TedM

I wrote hastily and not precisely. The core Christian value is that the Jesus did away with the need to follow the Law for salvation. Therefore, the temple was unnecessary. 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. Of course there may be cultural explanations for it -- ie similar factors that created Christianity also contributed to the destruction of the temple. I'd like to hear exactly what those similar factors are, if they exist.

Toto

You just repeated your error. The Law is not the Temple.

And now you come up with a bizarre non-sequitur, based on this error.
It is not clear at all. Which Christian has ever said anything like this???

The Temple was destroyed by the Roman army. Do you want to connect that to Christianity?

outhouse

More Paul then Jesus. Jesus was a devoted Jew.

But I have no problem with a Jesus who wanted to worship god without the circus Hellenistic environment of the temple.

Hellenist made worshipping a costly event, Jesus standing up for poverty wanted to place god in the hands of every person no matter what wealth or lack of, they possessed.

Correct, god was not only for the wealthy


40 years ish


Don't focus to much on this, hell the temple was just getting finished.





Exactly, and you noticed the indirect connections.




Lots of opinions from here on out.


1. The division of Hellenistic Judaism, from traditional Judaism formed this sect Paul helped along. The socioeconomic division of Hellenism and traditional Judaism fell the temple. The sect that Jesus started based on JtB teachings were backfilled in later as mythology and oral tradition grew long after the events. The socioeconomic division between Galilean Judaism and the Hellenist helped form Jesus sect that failed with his death.


take into account a certain amount of Hellenism existed in all Judaism, but there was a socioeconomic division between born and raised typical poor Israelites, and those rich Hellenist living in opulence in Jerusalem and Sepphoris and Tiberius.

Jesus fighting Hellenist in the temple, became famous not just from the traditional Jews he supported, but his enemies who found the mythology important. Since it grew in Hellenism. it no longer held on to what was important to Judaism. Had Jesus become famous in Judaism, his teachings would definitely be different from what the Hellenist created

Sort of ironic actually

TedM

I don't think so. The only way I am in error here is if the temple would be needed even if the law is no longer followed.

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.



The 2nd Temple stood for roughly 600 years, so while I guess it isn't a huge coincidence it is 'by chance' unlikely that it would be destroyed within 40 years of anything. Additionally, prior to the 2nd temple the 1st was always repaired when damaged, and of course rebuilt when destroyed. The same cannot be said for 70AD. Never has it been rebuilt, despite the survival and return of the Jewish nation 65 years ago. It doesn't necessarily mean anything but it is notable IMO.




I'm sure I could find someone


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.

TedM

It seems you would support the idea that the common thread between Christianity's origins and the Temple destruction would be opposition to how the Temple was being used:

Jesus opposed the 'misuse', which led to his crucifixion, which led to 'Christianity'.
Others Jews like Jesus opposed the 'misuse', which led to its eventual destruction.

In this scenario, there is no surprising coincidence. Correct?

spin

Funny how the Jamesian Jerusalemites were unaware of this.

Toto

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

hjalti

How is that a "BIG" point in Christianity's favour? Let's assume that Christianity is true, why should we expect the temple to be destroyed 40 decades after Jesus' death?

You've talked about how Christianity claimed to "spiritually replace" the temple, but I don't see how you get from that from expecting it to be destroyed.

Net2004

There was a writer on vridar.org who said that there were jewish sects which said that the temple sacrifices were useless and that doing good was yhwhs command. Jeremiah says that yhwh did not command the jews to make animal sacrifices, but they disobeyed his voice. Jews believe that the temlle was destroyed because of jewish sectarian division .


"Funny how the Jamesian Jerusalemites were unaware of this."

Biblical authours like jeremiah , isaiah and others were unaware of this.

TedM

Yes but Paul was. And once the temple was destroyed Paul was probably seen to have been 'vindicated'.