It's a circular argument, different sects were identified in part by what scriptures were authoritative within their communities. Josephus / the Pharisees, the Samaritans, the Sadducees are all evidence of this, and many make similar claims with regard to changes and who had the correct books or versions of books. Objecting to a modern direct descendant of Second Temple Judaism (i.e., Christianity) making the exact same claim as Josephus while offering Josephus' claim as defense is asinine.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Bringing up that modern judiasm is a deeply warped fragment that has very little in common with the second temple judiasms of 2000 years ago - is anti-semitism. Bringing up that the modern expression of Judaism is literally the fork created by those who rejected Jesus is anti-semitism. That rejecting the modern rabbi's reinterpretation that there was no second power in heaven who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Gideon and physically walked the earth - is antisemitism. That by the ancient jews own theology, denying the Messiah is a ploy of demons, thus they commune with demons, is anti-semitism.

---

All of these are denuded of nuance or Jewish voices and Jewish philosophy and have been used and argued by Christians to deny the Judaism of Jews in order to supplant them and justify generations of horrible antisemitism that has led to the horrific deaths of millions over millennia. So yes, framing it in this way, and centering Christianity at the center of the Jewish belief system, is on par with the history of antisemitism.

---

They are not denuded of jewish voices or philosophies. They are 'denuded' of modern jewish voices/philosophies because modern judiasm left Jesus behind 2000 years ago. Why would jews (and then gentiles) that believed Jesus was actually the Jewish Messiah reach back out 2000 years for their deep introspection into how they **checks notes** rejected everything about Christ in exactly the ways Jewish prophecy said they would? They have nothing left to add except as a historical account of beliefs of those who rejected the Messiah. Christianity certainly shouldn't be looking to modern jewish customs or beliefs and adding, 'we should be doing that.'

And Christ is the center, thats the whole point. Thats the whole point about the Messiah. Judiasm is a religion in need of a Messiah that was/is promised. If you believe Jesus was the Messiah-why would your world not be 'Christo-centric.'

Why do you constantly cite Josephus for theological points? He was a Pharisee, paid by the Romans to write, and declared that the Roman emperor was the Messiah.

For all your bashing about the quality of authors in the Bible, you certainly picked a winner who happens to be an ally of ancient Pharisees and lauded loudest by the modern continuation of the Pharisaical sect.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I do actually believe that there is direct and unbroken continuity in practice, liturgy, and scripture on the Christian side - in places, but not everywhere.

---

Yep, Church of Christ.

j/k

Because other Jews in the Temple era made the exact same claim about other sect's scriptures. Why should we prefer Josephus' claim over anonymous Orthrobro's? It's exactly the same.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah… I don't agree that modern Rabbinic Judaism bears much resemblance to any Judaism of the second temple period. Even their closest relatives and direct ancestors would probably have a hard time recognizing them as Judaeans. You have to look to theology, practice, liturgy, and scripture to make any kind of real assessment, and the modern version is radically different.

On the other hand, I do actually believe that there is direct and unbroken continuity in practice, liturgy, and scripture on the Christian side - in places, but not everywhere.

---

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me. We know that Rabbinical Judaism has a clear counterpart in the Second Temple period in the Pharisees. We know that the Pharisees that did not become Christian became Rabbinical Jews. The Mishnah was recorded around the same time as the NT and is still an integral part of modern Rabbinic Judaism. And it's not like they popped up in the Caribbean 1900 years later and claimed to be the real Jews. Rabbinic Judaism clearly developed directly from Pharisic Judaism with the main differences being a loss of temple worship and a need to differentiate themselves from the new Messianic branch of Judaism.

On the same note, one could talk about any second Temple Jews looking at a modern Christian and not recognizing them as being the same religion. Christians don't dress the same, eat the same, keep the same Sabbath, celebrate the same holidays or worship in the same language. Drop a second Temple Jew in a pretty much any Christian church and they'd be lost. I think the modern evangelical service would baffle them, but also the icons of a liturgical service would seem sacrilegious as well.

Quote:

---

We know that Rabbinical Judaism has a clear counterpart in the Second Temple period in the Pharisees. We know that the Pharisees that did not become Christian became Rabbinical Jews. The Mishnah was recorded around the same time as the NT and is still an integral part of modern Rabbinic Judaism. And it's not like they popped up in the Caribbean 1900 years later and claimed to be the real Jews. Rabbinic Judaism clearly developed directly from Pharisic Judaism with the main differences being a loss of temple worship and a need to differentiate themselves from the new Messianic branch of Judaism.

