Topic: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology] (Read 1600 times)

Righteous Goy · « **on:** January 29, 2007, 08:11:26 AM »

sntjohnny claimed:

I'd like to see you address the interesting overhaul of Judaism that occurred in the 1st century. All the evidence shows that Judaism before the destruction of the temple was much different than the Judaism after the destruction of the temple. Rabbinism was around before the destruction, sure, but you can't deny that with the end of temple sacrifice and the theological aspects of that that followed Judaism changed dramatically. In the 1st century. Ie, rabbinical discourse after the 1st century is mainly irrelevant to what pre-destruction Judaism was all about.

Question: Following the Temple destruction in 70 C.E. did rabbinic Judaism substitute a non-biblical atonement system?

Answer: Biblically, the optimum means for attaining atonement consists of both animal sacrifices and sincere confessionary repentant prayer used in conjunction with each other. Traditional Judaism looks forward to the restoration of the dual system working simultaneously -- animal sacrifice and contrite prayer.

The rabbis under the leadership of Yohanan ben Zakkai did not make an unscriptural substitution when they emphasized sincere confessionary repentant prayer as a means of obtaining atonement. The Bible already mandated sincere confessionary repentant prayer, as a proper vehicle for attaining forgiveness. In the biblical period atonement prayer was used with full divine sanction, with or without animal offerings (even for non-Jews -- Jonah 3:5-10).

Sincere confessionary repentant prayer is the primary biblical prescription for obtaining atonement when animal sacrifices cannot be offered concurrently. Animal sacrifices are only prescribed for unwitting or unintentional sin (shogeg)--Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 (cf. Numbers 15:30). The one exception is if an individual swore falsely to acquit himself of the accusation of having committed theft (Leviticus 5:24-26). Intentional sin can only be atoned for through repentance, unaccompanied by a blood sacrifice - Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19.

Giving charity is a material expression of this inner repentance that is articulated in the rabbinic formula: "Prayer, repentance, and charity avert the evil decree" (T.J. Ta'anit 2:1, 65b). This is based on the verse: "If My people, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways; then will I hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin, and I will heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Although following 70 C.E., historical conditions made it impossible to continue the sacrificial system no innovation was necessary, only a readjustment of what already existed. During the Babylonian exile the captive Israelites repented and were allowed to return to their homeland. Yet, they had no means of offering a blood sacrifice; they could only offer contrite repentant prayer. According to 1 Maccabees (cf. 1:54, 4:52) valid sacrifices in the Temple were discontinued for three years (168-165 B.C.E.). This meant those loyal to God could not offer personal atonement sacrifices in the Temple. During these periods of time, no Temple sacrifice was possible, and Jesus had not yet died to provide the supposed everlasting means of atonement. A grave problem arises: Did God leave these Jews in their sins, with no means whatsoever for atonement? Did He demand the impossible of them? The answer was given by God Himself to the Jewish exiles in Babylonia, and its message echoes across the centuries: "And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to Me, and I will hearken to you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me, when you shall search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).

Thus, we see that the Temple's destruction necessitated a modification of the already existing atonement process. However, this change did not include a radical alteration of its universally applied core element--sincere repentant confessionary prayer coming from the contrite heart. The direction and form of that modification was already given in the Hebrew Scriptures. The rabbis, under Yohanan ben Zakkai's leadership, did exactly what the Bible commands for such times when the full atonement service cannot be offered.

No dilemma is posed by the inability to offer animal sacrifices for atonement of sin. Emphasis is now placed on the repentant prayer component of the sacrificial ceremony. Biblically, confessionary repentant prayer can and does satisfy all the criteria necessary for attaining God's forgiveness even without the presence of a blood atonement sacrifice. What does the ability to use prayer alone show? The very existence of repentant prayer as a biblically proper vehicle for attaining atonement emphasizes, of itself, the fact that God has never left His people without the means for atoning for sin. As God had always permitted, and continues to do, one may come before Him with confession and repentance in contrite prayer.

The biblical and post-biblical evidence shows that God has never abandoned Israel. b. It is quite evident that even without the sacrificial system of the Temple service forgiveness of sin is still attainable through the biblically prescribed method of using sincere confessionary repentant prayer alone. The rabbis were absolutely correct in following the biblically prescribed method that is to be followed when no blood sacrifice offering is possible. The rabbis, in conformity with the biblical summons, bid the Jewish people to make confessionary repentant prayer as an atonement offering to God. Repentant prayer, the offering of the lips, is not a man-made alternative to offering a blood sacrifice; it is an essential biblical mainstay of God's relationship with Israel.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq042.html

Content Copyright Gerald Sigal, 1999-2003

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2007, 08:42:50 AM »

I'm glad that you have started this thread.

