I have recently been listening to a Jewish apologist, Tovia Singer. I have placed these comments/questions on his discussion forum here in response to his video entitled Did God Destroy the Second Temple Because Jews Rejected Jesus? - and now place them at Tweb for further comment.
Some questions and comments for the Jews at Tweb to consider ("you" in the comments below refers primarily to Tovia Singer) –
If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end?
Some questions and comments for the Jews at Tweb to consider ("you" in the comments below refers primarily to Tovia Singer) –
If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end?
If God did end the Mosaic covenant, then God would take away the means to continue the Levitical sacrifices, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the line of Davidic kings, and remove the many laws, which cannot be kept apart from a functioning temple?
If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant?
If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant?
If God has not taken away the Mosaic covenant, why then did God take away so much (temple, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, means to keep all the laws) from the Jews in 70AD and kept these things away from them for so long?
Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event?
Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event?
After all Christian claim Jesus was God, and hence Jesus was the incarnate temple of God. How do Jews explain these historical coincidences, which we all arranged by God’s providence?
If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT?
If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT?
If the temple was central to the Mosaic covenant, why is the temple not central to the ongoing functioning of the Mosaic covenant after 70AD?
If the temple was Not central to the Mosaic covenant (you would have to establish this fact), why was the loss of the temple then the occasion for the Rabbis to so radically revise the Jewish understanding of the OT?
If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures?
If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures?
What authority did the Rabbis have to re-interpret the OT after 70AD?
If a reinterpretation of the OT scriptures occurred after 70AD, what value can be placed upon any interpretation of the texts, that may be subsequently revised when historical events do not subsequently support a past or present understanding of the OT texts?
If we have witnessed Judaism radically re-understand the OT, based upon historical events in Jerusalem, what confidence can we have with Rabbinic claims concerning their understanding of any OT texts?
The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant. When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how?
The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant. When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how?
If the loss of the temple has not brought about a broken covenant, why not?
Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken?
Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken?
What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken?
If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?
Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple?
Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple?
Also, what then is this ever close Messiah going to do with regard to sin that Israel has not yet done? Will he also suffer sin and if so, why does he have to suffer for sin if Israel has already done so in the past?
No comments:
Post a Comment