Catholics & Israel / Zionism

[KnightIHSV]

I was wondering if there is a good book or resource on the Catholic Church’s attitude to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the 19th and early 20th centuries?

I am (obviously) a Catholic and am also a believer in a Jewish homeland. My understanding is that the Church has never had an official position either for or against Zionism. Is this true?

I realise that the Church is the protector of the Palestinian Christians, however suspect they have a better life as Christians in Israel than as Christians living in a Hamas-stan or what is now happening to the Copts in Egypt.

Thanks for any help.

 

[mtolympus]

I was wondering if there is a good book or resource on the Catholic Church’s attitude to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the 19th and early 20th centuries?

Very interesting question. I am not Catholic but I do know a book that may interest you. It is called Fantistic Victory by W. Cleon Skousen. First published in 1967 it gives an excellent account of the six day war. Skousen tries to give an objective account of the situation but is obviously pro-Israel. Part I and II are about the six day war; Part III is “The Sweeping Vista of Jewish History” presenting an historic background which helps one understand the mid-east situation, and Part IV is “Prophecies Concerning the Future.”

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I was wondering if there is a good book or resource on the Catholic Church’s attitude to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the 19th and early 20th centuries?

I am (obviously) a Catholic and am also a believer in a Jewish homeland. My understanding is that the Church has never had an official position either for or against Zionism. Is this true?

I realise that the Church is the protector of the Palestinian Christians, however suspect they have a better life as Christians in Israel than as Christians living in a Hamas-stan or what is now happening to the Copts in Egypt.

Thanks for any help.

We reject it completely. Here are good reads about as a Catholic

scripturecatholic.com/zionism.html
newadvent.org/cathen/15760c.htm

Pope Pius X response to Theodore Herzl:

“We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”

Zionism at it’s heart is to reestablish the Temple and make sacrifices again on the altar. This cannot happen for the Spotless Lamb was ultimately sacrificed before God by us for our sins. Why Evangelical Christians supports this is unfounded but it is strictly anti-Christianity. The Temple was being rebuilt in 363 AD but due to repeated earthquakes and people being set a flame mysteriously, the project was abandoned by Ammianus Marcellinus who was under orders to rebuild it by Emperor Julian to mock Christians.

So yes, we have and always will be anti-Zionists. And we’re not alone in this regard (though not united with Muslims nor do either of us want to be), for if they want to rebuild the Temple, they have to do it on the Temple Mount and guess what occupies that territory. Zionism, if ever pushed to it’s fullest degree, will invite a Jihad never seen before. And I pray that war will never happen.

 

[Darryl1958]

I was wondering if there is a good book or resource on the Catholic Church’s attitude to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the 19th and early 20th centuries?

I am (obviously) a Catholic and am also a believer in a Jewish homeland. My understanding is that the Church has never had an official position either for or against Zionism. Is this true?

I realise that the Church is the protector of the Palestinian Christians, however suspect they have a better life as Christians in Israel than as Christians living in a Hamas-stan or what is now happening to the Copts in Egypt.

Thanks for any help.

The Catholic Church has relationships with the Jewish state of Israel, just as she does with any other legitimate nation.

There is no particular theological justification for Israel as a Jewish homeland in Catholicism.

As far as Catholic attitudes go, they range from vociferously anti-semitic to extreme warmth and support for the Jewish struggle. In my case, there is something miraculous to be seen in God’s faithfullness to his Chosen People, whom JPII called our elder brother in the faith.

The existence and flourishing or a Jewish state of Israel, only three short years after the Holocaust virtually wiped them off the face of the map is nothing short of miraculous. God has showed his hand in world history with that establishment is how I see it.

“Those who bless the Jews, will be blessed by God, and those who curse the Jews will be under God’s curse” seems to me to be an ultimately true statement. Even as God has given Jews a very special place in the world as his first born, with Jesus as his first born son even, so too are Christians instrumental in the fulfillment of God;s promise to Abraham not just that he would be the father of a Jewish nation, but the father of many nations.
Jews, and Jesus in particular, have a very special role to play in salvation history as bringing the lost sheep of Israel back to the father. That is the role of the first born son, as the mediator between God and the younger siblings. Christians are the younger siblings in this relationship, and the fulfillment of God choosing the Jewish people to be a light unto the nations in the first place.
That is how I see it, and John Paul II said as much when he called the Jewish people our elder brother. ourelderbrothers.org/docs/POPE_JOHN%20PAUL_II_JEWIS_PERSPECTIVES.pdf

We may not see it that way often, Jews themselves may not, but just as Judah and Joseph were eventually reconciled, through mutual forgiveness our story is the same one.

