Why not Abrahamic religions? | Douglas Wilhelm Hard

When most people are exposed to the supernatural claims of other religions, the automatic response is often one of disbelief, and yet, that same level of criticism is seldom directed at one's own religion. Abrahamic religions are no exception: it is reasonable to believe that there is a world-wide flood that kills everything, and yet, despite saltwater covering the Earth to many miles (while simultaneously carving out the Grand Canyon, pre-flood rivers such as the Nile seem to have been generally unaffected. It is much more interesting to read the stories of the Jewish scriptures from a political point-of-view. Tribes come up with stories to emphasize the importance of the tribe, and diminish those tribes around them, and the stories of Genesis and other books certainly present such a narrative. What is fascinating, however, is that the scriptures needed to change as time saw fit, and within the narratives, one can see how the massive migration of Samaritan tribes into the region of Judea during the Assyrian conquest required a reauthoring of those stories. A second major change to the scriptures were with the political machinations of Josiah (reigning from 640 to 609 BCE), who was determined to elevate his position to being on par with that of the Egyptian pharaohs or the Neo-Assyrian kings. Subsequent narratives were added to record and explain subsequent events including the Babylonian exile, the return, and the establishment of a Judean king following the Maccabean revolt.

Let us start with Genesis. It doesn't take much to realize that the story is one of a nomadic people who were aware of little more than their environs, stories of neighboring nations, and with even lesser an understanding of the world. The first act of creation is that of light, and yet the Sun would not appear for another three "days;" the story tellers did not even associate the light of day with the Sun, almost as if the appearance of the Sun during daylight hours is secondary. At this point, we have a premonition of another future event: the world-wide flood. Initially, there is only water, and it is only on the second day that land is formed. This completely ignores the reality that is insufficient water on the planet to drowned continents. However, more critical is the ignorance of those reading it: this is not the "splitting" of water and introducing land in between, but rather it is a re-telling of a Babylonian creation myth where Tiamat, the goddess of the sea who is slain by Marduk, and when her body is split, it is split into the salt water below and the fresh water above. This reiterates the understanding of the world by these cultures: the world was flat, and there is water above the sky, and water below; and when it rains, water is released from that reservoir in the the sky. Genesis parallels this myth when "Elohim made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." There is still, however, no dry land, only an atmosphere (or "expanse") separating the water below from the water above. It is only on the next "day" that dry land is separated from the salt waters.

On the third "day," Elohim creates plants on the land, and specifically at this time, there are trees bearing fruit, even though fruit trees only appeared in the early Cretaceous, four hundred million years after the appearance of the earliest vertebrates.

It is only on the fourth "day" that Elohim creates the Sun and the Moon. Note that their purpose is clearly stated as being "signs to indicate seasons and days and years." They are indicators of the seasons, not the cause of the seasons, as if the seasons were already occurring. Had any of this been a revelation of an all-knowing being, it would not have been difficult to clarify that the Sun causes the days, the seasons and the years; however, light had already been "created" on the first "day," long before the Sun. This myth also indicates that the Moon is itself a "light", and not merely the reflection of the light of the Sun.

It is on the fifth day that sea creatures and birds are created; this is fascinating, because we know that all birds are descendants of dinosaurs, and bats are descendants of earth-bound mammals. Additionally, all insects that fly are descendant from insects that crawled on the Earth, and yet all flying creatures were created first. The earliest flying insects were approximately 310 million years ago, while the earliest insects to move onto land seem to have appeared approximately 420 million years ago. The earliest mammals likely appeared in the Jurassic approximately 200 million years ago, but bats only appeared 50 million years ago. Separate branches of land-dwelling animals evolved into flying descendants on at least four separate occasions, including two branches of dinosaurs, one of which evolved into birds, but what is critical is that they always evolved from land-dwelling animals and never directly from the ocean.

Now, some Christians have posited that the existence of dinosaur bones can be explained as having been put there by Satan in order to deceive us and to lead us from the one true belief; however, given that there is evidence of evolution and common descent in our own DNA, this would leaves such believers with two alternatives: first, all such "evidence" are simply lies spurred on by Satan (you cannot deny the existence of fossil dinosaurs, but it's really easy if you're an ignoramus or simpleton to deny DNA evidence), or perhaps it is further evidence that our bodies are only "of this world" and this world is indeed the product of Satan, while it is our "souls" that were created by Yahweh.

It is on the sixth that Elohim finally creates land animals; perhaps suggesting that land creatures are superior to birds and fish. Last of all was the creation of humans. What is unfortunate here is that the authors of this myth had Elohim giving humans dominion over all creatures and plants, and even today Christians use this to deny the need for environmental stewardship.

What comes next is telling, for it demonstrates that the creation myth in Genesis 1 was likely prepended at a later date; perhaps even after or around the time of the Babylonian exile where the Judean scholars would have first been exposed to the creation myths of the Babylonians and who later adapted that myth for their god.

Next comes an alternative creation myth; one more likely associated with ancient Judea. It discusses a time when there were no crops, and this seems to be differentiated from the fruit trees that are referred to on the third day: "Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground." Instead, it appears that they only way plants were watered up to this point was through springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. This, again, is based on the primordial myth that the world originated in a body of water that was split into two. After all, how else could water come from the sky if there was not some great reservoir above the firmament of the sky.

In the Garden of Eden, four rivers are mentioned, two of which are still known: the Tigris and the Euphrates. As an aside, given how some claim that it was Noah's flood that caused the Grand Canyon, it is interesting that these two rivers in relatively flat lands remained relatively unchanged by that same flood. However, today, we know that the sources of the Euphrates and the Tigris do not converge on a single location.

Another interesting change in character is the name of the god in question, from Elohim in the first narrative to Yahweh in the second. It always makes me wonder why these names are translated into descriptions of these deities: God and Lord, respectively.

The narrative that follows appears to be there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to subordinate women to men. It seems odd that Yahweh/Elohim would create a "man" without a partner, when all other species had both "male" and "female" counterparts. In reality, sexuality has existed for nearly two billion years, and all mammals and reptiles and birds have sexes; after all, it is an excellent solution to the issue of propagating beneficial genes and eliminating detrimental ones.

Now, what is telling is why Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden of Eden. It was not for sinning: it was because “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” It was not that Adam and Eve had sinned, but rather, because he did not want them to live forever.

The next story on Cain and Abel exists for one purpose and one purpose only: to elevate animal sacrifice over the sacrifice of plants. As a priest, it would always be desirable to have meat over grains or fruit, and thus emphasis had to be placed on the offering of animals. Why a deity would care about meat over grains or fruit is beyond me, but why a priest would prefer meat over grains or fruity is obvious. After all, blood is nothing more than a liquid that is able to deliver oxygen to each and every cell in the body, while removing carbon dioxide. A cell that does not receive oxygen dies. Why does the spilling of blood cleanse anything of anything? However, the spilling of blood means a good meal for the priest and his family. Again, I'm not sure how the death of an animal or the spilling of blood does anything to compensate for "sin," unless it is the priest who gets to eat the meat and who may then absolve the individual of that "sin."

