Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Judaism
 Judaism Portal
Judaism's view of Jesus is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
Peer review Judaism's view of Jesus has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Pablo Cristiani

What did he say in the debate? Can someone put that in here in the relevant section, or in the article about him? KittyHawker 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't really say anything that interesting. Throughout the debate Nachmanides was on the defense, forcing him to explain different aspects of Judaism. Christiani, on the other hand, was only asking questions (mostly along the lines of "doesn't this obscure passage from the Talmud prove that the Talmudic Rabbis really believe in Jesus!"). So he never really had to explain, or defend his belief in Christianity. Whenever Nachmanidies answered him, he just moved along to the next question. Jon513 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Maybe you could mention that in the article? KittyHawker 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets discuss before using revisions.

Dbratton has made a revision that seems to be in bad faith. Can we discuss the changes here, rather than just use heavy handed revisions to remove anything you don't like. We need to imporve this page together. Some questions: 1) I added information that there have been competing views of Messiah within Judaism. What was wrong with this? 2) Some Jews are Christians. Why have their POV been removed? 3) Which words specifically did you find weasely? 4) Why do you presume writings by Paul of Tarsis or Matthew the Evangelist are not Jewish works? I think they do have something to say about the range of positions on Jesus within Judaism. 5) I'm not sure what you meant by "justifications" can you explain?--Just nigel 13:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any revision, but I think this is about the views of Judaism not the views of Jews as an ethnicity/culture. The views of Jewish people who are Christians, Muslim, or Buddhist are not relevant I'd think. Likewise people who are not ethnically Jewish, but converted to Judaism, could be relevant if they were important to Judaism. Although I think there might be more variety within Judaism than this article has indicated. The view of Jesus I read in the Jewish Encyclopedia[1] was far less hostile. It was clear that its position was that no one can be God and that Jesus wasn't a Messiah, but it indicated he had some positive ideas and that most of their problems was with people after Jesus. This would be a bit wrong, but basically what I got from it was the view that Jesus's main faults was being a bit ignorant and insufficiently supportive of Jewish nationalism. The idea of him as bad or Christianity as bad is not quite so intense as in this even though it was also written in a non-ecumenical era.--T. Anthony 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Nigel,

To address your questions, first I would suggest reading through the talk archives of this article, as well as examining the history of the article itself; you're by far not the first editor to make changes to the article to inaccurately put Jesus in a more sympathetic light, and by now most (all?) such changes tend to be reverted without discussion, simply because they happen so often. If it's discussion you're seeking, I would suggest bringing up your fairly major points on the talk page prior to integrating them into the article.

Anthony is pretty much right on the mark for most of your inquiries - this article is about the views of Judaism on Jesus, not those of individual Jews. There certainly are Jews who follow christianity, as well as Jewish works which state belief in Jesus as Messiah, but that is wholly outside of the religion of Judaism. In fact, the title of the article was previously changed from Jewish views to Judaism's views precisely because of this quite common misunderstanding.

Your edits included a few attempts to soften the statements that are made in the article. "These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars" is a completely accurate, straightforward sentence; "Such apparent discrepancies were debated among Jewish scholars" recasts the statement from a simple declaration into a suggestion of contention within the religion that is not present.

Finally, your use of the christian New Testament is completely inappropriate for this article. According to the views of Judaism (which are the subject of the article), the NT is a blasphemous work which contradicts the core of the religion. Using it here is an attempt to insert christian beliefs and teachings into an article which has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

I understand that you're trying to improve the article to reflect ideas that are important to you, but it's important to realize that this article has been carefully written by editors very knowledgeable about Judaism to accurately reflect the position of the religion (I'm not including myself here, since most of it came about prior to my arrival). Christian teachings have no place in the article the same way that Hindu, Islamic, and atheist teachings have no place - they're not inaccurate as descriptions, but they're wholly irrelevant to the views of Judaism.

