" The Jewish Nazarenes changed from being Christian Jews to Jewish Christians"

Yes, the nasserenes took refuge in Pella [today's Jordan], to escape the confrontation between the Romans and the Judeans - which became Rome's greatest war, culminating in the deaths of 1.1 Million Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem. It is hardly mentioned, and totally absent from the gospels. This was perhaps history's most pivotal war, and it shaped the modern world of today. It also accounts for the Jews being exiled to the European continent, the resurrection of the name Palestine, and the emergence of two religions - both assuming Israel was no more - thus the rage that she returned.

IamJoseph,

I agree. Jesus was ethnically and religiously a Jew, perhaps trying to make a political claim to the House of David based on his genaeology. But, I think the religions evolved from the mother faith roughly as posited.

I'm still busy with a conceptual of model of my own.

It is interesting that the Jews despite loosing their homeland managed their Diaspora, very well. Contrarily, Rome with its too-often mad emperors and with its occupation of other lands, failed. The invader became invaded. The slave economy collapsed and, feifdom, became a model for the embryonic West.

Will check-out the Phoenician alphabet in the next few days.

Regards.

IamJoseph,

I didn't make to the Phoenians but I did see a documentary on Ancient Greece: The writings of Homer dating from 700/750 BCE. I was a ware of Homer, from the Iliad and the Odessey, but didn't realise that he documented that early, before then narrator spoke of verbal lore, or words to that effect.

"But, I think the religions evolved from the mother faith roughly as posited."

Indicators say the contrary. I consider that the NT is a european/western premise, and thus this fiath represents the greek beliefs as opposed to that of its claimed mother religion of judaism. Some 200 years before christianity, the greeks had an enormous war with the jews over its insistance to its beliefs, soon after alexander's sudden death - and the NT has very similar doctrines to hellenism. The greeks later influenced Rome, then they influenced what became christianity. What was retained are the majestic moral/ethical laws of the OT - which were superior to hellenism - thus there is the strongest tie between christianity and judaism in moral/ethical premises, but an unresolvable barrier in core beliefs.

We see that even Islam, another religion from the same area as judaism, was also in a contrary mode to the NT. The cubic enigma is that while islam and judaism have common monotheistic beliefs - they differ totally in moral/ethical concepts. What a mess with these three faiths - when there should be the greatest agreements here!

Thus if the NT says certain things and claims this was what jesus advocated - it is said with not a shred of evidence from outside the NT, and is in abject contradiction of everything Jesus' biological and religious kin believed, as well as in opposition with the muslim peoples from this region. This view would become redundent and negated only if evidence was found directly connecting jesus with what the NT says - as opposed to third party reportings - and such does not exist.

"The writings of Homer dating from 700/750 BCE."

The illiad and homer are not authenticated or evidenced, and is in dispute by archeologists of its datings and historicity. It is a mythical poetry which appears written in accumulated layers. Homer is also a disputed historical figure.

There are 100s of pheonecien bits of alphabetical writings, not historical, but trade and burual reciepts, with no dates on the epitaphs - and no phonecian alphabetical 'books' in existence.

The hebrew is a mystery, containing the new 'V' alphabet, new numeral included alphabets, and the introducer of grammar, creationism and monotheism - these are all new concepts of its space-time. Its other mystery is its advanced literary status, resembling nothing else even centuries later. I question why the earlier, mightier nations had no equivalence, and see the OT as perhaps the most mysterious document of all.

I question how all those numerous pages of 100s of authentic names, dates and historical stats of the geneologies of adam, Noah, Abraham and Ishmael could be written, recalled and introduced - it is mysterious: try to identify even four past generations of anyone's ancestry with names, dobs and dods of all members of their families - even of historical kings and queeens - its virtually impossible. How do you rationalise such a phenomenon - when 'names' constitute 99% of all archeological identifications?

For the reason you state, I have not been inclined to introduce Homer until seeing the TV documentary. I was unsure of his historical status. The middle ground is, that like Shakespeare, who is, of course, historical, Homer may have been the third or fourth generation writer of a popular themes for a plays. The loss of the Library of Alexandia... Well, we still feel the pain.

What you say about names and now re-introduce remains interesting. Leaders sought immorality in gravings, but seeminly not until humankind was somewhat settled.

The sudden appearance of the Sumerian civilization with little evidence of a precusor needs an explanation. Even if there was an earlier civilization now beneath the Mediteranian, one would expect artifacts would have been carried to other lands.

Naming requires objectification and, in a sense separates ourselves from reality. Schodinger [1954?] notes the latter in the context of humans' ability to perceive the world, as we do, by taking ourselves out-of-which, we are a part of in reality. It is a very high cognition.

Still very occupied yet enjoying our dialogue. Will consider the Pheonicians when the dust settles.

Will be offline for a few days.