yguy

Substantiation, please...and do take care to avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if you would be so kind.

CJD

Hello, Peter.

Your questions are good. Hopefully I understand them correctly.

1) You wrote: The necessity of Christ's death is said to be to atone for sin, reconciling men with God through the cross. The only true prerequisite for this concept is the fallen nature of man. But surely this has been the case for centuries before Christ. God would have known all along that his Messiah would come to earth once to die for sin and then again in glory at the end.

I agree with this premise (cf. Heb. 9:22; as well as the many references to his exhaustive foreknowledge).

So what's the point of revealing a false concept to the Hebrews?

What was revealed, I think, was progressive (i.e., unfolding), not "false." The Hebrews over-emphasized one (granted, large) aspect of messianism, and completely ignored most of the latter prophets with their predictions of doom at the arrival of the Messiah. Once again, revelation is seen in the Tanak to be progressive—up to a point (this, of course, raises the question of canonicity and confessionalism). Keeping the conditional nature of prophecies in mind, the Christ could have come as a physical military warrior-king. It was the covenant-breakers' fault that he did not (and that his coming did not look like, for example, the coming described by Zechariah).

Why instead is it left to the apostles to work out the new theology from the assumption of the Messianic character of Jesus and fact of the crucifixion?

If "apostles" were really nothing more than what OT prophets were, then they simply stand in the same ancient tradition of unfolding previously "veiled" revelations.

This evolution is easy to explain from a naturalistic viewpoint, and the theological spin on it is ad hoc at best.

And that's okay. Should I be bothered by this? Again, does it follow from this that the gospel message is implausible?

2) Christianity is claimed to be the successor to Judaism by some Christians . . .

As you might have guessed I prefer to see the Christian Gospel as the predicted seed through which all the nations of the earth are blessed. In other words, it is an extenuation of Judaism post Christos.

. . . the law being nailed to the cross. In view of the disregard of the law in Christianity . . .

Contra antinomianism, "the law being nailed to the cross" does not mean "no law" but means simply that it no longer accuses—so long as one puts his/her faith in Christ Jesus. Historically, orthodox Christians "disregard" only those portions of the law that the person and work of the Christ abrogated. This, too, would call for an entirely other thread. Suffice to say that early Christians recognized three main purposes of the Law, a concept that was crystallized during the (Counter)Reformation of the 16th-17th centuries. If it really is central to Judaism, then I daresay there is not a person alive who practices "Judaism." To be sure, much of what has passed for "Christianity" down through the centuries can be deemed a "new religion." But the argument becomes far more arduous if you desire to argue from the NT texts that it is a "new religion."

Still, the fact remains that Christianity was seen early on as a sect of Judaism. One can make the same statement about Islam and Mormonism (as Peter has indicated). The premise I cannot accept, of course, is that the religion of the OT was so static that revelations could not progressively unfold. Remember that Jesus challenged the oral tradition of his hearers? He was in effect challenging the stranglehold certain religious leaders had had over the people. The textual tradition of the Tanak was seen to be the words of God (dynamic, not static), and the oral traditions were mere appendages. In Jesus' time, however, the opposite seemed to be true. This is what happens when gluttons for power desire to control others.

But if God is allowed to change his mind on what his true religion is about, then wouldn't this justify the belief in Muhammad or Joseph Smith as a true prophet with a similar rationalization?

The quick answer—given your premise—is "yes."

But insofar as Christianity is an extenuation of OT Judaism, God did not "change his mind on what his true religion is about." This would have the effect, of course, of rendering Islam or Mormonism mere (heretical) sects of Christianity. As long as your premise above remains false, so, too, are other religions. Does this seem arbitrary? Yes, I suppose it is, unless you grant the orthodox Christian perspective that looks to the Scriptures to define "true religion." Does this also seem arbitrary? (the weight given to Scripture). Well, that's a discussion best left for someone who cares to argue for the supremacy of the Scriptures.

To get this thread back to its original topic: Would you consider that Israel's concept of messianism was a developing theme that progressively unfolds throughout the various stages of the Tanak? This method would run counter to what I assume you assumed in your other thread regarding alleged messianic prophecies: that seeing Jesus as the OT Messiah can only come from the viewpoint of NT "fulfillments."

Regards,

CJD

Peter Kirby

Please excuse my tardy responses. I'd like to ask a question at this point.

Can you explain the ways in which the concept of the Messiah developed within the Tanakh? I honestly have never seen it laid out, and I would find it helpful.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jack

Jack > As far as I know there is no evidence for the use of "we" in this way earlier than 1400 CE. And that only in Europe, not the East.

RED DAVE

From CJD:

I love it when xtians try to tell us Jews what our scriptures really meant. If we are the "covenant-breakers," what the fuck are you?

Antisemitism masquerading as theology.

RED DAVE