Destruction of the Second Temple

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

In 70 A.D, Roman legions under Titus destroyed the Second Temple, about 37-40 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Jews underwent a diaspora which further intensified after the Bar Kokhba revolt in from 132-136 A.D which saw a devastating defeat of the Jewish rebels by the Roman military. The center of Jewish worship was gone, the priesthood had been dispersed, and Judaism had to heavily evolve in order to adapt to its new environment, as it relying on new interpretation of the Torah by Rabbis over the course of the next few centuries. Today we call post-temple Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism.

Now, from a spiritual point of view, what exactly does the Church have to say on these events? I mean no offense to any Jewish people on here, and I certainly respect Judaism as the mother religion of Christianity and as the original people of God. But, a lot of Jews rejected Christ. God had scattered the Israelites before for falling into idolatry, using the Assyrians and Babylonians to accomplish this. But, he eventually returned them with the help of the Persians so Christ could be born, and for a more than a half a millennia they stuck by him well. But with their rejection of the messiah, they fell far away again. Jesus himself did prophecy of the destruction of the temple in the synoptic Gospels. What does the Church say regarding this? Was the destruction of the second temple and the diaspora of the Jews around the Roman Empire Gods judgment upon the Isrealites and ultimately demonstrating the end to the old covenant? After all, it did happen very soon after Christ came.

 

[meltzerboy]

In 70 A.D, Roman legions under Titus destroyed the Second Temple, about 37-40 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. Jews underwent a diaspora which further intensified after the Bar Kokhba revolt in from 132-136 A.D which saw a devastating defeat of the Jewish rebels by the Roman military. The center of Jewish worship was gone, the priesthood had been dispersed, and Judaism had to heavily evolve in order to adapt to its new environment, as it relying on new interpretation of the Torah by Rabbis over the course of the next few centuries. Today we call post-temple Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism.

Now, from a spiritual point of view, what exactly does the Church have to say on these events? I mean no offense to any Jewish people on here, and I certainly respect Judaism as the mother religion of Christianity and as the original people of God. But, a lot of Jews rejected Christ. God had scattered the Israelites before for falling into idolatry, using the Assyrians and Babylonians to accomplish this. But, he eventually returned them with the help of the Persians so Christ could be born, and for a more than a half a millennia they stuck by him well. But with their rejection of the messiah, they fell far away again. Jesus himself did prophecy of the destruction of the temple in the synoptic Gospels. What does the Church say regarding this? Was the destruction of the second temple and the diaspora of the Jews around the Roman Empire Gods judgment upon the Isrealites and ultimately demonstrating the end to the old covenant? After all, it did happen very soon after Christ came.

From a Jewish perspective, first of all, there is no such thing as “Rabbinic Judaism” as opposed to “Temple Judaism.” There is only one form of Judaism (despite its several streams or denominations) and that is “Torah Judaism.” Judaism centers on the teaching and practice of the Written Law (Torah). Now, there is also an Oral Law (Talmud), and that Law, which was eventually codified, is thought to, as well, have been given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai.

Second, there were synagogues in existence at the same time as the Temple. Many poor Jews lived too far to travel to the Temple even during the Holy Days and so depended on their “local synagogue” for worship and guidance.

Third, the diaspora (dispersal, scattering) of the Jews (there were several which predated the one perpetrated by the Romans) is not necessarily regarded as a punishment by G-d. Judaism believes that G-d has many times tested the Jewish people, and continues to do so, to see whether they cleave to the Torah Law or not in the midst of Hellenistic culture and, later, Christian and Islamic culture. The Jewish Diaspora during Roman times is yet another test of Jewish faith in the G-d of their forefathers. In addition to this, adversity often builds strength of character, and Jews have certainly suffered tremendously throughout their long history. And finally, Jews were taught by their dispersal that their religion is not dependent on the Temple, or the synagogues for that matter. Even the Torah itself, sacred text as it is, does not fully represent the religion of Judaism. Rather, Jews carry their religion with them in their hearts, minds, and souls, in which the studying and the practice of the Torah commandments have become internalized and are thus not bound by the past but are always part of the present moment. The latter idea captures the deep essence of Judaism.

