Maybe Jesus's sacrifice helped open the covenant to gentiles, and helped Jews with the transition to faithfulness without the temple?

[IndigoChild5559]

When I said that Jesus helped with the growth and spread of Rabbinic Judaism, I meant, among Jews.

My new friend, I still need a clear idea what you mean when you say "growth" and I still need to see your evidence/reasons for believing this. I'm willing to push a little bit, but I do reach a point where I conclude a person simply isn't going to answer, so I move on. I'm very near that point but I realize that I was probably a surprise and it is reasonable for you to need time to gather your thoughts.

What you say about the Covenant is very helpful, and I love it, I adore it, it’s precious to me.

I have to tell you, I'm so used to constant pushback, it's a genuine pleasure to read a response like this. Thank you.

I don’t think that the mitzvot applies to gentiles. Thank you for that vocabulary word. I’ll come back to that later. I don’t think that the land of Canaan belongs to Christians! Thank you for that question!

Okay, then if I might presume to help you organize your thoughts a bit, and if I'm off, just tell me so.

I think I supplied a reasonable summary of the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Not brilliant, but it'll do. You originally stated that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross extended the covenant beyond the Jewish people. But in your quote directly above, you have identified TWO elements of the covenant that you do NOT believe have been extended beyond the Jews:
1. You appear to confirm that the obligation to observe the mitzvot still apply only to Jews, not Christians.
2. You appear to confirm that the promise of the land of Canaan belongs solely to the Jews, not Christians.

Let's pause for a check. Have I accurately stated your position?

If and only if you confirm that yes this is your position, then here is my next question. If that is the case, then...
A. Either you have changed your original position that Jesus' death has extended the Jewish covenant beyond the Jews.
B. Or else the covenant you refer to in original post is not the Jewish covenant. You are perhaps referring to some OTHER covenant.

If and only if your answer to the above is B, you are referring to a different covenant, you still want to use the phrasing, " helped make it possible for gentiles to inherit the Covenant" since this wording sort of implies that something which didn't apply to Gentiles now applies to Gentiles?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You’re opening up new horizons for me.

No, but that question gave me a new idea. The Covenant has a spiritual part and a physical part. The physical part is the land of Canaan and the physical kingdom. The spiritual part is the kind of life we can have, learning to live the way God says to live. Jesus provides a way for gentiles to enter the spiritual part of the Covenant. I’ll troubleshoot that after I think about it some more. Feel free to poke holes in it.

Okay, this is an interesting new direction. Let's go with it.

Let's nail down these "spiritual promises." I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please do put things into your own words to your heart's content. I'm going to try to anticipate your comments, but if I get anything wrong, just let me know.

What I think you might suggest from your heart, based solely on patterns I'm seeing in your spirituality and my past experiences with Christians:
I think what you want most is a restoration to relationship with God, a God of love and mercy and justice, what Christians calls grace, a relationship where God cares for you the way a parent cares for a child.
I think you anticipate a promise that a life loving, serving, and worshiping God will be a quality life, a life rich in meaning, joy, and peace.

Pause to check: Have I guessed correctly?

If and only if I have guessed correctly, my question would be... When has this NOT been true? The nature of God has not changed. If we repent, he casts our sins into the sea and remembers them no more. How many non-Jews lived in Nineveh who were all forgiven, every one of them, when they repented? Was Noah a Jew? No. And yet, "Noah walked with God." Yes, a life lived for God is the best possible life, for Gentiles as well as for Jews. There is no need for a special covenant here--this has been woven into the fabric of the universe from the moment of its creation.

Now let's look at ideas that you might get from the Tanakh. I went to AI and asked, "What verses in the Tanakh are there which describe the Covenant, but list an element that is purely spiritual like, "I will be your God."? Here is what ChatGPT spat out:
• Exodus 6:7: “I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be to you a God.”
• Leviticus 26:12: “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be My people.”
• Deuteronomy 26:17 to 19: Israel declares that God is their God and will walk in His ways, while God declares that Israel is His treasured people. This is explicitly reciprocal and covenantal.
• Jeremiah 31:33: In the description of the new covenant: “I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
• Ezekiel 36:28: “You shall be My people, and I will be your God.”
• Ezekiel 37:27: “My dwelling place shall be with them; I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” This is particularly strong because it describes the covenant in terms of God's presence.

