Aliyah (The Return) CK2+ Submod

[ThePatriot1776]

Beta 3 Developer Update​

Holy Orders​

The next version will have a new holy order for the Nazarenes called The Martyrs of James the Just. This will leave the Maccabeans to be Rabbinic/Karaite sects only.

I'm on the fence about giving Ebionites and Samaritans their own holy orders. I'm open to suggestions.

Holy Sites and Pentarchy​

I've altered the holy sites for all the different sects of Judaism. They'll also have pentarchy enabled for using autocephaly. The version after this, I will alter Temple Judaism to use Papal Succession.

Nazarene Holy Sites and Pentarchs​

Jerusalem
Ephesos
Rome
Baghdad
Kunduz

Jewish, Rabbinic Judaism, Grand Sanhedrin, Karaite, and Temple Judaism Holy Sites​

Jerusalem
Al 'Aqabah
Damascus
Dhofar
Hamadan

Haymanot Judaism Holy Sites and Pentarchs​

Jerusalem
Al 'Aqabah
Dhofar
Damascus
Tigrinya

Samaritan Holy Sites and Pentarchs​

Jerusalem
Al 'Aqabah
Damascus
Tiberias
Dhofar

Ebionite Holy Sites and Pentarchs​

Jerusalem
Jaffa
Alexandria
Rome
Baghdad

Events
​

A new event chain regarding dybbuk boxes for members of the Ebionite Secret Society. Said dybbuk box will wreak havoc on their unsuspecting targets.

Jewish Sins events will be reworked to drop the body count down and to help npcs avoid being struck down by G-d. The events will be a little bit more involved depending upon your ruler's traits.

Societies​

Mainstream Judaic sects will get Kabbalism as a society. They will get custom quests that deals with their exploration into the mysteries of God.

Ebionites will get their own version of Lucifer's Own society. Historically, they are linked to Simon Magus. They will have different quests than what Lucifer's Own receive. One of those quests is the construction of a dybbuk box and sending it to an enemy.

 

[nsinger998]

The Jewish holy sites make sense from a gameplay standpoint but in real life the holy sites would be(to my understanding):

1. Jerusalem

2. Hebron

3. Safed

4. Joseph's tomb

5. Rachel's tomb

as major ones and many smaller ones. Basically, Jews don't really recognize places/areas outside Israel as "holy" but we do respect them.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

The Jewish holy sites make sense from a gameplay standpoint but in real life the holy sites would be(to my understanding):

1. Jerusalem

2. Hebron

3. Safed

4. Joseph's tomb

5. Rachel's tomb

as major ones and many smaller ones. Basically, Jews don't really recognize places/areas outside Israel as "holy" but we do respect them.

Yup, but due to them being all inside of Israel it gives them an unfair advantage over other religions.

 

[majesty8]

Samaritans shouldn't have any holy sites outside the Greater Israel area, considering they view Judaism as corrupted by outside influences, and definitely not in Jerusalem - the main seat of heresy; I'd suggest Nablus (Mt. Gerizim), Hebron (Tomb of Patriarchs), Damascus, Gaza and Cairo (all these were Samaritan centers important enough to have their own "secondary" High Priests). Sure, it's all concentrated in one place, but if Samaritans actually control all these their MA should be sky-high; it's balanced by their complete non-existence (and rarity of Judaism) at start date.

In addition to Jerusalem and Hebron, Jews should definitely have Baghdad - the Jewish center of learning (esp. in the early start dates) and the birthplace of Anan ben David; Damascus and Cairo were the main centers of Judaism in the Middle East, and are also viable candidates - unlike Sinai (Jews disagree with Mt. Sinai identification) or Safed (it only became important much later, in the 16th-17th centuries, after many Rabbis settled there).

 

[ThePatriot1776]

Samaritans shouldn't have any holy sites outside the Greater Israel area, considering they view Judaism as corrupted by outside influences, and definitely not in Jerusalem - the main seat of heresy; I'd suggest Nablus (Mt. Gerizim), Hebron (Tomb of Patriarchs), Damascus, Gaza and Cairo (all these were Samaritan centers important enough to have their own "secondary" High Priests). Sure, it's all concentrated in one place, but if Samaritans actually control all these their MA should be sky-high; it's balanced by their complete non-existence (and rarity of Judaism) at start date.

