The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

my point is that since Jesus was portrayed as someone well known to both the public and to the authorities (both Roman and Jewish), how could such a myth gain acceptance?  After all, would you buy into a story of a man who supposedly was well known yet no one you know had ever heard of him?  Now, such a tell might possibly sell in BFE, but not in Roman ruled towns that were hooked into the goings on.

How do you explain so many buying into the existence of a previously unknown gospel written down on golden plates never shown publicly?  The fact is that it's not at all uncommon historically for religions to grow quickly despite being considered a myth by the vast majority.  The rapid growth of Christianity in general, and the Pauline version of it in particular is but one example of many.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

my point is that since Jesus was portrayed as someone well known to both the public and to the authorities (both Roman and Jewish), how could such a myth gain acceptance?  After all, would you buy into a story of a man who supposedly was well known yet no one you know had ever heard of him?  Now, such a tell might possibly sell in BFE, but not in Roman ruled towns that were hooked into the goings on.

How do you explain so many buying into the existence of a previously unknown gospel written down on golden plates never shown publicly?  The fact is that it's not at all uncommon historically for religions to grow quickly despite being considered a myth by the vast majority.  The rapid growth of Christianity in general, and the Pauline version of it in particular is but one example of many.

Except that the majority didn't consider the existence of a religious leader named Jesus (Christ) a myth.

And the majority believed in the existence of Joseph Smith as well.  But did the majority in the 1st century AD believe in the miracles attributed to him and his apostles?  No, and that was the point I was making.  And even of those who did believe in the miracles, it is far from from clear that a majority of them believed that they were because he was the literal son of God.

Other than a few kooks who don't deserve to be called scholars, that Jesus existed is not in doubt.  That the doctrines he preached correspond to Pauline Christianity is in doubt.  There are a number of parallels that could be drawn between early Mormonism and early Christianity, tho how valid those parallels are, we can never be certain of, mainly because we have far less historical knowledge of Paul of Tarsus and Jesus of Nazareth than we do of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, or for that matter of Bahá'u'lláh and Báb to name a third example so that you don't think that the parallels I mention are solely between Mormonism and Christianity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

there is no evidence that the authors of the NT performed a coup upon some supposed “original” Christians.

There is considerable evidence that the First Jewish Revolt did the coup, with the more Judaic branches of pre-Revolt Christianity largely crushed between the Roman rock and rhe Zealot hard place.

Indeed, one could argue that Judaism died in the Jewish Revolts, with two successor religions Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism being founded out of the ashes.
 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, the book of Acts was also written before the revolt, as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians and James' letter, and those books have James agreeing with the Law of Moses being superseded.

First off, the date of when Luke-Acts and the Epistle of James were written is disputed, and by no means is there anything close to agreement that they were written pre-Revolt.  I'll concede that point for now, as it does not help your argument in the least.  The people who followed a Jewish Christianity and thus their documents and traditions would be largely destroyed in the Jewish Revolts.  Arguing that an absence of evidence implies evidence of absence is not good logic.  Indeed, Paul's own letters indicate that there were a wide variety of early Christians, hence his need even at that early date to warn against what he viewed as error.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why the mention of Armstrong?  I think we can both agree he wasn't around in the 1st century. His personal repugnance has as much to do with whether Jewish Christianity is desirable as Hitler's evilness has to do with the desirability of vegetarianism.

You also are taking a very illogical turn with your belief that establishing the historical veracity of one aspect of any a biblical book can be used to establish the historical veracity of other parts of that book, or worse that of the entire NT.  The most effective lies are mostly truth because it makes it easier for others to swallow the falsehood concealed within.  Therefore, each assertion of historical fact in the bible has to be judged on its own merits.  To do otherwise is to be acting on faith not logic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why the mention of Armstrong?  I think we can both agree he wasn't around in the 1st century. His personal repugnance has as much to do with whether Jewish Christianity is desirable as Hitler's evilness has to do with the desirability of vegetarianism.

only because you acted as if I wasn't aware of the history of Judaizers…not only am I aware of their recorded history in the NT, I also have had modern contact with them.

Well if your modern contact with Judaizers has only been with Armstrongites, I can understand why they would leave you with an unfavorable impression.

You also are taking a very illogical turn with your belief that establishing the historical veracity of one aspect of any a biblical book can be used to establish the historical veracity of other parts of that book, or worse that of the entire NT.  The most effective lies are mostly truth because it makes it easier for others to swallow the falsehood concealed within.  Therefore, each assertion of historical fact in the bible has to be judged on its own merits.  To do otherwise is to be acting on faith not logic.

