Talk:Jewish views on Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

---

DISPUTATION ON NEUTRALITY

"Furthermore, Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the rabbis of his time who saw him, and there is no reason to doubt their assessment." I also reject this statement. This, at least the last sentance here, is very POV.

While I realize that this is supposedly the Jewish collective POV on Jesus, this seems like the author's opinion which is not supposed to be allowed, authors are supposed to speak from a non point of view standard and, while I respect the opinions of Judaism, I would much rather have a non biased article. I will be deleting this last statement as I see that it is a pointless, tactlessly POV assertation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.13.171 (talk • contribs)

Well, it's cited to Nahmanidies, so at least we know whose POV it is. When in doubt, cite! Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally respect all opinions here, and the freedom to disagree, but Wikipedia is not a place for theological indoctrination. It is a place of open contributions that must be non-biased. I dispute the neutrality of this article. Statements in this article are completely biased, one-sided, and portray that "Judaism" has a monolithic idea toward Yeshua (Jesus). One may state that Orthodox Judaism has a majority view that believes a certain way, but even for those who are not believers in Yeshua, one must admit this example of blatant bias occurs in the following statement: "Furthermore, Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the rabbis of his time who saw him, and there is no reason to doubt their assessment."

"There is no reason to doubt their assessment"? I feel this is indicative of the tone of the article. Is this what Wikipedia's purpose is? I don't think so. I would like this article flagged that its neutrality is disputed. I believe my example there is irrefutable. Moreover, to say that this is "Judaism's" view is a matter of dispute. It is accurately noted that there are 14 million different views on Yeshua in the Jewish community, and there is a majority view in Orthodox Judaism, but for the article to be balanced, dissenting opinions must be noted, like modern Jewish scholars who have seen Yeshua as the Jew of Jews, and totally within the framework of Judaism, like Joachim Jeremias, David Flusser, and other scholars. I think Wikipedia's policy on NPOV is quite informing, and agreeable to us all, no matter what we believe in the matter of religion. We must remember we are creating an encyclopedia here. [Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia Policy] —Preceding unsigned comment added by BRBurton (talk • contribs)

Speaking as a Christian, I disagree with your assessment. The article may perhaps be better named "Judaism's views of Jesus." The article describes these theological POVs, but I believe the atrribution to Judaism makes the article itself NPOV. All of these views are based on the fact that Jesus did not fulfill all of the Messianic requirements. We Christians interpret this differently; we believe that Jesus hasn't yet fulfilled all the requirements—the rest He will fulfill at the Second Coming—but this is a foreign concept to Rabbinic Judaism. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. First, let me say that this is not at all a foreign concept of Judaism. The concept of Messiah suffering for the atonement of Israel and the world, the idea of a dying and resurrected Messiah (ben Yosef), the Messiah disappearing and then re-appearing, are scattered concepts found within Judaism. The New Testament pieces all of these fragmentary and divergent concepts into Yeshua of Nazareth. Nothing of the sort is foreign to Judaism. Everything that is in the New Testament comes from various theological strata of a variety of different expectations of the Messiah. See Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel, cf. The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai. Also the idea of a Levitical Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other concepts in pseudipgraphal literature. Patai and Klausner both state that it was difficult to reconcile the idea of a dying Messiah for the Davidic King, and therefore the concept was split into two Messiahs, Messiah ben Yosef and Messiah ben David. Otherwise, if it were the same Messiah, you would have two comings. Therefore, the underlying theological motifs are not at all foreign to Judaism, but interpreted differently. Therefore, my point is, that one must present this as a "mainstream" belief, of the majority of Orthodox Judaism, but in ancient, Second Temple Judaism, it was much more fragmented and complex. - Ben

All true. It would have been more precise for me to say, "a foreign concept to Rabbinic Judaism" or "a foreign concept to modern Judaism." The article is about the theology of Rabbinic Judaism, which of course differs from both Christianity (when it was still Jewish) and such groups as the Essenes that are now extinct. Of course, those first century Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah were by definition Christians (well, Nazarenes, Ebionites and similar groups—the word "Christian" came later). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The concept of anyone suffering for you, and instead of you is rather a foreign concept to all branches of Judaism. I realize that you all are Christian, but this is a Judaism's View of Jesus article. You will find Christianity's view of Jesus more to your liking I expect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs)

Right. I would have less objection if the modifiers you mention were used in the article, and presented as the mainstream or majority position of Orthodox Judaism, rather than THE view of Judaism - and gave the minority views a voice. The Yeshua Movement in the first century was thought to be a sect within Judaism, not a new religion. Modern Christianity and Judaism have crystallized in different directions, but in the 1st century the line was not that clear.

As I understand it, this article is meant to describe the theology not only of Orthodox Judaism, but also Reform, Conservative and other extant forms. I'm not sure whether Messianic Jews are considered Judaic or Christian. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Jews are definitionally considered non-Jewish by all Jewish sects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs)

However, this article is limited to modern forms of Judaism for much the same reason that the "Christian views" section of Jesus is limited to modern Christianity. We discuss the Ebionites, Gnostics, and Marcionites under the "other views" section. For that matter, Christian views of Jesus does not even mention the Gnostics and Marcionites, and only briefly mentions the Ebionites. It, too, focuses on modern Christianity.

There is a place for the historic forms of Judaism you mention under Jewish history, but not, I think, here. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: An even better place is the first three sections of Schisms among the Jews. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the uppermost (unsigned) statement. Maybe there is reason to doubt their assessment, maybe there isn't, but that clause adds little to the objective viewpoint. I removed it, leaving in the well-cited view of Nachmanides; it is a sourced claim that rabbis of the time rejected the idea that Jesus was the Messiah, whether or not one finds their opinion compelling. Kaisershatner 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This needs cleaning up! There is alot of false information about chrisitans that is claimed as correct. Sam

can you cite something in particular? Jon513 13:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The "false information" is the belief of Jews. You may consider it false, but that's because you're a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs)

I'm exceedingly amused that Christians are disputing the views of Jews on Jesus. Yes, guys, this is definitionally an opinion piece, since it presents the JEWISH opinion of Jesus. It is also pretty well documented. Here's the summary: Jews don't think that Jesus was the Messiah. If they did, they'd be Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs)

Indeed. I am simply a Christian who is interested in the divergence between Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps my ignorance is showing, but I mean no disrespect. I've found it odd that some feel that they have to add Christian rebuttals here, as well as Jewish and Muslim rebuttals to the Christian views of Jesus article. It's enough in these articles to acknowledge that our concepts of the Messiah are different. An explanation of how this difference came about would be more appropriate for the historical articles IMHO. Frankly, I'm embarrassed. archola (talk · contribs) AKA Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Talmud and Yashka

"There is some limited reference to "Yeshu" in the Talmud, a book of Jewish law, and these references are considered to be in reference to Jesus. The references to Yeshu are extremely negative and contradict the Gospels in quite a few places. For example, the Talmud states that Jesus was a troublemaker, he used black magic, and that he was hung and not crucified. The parts of the Talmud that make reference to Yeshu, however, were largely removed from the published Talmud, and today are available in a small addendum to the Talmud."

I'm removing this. It's completely incorrect. See my source at the Talmud article:

The Talmud makes little mention of Jesus or the early Christians. There are a number of quotes about individuals named Yeshu that once existed in editions of the Talmud; these quotes were long ago removed from the main text due to accusations that they referred to Jesus, and are no longer used in Talmud study. However, these removed quotes were preserved through rare printings of lists of errata, known as Hashmatot Hashass ("Omissions of the Talmud"). Some modern editions of the Talmud contain some or all of this material, either at the back of the book, in the margin, or in alternate print. These passages do not necessarily refer to a single individual and many of the stories are far removed from anything written in the New Testament. Many scholars are convinced that these people cannot be identified as the Christian Jesus.

--Yodamace1 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Secondly studing this subject, what you say is not true. There is a clear cenorship which happened on almost all Jewish boosk. In side the Beis Yosef Shulchan Aruch, where it talks about a child learning from a non-Jew, there are signs of clear cenorship which is being found, with cenorship being slowly reverted. Rabbi Boruch Lesches was part of a project about 20-30 years ago, trying to find old possibly uncensored edition. He left the project to work more on Shilchus. But from the last update from the project, the biggest censorship was in of a child learning from a non-Jew and halachas upon halachas missing, or censored in that area. Other minor few line censorship was found all over, but nothing as major as that one. 220.233.48.200 21:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear 220--what you say is untrue. Allow me to cite the article you refer to: "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what those sources say."

That source says that Yeshu is not necessarily Yashka.

Also, your research on the Shulchan Aruch (which poskims' opinions don't always agree with anyways) is irrelevant. I'm not denying censorship under the right of pikuach nefesh, so your comment holds no weight. --Yodamace1 02:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I clearly said it was Rabbi Boruch Lesches which was part of this research, he was the Rosh Yeshiva at my Yeshiva up until recently. And I was trying to say that source was incorrect. Yoshka's real name was yeshua, the reason why we never call him this is because what the name's meaning is. So some people decided to drop off the last letter in his name, making it Yeshu. Others decided changing it to a kuf, making it Yoshka. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 14:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood you. Your rabbi's research on Shulchan Aruch is still irrelevant here, perhaps better taken to the Shulchan Aruch article. As for your argument, please see the article Yeshu. --Yodamace1 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus

Humus, I don't agree with your removal of the see also link to Jews for Jesus. It is true that some of them are not Jewish, but a good many of them are ethnic Jews from Jewish backgrounds who have Jewish mothers. You may think they are loony and up to no good, but many of them honestly believe that Jesus was the Moshiakh of Jewish scripture. They are still Jewish according to Jewish theology and according to themselves. I think the link is relevant, and "they are not Jewish" is not solid grounds for removing it. Unless you disagree, I think it should be reinstated. Babajobu 00:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, I agree with you that it is their (whoever they are, this brings us to Who is a Jew?) view of Jesus, but I disagree that they may represent Jews ans according to WP:NPOV should not be listed here: 1) they are an extreme fringe minority and 2) to me, this crosses the line in the sand. As I'm sure you know, the question of acceptance of JC's divinity was the main reason for the schism. They not just not represent the Jews, they misrepresent them. Let's see what others think. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that they are not representative of the general Jewish population, but I think that as a group of self-identified Jews who have diverged from other Jews specifically over a difference in their view of Jesus, they are probably relevant to this article. But, obviously, I'm happy to go with consensus. Anyone else have a view on whether Jews for Jesus should be included as a "See also" link for this article? Babajobu 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is who gets to define who is or is not a Jew. As a Christian, a Lutheran pastor in fact, I'm definitely not a good candidate for making such definitions. The problem is that it is very difficult for a neutral forum to decide a "yes" or "no" question. Of course, observant Jews are going to say "no" and most "Messianic Jews" "yes." Does the mainstream of the religion get our vote or should we be very post-modern and accept self definitions?

