A bit of a religeous question....confused??

[mazza]

As a roman catholic I have always thought I can eat whatever I want. It turns out however that the Bible states than there are certatin laws governing what we can or cannot eat. Pig is a no no apparently! Can anyone tell me why I was allowed to eat pork in my Roman Catholic shool ( which incidentally was run by nuns!) and why the laws are so relaxed now in relation to what the bible says...Incidentally , the chapter I am reffering to is Deutronomy 14:3 to 14:8.

We have been decieved!

[sghoul]

Well, you somewhat answered your question. The eating thing is a "throwback" to the old testament. I have been told by man Christians, that basically Jesus changed all the rules.

On the logical front, I have always felt that many of the things said in the OT were simply ways of getting a primative people to not do something which would hurt them. Improperly cooked pork can kill. And, it's much easier to just tell people "don't eat that" than to try to explain that there are microscoping organisms that will kill you if you don't cook the mean enough to kill them.

[KellyM]

Originally posted by sghoul
Improperly cooked pork can kill. And, it's much easier to just tell people "don't eat that" than to try to explain that there are microscoping organisms that will kill you if you don't cook the mean enough to kill them. This is a popular belief but doesn't really bear up under scrutiny. It's not all that likely that the early nomadic Jews would have been able to deduce the connection between undercooked pork and trichinosis. A better explanation for the prohibition on pork is found by noting that pigs are "high maintenance" animals that are expensive to feed. Cows, sheep, goats, and so forth will thrive on grass, a foodstuff that people don't do well on. Pigs, on the other hand, cannot thrive on grass, and in fact compete with humans for food. In a desert environment, where food is generally scarce, pigs are a poor choice as a food animal. You run the risk of starving the people to feed the pigs. The rule probably springs from an anecdotal instance of some tribal ruler doing exactly that.

[tomndebb]

Christians look to Acts 11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+11&language=english&version=RSV&showfn=on&showxref=on) and Peter's vision as an understanding that the New Law of Jesus supersedes the old in terms of the dietary restrictions.

Jews, obviously, see this as unlikely.

Regardless, the dietary laws are part of the Mosaic Covenant, and Gentiles--among whom are the overwhelming majority of Christians--are not bound by them. (You are certainly welcome to abide by them, of course. If you live far from a Jewish community, you may find it difficult as the dietary laws are wide-ranging and are not limited to avoiding pork, cheeseburgers, and shellfish.)

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by sghoul

On the logical front, I have always felt that many of the things said in the OT were simply ways of getting a primative people to not do something which would hurt them. Improperly cooked pork can kill. And, it's much easier to just tell people "don't eat that" than to try to explain that there are microscoping organisms that will kill you if you don't cook the mean enough to kill them.

Well, do disagree a bit, that's not the reason that Orthodox Jews don't eat pig. Ultimately, we don't eat it because we believe that God told us not to. It trichinosis disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, we would still be forbidden to eat pork.

Zev Steinhardt

[El Elvis Rojo]

One thing that most people don't understand is that the Catholic Church announces itself as a "Living Church," meaning that as it gets older, it matures and grows. This means it adapts to the times. It's not hypocritical, it's not going against God, it's surviving and doing what it can to help the message spread. That's the reason Jesus's message was allowed to spread to the gentiles and other "hethens." Acts of the Apostles talks about how the law of circumcision was no longer a requirement to be considered a follower of the law, even though many of the Jewish converts made a big stink over it. Jesus himself talked out openly against specific laws, such as the rituals of washing before meals and eating with lepers. These are all things discussed as laws in the old testement, and things the Catholic, and most other Christian Churches no longer follow, and haven't seemingly since the beginning. Jesus didn't denounce the OT, but he did point out the fact that many of the rules and laws were somewhat foolish compared to the time he lived in, and thus, the contradictions of the two shouldn't be something one should worry the fate of their eternal soul over.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Jesus himself talked out openly against specific laws, such as the rituals of washing before meals ...

Heh. This is a favorite of those who believe the dietary laws were all about health and santitation.