In addition to Jerusalem and Hebron, Jews should definitely have Baghdad - the Jewish center of learning (esp. in the early start dates) and the birthplace of Anan ben David; Damascus and Cairo were the main centers of Judaism in the Middle East, and are also viable candidates - unlike Sinai (Jews disagree with Mt. Sinai identification) or Safed (it only became important much later, in the 16th-17th centuries, after many Rabbis settled there).

Excellent points all around. Samaritan rarity has been fixed seeing as I put in the dynasties as landless duchies, so they have 6 dynasties.

I also put in Israelite dynasties in the same manner as it was the only way to get Branches of the Nazirite society to work.

I can shift Cairo to the Samaritans in exchange for Dhofar.

Revised Samaritan Holy Sites/Pentarchs

Jerusalem
Al 'Aqabah
Damascus
Tiberias
Cairo

I'd drop Dhofar for Baghdad for Rabbinic Judaism, Karaite, Temple Judaism, and Grand Sanhedrin.

Revised Rabbinic Judaism, Karaite, Temple Judaism, and Grand Sanhedrin Holy Sites/Pentarchs

Jerusalem
Al 'Aqabah
Damascus
Baghdad
Hamadan

Speaking of Sinai, I did move it from the vanilla to Al 'Aqabah due to the evidence showing that Jebel el Lawz is really Mt. Sinai. The current location was given by Helena, Constantine's mother. There is no historical documentation showing that her identification is true.

I have been hard at work trying to get the entire mod stabilized. It's been a chore trying to track down bugs.

 

[majesty8]

Speaking of Sinai, I did move it from the vanilla to Al 'Aqabah due to the evidence showing that Jebel el Lawz is really Mt. Sinai.

In both Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism there is no agreed location for Mt. Sinai; the canonical statement by Chazal is that its location is unknown, so any location would be heretical and contrary to accepted tradition (and Jebel el Laws, as well as other Midian mountains, is specifically rejected). Hebron would be a much more fitting holy site in the same area.

Hamadan

Hamadan is completely unimportant and irrelevant in Judaism. Cairo (or Fusfat until 1168) was the center of Karaism, as well as a highly important city for Jews - there's a reason why Maimonides settled there of all places.

While I understand that you don't want to cluster the holy sites, I don't think it's that big of a problem - after all, there's no chance of AI ever achieving Israel unless some already existing kingdom gets converted by a random courtier, and for a human player, conquering all the holy sites isn't much of a challenge regardless of where they are; and from an immersion perspective, there is no reason for a successful Jewish Israel to not have high MA even without invading Persia.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

In both Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism there is no agreed location for Mt. Sinai; the canonical statement by Chazal is that its location is unknown, so any location would be heretical and contrary to accepted tradition (and Jebel el Laws, as well as other Midian mountains, is specifically rejected). Hebron would be a much more fitting holy site in the same area.

Hamadan is completely unimportant and irrelevant in Judaism. Cairo (or Fusfat until 1168) was the center of Karaism, as well as a highly important city for Jews - there's a reason why Maimonides settled there of all places.

While I understand that you don't want to cluster the holy sites, I don't think it's that big of a problem - after all, there's no chance of AI ever achieving Israel unless some already existing kingdom gets converted by a random courtier, and for a human player, conquering all the holy sites isn't much of a challenge regardless of where they are; and from an immersion perspective, there is no reason for a successful Jewish Israel to not have high MA even without invading Persia.

RE: Sinai

In this case I will exercise creative control on the location.

RE: Hamadan

In Persia there are two places to which Jews make pilgrimages. (1) At Hamadan, near the fortress, is an ancient mausoleum containing the tombs of Mordecai and Esther. On the 14th of Adar, the festival of Purim, the Jews of the region read the Book of Esther at these tombs; pilgrimages to them are made also at each new moon and in times of danger. (2) Twelve and one-half miles from Ispahan, in the middle of the fields, is a little synagogue which, according to local tradition, contains the tomb of Sarah, daughter of Asher (Num. xxvi. 46). The Jews of the neighborhood go thither on pilgrimage on the 1st of Elul.

Link

Hamadan is an important holy site due to the tombs of Modecai and Esther. Hamadan also was a major site for Bene HaMizrah Jews that never left Persia to return to Israel. They have been there since they destruction of the First Temple in 587 BC.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

I managed to get a functional and compatible version for 4.07 Beta 6 of Aliyah done. It was a long slog, but it was worth it. It's located in the first post.