Hope this helps! I promise that any controversial edits you might want to make which you bring up in talk beforehand to be discussed and tuned to the article won't be reverted. :) Dbratton 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In my case my concern is that this might be reflecting a view of a portion Orthodox Jews who may or may not be representative of Jews in Jesus's day or today. As they're likely to be the most interested and well-versed in Judaism the lack of valid argument might not mean there is no valid debate. For example if Russian Orthodox Wikipedians said that the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Muhammad is that he was an Antichrist, based on statements by Medieval theologians, few may be able to argue with them. However this may nevertheless be inaccurate. Also in Jesus's time Rabbinic Judaism, on which I believe this is based as I don't think it mentions Karaite Judaism, was not as dominant as it is now. In addition Judaism does not, as far as I know, have any body to create a standard view on Jesus or any other personage not clearly mentioned in the Talmud. Still as a non-Jewish person I'm also hesitant to say these things as I could be completely wrong, but the comparative dearth of names from the post-Medieval age makes me wonder nonetheless.--T. Anthony 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not misunderstanding the difference between (ethinc) Jewishnes and (religious) Judaism. I content that Jesus and Paul etc were Jews religiously not just Jewish - ethnically, culturally, nationally. Paul famously self identified this way in his line "I am a Pharisee of Pharisees." The assumption in the article seems to be that Christianity and Judaism are two separate things. It is true that this assumption is held by many - but it is not without its own bias and it would not be NPOV to exclude less black and white interpretations. Today they are usually differences between the two religions (I will mention later exceptions to this) but not so at the inception of Christianity. Around the time of Jesus there were competing views within Judaism about its relationship to nationalism, the necessity of a temple for its observance, the role of the Messiah, who the messiah was or wasn't and so on. There are Jewish people besides Jesus of Nazareth who have either claimed themselves or have had claimed about them that they are the messiah. Its not just about "justifying" Christianity. It is about accurately describing the history and range of Judaism's views of Jesus.
A few times the information that is in the article should be tempered with adjectives like "contemporary Judaism" or "Orthodox Judaism" because while they are true, they do not tell the full story. Even today there are people who call themselves Jews - in the sense of religious Jews - and see their Jewish messianic hopes fullfilled in Jesus. Just because thier view is not the majority or it is covered in more detial on a page about "Messianic Jews" it does not mean it should be completely excluded from this article. My changes to the sentence "These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars" were appropriate, because it is not NPOV to call these things discrepancies. Only some people think there are discrepancies. Not all Jewish scholars noted them. Only some noted them. This is an example of a sentence that needs recasting from a simple exageration to a more nuanced sentence that describes more of what is going on than you seem willing to read here.
PS It it true that I have not read the history of comments. But then I did not try and remove information. I was trying to add information.--Just nigel 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The text says The Christians were just one, apparently usual, sect with which the authors contended (others included Sadducees, Samaritans, and Gnostics). This is a list of Jewish sects. Christianity was a Jewish sect. It is the most successful Jewish sect. The issue of what is "a Jewish view" or what is Judaism (in terms of what the article intends to cover) should be directly addressed by the article and not just on the talk page. Is the article defining "What is Judaism" by the points of view expressed in the article so that the views of Jews who differ and the views of Jewish sects that differ are defined not to be really Judaism? Is the article saying that if a Jew accepts Jesus as Messiah then by definition his beliefs are not Judaism beliefs? WAS 4.250 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Religions routinely go through schisms, reformations, etc. Even Catholics, Protestants & Eastern Orthodox don't get along well. After the historical schism of almost 2 millennia ago, Christianity made a complete breach from Judaism. It is a totally different belief system and is not a Jewish sect any more than Islam is. There is no need to address "What is Judaism" in this article because across all denominations of Judaism, there is a quite common view on Jesus: they reject both his divinity & messiahship. As for the Messianics, it would be a severe POV to identify them as a part of Judaism. For all practical purposes, they do not belong in this discussion. WAS 4.250, the answer to your question may be found here: Jews_for_Jesus#_note-incompat. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The pre-cursor to Christianity was a Jewish sect; Christianity split from Judaism 2,000 years ago, and they've been completely different faiths for that entire time. Christianity is not Judaism, and this article discusses Judaism's view of Jesus, not Christianity's view of Jesus. There are plenty of articles that discuss Christianity's view of Jesus, feel free to add this material in those articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is going poorly. I guess I communicated poorly. I'll start over. WAS 4.250 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are very few Jewish sources that directly mention Jesus, I doubt you can find any Karaite sources talking about him, but if you do it would be great if that could be added. The sources quoted are from before the split of Orthodox, conservative and reform and reflects all of them. If you want to add modern sources from each movement stating as much I will not object. The reason Christianity and Messianic Judaism is not reflected in the article is because they are not recognized as a Jewish sect by any of the major denominations. Just because a group says that it represents Judaism does not mean it is representing Judaism. Jon513 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"There are very few Jewish sources that directly mention Jesus" so therefore let us not engage in original research. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"it would be great if that could be added" but I am interested in the subject and questioning the sourcing rather than saying I can add data. I know enough to help make the article more neutral, maybe; I am asking questions to try to help. If I knew enough to add; I would add. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"The reason Christianity and Messianic Judaism is not reflected in the article is because they are not recognized as a Jewish sect by any of the major denominations." - I think this and any other such criteria need to mentioned in the article and not just on the talk pages. I would do so myself, if I felt I could do so in a way that is appropriate (I know' there are many others that can phrase this subsection better than me.) WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"Just because a group says that it represents Judaism does not mean it is representing Judaism." Yes. For sure. And the article needs to reflect and deal with this and it does not. Again, this is something I wish to learn about and am not in a position to teach about. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The article does not contain original research, and accurately quotes the authoritative texts of Judaism that do mention Jesus. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be ok to begin the article by defining its content/subject as "authoritative texts of Judaism that are broadly accepted among Jews as mentioning the Jesus refered to in the New Testament"? WAS 4.250 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Another try at a formulation: "This article is about authoritative texts of Judaism that mention the Christ Jesus refered to in the New Testament according to modern Jewish experts on Judaism." That's still not quite right. WAS 4.250 02:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
"This article is about what modern Jewish experts on Judaism say about what they consider to be authoritative texts of Judaism that mention the Christ Jesus refered to in the New Testament." Well, that says accurately what I think should be said, but I can't say much for its elegance. WAS 4.250 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Judaism has to mean something, and that's basically whatever its authoritative texts and religious leaders say it means. Judaism is not Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Animism, Mormonism, Shintoism, Baha'ism etc. While Judaism is far from monolithic, the only opinions that matter in Judaism are the opinions of Judaism; the views of or about various leaders/prophets/gods of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, etc. are simply not relevant to Judaism. The fact that Judaism considers Amos to have been a prophet is not relevant to Shintoism. The fact that Islam considers Muhammad to be the last and greatest prophet is not relevant to Christianity. The fact that Mormonism considers Joseph Smith to have been a prophet is not relevant to Islam. The fact that the Unification Church considers Sun Myung Moon to be "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or Judaism. And the fact that Christianity considers Jesus to be the Messiah is not relevant to Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Humas, you assert "Christianity made a complete breach from Judaism. It is a totally different belief system and is not a Jewish sect." That is a common opinion, but you already seem aware that others such as Messianic Jews discagree and believe they can following Jesus within their Jewish faith. How do you think this article can best describe that difference? I can't see the sense in just leaving it out because you, and others who think like you on this issue, disagree with them.
Jon, I had not realised the sources all came from before the split of Orthodox, conservative and reform denominations. Thanks for explaining that to me.
