From the site -
the Pharisees believed that there were two Torahs. In addition to the Torah recognized by the Sadducees, which both Sadducees and Pharisees believed was written by Moses, the Pharisees believed that there was another Torah. They referred to the five books of Moses as the “Written Torah,” and the corpus of oral laws and traditions as the “Oral Torah,” because it was not written down but rather, starting with God, transmittted to Moses orally, memorized, and then passed down orally over the generations. In other words they asserted that the sacred scriptures were not complete and could therefore not be understood on their own terms.
------------
This led to the creation of new texts that are the foundation of Judaism as a religion "separate" from the Hebrew religion that did not use these texts (Pharisees from the Hebrew perushim, from parash, meaning "to separate"), just as the New Testement texts led to the foundation of Christianity as a religion separate from the Hebrew religion.
Early Christian Period of Development: 30-311 CE
Rabbinic Jewish Period of Talmud Development: 70-400/600 CE
Christian Testament (NT) writings: ca. 50-125 CE
First Jewish Revolt against Rome: 66-73
Destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple: 70
Gamaliel II excludes sectarians (including Christians) from the synagogues: ca. 90-100
Writings (third and last division of Jewish Scriptures) discussed and accepted as sacred scripture: ca. 90-150
------------
The Christians did not leave the synogogues, they were nicely booted out.
The Jewish people are blessed in knowing their Hebrew roots among the Pharisees and it is sad that most Christians do not know their own Hebrew roots among the Nazarenes.
Full Version: Who were the Jews?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs
QUOTE
This led to the creation of new texts that are the foundation of Judaism as a religion "separate" from the Hebrew religion that did not use these texts (Pharisees from the Hebrew perushim, from parash, meaning "to separate"), just as the New Testement texts led to the foundation of Christianity as a religion separate from the Hebrew religion.
Early Christian Period of Development: 30-311 CE
Rabbinic Jewish Period of Talmud Development: 70-400/600 CE
Christian Testament (NT) writings: ca. 50-125 CE
First Jewish Revolt against Rome: 66-73
Destruction of Jerusalem and the second Temple: 70
Gamaliel II excludes sectarians (including Christians) from the synagogues: ca. 90-100
Writings (third and last division of Jewish Scriptures) discussed and accepted as sacred scripture: ca. 90-150
You conviniently enough left out another important event... the creation of different sects among Judaism, including the Pharisees, around 200 BC. That's about 230 years before the creation of Christianity.
I didn't say that Judaism haven't changed at all.
It changed, just like any other religion.
But to say Judaism came after Chrisitanity is absurd and false. You can't even call their religion "hebrew", because the Jews stopped using hebrew as an everyday language since around 100BC... at the time of Jesus hebrew was already a liturogical language, and Aramic was the daily language used by all Jews in Judea.
So if you inclined calling their faith "Judaism" because "Judean" simply means citizen of Judah, you most certainly can't call their faith "Hebrew religion" because they didn't speak hebrew anymore.
QUOTE
The Christians did not leave the synogogues, they were nicely booted out.
The Jewish people are blessed in knowing their Hebrew roots among the Pharisees and it is sad that most Christians do not know their own Hebrew roots among the Nazarenes.
The Christians have chosen to distance themselves from Judaism after Jews became unpopular in the Roman empire. That was the only way Christianity could continue spreading among the non-Jewish population, and the way many Hellenistic Christian Jews (assimilated Christian Jews) who wanted to keep being welcomed among non-Jews could continue doing so.
Sean,
I agree with you in principle. The actuality of this thread shows that no one is buying what she's selling because it is absurd misinformation. Its absurdity is why it isn't offensive. Erikl is 100% correct in stating that it is nothing more than just skewed Christian Revisionism.
-mkl
I agree with you in principle. The actuality of this thread shows that no one is buying what she's selling because it is absurd misinformation. Its absurdity is why it isn't offensive. Erikl is 100% correct in stating that it is nothing more than just skewed Christian Revisionism.
-mkl
QUOTE(Paranoid Android @ Apr 16 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]1150668[/snapback]
Really? How can someone belong to the tribe of Levi and Judah? Or Ephraim or Benjamin for that matter....
