Did God Pull a Fast One on the Jews?

[Valke2]

Thanks Valke2 - I understand the “argument” - but given the predominance of God’s references to the necessity of blood and sacrifice for the atonement of sins, don’t you think its a stretch to point to brief periods of time when sacrifice was not possible as a plausible explanation for a cosmic shift in salvation methodology in judaism (e.g., a 2,000 year change in God’s salvation plan?)?

The point is that there really was no change. Prayer and repentence have always been the predominant method of atonement, even when the Temple was standing. The detail in the Torah regarding sacrifices served several purposes, one being that it ensured that a previouly pagan practice would now be done only with an eye toward Hashem. Since jews had proven themselves to be unable to shake off pagan practices, God allowed them their sacrifices, but put several rule and rituals in place so that the focus was completely taken off pagan practices and completely focused on God.

 

[abucs]

Weren’t there many different types of Jews at the time - Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes and then there were the half Jews of the Samaritan towns. Then there were the Jews in the Diaspora who were half gentile.

When we say ‘the Jewish expectations’, ‘the Jewish Laws’, ‘the Jewish prophecies’ doesn’t it depend on which Jews we are talking about ?

Didn’t they differ on which writings were inspired and different doctrines. Didn’t the Jews that left the documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls expect a Messiah to raise the dead and at least used the phrase ‘son of God’ although we could argue what exactly they meant ?

The fact is that many Jews of the time and place did accept their fellow Jews (later Christian) claims both in Judah, Gallille and then also the Jewish communities living in the gentile towns and cities.

The fact is that 40 years after this ‘claimed new covenant’ the old temple which some blogger (above) described as 80% of the old covenant law, was torn asunder and has not been back for about 2000 years and counting.

If the Old Covenant law is so important to God why has he left the possibility of the practising of it, in ruins for a hundred generations ?

The temple has been ‘out of business’ for 2/3 rds of the time since King David, and counting.

Why hasn’t God put something in it’s place for all this time ?

Jewish Christians of the time and now Christians generally, say that he has.

Of course you would expect the Jews that did not accept ‘those claims’ to view things differently - otherwise they would have joined their fellow Jews and become Christians.

 

[Valke2]

Again - given that context and the proximity of that shift to the appearance, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the passage in yoma 39 I pointed to (showing the lack of forgivness of sins from sacrifice tracing back literally to the time of Christ’s death) - doesn’t that make an impression on you (on some level)?

No. In fact it could be argued that it was punishment based on the fact that some jews abandoned their faith to follow Jesus, as easily as arguing that it was punishment for the death of Jesus.

 

[abucs]

No. In fact it could be argued that it was punishment based on the fact that some jews abandoned their faith to follow Jesus, as easily as arguing that it was punishment for the death of Jesus.

Does God punish the Jews you claim are loyal in order to fuel the non loyal Jewish claim ?

I think that is a very bad arguement.

And for 2000 years ?

 

[abucs]

I would just add one other thing before i go. A lot of the prophecies of the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus.
As you would expect, with dozens of veiled and general prophecies scattered across many books in over a thousand years, some of those you can argue that he didn’t fulfill, quite validly. Others can be in dispute.

But one prophecy - that he should make God known to the ends of the earth has been done by Christianity. And it is hard for someone else to redo.

For example - i can’t make the pythagoras theorem known to the ends of the earth, or mobile phones or the English language - because it already has been done.

Shortly after Pentecost the Gospel spread to the middle east as far as India, Arabia, North Africa and Europe.

Today you can go to so many places from Argentina, Russia, China, the Philippines, Nigeria, Australia, the US, Korea, Zimbabwe, Hawaii and Tonga and everywhere in between etc etc etc and you’ll hear large communities of Christians talk about Genesis, Noah, Moses, King David and all the prophets.

I don’t think someone else can bring knowledge of God to all the Earth, as they already know it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The point is that there really was no change.

