Freethought & Rationalism Archive

skepticdude · 07-29-2010, 08:31 PM

The original Jewish Christians, led by James, did not view the cross as providing salvation. After converting to James's gospel, they still held "zealously" to the Law:

Quote:

Acts 21:18-20
18 And now the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19 And after he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;

If James's preaching had been along the lines of Paul's preaching (i.e., 'Christ is the end of the law. The death of Christ is the fulfillment of the Law', etc, etc,) there is no way that Jews who were zealous for the law, would have adopted such a thing. The idea that God brought the system of law-salvation to an end or "fulfillment" in Jesus would be positively blasphemous to an observant Jew.

I don't believe Acts is honest about original Christianity, but even assuming it is, the only way to explain how James's converts can have preserved their zeal for the law after convering to his gospel, is with the hypothesis that James's gospel did not extoll the death of Jesus the way Paul's gospel did. The only Christianity that would allow an observant Jew to convert and then keep practicing the Law, is a Christianity that disagrees with Paul, and says the death of Jesus carried no salvific significance.

The last point is well supported in the gospels: Jesus said he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill, and whoever would do away with the least bit of the law would be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5). Since Paul came along later and taught that one could completely ignore the law and still be saved, inerrantist Christians of the dispensationalist type were forced to assert that salvation during Jesus' life on earth was different than salvation after his death (i.e., two methods of salvation).

Unfortunately, the simpler solution is that Paul taught a different salvation because he disagreed with the legalism of Jesus, not because Jesus' death brought about some change in covenant. It is noteworthy that this Paul who so trivialized the law, believed his mission field was Gentiles (i.e., those who would loathe Jewish law the most). Paul's marginalizing the law made Christian salvation conveniently somewhat less scandelizing to non-Jews, who were his primary mission-field, ultimately increasing his chances for success as an "apostle".

While technically wrong, Paul was yet smart: unless you plan to fail in your mission to the Gentiles, you better find a way to remove the requirements for salvation in the Old Testament. Paul did this by claiming the death of Jesus "fulfilled" the law, when in fact the Law itself anticipated no such fulfillment, but actually says the animal sacrifice system was to never end (Leviticus 16:30-31).

The point of contrasting Paul with James here is to answer the OP in the negative. Original Jewish Christians under James did not view the death of Jesus as being salvific. They would hardly have continued being "zealous" for the law if the gospel James preached had told them that the death of Jesus brought the law-covenant to an end.

maryhelena · 07-30-2010, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godless Raven

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Of course she doesn't have an argument. In order to have an argument you would actually have to READ books and be familiar with the subject matter WHICH SHE ISN'T.

I am not assassinating your character. You're probably a wonderfully nice person. Maybe a great mother. Maybe you took care of your parents when they were sick. You may well be a better human being than I am. I don't know

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS SUBJECT MATTER BECAUSE I AM THE GUY THAT SHOWED IT TO YOU FOR THE FIRST TIME. You were a virgin when it came to the tradition that Agrippa was considered the messiah by almost all the Jews and Christians and their interpretation of scripture AND I BROKE YOU IN. And now you want to act like you've been around the block with the football team and my uncle Larry.

How much more explicit do I have to be?

I TOLD YOU ABOUT THIS TRADITION. I wrote a book about this tradition. You haven't read ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS associated with this tradition. How can you be the 'expert'?

You put a link to Daniel Schwartz's Agrippa I the last king of Judea. The Google previews are limited. I bought that stupid book. I shelled out $75 and when it came from Amazon it was like 70 pages. Over a dollar a page. Oy veh

Anyway, he puts EVERY POSSIBLE reference into this book which MIGHT have something to do with Agrippa I. He never references the Agrippa is the messiah of Daniel which is known to every Jew of every period EVER. Why do you think that is? Is Schwartz 'misinformed' like Origen?

No because they've read the material. They know what Daniel 9:24 - 27 is about and the fact that it doesn't make sense to say that because of Agrippa I being killed in 43 or 44 CE the sacrifices stopped in 70 CE.

Who would make such a ridiculous argument?

You throw up all this tangential bullshit about the coins (which I have Smallwood's assessment ready for a thread one day which says 'they don't make sense'), the details from Josephus which I think almost everyone at this site acknowledges are corrupt.

None of this has any bearing on the issue. What is wrong with you?

The issue is whether it makes more sense to suppose that Origen, the various authors of the rabbinic literature, the editor of the Yosippon all 'made a mistake' in identifying Agrippa II (or the Agrippa who was alive at the time of the destruction of the temple) when it was 'really' Agrippa I.

As I said you're probably a descent person whose done great things in your life BUT YOUR NOT SUCH A GENIUS THAT I WOULD TAKE YOUR WORD AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF DISCUSSION IN THIS TOPIC WHEN YOU HAVEN'T READ THE MATERIAL!!!!!

I have never had a discussion like this with anyone IN MY LIFE. An expert with no expertise.

So you're God or have the Holy Spirit in you? Psychic powers? You don't need to read you just know because an idea came to you. Why don't you tell me what lottery numbers I should pick this weekend cause maybe you'll replace that psychic octopus.

Well, I did join this thread to try and read about your theory and learn something from the discussion... but frankly your arrogance, rudeness and blatant character assassination of somebody questioning your high and mighty theory disgusted me to the point of having zero interest in reading any of this horse shit.

I don't even recall a time on this board where I've seen this many unwarranted personal shots at a single poster in one thread.

That is shameful behaviour considering you want to argue using yourself as some form of an authority on the matter.

