On the difference between pre-70 Christians and post-70 Christians

[Giuseppe]

The early Christians imagined (and emphasized only) a Crucified Messiah because the Death of the Messiah by demons confirmed the maximum triumph of the evil at its climax (usually known as anomia) and therefore the same imminence of the End.


1) if the End is imminent, then the evil has to reach its climax, the his maximum triumph
2) the crucifixion of the Messiah by demons represents the maximum triumph of the evil
3) therefore: the point 2 proves that the Messiah is already arrived and the End is coming.


After the 70 CE, the maximum triumph of evil was not more the Death of the Messiah, but the same destruction of the Temple by Romans, an evil under the eyes of all, and not only of who “saw” the evil in the reality from a merely apocalyptic view. So the Death of the Messiah, from being the confirmation of the his same arrival, became a mere “historical” theodicy for the destruction of the Temple.

1) if the End is imminent, then the evil has to reach its climax, the his maximum triumph
2) the destruction of Jerusalem by Romans represents the maximum triumph of the evil
3) therefore: the point 2 proves that the Messiah was killed on the earth by the same Jews.


The difference is clearly the function of the Death of the Messiah:

in pre-70 times, the Death of Messiah served to confirm the arrival of the Messiah (hence the imminence of the End).

in post-70 times, the Death of Messiah served to explain the destruction of Judea in 70 CE.


In pre-70 times, the Death of Messiah was not cause of embarrassment. The embarrassment is overcame by the certainty that the End is coming, if even the Messiah was killed.

In post-70 times, the Death of Messiah was cause of embarrassment. The embarrassment is overcame only partially by the destruction of the Jews killers of the Messiah. The same existence of Jews who are not Christians becomes a great cause of embarrassment, since it means that they are left still not punished by the same Messiah killed by them.


So, if Paul reports that the crucifixion was “a scandal for the Jews”, then the his words reflect more a post-70 time than a pre-70 time.

[DCHindley]

I'd say the major difference between pre-70 Christians and post-70 Christians is the spring in their step, although that goes for most in their 50s, and the kinds of undergarments the men wear (tidy-whities/boxers vs Depends incontinence protectors). DCH

[Giuseppe]

the kinds of undergarments the men wear
DCH

[arnoldo]

. . After the 70 CE, the maximum triumph of evil was not more the Death of the Messiah, but the same destruction of the Temple by Romans . .

There certainly were pre-70 AD Christians. The First Epistle of Clement also may've been written pre-70 AD according to Thomas J. Herron.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P9N9W ... 70&f=false

[DCHindley]

. . After the 70 CE, the maximum triumph of evil was not more the Death of the Messiah, but the same destruction of the Temple by Romans . .

There certainly were pre-70 AD Christians. The First Epistle of Clement also may've been written pre-70 AD according to Thomas J. Herron.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P9N9W ... 70&f=false

The author of the cited book seemed to be manipulating the evidence in order to reach a predetermined result.

Considering how long 1 Clement is (65+ chapters, IIRC, bigger than any NT treatise of Paul) this is a theological treatise not a simple encyclical letter. If it is a theological treatise, then it was composed to inform and persuade. It represents the theology of the period in which it was composed, and I believe the greeting identifying the writer as an earlier Clement the 1st bishop of Rome is a commonplace example among pseudonymous literature.

The intent was to give the letter a theology, supposedly of the period before the Judean War , but likely later. But what of the fact that some of the theology that uses the Judean temple as an example are written as if the temple was standing in "Clement's" own time? This along with others can be explained as attempts by a post-War author to make it sound like a pre-War document written by the legendary Clement, Bishop of Rome.

DCH