestations of The Jewish religion were varied and complex, far more varied than the extant Talmudic literature would have led us to believe. From the first century onwards, the Judaic Christian sects of the Diaspora and the "sayings gospel" tradition started to become increasingly integrated into the Hellenistic cultural background of the many gentiles that converted to Christianity. The development of Christianity called for new religious texts, that would highlight the unique Messianic aspects of Jesus' death and 'resurrection' in a powerful symbolic way that would incorporate both the Judaic eschatological, as well as the Hellenistic symbolic traditions. The narrative gospels created the first real Christian dogmas. What is not written in the gospels (but perhaps slightly hinted at) is that the Israel of Jesus day was a melting pot of hundreds of years of exposure to all kinds of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures.

In 135, Hadrian destroyed everything that was left of original Palestine Judaism. After him, Roman Christianity turned against the Jewish people, collectively blaming them of the death of their Christ.

Before Christianity was institutionalised as the official Church of the Roman empire, many different versions of Christian gospels circulated. The original inspiration of Judaic/Hellenistic symbolism had almost completely disappeared into the background, where its religious basis was thoroughly revaluated and censored and stripped of much of its mystical component in order to be able to become a main stream state religion. Despite this, a unique aspect of Judaic/Hellenistic symbolism survived the editorial censorship of Nicaea in 325AD, to became part of the Christian religion that has now existed for around 2000 years.

"In 135,Hadrian destroyed everything that was left of original Palestine Judaism.After him,Roman Christianity turned against the Jewish people,collectively blaming them of the death of their Christ."

Hadrian put down the Second Jewish Revolt.Bar Kochba had successfully pushed the Romans out of Jerusalem and parts of Judaea and re-established himself as King.Hadrian had to use a huge force to defeat the Jews on this occassion and although ultimately successful it was a very costly war for the Romans.No doubt Hadrian harboured some resentment against the Jews as a result of this war and the Christians may well have found it prudent to distance themselves further from the Jews at this time.

The accusations of deicide against the Jews probably date from about this time and represent a definitive break from Jewish-Christianity,although this break was really already made after the First Jewish War(AD70).Perhaps,in the aftermath of the Second War what we see is the emergence of truly antisemitic attitudes within the Christian Church.

As for the'Hellenistic'influences on the early Church that is undoubtedly a very complex relationship.The Jews had no love for the Greeks who had committed the abomination in the Temple.The Pharisaic movement, particularly, would have upheld Hebrew custom over Greek/Hellenistic custom.To the extent that a degree of metaphysical dualism had crept into Jewish thought this probably goes back to Persian influences during and immediately following the Babylonian exile. It is not a particularly Greek sort of dualism.The same Persian influence had crept into contemporary (first century) Greek thought, divorced as it was from its classical roots by some hundreds of years.

The'Hellenisation'of Christianity obviously comes mainly through the Gentile converts and is most certainly not'Hellenism'of the classical Greek variety. This 'gnostic' dualism represented a threat to the early Church and was resisted strongly.The result of this influence is that from that time forth internal tensions within Christianity prompted a period of debate and dispute which led to the various ecumenical councils and the forging of canonical dogma that really defined the shape of Christianity.The result is neither particularly Greek nor thoroughly Hebraic.Christianity becomes quite distinctive from both its'Hellenistic'and Jewish roots.

Hello Relda and Waterboy,

I think the Jews were essentially expelled to Pella:

As the Jews were assigned to pray three {?} times a day at holy places; having gentile bishops allowed them to feign their identity and gain re-entry [Mack? My resources in storage/transit.].

Thiering sees the missionary enterprises towards re-establishing the House of David commencing two generations before Jesus. Also, at this time, the Herodians delegated authority to Davanic missionaries to preach to the gentiles, a lowly mission, as the Gentile-Jews were viewed second-class by the ethnically Jewish. In the background, there was a desire to not allow the Diaspora to lapse from the ways of the centre [Thiering].

Interestingly, the Herodians were ethnically closer to the Arabs than the the Jews. A Jesus-like Davanic person would be powerfully motivated to set-up his own house