Did God Pull a Fast One on the Jews?

[Bubba_Switzler]

I read David Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. It is such a fair treatment of Jesus and Christianity that I often refer my Jewish friends to it. Unlike other authors (e.g. Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity), David demolishes many Jewish myths about Jesus often drawing on Jewish texts to do so.

But David also make a very strong case that the Jews were quite reasonable in their skepticism of Jesus.

The problem can best be summed up with this paradox: Jesus said "“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn’t come to destroy them, but to fulfill them because I tell you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.”

But after Jesus, all manner of Mosaic laws were tossed out (Hyan blames Paul).

The standard Christian response is that Jesus fulfilled the law, i.e. everything was accomplished. But the Jews who knew the law best did not recognize Jesus as fulfilling expectations and there is a long, very specific list of said expectations that went unfulfilled.

One might argue that the Jews misread the law but that only begs the question: why was it so indiscernable and misleading in the first place?

So, did God pull a fast one on the Jews?

 

[RebeccaJ]

But after Jesus, all manner of Mosaic laws were tossed out (Hyan blames Paul).

The ten commandments have not been tossed.

Jesus removed the dietary laws. Not Paul.

The standard Christian response is that Jesus fulfilled the law, i.e. everything was accomplished. But the Jews who knew the law best did not recognize Jesus as fulfilling expectations and there is a long, very specific list of said expectations that went unfulfilled.

This is not wholly correct. Jesus taught that He would fulfill all but that all was not yet fulfilled. Paul did teach that if you believed that the Law fulfilled the Law, there was no need for the Sacrifice of Jesus. I don’t know enough about Judaism to address their POV on this, that is, in regards to what they believe about the Messiah.

One might argue that the Jews misread the law but that only begs the question: why was it so indiscernable and misleading in the first place?

So, did God pull a fast one on the Jews?

The Catholic Church teaches that God’s covenant with the Jewish people remains in place.

You can find more on this in the Catechism.

 

[paarsurrey]

ISo, did God pull a fast one on the Jews?

Hi

I would like to rephrase your above sentence.

It were the Jews who pulled a fast one on the Jews?

They should have listened to Jesus patiently; but they were intolerant, impatient and denied a free will to an innocent man.

Thanks

 

[underdog]

No, God did not pull a fast one on the Jews. If you study Romans chapter 9, 10, and 11, you will see exactly what happened to the Jews. There is a remnant within the nation Israel that was chosen by grace to be saved. So too, with the rest of us (Gentiles), there is a remnant chosen by grace to be saved. It’s pretty exciting to get the answers to some very difficult question through divine revelation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The ten commandments have not been tossed.

Sure, but that’s a tiny fraction of OT commandments. To say that it’s important is circular since we regard it as important having tossed most of the rest out the window.

Jesus removed the dietary laws. Not Paul.

In fact, it was neither Jesus nor Paul but Peter (Acts 10:15).

This is not wholly correct. Jesus taught that He would fulfill all but that all was not yet fulfilled. Paul did teach that if you believed that the Law fulfilled the Law, there was no need for the Sacrifice of Jesus.

All the more reason for one to scratch one’s head at how the Jews were misled in their expectations. One thing that we all know from Sunday School but which David make abundantly clear, is that the Jews were constantly getting in trouble with God for veering away from the Mosaic Law. Little wonder, then, that they should look with suspicion on a sect that started tossing out the law right and left.

The Catholic Church teaches that God’s covenant with the Jewish people remains in place.

That’s all well and good except for the small fact that the Jews are missing their temple and thus 80% of their covenant has been rendered impossible.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It were the Jews who pulled a fast one on the Jews? They should have listened to Jesus patiently; but they were intolerant, impatient and denied a free will to an innocent man.

That is certainly the conventional wisdom among non-Jews but David makes a strong argument that the Jews were following the Law in their actions. They saw what they believed to be a false prophet and did what they are supposed to do to such. And Jews, today, like David, do not think they made a mistake.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the Jewish expectations of the Messiah.

