5These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Matthew 10:5-10

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)

Gentile - One who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation.


then what are 'christians '? Not jews nor belonging to any lost sheep of Israel , but gentiles.

So logically the ones that Jesus is speaking for are todays Messianic Jews. People who are Jewish and believe Jesus is the Messiah.

if this is not so ...... then are the words above not Jesus's ? or other text not his ??

The first book of the Bible, Genesis, says that God chose Abraham to make into a great nation The descendants of Abraham, the Jews, would establish the nation of Israel to become a people of God's own possession. Doesn't this preferential treatment contradict the benevolent nature of God? How can God be perfect and preferential at the same time? The common assumption of many skeptics is that God chose the Jews just to give them some sort of preferential treatment. In reality, the Bible says that the Jews were selected to be a blessing to all the nations of the world. In fact, the same passages that says that God chose the Jews also says that God does not show partiality and commands the Jews to love other peoples.The Old Testament indicates that the Jews were not prospered because of their righteousness, since they were "a stubborn people." However, the main way that the Jews were to be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth was that the Messiah was to be born through the line of David. Beginning with the third chapter of Genesis, the Old Testament tells how the Messiah was to come as the Savior of the world, These prophecies specifically state that the Messiah was to be God in human flesh, who would be the Son of God. The Messiah would establish the new covenant and would die as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of all people. Being chosen as the people through whom God would send the Messiah was no walk in the park for the Jews. God expected His chosen people to strictly follow His moral laws and not follow the evil ways of their neighbors. Because they failed to be faithful to God, the Jews were scattered among the nations, where they "profaned the name of the Lord." However, after their 70 year exile in Babylon, the God gathered the Jews back to Israel in preparation for the coming Messiah. There is a number of skeptics complain that it is unfair for God to choose the Jews as His people over all others. Although it would be unfair for God to show partiality to one people group, this is not what was meant when the Bible said that God chose the Jewish people. The Bible indicates that God chose the Jewish people as the people through whom He would send the Messiah. Being chosen did not always bring great blessings, since the Jews were held to a higher level of accountability, and were judged for their failures. The Bible makes it clear that God does not show partiality, since He created all people. He commands His people to behave likewise.

Did Jesus only come for the Jews ?, seems so



no

Let's say Jesus did come only to the Jews, does that change anything? As far as christian theology, Paul is a Jew, and in the OT the Jews are God's "light unto the nations". Thus, if Jesus comes to the Jews, and the Jews are a "light unto all nations", than Jesus came for everyone through the Jews.

This is exactly wrong with the world today elevating some people to superior god like status than others

No one is elevating them. Being "chosen" doesn't mean they're better. Technically everyone is "chosen" for something. The Jews were chosen to be a light unto the nations because God gave the Torah to them. It is their job to spread the knowledge found in Torah. However, non-Jews also are "chosen" for specific purposes. They're just different.

exactly ... just like christianity tends to think it's the 'right ' religion . that people need a saviour. sad. very sad. just like any religion that thinks that.

but again --------

I'm talking about the text of 'what jesus said' - clearly it demonstrates what he was preaching was not ment for gentiles . how does one get around those words ? ignore them ? make an excuse ?

Christ had to follow the rules. The rules stated that well he was on Earth the only ones he could try to reach were the jews. Oh wait he broke that rule twice.


It falls into the catagory of the the first shall be last, and the last shall be first.


The Jews were the first to recieve and will be the last to accept him. although there have been some Jews from the beginning that have accepted him.

The Jewish people believe that they are Gods chosen people so they believe that God did send Jesus to save them & them only.

Unless your God I highly doubt that anyone knows for sure.

Didn't you just argue with me that he wasn't the saver from the jewish point of view.

where did you get that 'rule '?? get it or not jesus says he came only for the jews and tells the disiples to not preach to gentiles.

I'm speaking of the 'text' of supposedly jesus 's own words in the original post...... true or not. jesus say them or not ? if Jesus didn't say them how can you be sure jesus said any of them ? that there was a man named jesus who said anything at all ? or do you dismiss what you don't like and keep the rest ?

