S
Do Jewish people of today give credit to Jesus for being right about the destruction of the Temple and the end of animal sacrifices?
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
When you provide specifics, perhaps?
Where, for example, does Josephus talk about:
We know from Acts that there was at least one sect with Christian ties- one that worshiped John the baptist, or at least practiced his teaching. Did they think John was the Messiah? They knew nothing of Christ, and presumably were educated by Paul the Apostle.
or:
The Romans were certainly defending the Christians against the High Priesthood initially, after Pilate’s inexcusable crucifixion of Jesus, which was probably a factor in why he was removed a year or so later by Vitellius.
or
You can make a very acceptable case that the accelerating Christian movement indirectly led to the Jewish Revolt and, indeed, the destruction of the Second Temple.
or:
In trying to defuse the Christian movement, the High Priesthood and the aristocracy catered to the Roman hierarchy. To make a complicated story simple, it was the High Priesthood that was not only behind the illegal execution of the Christian leadership in Jerusalem, which is accepted, but also the “legal” persecutions of Nero in Rome a couple years later.
or:
So in one sense it was the Christian challenge to orthodox Judaism, and the High Priesthood’s response to it, that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Can we have some original independent documentation on these things?
No, not somebody’s guess based on somebody’s guess based on somebody’s guess.
S
steve53
Guest
Criticize why they are wrong with your own evidence. Josephus was a great Jewish scholar and historian. You should know him cold.
Let’s take #1, from the New Testament
From Acts 19
1 And *it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper parts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples:
2 And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.
3 And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism.
4 Then Paul said: *John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying; That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.
5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Let’s take #1, from the New Testament
From Acts 19
1 And *it came to pass, while Apollo was at Corinth, that Paul having passed through the upper parts, came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples:
2 And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost.
3 And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John’s baptism.
4 Then Paul said: *John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying; That they should believe in him who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus.
5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
That’s a terribly interesting and telling response in so many ways.
I’m sorry but I don’t have the time to search through the complete works of Josephus to check for a passage referring to these events.
I appreciate that you might find a non-encyclopaedic knowledge of the works of Josephus surprising in a Jew but there have been so many Jewish writers and so many interesting periods of Jewish history - one can only do so much in this life.
R
ronyodish
Guest
nmgauss,
The reference to Sts. Agustine, Gregory, and Thomas Aquinas is a reference to Latin Christianity, which, along with Greek Christianity, was oriented towards the conversion of the Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles.
If you want to compare a Christianity that was a bit more closer to Palestinian Judaism, and oriented towards the conversion of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Gentiles, you would need to look at the Aramaic (Syriac) Christianity that exists to this day.
Early on, the Aramaic followers of Jesus of Nazareth, were called the Nasraye (Nazarines) and Msheekhaye (Messianics), not to be confused with the modern day Protestant Nazarines and Protestant Evangelical Messianics. The Greek and Latin followers of Jesus, on the other hand, were the Christianoi and Christianos (Christians). The two groups were distinct from one another, but nevertheless, in communion with one another.
The great Saints you referenced were building upon the tradition of the Christianos, that is, Latin Christianity. Likewise, great Saints such as Basil, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nazianzus, were building upon Greek Christianity. Meanwhile, further east, the Aramaic Fathers, such as Ephrem, Aphrahat, and Issac of Nineveh, were building upon an Aramaic Christianity that was in a cultural and language continuity with the day to day Jewish life of Jesus and the Apostles.
I belong to one such community, an Assyrian-Chaldean community, which descends from the early Aramaic Messianics. We are in full communion with the Catholic Church, but we maintain our own Aramaic traditions that are distinct from the Greeks and Latins, which makes us very close to our Jewish cousins. Here are some examples:
When I am speaking in Aramaic with my priest, I will address him as Raabee (Rabbi). Our people greet one another with Shlama (peace). We have Madrashe, the liturgical meditations or hymns. We use an Aramaic version of the Hebrew Scriptures known as the Peshitta. We address the Lord our God as Mar Yah Elaha (Lord/Sir God YHWH). The Father of the Hebrew people, Mar Abraham, from Ur of the Kasdim/Chaldeans (see Gen. 11:31), was one of our own people, a “foreuncle” so to speak. Along with the Jews, we are known as a Semitic people. There are so many other similarities, we can probably be considered among the closest Messianic/Christian communities to Judaism.
God bless,
Rony
S
steve53
Guest
Give me a more interesting period in Jewish history than the first century AD including the revolt. And Josephus gives us such rich documentation.
Waiting…
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Perhaps when you answer the questions I’d asked?
I’d rather like to know why you think that this particular era should be more interesting than others. I can understand it from a Christian perspective because interpreting/reinterpreting what was going on is foundational for your beliefs but it isn’t for ours.
Yes it was historically important but so have been many others - I’m a European Jew and find the last couple of hundred years quite fascinating.
[As an aside, that ‘Waiting …’ sort of thing is a bit well, beneath you, I’d have thought.]
S
steve53
Guest
LOL.
Your dismissive and condescending response to my original post I HOPE was beneath you.
And, hey, this is a CATHOLIC forum, by the way. What did you expect?
There are probably a huge number of 18th Century Jewish History forums around.
Well, maybe not.
If you are not interested in Josephus, there is nothing much to debate here.