 

[Bezant]

I was wondering if there is a good book or resource on the Catholic Church’s attitude to the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the 19th and early 20th centuries?
I am (obviously) a Catholic and am also a believer in a Jewish homeland. My understanding is that the Church has never had an official position either for or against Zionism. Is this true?
I realise that the Church is the protector of the Palestinian Christians, however suspect they have a better life as Christians in Israel than as Christians living in a Hamas-stan or what is now happening to the Copts in Egypt.
Thanks for any help.

I don’t know any books specifically on that subject (i.e. Catholic Church and Zionism), but I’m aware of the general picture. The Church has been more or less “neutral,” for lack of a better word and I do take issue with this adjective.
Herzl approached the Pope at the end of the 19th century (amongst other heads of state,

I don’t remember the pope’s name) to get support for Zionism. The pope’s reaction was sceptical and he disliked putting the Church in a position that would open a can of worms on non-believers, salvation, etc. In contrast, some popes since have had favourable views of Zionism. It’s also worth noting that the Holy See didn’t recognise Israel officially until 1994, although there were certainly relations well before that.

As for Arab Christians, there are several interesting books on that topic as well, and you may want to read Blood Brothersthe autobiography of Elias Shakour. Shakour was born in a village in the Galilee during the Mandate period to a Melkite Catholic family (Melkite divine liturgies are awesome, btw). He eventually became a bishop and is now a popular Christian speaker on the conflict.

How Arab Christians will fare in the future is a very difficult subject.

At present Israeli Arab Christians are in a difficult identity and alliance position. I certainly agree with you, that Arab Christians, like other Arabs, fare better in Israel than they do in the P.A. – not just in terms of health, education, and employment benefits, but also in terms of political stability. Israel is, despite its faults, a predictable state.

Nevertheless, Arab Christians have several strikes against them–discrimination, representation, education, the fact that most of them don’t serve in the I.D.F., etc. Furthermore, Arab Christians are Arabs – they have connections to the P.A. and the wider Arab world.

 

[mtolympus]

Latter-day Saints have a different perspective on the gathering of Israel. They have taught from the very beginning of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this gathering would and must take place before the second coming of Jesus Christ. Here is a quotation directly from the journal of my great-great grandfather about when he first listened to the Mormon missionaries. Pretty interesting considering this occured in 1838!

“I saw two Mormon Elders coming along the road both afoot with their valises in their hands. This reminded me of the way the Savior sent out his disciples when he was on the earth preaching the gospel.
I went to hear them more through curiosity than anything else, not knowing they were a religious people. At the opening services they sang the hymn “Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise, Her Light Begins to Shine.” After which they prayed. This rather surprised me as I supposed them to be the worst of criminals.
In their remarks they spoke of the signs that were to make their appearance previous to the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven. And also of the gathering of the Jews and the rebuilding of the City of Jerusalem showing by the Prophets this had to be done before the Savior would come with all his holy angels.”

 

[Bezant]

Latter-day Saints have a different perspective on the gathering of Israel. They have taught from the very beginning of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this gathering would and must take place before the second coming of Jesus Christ. Here is a quotation directly from the journal of my great-great grandfather about when he first listened to the Mormon missionaries. Pretty interesting considering this occured in 1838!

“I saw two Mormon Elders coming along the road both afoot with their valises in their hands. This reminded me of the way the Savior sent out his disciples when he was on the earth preaching the gospel.
I went to hear them more through curiosity than anything else, not knowing they were a religious people. At the opening services they sang the hymn “Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise, Her Light Begins to Shine.” After which they prayed. This rather surprised me as I supposed them to be the worst of criminals.
In their remarks they spoke of the signs that were to make their appearance previous to the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven. And also of the gathering of the Jews and the rebuilding of the City of Jerusalem showing by the Prophets this had to be done before the Savior would come with all his holy angels.”

