Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 04-27-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The response is the Jsesus died for the sins of humanity, as such animal blood sacrifice was no longer required.

Christ as the sacrifical lamb led to slaughter is a common Catholic theme.

Jesus as the sacrificial LAMB is perfectly compatible with the Fall of the Temple SINCE Temple sacrifice was not possible.

But he died before the fall, and the Jews wer ddispersed for centuires before the state of Israel.

Moses created the priest class before there was any temple or homeland.

storytime · 04-29-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

But..it was a lie, for God did not change his laws or the covenant made with his people Israel. Jacob-Israel was his only son. Even Esau[Edomites] was excluded. Gentiles were excluded, for as it is written, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Circumcision was not made void but required protocol for any person desiring to make himself known as equal to the Jew and in the house of Israel. Jesus is not shown to have extended the covenant given only to Jacob-Israel the only son, to Gentiles who were not sons.

If I'm not mistaken, Gentiles were prohibited from making sacrifices to the Hebrew god simply because they were not recognized as children of the Hebrew god. God would consider it an abomination, as an unclean offering and unacceptable. A Jewish person even suggesting such a thing would probably have been killed on the spot for speaking where God had not spoken.

I am not sure what your point is. I think you are saying that only Jews could be saved under the covenants and gentiles were excluded.

Any gentile could become a "Jew" by forsaking his gods and joining with Israel:

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (Exodus 12:48)

I some cases, the gentile living within the land was treated as the Jew.

Numbers 15
22 And if ye have erred, and not observed all these commandments, which the LORD hath spoken unto Moses,
23 Even all that the LORD hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the LORD commanded Moses, and henceforward among your generations;
24 Then it shall be, if ought be committed by ignorance without the knowledge of the congregation, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt offering, for a sweet savour unto the LORD, with his meat offering, and his drink offering, according to the manner, and one kid of the goats for a sin offering.
25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance:
26 And it shall be forgiven all the congregation of the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; seeing all the people were in ignorance.
27 And if any soul sin through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year for a sin offering.

In the NT, it is through Paul that we are told that gentiles were included in God's plan:

Ephesians 3
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister,

This was confirmed by Peter.

Acts 15
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

That's right. As "it is written", Jesus excluded Gentiles. He said, "I am sent to none but the lost sheep in the house of Israel." Therefore, he was sent to the sinners in Israel, and not the righteous. Those who were trangressors, offenders and who needed salvation.

Paul's gospel was his own doctrine for Gentiles. He also kept Gentiles separated from Jews. He said that Gentiles were a law unto themselves.

Gentiles never received any laws from Moses, nor any inclusion in the covenant of Abraham via circumcision. However, Gentiles could join to the house of Abraham and Israel through circumcision and observing the same laws of requirement as set for the Jews. This way they became equal under the same laws and covenant established first for the sons of Jacob-Israel.

Paul said that circumcision would do the Gentiles no good. Why then would Jesus be of benefit to them? Jesus believed in circumcision and keeping the laws of Moses for Jews. Why would Jesus have cared about salvation of Gentiles? What did salvation mean to a Jew in those days? Did it mean that Jews who committed offenses would not be sentenced to death by Jewish law? Salvation had no meaning for people who had no Jewish laws and people who worshipped a different god. Faith likewise is a useless hope for Gentiles when considering the division of people in Jews and Gentiles. Why would Gentiles have sought forgiveness for transgressions they had not committed against Jewish laws? They would have sought relief from sins against their own gods and laws of Rome. Seeking salvation from punishment in Caesars court would have been a high priority, seems to me. Caesar was also a god-man in those days.

storytime · 04-29-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

It was said that Jesus died once for sinners. This would be their past sins.

It would encompass all sins, past and future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

To advise people to "go and sin no more" makes sense, because there is no more sacrifice available.

The instruction not to sin any more is given so that the person would not come under the condemnation of men. The forgiveness of God covers all sin, including future sin, made possible by Christ's death, and the person was instructed to repent (turn away from the sinful life) and believe the gospel (live a sin free life as Christ instructed). In so doing, the person would not be subject to men. However, if the person did sin, they would be liable to judgment by man (e.g., if they stole, they could be put into jail).

It'd probably be a good idea to check and see how Jews practiced sacrifice in those days and for what purpose. Was the doctrine of Jesus in regard to sacrifice different to his brethren Jews? When Jesus told people to offer a dove or young pigeon to the priest according to the law of Moses, were other Jews such as the Pharisees and Sadducees teaching the same doctrine? Was Jesus teaching correctly and according to OT laws for offering sacrifice? Why did he think that human sacrifice was an appeasement to his god and to his fellow Jews? Jesus seems to be out of touch with his pagan practice of human sacrifice. Did he expect his Jewish followers to offer themselves likewise? He also didn't invalidate animal sacrifice with his own human sacrifice. Jesus was a strange Jew in those days. But then I think the story is so twisted and screwed up that it's worth is useless as to how Jews believed in those days.

aa5874 · 04-29-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus as the sacrificial LAMB is perfectly compatible with the Fall of the Temple SINCE Temple sacrifice was not possible.

But he died before the fall, and the Jews wer ddispersed for centuires before the state of Israel.

Moses created the priest class before there was any temple or homeland.

The Jesus story was invented after the Fall of the Temple and was about a Mythological God/Man, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

And it cannot even be proven that Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, died because it is claimed he STILL LIVES. I don't know where.

Gundulf · 04-29-2010, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

But he died before the fall, and the Jews wer ddispersed for centuires before the state of Israel.

Moses created the priest class before there was any temple or homeland.

