spin

You don't behave the same. You don't talk the same. You don't think the same.

You are trying to make a logical case, not fudge the evidence.

All you need do is leave out enough and you can make any two statements that use a few words in common mean the same thing.

So you think the rhetoric he used for his religion developed overnight?

BS artist.

TedM

I don't understand. The comment I made to Toto had to do with how modern day Christian theologians and apologists would react to knowing about the temple destruction in 70AD. I think they would readily see it as symbolic of the NT wiping out the OT, salvation by faith and not by works. The temple destruction is a physical 'confirmation' of that so-called 'truth'. To be clear I'M not saying that's the truth, but I think today's Christian theologians would readily see the connection as a confirmation of the superiority of the NT over the old. Maybe few every-day Christians know or care about the temple though. That's all I was saying..just speculating of course..

outhouse

I can see that apologetic connection being made by some.

Toto

Ted - you've done a bait and switch. You originally wrote: It is a commonplace that Christians believe that Jesus' body is a replacement for the Temple. (Most secular interpreters take this as evidence that the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple.)

But you claimed that the destruction of the Temple within 50 years of the founding of Christianity is a point in favor of Christianity. I assume you mean to imply that since Christianity was founded, that the Temple was no longer needed, so god allowed it to be destroyed by his agents, the Roman army ??? Why did the omnipotent, omniscient god need to wait 50 years?

I doubt that the source you quoted would endorse this particular formulation, although it's possible.

aa5874

The NT is superior to the OT because a man was murdered as a sacrifice??

The Fall of the Temple according to the Jesus cult was because the Jews killed Jesus.

Please explain how would the killing of a man would produce Salvation by Faith when ONE MUST KILL first??

The Work--the Killing--must come first.

The Fall of the Temple is really irrelevant if Jesus was already murdered For the Salvation of mankind since the time of Pilate.

Net2004

quote:
Adonai says – “I am fed up with olah-offerings of rams and the offals of fattened calves, and the blood of oxen, lambs and goats does not give Me pleasure. When you come to appear before Me – who asked this of you, to come trampling through My courtyards? Do not bring your meaningless min’ḥah-offerings any more – I find it a disgusting stench… Rosh Ḥodesh, Shabbat, even the Festival assemblies – I cannot tolerate crookedness mixed with ‘service’.

My soul detests your Rosh Ḥodesh and Festival observances, they have become tedious to Me; I can no longer put up with them. When you hold up your hands I will hide My eyes from you; I will not hear you no matter how many ‘prayers’ you say – because your hands are covered with blood! Wash, purify yourselves, remove the badness of your deeds from before My eyes, stop doing wrong! Learn to do right, seek justice, protect victims, treat orphans justly, support the claims of widows.

“Come, please, let’s discuss this rationally,” Adonai says – “even if your sins are like bright crimson, I will bleach them as white as snow: even if they are as red as tola I will make them like [the colour of] wool!” (Y’shayahu 1:11-18).


Yhwh wants people to hold a bloody cross and drink jesus' blood because it is superior than the message in isiah? he tells them to wash thier bloody hands and at the same time wants them to hold a bloody cross because a blood cross is superior than the message in isiah? jesus' murdered flesh on a stick is better than slicing the flesh of an animal? in the books of the prophets sacrifices are down played , there seems to be a disgust for sacrifices. what makes you christians think that murdered human flesh would be superior to animal sacrifices?

semiopen

There was a discussion here a few weeks ago about the death of Jesus placed at the time of the destruction of the temple by some early Christians.

I think the idea is that they moved the death of Jesus back a little to impress people like TedM.

TedM

50 years is nothing, esp 2000 years later. No bait and switch. The 'prophecy' (real or imagined) of destruction is one thing but the reality of its disappearance is 'by itself' something Christians can point to as confirmatory. Not saying I agree but I do think there is some validity to the idea that it appears confirmatory, just as does the very survival and re-grouping of the Jewish people all these years.

Toto

Ted - it's time to come clean. This attempt to invoke prophecy fulfillment just looks like stealth Christianity. You keep denying that you are a Christian, but you keep posting arguments that don't make any sense to anyone else.

TedM

How can anyone NOT see that the destruction of the temple coinciding relatively speaking with the advent of Christianity, which claims to do away with the need for the Old Law, and thus the temple, is not at least an interesting turn of events? My OP simply noted that and provided a few likely viewpoints people might have toward it. A viewpoint I DIDN'T expect is a blatant denial that it is coincidental, if it is not related in some way. It appears to me to be a mental block, and frankly it takes the fun out of the spirit of discovery intended. No need to reply if you continue to feel the same way about it.