Wow, that’s quite a bit of family history.

 

[manualman]

The word Zionism means different things to different people.

At its most generic level, Zionism seems to mean “The heck with this second class citizenship stuff. Any time we finally struggle to middle class status or better in a country somebody comes along and throws us under the bus again. It’s time we Jews had our own country again. Let’s all move back to where our ancestors came from and see if we can make one.”

The extreme end of Zionism is the religious idea of reclaiming the promised land, restoring the temple and resuming the sacrificial priesthood of what we’d call the Old Testament. Obviously catholicism sees this latter definition as not in conformance with God’s will for humanity, but the Vatican also doesn’t (lately) tell people of other religious faiths what they can and can’t do.

If you are truly starting from scratch in the region, I think the fictional novel “The Haj” is an excellent introduction to the Palestinian problems largely from the perspective of the street-level Palestinian. To me, it is a tragedy story of how the Palestinian people were manipulated by their own leaders to be the pawns in a massive struggle involving fear, hatred, and political manipulation. It’s a helpful way to recognize the difference between the corrupt Palestinian leadership and the long suffering Palestinian peoples.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Latter-day Saints have a different perspective on the gathering of Israel. They have taught from the very beginning of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that this gathering would and must take place before the second coming of Jesus Christ. Here is a quotation directly from the journal of my great-great grandfather about when he first listened to the Mormon missionaries. Pretty interesting considering this occured in 1838!

“I saw two Mormon Elders coming along the road both afoot with their valises in their hands. This reminded me of the way the Savior sent out his disciples when he was on the earth preaching the gospel.
I went to hear them more through curiosity than anything else, not knowing they were a religious people. At the opening services they sang the hymn “Let Zion in Her Beauty Rise, Her Light Begins to Shine.” After which they prayed. This rather surprised me as I supposed them to be the worst of criminals.
In their remarks they spoke of the signs that were to make their appearance previous to the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven. And also of the gathering of the Jews and the rebuilding of the City of Jerusalem showing by the Prophets this had to be done before the Savior would come with all his holy angels.”

Actually that time period was big on Zionism.

"Christian support for the restoration of the Jews was brought to America by the Puritans who fled England. In colonial times, Increase Mather and John Cotton,among others, favored restoration of the Jews, but it was not until the early 19th century that the idea gathered impetus. Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of restoration of the Jews. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about the restoration of the Jews. One David Austin of New Haven spent his fortune building docks and inns from which the Jews could embark to the Holy Land. In 1825 Mordecai Manuel Noah, a Jew who wanted to found a national home for the Jews on Grand Island in New York as a way station on the way to the holy land, won widespread Christian backing for his project. Likewise, restorationist theology was the inspiration for the first American missionary activity in the Middle East.

As the demise of the Ottoman Empire appeared to be approaching, the advocacy of restorationism increased. At the same time, the visit of John Nelson Darby, the founder of dispensationalism, to the United States, catalyzed a dispensationalist movement and an evangelical revival. This was expressed at the Niagara Bible Conference in 1878, which issued a 14 point proclamation, including the following text:

…that the Lord Jesus will come in person to introduce the millennial age, when Israel shall be restored to their own land, and the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord; and that this personal and premillennial advent is the blessed hope set before us in the Gospel for which we should be constantly looking. (Luke 12:35-40; 17:26-30; 18:8 Acts 15:14-17; 2 Thess. 2:3-8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 1:11-15)

The tycoon William Eugene Blackstone was inspired by the conference to publish the book Jesus is Coming, which took up the restorationist cause, and also absolved the Jews of the need to convert to Christianity either before or after the return of the Messiah. His book was translated and published in Yiddish. In 1891 he lobbied President Benjamin Harrison for the restoration of the Jews, in a petition signed by over 400 prominent Americans, that became known as the Blackstone Memorial.

In the United States, dispensationalist Christian Zionism was popularized by the evangelical Cyrus Scofield (1843–1921), who promoted the doctrine that Jesus could not return to reign on Earth until certain events occurred. In the interim, prior to these last days events, Scofield’s system taught that the Christian church was primarily for the salvation of the Gentiles, and that according to God’s plan the Jewish people are under a different dispensation of God’s grace, which has been put out of gear so to speak, until the last days (the common name of this view is, dispensationalism), when the Christian Church will be removed from the earth by a miracle (called the Rapture).