To be fair, there is one difference between red blood cells, and that is that they do not have nuclei, but so what? How does this make them any more or less significant than the cells of the head, or the cells of the stomach?

Now, what comes next is fascinating, in that many of the significant achievements of humans are attributed to certain individuals. This parallels a phenomenon that appears again, where entire nations are attributed to certain individuals.

Cain is the first builder of a city. This is despite there being no need for such a city. A tent or an individual house would be sufficient for one family, and perhaps a settlement, but a city involves defence and commerce.
It was only Cain's great-great-great-great grandson who was the "first of those who live in tents and keep livestock." I was not aware that cities came before tents.
Another great-great-great-great grandson was the first to play the harp and flute. Musical instruments did not suddenly appear. One need only look at the development of internal combustion engines, or liquid-fueled rockets or transistors started with something that was more-or-less useless in of itself, but rather was a proof of concept; but then gradually, over many years and decades became useful. It is highly unlikely that one person simultaneously makes both a harp and a flute.
Finally, another sibling simultaneously learned to shape both bronze and iron. This, too, is such a remarkable achievement, for the bronze age by all accounts existed for two thousand years prior to the eclipsing of tools and weapons made of bronze by those made of iron.

Now, one may consider all of this to be a faithful recording of history, or the stories of Canaanite herders who found themselves settling in the Judean highlands at the advent of the Bronze Age Collapse.

What we do know is that there has been life and death on this planet consistently for the last 500 million years. The idea that a human could live to 800 years old is just as much a dream that a human, or the soul thereof, can live for eternity. It is a dream, and the authors of the stories that described the first humans included such fantastic tales.

The next chapter sees Yahweh imposes a limit of 120 years on the life of humans. One would think that when Jeanne Calment turned 121 on February 21st of 1996 that believers would finally acknowledge that these stories are exactly what most others know them to be: myths recorded by goat herders to explain their history to each other.

This next chapter also sees the children of Yahweh interbreed with humans to produce a hybrid race; however, they appear to have been evil, together with balance of humanity so much so that Yahweh decided to kill everyone except for one family.

The absurdity of the flood of Noah will not even be discussed here, but what is useful is the reiteration of the Babylonian idea that the world was formed from water that was split into two: while Christians normally tell the story as there having been just rain, the story harkens back telling of "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." Both of these tell the story as if there was some great reservoir below, and some great reservoir above. Of course, these miss the point that there is insufficient water to come even close to covering Mount Everest.

Another humorous part of the idea of there being a "world-wide" flood a mere 4500 years ago is the idea that we have reasonably solid fossil records from throughout the world, including Australia and South America. Somehow, all living creatures were to make the trek from these continents to the Middle East, and then make it all the way back without leaving any fossil record or descendants of their own. Of all the marsupials in Australia, they all made it to the Middle East and back again without leaving any trace or children. One pair of koala bears managed to make the passage from Australia to the mainland, and despite sleeping up to 20 hours a day, and having a diet of Eucalypteae, which are not found outside Australia, managed to cover the 13000 km. At 10 km per day, this would take 1300 years. Guinea pigs would have to travel from South America, through North America, across Asia and back again without leaving any descendants in, say, Siberia or Alaska or British Columbia. None of the offspring found more favorable conditions in, say, India or central Asia or North America, and along the entire route, they found sufficient food, especially fruit, for like humans, guinea pigs do not produce their own Vitamin C, so need a diet that has sufficient sources of Vitamin C. But of course, a miracle can explain all this, quite easily. One thinks, however, that it might have been easier to just put a fence around the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Of course, other oddities include the existence of trees that are older than 4500 years, with one Prometheus being recorded as being 4900 years old. A tree covered in a world-wide flood for such a long period of time would almost certainly die, and if not, at the very least, demonstrate some evidence of such a traumatic event in its growth rings.

Anyway, after the flood, "The fountains of the deep and the floodgates of heaven were closed,[c] and the rain stopped falling from the sky." Once again, harkening back to the Babylonian creation myth.

Additionally, this introduces rain: despite all evidence to the contrary, these myths maintain that it did not "rain" until Noah's flood (see the earlier chapters). Given all our knowledge of weather, climate, etc., it seems awkward that before 4500 years ago, it simply did not "rain". Somehow, while no doubt water evaporated and accumulated in the air, it never got to the point of precipitation. Some have suggested that prior to Noah's flood, there was simply mist or dew or other forms of condensation, but what else do you expect from goat herders who are trying to make sense of their place on this planet? However, one might expect more from someone brought up in the product of the Enlightenment, but to be fair, belief has never been rational, for if there was justification for a belief, it would no longer be a belief, but rather it would be fact, and "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

The next story is that of the city and the tower. There are so many interesting characteristics about this that really are beyond belief. First, the name is a play on the city of Babylon, where the Hebrew word בָּלַ֥ל (balal) means to confuse. Additionally, the claim is that up to this point, all humans lived in this one city and spoke the same language. Consequently, the dispersion of humans throughout the world does not appear to have begun until after this point. Thus, believing this to be a true record of history, this would require one to believe that somehow humans made it from this point, staying together in their bands, and migrating all the way to South America while first crossing the 83 km across the Bering Strait. In all this time, groups settled along the way, and independently developed very different forms of architecture, as well. However, when was this tower built? To build towers on the scale of what is suggested requires significant extra human capital. It would have been many generations after Noah before there would be sufficiently many people to have such excess capital. Also, Noah lived 350 years after the flood, and given that only his family survived, anyone living while Noah was still alive would have known him as 'grandfather', 'great-grandfather', 'great-great-grandfather', etc. As they were all living in the same region, if there was a rebellion against the authority of Noah, no doubt this, too, would have been recorded. With all people being related to this one patriarch, it would be difficult to believe that they would rebel against Yahweh, given that previously Yahweh decided to kill everyone on Earth except for Noah and his family. What's fascinating, however, is that Noah is alleged to have lived until two years prior to the birth of Abram (a.k.a. Abraham), his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson. Thus, one must wonder, what part in the construction of the tower did Noah have, if any? He certainly must have been there watching this tower be built, for it seems that by the time Abram was born, the dispersion of the people throughout the planet appears to have already occurred: after all, the Egyptians were already in Egypt when Abraham made his journey to Canaan.

Now, in all likelihood, these were individual stories which, among others, circulated throughout the tribe of Judah, and some of these stories were accepted and others were rejected, and those that were accepted were woven into a continuous narrative without significant thought as to continuity or how one story impacts another.

Of course, none of this parallels genetic diversity throughout the world. It is Africa, the ancestral home of Homo sapiens that has the greatest genetic diversity, and relatively few made it beyond the deserts of Sinai into Europe and Asia and later to North and then South America. The genetic diversity of those who descended from the tribes that made it across the Sinai and perhaps across to Gibraltar is significantly lower than those whose ancestors remained in Africa. Under the model proposed by Genesis, it would suggest that genetic diversity should be the same throughout all peoples, as a few thousand years is insignificant.