I haven't been on a lot here latley so I'm not sure. But the Jews I do know believe that they are Gods Chosen people.

They believe that God will save them first being that Jesus was a Jew himself.

I know what your talking about. Read my post one more time. The key is that according to the rules Christ and followers could only go to the Jews well he was on the Earth.

where did jesus say that ?

jesus said 'love thy neighbour as thyself.' not 'love thy jew as thyself.'
he was an example to all. he wasnt here to teach of or within religion he was here to teach everyone and anyone with ears.

When the Samaritan lady came to him and asked him to heal her or her kid(i don't remember which). He told her that he was only here for the jews. She said that even a dog will lay under it's masters table hoping for scrapes. He said she was right and did as she had asked him.


Then later when Paul was told in a dream that eating pork was ok if God said it was clean.




true

Regardless with Jesus being a Jew it would make sence that they would be God's chosen people. I think a lot of Christian have trouble beliving that God would play favorites.


Galatians read as though it takes about all races being children of God but then saying " If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." So it's not really clear the whole verse reads as follows.


There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:28-29

Adoption. Also the chosen people were chosen to bring God's blessing(christ) to the whole world.

No offense but you not a mormon? Which by some people your not even a Christian which if I am not mistaken your bible reads VERy differently then the regular bible. I'm not saying that your bible or your beliefs are wrong just different.

We use the King James version of the Bible. We also use the Book of Mormon, if you like the bible for the new world. We also use the doctrine and convenient, The bible for the modern day.


As I have said God hasn't stopped sending prophets to the world.

So how can you read two very different bibles & get the same thing out of it?

They tell the same story from two points of view.

UM maybe but I still do not see how they are the same from what I remember about Mormon belifes they are not even close to mainstream Christiany but that's another topic.

Just because it is mainstream doesn't make it right.

There are a butt load of Christians out there who would disagree with you on that.

That is quite true Ripley, he did come for the Jews, he was their Messiah after all. but I also have to ask you whether Jeus did not intend the Jews to then spread the message to the entire world?

Matthew 12:18
"Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.

Matthew 12:21
In his name the nations will put their hope."

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 25:32
All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

Matthew 28:19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mark 11:17
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: " 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations' ? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.' "

Mark 13:10
And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

Luke 24:45-49
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

None of that means that the Jews were not Gods chosen people.

And mainstream xianity is the exact opposite of what Jesus is quoted to have said on many points, and diacritically opposed to almost all of Judiasm's teachings found in the Torah. You have to draw a line somewhere, but why 2000 years ago? I am not iterested in Islam or Mormon, but it all looks the same to an outsider. Anyone ever looked into Bahai? Its a very fascinating variation on the same old thing.

Who said otherwise?

I'm going by the topic of this thread.

Then quote the subject of your comment...

Sorry I was sticking to the OP.

And there are a load of Christians out there who would agree with me. We can play word games all day long.

the various nations (aka tribes are called nations as well ) of the Jews......... it doesn't mean Jesus was speaking about nations as we understand them to be. Not unlike Native Americans referring to various tribes.



as for the word 'nation' - they were speaking of themselves , the jews , not a group outside of themselves.

" ...(althougth ) there is a certain amount of truth in the claims that it (Judaism) is a religion, a race, or an ethnic group, none of these descriptions is entirely adequate to describe what connects Jews to other Jews... The best explanation is the traditional one given in the Torah: that the Jews are a nation. The Hebrew word, believe it or not, is "goy." We use the word "nation" not in the modern sense meaning a territorial and political entity, but in the ancient sense meaning a group of people with a common history, a common destiny, and a sense that we are all connected to each other..."
" What is Judaism? Is it a Religion? - Is it a Race? - Is it a Culture? - It is a Nation


See , I know there are other text that say otherwise........ and of course christians are going to make it adhere to themselves , but should they ? are they even things Jesus says ? for instance the story of the Sumaritian woman and jesus was brought up ..... crumbs ,,, dogs ,, ect ......... yet the fact that Jesus thinks of them as dogs to begin with..

