The Temple had been destroyed before by the Babylonians, but the Jews still stuck to being a temple cult. Yet when the Romans did it, they all gave up and became Rabbinic. Why?
Was it just because Rome banished Jews from living in Jerusalem?
Also, what were the general effects of the destruction of the 2nd temple?
Because Pharisees had the most wealth and maintained their perversion of the Jewish faith was true Judaism. Other groups simply became something else.
>but the Jews still stuck to being a temple cult
What did they do between the first and second temple?
I think they just haven't had a chance to rebuild it yet. Even though they've become a nation again there's a UNESCO world heritage site sitting where the temple is supposed to be.
What would be the true Jewish faith other than the Pharisees? The Sadduccees got JUST'd with the destruction of their temple for the 2nd time, and since they were exiled from Jerusalem, it's not like they would be able to re-establish themselves.
The Pharisees then wrote down the oral tradition as the Talmud. The Essene went and cucked themselves into oblivion. Zealots got stomped by Romans.
looks like the Jews got cucked for eternity.
Can someone just tell me why did the Pharisees had beef with Jesus? Why didn't all Jews go to Jesus?
>but the Jews still stuck to being a temple cult.
If you mean in the sense that there was a temple cult, sure. But it was hardly the unique or even dominant form of religious expression; hell, most of the Jews in the "Second Temple Era" lived in what's now Iraq, and never made a sacrifice in their lives.
> Yet when the Romans did it, they all gave up and became Rabbinic. Why?
It was more that the "Rabbinic school", which had existed for some time and was probably the dominant group at least in terms of things like education, could weather the destruction far better than the Temple group, and seized the opportunity to get dominance.
>Can someone just tell me why did the Pharisees had beef with Jesus?
They didn't. The "Pharisees" Jesus has a beef with in the Gospels tend to spout Sadducee positions, such as banishing of helaing on the Sabbath and being associated with the High Priests, who were Sadducees all the way through.
Someone either couldn't tell the difference or was deliberately distorting the record, possibly to try to get on the Roman good side. (The Sadducees were the collaborationist group, the Pharisees, the open revolt against Rome group, and let's not forget that the Gospels were probably penned around the time of the Great Revolt).
> Why didn't all Jews go to Jesus?
Well, for starters, he didn't exactly fulfill a lot of the Jewish Messianic prophecies. And then you have people running around claiming he's God, which would make it flat out heresy from a Jewish point of view.
Pharisees were strong legalists while Jesus advocated for worship based off of faith instead of practice, afaik
because when some dude goes around saying hes the son of god, some people are going to be skeptical, especially those already in power.
I'm trying to write a paper about the general period. I'm not exactly sure what my thesis should be.
>Effects of the Destruction of the 2nd Temple
>How Rome Changed Judaism
>How Rome Sowed the Seeds for Christianity
I've gotten through reading Josephus Flavius' "The Jewish War". I'm not exactly sure how to write a history paper. What's the point of reading the original sources if I can quickly know what happened through wikipedia? When should I quote primary sources?
I want the thesis something to do about Jesus, the 2nd temple and Rome. What should my thesis be?