Why ALL Models for Christianity Are Utterly Unworkable ...

It never fails. Christian scholars want to develop their theories about the 'early Church' in a COMPLETELY ARTIFICIAL and utterly 'idealistic' world WHICH NEVER EXISTED. If they had it their way - and they HAVE HAD IT THEIR WAY for almost two thousand years - they would continue to develop their UTTERLY IDIOTIC models from the ideas contained in the Acts of the Apostles, the history of Josephus and scattered 'historical' references in the rest of the New Testament.

So let me tell you where all this leads them.

They always want to go back to this STUPIDITY that Christianity was a 'messianic form of Judaism' that accepted Jesus as the awaited messiah of Israel. Whenever they get into trouble with someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS SOMETHING ABOUT JUDAISM and who tells them that Jesus COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT have been considered to be the awaited mashiach by ANY JEW AT ANY TIME IN JEWISH HISTORY - they start to dance.

They put forward this basic idea that Christianity was a 'kind of Judaism' for the Gentiles - or if they are faithful to the fourth century Fathers they will posit something like Christianity was a 'better version' - an improvement - of the original system.

Now, I don't have a problem with that suggestion. At least it has its foundation in the writings of the ancients. But let me get to my REAL problem ...

The central event in the Jewish calendar is Passover - the period of 'redemption.' I have already demonstrated that the ORIGINAL CHRISTIANS can be PROVEN to have baptized their catechumen - not on Easter Sunday - but the eighth day of Passover (the Ogdoad).

When you really put Christianity under the microscope you inevitably see AN AGREEMENT in a sense with 'Jewish things' which inevitably got obscured - deliberately obscured - at a later period.

Yet this isn't the point of my writing this post.

I was thinking about the original Christian celebration of Easter. You can see this whenever traditions ARE ALLOWED TO SURVIVE from the Syrian Church such as this nugget from the Cave of Treasures:

Some men have a tradition that when our Lord broke His body in the Upper Chamber, John, the son of Zebedee, hid a part of his portion until our Lord rose from the dead. When Thomas put his finger near to our Lord's side, and it rested on the mark of the spear, the disciples saw the blood. And John took that piece of consecrated bread, and wiped up that blood with it; and the Easterns Mâr Addai and Mâr Mârî took that piece, and sanctified this unleavened bread which has been handed down among us. Others say that when John took that piece of consecrated bread in his hand, it burst into flame, and burnt in the palm of his hand, and the palm of his hand sweated, and he took that sweat and hid it for the sign of the Cross of baptism. [p. 252]

Any Jew knows what is being preserved here - a variation of the afikoman tradition.

Now even this isn't the point of my post. The reason I am writing this post is that when I started thinking about the afikoman it immediately struck me - the Christian Easter ritual as such MUST HAVE DEVELOPED AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE.

There simply is no other way.

Christians like to imagine that these 'ideal Jews' who continued to sacrifice lambs on the Passover and Jesus' Passion was a 'typos' of the Passover slaughter. But even Origen knew that was stupid.

Why was it stupid? Why is this model utterly unworkable? This shows how ignorant Christians are of Jewish customs and beliefs.

The Jews stopped using 'real lambs' for their Passover service immediately following the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE. They like Christians have a service which substitutes bread for the lamb. The original Christians who baptized their catechumen on the eighth day of Passover WHERE EVEN MORE LIKE JEWS OF THE POST 70 CE PERIOD in that Marcionite, Alexandrian and Syrian sources testify that they used UNLEAVENED BREAD.

Now surely someone else beside me can immediately begin to see how this one piece of evidence UTTERLY DISPROVES THE FALSE HISTORY CONTAINED IN THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Surely someone can begin to see how Christianity and its Easter service did not 'get off the ground' until the destruction of the Jewish temple.

Indeed I think it demonstrates CLEAR EVIDENCE that rabbinic Judaism and earliest Christianity developed out of a COMMON REFORM EFFORT in the period immediately following the catastrophic events before 70 CE.

For how on earth does Christianity AND Judaism end up agreeing on the idea that bread should be substituted for sacrificial meats? It is utterly absurd. Does anyone really believe that there was this religion called 'Christianity' which believed in Jesus as its messiah and was substituting bread for meat BEFORE the destruction of the temple? I am sure there are lots of believers - but have they actually thought about the implications of this claim IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GREATER PALESTINIAN RELIGIOUS MILIEU?

Of course not. All they care about is THEIR religion. They don't understand Judaism typically and have little or no understanding of what 'Samaritanism' is.

Yet if we do bother to think outside of the Christian box, the Jesus-centered universe for just one moment - let us ask just one question. How can anyone believe that when Judaism had to adapt to the new reality it found itself in 70 CE when it lost its temple THAT IT JUST COPIED THE PRACTICES OF CHRISTIANITY - THE VERY RELIGION THAT JUDAISM HAS DESPISED FROM ITS VERY INCEPTION?

