Lausten, too many damn distraction going on right now for me. Maybe I didn’t not get my thoughts out correctly on my last post to you and would like to try again. I don’t know where you come up with I think Israel did not allow others to examine it. They had no choice, this was a trial in the court of law. It was after the case was over that they did not want to give the box back because it was one of the greatest finds in Israel. You’ll find that in the news after the trial.
Point in logic and reasoning.
With a shit load of data that is available today. Add the technical advancements and you will find that new levels of experts are available in the field of religion. One would not have though a few years back that an investigative reporter could compete with top professors in religion.
Today one is able to find data and backing that supports one’s views. Even if the views are wrong. That why an investigative reporter is able to deliver ground breaking discoveries. By the nature of their work they must use logic and reasoning to find the truth in the story.
Point to be made. Simply put, to rewrite the history of religion based upon facts and science without the immense controlling influence of religion and political pressures.
The example. The Bone Boxes. A court case most readers will be familiar with. The government of Israel took the owner of the box, Oded Golan to court as a serial forger. The government prosecution trial took ten years and used 100 experts and witnesses. Over 12,000 pages of testimony. If I remember, they used 40 Israel experts in the different fields of religious studies. Some considered top experts in the world - did not look good for Oded.
Now add Simcha Jacobovici who was doing the documentary –The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Simcha thought that the box was the missing box from Jesus’ family’s tomb. Simcha based his argument on statistical probability without much scientific evidence. Put another way, Simcha used basic logic and reasoning.
So now you have Simcha using logic with little scientific evidence up against some of the top experts in the world. People who had degrees and written widely accepted books and papers. The experts that agreed with Simcha you could count on one hand. In the end, crime lab technology proved Simcha was correct about the box not being a hoax and coming from the tomb. And it should be noted that it was Simcha that got the box to the crime lab. Not the experts.
This leaves the questions, was there a conspiracy against Oded by the top experts? That is highly impractical. Why were all these top experts incorrect? Most likely it is because the foundation that their expertise is built upon is flawed. No different than the Michelson-Morley Experiment where the foundation to the accepted theory was flawed. The reactions by the experts in the M-M Experiment was, that there had to something wrong with the experiment. Still to this day many scholars do not support the bone box as original and that it belonged to the family of Jesus, despite the mathematical odds.
It may take a new generation or two to get over old theories. Just as there was no aether winds, there was no Jesus as portrayed in the bible. Jesus did exist, but more logically as portrayed in the writings of the lost Gospels.
Sorry I’m bothering you Mike, but you bother me. I made a bit of an assumption there about what you meant about Israel not wanting to give up their artifact, but it seems we understand the facts of the story, that they kept it, and didn’t want to pass it around. I’m sure someone somewhere said something about it being the “greatest find”, but that is not the consensus, it is not the opinion of Israel in general.
This sentence of your’s is the essence of where you and I disagree:
“Today one is able to find data and backing that supports one’s views. Even if the views are wrong. That why an investigative reporter is able to deliver ground breaking discoveries. By the nature of their work they must use logic and reasoning to find the truth in the story.”
If you find data and come to a conclusion, but then find the conclusion is wrong, then you need more data or to re-examine how you interpreted it. Reporter or scientist, the rules are the same. Both must use logic and reasoning. That includes you and me, the people trying to figure out who to believe. You believe Simcha based a flimsy bit of math, in my opinion.
Another sentence of your’s that sums our disagreeements:
" Most likely it is because the foundation that their expertise is built upon is flawed."
What foundation? The entire philosophy of science? The idea of consensus? The ideas of using evidence and logic to present your case and listening to your detractors? What?
And where do you get this?
“In the end, crime lab technology proved Simcha was correct about the box not being a hoax and coming from the tomb.”
Lausten, I want to respond. But I need your thoughts on word terming. I am using the word “scientist" and maybe I should be using the word “philosopher". Which word would you use for Mr. Bauckham?
Lausten, I want to respond. But I need your thoughts on word terming. I am using the word “scientist" and maybe I should be using the word “philosopher". Which word would you use for Mr. Bauckham?Scholar might fit better. Given his credentials, I find him a more acceptable authority than Simcha. "Scientist" is a somewhat useless term, since it is not a license to follow the scientific method that can be revoked. The method is too loosely defined for that. You check if someone is following it using the method itself. In that way, it is a philosophy, but I prefer to reserve that word when referring to someone who is speculating on the edge of science. It's a larger discussion that I don't see being useful here. We are discussing scientific accuracy of the facts in question, and can stick to that level of scrutiny.
