Tilted Relgion: A question for Jewish Folks...
 

Ok let me preface this by saying, i dont know much about religion.
But i have a question.
And I need some to explain it.

Maybe my facts are all wrong, so if they are please excuse my ignorance on the subject, but If they are right, please explain my dilemma.

Jewish People don't believe in Jesus.

Jesus was Jewish.

I dont get it.

it doesnt make sense to me.

(I'm not jewish, but I have been dubbed an "Honorary Jew" by my jewish friends).

It's not that jews don't believe in that there was a historical man whose teachings got recorded and made into a book that some people believe in.

The Old Testament (also known as The Torah) contains some prophetic writings that say that a messiah will come to redeem mankind. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was that messiah. Jews don't believe that the messiah has come yet. That's where the split between Jews and Christians began.

Yes, Jesus was Jewish. Doesn't mean all the jews believe he was the fulfillment of the prophesy in the Torah.

Jews can beleive the Jesus was a man who lived but they don't believe he was the Messiah.

That is, unless they are Jews for Jesus

Jewish people don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of God.

Just as Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe he was the son of God.

Also, remember that being Jewish is both a religious and an ethnic classification. Jesus was a member of the tribe of Judah, thus Jewish.

True, but He was also Jewish in the religious sense.

Does it make anyone else laugh and then shake their head in disgust, when someone talks about Jesus being Catholic or Christian?

A funny note on that:

I was doing the music for a passion play one year and the woman who was playing Jesus (yes, very progressive, I know) was making the sign of the cross over the crowd as she rode into Jerusalem on the ass.

Talk about the cart before the ass.

Oye veh.

Only in the same way that Muhammed was Christian. He (Jesus) was not Jewish in the religious sense, because the Jewish churches believed that Jesus was not the messiah. Becuase Jesus claimed to be the savior, and the Jewish church disagreed, He was not technically Jewish. He was an Isreali (direct lineage from David).

Is it just me or does The Hymen sound like a Jewish holiday?

Short explanation: The Jewish religion says when the Messiah comes there will be peace on Earth. Hence, there is not peace on earth. Jesus was not the Messiah, at least yet. The religion also teaches us that we are all children of God. So Jesus calling himself the son of God, really not a big deal.

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi no more no less. Jews don't think bad of Jesus, truth is the Rabbis at that time were corrupt and he was probably right in what he was saying, and wrongfully murdered but there have been a lot of innocent people killed over the years for going against the tide.

We believe he existed as a normal person, we dont believe he performed miracles or came back to life.

Regardless, be a good person the rest of it really doesn't matter however you find it.

Just my opinion dont want to start a ruckus

^Quote of the day^

:lol:

I need help from someone with a great deal more scholarship, but I don't think what you are saying here is true, Will.

Jesus was a Jew, both ethnically (decendent of David) and religiously. The term "Christian" came into being long after his death. "Israeli" is neither an ethnic nor religious designation, but one of geographical citizenship. Will, if you meant to say "Israelite" (a descendent of Jacob), then it is my belief that David preceded Jacob and that they were of different tribes. Jesus could not have descended from both tribes, maybe?

Calling all scholars, please. I may have this all wrong.

I'm no scholar, but I'm the son of one. *Calls Dad* He's both.

if he's from nazereth, he's maybe an isrealite...as that's quite far to the north, where the people were largely displaced long ago in the assyrian invasion. if Matt and Luke are right about his line, then he's a Judean.

but he is part of the larger conversation of those who worship YHWH, which makes him Hebrew.

only later does Judean start getting translated as "Jew."

Well let me explain my reasoning. If one were to ask you the main difference between Judism and Christianity, what would your answer be? Mine would be that the Christians believe that Jesus of Nazereth is the messiah, and Jews do not. Jesus knew He was the messiah (according to the Bible), therefore Jesus was Christian. You might call Jesus the first Christian. He was raised by Jewish parents, but He was Christian. The Christian church broke off from Judism because the Christians believed that Jesus was God's son, and the Jews politely disagreed.

Forgive my earlier misuse of the label "Israeli". I did mean Israelite. I don't think the disagreement was about his ethnicity or lineage, though.

well, as someone who isnt Jewish but almost is... Jewish people believe in Jesus as a physical reality (or at least most do) they just dont believe he was the Messiah. Jewish opinion would go from the range of thinking Jesus was a crook and a false prophet, to accepting the moral validity of his preaching and seeing him as an enlightened Rabbi There are also Jews who believe he was the Messiah (which is different from thinking he is God)

Islam and Judaism both hold that God is one and God is great - and that you cannot divide God into pieces nor claim any of His prophets were literally God, even if they spoke for him.