Before anyone from the Christian community answers "yes" to are they Jews, consider that we do not take it too well when Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves Christians. (which is a very mild way of describing my feelings on the matter) So, what do we do when between an irresistable force and an immovable object? --CTSWyneken 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits, etc

I think I got the focus of this article back on track to the matter at hand (though I still find the Jewish views on Christianity section title troublesome). I think the major issue now is the organization. Frankly, there is none. There's a semblance of organization, but the article as a whole isn't coherent. The second thing would be fleshing out the article more, unfortunately it will be difficult to do that until the first issue is dealt with. For example, I'd like to put how the major difference between Jesus' teachings and that of contemporary Jews is that he rejected Oral Torah, but I just don't know where it would go. --Tydaj 22:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion from Talk:Jesus Page

The following discussion needs to continue until it is a real dialogue, and will then provide a basis for revising this article. Once this article is revised, we can come up with a summary to put in the Jesus article:

Judaism's views of Jesus

Previous discussion has been moved from Talk:Jesus to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus. BTW, the Jesus article is now unlocked.

Below is the text that will be entered when (if?) the Jesus article unlocks. Feel free to modify it here. Please exlain any disputes in a subsection below it. The wording can be shortened down later. At that time, all the detailed information will be relocated to the main article Jewish views of Jesus.

New text for Judaism's views

We'll shorten the wording later and move all details into the main article later. For now, concentrate on content. Wherever possible, there should be a biblical reference, an authoritative rabbinic reference, and perhapse a decent contemporary discussion of it.

---

Judaism cannot consider Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah because he did not fulfill the Jewish requirements. Most obviously, today wars between nations still happen, and this is impossible if the Messiah has truly arrived (Isaiah 2.4, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 12.3). At the very least [1], Israel must live in peace (absolutely literal peace, with no more wars). Judaism cannot accept certain Christian doctrines concerning the Christian Messiah - especially the Trinity and the Incarnation because they are heretical for Judaism's understanding of monotheism. (Deuteronomy 6.4, Rambam, Ha-Ikkerim or 13 Principles of Faith, Second Principle.) "In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism." [[2]]. "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate." (Contemporary American Reform Responsa, 68.) [3]

Nevertheless Judaism can distinguish between Jesus the person and Christianity the religion. Judaism considers the possibility Jesus himself does not believe in the non-Jewish doctrines of Christianity and sometimes credits Paul of Tarsus for inventing them. Therefore, while Christianity is absolutely incompatable with Judaism, Judaism can hold a variety of opinions with regard to Jesus, depending on what he himself personally believed.

• Despite numerous references to "Edom" (אדום), which is sometimes a reference to "Rome" (רומא) or Christianity, the Talmud is largely silent about the historical Jesus. There are a few stray passages that probably do not refer to him but can be reinterpreted midrashically to do so.

• Albeit for entertainment value only, the Medieval Toldot Yeshu cites the Talmud to weave a brutal but funny parody of the Christian view of Jesus. [4] Accordingly, Yeshu ישו (Jesus) is a “bastard” child of a scoundrel Jewish father named Yosef Ben Pandera (Joseph). Yeshu forsakes the Torah and becomes a “false prophet” who worships a “brick”. He learns “Egyptian” magic to cast spells to convince other Jews he is the Messiah and thus creates havoc within the Jewish religion. By contrast, Paul is a righteous Jew (who is also understood to be the same person as Peter). Paul only pretends to become one of the followers of Yeshu in order to trick them into becoming a non-Jewish religion. By splitting off Christianity, Paul saves the day and restores peace to Judaism.

• The Rambam knows of the Toldot Yeshu but rejects it. (Iggeret Teman.) He gives a somewhat opposite viewpoint, which is more sympathetic toward Jesus and less sympathetic toward Paul. Accordingly, Yeshua ישוע (Jesus) is a legitimate child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother, and his birth is “kosher”. The Rambam uses carefully nonjudgmental language to describe Yeshua and distinguishes Yeshua’s own views from the views of his followers. (Iggeret Teman.) By contrast, the Jewish followers who later abandon the Torah - which would include Paul - are the “renegades of Israel” who “stumbled”, according to the prophecy of Daniel. (Mishneh Torah, Milkhot 11.10.) After splitting off, the hostility inherent in their Christianity turns out to be a disaster for the Jewish people.

Especially after the Holocaust, the need to coexist with Christianity (like other non-Jewish religions) influences Judaism to know more about the historical Jesus. This knowledge helps Judaism to counter the hostile claims by Christianity and to promote a common understanding with Christianity. Judaism can distinguish between Jesus the Jewish person and Christianity the non-Jewish religion, and thus can be neutral in the academic study of Jesus. Today Jewish groups and individuals can comprise a variety of opinions about the historical Jesus. Scholars notice the Gospels portray Jesus as both within the Jewish tradition of Torah but also debating with the Sages about the Torah, and reach different conclusions. Mainstream Judaism allows for a diversity of scholary opinions about Jesus.

• Jesus knows the Torah but rejects it and is therefore an apostate Jew. More seriously, Jesus is spiritually warring against the God of Israel and intentionally provoking other Jews to abandon God as well. Thus the sentiment of the Toldot Yeshu rings true, and the historical Jesus is one of the "false prophets" that the Hebrew Bible warns against (Deuteronomy 13.2), as Habad and other Orthodox communities affirm. [[5]] Less seriously, Jesus is simply wrong but is irrelevant as far as Judaism is concerned. (Rabbi Jacob Neusner, A Rabbi Talks with Jesus. McGill-Queen's Univ. Press: Rev. ed. 2000).

• Reform Judaism has no opinion about the historical Jesus, and continues a careful rationality in the tradition of the Rambam. If Jesus remained true to the Torah then he is a "good Jew", and if he did not remain true to the Torah then he is an apostate. Individuals can draw their own conclusions. Some Reform Jews indulge the notion Jesus is an ancient example of a progressive Jew. Here an individual voices his own opinion about Jesus to give one example of what Reform Judaism finds acceptable: "I believe Jesus was a Pharis[aic] Rabbi who preached reform in our beloved religion, Judaism. Judaism still awaits a Messiah or at least a Messianic Age of Universal peace. "Messiah" does not carry the same connotation in Judaism as it does in Christianity. We believe in a mortal king who will deliver us from exile and persecution. A close reading of the New Testament reveals that Jesus' followers had the same expectation. Only later was he made into the demigod of today." [6] A wide variety of opinions are known, from Jesus was an apostate, to he was zaddik, to perhaps he didn't exist at all.

• In the academic community, some Jewish scholars of Judaica (who include Orthodox and Reform communities and who research Jesus carefully) conclude Jesus is likely a good Jew and perhaps even a "righteous person" or zaddik. (Vermes, Jesus the Jew 1981, p. 225.) Jesus himself does not know the later Christian doctrines about him. In Jesus's life time, there are a wide variety of branches of Judaism, but Jesus himself is Pharisaic and belongs to the Proto-Rabbinic stream of tradition. Rabbinic Judaism is still in its Formative stage, and halakhic opinions that are taken for granted today are still under debate during in Jesus's life time. The debates between Jesus and other the Pharisaic sages of the Torah reflect differences in local customs. Moreover, similar harsh criticisms that Jesus recites about the Pharisees can also be found in the Talmud and do not necessarily reflect hostility to the Torah (Matthew 23.13, bTalmud Sotah 22b). Jesus also shares the opinion of many Jewish mystics that the "mindset" (כבנה) while doing a mizvah determines its halakhic validity. (For example, Matthew 23.25) [7] After careful consideration, some Torah-observant scholars conclude Jesus is not only an observant Jew but even a zaddik with a high level of spiritual awareness. (David Flusser, Jesus 1998, p. 15.)

• The possibility Jesus is a zaddik has different implications for different branches of Judaism. For Reform Judaism the possibility is neutral. It is admirable if Jesus is a zaddik, however it has no formal consequence on Reform Judaism itself. However, for certain Orthodox communities who celebrate the zaddikim with much honor [8], it can pose a dilemma. The opinion Jesus is a "false prophet" versus the opinion he is a "zaddik" can have consequence with regard to the community's formal attitudes toward Jesus. Martin Buber who is a Hassidic academic predicts, "I am more certain than ever that a great place belongs to [Jesus] in Israel's history of faith" (Two Types of Faith 1961, p. 13).