One can be descended from both tribes, an easy thing to do as tradition has it that the tribe of Levi was dispersed among the other tribes to serve as priests. Thus, intermarriage is highly likely. --djs
QUOTE(Erikl @ Apr 18 2006, 01:39 PM) [snapback]1153313[/snapback]
You conviniently enough left out another important event... the creation of different sects among Judaism, including the Pharisees, around 200 BC. That's about 230 years before the creation of Christianity.
I didn't say that Judaism haven't changed at all.
It changed, just like any other religion.
But to say Judaism came after Chrisitanity is absurd and false. You can't even call their religion "hebrew", because the Jews stopped using hebrew as an everyday language since around 100BC... at the time of Jesus hebrew was already a liturogical language, and Aramic was the daily language used by all Jews in Judea.
So if you inclined calling their faith "Judaism" because "Judean" simply means citizen of Judah, you most certainly can't call their faith "Hebrew religion" because they didn't speak hebrew anymore.
The Nazarenes were already known to exist by 250 B.C. (Septuagint ban in place) because they refused to follow the ban on the use of the name YHWH outside of the Temple.
Judaism as a faith separate from the Hebrew religion with its additional text did take place a short time after Christianity separated with their additional texts. The two new religions can be dated as truly separated at the times they started using their new texts as holy scriptures.
Both the Pharisees and the Nazarenes did indeed call themselves Sons of Abraham and Hebrews to indicate what their religion was.
They did not call themselves Judeans to indicate their religion, as there were many polytheistic pagans who were also Judeans living in Judea, whose ancestors had taken up the beliefs of the Greeks.
They called themselves Judean to indicate their nationality.
It was later that Nazarenes called themsleves Christians to indicate their religion to others and the Pharisees called themsleves Jews to indicate their religion to others. The Nazarenes began use of reidentification before the Pharisees did, as well as writing down new holy scriptures before the Pharisees did that exteneded to this new identification.
What language they used has nothing to do with what religion they followed. How they identified their relgion to others does, and they themselves did this by calling themselves Hebrews.
(I have sometimes wondered if what worked once would work again. The Nazarenes and Pharisees evolved and changed but the fundementalists, the Essenes and Sadducees became extinct with the destruction of their site of pilgrimage. I think that was what the Romans intended.)
QUOTE(seanph @ Apr 18 2006, 10:37 AM) [snapback]1153074[/snapback]
QUOTE(Bella-Angelique @ Apr 18 2006, 10:23 AM) [snapback]1153047[/snapback]
Their was no town named Nazareth at that time.
Another false claim. This is a misnomer. Nazareth, while not mentioned in early first century texts, did in fact exist. It was so tiny that it simply did not warrant mention.
Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.
The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
QUOTE(Erikl @ Apr 18 2006, 08:23 AM) [snapback]1152931[/snapback]
Ah! A Jewish thread!
Don't worry, an Israeli who speaks hebrew is here.
I'll try to answer few of the questions raised here.
1. the matter of jews being a "race"
Jews are not a race... that is, there is no "Jewish" race which is different from white people, african people, and asian people.
Jews however are an ethnic group.
Judaism itself states that a person cannot undo his jewishness, and even if he does convert to another religion he remains jewish in the eyes of the jewish community (and in the eyes of god).
So a person can be a Christian Jew.
Many westerners can't comprehend this idea because their culture derives from the Christian faith (wether they are christians or atheists), which is a universal religion.
Jews, just like other ancient religious groups (such as the old polytheist egyptian and greek faiths) are also an ethnic group.
Back then your faith also determined your ethnicity.
With the rise of Christianity it all changed.
Islam is only partially universal because there is still the idea of "ummah", of a muslim nation, and a single sacred language which binds them all (Arabic).
So Jews are both ethnic group and a religious group.
2. The matter of how old Judaism is.
The first time the name "Israel" is mentioned in history, is the Egyptian Merneptah Stele dated to about 1210 BCE.
That means the nation of Israel, or the people we call Jews today, exist atleast 3216 years, according to historical evidence.
However, Judaism, just like any other religion, evolved from that early time.
For example, before the Israelites arrived to the Land of Israel, they were a group of nomadic people who worshiped god without any temple.
Then they built the first temple.