As an aside, iduring the period of various diseases (notably the Black Plague), the Christians dying by the cartload noticed that the Jews did NOT have such high illness rates, and concluded that the Jews had poisoned the wells and caused the disease with witchcraft. Thousands of Jews were murdered on account of this accusation. It is argued, of course, that the Jews washed their hands before meals as a matter of ritual and law, and thus avoided many of the bacterial infections that plagued the non-washing Christians.

It is unlikely that Paul (or Peter, or whoever) suggested that it was OK to eat pork because of improved health standards (and knowledge of trichinosis.) That knowledge came many many centuries later.

I find it interesting that the Old Testament dietary rules, promulgated somewhere between 1250 and 600 BC (say), are today seen as very modern, disease-avoiding.

[sqweels]

Heh. This is a favorite of those who believe the dietary laws were all about health and santitation.

That's because it's more likely to be true, what with Occam's razor and all.

...during the period of various diseases (notably the Black Plague), the Christians dying by the cartload noticed that the Jews did NOT have such high illness rates, and concluded that the Jews had poisoned the wells and caused the disease with witchcraft. Thousands of Jews were murdered on account of this accusation. It is argued, of course, that the Jews washed their hands before meals as a matter of ritual and law, and thus avoided many of the bacterial infections that plagued the non-washing Christians.

Well there you go. The connection between ritual cleanliness and disease avoidance is there, yet misunderstood.

It is unlikely that Paul (or Peter, or whoever) suggested that it was OK to eat pork because of improved health standards (and knowledge of trichinosis.) That
knowledge came many many centuries later. I find it interesting that the Old Testament dietary rules, promulgated somewhere between 1250 and 600 BC (say), are today seen as very modern, disease-avoiding.

Did no one in the world eat pork until authorized by Paul? It was a political move to make it easier to gain converts from among pork-eating populations (who were obviously coping with the disease threat).

Just because people didn't understand the germ theory doesn't mean they couldn't make the connection between behavior and disease. A likely scenario is that some tribesmen ate a pig, but with some trepidation since it's it's such a filthy, ugly animal. But the meat was sinfully delicious--like sex--so when they got sick, the guilt thing kicked in and they concluded it was God's punishment.

[mazza]

So what some of you are saying is that as a Christian, Popes/Cardinals etc.. can change the laws stated in the Bible under the pretence of calling the Church the 'living' Church to get more followers?

Did the Romans not do that in the first place? I thought they did not like the version of the Bible and instructed John(??) to re-write it so it became more palitable to them?

How many other laws governing us from the Old Testament have been changed/ignored?
It seems to me the only faith which is upholding the Laws of the OT are the Muslims and possibly some of the more fundamentalist Jews.

Any opinions?
M

[JohnM]

Mazza,

For Christians, the Mosaic dietary laws, as well as the necessity of circumcision, were supplanted during the early Church era, as documented in the books of the New Testament (previously mentioned by tomndebb in the reference to Acts 10). If a person believes that was not a lawful change in discipline, then that person is rejecting apostolic authority and at least parts of the New Testament canon. Very few groups since the first century (when some Jewish converts wished to keep elements of the old practices) have combined the Mosaic ritual law with Christianity; one example that does come to mind is the Jehovah's Witnesses, who appeal to the Law for their rejection of blood transfusions. It seems to me that a wholesale merging of Jewish dietary law with Christian elements would be neither fish nor fowl, neither Christian nor Jew, and would be recognized by neither.

[mazza]

Thanks JohnM but I think you missed my point.
What gave these people the right to change the missives set out in the Old Testament?

Why was a New Testament produced? I know that the New Testament was the word of the Apostles, but why change the ways of the Old Testament.

M.

P.S. I do not wish to upset / annoy anyone with my thoughts but at the moment I am going through a bit of a religeous crisis and the answers do not appear to be out there!

[mazza]

For Christians, the Mosaic dietary laws, as well as the necessity of circumcision, were supplanted during the early Church era, as documented in the books of the New Testament (previously mentioned by tomndebb in the reference to Acts 10)

Why was it? Who said it was to be supplanted? On whose authority?

M

[Keeve]

Slight hijack --- If trichinosis is the reason for banning pork, then why isn't beef and chicken banned because of salmonella?

