Talk:Jewish views on Jesus/Archive 2

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Talmud and Yashka

message: 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)
thread_title: My recent edits, etc

message: 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  , 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." []. "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.) 
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.  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. [] 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."  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)  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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New text for ''Judaism's views'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tests of a true or false prophet

message: 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)
thread_title: A reponse to Haldrik

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 11.10-11 

message: 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)
replies: text: good job, why not remove the rest of the section? Jon513 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I am asking about. Should it be totally removed? ems 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. LaTalkTCF 02:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Other views section 

message: 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: . ems 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False prophet or a prophet who was sent as a test? 

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference links down? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Section titles and POV

message: Humus, yes your paragraphizing looks neater : ) thanks! --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yemen letter

message: 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)
replies: text: A definite improvement, good editing. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Beliefs of Judaism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Dbratton- OK, that makes sense. Jonathan Tweet 00:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  section 

message: *support --Striver 18:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: You may find some details here
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talmud and Jesus christ (some texts) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talmud again?