Branched off from the "God's Word is clear" thread as it really didn't fit over there anymore.
Regarding the first point, I'm being much more literal about this than you are. Christians don't practice Temple Judaism. We don't have a Temple and offer animal and grain sacrifices there. We don't gather at the Temple 3 times per year. I think both Christiantiy and Judaism are spiritual successors to Temple Judaism in different ways, and as Christian I think we are the ones that are the true successors. To piggyback, I disagree with your point regarding an ancient Jew recognizing and condoning the sacrifice done at Mass. During Temple times, all the sacrificies were done at the Temple. You could probably eventually convince an ancient Jew that the the Temple is gone, the Messiah's body is the new temple, the Eucharist is the body of the Messiah, and therefore it's okay. But on first impression, no way. If they recognized the Eucharist as a sacrifice they would instantly consider it a breach of Torah for being outside the Temple.
Second, you clearly have in your head a Nazarene around 50 AD when we discuss a random 2nd Temple Jew. What pops into my head is a layperson living around 50 BC. I think that makes a big difference in regards to familiarity and comfort in different settings.
Third, you spend a lot of time explaining very well that the essense, or nomos, of Jews and Christians is different. I agree with that, but I feel it undermines your positions that Rabbinic Jews are not successors of ancient Jews and that an ancient Jew would feel more comfortable in a church than a synagogue. Maybe if we are talking about a 50 AD Nazarene. But if we are talking about a 50 BC Pharisee then I disagree. Modern Jews have at least tried to hold together the essense, or nomos, of the Torah. It's literally been their identity for thousands of years and the reason a Jew in Russia can move to a Jewish neighborhood in NYC with few issues. There is a common culture that spans the world based on trying to keep a Torah identity. I think a Torah following ancient Jew would find that very different but at least a little familiar. Christians OTOH have adopted an entirely different essense, culture, or nomos. That had already started by 50 AD, so judging by that standard you are probably more correct. But judging by a 50 BC Pharisee? So much would be new and foreign and so little would be directly familiar
Quote: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.Quote:
Quote:
neither Christians or Jews practice Temple Judaism
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...? 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:
Quote:
Christians don't have any religious clothing other than "fancy".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.Quote:
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.
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.None of the festivals as prescribed in the Torah can be observed today by Jews. Not a single one.Quote:
Quote:
Holidays
However, all of the appointed feats are celebrated and kept in the Orthodox Church calendar.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:
Quote:
MusicAgain, 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:
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.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.Quote:
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.
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.
Regarding the first point, I'm being much more literal about this than you are. Christians don't practice Temple Judaism. We don't have a Temple and offer animal and grain sacrifices there. We don't gather at the Temple 3 times per year. I think both Christiantiy and Judaism are spiritual successors to Temple Judaism in different ways, and as Christian I think we are the ones that are the true successors. To piggyback, I disagree with your point regarding an ancient Jew recognizing and condoning the sacrifice done at Mass. During Temple times, all the sacrificies were done at the Temple. You could probably eventually convince an ancient Jew that the the Temple is gone, the Messiah's body is the new temple, the Eucharist is the body of the Messiah, and therefore it's okay. But on first impression, no way. If they recognized the Eucharist as a sacrifice they would instantly consider it a breach of Torah for being outside the Temple.
Second, you clearly have in your head a Nazarene around 50 AD when we discuss a random 2nd Temple Jew. What pops into my head is a layperson living around 50 BC. I think that makes a big difference in regards to familiarity and comfort in different settings.
Third, you spend a lot of time explaining very well that the essense, or nomos, of Jews and Christians is different. I agree with that, but I feel it undermines your positions that Rabbinic Jews are not successors of ancient Jews and that an ancient Jew would feel more comfortable in a church than a synagogue. Maybe if we are talking about a 50 AD Nazarene. But if we are talking about a 50 BC Pharisee then I disagree. Modern Jews have at least tried to hold together the essense, or nomos, of the Torah. It's literally been their identity for thousands of years and the reason a Jew in Russia can move to a Jewish neighborhood in NYC with few issues. There is a common culture that spans the world based on trying to keep a Torah identity. I think a Torah following ancient Jew would find that very different but at least a little familiar. Christians OTOH have adopted an entirely different essense, culture, or nomos. That had already started by 50 AD, so judging by that standard you are probably more correct. But judging by a 50 BC Pharisee? So much would be new and foreign and so little would be directly familiar
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.