Scofield writing in the 1900s said that, in those last days, the Bible predicts the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and particularly to Jerusalem. Scofield further predicted that, Islamic holy places would be destroyed, and the Temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt - signalling the very end of the Church Age when the Antichrist would arise, and all who seek to keep the covenant with God will acknowledge Jesus as their Messiah in defiance of the Antichrist." From:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Catholics think this is all nonsense.

.

 

[Contarini]

I realise that the Church is the protector of the Palestinian Christians, however suspect they have a better life as Christians in Israel than as Christians living in a Hamas-stan or what is now happening to the Copts in Egypt.

Shouldn’t they be allowed to speak for themselves? Do Western Christians, however well-meaning, have a right to decide what is “good for them”?

The Palestinian Christian who spoke at my university’s campus recently (Jonathan Kuttab) claimed that most Palestinian Muslims still want a pluralistic society in which they live in peace with Christians and Jews, but that as hopes for statehood recede the attractions of religious extremism (the Hamas option) will grow.

Whether or not he’s right, he is a Palestinian Christian, and a fairly prominent one. Surely his opinion and that of other Palestinian Christians on what is “good for them” counts for more than does yours or mine?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

“We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”

This does not seem to be representative of the stance of more recent Popes, does it?

And I presume you’re not claiming that it was ex cathedra.

Edwin

 

[mtolympus]

Catholics think this is all nonsense. .

Thank you for the excellent review of Zionism from the early 19th century through the time of the “rapture”. Your review appears to be from a Protestant prospective, which likely explains your final comment. I also do not agree with all the details. However, it is hard to deny that since the mid 1800’s there has been a fairly remarkable gathering together of the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth as prophecied in Isaiah. (Isa. 11:12)

 

[manualman]

…it is hard to deny that since the mid 1800’s there has been a fairly remarkable gathering together of the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth as prophecied in Isaiah. (Isa. 11:12)

But there’s also a perfectly natural motivation. Jews have been dispersed throughout the world since the Roman Empire crushed Israel as a nation around 74AD (IIRC). They’ve also been generally treated as second class citizens in spite of having a consistent ethic of hard work and cultivating education and family. No wonder that as the world developed a truly viable global communication system and brought the capability to migrate over great distances to upper middle class families that Jews compared notes and realized “This sucks. We’re never going to get a fair shake until we have a place we can call home again.” Add in a continent-wide effort of genocide against them and voila: Exodus, the sequel.

No supernatural explanations for their motivations required. While I tend to be partially sympathetic to Israel as a nation, it is based on my secular observations and reasoning, not any bias based on Old Testament history. I don’t see the current nation of Israel as being THE Israel of the Old Testament. The Catholic Church actually has the better claim on that front. But that’s a whole other subject!

 

[mtolympus]

No supernatural explanations for their motivations required. While I tend to be partially sympathetic to Israel as a nation, it is based on my secular observations and reasoning, not any bias based on Old Testament history. I don’t see the current nation of Israel as being THE Israel of the Old Testament.
The Catholic Church actually has the better claim on that front. But that’s a whole other subject!

How So? As I see it, the only way the Catholic Church would have a better claim would be if the Jews had not been gathered from the four corners of the earth as prophesied by Isaiah and other prophets since that seems to be their position. (Isa. 11:12)

 

[Bezant]

But there’s also a perfectly natural motivation. Jews have been dispersed throughout the world since the Roman Empire crushed Israel as a nation around 74AD (IIRC). They’ve also been generally treated as second class citizens in spite of having a consistent ethic of hard work and cultivating education and family. No wonder that as the world developed a truly viable global communication system and brought the capability to migrate over great distances to upper middle class families that Jews compared notes and realized “This sucks. We’re never going to get a fair shake until we have a place we can call home again.” Add in a continent-wide effort of genocide against them and voila: Exodus, the sequel.

No supernatural explanations for their motivations required. While I tend to be partially sympathetic to Israel as a nation, it is based on my secular observations and reasoning, not any bias based on Old Testament history. I don’t see the current nation of Israel as being THE Israel of the Old Testament. The Catholic Church actually has the better claim on that front. But that’s a whole other subject!

