Did Rabbinic Judaism emerge out of Christianity? (Prof. Israel Jacob Yuval) 

When do you think you HAVE TO turn off the comments, for which videos? I frankly don't see any NEED to do so. . . . But I understand that some institutions want to protect their reputation by turning off comments to be in no way or form associated with ugly comments under their videos.

So you are saying Christmas is not pagan in origin?

I assume that there was a continuous and rich presence of Judaism near Babylon, from the Babylonian exile to the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols. They probably finished writing the Pentateuch, corresponded continuously with the temple in Jerusalem, and became the center of Judaism again after the destruction of the temple in 70AD.

@@Achill101 Oh, there was, and beyond. Which is where I think rabbinic judaism essentially came from. I think that sort of colony living eventually inspired jews in israel after the destruction of the temple, for christians it seems even before from how the temple was defiled by romans.

MT is not from the second temple. The Judaism we know today wasn’t canonized until centuries later, copied from the same Greek text as the Christian Bible, with clear omissions made for ideological purposes to distance itself from the Christian Old Testament

@@-John-Doe- - no scholar claims the Masoretic Text is THE TEXT of the second temple. But neither does any scholar claim MT came from Greek translations: the burden to show that would be on you. . . . During the second temple period, multiple text variants were in circulation, as scholars have shown by comparing MT, Septuagint, Qumran texts, and Samaritan Pentateuch. One of these variants became the MT that was repeatedly copied from Hebrew to Hebrew by Jewish scribes. . . . There are some suspicions the Jewish scribes changed a few lines later, due to rivalry to Christians. But those lines are rare, and scholars can deal with them case by case. After all, the MT is no longer accepted by scholars as the one and only true text of the Old Testament.

@@Achill101preference for Masoretic is part of the German Reformers’ despite for all things Roman Catholic and their collective ignorance of the Christian East. We should cut them some slack I suppose because they didn’t have most of the early texts we now have. They lumped Greek Orthodox together with Latins. remember they pronounced YHVH ‘Jehovah’.

Go kiss Hitler's picture.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 not rabbinical judaism

Rabbinic Judaism came from Roman converts

It's true look it is up

You are so out of your depth you don't realize every word you say you skink deeper and deeper into quicksand.

That is an interesting perspective, that the presence of God left the Temple and was transfered onto Mary at the conception of Jesus. That Mary became a living tabernacle.

That is a deeply antisemitic statement. The suggestion is that the Jews decided to reject the manifest truth. This would amount Gd forbid to spitting in the eye of the Holy One Blessed ibeHe. This is totally incorrect and casts an indelible stain on rabbinic Judaism. No thank you..

When I compare the seemingly rude words in some texts before the CVII vs what CVII “teaches” about relations between Catholicism and Judaism I used to feel confused and shocked. Now, I wonder if there is an answer to this.. the pre-CVII was not rude to Biblical Judaism, but to Rabbinic Judaism which had so much of it built in precisely to fight Catholicism.

Patrick Kriesler Your understanding is a real jumble. One key to sort it out is to untangle Jewish and Christian. Christianity isn't what Jssus taught. He taught Jewish stuff. The Christianity that we face today was first mixed, set and cooked, at Nicea... I'm happy to correspond. I'm easy to find on FB as long as you bear in mind I'm in Australia and old.. Really, quite old. I do hope you find what you are looking for.

What verses? One for Israel has a video on Akiva and Paul.

@@cohenlevilovesyeshuahamash900 that's what I'm asking YOU (anybody here)!... I'll watch that video later by the way.