I see three things in that list:
1. The setting aside of Israel to be a distinct People of God. I'm not sure I buy that this is a spiritual promise. Ethnicity is a very earthly thing. But I'll let you reply.
2. God will be with you, he will be your God. On an individual level, I actually have no problems with this. Actually I sort of am ASSUMING that this is true for you and for all who love and serve God. I refer you back to my first discussion over this being woven into the fabric of the universe.
3. The Law will be written upon your heart. This brings us to the classical Christian interpretation that Jesus ushered in Jeremiah's New Covenant. I'm assuming we will be discussing this at length.

 

[Longfellow]

Okay, this is an interesting new direction. Let's go with it.

Let's nail down these "spiritual promises." I don't want to put words into your mouth, so please do put things into your own words to your heart's content. I'm going to try to anticipate your comments, but if I get anything wrong, just let me know.

What I think you might suggest from your heart, based solely on patterns I'm seeing in your spirituality and my past experiences with Christians:
I think what you want most is a restoration to relationship with God, a God of love and mercy and justice, what Christians calls grace, a relationship where God cares for you the way a parent cares for a child.
I think you anticipate a promise that a life loving, serving, and worshiping God will be a quality life, a life rich in meaning, joy, and peace.

Pause to check: Have I guessed correctly?

If and only if I have guessed correctly, my question would be... When has this NOT been true? The nature of God has not changed. If we repent, he casts our sins into the sea and remembers them no more. How many non-Jews lived in Nineveh who were all forgiven, every one of them, when they repented? Was Noah a Jew? No. And yet, "Noah walked with God." Yes, a life lived for God is the best possible life, for Gentiles as well as for Jews. There is no need for a special covenant here--this has been woven into the fabric of the universe from the moment of its creation.

Now let's look at ideas that you might get from the Tanakh. I went to AI and asked, "What verses in the Tanakh are there which describe the Covenant, but list an element that is purely spiritual like, "I will be your God."? Here is what ChatGPT spat out:
• Exodus 6:7: “I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be to you a God.”
• Leviticus 26:12: “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you shall be My people.”
• Deuteronomy 26:17 to 19: Israel declares that God is their God and will walk in His ways, while God declares that Israel is His treasured people. This is explicitly reciprocal and covenantal.
• Jeremiah 31:33: In the description of the new covenant: “I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
• Ezekiel 36:28: “You shall be My people, and I will be your God.”
• Ezekiel 37:27: “My dwelling place shall be with them; I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” This is particularly strong because it describes the covenant in terms of God's presence.

I see three things in that list:
1. The setting aside of Israel to be a distinct People of God. I'm not sure I buy that this is a spiritual promise. Ethnicity is a very earthly thing. But I'll let you reply.
2. God will be with you, he will be your God. On an individual level, I actually have no problems with this. Actually I sort of am ASSUMING that this is true for you and for all who love and serve God. I refer you back to my first discussion over this being woven into the fabric of the universe.
3. The Law will be written upon your heart. This brings us to the classical Christian interpretation that Jesus ushered in Jeremiah's New Covenant. I'm assuming we will be discussing this at length.

I think before we go on, you will need to understand clearly that I am not a Christian. It might not be possible at all for you to understand what I'm thinking if you think of me as a Christian. Some of the Christian concepts that you're mentioning are not familiar to me at all. My aunts, uncles and cousins were Christian, and I attended a Christian church in my teens, but I don't see what I'm thinking as being about Christianity at all. In my mind it's about Jews and gentiles, and the effects of Jesus on people in their societies. If you think that it's about Christianity, we won't get anywhere at all. If you want to bring Christianity into this, then I will need to do some research on what you're talking about. That might be an interesting discussion between us, but in my mind it has nothing to do with what I think about Jews, gentiles and Jesus.

(later) If you try to identify me with some belief system, I'm afraid that it will be impossible for you to understand me. That doesn't mean I won't try to help you, I will as long as you're interested. You've already opened up some wonderful new horizons for me, and new ideas are flooding in.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think before we go on, you will need to understand clearly that I am not a Christian. It might not be possible at all for you to understand what I'm thinking if you think of me as a Christian. Some of the Christian concepts that you're mentioning are not familiar to me at all. My aunts, uncles and cousins were Christian, and I attended a Christian church in my teens, but I don't see what I'm thinking as being about Christianity at all. In my mind it's about Jews and gentiles, and the effects of Jesus on people in their societies. If you think that it's about Christianity, we won't get anywhere at all.

Got it. I suspected this, but was not certain. I'm fine with you forming your own unique spirituality. I do see Christian influence, but I agree that this is not the same thing as being a Christian.