All of these modern Jewish opinions about Jesus depend on the historicity of Jesus and therefore are uncertain and tentative. For Judaism what matters is the belief in Judaism.

comments

Your kidding me, there's enough content here to make an entirely new article, it looks like it's almost as long as the rest of the article's sections combined! And now it looks like the same old song again, except this time you've directly cited the OT and saying "Christianity is impossible", which is exactly what I was worried that it would say in the first place, yet which most people assured me was not true, so it was clarified with citations from the interpretation of Rabbi's and whatnot. Does anyone else have anything to say about this before I go all crazy over this in more specifics? Homestarmy 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It will be "an entirely new article", and relocated to Jewish views of Jesus. However, for now it's important to settle what needs to be in the summary. --Haldrik 18:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"Christianity is impossible." Christianity is impossible for Judaism, however it is not impossible for Nonjews. For the most part, Judaism feels Nonjews are not culpable if they have a less strict definition of monotheism (compare, Mishneh Torah 11.11). However, Jews are culpable if they have a less strict definition of monotheism. --Haldrik 18:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And just a comment on the Christianity thing...this is irrelevant to the "Judaism's view of Jesus" section. Keep to the topic. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm running out the door right now to catch a plane and have no time for a full response. I appreciate all your work Haldrik, but there are major problems with your proposed text. I don't even have time to read it all at the moment, but just off the top, a) it's far far too verbose for this article, b) It's packed with editorial-sounding phrases like "Most obviously" and "At the very least". I can't even look at the actual content right now or I'll miss my plane. I have no problem discussing, but please don't threaten to just shove a whole essay (i.e., "Below is the text that will be entered when (if?) the Jesus article unlocks") into the article. This needs a lot more work. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be summarized. It also tends rather heavily toward Judaic mysticism, rather than straightforward Judaism. (I was surpised that there was nothing on the Kabbalah.) In any case, summarizing this will be a bear that I personally would rather not wrestle with. Jim62sch 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's tempting to call Jesus a "Kabbalist", but to do so is anachronistic. He seems a "mystic" though. IIRC, the Zohar says nothing about the historical Jesus. --Haldrik 20:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a lovely piece of original research. Much of it is uncited, much of it inaccurate, and much of it is simply irrelevant (e.g. Toldos Yeshu is non-authoritative, as are the opinions of various 20th century historians and philosophers, like Buber, Vermes, and Flusser) who simply happen to be Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Judaism comprises a diversity of opinions. That's why there's a Talmud which is a record of Rabbinic debates to sort through different opinions. The article isn't about Medieval Judaism's views, it's about Judaism's views, including modern Judaism. These Jewish scholars don't just "happen" to be Jewish, they are speaking from the Judaic perspective about implications for modern halakhah and so on. They don't need to be mentioned by name in the future summary, but that a diversity of viewpoints can and do exist, does need to be mentioned. Of course, the Toldot Yeshu is of entertainment value only, but it's a notable Jewish view and even has some currency in certain communities. Actually, I'm having trouble finding any traditional reference that specifically identifies Jesus as a נביא שקר except for the Toldot, and I'm beginning to suspect this indeed is the source. Finally, this is about Judaism's opinions about Jesus, in all its diversity. --Haldrik 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While all that may be true, one thinks that for the purposes of the Jesus article, adhering to a more "mainstream" form of Judaism might be better. Jim62sch 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's the point. "Mainstream Judaism" allows for a diversity of scholary opinions about Jesus. (Especially Reform!) --Haldrik 20:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Something that might be interesting would be to incorporate aspects of the Bar-Kochba revolt and his subsequent rule, as he was, for a time until he was defeated, officially proclaimed to be the Messiah. Bar-Kochba could be used as an example of what the Jews of the time were looking for in a Messiah, and hence why Jesus was rejected, at least in th ancient world. As far as modern explanations as to why Judaism is incompatible with Jesus as the Messiah, as a historian I would question the relevance; a comparison of Jesus and Bar-Kochba would immediately show why Bar-Kochba was compatible with the Jewish definition of Messiah and why Jesus was not, hence any later philosophical justification of the sepparation would be unecessary as Christ was already rejected as the Jewish Messiah for not fulfilling the role as defined by Judaism. There is no need to delve into current reasons why Judaism rejects Christ, because the rejection already happened and the groundwork laid some 1900 years ago. But thats me as a historian, and as we have already seen these articles do not conform to academic standards (hence why I tell me students not to cite Wikipedia). pookster11 23:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I really want to spend the time to go into an increadible amount of detail on this unless it gets summarized, (Because there's some stuff in there that, you know, might get removed, and I don't want to verbally explode so to speak at this only to find much of it gets removed) but if there's such a diversity of opinion, why must the section say that Christianity is, in effect, incompatible with the OT? Because with that OT citation and the "Obviously's" like I think someone else mentioned, that kind of rules out "diversity" in people's viewpoints. Homestarmy 23:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a valuable piece of work, however I share two of Jayjg's concerns: first, that it is original research. Haldrik, I urge you to read Wikipedia: No original research carefully, and see how much of this you can rewrite without violating the NOR policy, and that complies with our Wikipedia: Verifiability policy and Wikipedia: Cite sources guidelines. Second, I do think we need to be more careful about distinguishing between Jews who happen to be historians or even essayists writing about Jesus, versus Jews who are claiming to represent "Judaism." The former cannot be included in this account; the latter should be. And after you delete the examples of the former and are left with the latter, Haldrik, I urge you to go over the Wikipedia: Neutral point of view policy and make sure that all views are represented in compliance with this policy.

It is clear to me that Haldrik is proposing text for a linked article and not for a section of this article. It makes sense to get that linked article to a stable point, and then figure out a concise way to summarizze it here. SO I propose moving this discussion to the linked page - and I will copy the relevant material if no one else has done it yet. I strongly urge Haldrik, Jayjg, and Mperel, as well as others who are knowledgable about this topic, to work together to come up with a linked article that is fully compliant with NOR and NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous Version

Judaism does not consider Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah primarily because it does not consider him to have fulfilled messianic prophecies, nor embodied the personal qualifications of the Messiah.[8][9] [10] The Mishneh Torah (an authoritative work of Jewish law) states "Jesus was instrumental in changing the Torah and causing the world to err and serve another beside God."(Hilchos Melachim 11:4) The modern liberal Reform Judaism movement states "For us in the Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate..." (Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68).[11]

Judaism also does not consider Jesus to have been a prophet, considering him instead to have been a false prophet,[12] and maintains that the last prophet was Malachi.[13][14][15]

Objections with the previous version

• "The Mishneh Torah (an authoritative work of Jewish law) states "Jesus was instrumental in changing the Torah and causing the world to err and serve another beside God."(Hilchos Melachim 11:4)"

Inaccurate citation. The Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Melakhim 11.4) simply doesn't say the above quote. Rather, it says this: (ד ושם הוא אומר "אראנו ולא עתה" (במדבר כד,יז), זה דויד; "אשורנו ולא קרוב" (שם), זה המלך המשיח. "דרך כוכב מיעקוב" (שם), זה דויד; "וקם שבט מישראל" (שם), זה המלך המשיח. "ומחץ פאתי מואב" (שם)--זה דויד, וכן הוא אומר "ויך את מואב, וימדדם בחבל" (שמואל ב ח,ב). "וקרקר כל בני שת" (במדבר כד,יז)--זה המלך המשיח, שנאמר בו "ומושלו מים עד ים" (זכריה ט,י). "והיה אדום ירשה" (במדבר כד,יח)--לדויד, שנאמר "ותהי אדום לדויד, לעבדים" (ראה שמואל ב ח,ו; וראה שמואל ב ח,יד). "והיה ירשה שעיר--אויביו" (במדבר כד,יח)--זה המלך המשיח, שנאמר "ועלו מושיעים בהר ציון, לשפוט את הר עשיו" (עובדיה א,כא).) "Jesus" isn't mentioned or even aluded to in this passage.

You're reading the censored version. The uncensored version has a lot more in it.[9] [10] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading Mechon-Mamre's edition which is the most historically accurate version available today. --Haldrik 19:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is disagreement over the source, the proper thing to do would be to present both sources in an NPOV way (e.g. specify who claims that version one is uncensored, and who claims that version two is the most historically accurate version? The answers to these questions cannot be "Jayjg and Haldrik," but rather verifiable sources. Jayjg, do you have other sources besides these tqo web-pages? Haldrik, who believes that Mechon-Mamre's edition is the most accurate? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source: [11]. There is little disagreement on this, the text was censored to remove negative stuff about Jesus and Muhammad. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The link cites a commentary that includes translations of the Mishneh Torah. When I have a chance I'll look at the link more carefully, but for the moment I'm suspicious. While the Mishneh Torah had text censored from it, it also had texts interpolated into it. The Mechon-Mamre text [12] is the most accurate Hebrew version of the Mishneh Torah, takes into account both the censorship and the interpolations, and is authoritative to represent what the Rambam himself wrote. That said, the passage in question appears to be Hilkhot Melakhim 10.10 (not 10.4). So the dispute is only about the English translation being "loose", as opposed to a discrepancy in the Hebrew text. I'll add a section with the Rambam's relevant Hebrew texts plus a literal English interpration of it. We can go from there. --Haldrik 20:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Judaism also does not consider Jesus to have been a prophet, considering him instead to have been a false prophet,[12] and maintains that the last prophet was Malachi."

Inaccurate statement. In Judaism, the word "prophet" has a specific meaning, and the above statement uses the word imprecisely. Saying certain Christian doctrines are incompatable with Judaism is NOT the same thing as saying Jesus is "a false prophet". In fact, these Christian doctrines didn't appear until centuries after Jesus's death, and Jesus himself never knew them. While Habad certain other Jewish groups and individuals do specifically identify Jesus as a "false prophet", Judaism as a whole doesn't say this. The Rabbinic texts don't say this. It is therefore necessary to cite exactly which Jewish groups say Jesus is specifically a "false prophet" (נביא שקר), using those words exactly.

Your POV is fascinating; however, the many Jewish sources quoted use those exact words, "false prophet". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "false prophet" actually means something. It would mean Jesus was an idolator, which is unlikely. Or at the very least, it would mean that Jesus rejected the Torah, which is debatable. Most of the citations so far are merely the opinions of contemporary Rabbis. While legitimate they can't represent the whole of Judaism. It's necessary to find traditionally authoritative references, which are binding on all Judaism. --Haldrik 19:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Both views can be true. Jayjg, what are your sources for "false prophet?" Haldrik, what are your sources for "prophet?" Bear in mind Haldrik that the source should not be a critical historian like Vermes or Shaye Cohen, because they are not claiming to be presenting a "Jewish" view, they are providing a historian's view. The proper thing to do would be to present both view in an NPOV way and provide verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, several sources for the "false prophet" have already been given, both in the article, and on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• "and maintains that the last prophet was Malachi.[13][14][15]"

Clarification needed. Judaism says, Malakhi is the "last prophet" in the books of the Prophets (Neviim) in the Tanakh. Well, obviously! However, this doesn't mean the same thing as the Islamic doctrine that there is some kind of "last prophet", so to speak.

