Hey Fenris, my wife has a question about Ezekial for you...

[Ryan R]

My wife wanted to know something about your perspective on the latter part of Ezekial 16:41.

The translation I have here is "and I will cause thee to cease from playing the harlot, and thou also shalt give no hire any more."

Her question was, since the Jews did give up their idols and didn’t return to them after that, why did God take away the land in 70AD, if not for turning to idols and not for rejecting the Messiah?

[Fenris]

You're actually asking why the second temple was destroyed. Idolatry was not prevalent in the second temple era, this is true. The rabbis said that it was because of baseless hatred between the Jews. Which is actually a historical fact.

[Ryan R]

You're actually asking why the second temple was destroyed. Idolatry was not prevalent in the second temple era, this is true. The rabbis said that it was because of baseless hatred between the Jews. Which is actually a historical fact.

Even the Jews were antisemetic? Wow you guys have it rough.

[markedward]

I don't think... "antisemitism" is the right word... they weren't being racist towards each other, just hateful.

[Fenris]

Let's look at the record: Jerusalem is besieged by the Romans, and the Jews inside the city are fighting each other. How does the expression go? "Fighting inside of a burning house"?

[Ryan R]

I don't think... "antisemitism" is the right word... they weren't being racist towards each other, just hateful.

But that takes the joke and turns it into a... not-joke.

The joke is funnier.

[Nihil Obstat]

Let's look at the record: Jerusalem is besieged by the Romans, and the Jews inside the city are fighting each other. How does the expression go? "Fighting inside of a burning house"?

Sounds like Judges 7:22 when God's enemies (in 70 AD's case, the Jews) slew each other with the sword when faced with the Lord's army (in 70 AD's case, the Romans), sent against them for oppressing God's people (in 70 AD's case, the Christians).

[Fenris]

As with much of Christianity, it's true- but only if you believe that it is.

[Nihil Obstat]

Let's look at the record: Jerusalem is besieged by the Romans, and the Jews inside the city are fighting each other. How does the expression go? "Fighting inside of a burning house"?

So the Jews' house is caught on fire because they were fighting each other while the house was burning...? That's an anachronism. Or true only if you want it to be.

[Fenris]

It's an expression about identifying the problems at hand at not getting caught up in petty emotions.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's an expression about identifying the problems at hand at not getting caught up in petty emotions.

But the problem at hand was a divine judgment sent against them due to the petty emotions they were having during... the divine judg... wait. That's still an anachronism. You went and sawed off the tree limb you were sitting on when you claimed in post #2 that the rabbi's interpretation was strengthened by historical fact, but in post #5 stated that "the record" - the historical fact - occurred while they were surrounded by Rome: not before. Does Yahweh come to judge people for how they will react when He comes to judge them? That doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe you could clarify?

[Fenris]

the historical fact - occurred while they were surrounded by Rome: not before.

The year 69...the 3rd year of the Jewish revolt against Rome...was know to the Romans as "The year of the four emperors". There was so much political unrest in Rome that they went through four changes of leadership in less than a year. During this time, had there been unified leadership in Judea, they could have sued for peace with the Romans. Given the internal problems that the Romans were having, it is reasonable to say that such an offer could have been accepted. That would mean no destruction of the holy Temple and no Jewish diaspora; also no Jews slaughtered during the crusades, no pogroms and no Holocaust. Why did all that happen? Because the Jews in Jerusalem were too busy fighting each other. So from a historical perspective, the rabbis were quite correct in their analysis.

The schisms in the Jewish community were not new. They had been going on for more than a century. Remember, during the Chanukah story (~175BC or so) it wasn't just the Jews vs the Greeks, it was also the traditional Jews vs the Hellenic Jews. But by the time of the Jewish revolt the wounds ran so deep that the Zealots in Jerusalem were willing to destroy stored food that would have lasted for years- all so that everyone would be forced to fight. A sad, sad time in Jewish history for many reasons...regardless, the issue during the second temple era was not idolatry (doubtless you will disagree) but strife. That is to say, not violations of law between man and God, but violations of law between man and man.

Why didn't the rabbis give a warning before it happened? Because prophecy was long gone by that time.

[Nihil Obstat]

That would mean no destruction of the holy Temple and no Jewish diaspora; also no Jews slaughtered during the crusades, no pogroms and no Holocaust. Why did all that happen? Because the Jews in Jerusalem were too busy fighting each other.

Time out. The Holocaust happened because two thousand years before that the Jews were fighting each other? That's a stretch: what do you mean by that? Surely God wasn't still judging the Jews of the 1940s for sins committed millennia in the past?

the issue during the second temple era was not idolatry (doubtless you will disagree)

No, I agree that idolatry was not present then as it was, say, during the Babylonian Empire.

but strife. That is to say, not violations of law between man and God, but violations of law between man and man.

I don't even so much disagree with you here. I think that strife was present, but that this was not the reason for God to send against them such a devastating catastrophe. I think that the strife was part of the judgment.

[Fenris]

Time out. The Holocaust happened because two thousand years before that the Jews were fighting each other? That's a stretch: what do you mean by that? Surely God wasn't still judging the Jews of the 1940s for sins committed millennia in the past?

The Holocaust happened because the Jews were in Europe and not in Israel.

Ultimately, though, early sins make later punishment possible. If 3000 Jews didn't worship the golden calf, for example, then perhaps Moses would have been the messiah and all of world history would be different. But they did, and that made the Jews future sins and retributions possible.

I don't even so much disagree with you here. I think that strife was present, but that this was not the reason for God to send against them such a devastating catastrophe. I think that the strife was part of the judgment.

Well I'm guessing you think that the judgement was brought on for the rejection of Jesus...