On the difference between pre-70 Christians and post-70 Christians
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 11:13 pm
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.
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.