You also say Christianity and Messianic Judaism are not reflected in this article because they are not recognised as Jewish sects by any of the three "major" Jewish denominations. By your own words this is not a neutral point of view but the subjective point of view of these "major" denominations. Sure, these denominations are free to make judgements about what they consider Jewish and such judgements can be accurately described here. But by the same liberty Messianic Jews make a different judgement about themselves that should also be accurately described in an encyclopedia. Part of that accuracy could be to ensure it is clear how this view varies from that of the majority. To do otherwise would be to have wikipedia take sides in theological disputes.
Appeals to "majority" are relevent in balancing the promanence in the article of different views. But to say that a "minority" view is not worthy of inclusion just becuase the "majority" disagree with it is not being encyclopedic - it is being dogmatic. I feel strongly about the opression of religious minorities - including through exclusion - by "majority" religious groups.--Just nigel 17:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Christianity is not a "minority view" in Judaism, it is a different faith. This article is about Judaism's view of Jesus, not Christianity's view. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Just nigel, this case is not about "opression of religious minorities" but about WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Humus I do understand the importance of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That is why I said: "Appeals to 'majority' are relevent in balancing the promanence in the article of different views." I propose this article would be more accurate if it said somthing like:
"Today the majority of Jews including all the three largest denominations of Judaism (orthodox, conservative and liberal/reform) belive this... " These views would be spelt out in detail. It would including the fact that they really don't beleive much about Jesus becuase they don't feel the need to talk about him; and what they do beleive about God that they find contradicted or compromised by what mainstream Christians believe about Jesus. Then haven given due weight to this majority view two other relevant areas (which I find missing from this article at the moment) need to be mentioned...
"The historical emergence of Christianity from within Judaisim meant (particularly at its inception) more ambiguity about Judaism's beliefs about Jesus. And that today a minority of Jews continue in this tradtion and see in Jesus a Messiah who never left Judaism". I fail to see how adding these two points is a threat to the integrity of this article. I think they would improve it. --Just nigel 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid weasel word claims about what "the majority of Jews" believe or don't believe. This is an article about the tenets of Judaism, not about what individual Jews believe. The split between Judaism and Christianty came precisely because of Christianity's beliefs about Jesus. The elements that introduced the new belief of Jesus as deity etc., and spread that belief among gentiles, became Christianity. There is no "ambiguity" about Judaism's view of Jesus; that issue was decided 1900 years ago. Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
By your words then Jay, the ambiguity ended 1900 years ago. So do you think the ambiguity of the first 100 years is worthly of being acurately described in one sentence in 190?--Just nigel 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't describe the views of Baha'i regarding prophethood in the article on Islam precisely because Baha'i broke from Islam over that issue - similarly, there is no "ambiguity" in Judaism over Jesus. 2000 years ago a small number of Jews believed Jesus to be the messiah, and Paul in particular convinced a larger number of gentiles to believe it as well. Christianity evolved in a new direction, and broke away from Judaism over this and related beliefs, eventually deifying Jesus. Religions evolve, and James' view of Jesus was markedly different from that codified in the Nicene Creed. Trying to impose modern Christian views of Jesus on ancient Judaism is at best an anachronism, and trying to impose them in an article about Judaism's view is at best insulting. The Christian view of Jesus is well described in articles about Christianity, and these views aren't relevant to Judaism's views. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Jay, on the Islam page the Baha'i faith does rate a sentence - even though Baha'i consider their faith to be "a distinct tradition with its own scriptures, teachings, laws, and history". How much more relavent to this discussion would be people who see Messianic faith in Jesus as being perfectly consitent with the tradition, scriptures, teaching, laws and history of Judaism? Don't you reckon they are worth ... They should get at least two sentences :p. An encyclopedia - to be encyclopedic - should include not just the mainstream or majority view.--Just nigel 10:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The Islam page briefly mentions that Baha'i emerged from Islam; it doesn't described Baha'i's belief which diverge from Islam's, or insist they are one valid (minority) set of beliefs in Islam. The Judaism article give much greater play to Christianity and its beliefs, and mentions Islam and Baha'i as well. And, again, the article discusses Judaism's views, not the views of what "Jews" or "people" believe, because "people" believe 6 billion different things. Christian views are not a "minority" view in Judaism, even if some Jews have converted to Christianity; rather, they are a majority view in Christianity, where those views are discussed. Jews who have converted to Islam consider Abraham to be the first Muslim, and Islam to be the original faith of the Jews before they corrupted it. But you know what? That isn't mentioned in articles about Judaism, because those are the views of Islam, not the views of Judaism. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
To say that the Messianics are a minority would imply that they belong to Judaism. This would be an extreme POV. Please take your activism elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a subjective point of view to say that Messianics belong to Judaism. It happens to be their view. Just as it is a subjective point of view for anyone (even a majority of Judaism) to say that they do not belong to Judaism. It is not the role of Wikipedia to take sides in such religious controversies. It is the role of Wikipedia to accurately describe them.
Please do not tell me to "take your activism elsewhere". I find that offensive. It does not presume good faith on my part, it suggests you have more right to be here than I do (which you don't we can both be here), and worse it seeks to end dialogue. I am here because I am happy to have dialogue with people who disagree with me. If the issue is you are uncomfortable with this conversation you have the choice to withdraw for a while. You would still be welcome to rejoin the conversation later. --Just nigel 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
They can't have eat their cake and have it too, much as they'd like to. Once you convert to another faith, your beliefs are not part of Judaism any more, no matter how much you kick and scream and insist that Blue is really Red. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Once you convert to another faith, your beliefs are not part of Judaism any more" that is not a neutral point of view that is a subjective point of view. Messianic Jews have a different subjective point of view. That is why neither point of view should be the basis for editorial revisions. The most accurate thing for wikipedia to do is accurqately describe both - giving due weigth to the domimant view.--Just nigel 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "subjective point of view", it's a simple logical truth. And, again, we're not interested in what various groups of Jews think, we're talking about what the authoritative texts in Judaism say. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Jay, your statement "it's simple logical truth" sounds dogmatic to me. Repeating your point of view - as valid as your point of view is, or as widely supported as it is - doesn't prove or disprove that your point of view is still subjective. If you wanted to demonstrate your point of view was not subjective you would need to point to objective evidence for it. And while looking into that you could ask yourself 'why if this POV is not subjective am I able to quote other subjects who have another point of view?'
Also, when you say "Were not interested in what various groups of Jews think" (emphasis added), on whose behalf were you speaking? You were not speaking for me. If by "we" you meant the editors of this article I am concerned by the implied sectarianism of making sweeping statements that exclude me. It sounds like you are perceiving this as "Us/We" versus "Them/You". By your comments and revision, removing information from the article I can see that you are not to be interested in what various groups of Jews think. Once again this is a subjective POV and not the basis for a good encyclopedia article.--Just nigel 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
It may be helpful to return to that example given of the mention of the Baha'i faith on the Islam page? I had two points about this:
1) The Baha'i faith is mentioned (in one sentnece I think) on the Islam page. It is an informative and accurate sentence but it is appropriate that not much more is said there, because...
2) Members of the Baha'i faith do not self-identify as Muslims. As I quoted above, they consider themselves to be a separate religion. No one is insisting they are a "valid (minority) set of beliefs in Islam".
I see a better annalogy for the dispute over this article presenting alternative views from within Judaism, in the range of information about the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints (Mormons) included on pages about Christianity. Latter-day Saints self-identify as Christian. The majority of the world's Christians including the large denominations of orthodox, catholic and protestant christianity do not agree with the Latter-day Saints on many issus of beleif and practice, and consider them heretical. The feelings are mutual - Latter-day saints call most of these churches apostate. Yet call up the Christianity page, or the Trinity page and you will see that their view is given space. It is encyclopedic to include it.
It is not the job of wikipedia editors to take sides with subjective POV on such disputes about what constitutes orthodoxy or heresy. Our role is to accurately describe. And I object to the constant editing of this article to remove factual and referrenced information about vies with which some editors happen to personally disagree.--Just nigel 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