Then please paint us a “corrected” historical record which allows Judaizers to be the real Christians and the writers of the NT to imposters.

In fact, why don’t you just skip straight to the scriptural proof and start with the OT and show how the current theology of the NT in regard to the Law of Moses being superseded is in error.

I think we already had this debate over whether when God says something is perpetual or everlasting, does He mean it? Of course, the Law of Moses was established for the Hebrews, not humanity in general (save for its regulations concerning non-Hebrew interactions with Hebrews).  So Paul is correct that the Gentiles need not become Jews in order to receive God's grace, but it is an error to then go beyond that and assert that the Jews are no longer bound by the perpetual ordinances that were established for them, such as the Sabbath and circumcision.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The lengthy gap in the temple observances doesn't bother me as it does you.  There have been previous gaps during the periods that the Jews turned away from God, such as when the tabernacle was captured and the period between the first and second temples.  Leviticus 26:27-45 conveys God's warning to the Jews of what will happen when they turn away from Him, and his promise to honor the perpetual covenant when they return to Him.  They just haven't returned, and until they do, there can be no third temple.

Incidentally, the bolded parts of your quote of Exodus 12 show up what I consider one of the weaknesses of the NIV translation.  Most other translations use "perpetual" or "everlasting" there to translate עוֹלָם (Strong's H5769).  That word occurs numerous times in the OT and always in the sense of forever, not in the sense of a long but not endless time as "lasting" would suggest as a possibility.

As for your popcorn example, if we Gentiles are there, then Numbers 15:14-15 is generally applicable.  We Gentiles are not obligated to participate in the ordained Jewish rituals, but if we attend, then we participate in the same manner as the Jews.

There have always been those who insist on following their desires in how to worship God instead of following His ordinances.  The incident of the Golden Calf despite having heard God Himself forbid idolatry is one example.  Nadab and Abidu were consumed for offering unsanctified fire. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were swallowed up by the earth for disputing Aaron's selection to the high priesthood.  When the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon to build the Second Temple, the offers by the Samaritans to help were rebuffed.  We Gentiles are not part of God's chosen priesthood.  Pauline Christianity conveniently forgets that point.  Armstrongites embrace the silliness of Anglo-Israelism to get around that point.  And why?  Because people mistakenly assume that being part of God's priesthood means that one will be more highly valued by God.

But that one is not part of the priesthood does not mean that one cannot fully partake of God's grace.  The priesthood is an office, but it does not carry any special exaltation on the part of the holders.  That was a crucial error the Jews were making by the first century.  They were presuming their status as the chosen priesthood of God unto the nations made them superior.  They also had come to worship the laws that had given them rather than worship God, effectively turning them into a second brazen serpent.  Yet the Biblical text indicates quite the opposite.  God chose them because they were a motley bunch, and thus if they succeeded it would be an example of God's power.

The purpose of the Last Supper was not to institute a replacement for the Passover, altho the timing of the crucifixion was chosen to point out that a sacrifice was being made.  Rather, the communion of the Synoptics and the foot-washing of John both serve to reinforce a central tenet of Jesus' teachings, that one's station in life is not a reflection of the value God places upon one.  It is also a central theme of the Old Testament, along with relating the continuing unbelief in the universality of God's love, regardless of birth or station.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll work you up a complete list of them when I have time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Covenants and ordinaces qualified by עוֹלָם (Strong's H5769) in the first five books of the OT to be perpetual.

Genesis 9:12,16 - The covenant to never flood the earth again.

Genesis 13:15, 17:7-8 - The promise that the land of Canaan would belong to Abraham's descendants.

Genesis 17:13 - The covenant of circumcision for Abraham, his descendants, and their slaves.

Genesis 17:19 - The covenant that will be made with Isaac. (Uncertain, but I take this to refer to Genesis 22:17-18.)

Genesis 22:17-18 - (by way of Gen 17:19) The descendants of Isaac will possess the gates of their enemies, and all nations shall be blessed by Isaac's descendants.

Genesis 48:4 - (as recounted by Jacob to Joseph) The promise that the land of Canaan would belong to Jacob's descendants specifically out of Abraham's descendants.

Exodus 12:14,17,24 - Jews are to celebrate the Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread.

Exodus 27:21, 28:43, 29:9,28, 30:21, 40:15 - Various regulations pertaining to the priesthood.

Exodus 31:16-17 - Jews are to celebrate the Sabbath.

Leviticus 3:17 - Jews are to eat neither fat nor blood.