I my myself took for granted as true that Malakhi was the last prophet, and that there will be no more prophets until the prophet who will appear at the "War of Gog and Magog" at the beginning of the Messianic Era (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 12.3). However I can't find any citations to demonstrate that there can't be more prophets until then. Again, I assume there can't be any prophets until then (because in Judaism a "prophet" is a specific kind of job), but we need to clarify exactly what the Rabbis teach with regard to prophets, so as to avoid inaccuracies and false assumptions.

Judaism considers Malachi to have been the last prophet; true prophecy was not granted after the destruction of the First Temple under a kind of quid pro quo. Judaism considers there to have been 48 male prophets in history, and the Talmud lists them; Jesus is not among them.[13] Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here I actually agree, but I can't find an authoritative reference. While Malakhi is obviously the last prophet of the Bible, can you supply a reference that specifically says there simply are no more prophets of any kind until the Messianic Era? --Haldrik 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

One minor point: given that we are writing in English, a translation of the Hebrew would be great. If you'll notice, any time I refer to Greek or Latin when discussing terminology or the text of the Septuagint, Greek New Testament, or Vulgate, I translate to English. Doing the same might help those of us not fluent in Hebrew to better understand your points. Jim62sch 20:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, what source states that there can be no prophets after Malachi? I am not saying you are wrong, I am just asking for the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already listed a number of sources which state that Malachi was the last prophet, in the article itself. Here's another [14]. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

But this link too is nothing more than an opinion of a contemporary Rabbi who simply asserts, "Prophecy ended with the last prophets of Tanach (Chagai, Zecharya and Malachi) and will return before the redemption of Mashiach", without any authoritative sources to back up this opinion. We need to make an effort to find an authoritative text, such as the Talmud, which actually says this. --Haldrik 20:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, I don't understand how you expect to come up with "authoritative sources" for Malachi being the last prophet off the Internet. The sources which Jayjg has provided are lessons taught by contemporary rabbis about what every Jewish cheder boy knows: that Malachi, being the last book of Prophets, signified the end of the prophetic era. There was no prophecy after Malachi, period. (The next stage was ruach hakodesh.) Yoninah 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tsaddik?

"Some Jewish views see Jesus as a compassionate observant Jew, even a righteous person, a tzaddik." I do not doubt the veracity of this statement. However, since it is a minority view at odds with the classic Rabbinic view, I think it is important to have a citation or two to a verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Rabbis I know consider Jesus to be "a good Jew". A few consider him a tzaddik. Among scholars, IIRC, Buber, Flusser and perhaps Vermes identify Jesus as a tsaddik. I found two quotes of interest.

"I am more certain than ever that a great place belongs to [Jesus] in Israel's history of faith" – Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith (1961), p. 13.

"I am motivated by scholarly interest to learn as much as I can about Jesus, but at the same time being a practicing Jew. I readily admit, however, that I personally identify myself with Jesus' Jewish Weltanschauung [worldview], both moral and political, and I believe that the content of his teachings and the approach he embraced have always had the potential to change our world and prevent the greatest part of evil and suffering". – David Flusser, Jesus, augmented ed. (1998), p. 15.

These Jewish scholars carefully distinguish between Christianity which is not Judaic and Jesus's actual teachings which are surprisingly Judaic. (They sometimes compare his "high selfawareness" to that of Hillel). Haldrik 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another relevant quote by Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1981), p. 225. "The positive and constant testimony of the Gospel tradition leads to, within the framework of Judaism as by the standard of his own words and intentions: Jesus the just man, the zaddik, Jesus the helper and healer, Jesus the teacher and leader"

Thank you Haldrik. Alas, what most rabbis we know think is not relevant because they are not verifiable sources. Would you mind adding these to the references? Can you find a specific reference that compares his self-awareness to that of Hillel? Also, do you think it is worth quoting Buber in this article/section? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Hillel as a prophet, Vermes (p. 91) mentions the Talmud: "When the elders came to the house of Gadia in Jericho, a heavenly voice proclaimed to them: There is a man among you worthy of the holy spirit, but this generation is unfit for it. They fixed their eyes on Hillel the Elder". (tSot 13:3, bSot 48b.) [Interestingly, Hillel was also believed to be a descendent of David.] Haldrik 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating material. I think you should add, or at least citations for it, it as you see fit. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It really is amazing stuff! It should also be in the main article Jewish view of Jesus.

David Flusser, "Hillel's Self-Awareness" in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1988), p. 509f.

"A high self-esteem, both with regard to one's personal and one's religious standing, did exist in Judaism of the Second Temple period. We have not only learned about the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, but we can now also study the author of the Thanksgiving Scroll, a man who considered himself the mediator of divine mysteries. Additional evidence for the occurrence of an exalted self-awareness in the Second Temple period is to be found in some sayings of Hillel, who died before Jesus was born. Hillel is known as an unequalled humble and meek teacher and man. But as we will see, Hillel's self-esteem was very high, so exceptionally high that in later rabbinical tradition it was often denied that he really spoke about himself in those exalted sayings, but it was assumed he was referring to God. [Both are true: the human sees the world from the divine perspective.]

Hillel says [while identifying himself with God], 'To the place that my heart loves, there my feet lead me. If you will come in my house, I will come in your house, but if you will not come in my house, I will not come in your house. As it is said: (Ex. 20.24): "In every place where I [God/Hillel] cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you"'. [tSukkah 4,3, bSukkah 53a.]

[Whoever receives Hillel receives God, and reciprocally Hillel and God receive them.] The second saying is even more paradoxical.

[Hillel], 'If I am here, all is here. If I am not here, what is here?' [bSukkah 53a.]

It expresses a far-reaching idea: the individual, represented by Hillel himself, is so to say, the whole universe. It is even probable that Hillel, as in the other saying, has himself quoted biblical words of God [paraphrastically to refer to himself]. This does not mean, however, that in both of these sayings not Hillel but God is speakng. On the contrary, Hillel's self-awareness is so exalted that he could quote as biblical proof [about himself] God's utterances!

[Similarly, both Jesus and Hillel do the laws of God even if others don't.]

Jesus said (Luke 11.23), "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters".

Hillel (Sifre Zutta), "(Ps. 119.126) 'It is time to act for the Lord; they have broken thy law'. And so says Hillel: 'In the time when men scatter [= 'break thy law'], gather [= 'act for the Lord']! In the place where there are no men, there be a man!"

[By doing God's law, they are one with the will of God.] Haldrik 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we just go straight to working on the Judaism section, Haldrik seems to know a good bit about the general Jewish consensus. Homestarmy 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us not get off-track on Hillel. Haldrik, you simply cannot use Vermes as a source here. Vermes is not claiming to represent the "Jewish" view, he is a historian providing a historian's interpretation. Vermes is putting Gospel accounts in their historical context, that is not the same thing as representing a Jewish view of Jesus. I have the same concern about Flusser - he was a professor of comparative religion and is expressing the view of an academic. That he happens to be Jewish is incidental when he is making claims as a professor of comparative religion. In short, Flusser and Vermes belong in the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article. Haldrik, I urge you to work on that article and incorporate these views - properly cited and in compliance with NPOV - into that article. An article on jewish views of Jesus has to be people claiming to represent a specifically Jewish view. Buber may qualify, but not Flusser and definitely not Vermes. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is total nonsence and has no stand in Judaism Hillel never compared himself to God nor does anyone that is accepted in Judaism hold that Jesus was a "Tsaddik." The "views" you brought are essentially have zero stand in Judaism. ems 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

False prophet?

The current wording of the Judaism's view is inaccurate. Certain Jewish traditions (such as Habad) teach Jesus is a "false prophet", but Judaism as a whole is more nuanced. Or at least more complex.

Judaism doesn't believe Nonjews must convert to Judaism to live a meritorious life in the eyes of God. In this sense, Judaism doesn't believe it is forbidden for Nonjews to believe in Christianity. It is only forbidden for Jews to believe in Christianity. The critical distinction is between Jewish versus Nonjewish, not between true versus "false". Jewish concerns about Trinity and Incarnation are a known problematic, and Jewish tradition has an ongoing debate about whether Christians are to be understood as Noahide or not. IIRC, Reform Judaism considers Christians to be Noahide. And IIRC, in Israel the Bet Din recognized a certain local group of "Noahide Baptists" as fulfilling the Noahide criteria, and thus permitted to study Talmud in an Orthodox context. It's not, Christianity is a "false" religion, but a Nonjewish religion.

The Rambam holds a similar view. Whereas Christianity was a debacle for Jews, it appears to be a good thing for Nonjews because it prepares them for the Messianic Era, in his view. (Hilkhot Melakhim 11.10f.) As such, it can't be said that Christianity is "false", merely Nonjewish.

The distinction between Jewish versus Nonjewish (as opposed to true versus false) is the concern of Reform Judaism. A telling example is Reform's position on Jesus's instructions for prayer, often called the Lord's Prayer. It is the essence of Jesus's own belief system. He notably doesn't ask his students to pray to him or through him. He tells his students they must pray to God only ("our Father who art in heaven" = אבינו שבשמים). And so on. The Reform Responsa says,

"The problem does not lie with the origin of the prayer, or its Talmudic parallels (Ber. 16b f, 29b; Tosefta Ber. 3.7), but with the fact that Jesus taught it to his disciples (Matt. 6.9 ff; Luke 11.1 ff). Furthermore, it has become the central prayer of Christianity, and, in fact, is one of the strongest bonds between the Catholic and Protestant forms of Christianity. Although its content is neutral and it does not contain any direct reference to Christianity, its origin with Jesus and its strong Christian overtones makes its [religious] use unacceptable to Jews." (CCAR Responsa 171.)

It's not the "falseness" of Jesus's instructions which is the problem (indeed in this case it is deemed "truth") but its Nonjewish religious context.