Additionally, despite being "given" different languages, the people had to move to lands so as to appear as if their languages were related to those of their neighbours. Yahweh must have been very careful in directing people so as to appear to have simply migrated and had their languages evolve from neighbouring languages. It likely would have been much easier had Yahweh just had humans evolve in Africa, and slowly change their languages as they spread out and lost contact with what used to be neighbouring tribes. Even today, language evolves and diverges when isolated from others whose ancestors spoke the same language.

Now, why talk about myths that even many Christians and Jews do understand to be fanciful stories? The issue is that even today, too many people still believe this, and one of the greatest impetus for the belief in a flat Earth is the desire to be significant in this universe. Additionally, this prepares us for what is to come: the balance of the text is equally a politically motivated book with little truth and as much fantasy to motivate first the people of Judea to deal with an influx of Israelis fleeing the Assyrians and then for the Judeans to support King Josiah in his goal of throwing of the yoke of Egyptian suzerainty, a failed venture that led to the death of that king at Megiddo (a place which, translated into the Greek, is also known as Armageddon).

Additionally, even those Christians who accept Genesis, or at least a significant component thereof, to be a fanciful myth never-the-less still often speak of Noah and Adam and tell their stories as if they had any significance to them.

Now, one important point to remember is that despite Judea continuously being referred to as the "land of milk and honey," it is quite a desolate place, and perhaps it is called the land of milk and honey because it's actually rather difficult to grow anything there. The Judean highlands are so undesirable that when the State of Israel was formed, the ancestral home of the Jews, the Judean highlands, was given to the Palestinians and Israel was formed from what used to be the ancestral home of the Philistines, the Canaanites, the Edomites, etc. The Judeans were likely nomadic Canaanite herders who, when the Bronze Age collapse occurred, migrated into the only then uninhabited highlands of Judea when the Canaanite cities fell. Prior to this, these bands of herders traded with the cities of the lowlands for grains, and with the disruption of the economy, the cities fell, too, so the herders made their way into the Judean highlands to begin to grow wheat and other crops. Their earliest settlements paralleled the circle of tents that would be made each evening to corral their animals in the center. Over time, and without any significant external power, an independent people grew in Judea. You need not take my word for this; you are welcome to look at the evidence presented by Israel Finkelstein in both his popular textbooks and his academic papers.

This, however, is not a story of noble origins. This reality would force the Judeans to accept that the Canaanites living in the surrounding cities and settlements were their ancestral cousins, and not their sworn enemy. Instead, the people needed a narrative that set the Judeans apart from those tribes living around them; something to elevate them above those whom they fought with for control of the lands, something to give them a right to the land that they lived on, and a right to the land their neighbors occupied. With this, the Judeans tied together various stories that elevated their history above those surrounding them.

To begin, Abram (later known as Abraham) would now not be a Canaanite herder who moved his band of goat herders, along with others, from the Jordan Rift Valley to the Judean highlands, along with other tribes, while still others migrated into the more fertile Samarian highlands further north. However, this is not the story that is told. Despite being led to Judea by Yahweh

The tribes living in the Samarian highlands were also nomadic herders who migrated into the highlands following the Bronze Age collapse; however, there were no familial relationships between them. This conflict between these tribes is well documented. One of the most significant kings of Samaria was Omri, someone who is hardly mentioned in Judean scriptures, and when he is, he is derided; however, it seems that not only did Omri establish the Kingdom of Israel, but also extended it east of the River Jordan as well as north. Omri, however, married Jezebel, a Phoenician princess, and with this relationship, the worship of Phoenician gods became intertwined with the worship of El.

When the Assyrians destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, many Israelis fled south to Judea, and it is estimated that within a relatively short period of time, the population of Jerusalem exploded by a factor of ten. It was now necessary to integrate the Israeli refugees into the Judean culture, and thus stories

The grandeur of the House of Omri was diminished, and this was instead placed on David and his son Solomon, and the extent of this kingdom was pushed even further beyond the limits that Omri had achieved. The magnificence and extent of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon were attributed to their devotion to Yahweh, while the destruction of Samarian Israel was due to their worship of gods other than Yahweh; yet while even the exploits of Omri are recorded in the records of other kings, the name of the House of David only appears once and the name of Solomon is not even recorded. Very likely, these two were nothing more than highland chieftains who raided Samarian Israelis in the north and Philistines in the west. The survival of Judea likely had at least two reasons: first, the Judean king at the time submitted to the Assyrians and second, the land was of insignificant value.

Skipping to Moses. The story of the exodus from Egypt is fanciful at best, for it claims that five million men together with their families left a country, and yet there is no record of any impact on Egyptian society, nor any mention of the loss. Thus, what is the basis of this story? History is actually more fascinating than story: there are four periods when all of Egypt was united under a single king: the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, the New Kingdom and the Late Period together with the Ptolemaic kings which ended with Cleopatra. Between these periods of unity, the southern Nile was divided into separate kingdoms, and while usually the division was into Lower Egypt (the delta itself) and Upper Egypt (much of what is south of the delta), there were other divisions. During the "intermediate period" between the Middle and New Kingdoms, a Semitic tribe from Asia invaded and established a dynasty that appears to have spanned at least one century and several generations of kings. These were finally conquered by Ahmose I who established the 18th Dynasty and the New Kingdom. It is unclear as to what happened to the Semites, for there is a record of some leaving and returning to Canaan while there are other indications that some remained at Avaris and continued their customs, while others settled elsewhere in Egypt; however, such a story would no doubt be retold with Canaanite and other Semitic heroes ruling over the Egyptians before being forced to flee; and this is paralleled in the story of Moses, where Moses becomes the adopted son of the Pharaoh's daughter, thus at least in theory in line to the throne. The critical aspect here was the gift of the land of Canaan to the people of Judea. This would not benefit the average Judean, but it would give the kings the authority to wage war on their neighbors, wars that would tax the people and had those people not believed that they were the rightful owners of that land, it is much more likely they would have refused to accept the costs involved with such wars of expansion.

The 10 commandments

Exodus 20 is interesting, as it starts by giving the commandments of Yahweh:

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold guiltless anyone who takes his name in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day to set it apart as holy. For six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or the resident foreigner who is in your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Nowhere here does it actually indicate that this is the "end" of the commandments from Yahweh, and indeed, it continues:

All the people were seeing the thundering and the lightning, and heard the sound of the horn, and saw[ar] the mountain smoking—and when the people saw it they trembled with fear and kept their distance. They said to Moses, “You speak to us and we will listen, but do not let God speak with us, lest we die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you so that you do no sin.” The people kept their distance, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.