I have not had the opportunity to read this thread in its entirety, so please forgive me if I repeat something already said.

I completely agree with you Ripley. Jesus made it abundantly clear to his disciples in Matthew 10:5 that they were to go only to the lost tribes of Israel -- hence the symbolic 12 disciples -- and he did so, as you pointed out, on more than one occasion. If he had wanted his disciples to go to the Gentiles, he would've made that abundantly clear. But he did not. It was Paul, who received this directive from the resurrected Jesus -- a blinding light and disembodied voice -- and not the original 12. Now why would that be? Would not Jesus have gone first to his most trusted disciples with such a profound change of instruction? Or at least, informed the disciples that he was sending a man named Paul to them with a new message ... and to accept him/message with open arms and without question? And if Jesus had changed his mind, why wait so long after his crucifixion? This makes no sense to me whatsoever. This is a Pauline invention in my humble opinion -- one that ended in a heated verbal exchange and permanent split from the Jerusalem church. There is even a strong indication that the Jerusalem church -- the pillars James, Peter, John -- sent out counter missionaries to oppose the teachings of Paul.

Professor L. Michael White explains in his book From Jesus to Christianity:How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith (P., 207+)
http://books.google.com/books?id=3h0pfgBVg...d1_sg#PPA207,M1

Most kindly,

Sean

100% correct. Jesus only came to the lost sheep of isreal, its quite common of god to send prophets to isreal all the time, sometime more than one, to set the straight again, although they were the chosen people, as majority often rejected and rebelled against god. jesus clearly state he is only here to set them straight, infact he even goes on to say, that he has no new law, that the law is the same and he will not break and anyone who does is not one of him, yet no christian today obeys the laws jesus did as a jew. Christians are followers of christ, or they think they are, but largely they follow the terachings of Paul, most of new testaments is what paul said not jesus. I always find it funny how christians try and twists and manipulate words in order to prove he is universal and so is the message, yet jesus himself and the bible contradicts this, so some has it wrong, either jesus, or those who interpret the bible.

If jesus was coming with something new and something for all, he would also brough new law with him too.



The jews were a light unto other nations, this light has since been extinguished due to their constant rebellion, hence the reason why jesus was sent in the first place. Jesus came to sort the jews out, who were the light, but no longer. He came to the lost sheep to guide them back and only them. As much as you might want to twist it and become all metaphoric etc, it still means jesus came to the jews and not the world or the universe. His message was specifically for a nation and a race, his own people, his own lost sheep.

Oh yeah there were 12 tribes of the jews spread out, he came to all of them, but most of them were in isreal.

Actually the xians have been trying to "extinguish" the Jews for 1700 years, quite unsuccessfully. Even the christian champion, Hitler (yes, he considered himself one, no matter what you think), failed in his "final solution". The very continued existence of Jews pretty much disproves Paul and his lunatic ravings. Per Paul, they all should have kissed the blood-stained crucifix of xianity long ago.

Your right & because they have tried to be stamped out & still surive here today show's that they just might be right.

I see your point but you are missing something very important in your analysis.

The nations described in the verses I cited are clearly meant to be the gentile nations of the world known in Jesus time.

Jesus sent out 70 disciples (some texts say 72) to the cities and towns of the land to proclaim that "The Kingdom of God was at hand". Symbollically Jesus was reffering to Deuteronomy 32 8-9 where it is stated that God gave over the gentile nations to other gods because of their insistence in worshipping them, keeping Israel as his portion. There are 70 nations listed in the table of nations and there were 70 "sons of god" to whom those nations were given. "Sons of god" is a term used exclusively of deities in canaanite and hebrew mythology.

By sending out these 70 disciples he is stating to the gods of the world (the nations), which are identified as demons in verse 17 of the same chapter, that their time is coming to an end and that God was taking these nations back to himself.

Jesus' eye was on the gentile nations and his instrument of conversion of those nations was called Israel.

Right that is why he told the story about the good sumaritian because he thinks of them as dogs.