Unaddressed in this man's essay is why if "Sincere confessionary repentant prayer" was adequate God would have instituted the sacrificial system at all. I think that full sentence let's slip the nature of the problem:

"Sincere confessionary repentant prayer is the primary biblical prescription for obtaining atonement when animal sacrifices cannot be offered concurrently."

In other words, the sacrifices were supposed to happen. They were a command. The system was divinely instituted... unless it is the rabbinical view that the destruction of the temple was itself a divine act abolishing the sacrificial system, merely pointing out that there could be forgiveness without an animal sacrifice doesn't amount to much.

Practically the entire book of Leviticus speaks to the sacrificial system, including remarks like this one from Lev 5:13 "In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven." And, let's look at chapter 16 which speaks about the Day of Atonement... unsurprisingly involving animal sacrifice, but concluding with this in verse 34:

"This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites."

In my book, a lasting ordinance is a lasting ordinance. A little thing like a bunch of Romans making it impossible to fulfill the terms of the ordinance doesn't quite seem to rise to the level of a divine seal of approval for the later Rabbis to ... I believe the word your author used was 're-adjust.'

Also, you, Shalom, and this guy you quote entirely ignores my point, so let me make it explicitly: The idea that forgiveness arises out of sincere repentance is at home as much in Christianity as in Judaism, so that is a non-starter. But if this is the case, why have the sacrificial system AT ALL. Furthermore, there is nothing about Lev 16:34 which allows the Jews to exempt themselves just because their temple is destroyed... coincidentally, just a few years after one man inspired a massive new worldview first among the Jews themselves by claiming to be the sacrifice.

Your essay also fails to focus on the point of my paragraph which was admitted by your essayist. I said, "you can't deny that with the end of temple sacrifice and the theological aspects of that that followed Judaism changed dramatically." Your essayist said, "Although following 70 C.E., historical conditions made it impossible to continue the sacrificial system no innovation was necessary, only a readjustment of what already existed."

Yes, a re-adjustment. Although, I think I have a different view on whether or not a complete purging of the book of Leviticus represents an 'innovation.'

In other words, RG, your continued citing of post 70AD rabbis means absolutely nothing to me by way of any authority on Judaism, for this comes after the 'readjustment' and the innovation that was not an innovation. Any examination of pre-70AD Judaism shows an intense expectation for a messiah- as an individual- and other characteristics that have had to be 'readjusted.'

Never forget that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. Somehow these people that got pissed off merely because Pilate wanted to hang some shields on the temple walls they were so militantly monotheistic managed to have arise from among them in very large numbers the belief that God really walked among them and had abolished the sacrifice system 3 full decades before the Romans sacked Jerusalem.

Think about that. The rabbis 'readjusted' because they had to.. historical circumstances required it. But the Jews who accepted Christ as God and Atoning Sacrifice set aside this thoroughly entrenched sacrificial system BEFORE their hand was forced by historical circumstances. You'll forgive me if I think of this rabbinical post 70AD 'readjustment' in about the same way as I do the JWs continually revising their date of the Lord's coming and the Mormons abandonment of polygamy... based on 'historical circumstances.'

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:53:33 AM »

sntjohnny said:

Unaddressed in this man's essay is why if "Sincere confessionary repentant prayer" was adequate God would have instituted the sacrificial system at all.

That's as far as I got before I had to admit that this is a very good question, so I stopped reading. I'll have to research it. But I believe I once heard that sacrifice was supposed to be a way to literally "pay" for one's sins. Killing an animal and giving its flesh either to Levites or to God (to be completely burnt beyond edibility (is that a real word?) ) on the Altar is expensive. That is possibly why the poor were allowed to substiute animals with a bag of flour.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #3 on:** January 31, 2007, 08:01:48 AM »

