Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 08-20-2013, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And log in under an account that is yours.

I guess you think this little joke of yours is funny. Not sure why..

Not funny. I don't think you are TedM.

Why? You have in the past accused me of being a Christian at least twice after I've told you I no longer believe. This inflexibility on your part I think explains why I have such a hard time trying to have a discussion with you.

Quote:

Well, if you want you talk about "churches of christ" feel free to make some point. As is, it isn't what we were talking about. You even highlighted it when you tried to change tack onto talking about "in christ". Which is it to be, faux TedM?

I suppose you see a MAJOR difference in meaning between "churches in Christ" and "churches of Christ". I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

and "churches ...in Christ" in 1 and 2 Thessalonians is not good enough.

Those dots hide your problem: churches of god which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. And do supply proper references so that your interlocutor doesn't have to guess what you are trying to talk about.

There is no problem. I just took out further descriptions. The concept is the same "churches ... in Christ"

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And obviously you completely refuse to tackle Paul's meaning of being "in Christ",

Perhaps you are hard of reading. I responded to this change of subject, noting what it literally meant and noting the fact that Paul was talking about early moments in his beliefs.

So you claim Paul used it differently when referring to pre-conversion days? Do you have any evidence of that? Don't you think he would have qualified that since he was actually writing AFTER he was converted and was using "in Christ" only to refer to Jesus at that time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

which he uses 88 times, always referring to Jesus -- with the exception of course (for you) of the verse in question!

Here's the 88 if you care to take a look: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...=en&bookset=10

Quote:

Where does Paul talk about churches in christ? Oh, that's right, in Gal 1:22.

Atomist.

Grog · 08-20-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

While it may be true that the law could be followed without the Temple, not all of it could be. Nevertheless, the temple existed BECAUSE of the law. Once the law was unnecessary the temple was unnecessary. Christianity did away with the need for the temple because it did away with the need for the law.

Rabbinic Judaism also did away with the need for the Temple, without doing away with the need for the law.

Following any other religion would do away with the need for the Temple and the need for the law.

Are you trying to go Baysian on us? What makes that probability meaningful?

The modern state of Israel does not have an undisputed right to the site of the Temple, which is also a holy site for Islam.

There is a movement to rebuild the Temple. You can read about it at TempleInstitute.org. Rebuilding the temple would require breeding a special red heifer to use for the ritual sacrifices, and this has not been done yet.

There is a Christian cattle breeder named Lott who is trying to produce a red heifer to meet the Biblical criteria, in the hopes that this will lead to the second coming of Christ.

Most other observers think that the effort to rebuild the Temple would be more likely to trigger war in the Middle East.

If you didn't know these basic facts, I don't know why you are posting the sort of random speculation that you have posted in this thread. Do you think you have a point?

THEN DO IT, DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT IT

Quote:

I've already heard aa's connection, but didn't find it to be very persuasive. In the end, perhaps it is just an interesting (to me) coincidence.

Clearly, TedM has established a cause and effect relationship here. Hasn't he?

TedM · 08-20-2013, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Clearly, TedM has established a cause and effect relationship here. Hasn't he?

Why would you think I'm trying to do that? Did you read the op?

mountainman · 08-20-2013, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It occurs to me that it is rather extraordinary that Christianity began within 50 years of the Jewish Temple destruction. Mankind's most dominant religion began, and it claims to have replaced the need for the Jewish Temple. The Jewish people revered their temple as the most Holy place to worship their God, and yet it is destroyed physically within 50 years of the religion that claims it was replaced spiritually.

Coincidence?

The elephant in your room is Jesus and the [pagan] temple destruction. If you focus on the Jewish temple that is all you will ever see but the archaeologists tells us that the Roman empire was overflowing with Jewish Pagan temples.

If you substitute "Pagan" for "Jewish" in your OP you may get closer to the political and religious reality of Christian origins.

Quote:

It occurs to me that it is rather extraordinary that Christianity began within 50 years of the Jewish pagan Temple destruction. Mankind's most dominant religion began, and it claims to have replaced the need for the Jewish Pagan Temple. The Jewish Graeco-Roman people revered their temple as the most Holy place to worship their God, and yet it is destroyed physically within 50 years of the religion that claims it was replaced spiritually.

In the non canonical acts the Apostles call on God to cause the destruction of the temple of Apollo.

The NT was never a Hebrew manuscript.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Toto · 08-20-2013, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

I know some of these things but don't know why you are posting them. They are irrelevant to my points, which are to state the facts. One can ALWAYS come up with reasons to not see the forest for the trees, if there is one.

It seems one can always come up with some obfuscation.

But I need to call you on this:

You said originally

Quote:

The connection that I find interesting is the unmistakable fact that the physical temple was destroyed within 50 years of this origin of this 'new' faith. It would not be notable if the temple existed another 500 years, but 40 years is notable. It's clearly a BIG point that Christians would say is in their favor.

I said

Quote:

It is not clear at all. Which Christian has ever said anything like this???

you:

Quote:

I'm sure I could find someone

So I challenged you, and you came up with two links (one badly formatted):

http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2520

and
http://www.jrtalks.com/john/john2v12to25.html

NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS ANYTHING YOU SAID.

