When did Christianity and Judaism Part Ways? (Part 1) 

First off, FINALLY. Second, really glad you guys did this episode. It really explains a lot of the conversations I’ve been having with my Jewish friends. When I pressed them on the temple and the sacrifices it always seems to go towards a mystical level. The more mystical the tradition the more spiritualized it gets. Seems like it’s almost reactive and I’ve heard some scholars actually say that Rabbinical Judaism is a reactive religion, meaning as Christians try to push Jesus the more creative they have to get to disprove it, while at the same time the more obvious it is that they’re missing an essential part of temple Judaism the more they need to spiritualized it. My argument has always been that Judaism has always had alms giving and prayer and such, but it never negated the need for a temple or priesthood. In other words just because you have the individual tools to reach God, doesn’t mean that a national way of coming to God was unnecessary. This talk really helped me see the underlying reasons for it all. There is so much to say about this episode can’t wait for the next one.

Highly edifying, especially using the terms Judeans and Jesus Believers to denote the differences. The Church today really needs to get a clue historically and stop using this misnomer term Judeo-Christianity as if we're somehow part of the same Faith. OT, check out the recent chat between EMJ and Bishop Williamson. I found it refreshing and uplifting.

Great video guys! A must watch for anyone who wants a full understanding of first century Christianity and Judaism.

This is incredibly helpful information. I'm surprised more people aren't discussing this. Perhaps it requires a level of studiosity that most lack the appetite to pursue.

Been waiting for this; thanks for posting.

Jesus did take over the Roman Empire after the crucifixion. God's ways are not our ways.

Loved it! Learned a lot, as always. Looking forward to watching Part 2.

Also, do you two have a recommended publication of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs for someone wanting to read it physically? Thanks!

Do you guys have a recommended translation/edition of Origen’s “On First Principles” (in English)? Thanks! I know the original full text is lost, but what is the best of what we have available?

Thank you so much for giving me better words to use and concepts to refer to in my conversations with my Jewish friends.

Thank you for this extremely interesting and informative video! Look forward to the next.

Please put part 2 link into the description below the video. Thanks.

18:10 This reminded me of the famous section of the book of wisdom that goes like this: ‭Wisdom of Solomon 2:13-21 [13] He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. [14] He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; [15] the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. [16] We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. [17] Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; [18] for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. [19] Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. [20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” [21] Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them.

IM SO EXCITED, MISS YOU GUYS

awesome information in this video, learned alot! Thank you!

Really exited for this episode. I've come into contact with a number of Catholics who have expressed an odd desire (in my mind) to unite their faith practice to incorporate more of older Jewish traditions and culture into their Catholic faith. More often, however, I hear an emphasis over how incredibly similar our traditions are rumoured to be. I think the Rabbinic Period (around 200 AD, if I'm not mistaken) certainly helped split the current faiths such that I view it as distinct enough to be worthy of criticism in a way that Temple Judaism is not. For example, we criticise Protestants, Muslims, etc for not having the fullness of truth, and rightfully so. Much of the time, in my experience, people refer to Judaism as if it were free from error, but not the fullness of truth. I think you could only make that argument for ancient Temple Judaism. Judaism didn't remain stagnant after Christ's death and resurrection. It reformed, intensified, and doubled down. An easy example that comes to mind is circumcision. Jesus' circumcision, while no doubt obnoxiously painful, was not nearly as invasive, intense, or as mutilating as the modern Bris Millah, that draws its roots from the Rabbinic period. The former was just to draw blood to create a scar as a sign of the Old Covenant, whereas the former was designed and praised for stifling sexual pleasure, and creating a far more permanent identification on the male body part for a dispersing population.

@51:45 - notably a major difference between John the Baptist and Elijah is noted in John 10:41 - that unlike Elijah who worked lots of miracles, including raising the widow's son in 1 Kgs 17:17f, and parting the Jordan river in 2 Kgs 2:8f, John the Baptist doesn't seem to do anything in the department of 'working of wonders,' that prophets and especially Elijah were associated with. John the Baptist being obviously the fulfillment of Elijah in Christian understanding, but NOT working miracles (as Elijah powerfully did) seems to be the reason St. John bothers to make note of it in his Gospel.

You say the early Jewish Christians still "revered the temple cult," but did they continue to participate in temple sacrifice? It seems that Jesus and his followers participated in the temple animal sacrifices before Easter (Mary and Joseph make the offering of two birds, for example). Is there evidence that the early Jewish Christians continued this practice? Did they continue until the temple was destroyed?