Qorbanot: Sacrifices and Offerings

Some rabbis say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam [1] suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.
Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. When the laws of sacrifice were laid down in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully circumscribes and limits the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.
Qorbanot
In ancient times, a major component of Jewish ritual was the offering of qorbanot. An entire order of the Talmud (Kodashim, that is, Holy Things) is devoted to the subject.
The word "qorbanot" is usually translated as "sacrifices" or "offerings"; however, both of these terms suggest a loss of something or a giving up of something, and although that is certainly a part of the ritual, that is not at all the literal meaning of the Hebrew word. The word qorbanot comes from the root Qof-Resh-Bet, which means "to draw near," and indicates the primary purpose of offerings: to draw us near to G-d.
There are three basic concepts underlying qorbanot. The first the aspect of giving. A qorban requires the renunciation of something that belongs to the person making the offering. Thus, sacrifices are made from domestic animals, not wild animals (because wild animals do not belong to anyone). Likewise, offerings of food are ordinarily in the form of flour or meal, which requires substantial work to prepare.
Another important concept is the element of substitution. The idea is that the thing being offered is a substitute for the person making the offering, and the things that are done to the offering are things that should have been done to the person offering. The offering is in some sense "punished" in place of the offerer. It is interesting to note that whenever the subject of qorbanot is addressed in the Torah, the name of G-d used is the four-letter name indicating G-d's mercy.
The third important concept is the idea coming closer. The essence of sacrifice is to bring a person closer to G-d.
Purposes of Qorbanot
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of qorbanot is not simply to obtain forgiveness from sin. Although many qorbanot have the effect of expiating sins, there are many other purposes for bringing qorbanot, and the expiatory effect is often incidental, and is subject to significant limitations.
Certain qorbanot are brought purely for the purpose of communing with G-d and becoming closer to Him. Others are brought for the purpose of expressing thanks to G-d, love or gratitude. Others are used to cleanse a person of ritual impurity (which does not necessarily have anything to do with sin). And yes, many qorbanot are brought for purposes of atonement.
The atoning aspect of qorbanot is carefully circumscribed. For the most part, qorbanot only expiate unintentional sins, that is, sins committed because a person forgot that this thing was a sin. No atonement is needed for violations committed under duress or through lack of knowledge, and for the most part, qorbanot cannot atone for a malicious, deliberate sin. In addition, qorbanot have no expiating effect unless the person making the offering sincerely repents his or her actions before making the offering, and makes restitution to any person who was harmed by the violation.

http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm
[1] Rambam
Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, one of the greatest medieval Jewish scholars. Also known as Maimonides.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #4 on:** January 31, 2007, 08:34:33 AM »

Maimonides (March 30, 1135 or 1138

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #5 on:** January 31, 2007, 09:12:13 AM »

Unaddressed in this man's essay is why if "Sincere confessionary repentant prayer" was adequate God would have instituted the sacrificial system at all. I think that full sentence let's slip the nature of the problem:

"Sincere confessionary repentant prayer is the primary biblical prescription for obtaining atonement when animal sacrifices cannot be offered concurrently."

In other words, the sacrifices were supposed to happen. They were a command.[/i]

Incorrect assumption. Repentence is required, even when sacrifices were brought. But it is the primary biblical prescription for obtaining atonement when animal sacrifices cannot be offered.

The system was divinely instituted... unless it is the rabbinical view that the destruction of the temple was itself a divine act abolishing the sacrificial system, merely pointing out that there could be forgiveness without an animal sacrifice doesn't amount to much.

A) Sacrifices were not abolished with the destruction of the Temple, merely suspended. When the Temple is rebuilt, sacfices will resume.
B) Pointing out that there is forgiveness without animal sacrifice is all one needs to refute a major tenet of christianity, so it's VERY MUCH something.

Practically the entire book of Leviticus speaks to the sacrificial system, including remarks like this one from Lev 5:13 "In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven." And, let's look at chapter 16 which speaks about the Day of Atonement... unsurprisingly involving animal sacrifice, but concluding with this in verse 34:

"This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites."

Lines and verses and even entire chapters in the Torah are not meant to be ripped from their context. Elsewhere, we read that sacrifices will be brought to the place where God will show us. That place's general location is recognized as the Temple Mount. However, the exact spot where the Altar was placed is not known. If it were, the Altar could again be placed there, and sacrifices could again take place, even without the Temple, according to what I just read this morning. But I should point out that the source for that opinion is not known to me, so it might not reflect the views of Orthodox Judaism. CYLOR. Last I heard from an Orthodox Rabbi, since there's no Temple on the Temple Mount, then there can be no sacrifice offered by a Jew. I have been told that Righteous Gentiles may offer animals to God even today, without any need for the Temple.

In my book, a lasting ordinance is a lasting ordinance.

Which means what, to you? To me, it means that if the conditions apply, then the ordinance applies. It also means that one should study the ordinance even when one cannot follow through with the Laws, because it indicates a willingness to comply, which counts as compliance when one is otherwise incapable of complying.