The Jesus story was invented after the Fall of the Temple and was about a Mythological God/Man, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Just out of curiosity, your evidence for this claim?

Epistle to the Romans - Note the scholarly consensus that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s, approximately 15 years before the fall of the Temple.

The Jesus story (Paul's version of it, at least), however you want to interpret it, was around well before the fall of the Temple, no?

aa5874 · 04-29-2010, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus story was invented after the Fall of the Temple and was about a Mythological God/Man, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Just out of curiosity, your evidence for this claim?

Epistle to the Romans - Note the scholarly consensus that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s, approximately 15 years before the fall of the Temple.

The Jesus story (Paul's version of it, at least), however you want to interpret it, was around well before the fall of the Temple, no?

What is the EVIDENCE for your claim that the epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s?

There is no EVIDENCE from non-apologetic sources for the activities of Saul/Paul and even internally Saul/Paul's conversion was fictitious and he met fictitious characters thereby implying that Saul/Paul was of the very fictitious nature.

Saul/Paul, the author of the Pauline Epistles, appears to have been a fraud who lived well after the Fall of the Temple and most likely after the writings of Justin Martyr. It must be noted that Justin Martyr wrote not one thing about Acts of the Apostles or any Epistle to a single Church in the entire Roman Empire.

And there is no real Jesus story in the Pauline Epistles just a few passages here and there about revelations from Jesus which can hardly be true.

There is no birth narrative, no baptism, no temptation, no miracles, no transfiguration, no "failed prophecy, no betrayal, trial and crucifixion scenes in the Pauline writings.

But, there is a post-resurrection scene in the Pauline writings that no other gospel writer used.

Now, the post-resurrection is fiction in the Gospels and the Pauline writings.

And, a Pauline writer SAW Jesus after he was resurrected.

We have a multiple attested fiction character in Saul or Paul.

Gundulf · 04-29-2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Just out of curiosity, your evidence for this claim?

Epistle to the Romans - Note the scholarly consensus that Paul's epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s, approximately 15 years before the fall of the Temple.

The Jesus story (Paul's version of it, at least), however you want to interpret it, was around well before the fall of the Temple, no?

What is the EVIDENCE for your claim that the epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s?

The consensus of absolutely every New Testament Scholar, liberal, conservative, theist, atheist, and everything inbetween.

What is your evidence that it was not?

Epistle to the Romans: "The precise time at which it was written is not mentioned in the epistle, but it was obviously written when the collection for Jerusalem had been assembled and Paul was about to "go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints", that is, at the close of his second visit to Greece, during the winter preceding his last visit to that city.[9] The majority of scholars writing on Romans propose the letter was written in late 55/early 56 or late 56/early 57.[10] Early 58 and early 55 both have some support, while Luedemann argues for a date as early as 51/52 (or 54/55) following on from Knox who proposed 53/54. Luedemann is the only serious challenge to the consensus of mid to late 50s.[11]

Quote:

Saul/Paul, the author of the Pauline Epistles, appears to have been a fraud who lived well after the Fall of the Temple and most likely after the writings of Justin Martyr.

Again, you are offering opinions (that border on fantastical fiction) that run contrary to the consensus of every scholar in the field. I humbly ask that if you are going to offer opinions contrary to the most basic established, unanimous conclusions of scholarship (liberal and conservative alike) in the field, you really should offer some genuine evidence to your new and unique scholarship.

Unless demonstrated otherwise, I will concur with the unanimous opinion of New Testament scholarship on this one.

Plenty of other resources, but read this at least for a start and suggest to me specifics on why every New Testament scholar in the field is wrong about the times and dates of Paul's life, journeys, and writings:

Paul of Tarsus

show_no_mercy · 04-30-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What is the EVIDENCE for your claim that the epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s?

The consensus of absolutely every New Testament Scholar, liberal, conservative, theist, atheist, and everything inbetween.

That's not actually evidence. That's a logical argument, not an evidential argument. And it doesn't answer aa's question, since it would be an appeal to popularity.

I have no idea when Paul's letters were written, but I wouldn't blindly assume that because there's a consensus among bible scholars (who in my opinion do shitty history) that this means that they're right. Maybe you can provide aa with the evidence that your appeal to popularity is using.

For instance, using basic historical methodology, the latest possible date for Paul's letter to the Romans would be Markion since he seems to be the first witness (

terminus ad quem) to Paul's epistles (though aa doesn't even accept that).

bacht · 04-30-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gundulf

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What is the EVIDENCE for your claim that the epistle to the Romans was written in the mid 50s?

The consensus of absolutely every New Testament Scholar, liberal, conservative, theist, atheist, and everything inbetween.

What is your evidence that it was not?

Gundulf, when was the book of Daniel written? The 6th C bce? That's what the author claims. What about the book of Tobit, was it penned during the Assyrian period? How about Enoch, does it really date to before the flood? Were the books of the Old Testament written when the authors claimed?

Would you agree that the New Testament authors were part of this tradition of pseudepigraphy and pious fiction? They're certainly not doing what we would call history or biography or journalism.

darstec · 04-30-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The response is the Jsesus died for the sins of humanity, as such animal blood sacrifice was no longer required.

Christ as the sacrifical lamb led to slaughter is a common Catholic theme.

Jesus as the sacrificial LAMB is perfectly compatible with the Fall of the Temple SINCE Temple sacrifice was not possible.

Joshua is portrayed as the Good Shepherd. Since when is a lamb a shepherd? What shepherd would put a lamb in charge?

It is nonsense, dribble and pabulum all in one ball of wax. [And not sine cera.]

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.