A few questions about Judaism

[Alistair_Wonderland]

Both Catholicism and Protestantism have their basis in Judaism, and I've been very curious on the subject for quite some time. The one church I went to had some Messianic Jews and introduced me to a Passover seder so that we could all experience one, and I found it fascinating how this tradition dated back to ancient Egyptian times.

However, I have a few questions about Judaism, specifically Orthodox Judaism, and I figured that Messianic Jews would be the best people on this forum to help me answer them. I would quite appreciate if some people could clear this up for me. I could, of course, try and Google some of these, but I find I get better accuracy from the source.

Okay, here we go. Forgive me if I sound ignorant:

1. In Orthodox Judaism, what are the differences between the Old Testament used by Protestants and Catholics and the Tanakh? Are they the same? Similar? It would be very helpful to know this so that if I speak with an Orthodox Jew that I might be able to have a point of reference on what they believe.

2. Do Orthodox Jews still follow the Law? If so, are animal sacrifices still practiced? If not, why?

3. What are Orthodox Jewish laws on polygamy? Is it frowned upon? Accepted? Many famous heroes of Israel were polygamists, and assuming that the Old Testament contains the same texts as the Tanakh (this hinges on question 1), there is very little to forbid it; most Protestant and Catholic arguments against polygamy cite the New Testament.

4. Certain aspects of the law (according to the Protestant Old Testament, so this hinges upon the first question) require harsh punishments when disobeyed, including death. How do modern Jews feel about this in a modern society which would forbid this behavior? Has there been a change? If so, what is the religious reasoning for this change? And if not, do they feel as if their rights are being suppressed?

Thank you very much in advance. Judaism is quite fascinating to me, as not only is it the basis of my beliefs, but also the history behind such an ancient and well-preserved system of belief.

 

[tampasteve]

Both Catholicism and Protestantism have their basis in Judaism, and I've been very curious on the subject for quite some time.

All branches of Christianity come out of Judaism

The one church I went to had some Messianic Jews and introduced me to a Passover seder so that we could all experience one, and I found it fascinating how this tradition dated back to ancient Egyptian times.

However, I have a few questions about Judaism, specifically Orthodox Judaism, and I figured that Messianic Jews would be the best people on this forum to help me answer them. I would quite appreciate if some people could clear this up for me. I could, of course, try and Google some of these, but I find I get better accuracy from the source.

Okay, here we go. Forgive me if I sound ignorant:

As all of the users here are Messianic Jews, their (and my) response will be different than a response you may receive from an Orthodox Jewish person. That said, there are Messianic believers that follow a more Orthodox approach to Messianic Judaism. Most MJ followers would fall closer to a Conservative or Reform (in practice, not belief) Judaism in how they follow any part of the Law.

However, we do not follow the Law for any sort of Salvation, that comes to us from Yeshua (Jesus). Rather we follow the parts we believe should be followed as a hope to please God as he had commanded us to follow those parts.

Most Messianic believers are not "Jewish" by ethnicity or previous faith, they are strictly Messianic Jewish, mostly gentiles. Most view Messianic Judaism as a movement in Judaism, similar to Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc. Non-Messianic Jews do not consider us Jews, we are just apostates or gentiles. I am a person that converted to Judaism in the past, but I am a believer in Yeshua (Jesus).

1. In Orthodox Judaism, what are the differences between the Old Testament used by Protestants and Catholics and the Tanakh? Are they the same? Similar? It would be very helpful to know this so that if I speak with an Orthodox Jew that I might be able to have a point of reference on what they believe.

There are not really any differences in content. However, how parts are interpreted or viewed is not the same as mainstream Christianity. Many MJ use standard translations, some use Jewish ones. I use the NKJV, Artscroll, and ESV the most frequently. In MJ both the OT and NT are valid bodies of scripture. However, parts of the NT are interpreted very differently from mainstream Christianity.

