Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-21-2013, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

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.

Agreed

Quote:

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)

The only mistake I see, is that Paul and the theology was present all through the Diaspora and was in play before the temple fell and your ignoring the fact it is not the same time period.

That is sort of moving the goal post, to meet your personal explanation.

The movement of Christianity and its foundations were laid before the temple fell.

Yes more was constructed afterwards and it did influence the gospels to some extent, but when the temple fell, the movement was very widespread and had moved far away from temple worship and its corruption.

Toto · 08-21-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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. . .

But I told you that they are related. In my view of the most likely course of events, it was the destruction of the Temple that inspired the invention of Christianity, which invented a pre-history for itself based on the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of the Temple. You just have the direction of the relationship reversed.

Your "few likely viewpoints" were not based on actual viewpoints. The traditional, old-time Christian viewpoint is that the Temple was destroyed as part of YHWH's punishment of the Jews for killing Jesus. The more modern liberal Christian viewpoint is, I think, that the events are not related, but that Christians worked the destruction of the Temple into their gospel stories by having Jesus foretell the fall of the Temple and compare the Temple to his body (which was also the bread of the Eucharist, but who expects logic from Christian symbolism.)

The idea that the Temple was destroyed because Jesus abolished the law appears to be your own invention, without any support in Christian theology or history.

But you have not dealt with my objection that the Temple is not the same as the Law. Rabbinic Judaism adjusted to the lost of the Temple, but still kept the Law.

TedM · 08-21-2013, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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)

The only mistake I see, is that Paul and the theology was present all through the Diaspora and was in play before the temple fell and your ignoring the fact it is not the same time period.

That is sort of moving the goal post, to meet your personal explanation.

The movement of Christianity and its foundations were laid before the temple fell.

Yes more was constructed afterwards and it did influence the gospels to some extent, but when the temple fell, the movement was very widespread and had moved far away from temple worship and its corruption.

Admitted, it would be a stronger point if the temple collapsed at the moment Jesus died on the cross. OTOH, if Paul's theology of Jesus replacing the temple formed AFTER the temple fell, that wouldn't be so impressive. The fact that it formed BEFORE it fell is, for me, what makes for a 'theological coincidence', even if we have a perfectly good 'naturalistic' explanation.

outhouse · 08-21-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The idea that the Temple was destroyed because Jesus abolished the law appears to be your own invention, without any support in Christian theology or history.

I dont think Jesus abolished the law.

Paul did.

Quote:

which invented a pre-history for itself based on the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of the Temple.

Unsubstatiated.

TedM · 08-21-2013, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But I told you that they are related. In my view of the most likely course of events, it was the destruction of the Temple that inspired the invention of Christianity, which invented a pre-history for itself based on the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of the Temple. You just have the direction of the relationship reversed.

I don't recall seeing this earlier in the thread. I get your view now, but if this is the first time you spelled it out, why did it take so long? This is my #3 in the op.

Quote:

The idea that the Temple was destroyed because Jesus abolished the law appears to be your own invention, without any support in Christian theology or history.

you've already forgotten the quote I provided? Or did you not see it on page 2? They (and I) are not the only who sees this as a likely theological position.

How about Irenaeus?:http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud...e-of-ad70.html

Quote:

2. Since, then, the law originated with Moses, it terminated with John as a necessary consequence. Christ had come to fulfil it: wherefore "the law and the prophets were" with them "until John."(2) And therefore Jerusalem, taking its commencement from David,(3) and fulfilling its own times, must have an end of legislation(4) when the new covenant was revealed."

How about Origen(same link)?:

Quote:

"Therefore he, also, having separated from her, married, so to speak, another, having given into the hands of the former the bill of divorcement; wherefore they can no longer do the things enjoined on them by the law, because of the bill of divorcement. And a sign that she has received the bill of divorcement is this, that Jerusalem was destroyed along with what they called the sanctuary of the things in it which were believed to be holy, and with the altar of burnt offerings, and all the worship associated with it... And what was more unseemly than the fact, that they all said in His case, "Crucify Him, crucify Him," and "Away with such a fellow from the earth"? And can this be freed from the charge of unseemliness, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children"? Wherefore, when He was avenged, Jerusalem was compassed with armies, and its desolation was near, and their house was taken away from it, and "the daughter of Zion was left as a booth in a vineyard, and as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and as a besieged city." And, about the same time, I think, the husband wrote out a bill of divorcement to his former wife, and gave it into her hands, and sent her away from his own house, and the bond of her who came from the Gentiles has been cancelled about which the Apostle Says, "Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances, which was contrary to us, and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;" for Paul also and others became proselytes of Israel for her who came from the Gentiles." (COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, Book 2., sec. 19.)