 

[venite_adoremus]

I refer you back to the liturgy of Good Friday, the general intercessions. And to the catechism. Do these sound like judgments being called down on the Jewish people? To be sure, it wasn’t always so historically (history has many motivations), and in the past politicial (not faith or morals) mistakes were made, and the Church has apologized for those mistakes over and over.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

From a Jewish perspective, first of all, there is no such thing as “Rabbinic Judaism” as opposed to “Temple Judaism.” There is only one form of Judaism (despite its several streams or denominations) and that is “Torah Judaism.” Judaism centers on the teaching and practice of the Written Law (Torah). Now, there is also an Oral Law (Talmud), and that Law, which was eventually codified, is thought to, as well, have been given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai.

Well, from a Christian, and even just a general scholarly perspective, the Judaism of the second temple is different from the Rabbinic Judaism of today. Back in the second temple period, the three main sects of Judaism where the Pharisees, Sadducee, and Essene’s as I’m sure you know. With the destruction of the temple, the Sadducee disappeared since they pretty much held onto the priesthood. The Essene’s also disappeared ironically for the opposite reason. They were so detached from the priesthood and the temple, and some of their views were so esoteric, not to mention many communities were isolated and small, they just faded out of existence. Pharisaic Judaism, the majority form of Judaism, at least among the common people, survived. With the destruction of the temple, and the priesthood not being in order, Judaism had to adapt to an entire new environment without the temple. Judaism centered around the temple, this really can’t be doubted. Maybe it could be debated what the primary importance of it was (besides the fact that it was seen as the dwelling place of God) but with the loss of it Judaism just couldn’t be Judaism anymore unless it evolved and redefined what Judaism could be. And over the course of the next few centuries, up until the middle ages and even further down the road, the Rabbis had to interpret the Torah for whole new generations without a temple. They had to find news ways of reflecting on how an event like that effects their relationship with God. Theology like the eschatological view that a third temple will be built, and the notion that whole Jewish communities can be centered around the Synagogue.

Second, there were synagogues in existence at the same time as the Temple. Many poor Jews lived too far to travel to the Temple even during the Holy Days and so depended on their “local synagogue” for worship and guidance.

Of course, no doubt. Synagogues had gained importance during the exile in Babylon when there was no temple, and synagogues ended up remaining for general worship and teaching. Sages of Jewish law, known as rabbis, also saw an advent to help teach Jewish law for communities. The focus was still on the temple and the priesthood though with the law of at hand. In fact, Jewish rabbis then were not even “ordained” as they are now. Rabbis back then were different from what rabbis are now in Judaism. They were scholars then who gained much respect in their communities and often taught in synagogues. The status and importance of the synagogue and rabbi didn’t increase until after the temple was destroyed just as it had been back in Mesopotamia. Rabbis grew to such importance that they basically became Jewish clergy, even though many Jews don’t refer to them as that to keep their duties distinct from that of Christian clergy. Many Jews did travel long ways to Jerusalem, especially around important festivals, to see the temple. Jews from all over the empire would come. Eve the poor. It was the center of Jewish life and thought because that is where the laws of the Torah could be fully expressed.

Third, the diaspora (dispersal, scattering) of the Jews (there were several which predated the one perpetrated by the Romans) is not necessarily regarded as a punishment by G-d. Judaism believes that G-d has many times tested the Jewish people, and continues to do so, to see whether they cleave to the Torah Law or not in the midst of Hellenistic culture and, later, Christian and Islamic culture. The Jewish Diaspora during Roman times is yet another test of Jewish faith in the G-d of their forefathers. In addition to this, adversity often builds strength of character, and Jews have certainly suffered tremendously throughout their long history. And finally, Jews were taught by their dispersal that their religion is not dependent on the Temple, or the synagogues for that matter. Even the Torah itself, sacred text as it is, does not fully represent the religion of Judaism. Rather, Jews carry their religion with them in their hearts, minds, and souls, in which the studying and the practice of the Torah commandments have become internalized and are thus not bound by the past but are always part of the present moment. The latter idea captures the deep essence of Judaism.

Of course, that is the Jewish position, And I am simply giving you the Christian perspective, well at least my Christian perspective. Judaism has simply changed over the last 2000 years to adapt to an environment without the temple.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Now, from a spiritual point of view, what exactly does the Church have to say on these events?

This is a rather difficult subject matter. I’ll briefly respond below.