 

[chosen_people]

The problem arises only when you attempt the Christian concept that you can somehow get from God’s covenant with the Jews and its various aspects to Christianity. This is seemingly an impossibility. One may believe that there was never a covenant between God and the Jews (and everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want) but it is totally illogical that God would make the very covenant with the Jews that was not only totally in opposition to the [Christian]“truth” but whose very nature would preclude the acceptance of this “truth” by the Jews.

For what is the covenant? The first part is made up of the Jewish concept of the one unseen omnipotent non human entity. A recurring concept that repeats itself time after time among non Jews at this time is the story of the son who is born of a Devine father and a human mother who comes down to earth performs feats of wonder (in all the stories we have a special birth but return to the figure only in adulthood) sacrifices himself for mankind and is resurrected. This recurring story is totally rejected by the Jews and has no place in the Jewish concept of God. Now if Jews are to accept Christianity it turns out that the Jews had it wrong for over a thousand years and the Pagans had it right all that time only they had the wrong person. He wasn’t Mithra or Hercules or any other of his various names in this recurring story, he went by the name Yehoshua Bar Yosef. Augustus placed his statue in a temple, declared himself god and you bowed down to it. The followers of Yehoshua bar Yosef declared that he was god put his statue in their places of worship and bowed down to it. For the Jews no human beings as god no statues no thank you.

The second unique thing about the Jews and the covenant is Torah. This doesn’t mean merely the first five books of the Tanach but “the Law”. For what was unique about the Jews was not the making of laws which was already established in various societies but making those laws, which dealt not only with man’s relationship to God but also man’s relationship to each other in society, as part of God’s Divine law. God dictated the Torah to Moses and this Divine word included rules for instance regarding your liability if your ox gored your neighbour. Christianity declared Torah invalid.

So we have the the very essence of Judaism, the very essence of the covenant between the Jews and God (the concept of God and Torah) rejected by Christianity. The covenant of God with the Jews cannot logically lead to the “new” covenant with Christianity as they are diametrically opposite.

 

[narrowpath]

I can never really answer the question “Why did God make all sorts of dietary rules and other laws in the Old Covenant if they would just be taken out in the new?”

Any answers?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I can never really answer the question "Why did God make all sorts of dietary rules and other laws in the Old Covenant if they would just be taken out in the new?"Any answers?

One theory that I’ve heard is that Leviticus etc was a demonstration of the futility of salvation through works. But I find that a totally unsatisfying explanation.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One may believe that there was never a covenant between God and the Jews (and everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want) but it is totally illogical that God would make the very covenant with the Jews that was not only totally in opposition to the [Christian]“truth” but whose very nature would preclude the acceptance of this “truth” by the Jews.

That is, essentially, the question I am posing here.

A recurring concept that repeats itself time after time among non Jews at this time is the story of the son who is born of a Devine father and a human mother who comes down to earth performs feats of wonder (in all the stories we have a special birth but return to the figure only in adulthood) sacrifices himself for mankind and is resurrected. This recurring story is totally rejected by the Jews and has no place in the Jewish concept of God.

To be precise, we have to remember that many Jews did accept the Gospel, starting with the Apostles, and became Christians. (They didn’t stop being Jews until the Jews kicked the out.) But your point still stands. Very many, perhaps most, and certainly the most educated Jews rejected Jesus, thus defining the Jewish/Christian schism.

David takes on Christian interpretations of the OT and argues that the orthodox Jewish interpretations are more reasonable. But we don’t have to decide that they are more reasonable, only that they are reasonable, to wonder at the situation. Reasonable Jews are led to make the reasonable choice to reject Jesus.