In other words, trichinosis is NOT the only disease that one gets from tainted meat. There are lots of others, and my guess is that trichinosis accounts for but a small percentage of all food poisoning incidents. So why would anyone think that 3000 years ago, one specific animal was banned because of this one specific disease?

[JohnM]

Mazza, I do see where you're coming from now.

I'll try to keep this response generic, but if any bias towards the Catholic interpretation creeps in I hope a Protestant poster will correct me.

I think the answer to your query of "On whose authority?" is Christ. If you accept that Jesus was the Messiah promised by OT prophets, and the Son of God as was understood by the early Church, then his authority was sufficient, since it WAS the authority of God himself. The letters and gospels written by his followers in the decades immediately after his death are accepted by Christians as the basis for the understanding of this new dispensation (though which precise books made up the new scriptures did take some time to work out - see the Staff Report on Who Wrote the Bible? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html)). (Further parenthetical - Catholics and Orthodox supplement the Bible with Sacred Tradition, but that's a whole other topic).

Also, please keep in mind that what was changed were ritual and ceremonial requirements, not the moral law. If St. Paul had written that under the new dispensation, adultery was now perfectly okay, that would have been in contradiction to the moral code of the OT. Instead, he said that Gentile converts didn't have to be circumcised, and weren't constrained from eating "unclean" animals. On the other hand, the Church established new ceremonial and ritual requirements, such as baptism and the eucharist.

Okay, one Catholic quote. This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p1.htm) :
Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ." In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it.May I ask, if you don't accept the authority of Christ and the apostles to change such things as the requirement to keep the dietary laws, then whose authority would you accept?

[sqweels]

Slight hijack --- If trichinosis is the reason for banning pork, then why isn't beef and chicken banned because of salmonella?

My guess is that, since outbreaks of various diseases can vary in frequencey and intensity over time and place, a particulary viriluent series of outbreaks occured among occured among some ancient Hebrew tribes while their cattle tended to remain healthy.

Later, in the 1st century, gentile groups were having fewer problems with their pigs and so were less accepting of that dietary restriction (let alone getting their weenies sliced).

[mazza]

May I ask, if you don't accept the authority of Christ and the apostles to change such things as the requirement to keep the dietary laws, then whose authority would you accept?

I do accept the authority of Our Lord but I need to understand WHY he changed the laws that had been guiding us for thousands of years and would I be wrong if I reverted back to the directives set out in the Old Testament. Would this be classed as sinful? IE Ignoring the word of Jesus Christ and reverting back to the word of God ?

I do thank you for your patience and time taken to help. I am beginning to get a handle on this!

[JohnM]

But, how far do you go? Male circumcision? Dietary laws? Saturday sabbath? Stoning adulterers? Temple sacrifice?

You said in the OP that you are Roman Catholic, so in answer to your question of whether keeping some bits of the OT law out of personal conviction and conscience would be sinful, I would say "no". But, if you do so in the mindset that "I am right and the Catholic Church (and pretty much every other church) is wrong on this", that would be more problematic, because you would be denying the authority of the Church and the New Testament in a teaching on faith and morals.

As to why Jesus changed the rules, well, from a Christian perspective, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and to bring the light of God to the whole world, not just to his chosen people. The Law that had been in place to keep the Jewish people separate, and to prepare them for his coming, was no longer needed.

Please check out the link I gave to the Catholic Catechism in my previous post; it says better than I can the Church's teaching on Jesus and the Law.

[cmkeller]

mazza:

It seems to me the only faith which is upholding the Laws of the OT are the Muslims

Not really. True, they don't eat pork, and they do circumcise their children, but that's about it. Which is just as well, since they don't consider the Bible to be G-d's word, like they do the Quran.

and possibly some of the more fundamentalist Jews.

We call ourselves "Orthodox," and we're not that rare. A few of us frequent this message board, including myself, zev_steinhardt and Keeve, who responded to this thread earlier, and others as well.

[zev_steinhardt]

Mazza,

You may want to check out a thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32355) I started earlier on the question of which commandments Christians are still required to keep and which they aren't.

Zev Steinhardt

[mazza]

Thanks JohnM I have been to the link...very informative.

cmKeller, I did not mean to offend, if I did please accept my apology.

