Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Ok, I stopped reading when you stated that not a single stone is left of the temple.

Learn to read. You linked an article about the temple MOUNT. I said not one stone was left upon another of the Temple i.e. the Temple itself! Three Roman legions destroyed it in 70 A.D. All the stones were removed to gather the molten and hardened gold that had ran into the cracks from the Temple fire that destroyed the structure.

Correct. Temple Mount -- yep, still there (not surprisingly.) The Temple itself -- nope, been destroyed for quite some time now (hint to Madness: there's a reason for that, feel free to sign on with the conspiratorial types to wave it off

)

Christ's prophecy about "not one stone would be left upon another" was fulfilled perfectly 37 years later.

"Post hoc" my ass.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, I'd consider that the Western Wall, being an artificial structure, would count. But that's splitting hairs. Since you're not going to address the issue of tenses...you know, how Jesus shifts tenses to clearly refer to his audience rather than to the people in future events, I guess you're either giving up on the discussion or don't have a clear rebuttal.

Also, predicting that the temple would be destroyed? Not that big of a deal as there's no evidence that the texts "predicting" this were actually written before the event transpired. Am I saying that they were necessarily fabricated after the temple's destruction? No. What I am saying is that they cannot be considered a prophecy of any sort because there is no definitive evidence that the claim was made prior to the event.

reply to post by adjensen


The Romans needed a display of power against a religious minority. The sort of thing that they didn't do to tributaries. If I'm not mistaken (correct me if I'm wrong here because I don't really feel like looking it up), the destruction of the temple took place after the region that contained Israel was absorbed into the empire proper, while it had merely been a tributary in the time of Jesus.

Up until that point it had been a tributary, a puppet state.

But it's been ages since I studied the progression of the Roman empire.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Wasn't it Emporor Constantine that declared Christianity as the religion of the state, and thus it's inevitable spread across the world?

If so, furthermore highlights that place of birth depends on religion, that faith is more happenstance than divinely willed.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Wasn't it Emporor Constantine that declared Christianity as the religion of the state

No, Constantine only legalized Christianity.

The 2nd successor to him made it the religion of the state.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Also, predicting that the temple would be destroyed? Not that big of a deal as there's no evidence that the texts "predicting" this were actually written before the event transpired.

The only NT book written after 70 A.D. was Revelation which was written in 95 A.D.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Says you. There's a fairly big margin of error on the Gospels, most dating tends to range from between 60-100 CE for the authorship of the Gospels, so to say that everything else in the Bible was definitely written before 60 is to make a presumption. The other issue is that we don't know exactly how much of that back then is exactly as it is now. We know that there are parts found in the modern Bible that were simply not there in earlier versions. It would be ludicrous of anyone to simply assume that the books existed exactly the same way they exist now in their earliest stages because the earliest things we have are fragments from the second century.

You're just going to flat out declare something that isn't definitive, but that's just because it's your religious dogma.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

You're just going to flat out declare something that isn't definitive, but that's just because it's your religious dogma.

Well, that and the simple fact that if the books were written after the destruction of the temple one would think it would be MENTIONED.

That's kinda/sorta of a big deal to Jews.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

The Romans needed a display of power against a religious minority. The sort of thing that they didn't do to tributaries.

Well, no, that wasn't what happened. The Romans had nothing against the Jews for religious reasons (I might be remembering wrong, but I believe that the special dispensation granted to Jews, which granted them the freedom to not worship and god but their own, remained in place, even after the dispersion.)

I'm rereading the Old Testament prophets, and one thing that a person notes regarding Judaic history is that it's pretty cyclical. The people have an uptime (which they view as being due to being favoured by God) which is followed by a period when they're on the outs (droughts, invasions, captivity, and so on) which are viewed as God turning his back on them. A prophet comes along to point out that it is for their acting counter to God's wishes, the people turn away from their evil ways, and Israel is back in the pink.

This was another one of those times when Israel was on the outs -- possessed first by the Persians, then the Greeks, then the Romans. And in the middle of the First Century, some of them had had enough, and figured that God would help them out of yet another jam. But, for the first time, nothing that they did seemed to get God back on their side, and the Romans crushed the Jewish revolt, laid siege to Jerusalem and eventually destroyed both the city and the Temple, and then wiped out the last of the Zealots at Masada in 71AD.

Israel would not exist again for almost 1900 years.