Another stellar episode guys! I would love to understand how the split affected the developing ecclesiology of the ante-Nicene church. And whether the Testaments of the Twelve were considered heretical by Christians in other parts of the Christian world - and when!

Audio level is lower. Hope that was accidental and not a trend.

@56:48 - Trent, Session IV not withstanding? Though, I think some theologians suggest that the Canonical list Trent declared gave a list of books which 'have to be in the Canon,' but there could be more? Given Trent's verbiage - there does seem to be room to argue that more books could be added.

The Mass as the distinct essential prayer and sacrifice of Christians can only emerge when all the prior supplemental sacrifices ceased, with the Temple's destruction in AD 70. The Temple's hierarchy of high priest, priest and Levite emerges in the tripartite orders of the church: bishop, priest, deacon. As the Christians of the Holy City prayed daily in the Temple before its destruction, so the eucharist in the Upper Room borrowed liberally from the Temple liturgical yearly cycle, providing bases for Masses from East to Western Christianity.

Outstanding, thanks, so much in just over an hour! I am surprised though that you didn't mention that Romans might have been key in forging a separation: as early as the early IInd, Trajan defines the policy that Christians do not get the same toleration of their religion as Jews because it is "novel", whereas Judaism is considered ancient enough and traditional, though monotheistic. To me that explanation had stuck in my mind, and I am wondering whether you have also heard about it and whether you consider this Roman policy as the cause or the result of the Christian-Rabbinic split.

Perhaps you’ve addressed this elsewhere. But I am curious how Peter and our concept of the pope plays into this history. It would seem that if Peter was the leader of a new church established by Christ, that it would have been incompatible with temple Judaism from the get-go, no?

This is great stuff. It's rare to encounter modern scholarship utilised through an orthodox Catholic lense! One question: if christianity wasn't seen as separate in the 1st century, how come Nero singles out Christians and not Jews for persecution?

I do have one question about what seems to be a somewhat variant strain in the early Church: the Gospel of Mark. First, it distances Jesus from his mother and brothers (Mk 3). It features the interpretation of Jesus’ response to Pharisaic challenge that “thus he made all foods clean” (contrasting the Acts story of Peter’s vision and cleaning of all foods). Lastly, the tearing of the Temple veil seems to abolish the Temple cult altogether. It seems like Mark may have been an aberration in the consolidation of the Church around its new cultic practice.

Even after some thought, I can't guess what would be problematic about Ezekiel 1

Great video! One thing I’ve wondered about is the first/second century practice of Judaism regarding feast days. When did the believers in Christ cease celebrating those? Also when did the sharing of a meal as seen in Acts occur in conjunction with or later as replacement for gathering in the synagogue? One more 🤓: If believers in Christ were considered just another, semi-accepted sect within Judaism, how would we interpret the Gospel writers’ depiction of Jewish leadership considering Jesus a heretic? Or Jesus’ own use of language, “You have heard it said… but I say” or his use of New Covenant language?

Another question: you say that second temple Judaism resembles in some way modern protestantism: decentralized, without a final doctrinal authority, and kind of unbothered by the pluralism - at least, it didn't prevent them from considering others as part of Israel. Does this not increase the plausibility of the protestant model? Why wouldn't the fulfilled Israel resemble this pluralism and lack of final doctrinal authority?

I may be wrong when listening to what I have been taught and from what I have read too when believing that it was the Sadducees who had already split away from Judaism when Jesus Christ started in the flesh leading believers not Christianity splitting away from Judaism. Since many of the Sadducees refused to hear, see and believe the great signs which the life of Jesus Christ was showing to the world no matter what he did and didn't do he was not able to make their hearts quicken in the spirit enough to believe in even the possibility of resurrections for anyone. Which is why when Jesus was trying to reach them in his frustration once to their faces he was comparing them to being like only a bunch of vipers on a rock. It wasn't because Jesus Christ was holding any grudge against them it was because he knew what their fate was going to be in their continual hard heartedness.

Jewish / Christian: Jean Danielou !

Bible is 1 book, not OT and NT, I find it interesting they have Bible NT only, 80% of the NT is out of OT. I am pretty sure when God said forever, it is forever.

No. you had rabbinic judaism, nazarene judaism ( jewish believers in yeshua) and christianity (a gentile faith)