What is this article about? "Judaism's view of Jesus", obviously. But what is meant by "Judaism" and what is meant by "Jesus"? I think the article is unclear and would benefit from greater clarity in identifying what is and is not covered by the article. One example to show what I mean : "some Jews doubt the historical existence of Jesus". Is the article meant to cover official Judaism or what "some jews" think? Does "Jesus" refer to the mythalogical Jesus of the New Testament who comes back in power and glory in the second coming thus fullfulling prophesy or the historical Jesus whose existence is as uncertain as that of King Arthur? (There were several healers with the right name and lived at the right time and place and so could have inspired the stories of Jesus; just as there are several people whose real lives could have been inspirations for the King Arthur myths.) WAS 4.250 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is complication and summary of many of the view expressed by Judaism as a religion about Jesus. The reason the "some Jews..." line is important is because it reflects a view expressed by the Talmud and multiple non-trivial later sources, I will change it to make that clear. While the article does not concern itself directly with the issue of what is meant by "Jesus", Judaism view on any definition of Jesus should be clear from the article. 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
opps, thought you were referring to the next line "Based on a Talmudic tradition...", anyway I changed both sentences. Jon513 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You say "Judaism view on any definition of Jesus should be clear from the article" and I agree with should. But it is not clear to me. Please help make it clear. WAS 4.250 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith and Judaism does not impose any particular beliefs about Jesus. If an idea of Jesus doesn't contradict any fundamental of faith it is compatible with Judaism. This article tries to outline what beliefs about Jesus are incompatible with Judaism and leaves it to reader to understand that anything else is fine. I have tried to make the article a bit more readable by removing all refers to "Jews" and replacing it with "Judaism". Jon513 11:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The statment "Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith" sounds very subjective to me. If this article is edited on that assumption we would need verifiable soruces that show it is the case. It would also seem relavant to address New Testament sources where both Jesus describes himself and is described by others as part of the Jewish faith.--Just nigel 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Just nigel: What makes Judaism a different religion to Chrisatinity is that it (Judaism) rejects Jesus, all of his claims and claims about him by Christians and Christianity, and every word of the New Testament 101% -- that is Judaism 101. IZAK 18:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, repeating a statement does not make it better sourced. Restating a point of view with more emphatic puncutation does not make it more neutral. It seems to me that you want to silence disent, not find the best way to accurately describe it. It is important to me that contributors follow wikipedia conventions on things like WP:NPOV--Just nigel 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by "Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith" is not that Jesus wasn't Jewish, but that we don't care. I meant to says "the belief in Jesus, or any other beliefs about Jesus is not required by Judaism at all". The only way Jesus comes up in Jewish Theology is what beliefs Judaism proscribes. There are many things that Judaism forbids one to believe in about Jesus (i.e. not God, not son of God, not messiah, etc), nothing that Judaism requires one to believe about Jesus. According to Judaism one may believe almost anything about Jesus (including that he was Jewish, or a rabbi, or a racer or whatever else you want to say) so long as it does not contradict any fundamental of faith. Just like Judaism does not impose any beliefs about most historical figure. For example, according to Judaism believing that napoleon was king of china is stupid not heretical. Jon513 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel: Ok, this is very simple and you seem to not realize this. Here are some readily available online sources with lots of proofs about Judaism's views about Jesus. Take a look at all the points and citations at:

All these sources explain the view of Judaism about Jesus. Please read all the sources before responding. Do you want the details from each and every one of them in the article? I will be glad to include them. IZAK 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to cite that Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) is not the Jewish Lord and Savior, who suffered, died, and achieved Nirvana (and then came back to tell everyone about how awesome it was) too? Sure, maybe he was a decent guy (perhaps even a great guy, just for some cognitive dissonance), but he's not part of the Jewish religion. I find it hilarious that this point is even being disputed, it's plainly obvious to anyone with even a vague understanding of Judaism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, I have have not reread all those sources since you posted them here in the discussion, but I have looked at some of them as they are referenced within the article. Of the ones I have read I see them sharing and supporting your opinion that "Judaism rejects Jesus, all of his claims and claims about him by Christians and Christianity, and every word of the New Testament 101%" - even if they do not employ the exagerated rehtoric.
What I haven't seen yet is accurate description of (minority) views that disagree with your opinions. Could you direct me to where any of these sources address that point?--Just nigel 00:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Karimarie, in good faith, this article is about opinions on Jesus from within Judaism. I don't think views on Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) would be relavent. I do wonder if you were using sarcasm, and were you asking why we should care to write about Jewish views on Jesus, if Judaism doesn't as a dogma recognise the man as relavent to their faith?
My answer to that would be that ellements of Judaism have through history felt opressed by dominant forms of Christianity and find a need to articulate to themselves or others what they believe - especially where this differs from Christianity. I think this is a shame. Members of Judaism should be free to express what they do beleive without the need to always defend it in this way.
By way of example, since I have tried to include some of the more ambiguis ellements of Judaism's relationship with Christianity (particularly at its inception) and mention the existsence of Jews who beleive Jesus is their Messiah, the style of the article has become more defensive and argumentative. This sentence in the opening paragraph reads more like a polemic than an encycopedia:
"In Jewish eschatology the idea of the Messiah is so different from the Christian Christ that the slightest possibility that Jesus fulfilled any Messianic prophecies to embody the criteria for a Messiah has always been rejected." (emphasis added).
I thnk it would be better and simpler to say something like:
"In mainstream Jewish eschatology, the idea of the Messiah differs significantly from mainstream Christian Christology. The majority of Judaism have always rejected claims that Jesus was the Messiah."--Just nigel 00:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
and Jon, your clarifcation makes sense to me. I had misunderstood you.--Just nigel 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"Mainstream" is a weasel word; what other "Jewish eschatology" would you be referring to? And why would the fact that some Jews believe Jesus is the Messiah be relevant? Some Jews believe Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah; does that belong in an article about Judaism's views? Some Jews believe Muhammad was the last prophet; does that belong in an article about Judaism's views? Some Jews believe that Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí was the last prophet; should that be in an article about Judaism's views? This is an article about Judaism's views, not what "some Jews" believe, because "some Jews" believe everything you can imagine. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Judaism's view of Jesus maintains that the notion of Jesus being a God, part of a Trinity, a Messiah, or a even a prophet, to be heresy. This view is shared by all Jewish denominations unequivocally. In Jewish eschatology the idea of the Messiah is so different from the Christian Christ that the slightest possibility that Jesus fulfilled any Messianic prophecies to embody the criteria for a Messiah has always been rejected.[1] These statements and the rabbinic views derived therefrom present a specific picture of the indivisible Jewish steadfastness in rejecting Jesus as a God, Divine Being, an intermediary between humans and God, Messiah or saint.
This opening seems a little overly emphatic as I believe Just nigel pointed out above, but also it seems to contradict somethings which I've heard from a jewish friend. She said that many Jews believe that Jesus could have been holy, or sent by god (i.e. prophet) but not the son of god. Chooserr 00:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This encyclopedia reflects reliable and verifiable sources. BTW, my friend says your friend is wrong. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Very well, but by stopping at the point before Conservative and Reform Judaism existed I think this could be giving a skewed view. It explains Medieval tension between Christians and Jews, which as I said was apparently more mutual than I had assumed (Don't misunderstand, Jewish people obviously suffered more from such tension), but says almost nothing about the modern age. I think the views of Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Christians, Judaeo-Muslims, etc can indeed be ignored. However I think this is ignoring a good deal of writers within Judaism itself and giving undue focus on people battling against Messianic Judaism. (The alternative is that Judaism truly has done nothing on inter-religious dialogue since the sixteenth century, but I find that to be rather unlikely)--T. Anthony 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
But this article isn't about inter-religious dialogue, it's about Judaism's view of Jesus, which is ancient, and ranges from negative to very, very negative. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
First that's not precisely right. This relates to how one religion views the founder of another, so interreligious issues are going to come to play whether you want them to or not. Second that was only one small part of my difficulty anyway. If it's true that Judaism has not had any consideration on this matter worth mentioning since 1300, and still views Christians exactly as they did during the Inquisition, than I find this remarkable and worthy of an explanation. Because every other religion I know of has tried to modify its view of the founders of other religions. (Excepting maybe Islam) If Judaism's view of other founders of religions has remained frozen in the fourteenth century it'd be interesting to know why. Plus I do have concerns in the wider world and you'll just have to accept that. Because if the article's point is that Judaism truly is inherently Anti-Christian and hostile to Christ than the article may have real world consequences it's not considering. It's nice to think you're living in a vacuum where no one will be influenced or incited by what they read, but it's not reality. (If Judaism really is inherently hostile to my religion I would still be sympathetic to the reasons why and accept that, but I'm saying many in the world would not go that way)--T. Anthony 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus has not been mentioned all that much in Jewish thought, but every so often some authoritative source in Judaism will mention him, and the thinking is pretty much the same. Given that the modern, liberal Reform movement fairly recently came out with a ruling that differed little from the rulings of centuries ago, it's clear that not much has changed as regards this. As for Judaism being "anti-Christian", that's a leap. Naturally Judaism disputes the fundamental claims of Christianity, since they essentially (and literally) claim to supersede Judaism - if anything, the "inherently hostile" view is of Christianity towards Judaism, and one needs only to read the New Testament to understand that. However, saying that worship of Jesus is fundamentally opposed to the beliefs of Judaism is not the same as being "anti-Christian" or "inherently hostile" to Christianity. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're confused as to what I'm responding to. I'll try this one last time, but then I give up. This really does give a worse view of Christianity than anything in mainstream Christian denominations today do to Judaism. I've never seen a mainstream church indicate that Judaism is the most warlike religion, that it's founders were wicked, and that exists only as a stumbling block. I think you may feel I'm being unfair, but that's pretty clearly in it. The impression left is that most everything useful to be said on the subject ends at 1300. Therefore Judaism believes that Christianity is proven false, that Jesus was a wicked man warned of in prophecy, that Judaism killed Jesus rather than Romans doing so, and that Christianity itself is a force of only misery. All these things make sense in the context of Medieval European religious hostility, but then it stops. If this truly is the view of Judaism up to today then this is indeed intensely peculiar. It is also, sorry, more intolerant than Christianity in the developed world. However this is Wikipedia so I try to be intensely skeptical of every religion article here. Also I warn people to never use this place on those subjects. (After all Wikipedia practically indicates Catholicism is based on Anti-Semitism and invented Fascism. On religion issues it's the biggest source of half-truths and misinformation going)--T. Anthony 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there just aren't a lot of authoritative sources on Jesus in modern Judaism. You're right, the statement of the Reform movement should be there, and any by the modern Conservative movement (I haven't found any by that movement referring to Jesus as all), and any by significant Orthodox groups. But again, keep in mind, while they might have made statements about "Jews for Jesus" or other "Hebrew Christian" groups, they rarely, if ever, comment about Jesus. We're not left with a huge amount of stuff. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, to include "My friend says Jesus was an honorable bloke" would be unencyclopedic. One of my concern with the article as it stands is that some glaring reliable and verifiable sources have been edited out of the article, because some of the editors have a point of view oposing them. Can we include more sources or is there a dogmatic objection among this article's editors?--Just nigel 09:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that point of contention is as follows: Most editor believe that Messianic Judaism is not a form of Judaism. Not a minority view, not an unpopular view, but completely unrelated to Judaism, and therefore is outside the scope of this article. This is not to say that these editors believe on way of another about their own faith, but they have a view about which religion Messianic Judaism is part of. Just nigel, on the other hand, seems (correct me if I am wrong) to believe that Messianic Judaism is a minority view in Judaism.
Just nigel has said that the fact that the three major denominations of Judaism reject Messianic Judaism doesn't not mean to him that it is not Jewish because that is just three opinions. I am sure that he would be equally unimpressed with the Israeli Supreme court that rule the same. In fact, any sources that could be shown to contradict him will alway just be the majority opinion.
As there is no way mathematically possible to resolve this dispute it seems to me that it is time to end it and follow the opinion of the majority of the editors. I does not make sense to me to put a POV tag on the article when there is no way possible for it ever to be removed. Jon513 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
At issue is not whether I judge them to be part of judaism. At issue is acuratley describing that they beleive they are part of Judaism. So I have added one sentence:
Some alternative forms of Judaism differ from these views, most notably those often called Messianic Jews who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.
It is a statement of fact and refferenced. I hope people who read this article find this extra information adds to their understanding of the topic.--Just nigel 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Self-identification is a ridiculous argument. Not everyone who wakes up thinking he is a reincarnation of Buddha is one, or even is a Buddhist. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why Humus wants to ridicule the argument of self-identification. Whatever your reasons, it is a standard definition of religion used in sociology. As the first sentnce on the Wikipedia page on religious identity states:
"Religious identity is a matter of self–identification and self–declaration of those, who only believe in, or also follow the doctrines of a particular religion."
It is the definition I have always used in such forums and I am not aware of any other NPOV that is available to us. Are you?--Just nigel 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying; I think you are wrong. I believe that to include messianic Judaism as a minority view despite the fact that is rejected as part of Judaism by the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people would be POV. Also religious identity is an article not policy. Jon513 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By this logic, wouldn't we then have to include the view of Mormons about Jesus? According to that article, they consider themselves to be part of the Jewish nation, even if Jews don't see it that way.Kaisershatner 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Jon, if you think it is wrong to apply the principle of religious self-identification as a basis for NPOV, what do you suggest instead. (I am not convinced by earlier suggestions on this discussion that wikipedia should be bound by decisions of the Israeli court system.)
Kaisershatner, if you were you seriously suggesting it and you know about it I would not try to stop you being bold and editing away. I don't know so much about it myself, but I suspect Latter-day saints notions of being 'in the house of Israel' may not be exactly the same as being Jewish. Also as the article notes "Mormons' claim to membership in the House of Israel has led to some complex relationships with Judaism. The concept of non-Jews claiming membership in the House of Israel produces various cultural and interfaith problems." and it would be tricky to cover complexities in brief here.
I thought Messianic Jews were particularly relevant to this articel becasue they are people who identify themselves as Jewish and hold a peculiar view of Jesus that differs from mainstream Judasim, and (I suspect) this difference is the major cause for the emotional dispute about their jewish legitamacy.--Just nigel 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subject drift