A little thing like a bunch of Romans making it impossible to fulfill the terms of the ordinance doesn't quite seem to rise to the level of a divine seal of approval for the later Rabbis to ... I believe the word your author used was 're-adjust.'

So, to you, circumstances making the fulfilment of a command does not relieve one of fulfilling the command? You actually think God would condemn a person for not doing the impossible? No wonder you christians need somebody else other than God to worship and whose commands to follow. You've made God into some kind of nearly-god who doesn't know the future, and can't make allowances for times and circumstances. IOW, you've elevated yourselves above God. To you, God didn't know the future reality when He made an "everlasting Ordinance," and God can't abide anyone failing to do exactly as He (supposedly) says to do, even when it's impossible.

I suppose that's also why you believe the impossibly stupid things one reads in the New Testament; to you, it's impossible to follow God, so you follow a different impossibility instead.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 31, 2007, 11:35:17 PM »

sntjohnny said:

Also, you, Shalom, and this guy you quote entirely ignores my point, so let me make it explicitly: The idea that forgiveness arises out of sincere repentance is at home as much in Christianity as in Judaism, so that is a non-starter.

Apparently, you don't know what Christianity has been teaching the Jews. For centuries, they christians have been telling the Jews, and many christians (not you, I understand) that nothing one does is of any effect without the saving bloody death of Jesus. The up-shot is, sacrifice (a certain specific sacrifice) is necessary for forgiveness, repentence or not. In fact, repentence is useless, they have been telling us (but have not been telling you, I understand).
Therefore, your claim that repentence is "at home in christianity" is a "non-starter" as you would say; your claim falls on deaf ears.

But if this is the case, why have the sacrificial system AT ALL.

Already explained above.

Furthermore, there is nothing about Lev 16:34 which allows the Jews to exempt themselves just because their temple is destroyed coincidentally, just a few years after one man inspired a massive new worldview first among the Jews themselves by claiming to be the sacrifice.

Again, I remind you that a verse can't be ripped from its context, nor is it reasonable to presume all of Judaism can be found in a single verse. Also, this man you seem to be speaking of was not inspiring any "new worldview." It was mostly familiar paganism popular in the region, and had been around for centuries.

Your essay also fails to focus on the point of my paragraph which was admitted by your essayist. I said, "you can't deny that with the end of temple sacrifice and the theological aspects of that that followed Judaism changed dramatically."

So you admit that christianity does not resemble the teachings of Biblical Scripture, that it was instead a radical change from Judaism. That would be correct.

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2007, 06:18:31 AM »

Your essayist said, "Although following 70 C.E., historical conditions made it impossible to continue the sacrificial system no innovation was necessary, only a readjustment of what already existed."

Yes, a re-adjustment. Although, I think I have a different view on whether or not a complete purging of the book of Leviticus represents an 'innovation.'

There was no "innovation" because none of Leviticus is being purged. It's a false premise of yours to say it has been. Remember, context, context, context. As for "re-adjustments," if your pants are slipping, and you re-adjust them so they once again fit correctly, does that mean wearing pants is somehow wrong? Some people were apparently using sacrifice as a fix-all, and were forgetting about repentance - just like Christianity was teaching. The rabbis made sure to remind them of the real method of forgiveness, and that sacrifices were not necessary - nor are they even efficacious without repentance.

In other words, RG, your continued citing of post 70AD rabbis means absolutely nothing to me by way of any authority on Judaism, for this comes after the 'readjustment' and the innovation that was not an innovation.

Now you admit it's not an innovation. Get with the program. If you want to have a beef with Judaism, at least pick a real issue to have a beef over. An "innovation that was not an innovation," indeed!

Any examination of pre-70AD Judaism shows an intense expectation for a messiah- as an individual- and other characteristics that have had to be 'readjusted.'

How is this a change between pre- and post-70 c.e. Judaism? Last I heard Judaism still teaches a personal messiah, and it teaches that we are to expect him intensely. I defy you to list these "readjustments" you think you know so much about that you can denounce them. Make sure you cite chapter, verse, book and author. Or abandon the claim. Whichever.

Never forget that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect.

Repeating propaganda doesn't make the repeated propaganda truth. Christianity started out as paganism, and, in order to sell it to Jews, it was dressed up in pseudo-Jewish terms, a thinly disguised attempt to make it look like it had some kind of ties with the Hebrew Holy Scriptures. This paganism was aligned with a Jewish sect, took it over, and ran with it. The main character was placed in a familiar Jewish setting with a Jewish-sounding name, and set in a time rife with strife, and in which few survivors would be around to refute the fables built around him. Only then was it called "Christianity."