The comfortability with noting the orthodoxy of Jesus's own Judaism while not assigning any special status for him in Judaism, is a significant viewpoint of many Jewish academicians, whether Reform or Orthodox. Haldrik 04:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You might need to copy this down to the bottom of the page for more people to notice this. If we can get those sources cited properly, then im sure we can work something out in the wording. Homestarmy 04:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I might point out the Christian side. Some see James' decision in Acts 15 as being based on Noahide laws. Big debate over circumcision. Arch O. La 05:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's just stick with what authoritive Jewish sources state about whether Jesus is a prophet, false prophet, etc. Haldrik you began with an assertion about Judaism being nuanced about whether Jesus is considered a false prophet, but then proceeded on an entirely different line about whether nonJews should convert to Judaism, Judaism verses Christianity, and the subject of Noachides, etc. Remember, the article is about Jesus, not the whole of the Judaism-Christianity debate. Back to whether Judaism views Jesus as a false prophet, there are plenty of sources we can cite from the broad spectrum of Judaism to confirm this view. Rabbi Shraga Simmons from Aish for example (he's not Lubavitch/Chabad) makes it clear that from the perspective of Judaism, Jesus is a false prophet because "anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)"[15]. I'm sure other sources can be dug up if necessary. Can you cite anything from an authoritive Jewish source that contradicts this? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Since when did Jesus seek to change the Torah? He said not one jot or tittle shall pass away. (These are the smallest marks in Hebrew text, AFAIK.) ^rossnixon 06:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Noahides, my point is: it is possible for Christians to be Noahide and thus in good standing before God, and therefore it can't be said Jesus is "false" for these Nonjews.

Habad may opine Jesus is a false prophet because "anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet", but that is precisely the question. Many Jews notice Jesus did not change the Torah. Jesus immerses in Judaism and has little contact with Nonjews. In fact, Paul is the one who innovates a non-Torah spirituality specifically for his Nonjewish community. Perhapse Paul "changes the Torah", but not Jesus.

It's a little difficult to disconnect Jesus from what is considered his authoritative statements as transcribed by Paul, Luke, etc. We have no idea if a historical Jesus (if he exists) would have thought. But it is clear that "his" religion intended to change the Torah, in disregarding Shabbat laws and kashrut rules.

It seems necessary to find exactly which text explicitly says, "Jesus is a false prophet". Reform Judaims doesn't say this, the Rambam doesn't seem to say this, and the Talmud doesn't seem to say this. Haldrik 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ on what Reform Judaism says about it, here, for example, is a Reform Jewish organization comparing Jesus to the false prophet Balaam [16] I'm not sure where you have the idea only Chabad says this. And concerning it being possible for Noachides or Christians to be in good standing before God, I have no argument with you that Judaism teaches that, but that's a separate issue from whether Jesus is considered a false prophet according to Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The particular Reform Rabbi you reference didn't say Jesus was a false prophet. He specifically asked for the sake of initiating an important discussion, "Look up in New Testament how Jesus introduces his prophecies. Is he another Balaam?" The question rather than the statement is indicative of the Reform position.

Also, Haldrik, tell me whether these words indicate the Rambam (Maimonides) found Jesus to be a false prophet: Maimonides says it unapologetically in his "Letter to Yemen": "Jesus of Nazareth... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions." [17] --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Rambam does not call Jesus a "false prophet". The text in question actually says this:

"Yeshua Ha-Nozri: ... that one brought (others) to think that that one (was) sent from God to clarify the doubtfulness of the Torah and that that one (was the) Messiah, designated for us by each prophet, and explicated the Torah (with) an explication that brings (others) to an invalidating of the Torah and all the commandments" (הוא הביא לחשוב שהוא שלוח מהשם לבאר ספקות התורה, ושהוא משיח היעוד לנו על יד כל נביא ופרש התורה פירוש המביא לביטול כל התורה וכל מצוותיה).

The Rambam distinguishes between Jesus himself and the opinions that others came "to think" about him. In fact, in the rest of the text of the Yemen Letter, the Rambam clearly distinguishes between Jesus the person and Christianity the religion, and even shows sympathy for Jesus the person, who is not necessarily responsible for the excesses of Christianity. The Rambam says, "The beginning of whoever found this knowledge (of Christianity) is Yeshua Ha-Nozri, and he is from Yisrael" (ותחילת מי שמצא זו הדעת, היה ישוע הנוצרי, והוא מישראל). Jesus is the beginning of Christianity, which is in his name. However Jesus is not the one who "found" Christianity ... "whoever" that was. In a show of sympathy, the Rambam goes so far as to deny that Jesus is a bastard. He says he is the child of a Yisrelit mother and a Goy father, but that his birth was "kosher". And that the accusation that he is a bastard is just a slur to deligitimize him.

Again, the Rambam doesn't call Jesus a "false prophet". He identifies Jesus as a legitimate Jew and carefully distinguishes between him and Christianity. Of course, Christianity invalidates the Torah and is hostile to Judaism. Nevertheless, a distinction between Jesus and the Christianity after him seems to be an important opinion of Judaism, and even of the Rambam. Haldrik 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we heading right back into the meaning of Judaism debate again? :/. Can't we just mention all these different views in the section, mentioning what group they all belong to and whatnot? Homestarmy 17:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Judaism" in this context means Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of Herod's Temple. Homes, let's not debate this again. Let them sort out the citations. Arch O. La 02:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, as far as I can follow this discussion, you are violating our NOR policy by making your own synthetic and analytic claims. It doesn't matter how reasonable those claims are, or how much evidence you have: editors cannot edit articles based on their own conclusion concerning a topic. All Jews I know reject Jesus as a false messiah and false prophet, and one who abnegated the Torah. It is not hard to find sources for this. Now, I am sure that there are alternative and opposing views, and when you find verifiable sources, we can include them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars such as Flusser, Vermes, Buber, and so on, don't believe Jesus is a false prophet. Flusser and Buber who are Orthodox and deeply observant see no conflict between their scholarly conclusions and their Judaism. Reform Judaism doesn't believe Jesus is a false prophet. They all confirm Christianity is incompatable with Judaism, however maintain Jesus is a Jew, not a Christian. Haldrik 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, there are a number of sources which indicate that Judaism considers Jesus to be a false prophet. The fact that all branches seem to agree that Malachi was the last prophet should be indication enough that they don't consider later individuals such as Jesus (or Muhammad or Joseph Smith or anyone else) to be a real prophet. If you have any sources from mainstream denominations of Judaism that indicate that Jesus was a true prophet, or "tsaddik", or any other term you have used to describe him, please bring them forward. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You said, "There are a number of sources which indicate that Judaism considers Jesus to be a false prophet." Please identify them, so we can get a sense of who exactly says this. The Rambam did not. Haldrik 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, if Haldrik has the citations to prove that the definition of Judaism we're using in the article has no consensus on the false prophet thing, it seems to me such a development needs some real examination. Besides, Jesus wasn't a Jew or a Christian, He was God :D. Homestarmy 16:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, this article doesn't have a special definition for Judaism, it just uses the standard one. And please use these pages for the purpose for which they are intended, not for religious polemics or statements of faith. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, instead of us going in circles, why don't you propose what you consider an NPOV statement to add to the article. If you propose something concrete, including a quotation from Buber and Flusser, we can see if anyone has objections and if not, you can actually add it to the article. There is so much talk here on the topic and you can end it all if you propose a short summary of this view with the appropriate sources. I am not asking you what your sources are - I am asking you to make a concrete proposal that includes acceptable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, you've already been given links to references from two separate Jewish groups, each of which consider Jesus to be a false prophet. Here's a non-Orthodox source which says the same thing: [18], and another Orthodox one.[19] As far as Miamonides' views go, he stated Even Jesus the Christian, who thought he was the Messiah... was the subject of a prophesy in the Book of Daniel (11, 14): "...also the renegades of your people will exalt themselves to fulfill the vision - but they will stumble." Could there be a greater stumbling block than this [Jesus]? For all the prophets spoke of the Messiah who will redeem and save Israel, who will ingather all its exiles, and who will strengthen them in the fulfillment of the Torah's commandments - while he [Jesus] caused Israel to be killed by the sword, their remnants to be dispersed and humiliated, the Torah to be switched for something else, and most of the world to worship a G-d other than the G-d of Israel! Contrary to your portrayal, that's hardly a ringing endorsement of the man or his views, is it? Now which denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) views him as anything else but a false prophet? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You may misunderstand the viewpoint. For example, you provided a "non-Orthodox source" that rejects the Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Nonjewish definition of "Messiah", the insufficiency of the Torah, and so on. There is no disagreement about this. Judaism unanimously rejects these Christian doctrines. Yet the viewpoint notes, Jesus himself seems to not believe in these Christian doctrines either. An examination of what Jesus himself says and does confirms he is a Torah-observant Jew. Compassionate, monotheistic and halakhic - in other words, orthodox. By contrast, Jesus never even met those people who later develope the Christian doctrines, such as Paul of Tarsus and the Nicene Council. In short, Christianity is incompatable with Judaism. But Jesus isn't a Christian. He's a Judaic Jew.

With regard to the Mishneh Torah, here too, the Rambam clearly distinguishes between Jesus (singular) and those "renegades" (plural). It was the other people (such as Paul of Tarsus) who in the future "would be carried (away) to make stand a vision. And stumbled". Not Jesus.

With regard to Jesus, the Rambam uses cautious language. He says the following, depending on how you read it: "Yeshua Ha-Nozri likened that he would be (the) Messiah", or simply, "Yeshua Ha-Nozri imagined that (the) Messiah would be" (ישוע הנוצרי שדימה שיהיה משיח). Jesus compares himself to the Messiah or suspects he might one day be the Messiah (as other honorable Jews have done, such as Hillel and Schneerson), or else simply believes the Messiah can arrive at any moment. In any case, the Rambam's description of Jesus is sympathetic and reserves judgment. By contrast, the Rambam's description about Christianity is unequivocal. While mixed because he feels Christianity might be helpful for Nonjews, he declares Christianity is incompatable with Torah and unacceptable for Jews. Nevertheless, the Rambam separates his opinions about Christianity from his opinions about Jesus. Haldrik 05:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Miamonides could not have been clearer; he says that Jesus is one of the "renegades" that Daniel predicts, that Jesus himself caused Israel to be killed by the sword, their remnants to be dispersed and humiliated, the Torah to be switched for something else, and most of the world to worship a G-d other than the G-d of Israel!. It could hardly be more clear, your astounding apologetics notwithstanding. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The above is what the Rambam DOESN'T say. Rather, the Rambam says, "This (stumbling block = Christianity) caused Israel to be killed by the sword." Jesus didn't kill Jews by the sword. Nor did Jesus tell others to kill Jews by the sword. --Haldrik 15:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In The Real Messiah: A Jewish Response to Missionaries (p. 3) [20], Aryeh Kaplan too refers to the Jewish viewpoint that distinguishes between Jesus the person and Christianity the religion. Jesus himself is a Torah-oriented Jew. Jesus isn't the founder of Christianity (in its current form). Rather the founder of Christianity is Paul of Tarsus, who isn't a Torah-oriented Jew. Kaplan says,

"Soon after the death of Jesus, we find a marked change in the teachings of his followers. Christianity as we know it began during this period in the work of Paul of Tarsus. Although he had never seen Jesus alive, he claimed to have spoken to him in spirit. Under Paul’s leadership, many of the distinctive doctrines of Christianity were first proclaimed, and, for the most part, they have never changed."