There is a (rather virulent) thread within Catholicism that has historically espoused replacement theology, where the Christians have allegedly “replaced” the Jewish people.

This concept of replacement theology has been formally denounced after Vatican II, though you can still find these ideas in some far right sectors of the Church. These ideas are no longer the mainstream, and the Church condemns them.

Antagonisms between the two faiths are to the detriment of both.

What does the Church say regarding this? Was the destruction of the second temple and the diaspora of the Jews around the Roman Empire Gods judgment upon the Israelites and ultimately demonstrating the end to the old covenant?

See above. Read Nostra aetate on the Vatican web site:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

This is a rather difficult subject matter. I’ll briefly respond below.

There is a (rather virulent) thread within Catholicism that has historically espoused replacement theology, where the Christians have allegedly “replaced” the Jewish people.

This concept of replacement theology has been formally denounced after Vatican II, though you can still find these ideas in some far right sectors of the Church. These ideas are no longer the mainstream, and the Church condemns them.

Antagonisms between the two faiths are to the detriment of both.

See above. Read Nostra aetate on the Vatican web site:

I’m not necessarily advocating for full on replacement theology. The Jews still hold a place in Gods eyes. But, they are no longer in a covenant. Even Nostra aetate acknowledges this.

“Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.” - NOSTRA AETATE

 

[SimpleRosarian]

From a Jewish perspective, first of all, there is no such thing as “Rabbinic Judaism” as opposed to “Temple Judaism.” There is only one form of Judaism (despite its several streams or denominations) and that is “Torah Judaism.” Judaism centers on the teaching and practice of the Written Law (Torah). Now, there is also an Oral Law (Talmud), and that Law, which was eventually codified, is thought to, as well, have been given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai.

But (a) the various forms of modern Judaism are really different positions on the authority the Talmud should have and (b) Judaism before the destruction of the Temple was obviously different from the Judaism after it and, indeed, many of the Temple sects are now gone altogether. So it does strike me as being a little imprecise and even anachronistic to say that there is only one form of Judaism. It would be more precise to say that Temple Judaism was the mother of post-Temple Judaism. It is likewise unfair to mention “Torah Judaism,” since the Rabbis have taught for centuries that the Torah cannot be properly understood without the Talmud. Indeed, the best term would be “Talmudic Judaism,” which is certainly not the same thing that a Jew in A.D. 52 would be practicing (although very close, since it is the daughter of that religion).

I bring this up because it can be a point of contention between Jews and Christians especially with regard to things like Messianic prophecy. Many Jewish anti-missionaries will say that Christians have the concept of a Messiah all wrong, that we made up stories about Jesus, who may or may not have existed, simply so that they can fulfill prophecies. They’ll point to the sorts of things Temple Judaism believed about the Messiah to try to show this.

But Christians will often retort that this is anachronistic, that the Jews in Jesus’ day didn’t have the same Messianic expectation as those Jews living after the Rambam, for example. Indeed, some might even say much of the Jewish Messianic expectation of the Christian era was a direct response to Christianity, that there was a certain shifting of goal posts.

… and in all of that, it’s important to distinguish between Temple Judaism and Talmudic Judaism, not only because it’s more historically accurate to do so, but because not doing so is a polemical device some have employed.

 

[7_Sorrows]

From a Jewish perspective, first of all, there is no such thing as “Rabbinic Judaism” as opposed to “Temple Judaism.” There is only one form of Judaism (despite its several streams or denominations) and that is “Torah Judaism.” Judaism centers on the teaching and practice of the Written Law (Torah). Now, there is also an Oral Law (Talmud), and that Law, which was eventually codified, is thought to, as well, have been given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai.

Second, there were synagogues in existence at the same time as the Temple. Many poor Jews lived too far to travel to the Temple even during the Holy Days and so depended on their “local synagogue” for worship and guidance.

Third, the diaspora (dispersal, scattering) of the Jews (there were several which predated the one perpetrated by the Romans) is not necessarily regarded as a punishment by G-d. Judaism believes that G-d has many times tested the Jewish people, and continues to do so, to see whether they cleave to the Torah Law or not in the midst of Hellenistic culture and, later, Christian and Islamic culture. The Jewish Diaspora during Roman times is yet another test of Jewish faith in the G-d of their forefathers. In addition to this, adversity often builds strength of character, and Jews have certainly suffered tremendously throughout their long history. And finally, Jews were taught by their dispersal that their religion is not dependent on the Temple, or the synagogues for that matter. Even the Torah itself, sacred text as it is, does not fully represent the religion of Judaism. Rather, Jews carry their religion with them in their hearts, minds, and souls, in which the studying and the practice of the Torah commandments have become internalized and are thus not bound by the past but are always part of the present moment. The latter idea captures the deep essence of Judaism.

Deuteronomy 6:4. Shema Yisrael - part of this prayer Jesus also cites in
Matthew 22: 37 because he also was Jewish.

I have never believed the Church is the new Israel or in replacement theology.
God loves His people of the first covenant. And they have been tested. No one can deny that.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Deuteronomy 6:4. Shema Yisrael - part of this prayer Jesus also cites in
Matthew 22: 37 because he also was Jewish.

I have never believed the Church is the new Israel or in replacement theology.
God loves His people of the first covenant. And they have been tested. No one can deny that.

“…from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as ‘the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.’”- CCC 877

The Church seems to teach soft replacment theology. The Church teaches the Jewish people do indeed still have a role in Gods plan for mankind and that they still hold a place in his eyes. But, the Church also teaches that it is a continuation of Isreal, the spiritual Isreal atleast, and that the Jews are no longer in a covenant with God.

 

[7_Sorrows]

“Likewise, it belongs to the sacramental nature of ecclesial ministry that it have a collegial character. In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as ‘the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.’”- CCC 877

The Church seems to teach soft replacment theology. The Church teaches the Jewish people do indeed still have a role in Gods plan for mankind and that they still hold a place in his eyes. But, the Church also teaches that it is a continuation of Isreal, the spiritual Isreal atleast, and that the Jews are no longer in a covenant with God.

I don’t believe the Church teaches the Jewish people no longer have a covenant with
God. I thought the Church teaches their covenant is very much alive.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

I don’t believe the Church teaches the Jewish people no longer have a covenant with
God. I thought the Church teaches their covenant is very much alive.

Actually, after some further research you’re right. However, it still stands that the Church in some ways believes in soft replacment theology and that it is the continuation of Isreal.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

I think it’d be most accurate to say that the Church’s view is sort of a middle way between Millenialism and Replacment theology, both of which are on opposite ends of the extreme held by Protestants. To sum it up, the Church teaches itself to be the “new Isreal”, not in the sense that we replace the “old Isreal”, but rather we are Isreal in an unbroken chain streching back all the way to King David and Moses and such. This is the spiritual Isreal. The “earthly” Isreal are the Jews since it is ethnic. The spiritual Isreal is not and, since the coming of Christ our Lord, it has been expanded from just the Jews to the gentiles. Thus this mean the Jews are no longer Isreal, atleast not in the spiritual sense. Although they can be, and there are many Catholics with Jewish backgrounds who are since they are Catholic. However, the Jews are still special in Gods eyes and he has a plan for them. They are still his chosen. That seems to be the Church’s posistion.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Many protestants definitely believe in replacement theology. I remember when I returned to the Episcopal church after a 20 year absence and the priest taught that the church is the new Israel. I had never heard of replacement theology before. I remember telling the priest that I didn’t believe that. (This same priest later converted
to Catholicism and became an ordained priest.). I have not had a chance to talk with him about replacement theology since then as he lives in a different city now.

 

[StGerardMajella]

Well, from a Christian, and even just a general scholarly perspective, the Judaism of the second temple is different from the Rabbinic Judaism of today.

With all due respect, this is a false argument. It is no different than saying that the Christianity at the time of Christ is not the same as Christianity today, and that therefore, somehow today’s Christians are inferior.

This is a slippery slope. I have seen this same argument used by far right traditionalist Catholics as a soft form of antisemitism – to infer that somehow today’s Jews are less worthy.

The truth is that today’s Judaism, especially in Orthodox circles, is especially fervent and espousing of holiness. Orthodox Jews pray for several hours every day, and keep the Sabbath and Jewish feast days. Every detail of life is proscribed, including family life and what kind of food can be eaten. All this is done without a Temple in Jerusalem.

So, yes, while Judaism has had to adapt without a Temple in Jerusalem, this does not negate their continued heightened religiosity. If anything, without the Temple, the Jewish people have had to become more religious and prayerful in spite of this loss and hardship.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

With all due respect, this is a false argument. It is no different than saying that the Christianity at the time of Christ is not the same as Christianity today, and that therefore, somehow today’s Christians are inferior.

This is a slippery slope. I have seen this same argument used by far right traditionalist Catholics as a soft form of antisemitism – to infer that somehow today’s Jews are less worthy.

The truth is that today’s Judaism, especially in Orthodox circles, is especially fervent and espousing of holiness. Orthodox Jews pray for several hours every day, and keep the Sabbath and Jewish feast days. Every detail of life is proscribed, including family life and what kind of food can be eaten. All this is done without a Temple in Jerusalem.

So, yes, while Judaism has had to adapt without a Temple in Jerusalem, this does not negate their continued heightened religiosity. If anything, without the Temple, the Jewish people have had to become more religious and prayerful in spite of this loss and hardship.

Christianity and Judaism went two different directions and developed in two very different contexts. Both within the Roman Empire, of course. But, with two different goals in mind and situations and questions to face. The same argument cannot be used for Christianity as Christianity didn’t have to reinterpret itself. Judaism did. Judaism went from the temple and the priesthood as central to the synagogue and the rabbi as central. A direct result of this is the compilation of the Talmud, and as already have been pointed out by SimpleRosarian, many Jews (especially the Orthodox) don’t believe the Torah can properly be interpret with the Talmud.

 

[StGerardMajella]

The same argument cannot be used for Christianity as Christianity didn’t have to reinterpret itself.

Christianity evolved considerably from the time of the earliest Christians, most of whom were Jews. Many revolutionary changes would take place in the years following Christ’s ascension, and continue even today.

Judaism did. Judaism went from the temple and the priesthood as central to the synagogue and the rabbi as central. A direct result of this is the compilation of the Talmud, and as already have been pointed out by SimpleRosarian, many Jews (especially the Orthodox) don’t believe the Torah can properly be interpret with the Talmud.

The oral law existed in unwritten form before the Talmud.

Regardless, you are missing my point, which is that this false argument is used to denigrate and degrade the Jewish faith of today. It is a form of false criticism.

Just as Christianity evolved since the time of Christ, Judaism has had to make similar adaptations since the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. If anything, Judaism has still retained many, many religious practices and traditions of the past.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

Christianity evolved considerably from the time of the earliest Christians, most of whom were Jews. Many revolutionary changes would take place in the years following Christ’s ascension, and continue even today.

Yeah, I am not saying it hasn’t. Theological richness have developed over time. Better ways of explaining God and the Trinity and the Eucharist and such. A deeper and richer understanding of them comes through centuries of writings. That is how Christianity evolved, unlike Judaism which did reinterpret itself and became very different from second temple Judaism.

The oral law existed in unwritten form before the Talmud.

Regardless, you are missing my point, which is that this false argument is used to denigrate and degrade the Jewish faith of today. It is a form of false criticism.

Just as Christianity evolved since the time of Christ, Judaism has had to make similar adaptations since the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. If anything, Judaism has still retained many, many religious practices and traditions of the past.

You’re missing my point. Christianity simply didn’t evolve in the same way as Judaism evolved. Whereas Christianity has evolved in the development of rich theological syntax and understanding, Judaism has evolved into a different religion than it was 2000 years ago. Judaism today undermines the important of sacrifice, for example, and looks to the rabbis as the sole religious leaders and the synagogue as the center of worship. Christianity is closer to second temple Judaism than modern Rabbinic Judaism is today. Because Rabbinic Judaism is just that, Rabbinic. It relies solely on the rabbis to teach the Torah in a ways that accord with the Talmud to fit an environment without the temple and priesthood and sacrifice. This is even a general scholarly position on this. Judaism has changed to fit the times it’s in, a time without the temple.

 

[StGerardMajella]

unlike Judaism which did reinterpret itself and became very different from second temple Judaism

This is a rather peculiar and specious argument. Judaism evolved. It definitely didn’t become a different religion altogether. This line of reasoning is a false argument because it seeks to degrade and denigrate Judaism of today by claiming that it is somehow inferior to prior ages.

To this day, the Jews have maintained many, many religious traditions dating back to even before the Temple existed. From keeping the Sabbath, the annual Passover, to keeping the laws of kosher and family purity, to many, many other religious laws and traditions, the Jews have been entirely faithful in spite of every obstacle to the contrary. Daily religious laws pertaining to personal spirituality are still kept. Even immersion in a mikveh (ritual bath) and circumcision are still performed today.

The ritual aspects of the Temple have been replaced by prayer. The Jewish daily prayer books go into very complex details of the rituals. While the Temple in Jerusalem no longer physically exists, its memory and its rituals are kept very much alive in modern day Judaism.

So, yes, while Judaism had to adapt to life without a Temple, it still remains the same religion in more ways than not. You don’t need a Temple to offer prayer to God, nor to conduct many of the religious rituals and traditions that are performed in one’s personal residence or house of prayer (synagogue). You don’t need a Temple to keep kosher, or to keep the Sabbath at home, or to teach the Ten Commandments to your children.

Judaism today undermines the important of sacrifice, for example, and looks to the rabbis as the sole religious leaders and the synagogue as the center of worship. Because Rabbinic Judaism is just that, Rabbinic. It relies solely on the rabbis to teach the Torah in a ways that accord with the Talmud to fit an environment without the temple and priesthood and sacrifice.

The sacrificial rituals that took place in the Temple in Jerusalem have been replaced by prayer. Every single day, millions of Jews worldwide read from the Jewish siddur (prayer book) that outlines in complex detail and at great length the sacrificial rituals. These prayers - as well as certain times of the year for fasting - are in place of sacrifices offered in the Temple. The section in their prayer book is called “korbanot”. Sacrifice is never “undermined”, but instead remains a focal point for daily prayer.

The Jewish religion fosters independence by the very nature of Torah study. While rabbis are consulted over certain nuances of religious laws (“halacha”), a Jew is focused entirely on learning and understanding the laws of the Torah either alone or in a communal setting. Torah law guides the Jewish people. It is and always has been their guiding light. The Talmud is simply analysis, debate, and commentary on the Torah. The Torah comes first and primary, and the Talmud is simply explanatory analysis and commentary on the Torah.

A rabbi is simply in place to help facilitate learning, and to help interpret some of the more complex laws. He is an advisor and a teacher. He helps with applying the laws of Torah to daily life. And he is most suited to do so, having invested his entire life to this line of study. You make it sound as if the rabbi is nefariously trying to misguide or hurt his or her followers by serving as a hindrance to others.

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

This is a rather peculiar and specious argument. Judaism evolved. It definitely didn’t become a different religion altogether. This line of reasoning is a false argument because it seeks to degrade and denigrate Judaism of today by claiming that it is somehow inferior to prior ages.

You clearly don’t understand the context of the situation Judaism was in. This line of reasoning is the general academic view on things all together. Judaism evolved drastically over the centuries, becoming more focused on the synagogue and rabbi. This is simple fact.

To this day, the Jews have maintained many, many religious traditions dating back to even before the Temple existed. From keeping the Sabbath, the annual Passover, to keeping the laws of kosher and family purity, to many, many other religious laws and traditions, the Jews have been entirely faithful in spite of every obstacle to the contrary. Daily religious laws pertaining to personal spirituality are still kept. Even immersion in a mikveh (ritual bath) and circumcision are still performed today.

Yes of course, I am not denying that. Not at all. It’s still Judaism,just reinterpreted to fit an environment without the temple. The importance of sacrifice is downplayed, for example. The compilation of the Talmud is another. The way Jews view their relationship with God has changed. Judaism has reinterpreted itself to fit a world without a temple. That is the simple truth of the matter.

The ritual aspects of the Temple have been replaced by prayer. The Jewish daily prayer books go into very complex details of the rituals. While the Temple in Jerusalem no longer physically exists, its memory and its rituals are kept very much alive in modern day Judaism.

Indeed, I am fully aware of how important the memory of the temple still is in Judaism.

So, yes, while Judaism had to adapt to life without a Temple, it still remains the same religion in more ways than not. You don’t need a Temple to offer prayer to God, nor to conduct many of the religious rituals and traditions that are performed in one’s personal residence or house of prayer (synagogue). You don’t need a Temple to keep kosher, or to keep the Sabbath at home, or to teach the Ten Commandments to your children.