After this the Lord appointed seventy-two[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go Luke 10 - 1

this sounds more like a PR man being sent ahead to establish connections before he ( jesus) got there aka psyching up the crowd , cherry picking the audience ..........Kinda like how before a band goes on tour you hear that they are coming to your town ahead of time so you'll remember to come see them... be kinda sad Jesus show up in a town and no one turn out except for crickets.
that's the 72 they are talking about. concert dates. and he sent them by 2 so there were approx 32 cities , towns, villages .........

no jesus wasn't out to preach to any but the jews ........




8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,
when he divided all mankind,
he set up boundaries for the peoples
according to the number of the sons of Israel. [c]

9 For the LORD's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.

The end of Deuteronomy, like the end of Samuel, consists of two poems (Deut 32:1-43 and 33:1-29) within a distinctive block of narratives (Deut 31-34). The juxtaposition of the darkly ominous Song of Moses with the optimistic Blessing of Moses reproduces in poetry the cycles of curse and blessing, warning and hope in Deuteronomy 27-30. They work together in this context to provide a climactic portrayal of the bad and good in Israel's history.
http://web.syr.edu/~jwwatts/ThisSong.htm

here's an interesting read on it -

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic
Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)

As a result of comparing biblical and inscriptional evidence with the Ugaritic texts, we can see how the worship of other deities lasted for quite a long time in Israel's pantheon.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith...lMonotheism.htm

so jesus broke his own golden rule ? love God , love your neighbor ?

Excuse me?




It is considered a proof of their "being right" that they are still here even though they have gone through sociological conditions which other more powerful cultures have perished in.

Yeah sure Ripley keep on reading old news, those positions on Israelite polytheism have been overturned for a number of years now. As for Jesus and the 70 or 72 disciples, it is a clear correlation if there ever was one, but I understand your need to keep the thread going...

Maybe it was another lesson for us. He was here to preach and heal the Jews. But under the circumstance he would go out of his way to help others.

Chapter 32

7. Remember the days of old; reflect upon the years of [other] generations. Ask your father, and he will tell you your elders, and they will inform you.
8. When the Most High gave nations their lot, when He separated the sons of man, He set up the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.
9. Because the Lord's portion is His people Jacob, the lot of His inheritance.
10. He found them in a desert land, and in a desolate, howling wasteland. He encompassed them and bestowed understanding upon them; He protected them as the pupil of His eye.
11. As an eagle awakens its nest, hovering over its fledglings, it spreads its wings, taking them and carrying them on its pinions.
12. [So] the Lord guided them alone, and there was no alien deity with Him.

commentary -

8. When the Most High gave nations their lot. When the Holy One, Blessed is He, gave those who provoked Him to anger their portion, He flooded them and drowned them [i.e., that was their lot]. when He separated the sons of man. When [God] scattered the Generation of the Dispersion [which built the tower of Babel], He had the power to remove them from the world [altogether], but He did not do so. Rather, “He set up the boundaries of peoples,” [i.e.,] He let them remain in existence and did not destroy them. according to the number of the children of Israel. [God let man remain in existence] for the sake of a [small] number of the children of Israel who were destined to descend from the children of Shem, and [the sake of] the number of the seventy souls of the children of Israel who went down to Egypt, He “set up the boundaries of peoples,” [i.e., He separated man into seventy nations with] seventy languages.
9. Because the Lord’s portion is His people. And why did God go to all this effort [to save mankind]? “Because the Lord’s portion” was hidden within them [i.e., mankind] and was destined to come forth. And who is God’s portion?“His people.” And who is His people? Jacob, the lot of His inheritance. And he is the third among the Patriarchs. He is endowed with a threefold [parcel] of merits: The merit of his grandfather, the merit of his father, and his own merit-thus, totaling three, like a rope (חֶבֶל) composed of three strands [twined together for added strength (Sifrei 32:9)]. Thus, it was [only] Jacob and his sons who became God’s inheritance, not Ishmael, the son of Abraham, and not Esau, the son of Isaac.

