Ten things you didn't know about Judaism

[cnorman18]

Like many Christians, I once thought I knew all about Judaism; but, also like many Christians, I actually only knew a little about first-century Judaism from the point of view of first-century Christians, and practically nothing about modern Judaism as it is practiced today.

Just to get this party started: here are ten things you probably didn't know about Judaism.

1. Jews do not believe that one must be Jewish to go to Heaven. An ancient dictum in the Talmud states that "the righteous of all nations have a place in the Life to Come." That means that anyone, of any belief or none, can be "saved" if God deems him or her "righteous"--and only God gets to say what that means.

2. Belief in Heaven is not particularly important in Judaism anyway. An afterlife is not mentioned in the Torah, and very many Jews do not believe in a life after death. Those who do, as a rule, do not speculate on what it might be like.

3. Jews are not generally concerned with "salvation." The subject is of very little interest to us. We believe that God is the sole Judge, and that we have no warrant to anticipate His judgment in any way. Our concern is proper conduct in this life; we leave the next life, if there is one, to God.

4. Jews do not pronounce any other religion to be "false." Excepting only the literal worship of idols as divine beings, Judaism has no opinion on the truth or falsity of any other faith. We claim to know only how God has chosen to speak to us; if He has chosen to speak to another people in another manner, that is no business of ours.

5. There is no hierarchy in Judaism. There is no Jewish Pope, no Supreme Council, no person or body that is qualified or empowered to make pronouncements on the proper beliefs or practices of Jews. Every congregation is independent; even the broad "movements" in Judaism--Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox--are a matter of voluntary association on the part of independent congregations, and have no power to prescribe practice or doctrine. There are advisory committees, but that is their only function.

6. There is no "doctrine" in Judaism anyway. Judaism has no Creed, no Confession of Faith, no list of specified beliefs or articles of faith. "Beliefs" in Judaism are very much a matter of individual choice, and are of relatively little importance anyway. No one much cares what anyone BELIEVES; we are concerned with what they DO.

7. There is no such thing as a "Messianic Jew." Jews who believe in Jesus are properly called "Christians." There are few, if any, beliefs that Jews are required to hold, but there are a few that are forbidden; and belief in Jesus as the Messiah is one of them.

8. There is no Jewish "race." Though the Jewish religion began with members of a single family, that of Abraham, it has accepted converts from the very beginning, and there are Jews of every ethnicity on Earth. There are communities of Chinese Jews, Indian Jews, Black African Jews, Arab Jews, and Persian Jews that go back for millenia; and very many literal descendants of Abraham (of Ishmael and Esau, to name a son and grandson) are not Jewish.

9. Jews do not read the Bible as literal history, and never have. The early chapters of Genesis are spiritual and symbolic, and not literal. Tne Hebrew word "Adam" means "Mankind" as well as being a personal name; and Jewish scholars estimated the time of the Creation as being around 15.3 billion years ago--about the same time as modern astrophysicists--at least as early as the first century of the common era. There are very few Jewish "creationists." And it is, after all, OUR Book.

10. Jews do not believe the Bible is the supreme authority on faith, belief and practice, but the tradition of interpretation of the Bible as expressed by the consensus of the Jewish community. The Bible is opaque and unintelligible without the guidance of that tradition, and no individual human has the right or the capacity to determine its meaning and intent without its guidance.

Let the questions--and the flames--begin.

[arayhay]

But of corse. Just to start, not all Jews rejected Jesus/Yeshua. The Jewish community flocked to Him in Droves. They came to hear Him speak about the Torah.

(1) One of the first points Klinghoffer makes in his book is that the overwhelming majority of the Jews in Israel in Jesus's day could not have rejected him, because they never heard of him. This was an age without mass media, after all; if you wanted to hear a man speak, you had to see him in person.

It seems clear that Jesus had a good many followers; how many, or what proportion they were of the Jews of the day, is impossible to to say. They certainly weren't the majority.

christmas wasn't there easter wasn't there, all smersh's buddies weren't there. What was there was COMPLETELY Jewish in form and structure. So for anyone to follow Jesus/Yeshua outside of the context of Judaism is preposterous.

(2) Not so fast. Judaism was a pretty big context then, and still is. It has rarely been monolithic, and it wasn't then. The split between the Pharisees and the Temple party, the Sadducees, was already well under way, and they differed on some very basic things. We know now that the Essenes were also on the scene, and of course there were the Zealots.

Also , when one reads what Yahshua reportedly said one finds Him confronting Jewish leadership with THE WAY they are walking, Halakah. He doesn't come in and ESTABLISH something NEW and rail against Jews for believing something else. He puts forth 'corse' corrections just like Houston does with the space shuttle. they don't just point it and fire. there are agistments that are essential to the mission that cane only be made in route.