Thus, it was not Yahweh who ended his dictation here, but rather the people you stopped Yahweh from continuing his dictation. Thus, as Judeans are quite aware, this is not the end of the commandments, but just the start, and the commandments continue to the end of Exodus 23. The only reference to "ten commandments" appears in Deuteronomy 5:

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

The only significant difference is the justification for having the Sabbath:

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Christianity

For Yohanan and Yeshua, theirs was a message that the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh was imminent, and within a decade, if not sooner. It is only after these two died that their followers had to begin to reinterpret the events to explain what really happened versus what they believed would happen, and as time passed, and the kingdom did not come, then further reinterpretations occurred. However, the oldest copies that purported to record the events still contained hints as to what was originally said, and what subsequent interpretations were, even if those interpretations were subsequently further revised. This is not a document to de-convert Christians. True-believers will always have some means of reinterpreting every conflict and contradiction so as to provide some justification for their belief, so explaining where these ideas are likely to have come from means nothing, for the true believer knows what the text actually means, and will interpret it in that context. For me, this is just a summary of threads that seem to be present throughout the scriptures.

Before it is possible to discuss the emergence of Christianity as a religion, it is necessary to understand the context. There are a few observations to consider:

First, the concept of an afterlife is not seriously present in the Jewish scriptures. There is no significant discussion regarding the existence of a place of eternal pleasure or eternal damnation or lakes of sulfur and fire. Heaven appears more to simply be the abode of Yahweh. The rewards for keeping the covenant were given in the here and now: you were rewarded and punished for your actions during your life, and the rewards and punishments due to your actions continued to be given to your descendants for several generations. (Of course, the justice for punishing your great-great-grand children for your misdeeds is beyond this author. More reasonably, it is simply an excuse to justify someone's suffering: if they're not getting punished for their misdeeds, it is the misdeeds of their parents, their grand-parents, or their great-great-great-great-grandparents.) Even during the Babylonian exile, those of the intelligentsia who were brought to Babylon, and those of the lower classes who remained in Judea continued to practice their religion, and while those in Babylon yearned for a return to Zion, they were not punished. Instead, it is in Babylon that the belief that Yahweh was one of many gods was transformed into the belief that Yahweh was the only god, and upon their return, this new belief was imposed on those who had remained in Judea. This is, of course, reasonable, as the purpose of the scriptures was to give support for the aristocracy and priesthood in the here-and-now. It is only after the conquest of Judea by Alexander and the eventual incorporation of Judea into the Seleucid Empire that the Greek overlords imposed their way of life on the Judeans and severely punished any Judean who abode by the covenant, with draconian punishments such as the execution of both the mother and her infant son if the son is circumcised. At this time, the Hellenized Jews who no longer followed the covenant prospered, while those who risked their very lives to live by that covenant suffered. At this time, it was necessary to create a new mythology that provided the rewards in the afterlife, and yet, the belief still did not include a separate realm; instead, there would come a day when all who lived would be resurrected and those who followed the covenant would live forever, while all others would have their souls be obliterated.
Judea became independent again following the Maccabean revolt and the establishment of the Hasmonean Empire. This Jewish empire continued to expand throughout its existence, incorporating into the southern region of Idumaea, also known as Edom, and the people of this region were considered to be the descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob (later given the name Isra-El) and son of Isaac. Those living in this region were forcibly converted to Judaism. Additionally during this time, being an independent empire in the Levant, politics once again began to play a central role in the life of those who lived within the kingdom, and while the secular rule was controlled by the Hasmonean dynasty, discussions over the role of religion led to conflicting views. Some believed that the cultic rituals centered at Jerusalem should be the principal focus of the worship of Yahweh, and the money that was funneled into Jerusalem and those who managed these rites benefitted the priesthood and the aristocracy. Those that supported this point of view were identified as Sadducees, a name derived from Zadok, the first High Priest of the first temple. Others focused on the keeping of the covenant, and this meant obeying all 613 commandments; however, the issue here is that many of the commandments were ambiguous, and thus, those who supported this approach, called Pharisees as they saw their life style as setting themselves apart from others, debated over how to ensure that these commandments were kept. They introduced rules which, if followed, should ensure that none of the commandments were transgressed. While Sadducees and its supporters focused on Jerusalem, the Pharisees could travel throughout the land and encouraged adherence to the covenant and were less inclined to worry about the sacrifices and cultic ritual centered around Jerusalem. A third group tended to what we may consider today to be a monastic lifestyle with voluntary poverty, daily immersion, and the abstinence from sensual pleasures with a priests that practiced celibacy.
When the Hasmonean Empire was finally subjugated by the Roman Empire, it was turned into a client kingdom and Julius Caesar appointed one of these recent converts, Herod, to be the king of this client state. A client state was not a Roman province, but rather a kingdom that paid tribute to Rome and was responsible for its own affairs, and was relatively independent so long as its policies did not go against the interests of Rome. Thus, Herod was seen as an outsider by most of the Judeans and one not fit to reign over Judea, and his faith was always suspect; consequently, Herod forcibly suppressed any descension and used surveillance techniques to gather information about those opposed to his reign. When Herod finally died in 4 BCE, the Romans did not trust any of his sons, and thus did not pass the kingship to any of them. Instead, they approximately divided Herod's kingdom into three regions. The largest, comprising those lands that historically associated with ancient Israel included Judea, Samaria and Idumea, were given to Herod Archelaus and as the ruler of the Judeans, he was given the title of Ethnarch (the ruler of a people). Herod Antipas was given the disconnected regions of Galilee and Perea (lands to the east of Jerusalem across the Jordan River), while Herod Philip was given regions east of the Sea of Galilee. Herod Antipas and Philip were given the title of Tetrarch as their lands were approximately one quarter of the lands of King Herod. Between the realms of Herod Philip and Herod Antipas were the ten client city-states collectively known as the Decapolis, cities of Semitic people such as the Nabataeans, Arameans, and Canaanites. As the events in the gospels generally involve the lands of Herod Archelaus and Herod Antipas, Herod Philip does not play any significant role in the New Testament.
In 6 CE, the Romans had had enough of the antics of Herod Archelaus and deposed him. His regions were reconstituted as the Roman province of Judaea, and as a Roman province, it was now under the control of a Roman prefect, and as a minor province, it was under the administrative control of the Roman province of Syria and its governor; a rank above that of a prefect. Being now under Roman control, it was therefore necessary to impose taxation directly on the people, as opposed to simply receiving tribute from the client ruler, be it Herod the Great or Herod Archelaus. This required a census, and this would be the justification for the first revolt against the new Roman rulers.
The Judean scriptures recorded that King David tried to impose a census on the people of Israel, and he was severely punished for this misdeed: in Second Samuel 24:15-6, it is recorded that Yahweh sent a plague through Israel from the morning until the completion of the appointed time, and 70,000 people died from Dan to Beer Sheba. When the angel extended his hand to destroy Jerusalem, Yahweh relented from his judgment. He told the angel who was killing the people, “That’s enough! Stop now!” (Now the angel of Yahweh was near the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.) At this time, Judas of Galilee and Zadok the Pharisee began one of the first serious opposition to the Roman occupation, and like those who opposed Greek occupation two centuries prior, they focused on punishing those who cooperated with the occupiers. Those who followed these splintered from the existing religious Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes and were identified as Zealots. One could identify these as theocratic nationalists, not too unlikely the Taliban of today.