Of course not! It is utterly absurd! No one could possibly believe that the rabbis would have followed the traditions of 'Yeshu the mamzer.' I can only guess why the idea is left standing. I assume that scholars DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT THIS because it 'disturbs the peace.'

Indeed this is one of only a number of uncanny parallels that I have uncovered with regards to things related to the apocalyptic events of 70 CE.

The rabbinic tradition and earliest Christianity - especially Alexandrian Christianity - have near identical interpretations of the application of Daniel's prophesy of the 70 weeks on to the events that lead up to the destruction of the Jewish temple. Of course all the 'little things' are there - the manner in which every detail from Daniel 'matches' the same historical bits. But how did they both agree that Marcus Julius Agrippa was the predicted mashiach who was to be 'cut off' and be no more (Daniel 9:26)?

I have said it time and again - there had to have been a common hand reshaping both both traditions immediately following this unparalleled catastrophe.

I know that there are inevitably people who will call this a 'conspiracy theory' but what do they suppose? That the Romans were just these 'brutes' who came and destroyed all the physical buildings and spaces associated with the Jews but that once the clock struck the 9th of Av, 70 CE they just packed up their lunch boxes and went home and left it to the Jews to decide how they wanted to reform that horrible religion that was inspiring them toward sedition?

It's ludicrous.

All conquerers know they have to reshape the 'hearts and minds' of the conquered. The fact that both Judaism and Christianity end up substituting bread - and within Alexandrian and Semitic forms of Christianity specifically UNLEAVENED bread - for the ritual meal can't be possibly be explained by this reactionary 'coincidence theory.' These people just don't know enough about contemporary history.

Indeed what's so amazing about the parallels between early rabbinic Judaism and Christianity is that both agree that not only the Passover sacrifices but ALL SACRIFICES are never to return to Jerusalem. Yes, there are a new breed of loonies in Israel who want to re-establish the traditional sacrifices but THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION of Maimonides and all the sages since 70 CE.

Maimonides makes explicit that the period of sacrifices are over and they aren't coming back. Something else is going to eventually appear eventually but there is an uncanny sense throughout Jewish orthodoxy from the events of the destruction which acknowledge the spirit of earliest Christianity it is utterly uncanny.

Indeed the early rabbinic reports allude to sects within Judaism who take a Marcionite-like stand on meat and wine abstention too. Over time it seems rabbinic Judaism AND Catholic Christianity DEVELOPED AWAY from what can be loosely identified as the original 'common theology.'

You get this sense in the writings associated with Simon Magus where the heretics spoke in three different ways to three different communities - viz. the Father to the Samaritans, the Son to the Jews and the Holy Spirit to the Christians.

Now before we get too far away from my original point let's ask a simple question - why did the Jews think that the sacrifices HAD TO END in Jerusalem. It's not like this is an inevitable position. Just because you lose the temple doesn't mean you can't continue to sacrifice lambs. The Torah doesn't mention a temple. The Samaritans keep doing it to this very day.

What caused the Jews to come to a radical revision of their own orthodoxy? Indeed remember how important 'tradition' is to the Jews. Somehow you had a gathering of rabbis decide ON THEIR OWN to end up 'doing what the followers of Yeshu ben Pandera had been doing' supposedly for the last forty years - i.e. substituting bread for the 'meat' of the central ritual in their religion?

Indeed the commandment that this HAS TO BE DONE - i.e. the lamb offering - couldn't be made in stronger language AND IN NO WAY REQUIRES A TEMPLE OF ANY SORT.

It's absurd. It's always been absurd. And I can't believe that ANYONE accepts a word of what Acts PRETENDS was the history of Christianity in the 'apostolic period' leading up to the destruction of the temple.

It never happened.

Christianity never existed before 70 CE. It's that simple. The gospel may have been written in the lead up to the destruction. I can give in on that point. But the idea that Christians WERE ALREADY substituting bread for 'real meat' by the time that the Sanhedrin agreed to abandon tradition - when there is no reason whatsoever that lambs COULDN'T be sacrificed without a temple - is simply untenable.

The only way that Jews and Christians ended up coming to the same RADICAL - and I can't express how radical this idea is - revision of a thousand year old practice of lamb slaughtering is if it was done at the same time and with a common hand - viz. Marcus Julius Agrippa - MANDATING THE IDEA through the remnants of the Jewish priesthood in the period immediately following the destruction.

I know my ideas might seem radical but they are NOTHING compared with how the idea of substituting bread for lambs must have seemed to the Jews of the period. Somehow - i.e. physical intimidation - this radical revaluation was instituted and then for every subsequent generation it became second nature.

I am utterly amazed that almost no one has noticed this historical situation before me ...