Jesus is a Judaic Jew and isn't the source of the Nonjewish doctrines of Christianity. It's a well established Jewish viewpoint. It can be found in all branches of Judaism, including Orthodox and Reform. Haldrik 12:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik, at this point I must confess that I have no idea what you think you are doing. I have twice asked you to make a concrete proposal. But it seems that you prefer arguing over working on the article. That is a shame because you have obviously done some serious research. But if you cannot make a specific proposal, there is no point to this.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm hoping to communicate there is indeed a variety of Jewish opinions about Jesus. Haldrik 13:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope that you will actually respond positively to this third invitation to make a specific proposal. I think that if your proposal is to gain support, there are three things it must be clear on: (1) the distinction between formal views expressed by major Jewish organizations and movements (e.g. the Rabbinic Assembly, or the American Jewish Committee, or the Orthodox union, or Agudath Israel, or the Union for Reform Judaism) versus views expressed independently by major Jewish thinkers (e.g. Kaplan and Buber). I think there is room for both kinds of views, but only if we make a clear distinction between the two; (2) the distinction between Jesus and Christianity - some Jews draw a distinction, some do not, and both views are valid as long as they can be backed up by verifiable sources; (3) Jesus as false messiah versus Jesus as a thoughtful first century Jew - again, a distinction some Jews make, others do not.

A final observation: it seems to me that you, Jayjg, and Mperel are getting bogged down in a pointless, counterproductive argument over (3) because each of you is taking a different position concerning (1) or (2), without explicitly addressing them as separate points. I think as long as youse guys keep using one point to make other points, or conflate these three points, youse will continue to talk past one another. If youse can discuss each point one at a time, perhaps we can get past this pointless argument and make actual progress. I hope so, because I think the result will be an improvement over what we currently have. I urge you to try to develop a proposal that is acceptable to others and which will therefore end up in the article, and I hope my comment about discerning three different points will be constructive. But unless you can propose something that could actually go into the article, this is a waste of time. Please take this in the spirit in which I offer it: I don't want to argue with you and I am not trying to knock you and your research. I am trying to encourage you to put it to good use. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that the section is a summary section containing cited views of Judaism about Jesus. Not a lengthy dissertation what we imagine people to have meant, not what a small number of 20th century philosophers have said about him. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, in Judaism, the word "prophet" (נביא) is a specific word with a specific meaning, a word that the authoritative Rabbinic texts do NOT use to describe the historical Jesus. I can't help but feel that Jayjg is imposing the Habad POV, and not the NPOV. Judaism is bigger than Habad. As I have said, the majority of Rabbis I know distinguish between the historical Jesus and the Christian religion. The Rabbinic literature of Judaism also maintains this distinction. Haldrik 05:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this could be the "Habad POV", when a number of non-Habad sources say the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention, the main article of the Jewish views of Jesus, which I did not write, even opens with the unambiguous words that in Judaism "there are a diversity of Jewish views of Jesus." This is simply the accurate statement. Haldrik 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There are millions of Jewish views of Jesus; that's why this article is sticking to what Judaism has to say on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism:

• Wikipedia's NPOV policy often means multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but different groups in the past.
• Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts, in this case including the Torah, Tanakh, Mishnah, Tosefta, the two Talmuds, midrashic literature and the responsa literature. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources.

In answer to Slrub, I hope to work together with the other contributors to briefly summarize the various points of view. Haldrik 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it, and I hope so. Jayjg is a very well-respected editor, and I believe if the two of you were able to reach an agreement, the result will have been worth the discussion. To that end, I urge you to take the three distinctions I mention above seriously. I do not believe that the views represented should be limited to official representatives of the RA or OU, but I do agree that there is a big difference between a view held by a Jew, and a Jewish view. Along these lines, I also think it is important to distinguish between a scholar of Judaism and a Jewish scholar (for example, a historian who happens to be Jewish can study the history of Christianity or 1st century Palestine and write about Jesus - such writing would exemplify what critical historians think about Jesus, not what Jews think about Jesus). One last word of advice: this article is not the appropriate place for a nuanced account of the full range of Jewish positions. It may be that many of the details you have brought up here are appropriate for a different (and linked) article on Jewish views of jesus. for this article, however, the section on Jewish views is rightly short, and it only makes sense to limit it to a summary of well-established and mainstream views. I hope you do contribute to that, but I bet most of your efforts on this talk page would be better served in a separate article that can fully contextualize the range of views. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with what you say; the small section in this article is focussing on the mainstream views of Judaism. The views of philosophers or historians who happen to be Jewish are not relevant at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the article, because it is not relevant. As far as I knew Jews have considered Jesus a heretical rabbi, a magician, and a false messiah -- but not a false prophet. Slrubenstein

I think he has been considered a false prophet as well; I've certainly seen Jewish websites arguing as much. Jayjg 00:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess I would ask that those websites be cited. Frankly, I do not think they count for much, and whatevert they count for it today. If we want contemporary sources I would thing official statements from any of the major movements would be more suitable for an encyclopedia. In any event, there are almost 2000 years of Jewish-Christian relations and I would think that the views of Jews in the past -- I mean when Christianity was first being established -- would be of greater interest and relevance. And to my knowledge neither Josephus nor any of the sages of the Talmud nor any other early source called himm a false prophet. Slrubenstein

This is kind of a silly argument, because a messiah is automatically also a prophet. So yes he was a false prophet - even if no one says so directly (because they only mention messiah, and prophet is assumed).67.165.96.26 03:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Judaism doesn't believe it is wrong for a descendant of David to "suspect" he is the Messiah. For example, even in recent times, Rebbe Schneerson suspected he is a descendant of David and suspected he is the Messiah. Even if Schneerson is wrong, few Jews would accuse him of being a "false prophet", or even a transgressing Jew. Moreover, there may be a distinction between what Schneerson himself believed and what many in Habad believe about him. For example, as far as I know, Schneerson didn't expect to die and then resurrect before becoming the Messiah. Even if the claim to be the Messiah is wrong, Judaism allows this mistake. (Perhaps for the sake of keeping the hope of the Messiah alive.) Even though the Messiah will be a great prophet, wrongly claiming to be the Messiah is NOT the same thing as being a "false prophet". The situation Schneerson is in is very similar to the situation Jesus was in in ancient times. --Haldrik 15:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tests of a true or false prophet

The 5 Books of Moses (also known as the Old Testament, or Jewish Torah) contains several warnings about false prophets and changing of the law.

There are two versions of "false prophet" in Judaism: (a) the one who claims to be a prophet in the name of idolatry, and (b) the one who claims to be a prophet in the name of the God of Israel - but declares that any word or commandment (Mitzvah) which God has said no longer applies, or makes false statements in the name of God. A source for these is Deuteronomy 18:20, which refers to false prophets who claim to speak in the name of God. God's word is true eternally, so one who claims to speak in God's name but in fact diverges in any way from what God himself has said, logically cannot be inspired by divine authority.

• False Prophets -

• Of the false prophet who describes God and his wishes as different than he is, Deuteronomy 13:2-5 states (Hebrew translation)

"If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and he give thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, of which he spoke unto thee saying: 'Let us go after other gods [including other ways and beliefs] which thou hast not known, and let us serve them', thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. After the Lord your God shall ye walk, and Him shall ye fear, and His commandments shall ye keep, and unto His voice shall ye hearken, and Him shall ye serve, and unto Him shall ye cleave."

• Of the prophet who claims to speak in the name of the God of Israel, Deuteronomy 18:18-22 says

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto My words which he shall speak in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if thou say in thy heart: 'How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?' When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken; the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him."

• Changes to the Law - Deuteronomy 13:1 states simply

"All this which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

Thus at a minimum, the criteria for a person to be considered a prophet or speak for God in Judaism are that they must follow the God of Israel (and no other God), they must not describe God differently than He is known to be from Scripture, they must not advocate change to Gods word or state that God has changed his mind and wishes things that contradict His already-stated eternal word, and the things they do speak of must come to pass.

(It would be implied and understood that they would also be expected to be a godly person, and speak and act in the manner of one transmitting words from the Divine)

What about Deuternomy 13:2 onwards.

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them," 4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul. 5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him. 6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst

Which sounds just like what really happened with Yoshka, he arised as a false prohpet, he was killed, the end. Along come the Christian and make up the whole story. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 21:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been made infamous in my discussions on religious pages. Once again, I must say I'm not persecuting this religion or at least not my intent. Don't take it personal. I'm a beginner. Okay, here I go,

I've come here to bring up in this section, the Liar, Lunatic, or Lord thought that C.S. Lewis made famous in "Mere Christianity". The thought is simple, Jesus was either a con, a crazy man, or who He said He was. If Jesus was a liar, He would contradict what He taught. He was called "Great Teacher" and His words were undoubtedly moral, but if He lied and was just a guy, that would not make sense with His personality. Does a con-artist say good things and rip you off? Well, yes, he makes good deals, but he deceives you. Jesus taught us not to lie, or sin (along with some other commandments). Even in your heart, if you have lust, you have already committed adultery. If you have hate in your heart, you have already committed murder. (These are especially tough!) But if his morals are off, he wouldn't be teaching it.