Alternatively you might simply be a very outside the box Christian. I can count them on one hand, but I've met Christians who believe that Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atoned for their sins, but made no claim that he was God or the Jewish messiah. I realize that many Christians would look at such a person and say that they are not a fellow believer. But I look at this kind of person and, well, they sure seem to walk like a duck if you know what I mean.

It would help if you could state one or two things which most clearly differentiate you from Christians. Please?

 

[Longfellow]

Got it. I suspected this, but was not certain. I'm fine with you forming your own unique spirituality. I do see Christian influence, but I agree that this is not the same thing as being a Christian.

Alternatively you might simply be a very outside the box Christian. I can count them on one hand, but I've met Christians who believe that Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atoned for their sins, but made no claim that he was God or the Jewish messiah. I realize that many Christians would look at such a person and say that they are not a fellow believer. But I look at this kind of person and, well, they sure seem to walk like a duck if you know what I mean.

It would help if you could state one or two things which most clearly differentiate you from Christians. Please?

To be honest, it looks to me like you won't be able to let go of projecting Christian beliefs onto me. I've been through this many times. You won't believe what I say about what I think, you'll think that I have some hidden agenda, and eventually you'll give up in frustration and blame me for it. You've already threatened to do that.

I'll answer your questions anyway, because as I said this has already opened up new horizons for me and it might continue to do so.

 

[Longfellow]

It would help if you could state one or two things which most clearly differentiate you from Christians. Please?

I'll answer that question, then I'll answer your other questions in reverse order if that's okay with you.
- I don't ideantify as Christian.
- I don't elevate Christian scriptures above all others.
- I don't think that Jesus was God or the son of God in any physical way.
- I don't think that Jesus paid a price or took a punishment for our sins.
- It's an open question for me whether or not Jesus was raised in a physical body, and I don't think it matters for his purposes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To be honest, it looks to me like you won't be able to let go of projecting Christian beliefs onto me. I've been through this many times. You won't believe what I say about what I think, you'll think that I have some hidden agenda, and eventually you'll give up in frustration and blame me for it. You've already threatened to do that.

I'll answer your questions anyway, because as I said this has already opened up new horizons for me and it might continue to do so.

I think you do me an injustice. I have absolutely no sense that you have any sort of hidden agenda going on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'll answer that question, then I'll answer your other questions in reverse order if that's okay with you.
- I don't ideantify as Christian.
- I don't elevate Christian scriptures above all others.
- I don't think that Jesus was God or the son of God in any physical way.
- I don't think that Jesus paid a price or took a punishment for our sins.
- It's an open question for me whether or not Jesus was raised in a physical body, and I don't think it matters for his purposes.

Welp, there ya go. Definitely not Christian, just like you said.

 

[RJM]

The dream was not about food. The food was only the metaphor, the symbol. The dream was about Gentiles and how they should be treated. The moment you think this dream meant that Peter could eat treif is the moment you completely miss the point.

I'm sorry to disagree. The passage is clearly releasing Peter from the kosher observance. It did not mean that Peter had to abandon kosher food observance, but that it was no longer required, which meant that he was free to enter the homes and dine with gentiles. Paul continues the idea of freedom in Christ.

Peter … became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

Acts 10
The rest of the chapter gives the full context
IMO

 

[Longfellow]

I think you do me an injustice. I have absolutely no sense that you have any sort of hidden agenda going on.

Good. Thanks.

If you want to have some discussions with me about Christian beliefs, that might be fun, but I won't do it in this thread. In this thread I will only discuss what I said in my opening post. I'll use my thread about what Jesus said about himself to answer your questions.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Thomas. I respectfully disagree.

And I respect your right to do so, and your knowledge and viewpoint.

All the major elements of "Rabbinic" Judaism were in place before the destruction of the Temple.

And I wholeheartedly concur.

My response was a bit short, and doesn't do the question justice.

I said 'Rabbinic Judaism takes shape mainly after the fall of the temple', glossing over the import aspect that, as you say, everything was there in place before the event.

My browser offers this:
"Rabbinic Judaism is defined by its reliance on the Oral Torah (Oral Law) alongside the Written Torah (Hebrew Bible), a dual revelation tradition claimed to have been given to Moses at Mount Sinai. It emerged from the Pharisaic movement and became the normative form of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, replacing Temple sacrifices with prayer, Torah study, and synagogue worship." (emphasis mine)

Does that seem reasonable – honest question, you're closer to it than I.

I do not read 'it's emergence from the Pharisaic movement' as implying that somehow the Pharisees took Judaism off in a different direction, so although emphasised, that's not a criticism.

+++

I mean, if the Vatican toppled into the Tiber tomorrow and was swept away, then there'd the the expected lamenting, but Catholicism will continue (stumbling) on as it does ...

 

[Longfellow]

I think you do me an injustice. I have absolutely no sense that you have any sort of hidden agenda going on.

I agree that I did you an injustice, not only in this way but in the relevance of your posts to my original post, and I apologize.

 

[Longfellow]

And I'm sure that most of the Christians in here have no idea who Rabbi Hillel was, this Hillel who influenced Jesus' teachings. He lived in the generation before Jesus. If the story of Jesus going to Jerusalem when he was 12 is accurate, he would have almost certainly have met Hillel in person because Hillel was the Nasi (president of the Sanhedrin) at that time. Hillel taught, "What is hateful to you, don't do to others. That is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go study."

Very interesting.

 

[Longfellow]

Christians focus on getting into heaven. Jews focus on bringing heaven down to earth.

False comparison, comparing the worst side of one to the best side of the other.

 

[Longfellow]

Welp, there ya go. Definitely not Christian, just like you said.

I apologize again for the injustice that I did to you in my reading of your posts. Looking at them again, they all seem related to what I said in the opening post, so I'll try to answer all your questions here. Not itemizing them, but trying to cover them all.

What I say is my interpretation of what the New Testament says. How much of it is true and in what way is another question, which we can discuss if you want to, but for now I'm talking about my interpretation of the NT and some implications *if* it is true.

Multitudes of people who saw Jesus as a prophet heard him saying things that later helped Israel continue without the Temple. Not that he was the only one saying those things, but that he might have done a lot to help spread those understandings.

It seems to complicate things to talk about the Covenant, and maybe needlessly so, so I'll see if I can do without that. I was trying to relate this to some things that Paul says, but it's creating needless and distracting complications.

As God's regent, Jesus made it possible for gentiles to know God's will and practice obedience to it, without Jewish training, giving them access to all the benefits and fruits of learning to live the way God says to live.

By "the spirit of the law" I don't mean beliefs. I mean intent, purpose and function. The law is a lamp for the light of Israel, but not the only place where it can be lit.

Let me know if I've missed anything. Later I'll post about some things that you've said that resonate with me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

False comparison, comparing the worst side of one to the best side of the other.

Having been a Christian the first 50 years of my life, I wouldn't have seen this as comparing the "worst side" of Christianity. Rather, it shows Christians prioritizing things which are eternal to those things which are temporal--something they feel is their best side.
Matthew 6
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And I respect your right to do so, and your knowledge and viewpoint.


And I wholeheartedly concur.

My response was a bit short, and doesn't do the question justice.

I said 'Rabbinic Judaism takes shape mainly after the fall of the temple', glossing over the import aspect that, as you say, everything was there in place before the event.

My browser offers this:
"Rabbinic Judaism is defined by its reliance on the Oral Torah (Oral Law) alongside the Written Torah (Hebrew Bible), a dual revelation tradition claimed to have been given to Moses at Mount Sinai. It emerged from the Pharisaic movement and became the normative form of Judaism after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, replacing Temple sacrifices with prayer, Torah study, and synagogue worship." (emphasis mine)

Does that seem reasonable – honest question, you're closer to it than I.

Yes, I think your AI does a-okay because it acknowledges that it was already there in the Pharisaic movement, but simply moved from being a part to being the whole. I actually believe we are on the same page with this, even though our wording is a little different.

In summary for the sake of lurkers joining us... When the Temple was destroyed, the Sadducees (who revolved around Temple worship) and the Essenes (whose Temple corruption opposition was their rally cry) simply disappeared. All that was LEFT were the Pharisees, and THAT is what people call "Rabbinic" Judaism. So what happened after 70 CE is not that "Rabbinic" Judaism was added into history, but that competitive streams of Judaism were subtracted. Rabbinic Judaism is Pharisaism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Longfellow Let me begin by saying that I've taken a real liking to you. You are a gentle and kind soul, and as you get to know me better, you will realize the tremendous value I place on those traits. I really don't give a hoot what someone believes, even if I think they are mistaken. I care whether someone is kind, compassionate and just. I'm very glad we have become friends.

I also resonate to how you spot larger patterns. Most people fall into the "I see the forest" or "I see this and that tree" boxes. You and I are both forest people.

One of the things I've worked very hard at in my life is how to answer people who ask, "What do you mean you see a forest? What do you mean when you say forest? Why exactly do you think that there is a forest?" They are looking for concrete evidence. They are not going to simply take me at my word that there is a forest, and rightly so.

Why? Because sometimes pattern people spot patterns that aren't really there. We make mistakes. The quality of my inferences and intuitions are only going to be as good as the accuracy of the data upon which I'm building them. And THAT is why it is not only appropriate, but NECESSARY for people to ask me, "What evidence do you have that there is a forest?" I am thus deeply in debt to my composition teachers who forced me to understand the necessity of examples and reasons, and to all my atheist friends who constantly remind me what is and is not evidence.

And so I hope that when I continue to press you for concrete examples that you will see it as me trying to draw the best out of you. I'm always very concerned about the feelings of others, and I want to make sure you understand that this is not me trying to pick at you. I'm digging for buried treasure.

What I say is my interpretation of what the New Testament says. How much of it is true and in what way is another question, which we can discuss if you want to, but for now I'm talking about my interpretation of the NT and some implications *if* it is true.

Got it! Let us proceed.

Multitudes of people who saw Jesus as a prophet heard him saying things that later helped Israel continue without the Temple. Not that he was the only one saying those things, but that he might have done a lot to help spread those understandings.

It sounds like you may be saying what I say but are simply saying it in reverse order. I put it like this:
..........The Pharisees created the necessary structures for Judaism to survive the destruction of the Temple, and Jesus (as a Pharisee) was part of that.
In other words, I begin with the Pharisees and move to the specific example of Jesus. You begin with the specific example of Jesus, and then mention that he is not the only one (implying the Pharisees while not directly mentioning them).

As God's regent, Jesus made it possible for gentiles to know God's will and practice obedience to it, without Jewish training, giving them access to all the benefits and fruits of learning to live the way God says to live.

I'm a little confused here. Jesus never addressed crowds of Gentiles. In fact, when he first sends out his disciples as missionaries he tells them to avoid the Gentiles:
Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

I think I might also understand you better if you would give an example or two: What understanding of the will of God is it that you think Gentiles lacked before Jesus that you think they then had after Jesus (and without Jewish instruction)?

By "the spirit of the law" I don't mean beliefs. I mean intent, purpose and function.

Ah! GREAT words. Thank you. I commonly discuss the same thing. I just usually use "principles" and "values." I think we both agree, rules are wonderful things because they serve values. A rule is simply the application of a principle to a specific situation. The moment a rule stops serving that principle is the moment I junk the rule.

For example, the Rabbis are very clear that saving a life trumps keeping the law. If I need to break the Shabbat to save a life, it's not just okay for me to do so, I'm literally REQUIRED to break the Shabbat to save the life.

Later I'll post about some things that you've said that resonate with me.

Looking forward to it.

 

[Longfellow]

The Pharisees created the necessary structures for Judaism to survive the destruction of the Temple, and Jesus (as a Pharisee) was part of that.

Yes, except that I would not call him a Pharisee. Agreeing with them in some ways and using similar teaching methods doesn’t make him one.

I'm a little confused here. Jesus never addressed crowds of Gentiles. In fact, when he first sends out his disciples as missionaries he tells them to avoid the Gentiles:
Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

I didn’t mean that multitudes of gentiles heard him. I’m thinking of two different social processes, one for Jews and one for gentiles. Maybe I haven’t separated them clearly enough.

For Jews: Seen as a prophet but not as running for Messiahsip. His reputation as a prophet might have given his Pharisaic teachings more impact, and helped popularize them.

For gentiles: Paul and John translated the diaspora cosmology that Jewish disciples attached to Jesus into Greek ways of thinking. That might have given Jesus an authority in the eyes of Greeks and Romans that helped his teachings spread.

Looking forward to it.

Pretty much everything that you’ve said about the Covenant resonates with me.

 

[RabbiO]

Yes, except that I would not call him a Pharisee. Agreeing with them in some ways and using similar teaching methods doesn’t make him one.

For Jews: Seen as a prophet but not as running for Messiahsip. His reputation as a prophet might have given his Pharisaic teachings more impact, and helped popularize them.

By the time of Jesus it was the common understanding that the last and final prophet was Malachi. To say that multitudes of Jews thought Jesus to be a prophet seems illogical.

Your comment as to whether Jesus was, or was not, a Pharisee seems to rest on a mistaken assumption of uniformity of thought and action amongst Pharisees which is far from the actuality.

Mind you, this is not me weighing in on the question, just me opining that any casein either direction needs to be tethered to something else.