I think we agree, although whether the Catholic Church has a better claim is for another thread. I find Jewish history and repression a very compelling argument in support of Zionism, I have a generally favourable view of Israel and deep respect for the Hebrew Bible, but when it comes down to it, IMO, states are states because other states let them.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

This does not seem to be representative of the stance of more recent Popes, does it?

Not familiar if the recent Popes had a different stance. Send me the material on the subject; I’d like to read what they’ve said about Zionism.

And I presume you’re not claiming that it was ex cathedra.

Of course not.

 

[manualman]

How So? As I see it, the only way the Catholic Church would have a better claim would be if the Jews had not been gathered from the four corners of the earth as prophesied by Isaiah and other prophets since that seems to be their position. (Isa. 11:12)

Trace the continuity. Judaism has ALWAYS placed a central place on sacrifice. From Abel/Cain to Abraham/Isaac to Passover to Levitical priests and the temple, Judaism has always identified the remission of sin with sacrifice. When the messiah (Jesus) came, he made himself the ultimate sacrifice and established a new priesthood to provide what the old priesthood could only foreshadow: a sacrifice that really DOES remove all sin and guilt - the Eucharist. Jesus didn’t come to discard or break from the revelation that came before him, he came to fulfill them. He came and expanded the house of Israel and make it possible for any and all human to be a part of God’s chosen people. WE are Israel, the church and we include most of the Jewish people at the time of Christ. This is little known, but the number of Jews in the world slightly before Christ was MILLIONS higher than that a couple hundred years after him. There was no known genocide or pogrom big enough to explain the drop. The only rational explanation is that they dropped the Jewish self identification due to their acceptance of Jesus and the new openness to gentiles brought in by St. Paul. (See Fr. Richard John Nuehaus’ essays for details)

Today’s Jewish community is what remained and reconstituted after the Roman reconquest of Palestine and the confusion of the gentile expansion of the church. They have no temple, no priesthood, no sacrifices. They are a truncated version of the Judaism that existed prior to Christ. The Church is the completion of the covenant God initiated with Abraham and fulfilled in Christ. We are Israel more than they are in the theological sense. I don’t suggest going around tossing that around like a boast in Jewish circles and at cocktail parties, but I DO recommend that people read the Scriptures that way. When God makes promsies to Israel, He’s talking to us. WE’VE been gathered from the corners of the earth!

Jews today remain people of the covenant too. They are children of Abraham and recent popes have referred to them as our ‘elder brothers in faith.’ This is real and true. But older brothers can sometimes be prodigal sons too. It’s kind of a big deal to reject the Messiah when God sends him. As usual, God is merciful and so must we be. But we do have to keep our theology straight to avoid making mistakes of our own. Best we hold the same attitude that the father held towards the prodigal son while he way away.

 

[Bezant]

Trace the continuity. Judaism has ALWAYS placed a central place on sacrifice. From Abel/Cain to Abraham/Isaac to Passover to Levitical priests and the temple, Judaism has always identified the remission of sin with sacrifice.

But there’s a difference here between Jews and Christians in regards to sacrifice and sin. Jews distinguish between sins against God and sins against men. The Temple sacrifices atoned for unintentional sins (e.g., nocturnal emissions, sexual contact during menstruation) against God. Furthermore, the manner in which Jesus was executed–crucifixion–was not a legitimate method of ritual sacrifice.

When the messiah (Jesus) came, he made himself the ultimate sacrifice and established a new priesthood to provide what the old priesthood could only foreshadow: a sacrifice that really DOES remove all sin and guilt - the Eucharist.

But the dependency of the New Covenant on the priesthood is far greater than the Sinai Covenant’s dependency on the priesthood. Catholicism cannot survive without the priesthood, whereas Judaism has.

This is little known, but the number of Jews in the world slightly before Christ was MILLIONS higher than that a couple hundred years after him. There was no known genocide or pogrom big enough to explain the drop. The only rational explanation is that they dropped the Jewish self identification due to their acceptance of Jesus and the new openness to gentiles brought in by St. Paul. (See Fr. Richard John Nuehaus’ essays for details)

I’ve heard the opposite–in that time period more or less, Jews were more open to converts therefore the number of Jews

Today’s Jewish community is what remained and reconstituted after the Roman reconquest of Palestine and the confusion of the gentile expansion of the church. They have no temple, no priesthood, no sacrifices. They are a truncated version of the Judaism that existed prior to Christ.