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/rashi/defaul...ish/Haazinu.htm

I understood how shook up one would be to know Jesus was sent , in his mind at any rate , for the jews . he clearly states he isn't there for the gentiles or he would have included them. Like the Romans !!! but he didn't preach to the romans did he ?? nor any other gentile. Some came to him , some believed in him , he even verbally healed a few ........... but he didn't seek them out. nor did he instruct his disiples to. ever.

that was purely Pauls invention.

With all due respect, Jor-el, the school of thought that Monotheism descends from Polytheism is still very much mainstream. There are different opinions, depending on which scholar one might speak to on the subject, but the theory of biblical Monotheism descending from ancient Israelite (or pre-Israelite Canaanite; or a blend of Israelite/Canaanite and other cultures' pantheology) polytheism has not been overturned, just disputed.

My opinion of most of the NT is that it was written (or rewritten) to seem acceptable to the Gentiles - and especially the Romans, as the OT faith was certainly Judeo-centric and rather militantly so. With the submission of the Jewish lands to Roman rule under the Empire, it must have been fairly obvious to those writers of the NT scripture that such a hard line [as existed in the OT] would only lead to subversive and possibly rebellious actions by the Jews, with probably serious consequences from the Roman occupiers. Obviously, the arrival of Jesus had to be told, regardless of whether he was the actual Messiah or it was convenient for him to be made out to be so, but the message for the Jewish people had to be wrapped in 'politik' and so was probably diluted and became the 'Christian' message.

I view Jesus as a (possibly mythical) mystic. The story of Christ whether real or made up by an ingenious mystic to get his practical spiritual insights is for all is said in this line:

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

John 1:9

Every man partakes in divinity by having it as our spiritual baseline nature. Personally I think there is so much emphasis about Christ coming only for the Jews is because the Jews have such a rigid and fixed doctrine and therefore whoever wrote the gospels was trying to appeal more to them while knowing gentiles etc would totally dig it regardless. This way the Jews could be coaxed out of their rigid doctrine to a more open mystic spirituality while still being able to retain enough of their 'chosen people' identity to keep them happy.

Well said Ripley and Leonardo.

The Gentile mission was a mission of Paul given to him by the risen Jesus -- not the original 12. There's a reason they had a major falling out, that even Barnabas -- Paul's closest friend! -- eventually left him. Why? Because he felt him to be wrong. Paul's message to the Gentiles -- the Aegean Mission -- began after he was rebuffed by the Jews and the pillars of the Jerusalem church. As is well known, they [pillars] called Paul to Jerusalem to answer various charges. The "Jerusalem Council" came to a tenuous agreement regarding the gentile issue, yes, but one that did not last. And one that Paul seemed to have a different understanding then what had been agreed to. He eventually split with them ... and the rest his history.

Where Did Paul Get His Authority & Teachings? by Professor James Tabor (February 21, 2007)
http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/02/2...rity-teachings/

Excellent commentary here in From Jesus to Christianity Chapter, Chapter Eight (169+) Paul: The Aegean Mission, by Professor White.

From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith by L. Michael White
http://books.google.com/books?id=3h0pfgBVg...d1_sg#PPA169,M1

And here by Professor Michael Goulder ...

St. Paul Versus St. Peter: A Tale of Two Missions
http://books.google.com/books?id=-EkO1vsJ4...qnMM8Af8O2V5Kh4

Religion is an evolutionary process. It begins as one thing -- polytheism -- and ends up centuries later refined -- monotheism -- so as to help define a people and their culture -- in this case, Judaism. It is the same in every culture.

It is now known that the Hebrews evolved peacefully out of Canaanite society. And the Hebrew Scriptures certainly reflect this -- as Leonardo stated -- a "blending" of the Israelite/Canaanite cultures. They were also heavily influenced by Egyptian (Atenism?), Babylonian et al culture as well. And then, of course, there's Zoroastrianism/Persian Dualism which is considered the foundation of all three of the world's major religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Much of what we find in the OT was written down during the Babylonian Exile (500's BCE). There are few scholars who would deny heavy influence by the dominant religions of the time--particularly by the Persians (Cyrus the Great) who conquered the Babylonians and set free the Hebrews (many of whom preferred to stay in wealthy Babyon). The Hebrews embraced elements of their religion--mainly Persian Dualism/Zoroastrianism. Also of significant influence as was the spread of Hellenism by Alexander the Great. There are numerous Biblical stories very closely related (and were well-known long before) to various Greek tales--Zeus destroying the world with a flood, virgin births et al. It was simply impossible to escape such influences, being a people [Hebrews] continuously conquered by the major powers of the day. Of course, that does not mean everything the Hebrews wrote down was borrowed. In developing their theology, they expounded upon said influences and added material of their own. Thus Judaism became a new religion with old parts, just as Christianity and Islam were to do centuries later.