It is within this environment that Yeshua was born to Yosef and Mariam in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, and Yeshua would have only known Herod Antipas as his ruler. Sepphoris was a city in Galilee that was the center of a revolt when Herod the Great died, and this revolt was suppressed by Varus (better known for having lost three eagles in Germany). Herod Antipas rebuilt the city and was determined to turn the city into his Ornament of Galilee. The proximity of Nazareth to Sepphoris (three miles) makes it not unreasonable that Yosef, Yeshua, Yacob (James) and his other brothers would have taken the one-hour trek for employment in the building of the monumental projects of Herod Antipas and the stark contrast between the opulence of Sepphoris and the impoverished Nazareth would certainly have left an impression on the young workers.

Yohanan and what he taught

Also within this environment, another named Yohanan began to teach his own apocalyptic view: that the time was soon that Yahweh would come to Earth, destroy the Romans and all who oppressed his people, establish his kingdom, raise the dead, judge the living and the dead, and restore his people to their rightful place. To prepare for this event, Yohanan taught that people should engage in voluntary poverty and used ritual immersion in water as part of his ministry; this ritual immersion was an outward sign of repentance while also cleansing the body. What Yohanan taught is limited: “One more powerful than I am is coming after me; I am not worthy to bend down and untie the strap of his sandals. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” He likely also taught of an upcoming judgement: “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clean out his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire.” and “You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore produce fruit that proves your repentance, and don’t think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones! Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

It is likely, therefore, that Yeshua was attracted by this message and participated in the rite of immersion. Yohanan, however, also spoke against Herod Antipas, objecting to Antipas's divorce of his first wife (a Nabataean princess) and marriage to Herodias, the daughter of another son of Herod the Great, who had been married to--and then divorced from--Herod II, yet another son of Herod the Great. For this objection, Herod Antipas had Yohanan imprisoned, and it appears that this imprisonment is what spurred Yeshua to continue the apocalyptic teachings of Yohanan.

Yeshua and what he taught

Yeshua likely left Nazareth and headed for the sea-side town of Capernaum to begin his ministry. It seems to be there that he began to gather his own followers. The later Christian texts portray Yohanan of recognizing Yeshua as the anointed one at Yeshua's ritual immersion: “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” However, many of the followers of Yohanan appear to not have transitioned their allegiance to Yeshua, and followers of Yohanan continued to preach their teacher's message independent of the teachings of Yeshua, even long after the death of their teacher, for Paul is said to have spoken to, and converted, some of his followers.

Like the Pharisees, Yeshua appears to have taught that it was necessary to adhere to the covenant, for “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.” Yet the solution proposed by the Pharisees, the adherence to a plethora of rules, which themselves were debated and discussed, would be burdensome for \commoners. Yeshua seems to have simplified the rules to only a few simple ones that anyone could reasonably be expected to keep: “Love Yahweh, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength and love your neighbor as yourself.” He also appears to have taught a variation of what is now called the golden rule “in everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.” This is a positive form of a rule taught a century earlier by Hillel the Eldar: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

Also, like Yohanan, Yeshua taught that the coming of the kingdom was imminent, for it is recorded that “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Even subsequent followers like Paul taught that the coming of the kingdom was imminent: “For we tell you this by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep.” This was the message of Yeshua and his teacher Yohanan.

The coming is imminent

Over and over, Yeshua and others claim that the coming of the Kingdom of Yahweh would be soon, starting in Mark: Now after John was imprisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. He said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!” In the context of the time, this made sense: Yahweh would come, conquer the Romans and their allies (those who were currently occupying Judea), free and reward those who followed his law, and establish his kingdom on Earth. This sentiment is echoed throughout subsequent sayings, with the first three gospels having Yeshua state a variation of “I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” In the gospel of Matthew, Yeshua is recorded as telling his disciples “I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Paul, while not a disciple of Yeshua, but a subsequent follower and preacher his teachings, also reiterates this sentiment long after Yeshua's execution: “For we tell you this by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” It is clear that Paul is indicating that this event will be occurring within the lifetime of at least some of those who are present, just as Yeshua indicated. Never-the-less, once the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh, now reinterpreted as the "Second Coming of Jesus," did not happen despite the passing of decades and then centuries (and now millennia), all these verses had to be reinterpreted, and modern interpretations claim that the Kingdom of Yahweh is indeed here, or it is our hearts, or something else; and Yeshua's second coming is the future event that was previously predicted. It does not take much effort to find such apologetics, but the most straight-forward explanation is that Yeshua was preaching the imminent coming of the kingdom of Yahweh that would see the overthrow of the Romans, Herod Antipas et al., and it was everyone's expectation, including his, that this was going to happen within Yeshua's lifetime.

Presenting his message at Jerusalem

It seems that over the course of his ministry, Yeshua came to believe that he was himself this Son of Man or Son of God, the anointed one who would usher in the kingdom of Yahweh. A narrative of Peter seeing Yeshua together with Moses and Elijah may have been included later to emphasize that, at the very least, Peter recognized this fact. Yeshua and his followers then travelled to Jerusalem during Passover, and it was here that Yeshua intended to present himself to the people of Judea. His first visit to the temple appears to have him disrupt, or at least speak against, the commercial aspects of Passover, including the necessity of exchanging, for a cost, coins with graven images for coins acceptable for legal tender within the Temple, and the purchasing of animals to be offered for sacrifice. This would have been a significant operation as hundreds of thousands of Judeans from all over the Roman empire and beyond were descending on Jerusalem for this event, and it is unlikely that Yeshua could have halted all such transactions as is suggested, but he does appear to have disrupted it. His actions would have been more insignificant than one person trying to disrupt customs at an international airport: yes, he could cause a local issue, but it would not affect the vast majority of the commerce. Approximately two-thirds of the roughly thirty-acre Temple Mount formed the Court of the Gentiles, and this was divided approximately in half the Temple and its surrounding courts. Yeshua could have been a local nuisance for some of those who were profiting from the temple cult and given the short period during which Passover occurred, any such disruption would be costly. Despite claims within scripture that Yeshua was already an established teacher of significance, it is more likely that he annoyed some individuals who would have brought him to the attention of the aristocracy and the priesthood. Had he done more actual damage at the time, he probably would have simply been arrested by the temple authorities as a disrupting Galilean upstart.

Following this, it seems that Yeshua spent a significant amount of their funds on oil for his own anointing, as this is noted in many of the gospels, yet Yehuda, one of his followers, perhaps disillusioned by Yeshua having had himself anointed or perhaps realizing what Yeshua was now claiming he was indeed the Son of God or the Son of Man, appears to have informed the Jewish leaders regarding this self-declaration. This information is all the Jewish leaders needed, for to declare yourself to be the anointed meant that you were putting yourself in opposition to the Roman rule. The Romans were quick to punish any who engaged in open rebellion or even in sedition with the same punishment: crucifixion. Yehuda delivered Yeshua to the Jewish leaders, who turned him hover to Pilate, who after a quick trial had Yeshua crucified. While all four gospels record different texts of what was written on the cross, the common text is likely what was inscribed, “The king of the Jews,” and this is what Yeshua's was essentially claiming when he had himself anointed and thus declaring himself to be a king, and this anointing was the justification for his execution.

