Is modern day Judaism the same as Ancient Judaism?

[straykat]

They have no temple or Holy Spirit. So no. Completely different.

 

[Starcomet]

It is not same as ancient Judaism was "Priestly" or "Temple" Judaism which centered around the temple and performing sacrifices and offerings to God. Modern day Judaism did not appear until 70 CE, though there have always been Rabbis who traveled around and teaching about the law.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably I remembered incorrectly about the specifics of Ehrman's statement. The source was a speech on youtube about the hopelessness of reconstructing the New Testament scriptures as they were originally composed.

...just a quick update: I began to do some further reading on this issue and I found that indirectly, I had already studied this kind of thing in the past in relation to the overarching issue of Textual Criticism. I pulled out my main study bible as well as my secondary one, and found that my main study Bible actually DOES CITE the differences between the comparative textual families.

In sum, all in all, if we go with the "shorter" version of Acts, reducing it down overall by several percentages, we find that there's not much difference in the meaning of the renderings of the accounts or the implied meanings, and so on and so forth. So, all in all this comparative length issue of the Book of Acts is a minor one. But I do appreciate that you brought it to my attention because I hadn't actually looked at Acts specifically in relation to the problems of Textual Criticism. I mean, usually it's the Gospels and some of Paul's Letters that get the most attention with this kind of thing. So, anyway, thanks!

 

[Rachel20]

I think not, the biggest example imo is its outlawing of the 2nd Temple era teaching of 2 powers in Heaven. Ever wonder how the Jewish disciples could accept Jesus as God without feeling they were violating Shema? Or how they could see God (Jesus) and not die? I haven't read Segal's book yet, but Dr Heiser covers the nuances seen in scripture that led to the teaching. Here's a link to the book and to Heiser discussing this early rabbinic teaching of a Godhead in the Old Testament.

Two Powers In Heaven | E-book Download Free ~ PDF

 

[Starcomet]

I think not, the biggest example imo is its outlawing of the 2nd Temple era teaching of 2 powers in Heaven. Ever wonder how the Jewish disciples could accept Jesus as God without feeling they were violating Shema? Or how they could see God (Jesus) and not die? I haven't read Segal's book yet, but Dr Heiser covers the nuances seen in scripture that led to the teaching. Here's a link to the book and to Heiser discussing this early rabbinic teaching of a Godhead in the Old Testament.

Two Powers In Heaven | E-book Download Free ~ PDF

I think the earliest disciples of Jesus did not see him as God, but instead as simply the messiah and a prophet. As you stated, there is no way devout Jews could reconcile the shema and other Jewish laws and customs with the belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

 

[Rachel20]

I think the earliest disciples of Jesus did not see him as God, but instead as simply the messiah and a prophet. As you stated, there is no way devout Jews could reconcile the shema and other Jewish laws and customs with the belief that Jesus was God incarnate.

They did see him as God though, that's the whole point - they were already teaching a second power of Heaven in the 2nd Temple era, so it would have been easy for the earliest disciples to accept Jesus was this second power. Segal wrote a book on it from his research on the rabbinical teachings of that era. He views it as heretical, but admits that's what they believed and taught then.

 

[Starcomet]

They did see him as God though, that's the whole point - they were already teaching a second power of Heaven in the 2nd Temple era, so it would have been easy for the earliest disciples to conclude Jesus was this second power. Segal wrote a book on it from his research on the rabbinical teachings of that era. He views it as heretical, but admits that's what they believed and taught then.

But that second power does not equate with being the same as God. It is highly possible they believed in a subordinationism in which Jesus was a divine being, but was lesser than the father. Such a view was common and popular until the Arian Controversy.

 

[Rachel20]

But that second power does not equate with being the same as God. It is highly possible they believed in a subordinationism in which Jesus was a divine being, but was lesser than the father. Such a view was common and popular until the Arian Controversy.

Did you watch the video? This isn't a "lessor god", but one and the same as "the God", yet different. Same concept as the Trinity, but derived from Old Testament passages.

Edit: maybe I misunderstood your point - equal with God the Father, yet subordinated to him? Just as a human child would be subordinated to their human father, yet equal in the sense both are human? Would agree with this if I understand it correctly.

 

[Starcomet]

Did you watch the video? This isn't a "lessor god", but one and the same as "the God", yet different. Same concept as the Trinity, but derived from Old Testament passages.

I saw snippets of it, but we must remember that the Hebrew Testament was largely henotheistic and it was believed for many centuries that God did not exist alone in heaven. He had not only angels but others gods or celestial beings in heaven with him and where his divine council. There was even a belief that God had a wife, a female goddess as well. The idea of a second power in heaven would not have been far fetched for the ancient Israelites and they would have believed there were many "powers" in heaven and "sons" of God. It was not until after the Babylonian captivity they became strictly monotheistic and belief in other "powers" in heaven was deemed blasphemous. The angel of the lord was not the pre-incarnate of Jesus, but merely an angel of the lord. You could argue that the angel of the lord was Jesus, but that is subordinationism.

 

[Starcomet]

Edit: maybe I misunderstood your point - equal with God the Father, yet subordinated to him? Just as a human child would be subordinated to their human father, yet equal in the sense both are human? Would agree with this if I understand it correctly.

Subordinationism would agree that this is true.

 

[Rachel20]

we must remember that the Hebrew Testament was largely henotheistic and it was believed for many centuries that God did not exist alone in heaven. He had not only angels but others gods or celestial beings in heaven with him and where his divine council. ... It was not until after the Babylonian captivity they became strictly monotheistic and belief in other "powers" in heaven was deemed blasphemous

These would be gods with lower-case 'g', ie spirit beings, not on the same level as God (Psalm 82:6, John 10:34). The worship of the golden calf was Israel straying from their beliefs, not acting in accordance with. But the second power was on the same level as God. According to Segal, this teaching wasn't deemed heresy until sometime in the second century AD.

Since on the topic, I just don't accept the view that early religion started polythiestic and moved gradually toward monotheism, with henotheism an evolutionary stage. I think Wilhelm Schmidt makes a compelling case for monotheism being the first belief, with his primitive high god in The Origin And Growth of Religion.

 

[Starcomet]

These would be gods with lower-case 'g', ie spirit beings, not on the same level as God (Psalm 82:6, John 10:34). The worship of the golden calf was Israel straying from their beliefs, not acting in accordance with. But the second power was on the same level as God. According to Segal, this teaching wasn't deemed heresy until sometime in the second century AD.

Unlikely, if anything the second power would have been seen as God's wife/consort to the ancient Isrealites.

Since on the topic, I just don't accept the view that early religion started polythiestic and moved gradually toward monotheism, with henotheism an evolutionary stage. I think Wilhelm Schmidt makes a compelling case for monotheism being the first belief, with his primitive high god in The Origin And Growth of Religion.

In the context of Judaism I believe it as there is plenty of archeological and biblical evidence to prove it.

 

[Rachel20]

Unlikely, if anything the second power would have been seen as God's wife/consort to the ancient Isrealites

Because they didn't know, it was acceptable to speculate. So I suppose there was a whole array of speculations.