Somehow these people that got pissed off merely because Pilate wanted to hang some shields on the temple walls they were so militantly monotheistic managed to have arise from among them in very large numbers the belief that God really walked among them and had abolished the sacrifice system 3 full decades before the Romans sacked Jerusalem.

When you can make some sense out of that sentence, let me in on it, okay? You're against monotheism? Or just against fighting against enforced polytheism? Or against fighting for God?
How, if God had walked among men, would those men have survived, since "no man may see [God] and live"? Why, if God had (as you think) instituted sacrifice, would He UN-institute (de-institute? ex-institute? Ex-titute?) it? If He instituted sacrifice in the full view of the entire People, why would he UN-institute it behind their backs, or in front of but a mere sliver of the population? Remember, ALL Israel stood at the foot of the Mount as Moses received the Law. When Jesus allegedly lived and died, most of Israel was dispersed all over the world, and very few of them lived in Jerusalem, and very few indeed had ever heard of Jesus. I say this because they apparently wrote nothing about Jesus down on any medium that survives to this day, whereas the Law Moses received was inscribed on stone tablets. Most or all documents about Jesus come from pagan Greeks and Romans, not from Jews, and from places other than Judea.

Think about that. The rabbis 'readjusted' because they had to.. historical circumstances required it.

Yea. So? Do you ever recall reading that God told Israel to abide by and follow the judgments of the sages? Because I do. In fact, it's such good advice that the pagans who were trying to sell Jesus to Jews used it as well, or a version of it, with a built-in dig at those same authorities. "Do as they say, but not as they do," or something like that.

But the Jews who accepted Christ as God and Atoning Sacrifice set aside this thoroughly entrenched sacrificial system BEFORE their hand was forced by historical circumstances.

Right. They had already fallen into apostasy before the rabbis could save them from it by reminding them what their fathers had been taught. That's a convincing argument to get one to follow them in their folly. It wasn't an "innovation" but a "re-emphasis" that the rabbis were teaching.

You'll forgive me if I think of this rabbinical post 70AD 'readjustment' in about the same way as I do the JWs continually revising their date of the Lord's coming and the Mormons abandonment of polygamy... based on 'historical circumstances.'

I can't speak to the JWs, because that has nothing to do with this case. But, as for the Mormons and polygamy, they're right. There is no Biblical injunction against a Gentile having more than one wife. It is only secular law that forbids it. In order to stay out of trouble with the secular government (read: "the guys with the guns who have the consent of the country to use those guns to enforce that country's laws"), Mormons now forbid polygamy. Once the country's laws change, Mormons would (presumably) allow their adherents to have more than one wife. I would approve. Remember, "where there is no victim, there is no crime."

Zagzagel · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2007, 07:17:51 PM »

Hmmm... I could only wonder where goy person got his teachings? I could tell thought that he did not get his learnings from 'christian' perspectives.. for he is far off in that regard. But I am reading this part in rapid speed..haha

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2007, 11:21:29 PM »

Zagzagel asked:

I could only wonder where goy person got his teachings?

As I have said before, I am the product of the path of least resistence.

My opinions actually come from, among other sources:
My father, a Marine and combat veteran (my mother's a pascifist)
L. Neil Smith http://www.lneilsmith.org/ (I read The Probability Broach when it first came out, and it introduced me to my political identity: Libertarianism)
Robert A. Heinlein (particularly from his Sci-Fi novels, such as especially Farnham's Freehold (1964), and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966)
and the Founding Fathers, especially as expressed in books such as Citizens Rule Book: A Palladium of Liberty which contains the Unanimous Declaration, the U.S. Constitution, and Jury Handbook http://cgi.ebay.com/Jury-Handbook-Citizens-Rule-Book-New-Pocket-Size_W0QQitemZ180031545518QQcmdZViewItem

Righteous Goy · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2007, 08:22:12 AM »

Earlier, I said:

There is no Biblical injunction against a Gentile having more than one wife.

For the record, "Gentile" means "Non-Jews," and that will include Mormons, except those whose mothers were Jewish. Since writing the above, I was informed that Mormons call all non-Mormons "Gentiles." Once again, if that's not accurate, I don't care. For our purposes, "Gentile" will still mean what I have written above.

Author Topic: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology] (Read 1600 times)

Righteous Goy

Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Anthony Horvath

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Anthony Horvath

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Zagzagel

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]

Righteous Goy

Re: Did rabbinic Judaism replace Biblical Worship? [Was in Christianity/Theology]