For your first paragraph, the airwaves are not filled with anything. There is no narrative that Christians are or should be against hand washing. Betterunix2 made a comment referencing an unrelated passage showing intentionally poor hygiene in order to reject the idea that the fearlessness of God in the presence of a human disease should be a guidline for behaviour in the current behaviour. People are not God, and are rightfully afraid of disease.

That passage is about how action is more important than ritual. That ritual was built on superstitions which were built on observations that cleanliness resulted in better life outcomes. Over time people forgot the reasons behind the (healthy) ritual. The moral of that passage is that interpersonal behaviour is more important for salvation than conformance to rituals. It is replacing one superstition.

On the other hand, in a paralel thread, you are pushing that very idea you are complaining about.

> You can wash your hands if you think it is wise to, but ...... God can make the water a worse poison to you.

Christianity already has enormous appeal, it is literally the most widely practiced religion in the world. I never said Christians are against hand washing, I said that Jesus taught his disciples, who lived before Christianity was a religion (if you asked the disciples what they practiced they would have all said "Judaism"), that they need not wash their hands before eating. This is recorded in the gospels, so if you have some kind of problem with it then your argument is not really with me.

I also take issue with the idea that there is no joy or value in life unless someone has a "sincere relationship" with the Christian deity. There are plenty of happy, healthy, and fulfilled atheists, not to mention the many polytheists and idolaters who live equally fulfilling, joyous, and righteous lives. You do not have to agree with how anyone else approaches life, but to claim that only the Christian deity can bring meaning, worth, freedom, or good to a person's life is the darkest worldview I can imagine. Christianity is the world's most popular religion but the majority of the world is not Christian. Do you actually think that non-Christians live depressing lives dominated by evil and unjust practices?

Any virtuous things non-Christians have ultimately come from God. Non-Christians' lives, like anyone else's, are dominated by whatever they choose or allow to. What they do lack (in varying degrees) is vision and faith acting like a compass to regularly re-direct their lives completely towards the source of all good. Willfully serving a passion for anything other than God is the archetype of any unjust practice, which necessarily self-inflict meaningless pain. Honesty, humility and love naturally act as pointers to better temperaments and a truer faith which in their fullness will bring one to accept Christ's sacrificial love which destroyed death for all human beings, and seek His Church. This choice begins a long, perilous struggle to be united with God.

For today, I pray that you and yours will not imagine nor try to imagine any worldview darker than the Gospel for the entire day, for there is none brighter.

JetAlone, your second paragraph is a tipical example of why nonchristians find it unpleasant to engage in discussions, especially on religious topics, with devout Christians. I do not believe there is a way to convey to you what a nonchristian feels reading that second paragraph.

Today's judaism is very different from Second Temple judaism. My impression is that it is probably more different from it than some forms of Christianity, e.g. Eastern Orthodoxy. It seems that it has evolved as a reaction against Christianity and morphed into a very different religion.

Also, no, this is not the message in the Gospel. Here is an example commentary of the scene if you actually want some context: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/matthew/15.htm

"It seems that it has evolved as a reaction against Christianity"

Citation needed.

Pretty much all secular scholarship I have ever seen on this topic has concluded that both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity were reactions to the destruction of the second temple. Rabbinic Judaism is the direct intellectual and religious descendant of the pharisee sect, and has always stood on its own merits. The only rabbinic tradition that definitively developed in response to the rise of Christianity is the birkat haminim, a prayer that was used to "out" secret Jewish Christians before the final split between the religions. Beyond that, all there is are attempts to deal with / respond to persecution of Jews and Jewish institutions by Christians in later centuries (e.g. the fixing of the Jewish calendar after Christian Rome disbanded the Sanhedrin).

Don't overstate the importance of Christianity to the early rabbis. Rabbinic literature is generally dismissive of non-Jewish religions and Jewish Christians like the Ebionites were seen as heretics -- a term the rabbis used for non-rabbinic Jewish movements of the Roman era (of which there were many, none of which have survived).

As for the Gospel, it does not really matter what people thought hand washing was for -- ritual washing hands did improve their hygiene, just like ritual bathing. Jesus told his followers not to bother, and it does not matter whether or not he understood the hygiene implications, because not washing their hands was still detrimental to hygiene.

He wasn't talking about the hygiene of washing hands. He is God, he understood. He was making an obvious point about human traditions a which the Gospels even clarify with context.

The Scripture is full of similar scenes. Peter sees a vision with a sheet with unclean animals ready for eating. The focus was on evangelizing the people who eat those foods tho: the gentiles.