The article's title is itself putting the cart before the horse. There is no "Buddhism's view of Jesus," because no-one really expects Buddhism to take notice of Christianity's beliefs and respond to them. Similarly, Judaism has not changed its core views of the Messiah or its view of God, both of which predate the era of Jesus by hundreds/thousands of years. A difference between Buddhism and Judaism here though is that Christianity purports to supersede Judaism, while Buddhism does not, and therefore, it may make sense to have an article explaining the Jewish view of Christianity or of Jesus (as there are articles about Isa or the Muslim view of Jesus, and others). As hard as it may be to believe, however, Judaism doesn't have a position on Jesus per se, any more than it has a position on Alexander the Great, Joseph Smith, User:Kaisershatner, or anyone else in particular, because none of these people, whatever they may claim or whatever others may claim about them, have fulfilled the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. I think stating that there exists "Judaism's view of Jesus" is conceding the major point that Judaism doesn't think the Messiah has arrived. Finally, most of the rest of the introduction deals with Jewish eschatology and core priniciples of faith- it should be trimmed back to focus more on the article's subject - this isn't a forum to argue about the differences between Judaism and Christianity overall. Kaisershatner 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would support either rename or a merge. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Once again some editors are reverting any information I add and at the same time removing POV tags from this article. My additions are not spam. They are in good faith, factual and refferenced. I don't understand how they can dispute my inclusions, and then say there is no dispute?? In seeking to discuss on this page I have been told by some to leave/go elsewhere and that 'we' are not interested. What is going on here?? A majority-held faith position does not give those who hold that position a right to silence any dissent on wikipedia. I feel censored and am strugling to understand why I am being treated this way. I wonder if this article is being governed by a dogmatism? Is that an accurate assesment? Maybe those who are removing my contributions - or someone else reading this who thinks they understand - could try and shed light on the motives at work here.--Just nigel 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just coming back to this discussion after a few months, and started re-editing the article last week. Am I correct that the basic conflict is you want to add the views of Messianic Judaism as a minority Jewish viewpoint, and most of the editors don't want to include MJ views of Jesus in an article about Judaism because they contend that MJ is not Judaism? Kaisershatner 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes that was one of the conflicts. The other was that I thought the article should cover that at the time of Jesus, Jewish views about him were actually contencious with some following Jesus and others not - leading to some formal splits between the two religions.--Just nigel 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm just starting to think about this one, but I'd like to hear what other editors think about a section titled "Messianic Judaism" and Jesus, stating, "Messianic Judaism," a movement that encompasses such groups as Jews for Jesus et al., does venerate Jesus as God, however, is not considered to be a Jewish movement by any Jewish denomination. That is AFAIK an accurate statement of the facts. Is that a bad idea? Kaisershatner 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi K,
I definitely see where your suggestion is coming from, and it different circumstances it would be a good option. The deeper problem here is that the belief that Messianic Judaism is a part of Judaism is completely untenable and unsupported by both the Jewish and Christian religions and their associated platforms - this is not just a Jewish holding, but a Christian one as well (see the Messianic Judaism article for details). Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion - it is more akin to regulated citizenship than the looser requirements of other religions, Christianity in particular.
For these reasons, introducing a section about Messianic Judaism's views of Jesus "because MJ is a Jewish sect" would be as pointless as including a section on Christianity's views of Jesus "since Christianity is a Jewish sect," as some have said - neither is a sect of Judaism; both are a completely different religion. I've mentioned previously on this talk page that a possible solution would be a separate article with the views of the separate belief system of Messianic Judaism on Jesus - this might be particularly timely now, what with the ongoing call for the Messianic Judaism project to create articles outlining their notably different beliefs and practices rather than pre-empting those on Judaism and Christianity. Dbratton 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Dbratton, to merely state that "neither (so called Messianic Judaism or Christianity) is a sect of Judaism; both are a completely different religion" is unhelpful in formulating a NPOV for this article. It is this very issue that is in dispute. My understadning of Messianic Judaism is that they reject this dichotomy. At the inception of Christianity this dichotomy was very much in dipsute as well.
The fact that you, I, others or the majority of Judaism may accept this dichotomy does not mean we can't describe Messianic Judaism's view accurately and with due wieght.
--- or maybe for some reason it does stop you. I'm not sure why this is the case but if it is, that is OK, it does not mean the rest of us can't describe Messianic Judaism's view accurately and with due wieght. Now if you would please be so kind as to agree not to impose your religious assumptoins on wikipedia I will go ahead and edit the article once more.--Just nigel 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Nigel, I'm not interested in trying to talk to you about this. The fact that you've ignored every single one of the editors who's tried to explain why the teachings and beliefs of Messianic Judaism are unrelated to Judaism, all of whom have a great deal of knowledge and experience with the subject, indicates that you're not interested in improving your knowledge. All I can recommend is that you do the requisite research to understand why MJ is not Judaism - the information is quite abundant online. Please look into this and realize that no one is pushing a POV against you. Dbratton 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Lets take a step back, how do we ever decide what is considered majority view, minority view, and non-existent view. For example, the majority view is that the earth is round, and that is what is said in the article Earth, the Flat Earth is a minority so it barely gets mentioned, that the earth is on the back of a turtle is such a tiny view that is not notable at all. Now, what if the Flat Earth people "self-identify" themselves as the majority view (really everyone agrees with us, they just are too embarrassed to say). Or an nonexistent view (one that isn't notable at all, but has some published writings) claims that it is a notable minority view. We don't simply count the amount of published opinions and do a poll. Perhaps one side is more prolific (the more extreme side would tend to be since they have to defend their opinion) that the other. Instead we look at the consensus of what is considered the majority view, minority view, and non-notable views, even though there are a minority that disagrees with this consensus (they think that a minority is the majority view, or that a minor view is notable, etc). Now, that consensus is not the same as the majority view. In fact, most of the time the minority view agrees that they are the minority view, and the the non-notable view agrees that they are a tiny fringe. While it is common to have a dispute on a topic, it is very rare for there to be a dispute of who is the majority and who is the minority.
In this case, there is a clear consensus by most of the world (all the denomination of Judaism, and the mainstream Christian view, the Israeli supreme court, everyone else in the world besides Messianic Jews) that Messianic Judaism is not part of Judaism, and therefore not a minority view, but outside the scope of this article. This is also why the Mormon view is not considered, since the vast majority of people reject their claim as being Jewish (Note:I'm not sure what the mormons believe). This is also why many editors have tried to show you sources that demonstrate that the general consensus is that Messianic Judaism is outside the scope of this article (they were not just restating the majority point of view as you seemed to have understood it). I understand that there are those that disagree with this consensus, but just as we don't change the earth article if the Flat Earth people "self-identify" themselves as the majority view, so to here we don't include views that the vast majority of people consider outside of its scope.Jon513 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Jon thank you for engaging in this discussion. I wonder if you are misunderstanding the conecpt of 'self-identification'. You may well understand it but you have applied it here in a different way to the way I was using it above. I am not suggesting that MJ identifies it self as a majority (I'm not aware that they do). Besides even if a minority group did view itself as a majority such quantifiable concepts as 'majority' and 'minority' can be objectivley measured. It would be easy to articulate from a NPOV what view was in the majority. We could even acurately report that a smaller group considered itself to be a majority - if this was significant. I was aplying the principle of self-identification because relgious identity is subjective.--Just nigel 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The question is, does this article cover Judaism's views on (for example) the church, or just on jesus? If it covers bodies, groups and institutions in jesus' name, then MJ would be one of those. If it's just J's view on Jesus then that's questionable. And yet, even so, a simple statement that MJ is not considered a part of Judiasm or Christianity, and is condemned or shunned by most forms of Judaism, might not be out of place. My $0.02. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The article on MJ deals with the Jewish view of MJ; it's not for this article, which is about the Jewish (non)view of Jesus(,divinity and existence of). After reading Dbratton's answer above ("Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion,") I think I am inclined to agree. Nigel, your point about objective majority/minority status is correct, however, "self-identification" as the only, or even the main, criteria for defining Jewish denominations is suspect. I can identify myself as a Roman Catholic, a Martian, and a superhero, but I am not any of these by any objective measure. I think (and many above editors with far more knowledge than I) that there is more to qualifying as a Jewish denomination than stating "we are a Jewish denomination," especially when all other Jewish denominations, which agree on little else, seem to agree that MJ is not one. In fact, using that criterion would allow basically any group to claim anything about any religion (imagine: "We're Catholic only we believe in the Holy Duality and that eating cheese is the only way to salvation." I don't think it would get a lot of agreement). Also, in the case of MJ my silly cheese analogy is inadequate. Adherents of MJ apparently believe certain things, such as the divinity of Jesus, that are fundamentally incompatible with the Jewish worldview. ("We're Catholics who believe in the nondivinity of Jesus.") Finally, and separately, you mentioned that the article needs more about early conflicts at the time of Christianity's inception - if you point me to some sources I'd be happy to read up on it. Kaisershatner 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
FT2, this article is about Judaism and Jesus. There is a separate article about Judaism and Christianity. the reason we are discussing Messianic Judaism, is because information about their view of Jesus that I include on this page is regularly edited out.
The quote Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion contains a tautology or logic loop that is relavant to this disucssion. Consdier whose "guidelines" are these? It is not a suprise that these "guidelines" that exlude MJ from Judiasm are the guidelines of those who do not consider MJ as members of Judaism. No doubt, Messianic Judaism have guidelines for defining Judaism that does include themselves. This is relavant because this is my point: "authoriative texts" or "strict guidlines" are not objective judgements they are all the subjective judgements of those who hold those texts to be authorative or those who hold those guidelines strictly. I am not suggesting that people should not have authoritavie texts, or follow guidelines. I am stating the fact that they are not NPOV. And although particular denominations of Judaism or even the Isreal Supreme Court have ways of judging claims of religious identity, wikipedia doesn't.
Let the religious minorities have their voice - to do otherwise is to engage in religious persecution.--Just nigel 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, speaking of tautologies, as you do above, it seems like the position you are taking is equally tautological - Judaism includes anyone who says they are Jewish therefore MJ is Judaism. You're assuming the truth of the former proposition to prove the second. Kaisershatner 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that "anyone who claims to be a Jew can be counted as one". The fact that there are (limited) grey areas regarding who is (individually) a Jew, does not in fact inform the debate whether some religious group or belief, is considered (communally) to be Judaism. The consensus of credible Jewish organisations appears overwhelmingly against this for MJ. This is probably verifiable, I just haven't looked formally into it. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At issue is that these Jewish organisations' consensus is not a neutral point of view but based on their subjective view of what makes an orthodox Jew. The people who they are deciding are not real Jews obviously have a different definition of Judaism if they include themselves in it. So we are left with two differnt opinions a majority one and a minority one. To say that the majority is "creidible" and the minority is not, is POV.--Just nigel 08:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Judaism is a classic ancient belief system, defined by its authoritative texts and core principles. It is perfectly OK for some group to follow a religion incompatible with Judaism, but it is not OK for that group to use deceptive names (such as blah blah Judaism) and insist that they are a part of another religion whose principles they chose to violate. Therefore it would be a severe POV to insist that MJ are a minority within Judaism. Just nigel, you seem to keep repeating the same arguments. Please stop, and stop your attempts to elbow in your extremist POV into the article. It won't stick. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Early Christianity