That's one of the historical pieces that Christians point to as evidence of the truth about their claims -- with Christ, there was no longer a need for a Temple, and within a generation, it was gone. With Christ, all nations were blessed, not just Israel, and within a generation, the Jews were dispersed to "all nations." Christians existed before the revolt, and could point to their own beliefs as a reason not to rely on God's intervention, and many of them fled Jerusalem before the siege.

A lot of the "end times" chatter these days (and, really, since the 1970s) arises out of the restoration of Israel in 1948. Unlike previous cycles, the people were not saved by their faith and accordance to the Law, with credit given to God (at least not overtly,) but the restoration was at the will of men. Because of the nature of this, many take it as a sign, of something, and put into Christian eschatology, they tie it to Jesus' prophecy regarding the End of the Age.

As for dating of scripture, I'm personally in favour of an earlier date, not because it really matters, but because it answers a few questions about the texts. Acts of the Apostles, for example, ends on a rather odd note, indicating that the author didn't know that Paul was martyred -- as Luke was Paul's doctor and companion, it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have known. Since the early Church viewed martyrdom as a noble thing, leaving it out not to "have the text end on a downer" seems similarly unlikely.

But dating Acts prior to Paul's death in 66AD presents a problem for the Synoptic Problem, because it mostly appears that the Gospel of Luke, which is referred to in Acts and was clearly written by the same person, was the last of the three Synoptics, so Matthew and Mark are pushed forward, and Christ's prophecy about the Temple is shown to be a prophecy, not something written after the fact.

For that reason, disbelievers work very hard to set the date of the writing of Acts to be after 70AD, even though the text itself seems to testify to that not being the case.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Or...maybe...someone thought "Hey, I'll add some credibility to the document by making it look like a prediction."

Also, the Corinthians? Really wouldn't care. I doubt that most people outside of the region cared.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm not saying it was a religious thing, I'm saying it was a political display. Just like the Babylonian destruction wasn't as much of a religious thing as it was a 'haha, we beat you!' thing.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'm not saying it was a religious thing, I'm saying it was a political display. Just like the Babylonian destruction wasn't as much of a religious thing as it was a 'haha, we beat you!' thing.

I have no doubt that, from the Romans' point of view, it was both a show of force and a means by which to get rid of the rallying point for the Jews. But that's not the point. It represented a huge change in the religious faith and practice for the Jews, which was presaged by Christ about forty years prior. Even if you were to take his prophecy to be an "after the fact" sort of thing, from the letters of Paul, which ARE pretty solidly dated, it is clear that the premise that one didn't need the Temple any longer was derived from the teachings of Christ, and predated the destruction.

I haven't spent much time on the demographics of post-70AD Jewish to Christian conversion, but what I have seen showed that the rate wasn't all that great, continuing a trend that started in the 60s. Rather than seeing Christ as the substitute, as the means by which they could continue their relationship to God, Judaism reformed itself to a "post-Temple" age.

That's one of the historic realities that, in my opinion, demonstrates the validity of Christianity as an extension of Judaism. Coincidence that Christ appeared right around the time of this upheaval and reversal of fortunes, the end of the cycles that I had referred to? Perhaps, but it seems like a pretty far fetched coincidence.

Imagine, for a moment, that Christ was the Messiah, and that he really did come to establish a new covenant with the Jews, one in which they were reconciled to God, not through the Law and through the Temple, but through himself. For a time, the existing Covenant means would have to continue to exist, in order to allow the message of Christ to be dispersed, and to continue the old system for those who didn't know about the new. A "grandfather clause", if you will.

If that were the case, it seems a lot less coincidental that within a generation (almost exactly 40 years after Christ's mission officially began,) one of the most important aspects of the old Covenant, something that the Jews believed was God's house on Earth, would be destroyed, never to be rebuilt again (at least to date.)

That's a happening that, as a disbeliever, one needs to either ignore or dismiss as a highly unlikely, and yet actual, coincidence, which just so happens to bolster the case made by Christ 40 years prior (if one accepts it) and Paul 10 years prior (demonstrably true, so not accepting it is ignoring facts to coincide with ones opinion.)

reply to post by adjensen


And I'm going to state it again: there's no evidence that the texts containing any predictions about the temple were actually written prior to the destruction of the temple. Could it be true? Sure. Would it mean anything if they were written before the event happened? Not really, as it was sort of a sore point for the Jews anyway.