I think you googled Jesus Temple and 50 years, but I don't see anything to support the idea that Christians thought this timing was "a point in their favor."

rlogan · 08-20-2013, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Incredible, really. Especially when you think of the deeper meaning behind the number 50. I don't think it coincidence that it is one larger than seven groups of seven.

Well the real number is 40, what will you do now with the math?

That's even more incredible on account of the biblical importance of 40.

Point being, I don't see anything remarkable. Personal incredulity, sure. But to make it incredible in reality you need reasons why the development of Christianity could not have happened in whatever time frame you wish to assign.

outhouse · 08-20-2013, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Well the real number is 40, what will you do now with the math?

That's even more incredible on account of the biblical importance of 40.

Point being, I don't see anything remarkable. Personal incredulity, sure. But to make it incredible in reality you need reasons why the development of Christianity could not have happened in whatever time frame you wish to assign.

Are there any combinations of numbers that are not biblically important lol or that can be perceived as important?

TedM · 08-20-2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I said

Quote:

It is not clear at all. Which Christian has ever said anything like this???

you:

Quote:

I'm sure I could find someone

So I challenged you, and you came up with two links (one badly formatted):

http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2520

and
http://www.jrtalks.com/john/john2v12to25.html

NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS ANYTHING YOU SAID.

I think you googled Jesus Temple and 50 years, but I don't see anything to support the idea that Christians thought this timing was "a point in their favor."

They both speak to the issue of Christianity doing away with the need for the Jewish temple. The timing is obviously going to be a factor, and would be implied if not explicitly stated. The implication of course is that it makes sense that the temple would go away if God's plan was for it to become unnecessary. If I was unclear and you still feel that these sources are not supportive of these ideas, then so be it, but see the quote from my first source below. My guess is that if you asked 100 biblical theologians if the destruction of the Jewish temple is a decent apologetic point in favor of the 'truth' of Christianity, you'd get at least 95 yeses.

1st source quote

Quote:

As I hope to show, when these four Jewish beliefs about the Temple are
given due emphasis, Jesus’ strange combination of criticizing others for abusing the
Temple and prophesying its destruction makes eminent sense. The reason:
Jesus saw all four of these aspects of the Temple as being fulfilled in himself and his disciples.
Indeed, the evidence in the Gospels strongly suggests that Jesus saw his own body
as (1) the dwelling-place of God on earth; (2) the foundation stone that would be
the beginning of a new Temple and a new creation; and (3) the sole place of sacrifi-
cial worship in the new covenant. Moreover, there are also good reasons to believe
that he saw himself and his disciples as constituting (4) the new, eschatological
priesthood that had been spoken of by the prophets.

Because of this, the old Temple was destined to pass away and be replaced
by a new Temple, a greater Temple, one “not made with hands,” and the old priest-hood with a new.

outhouse · 08-20-2013, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I said

you:

So I challenged you, and you came up with two links (one badly formatted):

http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2520

and
http://www.jrtalks.com/john/john2v12to25.html

NEITHER OF WHICH SUPPORTS ANYTHING YOU SAID.

I think you googled Jesus Temple and 50 years, but I don't see anything to support the idea that Christians thought this timing was "a point in their favor."

They both speak to the issue of Christianity doing away with the need for the Jewish temple. The timing is obviously going to be a factor, and would be implied if not explicitly stated. The implication of course is that it makes sense that the temple would go away if God's plan was for it to become unnecessary. If I was unclear and you still feel that these sources are not supportive of these ideas, then so be it, but see the quote from my first source below. My guess is that if you asked 100 biblical theologians if the destruction of the Jewish temple is a decent apologetic point in favor of the 'truth' of Christianity, you'd get at least 95 yeses.

1st source quote

Quote:

As I hope to show, when these four Jewish beliefs about the Temple are
given due emphasis, Jesus’ strange combination of criticizing others for abusing the
Temple and prophesying its destruction makes eminent sense. The reason:
Jesus saw all four of these aspects of the Temple as being fulfilled in himself and his disciples.
Indeed, the evidence in the Gospels strongly suggests that Jesus saw his own body
as (1) the dwelling-place of God on earth; (2) the foundation stone that would be
the beginning of a new Temple and a new creation; and (3) the sole place of sacrifi-
cial worship in the new covenant. Moreover, there are also good reasons to believe
that he saw himself and his disciples as constituting (4) the new, eschatological
priesthood that had been spoken of by the prophets.

Because of this, the old Temple was destined to pass away and be replaced
by a new Temple, a greater Temple, one “not made with hands,” and the old priest-hood with a new.

Your reading way to much into the later Hellenistic text that created the mythology using the OT as its foundation.

outhouse · 08-20-2013, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

My guess is that if you asked 100 biblical theologians if the destruction of the Jewish temple is a decent apologetic point in favor of the 'truth' of Christianity, you'd get at least 95 yeses.

Doubt it.

The "truth of Christianity" was ever changing, but its theology was already laid before the temple fell, busting your hypothesis in "truth"

Did it influence the gospel authors, sure. Not the core of the movement.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.