How about John Calvin(same link)?:

Quote:

I have no hesitation in referring this language of the angel to that profanation of the Temple which happened after the manifestation of Christ, when sacrifices ceased, and the shadows of the law were abolished. From the time, therefore, at which the sacrifice really ceased to be offered; this refers to the period at which Christ by his advent should abolish the shadows of the law, thus making all offering of sacrifices to God totally valueless.

There probably are more on that page, but I stopped after finding these 3. So while yes people saw the destruction as punishment, along with that was seen to be the abolishing of the law by the new covenant of salvation through faith.

Quote:

But you have not dealt with my objection that the Temple is not the same as the Law. Rabbinic Judaism adjusted to the lost of the Temple, but still kept the Law.

I did deal with it. Things were never the same. The Temple was the symbol of the Law.

Toto · 08-21-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But I told you that they are related. In my view of the most likely course of events, it was the destruction of the Temple that inspired the invention of Christianity, which invented a pre-history for itself based on the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of the Temple. You just have the direction of the relationship reversed.

I don't recall seeing this earlier in the thread. I get your view now, but if this is the first time you spelled it out, why did it take so long? This is my #3 in the op.

I thought I had spelled this out in this thread, but perhaps it was another.

Your #3 misidentified this as a conspiracy theory, and then threw in Doherty or the HJ group, all of which makes no sense.

Favored by the conspiracy minded group as an explanation for Christianity's origins. Some in the Doherty or HJ group may also favor this as the impetus for Christianity to have spread more quickly AFTER the temple destruction

There are actual conspiracy theorists - Atwill and Carotta - but a conspiracy is not a necessary part of the idea.

Quote:

you've already forgotten the quote I provided? Or did you not see it on page 2?

Your quotes did not prove what you think they did.

Quote:

They (and I) are not the only who sees this as a likely theological position.

How about Irenaeus?:http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud...e-of-ad70.html

What is Irenaeus saying? The law ended with John? Does he connect the end of the law to the destruction of the Temple?

Quote:

How about Origen(same link)?:

Your link says:
"It has been a standard feature of Christian preaching through the ages that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was really God's decisive punishment of the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus, who died around the year 30."

I do not see a connection between this and the Law.

Quote:

How about John Calvin(same link)?:

Another Christian writer who needs a good editor.

Calvin in this passage seems to connect the destruction of the Temple with corruption and that the "Jews so completely violated the whole covenant that no sanctity remained in either the Temple, the nation, or the land itself."

Quote:

There probably are more on that page, but I stopped after finding these 3. So while yes people saw the destruction as punishment, along with that was seen to be the abolishing of the law by the new covenant of salvation through faith.

But the emphasis is on punishment and corruption, not the end of the law.

Quote:

But you have not dealt with my objection that the Temple is not the same as the Law. Rabbinic Judaism adjusted to the loss of the Temple, but still kept the Law.

I did deal with it. Things were never the same. The Temple was the symbol of the Law.

No, it wasn't a symbol. The Temple was the means for accomplishing parts of the law. But the law lasted beyond the Temple. And if you think that Jesus (or Paul) abolished the law in 33 CE or 50 CE, the Temple also lasted beyond the Law.

TedM · 08-21-2013, 04:49 PM

I've decided to not respond further. Just too tired of it. Anyone interested can see that yes the quotes I provided all linked the destruction of the temple with the abolishing of the law because of Jesus' new covenant through the crucifixion. It's all right there in the quotes. Of course the temple lasted 40 years longer, but that's beside the point--which is that the destruction of the temple has been seen not only as a fulfillment of prophecy, not only as punishment, but also as a symbol of the replacement of the old covenant with the new covenant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But I told you that they are related. In my view of the most likely course of events, it was the destruction of the Temple that inspired the invention of Christianity, which invented a pre-history for itself based on the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of the Temple. You just have the direction of the relationship reversed.

I don't recall seeing this earlier in the thread. I get your view now, but if this is the first time you spelled it out, why did it take so long? This is my #3 in the op.

I thought I had spelled this out in this thread, but perhaps it was another.

Your #3 misidentified this as a conspiracy theory, and then threw in Doherty or the HJ group, all of which makes no sense.

Favored by the conspiracy minded group as an explanation for Christianity's origins. Some in the Doherty or HJ group may also favor this as the impetus for Christianity to have spread more quickly AFTER the temple destruction

There are actual conspiracy theorists - Atwill and Carotta - but a conspiracy is not a necessary part of the idea.