I'll be sure to make you the first person I've put on ignore in over 4 years posting on here.

Hi, Godless Raven

My thanks for stepping in here and saying out loud what has been going on...It's a big disappointment to witness this sort of posting on this forum. I was beginning to think I was back on the old Dawkins forums where this sort of bullying behavior was allowed.

Endeavoring to attack the credibility of ones opponent is not a scholarly method of debate. It is the argument that has to be addressed not the lack of any *qualifications* that any particular debater might require. Attacking the 'messenger' only serves to distract from the weakness of ones own position. This forum is not restricted to scholars - it is an open forum for discussion. To start using innuendo against anyone on this forum is unwarranted and unacceptable behavior - and combine that with a hint of male chauvinism is, well - lets just say, ungentlemanly....And throwing in a link to an anti-Semitic article - some veiled accusation of anti-Semitism.....not nice, not nice at all.....

For the life of me I can't get my mind around the fact that this behavior has been allowed to escalate to where it did...This forum used to be such an oasis of rationality....:constern01:

stephan huller · 07-30-2010, 01:29 AM

I aspire for your superior intellect. I long for it. But I cannot attain the heroic grandeur of your vision, your confidence, your omniscience - the truth that comes from your goddess.

I am stuck in the inferiority of my maleness.:huh:

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I aspire for your superior intellect. I long for it. But I cannot attain the heroic grandeur of your vision, your confidence, your omniscience - the truth that comes from your goddess.

I am stuck in the inferiority of my maleness.:huh:

At least you should find some comfort in having recovered you good taste; that awful pair of hearts is thankfully gone for good

stephan huller · 07-30-2010, 04:52 PM

I am trying to find the right image. How's this?

stephan huller · 07-30-2010, 05:25 PM

I have already dealt with a lot of the information within Judaism and Christianity to identify the Cross as the 'abomination of desolation' here:

http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=290050

In other words, according to the SHARED interpretation of Jews and Christians in ALL periods, Titus was the 'prince' who would destroy the temple (Dan 9:25), Agrippa the messiah who was 'cut off' (Dan 9:26) and the end result was not only the destruction of the temple (Dan 9:27) but the end of sacrifices FOREVER (Jews and Christians agree on this without much explanation - it just is accept as nothing short of a bat kol).

My underlying point is that I think the Cross is the 'abomination of desolation' which figures into the prophesy at the heart of the Little Apocalypse in Mark AND in Jewish sources. I think it comes from a historical 'plan' on the part of Titus, Agrippa and Berenice to terrorize the superstitious Jewish rebels - making it appear as if ALL the prophesies were about to be fulfilled.

Notice how the Cross and crucifixions are used to terrorize the Jewish population of Jerusalem:

Now it happened at this fight that a certain Jew was taken alive, who, by Titus's order, was crucified before the wall, to see whether the rest of them would be aftrighted, and abate of their obstinacy. But after the Jews were retired, John, who was commander of the Idumeans, and was talking to a certain soldier of his acquaintance before the wall, was wounded by a dart shot at him by an Arabian, and died immediately, leaving the greatest lamentation to the Jews, and sorrow to the seditious. For he was a man of great eminence, both for his actions and his conduct also.

So now Titus's banks were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by rapine; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations; for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of the seditious; nor could they think of leaving these relations to be slain by the robbers on their account; nay, the severity of the famine made them bold in thus going out; so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy; and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished; as after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.(Jewish War 5.6.5;11.1)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2010, 01:29 AM	#33
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I aspire for your superior intellect. I long for it. But I cannot attain the heroic grandeur of your vision, your confidence, your omniscience - the truth that comes from your goddess. I am stuck in the inferiority of my maleness.:huh:

07-30-2010, 04:52 PM	#35
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I am trying to find the right image. How's this?

07-30-2010, 05:25 PM	#36
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have already dealt with a lot of the information within Judaism and Christianity to identify the Cross as the 'abomination of desolation' here: http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=290050 In other words, according to the SHARED interpretation of Jews and Christians in ALL periods, Titus was the 'prince' who would destroy the temple (Dan 9:25), Agrippa the messiah who was 'cut off' (Dan 9:26) and the end result was not only the destruction of the temple (Dan 9:27) but the end of sacrifices FOREVER (Jews and Christians agree on this without much explanation - it just is accept as nothing short of a bat kol). My underlying point is that I think the Cross is the 'abomination of desolation' which figures into the prophesy at the heart of the Little Apocalypse in Mark AND in Jewish sources. I think it comes from a historical 'plan' on the part of Titus, Agrippa and Berenice to terrorize the superstitious Jewish rebels - making it appear as if ALL the prophesies were about to be fulfilled. Notice how the Cross and crucifixions are used to terrorize the Jewish population of Jerusalem: Now it happened at this fight that a certain Jew was taken alive, who, by Titus's order, was crucified before the wall, to see whether the rest of them would be aftrighted, and abate of their obstinacy. But after the Jews were retired, John, who was commander of the Idumeans, and was talking to a certain soldier of his acquaintance before the wall, was wounded by a dart shot at him by an Arabian, and died immediately, leaving the greatest lamentation to the Jews, and sorrow to the seditious. For he was a man of great eminence, both for his actions and his conduct also. So now Titus's banks were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by rapine; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations; for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of the seditious; nor could they think of leaving these relations to be slain by the robbers on their account; nay, the severity of the famine made them bold in thus going out; so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy; and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished; as after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.(Jewish War 5.6.5;11.1)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.