Failed prophecies and disillusioned followers

This should have been the end of this upstart religious sect, but something interesting happened. As is discussed in the text When Prophecy Fails by Leon Festinger, there are conditions under which a failed prophesy, rather than diminishing the faith of the followers, instead emboldens them. It appears that some of the followers did indeed turn from Yeshua's ministry; for of the disciples, few are mentioned after this point apart from subsequent narratives not found in any of the earliest scriptures. Peter is prominent, but the only other name is that Yacob (James), a brother of Yeshua, together with Mariam of Magdala. It is from this core set of believers that subsequent forms of Christianity emerged; however, would take centuries before anything close to modern-day Christianity would emerge. Instead, the believers had to deal with the conflict that Yeshua was to have ushered in the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh, yet instead, he was executed by crucifixion, and according to Judean scripture, if a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. The anointed one should have been a great priest or king, and not one that is executed by the occupiers. There seem to have been two parallel responses:

First, it was claimed that Yeshua was resurrected, and that this resurrection would be the start of the end.
Second, Yeshua's execution for sedition would be interpreted as a Passover sacrifice.

While today both of these are inextricably interwoven, the initial interpretations could have been proposed separately. The author of Mark has Yeshua adopted the Son of God at his baptism, and other narratives demonstrate that there was at least for a time that this adoption was at his resurrection, and as this exaltation was interpreted as the sign of the beginning of the resurrection of the dead and the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh, so there would be no need for a scapegoat; it would have only been later, when it was clear that the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh had not occurred as predicted that the death of Yeshua could also be interpreted as an alternate Passover sacrifice. It is only the last of the written gospels that has his execution occurring approximately six hours before the Passover meal and thus having the execution coincide with the sacrifice of the Passover lambs, while the earlier written gospels had the execution occur the day after the Passover meal, and therefore the day after the Passover lamb was sacrificed. Thus, we will examine these trajectories towards the orthodox interpretation separately.

1. The elevation of Yeshua from man to the divine to Yahweh himself

There were many branches of followers who continued to see Yeshua as only a human and a good teacher. One such branch falls within a collection of branches of followers termed Gnostics. Unlike most other branches, Gnostics taught that salvation was attained through hidden and personal spiritual knowledge regarding the nature of the universe, and it was through this enlightenment that the soul can be freed and escape this world. Those who saw Yeshua as human believed that he had attained this enlightenment, that he had taught this to his disciples, who then continued to pass it on.

A resurrection

One of the first significant events that shaped the future was that at least one follower, likely Mariam of Magdala, claimed that Yeshua had been resurrected. Recall that with the coming of the Kingdom of Yahweh, all those who had died would be resurrected, and thus the teaching of Yeshua that the coming of that Kingdom was soon was reinterpreted as the coming of that Kingdom was beginning now, with Yeshua being among the first to be resurrected, soon to be followed by the resurrection of all others who had died. The author of Matthew even mentions this in his gospel where the "tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had died were raised. (They came out of the tombs after his resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people)" with emphasis that they did not leave their tombs until Yeshua himself was the first to be resurrected. These stories, no doubt, spurred at least some of the remaining followers of Yeshua to continue proclaiming Yeshua's apocalyptic message, and it seems that their numbers did grow: the end was here and now, and the Romans would be vanquished and Yahweh would come down and establish his Kingdom on Earth. Also, Yeshua was the anointed one chosen by Yahweh, and he was the Son of Yahweh. The question now is in what way was he the son of Yahweh? There appear to have been three different narratives for how Yeshua could be the Son of Yahweh:

He was adopted the Son of Yahweh at either his resurrection, his ritual immersion or perhaps even at his birth.
He was born the Son of Yahweh.
He was possessed by a divine Son of Yahweh.
He was the incarnation of a divine Son of Yahweh.

Adoption at his resurrection

The idea that Yeshua was adopted the Son of Yahweh seems to have been an early tradition among his followers, for Paul quotes a creed in his letter to the Romans:

Who was a descendant

of David

with reference to the flesh.

Who was appointed

the Son of God

according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead.

It has been suggested that the inclusion of such a creedal statement was included to emphasize to the Roman church that his beliefs are in harmony with theirs and not those such as the Gnostics or those who did not believe in the resurrection; however, this presents an understanding of Yeshua not found elsewhere in the teaching of Paul, that Yeshua's adoption as the Son of God was at his resurrection, so Paul added the phrase in power following the phrase Son of God. It also emphasizes that Yeshua is a descendant of David.

There is a second hint of this first belief of Yeshua in the text Acts of the Apostles:

And we proclaim to you the good news about the promise to our ancestors,

that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children,

by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.’

But regarding the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and trustworthy promises made to David.’

Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.’

For David, after he had served God’s purpose in his own generation, died, was buried with his ancestors, and experienced decay,

but the one whom God raised up did not experience decay.

The explicit reference to the second Psalm of David, but looking at it closer, once again, it clearly suggests that the "King" is not another aspect of Yahweh. When the rulers of Earth rebel against Yahweh:

The one enthroned in heaven laughs in disgust; Yahweh taunts them.
Then he angrily speaks to them and terrifies them in his rage, saying,
“I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.”
The king says, “I will announce Yahweh’s decree. He said to me:

‘You are my son. This very day I have become your father.
Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property.
You will break them with an iron scepter; you will smash them like a potter’s jar.’”

Again, if this is some prophesy concerning Yeshua, then it is clear that this King mentioned in the Psalms is not Yahweh, and once again, this repeats what is likely the earliest belief of Yeshua, that he was adopted the Son of God upon his resurrection. It may reflect this earliest narrative, but not the ultimate one.

Another tradition within Acts is “that God has made this Yeshua whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” Again, this aligns with the initial belief that Yeshua was a human and not a divine being and that Yeshua was adopted the Son of Yahweh upon his resurrection.

Finally, in Acts 5 is another example of this earliest tradition with Peter saying “We must obey God rather than people. The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses of these events, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.” Again, to exalt is to raise, and if Yeshua was already Yahweh in another form, how could Yahweh exalt Yeshua? If, however, Yeshua was simply a human, then once Yeshua was crucified, Yahweh could exalt Yeshua to his right hand.

Adoption at his ritual immersion

Another interpretation was that Yeshua was adopted the Son of God upon his ritual immersion, as is expressed in the gospel of Mark, for when Yeshua is receiving the rite of immersion, a voice speaks directly to Yeshua “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” Such a statement would be pointless if Yeshua was the same being that was speaking to him, but if it was at this point that Yeshua was being adopted the Son of God, this becomes much more reasonable. This may have been used to explain why Yeshua could perform the miracles he did, for it was this adoption that allowed Yahweh to work these miracles through him.

Some of the oldest copies of Luke also have a different phrasing of what is said to Yeshua: "You are my son. This very day I have become your father." While this contrasts with that gospel's understanding that Yeshua was conceived as the Son of Yahweh, this is therefore very likely a very old tradition that the author never-the-less included.