M
marktomlinson
Guest
The notion of a Second Coming seems to be something of a convenient catch-all to make up for the fact that nothing at all changed with Jesus. There is no mention in the OT whatsoever of a Second Coming. The arrival of the Messiah would usher in universal peace, recognition of Gd and many other things. Last time I checked these things had not been achieved. The fact that Jesus could not save himself, let alone the world, is a rather major problem. Furthermore, the OT stresses that sincere repentance and prayer is preferable to sacrifice (sacrifice only being suited to atonement for the smallest, ie unintentional sins). Human sacrifice is a concept totally absent from the OT. Approaching the OT through the grid of the NT renders it easy to make verses appear as if they are talking about Jesus. Unfortunately few Christians know Hebrew and as such are totally unaware of the extent to which the OT has been distorted and mistranslated to buttress claims that Jesus was the Messiah.
But that’s just my two pence
.Take care.
D
dronald
Guest
Welcome! And Gd bless you my Jewish brother.The notion of a Second Coming seems to be something of a convenient catch-all to make up for the fact that nothing at all changed with Jesus. There is no mention in the OT whatsoever of a Second Coming. The arrival of the Messiah would usher in universal peace, recognition of Gd and many other things. Last time I checked these things had not been achieved. The fact that Jesus could not save himself, let alone the world, is a rather major problem. Furthermore, the OT stresses that sincere repentance and prayer is preferable to sacrifice (sacrifice only being suited to atonement for the smallest, ie unintentional sins). Human sacrifice is a concept totally absent from the OT. Approaching the OT through the grid of the NT renders it easy to make verses appear as if they are talking about Jesus. Unfortunately few Christians know Hebrew and as such are totally unaware of the extent to which the OT has been distorted and mistranslated to buttress claims that Jesus was the Messiah.
But that’s just my two pence
Take care.
What’s mind blowing imo, is that Paul, Peter, all 4 Gospels, James, John, and Jude, all Jewish came up with a story even though Jews would have had the exact same mind set. “Jesus lost” would have been a common theme after His crucifixion and the Disciples were still perplexed that this had happened and deeply grieved even though Jesus said it must be so.
The idea that the Messiah would be murdered and that Isaiah 53 (and many other Prophecies) were also about the Messiah was foreign then, and Jews remain that it’s foreign now. So why in the world would a bunch of Jews make up this particular story? It’s so weird.
Acts 26"22 To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass:
23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles. "
24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind. "
25 But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words.
Honestly, the Jews thought this story was crazy from day one, but all of Jesus’s Disciples knew it to be true.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Rony, thank you for all of this. Latin Christianity certainly is not all that close to the original Christians…
2000 years is a LOONG time in human terms. Goodness, for perspective, America is only 230+ years old. An infant when compared to 2000 years, and America in 2013 is very different from America in 1776.
2000 years is a LOONG time in human terms. Goodness, for perspective, America is only 230+ years old. An infant when compared to 2000 years, and America in 2013 is very different from America in 1776.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Latin was one of the languages that “King of the Jews” was written in on the cross. It doesn’t get any closer to the time of Christ than that. And Latin was the language translation of the very first Christian Bible. It was called the Latin Vulgate, and it was translated by Saint Jerome.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.’” - Matthew 2:1-2
"Jesus answered, ‘My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.’” - John 18:36
“Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.’” - John 18:20
"He [Jesus] answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’” - Matthew 15:24
"Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.’” - John 19:19
"Jesus answered, ‘My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.’” - John 18:36
“Jesus answered him, ‘I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.’” - John 18:20
"He [Jesus] answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’” - Matthew 15:24
"Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross; it read, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.’” - John 19:19
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The Canaanite Woman’s Faith (Matthew 15:21-28)
And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Jesus Cures Many People (Matthew 15:29-31)
29 And Jesus went on from there and passed along the Sea of Galilee. And he went up into the hills, and sat down there. 30 And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the maimed, the blind, the dumb, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, 31 so that the throng wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel.
And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
Jesus Cures Many People (Matthew 15:29-31)
29 And Jesus went on from there and passed along the Sea of Galilee. And he went up into the hills, and sat down there. 30 And great crowds came to him, bringing with them the lame, the maimed, the blind, the dumb, and many others, and they put them at his feet, and he healed them, 31 so that the throng wondered, when they saw the dumb speaking, the maimed whole, the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel.
C
Celtic_Maiden
Guest
Its you that is on Catholic Website, and your being rude, put this in your pipe and smoke it, I am a Convert from the Orthodox Jewish Religion and changed to be Catholic , you don’t like what you read, tough. The truth hurts.
R
ronyodish
Guest
Marie,
All Apostolic Churches, including the Latin/Roman Catholic Church, are close to the Apostles and the original Christians, because of Apostolic Succession. However, some Churches reflect a higher degree of continuity in language, culture, and traditions than other Churches, when it comes to the Jewish roots of Christianity. I contend that the Aramaic (Syriac) Churches are the closest of them all in this regard.
I do want to point out something that is very unique and greatly endears Latin Christianity among all other Christians, and that is the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome is the successor to St. Peter, the great Apostle to the Jews, and the head of the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome is also the heir to St. Paul, the great Apostle to the Gentiles, and the missionary builder of the Churches. Both Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, and by their blood the Holy Church in Rome was sealed in her Primacy among the Churches. This is her uniqueness, and her greatest contribution to Christianity.
livingwordunity,
The Latin Vulgate was a translation for Latin-speaking Christians. The Greek Christians, however, continued on with their version of the Scriptures, that is, the Greek Scriptures. We Aramaic Christians used our own version of the Scriptures, an Aramaic (Syriac) version.
God bless,
Rony
M
Marie5890
Guest
M
Marie5890
Guest
Yes, the Holy Land was part of the Roman Empire at that time.
But Christ was not a Roman.
- Status