There was a bit more to it than that. Though Jesus primarily taught Pharisaic Judaism, which later became Rabbinic Judaism, he did make some rather startling claims (or perhaps such were made on his behalf, e.g., by Paul). He also departed from traditional Jewish teaching in a number of ways, exactly as described in the New Testament. Chief among them was the fact that he "taught on his own authority and not as the scribes." that simply wasn't done in his day; heck, it's not done now. (3) The tradition was the real authority, not the Torah; that's always been true. Ignoring it was as bizarre as tossing out the Torah itself.
He did, indeed, make a number of changes and start something entirely new. Whether or not that was his conscious intent is another question. With Paul, there is little doubt.

I have no quarrel with the validity and truth of Christianity for Christians; but the popular Christian idea that Christianity is a natural development from and the completion and perfection of Judaism is simply false. As one can see from the list in my OP, they are far too different; and over on the Apologetics board, my article "Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah" will explain just how new, and foreign to Judaism, the claims made by or for Jesus were, and remain.

[/quote]

(1)
But the Jews who cared anything about the Nation of Israel went to the Temple where there were no doubt people talking about many who claimed to be the Messiah including Yeshua. If those who don't care about the covenant are included Klinghoffer case is compelling. But I think there were those who cared a great deal about the political, spiritual and sovereign wellbeing of Israel. Shortly before the first century was the Maccabees fight for Torah and the Temple. A lot of people HEARD about that didn't they ??


(2)
Just because we have a diversity in the first century doesn't mean that what Yeshua put forth is outside the context of the original protocol of Torah. In other words, a map towards the covenant foundation. Not as' He understood' it on our human 'opinion' meter. But as it was FIRST presented.


(3)
That was the problem. Tradition. They are not now the solution.

I think you need to slow down and look at His encounter with this teacher of Israel, and a Pharisee, and deal with THAT ONE INSTANCE, not zip passed it. Was Yeshua correct when He said Nick should of known about this being born again stuff ??Or is this something new ??

[cnorman18]

(1)
But the Jews who cared anything about the Nation of Israel went to the Temple where there were no doubt people talking about many who claimed to be the Messiah including Yeshua. If those who don't care about the covenant are included Klinghoffer case is compelling. But I think there were those who cared a great deal about the political, spiritual and sovereign wellbeing of Israel. Shortly before the first century was the Maccabees fight for Torah and the Temple. A lot of people HEARD about that didn't they ??

I think it's a little peculiar to state that "the Jews who cared anything about the Nation of Israel went to the Temple". Just as in today's world, sometimes it was a matter of whether one could afford it.

Even at the times of the great festivals, when Jews were required to go to the Temple, not everyone went. They couldn't. Were they to leave their farms and flocks unattended?

No one could travel faster than the pace of a man walking; even if one were wealthy enough to own a horse or donkey, one did not ride the animal at a gallop all the way to Jerusalem. From the Galilee, a one-day trip to the Temple would take more than a week away from home. For many, perhaps most, that simply wasn't practical.

Travel to the Temple was a hardship, and even a Jew who cared about his country and his faith very much indeed might not be able to make the trip. That's why the institution of the synagogue arose; a local house of study and prayer where Jews could study Torah and offer prayers at the times of the Temple sacrifices. It's a good thing, too, because after the fall of the Temple in 70 CE, that's all that was left. The local teachers--"rabbis," of whom Jesus was apparently one--took the place of the priestly class as the spiritual leaders of Israel, and the Pharisaic, synagogue-based Judaism that Jesus and others represented became the rabbinic Judaism that we practice today.

(2)
Just because we have a diversity in the first century doesn't mean that what Yeshua put forth is outside the context of the original protocol of Torah. In other words, a map towards the covenant foundation. Not as' He understood' it on our human 'opinion' meter. But as it was FIRST presented.

I'm not sure I see your point. There have always been multiple points of view and differing interpretations of Scripture in Judaism, and there still are. NONE of them included the idea of Messiah as God Incarnate, God having a literal son, or being "saved" by holding the proper beliefs. Indeed, Judaism, from that day to this, does not include the idea of being "saved" in the Christian sense at all. It just isn't a matter of concern, whether anyone else thinks it ought to be or not.

(3)
That was the problem. Tradition. They are not now the solution.

The Bible is unintelligible without interpretation. Even Protestants who claim that their faith is based on Scripture alone obviously have their own interpretations. The Bible very rarely provides its own. Events are presented without comment, and what they might mean is very much left up to the reader.

In Judaism, that interpretation is determined by tradition. At the time of Jesus, it was called the Oral Torah, given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God Himself. It was forbidden to write any part of it down; it was to be passed from one generation to the next by personal instruction. It could only be committed to writing if the leaders of Israel determined that it was in danger of being lost; that determination was made around 100 CE by Rabbi Judah the Prince, the most prominent leader in the Jewish community at the time. The resulting document, the Mishnah, became the core of what is now known as the Talmud. As can be seen by even a casual glance, the Talmud is a record of discussion and argument about every issue under the sun, and the rulings were determined by consensus--as was mandated in the Torah itself.