Quote:

you've already forgotten the quote I provided? Or did you not see it on page 2?

Your quotes did not prove what you think they did.

Quote:

They (and I) are not the only who sees this as a likely theological position.

How about Irenaeus?:http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud...e-of-ad70.html

What is Irenaeus saying? The law ended with John? Does he connect the end of the law to the destruction of the Temple?

Quote:

How about Origen(same link)?:

Your link says:
"It has been a standard feature of Christian preaching through the ages that the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was really God's decisive punishment of the Jewish people for their rejection of Jesus, who died around the year 30."

I do not see a connection between this and the Law.

Quote:

How about John Calvin(same link)?:

Another Christian writer who needs a good editor.

Calvin in this passage seems to connect the destruction of the Temple with corruption and that the "Jews so completely violated the whole covenant that no sanctity remained in either the Temple, the nation, or the land itself."

Quote:

There probably are more on that page, but I stopped after finding these 3. So while yes people saw the destruction as punishment, along with that was seen to be the abolishing of the law by the new covenant of salvation through faith.

But the emphasis is on punishment and corruption, not the end of the law.

Quote:

But you have not dealt with my objection that the Temple is not the same as the Law. Rabbinic Judaism adjusted to the loss of the Temple, but still kept the Law.

I did deal with it. Things were never the same. The Temple was the symbol of the Law.

No, it wasn't a symbol. The Temple was the means for accomplishing parts of the law. But the law lasted beyond the Temple. And if you think that Jesus (or Paul) abolished the law in 33 CE or 50 CE, the Temple also lasted beyond the Law.

aa5874 · 08-21-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

.... In my view of the most likely course of events, it was the destruction of the Temple that inspired the invention of Christianity, which invented a pre-history for itself based on the death of Jesus 40 years before the fall of the Temple. You just have the direction of the relationship reversed.

That is precisely what I have been saying for years now.

It was the Fall of the Jewish Temple, the Temple of the God of the Jews, that triggered the fable that the Jews killed or delivered up the Son of God to be killed.

In fact, it is documented in writings of the Jesus cult writers that the Temple was destroyed because the Jews killed the Son of God and even admitted by Josephus that it was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel that the Romans would destroy the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.

1. Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

Quote:

In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled...

2. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

...Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him...

3. Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews

Quote:

But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?......... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor...

4. Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Quote:

For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

The Destruction of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE is directly related to the story of Jesus as the Son of Man in the NT Canon.

James The Least · 08-21-2013, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It occurs to me that it is rather extraordinary that Christianity began within 50 years of the Jewish Temple destruction. Mankind's most dominant religion began, and it claims to have replaced the need for the Jewish Temple. The Jewish people revered their temple as the most Holy place to worship their God, and yet it is destroyed physically within 50 years of the religion that claims it was replaced spiritually.

Coincidence?

I see 3 viewpoints:

1. Jesus really prophesied it, or was very insightful. Favored by believers and those that think Jesus was a genius.

2. It is a coincidence. Favored by the Doherty and the HJ group.

3. Christianity developed directly as a result of the temple destruction. Favored by the conspiracy minded group as an explanation for Christianity's origins. Some in the Doherty or HJ group may also favor this as the impetus for Christianity to have spread more quickly AFTER the temple destruction (ie the rationale of a new spiritual temple hit home with Jews and Romans alike).

...

Christianity pre-dates the fall of the Temple, probably by a long time. There were Christians in Rome in Nero's time.

What happened after the fall of the Temple was the exploitation of that tragic event by these same Christians. Now they could say that their god, "Christ Jesus," predicted all of this 50-100 years ago. When "the Jews" killed Christ Jesus, it started the clock ticking toward certain destruction, guided by YHWH. And they "proved" this by writing some vaticina ex eventu novels in which His Holiness Christ Jesus is shown predicting that the walls will come tumbling down, 'cause "the Jews" have pissed off YHWH.

This shuck and jive routine apparently worked brilliantly.

Duvduv · 08-21-2013, 06:30 PM

James the Least, WHAT empirical evidence exists apart from Church documentation indicates that Christians existed in Nero's time, or that Christianity predates the fall of the Temple? These beliefs are as unfounded as the idea that Columbus was the first to discover America .

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

08-21-2013, 06:30 PM	#80
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	James the Least, WHAT empirical evidence exists apart from Church documentation indicates that Christians existed in Nero's time, or that Christianity predates the fall of the Temple? These beliefs are as unfounded as the idea that Columbus was the first to discover America .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.