2. Do Orthodox Jews still follow the Law? If so, are animal sacrifices still practiced? If not, why?

Yes, Orthodox Jews follow the Law as best they can and in the way that the Rabbi's have deemed to be correct based on centuries of discussion and living it out. No Temple, no sacrifice is the simplest answer.

3. What are Orthodox Jewish laws on polygamy? Is it frowned upon? Accepted? Many famous heroes of Israel were polygamists, and assuming that the Old Testament contains the same texts as the Tanakh (this hinges on question 1), there is very little to forbid it; most Protestant and Catholic arguments against polygamy cite the New Testament.

I am not really familiar with this, but I am also not familiar with any Jewish communities that practice it in a broad sense.

4. Certain aspects of the law (according to the Protestant Old Testament, so this hinges upon the first question) require harsh punishments when disobeyed, including death. How do modern Jews feel about this in a modern society which would forbid this behavior? Has there been a change? If so, what is the religious reasoning for this change? And if not, do they feel as if their rights are being suppressed?

The Tanakh is interpreted in many ways, many of the harsh punishments are bound to certain stipulations, such as place, tribe, etc. Further, the body of work called the Talmud and Mishna help interpret the Law and how it is lived out.

Thank you very much in advance. Judaism is quite fascinating to me, as not only is it the basis of my beliefs, but also the history behind such an ancient and well-preserved system of belief.

Happy to help in any way.

BTW, answers given from different people will vary. Messianic Judaism is a very broad spectrum belief system. As in mainstream Judaism, if you ask one Jew a question, there are 7 possible answers.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Both Catholicism and Protestantism have their basis in Judaism, and I've been very curious on the subject for quite some time. The one church I went to had some Messianic Jews and introduced me to a Passover seder so that we could all experience one, and I found it fascinating how this tradition dated back to ancient Egyptian times.

However, I have a few questions about Judaism, specifically Orthodox Judaism, and I figured that Messianic Jews would be the best people on this forum to help me answer them. I would quite appreciate if some people could clear this up for me. I could, of course, try and Google some of these, but I find I get better accuracy from the source.

Okay, here we go. Forgive me if I sound ignorant:

1. In Orthodox Judaism, what are the differences between the Old Testament used by Protestants and Catholics and the Tanakh? Are they the same? Similar? It would be very helpful to know this so that if I speak with an Orthodox Jew that I might be able to have a point of reference on what they believe.

2. Do Orthodox Jews still follow the Law? If so, are animal sacrifices still practiced? If not, why?

3. What are Orthodox Jewish laws on polygamy? Is it frowned upon? Accepted? Many famous heroes of Israel were polygamists, and assuming that the Old Testament contains the same texts as the Tanakh (this hinges on question 1), there is very little to forbid it; most Protestant and Catholic arguments against polygamy cite the New Testament.

4. Certain aspects of the law (according to the Protestant Old Testament, so this hinges upon the first question) require harsh punishments when disobeyed, including death. How do modern Jews feel about this in a modern society which would forbid this behavior? Has there been a change? If so, what is the religious reasoning for this change? And if not, do they feel as if their rights are being suppressed?

Thank you very much in advance. Judaism is quite fascinating to me, as not only is it the basis of my beliefs, but also the history behind such an ancient and well-preserved system of belief.

I've been reading your posts. You have a very humble attitude. So I will be glad to answer.

