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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

Once again, you are not only wrong, but WILDLY wrong. From The Jewish Virtual Library (emphasis added):

In other words I'm exactly RIGHT!

All you've done here is verify my position that the Jews are totally confused and self-disagreeing, and have a history of being so.

Therefore where does the arrogance come from when they start preaching to non-Jews that non-Jews don't understand the scriptures as well as they do, and that they are the only ones who can understand how ancient Jews thought clear back to the days of the Torah even?

Obviously this claim holds no water at all.

Evidently anyone can take a guess at what these ancient people might have been thinking, and the Modern Day Jews have no special insight into it.

According to the link you have just posted the the Jews have traditionally been extremely confused and divisive on their own religious beliefs.

This link you have provided SEALS MY CASE!

And finally where were these Sadducees and Essenes?

Why weren't they recognized as being "Chief Priests" and being in charge of Temples back in the days of Jesus? Why is there no mention of them during these historically important time period?

~~~~~

The problem I have with the "Modern Day Jews" in terms of their religious position is that they have an extremely contradictory position.

On the one hand they claim to be in a cultural position to be able to say precisely what the "Ancient Jews" were thinking and how they viewed these ancient scriptures.

Yet on the other hand, they acknowledge that even during the times of Jesus the Jews were extremely divisive and confused over how to think of these scriptures and they couldn't even agree with each other.

They can't have it both ways.

Either they can point to a consistent history where all Jews were consistent in how they viewed these scriptures, or they have no choice but to confess that their entire religious culture has always been indecisive and in strong disagreement even among themselves over how to view these ancient scriptures.

Apparently the latter is the truth.

Therefore no modern day Jew has any support for telling any non-Jew how ancient scriptures that date clear back to the Torah should be viewed or understood.

I don't see where you have done anything but SEAL MY CASE.

The Jews have no better understanding of these ancient scriptures than anyone else. Their guess isn't any better than any other guess. And their very own history proves it.

They have been self-divisive just like all these other Abrahamic Sects. They are no different from the Christians or Muslims in this regard.

[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.

By the way, this is a pretty profound claim.

If what you say here is right then it was the Sadducee Chief Priests who demanded the crucifixion of Jesus, and not the Pharisees, because the Christian New Testament clearly states that it was the "Chief Priests" who called for this from Pilate.

Unless you are attempting to claim that Christianity could be THAT WRONG.

But it seems to me that if Christianity was that wrong the Jews would have never even allowed it to gain any foothold at all.

In other words, you would need to be claiming here that the Christian New Testament is nothing but absolute provable outright lies.

And if the Jews had a case for that back in a day I think they would have been more effective in renouncing the entire Christian Gospels, not to merely reject that Jesus was the messiah, but they would have been able to argue that the rumors don't even make sense in terms of who was in charge of the temple and what they called for.

Clearly there are some major problems here.

I don't think you can just sweep the Pharisees under the carpet that easily.

It was the Pharisees that Jesus was arguing with, not the Sadducee. So why would the Sadducee call for the crucifixion of Jesus?

It seems to me that you are demanding that Christianity has things so absolutely wrong that they have turned all of history on its head. And the Sadducee (whom you claim were in charge of the temples and were the respected religious authority of the time) just sat back and allowed that to happen?

That's highly unlikely Charles.

[Divine Insight]

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.

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

Where do you stand on Jesus?

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.

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?

And if the Christian New Testament is that obviously false historically, then how in the world did it ever gain any respect or foothold? Even to the point where many Jews themselves have converted to Christianity.

Why would any Jew convert to a religious scam that is so obviously dead wrong even on historical points?

[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.

[cnorman19]

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.

Once again, you are not only wrong, but WILDLY wrong. From The Jewish Virtual Library (emphasis added):

In other words I'm exactly RIGHT!

All you've done here is verify my position that the Jews are totally confused and self-disagreeing, and have a history of being so.

Therefore where does the arrogance come from when they start preaching to non-Jews that non-Jews don't understand the scriptures as well as they do, and that they are the only ones who can understand how ancient Jews thought clear back to the days of the Torah even?

THIS IS A BLATANT FALSEHOOD AND A PERSONAL ATTACK.

NO ONE has ever said this. I myself have said ONLY that those who have actually STUDIED Biblical scholarship and Jewish record, e.g. the Talmud, understand the Scriptures and Jewish views of them better than someone who NEVER HAS. [Nothing was EVER said about Jews vs. non-Jews, but I have no doubt that you'll still be trying to sell that bill of goods in your future posts.

Obviously this claim holds no water at all.

Since no one ever made that claim, it doesn't have to.

Evidently anyone can take a guess at what these ancient people might have been thinking, and the Modern Day Jews have no special insight into it.

According to the link you have just posted the the Jews have traditionally been extremely confused and divisive on their own religious beliefs.

This link you have provided SEALS MY CASE!

Please quote from the link where you find this confirmation -- and while you're at it, please show where your wildly erroneous claims and historical howlers are supported as well.

And finally where were these Sadducees and Essenes?

Why weren't they recognized as being "Chief Priests" and being in charge of Temples back in the days of Jesus? Why is there no mention of them during these historically important time period?

There were plenty of mentions.

Start with the New Testament you claim to have studied to learn about Jews: Look at Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18-27; Mark 14:53; Luke 20:27; John 11:48-50; John 15:1; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 12:1-2; Acts 23:8.

If that's not enough, there are numerous references to the Sadducees (and to the Essenes) in Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and his Jewish War. Josephus's writings were nothing if not contemporary; he was born circa 37 CE, lived through the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Second Temple in 70, and died at the end of the first century.

"No mention"? Well, none that YOU knew of, obviously.

The problem I have with the "Modern Day Jews" in terms of their religious position is that they have an extremely contradictory position.

On the one hand they claim to be in a cultural position to be able to say precisely what the "Ancient Jews" were thinking and how they viewed these ancient scriptures.

That's not a "cultural position," and it's not a "claim." That knowledge comes from Jewish documents that extend over more than two thousand years.

As I've already shown you.

Once again; merely ignoring and contradicting a DOCUMENTED FACT is not "refuting" it. Where are YOUR sources, YOUR evidence, that proves YOUR (ludicrously erroneous and willfully wrong) "position"?

Yet on the other hand, they acknowledge that even during the times of Jesus the Jews were extremely divisive and confused over how to think of these scriptures and they couldn't even agree with each other.

They can't have it both ways.

And you're blatantly mischaracterizing and falsifying the whole of first-century Jewish history, all to support your wholly laughable CLAIMS, which have already been proven false. There were two major "parties" in the first century, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and we now know, through the Dead Sea Scrolls, that there was a third, a tiny splinter group called the Essenes. Trying to pretend that that amounted to chaos and universal disagreement is as ridiculous as saying the American system of government has been chaos and universal disagreement and confusion for the last century because we have the Democrats and the Republicans.

Really, your transparent efforts to distort and falsify actual history in the service of your pet hobbyhorses is astonishing.

Either they can point to a consistent history where all Jews were consistent in how they viewed these scriptures...

As if ANY religious, political or even cultural group could point to "a consistent history where all were consistent in how they viewed" ANYTHING. Again, you are demanding perfection and absolute unity, where none has EVER existed in ANY group other than some tiny cults and private clubs.

.... or they have no choice but to confess that their entire religious culture has always been indecisive and in strong disagreement even among themselves over how to view these ancient scriptures.

The existence of more than one point of view is not catastrophic, as you seem to wish were true.

These demands and pontifications are ineffably silly -- and you have the incredible chutzpah to talk about JEWS being "arrogant"? Whoo!

Apparently the latter is the truth.

No; it's your fantasy. As usual.

Therefore no modern day Jew has any support for telling any non-Jew how ancient scriptures that date clear back to the Torah should be viewed or understood.

Except for the records of the Talmud, the rest of the Hebrew Bible, the commentaries from medieval and earlier rabbis, and all the rest -- as I've already shown you, and as you've ignored and refused to acknowledge -- again, more or less as usual.

I don't see where you have done anything but SEAL MY CASE.

The Jews have no better understanding of these ancient scriptures than anyone else.

Again, no one ever said that. There are very many Gentile scholars who have actually studied the history and documents of the Jews who have as good an understanding of these matters as any rabbi. Once again, you're arguing against a made-up position that no one here has ever taken. Don't you get tired of having to make up your opponents' positions so you can argue against them?

Their guess isn't any better than any other guess. And their very own history proves it.

Sheer nonsense. Show me a respected and respectable reference or a link that supports your extreme hyperbolic claims -- if you can.

They have been self-divisive just like all these other Abrahamic Sects. They are no different from the Christians or Muslims in this regard.

That other religious groups have different factions is obvious, but then so does every group I've ever heard of. My SCHOOL DISTRICT has different groups supporting different programs. Even the major political parties in the US have different factions with differing priorities.

But the Jews, you know, have only three major branches after almost four thousand years -- and we all still affirm each other as Jews and support each other.

Your attempt to use the natural differences in human opinions to show that "anyone can take a guess at what these ancient people might have been thinking" and that "the Jews were extremely divisive and confused over how to think of these scriptures and they couldn't even agree with each other" is intellectually dishonest and deceptive in the extreme. Two major groups and one minor one do not equal "extremely divisive and confused."

Give it up, DI. You're getting into "repeated unsubstantiated claims" territory.

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Once again; simply negating and denying what I've shown you isn't really "debating." It's merely exhibiting determined and obstinate DENIAL.

As for Jews I've mentioned before; most Jews had never heard of Jesus, and therefore had little interest in "refuting" Christian mistakes in the New Testament; and when Christianity did really take hold, it was in Greek cities and not in Israel or the Jewish communities in Europe, Africa and Asia.

Who's "sweeping the Pharisees under the rug"? I've given you historical references and FACTS. If you prefer to cling to the NT, that's your privilege -- but then I guess you'd have to accept the historical accuracy of the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and all the various miracles performed by Jesus and the disciples as well. Do you REALLY want to maintain that the NT is a historically accurate document that can't be disproven by other secular sources?

[bluethread]

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.

The Sanhedrin was made up of a plurality of sects, much like the US congress or the Kenesset. The Sadducees just happened to be to controlling sect. Can you provide a reference that says that any particular sect was the one that convicted Yeshua?

[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.