The destruction of the Second Temple was prophesied by Christ, and apostles started serving in the Church only 50 days after His resurrection, on Pentecost. So yes, rabbinical judaism has been a reaction to the destruction of the second temple, but the Church was already active and persecuted in the center of the roman empire, many epistles were already written and there were churches through greece and rome

> It seems that it [Judaism] has evolved as a reaction against Christianity and morphed into a very different religion.

That line of thought will not lead to a good place.

Why? Rabbinical judaism is not the same as the Second Temple faith. Research its history and if it preserved the same interpretation of OT

Rabbinic Jews do not claim to practice Second Temple Judaism, they claim to practice a religious tradition that followed from the pharisee sect that existed during the Second Temple period. Orthodox Jewish scholars will openly tell you exactly how common modern practices like the Passover Seder developed after the destruction of the temple. There is nothing controversial about it; Judaism as alive and dynamic as Christianity or Islam. Religions change over time because cultures, societies, and the realities of life change over time.

Really though, what makes you think any form of Second Temple Judaism could have survived the destruction of the Second Temple? Moreover, if Jews could find a way to keep Judaism alive in some form after the destruction of the First Temple, why should it be surprising that some form of Judaism was kept alive after the destruction of the Second Temple?

Christianity is what actually fulfilled Second Temple judaism. There was no need for such a Temple anymore, as now people themselves were becoming living temples. Lord Jesus, apostle Paul and Hebrews explain all of this way better than I can.

Obviously rabbinical judaism believers see themselves as the actual following: and that's where we disagree. However their explanation seems stranger than the christian one: we stopped having major prophets because the Son of God Himself came to reveal the Father and to save us, we don't need animal sacrifices and a Temple from human hands, because they were just a shadow to the Cross, prophesies from OT were fulfilled with the promised Messiah. The rabbinical judaism: they don't have prophets, because ..? Why would God let their temple be destroyed, if they were right about Jesus? Where is their messiah?

> we stopped having major prophets because the Son of God Himself came to reveal the Father and to save us

Islam obviously disagrees.

For Jews the Christian position is even more bizarre. Why did God wait for the Second Temple to be destroyed to send Jesus? Why not right before the First Temple was destroyed? Why did it take decades after the death of Jesus for the temple to be destroyed, and why did his disciples continue to make offerings there after his death (according to Acts)? Why did the prophets say that the messiah would bring about world peace and a universal knowledge of God, if the actual messiah would die without fulfilling any of that and leave the world waiting century after century for a "second coming?" What are those prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and why do you think that any of them are about The Messiah? Why do you accept the writings of Paul, who never met Jesus and whose only claim to authority was his own assertion that he saw Jesus in a vision? What exactly is the trinity (note: do not commit heresy with your answer)?

You asked where the Jewish messiah is, but like the old joke goes, for Jews the problem is waiting and waiting for a messiah that has yet to come, but for Christians the problem is that the messiah came and the world did not change.

Obviously rabbinic answers are not going to be very satisfactory or convincing to you; if rabbinic teachings made sense to you then you would have converted to Judaism by now. That said, rabbinic teachings are not a secret, so here are some answers to your challenges:

The animal sacrifice system was, according to rabbinic teaching, sufficient but not necessary to atone for sin. Among other things Jews point out that during the Babylonian exile there was no temple in Jerusalem and no sacrifices being offered, but that God did send prophets to explain to the Jewish people how they can deal with sin while in exile and without sacrifices. Another point is that when the sacrificial laws are stated, non-animal sacrifices are explicitly described; poor people could, for example, offer just a handful of flour if they could afford nothing better.

Why did God let the temple be destroyed? For the same reason the First Temple was destroyed. The Jewish people were punished for their national sins. In the case of the Second Temple, part of the national sin was dividing into competing factions who would sometimes try to use the oppressive Romans as a means to undermine competing sects.

Why are there no more prophets? In fact the rabbis do not have a single answer, it remains unclear in rabbinic tradition. Is that a problem? There are plenty of unclear, unanswered questions for Christians too; why is Jesus taking so long to come back? That said, some rabbinic answers include: the Jewish people are being punished for national sins; the true end of prophecy was the destruction of the First Temple, with subsequent prophets only repeating earlier prophecies; the prophets were sent at a time when the temptation to turn to idolatry was particularly strong, but that temptation diminished when the Jews returned to Israel and began building the Second Temple.

Maybe none of that works for you, and that's fine -- Jews are not actively seeking converts, so the opinion of non-Jews does not really matter; the Jewish view is that Judaism is for Jews and that the rest of the world only needs to hold to a handful of common sense morals (like not murdering each other and settling disputes in peaceful courts; I assume that much makes sense to you).