But was Judaism a truncated Judaism after the destruction of the First Temple, in the Babylonian exile?

And was Judaism a truncated Judaism in the centuries before the First Temple was built – in the Sinai (when Israel had the most intimate contact with God than any other time in the Old Testament), in the era of the Judges, during the time of King David, etc.?

The Church is the completion of the covenant God initiated with Abraham and fulfilled in Christ. We are Israel more than they are in the theological sense. I don’t suggest going around tossing that around like a boast in Jewish circles and at cocktail parties, but I DO recommend that people read the Scriptures that way. When God makes promsies to Israel, He’s talking to us. WE’VE been gathered from the corners of the earth!

Jews today remain people of the covenant too. They are children of Abraham and recent popes have referred to them as our ‘elder brothers in faith.’ This is real and true. But older brothers can sometimes be prodigal sons too. It’s kind of a big deal to reject the Messiah when God sends him. As usual, God is merciful and so must we be. But we do have to keep our theology straight to avoid making mistakes of our own. Best we hold the same attitude that the father held towards the prodigal son while he way away.

That’s all and well, but that stance puts us into very awkward positions. Regardless of what we’re doing it sounds like we’re trying to invalidate the Sinai Covenant while using it to back our reps.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

But the dependency of the New Covenant on the priesthood is far greater than the Sinai Covenant’s dependency on the priesthood. Catholicism cannot survive without the priesthood, whereas Judaism has.

Are you stating that there were times without priests in the Old Covenant? To my knowledge, the line was never broken.

 

[manualman]

1. But there’s a difference here between Jews and Christians in regards to sacrifice and sin. …
2. I’ve heard the opposite–in that time period more or less, Jews were more open to converts therefore the number of Jews
3. But was Judaism a truncated Judaism after the destruction of the First Temple, in the Babylonian exile?
4. And was Judaism a truncated Judaism in the centuries before the First Temple was built – in the Sinai (when Israel had the most intimate contact with God than any other time in the Old Testament), in the era of the Judges, during the time of King David, etc.?
5. That’s all and well, but that stance puts us into very awkward positions. Regardless of what we’re doing it sounds like we’re trying to invalidate the Sinai Covenant while using it to back our reps.

1. Well yes. Revelation wasn’t a single event in history. God revealed himself to humanity slowly over time as humanity was ready to receive it. Adam had received less than Abraham who knew less than Moses, who knew less than David, etc.
2. I think part of your response got lost here. Being open to converts should increase a population, not decimate it. A couple of generations after Jesus the number of self identifying Jews was a fraction of what it was just BC. Only genocide, plague or mass conversion could explain the change. And history doesn’t show any plague or genocide enough to explain it. They became christians and gradually identified themselves that way instead of as Jews as the church population became mostly gentile converts.
3. Well, yes. That’s partly why the Jews promptly returned to Jerusalem and resumed the sacrifices upon being released from Babylonian exile. Jeremiah is a good read on the subject, IIRC.
4. Truncated is different than nascent. Before the establishment of the temple and priestly sacrifice, the revelation hadn’t been there yet to be truncated.
5. Not at all. The Sinai covenant has been fulfilled and expanded in scope with the coming of Christ. The original covenant contained the seed of the New Covenant. The seed was all God had given them until Christ came. Judaism today attempts to theologically reject the plant and retain the seed. Yes, this makes for awkward social interaction given all the unwarranted abuse Jews have suffered at the hands of christians in the past 2,000 years. But this can’t result in us papering over the actual theological differences between us in an attempt to be ‘nice.’ Christianity fundamentally teaches that only in Christ can ANY man be saved. The OT covenant has no power to do so apart from Christ. Fortunately, God isn’t a lawyer and cares more about how people’s hearts respond to the Grace they’ve been offered than how they order their theology. Many a Jew, I suspect, resides in heaven today via a baptism of desire in Christ that occurred here on earth when they would have intellectually argued against such a thing. We humans are weird creatures, after all…