The Ebionites are one branch of followers who continued to believe that Yeshua was nothing more than the son of Yosef and Mariam and saw him as being adopted the son of Yahweh at his ritual immersion. For centuries, they continued to follow Yeshua's teaching on poverty: “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” They appear to have been vegetarians and rejected animal sacrifice, perhaps instead focusing on Yeshua's teaching of repentance and ritual immersion and a possible understanding that Yeshua was indeed some form of ultimate sacrifice. Ebionites, or branches from this branch, seem to have been in existence for almost a thousand years. There are reports that some within this branch imagined that Yeshua was possessed by an angel at his baptism, and perhaps leaving him during his execution. They also rejected the additional beliefs introduced by Paul and Peter, and instead considered Yacob (James) to be the one to continue the teachings of Yeshua.

Born the Son of Yahweh, or adopted at conception

Subsequent to this idea that Yeshua was adopted at his ritual immersion by Yohanan was the idea that he was the Son of Yahweh his entire life. There may have been some followers who believed he was adopted the Son of Yahweh at either is birth or perhaps even conception, yet if this interpretation existed, it was quickly replaced by an alternate explanation: Yeshua was explicitly born the son of Yahweh through a divine conception, and this is expressed in the gospels of Matthew and Luke: both teach that Mariam would conceive through the Spirit of Yahweh. The authors of Matthew and Luke used the text of Mark as a template, but as the author of Mark saw Yeshua's ritual immersion as the defining moment in Yeshua's life, when the Spirit of Yahweh came down to him, this is where his gospel begins. Consequently, the authors of Matthew and Luke had to introduce a birth narrative, a birth narratives that make Yeshua the Son of Yahweh at conception. Both authors fixated on two requirements.

Yeshua needed to be born in Bethlaham, even though everyone knew that he came from Nazareth.
Due to a translation error in the Greek translation called the Pentateuch, it was seen as necessary that Yeshua be born the son of a virgin.

Consequently, both introduce mutually contradictory birth narratives:

Matthew has the family living in Bethlehem, and when they return from Egypt after King Herod dies, it is their intention to return to Bethlehem, only they fear Herod Archelaus, the ethnarch of Samaria, Judea and Idumea who is the son of King Herod, so they are told to flee to Galilee ruled by Herod Antipas, and they almost by chance seem to come upon Nazareth. Luke, however, has the family living in Nazareth, coming to Bethlehem for an Empire-wide census that is recorded nowhere else, and then returning to Nazareth while passing through Jerusalem less than a month later.
Matthew has Yeshua born prior to the death of King Herod, who died in 4 BCE, and as King Herod had all infants who were under the age of two killed, it seems that Yeshua could have been born as early as 6 BCE. Luke has Yeshua born after Herod Archelaus was deposed by the Romans, which was 6 CE, so a decade spans the two proposed dates of Yeshua's birth.

There is no means of reconciling these two birth narratives, and given that the author of Luke copied many texts from Mark either verbatim or nearly verbatim, the author denigrates other narratives with his opening text: "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." Also, this now introduces a conflict, as Yeshua is no longer a descendant of David, for Yosef is relegated to the position of guardianship. In Luke, however, the older traditions that are included still hint at older stories where Yosef is the father of Yeshua, for when Yeshua visits the temple at the age of twelve, it refers to Yosef and Mariam as his parents, and Yosef as his father.

The author of Matthew takes note of what is written in Mark, and deliberately changes what is said at his ritual immersion, so now the voice is introducing Yeshua to those around him: “This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.” This denies the previous beliefs that Yeshua was adopted the Son of Yahweh at his ritual immersion by Yohanan.

This understanding of Yeshua did not disappear quickly, as Arius (c. 256–336 AD) was an Egyptian elder who continued to teach that Yeshua was the Son of Yahweh and therefore distinct from Yahweh, and Yeshua only came in to existence with his birth. Arius specifically taught that Yeshua was subordinate to Yahweh, and the teachings of Arius continued were introduced to and perpetuated in the aristocracy of many of the Germanic tribes that invaded Western and Southern Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire, and these beliefs continued into the eighth century.

An incarnation

As opposed to Yeshua coming into existence at his birth, and either being adopted the Son of Yahweh, or being the Son of Yahweh through the mediation of the Spirit of Yahweh, others saw Yeshua as a pre-existent divine being that was in some way associated with Yehsua. There seem to be at least two interpretations, including the ideas that Yeshua was in some ways an incarnation of either the Angel of Yahweh, or the Word of Yahweh. Specifically, we will look at the writings of Paul and of the author of the gospel of John.

We will note that the author of John clearly understood that Yeshua pre-existed his birth as a being described as the Word of Yahweh, and while this gospel was written well after both Matthew and Luke, there is ample evidence that others believed that Yeshua was a pre-existent being even before the author of Mark put to paper his belief that Yeshua was adopted the Son of Yahweh at his ritual immersion by Yohanan. For this, we do not even need to leave the canonical Christian literature.

For this, we need only look at the letters of Paul: someone who understood Yeshua to be an angelic being, but not equal to Yahweh.

Finally, that he was God. This led to some of the greatest and creative reinterpretations of the status of Yeshua. It was clear that Yeshua was separate from Yahweh, for there was a father-son relationship between the two, but if Yeshua was also a supreme being or god, then that would change Christianity to a polytheistic religion; that is, a religion no different from the pagan beliefs around them. Thus, it was posited that Yeshua and Yahweh were "one but different." The absurdity of this claim is clear to anyone who has not been immersed in this creed. Into this mix, however, a third being was included.

Around the turn of the century, there are a number of discussions concerning three beings:
The writings in 1 Clement 46:6 state that "[d]o we not have one God, and one Christ, and one gracious Spirit that has been poured out upon us, and one calling in Christ?"

Didache states that one must "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Ignatius of Antioch required obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit."

The term trinity is only coined in the late second century by Theophilus of Antioch who defines the trinity as God, his Word and his Wisdom.

Angel of God

Word of God

Spirit of God

Son of God

Messenger of God

Wisdom of God

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was fully God.

The Word was with God in the beginning.

All things were created by him,

and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

In him was life,

and the life was the light of mankind.

And the light shines on in the darkness,

but the darkness has not mastered it.

He himself was not the light,

but he came to testify about the light.

The true light, who gives light to everyone,

was coming into the world.

He was in the world,

and the world was created by him,

but the world did not recognize him.

He came to what was his own,

but his own people did not receive him.

But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children—children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.

Now the Word became flesh

and took up residence among us.

We saw his glory—the glory of the one

and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.

For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another.

For the law was given through Moses,

but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.

No one has ever seen God.

The only one, himself God,

who is in closest fellowship with the Father,

has made God known.

But he was human

Despite the gradual reinterpretation of Yeshua from being a human to him being interpreted as being a divine being, and then equal to Yahweh, many Christian sects continued to hold that he was born as a human; after all, he could only be a descendant of David if Yosef was his father. These included the followers of Arius, mentioned above, but also include the

2. From execution for sedition to a sacrificial lamb

Initially, there would have been no immediate need to recognize that Yeshua was in any way a sacrifice: the kingdom of Yahweh was coming, and the story of his resurrection signaled the start of the end.

