Do Jewish people of today give credit to Jesus for being right about the destruction of the Temple and the end of animal sacrifices?

[manualman]

Jesus never made a “prophesy” about the temple’s destruction. The “prophesy” was written post-destruction by the gospel writers. Modern scholarship does not accept the “prophesy” as actually having occrued…

I think, don’t know for sure, most Jewish scholars would hold similar views.

This is, in fact, the view of most post-Christian biblical scholars, but it’s crucial to examine the logical processes they used to get there. Here’s their logic flow chart:

1. Given: God generally does NOT intervene in the physical world, so all biblical accounts of such happening must be examined with a view towards identifying purely natural explanations for the results and accepting natural alternatives rather than supernatural.
2. The temple destruction prophecy in the gospels is quite accurate to the historical and archeological record.
3. We have no copies of gospel manuscripts containing that passage that can positively be dated before the destruction of the temple.
4. Ergo, applying the principle in point #1 above, the gospel account must have been written AFTER the destruction of the temple and the writer simply made it up as a story that gives weight and emphasis to Jesus’ power and divinity.

Clever, no? When you build an assumed principle into the givens, one can often “prove” that same principle in the conclusions. A shocking number of supposedly Christian scholars got sucked in to this version of scholarship for a time. Personally, I find the approach self contradictory. If you start with disbelief in divine intervention, then one must inevitably disbelieve in the Incarnation and resurrection and many to most such scholars arrived eventually at that very point. At that point, Christianity is just feel-good wishful thinking (St. Paul said it much more emphatically).

But back to the OP, this surely is the easiest way to dismiss for a Jewish critic to dismiss that prophecy: claim it as revisionism rather than prophecy at all. Easy claim to make today, perhaps not so easy in year 78A.D. Perhaps it WAS a persuasive prophecy back then. IIRC from an article by Richard John Neuhaus in First Things, Roman census data from a bit before Christ and again a century or so after showed a 90% reduction in the number of Jews in the Roman Empire. The destruction of Jerusalem certainly played a role in that, but given the dispersal of Jewish populations throughout the empire, that would not have even covered half of that impact. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that the majority of Israel DID accept Jesus as Messiah and simply intermarried among the gentile converts once the retention of Jewish identity was determined no longer essential to the religious identity of the followers of Christ.

See if from their point of view! Like us, ancient people were no strangers to religious prophets warning of impending doom. Few of us pay any attention. If a “loony” prophet today warned his New York followers to get out of town on August 30 because it would be destroyed from above, those followers DID leave town and a big asteroid DID level the place as scheduled, don’tcha think people might decide to give the fellow a closer look/listen? Perhaps they did and that’s what happened to all those missing Jews of the Roman Empire…

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t mean to offend you, so please don’t take this personally.

The problem here is that you really don’t understand Judaism at all - Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus and Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus, they’re very, very different religions.

That’s not how Catholics see it. We see Christianity as the fulfillment of Judaism. We don’t see any conflict between the Old and New Testaments. We see the New Testament Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old. That’s why we didn’t throw out the Old Testament. And as a matter of fact, if you ever see what a Catholic Mass is like you would see that at every Mass there is always a reading from the Old Testament along with one from the gospels. And there is a lot in the Catholic Mass that resembles Jewish worship. Keep in mind that Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. If a Jew converts to Catholic they don’t have to give up their Jewish identity. I think that a lot of the Jews of today don’t realize that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. That’s why he was allowed to preach in the Jewish Temple. I recommend this website: hebrewcatholic.net/.

 

[Kaninchen]

That’s not how Catholics see it. We see Christianity as the fulfillment of Judaism. We don’t see any conflict between the Old and New Testaments. We see the New Testament Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old. That’s why we didn’t throw out the Old Testament. And as a matter of fact, if you ever see what a Catholic Mass is like you would see that at every Mass there is always a reading from the Old Testament along with one from the gospels. And there is a lot in the Catholic Mass that resembles Jewish worship. Keep in mind that Christianity started as a sect of Judaism. If a Jew converts to Catholic they don’t have to give up their Jewish identity. I think that a lot of the Jews of today don’t realize that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi. That’s why he was allowed to preach in the Jewish Temple. I recommend this website: hebrewcatholic.net/.