Lausten, could not get the addresses posted in the last post. Got the spam message. www.timesofisrael.com/lost-gospel-depicts-a-married-political-activist-rabbi-jesus/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacharias_RhetorIf I were to bother to read anything about this book, and I doubt I will bother, I'd read this https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/richard-bauckham-debunks-simcha-jacobovicis-the-lost-gospel/ Well, I must say that if this is any indication of the quality of the work, it's pretty damn wacky. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, that proof wouldn't seem to be present in this case.
This sentence of your's is the essence of where you and I disagree: "Today one is able to find data and backing that supports one’s views. Even if the views are wrong. That why an investigative reporter is able to deliver ground breaking discoveries. By the nature of their work they must use logic and reasoning to find the truth in the story." If you find data and come to a conclusion, but then find the conclusion is wrong, then you need more data or to re-examine how you interpreted it. Reporter or scientist, the rules are the same. Both must use logic and reasoning. That includes you and me, the people trying to figure out who to believe. You believe Simcha based a flimsy bit of math, in my opinion.The math part was not what won the case for Oded. But it is math that can put man in outer space and bring him back. And it was not Simcha’s math, it was done by a third party scholars. I agree that the rules should be the same. And they are, so why was there a court case? Why, what seem so obvious to Jacobovici, seem so far-fetched by all these scholars?
Another sentence of your's that sums our disagreeements: " Most likely it is because the foundation that their expertise is built upon is flawed." What foundation? The entire philosophy of science? The idea of consensus? The ideas of using evidence and logic to present your case and listening to your detractors? What?The flaw is that “the Passion/ Empty Tomb/Resurrection of Jesus?" subject. It is obvious that history that has been passed down is clouding the minds of the Israeli scholars and scientists, otherwise how could so many scholars be so wrong? The last time that happened to such a lopsided degree was the M-M experiment. If you want to understand the flaw, then try and understand Jacobovici’s logic and reasoning in his book.
And where do you get this? "In the end, crime lab technology proved Simcha was correct about the box not being a hoax and coming from the tomb."My understanding of the case was that the crime lab was able to prove that the box came from that cave, each cave creates its own “fingerprints over time". And the crime lab was able to prove that the markings on the box were not new. If the box could have only come from that one cave and the marking were old. Then all the claims by the Israeli scholars and scientists were wrong. That simple.
Lausten, could not get the addresses posted in the last post. Got the spam message. www.timesofisrael.com/lost-gospel-depicts-a-married-political-activist-rabbi-jesus/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacharias_RhetorIf I were to bother to read anything about this book, and I doubt I will bother, I'd read this https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/richard-bauckham-debunks-simcha-jacobovicis-the-lost-gospel/ Well, I must say that if this is any indication of the quality of the work, it's pretty damn wacky. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, that proof wouldn't seem to be present in this case. Not always the case. The Michelson-Morley Experiment has been brought up. It did not present a new theory. All it did was disprove the accepted theory. My question to you is – do you believe in deities? If so then, you can and will believe in what you want. If you don’t believe in deities, then you don’t need an M-M experiment to disprove the magic of deities. Point being, I don’t see any extraordinary claim going on here. What Jacobovici is telling us is a story, that was written a long time ago that is about a standard and down to earth political undertaking at very high office levels.