---

"Other than that Mrs Lincoln how was the play?" The Pharisees had a complicated relationship with the Temple, and as a result had somewhat distanced themselves from it... which enabled them to adapt, unlike the Sadducees who had nothing without it. But you should know as well as anyone that you absolutely cannot practice Pharisaism of the second temple period without a Temple. The whole "thing" of the Pharisees was strictly following the Torah. You cannot celebrate the feasts, you cannot make the offerings, you cannot have a priesthood, you just can't do their faith without it. No Temple, no altar, no priesthood, no offerings...

It's very easy today to say yeah, it's just Judaism without the Temple but that's kind of like saying "oh it's just Protestantism without the Bible."

Rabbinic Judaism came out of Pharisaism but that does not mean it has any resemblance to it. Again, the way of life of a Judaean had an identity relationship with the Torah, that's what nomos means in Greek, which is the best translation at the time of Torah. The average modern Jew simply does not follow anything remotely like the nomos of a Judaean. By biblical standards, that makes them not a Judaean, unless we revert back to magic blood thinking.

Quote:

---

On the same note, one could talk about any second Temple Jews looking at a modern Christian and not recognizing them as being the same religion. Christians don't dress the same, eat the same, keep the same Sabbath, celebrate the same holidays or worship in the same language. Drop a second Temple Jew in a pretty much any Christian church and they'd be lost. I think the modern evangelical service would baffle them, but also the icons of a liturgical service would seem sacrilegious as well.

---

I simply don't agree with this. Second temple Jews include the Apostles and the entire first generation of Christians all over the world. The nomos of a Christian is preserved, because the scriptures, praxis, liturgy, and so on are preserved. Your iconoclasm is also misplaced, as synagogues were full of images... and of course, so were early Churches.

Whenever I get see these discussions about second temple jews to modern jews I always think of Duncan Idaho seeing a Museum Fremen for the first time in God Emperor of Dune. He has the same recoil and castigation that I would expect a 2nd temple jew having upon seeing a modern jew.

I still don't understand your thoughts here. Yes, all Judaism prior to 70 AD centered on the Temple. Yes, the destruction of the Temple changed all the branches of Judaism. Yes, the Pharisees and the early Christians were the two groups that best adapted to the loss of the Temple, because both had already started to form structures, beliefs, and rituals independent of the Temple. I'm with you on all of that.

I also agree that neither Christians or Jews practice Temple Judaism. But let's look at a comparison of Temple Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism, and Christianity to see where a 2nd Temple Jew would feel more comfortable:

Language of the service and scriptures: Christian services are in local languages and the NT is mostly in Greek. Maybe Reform Jews use vernacular texts, but all other Jews use Hebrew for the scriptures. Orthodox and Conservative Jews also still pray in Hebrew. So while there has been language drift, modern Jews are closer to language wise than Christians

Dress: while I'm sure fashions diverged, all 2nd Temple Jews wore tallit and had prayer shawls. We have references to both of these articles of clothing in the New Testament. Again, there is variety among Jewish practice and fashion, but tallit and prayer shawls are still common elements. Christians don't have any religious clothing other than "fancy". So while the fashion may look weird, they would at least recognize these are religious garb.

Day of worship: 2nd Temple Jews worship on the Sabbath. Modern Jews worship on the Sabbath. Modern's Christians do not worship on the Sabbath, but on the Lords Day.

Holidays: This gets tricky as the different Temple sects didn't always agree on the timing of festivals. However, they did agree on the nature of the holidays. They all celebrated Passover, Shavuot, Yom Teruah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot. Modern Jews still celebrate these holidays in a much reduced way. With the Temple and sacrfices, these are only shadows of themselves. But they are at least shadows. Christians celebrate Passover and Shavuot (Pentecost), but most don't celebrate the other religious holidays. Instead we have Christmas which would be completely new to a 2nd Temple Jew. So I think the modern Jews edge out here as well.

Music: I'm sure the different sects were varied on this, but most of what I've read involves chanting and singing by the Priests. Depending on where you look, this is probably a tie. The liturgical churches chant and sing a lot, as do the modern Jews. Protestant services with hymns and modern music (really anything newer than a monophonic chant) would be very strange.