Of course, it is true that although Jesus (as he is represented today) was radical in some ways, and opposed to some ideals of the Jewish ruling class in his day (he was after all a rural man) he always was a Jew. Jesus lived and died as an observant Jew, and as such nothing would have been more offensive to him than the division of God into three entities. Christianity was not Jesus' religion, it was Paul's.

i include the difference between judean and isrealite, because most people don't realize there is one. the two kingdoms are only briefly united in history and Galilee and Judah are two very different places.

The argument that beleif in Jesus as Christ equals Christianity is pure anachronism. Regardless of if Jesus thought himself Christ, it is Hebrew texts and teachings that lead to messianic hope. Not all believed that the scriptures predicted such a figure, and not all agreed that Jesus was Christ. But those who did believe as such did so as part and parcel of their pre-existing faith.

Simply, no reputable scholar would say that the schism of Judaism and Christianity occurs any time before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD)...and many say it occurs late 2nd century.

I too will vigorously disagree.

Re-read the Gospels and you will repeatedly see Jesus observing all the Jewish religious traditions including: observing the sabbath; observing passover; reading scripture in the temple.

What the Hebrews believed Jesus to be is irrelevant to the question and what he himself believed also appears to be irrelevant since his actions proclaim him to be an observant Jew.

And Muhammed wasn't anything close to Christian. Prior to the Prophet's arrival and preaching, most Arabs were polytheistic, though Allah was recognized as a primary god and the Arabs claimed decendency from Abraham, as the Jews and Christians did.

We are talking about a general concensus of what the church taught. In general, Judism taught that there would some day be a messiah. It still does. Basically all Chrtistians believe that Jesus was the son of God and the messiah. If one can say that this is a possible divergence between the two faiths, then Jesus was Christian. He knew He was the messiah. I know the term Christian hadn't been invented yet when Jesus was around, but we are looking at this from the year 2005 when the term Christian is known and understood. From the perspective of today (where I get a lot of my persperctive from), I would suggest that because Jesus beieved Himself to be the son of God and the messiah, He was and is Christian.
I'm not a reputable scholar. I'm just some dude. I know when the church was oifficially named Christianity, but again we are looking at this from 2005. Jesus is supposed to be timeless, anyway. Since it is past 70 AD, Jesus is now Christian.
The sabbath and passover are not exclusively Jewish. Christians also celebrate passover and go to church on the sabbath. Jesus read the old testemant in the temple. The old testament is the first half of the Christian bible.
An observant Jew wouldn't claim to be the messiah. An observant Jew wouldn't contradict the pharisies. Christians see christianity to be the next step beyond Judism. We simply belive that Judism is an unfinished story without the messiah. Because of that key difference, Jesus can now be considered Christian. The teachings of Jesus, from him or through his apostles, is the entire second half of the christian bible (the new testemant). I would say that Jesus is the personification of Christianity, not just that He is a Christian.
There is a whole book in the Qu'ran named after Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Muslims believe that Abraham rebuilt Mecca, and that Moses, David, Jesus, and others were prophets sent from Allah. They believe that the Torah was delivered to the Jews by God, and that the bible was delivered to the deciples by God. Muhammed recieved thr Qu'ran from Gabriel, an angel mentioned in the Bible.

Jesus was a Jew, what type of Jew I do not know, was he good, bad, more or less, I will let G-d decide. That is the Jewish belief.

But the big thing is we do not believe he spoke for G-d, was a son of G-d etc.. Thus the whole new testament thing is not part of our belief.

My question back, according to someone above, they said he kept shabbos, and passover.. Why don't you do that then? (I ask this out of ignorance and curiousity).

Also, Jesus did not proclaim himself the son of God, but all people the children of God. I might point out that the gospels were all written long after Jesus' death, and, although it would appear otherwise, NOT by his disciples, so any claims at all as to what he did or said are hugely suspect and most likely greatly exagerated.
The thing that seems to be the closest to truth is that he was a rebbe or Jewish priest (rabbis back then were community leaders who wrote law, in addition to being spiritual leaders, rebbes then were like ministers today) who defied many of the rabbinical teachings and laws of the time, taking what he believed to be a greater truth and creating a defiant loyal following-later, Christians.