The tradition continues to this day, interpretation being the result of collective study by the whole community, particularly the "Wise"--those who are particularly learned and respected for their wisdom and learning.

By claiming the authority to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals without reference to the existing tradition, Jesus was making a complete break with the Judaism of his day, and in fact of any day. That is simply inarguable fact.

That statement ought not be a problem for Christians, since they believe that Jesus spoke with the authority of God Himself; but it is silly to profess not to understand why it might be a problem for Jews.

I think you need to slow down and look at His encounter with this teacher of Israel, and a Pharisee, and deal with THAT ONE INSTANCE, not zip passed it. Was Yeshua correct when He said Nick should of known about this being born again stuff ??Or is this something new ??

I never heard of it being found anywhere in Jewish tradition or teaching.

YOU must remember that Christians believe that Jesus spoke with authority and had the right to define what Judaism was. Jews did not and do not.

In the view of Christians, that merely proves that Jews obstinately refuse to see the truth.

We're okay with that.

[Easyrider]

There have always been multiple points of view and differing interpretations of Scripture in Judaism, and there still are. NONE of them included the idea of Messiah as God Incarnate, God having a literal son, or being "saved" by holding the proper beliefs.

I've already provided evidence to the contrary (including passages rabbis have said were Messianic) that point in the opposite direction, in your thread on Jesus supposedly not being the Jewish Messiah. For instance, Jeremiah 23:5-6 and Isaiah 9:6-7. Of course you disagreed with all that, but I guess you just have to add one more position to the beliefs of Judaism, since we have various rabbinic attestations to back our arguments up.

The resulting document, the Mishnah, became the core of what is now known as the Talmud. As can be seen by even a casual glance, the Talmud is a record of discussion and argument about every issue under the sun, and the rulings were determined by consensus--as was mandated in the Torah itself.

The Talmud has quite a few diametrically opposite conclusions from different rabbinic sources that even today are being debated.

http://books.google.com/books ?id=P7uekTpIGWAC &pg=PA274 &lpg=PA274 &dq=contradictions+in+the+talmud &source=web &ots=-6Z4xxK-Dg &sig=juPmAdnTg_010ajzM12h7xpWQ6k #PPA274,M1

By claiming the authority to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals without reference to the existing tradition, Jesus was making a complete break with the Judaism of his day, and in fact of any day. That is simply inarguable fact.

We prefer to say he was showing us the true fulfillment of OT Judaism.

But one could argue that the "New Covenant" spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was a break from the Old Covenant also, since it says in the passage, "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant."

YOU must remember that Christians believe that Jesus spoke with authority and had the right to define what Judaism was. Jews did not and do not.

Many Jews did come into faith in Christ around the time of Jesus, and have continued to come to him ever since.

p.s. Just for my own enlightenment, who do you say the following individual is in Daniel 7:13-14?

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

The Torah says you shall worship the Lord thy God only, yet here is another individual who not only is to be worshiped BY ALL PEOPLE, but also being given God's sovereign authority (why would he give that to another?), and he also has an everlasting dominion and kingdom. This must be a very important individual in Judaism, yet no one in Judaism that I've heard from yet really knows who this individual is.

What's striking is that there's a large number of OT passages, like this one, that various rabbis conclude are messianic, and they all look one heck of a lot like Jesus. One Jewish woman who was on the TV show "It's Supernatural," kept reading her Tanakh and kept saying to her rabbi and others, 'There's THAT MAN (Jesus) again." She wasn't saying it in a kind way. But she finally did receive Jesus as her Savior and Messiah. And there's a lot of Jewish people like her.

God bless!

[arayhay]

By claiming the authority to make pronouncements on matters of faith and morals without reference to the existing tradition, Jesus was making a complete break with the Judaism of his day, and in fact of any day. That is simply inarguable fact.

Eastrider
We prefer to say he was showing us the true fulfillment of OT Judaism.

But one could argue that the "New Covenant" spoken of in Jeremiah 31:31-34 was a break from the Old Covenant also, since it says in the passage, "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant."

But when christianity talks about the so called Old Covenant / testament, they normally are talking about the Law.

This is odd because the New covenant includes the Torah /law written on the heart.

[center]HOW ANYONE COULD THEN CONSIDERED THE NEW COVENANT A BREAK FROM THE TORAH/LAW, AND CONSEQUENTLY A BREAK FROM, OR SOME HOW RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE OLD COVENANT IS COMPLETELY UNEXPLAINABLE.[/center]

So you say that Jesus FULFILLS the OT Prophecies to inaugurate a New Covenant, and then you take the Old Covenant and make it POINTLESS.