Two nights in the tomb

Yeshua was executed, he was executed the day before the Sabbath, and his body was laid in the ground before sunset, for the Sabbath begins at sunset and this is recorded in each of the gospels. What is also recorded is that the women went to the tomb the morning of the day after the Sabbath. Thus, if Yeshua had been buried 6:00 on a Friday, and the women visited at, say, 9:00 on the next Sunday, that is no more than approximately 40 hours, and only two nights. At least one of the gospels suggests otherwise, “for just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.”

A change in the time of execution

The first three gospels record Yeshua's execution as occurring on the day after the Passover meal; that is, the day after the Passover lamb was sacrificed. Yeshua is said to have that meal with his followers, and this is where Yeshua holds what would be his last supper. In the last gospel, the author of John moves that last meal to the day before the Passover dinner, so that Yeshua is executed on the day of Passover: Yeshua now symbolically becomes the Passover lamb, and his execution is interpreted as the sacrifice of that lamb. In that gospel, it is clear that the Passover meal has not yet been eaten, for when Yeshua is delivered to the Roman authorities, it notes [the Jewish leaders] did not go into the governor’s residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. Yeshua is executed that day and buried that day, for the next day, according to the author, is still the Sabbath.

In Matthew 19, a rich young man asked Yeshua “what good thing must I do to gain eternal life?” Yeshua replied with “...if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” When asked which commandments to keep, Yeshua lists “Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.” When pressed for what else must be done, Yeshua replies “If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Throughout Matthew, the author continues to emphasize that works are necessary for salvation: “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.” The author continues “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.” and “[i]n everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.” The author continues, “Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. How narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life, and there are few who find it!” The author impresses upon the reader the dire situation that believers will find themselves in: “Brother will hand over brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by everyone because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved!”

This narrative of what is required of a Christian is also supported by the author of Luke when that individual narrates the story of Ananias and Sapphira, both of whom sold their property, but kept part of the proceeds back from Peter. Upon hearing that their transgression was known to all, they both collapsed and died. Thus, the author of Luke interprets Yeshua's teaching so that if you sell your possessions but do not give the money to the poor, you are cursed and doomed.

However, this is not the author of Luke's reason for salvation. Once interpolated texts are removed, what remains is that it is the unjustified nature of Yeshua's execution as that which drives people to recognize their own sins, and it is when they repent that their sins are forgiven. The execution is the trigger, not the justification for the forgiving of sins. This is also clear when Yeshua is executed: the curtain in the temple is ripped while Yeshua is alive and suffering on the cross. It is only after the curtain is ripped that Yeshua utters his last words and breathed his last breath. Additionally, this parallels the ministry of Yohanan: "[i]n the wilderness John the baptizer began preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." as is recorded in Mark, but also in Luke: "He went into all the region around the Jordan River, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." Interestingly, Matthew, while copying off of Mark, leaves this out.

A linear trajectory?

The above describes a reasonable idea as to what may have been the development of what is today described as orthodoxy; that is, the right belief. The earliest Christians did not have a concept of the trinity, and no mention is made of this throughout the text. Yeshua seems to be a human in Mark, the explicitly son of Yahweh in Matthew and Luke, and a pre-existent being in John and the letters of Paul. First, the coming of the kingdom of Yahweh was imminent, so there was no reason for a sacrifice, but later, the coincidence of Yeshua's death at the Passover allowed subsequent authors to reinterpret his death to coincide with the sacrifice of the Passover lamb, even though the three earliest gospels have Yeshua eating the Passover meal with his disciples. However, these were not the only trajectories, and

The teachings of Nestorius

Nestorius explained the existence of Yeshua as follows: Yeshua was a human but within this human was also the divine Word of Yahweh, and these were separate from each other. He seems to have taught that this union began at conception; however, this was deemed to still be too close to the idea that Yeshua was adopted the son of Yahweh, even if this union occurred at conception. While being separated from the orthodox branch in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, descendants of this branch continue today in sects such as the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East.

The teachings of Arius

Another interpretation of Yeshua is that he was the Word of Yahweh, that this being was the son of Yahweh, and that this birth was an event in time, so the Word of Yahweh is not Yahweh, but rather subordinate to Yahweh as his son. A proverb of the Judean scriptures that supported this position included:

The Lord created me as the beginning of his works,
before his deeds of long ago.

From eternity I have been fashioned,
from the beginning, from before the world existed.

When there were no deep oceans I was born,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;

before the mountains were set in place—
before the hills—I was born.

Thus, the Word of Yahweh was the first and most-perfect creation of Yahweh, and was gifted by Yahweh a status equal to Yahweh himself.The teachings of Paul were used to support this position, although as has been suggested otherwise, Paul appears to have seen Yeshua as an angel. Never-the-less, the referenced text is

If after all there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is

one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live,

and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.

Monarchianism versus trinitarianism

The trinity was not a concept that seems to have even appeared in significance until the idea that Yeshua was in some way Yahweh, but it was therefore necessary to define this relationship. For Arius, Yeshua was the son of Yahweh, but others placed Yeshua, or the Word of Yahweh on par with Yahweh; however, Judaism was monotheistic, and thus one driving force behind any evolution in the interpretation of Yeshua required that there still be only "one" god. Trinitarianism introduced the idea that there are three beings that are never-the-less the same being. Others, however, preferred to see Yahweh as a single being that is not somehow split into three independent beings, but that this one being has three separate presentations or modes, so there is no significant difference between Yahweh, the Word of Yahweh, or the Spirit or Wisdom of Yahweh. This view, however, led to some awkward interpretations, for now Yahweh was in a sense sending himself to Earth, and sacrificing himself to himself, and that Yahweh himself suffered during his execution. Thus, while these formulations were first described at the end of the second century, they were deemed to have been non-orthodox, and these ideas died out over the next two centuries. Two individuals who came up with such formulations include Praxeus from Asia Minor who lived at the end of the second century and the start of the third, and the early third century Berber Sabellius.

Photinus: Yeshua was just a man

Even past the 4th century, some continued to believe that Yeshua began with his birth and that he was human. Photinus was one such bishop, and he believed that Yeshua was conceived the Word of Yahweh, but throughout his life, he was just a human being. This seems to combine elements of a virgin birth where Yahweh is the father of Yeshua, but still a human.

Apollinaris of Laodicea

Also in the 4th century, Apollinaris taught that Yeshua had a human body and soul, but to have a human mind would make him liable to sin, and therefore the mind was replaced by the mind of the Word of Yahweh. This substitution allowed for Yeshua to be an appropriate sacrifice.

Teachings of Marcion

I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.

Christianity

1. The elevation of Yeshua from man to the divine to Yahweh himself

2. From execution for sedition to a sacrificial lamb​

A linear trajectory?

2. From execution for sedition to a sacrificial lamb