There are many teachings in the New Testament that are found in the Talmud. For example Romans 12:2 says not to be conformed to the world. This in the Talmud is called mariyot eiyn, which teaches that if something is an established gentile custom, such as the wearing of blue jeans, then Jews shouldn't copy the gentiles by wearing blue jeans. The Rabbi's in the Talmud argue about what can be classified a gentile custom, and are all such customs forbidden, such as the wearing of shoes because all gentiles wear shoes. Basic conclusion is that Jews should have a distinctiveness about them that separates their lifestyle from that of the non Jew, by not living or dressing in a typical non Jewish fashion or manner. This concept is further expanded in 2Cor. 6:14-18 to be separated from the world. The Talmud is full about what is separation from the world. And in 2Tim. 2:9 where Paul tells women to wear a modest katastola, which is a specific style of dress, so that women wouldn't be running after the latest clothing fashions. How a katastola looks like is further described in the Talmud. It would be called in English a frumpy dress. It would be interesting to have a Rabbi well versed in the Talmud, to read through the New Testament and pick out all the New Testament teachings that have parallels in the Talmud. Another one is found in 1Cor. 7:14 that the children of believers are holy, which has its parallel in the Talmudic teachings that the sins of a child fall upon the father's head until the child comes of age at his Bar Mitzvah, after which his sins are his own. Many things mentioned in passing in the New Testament, have an expanded explanation in the Talmud.

I would say the same thing about your assertions connecting christianity with pagan religions

@@porteal8986 What a sophisticated and convincing rebuttal, on a par with the quality of your arguments, namely, just say something, whether it matters or not.

@@fgcbrooklyn I don't know how you got that from such a short comment, but that is basically what I was trying to say about your arguments. None of it is really relavent, and a good bit of it is speculation built on a shaky foundation. E.g. sol invictus is not mitras, and if he was, it would have no bearing on the theory presented in the video

@@porteal8986 Your arguments are purely speculative, with no substance whatsoever. I would call your style either Jesuitical or Talmudic, depending on your momentary inclination.

@@fgcbrooklyn I have not made any claims, how can you call the speculative? All I've done is question yours, and you folded right away at that questioning. Rather than defend your claims, all you can do is say the most high sounding thing you can think of without adressing the actual subject. I don't need to be told how you feel about my style of argument, I need to be told why I'm wrong to question your speculative, unfounded claims

The root in this case would not be Rabbinic Judaism..ie that isn't what he is referring too

Deuteronomy 32:21-43 NKJV Is there that starts.

Achi this is not entirely correct. Have you ever heard of a concept called "Two Powers" in heaven? שְׁתֵּי רְשׁוּיוֹת? (Right there in Bavli) Our ancestors had a completely different view of HaShem 2000 years ago and during the 2nd temple period. And judaism was different back then. Much more complex. I'm temani israeli by the way

@@treksta2009 where in Bavli?

@@vvanderer In msecheth hagigah And there's an excellent scholar who did a lecture on this his name is Dr Daniel Boyarin

@@vvanderer Даниэль Боярин читает трактат Хагига (1) / Daniel Boyarin reading Hagiga (1) Даниэль Боярин читает трактат Хагига (2) / Daniel Boyarin reading Hagiga (2) Даниэль Боярин читает трактат Хагига (3) / Daniel Boyarin reading Hagiga (3)

@@vvanderer The crucial part is part 3 May HaShem bless ya achi :)

Yes, scholars of Judaism agree that Rabbinic Judaism is not Biblical Judaism. However, the same applies to Catholicism/Orthodoxy. The fundamental tenets of Catholicism/Orthodoxy including, but not limited to, the doctrines of the trinity and transubstantiation were much later developments. Catholicism/Orthodoxy were forged over many centuries after the final manuscript traditions that would later become the New Testament canon were written.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Which one? Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not reconcilable

@@dubbelkastrullabsurd. They have the same basic theology and liturgy.

@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 No their theology differs vastly

magic21 That is not the teachings of the Catholic Church. I never heard of Catholic Dogmas promoting the destruction of a certain group of people

merko you can’t throw everything catholics do at the feet of the church.

