Who exactly are the "Modern Day Jews"?

[Divine Insight]

I see Jews today proclaiming authority and basically "Cultural Ownership" of the Hebrew Scriptures dating clear back to the first 5 books of the Old Testament, what the Jews call the "Torah".

But who are these modern day Jews and what linage are they claiming?

The Christian Bible portrays a very precise picture of ancient Judaism during the Roman Occupation. It portrays the Pharisees as being in Charge of the Jewish Temples and being the Jewish "Chief Priest". They were clearly recognize by the Jewish culture well enough to be the ones who interact with the Roman Authorities.

But the "Modern Day Jews" want no part of being associated with those pharisees and Jewish Chief Priest who were in charge of the Jewish Temples.

So who do they lay claim as their ancient lineage of Judaism?

They certainly can't lay claim to being followers of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus himself was protesting against Orthodox Judaism. Not only that but the information we have concerning Jesus has Jesus supporting every jot and tittle of the Jewish Law which Modern Jews refuse to take literally.

So if they can't lay claim to having a lineage to Jesus, and they refuse to have lineage to the Pharisees, (a form of Orthodox Judaism that no Modern Day Jew would support) then who exactly do they claim as their lineage to these ancient times?

I don't see where they have a well-defined group to identify with even back to the days of Jesus much less beyond that to the days of the Torah.

So where is there any merit in their claim to have cultural lineage clear back to the Torah?

Who are these people?

They can only have been a more modern day uprising. And therefore they cannot lay claim to being able to speak to the issue of what "ancient Jews" might have actually believed.

They certainly have no business trying to lay claim to the Torah as "Their Scriptures" like as if they have some special connection to those ancient cultures.

The Modern Day Jews aren't anymore closely related to those ancient Jews than most other people. And certainly not in terms of how they believed. It's pretty clear from the actual writings in the ancient scriptures that the authors of those scriptures believed they spoke for some God. They either believed it, or fraudulently claimed it to be sure because that's what's actually written in those scriptures.

The Modern Jews apparently don't like what is literally written in the ancient scriptures and would prefer to imagine alternative "non-literal interpretations".

But where is there evidence for any lineage back to any actual ancient groups that felt that way?

Even Jesus demanded that every jot and tittle of the scriptures must stand until heaven and earth pass.

The Pharisees were also pretty obviously quite hard-nosed about demanding that laws be upheld. So much so that they called for the crucifixion of Jesus on charges of blaspheme or apostasy.

So who do the modern day Jews claim as their ancestral group?

And why wasn't that group even mentioned in Christian theology?

Where are the records that document how this unknown group actually believed?

I personally don't see where the modern day Jews even have a claim to any direct linage to their own past in terms of this specific religions paradigm.

If they can't claim the Pharisees, and they can't claim Jesus, then who's left to claim? Some lesser-known obscure group?

If that's the case, then where is there any merit in claiming a strong lineage clear back to the days of the Torah. Obviously if modern day Jews were nothing more than a lesser-known off-shoot of the Orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees then they can't lay claim to being strong enough to reach clear back to the Torah in terms of scriptural "authority".

Question for Debate:

Who exactly do the Modern Day Jews claim to be decedents of in terms of claiming the rights to "Religious Scriptural Authority".

My position is that they have no credible claim that can be dated back to the Torah. In fact, I can't see where they have any credible claims dating back even to the time of Jesus.

[cnorman19]

You're just digging that hole deeper and deeper, and this is the deepest hole yet. You're not going to be able to ignore this ridiculous post and pretend you've never said any of this, as you have so many others here.

Maybe it's time to stop. Ya think?

I don't see where I'm the one digging any hole.

If your claims are true then according to you the Christian New Testament is the most outrageous historical lies ever told.

YOUR words, not mine. It's just another "religious document" that contains self-serving inaccuracies, like any other -- including the OT.

Apparently that would need to be true for your claims to be true.

Why do you keep denigrating and discounting my documented historical references and FACTS as "claims," like it's just ME saying these things? You may think that's a clever and subtle little propaganda technique, but it's actually just a veiled accusation of lying and a straight-up denial of historical facts.

Where do you stand on Jesus?

I'm entirely indifferent to Jesus. Like many Christians, you seem to think that I'm obligated to think about Jesus a lot. In point of fact, Jews think about Jesus about as much as we think about the Buddha or Julius Caesar. We don't care.

Do you believe that Jesus even existed? Apparently you do since you claim that Jesus himself was a Pharisees.

Do believe that Jesus was crucified? If so, who do you believe called for the crucifixion of Jesus, and who carried out that crucifixion?

Because according to you the Pharisees didn't have the Authority since you claim that the Sadducee were in charge of the Temple and interacted with the Roman Authorities.

