Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

[John T]

Stephan,

As you know, I'm no fan of Carrier.
However, are you implying you must be a Talmid Chacham before you can claim/assert, 'what is possible within Judaism'?

Has Spin claimed to have gone to yeshiva? So far I have seen no evidence of his expertize beyond his ability to look up Hebrew words in a Strong's Concordance. Big whoopie doda!

Let us put your faith in Spin to the test and find out if he is a better scholar than Carrier on what was possible within Judaism at the time of Jesus, shall we?

e.g. Bill O-Reilly wrote in, "Killing Jesus" that although Jesus was wrapped/bound in lien after being placed in the tomb, that his face was not covered because, "Jewish tradition dictates that all bodies be examined three days after apparent death."..page 254

Was this done (if at all) simply out of caution in the rare case that the dead might simply be unconscious and could awake within 3 days or did Jewish custom of the time expect the Messiah to rise from the dead after 3 days?

What is the source behind the answer?

Sincerely,

John T

[Stephan Huller]

This is all very well and good but has little to do with the topic at hand. I have identified with Heschel's assistance early Christianity with the minim who held that only the ten commandments = the heavenly Torah. As such the issue you bring up would contradict that premise. Either you argue that I am wrong and Heschel is wrong or this is irrelevant to my broader point (= 'what is possible in Judaism'). I think it is impossible that Christians followed the human torah of Moses or identified the Pentateuch with the torah from heaven.

[Blood]

Not this BS again.

[Stephan Huller]

It's not BS. its only BS to people who want an opinion on Paris without having been there.

[Ulan]

It's not BS. its only BS to people who want an opinion on Paris without having been there.

I think your whole argument falls flat on its face because it's self-contradictory. It first equals knowing Judaism today with knowing Judaism in the first century, although even Judaism had to more or less re-invent itself after the destruction of the temple. It's not even a proselytizing religion anymore, which it was at that time. Second, if you insist on the Jewish roots of Christianity, you suddenly put both religions in the same situation. Which, in some sense, makes the look back for both of them equally easy or hard.

At least as such a general statement, your rant is quite useless. Why don't you try to further work out your "ten commandments only" movement, if you want to convince anyone?

[Stephan Huller]

I think your whole argument falls flat on its face because it's self-contradictory. It first equals knowing Judaism today with knowing Judaism in the first century, although even Judaism had to more or less re-invent itself after the destruction of the temple.

Ummm. I am citing rabbinic sources that say that Jewish worship was changed away from venerating the ten commandments as the 'heavenly Torah.' How does that fit your thesis exactly?

It's not even a proselytizing religion anymore, which it was at that time.

Again what is your point exactly? Where does this demonstrate a 'mistake' on my part?

Second, if you insist on the Jewish roots of Christianity,

Wait 'I ... insist.' No the texts themselves, tradition itself, the earliest witnesses to Christianity (including Celsus) - in short the entire testimony of antiquity says that Christianity developed from Judaism. Indeed Celsus practically shouts in the point in his treatise. How is there an 'I ... insist'? It is established like water as a pre-requisite for life.

you suddenly put both religions in the same situation.

No I assume that the rabbinic tradition defined 'Judaism' in the late second century against the two powers/only the ten commandments = 'heavenly torah' which later became defined as 'heretical Christianity.' The reconstitution of Christianity happened at the same time as the introduction of the Mishnah.

Which, in some sense, makes the look back for both of them equally easy or hard.

No it's not that hard. The minim developed their gospel narrative from the more ancient 'two powers' understanding of the godhead. The 'monotheism' of the rabbinic tradition was artificial and developed under the same Imperial pressure that effectively developed orthodox Christianity viz. monarchianism.

At least as such a general statement, your rant is quite useless.

It might be 'useless' in terms of change the minds of individuals who see Judaism as an obstacle for the myth-making abilities mostly because they know less than nothing about what is possible within Judaism with respect to mythical 'building blocks.' But these theories won't last anyway.

Why don't you try to further work out your "ten commandments only" movement, if you want to convince anyone?

I just did.

[Eric]

A: 'No one here besides spin, Joe Wallack and DCH has even an idea about what Judaism is'
B: '414 Members, 20,469 posts. (Do you know all 414 members background, knowledge and read all 20,469 posts to verify this?
A: 'No.'
B: 'So how do you know?'

[Stephan Huller]

There aren't 414 members. The spammers keep creating false names. At most there are 200 registered members and of those less than 60 participate regularly at the forum. I have known most of the participants since the previous forum. They are for the most part clueless about how Judaism works. The problem comes down to conditioning by monotheists and a complete lack of familiarity with anything but this propaganda that Judaism was always a monotheistic religion. that it didn't ultimately give into Imperial coercion and reconstituted itself according to monarchian principles in the late second century adding the concept of God as cosmocrator to the liturgy under the guidance of R Judah (a complete Imperial sell out may his bones be ground to dust) that it acted as if the claims that it formerly worship angels was wholly unfounded

I have been to Cleveland and it sucks.

[Ulan]

Again what is your point exactly? Where does this demonstrate a 'mistake' on my part?

My point was the topic of your thread, your "you have to go to Paris in order to know why it's amazing", not the details of your idea of Christian origins.

I have been to Cleveland and it sucks.

I haven't, but nearly everyone who was there tells me the same.

[Stephan Huller]

Ok. I am liable to periodic lapses in judgment. Nevertheless any chance to reflect upon Paris isn't a complete waste.