"The Catholic has the sacrifice, temple and holy priesthood, like that of the Judaism of the Old Testament." It's funny you should mention that, given that the truth of the matter is the Didache, which is dated to the first century, contains a single sacrifice observed by the sect which wrote the document. The sacrifice was not called the body or blood of anyone, and was offered with copious thanks to God. It was also called the Thanksgiving, but because it was written in Greek, the word used was Eucharistos. Of course that word came to be applied to the body and blood sacrifice of Roman Catholicism, and is used to this day in reference to it. It is clear that the reason for this is that the popularity of the Didache was such that it could not be ignored nor dismissed by the orthodox church, and so the name of the only sacrifice mentioned therein in the document instructing the reader as to how to observe the religious practices of the sect that wrote it had to be co-opted and applied to the body and blood dam maskheh Damascus "covenant", being portrayed as if it were the same as what was described in the Didache. There was a belief in Judaism prior to the time of "Jesus" that when Moshiach came, all sin would cease, and so also sin offering, and so the only sacrifice remaining would be the Thanksgiving. Orthodox Christianity took that concept and perverted it into a body and blood sin offering sacrifice of the one it claims to be Moshiach which has been offered in perpetuity for nearly two millennia. I have no idea how anyone could honestly believe that Christianity of any kind is a valid continuation of the "Old Covenant". It is blatantly in accordance with the practices and worldview of the pagan sons of Cain at perpetual odds with God, nature, and the enforcement of conscience and justice rather than laxity and disregard for what is deserved, the latter being what the psychopathic leaders of paganism and secularism (not to mention veiled secularism and paganism in the form of Roman Catholicism) propagate to shepherd human groups as a nameless, faceless pool to wield for the sake of their own agenda, as the sons of Cain, inventors of agriculture, have, in their psychopathy, ALWAYS viewed man as but another livestock species to exploit for the purposes of their agenda. That is why Hitler loved the Aryans and hated the Jews, and why the Bolsheviks hated the "bourgeoisie". The psychopaths cannot stand the assertion of the individual that he should be respected as an entity and should expect justice for wrongs committed against himself personally, which the psychopaths view as petty disruptions of obedience and adherence to their demonic will.

@@enternamehere9355 I can not say it any better. I wish people would understand that Catholicism is not Christianity. They also have a teaching called Replacement Theology; the Jews are replaced by their church. Oh, and by the way, Hitler was a Catholic. He was raised and educated by the Dominican Order.

@@rapturebound197 what I know is studing catholiism is not a problem why bec we find some historical information

@John Doe You know not what you say. Even if you don't want to except the Prophets as the purveyors of Rabbinic Judaism, (which of course your wrong), The men of the great assembly still predate your man god by 500 years.

That's a fair point, the title is a question which Prof. Yuval answers, in error or truth. Also I would qualify that as far as I have read in academia, the term "Rabbinic Judaism" isn't always confined to the Temple and post-Temple era, and includes the Medieval era, and as no one so far as I'm hearing it is a native English speaker, maybe, MAYBE, it's an error of terminology they wouldn't make in the anglo-speaking world. It may be a poorly title lecture, but I've only just started it, and the subject is more about the mutual formation of the pre-existing Christian and Jewish identities apart from each other, that it began early and continued - this is something even Orthodox Jewish, secular and faithful Christian academics discuss and take sides on (for example it is accepted by many scholars, Odox, Catholic, etc, who are also faithful people, that there are historical contexts to determinations of specific practice, behavior and specific formulations of Doctrine in their faiths, that are in response to "Others"; Rabbinic Codes of law were not always the way Jewish Law was presented, navigated or learned [Menachem Kellner/Eliezer Berkovits], nor was Canon Law, etc, etc). That a modality of Judaism as maintained by the Perushim predates the Christian era is a claim of the Epistles and the Gospels ( whether one respects the Christian scriptures as historical or not)! - so it would be silly if they make a weird claim, such as that the particulars of belief, observance, etc, from Torah and Mishna and evidence in Talmud, in archaeological evidence and pagan account, etc - emerge from late-ancient or early-Medieval Christian milieus. 15 minutes in, Prof. Yuval states exactly that history itself accounts the "mother/daughter" faith paradigm that is commonly held, to which his book and the lecture he specifies what may be exceptions to a straight-forward or overly-simplified sequential account 'rabbinic' Judaism (Temple era through Mishna and Talmud era), where Judaism was, he suggests, significantly impacted in argument with Christianity.

Because Rabbanical Judaism doesnt predate Christianity.

@@user-mc5wc5jm4f Exactly. Rabbinic, i.e . Post Temple Judaism, was conceived of by the Pharisees and their successors in the diaspora. It shouldn't be conflated with Biblical Judaism.

Rabbinic Judaism was started by a Roman convert named Akiva, he set up the Jews by naming a false messiah that he knew what lose to the rabbi’s, rabbinic Judaism is not from God, it is from man and you should not lie about the dates of rabinnic Judaism. The first rabbi mentioned in scripture is Jesus. No more lies