I don't pretend to know whether Jesus existed or not. It seems to me probable that he did, but beyond that, all is guesswork. He probably did NOT say many of the things attributed to him in the Gospels -- too much of it sounds like Paul talking. If he did exist, he may have been an early "reformer," or a pretender to the Throne of Israel, or anything in between (Fake "messiahs" and "miracle men" were thick on the ground in his day, just as in our own). If he did exist, it seems very clear that he was a follower of Pharisaic Judaism (did you even bother to look at the thread I linked you to on that subject?), and was not particularly enamored of the corruption of the Temple.

In Josephus, it appears that the Pharisees of Jerusalem and the Sadducees put aside their differences when it came to eliminating Jesus; in any case, he was condemned by the Roman authorities, probably for sedition, since the Jews of the day had no authority to condemn anyone. Crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, not a Jewish one.

You didn't know that either, did you?

If that's the case then the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of historical lies. Never mind any supernatural or divine claims.

Is that your claim?

No. That's the claim that you keep trying to stuff in my mouth.

The NT isn't my book, and I'm not particularly interested in it. You seem to think I should be outraged, and not only that, but that the Jews should have risen up against it two thousand years ago -- and gotten themselves killed en masse, of course.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't care about the inaccuracies, the misogyny, the antisemitism, and the miracle tales in the NT -- and I don't care about Jesus. Few Jews do. Those are the Christians' problems, not ours. We've got plenty of problems with the Gentile world without starting ANOTHER battle that was over 2,000 years ago.

And if the Christian New Testament is that obviously false historically, then how in the world did it ever gain any respect or foothold?

I've explained that quite often enough -- Christianity got its "foothold" among Greeks and Romans, not Jews -- and I don't really care to keep telling the same things over and over till my face turns blue. You've proven often enough that you have no intention of ever listening, or changing your mind in any way; you are apparently compelled to be RIGHT, 100% of the time, and when you are PROVEN wrong, as you have been on this thread many more times than once, you just ignore it and forget about it and move on as if nothing happened. This is a pretty good example -- asking a question which has been answered for you multiple times.

Even to the point where many Jews themselves have converted to Christianity.

That is, of course, a falsehood. Can you show me a number? Not likely; "Messianic" synagogues NEVER publish the numbers of actual former Jews who have become Christians. On the other hand, my small synagogue contains at least 20 members who are converts, including two entire families who converted all at once; former Christians who become Jews may very well outnumber Jews who become Christians.

Jews becoming Christians wasn't even happening in the first century.

...despite the evidence of Acts to the contrary, the Christian movement made very
little impression upon the Jewish people. Its Jewish membership probably never
exceeded 1,000 at any point in the first century, and by the 50s the Jewish
members were quite likely exceeded in number by their Gentile counterparts.
Why would any Jew convert to a religious scam that is so obviously dead wrong even on historical points?

There is much more at the link. Of course, you'll either ignore or deny all this too....

[cnorman19]

The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, not the Pharisees. They were, by the common people, considered traitors in that they were collaborators with Roman occupiers — or, as you put it, “the ones who interact with the Roman authorities.�

If you can prove this claim then you can prove that the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of historical lies, thus proving that Christianity is necessarily false.

On the other hand, if you can't prove this claim they you obviously have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion here.

Okay. Will the Britannica do?

The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population. They came under the influence of Hellenism, tended to have good relations with the Roman rulers of Palestine, and generally represented the conservative view within Judaism. While their rivals, the Pharisees, claimed the authority of piety and learning, the Sadducees claimed that of birth and social and economic position. During the long period of the two parties’ struggle—which lasted until the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad—the Sadducees dominated the Temple and its priesthood.

How are you going to dismiss and discount THAT? Can't wait to see....

[Divine Insight]

The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, not the Pharisees. They were, by the common people, considered traitors in that they were collaborators with Roman occupiers — or, as you put it, “the ones who interact with the Roman authorities.�

If you can prove this claim then you can prove that the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of historical lies, thus proving that Christianity is necessarily false.

On the other hand, if you can't prove this claim they you obviously have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion here.

Okay. Will the Britannica do?

The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population. They came under the influence of Hellenism, tended to have good relations with the Roman rulers of Palestine, and generally represented the conservative view within Judaism. While their rivals, the Pharisees, claimed the authority of piety and learning, the Sadducees claimed that of birth and social and economic position. During the long period of the two parties’ struggle—which lasted until the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad—the Sadducees dominated the Temple and its priesthood.

How are you going to dismiss and discount THAT? Can't wait to see....

I don't see where I need to.

This actually SUPPORTS my position, not yours.

You are claiming that the "Modern Jews" have heritage clear back to the Torah that gives them the cultural clout to claim to know what the ancient Jews believed and yet here you are providing CLEAR EVIDENCE that this is not the case at all, and that the Jews themselves where highly divisive and in grave disagreement over what they actually believed.

