Ah, it only gets better, dejuror!
So, simply no evidence of Jewish Christians, eh?
The Ebionites and Nazoraeans were Jewish Christians!
I only accidentally just stumbled across this quote by Theodoret: “The Nazarenes are Jews who venerate Christ as a just man merely, and it is said they use the Gospel according to Peter.”
Hegesippus, Christianity’s first chronicler, was a Jewish Christian, an Ebionite, and like others of that sect, strongly opposed to Paul. He also relied on the Gospel of the Hebrews, and likewise strongly favored James the Just: “James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time.”
“What is commonly regarded as his defect is in reality one of his greatest merits as a witness: he was a Hebrew, and looks at the Church from the standpoint of ‘James the Lord's brother.’”
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ippus.htmlWhat’s more, I doubt you’d bother, but I strongly suggest that you read at least the introduction to Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, a quality text by Skarsaune and Hvalvik.
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/jewbelje.pdfI thought the following interesting too, and quoted a portion thereof (headed: Some Jewish Christians Join with the Great Church) at this post’s close:
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/Ebionitehist.htmlFrom the same link: “There is a clear profile only of the Jewish Christians of Palestine-Syria, who insistently emphasized their connection with the original cell of Christianity in Jerusalem and Galilee. This, and most of the information we have about them, comes from literary remains attributed to their circles. The polemic writings of the Church Fathers about the various Jewish Christian groups are unreliable due to obvious prejudice against those who would oppose their teachings. The Jewish Christians had independent theological and literary traditions, and represented, from the turn of the century to the third century, a group which was independent of the Great Church and whose outward form does not conform with their hesiological characterization (Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, Tubingen, 1964, p. 274).”
I can’t present another theory?
No need – it is scholarly well established that Christianity’s very earliest roots basically sprung from those minority Jews willing to accept Jesus as the Messiah, even as they observed ordinary Jewish traditions. The Jewish groups spread across the Empire were themselves of course anything but uniform in their religious practices, or traditions, but let's leave that one alone.
You repeatedly note that “Theories are developed from existing evidence---not speculation and assumptions”, yet, in post after post, you seem to make sweeping assertions without ever offering a shred of evidence.
You assert that the ‘Jesus story’ was initiated after the fall of the Jewish Temple in the year 70, with the propaganda that the Jews KILLED the Son of God called Jesus.
How is it though that all the relevant sources only speak of a possible split between Christianity and Judaism, not some new creation of either? And ‘after the fall isn’t very specific – when exactly?
Wikipedia: “The split of early Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries of the Common Era. It is commonly attributed to a number of events, including the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus (c. 33), the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the destruction of the Second Temple and institution of the Jewish tax in 70, the postulated Council of Jamnia c. 90, and the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–135.”
Whereas historian Shaye J. D. Cohen suggests the view I happen to favor:
“The separation of Christianity from Judaism was a process, not an event. The essential part of this process was that the church was becoming more and more gentile, and less and less Jewish, but the separation manifested itself in different ways in each local community where Jews and Christians dwelt together. In some places, the Jews expelled the Christians; in other, the Christians left of their own accord.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_ ... nd_JudaismYou assert: "All EXISTING manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus are DATED AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE."
I suppose the catch here resides in the word ‘existing’! Other than that, dating manuscripts, or remnants thereof, more than two thousand years old with any kind of accuracy is fraught with difficulty. Your assertion is simply a blatant misuse of the argument from silence.
Then, the earliest copy of Justin’s Dialogue With Trypho comes to us imperfectly only in the Paris Codex of 1364, yet in your earlier post you saw fit to quote from it unreservedly, as authentically representing Justin’s words!
You then say: "All Christian writings which mentioned the reason for the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE claimed it was because the Jews KILLED the Son of God."
You couldn’t possibly be familiar with all mentions of the fall of the Jewish Temple in all of the Christian writings! Neither does mention of such a reason logically substantiate the subsequent creation of any Jesus tale.
You reject my assertion that Christian theology has always vowed that ‘Jesus gave his life gladly, as a sacrifice for our sins - rendering the particular human actors involved irrelevant’, citing quotations from the Gospel of Mark instead.
The link following furnishes a veritable galaxy of scriptural references supporting my claim:
http://biblehub.com/galatians/1-4.htmIn part derived from the Gospel of Peter (which held that Jesus and Christ were different – Jesus really suffered, but Christ only in appearance), and heavily interpolated, I don’t think we should, in isolation, pay too much attention to Mark’s particular brand of woo, do you?
No ancient manuscript with Jesus stories has been found in Judea?
As mentioned before, I doubt that early Christianity had much to do with the Holy Land. Look to the Jewish Christians in Syria, my friend, in Alexandria and Rome.
“Some Jewish Christians join with the Great Church -
According to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. V. xii), up to the year 135 A.D. there were fifteen bishops of the circumcision who succeeded one another and who possessed all the marks of a kind of monarchical episcopate over the congregations of the Jewish Christian Church. Schoeps feels that this number can hardly be correct and thinks that perhaps bishops of other congregations beside the one designated as Jerusalems are included in this list (H. Schoeps, Theology, pp. 266 f).
With the fall of Bether, the last Jewish stronghold, in 135 A.D., the revolt led by the Jewish partisan Bar Cocheba which had lasted for three and one-half years came to its end. This year marks the end of the Jewish Christian congregation of Jerusalem (at Pella). According to the list of bishops provided by Eusebius, their last bishop, Judas, resided there until the eighteenth year of Hadrian’s reign (134-135 A.D.). Tradition ascribed to this last bishop the surname Kyriakos, which appears to bring him into relationship with Jesus' family (H. Schoeps, Jewish Christianity, p. 34).
The next bishop in the episcopal seat of James, Marcus (Mark) by name, was not of Jewish origin. Marcus was a Gentile, probably a native either of Italy or of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion, the most considerable part of the congregation at Pella renounced the Mosaic Law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and culture, they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian, into Jerusalem, and firmly cemented their union with the Catholic Church (Eusebius, IV. vi.; Sulpicius Severus, ii. 31). By comparing their unsatisfactory accounts, Mosheim de Rebus (Christians before Constantine the Great, p. 327, etc.) has drawn out a very distinct representation of the circumstances and motives of this revolution.
Here again, it is interesting to notice that while the pagans did not have to give up their culture or rites, the Jewish Christians were required to forsake their observance of the Mosaic Law. Those Nazarenes who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were called heretics and mocked as Ebionites (poor in doctrine) by the Catholic Church (E. Gibbon, p. 391).”
by 