Lausten, could not get the addresses posted in the last post. Got the spam message. www.timesofisrael.com/lost-gospel-depicts-a-married-political-activist-rabbi-jesus/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacharias_RhetorIf I were to bother to read anything about this book, and I doubt I will bother, I'd read this https://biblicalstudiesonline.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/richard-bauckham-debunks-simcha-jacobovicis-the-lost-gospel/ Well, I must say that if this is any indication of the quality of the work, it's pretty damn wacky. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, that proof wouldn't seem to be present in this case. Not always the case. The Michelson-Morley Experiment has been brought up. It did not present a new theory. All it did was disprove the accepted theory. My question to you is – do you believe in deities? If so then, you can and will believe in what you want. If you don’t believe in deities, then you don’t need an M-M experiment to disprove the magic of deities. Point being, I don’t see any extraordinary claim going on here. What Jacobovici is telling us is a story, that was written a long time ago that is about a standard and down to earth political undertaking at very high office levels. Ah, a story. It would be rather like inserting Napoleon and Josephine instead of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, then. Or, to make it somewhat more contemporary, Anthony and Cleopatra. Very well; I thought the authors were claiming they were doing more than telling a story. But while Jacobovici may be telling a story, I think it's far from a "standard and down to earth political undertaking at very high office levels." Unless Jacobovici has discovered in it in some remarkable manner, we know of no high office held by Jesus. We have nothing establishing any kind of communication between Jesus and any Roman official, high or otherwise, except perhaps Pilate (I don't count as a high official that centurion mentioned in the Gospel of someone or other). The Judio-Claudian emperors had an off and on, more or less friendly association with the various Herods until Vespasian and Titus laid waste to Jerusalem and eventually adopted their pet Jew, Flavius Josephus. Titus had his Jewish mistress. But the claim very highly place officials in Rome were in communication or were associated with Jesus or John the Baptist is a very extraordinary claim indeed. A deity need not be magical, you know; only some of them are.
Ah, a story. It would be rather like inserting Napoleon and Josephine instead of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, then. Or, to make it somewhat more contemporary, Anthony and Cleopatra. Very well; I thought the authors were claiming they were doing more than telling a story. But while Jacobovici may be telling a story, I think it's far from a "standard and down to earth political undertaking at very high office levels." Unless Jacobovici has discovered in it in some remarkable manner, we know of no high office held by Jesus. We have nothing establishing any kind of communication between Jesus and any Roman official, high or otherwise, except perhaps Pilate (I don't count as a high official that centurion mentioned in the Gospel of someone or other). The Judio-Claudian emperors had an off and on, more or less friendly association with the various Herods until Vespasian and Titus laid waste to Jerusalem and eventually adopted their pet Jew, Flavius Josephus. Titus had his Jewish mistress. But the claim very highly place officials in Rome were in communication or were associated with Jesus or John the Baptist is a very extraordinary claim indeed.Yes, we agree. Data of what was actually happening would be very hard to come by. This is where fitting the pieces of the puzzle comes into play. What actually does make logic and common scene for that area and date in time? The bible, oh my god, not even close. Remember the church taxes were half as much as the Roman taxes. Jesus paid his temple tax by having a guy catch a fish and the tax money would be found inside the fish. Thus we have the reason (money) I think Herod wanted to be the head of the church. That’s not in the book, it’s my view. So there are three basic roads to becoming a Messiah at that period of time without getting killed. One is to come from a very powerful family that has a lot of control of the area. The second is to have friends of very high power in Rome. Upon killing Jesus, if it was a family power, then there should have been a revolt or some sort of retaliation. There was none. If Jesus’s had political friends, and his political power in Rome got removed. Bye, bye Jesus. The third would be religious backing, again would have been a revolt. Now we have Barrie Wilson a biblical scholar who deciphered the hidden meaning of the story. And it fits the political theory. Political killings were very common it that period of time. I like the way you are thinking about the problem. And you have a background of knowledge to work with. According to the story, Jesus’s father was the political connection, not Jesus so much. But the driving force of political connections was Mary and not Jesus according to the story.
So there are three basic roads to becoming a Messiah at that period of time without getting killed. One is to come from a very powerful family that has a lot of control of the area. The second is to have friends of very high power in Rome. Upon killing Jesus, if it was a family power, then there should have been a revolt or some sort of retaliation. There was none. If Jesus’s had political friends, and his political power in Rome got removed. Bye, bye Jesus. The third would be religious backing, again would have been a revolt.You seem to be taking a rather Christian view that the crucifixion of Jesus would have been a major event in the news. What is in the Bible, and in all the TV specials, and is ACTUAL history, is that people were getting strung up all the time, every day. It's how they kept the peace. The symbol we see today is one, or maybe 3 crosses, but they were all over, they denuded the forests making crosses. One more rabble rouser claiming to be the messiah would not have been a big deal. There are one or two mentions of large crowds turning out for this, but most of the Bible is about a handful of people. Those people would have been nothing but scared of having their leader arrested and crucified. That's the whole point of doing it. Kill the leader, crush the nascent movement. The Book of Mark ends with that death, then says, go home and be like Jesus, except don't piss off the Romans. Really, no scripture says go start a revolution, that's not the Jesus way. Book of Acts says, go out, heal, be humble, if people take you in, minister to them and teach the gospel, if they don't, move on. That's the point of the story, and it is a story IMHO, it uses symbols that were of that time, but the actual events are invented. The point is, don't start a war, that's just more war, more empire. Love your neighbor, dumbass.