1. The differences are minor, and almost always pertain to interpretations of prophecies about Messiah. For example, Isaiah 53 is interpreted as a prophecy of Israel by Orthodox Jews(OJ), while it is Messiah by Christians. Basically, OJ always say any prophecy about Messiah was misinterpreted by Christians.
2. Yes. To the fullest extent they can. However, animal sacrifices are forbidden due to complications around the Temple and priests. Not just anyone can offer a burnt sacrifice or offer incense in the Holy of Holies on Atonement Day. There are a lot of rules and with no physical Temple or functional Levitical priesthood, these laws cannot be kept. If a Temple was rebuilt, if the red heifer was found, if the Levites were reinstated, etc. I am sure the OJ would resume animal sacrifices and all Temple procedures.
3. Polygamy. Only polygyny is allowed, but not by Ashkenazis(Jews of Northern Europe). Other Jews permit polygyny, but only in certain situations. There is no unanimous decision accepted by all Jews. Many Jews of various sects have multiple wives, especially in countries and regions where it is permitted, such as Africa and the Middle East.
4. The death penalty was more of a last resort than a first option. The Torah provides laws of protection to relegate the death penalty. These laws are variously interpreted, but examples include: No person shall be put to death by the mouth of only one witness, the case must be decided in a court (Sanhedrin). In the case of the man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, it was for repeated, deliberate disobedience. There are verses about forgiving a repentant person, and a person who sins in ignorance. In ancient times, the Torah was actually very merciful, even if it seems draconian by today's standards. The change made is primarily due to Jews being under local governments, instead of being their own people. But also due to peer pressure from other goverenments. Israel today is a secular nation with a religious flavor. If it was a theocracy, it would be different, and you may expect to see the death penalty imposed more often, or maybe less often. It's hard to say.

I hope you find what you are looking for in your spiritual walk.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

Wow, thank you both for your prompt responses. This is all very fascinating. I even got answers to some questions I didn't even ask!

I can see how the Temple is so important to Orthodox Jews; they feel as if they cannot properly serve God without it. Isn't the Dome of the Rock where the Temple originally stood? If that's correct, then no wonder the situation over there is so tense. (I just used the word "tense" to describe the rivalry between Judaism and Islam; that may be a great understatement.)

 

[HARK!]

I can see how the Temple is so important to Orthodox Jews; they feel as if they cannot properly serve God without it. Isn't the Dome of the Rock where the Temple originally stood? If that's correct, then no wonder the situation over there is so tense. (I just used the word "tense" to describe the rivalry between Judaism and Islam; that may be a great understatement.)

The Temple originally stood in the City of David. See 1 Chronicles 15.

The Dome of the Rock rests on Fort Antonia, a Roman fortress which, in part, remains standing.

(CLV) Mk 12:10
Did you not yet read this scripture?—`The stone which is rejected by the builders, This came to be for the head of the corner.

(CLV) Mk 13:1
And at His going out of the sanctuary, one of His disciples is saying to Him, "Teacher! Lo! what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!"

(CLV) Mk 13:2
And answering, Jesus said to him, "Are you observing these great buildings? Under no circumstances may a stone be left here on a stone, which may not by all means be demolished.

 

[tampasteve]

Wow, thank you both for your prompt responses. This is all very fascinating. I even got answers to some questions I didn't even ask!

I can see how the Temple is so important to Orthodox Jews; they feel as if they cannot properly serve God without it. Isn't the Dome of the Rock where the Temple originally stood? If that's correct, then no wonder the situation over there is so tense. (I just used the word "tense" to describe the rivalry between Judaism and Islam; that may be a great understatement.)

Where the Temple was located is a bit of a debate. There is good evidence that it was actually not on the "Temple Mount". At the same time I find it very difficult to believe that the location would have been lost to history as it was so important. Interestingly there is VERY good evidence of more than one temple to Yahweh operating at the same time in the Jerusalem area. Orthodox Jews generally don't agree that it was anywhere other than the Temple Mount, most Messianic Jews are more....flexible...on where it could have been.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

Both Catholicism and Protestantism have their basis in Judaism, ...

Huh?? Since when? I know a number of Jews, Messianic and non-Messianic, who would scoff at such an assertion.

 

[tampasteve]

Huh?? Since when? I know a number of Jews, Messianic and non-Messianic who would scoff at such an assertion.

All Christianity came out of Judaism....how it developed and may have changed is another matter.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Wow, thank you both for your prompt responses. This is all very fascinating. I even got answers to some questions I didn't even ask!