Now if Jews are to accept Christianity it turns out that the Jews had it wrong for over a thousand years and the Pagans had it right all that time only they had the wrong person. He wasn’t Mithra or Hercules or any other of his various names in this recurring story, he went by the name Yehoshua Bar Yosef. Augustus placed his statue in a temple, declared himself god and you bowed down to it. The followers of Yehoshua bar Yosef declared that he was god put his statue in their places of worship and bowed down to it. For the Jews no human beings as god no statues no thank you.

One doesn’t have to buy into the Jewish claim that Christianity is a pagan religion to see that there are some substantial incongruities between the OT and the NT.

The second unique thing about the Jews and the covenant is Torah. This doesn’t mean merely the first five books of the Tanach but “the Law”. For what was unique about the Jews was not the making of laws which was already established in various societies but making those laws, which dealt not only with man’s relationship to God but also man’s relationship to each other in society, as part of God’s Divine law. God dictated the Torah to Moses and this Divine word included rules for instance regarding your liability if your ox gored your neighbour. Christianity declared Torah invalid.

Not in total, of course, but certainly enough to raise the question: why?

So we have the the very essence of Judaism, the very essence of the covenant between the Jews and God (the concept of God and Torah) rejected by Christianity. The covenant of God with the Jews cannot logically lead to the “new” covenant with Christianity as they are diametrically opposite.

This is a bit of hyperbole but let’s set that aside for the moment. It is enough that reasonable Jews regard Christianity as rejecting the Torah.

 

[survive]

I can never really answer the question “Why did God make all sorts of dietary rules and other laws in the Old Covenant if they would just be taken out in the new?”

Any answers?

I think it was to set the Jews apart so they wouldn’t be assimilated into other peoples, to prevent the spread of disease and to institute reminders of God’s holiness and wholeness, and the need to imitate that wholeness in their own lives. But in several places in the OT God does make it clear that worship of God and mercy and charity toward others are more important.

 

[paarsurrey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by narrowpath
I can never really answer the question “Why did God make all sorts of dietary rules and other laws in the Old Covenant if they would just be taken out in the new?”

Any answers?

I think it was to set the Jews apart so they wouldn’t be assimilated into other peoples, to prevent the spread of disease and to institute reminders of God’s holiness and wholeness, and the need to imitate that wholeness in their own lives. But in several places in the OT God does make it clear that worship of God and mercy and charity toward others are more important.

Hi

I think narrowpath is logical. Our Catholic friends believe Jesus was eternal; in that case he was there to author the Torah, so why should he in the first instance choose to make the dietary rules if the same were to be cancelled later?

If a Catholic is against the dietary rules; then he shall have to believe that Jesus was not eternal, in my opinion.

I think a Catholic should prefer that Jesus keeps his being eternal, the only cost for the time being would be to accept the dietary rules of the Torah .

Peace, no disrepcect is intended to any one. We are just discussing to understand the truth in things under discussion.

Thanks

 

[survive]

Hi

I think narrowpath is logical. Our Catholic friends believe Jesus was eternal; in that case he was there to author the Torah, so why should he in the first instance choose to make the dietary rules if the same were to be cancelled later?
…Thanks