So there are three basic roads to becoming a Messiah at that period of time without getting killed. One is to come from a very powerful family that has a lot of control of the area. The second is to have friends of very high power in Rome. Upon killing Jesus, if it was a family power, then there should have been a revolt or some sort of retaliation. There was none. If Jesus’s had political friends, and his political power in Rome got removed. Bye, bye Jesus. The third would be religious backing, again would have been a revolt.You seem to be taking a rather Christian view that the crucifixion of Jesus would have been a major event in the news. What is in the Bible, and in all the TV specials, and is ACTUAL history, is that people were getting strung up all the time, every day. It's how they kept the peace. The symbol we see today is one, or maybe 3 crosses, but they were all over, they denuded the forests making crosses. One more rabble rouser claiming to be the messiah would not have been a big deal. There are one or two mentions of large crowds turning out for this, but most of the Bible is about a handful of people. Those people would have been nothing but scared of having their leader arrested and crucified. That's the whole point of doing it. Kill the leader, crush the nascent movement. The Book of Mark ends with that death, then says, go home and be like Jesus, except don't piss off the Romans. Really, no scripture says go start a revolution, that's not the Jesus way. Book of Acts says, go out, heal, be humble, if people take you in, minister to them and teach the gospel, if they don't, move on. That's the point of the story, and it is a story IMHO, it uses symbols that were of that time, but the actual events are invented. The point is, don't start a war, that's just more war, more empire. Love your neighbor, dumbass. Christians seem to have had little or nothing to do with the eventual rebellion starting in 66 CE, so far as we know, though the "Zealots" were, or Josephus said they were (he had his own axe to grind about them, however), nor does it seem they had anything to do with subsequent conflicts the Romans had with the Jews, the greatest of which was the Bar Kochba war. What's remarkable about Christianity is what began happening decades after Jesus died, not before his death.
Christians seem to have had little or nothing to do with the eventual rebellion starting in 66 CE, so far as we know, though the "Zealots" were, or Josephus said they were (he had his own axe to grind about them, however), nor does it seem they had anything to do with subsequent conflicts the Romans had with the Jews, the greatest of which was the Bar Kochba war. What's remarkable about Christianity is what began happening decades after Jesus died, not before his death.These facts seem to be getting more mainstream. Mike is stuck in trying to make myths fit real events, make a legend into a real person, just with a different legend. There has been no new evidence about the existence of Jesus since the gospels. Anything beyond that is evidence that people were talking about him as if he was real. And we keep doing that.
A lot of this area of history is new to me, so don’t be surprised if I miss a couple main points. The crucifixion for example is a more detailed events. My learnings have stayed more in the overall big picture view of history and the bible has just been a small part of that history. Whether the crucifixion took place seems to be accepted. Was Jesus the one crucified? There is where the stories begin to differ. Let’s not waste time and not go to all the theories and stick to the subject that Jesus was running for Messiah. Why was there a run for Messiah in the first place? What would you do if the people said, yea, ok, you are the Messiah.
First, it would be nice to get the Temple. How you going to do that? The Temple is controlled by the Levites. You get counted starting at 30 years of age. And at Jesus’s time that number was 38,000 Levites over thirty. The gatekeepers numbered 4,000 alone.
It is not like they have a day of voting and you won the office. And it was not like a stray preacher doing a few hill sides and stadium performances. Jesus had an organized machine. He sent out 72 people to the towns. What would they be saying to the town? Were they pollsters? The men, wives and children. Must have been a big group to move around. Also must have cost a bundle. It was not like he was going to the towns and opening up new churches. Looks to me like he was doing what Clinton and Trumps is doing today.
Just look that the facts. To be Messiah, was to follow a system that was rooted into history going back to the times before the religion of the Children of Abraham. Virgin mother, twelve disciples and a couple of miracles. Point being, you need a lot more than a few sheepherders backing you up to take over the Temple. And you would not bother with old religious customs if you were not running for Messiah. Without a doubt, Jesus had some powerful backers to be doing what he was doing.