Christians go to church on Sunday, that represents our honoring the Sabath day (also one of our ten commandments, just like yours). We also celebrate passover.

When discussing Jesus or religion in general, espically with religious people, I would think that attacking the bible, whether your attack has merrit or not, isn't constructive. If one is to discuss something from the perspective of Chsitian (as I am doing), I must cite the bible and other religious texts as fact.

Also Jesus did claim to be the son of God.

-I and my Father are one. John 10:30
-They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He (Jesus) replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)
-Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father..." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father ... Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?" (John 14:8-10)
-For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
-All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Luke 10:22)

will, Son of God may not mean 2nd person of the trinity. the Psalms refer to human kings that way. they're also annointed, and thus messiahs. for the greco-romans in the audience, Augustus uses a similar title. kingship and being the son of God is a long standing tradition in the area. what does Jesus mean by it? I think he meant he was the Messiah. Does that make him the 2nd Godhead? That's a far more difficult move to make from scripture...

to claim that an observant Jew would not claim to be the messiah is just not correct. several others claimed just that, and led jewish movements and uprisings in that time. at that point, you have to be Jewish to claim to be messiah, since messiah is a title and term defined by jewish tradition.

"An observant Jew wouldn't contradict the pharisees"

Except a whole lot of other observant first century Jews. The Saducees had no love lost for those upstarts, and the Qum'ran community appears to have little or no connection with them. They don't advocate violence like the Sicarii, at least as far as we can figure. The only source we have written by one of these Pharisees?

Paul's letters. Philo might be a hint, but he never identifies himself that way, and Paul does. So we're still pretty well in the dark about some of the major teachings. But judging by the fighting between them and the early church, i'd say they're often close...infights tend to be the nastiest. Again, this just cannot be correct. The High Priest at the time was certainly not a temple denying Pharisee, but a son of Zadok (Sadducee). Was he not an observant Jew? Or are we forgetting that there were multiple and contested ways of expressing worship of YHWH at this time?

and you're right...you are talking about what the church has taught for a long time. but they didn't initially...and it's pretty easy to prove. Christian first shows up in a bastardized form in a letter from one roman adminstrator to another, complaining about the followers of Chrispus (i'm not sure on the transliteration there but it's close). Acts talks of the people who follow "the way" and Paul speaks of those "in Christ." But niether of them think of that as being over and against a conceptual Judiasm.

Jesus spoke on many occasions about how his presense fulfilled the prophecies. Clearly, he thought of himself as Messiah.

He taught in the Temple. Clearly, he was a practicing Jew.

Paul, in his letters, encouraged Jews to keep the practices of their religion, including circumsision, and held that gentiles had no such obligation. He taught that all could embrace the Way [of Christ] and find salvation.

As to periodicity, Mark is reliably dated to ad 60 - 65, Matthew and Luke to the mid-70's and John to the early 90's. The various texts of these books are remarkably consistent. They also present facts later sustained through archaeology. They are very close to the events they report and can be considered reliable in their reporting.

Well, Martin stole most of my thunder there.

I will add that Christians do celebrate those things, but there weren't any around at the time.

I will also add that my New American translation reads:

My NRSV reads:

My New Jerusalem Translation:

So I think your quote is abit off.

But really, it seems like you've made up your mind. You are free of course to your belief, but in all the years I've read and attended church, I've never heard anyone else say that Jesus wasn't a religious Jew.

Edit to add:

Of course if he really was the messiah, he wasn't be sacreligious, was he? :)

Then we can all start a LOOOONG discussion on the Gospels and what Jesus actually said...

There were no Muslims until Muhammed. He (and his people) were polytheistic, worshiping a variety of Gods (including Allah) and who did recognize a holy aspect to Judaism and Christianity. But to say Muhammed was Christian in the way that Jesus was Jewish is completely wrong. Jesus was born a Jew. Mary and Joesph and all his ancestors were Jewish. Muhammed had no Christian ancestors nor was he ever Christian. Having shared beliefs in no way makes Muhammed or any contemporary Muslim a Christian.

