Why don't Jews still practice animal sacrifices?

[Valke2]

OK, so now on the issue of Jewish Sacrifices, we read that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. As I understand it, Melchizedek, offered sacrifices of bread and wine, not animal.

I’ve never been able to find much information about Melchizedek, and how it is, he got away with non-animal sacrifices in his day?

Jim

In order to deal with the apparent conflict of Melchizedek being the “patriarch” of the priestly class, we traditionally associate Melchizedek as actually being Noah’s son Shem. That is pretty much it Melchizedek and Judaism, as far as I know. The only reference to him in Genesis has him offering a sacrifice of bread and wine, but I don’t think it states that these were the only sacrifices he made.

What’s interesting to me is that this is a clear example that people other than Abraham (at the time of Abraham), woshipped the one God most high.

As for getting away with a non-animal sacrifice, I don’t think that is a big deal. People sacrificed what they wanted to sacrifice at the time of Abraham. Also, I don’t think it is clear that the bread and wine is a sacrifice to God.

 

[ralphinal]

Cain’s offering wasn’t bad because it was grains and stuff, it was bad because it was left-overs.

Had the Jewish people ended up in a place with more airable land, the sacrafices may have been vegitables as well. Fact is that the Promised Land is better for flocks than gardening.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Hmm! Thanks I wasn’t sure what the cousins part had to do in the movie as they were the new secular Jew and the attitude was bad towards them because they were escaped from prison. (Ushpitzin) The movie shows the different aspects of the what I call schisms of the Judaism. And I thought the couple seemed orthodox but different, but they never mentioned the Messiah or Jesus Christ but did mention prayer a lot, and the fact that they don’t have to be in a synagogue to pray.

One doesn’t need to pray in a synagogue. Certain types of prayers (such as the “Kaddish”) require a quorum of ten Jewish men (called a minyan). But many prayers in the Jewish liturgy take place at home – in this way they are similar to our Liturgy of the Hours or private blessings and prayer. In particular, doing the festival of Thanksgiving Sukkot] Jews eat meals in small hand-constructed booths (which is the literal meaning of sukkot.) Some Jews even sleep in the booths. So, just as with the festival of Passover (Pesach) the focus is on celebration in the home, so it is with the festival of Sukkot.

Some Jews joke that many of their festivals are of this form: “they tried to destroy us, with God’s help we won, and now let’s eat.” Suffice to say that family or community eating is a big part of Jewish practice.

There are a number of references to the Messiah in the liturgy (particularly in *nusach Breslov *or *nusach Chabad *or other Hasidic versions of the liturgy) but they are often subtle and not as explicit as they are in the Christian liturgy.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Christ (= annointed one = messiah) and do not mention him in prayer. They may refer to Joshua (from Genesis) who had the same name as Jesus (Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua) but they are not thinking of Our Savior. Moreover, Jews do not believe that the messiah, when he comes, will be a God.

 

[dessert]

One doesn’t need to pray in a synagogue. Certain types of prayers (such as the “Kaddish”) require a quorum of ten Jewish men (called a minyan). But many prayers in the Jewish liturgy take place at home – in this way they are similar to our Liturgy of the Hours or private blessings and prayer. In particular, doing the festival of Thanksgiving Sukkot] Jews eat meals in small hand-constructed booths (which is the literal meaning of sukkot.) Some Jews even sleep in the booths. So, just as with the festival of Passover (Pesach) the focus is on celebration in the home, so it is with the festival of Sukkot.

Some Jews joke that many of their festivals are of this form: “they tried to destroy us, with God’s help we won, and now let’s eat.” Suffice to say that family or community eating is a big part of Jewish practice.

There are a number of references to the Messiah in the liturgy (particularly in *nusach Breslov *or *nusach Chabad *or other Hasidic versions of the liturgy) but they are often subtle and not as explicit as they are in the Christian liturgy.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Christ (= annointed one = messiah) and do not mention him in prayer. They may refer to Joshua (from Genesis) who had the same name as Jesus (Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua) but they are not thinking of Our Savior. Moreover, Jews do not believe that the messiah, when he comes, will be a God.

Thanks, they must not say God our Father either or not really think of God as a Father only God Almighty. They must think of Abraham as the Father as a once living man, personified.
That only fits as why they can’t think of Jesus as the Son because they do not relate as God as a personified Father.
In the movie they prayed to God, Father of all and great power.
Thanks for your info the movie was confusing but then it was just a movie.