A lot of this area of history is new to me, so don’t be surprised if I miss a couple main points. The crucifixion for example is a more detailed events. My learnings have stayed more in the overall big picture view of history and the bible has just been a small part of that history. Whether the crucifixion took place seems to be accepted. Was Jesus the one crucified? There is where the stories begin to differ. Let’s not waste time and not go to all the theories and stick to the subject that Jesus was running for Messiah.This is about where I stopped. There was no "messiah election". In fact, that would be the worst way to pick a messiah. Messiahs just appear, they come from unlikely places, like a poor little town in the desert. Obviously you haven't spent much time with the Bible, since you won't find anything in there about Jesus claiming to be the messiah, instead, when asked, he says, "if you say I am". Perfect messiah answer by the way, if you ever are planning to run. So, no, I'm not going to "stick to the subject" that you picked. You constantly go off topic. You are running for "off topic" messiah. You do not have my vote.
As I understand it, the messiah in Jewish tradition will be a king, descended from Solomon and David, who will rebuild the Temple, unite all Jews, see to it Jewish law is followed, and usher in a time of peace. He’ll be a human; he won’t be God. He’ll be a great political leader and ruler. He’s thus very different from Jesus, the Christian messiah.
As far as I know, we have no evidence Jesus thought himself to be the messiah according to Jewish tradition. What we have indicates he wasn’t political, and had and sought no kingdom of this earth. The fact he’s considered the messiah in Christianity and pains were taken to say he was of the House of David is probably one of those many peculiarities of Christianity resulting from it being a strange hodgepodge of Judaism and the pagan religions popular during the first three to four centuries CE.
During the years of Roman occupation, it’s likely there were hopes the messiah would appear to throw off Roman rule. Simon bar Kochba who led the rebellion during the reign of Hadrian was considered the messiah by some.
We do know that Spock died and was resurrected (see The Search for Spock), as there is a plethora of corroborating evidence of his (future) historical existence in the existing Star Trek books, movies and TV series (and more to come, as a 2017 Star Trek TV series is in the works).
So tomorrow (Easter), I suggest that we celebrate his life and resurrection.
As I understand it, the messiah in Jewish tradition will be a king, descended from Solomon and David, who will rebuild the Temple, unite all Jews, see to it Jewish law is followed, and usher in a time of peace. He'll be a human; he won't be God. He'll be a great political leader and ruler. He's thus very different from Jesus, the Christian messiah.I am no expert, this is just a hobby for me, but that is the way I understand it too. But I would expect the Christian messiah to be a lot like the Jewish messiah, more of a high priest. My understanding is that messiah is built upon Egyptian traditions. Every pharaoh coming to power declared that they were bringing goodness or peace of some sort. Nothing more than what we today would consider a political statement of moral goals to be done while in office. What has taken me so long on getting back is that I wanted to get my thoughts clear on Jesus’s political moves. The balance of power works by having a king and a priest. This system goes back to pre-history and works so much better than when one person takes the job of both the king and high priest. Jesus started out going after the Davidic throne. But he changed as the political atmosphere changed. The reason was Herod Antipas wanted more power. Jesus’s cousin John the Baptizer would not compromise with Herod. John was decapitated. With the backing of Sejanus, Jesus could go after the Temple. Both Herod and Jesus had Sejanus’s backing. Herod would be the political leader and Jesus the religious leader. The Maccabeans had combined the top offices in 168 BC. Having the two leader system was more acceptable to the Zadokites (temple priests) and had their backing. It is also possible that for the earliest Christians followers of Jesus, that Jesus and Mary were co-partners in messiahship. History tells us that most gods and leaders were married and had families. Even the pharaohs would share power. Akhenaten and his wife Nefertiti is maybe the most known. Now that Jesus was going after the job occupied by the High Priest Caiaphas, Mary would have to back down.
