To The Jews: Suppose You Found Out Christ Truly Exists...

[Valke2]

I have always wanted this question answered.

The second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
What would be the response, if a member
of Catholicism claimed that here was “proof” -
that there was now a perfect sacrifice?
That this sacrifice is re-offered, daily, in
churches across the globe. That Christian
priesthood now replaces the Levitical
priesthood.

I have no idea how to counter these assertions.

reen12

THe response would be that the concept of an allinclusive perfect sacrifice has nothing to do with Judaism and that the christian concept of Jesus’ sacrifice is something alien to the Jewish belief in the sacrificial system that was in effect while the Temple stood. That the sacrifice of Jesus could be viewed as a backward step from the binding of Isaac, where human sacrifice was prevented by God. That would be my response.

 

[Sepharad]

I have always wanted this question answered.

The second Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.
What would be the response, if a member
of Catholicism claimed that here was “proof” -
that there was now a perfect sacrifice?
That this sacrifice is re-offered, daily, in
churches across the globe. That Christian
priesthood now replaces the Levitical
priesthood.

I have no idea how to counter these assertions.

reen12

The First Temple was destroyed long before Jesus arrived. Does that mean it was destroyed because there was no more need for sacrifice?

If so, does that prove Jesus was not a sacrifice?

Why does the destruction of the Second Temple indicate no more need for animal sacrifice, but the destruction of the First Temple does not?

And did you know that Jewish prophecy foretold the destruction of the Second Temple, even before Jesus foretold it? Where do you think he learned that prophecy from? After all, he studied the Biblical and the extraBiblical prophecies.

 

[ralphinal]

THe response would be that the concept of an allinclusive perfect sacrifice has nothing to do with Judaism and that the christian concept of Jesus’ sacrifice is something alien to the Jewish belief in the sacrificial system that was in effect while the Temple stood. That the sacrifice of Jesus could be viewed as a backward step from the binding of Isaac, where human sacrifice was prevented by God. That would be my response.

We’ve discussed this before as far as the Temple was concerned. We have not, to my knowledge, discussed the Isaac/Jesus parallel.

My response to this would be that God was testing Abraham to see how devoted he was to Him. When he saw that Abraham was willing to trust God even if it meant offering his son, he spared him. Granted, it showed that God would not ask for human sacrafice, but it was more a test for Abraham than a simple handing of a prohibition.

Jesus was the reverse of this. God was willing to sacrafice His son to show his love for us. He took a step that I, as a father of a son, would not take. If my choice was my son or all of you, well, it’s been nice knowing you…

 

[MHalsey]

We don’t see it as Christians were “given” our Bible. We tend to see it more as you “adopted” it (and then re-interpreted it).

As has been said before, the early Christians were Jews. They didn’t adopt anything.

No, I don’t think the Hebrews misunderstood. We stood at Sinai and were given the Law. we had plenty of teachers (Moshe Rabbeinu being the foremost) and prophets.

And yet continuously turned away from God. Heck, didn’t the Jews, while Moses was receiving the Law, make for themselves a golden calf?

And many of those teachers and prophets were persecuted because the Jews didn’t like what they were hearing from them.

Just because it was given to you doesn’t make you perfect or correct.

I really don’t think we “had it wrong” for thousands of years, and then some former polytheist Gentiles came along a couple thousand years later and just *happened *to suddenly “get it right”.

As I pointed out, the first Christians were Jews, not gentiles. Jesus was a Jew, the Apostles were Jews, Paul was a Jew. It was not until later that Paul took the message of salvation to the gentiles. Which was basically following Jesus’ command to, “go out and teach ALL nations. Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” So to say it was “adopted by polytheistic gentiles” is quite wrong.

We didn’t “suddenly get it right.” No, it took God Himself to come down and explain it to us. And even then, it was not until the descent of the Holy Spirit that the apostles were finally able to understand.

But that the Jews did not understand is exactly what Christians believe whether you like it or not.

Sorry if that comes across as rude, but you cannot even imagine how what you said sounds to me as a Jew. I’m sure you didn’t intend it that way however.

No, I don’t believe you are sorry. You were trying to be rude. I did not try to be. I was simply pointing out the central divide between the Jews and the Christians. Jews think because the Law was given to them it belongs to them, while Christians believe the Jews mis-understood and so missed the Messiah when he came. I didn’t realize pointing out the obvious would be so insulting.

I guess asking you to admit it’s possible you mis-understood was uncharitable. I apologize for that.

 

[Lapell]

But, you see, in Judaism, we do not believe God would ever take human form. Its a big rule for us. (see Deut. 4)

By Torah I generally mean the Chumash–the Five Books of Moses. That’s the Written Torah which most people mean when they speak of “the Torah”.

So if Jesus claimed to be a deity, then to us, that IS a new religion. Because Judaism never taught that God would take on human form. Judaism was different in that regard from the many pagan religions surrounding us in ancient times, many of whom did believe that their gods took on human form, or that their kings were divine.

Which verse(s) in Deut. 4 speaks of God never going to ever take a human form?
Is it like the business of not making any fixed image in any carved stone of any creature nor of the beings living in heaven or in the underworld… when elsewhere Moses is told to have cherubim made so as to put, I think, on top of the Ark of the Covenant, and elsewhere, when Israelites were bitten by snakes, Moses was askes to have a bronze snake made and to to put it on a pole. (Numbers 21, 4-9) Isn’t it strange that God should ask Moses a thing like THAT, or must we understand something? Ever explored paradoxes such as these?

 

[Lapell]

O.K., I will probably go back to this thread in about 18 days as I am leaving on vacation tomorrow. Actually, not totally: tomorrow I am going with a choir I sing in for a choral event in Laval (north of Montreal) this weekend, and then on our way back they’ll drop me elsewhere where the vacation will start.
Anyhow, bye now everyone, and God bless you all.
Shalom to all!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just what I expected from you. A simple question gets a simple answer. No need to go into all this…

If you knew all that stuff, it didn’t emerge in the question - which was not at all simple, but loaded.​

Besides, some people might not be aware of these rather important distinctions.

 

[Valke2]

It’s not impossible but it would be an extraordinarily problematic and counterproductive way of doing things - to send a Jew to Gentiles and yet make His revelation specifically non-applicable to Jews? Does that mean Jesus’ teachings didn’t even apply to Himself? What a nonsensical notion.

I don’t think God who gave us common sense and reason would be quite so utterly perverse.

To add to this (albeit rather lately), Jesus giving his message as a Jew added authority and credibility to his message. So that could be why, even though he was a Jew, his message was directed at the gentiles. Again, I’m playing “what if” here as I don’t believe Jesus was God.

 

[Lapell]

To add to this (albeit rather lately), Jesus giving his message as a Jew added authority and credibility to his message. So that could be why, even though he was a Jew, his message was directed at the gentiles. Again, I’m playing “what if” here as I don’t believe Jesus was God.

Valke2, Jesus’ message was directed first at the Jews, and only then at the Gentiles. Same with the predication of the Apostles. Saul (Paul) of Tarse said once that the message he was delivered was for the Jews, but since they don’t judge themselves to be worthy of eternal life, he would from then on turn to the Gentiles. So, it was directed at all, but first at the Jews. That’s the truth.