Next, was He crazy? No. Does a lunatic make sense? Only to another lunatic. He thought He was Son of God, Messiah. But he taught things that made sense to people, millions of people, and counting. I haven't heard of anyone who, at least, doesn't go by the "Golden Rule". The "Golden Rule" states "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you." By that "Rule", it includes several other rules such as commandments 5-10. And last, Lord. My personal belief, maybe not yours, but it makes perfect sense to me. If He is who He claims to be, His characteristics all fit what He says. -66.218.14.32 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that you've found a belief that makes sense to you, but Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to share your beliefs, particularly on the talk page of an article detailing another belief system. Please refrain from proselytizing here and stick to discussion over the factual accuracy of the article at hand, Judaism's view of Jesus. Dbratton 12:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A reponse to Haldrik

Judaism doesn't believe it is forbidden for Nonjews to believe in Christianity This has been a dispute in between the Rabbis since day 1. More info at Jewish_views_of_religious_pluralism#Classical_views_on_Christianity.

"The problem does not lie with the origin of the prayer, or its Talmudic parallels (Ber. 16b f, 29b; Tosefta Ber. 3.7), but with the fact that Jesus taught it to his disciples (Matt. 6.9 ff; Luke 11.1 ff). Furthermore, it has become the central prayer of Christianity, and, in fact, is one of the strongest bonds between the Catholic and Protestant forms of Christianity. Although its content is neutral and it does not contain any direct reference to Christianity, its origin with Jesus and its strong Christian overtones makes its [religious] use unacceptable to Jews. Lets all pull sources out of nowhere. One would expect someone would of actually looked at some of these sources. Ber. 16b just talks about: if a wife who died wether you can wash and a groom reciting shema.

ems 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article

As I've said many times before, there are 14 million Jewish views of Jesus. This article needs to focus on Judaism's view of Jesus; that is, what the movements of Judaism have to say, or what authoritative Jewish texts have to say. The fact that a historian (like Vermes) is Jewish is not particularly relevant to what Judaism's view of Jesus is. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but Judaism allows a diversity of opinions about the historical Jesus. No Jew is transgressing their Judaism by holding any of a variety of opinions about the historical Jesus.

• First, if a Jewish scholar believes Jesus believes something, that doesn't mean the scholar agrees with Jesus.
• Second, many Jewish scholars believe Jesus is a Torah-observant Jew who is not himself responsible for Christianity. (Even some Hasidic scholars!) These scholars are not violating their Judaism by holding such an opinion.

Judaism allows a variety of opinions. They can and do exist. --Haldrik 14:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

While Judaism allows all sorts of opinions, that doesn't mean they are representative of Judaism itself. This article is about what authoritative voices of Judaism say; that is, what are the official positions of the various movements, or what do authoritative workse (like the Mishneh Torah) say. The fact that Vermes is a Jew, and has a viewpoint about Jesus, does not mean his views are relevant to this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhapse we can reach an agreement here.

• I agree that: "Judaism allows all sorts of opinions." That's my only point.
• And I agree that: "that doesn't mean they are representative of Judaism itself."

Even a statement like this for the Jesus article in the "Judaism's views" section, would be fine with me. --Haldrik 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Judaism allows opinions allowed by the Torah. ems 05:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11.10-11

I've given a very literal interpretation of what the Hebrew actually says.

[10] Even Yeshua Ha-Nozri that likened that he would be Messiah and was killed by (the court) the house of justice, already became prophesied by Daniel. So that it was said, “And the members of the outlaws of your kin would be carried to make stand a (prophetic) vision. And they stumbled” (Daniel 11.14). And because, is there a great(er) stumbling-block than this (stumbling-block) (Christianity)? So that all of the prophets spoke that the Messiah redeems (the kin of) Israel, and saves them, and gathers their banished ones, and strengthens their commands. And this (stumbling-block) (Christianity) caused (nations) to destroy Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant, and to humiliate them, and to exchange (out) the Torah, and to make err the majority of the world to serve a divinity besides God.

[11] However, the thinkings of the Creator of the world – there is no force in a human to achieve them because our ways (are) not his ways, and our thinkings not his thinkings. And all these things of Yeshua Ha-Nozri, and of (Muhammad) Ha-Ishmeli that stood after him – there is no (purpose) but to straighten (out) the way for the Messiah King, and to restore the world – all of it – to serve God together. So that it is said, “Because then I would overturn toward (the foreign) kins, (giving them) a clear lip to call all of them in the name of God, and to serve him (shoulder to shoulder as) one shoulder.” (Zefanyah 3.9).

אף ישוע הנוצרי שדימה שיהיה משיח, ונהרג בבית דין--כבר נתנבא בו דנייאל, שנאמר "ובני פריצי עמך, יינשאו להעמיד חזון--ונכשלו" (דנייאל יא,יד). וכי יש מכשול גדול מזה: שכל הנביאים דיברו שהמשיח גואל ישראל ומושיעם, ומקבץ נדחיהם ומחזק מצוותן; וזה גרם לאבד ישראל בחרב, ולפזר שאריתם ולהשפילם, ולהחליף התורה, ולהטעות רוב העולם לעבוד אלוה מבלעדי ה׳.׳

אבל מחשבות בורא עולם--אין כוח באדם להשיגם, כי לא דרכינו דרכיו ולא מחשבותינו מחשבותיו. וכל הדברים האלו של ישוע הנוצרי, ושל זה הישמעאלי שעמד אחריו--אינן אלא ליישר דרך למלך המשיח, ולתקן את העולם כולו לעבוד את ה' ביחד: שנאמר "כי אז אהפוך אל עמים, שפה ברורה, לקרוא כולם בשם ה', ולעובדו שכם אחד" (ראה צפניה ג,ט).׳

--Haldrik 15:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Even with the Rambam, there is a distinction between what Jesus himself believes and what later Christians believe about Jesus. The Rambam identifies these later beliefs of Christianity as the problem (the "stumbling block"). --Haldrik 15:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! It is you who have inserted the word "Christianity" into the English translation, though at least you had the grace to insert it in parentheses. In fact, the original quotation indentifies Jesus as the stumbling block, not Christianity. In fact, the original quotation only refers to Jesus, and does not mention or imply Christianity anywhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, LOL! Even a Rabbi who you linked me too inserted the word "Christianity" in his translation! The original Hebrew does not refer to Jesus the person when criticizing the violent excesses of Christianity. IIRC, the Hebrew word "stumbling-block" never refers to a person but to an "impossible mission" or "impossible task" that always ends in failure. Here too, it is impossible to simultaneously be a Christian and remain true to Torah: inevitably, a Christian will "stumble" and violate Halakhah (not least of which is the requirement of monotheism). --Haldrik 21:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

DISPUTATION ON NEUTRALITY Wikipedia is not a place for theological indoctrination, but a place of open contributions that must be VERIFIABLE and non-biased. I dispute the n of this article. Statements in this article are completely biased, one-sided, and portray a monolithic idea that "Judaism" has toward Yeshua (Jesus). Even if you are not a believer in Yeshua, One example of blatant bias occurs in the following statement:

"Furthermore, Jesus was rejected as the Messiah by the rabbis of his time who saw him, and there is no reason to doubt their assessment.

"There is no reason to doubt their assessment"? Is this what Wikipedia's purpose is? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

{sigh} As a Christian I usually find it wise to stay out of a discussion of Judaism's views, but I have to say that it is bad form to post this twice. My response is listed under the first time this disputation appears on this talk page. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is true that Rambam distinguishes between Jesus and his followers. Nevertheless, he still considered Jesus to be a false messaiah - that's the point of his saying Daniel foretold of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing Other views section

This article is about Judaism's views. I don't even see how such a section would be allowed in this article. ems 06:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

good job, why not remove the rest of the section? Jon513 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am asking about. Should it be totally removed? ems 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing as no one opposes. ems 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't was enough. 16:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds familiar. Homestarmy is advocating that the "other views" section be removed from Christian views of Jesus (this includes both Jewish and Muslim responses). I notice that people are already disputing the POV of these religious perspective articles; to remove the "other views" section from any of them will only invite more complaints. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the way I see it, this series of article's were written to represent one POV and one POV only (perhaps with minor reflection upon derivative and directly related views where appropriate), I say let them do just that :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we can avoid accusations of POV-forking by writing NPOV articles about specific theological persepectives. I also believe that we have done so. There are, in fact, numerous theological articles on Wikipedia that don't get accused of violating NPOV. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

False prophet or a prophet who was sent as a test?

Deut. 13 does call such people as prophet or dreamers but rather ones who were sent as a test. A better/modern English translation can be found here: [21]. ems 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Ems2, I changed the headings back to their succinct labels "Not the messiah" etc. First of all, it matches the intro. Secondly the succinct headings seem more clear to me. I'm willing to discuss if others disagree. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hold my version of the headings are more accurate but in very bad English. If you don't mind to maybe change it in to better English? But I see no reason to revert to the old inaccurate versions. ems 13:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

how are they inaccurate? Jon513 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He would be a prohpet according to Devarim. Just one sent as a test. It isn't that he isn't the Son of God, its that he can't even be. etc. ems 09:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether Ems or anyone else believes that Jesus was a prophet (and consequently, their reasons for thinking he is a prophet is irrelevant, whether their reasons come from personal experience or their interpretation of Devarim). The question is, have leaders of normative Judaism believed Jesus to be a prophet? The answer is, they believe him to be a false prophet. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Devarim only calls someone a prophet who is sent as a test only if he makes signs or wonders and then contradicts the Torah.

• I don't think that Jesus did any signs or wonders.
• Even if he did, the modern use of the word prophet means "someone who G-d talks to that you should listen to" and using it in the biblical sense doesn't really make sense. Jon513 14:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

He is as much of a prophet as Balaam. He spoke to God, he did what he was told, now we have to do what we are told and not hearken his words. As Devarim says, 13:4 "do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for Hashem, your God, is testing you to know wether you love Hashem, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul." Just to throw anything in, Matthew 5:17 quotes Jesus saying, "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill." he himself knew he was testing us. Miamonides even seems to state this by calling him a stumbling block. ems 12:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Jesus was as much of a prophet as Balaam. But it is a moot point; either way we don't listen to him. Jon513 12:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A prophet is someone that God talks to him. If God asks him to test us that doesn't make him any less of talking to God. ems 05:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that God talked to Jesus. I do belive that God talked to Balaam. If you can cite someone who says this then go ahead and cite it as one opinion. Jon513 13:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, anyone who holds Devarim 13 refers to Jesus. Otherwise what they hold wont make sense. ems 16:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a nice lego cartoon which draws it out: [22] and [23] ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 15:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference links down?