Leviticus 6:18,22, 7:34,36, 10:9,15, 24:3,8,9, 25:32,34 - Various regulations pertaining to the priesthood.

Leviticus 16:29,34, 23:31 - Jews and Gentiles residing among them must do no work on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.

Leviticus 17:7 - No Jew is to make a sacrifice except at the altar in front of the tabernacle.

Leviticus 23:14 - No Jew in the land of Israel is to eat bread or grain until the offering of first fruits has been made at the temple.

Leviticus 23:21 - Jews are to celebrate Shavuot (aka Pentecost).

Leviticus 23:41 - Jews are to celebrate Sukkot.

Numbers 10:8, 18:8,11,19,23, 19:10,21, 25:13 - Various regulations pertaining to the priesthood.

Numbers 15:15 - Gentiles may offer sacrifice in the same manner as the Jews. Gentiles residing in the land of Israel are subject to the same laws as the Jews.


Not a lengthy list of perpetual requirements for the Jews unless you want to go into details of the priesthood.  Keep the three festivals, keep the day of repentance, keep the sabbath, don't eat fat or blood, and circumcise.

If עוֹלָם does not mean perpetual but only until Jesus came, you may want to consider buying a big boat, since we could have another flood at any time in that case.

I won't claim that there might not be other perpetual requirements that used other language to assert that.  While I have been going through the Bible for a careful perusal of its contents, that perusal has not yet reached Deuteronomy, which doesn't use עוֹלָם very much. (I could have included Deuteronomy 23:3,6 in my list above, but I doubt regulations concerning the Ammonites and Moabites have much relevance when they no longer exist as peoples.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not saying that's it's my right to change any of the law.  Quite the contrary.  What I am pointing out are those portions which according to the Bible, God Himself said were perpetual and thus would not be subject to later revisions by Him.  Hence, any later statement that purports to revoke those portions is indicative either of error or of a capricious God who cannot be trusted to keep His word. For what I hope are obvious reasons, I choose the former. I do not believe in a capricious God.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.

I've been on this forum for 10 years, and I have never treated the Law of Moses as anything other than a whole.  And I have also stated that the entire Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Christ and superceded by the New Covenant.

Understood.  You claim the whole of the Mosaic Law is superseded.  Problem is, this contradicts what the Old Testament says.

All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

so, you're admitting that nothing in the bible gives you permission to parse the Law of Moses, and that therefore you have no basis in doing so?  In fact, you're admitting that you don't even trust the scriptures?

I don't consider anything written by Paul to be scripture.  The contradictions between what he wrote concerning the Mosaic Law and what is in the received Pentateuch are so great, that the only logical alternative is to believe that major errors are in the received Pentateuch.  Problem is, once one does that, if one claims major errors in the Pentateuch, then one has thrown out everything certain about the Judeo-Christian tradition, so that all one is left with is a bunch of unrigorous nonsense.  (Which might be fine for a Universalist, but not for me.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?! 

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.   There were suspensions in the temple observances before the destruction of Herod's Temple during the periods when the Jews turned away from God.  Until they return to God, even if they were to observe the temple rites they would be of no value, which is why God has prevented them from occurring.  Only when God deems that the Jews have returned to God can the temple be restored.

I am not a hard supersessionist.  The passage you quote in Jeremiah is consistent with soft supersessionism, in which the new covenant is an addition to, not a replacement for the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. I do not see the rending of the veil as symbolic of the termination of the old covenants, but as a symbol that until the Jews returned to God, a return which necessarily includes their acceptance of Jesus, the temple rites were no longer of value. Works alone are insufficient if they are not done with the proper faith.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.

How do you know it is the later statement that is false, rather than the former?

Pauline Christianity asserts not only that the former is true but predicts its own beliefs, so the combination of the error being in the OT while the Pauline texts are correct cannot be logically held.  That both are in error would be logically consistent, but would make the Bible not particularly useful as a basis of religious belief.

Unlike Pauline Christianity, Islam asserts that the Biblical texts are corrupted and that is what caused God to give the Quran to Muhammad.  While logically consistent, I don't believe in Muhammad any more than I do Paul or Joseph Smith.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ernest,

How in the world would Jewish Christians have a Temple or Tabernacle system of worship without the inner sanctuary called the Holy of Holies?!  

How do Jewish Non-Christians handle it?  Simple, until the temple is restored, the sacrifices are on hold.  

