Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-21-2013, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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,

.

Because it existed that same way, while the temple still stood.

They wanted to do away with the corruption in the temple, not the theology. Corruption is what brought the temple down. Not the theology the temple used.

TedM · 08-21-2013, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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,

.

Because it existed that same way, while the temple still stood.

They wanted to do away with the corruption in the temple, not the theology. Corruption is what brought the temple down. Not the theology the temple used.

And, I think you would agree, corruption in the temple was also largely responsible for Christian origins, since Jesus may not have been crucified had he not gone into the temple. THIS is a naturalistic explanation which reduces the 'coincidence', but your first comment doesn't give the timing of this its due recognition:: relatively speaking, in terms of human history the two major events - Christianity beginning and Temple destruction - happened at the same time. Ironically, Christians readily see the two as being related theologically (ie NT replaced OT).

Adam · 08-21-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

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.

... 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?

For over a thousand years the Classic Theory of Atonement(Christus Victor) prevailed in Christianity, that Jesus died to free humanity from the authority Satan had had. Bloody sacrifices decried by the prophets no longer had any meaning. Mark 10:45:
"For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
In John 2:13-25 Jesus's cleansing of the Temple makes his body the Temple.

spin · 08-21-2013, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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,.

...
They wanted to do away with the corruption in the temple, not the theology. Corruption is what brought the temple down. Not the theology the temple used.

And, I think you would agree, corruption in the temple was also largely responsible for Christian origins, since Jesus may not have been crucified had he not gone into the temple.

So we are down to nonsense about corruption in the temple! outhouse and faux TedM are really scraping the barrel here.

One can understand the christian tradition of shitting on the opposition, so hey, why not talk banalities about corruption in the temple?, but that obviously reflects tendentious rivalry. One has to be out of their fucking minds to take such accusations seriously. My god fellas, that is just so s i l l y , parroting ancient pot-stirring. Next you'll be vociferating about christ killers as though it reflected an ancient reality.

semiopen · 08-21-2013, 01:51 PM

I thought the temple came down because of an ill advised war against the Romans.

I'm also not clear on the corruption in general, it couldn't have been worse than that seen during the time of the Hasmoneans (or perhaps even the entire second temple period).

TedM · 08-21-2013, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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,.

...
They wanted to do away with the corruption in the temple, not the theology. Corruption is what brought the temple down. Not the theology the temple used.

And, I think you would agree, corruption in the temple was also largely responsible for Christian origins, since Jesus may not have been crucified had he not gone into the temple.

So we are down to nonsense about corruption in the temple! outhouse and faux TedM are really scraping the barrel here.

One can understand the christian tradition of shitting on the opposition, so hey, why not talk banalities about corruption in the temple?, but that obviously reflects tendentious rivalry. One has to be out of their fucking minds to take such accusations seriously. My god fellas, that is just so s i l l y , parroting ancient pot-stirring. Next you'll be vociferating about christ killers as though it reflected an ancient reality.

Why are you so upset? Do you deny there was corruption in the temple, or at least that perception by fellow Jews, which greatly contributed to the Roman burning in 70AD? If not, then what are you getting so worked up about?

Net2004 · 08-21-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Bloody sacrifices decried by the prophets no longer had any meaning. Mark 10:45:
"For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
In John 2:13-25 Jesus's cleansing of the Temple makes his body the Temple.

A god making flesh for himself and then giving it back to himself has no place in judaism. do you christians believe that the god who was sick and tired of bloody animal sacrifices was looking forward to the murder of his created flesh?

according to the jews, the future animal sacrifices will have meaning:

Quote:

There are plenty of other references to future sacrifices, in which sin-offerings are explicitly noted. For example, in the last nine chapters of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet describes the Third Temple and all the rituals in vivid detail, which include the following references to both sin offerings and guilt offerings, both being animal sacrifices:

SIN OFFERING ("haTAT" in Hebrew) - 40:39, 42:13, 43:19,21,22,25, 44:27,29, 45:17,19,22,23,25, 46:20
GUILT OFFERING ("aSHAM" in Hebrew) - 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20

according to the jews, the animal sacrifices were practiced till the temple was destroyed. god in trinity could kill himself and bring darkness all over the world but he was unable to destroy the temple immediately.

TedM · 08-21-2013, 02:12 PM

Net, I don't see anyone advocating anything here..its just a discussion about the timing of two major events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

Bloody sacrifices decried by the prophets no longer had any meaning. Mark 10:45:
"For the Son of man himself came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
In John 2:13-25 Jesus's cleansing of the Temple makes his body the Temple.

A god making flesh for himself and then giving it back to himself has no place in judaism. do you christians believe that the god who was sick and tired of bloody animal sacrifices was looking forward to the murder of his created flesh?

according to the jews, the future animal sacrifices will have meaning:

Quote:

There are plenty of other references to future sacrifices, in which sin-offerings are explicitly noted. For example, in the last nine chapters of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet describes the Third Temple and all the rituals in vivid detail, which include the following references to both sin offerings and guilt offerings, both being animal sacrifices:

SIN OFFERING ("haTAT" in Hebrew) - 40:39, 42:13, 43:19,21,22,25, 44:27,29, 45:17,19,22,23,25, 46:20
GUILT OFFERING ("aSHAM" in Hebrew) - 40:39, 42:13, 44:29, 46:20

according to the jews, the animal sacrifices were practiced till the temple was destroyed. god in trinity could kill himself and bring darkness all over the world but he was unable to destroy the temple immediately.

outhouse · 08-21-2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And, I think you would agree, corruption in the temple was also largely responsible for Christian origins, since Jesus may not have been crucified had he not gone into the temple.

So we are down to nonsense about corruption in the temple! outhouse and faux TedM are really scraping the barrel here.

One can understand the christian tradition of shitting on the opposition, so hey, why not talk banalities about corruption in the temple?, but that obviously reflects tendentious rivalry. One has to be out of their fucking minds to take such accusations seriously. My god fellas, that is just so s i l l y , parroting ancient pot-stirring. Next you'll be vociferating about christ killers as though it reflected an ancient reality.

1. You deny the corruption in the temple?

Do you deny "if" the jesus character was real, had he avoided the temple, he might have lived longer and our mythology would be different in there even was any?

Please dont waffle like you usually do with more questions, until you anwer the ones placed before you.

outhouse · 08-21-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So we are down to nonsense about corruption in the temple! outhouse and faux TedM are really scraping the barrel here.

One can understand the christian tradition of shitting on the opposition, so hey, why not talk banalities about corruption in the temple?, but that obviously reflects tendentious rivalry. One has to be out of their fucking minds to take such accusations seriously. My god fellas, that is just so s i l l y , parroting ancient pot-stirring. Next you'll be vociferating about christ killers as though it reflected an ancient reality.

Why are you so upset? Do you deny there was corruption in the temple, or at least that perception by fellow Jews, which greatly contributed to the Roman burning in 70AD? If not, then what are you getting so worked up about?

Because its evidence that points towards historicity of the legends he claims he is agnostic about.

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

08-21-2013, 01:51 PM	#65
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	I thought the temple came down because of an ill advised war against the Romans. I'm also not clear on the corruption in general, it couldn't have been worse than that seen during the time of the Hasmoneans (or perhaps even the entire second temple period).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.