Of course he authored the dietary laws. He didn’t repeal them but fulfilled them, that is, they pointed to him and he finished what the law had made possible: his life, death and resurrection and our recognition of him.
By preserving the Jews as a distinct people he set apart their history and theological understanding from that of other people, making it utterly central to their lives and morals to avoid any chance of adopting another religion, and to make it extremely unlikely that any confusion could arise as to whether a prophet came from among the Jews or a Gentile nation, for millennia. This kept intact a body of knowledge that would clarify who Jesus is, so everyone would know when he came. It also preemptively demolished all copycat theories for perpetuity. It provided him the world he had to teach in to fulfill his mission perfectly, which he did.
The ritual laws also preserved the Jews’ lives, and incidentally encouraged the study of medicine among all the peoples who believe in the God of the OT, which continues now. This not only preserves human life itself, but tells us how sacred human life is to God, a subject we need reminding of in every generation. It sets a standard that healthy living isn’t to be ignored.
It established a standard of charity toward the poor and wanderers, and the concept of limited punishment for crimes and an equal standard for all regardless of money.
It made God’s whole, holy, pure, perfect nature visible.
But when Jesus incarnated, he brought all those things to fulfillment. All Christians are one now, regardless of background, and there is no more need for peoples to set themselves apart ethnically. We are one family together. We don’t need a ritually clean way of living in an OT way to see the wholeness and love of God; we see it in him through the incarnation now and forever. We have an even higher standard of charity than what the OT mandated. He fulfilled it when its course was run.
That doesn’t mean the Law has no value. It’s a teacher, to guide people to Jesus, but once we find him, we are done with the Law. We have graduated from it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think it was to set the Jews apart so they wouldn’t be assimilated into other peoples, to prevent the spread of disease and to institute reminders of God’s holiness and wholeness, and the need to imitate that wholeness in their own lives. But in several places in the OT God does make it clear that worship of God and mercy and charity toward others are more important.

The Law certainly accomplished (and largely continues to accomplish) the task of setting Jews apart. In those days, it was a scandal for a Jew to share a meal with a pagan.

It’s also true that there are several places in the OT/Torah where God gives emphasis to the core ideas that are central to the NT.

But all that could have come with a prophecy that better prepared the Jews for Jesus. There is nothing in the OT which would lead Jews to expect that the Laws might by a new covenant. And the Jews were punished when they strayed from the Law.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Our Catholic friends believe Jesus was eternal; in that case he was there to author the Torah, so why should he in the first instance choose to make the dietary rules if the same were to be cancelled later?

Yes, this is another good way of restating the problem.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

BTW, there is one other piece of history that we must include in the discussion. Jesus “just happened” to arrive right before the Jews made war on the Romans and lost Jerusalem and the temple. Thereafter, it became impossible for the Jews to keep the Law. No priests, no animal sacrifices, etc. Jesus and Christianity did not cause this to happen but the historical coincidence is hard to ignore.

Judaism was at a historical dead end anyway.

 

[Eucharisted]

No, He didn’t. The Father is Truth, He would never deceive His Children. He loves His Children more than we can imagine.

It is unfair to say Jews were ignorant of the Law of Moses. It is more about how you interpret the Law. Many of the Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting someone like Solomon: a powerful ruler, mighty military leader, who would destroy the Roman Empire and restore the Kingdom of Israel just as it had been united under David. What some Jews forgot, though, was that King David was a shepherd before he became king. This is what Jesus was. He even called Himself the Good Shephard. (This is also a reference to a prophecy by Zechary, if I’m not mistaken). However, the reason Jesus was executed was because He called Himself God; He wasn’t killed because He was the Messiah. Heck, a number of Pharisees even knew He was the Messiah. It’s why they objected to the sign “King of the Jews” posted above Jesus; Pilate was basically insulting the Jews (no surprise there, given how cruel and antisemetic that man was).

Now, something recently I found - recorded in a historical document, the likes of which I am having trouble finding again (I found it in the Fathers section on newadvent.org) - was an argument between two disciples of Jesus. One of them noted - and the other agreed - that the Jews had actually changed the interpretation of the Scriptures after Jesus’ Ascension so the Scriptures wouldn’t point to Him anymore. I don’t know if this charge is true or not, but if it is, it would make sense, historically, since a few other Church Fathers also noted that the Jews had changed the interpretation of the Scriptures. I don’t think they mean the Jews rewrote the Scriptures, just that they did to the Torah what Protestants have done to the Bible: reinterpretation.

No offense meant, and if any Jews have evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it so the charge can be proven false.

 

[chosen_people]

No, He didn’t. The Father is Truth, He would never deceive His Children. He loves His Children more than we can imagine.