You misunderstood my point – Matthew/Mark/Luke state that the veil tore, meaning that God’s presence is no longer to be found in the Holy of Holies, if it were still there, then the tearing of the veil would have killed everyone on the other side of the curtain (which was the purpose of the curtain to begin with).  So, if there is no longer any need for the Holy of Holies, then it doesn’t matter if the Temple is restored or not – there is simply nothing to restore for a Christian in regard to the Temple without the presence of God in the Holy of Holies.

While we agree that the rending of the veil signifies that God's presence left the Holy of Holies, we profoundly disagree on the reason why, and whether there will be a time He deems it proper to return.

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

another point – I have repeatedly ignored your attempts to claim I am saying ALL previous covenants of God were superseded by the New Covenant….but I have NEVER made that argument, rather I am only referring to the Law of Moses (the covenant made at Mt Sinai) .

So you believe that Jews still need to circumcise?  I was under the impression that you thought they did not, yet circumcision is part of the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Mosaic one.

Going off on a tangent, are you one of those who believe that a Temple rebuilt by non-Christian Jews is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ?  (While you've probably answered this before, I don't recall your answer.)

Yep, for that is the location from where the antichrist will be ruling when Christ returns, and will be the location where Christ will rule during his 1000 year reign on earth.

Zechariah 14:16 “Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles.  If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.”

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?

John 4: 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”  21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Jesus stated the true worshipers of God will no longer have to follow the Law of Moses and come to Jerusalem once a year – thus declaring that observance to the Feast of Tabernacles was no longer required of God’s people.

Though I would want more time to study the passages in question before asserting that this is how they should be resolved, at first glance I can reconcile the two passages by having John 4:21 refer to the upcoming period of the temple interregnum that began with Christ's death on the cross, not to a permanent cessation of the temple rituals.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How do you reconcile Zechariah 14:16 with the passage you quoted earlier from John 4?
 

The context of Zechariah 14:16 is clearly AFTER Christ is physically ruling from Jerusalem (post church age), and the context of John 4 of not having to go up to Jerusalem is a statement regarding the Church Age.

Then for once, we are in general agreement, tho we definitely differ on the details.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Zech has the GENTILES coming to Jerusalem and celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles AFTER the Church Age…yet you say the Jews, and only the Jews, are suppose to keep those feasts DURING the Church Age, when that is both physically (there is no Temple) and theologically (the veil has been torn from the onset of the Church Age) impossible.

No, not during the present time, since we are in a temple interregnum, as has happened before.

By your argument, the need to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles ended with the destruction of the First Temple, since they were impossible, and yet they resumed.  We are in a temple interregnum and we do not and will not know when the interregnum shall end and the feasts called for in the Mosaic covenant shall resume.

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?

I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.  I'll get to the superstructure when I have time.  Our conversations here caused me to start a careful review of the Bible so as to put my beliefs into better definition, starting with Genesis, but in the past few months I've only gotten as far as Leviticus.  It's tempting to just bypass the temple rituals as they aren't something I expect will resume in my lifetime (tho I could be wrong), but I'm giving it all the same level of detail that I did the the earlier parts that were more interesting to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It’s as if you are a purposely hundreds of miles away from civilization, claiming you know exactly where you are…then along comes some random hiker who points out that you have your map upside down and you respond, “Oh, thanks, I never noticed that…but I can assure you, I still know where I am!”

Well the choice of which direction on a map is up is fairly arbitrary, and even now is North is not always on top.  Indeed, for a map of a hiking trail, which direction is up generally depends on which direction you are following the trail.  Since a random hiker encountered on such a trail is more likely going in the opposite direction, I wouldn't be surprised that said hiker thinks my map is upside down, since for him it would be.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, don’t you find it a bit ironic that you have walked way way out on a limb, basically by yourself, opposing much of the NT and 99% of Christianity, yet you were caught off guard by the passages I referenced?

I haven't had the chance to study the minor prophets in detail.  I've focused my energies to date on the core portions of both the Old and New Testament, the Torah and the Gospels, as without them there can be no firm foundation.

So, just to be clear:  you are a Christian who rejects the arguments of the NT regarding the superseded of the Law of Moses, because you believe you know more than the early church authors of the NT about God’s intentions…yet you haven’t even read the entire bible, much less made a working model of what the bible says.

I've read the whole bible, I just haven't read it with the rigor I'm applying now so as to be able to better answer questions others have about my beliefs and so as to be more thorough in the details of my beliefs.  So far, what I have reexamined (not examined for the first time as you would have it) has confirmed my beliefs.  I would say that the most interesting thing I have gleaned so far from my more detailed reading is that the tabernacle layout has correspondences to the placement of the cherubim and flaming sword that guarded the east of Eden after the expulsion of Adam and Eve.  This indicates to me that the tabernacle layout was not created ex nihilo, but was based upon earlier arrangements not described in detail in the Bible.