From the Oxford Companion to the Bible (Electronic edition), Oxford University Press, USA (October 14, 1993)

Most scholars agree that in the writings of the third/second centuries BCE are the first examples of a character who is the archenemy of Yahweh and humankind. Nonetheless, the flexibility of the tradition is still apparent in the variety of figures who, although not necessarily identical with each other, are each apparently regarded as the principal archenemy of God and humankind in Second Temple literature. Such figures include Mastemah (Jubilees 10.8), Semyaz (1 Enoch 6.3), and Belial at Qumran (Zadokite Document 4.13). Still undetermined is the extent to which the concept of the Hebrew ?åãån was influenced by Persian dualism, which posited the existence of two primal and independent personifications of good and evil.--J. KEIR HOWARD

Great documentary by the Discovery Channel ....

Ancient Evidence: Joshua and the Walls of Jericho (Discovery Channel, 11/13/2003 at 1 a.m. Also available on DVD and VHS at http://shopping.discovery.com)
http://shopping.discovery.com

AND:

2001 World Book Encyclopedia (CD-ROM) World Book, Inc., Chicago, Illinois:

Canaanites, pronounced KAY nuh nyts, were a people mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. Most of their land, called Canaan, later became known as Palestine. The Canaanites may have settled in the region about 2000 B.C. They were its chief inhabitants until about 1200 B.C. The Bible says that the Israelites conquered Canaan at that time. However, archaeology and some Biblical passages indicate that the Israelites only gradually became the area's dominant people. Archaeology also indicates that many Canaanite cities were destroyed by the Sea Peoples in the 1100's B.C. The Sea Peoples may have migrated to Canaan from the area around the Aegean Sea.

The Canaanites were a Semitic people related to the Arabs, Assyrians, and Israelites. The Canaanites had an advanced civilization. Their main political unit was the city-state, which consisted of a city or town and the surrounding villages and land. The chief Canaanite gods were El (a creator god) and Baal (a storm god). The main goddesses were Anat, Asherah, and Astarte.--Carole R. Fontaine, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew Scriptures, Andover Newton Theological School

AND:

".... And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan--they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people--the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were--irony of ironies--themselves originally Canaanites!"

READ THE REST HERE: Fiat Lux: Archeology and the Old Testament By Sarah Belle Dougherty
http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm

AND:

General Education 110x: World Civilizations to 1500, Washington State University
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/110/110SCHED.HTM

Virtual Religion, Rutgers University
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/sitemap.html

As for the New Testament ... Leonardo is spot on here. The four Gospels contain all the hallmarks of a Hellenistic world. They are "faith documents", midrash, Gospel-- "Good News" -- not biography.

Who Do Men Say I Am, Notre Dame Magazine (Summer 1990)
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/022007/temple.htm

PBS: From Jesus to Christianity
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

A New History of Christian Origins (Listen)

What ideas and traditions coincided to form early Christianity? Gregory J. Riley, professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Claremont Graduate School of Theology, explains how Christianity formed during its early days. In his view, Christianity is not a revealed religion, but rather one that built upon the teachings of Jesus, as well as what came before--Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and the best ideas from the Graeco-Roman and Ancient Egyptian worlds. Gregory J. Riley joins host Larry Mantle to navigate this Šü“riverŠü¦ of god. Gregory Riley's book is called The River of God: A New History of Christian Origins (Harper)

SOURCE (scroll down):
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/listi..._20030623.shtml

Just my opinion.

Most kindly,

Sean