 

[HashemEchad]

Thanks, they must not say God our Father either or not really think of God as a Father only God Almighty. They must think of Abraham as the Father as a once living man, personified.
That only fits as why they can’t think of Jesus as the Son because they do not relate as God as a personified Father.
In the movie they prayed to God, Father of all and great power.
Thanks for your info the movie was confusing but then it was just a movie.

One of the many reasons why we cannot think of God as taking on human form is because the Torah itself says we cannot do this…

“Take therefore good heed to yourselves; for you saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke to you, in Horev out of the midst of the fire; lest you become corrupt, and makes a carved idol, the likeness of any figure, the likeness of male or female……” (Deuteronomy 4:15-16)

This is also why you will never see in any religious Jewish home, any statue of a human figure, or even an animal figure…because God commanded us not only not to worship carvings, but not to make them at all.

 

[ralphinal]

One of the many reasons why we cannot think of God as taking on human form is because the Torah itself says we cannot do this…

“Take therefore good heed to yourselves; for you saw no manner of form on the day that the LORD spoke to you, in Horev out of the midst of the fire; lest you become corrupt, and makes a carved idol, the likeness of any figure, the likeness of male or female……” (Deuteronomy 4:15-16)

This is also why you will never see in any religious Jewish home, any statue of a human figure, or even an animal figure…because God commanded us not only not to worship carvings, but not to make them at all.

And then he told them to carve angels for the Ark. Did God contradict himself? The intent is important here. “lest you become corrupt.”

It is not like Islam where they are banned because humans cannot make them live.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Thanks, they must not say God our Father either or not really think of God as a Father only God Almighty. They must think of Abraham as the Father as a once living man, personified.
That only fits as why they can’t think of Jesus as the Son because they do not relate as God as a personified Father.
In the movie they prayed to God, Father of all and great power.
Thanks for your info the movie was confusing but then it was just a movie.

Actually Jews do think of God as their Father – one of the most famous prayers in the Jewish liturgy is Avinu Malkeinu – Our Father Our King. Like us Catholics, they believe God is Father of all of us.

That being said, they also praise the patriarchs – the “fathers” of all Jews – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. (Of course, that doesn’t account for converts for to Judaism.)

Jesus, as a Jew, is a son of God. But any Jew could be described that way.

But things get weirder.

Among Hasidic Jews, there is frequently a belief that a community’s leader – its *rebbe – *has special powers. Thus, for the Jewish New Year, Breslov Jews visit the grave of their rebbe, Rabbi Nachman, in Uman, Ukraine to pray. Rabbi Nachman famously promised that anyone who came to his grave and prayed a particular set of ten psalms (called the tikkun haklali) and donated money to charity would receive a special favor – Rabbi Nachman would exercise his spiritual powers to “pull him out of *gehinnon” *“the pit” – roughly equal to the Catholic notion of purgatory or hell]. In other words, he would receive what we Catholics call a plenary dispensation.

Moreover, merely by knowing Rabbi Nachman, who was, according to his followers, a tzaddik (roughly equal to a saint in Catholicism) one automatically reaches a high spiritual level. This is very similar to the belief in relics. This does not equate the rebbe to God, but makes him a special person with some supernatural powers – a type of intermediary to God – not that dissimilar from the belief that Jesus is a mediator between Catholics and God the Father.

If you visit a Hasidic family, you will often see large pictures of their rebbe on the walls, like Catholics have crosses and pictures of Christ on the walls. Many Hasidim believe that their rebbe is the messiah. For example, the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidim put up billboards and flags that say, in Hebrew, *Moshiach *(Messiah) celebrating their rebbe, a man called Menachem Mendel Schneerson. They sing a song in prayer yechi adoneinu moreinu v’rabeinu melech hamoshiach l’olam vaed “forever live our master, teacher, who is the messiah king.” Here is a website promoting that view. The issue gets tricky because the word for master is also a word for God. As a result, some followers of Schneerson claim he is God. So, the situation is not clear. However, the mainstream view outside Chabad is that Schneerson is not the messiah. Nonetheless, people from all over the world come to Queens to worship and pray at Schneerson *ohel *(grave). The Chabad people have built a synagogue their, and encourage people to write special requests to Schneerson. If you can’t visit in person, you can even submit requests to the dead Schneerson by e-mail. That sounds much more intense than anything I know of in Christianity – can you imagine sending an e-mail to Jesus and expecting that he will receive it?

Nonetheless, it is important to know that Jews (a) worship God as their father; and (b) often believe that their rebbe is a mediator between them and God.