There's no evidence that these passages are as old as you're claiming, so please don't claim they are that old.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

And I'm going to state it again: there's no evidence that the texts containing any predictions about the temple were actually written prior to the destruction of the temple. Could it be true? Sure. Would it mean anything if they were written before the event happened? Not really, as it was sort of a sore point for the Jews anyway.

There's no evidence that these passages are as old as you're claiming, so please don't claim they are that old.

Here, let me highlight what I wrote, as you seemed to have missed it:

Even if you were to take his prophecy to be an "after the fact" sort of thing, from the letters of Paul, which ARE pretty solidly dated, it is clear that the premise that one didn't need the Temple any longer was derived from the teachings of Christ, and predated the destruction.

Yes, the letters of Paul are fairly well conclusively evidenced to having been written in the 50s and 60s AD. Yes, the letters of Paul clearly indicate a theology which is based on faith in Christ being a new covenant, rendering the Temple superfluous. Ergo, the Christian belief that the Temple was no longer necessary for reconciliation to God clearly pre-dated the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Whether you wish to believe Christ absolutely predicted it or not doesn't matter.

Stop being so mired in your disbelief that you ignore facts which might give those mighty foundations of yours a little shake. Recalcitrance does not a good argument make.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm not really at odds with the doctrinal issue, I'm really at odds with the claim of a prophecy of physical events when there is no necessary link between the two.

And I'm not convinced that Paul got the teaching from Jesus, though I'm aware that there were early Christian groups were already separating from the idea of Temple ritual, while there were those who weren't.

What I dispute is the claim of prophecy, that's all.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
And I'm not convinced that Paul got the teaching from Jesus, though I'm aware that there were early Christian groups were already separating from the idea of Temple ritual, while there were those who weren't.

Where else would he be getting it from? Maybe it's been too long since you read his letters, but he flat out states, repeatedly, that this is all based on Christ, and his (Paul's) reasoning of the meaning of Christ's death within the context of the existing Jewish theology.

The majority of Christians who maintained ties to the Temple while it existed were those who were born Jewish and converted. They are also the ones who opposed Paul in his claims that faith in Christ, not the Law, were what saved you. It is, perhaps, in deference to them that the Temple was left in existence for that 40 years

What I dispute is the claim of prophecy, that's all.

And like I said, it doesn't really make any difference, because there are indisputable facts that point to there being more to the story than simple coincidence.

To wit:

1) A widespread Christian theology that taught the lack of necessity of the Temple predated its destruction
2) Said theology is based on the teachings and revelations of Jesus, who died forty years prior to its destruction
3) The destruction of the Temple resulted from a popular Jewish uprising, intended to overthrow the yoke of oppression, as had happened time and time again in Israel's history
4) There is no indication that Christians were the cause of the Temple's destruction, or that Rome acted at the behest of Christians
5) The cycle of Israel's triumphs and pitfalls that had been in existence since Moses ended with the Temple's destruction
6) The current existence of Israel in 2011 is due to human, rather than divine (apparently) intervention

These are some of the reasons that some cite as evidence for both the validity of Christianity, as well as the possibility of Israel's restoration being indicative of the End of the Age.

As for the prophecy itself, as I said, there is both tradition, and facts, which indicate that the Gospels MAY have been written prior to 70AD (apart from John, which likely was not,) so the late dating that many point to is often predicated on the belief that prophecy cannot exist, therefore anything which points to it must have been written after the fact.

For me, at least, that's a bit like those you criticize, who ignore facts associated with science in order to see things in accordance with their beliefs -- if a person says that prophecy is impossible, then their dating of Matthew to post-70AD is based on that belief, in spite of the facts that I listed in an earlier post which point to a much earlier dating.

A fact is a fact, no matter what one's opinion of it might be.

reply to post by adjensen


What Madness is trying to say is he has a problem with prophecy because he's already decided there is no such thing as prophecy.

Get it now?

Originally posted by SaberTruth
From my little book Reconciled:

Regarding the Promise, this explains why there had to be a particular time in history for Jesus to come. And as the writer of Hebrews explained, it's like a Last Will and Testament which cannot be enacted until the death of the testator has been established.* This highlights another critical element of sin and salvation: Since there was a Will and Testament involved, there had to be the death of the One who made it. We simply must understand this, because one of the most common objections to the gospel (coming even from within the "churches" today!) is that God is somehow bloodthirsty and cruel, demanding the death penalty for the smallest crimes. We need to counter such charges with this fact about the Promise. The price for redemption had to be death because this was the only way the Promise could be delivered.