Would you say then that they were no longer Israelites, simply because their religion evolved?
Does that mean that protestant sects of Christianity aren't really Christian, and so we are dealing with a totaly new religion, only 500 years old?
Ofcourse not.
Bella, Christianity was created from the same sect as Rabbinical Judaism - that is, the Pharisees.
Jesus was a Rabbi as well, after all.
The fact is that the Sadducee sect couldn't survive the destruction of the temple.
However, the Karaites, which are Jews as well, still follow this sect, which was quite popular among Jews until around the 10th century.
There are many Karaites in the state of Israel, btw.
And the Pharisee sect was created around 200 BC, 200 years before Jesus was born.
3. The name "jew" vs. "judean" vs. "hebrew"
This is quite an easy one.
The name Israel comes from the name Jacob got after a religious revalation, according to the OT.
The first unified kingdom, that is, the kingdom that was rulled by David and Solomon, was called "Israel".
Jews have always called themselves "Israelites", not "Jews".
However, when the the unified kingdom splitted into Israel and Judah, it was the Judeans who kept loyalty to the Davidic royalty, they were the ones who continued to see Jesualem as their sacred capital, etc.
Citizens of both kingdoms viewed themselves as Israelites.
Levites had no territory of themselves. They were the priestly tribe who lived among all other tribes. I myself am from the tribe of Levi. The meaning of the the names "Levi", "Cohen" and "Judah" have changed throughout Jewish history.
There were Levites in the kingdom of Judah, just as there were in the kingdom of Israel.
There were members of the ten tribes in the kingdom of Judah as well.
It's just that the kingdom was called "Judah" because the vast majority of it's territory was the territory of the tribe Judah, and it was rulled by kings from that tribe. It doesn't mean, however, that only Judeans lived there, because after the creation of the first temple there was little importance to the tribal division, unless you were a Levite (which granted you a certain religious role).
As for "Jews as Israelites", here's what wikipedia has to say:
Jews as Israelites.
It should be noted, that in Italian and Greek, Jews are called "Ebrei" or "Ivrei", which means "Hebrew", probably a remnant of the fact that both Romans and ancient Greeks had contacts with Jews long before they were began to be called "Jews" by Christians.
According to E. A. Budge, 1978. An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. Vol 1, Sec. 143. Dover Publications. ISBN 0486236161: There is an inscription [isr], translated as "Israel" in Thutmose III's addition to the Temple of Karnak. Thutmose III died in 1450 BCE. That would make this inscription at least 240 years older. --djs
QUOTE(zandore @ Apr 18 2006, 07:41 PM) [snapback]1153426[/snapback]
Another false claim. This is a misnomer. Nazareth, while not mentioned in early first century texts, did in fact exist. It was so tiny that it simply did not warrant mention.I got to side with Bela on this
LOL there is always a first for everything eh Zannie?
You mixed Seanph's quote with mine!
Well strange things do happen....sorry Seanph what ever the truth is (good or bad) that I find I have no choice but to present it.
Well strange things do happen....sorry Seanph what ever the truth is (good or bad) that I find I have no choice but to present it.
That's alright Z. 
As for Nazareth ... The archeaologucal evidence for its existence is legion. Scholars are certain of its existence. It was simply very tiny. I know Zindler says otherwise, but he is in a very tiny, tiny minority. In fact, I just watched "Science of the Bible" on the National Geographic Channel last night in which this was covered in great detail. Nazareth, did indeed, exist in the first century.
Four of the tombs were sealed with rolling stones, a type of closure typical of the late Jewish period up to A.D. 70. From the tombs, therefore, it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period. (The Archaeology of the New Testament, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1992: pages 44-46)
Richard Carrier further comments: "See: 'Nazareth,' Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson, eds., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, new ed. (2001); and B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1 (1969), esp. pp. 233-34, which discusses four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war), as well as their cheap material (cancite instead of marble); pp. 170-71 discusses Aramaic-inscribed marble fragments paleographically dated around the end of the 1st century or early 2nd century, demonstrating that Nazareth had marble structures near the time the Gospels were written (even if not before)."[1]
Thus there is some evidence that Nazareth was a Jewish settlement both before and after the First Jewish Revolt in AD 70.
SOUTCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
Pre-Christian Rituals at Nazareth (Archeology Magazine)
http://www.archaeology.org/0311/newsbriefs/nazareth.html
Nazareth (Archeology Magazine)
http://www.archaeology.org/cgi-bin/perlfec...ZARETH&mode=all
Under 'Nazareth', the 'Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels' says:
Since Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha or in rabbinic literature, some during the last century disputed its existence in New Testament times. In addition to an inscription mentioning it as a settlement for priests in the third to fourth century, excavations of recent years have removed every doubt...Remains dating from New Testament times consist especially of cisterns and silos hewn from rock, along with tombs...
Professor Mahlon H. Smith, Rutgers University:
Tombs & agricultural evidence (silos, cisterns, olive & wine presses) provide concrete evidence that the site was inhabited from the early days of Israelite occupation of the land [12th c. BCE]. But the ancient settlement was never large, since it had only one spring. The 1st c. village, whose population was less than 500, was overshadowed by the fortified town of Japha just one mile south---described by Josephus as the "largest village in Galilee" (Vita 230)---and the city of Sepphoris, just 3.5 miles to the northwest.
SOURCE
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/nazareth.html
I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sean
As for Nazareth ... The archeaologucal evidence for its existence is legion. Scholars are certain of its existence. It was simply very tiny. I know Zindler says otherwise, but he is in a very tiny, tiny minority. In fact, I just watched "Science of the Bible" on the National Geographic Channel last night in which this was covered in great detail. Nazareth, did indeed, exist in the first century.Four of the tombs were sealed with rolling stones, a type of closure typical of the late Jewish period up to A.D. 70. From the tombs, therefore, it can be concluded that Nazareth was a strongly Jewish settlement in the Roman period. (The Archaeology of the New Testament, Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1992: pages 44-46)
Richard Carrier further comments: "See: 'Nazareth,' Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson, eds., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, new ed. (2001); and B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1 (1969), esp. pp. 233-34, which discusses four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war), as well as their cheap material (cancite instead of marble); pp. 170-71 discusses Aramaic-inscribed marble fragments paleographically dated around the end of the 1st century or early 2nd century, demonstrating that Nazareth had marble structures near the time the Gospels were written (even if not before)."[1]
Thus there is some evidence that Nazareth was a Jewish settlement both before and after the First Jewish Revolt in AD 70.
SOUTCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth
Pre-Christian Rituals at Nazareth (Archeology Magazine)
http://www.archaeology.org/0311/newsbriefs/nazareth.html
Nazareth (Archeology Magazine)
http://www.archaeology.org/cgi-bin/perlfec...ZARETH&mode=all
Under 'Nazareth', the 'Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels' says:
Since Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, in the Apocrypha or in rabbinic literature, some during the last century disputed its existence in New Testament times. In addition to an inscription mentioning it as a settlement for priests in the third to fourth century, excavations of recent years have removed every doubt...Remains dating from New Testament times consist especially of cisterns and silos hewn from rock, along with tombs...
Professor Mahlon H. Smith, Rutgers University:
Tombs & agricultural evidence (silos, cisterns, olive & wine presses) provide concrete evidence that the site was inhabited from the early days of Israelite occupation of the land [12th c. BCE]. But the ancient settlement was never large, since it had only one spring. The 1st c. village, whose population was less than 500, was overshadowed by the fortified town of Japha just one mile south---described by Josephus as the "largest village in Galilee" (Vita 230)---and the city of Sepphoris, just 3.5 miles to the northwest.
SOURCE
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/nazareth.html
I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sean
mklsgl ...
Sean
Sean
A tip: Don't use holy scriptures to defend your faith.
I'm catholic mixed race Scottish,Irish, Srilanken,Chinese and Portugese.People don't know how to class me and my famly so they called us 'Arcadians' in South Africa.My Grandad Tommy Mcleod decended from the bloodline of King David who is a root of Adam.People nowadays think its all a myth because they have been corrupted through millennia the word has been passed down the tree right to me the truth of all things and I found the cure to mans troubles its love and not any love Gods love 
See, Abraham founded the Hebrew, like you state, and they became Isreal with Jacob. Since they were only 2 geneations apart, The distance Bella presented about Hebrew and Jews is toatly incorect!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.