If you hit into any bugs let me know and I will fix them ASAP. Thank you for flying Aliyah Airlines.

 

[Foamybeard]

The word Christian doesn't appear until the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-135 AD as a way for Roman Nazarenes to distance themselves from Jewish Nazarenes.

I hate to be 'that guy', but you're wrong, here - You're off by Seventy years at most, or Forty at least. The word Christian first appears in the book of Acts of the Apostles, written between 80 and 90 AD, when it mentions that the Nazarenes in Antioch began to call themselves Christian - This was before the 'Incident at Antioch', that was resolved in the Council of Jerusalem, that was held in 50 AD.

If you don't want to include Christian sources for the origin of the word, it also appears in the works of Josephus - A Jewish historian -, who died in 100 AD, in his work 'Antiquities of the Jews', where he writes "And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared". Antiquities of the Jews was written between 93 and 94 AD. Still - It is a historical fact that Christians were first called that in Antioch, much, much earlier than the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Historical discussion aside... This looks cool.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

I hate to be 'that guy', but you're wrong, here - You're off by Seventy years at most, or Forty at least. The word Christian first appears in the book of Acts of the Apostles, written between 80 and 90 AD, when it mentions that the Nazarenes in Antioch began to call themselves Christian - This was before the 'Incident at Antioch', that was resolved in the Council of Jerusalem, that was held in 50 AD.

If you don't want to include Christian sources for the origin of the word, it also appears in the works of Josephus - A Jewish historian -, who died in 100 AD, in his work 'Antiquities of the Jews', where he writes "And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared". Antiquities of the Jews was written between 93 and 94 AD. Still - It is a historical fact that Christians were first called that in Antioch, much, much earlier than the Bar Kokhba revolt.

Historical discussion aside... This looks cool.

Bar Kokhba Revolt happened between 132-135 AD.

Actually, the word Christian doesn't appear in Acts. The word used was Nazarene. In later translations it was translated to Christian.

Acts was written before 70 AD.

Josephus's works were written in Greek and Latin. They were translated into other languages. In the original works of his, he used the word Nazarene. Again, translators after him used the word Christian and not Nazarene as he originally used. The first use of the word Christian doesn't occur until the revolt and it was by Roman Nazarenes to avoid being put to death by separating themselves from Jewish Nazarenes.

How many different Biblical canons are there and in what languages?

 

[Foamybeard]

Bar Kokhba Revolt happened between 132-135 AD.

Actually, the word Christian doesn't appear in Acts. The word used was Nazarene. In later translations it was translated to Christian.

Acts was written before 70 AD.

Josephus's works were written in Greek and Latin. They were translated into other languages. In the original works of his, he used the word Nazarene. Again, translators after him used the word Christian and not Nazarene as he originally used. The first use of the word Christian doesn't occur until the revolt and it was by Roman Nazarenes to avoid being put to death by separating themselves from Jewish Nazarenes.

How many different Biblical canons are there and in what languages?

So I was off by a few years, about Acts. Doesn't disprove my point. You're making the assertion that the word 'Christian' never existed before the Bar Kokhba revolt. I provided evidence to the contrary, you dismissed it, but then didn't provide evidence to back up what you said.

As for how many Biblical cannons there are... One. The rest are wrong (lol). As for the number of languages, no idea. However many languages the Vulgate and Vulgate derivative works are translated into, I suppose.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

So I was off by a few years, about Acts. Doesn't disprove my point. You're making the assertion that the word 'Christian' never existed before the Bar Kokhba revolt. I provided evidence to the contrary, you dismissed it, but then didn't provide evidence to back up what you said.

As for how many Biblical cannons there are... One. The rest are wrong (lol). As for the number of languages, no idea. However many languages the Vulgate and Vulgate derivative works are translated into, I suppose.

It does disprove your point. I removed your biggest piece of evidence.

There are actually 4 biblical canons. You have Nazarene, Syriac churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, and RCC. Only three of the churches in that list are in Acts. Rome isn't one of them. There is only the Nazarene founded by Jesus, Syriac churches by Thomas, and the Ethiopian churches by Philip.