Why was it that only God in human flesh could redeem us? Because only Jesus could represent both parties in the dispute: God and mankind.** It really is that simple, and explains why no other Way to God is possible. This is not God being arbitrarily narrow but God being compassionate because only He could pay this price, though He was under no obligation. There truly was no other way. And in redeeming us, Jesus also canceled the legal document of debt that stood against us and displayed it publicly by nailing it where all could see; that is the sense of the Greek.

In so doing, Jesus paid every last penny of our alienation from God and our committed sins.

* Heb. 9:16-28
** Col. 1:15–22, 2:9–15

With all do respect saber..this doesn't really answer the question for me. God created us knowing that we were naturally drawn to sin, and only the death of Jesus can redeem something that He created that way?

Why the death?..why the suffering? why not just forgiveness without the price. seems odd to me that a loving God would knowingly create a species that was naturally drawn to sin,so He could come in and save the day,by watching His only son die a humilating death on a cross.
As much as I want to believe in a good God,it just seems sadistic to me...the whole sacrifice element.

reply to post by gabby2011

People will say this is not true but it is the jist of it.
God created man to be in blissful union and synchronicity like every other natural thing on the planet in harmony with our world. Then something happened. Some interlopers and interbreeding created a hybrid. Son of God resulted in Son of man, or Hu-man.
What exactly happened is not clear but we know the result was a new species, a smarter (?) and argumentative species. One that had a mind of it's own and was no longer an instinctive creature like the other creatures but one that had free will and was more like the God that created everything. After a time this hu-man creature forgot God created them (as man) to begin with and they began to act as if they were Gods themselves. Havoc resulted because God did not think they were ready yet, humans were knocked back a few pegs to remember where they came from.
They were pretty good for awhile and then they lost their humility, started to act all superior again, forgetting they were created and might be destroyed just as quickly.
Jesus came/was sent because after many trials, lessons and messengers sent to teach what was expected of us (to qualify as Godly) we still were confused. Our animal side keeps vying for dominance. Jesus was sent to show as simply as possible, so there could be no mistake, how we are supposed to live and treat each other, kindly, civilly, lovingly. Jesus provided a New Covenant because so many were confused and baffled by the Old Testament, they just kept getting it wrong.

It was a new contract between the Master-creator God and the hu-man using Jesus as arbitrator, messenger and as a sacrifice. The way Jesus as a sacrifice was explained to me is more or less as follows:
God was convinced by a few good humans that humans were not exactly bad but frail and weak compared to Gods. Humans had a hard time being perfect and God like due to physical natures, temptations and tendencies that were inherent to the "man" side of themselves. God the Father could not understand this frailty and tendency to err because His side of the family, Gods, are kind of perfect. God thought humans were simply wicked by nature (just like an animal gone rabid) but because of a fondness for and convincing from men like Noah and Enoch he decided to see for himself what it was like being human so that he might forgive our troublesome ways.
You say it is tough being a hu-man, let's see how tough it is - lets see why you cannot obey my wishes. So God became incarnate, to see what it was like to live on Earth in a mortal body. Just to see what those great men were complaining about. When he did, then he knew.
In that way Jesus was our salvation.
He was God Himself seeing what it was like to be human.
That brought about our forgiveness in an 'Oh I get it' kind of moment
But we are still required to behave in a Godlike way. In the way that Jesus showed by example.

....also (untimely or premature) death and suffering is from us. We are asked specifically to comfort people. God isn't mean. God wants (and Jesus said) alleviate other peoples pain and suffering ourselves whenever we see it happen. (Certainly didn't say cause it)
Mercy, forgiveness and charity but the greatest of these is LOVE.
Jesus dies early to fulfill the scriptures. This was God saying "I told you so."

God said you hu-man (part God, part man) are worse than animals, bloodthirsty killers and would not even know your own kind, your own Father. if he walked among you, you would kill him. And we did.

God came and acted like a peace-nik, got himself killed, to prove the point we are barbarous.

All along Jesus says this is something we need to quit. King of Peace. Love your enemies.

Jesus Christ's death was God saying

See how you are?