Kaisershatner, conserning the cotested views of Jesus at the origins of Christianity: The article is now linked to Early Christianity which is a start. We don't want to repeat all of that information here. What I thought was relevant to this article was the fact that when Jesus - a member of Judaism - taught about his faith, and claimed to be the Messiah (or it was claimed about him by his followers) some in Judaism thought he was right and followed him, others thought he was wrong and persecuted him and his followers and others thought he was wrong or never heard of him and ignored him. Jewish followers of Jesus participated in the life of the Temple and then Synagogues until the introduction of "strict guidelines" to exclude them and stop this. There are other sources but one of the best is the New Testament gospels and to a lesser extent other sections of the New Testament. Most texts can be read not only as evidence of what their authors (and presumed audiance) beleived but conversely who they were arguing with or reacting against. For example the New Testament reports that the Jewish Temple authorities judged Jesus to be a blasphemer and that Pharisee Paul of Tarsus set out to persecute the followers of Jesus' way. It also reports that some (to start with small numbers but then growing) of Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah and trusted what he taught. I think to breifly describe this would actually help provide historic context for controversy today over the claims of religious identity by people called Messianic Jews, who want to both worship in Synagagoue as Jews and trust in Jesus' way in a way simlar to those called Christians.--Just nigel 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article=

In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I in fact just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register an opinion in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] remove paragraph

I removed the second paragraph of the intro:

Because there are Christian denominations who target Jews for conversion to Christianity organizations have been formed to educate Jews on the Jewish teachings regarding the messiah. Three websites for counter-missionary organizations include Messiah Truth, Jews for Judaism, and Outreach Judaism.

because it doesn't add anything to the article. The statement is more fit for Judaism and Christianity. In any event I did not remove the links in the external links section. Jon513 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madmen

In regards to the Epistle to Yemen, Darth Sidious added ("the Madman") after Muhammad in the article. It is accurate that the Epistle of Yemen uses the word "Madman", however I thought it was not clear why we were calling Muhammad "the Madman", so I added "who is referred to as". We cannot simply call Muhammad a Madman for NPOV reasons, so I wanted to make sure that readers knew it was the text that used the term. However, I was reverted with no reason given. Any comments?-Andrew c 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that it should be clarified that this is what the text says. In addition to the subtle NPOV issue, without your edit it actually looks a bit like vandalism. ;) Dbratton 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] messainic phrophesy

I have added the POV tag because my edits have again been changed to say "the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred," This is not NPOV. There are plenty of others who beleive they have been or are being. interpreting prophecy is notoriously subjective. What is at issue in this article is not whether these prophecies have been fulfilled, but what Judaism views has been fulfilled.--Just nigel 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say "the coming of the Messiah...etc", it says "Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah...etc". Not only does the sentence directly attribute it to Judaism's view, but the whole article is about Judaism's view. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed sentence

I have removed

Jews generally consider Jesus to have been an ordinary Jew, like all the other Jews of his day and age, albeit one that has become quite famous posthumously

from the background section. it was added by user:Rickyrab [2]. (1)The sentence does not belong the the background section. (2)there are many jews who doubt the historical existence of Jesus. (3) "ordinary Jew" in undefined. I don't think that any false messiah is an ordinary Jew. If it mean "not God like everyone else" it is stated explicitly latter (4)the sentence adds nothing to the flow or style of the section.