Nazarenes used Hebrew. Syrian churches used Aramaic and Syriac. Ethiopian Orthodox uses Ge-ez which is a Semitic language and very similar to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. The very first scriptures were written in Hebrew not Greek. Aramaic was the second language used and Greek came dead last. In the original Hebrew and other Semitic languages the word used in Acts is Netzer which means branch in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Ge-ez. It is not Christian as that word was not invented for Semitic languages until the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

Nazarenes are the first church who was founded by Jesus. They were all Jews that belonged to his Judaic sect. Jesus was a Jew and taught Jews. His entire ministry was to Jews. He never taught to the gentiles. That was Paul's and Thomas's mission. Acts makes it very clear that the rest of the apostles concerned themselves with Jewish communities and trying to convert them. As such, Nazarenes are a sect of Judaism.

The Jerusalem church founded by Jesus died after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Rome forbade any and all Jews from entering in Jerusalem on the penalty of death. In response, they wandered and were hated by both gentiles and Jews. Gentiles for not giving up the Torah and Jews for failing to support Bar Kokhba on top of them fleeing to Pella when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That there is your second schism. The schism between Judaism and Nazarenes.

The first schism was between Nazarenes and Ebionites that occurred before the temple was destroyed. Ebionites trace back to Simon Magus.

Third schism was between Nazarenes and the newly minted Roman Christians.

Ahh the things they fail to teach about the history of Christianity and the hubris of man to think they can overcome the truth with lies.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

Oh I forgot to mention that Netzer appears in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and Mark. Christian does not appear anywhere in those three books.

 

[Foamybeard]

It does disprove your point. I removed your biggest piece of evidence.

There are actually 4 biblical canons. You have Nazarene, Syriac churches, Ethiopian Orthodox, and RCC. Only three of the churches in that list are in Acts. Rome isn't one of them. There is only the Nazarene founded by Jesus, Syriac churches by Thomas, and the Ethiopian churches by Philip.

Nazarenes used Hebrew. Syrian churches used Aramaic and Syriac. Ethiopian Orthodox uses Ge-ez which is a Semitic language and very similar to Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. The very first scriptures were written in Hebrew not Greek. Aramaic was the second language used and Greek came dead last. In the original Hebrew and other Semitic languages the word used in Acts is Netzer which means branch in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Ge-ez. It is not Christian as that word was not invented for Semitic languages until the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

Nazarenes are the first church who was founded by Jesus. They were all Jews that belonged to his Judaic sect. Jesus was a Jew and taught Jews. His entire ministry was to Jews. He never taught to the gentiles. That was Paul's and Thomas's mission. Acts makes it very clear that the rest of the apostles concerned themselves with Jewish communities and trying to convert them. As such, Nazarenes are a sect of Judaism.

The Jerusalem church founded by Jesus died after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Rome forbade any and all Jews from entering in Jerusalem on the penalty of death. In response, they wandered and were hated by both gentiles and Jews. Gentiles for not giving up the Torah and Jews for failing to support Bar Kokhba on top of them fleeing to Pella when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. That there is your second schism. The schism between Judaism and Nazarenes.

The first schism was between Nazarenes and Ebionites that occurred before the temple was destroyed. Ebionites trace back to Simon Magus.

Third schism was between Nazarenes and the newly minted Roman Christians.

Ahh the things they fail to teach about the history of Christianity and the hubris of man to think they can overcome the truth with lies.

You didn't 'remove' any evidence, you simply said 'this isn't true' without providing anything that proved your point, and then made a series of false claims while claiming everything I'm saying is false - So you're literally poisoning the well here, while making up an alternative history, without proving any evidence to back up your claims. The only evidence you've proven is 1) The Bar Kokhba Revolt happened (Something that was never in debate here) and that the book of Acts was written earlier than I said, although a quick google search backs what I said up - You have to dig to find 'evidence' for your assertion.

Jesus didn't found the Church in Jerusalem. He founded the Church on St. Peter, and the Apostles founded the various churches. Further, the Book of Acts ends with Paul in rome, with the Pauline Epistles written during the time Acts takes place in mentioning that Peter had already founded the Church in Rome, so... Yeah, the Roman Church was founded in the book of Acts. Further, the book of Acts focuses on Peter, and then later Paul. The rest of the Apostles scattred to the wind, traveling to Scythia, India... All sorts of far away places.