I think you’ve rather missed the point - you don’t get to define Judaism for us any more than, say, Muslims get to define Christianity for Christians.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think you’ve rather missed the point - you don’t get to define Judaism for us any more than, say, Muslims get to define Christianity for Christians.

The Judaism of the Pharisees was not the only form of it in the first century. There were the Pharisees, but there was also the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Jews who believed that a Jewish Rabbi named Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. These Jews later came to be known as “Christians”. As a matter of fact, in the beginning, it was thought by many Jews that Christianity was only for Jews. That’s the question that the very first Church council had to settle.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Judaism of the Pharisees was not the only form of it in the first century.

I expect that this conversation is at an end.

 

[livingwordunity]

I expect that this conversation is at an end.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I was hoping we could have a dialogue.

 

[meltzerboy]

Here’s a question. Why don’t the Jews of today just accept that Jesus was/is the Messiah since their expectation of the coming of the Messiah is like how Jesus will return for his Second Coming?

Judaism does not believe in a Second Coming of the Messiah. According to Jewish belief, the Messiah is supposed to accomplish very specific and observable things all during his First Coming. If he does not do this, then he cannot be the Messiah. Further, I was under the impression that Jesus was supposed to come again within the generation of the Apostles.

 

[livingwordunity]

Judaism does not believe in a Second Coming of the Messiah.

See post #25.

According to Jewish belief, the Messiah is supposed to accomplish very specific and observable things all during his First Coming. If he does not do this, then he cannot be the Messiah.

Jesus fulfilled many of the OT Prophecies. In the New Testament it tells us which ones he fulfills. Many of the clearest prophecies about Jesus are in the book of Isaiah while other prophecies about him are scattered here and there throughout other books of the OT. There is also typology of Jesus scattered throughout the OT. And there’s also a prophecy in the book of Wisdom that is unmistakably about Jesus. Although the Jewish canon of today doesn’t contain this book it was accepted as part of Scripture by many of the Jews in the time of Jesus’ ministry. Can you tell me what OT prophecy says that the Messiah has to do it all in the First Coming?

Further, I was under the impression that Jesus was supposed to come again within the generation of the Apostles.

Jesus rose from the dead and showed himself to the apostles many times before they witnessed his ascension into Heaven. And Jesus also comes to us in the form of the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Many people struggle with this doctrine, and many of Jesus’ followers left him because of it. So, I think it must have been a gift of the Holy Spirit that when I was converting to Catholicism (I was a non-Christian prior to) I was able to just accept the doctrine of the Real Presence without any problem. I think it also helped that I was coming from a background where I had already accepted that supernatural things could happen.

 

[livingwordunity]

Since Jesus has given us his Eucharistic Real Presence there is a sense in which we are still within the parameters of his First Coming. When we talk of his Second Coming we don’t mean that he has left us but that the time will come again when he will be visible to us as a person.

 

[nmgauss]

I don’t mean to offend you, so please don’t take this personally.

The problem here is that you really don’t understand Judaism at all - Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus and Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus, they’re very, very different religions and ideas that have great significance in one often have no significance at all in the other.

This makes your, supposedly, friendly invitation unbelievably naive. I think you might find that knowing something about Judaism as it is, rather than as you think it is, might help future conversations.

After the separation of Christianity from Judaism, changes in beliefs in both faiths occurred so that they diverged over the next 2,000 years of their existence. In regard to Christianity, there were the contributions of St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and St. Thomas Aquinas that had nothing to do with Judaism. In regard to Judaism, there were the contributions of many Rabbis to the Midrash and the Talmud which had nothing to do with Christianity in addition to those of Maimonides.

 

[Kaninchen]

After the separation of Christianity from Judaism, changes in beliefs in both faiths occurred so that they diverged over the next 2,000 years of their existence. In regard to Christianity, there were the contributions of St. Augustine, St. Gregory, and St. Thomas Aquinas that had nothing to do with Judaism. In regard to Judaism, there were the contributions of many Rabbis to the Midrash and the Talmud which had nothing to do with Christianity in addition to those of Maimonides.