It is also interesting to know that Hasidic Jews believe in a notion of a ten-fold God (much as we Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity). God, according to this view, has ten aspects – ten sefirot. This belief is especially pronounced in the kabbala, and is written in many important Jewish texts, such as the Zohar, the Lurianic writings, the writings of Chaim Vital, the Tanya, etc. Jews also believe that God is one – just as we Catholic celebrate the tri-unity of God and believe that God is also one.

So, it seems to me that Jewish claims that Christianity is avoda zara (idolatry) can also be applied to many Orthodox Jewish beliefs.

 

[HashemEchad]

Bible Reader,

While some of your info is correct, you’re getting some things a bit mixed up.

There are no legitimate Lubavitcher Chasidim who believe the late Rebbe is the messiah. There was a small offshoot group that believed that, but they were expelled from the Lubavitch movement. This is because in Judaism, if a man claimed (or was thought to be) messiah, and then dies, this is one proof he was not the Messiah. Also, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe did not have children, and this is another proof…because the true Messiah will be a normal, mortal, married man, with children, who does not die.

As for the ten sefirot, they are ASPECTS of the One God, not “persons” as Christianity feels God is. Aspects refers to God’s traits, not actual components or “persons”.

And yes, we do ask rebbes to intercede for us after they die, which is why I never saw a problem with the Catholic custom of asking dead saints to intercede for them.

 

[HashemEchad]

And then he told them to carve angels for the Ark. Did God contradict himself? The intent is important here. “lest you become corrupt.”

It is not like Islam where they are banned because humans cannot make them live.

I realize that is the Catholic interpretation.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Correct me if i am wrong, but did not constantine’ s nephew for hatred for the catholics tried to built the Temple two or three times and in the middle of the construction the building caught on fire?

Peace to all peoples.

 

[dessert]

To anyone that may know…are there plans for a new third temple of sort to be built in the USA?

 

[ralphinal]

I realize that is the Catholic interpretation.

Please explain the difference. God said do not make graven images, then he said to make them.

My head hurts. This seems like Islam.

 

[Bible_Reader]

There are no legitimate Lubavitcher Chasidim who believe the late Rebbe is the messiah. There was a small offshoot group that believed that, but they were expelled from the Lubavitch movement. This is because in Judaism, if a man claimed (or was thought to be) messiah, and then dies, this is one proof he was not the Messiah. Also, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe did not have children, and this is another proof…because the true Messiah will be a normal, mortal, married man, with children, who does not die.

I do not wish to dispute whether Schneerson is the messiah – as Catholics, we know that Jesus was the messiah.

But the claim that the movement does not contain messianists is a bit absurd. David Berger (now faculty at Yeshiva University, the most prestigious Orthodox Jewish University in the world) wrote a controversial book that attracted wide media attention denouncing Chabad messianists – and why would he have to do that if such a group did not exists? (Note that the book has a stunning 78 comments currently at Amazon.) Here is an article from 9 months ago in the New York Times that discusses the issue in part. A google search on “schneerson messiah” returns 24,300 hits.

Regarding the difference between the *sefirot *and the triunity – I think you may be making more of the difference between the English words “person” and “aspect”. For example, mainstream Catholic thought does not argue that the Father (which corresponds to what you know as Hashem) or the Holy Spirit (which corresponds to what you know as the Shekhinah) are actual “people”. Similarly, we refer to the triune God – emphasizing both the trinity and the unity of God. Catholics can also pray “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”

Moreover, there is a widespread belief in many parts of Judaism that each Jew contains a bit of God, called a nitzutz (or sparks of God) in them (for example, the influential Rabbi Kook argued this forcefully). This corresponds to an eschatological belief in some quarters of Judaism that these nitzutz must be freed from *klipot *(containers of evil) to bring forth the messianic age.

Finally anthropomorphic images of God are prevalent throughout the Hebrew Bible: God created man in His image (Gen 1:26-17); God has a hand (Isa 48:13); God carries a bow (Gen 9:13) and arrows and a sword (Deut 32:42); and God is a “man of war” (Exod 15:3). God has fingers and used them to write the Tablets of the Covenant (Deut 9:10). God has feet (Exod 24:10); God stands up (Exod 17:6) and also sits (Psalms 2:4) on His throne (Isa 66:1). God has a face (Deut 31:17), eyes (Prov 15:3), a nose (Num 11:33), and a back (Exod 33:23). It is pretty clear that at least one image of God in the Hebrew Bible is as a man. In fact, the Talmud took this so far as to suggest that just as male Jews put on two amulets (one on the forehead and one on the forearm) during morning prayer (called tefillin), God also wears the amulets (Babylonian Talmud Berachot 6a).