I do believe in Jesus Christ and I do believe in the Old Testament.
Do Orthodox Jews believe in the New Testament or have they their own interpretation of the Bible, similar to the Greek Orthodox Church?

I feel as if I have learned a lot today and would like to thank all who participated in this debate.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by mazza

Do Orthodox Jews believe in the New Testament or have they their own interpretation of the Bible, similar to the Greek Orthodox Church?


No. Jews disregard the New Testament in toto.

Zev Steinhardt

[JohnM]

Mazza,

To clarify the usage of the word "orthodox":[list=1] orthodox - From the Greek, means "true belief". When referring to Christian belief, refers to that set of beliefs common to most Christians at most times (as in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity)
Orthodox (Christian) - The Eastern Churches, such as Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox. Many common beliefs and practices with the Western (Roman) Catholic Church, but separated from Rome since the 11th century C.E..
Orthodox (Jew) - Branch of Judaism which seeks to keep the whole of the Law, with the exception of Temple worship after the destruction of the third temple by the Romans in the first century C.E. (Zev, have I oversimplified or is this basically correct?)
[/list=1]And, while Zev has already answered the issue of Orthodox Jews and the New Testament, I would submit that there have been a number of Jewish scholars who see in Jesus a teacher whose ethical pronouncements found in the New Testament have value for rabbinical Judaism. That is not to say they accept the Christian view of Jesus, of course.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by JohnM
Orthodox (Jew) - Branch of Judaism which seeks to keep the whole of the Law, with the exception of Temple worship after the destruction of the third temple by the Romans in the first century C.E. (Zev, have I oversimplified or is this basically correct?)


Close enough. :)


And, while Zev has already answered the issue of Orthodox Jews and the New Testament, I would submit that there have been a number of Jewish scholars who see in Jesus a teacher whose ethical pronouncements found in the New Testament have value for rabbinical Judaism. That is not to say they accept the Christian view of Jesus, of course.

Well, yes and no. Things such as "love your neighbor" are hard to argue with, regardless of who says them. Other things Jesus has said, however, would fail to pass muster within Judaism.

Zev Steinhardt

[cmkeller]

mazza:

cmKeller, I did not mean to offend, if I did please accept my apology.

Not at all. I hope I didn't convey offense, I was merely attempting to inform.

And the others have, it seems, clarified your understanding of what "Orthodox" means in the different contextx of Judaism and Eastern Christianity.

JohnM:

Just a nitpicky clarification: that was the second Temple that was destroyed by the Romans; there has not yet been a third.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Keeve]

Originally posted by JohnM
Orthodox (Jew) - Branch of Judaism which seeks to keep the whole of the Law, with the exception of Temple worship after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in the first century C.E. (Zev, have I oversimplified or is this basically correct?)
Nitpicky clarification of of Zev's "Close enough": We do seek to keep the whole of the Law. Lack of Temple worship is not an exception to that, but it is in keeping with the Law since we do not have a proper Temple at the current time. There are many reasons why the Third Temple has not been built yet, but that's another discussion.

[JohnM]

cmkeller,

Mea culpa on the third Temple mistake. I had just read Zev's thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32355) that referred to the American fundamentalists who are trying to breed a pure red heifer so that the priests could be cleansed in preparation for rebuilding the temple, and got my numbers confused.

Keeve,

Thanks for the clarification. So, would a more accurate one-liner definition of Orthodox Judaism be: Orthodox (Jew) - Branch of Judaism which seeks to keep the whole of the Law; the current lack of Temple worship is in keeping with the Law, since there has been no Temple since the destruction of the second Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E.
This may be a hijack, but since I have the attention of Zev/Keeve/CMKeller, I have a question regarding the possible reinstatement of Temple worship at some future date.

While the most obvious problem with building the third Temple is the presence of the Dome of the Rock on the site, wouldn't an even more difficult problem be that of finding men with a proven Aaronic lineage?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by JohnM
This may be a hijack, but since I have the attention of Zev/Keeve/CMKeller, I have a question regarding the possible reinstatement of Temple worship at some future date.

While the most obvious problem with building the third Temple is the presence of the Dome of the Rock on the site, wouldn't an even more difficult problem be that of finding men with a proven Aaronic lineage?

No, for two reasons:

(1) There are many people today who can identify themselves as kohanim (of Aaronic lineage). Granted, there are some halachic authorities who state that today's kohanim are of doubtful status. But there are others that do not hold that.

(2) Even if today's kohanim are of doubtful status, there is yet another answer. There is a tradition (based on the end of the book of Malachi) that the prophet Elijah will come before the messiah. He will point out who is a kohen and who is not (as well as answer other questions that may arise and need answering -- such as the precise location of the Altar).

Zev Steinhardt

[JohnM]

Zev,

Thanks for the information. Post-posting, I did a google and found one web site (fundamentalist Christian in perspective, I believe), that was touting the possibility of using DNA to verify the kohanim. While my upbringing was conservative Protestant, I can't say that I ever got behind the idea of hastening the end of the world.

I hope this doesn't offend, but SatireWire (http://satirewire.com/news/march02/chosen.shtml) has an absolutely hilarious story this week.

GOD NAMES NEXT "CHOSEN PEOPLE"; IT'S JEWS AGAIN
"Oh Shit," Say Jews

[mazza]

Good Grief, just when I thought I was getting a better understanding someone hijacks my brains with this third Temple.
What is this about?
If you are fed with answering me you can give me some links to read up on........

One more question though....
Do all religions believe in the one God - albeit under a different name? Hindu's excepted...
I mean the Quoran is basically the Old Testament isn't it ? and don't the Jews hold faith with the Old Testament also?

[JohnM]

There have been two temples in Jerusalem, both destroyed. It is the belief of many Jews and Christians that prior to the coming of the Messiah (or return, if you're Christian) the Temple will be rebuilt and Temple worship reinstituted. Some Christian fundamentalists, in the interest of hastening the Second Coming, are working actively towards preparations for the rebuilding of the temple.

Followers of Judaism, Islam and Christianity are sometimes referred to as "The People of the Book", recognizing their common worship of the God revealed in the Old Testament. The Quran is not the OT, but does contain many OT stories.

As to whether all religions worship the one God, outside of the monotheistic traditions listed above, there is certainly some doubt on this point in a formal sense. But, to quote again from the Cathlic Catechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm) :
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

[KellyM]

Originally posted by mazza
Do all religions believe in the one God - albeit under a different name? Hindu's excepted...There are religions which have no divine entity even resembling the creator-god of the Judaic, Christian, or Muslim traditions. While it can be argued (and in fact some do argue) that these other religions are worshipping difference faces of the same divinity, most people do not take this position.

There are far more than four religions in the world. In today's pluralistic society, it would behoove you to at least become familiar with some of them so as to avoid accidentially making offensive statements such as "Don't all religions (Hindus excepted) worship the same god?" Hindu is a damn big exception (nearly 1 billion adherents), and the "leftovers" that don't fall in the Big Three (Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) still collectively number well over 1 billion (although admittedly a substantial part of that billion includes "agnostic/atheist/nonreligious").

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by JohnM
There have been two temples in Jerusalem, both destroyed. It is the belief of many Jews and Christians that prior to the coming of the Messiah (or return, if you're Christian) the Temple will be rebuilt and Temple worship reinstituted.


Sorry, but one more minor nitpick: In Judaism, the messiah will come first, then the Temple will be rebuilt.

Zev Steinhardt

[tomndebb]

(And Buddhism doesn't even have a god.)


mazza, an earlier thread that dealt with a number of your questions (to no one's satisfaction, of course, but with a lot of good information) was A question on Christianity & Judaism (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23389).

[cmkeller]

mazza:

Good Grief, just when I thought I was getting a better understanding someone hijacks my brains with this third Temple.
What is this about?

Very simple: there have been two Jewish Holy Temples in history: the first was built by King Solomon approximately 842 BCE and destroyed by the Babylonians under King Nebucadnezzar in 422 BCE (many say the date of destruction was actually in 586 BCE), and the second was built under the authority of the Persian King Cyrus in 352 BCE (those who date the destruction of the first to 586 BCE say the second was built in 516 BCE) and destroyed by the Romans under Emperor Vespasian in the year 70. Jews (and, it seems, some Christians - didn't know that until JohnM mentioned it just now) expect that the Messiah will arrive at some time in the future and build a third one, never to be destroyed.

Do all religions believe in the one God - albeit under a different name? Hindu's excepted...

No. Only Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism are monotheistic. In addition to Hinduism, Shinto (the Japanese religion) and many African and Native American tribal religions are polytheistic. Buddhism, I think, does not believe in any diety.

I mean the Quoran is basically the Old Testament isn't it ? and don't the Jews hold faith with the Old Testament also?

Jews indeed hold with the Old Testament. Muslims do not - the Quran is not the Old Testament, it is different. I do not know exactly what Muslims think of the Old and New Testaments, but clearly they do not consider it to be divine truth. For one thing, Muslims believe it was Ishmael whom Abraham offered up on the mountain rather than Isaac.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by cmkeller
I do not know exactly what Muslims think of the Old and New Testaments, but clearly they do not consider it to be divine truth. For one thing, Muslims believe it was Ishmael whom Abraham offered up on the mountain rather than Isaac.

They see them as corrupted revelations. The texts are seen as corruptions, either purposely or accidentaly, of actual teachings.

[Polycarp]

Fascinating.

The simplest explanation is that the Bible is, for the Christian, not a lawbook but a guidebook for finding Christ and in Him one's salvation. For the Jews it remains a lawbook -- because it records the laws under which God told them to live. (Seven of which are binding on Gentiles as well, according to Jewish understanding.) For many conservative people who call themselves Christian, the laws of the Bible remain valid "in a moral sense" -- meaning that the dietary and ceremonial laws given to the Jews are not but the moral strictures are. But, for all Christians, as Paul said, "we are free from the Law." This has to do with Jesus having fulfilled the entire Law through His sacrifice of Himself, bringing both Jews and Gentiles into a child/father relationship with God.

One quick thought: It's not strictly true that the Jews do not have a New Testament -- it's merely that they don't think it's been written yet. But when Messiah comes.... ;)

[Keeve]

Originally posted by Polycarp
One quick thought: It's not strictly true that the Jews do not have a New Testament -- it's merely that they don't think it's been written yet. But when Messiah comes.... ;)
The idea that the Messiah will write another book is something I daydream about occasionally. Oh, to know which seemingly major events of these millenia were not worth mentioning, and which seemingly minor details changed the whole flow of history....

(PS: I don't recall ever seeing anything in Jewish tradition about whether or not the Messiah is expected to write yet another book. Such a perfected world would not need one, I'd think. Still, the idea is tantalizing.)

[foolsguinea]

Technically, there was a third Temple, begun under Herod the Great in 20 BCE, & finished in 63 CE--seven years before Titus levelled the whole city.
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/MiddleEast/HerodTemple.html

As to the OP. The thing is, those dietary restrictions were Jewish, & seen by the Jews as specific to their own people--not rules for all men. Christianity as a religion is "catholic"--for all mankind, Jewish or not. The early leaders of the Christian church, who were Jews, decided that non-Jewish Christians didn't have to become Jews to become Christians, and therefore didn't have to keep the parts of the Law that were only for Jews.

There's more to the history of it than that, obviously, but that's a simple way of putting it.

[jayjay]

I have a few questions for Zev and any other Orthodox Jews who wish to answer.

How do you feel about the fundamentalist Christian involvement in the whole Third Temple/Messiah situation?

Do you feel that it's a very condescending thing for them to somehow feel that you folks need help getting the scenario moving because you're not moving fast enough for them? I mean, what...Israeli Jews can't breed cattle right?

And does the fact that the Messiah that they're waiting for (and waiting for you folks to finally realize the "truth" about) is completely different in nature, goals, and personality from the Messiah that you're waiting for anger, annoy, or just generally irk you?

Oh, and does the fact that your only real role in the whole thing (for them) is to realize how wrong you all were for so many centuries and fall on your faces to prove them right cause any irritation?

Thanks.

jayjay

[cmkeller]

foolsguinea:

Technically, there was a third Temple, begun under Herod the Great in 20 BCE, & finished in 63 CE--seven years before Titus levelled the whole city.

Herod massively renovated the Temple, but did not actually destroy and rebuild it.

jayjay:

How do you feel about the fundamentalist Christian involvement in the whole Third Temple/Messiah situation?

We'll take all the help we can get. G-d works through many agents, often human ones.

Do you feel that it's a very condescending thing for them to somehow feel that you folks need help getting the scenario moving because you're not moving fast enough for them? I mean, what...Israeli Jews can't breed cattle right?

See above.

And does the fact that the Messiah that they're waiting for (and waiting for you folks to finally realize the "truth" about) is completely different in nature, goals, and personality from the Messiah that you're waiting for anger, annoy, or just generally irk you?

Just speaking personally, not at all. Why should it? I already know we disagree.

Oh, and does the fact that your only real role in the whole thing (for them) is to realize how wrong you all were for so many centuries and fall on your faces to prove them right cause any irritation?

Again, speaking personally...no, bemusement, because, well, I think they're the ones who'll be surprised by the outcome. ;j

Chaim Mattis Keller

[Keeve]

Originally posted by jayjay
How do you feel about the fundamentalist Christian involvement in the whole Third Temple/Messiah situation?
This is something I do spend time thinking about, and until now, the best word I've come up with is "mixed feelings". But I thank Chaim, because "bemusement" really fits it perfectly.

The weird thing about this particular instance of Jewish-Christian cooperation is that the ultimate goal will define itself. There are no - and connot be any - ulterior motives here. The Crusades, the medieval debates, and all other forms of anti-Semitism, were short-term contests to see how many Jewish bodies, minds, and souls might be won by the Church. But this one is long-term: It will not end until God Himself steps in, at which point I am confident that we will all be winners.

[David Simmons]

According to Isaac Asimov in Asimov's Guide to the Bible the most likely explanation for the various dietary laws was to set the Israelites apart from the Babylonians during the exile. That way they wouldn't be assimilated into the general population.

During the captivity in Babylonia the idea that Jaweh was the one true God, and the only one, was gaining currency among Israelite thinkers. The Israelites knew that their fellow countrymen who previously had been captured and taken to Assyria had simply vanished (the "lost tribes") by assimilation. They didn't want that to happen because then the idea of the one true God would be lost.

If this is correct, it worked to perfection. The "Jaweh alone" faction succeeded and when the captivity was over and they returned to Israel, Jaweh was the sole object of worship and has remained so.

[mazza]

This is fascinating...I've learned more in two days than 12 years in school.

May I pose another question ( And I really do NOT mean to offend anybody - if you met me you would know this is true!) ?

Why do so many people of differing religions dislike the Jews? Maybe dislike is too strong a word for it - 'have something against' would be more appropriate...

It seems churlish to me - I'dunno, maybe I am an idealist and believe in a peaceful World, but it seems to me that the Jews have been persecuted since time began. Why? Have they done something so utterly detestable that God Himself is punishing them? Or is God protecting them until the return of the Messiah?

Also, the Israeli / Palestinian situation, that cannot be about a piece of land only ( mind you- I do understand it means an awful lot to both parties ) but how much of the violence now is merely a tit for tat retalionatory effect?

****Once again, I know how touchy the subject of religion is and wish no offence by my questions******

Regards,
Mazza

[JohnM]

My B.A. was in history, so I'll have a go at the origins of anti-Semitism.[list=1]
Exclusivity - During the period of Roman control of the Middle East, the Jews were a people apart, as they would not assimilate as most other conquered peoples did. The Romans were quite good at adding gods to their pantheon, and the idea of Emperors as deities was also on the rise. The Jewish insistence on maintaining their own religion, not worshipping the Emperor, etc., put them at odds with the religious and political authorities.
Rejection of Christianity - To earlier currents of anti-Semitism a new religious element was added after the conversion of the Empire under Constantine, as the Jews were seen as having rejected the Messiah. At the most extreme, this included blaming the Jewish people as a whole for the death of Christ, a view which has ever since been an ugly undercurrent in Christianity.
Scapegoats - During the Middle Ages, Jews were often segregated from the gentile population; it was during this period that the ghettos came into being in many European cities. This "alien" presence provided a handy population to be blamed for anything that went wrong, such as the Black Death ("The Jews poisoned the wells!")
Money - Up until the Rennaisance, the loaning of money at interest was considered to be the sin of usury. However, when a prince needed to raise money for a war, crusade, whatever, having a place to go for a loan was quite advantageous. The Jews, not being under Church law, could loan money at interest, and so many of the first banking houses were formed. But, when the loan came due the Prince might find it useful to stoke the fires of anti-Semitism, expel the Jews, and avoid paying the loan back.
Race -
[/list=1]There are many other historical factors that have led to anti-Semitism over the centuries, but I believe these are the most important.

[JohnM]

Oops, submitted by accident before I finished my last point:

Race - The racial makeup of most European nations was relatively homogeneous (at least compared to the last couple of centuries) for most of the last 2,000 years. The Jewish population, despite some level of intermarriage with the surrounding population, maintained a largely separate identity and appearance. This perception of difference is one of the root causes of any racism, whether it be anti-Semitism, white racism towards blacks in the U.S., or Asian attitudes towards "round-eyed devils."

[tomndebb]

Why do so many people of differing religions dislike the Jews?
JohnM has provided some good stuff, but I would modify it a bit to say that the primary reason is his first point (which I would further modify to say "refusal to asssimilate"). The remaining points are all derived from the first.

Jews know who their God is and they are not going to either surrender him to some other imposed god or allow him to be watered down by letting him "join" someone else's pantheon.

As you note in your question, the antipathy to the Jews is not merely a Christian problem. Jews have been oppressed by Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Arabs, to name a few, for their adherence to their God.

Since Christianity has had the longest run at oppressing the Jewish people, there are more examples of that oppression (and more excuses offered by Christians for that oppression), but it has not been an exclusively Christian practice. Roman emperors and Zoroastrian priests each tried to stamp out Judaism in their times.

Regarding JohnM's specific points:
-Rejection of Christianity follows on the refusal of the Jewish people to change their covenant with God.
-Scapegoating has generally been a political tactic aimed at the Jews because they were convenient, not an actual belief arising spontaneously from the people.
-Money (from moneylending) was an unfortunate accident that played into the hands of scapegoaters.

Both Christians and Jews followed the prohibition against charging "usage" for money within their own religious group. So Jews could lend to Christians with interest and Christians could loan to Jews with interest, but neither group could charge interest within the group. Since there were far more Christians than Jews, the loaned money seemed to go one way and the interest charged seemed to go the other. When any king or bishop needed to absolve themselves of a debt, trumping up charges to blame on the Jews (and then confiscating their property) was a convenient method to do it.

Eventually, the scapegoating took on a generational aspect among the Christians. The Zoroastrians fell back to being a minor group in Persia in the face of outside threats. The Roman emperors swayed back and forth until Constantine decided he could do better by enlisting the Christians than persecuting them--thus ending the sporadic attempts at emperor worship. Only among the Christians was there an ongoing record of successive charges to which new scapegoaters could point as "history." (After their initial battles, Muslims relegated Jews to a status of second-class citizens, but they did not engage in the persecutions that other groups had.)

Even within Christianity, Judaism was not persecuted uniformly. In the Byzantine Empire, early feuds between Christians and Jews dating to the first century lingered. Later, when the Byzantine Empire briefly overran portions of Zoroastrian lands, their antipathy was reinforced. In Western Europe, however, there was initially no large scale, continuous history of persecution. There were periodic calls from church leaders to avoid Jewish influence, but it was never pervasive. Charlemagne codified some anti-semitism in the West as he imported some Byzantine rules while trying to legitimize his empire. However, it was not until the 12th century Crusades that persecution in the West became an endemic problem. Money problems led to several episodes of scapegoating when the Crusades were called. Those episodes built on each other until anti-semitism was firmly entrenched in European culture at the time of the Reformation.

The "race" issue that JohnM mentioned is, again, an outgrowth of the scapegoating. European Christian and Jewish farmers are noted living peacefully side by side in what is now France, Spain, and Germany up until the period between Charlemagne and the First Crusade (or the Moorish invasion in the case of Spain). At that time some people began speaking against the Jews as a "evil race." (This was very likely going on much earlier in the Byzantine Empire, but I have seen fewer references to it, so I am not completely sure of it.)