As far as I know, we have no evidence Jesus thought himself to be the messiah according to Jewish tradition.Who were Jesus’s enemies? We know the Pharisees, the Essenes, the Zealots, Herod Antipas and maybe even Pontius Pilate. You got me how he was able to even travel around in Israel without the backing of Rome. So, yes, Jesus was not being backed by the Jewish powers. More by the working and common man. But Jesus was going after the job of high priest. Herod was going to be the political leader. The God-fearers may have titled and called Jesus the messiah. But the meaning was not the old traditional Jewish thinking of messiah. Herod was going to be messiah and Jesus the high priest. But I don’t see where the people thought of Herod as the messiah. It looks like Herod was trying to ride the coattails of Jesus. Hebrews 1:8-9 the author is referring to Jesus as messiah, and he references Psalm 45 as a proof text. Jesus was doing a task, was educated in religion. If being call the messiah made his job easier in the beginning, I don’t think he would object. Look at the make-up of people building and attending the synagogues. In Turkey records show a synagogue built by contributors who were 55% Jews, 2% converts and 43% God-fearers. In Rome synagogues could have as many God-fearers as Jews attending. So, basically the Christians came from the God-fearers. And the God-fearers wanted more of an NT type of religion than an OT. So, there was no reason for Jesus to want to become messiah in the beginning of his teachings other than maybe political. Also, how do you have two religions competing for the people? If Jesus did not take the temple, then the Jewish church would have legal control by laws over the people as well as taxing authority.
What we have indicates he wasn't political, and had and sought no kingdom of this earth.Did Jesus publicize his political tasks? No, not at all. On the surface it had to be viewed religious. Remember his list of enemies was long. Far as political. What was Jesus’s job or task that he was doing? Was it not the exact same thing that was going on in Egypt by Rome at the time? Except Jesus’s job was a lot harder, due to the fact that he had to deal with two methods of thought. Most of the stuff about “light" in the bible is Egyptian. There was both the Greek and Egyptian thinking Jesus had to deal with. Jesus had several tasks. The Roman’s used the historical method whenever possible of control as use by India to control China for over a thousand years, without one solider. To do this they need someone to do just what Jesus was doing. Let me explain the problem. In Egypt and parts of Israel, god controlled all the knowledge. If you wanted to know something, you prayed to god. God would send you knowledge by sunlight. Knowledge would enter through your eyes and be stored in your heart. In mummifications the brain was thrown away. It was of no use. The Greek method was that the brain created knowledge. The old Gnostic (means knowledge) used the Greek way of thinking but tied in very well with the Egyptian religion. Mainly because some of the Egyptian evolved from the older Veda which was also gnostic. Just how much of a problem was this heart method of thinking? It had to be much bigger than we are aware of. Just look at the old religious painting. Painting were used a lot because not everyone could read. And the bible was not available to the general public. Paintings in Rome showed Jesus standing upon a gnostic cloud. The cloud would be omitting light (knowledge). Thus Jesus was known as a teacher of knowledge. From the art work it looks like in the beginning the Christian church try to maintain control of “knowledge". Then look how the church created the Dark Ages by trying to control knowledge. It worked for Egypt for thousands of years, but not for Rome. It seems once the brain was accepted as controlling one’s knowledge and not god, then the people would be more Romanized. Once Jesus’s tasks were accomplished, the reasons behind the tasks were no longer of value unless they could be changed by the church to promote Christianly. Kingdom. I am seeing the opposite. Gnostic put the kingdom here on earth or as some say the Kingdom of God here on earth. “And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and His name one" Zechariah 14:9 or the KJV: And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
The fact he's considered the messiah in Christianity and pains were taken to say he was of the House of David is probably one of those many peculiarities of Christianity resulting from it being a strange hodgepodge of Judaism and the pagan religions popular during the first three to four centuries CE.What is the meaning of birth status at this point in time? Jesus used his relation with John the Baptizer for this part. Matthew gives Jesus family tree as Tamar, Rachab, Ruth and Bathsheba. Tamar was a Canaanite prostitute priestess. Rachab ran a prostitution house in Jericho. Ruth was a Moabite, a pagan priestess. Bathsheba is more unknown and may not have been an Israelite. She was married to a Hittite general in King David’s army. None of the four women talked about were Jewish. I don’t see any clear cut methods or rules being used in the time of Jesus. Jesus’s wife Mary may have said it best in her poem The Thunder, Perfect Mind. “I am first and the last." “I am the honored one and the scorned one. I am the whore and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin." If there was no clear cut path back then. Then to portray it otherwise would be in error. Totally agree with hodgepodge. At the time of Jesus there were four main groups. One group was called the Essenes. Essenes is thought to be a Greek name and not Hebrew. The Essenes are presumed to be the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes for example used the solar calendar, the other sects did not.