Do Jewish people of today give credit to Jesus for being right about the destruction of the Temple and the end of animal sacrifices?

Jesus warned his followers about the signs to look to know that the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed. And Jesus told them to flee as soon as they saw these signs. History records that in the massacre of Jews that happened when the Temple was destroyed, not a single Christian was killed. This is because they followed Jesus’ early warning and advice when they saw the signs that he told them to look for. And because the Temple was destroyed there could no longer be any animal sacrifices done by the Jewish tradition that rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Christians, of course, see the destruction of the Jewish Temple as God’s sign and confirmation that Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the cross for the sins of the world was the ultimate and eternal sacrifice that made animal sacrifice unnecessary. And I personally believe that for this same reason God permitted for many impenetrable obstacles to come in the way so that the Temple would never be rebuilt.

Hebrews 7

17 For it is witnessed of him, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz’edek.”

18 On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness

19 (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath.

21 Those who formerly became priests took their office without an oath, but this one was addressed with an oath, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, `Thou art a priest for ever.’”

22 This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant.

23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office;

24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever.

25 Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

27 He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself.

28 Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.

Which history is doing the recording?

This link is to what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it. Although the encyclopedia is Catholic, it is very comprehensive and includes references to non-Catholic sources as well to the Catholic ones.

When Titus took Jerusalem (April-September, A.D. 70) he ordered his soldiers to destroy the city (Josephus, “De bello Jud.”, VI, ix). They spared only the three great towers at the north of Herod’s palace (Hippicus, Phasael, Mariamne) and the western wall. Few Jews remained. The Roman Tenth Legion held the upper town and Herod’s castle as a fortress; Josephus says that Titus handed the fields around to his soldiers (“Vita”, 76). The presence of these heathens would naturally repel Jews, though in this period there was no law against their presence in Jerusalem. The Jewish Rabbis gathered together at Jabne (or Jamnia, now Jebna) in the plain, northwest of the city, two hours from Ramleh.

Meanwhile the Christian community had fled to Pella in Paraea, east of the Jordan (southeast of Jenin), before the beginning of the siege. The Christians were still almost entirely converts from Judaism (Eusebius, Church History IV.5). After the destruction they came back and congregated in the house of John Mark and his mother Mary, where they had met before (Acts 12:12 sq.). It was apparently in this house that was the Upper Room, the scene of the Last Supper and of the assembly on Pentecost. Epiphanius (d. 403) says that when the Emperor Hadrian came to Jerusalem in 130 he found the Temple and the whole city destroyed save for a few houses, among them the one where the Apostles had received the Holy Ghost. This house, says Epiphanius, is “in that part of Sion which was spared when the city was destroyed” — therefore in the "upper part (“De mens. et pond.”, cap. xiv). From the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, who speaks of “the upper Church of the Apostles, where the Holy Ghost came down upon them” (Catech., ii, 6; P.G., XXXIII), there are abundant witnesses of the place. A great basilica was built over the spot in the fourth century; the crusaders built another church when the older one had been destroyed by Hakim in 1010. It is the famous Coenaculum or Cenacle — now a Moslem shrine — near the Gate of David, and supposed to be David’s tomb (Nebi Daud).

Here’s a Jewish source about the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Notice how they also make references to Flavius Josephus.

Other than the encyclopedia, what’s the source for all the Christians having escaped?

It says it in the encyclopedia article. I think the primary source for the recorded history of this (which is accepted by both Christians and Jews) is the historical record written down by Flavius Josephus.

Generally speaking, it rather depends on whether one is talking about Josephus or ‘doctored’ Josephus.

Look, you brought this up wanting us to explain away our supposed blindness to the truth, it’s up to you to establish that there’s anything for us to explain.

If any Christians were caught up in the destruction of Jerusalem, it was of their own choosing. The Jewish war lasted for years, and with a year-long hiatus, so they had plent of time to flee.

The entirety of the stories in Acts occurred BEFORE the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

The writings of Josephus are the key to understanding the New Testament. Hagan does a good job of setting the Gospels within Josephus’ framework, along with other Roman historians.

According to the Hebrew Bible, animal sacrifice per se was never acceptable to G-d; in fact it is called an abomination if it is not accompanied by sincere prayer and repentance. The major method of atonement for sins, according to many passages in the Hebrew Bible, is repentance or “turning away” (teshuva) and it was always thus. The animal sacrifices were applicable only for unintentional sins, not for intentional sins. In ancient times, many people could not even travel to the Temple to bring animal sacrifices, and those people who were too poor to sacrifice animals by having their blood sprinkled on the altar were permitted to bring grain sacrifices which involved no blood. Further, the rebuilding of the Temple is promised in the Hebrew Bible when the Messiah comes, and some believe that animal sacrifices, either for sin or thanksgiving, will be reestablished at that time. Judaism does not believe in an ultimate death sacrifice in the form of vicarious atonement for the sins of others. G-d did not accept the sacrifice of Abraham’s son or the sacrifice of Moses, and told the latter that he could not atone for the sins of the people by his own death. It is the responsibility of the individual to atone for his or her own sins. Moreover, the concept of salvation, as the term is repeatedly used in the Hebrew Bible, has nothing to do with lifting of sins or immortality, but rather denotes a physical salvation in which G-d protects His people from harm and destruction, including Gentiles as well. Finally, the notion of a Messiah is not really a major theme in Judaism although it is one of the thirteen articles of faith according to Maimonides. Following the Law in one’s everyday behavior is much more important a responsibility, and the Hebrew Bible says in several passages that the Law is attainable to all who make an effort. Even when one errs, however, one can always seek forgiveness. G-d distinguishes between righteous people, who try their best to make improvement after they fail, and wicked people, who persist in their evil ways without making any effort to change. Righteousness does not signify perfection in Judaism since no one except G-d is perfect.

there’s hardly anything to add to Meltzerboy’s great post :slight_smile:

How does this all tie in with the OP’s ‘prediction/warning’ etc scenario?

This is a very interesting topic I think. How DO Jews feel about Jesus and His predictions about the temple being destroyed? If anyone has the “for sure” right answer, I’d really like to hear it. I was reading on a Jewish site awhile back–just out of curiosity-- and it stated that Jews believe that Christians have misinterpreted all the signs in the Old Testament about the Messiah coming. The site never exactly said who the Jews believe that this Jesus was who performed so many miracles, taught in their synagogue’s and raised the dead. They seemed mostly concerned with who they think he wasn’t. I specifically remember that it claimed that since the messiah was to be paternally from the house of David, that since we believe that Mary was a virgin and God is Jesus’ father that this automatically would fall short of the prophecy, as Jesus was not Joseph’s flesh and blood. (Yes, I questioned the logic in that too—but am just quoting what I read.) And, because I am curious and never accept something as fact without checking it out, what evidence does the writer who said that no Christians were included in the deaths subsequent to the temple in Jerusalem have historically that support this claim? I would agree that Jesus had warned the Christians what would occur and thus they had time to leave. What evidence do we have. though–historically speaking–that they listened and were spared? I’m just curious and find this to be a fascinating subject. Thanks to any and all who can answer me!

Most such Jewish sites exist for Jews seeking help/arguments/resources in dealing with evangelists, hence the focus on who Jesus wasn’t.

Otherwise Jesus has no significance beyond the fact that so many of us live in societies with a lot of Christians in them - as did our ancestors.

Thanks to DaddyGirl and Katrin for your kind words.

Here’s a question. Why don’t the Jews of today just accept that Jesus was/is the Messiah since their expectation of the coming of the Messiah is like how Jesus will return for his Second Coming?

Why don’t Christians just accept that we don’t believe a word of it?

You’ll find there have been quite a number of threads here on the question of Messiah so, to save us all the trouble of rehearsing all the arguments yet again, perhaps you might use the search facility?

Jesus never made a “prophesy” about the temple’s destruction. The “prophesy” was written post-destruction by the gospel writers. Modern scholarship does not accept the “prophesy” as actually having occrued…

I think, don’t know for sure, most Jewish scholars would hold similar views.

This view is only held because of the extreme accuracy of Jesus’s words. In fact it is only rejected by modern secular scholars because there is no way Jesus could have known because there is no such thing as Prophets.

We really need to pretend that Mark was written after the year 70 for this to work, and I see that as an impossibility.

I don’t mean to offend you, so please don’t take this personally. I’m asking this question because there exist many secular Jews who consider themselves culturally Jewish but have given up on the religious aspect of being Jewish. Even though they practice the religious rituals they see it as only a celebration of culture. I think the destruction of the Temple and subsequent failure to rebuild it after all this time must still be hard to reconcile with a belief that the Temple sacrifice was supposed to be the center of worship and sacrifice for atoning for people’s sins. The Orthodox Jews who, despite this difficulty, still maintain the actual religious beliefs that are attached to the rituals of Judaism are only about 10% of Jews. Isn’t that the reason why the last remains of the Western wall of the Temple is called “the Wailing Wall”? So, that’s why I was asking why not consider accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah? I mean it as a friendly invitation and not as an insult. :slight_smile:

That’s your opinion.

I don’t mean to offend you, so please don’t take this personally.

The problem here is that you really don’t understand Judaism at all - Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus and Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus, they’re very, very different religions and ideas that have great significance in one often have no significance at all in the other.

This makes your, supposedly, friendly invitation unbelievably naive. I think you might find that knowing something about Judaism as it is, rather than as you think it is, might help future conversations.