What, exactly, started you down this path?  Did you just wake up one morning and decide, “Hey, even though I haven’t read the bible, I’m going to oppose the NT and invent a conspiracy to explain it”?

Would you knock off the conspiracy nonsense that you keep bringing up on your own?  I neither need nor use a conspiracy to explain why Pauline Christianity became the dominant form of Christianity.  That rise was a natural outcome of the devastation of the Judaic Christian communities as a byproduct of the Jewish Revolts.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Was Paul the only Apostle who traveled outside of Jerusalem?

Leaving aside that Paul's status as an apostle depends on how you define the term, no.  However Paul was definitely the most prominent of the Gentilizers, and the Jewish Revolts definitely tilted the tables in favor of the Gentilizers over the Judaizers and the Moderates, both because the latter two suffered disproportionate losses, but also it made being a Jew of any belief hazardous.

Final question:

If Jesus stated in John 4:21 that the Church Age would not include the requirement of any believer to worship in Jerusalem (which wipe outs many of the Law’s “perpetual” requirements from the Church Age)…why do you claim Jewish Christians are still required to obey the rest of the Law of Moses during the Church Age?

I've already covered this, but I'lllanswer it again for what I hope will be the final time.  I don't see the Messianic Covenant a a replacement for any of the covenants, but as an addition to the existing covenants.  Hence, for the observance of the Mosaic Law, the situation in the Church Age is analogous to that of the Babylonian Captivity. Jews are to follow the Law to the best of their ability to do so. To hold otherwise would imply that during the Babylonian Captivity the Jews then had no obligation to follow the Mosaic Law as best they could.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole basis of your “perpetual” argument is shown to run contrary to the historical (~30AD) events and statements recorded in all 4 gospels, events that were 40 years PRIOR to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

John 4:21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

Nor did the veil wait until 70AD to be torn, rather it did so at the moment of Christ’s death:  Mat 26:51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…Mark 15: 38 The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom…Luke 23:45 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

Without God's presence in it, the Temple is just an ordinary building. That it took another four decades for the building to be destroyed is irrelevant.  The Temple was gone from the moment the curtain was rent.

As Strphen is reported tio have said before his stoning:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the requirements of Jewish Christians changed at the death of Christ (~30AD), not at the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

You are placing an unwarranted emphasis on the physical building.  And certainly the early church did not say at first that the Law of Moses would be changed by Jesus  If it did, then why was it needful to produce false witnesses that Stephen had said that Jesus had said he would change the Law of Moses?  The non-Christian Jews could have produced true witnesses if that was the case and convicted him of blasphemy by the very gospel he spoke.

I find it ironic that you seem to think the lies the witnesses told about the first martyr were actually true.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Take for exmaple the "Red Sea" was actually Sea of Reeds in Hebrew

This always seemed like a ridiculous cop out to me.  You could wade through the Sea of Reeds on a good day with no part at all.  If this was, in fact, the body of water, why even write it as a "miracle" in the first place?  There'd be no miracle in the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds: the miracle, if any, would be the Egyptians managing to drown in it.  (Same thing goes for the Israelites' later crossing of the River Jordan under Joshua, which is about waist-high, but which is parted anyway for no discernible reason).  How could the author of Exodus portray parting the Sea of Reeds as a miracle when it'd be manifestly unnecessary for passage out of Egypt without the original audience for which the text was intended laughing off the "miracle?"  At least the Red Sea is a formidable body of water.

In a way I have much more respect for someone like jmfcst that flat-out accepts the miracles in the Biblical narrative over someone that tries to explain them away and ends up with a text that loses all its punch.

Trying to fix the place names in Exodus with specific locations is pretty much a fool's errand.  You can come up with pretty theories, but none of them can be proven.  That said, the real barrier for Israel was not any body of water in their path, but rather the lack of water for all the people and animals following Moshe.

A flash flood on command to drown pharaoh's chariots is both believable and miraculous, so the Sea of Reeds theory is workable.  The only other alternative I've come across that seems to make sense is a crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But neither theory is provable.

That Israel headed down the west coast of the Gulf of Suez for a crossing of either the Gulf of Suez or the main portion of the Red Sea does not make sense to me.  Given how stiff-necked and disputatious Israel is portrayed, you'd think someone would have pointed out that you can't get to Canaan that way.  Yes, the ancients did at times have a poor grasp of geography, but not that poor.