I also removed "(as of the Middle Ages)" in the section about Maimonides, as his view is not dated as is still very mainstream. Jon513 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The part about Islam being a mistake is mainstream or the whole section is mainstream? Is it really mainstream in modern Judaism that "the sages of blessed memory" punished Jesus rather than the Romans doing it and that Jesus was an evil man whose bones should be ground to dust? If so I think this would make Christian/Jewish relations more complicated than they already are. (To me it'd be like if the mainstream view in Christianity remained as "Muhammad was a polygamous heretic who is presumably in Hell at present")--T. Anthony 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
yes. As Judaism believes Jesus is not God, the Messiah or anything in between he was a liar who mislead hundreds (who mislead thousands, who mislead millions) of people in a path away from truth, as such he is not a respected figure in Judaism. Maimonides is actually a liberal view in that while he does not view Jesus positively, he views Christianity as a step away from paganism (while still considering it paganism). As to whether it was the Sages or the romans who killed Jesus, "I don't know and I don't care" was and still is the mainstream viewpoint. Judaism (and religions in general) rarely concern themselves with historical facts unrelated to their religion. There was little historical evidence at Maimonides' time either way, and there is no more now. Maimonides never intended to decide historical fact but rather to paint a picture what he thinks might have happened. Jon513 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I shouldn't have asked. I really would rather not believe Judaism has such a negative view of the founder of another religion because I'd rather think that different religions can get along. If you pretty much dislike and hate each other's founders that's not too doable. (Granted I dislike Martin Luther, but Lutherans are Christians and ultimately deem Christ their founder) So even if the answer is "yes it does" I'm going to go with ignoring that for the sake of good relations. I guess what I was really asking was just your answer, or the answer of Wikipedians, and I got that. If I really want Judaism's answer I should just check Jewish sources on my own. Thanks anyway and this was a good reminder why I should never return here.--T. Anthony 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, from what I know, what's above is not factually incorrect, but I think it could be emphasized more diplomatically. Judaism has a non-view on the founder of another religion. Whatever Jesus may or may not have done or said, since he didn't fulfill the requirements of the Jewish Messiah as per the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, he is not considered religiously significant to Judaism. I would say this makes Jesus irrelevant to Judaism more than "disliked" or "hated," much as the details of Jewish observance are irrelevant to Christians. Whatever is going on in Christianity in general just has no bearing on the Jewish worldview and religion, making questions about Jesus a little bit beside the point. It shouldn't be offensive to point this out - to Christians, Jesus is the central figure of their belief system - to Jews, he wasn't the Messiah, and therefore...next question. It's like asking Christians what they think about keeping kosher - "not relevant to salvation" might be the answer. I hope that people can read this to learn about Judaism's view of Jesus without expecting Judaism to validate or recognize their faith, much as Jews can read about Christianity without expecting the religion to validate or reward their belief in Judaism. (This is a subject that may inflame delicate sensitivites, and smarter people than I have treated it; at least, I hope I have been politic about it and please keep this in mind if you reply.)Kaisershatner 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The stuff about why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah I found quite interesting and even challenging. Maybe moreso than I'd like, but that's not something to be avoided in an article like this. It might even be good in that it got me reading and reflecting more on the Bible. There was just a few of the other things I thought came out a bit too aggressive and one-sided. Judaism has no Pope or even Ecumenical Council, so far as I know, so I'd have thought Rabbinical scholars were a bit more varied than I got out of this article. Or at least that over the centuries certain concepts have been explained in different ways. If thirteenth century Jewish phraseology/views remain completely intact and unchanging to present that's truly intriguing. I'm not even sure the Copts have managed that.--T. Anthony 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Maimonides' view remains mostly unchallenged not because it is cannon but because there is little interest in it. There are other legitimate Jewish views (such that Jesus did not exist) but Maimonides remains one of the very few Jewish scholars that talked about Jesus at all, and therefore is a very prominent view on the topic. To say that Judaism is not varied in view point based on this article is like judging wikipedia based on a few abandoned article. For the most part this is an abandoned topic of Judaism because, beside the fundamental of faith which no one disputes, Jew don't care about who Jesus was. Jon513 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus as Jew

A number of Jewish scholars have written works which establish Jesus within Judaism. To provide information on this movement, I posted an article "Jesus as Jew". This was redirected, without my content, to this page. I added my content to this page and it was deleted. Here is the content:

There have been a number of works written by Jewish scholars emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus:

The rationale for deletion was that these scholars are not representative of Judaism itself, and that no one argues that Jesus was not a Jew. On the first point, I think it is clear that there is a movement to reclaim Jesus as an authentic voice for Judaism. On the second point, those who argue that Jesus is mythical certainly do argue that he was not a Jew. So where should this content go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barrett Pashak (talk • contribs).

Hi Barrett, I believe it might be more appropriate in one of the articles in the Jesus and history series, probably more specifically at Historical Jesus#Jesus' Jewish background or at Quest_for_the_Historical_Jesus#The_Third_Quest. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Very helpful. Thanks also for signing me in.Barrett Pashak 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried out your suggestions and Jayjg shot me right down. Any other ideas?Barrett Pashak 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't have any ideas offhand, but I'll think on it a bit and in the meantime, I recommend you ask User:Slrubenstein if he has any suggestions. He edits frequently on topics on academic/historical aspects of Jesus. And you might also simply ask Jayjg where/how he suggests this material should be presented. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, there is something strange going on here. Jayjg certainly did not object to anyone emphasizing Jesus' Jewishness, he objected to the suggestion that Jesus has had a significant influence on contemporary Jewish thought. If the point is simply acknowledging Jesus as Jewish, I think that the three scholars listed above are irrelevant. Only one, Baeck, was a major thinker. Why pick the other two. The fact is, I think virtually all Jews who believe that there was a historical Jesus agree he was jewish. Rambam said as much. The claim that "Jews think Jesus was jewish" is so unexceptional it needs no mention beyon what is already in articles - I see no reason to single out three specific Jews if the point is simply to say "they acknowledge jesus was jewish." It is important only if a bigger claim is being made and that is what jayjg is objecting to. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, I think I initially misunderstood Barrett to be simply saying that there were Jewish scholars asserting the Jewishness of Jesus. Now I see on the talk page of Historical Jesus that Barrett meant to claim there is a movement of Jewish scholars who "perceive Jesus as a pivotal figure within Judaism." I think that's something quite altogether different and a bit of a stretch for which evidence is lacking. I'm skeptical that these three found him a "pivotal figure" and even if they did, they certainly don't constitute a movement and would be a very tiny-minority viewpoint that might only merit mention in their individual biographical articles. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merger

I have removed the proposed merger with Yeshu by User:82.6.114.172 since s/he didn't write any argument for it on the talk page. I for one strongly oppose a merger since the name "Yeshu" cannot be defiantly identified with Jesus. Therefore there are aspect of the reference "Yeshu" that do not refer to Jesus. Furthermore Jewish views of Jesus are not based on any supposed talmudic reference to him. Jon513 10:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question on respect

Some jewish people refuse to even spell the names : Christian or Jesus and I find it childish to do so. Can not one be respect of another faith and not be little another. Some jews are not alone the catholic and born again christian feel their way or high way. To say Jesus had no part of judaism is a lie, but i understand to jews he not messiah. I respect disagree, but I understand if they can not call Christ, but Jesus was a jew. both side of early rabbical and christain faiths were fighting and divlde each other to such we can not see we are cousins. Can anyone else share with me these thoughts ? (Irishmonk)

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.; not as a forum for their personal views. If you feel that any part of the article needs to be changed, either change it yourself or comment about it here. Jon513 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/d/Talk%7EJudaism%27s_view_of_Jesus_6fa9.html"