What you say is true, of course, but the paradigm-shift was there at the outset, in the setting up of the new religion.

 

[nmgauss]

What you say is true, of course, but the paradigm-shift was there at the outset, in the setting up of the new religion.

I am not aware of a paradigm-shift at the outset. Since Christian Jews were considered a subset of Judaism, no religion was set up. It was just a variation on the theme of Judaism.

Daniel Boyardin has written the following:

"The traditional view has been that Judaism existed before Christianity and that Christianity separated from Judaism some time after the destruction of the Second Temple. Recently, some scholars have argued that there were many competing Jewish sects in the Holy Land during the Second Temple period, and that those that became Rabbinic Judaism and Proto-orthodox Christianity were but two of these. Some of these scholars have proposed a model which envisions a twin birth of Proto-orthodox Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism rather than a separation of the former from the latter. For example, Robert Goldenberg asserts that it is increasingly accepted among scholars that “at the end of the 1st century CE there were not yet two separate religions called ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’”.[1]

Daniel Boyarin proposes a revised understanding of the interactions between nascent Christianity and Judaism in late antiquity, viewing the two “new” religions as intensely and complexly intertwined throughout this period. Boyarin writes: “for at least the first three centuries of their common lives, Judaism in all of its forms and Christianity in all of its forms were part of one complex religious family, twins in a womb, contending with each other for identity and precedence, but sharing with each other the same spiritual food”.

 

[nmgauss]

This view is only held because of the extreme accuracy of Jesus’s words. In fact it is only rejected by modern secular scholars because there is no way Jesus could have known because there is no such thing as Prophets.

We really need to pretend that Mark was written after the year 70 for this to work, and I see that as an impossibility.

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark’s language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn’t know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course.

Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.

It’s likely, though, that Mark was written in an environment where Roman rule was a constant presence. There are many clear signs that Mark has gone to great lengths to absolve Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death — even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be. Instead of the Romans, Mark’s author lays the blame with the Jews — primarily the leaders, but also to the rest of the people to a certain degree.

This would have made things much easier for his audience. Had the Romans discovered a religious movement focused upon a political revolutionary executed for crimes against the state, they would have clamped down much harder than they already were doing. As it was, a religious movement focused upon on obscure Jewish prophet who broke a few irrelevant Jewish laws could be largely ignored when there weren’t direct orders from Rome to increase the pressure
atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

 

[Kaninchen]

I am not aware of a paradigm-shift at the outset. Since Christian Jews were considered a subset of Judaism, no religion was set up. It was just a variation on the theme of Judaism.

Daniel Boyardin has written the following . . .

You know, there’s always a few minutes when I find these sorts of things impressive . . . then my particular brand of normality (“who, when, how many?” - I’m a numbers sort of girl) starts to kick in again.

You see, I’ve never had much doubt that there were people around at the time who believed all sorts of things - the Jewish world, in extremis, has a track record - but, so what?

If we look at the Catholic (after all this is CAF) world today, there are Catholics who merrily use birth control, Catholics who believe in married priests, Catholics who believe in abortion on demand, Catholics who believe in gay marriage . . . Then take the category Christians, apparently there are numerous sects and groups all with subsets of beliefs and attitudes - there are even believers in Jesus who follow prophets like Joseph Smith, David Koresh, even Mohammed.

And theologians could write (I expect it’s ‘do write’) all sorts of terribly ‘important’, ‘breakthrough’ pieces which can be linked to on wikiwhateverdotcom. From these pieces all sorts of things might be deduced, except there’ll be some Catholics who’ll say that the “Catholics who believe ‘. . .’ are not normative, orthodox Catholics,” and Christians who’ll say that the existence of a sect doesn’t mean it’s representative anything but itself, never mind of Christianity as a whole.

So, impressive as all that theological conjecture might appear . . .

 

[steve53]

Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE.

Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark’s language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn’t know exactly what that trouble would entail. Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course.

Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after.

It’s likely, though, that Mark was written in an environment where Roman rule was a constant presence. There are many clear signs that Mark has gone to great lengths to absolve Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death — even to the point of painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be. Instead of the Romans, Mark’s author lays the blame with the Jews — primarily the leaders, but also to the rest of the people to a certain degree.

This would have made things much easier for his audience. Had the Romans discovered a religious movement focused upon a political revolutionary executed for crimes against the state, they would have clamped down much harder than they already were doing. As it was, a religious movement focused upon on obscure Jewish prophet who broke a few irrelevant Jewish laws could be largely ignored when there weren’t direct orders from Rome to increase the pressure
atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

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.
In Mark, Jesus’ prophecy could have been purely symbolic. Remember that God was actually thought to dwell in some form within the Temple sanctuary building. And remember, too, that much of the Temple was built in Roman-style, so the reference could have been to the ultimate destruction of Roman influence.
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.
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. Hagan makes that case in “Fires of Rome”, which I recommend.
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.
It was this closer-than-needed association with the Romans that infuriated the Zealot factions in Judea and Galilee and led to their gaining power over the common Jews.
FWIW, two of the greatest Generals the Romans had against the Jews were Jewish themselves- Tiberius Alexander and Agrippa II (who was technically a king).
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.

 

[Kaninchen]

Conjecture upon conjecture upon conjecture.

 

[Marie5890]

According to the Hebrew Bible, animal sacrifice per se was never acceptable to G-d; in fact it is called an abomination if it is not accompanied by sincere prayer and repentance. The major method of atonement for sins, according to many passages in the Hebrew Bible, is repentance or “turning away” (teshuva) and it was always thus. The animal sacrifices were applicable only for unintentional sins, not for intentional sins. In ancient times, many people could not even travel to the Temple to bring animal sacrifices, and those people who were too poor to sacrifice animals by having their blood sprinkled on the altar were permitted to bring grain sacrifices which involved no blood. Further, the rebuilding of the Temple is promised in the Hebrew Bible when the Messiah comes, and some believe that animal sacrifices, either for sin or thanksgiving, will be reestablished at that time. Judaism does not believe in an ultimate death sacrifice in the form of vicarious atonement for the sins of others. G-d did not accept the sacrifice of Abraham’s son or the sacrifice of Moses, and told the latter that he could not atone for the sins of the people by his own death. It is the responsibility of the individual to atone for his or her own sins. Moreover, the concept of salvation, as the term is repeatedly used in the Hebrew Bible, has nothing to do with lifting of sins or immortality, but rather denotes a physical salvation in which G-d protects His people from harm and destruction, including Gentiles as well. Finally, the notion of a Messiah is not really a major theme in Judaism although it is one of the thirteen articles of faith according to Maimonides. Following the Law in one’s everyday behavior is much more important a responsibility, and the Hebrew Bible says in several passages that the Law is attainable to all who make an effort. Even when one errs, however, one can always seek forgiveness. G-d distinguishes between righteous people, who try their best to make improvement after they fail, and wicked people, who persist in their evil ways without making any effort to change. Righteousness does not signify perfection in Judaism since no one except G-d is perfect.

Thanks for the explanation and education, Meltzerboy.

It puts much in perspective.
I believe it was you who once said, “Judaism is not Christianity without Christ”. I remember that observation.

 

[Marie5890]

The problem here is that you really don’t understand Judaism at all - Judaism isn’t Christianity minus Jesus and Christianity isn’t Judaism plus Jesus, they’re very, very different religions and ideas that have great significance in one often have no significance at all in the other.

Oh, perhaps it was you, Kaninchen, who made the observation that caught my attention some time ago. I thought it was Meltzerboy.

 

[504Katrin]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh, perhaps it was you, Kaninchen, who made the observation that caught my attention some time ago. I thought it was Meltzerboy.

It’s one of my themes.

The assumption that it’s all a matter of plus or minus Jesus leads to a lot of pointless conversations and a lot of talking ‘at’ one another.