This is patently false as even the most cursory comparison of pre and post temple destruction will reveal. The Jerusalem temple was the center of Jewish religious life and it was the desecration of the temple which sparked the wars that destroyed Israel.

Prayer and repentence have always been the predominant method of atonement, even when the Temple was standing.

This is perfectly true but beside the point. I’m not claiming that Rabinnical Jews inivented new forms of worship.

The detail in the Torah regarding sacrifices served several purposes, one being that it ensured that a previouly pagan practice would now be done only with an eye toward Hashem. Since jews had proven themselves to be unable to shake off pagan practices, God allowed them their sacrifices, but put several rule and rituals in place so that the focus was completely taken off pagan practices and completely focused on God.

This is as perfectly reasonable post hoc explanation, one that I happen to agree with. However, nothing in the Torah says that animal sacrifice will no longer be required once the Jews have stopped flirting with other gods. And you will find that there are still prayers for the restoration of the Temple in Jewish services (though as I have pointed out, they are only lip service).

Similarly, this was not the understanding of Jews in 1C AD. If you had presented this theory then you would probably be stoned. Both modern Jews and Christians have reinterpreted the Torah, Christians on account of Jesus and Jews on account of the destruction of the Temple.

 

[Valke2]

Does God punish the Jews you claim are loyal in order to fuel the non loyal Jewish claim ?

I think that is a very bad arguement.

And for 2000 years ?

You can argue that it is a bad argument, but collective punishment from God is hardly something that is not addressed in the Torah. Aside from the Flood, you have God striking the entire people with plague when two unauthorized people approached the Tent of Meeting. An entire generation of Jews is condemned to wander the dessert because some of the leaders thought the Cannanites were too strong. God debates wiping out all the Jews for the incident of the golden calf.

Biblically, there are sins which require punishment of the entire communityi and there are sins which require punishment of the individual.

 

[Valke2]

This is patently false as even the most cursory comparison of pre and post temple destruction will reveal. The Jerusalem temple was the center of Jewish religious life and it was the desecration of the temple which sparked the wars that destroyed Israel.

Nevertheless, the majority of Jews completed Teshuva when they were away from the temple and they atoned for their individual sins through prayer and, repentence and deeds. THey did not run to the Temple everytime they sinned.

This is as perfectly reasonable post hoc explanation, one that I happen to agree with. However, nothing in the Torah says that animal sacrifice will no longer be required once the Jews have stopped flirting with other gods. And you will find that there are still prayers for the restoration of the Temple in Jewish services (though as I have pointed out, they are only lip service).

There is also nothing in the Torah that requires us to REBUILD the Temple. Which was where I originally jumped in on this argument. It is false to assume that the inability or failure to attempt to rebuild the Temple means that we have somehow deviated from the Torah of God.

 

[Robbinson]

No. In fact it could be argued that it was punishment based on the fact that some jews abandoned their faith to follow Jesus, as easily as arguing that it was punishment for the death of Jesus.

Hi Valke2 - I respect your posts and your contra-arguments in the earlier replies (even if I don’t agree - and I really don’t agree that “blood sacrifice” was an incidental means of atonement - it was in fact the “primary” means of atonement in the Hebrew scriptures), but this one is a stretch and sounds a little more like a lawyer’s counterpoint in a debate, rather than a sincere answer. You really think that God stopped forgiving sins of the Jews who did not believe in Christ because of those, relatviely few, who did? Logic would suggest its the opposite (God punishes those who reject the Messiah). Coupled with God’s permitting the temple to be destroyed and making sacrifice then impossible for over 2,000 years is a loud shot across the bow. And why has this inability to sacrifice lasted so long (2,000 years) - doesn’t really make sense it still harkens back to those relatively few Jews who accepted Christ - but makes perfect sense if its in response to those majority of jews he did not accept christ, and who still do not accept christ, and thus sacrifice remains impossible.

If this was a “court room debate”, the empirical and circumstantial evidence would be overwhelming to linking the Jewish people’s rejection of Christ with the cessation of forgiveness of sins (acknowledged by the rabbis in the talmud) and then destruction of the temple.