I can see how the Temple is so important to Orthodox Jews; they feel as if they cannot properly serve God without it. Isn't the Dome of the Rock where the Temple originally stood? If that's correct, then no wonder the situation over there is so tense. (I just used the word "tense" to describe the rivalry between Judaism and Islam; that may be a great understatement.)

The Temple originally stood in the City of David. See 1 Chronicles 15.

The Dome of the Rock rests on Fort Antonia, a Roman fortress which, in part, remains standing.

(CLV) Mk 12:10
Did you not yet read this scripture?—`The stone which is rejected by the builders, This came to be for the head of the corner.

(CLV) Mk 13:1
And at His going out of the sanctuary, one of His disciples is saying to Him, "Teacher! Lo! what manner of stones and what manner of buildings!"

(CLV) Mk 13:2
And answering, Jesus said to him, "Are you observing these great buildings? Under no circumstances may a stone be left here on a stone, which may not by all means be demolished.

Do you think the Dome of Spirits is where the Temple once stood? I've heard rumors it was. I've also heard the Dome of the Rock was built in the Court of Gentiles, adjacent to the Temple.

The City of David is Bethlehem. Hark, it seems to me that this was the final resting place of the Tabernacle. The Temple of Solomon was on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem.

But considering the number of times Jerusalem and it's suburbs(including Bethlehem) were destroyed and rebuilt, it's hard to say where a lot of things originally were 2000 years ago.

 

[GedaliahMaegil]

All Christianity came out of Judaism....how it developed and may have changed is another matter.

That's nothing but arrogance. The two are nothing alike.

 

[tampasteve]

That's nothing but arrogance. The two are nothing alike.

No, it's history. The Church, no matter how different it became over the last 2K years, came out of the synagogue and out of Judaism. The first Christians were Jews, I honestly don't know how you can even debate this point. Christianity is founded on Judaism, recognizes the Jewish Messiah, and the general basis of the Christian religion, and Messianic Judaism, are founded in the same beliefs.

 

[tampasteve]

The City of David is Bethlehem. Hark, it seems to me that this was the final resting place of the Tabernacle. The Temple of Solomon was on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem.

But considering the number of times Jerusalem and it's suburbs(including Bethlehem) were destroyed and rebuilt, it's hard to say where a lot of things originally were 2000 years ago.

The City of David in this context is the Southeastern ridge extending out from the "Temple Mount" where the ancient city of Jerusalem was, the part that King David conquered, hence the name.

 

[ralliann]

No, it's history. The Church, no matter how different it became over the last 2K years, came out of the synagogue and out of Judaism.

I have read that the synagogue took on changes when the temple was destroyed. As a diminished temple, as it incorporated elements of the temple. Therefore, I question either being modeled after the synagogue. Rather both are modeled after the temple. It is just the synagogue took on different aspects while the church modeled itself as well with aspects of the temple. Why then do people say the synagogue was the model?

The first Christians were Jews, I honestly don't know how you can even debate this point.

And did they not continue to go to temple? Keeping therefore all the law so as to not defile that holy place?

Christianity is founded on Judaism, recognizes the Jewish Messiah, and the general basis of the Christian religion, and Messianic Judaism, are founded in the same beliefs.

Levitical Judaism is the shadow isn't it?

 

[angelsaroundme]

4. Certain aspects of the law (according to the Protestant Old Testament, so this hinges upon the first question) require harsh punishments when disobeyed, including death. How do modern Jews feel about this in a modern society which would forbid this behavior? Has there been a change? If so, what is the religious reasoning for this change? And if not, do they feel as if their rights are being suppressed?

Here is a discussion I believe relates to what you are talking about.

"I recently heard a talk explaining 'an eye for an eye' in the Torah. As society has become less barbaric, the rabbis reinterpreted the verse to mean one pays the damages for the eye, instead of actually taking out the eye of the perpetrator as it used to be done in the olden days."

"I have a big problem with the fact that the Torah originally had the punishment of taking out someone's eye. What does it say for the Torah if it began as a barbaric set of laws, and only later rabbis try to smooth it out?"