I am not attacking it, merely pointing out that the words of the Gospels are not direct quotes from Jesus or his disciples. Also, in that context, you show he says he himself is the son of God, but it is not in it's entire scope as he does tell his followers that believe in him is to believe in God and that we are all the children of God.John 3:16 is not the word of Jesus himself(as far as the gospels go), so doesn't really fall into the categories of the others. Depending on what Christian faith you follow, interpretations vary as pointed out-some making Jesus much more humble than those you quote, which of course I won't dispute-just another interpretation of his words. It's actually pretty interesting to go through various versions and pick up the differences.
As to periodicity, Mark is reliably dated to ad 60 - 65, Matthew and Luke to the mid-70's and John to the early 90's. The various texts of these books are remarkably consistent. They also present facts later sustained through archaeology. They are very close to the events they report and can be considered reliable in their reporting.
However, they are not the direct disciples as that would make them close to 90 years old at least and some have placed the books of Luke and John as even later than 90 years-it's just not possible to be entirely accurate age-wise as to what date they were written. In fact, there has been some conjecture that the latter gospels were written using the earlier versions' 'facts' in either a competitive nature to those earlier ones or as a 'clarification'. Who knows....there's now some conjecture that there was a gospel based on Mary Magdalene that was 'rejected' for inclusion to the new testament, along with several other books rejected for various reasons.

Oh, you don't have to take my word for it, here's a good summary of the scholarship involved.

Link

The article goes on to talk about dating John, but I thought that less pertinent to the point of this thread that the synoptics.

PERSONAL BELIEF BELOW, not meant to flame.

"Jesus was/is the son of God, but not God, Himself."

Most of the Jewish friends I know have the same or similar belief.

I personally find myself somewhere between Jewish and Catholic

Sorry I do not follow, your Jewish friends think Jesus was / is son of G-d?

What about the verse from above? Here's the whole passage: "Then came the Feast of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon's Colonnade. The Jews gathred around Him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The mericles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall not perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Jesus knows that He is one with God the Father, and thus He is God. I see that as being clear.
Again, I have to say that Chrstianity DID blossom from Judism. I know that. I know that Christianity could be considered a sect Judism, in fact. Because the word and idea of the messiah were Jewish does not mean that Jesus was not Christian. HOWEVER there is a main difference between those who consider themselves Jews and Christians (except for the Jews for Jesus, I love those guys): Judism now, in 2005 = Jesus was a prophet, Christianity now, in 2005 = Jesus was the messiah prophesized in the old testemant. Bearing that in mind...Jesus believe that He was the messiah from the old testemant, and that not only was He the son of God, but He was a part of God.
You got me there. I was incorrect.
It's not a matter of for or against. Christianity isn't 'against' Judism. (warning, I'm pretty sure the following is really blasphemus, but I'm trying my best to make a valid comparison...bear with me) Imagine that you work at McDonalds. When you first start working there, some people talk about how some day you'll make a bigger, better burger. A new guy comes along and makes a Whopper on his first day. Some people follow him, and some don't. Some people think his burger is the burger of ledgend, some think it's still coming. The Whopper maker claims that McDonalds is heading in a wrong direction and that Burger King is the way to go. Some people follow and learn how to make a Whopper. Some resent what they see as disrespect against McDonalds. He's then fired (crucified). The people who prefer the whopper start to grow and spread the word of the whopper. He starts his own resturant. Now, wasn't this guy the first Burger King? Couldn't you call him the King of Burger Kings? (sorry, I coulnd't resist) This guy, though at first working at McDonalds, introduced the world to the Whopper. All of his followers worked at what would some day become Burger King. McDonalds still continues on, waiting some day for the big new burger to come along. Burger King believes that the Whopper was that burger. I would again argue that the guy who made the first Whopper was the first Burger King.

This is a discussion of definition. What does "Christian" mean? Does it mean follower of Christ? Does it mean those who believe that Jesus Christ was the only son of God, and was God Himself? Does it mean a sect of Judism ivolving a prophet?

Until we can settle on the meaning of the word "Christian", we can't close this discsussion.

What about Messianic Jews???

Jews for Jesus = most famous of the Messianic sects.

wow, my thread caused a slight stir... good conversation.

Possibly leading to a tilted religion forum board for people to debate and discuss?

We already have one.....its Called Philosophy

Politely disagreed? I thought that they killed him for it. IF that is polite, I don't want to see your definition of rude. :lol:

Why do people, especially Jewish people it seems, type G-d instead of God. Is it a "name in vein" issue? I'm just curious.

Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better. Observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it. To avoid writing the Name, Orthodox Jews (and sometimes other denominations) substitute letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." (from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...daism/g-d.html)

to the contrary, i'd like to make a few adjustments to your views highthief.

it is popular muslim belief that the word 'muslim' does not mean 'a follower of Muhammed'. in fact it refers to those that believed in the "oneness of God", God as a single entity and who was worshipped according to His laws brought down by His prophets. Thus with that classification, it can be said that Moses was a 'muslim', Abraham was a 'muslim' David was a 'muslim', Jesus was a 'muslim' etc in that sense, just as Muhammed was a 'muslim'.

the term 'muslim' has many meanings. it comes from the arabic word 'silm' or 'aslam' (from which the word 'islam' comes from) which basically means 'to submit or to give in to' among a miriad of other meanings.

as for Muhammed being polytheistic, there is no evidence to suggest that Muhammed worshipped idols or the religion of his people. Nor is there any evidence to say that he proclaimed any polytheistic beliefs.

in regards to 'Allah' being worshipped pre-Muhammed, the polytheists at the time of muhammad and prior believed that there was higher being called Allah, although they chose to worship idols. its worthy to note that the arabs also use the term "Elah' for God to mean God or Lord which would be very similar to the jewish term 'Elohim'?

willravel-

Thanks for the information.

To my knowledge, at the time of Abraham is
where the Hebrew people split in religion
with one son founding islam
and the other founding judaism
as we know the religions today
which is at the root of the dispute over jerusalem

dlishsguy you seem to have a better understanding
on this than me...I would love to hear
your understanding on this
Is this correct?

romans killed him. crucifixation is a state execution, only orderable by the roman governor. pilate was recalled some years later for excessive brutality.

think about that. the Romans decided Pilate was too brutal. now tell me how responsible other parties might have been.

We don't know much of Muhammed's early life other than he was orphaned and raised by his uncle and aunt I believe, so it is tough to say exactly what his beliefs were unti a bit later in life. However, his society as a whole was largely polytheistic with Allah being worshipped in some tribes as an important or chief god among several.

With respect to the term "Muslim" - In contemporary views, we recognize Muslims as adherents to Islam, which did not come into existence until the latter part of Muhammed's life, regardless of the etymology of the word.

Much is known about Muhammad's early life

As far as polythesism, Arabic society had degenerated
into idol worship, and local god worship
The traditions of Abraham became
more of a secular fair, than a religous ceremony
This bothered Muhammad, much like christians
of today are bothered with secular christmas and easter.
He spent his later years teaching
speaking out against polythesism
Preaching monotheism...
a return to the old values as the new way
Not everyone accepted his teaching
in his time or ours.

You just posted a quote showing A) big gaps in his early life with nothing after 10, and B) "All biographers state that the infant prophet sucked only one breast of his foster-mother, leaving the other for the sustenance of his foster-brother." - that's a little too specific, don't you think?

And you're right, not everyone accepted his teachings - he had to run from Mecca, take over Medinah, and come back and kick Mecca's ass in a military fashion before they accepted him.

The first biography of the Prophet does not appear until over 120 years after his death, by which point things are embellished a little, depending on who was doing the writing.

alphi phi..if your interested, here is a link with comparisons on the differences between the jewish/christian/islamic teachings about abraham.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/abraham.htm

but without getting into the long and colourful history of Abraham, his life, lineage etc, in short Abraham had two sons, one from Sarah who was his first wife, and the other from Hajar, and arab bondgirl whom he married.

it is from this split that we get the arabs and jews claiming decendancy from Abraham, (with muhammad claiming lineage to Abraham as well as Jesus according to st Matthew) and hence why they call each other 'cousins'.



you stated that there were no 'muslims' before muhammad. i was merely stating a fact that in contemporary muslim views..the views of 1.1 billion muslims, that they believe that all the prophets and their followers are muslim because they followed monotheism. This would encompass all the true followers of judaism and christianity.

with regards to his early life, there are some books on his biography, the best ive come across would be 'The Sealed Nectar'.


true that his early life is not clear and some sources are sketchy (the suckling one in alphi's link). but i am yet to read anywhere that he was a polytheist. True that his people were polytheists who believed in a higher god than the idols that they worshipped. the idols were intermediatries or a channel to god (similar to the use of idols and saints in todays churches.) and they had regular contact with christians and jews in the area. a verse in the Quran refers to the polytheists of the time..

“And if you (O Muhammad) ask them: ‘Who has created the heavens and the earth,’ they will certainly say: ‘Allah’” [Luqman 31:25]

Thanks for the link dlishsguy.
That's an excellant encyclopedia :cool: