A question about modern Judaism
- Thread starter CathBoy1
- Start date
- Status
Crusader13
New member
Well the old covenant is not still in effect. There are numerous documents and references to the old covenant not being revoked, but that’s not the same thing as saying it is still in effect.
From everything that I’ve read and understood, the old covenant not being revoked is in essence saying that Jews are not forsaken. That simply means that they are not cursed nor prohibited from receiving salvation through Jesus Christ and the new covenant.
Paul speaks of this in Romans 11. Saying the old covenant is not revoked does not mean that there are two covenants in effect, one for Jews and the other for Christians. That belief is denounced by the Church, as it would directly contradict what Jesus did for humanity.
Last edited:
As a Christian I do not disagree with the above, I’m asking specifically from a practicing (preferably Traditional or Orthodox?) Jews point of view, which I’m sure they would disagree with the Christian pov.
I guess to put it another way, I as a Practicing Catholic would be appalled if Catholicism collectively decided, hmm we don’t need the Eucharist anymore so let’s just do away with that…
How do Jews reconcile being unable to make ritualistic sacrifice for the remission of their sins?
And I guess this question ultimately brings up weather the Old Covenant is still in effect?
P
Pattylt
Guest
Well, look at it as if the Eucharist was taken away from you…not that you decided to do away with it. It’s a good question…without the Eucharist, would Catholicism exist? Would it invalidate confession? Would it mean everything else Jesus did is null and void?
I think most of you would still figure out a way to be Catholic without the Eucharist just as Jews learned to still be Jews without the Temple.
Jews do still have ways to remit their sins. It just no longer involves the Temple portion. I would guess it’s enough. When I was still Jewish, we lamented the loss of the Temple but never felt we were incomplete without it.
Finally, to the Jews, Gods covenants are very much still in effect but many of the laws are either on hold…those that deal with the Temple…or just not needed anymore…and here’s where you get the various denominations of Jews. Orthodox keep most all of them, Conservatives a bit less and Reforms less still. One could say that many Jews are drifting away from their roots and I’d agree with them. But, they wouldn’t necessarily agree with me. For every law they no longer follow, they have justifications for it. To me, it mostly boils down to how isolationist they want to be in order to keep the law. To keep all but the Temple ones, you’d pretty much have to live in isolation as the Hasidic Jews do…all the way to the Reformed that pretty much live fully in this world and don’t isolate at all. They all consider themselves still fully Jewish and still feel that God is forgiving their sins when they pray and do good deeds. You need to realize that Judaism is more about your living actions than about how you perform rituals…
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
How is that a failing of Judaism? The Jews didn’t ask the Romans to destroy their temple and exile them from their homeland. Modern day Jews can’t help that there is a Muslim mosque on the Temple Mound and that it is politically impossible to rebuild the temple where it would need to be located.
Circumstances changed. Judaism adapted. That isn’t a “failing.” It’s actually pretty remarkable that a religion that was so tied to one holy spot persists all around the world to this day.
Last edited:
L
ltwin
Guest
Old Testament scripture gives Jews more than enough theological grounds for existing as a coherent religion and having remission of sins despite the cessation of temple sacrifices. From Judaism 101:
Last edited:
I don’t know, it’s a tough question, but IMHO if one were to take the Eucharist away from Catholicism, Catholicism would cease to be true Catholicism and become something new, different from true Catholicism.
So I guess I’m asking is modern Judaism the same as ancient Judaism with the loss of one of its central beliefs?
Take a look at Evangelical non-dom Christians, now I wouldn’t go as far to say that Evangelicals aren’t Christians, but with the loss of the Eucharist (among other sacraments) I would certainly say they are no longer Catholic (as in RC) and I would say that they wouldn’t claim to be.
So would modern practicing Jews consider themselves as something different with the loss of a very central part of ancient Judaism?
P
Pattylt
Guest
No. It’s not the same as what it was 2000 years ago. Without a Temple it can’t be the same. That doesn’t mean they aren’t still Jews practicing their faith. They had to change without a Temple…so they did. They adapted to the new situation. But, they aren’t walking around bemoaning the loss either. It’s just a case of it is what it is.
I wouldn’t say they consider themselves different, just practicing it a bit different. The Sabbath is still the central mark of Judaism. That hasn’t changed a bit. They still practice the High Holy Days, the minor Holy Days and go to Synagogue for services and prayer…this is still pretty much the same as it’s always been and has been the central focus for over 3000 yrs. The Temple portion is gone but remembered. Many Jews never set foot in the Temple even when it was available. I would venture to say, Jews would love to have the Temple back but they spend little time worrying about it, missing it or even discussing it. They just remember it in their prayers from time to time.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Which Covenant do you define as the Mosaic Sinai Covenant? There are 5 in the Old Testament, starting with Noah.
Last edited:
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
As my question to another, which Old Covenant?
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
The Sacrifice that occured in the Temple pre AD 70?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’d suggest you follow @ltwin’s link to Judaism 101 which I’ve repeated here.
While the sacrificial system was a central feature of ancient Judaism, don’t forget that Judaism hadn’t ceased to exist between the destruction of the First Temple and the construction of the Second - the period which saw the origins of what might be described as modern ‘synagogue Judaism’.
Not only that but, by the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, for many, many Jews, living all over the Mediterranean, a visit to the Temple would have been more like the Muslim Hajj of today - a lifetime event - than a frequent occurrence.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I can add little to what you, Itwin and Kaninchen have said except to say that the Torah (Law) still remains and is still studied and practiced.
OP, please reread the posts of PattyIt, Itwin, and Kaninchen. The answer to your question is there. Look and learn.
OP, please reread the posts of PattyIt, Itwin, and Kaninchen. The answer to your question is there. Look and learn.
Last edited:
Uhmm, there is only one Mosaic Sinai covenant. The one God gave Moses on , well, Mount Sinai.porthos11:
Which Covenant do you define as the Mosaic Sinai Covenant? There are 7 in the Old Testament, starting with Noah.
The one with Noah is Noahide and the one with David is Davidic. The Mosaic one is with Moses on behalf of Israel as a people.
O
OurLadyofSorrows
Guest
Thankyou, There are 5 Covenants of the Old Testament. Its best to ask which one you mean. The Covenant between Moses ( on behalf of the people) and God is permanent. Why would you think it is swept away with the destruction of the first Temple? What exactly in your quoted biblical citation confirms this?
They were made binding by God and are in existence until the end. God does not break them, people do.
I think Itwin , Patty, Kaninchan and Meltzer boy have covered it, but the word covenant itself, in Biblical Hebrew , there are two types, that is the topic of another thread.
They were made binding by God and are in existence until the end. God does not break them, people do.
I think Itwin , Patty, Kaninchan and Meltzer boy have covered it, but the word covenant itself, in Biblical Hebrew , there are two types, that is the topic of another thread.
Crusader13
New member
I think you’re right on the money.
If you were to put the Catholic Church in place of the Jews at the time of their destruction in AD 70, you’d get a clearer picture of what the destruction of Jerusalem and their Temple meant.
Basically, God destroyed the Vatican and wiped out the Pope, the Cardinals and all the bishops. Making it impossible for them to continue Catholicism under its current form.
This is basically what happened in AD 70. The Judaism that sprang up was due primarily to the efforts of the remaining Pharisees. As Paul says in Romans’, “they persisted in their unbelief”.
I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly
And no, I’m not implying that all modern day Jews are bad or evil because of their beliefs.
The Old covenants are not in effect. Meaning God did not establish two separate covenants. I’m not sure what some of the other users on this post are referring to when they say that it is.
If you were to put the Catholic Church in place of the Jews at the time of their destruction in AD 70, you’d get a clearer picture of what the destruction of Jerusalem and their Temple meant.
Basically, God destroyed the Vatican and wiped out the Pope, the Cardinals and all the bishops. Making it impossible for them to continue Catholicism under its current form.
This is basically what happened in AD 70. The Judaism that sprang up was due primarily to the efforts of the remaining Pharisees. As Paul says in Romans’, “they persisted in their unbelief”.
I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly
Circumstances didn’t just change. That’s like saying their destruction was purely accidental. They were destroyed because they abandoned God and instead sided with Caesar to crucify their own Lord. If that’s not a failing, I don’t know how you define it then. Because it’s not remarkable that they would continue to find a way to reject Jesus Christ.
And no, I’m not implying that all modern day Jews are bad or evil because of their beliefs.
The Old covenants are not in effect. Meaning God did not establish two separate covenants. I’m not sure what some of the other users on this post are referring to when they say that it is.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
The bottom line is no Temple.
Realize that Judiasm is a wide variety from ultra orthodox to reformed and many branches from there. You may want to narrow your research, maybe take the question to some Jewish forums.
Realize that Judiasm is a wide variety from ultra orthodox to reformed and many branches from there. You may want to narrow your research, maybe take the question to some Jewish forums.
L
ltwin
Guest
You’re looking at this from a Christian theological point of view, which of course is your right. Many Jews would probably also say that the destruction of the Temple was divinely ordained for failure to follow God (they just would disagree with what following God meant). That doesn’t mean Judaism has to cease to exist just because the Temple did. The Temple was destroyed before and Jews exiled to Babylon and elsewhere. But Jews kept on being Jews. Why should this time be any different?
The OP seems also to be looking at the current state of Judaism through a Christian theological lens, which seems to be saying:
Judaism = temple sacrifice ==> no temple sacrifice = Judaism obsolete, superseded = obviously Judaism has been superseded by Christianity.
The problem is that its only obvious to Christians. No one else in the world cares.
Of course, the OP has a right to view the world through a Christian theological perspective, but Jews are not obliged to. They have their own theology with which to understand the destruction of the Temple and the way Jews should respond to it.
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
You’re right, as Christians we view it through the theological lens of our own beliefs in God. I don’t think anybody is advocating that Jews should be forced to accept our views. However, if we are to dialogue and build a relationship, one with which to share our beliefs and witness to them of the hope that is in us, we’d be doing them a disservice if we leave out the hard sayings with regards to salvation.
Crusader13
New member
Because in the OT, the prophecies and covenants were about that very issue. The Jews were God’s chosen people and as a nation were entrusted by God to bring salvation to the other pagan nations.
Throughout their history, they continually kept slipping back into idolatry (spiritual harlotry) until the kingdom was destroyed and the twelve tribes were dispersed. In time the faithful remnant looked to rebuild their nation and the Temple.
However, once again they slipped back into their harlotry, only this time it was the Messiah who was sent to them, to save them from their sins and the coming destruction. Instead they killed John the Baptist and crucified Jesus, in league with the Romans.
This event brought about their final destruction and a new nation, of both Jews and Gentiles, was formed in fulfillment of the scriptures. This new nation is the Church.
It was only because of Israel’s disobedience, that we as Gentiles were grafted into the tree. As the Church, our mission is to evangelize to the world and conquer the last of the idolatries and paganism which is keeping other nations from salvation.
Once the fullness of the Gentiles are brought in, those Jews (Gods chosen people) will return and be brought back into the tree from which they were separated from.
As Christians we are not to be proud and boast of our position. Meaning we can’t go around acting like we’re superior to others and revert back to our sinful ways, because as Paul says, we will be cut off, just as easily as the natural branches were (the Jews).
So there was no longer any need for Judaism to continue in its former form, because the new covenant replaced the old. There is no longer any need of a Temple or the former nation of chosen people, with which to be a part of. Instead we are called to be a part of the New Nation, the Church.
Last edited:
- Status