The Aish Rabbi Replies:
"The verse you are referring to, discussing a fight between two Jews, says the following: '…an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot; a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.' (Exodus 21:24-25)."

"This verse, taken literally, truly sounds like one must be punished in the way you said, to put out the eye or the tooth, to chop off the hand, etc. I, however, respectfully take strong issue with the assumption that this verse was ever taken literally. There is no evidence anywhere, literary or archaeological, that a literal 'eye for an eye' was Jewish practice at any time (my emphasis added). Nor is there the slightest hint in the Talmud, the principle body of Jewish law that this verse was ever taken literally. It is simply an erroneous assumption based on the literal reading of the verse."

"The Talmud, in fact, records a lengthy discussion of this verse, (Bava Kama 83b-84a). The Talmudic sages bring a number of compelling proofs, both logically and from the inference of other verses, showing one should not even entertain the thought that 'an eye for an eye' is to be taken literally. Maimonides, the renowned 12th century sage, further cites the verses in Exodus 21:18-19 which openly speak of damages in terms of monetary payment. Hence, a few verses later when the Torah speaks of 'an eye for and eye…' it is obviously referring to the same sort of payment. Other early sages bring additional proof: if literal, if the perpetrator injures another and minimizes his sight by one third or half, how is it possible to do the same in punishment, no more and no less?"

"The key principal is that the Torah cannot, and was not meant to be understood literally. Only with the Oral Tradition given together with the written can the Torah be understood correctly and accurately."

"One big question still remains: If the Torah meant to pay monetary damages, why did it write this the way it did, which seems to be misleading?"

"The answer offered by Maimonides and Maharal (16th century Prague) is based upon a profound sense of responsibility for one's actions. The Torah, by expressing the payment in this way, is teaching an important and crucial lesson. Had the Torah simply ordered the aggressor to pay damages, he might have thought that it is sufficient to simply write a check to the victim and he is done."

"The Torah is teaching that if one perpetrates a loss of limb to his fellow, he truly deserves to have the same done to his self. He should truly contemplate the profound damage to the quality of life of his fellow, his pain and suffering he is forced to endure for the rest of his life. He has done a terrible thing and the slate will not be cleared by monetary payment alone. He must beg forgiveness from the injured party for what he has done, and perform Teshuva, repentance to God, coupled with making serious life changes that will ensure a similar act will not be repeated."

"With proper interpretation and understanding, profound lessons can be gleaned from our holy Torah."

- Eye for an Eye: Ask the Rabbi Response (aish.com)

 

[tampasteve]

I have read that the synagogue took on changes when the temple was destroyed. As a diminished temple, as it incorporated elements of the temple. Therefore, I question either being modeled after the synagogue. Rather both are modeled after the temple. It is just the synagogue took on different aspects while the church modeled itself as well with aspects of the temple. Why then do people say the synagogue was the model?

Broadly, I agree with what you are saying here. However, communities comprising followers of The Way and non-followers continued to worship together at the same synagogues at least until the 200s, and there is evidence that in some areas it continued until the 400s. So, the point of view that both were modeled on the Temple service is correct, the two developed in tandem for some time, before diverging. Most people tend to use "the synagogue as a model" as the mainline Jewish tradition continued to develop on the same trajectory, whereas Christianity diverged from that tradition to what we have now.

And did they not continue to go to temple? Keeping therefore all the law so as to not defile that holy place?

I agree, at least we know the Jewish Christians kept the Law. How much the gentile Christians were bound to keep is debatable. I find the Didache a good resource on that, as well as of course the Council of Jerusalem.

Levitical Judaism is the shadow isn't it?

Absolutely.

 

[ralliann]

Broadly, I agree with what you are saying here. However, communities comprising followers of The Way and non-followers continued to worship together at the same synagogues at least until the 200s, and there is evidence that in some areas it continued until the 400s.

But did Jews worship at the temple until it was destroyed? When did worship begin at the synagogue?