When I reformatted a verse reference to match the standard on this page (bibleverse||Isaiah|11:9|HE) I noticed that all links to Isaiah come back with the message "This book (isaiah) not in Mechon Mamre's collection." Anyone have any insights as to what's happened to this resource? Dbratton 14:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

seems to only be the book Isaiah, I'll speak to jnothman who I think created the template. Jon513 06:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it seems to be only for Isaiah, and only on the Mechon Mamre Hebrew-English site. It's especially odd because it's possible to access Isaiah manually on that site. Dbratton 11:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem has been corrected. Jon513 12:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Section titles and POV

Hello all. I made a bunch of copyedits. The section titles that purport to "refute" any beliefs are just argumentative. What is Objective is (1) Judaism's view of the Messiah, prophets, eschatology, and (2) that the life of Jesus as described by Christian texts et al. does not conform to this. I retitled the sections accordingly. I am way over my head here theologically and will defer to those with more expertise, but I attempted to import from the relevant articles the basis for why Judaism espouses what it does about the Messiah. From there it follows what the Jewish view of Jesus would be (ie, if Isaiah said there will be an era of peace but there wasn't one, then Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah, etc.). Kaisershatner 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Great job. You asked on the comment of an edit "I assume this is waiting for expansion? seems a major point of history". The truth is these are all (to the best of my knowledge) of the older texts that take note of Jesus. There are more writings in the modern era, but they just repeat what has been said earlier. As the introduction said, Jewish texts referring to Jesus is pretty scarce. Jon513 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, excellent edits Kaisershatner. Your edits hopefully addressed ems's concerns above about the headings as well, and you tightened things up and expanded where needed nicely. Looks really good. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yemen letter

Humus, yes your paragraphizing looks neater : ) thanks! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I reordered the introduction. I thought it important to emphasize the per se: that there isn't really a Jewish view of Jesus qua Jesus, as by Jewish criteria there's no more reason to have a specific view of him than there is to have a Jewish view of Kaisershatner. It's the Jewish worldview that determines the view of Jesus, and I thought the prior way might have suggested Judaism takes more note of Jesus than is the case (a point elegantly stated in the 2nd para where few documents mention Jesus). Kaisershatner 16:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A definite improvement, good editing. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs of Judaism

I think one thing that needs to be corrected in this article or definition is the clarification that it is the opinion of the Jewish belief of why Jesus is not the messiah. There are some hints in here that state the evidence that the religion uses to counterreport most Christian belief as fact. It needs to be addressed that these pieces of evidence are not the opinion of the wikipedia site but rather a statement of terms or relevance to the Jewish religion in relation to their view of Jesus. Statements like "they believe however that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of bringing peace to the earth because there was no literal peace on the planet even though Christians believe this is actually a reference to a possible second coming," could be much less demeaning. I think things like these would be much more neutral and much less harsh against Jesus of Nazareth than by saying "He did not do this, or this, or this.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.174.101 (talk • contribs)

Phrases such as "Judaism teaches", "Judaism believes", and "According to mainstream Jewish conception" are liberally scattered through the article - there is no danger that people will be taking what is reported here as the official stance of Wikipedia. Any perceived harshness that you may see applied to christian beliefs is because Judaism is harsh towards christian interpretations of messianic prophecies, and the article is simply describing those views. There is no need to recast the article as a debate between religons, since that is quite plainly not what the article is about. Dbratton 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Um wow. This is one of the more potentially disturbing article I've read on Wikipedia. The first part is more mild and uncontroversial, just explaining why Jesus does not fit Judaism's understanding of Messiah. Also I'm granting that religious articles on Wikipedia vary from poor to awful, but kind of unnerving in a way. I always thought Jewish people didn't have ill-will to Jesus or Christianity itself. This seems to imply that might not be so and that Christian Anti-Semites were more correct than people realize. Because it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Judaism really does teach condemnation of Jesus as a renegade and denigration of Christianity as a vile blasphemy. This just doesn't fit what I've read by Jewish people.--T. Anthony 10:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you clarify what part of the article you believe validates the views of christian anti-semites? After what you outline as the "mild and uncontroversial" part explaining why Jesus cannot be the Jewish messiah comes a section on various historical Jewish texts that discuss christianity, all which are accurately represented with plenty of quotes and citations. I don't see how this fits with your interpretation. Dbratton 12:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just surprised that the Jewish view back then, toward Jesus, was so hostile. If someone had told me that Judaism had taught a "Bones be ground to dust", "Christianity exists to hurt the Jewish people" I'd just have dismissed them as an Anti-Semite. I know this is sounding bad, I just was rather surprised. Still the relationships between religions and offshoots are often cantankerous. Catholics were hostile to Protestants, Protestants were hostile to Mormons, Muslims were hostile to Bahai, etc. I guess I'd just come to believe it was only one-sided after the second century. That when Medieval Christians said "Jews defame Christ in their writings" or "Jews are against our religion" they were simply expressing their own warped paranoia. In fact I was horrified by an article I read from the Society of St. Pius X, which said such things. Learning instead that they were only exaggerating a more or less accurate reality shocks me a little. Although people move on and learn. Modern Christianity doesn't call Jews perfidious and Judaism I assume isn't like this anymore. The article leaves off with Judaism's view as of the fifteenth century, and any Orthodox forms of Judaism that retain it, but that might be due to lack of research on later periods. Still it was just a shock to me Judaism ever felt like this. I know this is likely offensive, but I'm not sure how else to describe my reaction.--T. Anthony 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking wholly from a personal perspective, there will always be Jewish resentment toward Christianity due to the widespread persecution in the past and the ongoing attempts at conversion of Jews (e.g. Jews for Jesus). That said, most modern Jews are not overly perturbed by Christianity as long as it isn't pushed upon them. Christianity as a religon will always be viewed within Jewish communities as a paganistic perversion of Judaism, for many of the reasons outlined here and elsewhere. According to Judaism, believing a man to be G-d really is blasphemy and is wholly contradictory to the entire belief system - there's no getting around that. Jewish people, on the other hand, are really only bothered by that when it directly affects them and their religon, as it did with the Rambam, Nahmanides, and any Jew who is persecuted by Christians (prosyletization is also a form of persecution). Stronger language may have been used to express these views at times when persecution was more direct, but it's not unreasonable for a community to strongly resent a group that is committed to their elimination by means of violence or religious conversion. Dbratton 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure. Times being what they were I'd always understood/sympathized with anger or resentment Jews had toward Christians. Christianity being seen as a "paganistic perversion" is common to the other forms of monotheism, Islam feels much the same. It's unlikely to effect me in day to day life anyway so none of my business.--T. Anthony 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also you might have been thinking I meant the crazy Christian Antisemitism that condemned Jewish people as having evil powers. Nothing would ever make that element more correct and if you thought I meant that, I'm intensely apologetic.--T. Anthony 14:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Internal links

Jon513 deleted these. They're both links that I'd want to see on a "Judaism's view of Jesus" page. Is there a reason that they don't belong? It seemed to me that a "See Also" link was the least obtrusive way to give a reader the link.

• Messianic Judaism
• Joseph Klausner (1874-1958)

Jonathan Tweet 07:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism does not represent the Judaism view of Jesus, this has been discussed before. I read the article Joseph Klausner and I have no idea how he is relavant to this subject. Jon513 07:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Jon513 - Of course Messianic Judaism doesn't represent Judaism's view of Jesus. If it did, I'd have inserted a section on it in the main body of the article. You say that the Messianic Judaism link doesn't belong under "see also" because their views don't "represent the Judaism view of Jesus." But the "see also" links include Christian views of Jesus and Jesus as a Muslim prophet. Neither of those links "represent the Judaism view of Jesus." Evidently, the "see also" links are being used for pages that are related but that don't belong as part of this article proper. Messianic Judaism is simply a related topic. Let's not worry about the Klausner link, but the Messianic Judaism link belongs in See Also alongside Christianity and Islam. What do others think? Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This other agrees with Jon513. "Messianic" Judaism is not Judaism, and the MJ article is not devoted solely to their views on Jesus, as this article and the Christian/Muslim views articles are. If you were trying to link to an article with the title "Messianic Judaism's view of Jesus" this might make more sense (not that I'm suggesting that there needs to be such an article). Dbratton 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dbratton- OK, that makes sense. Jonathan Tweet 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

section

I have removed a rather large addition added by User:128.151.130.246. The text was POV (and hard thing to do in a article about a POV), and repeated much of the same information already stated. It was also not written in an encyclopedic tone. If anyone want to salvage some of what (s)he wrote it is in the edit history. Jon513 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

i would like the information from the site JewsForJudaism.org added http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.html

JewsForJudaism is a crediable sorce representing all traditonal braches of Judaism.--YishaiMagelMoganim 01:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename

• support --Striver 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• oppose -- Not really necessary, and Judaic isn't going to be as easily recognized by a layperson. Dbratton 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• oppose i am not sure what "judaic" means. Does it include more than judaism's? Jon513 17:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Haldrik 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Inaccurate and vague term. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Talmud and Jesus christ (some texts)

You may find some details here[24]

The fact that the first sentence on that page reads "From the Jewish Encyclopedia, we learned that the Talmud slanders our Savior, Jesus Christ" is quite indicative that it is very strongly POV. Even the very first quote (supposedly from the JE) is inaccurate. I removed the link from the article. Dbratton 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I checked the Talmud 2 days ago; and those texts are really right.

Please do not feed the trolls

This page is for discussing improving the article, not a forum for you to discuss Jewish Christian relations. Jon513 10:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Talmud again?

Yesterday I checked the Talmud and I find some texts: is it possible to add a section about it?:

"Jesus was a bastard born of adultery." (Yebamoth 49b, p.324). "Mary was a whore: Jesus (Balaam) was an evil man." (Sanhedrin 106a &b, p.725). "Jesus was a magician and a fool. Mary was an adulteress". (Shabbath 104b, p.504).

see Yeshu. Jon513 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)