Decorations: from what little I've read, 2nd Temple synagogues were bare with only benches and an elevated area for someone to read the Scriptures aloud. Regardless, I think we can all agree that a giant crucifix featured prominently would be a massive shock to any 2nd Temple Jew. I can't really think of anything in a modern synagogue that would provide an equally jarring experience.

I'm probably missing a lot here, and feel free to add things I missed. I just don't in any way see how an ancient Jew would step into any current Christian church of any flavor and be more familiar than they would in any current synagogue. I'm not trying to make a value judgement. I just don't understand if you think otherwise.

Quote:

---

neither Christians or Jews practice Temple Judaism

---

I disagree. I think, properly, that Christianity is a faithful continuance of one Second Temple Judaism, which was itself a faithful continuance of the faith of ancient Israel and the Patriarchs. At any rate, that is an implicit claim of the Scriptures.

I think you're looking at the wrong things to determine nomos, or way of living. While language and dress are absolutely a part of it, because nomos broadly speaking can be used as a synonym for culture, they don't have to be the identifier of a people. This is really important, fundamental to the idea of a Christian nomos. I'll get to that at the end - and I'm sorry for this being long.

Language and dress are certainly part of the nomos of a Judaean, but Aramaic was spoken, note Hebrew... and we know from history and the scriptures that Greek was as well. But these didn't make one a Judaean.

Quote:

---

Christians don't have any religious clothing other than "fancy".

---

..? liturgical vestments are a thing. And no modern Jew wears anything like liturgical vestments of the second temple period. And, again, I don't think the outer clothing define the nomos of a Christian although I there is garb prescribed by the scripture to Israelites which are part of their nomos. Do modern Jews wear them? Very few, right?

Quote:

---

Day of worship: 2nd Temple Jews worship on the Sabbath. Modern Jews worship on the Sabbath. Modern's Christians do not worship on the Sabbath, but on the Lords Day.

---

Worship qua worship isn't done at all by Jews any more - because worship in the scriptures is always fundamentally linked to sacrifice. Christians offer sacrifice on the Lord's day, and on every other day of the week. Even further, per the Torah the Sabbath was a day of rest, not a day of explicit worship. Sacrifices were offered on every day, including the Sabbath, but worship and sacrifice was a priestly function. Only priests could even enter the tabernacle.

What you call worship I don't think would match the idea of a first century Judaean, but some synagogue practices would be instantly familiar of course. That being said, the first half of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy - the Liturgy of the Word - is very similar to an Orthodox synagogue service... no doubt because they both came from a common form of synagogue practice. I would think modern Jew or Christian services would be completely foreign.

Quote:

---

Holidays

---

None of the festivals as prescribed in the Torah can be observed today by Jews. Not a single one.

However, all of the appointed feats are celebrated and kept in the Orthodox Church calendar.

Quote:

---

Music

---

Antiphonal chanting of psalms as practiced today in the Orthodox Church and in some Jewish services is a direct continuation of the practice of the first century. But I don't think either of this is essential to the nomos of a people.

Quote:

---

Decorations: from what little I've read, 2nd Temple synagogues were bare with only benches and an elevated area for someone to read the Scriptures aloud.

---

Again, decorations are not what makes a person part of one people group or another. But, we know from archaeological evidence that there were mosaics and depictions in synagogues, and from the scriptures themselves we know the first temple was decorated including iconography.

Quote:

---

I'm probably missing a lot here, and feel free to add things I missed. I just don't in any way see how an ancient Jew would step into any current Christian church of any flavor and be more familiar than they would in any current synagogue. I'm not trying to make a value judgement. I just don't understand if you think otherwise.

---

I don't think this is the right question - but I do think that you're glossing over some important things. First, as I said, the form of the Divine Liturgy and Orthodox synagogue practice is fundamentally linked to earlier common synagogue practices, so I do think we can sift between recognizable and not there between more modern / less faithful practices in both Jewish and Christian variants. But the reading of the scriptures, processing with the scriptures (Torah or Gospel), antiphonal chanting of psalms, all very much recognizable. I also think that, barring language barriers, a faithful Judaean would recognize a good chunk of what is said in the Divine Liturgy, as it's mostly psalms. A Christ-follower I think would be delighted at the application of those psalms. I think any first century person, pagan or Judaean, would understand the general form of anamnesis or liturgical reenactment combined with the offering of a sacrifice...and I believe that a Christ-follower Judaean would recognize the breaking of the bread. Certainly St Justin Martyr would, and that is within living memory of the Apostles.