So, the point of view that both were modeled on the Temple service is correct, the two developed in tandem for some time, before diverging.

Diverging in what though? I suspect it might be "worship"?
Jn 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

Most people tend to use "the synagogue as a model" as the mainline Jewish tradition continued to develop on the same trajectory, whereas Christianity diverged from that tradition to what we have now.

Could it be that The synagogue took on elements of temple worship in prophetic response to the apostolic ministry especially Paul's ministry?
Romans 10 and 11?
Jn 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I agree, at least we know the Jewish Christians kept the Law. How much the gentile Christians were bound to keep is debatable. I find the Didache a good resource on that, as well as of course the Council of Jerusalem.

Absolutely.

Yes, They kept the law so as to not defile the temple while it yet stood. As well did not cause anyone else to become defiled, to attend temple services in purity . Just as if it were standing today, the law pertaining to it would still apply wouldn't it?

 

[daq]

Here is a discussion I believe relates to what you are talking about.

"I recently heard a talk explaining 'an eye for an eye' in the Torah. As society has become less barbaric, the rabbis reinterpreted the verse to mean one pays the damages for the eye, instead of actually taking out the eye of the perpetrator as it used to be done in the olden days."

"I have a big problem with the fact that the Torah originally had the punishment of taking out someone's eye. What does it say for the Torah if it began as a barbaric set of laws, and only later rabbis try to smooth it out?"

The Aish Rabbi Replies:
"The verse you are referring to, discussing a fight between two Jews, says the following: '…an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot; a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.' (Exodus 21:24-25)."

"This verse, taken literally, truly sounds like one must be punished in the way you said, to put out the eye or the tooth, to chop off the hand, etc. I, however, respectfully take strong issue with the assumption that this verse was ever taken literally. There is no evidence anywhere, literary or archaeological, that a literal 'eye for an eye' was Jewish practice at any time (my emphasis added). Nor is there the slightest hint in the Talmud, the principle body of Jewish law that this verse was ever taken literally. It is simply an erroneous assumption based on the literal reading of the verse."

"The Talmud, in fact, records a lengthy discussion of this verse, (Bava Kama 83b-84a). The Talmudic sages bring a number of compelling proofs, both logically and from the inference of other verses, showing one should not even entertain the thought that 'an eye for an eye' is to be taken literally. Maimonides, the renowned 12th century sage, further cites the verses in Exodus 21:18-19 which openly speak of damages in terms of monetary payment. Hence, a few verses later when the Torah speaks of 'an eye for and eye…' it is obviously referring to the same sort of payment. Other early sages bring additional proof: if literal, if the perpetrator injures another and minimizes his sight by one third or half, how is it possible to do the same in punishment, no more and no less?"

"The key principal is that the Torah cannot, and was not meant to be understood literally. Only with the Oral Tradition given together with the written can the Torah be understood correctly and accurately."

"One big question still remains: If the Torah meant to pay monetary damages, why did it write this the way it did, which seems to be misleading?"

"The answer offered by Maimonides and Maharal (16th century Prague) is based upon a profound sense of responsibility for one's actions. The Torah, by expressing the payment in this way, is teaching an important and crucial lesson. Had the Torah simply ordered the aggressor to pay damages, he might have thought that it is sufficient to simply write a check to the victim and he is done."

"The Torah is teaching that if one perpetrates a loss of limb to his fellow, he truly deserves to have the same done to his self. He should truly contemplate the profound damage to the quality of life of his fellow, his pain and suffering he is forced to endure for the rest of his life. He has done a terrible thing and the slate will not be cleared by monetary payment alone. He must beg forgiveness from the injured party for what he has done, and perform Teshuva, repentance to God, coupled with making serious life changes that will ensure a similar act will not be repeated."

"With proper interpretation and understanding, profound lessons can be gleaned from our holy Torah."