I’m hoping you have a better/different response on yoma 39 -

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Valke2]

Hi Valke2 - I respect your posts and your contra-arguments in the earlier replies (even if I don’t agree - and I really don’t agree that “blood sacrifice” was an incidental means of atonement - it was in fact the “primary” means of atonement in the Hebrew scriptures), but this one is a stretch and sounds a little more like a lawyer’s counterpoint in a debate, rather than a sincere answer. You really think that God stopped forgiving sins of the Jews who did not believe in Christ because of those, relatviely few, who did?

I was referring more to the destruction of the Temple. It is as valid as saying the Temple wa destroyed because of anything the Jews did to Jesus. The evidence supporting the argument that the Temple was destroyed because jews killed Jesus is no greather than the evidence supporting the argument that the Temple was destroyed because Jews abandoned their faith and worshipped Jesus as God.

 

[Robbinson]

I was referring more to the destruction of the Temple. It is as valid as saying the Temple wa destroyed because of anything the Jews did to Jesus. The evidence supporting the argument that the Temple was destroyed because jews killed Jesus is no greather than the evidence supporting the argument that the Temple was destroyed because Jews abandoned their faith and worshipped Jesus as God.

But it is different Valke2. Only a very small percentage of Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah and they are not “punished” by destruction of the temple as they are not looking to worship at the temple.

Destruction of the temple is a punishment to those who think they still need to worship there (actually not a punishment, but rather a sign that it is no longer necessary). If it was a punishment for the minority of Jews who accepted Christ - what repentance is God looking for - the non-believing Jews in fact abandoned the believing Jews/Christians, kicking them out of the synagogue - yet the temple was still destroyed and still never rebuilt? Why? (that is a question I think all Jews really should be asking themselves).

If you sincerely believe what you posted Valke2, I will leave it at that. But based upon the thoughfulness of your prior posts (I mean that sincerely) I find it hard to believe you really believe this is a credible explanation (i.e., that its punishment of the vast majority of non-believing jews over the beliefs of those Jews (relatively small in number) who accepted Jesus as the Messiah).

You may not (apparently do not) believe Jesus is the Messiah - and that is fine - its a personal choice/question of belief. But I think a better approach on an issue like this would be to say something like:

" yes, that’s interesting and admittedly somewhat remarkable and maybe even “disturbing” (from a Jewish non-believer perspective) but we don’t really know why the temple was destroyed or what it can mean and as a Jew who does not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, I can’t and don’t accept the argument or suggestion that this was a punishment of the Jews for the rejection of jesus"
(rather than create a straw man argument which really can’t stand on its own).

You can use that if you like Valk2 - I’m not really here to convince you of anything - only God can do that - but rather to share what I (another Jew who has come to believe with all my heart and soul that Jesus is the Messiah) have come to believe and some of the things in scripture and tradition that I have come across which appear most striking and relevant to this most significant question in the history of Judaism.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Valke2]

But it is different Valke2. Only a very small percentage of Jews accepted Jesus as the Messiah and they are not “punished” by destruction of the temple as they are not looking to worship at the temple.

when it comes to sins that reflect badly on God, we tend to be punished as a community. This if borne out in the Torah. However, I don’t believe we were punished for following jesus and I don’t believe we were punished for not following him. I only presented the argument to highlight the nonsensical argumrent that Jesus had anything to do with the destruction of the Temple.

I do agree with you that we don’t know why the Temple was destroyed. (Except that the Romans did it.) Traditionally we blame the it on infighting among the Jews at the time
Brian

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Nevertheless, the majority of Jews completed Teshuva when they were away from the temple and they atoned for their individual sins through prayer and, repentence and deeds. THey did not run to the Temple everytime they sinned.

True enough, but it was kosher to go three times a year and to pay a yearly tax that supported the temple sacrifices, generally, from which all Jews derived benefit irrespective of their location.

There is also nothing in the Torah that requires us to REBUILD the Temple.

This flies directly in the face of history. Jews up until around 3C AD understood that the Torah required them to rebuild the temple and, further, that there was something very wrong with the situation that prevented them from doing so. The claim to the contrary is nothing less than sour grapes.

Which was where I originally jumped in on this argument. It is false to assume that the inability or failure to attempt to rebuild the Temple means that we have somehow deviated from the Torah of God.

Because you are denying what is a plain fact of history: Judaism, until 3C AD, interpreted the Torah as requiring the rebuilding of the Temple. It is one thing to say that Rome prevents the rebuilding of the Temple, another thing to say that the Jewish state of Israel is preventing it, and yet a third thing to say that the Torah never required it in the first place.

There seems to be no shortage of excuses. But the plain fact of the matter is that 2000 years of exile has changed Judaism (for the better, in my opinion). Judaism has evolved.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I was referring more to the destruction of the Temple. It is as valid as saying the Temple wa destroyed because of anything the Jews did to Jesus. The evidence supporting the argument that the Temple was destroyed because jews killed Jesus is no greather than the evidence supporting the argument that the Temple was destroyed because Jews abandoned their faith and worshipped Jesus as God.

I just want to put in my two cents here: I agree with you that there is no reason to suppose that the destruction of the Temple was punishment for “deicide”. It is perfectly reasonable to ask the question, the OT/Hebrew Bible is filled with exactly such stories, and there were many Jewish sages in 1C AD on who speculated that the Jews must have offended God in some big way. But I am inclined to the view that the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the later destruction of Judea (and birth of Palestine), were the result of stupity and bad luck. If you stick your hand in a fire and get burned, it’s not that God is punishing you, its just how the world works.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I do agree with you that we don’t know why the Temple was destroyed. (Except that the Romans did it.) Traditionally we blame the it on infighting among the Jews at the time

Infighting is not a good explanation. Once the Jews had discontinued making sacrifices to God on behalf of Rome the wheels were in motion.

 

[Valke2]

Infighting is not a good explanation. Once the Jews had discontinued making sacrifices to God on behalf of Rome the wheels were in motion.

There was a lot of fighting among the jews and a lot of killing. This is one of the reasons set forth in the Talmud for the destruction of the second Temple. Fighting with the zealots etc.

 

[Kaninchen]

Actually, the real lesson to learn at that time was that, from Central Europe and the British Isles to North Africa and the Middle East, if you messed with the Romans you got slaughtered. On the whole, we came out of it better than the Carthaginians.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There was a lot of fighting among the jews and a lot of killing. This is one of the reasons set forth in the Talmud for the destruction of the second Temple. Fighting with the zealots etc.

It is true that there was a lot of fighting and certainly this weakened the Jews ahead of the Roman assault but you just have to remember who the Jews had picked a fight with: Rome. Even if the Jews had managed to avoid infighting, the result would have been the same. Perhaps they would have drawn the fight out longer and inflicted more casualties on the Romans, but once the Roman succession had been resolved, it was only a matter of time.

If you want to fix a cause within the control of the Jews, you have to look the initial choice to rebel against Rome.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’d like to put forward the thesis that Christianity lost something in its schism with Judaism and that Judaism still has something to teach Christianity. It is intimiately related to the original question here but might also be a new thread.

Should I start a new thread or should we tackle this question here?

 

[Valke2]

It is true that there was a lot of fighting and certainly this weakened the Jews ahead of the Roman assault but you just have to remember who the Jews had picked a fight with: Rome. Even if the Jews had managed to avoid infighting, the result would have been the same. Perhaps they would have drawn the fight out longer and inflicted more casualties on the Romans, but once the Roman succession had been resolved, it was only a matter of time.

If you want to fix a cause within the control of the Jews, you have to look the initial choice to rebel against Rome.

I agree. I don’t think the Jew understood the resource Rome would commit to fighting them. I was referring to an argument that is in the Talmud.