If Ebionites trace back to Simon magus, then they were never followers of Christ, they were Gnostics. Simple as that.

As an aside - I've seen these ahistorical arguments before. Are you a practitioner of Messianic Judaism? I'm simply asking so I can get a better understanding of your position, but the arguments you are making are fairly typical of the historical revisionism that Messianic Judaism does - Since it dates back to the 1960s, but claiming to date back to the time of Jesus.


So. Back to what I said - The Roman Church's view is the only one that maters, as it was founded by Peter, who had the Church founded on him by Christ.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

You didn't 'remove' any evidence, you simply said 'this isn't true' without providing anything that proved your point, and then made a series of false claims while claiming everything I'm saying is false - So you're literally poisoning the well here, while making up an alternative history, without proving any evidence to back up your claims. The only evidence you've proven is 1) The Bar Kokhba Revolt happened (Something that was never in debate here) and that the book of Acts was written earlier than I said, although a quick google search backs what I said up - You have to dig to find 'evidence' for your assertion.

Jesus didn't found the Church in Jerusalem. He founded the Church on St. Peter, and the Apostles founded the various churches. Further, the Book of Acts ends with Paul in rome, with the Pauline Epistles written during the time Acts takes place in mentioning that Peter had already founded the Church in Rome, so... Yeah, the Roman Church was founded in the book of Acts. Further, the book of Acts focuses on Peter, and then later Paul. The rest of the Apostles scattred to the wind, traveling to Scythia, India... All sorts of far away places.

If Ebionites trace back to Simon magus, then they were never followers of Christ, they were Gnostics. Simple as that.

As an aside - I've seen these ahistorical arguments before. Are you a practitioner of Messianic Judaism? I'm simply asking so I can get a better understanding of your position, but the arguments you are making are fairly typical of the historical revisionism that Messianic Judaism does - Since it dates back to the 1960s, but claiming to date back to the time of Jesus.


So. Back to what I said - The Roman Church's view is the only one that maters, as it was founded by Peter, who had the Church founded on him by Christ.

It's nice of you to actually ignore what I've said. We're done here.

 

[majesty8]

The schism between Judaism and Nazarenes.

That schism happened even earlier, when Pharisees (the mainstream Judaism branch) called Jesus a false prophet and demanded his execution; at the time you describe Jesus' followers were regarded by other Jews as followers of false messiah, and thus heretics (similarly to the much later Sabbateans or Frankists). If by "schism" you mean "considered as a separate religion and not just a Jewish sect" - that was a very long process, going for several centuries as Christians abandoned Jewish traditions and laws (e.g. circumcision, kashrut) and gained their own; although the Temple's destruction has a very important role in this, Christians were still considered Jews for a century after.

 

[ThePatriot1776]

That schism happened even earlier, when Pharisees (the mainstream Judaism branch) called Jesus a false prophet and demanded his execution; at the time you describe Jesus' followers were regarded by other Jews as followers of false messiah, and thus heretics (similarly to the much later Sabbateans or Frankists). If by "schism" you mean "considered as a separate religion and not just a Jewish sect" - that was a very long process, going for several centuries as Christians abandoned Jewish traditions and laws (e.g. circumcision, kashrut) and gained their own; although the Temple's destruction has a very important role in this, Christians were still considered Jews for a century after.

Incorrect, as they were still allowed into the synagogues and the Temple. The schism where the Rabbinic Jews pushed out the Nazarenes happened exactly as I described.

Keeping Mosaic law was decided at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD with James the Just ruling that gentiles did not have to keep them, but to abide by the laws of Noah.

 

[Leri_weill]

Just poppin' a comment to say that as an atheist, it's really interesting to read this thread. Especially the fact that despite sometimes opposing points of view, the debate is still polite and argumented (Pretty sure it's not the word I'm looking for but you get what I mean)!

 

[majesty8]

Incorrect

What exactly is incorrect?

as they were still allowed into the synagogues and the Temple.

I don't understand what you meant by this. They were allowed into the Temple until it was destroyed, and the Mishna specifically allows anyone, even non-Jews, to enter synagogues and pray for the Jewish God.

The schism where the Rabbinic Jews pushed out the Nazarenes happened exactly as I described.

Can you describe the schism?

 

[schwarherz]

@Had a dad I think this may have gotten a bit out of hand...