- Eye for an Eye: Ask the Rabbi Response (aish.com)

By the Testimony of the Messiah in the Gospel accounts one may learn to discern the difference between the supernal/spiritual and the physical. This is one of those instructions which, according to Matthew 5:38-42, was misapplied by the sages. He isn't doing away with it in the Matthew passage, (as many would say), but instead revealing that it is not a physical minded instruction.

If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you: if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, cut them off, and cast them from you. It's about an internal war in your "members" because "sin dwells in the flesh", (Romans 7). Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot: cut them off before they choke the seed of the Word from the soil of your heart.

 

[tampasteve]

But did Jews worship at the temple until it was destroyed? When did worship begin at the synagogue?

Yes, Jews worshiped at the Temple until it was destroyed, but they were already worshiping and using synagogues before the destruction. The synagogue had been around for a very long time by then, Jews that could not make it to the Temple used synagogues for their lifecyle events, including worship. The Bible teaches us of their use in various places, including the NT where Jesus spoke and did the readings at the synagogues on several occasions.

Diverging in what though? I suspect it might be "worship"?

Worship and practices.

Could it be that The synagogue took on elements of temple worship in prophetic response to Paul's ministry?
Romans 10 and 11?

Could be, but I think it was more that these services and elements were already happening in the diaspora and in synagogues in the Holy Land where Jews could not get to the Temple frequently (if at all).

Yes, They kept the law so as to not defile the temple while it yet stood. As well did not cause anyone else to become defiled, to attend temple services in purity . Just as if it were standing today, the law pertaining to it would still apply wouldn't it?

Keeping the Law is more than just about staying pure for the Temple. To what length the Law applies to gentile believers and to what degree when there is no Temple is debatable.

 

[ralliann]

Yes, Jews worshiped at the Temple until it was destroyed, but they were already worshiping and using synagogues before the destruction. The synagogue had been around for a very long time by then, Jews that could not make it to the Temple used synagogues for their lifecyle events, including worship. The Bible teaches us of their use in various places, including the NT where Jesus spoke and did the readings at the synagogues on several occasions.

Worship and practices.

Could be, but I think it was more that these services and elements were already happening in the diaspora and in synagogues in the Holy Land where Jews could not get to the Temple frequently (if at all).

Keeping the Law is more than just about staying pure for the Temple. To what length the Law applies to gentile believers and to what degree when there is no Temple is debatable.

I don't know about when "worship" began in the synagogue.
This here seems to be judaism at the time of Christ.
Jn 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
As for purity of temple attendance, Judaism says those laws (ceremonial) apply to temple worship/attendance in ritual purity. They keep even those of the Kohen so as to not forget. Being ready to resume their service in familiarity.

 

[tampasteve]

I don't know about when "worship" began in the synagogue.
This here seems to be judaism at the time of Christ.
Jn 4:20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
As for purity of temple attendance, Judaism says those laws (ceremonial) apply to temple worship/attendance in ritual purity. They keep even those of the Kohen so as to not forget. Being ready to resume their service in familiarity.

I guess it depends on what the definition of "worship" is. The passage here is a conversation between Jesus (a Jew) and a Samaritan. The Samaritans worship (to this day) and had their temple on Mt. Gerizim, in contrast to the Jews who had their temple and worshiped at Jerusalem. The Samaritans numbered in the hundreds of thousands, or more, and were a competitive religion to the Jews. So, it is not really relevant to a conversation on what "worship" may have been happening in synagogues, it is more in relation to Temple services and the Temple cult.

Synagogue services consisted of readings of the Torah, a homily/talk by the reader and leader, corporate and personal prayers, and lifecycle events including conversions, etc. A synagogue service of today is very similar, if you have not been to one. Then, a Christian service is also similar as it is consisting of readings from scripture, a homily, etc.

I am honestly not sure how the services changed after the Temple was destroyed. Synagogues in the diaspora always included much corporate and personal prayer, readings, etc. as scripture tells us our prayers are what God desires. The synagogues were the center of the weekly lifecycle outside of Jerusalem as these Jews could not go to the Temple frequently, if they ever even did.