But - the important thing I think is not whether they'd be completely baffled by various aspects of modern life we probably wouldn't even notice, but looking at what makes a person part of a people group. And that's what I was getting at.

The scriptures are quite clear on what makes a person an Israelite... you must be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses, including the Passover, and all that entails as far as how you live, dress, work, and worship. That, and only that, is what makes a person a Jew according to the scriptures. (Or as St Paul puts it, For not all who are of Israel are Israel, nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Abraham's children). What that means is, if you do not follow the Law out of disobedience, if you sin with your hand held high, you are cutting yourself off from the people and are to be cut off. This is why St Paul had Timothy circumcised - he was being unfaithful.

However, those things are not what marks a person as a Christian. To be a Christian you must be baptized and participate in the life of the Church, including the Eucharist. And while this also has ramifications as to how you live, dress, work, and worship, it is also NOT explicitly tied to a single culture.

So - dress and language. Yes, to be a Judaean there was a certain aspect of the nomos not fundamental to being an Israelite that was part of Judaean identity over and above the elements that were fundamental. But, St Paul's whole point is that the gentiles coming to Christ had to conform to NEITHER. They did NOT have to become Judaeans, they did NOT have to be circumcised and follow the Torah as Sons of Israel. There is absolutely a kind of undesirable tribalism in the Judaizer crowd St Paul opposed.

They DID have to follow the Torah as non-Israelites (which is what the council of Jerusalem says) and they DID have to give up the parts of their gentile nomos which were incompatible with Christ. Therefore a pagan Greek who came to Christ did not become a Judaean but instead a Christian Greek, which was a new category of being altogether. Elements were jettisoned, such as pagan worship -- which is itself an entire way of life -- but elements were retained, such as language and other cultural aspects.

When you say, Christians have no religious garb other than "fancy" this is what you're missing. The liturgical vestments worn in the Orthodox Church are the religious garb of Roman Christians. We should expect this to be different than Judaeans, just as music or language or what food they eat.

In short - I think the nomos of modern faithful Christians would be recognizable to first century Christians, even though the accidents of modern life wouldn't be. What makes a person part of the people that Christianity is (that is to say, All Israel, the People of God) hasn't changed. I am an American Christian (which is itself something that is still being worked out, much as a Greek Christian or a Roman Christian or English Christian or Russian Christian was worked out in the past) but I what makes me a Christian is exactly the same as what made St Paul's first gentile converts Christians, and St Peter's first faithful Judaeans Christians.

And, by comparison, I think the nomos of most modern Jews is completely foreign to that of first century Judaeans, because nearly all of what made them who they were has been completely lost. In the case of cultural identity that is obvious and unavoidable, but it is equally apparent in religion, theology, and practice.

There is also a good discussion here:
- https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3105186/last#last

Now, after Titus smashed the Temple, who has …..

The Temple (body)
Sacrifice (Mass)
Pascal Lamb (Christ)
The Ark (Mary)
Priesthood (Apostolic priests)
Manna (Eucharist)
Marking of community (Baptism)

SirDippinDots said:

---

Israel just gave an evacuation notice to northern Gaza. They are going about this as best they can.

---

Absolutely gross. Some of y'all have no shame.

craigernaught said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

Israel just gave an evacuation notice to northern Gaza. They are going about this as best they can.

---

Absolutely gross. Some of y'all have no shame.

---

I don't understand your point. What is gross? Why should people feel ashamed, over what? What do you think the Israeli response should be? Aren't they acting more humanely than we did at Dresden or Tokyo during WW II?

Moving literally 1 million people in 24 hours with no infrastructure to do so seems pretty likely to fail even if best efforts are made. Those people have to take enough food and water with them to survive an indefinite amount of time and to move to a location with no shelter.

I'm all for killing Hamas fighters by the way.

Jabin said:

---

craigernaught said:

---

SirDippinDots said:

---

Israel just gave an evacuation notice to northern Gaza. They are going about this as best they can.

---

Absolutely gross. Some of y'all have no shame.

---

I don't understand your point. What is gross? Why should people feel ashamed, over what? What do you think the Israeli response should be? Aren't they acting more humanely than we did at Dresden or Tokyo during WW II?

---

Or maybe we are both just terrible. Let's not evaporate innocent citizens or commit genocide over time.