Moreover, based on this information the Sadducee themselves were NOT in charge of the Jewish Temples at the time of Jesus. They didn't gain domination over the the Temple and its Priesthood until 70 AD according to Britannica. That would have been well after the days of Jesus.

So the Modern Day Jews can't claim any culture superiority over scriptures any earlier than 70 AD if you're trying to claim that Modern Day Jews are actually descendents or followers of the Sadducee.

So as far as I can see, nothing you have presented here is in conflict with my position whatsoever.

And you are still stuck with having a major BREAK in Jewish culture between the Modern Day Jews and the ancient Jews of the time of the Torah. By your own admission (and by the evidence that you yourself have provided) the Jews even around the time of Jesus were in extreme disagreement with each other.

So how does this help your case?

You've just provided the evidence that SEALS my case.

[dianaiad]

Moderator Intervention

Topic moved to "Questions for a Belief."

The "Judaism" forum is for discussing Jewish practices and beliefs, not for debating the 'truth' or validity of Judaism as a whole, or as a religious belief system.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

They're not unlike other groups; they argue with one another about this or that bit of theology, but in the end, they recognize their own like atheists recognize our own.

Exactly. It's just another modern day clique not unlike the atheists at all.

Except the atheists don't lay claim to having the sole authority to know how to interpret ancient scriptures better than anyone else.

Such a condition then leads us to ponder how it is you might have some authority on the teachings of the Jews.

I note that our resident Jewish scholar (my term), cnorman19, presents his data with backing from multiple sources, with reasoning and logic, and all such as that.

He seems to have no axe to grind, 'cept to get onto folks when he thinks they're maligning his folks.


What do you present?

"It's to be taken literally, 'cause that's the only way I can make any sense of it."

I'm frankly disappointed that you'd continue arguing this OP, owing to your obvious intelligence. I'll defend you as one of our premiere debaters, one of our premiere thinkers, but I see little to nothing in your responses on this issue that leads me to conclude you have any greater -ahem- insight than those who've actually studied the Jewish religion / experience / traditions.

Sure, this Jew, well he don't follow all the laws. That Jew, that poor thing eats pork. That'n over yonder, he don't wear his hair right. That'n there forgot his beanie. That'n lies to his momma. That'n there's black. That'n there's a Jew, and ain't that suspicious. We could pick nits 'til the cows come home and set up a barn raisin'.

Still none of that quibbling fills me with such arrogantly displaced pride that I'd say they ain't them a Jew.

The Jewish religion is a complex maze of the written, the spoken, and the thought of. It ain't some religion scribed in stone alone, dead and unchanging. It's a vibrant and circumspective religion that allows the Jew to do what you're complaining about - the ability to change their belief / laws when new and better data comes about, but to still maintain their traditions and their identities as a people. Sure, like so many folks, they can be muley, stuck in their ways, and all such as that - but then again, being muley and stuck in their ways seems to have held 'em together for two thousand years and more. (Where "stuck in there ways" allows for "stuck to changing their ways if they think it fit to change".)


Conclusions?

Tryin' to tell the Jews what it means to be one is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

Just as well tell the pretty thing them cats of hers ain't cats, 'cause they ain't lions.


(accidently'd a)

[Divine Insight]

I note that our resident Jewish scholar (my term), cnorman19, presents his data with backing from multiple sources, with reasoning and logic, and all such as that.

And he answered the question that I posed. That's all I asked.

He's pointing to the Sadducee as being the foundation of modern Jewish beliefs.

I have no argument with that. In fact, this is precisely what I had imagined to be the case.

Thus proclaiming any cultural consistency of "non-literal interpretations" clear back to the ancient Jews doesn't hold water.

And that's the only point I was concerned with making from the get go.

[Divine Insight]

Tryin' to tell the Jews what it means to be one is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

And I'm not trying to do that. But if they are claiming cultural consistency in their beliefs and position on the Torah clear back to the ancient Jews then they are making claims that cannot be historically supported.

Their guesses about the Torah are no better than anyone's.

That's the only point that I care to make.

[cnorman19]

The Sadducees were in charge of the Temple, not the Pharisees. They were, by the common people, considered traitors in that they were collaborators with Roman occupiers — or, as you put it, “the ones who interact with the Roman authorities.�

If you can prove this claim then you can prove that the Christian New Testament is nothing but a pack of historical lies, thus proving that Christianity is necessarily false.

On the other hand, if you can't prove this claim they you obviously have nothing more than an unsubstantiated opinion here.

Okay. Will the Britannica do?