The descriptions of God can be found throughout the rabbinic literature – one example will suffice: in Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 38b God creates man in “His image” and destroys complaining angels with “His little finger” and finally God lays “His hand” on man. The widespread Jewish belief in God as a man lead Maimonides to famously declare, in the 3rd of his 13 Dogmas of the Faith, that to believe that God had a body was to commit heresy. Clearly, it was a widespread practice to believe in God having a body to justify Maimonides’ declaration. (Maimonides claims that physical references to God are merely metaphors; but does not explain why they should be viewed as metaphors while other parts of the Torah, e.g., those portions relied on to determine Jewish law, should be taken literally.)

Similarly, physical resurrection is a Jewish belief (the 13th of Maimonides’ 13 Dogmas of the Faith).

My point here is to suggest that Catholic beliefs all have analogues in terms of some forms of Judaism (although I agree that these analogues are not universally held – indeed, given the large variety of beliefs even within Orthodox Judaism, there are few universals). The specifics of the Catholic belief in Jesus as Savior and the sacrament of the Eucharist are not Jewish, of course. But to claim that Catholicism is avoda zara, idolatry, is to also claim that large portions of Judaism are also idolatry.

 

[Valke2]

Bible Reader,

…because the true Messiah will be a normal, mortal, married man, with children, who does not die.

you mean who doesn’t die before meeting all the conditions of the Messiah, right? You aren’t suggesting that the Messiah will be immortal?

 

[HashemEchad]

you mean who doesn’t die before meeting all the conditions of the Messiah, right? You aren’t suggesting that the Messiah will be immortal?

Yes, you’re right. I meant that he will not die before completing his entire task.

 

[HashemEchad]

Bible Reader,

Much of what you mentioned/quoted are to be taken figuratively, not literally. This is why so many Christians get things mixed up when they try to study Kabbalah…they interpret things incorrectly.

MUCH of the Bible, Kabbalah, etc is written in figurative speech and veiled speech.

I forget who asked about the graven image issue, but while it is true that God commanded that golden angels be made for the Ark, God never intended that they be made to be prayed to or venerated. They were for decorative purposes.

Do Catholics use statues for decorative purposes only? Or do they pray before them, light candles before them, etc? I remember how shocked my husband was years ago, when during a trip to Quebec, we entered the shrine of St Anne de Beaupre and he saw elderly women talking to bigger-than-life statues, and even holding the hands of the statues.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Much of what you mentioned/quoted are to be taken figuratively, not literally.

Indeed, that is a Christian position.

However, for Jews, there is a problem. Since I quote Talmudic works (chazal), from the *Tanaim *and Amoraim, it is not possible for a later generation, such as the *Rishonim *or *Achoranim *to overrule the rulings of an earlier period. This is at the root of the Maimonidean controversy – Maimonides essentially rewrote the Tanaim and Amoraim with Aristotle as his guide. That is why to this day, the Guide of the Perplexed remains as a banned work for many Jews (as it has been since 1204) and is not taught in haredi yeshivot. Maimonides explained that *chazal *and (the majority of Jews of his period) held opinions that were idolatrous.

Your position is the same as Baruch Spinoza’s, it seems to me. Both of you disagree with *chazal *(especially the Talmud) by declaring some parts of the Bible to be figurative. (See for example Spinoza’s *Theologico-Political Treatise.) *As you will recall, Spinoza was subjected to cherem (excommunication) and declared to be an apikoros (heretic).

Christians on the other hand see the Hebrew Scriptures through the light of Christ. They are not subject to chazal.

 

[vocatio]

Indeed, that is a Christian position.

However, for Jews, there is a problem. Since I quote Talmudic works (chazal), from the *Tanaim *and Amoraim, it is not possible for a later generation, such as the *Rishonim *or *Achoranim *to overrule the rulings of an earlier period. This is at the root of the Maimonidean controversy – Maimonides essentially rewrote the Tanaim and Amoraim with Aristotle as his guide. That is why to this day, the Guide of the Perplexed remains as a banned work for many Jews (as it has been since 1204) and is not taught in haredi yeshivot. Maimonides explained that *chazal *and (the majority of Jews of his period) held opinions that were idolatrous.

Your position is the same as Baruch Spinoza’s, it seems to me. Both of you disagree with *chazal *(especially the Talmud) by declaring some parts of the Bible to be figurative. (See for example Spinoza’s *Theologico-Political Treatise.) *As you will recall, Spinoza was subjected to cherem (excommunication) and declared to be an apikoros (heretic).

Christians on the other hand see the Hebrew Scriptures through the light of Christ. They are not subject to chazal.

I am very interested in Jewish history. I’ve heard and read this before, many years and more recent since my return to Catholicism. I’ve actually been waiting for this conversation to take place. And since HashemEchad is an Orthodox Jew and engaged in exit ministry I knew this either has alread happened or was about to occur again eventually. Thanks for this post. It gives me more to read about. During Passover and Easter I was reading and was amaized at the similarities in the Pascha and the “Lord’s Supper”. I’d have to look up the names and terms, but I have a clear visual of the similarities. Having grown up in a predominantly Protestant faith even though I was Catholic I only got climpses of Jewish teahcing. It is very good for Catholics…Christians in general… to learn about Judaism. After all it is our part of our heritage.

Even though its sort of off topic it’s a good thread.

 

[Eden]

Bible Reader,

Much of what you mentioned/quoted are to be taken figuratively, not literally. This is why so many Christians get things mixed up when they try to study Kabbalah…they interpret things incorrectly.

MUCH of the Bible, Kabbalah, etc is written in figurative speech and veiled speech.

I forget who asked about the graven image issue, but while it is true that God commanded that golden angels be made for the Ark, God never intended that they be made to be prayed to or venerated. They were for decorative purposes.

Do Catholics use statues for decorative purposes only? Or do they pray before them, light candles before them, etc? I remember how shocked my husband was years ago, when during a trip to Quebec, we entered the shrine of St Anne de Beaupre and he saw elderly women talking to bigger-than-life statues, and even holding the hands of the statues.

Catholics don’t pray to statues.

“Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate.”

More here:

catholic.com/library/do_catholics_worship_statues.asp

Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship… a person can kneel before a king without worshiping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it.

** Are these people pictured on Flickr in the link below, worshiping the Western Wall in Jerusalem or praying to God?**

flickr.com/search/?q=praying%20western%20wall&w=all

Also, I’ve never seen someone “talking to” a statue or holding its hands. Catholic statues usually have hands that are incorporated into the body of the piece, not free for “holding”. But after searching the interior photos of the statues at the shrine of St. Anne de Beaupre, I have to ask, did the woman bring a ladder or was she just incredibly tall?

flickr.com/photos/rer212/1205927846/

family.webshots.com/photo/1441525707058512100zCFPhG

family.webshots.com/photo/1441524902058512100TCJHvj

flickr.com/photos/dancingmistress/224823983/

 

[Valke2]

Indeed, that is a Christian position.

However, for Jews, there is a problem. Since I quote Talmudic works (chazal), from the *Tanaim *and Amoraim, it is not possible for a later generation, such as the *Rishonim *or *Achoranim *to overrule the rulings of an earlier period. This is at the root of the Maimonidean controversy – Maimonides essentially rewrote the Tanaim and Amoraim with Aristotle as his guide. That is why to this day, the Guide of the Perplexed remains as a banned work for many Jews (as it has been since 1204) and is not taught in haredi yeshivot. Maimonides explained that *chazal *and (the majority of Jews of his period) held opinions that were idolatrous.

Your position is the same as Baruch Spinoza’s, it seems to me. Both of you disagree with *chazal *(especially the Talmud) by declaring some parts of the Bible to be figurative. (See for example Spinoza’s *Theologico-Political Treatise.) *As you will recall, Spinoza was subjected to cherem (excommunication) and declared to be an apikoros (heretic).

Christians on the other hand see the Hebrew Scriptures through the light of Christ. They are not subject to chazal.

It is not heretical within Judaism to take a figurative interpretation of parts of the Torah and other scriptures. Sometimes there is confusion between the terms “literal” and “plain meaning”. They are not the same. According to Rabbi Ishmael, a plain reading of the text may lead one to conclude that language is figurative/metaphor.

I am unaware of any ban in existence today against Rambam’s book. I am also unaware of any halacha that states it is impossible to overrule the halacha issued in the Talmud. Quite the contrary. Although the older the commentary, the more credibility it is given, this does not mean it is unalterable. For 2,000 years we have been interpreting and reinterpreting the mishna to keep it relevant and applicalbe to each generation.