Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Rescued from page Jewish Messiah

The material for this section was rescued from the page history from the Jewish Messiah page where it had for some reason been deleted or lost in editing. Made more sense to create an independent page to remove any confusion for the series of Jesus section. ChrisG 21:22, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The first Christians were Jews, and likely subscribed to Jewish beliefs and practices common at the time." why "likely subscribed"? if they did not subscribe to Jewish beliefs then why would they claim a messiah? OneVoice 16:51, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thats total nonsence. ems 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Constantin Brunner and Jewish views of Jesus

This question is for Jayjg:

Why do you think it important to delete the reference to Constantin Brunner in the article Jewish view of Jesus? Barrett Pashak Sep. 22, 15:09:53 UTC

The opposite question is more relevant; why do you think it is important to include his view in this small article? Brunner may have been born a Jew, but he practiced no religion, and his views were essentially anti-Jewish. He does not represent Jewish thought on Jesus any more that Martin "Moishe" Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus.Jayjg 16:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, I can't really justify it in any other terms than the desire to promote some ideas that I find pretty attractive. Brunner is hard to link because, while he covers a lot of issues, his take usually doesn't fall into conventional categories. I mean, by your unquestionable logic, he shouldn't be linked from Jewish philosophers or Yehudi Menuhin, either. Don't you think its weird though that this guy is basically unlinkable? Or maybe you have some suggestions after your helpful editing of Constantin Brunner? Barrett Pashak 16:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Iconoclasts sometimes just don't fit well into categories, which is precisely why they are hard to link. Part of the problem here is the dual meaning of "Jewish"; it can mean either "related to Jews" or "related to Judaism", which are not the same thing. Brunner was a Jewish philosopher in the sense of ethnicity, but not a Jewish philosopher in the sense of contributing to the the philosophy of Judaism. I personally don't think he should be linked to as a Jewish philosopher either, but it's questionable enough that I didn't remove it. I think a Menuhin link makes more sense, since Menuhin was a big supporter, and was even on the Board of his institute. Jayjg 17:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So, the Wikipedia is a normative system. The accommodation of alternative perspectives is, for me, one of the most exciting aspects of information systems design. I particularly like the work of Ted Nelson. His ZigZag design permits an infinite number of links, and each links themselves are defined. Something to think about. Barrett Pashak Sep. 22, 19:11:37 UTC

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


Ive added some Jewish source information on what a true and false prophet was, this should be fine. But I also added the following information as to why most Jews did not believe in Jesus, and I'd like someone to check if it's accurate complete and well stated:

"Some other reasons were that he was probably not in general a significant figure to Jews of the time, his advocacy of change to the law, and the perceived failure to fulfill predictions of things which would happen before those existing passed away."
Wording OK?


(Sidenote: Jesus was at that time one of many preachers and people believed by some to be messiahs List of other messiahs, and probably not a big figure in the Jewish world even when alive. Despite his significance to Christians, there are no records of him in Jewish sources, myth or legend, and no suggestion that any have been suppressed. For Jews, Jesus is much like Mohammed (who claims spiritual decendance from Jewish and Christian religions) is to Christians - simply not of much religious importance, relevance or interest) FT2 06:04, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)


false prophet

I have removed this to talk:

Some other reasons were that he was probably not in general a significant figure to Jews of the time, his advocacy of change to the law, and the perceived failure to fulfill predictions of things which would happen before those existing passed away.

Where does this information come from? I am not saying it isn't true, but I know of no evidence (in Josephus, the Talmud, any other contemporary source) that makes these claims. Has some historian suggested this? Maybe this can go back in, but I'd like some verification first. Slrubenstein

Sample source, John Dominic Crossan, who said, "It's very wrong. It's bad theology. It's bad history. Most Jewish people didn't even know who Jesus was and never even heard about it..." FT2 22:15, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
(bio note: Crossan is the retired Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies, DePaul University, Chicago. He has written 20 books on the historical Jesus in the last 30 years, four of which have become national religious bestsellers. After 20 years in a Roman Catholic religious order, Crossan came to public attention as the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a group that has tried to prove the truthfulness of parts of the Bible)
Other than the Christians own writings, there is no evidence that Jesus was a significant figure to most Jews, either politically or religiously, during his lifetime. He does not appear in Jewish writings or discussion, he is found in a bare one or two roman sources, one of which is in passing, the other of which is said to be critically dubious as to authenticity. It appears (and would make sense that) most Jews did not know who Jesus was, and had never heard of him. He is described as having a band of followers, and yet is given according to the gospels a significant welcome in Jerusalem, however even this is questionable since there is no source substantiating it except the writings of his own followers, which are cricially regarded as theology and not documentary, and doubted by many scholars as regards their neutral value as historic primary sources. Their significance as historic documents is precisely because there is pretty much no other significant and generally-accepted documentation about Jesus elsewhere. So the question is more, what if any historic evidence is there, that he was of any significance to any significant number of ordinary Jews of the time, during his life? FT2 21:32, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Snip from another page

I found these comments by SIrubenstein and Danny on the jewish/christian contrast article, that seemed they might be useful for this page. Comments? FT2 21:32, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

A central issue is that Jews and Christians have radically different ideas of what the word "messiah" means. This difference is more basic that accepting Jesus as Messiah or not. For Jews, the messiah is a descendent of David who will restore the throne of David.
Some Jews did think Jesus was the Messiah, and they rallied around him. I have no doubt that Jewish leaders at the time had mixed feelings about this: if Jesus is the Messiah we should rise up violently against the Romans and get rid of them; if Jesus isn't the Messiah but we rise up against the Romans, we are going to be in really big trouble. Indeed, this is precisely what happened when Akiba supported Bar Kochba as Messiah and it led to the unparalleled disaster of 135 CE. I also have no doubt that Romans thought Jesus was a messiah, because crucifixion was the punishment for treason and sedition, and when Jesus was crucified he was mockingly labled "King of the Jews."
The problem was, many of Jesus' followers simply could not believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, and they thus claimed that he didn't really die and that he would come back soon to lead the revolt.
Then the problem was, a generation or two later, Jesus still hadn't come back to lead a revolt.
Rather than abandon their claims that Jesus was the Messiah, Christians re-defined Messiah. Instead of being the descendent of David, he was the son of God. And instead of leading a revolt against Rome thus offering political emancipation, he would offer spiritual salvation. And instead of creating a Jewish State, he would reign in heaven. Call all of this stuff the "messiah" if you will, but it just is not what we Jews mean by messiah. David Ben-Gurion is more of a messiah than Jesus.slrubenstein
Very well put! Reminds me of Maimonides, in the last two chapters of the Laws of Kings, who also sums up the Jewish position: "The Messiah is not a supernatural being." He is simply a leader and teacher of great stature, who restores Jewish independence and initiates the path to peace and harmony between all peoples. In fact, and in this Judaism differs greatly from Christianity, other religions can and will continue to exist even after the Messiah comes.


A God or One with God?

I am lost, what I have read, I seem to believe that Jesus is not a god, but a part of God. Although thats my belief which is POV. Tell me, could this part of scripture be misread?


Sacrifice

Jews also do not believe anyone can "die" as a "repentance" for anyone else. I am not sure many Christians would use that phrase either.that either. But the relationship between atonement and (animal) sacrifice was an important part of Temple Judaism. --Henrygb 11:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Human sacrifice went out with Isaac, though. G*d was pretty clear there that we should not sacrifice humans.

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deut. 24:16--YishaiMagelMoganim 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)