The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the population. They came under the influence of Hellenism, tended to have good relations with the Roman rulers of Palestine, and generally represented the conservative view within Judaism. While their rivals, the Pharisees, claimed the authority of piety and learning, the Sadducees claimed that of birth and social and economic position. During the long period of the two parties’ struggle—which lasted until the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad—the Sadducees dominated the Temple and its priesthood.

How are you going to dismiss and discount THAT? Can't wait to see....

I don't see where I need to.

This actually SUPPORTS my position, not yours.

You are claiming that the "Modern Jews" have heritage clear back to the Torah that gives them the cultural clout to claim to know what the ancient Jews believed and yet here you are providing CLEAR EVIDENCE that this is not the case at all, and that the Jews themselves where highly divisive and in grave disagreement over what they actually believed.

Nonsense. I have already said, and proved through various examples, that the existence of two or three "parties" does not equal chaos or confusion. You keep whipping that dog, but it's not going to hunt.

Moreover, based on this information the Sadducee themselves were NOT in charge of the Jewish Temples at the time of Jesus. They didn't gain domination over the the Temple and its Priesthood until 70 AD according to Britannica. That would have been well after the days of Jesus.

Apparently your reading skills are not what they should be. "UNTIL" means that the domination of the Temple by the Sadducees ENDED in AD 70, not that it BEGAN then. You clearly didn't bother to look at the site after deciding to post another howler --

Sadducee, Hebrew Tzedoq, plural Tzedoqim, member of a Jewish priestly sect that flourished for about two centuries before the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem in ad 70.

Nice try. Sort of.

So the Modern Day Jews can't claim any culture superiority over scriptures any earlier than 70 AD if you're trying to claim that Modern Day Jews are actually descendents or followers of the Sadducee.

Where did anyone say THAT? The Sadducees disappeared after the fall of the Temple. Modern Judaism is derived from the Pharisees, not the Sadducees.

So as far as I can see, nothing you have presented here is in conflict with my position whatsoever.

And it's long since been established how far and how well you can see.

And you are still stuck with having a major BREAK in Jewish culture between the Modern Day Jews and the ancient Jews of the time of the Torah. By your own admission (and by the evidence that you yourself have provided) the Jews even around the time of Jesus were in extreme disagreement with each other.

So how does this help your case?

You've just provided the evidence that SEALS my case.

No. You've just decided to keep on beating the same drum that was discredited several posts ago. I see you're not responding to the comparisons to modern political parties and other examples, but have chosen to keep promoting a plain old falsehood -- that a group has to be PERFECTLY UNIFIED and in COMPLETE AGREEMENT, or else there is only chaos. Another false dichotomy, of course, but those seem to be favorites of yours. Too bad they don't work when you're confronted with HISTORICAL FACTS.

I hope you don't think you're going to wear me down till I quit. As long as you keep posting distortions and falsehoods, I'll keep pointing them out and PROVING them -- and, as Joey has observed, everyone here can see who is posting links and sources and credible sources, and who's just shooting off his mouth with nothing -- nothing at all -- to back it up.

If first-century Judaism was so totally confused and chaotic, it should be EASY for you to produce some sources that say so.

Why don't you?

(snicker)

[cnorman19]

Tryin' to tell the Jews what it means to be one is as goofy a notion as I've ever known.

And I'm not trying to do that. But if they are claiming cultural consistency in their beliefs and position on the Torah clear back to the ancient Jews then they are making claims that cannot be historically supported.

TOTAL "cultural consistency," with NO ONE disagreeing with anyone else about ANYTHING? No one here ever said that, even though you keep pretending that someone did.

Another unsubstantiated claim; another made-up argument.

Their guesses about the Torah are no better than anyone's.

But our RECORDS and DOCUMENTS are quite reliable and have stood the test of generations of scholars' investigation and study.

You are not among those scholars.

That's the only point that I care to make.

HAHAHAHA! Does that mean you've given up on your demand that everyone read the Torah literally or else confess virtual atheism? That you've given up your claim that the Pharisees ran the Temple? How about your claim that the Jews should have tried to shout down Christianity?

HAHAHAHA!

[cnorman19]

He's pointing to the Sadducee as being the foundation of modern Jewish beliefs.

I have no argument with that. In fact, this is precisely what I had imagined to be the case.

And you screwed it up AGAIN. I NEVER said that. Look back up the thread; look at the links I've given. Modern Judaism is derived from the PHARISEES; the Sadducees are extinct, and have been for two thousand years.

Thus proclaiming any cultural consistency of "non-literal interpretations" clear back to the ancient Jews doesn't hold water.

You know, if we look at your posts addressed to me over the last few days, I'll bet we can find evidence that YOU don't have 100% consistency in your own arguments. Want to put some money on it? I'm ready.

And that's the only point I was concerned with making from the get go.

Yeah, we'll all believe THAT.....