Of course not. But you need a temple for sacrifice. You need a temple for atonement in the old law.

The sacrificial rituals that took place in the Temple in Jerusalem have been replaced by prayer. Every single day, millions of Jews worldwide read from the Jewish siddur (prayer book) that outlines in complex detail and at great length the sacrificial rituals. These prayers - as well as certain times of the year for fasting - are in place of sacrifices offered in the Temple. The section in their prayer book is called “korbanot”. Sacrifice is never “undermined”, but instead remains a focal point for daily prayer.

Indeed, they have been, which demonstrates how much Judaism has changed. The notion of sacrifice is downplayed.

The Jewish religion fosters independence by the very nature of Torah study. While rabbis are consulted over certain nuances of religious laws (“halacha”), a Jew is focused entirely on learning and understanding the laws of the Torah either alone or in a communal setting. Torah law guides the Jewish people. It is and always has been their guiding light. The Talmud is simply analysis, debate, and commentary on the Torah. The Torah comes first and primary, and the Talmud is simply explanatory analysis and commentary on the Torah.

The Talmud is how the Jews interpret the Torah, it’s basically there magisterial thought. They use it to understand the Torah in Rabbinical thought.

A rabbi is simply in place to help facilitate learning, and to help interpret some of the more complex laws. He is an advisor and a teacher. He helps with applying the laws of Torah to daily life. And he is most suited to do so, having invested his entire life to this line of study. You make it sound as if the rabbi is nefariously trying to misguide or hurt his or her followers by serving as a hindrance to others.

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying the importance of the rabbi in Jewish communities is much higher now. Rabbis 2000 years ago simply did not have the same authority as they did 2000 years ago. Rabbis in the second temple and today are very different. Rabbis are “ordained” today while 2000 years ago they were simply teachers who were respected by certain communities. Jesus himself is a prime example of this, he was called rabbi by his followers.

I don’t understand why you defend all of this. You are espousing heresy,

 

[meltzerboy]

You clearly don’t understand the context of the situation Judaism was in. This line of reasoning is the general academic view on things all together. Judaism evolved drastically over the centuries, becoming more focused on the synagogue and rabbi. This is simple fact.

Yes of course, I am not denying that. Not at all. It’s still Judaism,just reinterpreted to fit an environment without the temple. The importance of sacrifice is downplayed, for example. The compilation of the Talmud is another. The way Jews view their relationship with God has changed. Judaism has reinterpreted itself to fit a world without a temple. That is the simple truth of the matter.

Indeed, I am fully aware of how important the memory of the temple still is in Judaism.

Of course not. But you need a temple for sacrifice. You need a temple for atonement in the old law.

Indeed, they have been, which demonstrates how much Judaism has changed. The notion of sacrifice is downplayed.

The Talmud is how the Jews interpret the Torah, it’s basically there magisterial thought. They use it to understand the Torah in Rabbinical thought.

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying the importance of the rabbi in Jewish communities is much higher now. Rabbis 2000 years ago simply did not have the same authority as they did 2000 years ago. Rabbis in the second temple and today are very different. Rabbis are “ordained” today while 2000 years ago they were simply teachers who were respected by certain communities. Jesus himself is a prime example of this, he was called rabbi by his followers.

I don’t understand why you defend all of this. You are espousing heresy,

You continue to mention that this is the general academic or scholarly view and that it is simple fact. Which academics or scholars believe this? Surely not most Jewish scholars and academics if they are well-versed in Judaism and its basic tenets and beliefs. What you are discussing is the common cliché or stereotype about Judaism.

The Temple and its sacrifices were ALWAYS secondary to prayer and good deeds in the matter of repentance from sin, including during the era of the Temple. The Hebrew Bible essentially gives preference to prayer and good behavior compared to animal sacrifice. Blood sacrifice could atone ONLY for unintentional sins, not intentional ones (with one exception). Further, the matter of repentance was ALWAYS considered an individual matter of responsibility rather than a communal affair, even in the context of the Temple or the synagogue. The High Priests had ceremonial and ritual distinction and so were regarded as holy and righteous; but no ceremony or ritual could SUBSTITUTE for internal conviction to turn away (repent) from one’s sins; it could only facilitate and accompany such conviction. Thus you do NOT need a Temple for atonement according to the (old) Law.