It is unfair to say Jews were ignorant of the Law of Moses. It is more about how you interpret the Law. Many of the Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting someone like Solomon: a powerful ruler, mighty military leader, who would destroy the Roman Empire and restore the Kingdom of Israel just as it had been united under David. What some Jews forgot, though, was that King David was a shepherd before he became king. This is what Jesus was. He even called Himself the Good Shephard. (This is also a reference to a prophecy by Zechary, if I’m not mistaken). However, the reason Jesus was executed was because He called Himself God; He wasn’t killed because He was the Messiah. Heck, a number of Pharisees even knew He was the Messiah. It’s why they objected to the sign “King of the Jews” posted above Jesus; Pilate was basically insulting the Jews (no surprise there, given how cruel and antisemetic that man was).

Now, something recently I found - recorded in a historical document, the likes of which I am having trouble finding again (I found it in the Fathers section on newadvent.org) - was an argument between two disciples of Jesus. One of them noted - and the other agreed - that the Jews had actually changed the interpretation of the Scriptures after Jesus’ Ascension so the Scriptures wouldn’t point to Him anymore. I don’t know if this charge is true or not, but if it is, it would make sense, historically, since a few other Church Fathers also noted that the Jews had changed the interpretation of the Scriptures. I don’t think they mean the Jews rewrote the Scriptures, just that they did to the Torah what Protestants have done to the Bible: reinterpretation.

No offense meant, and if any Jews have evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it so the charge can be proven false.

There was of course no need for Jews to “change” the scriptures as no interpretation of the Tanach could ever lead to a human reincarnation of God on earth and the conclusion that most of God’s Divine words in the Torah- the law- were invalid. Having established their narrative concerning Yehoshua Bar Yosef Christians searched through the Tanach attempting to interpret
certain passages as supporting their narrative while at the same time rejecting as irrelevant the Tanach’s very essence. Let’s use a simple example. Let’s say you belong to a group of people who believe that God came into existence at a certain point in time and that point of time is the creation of the earth. You turn to the first word of the Tanach- bereishit or in the beginning and your religious group loudly exclaims here you see there was a beginning to God and the Tanach supports it. The Jew would explain that the unpronounceable name of God is made up of the Hebrew verbs was is and will be. In other words God was is and will always be eternal and the word bereishit should not be seen as stating the beginning of God but rather should be read when God began creating the heaven and the earth. The stories of groups of Rabbi’s gathering together to change words in the Tanach to undermine Christianity is a specious conceit. It presumes that the Rabbi’s or any Jew for that matter were concerned with the interpretation of the Tanach by non Jews and that they themselves believed the interpretation of the non Jews to be the correct interpretation and that this could be somehow rectified by changing the text. To those who accept such logic I can only add that no we did not know about 9/11 and did not warn the Jews not to go to work and despite what you may have heard the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fake.

 

[paarsurrey]

No, He didn’t. The Father is Truth, He would never deceive His Children. He loves His Children more than we can imagine.

Hi

There is a possibility, which you have not, in my opinion, taken in account. The children could be in a state of illusion for which they are to only blame themselves. And that could be corrected with reasonable, rational and logical arguments. Like we are doing here.

Together we learn.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

BTW, there is one other piece of history that we must include in the discussion. Jesus “just happened” to arrive right before the Jews made war on the Romans and lost Jerusalem and the temple. Thereafter, it became impossible for the Jews to keep the Law. No priests, no animal sacrifices, etc. Jesus and Christianity did not cause this to happen but the historical coincidence is hard to ignore.

Judaism was at a historical dead end anyway.

Hi

Jesus had predicted it beforehand and warned the Jews of the consequenses of harming him, an innocent man and Messenger Prophet of God:

Matthew 23:35

35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

So, the Jews of Judea were themselves in a hurry to get wrath of God Allah on them; destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus in time migrated from Judea and went to India.

Peace, no disrespect is intended to anybody, we are discussing to learn truth from the events.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna

Thanks