Question for the arfcom Jews that concerns Jesus

General » Religion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question for the arfcom Jews that concerns Jesus (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 2/17/2006 7:05:40 AM EDT

Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

Posted: 2/17/2006 8:17:00 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

Until you get an answer from our Jewish friends, I'd like to add to your question by asking what people make of these two verses from the New Testament.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Also, I'd like to ask a question: When/where in all of the Bible, do we see a sin offering being sacrificed PRIOR to the commission of sin? What sin offering ever paid off sins yet to be committed?

Posted: 2/17/2006 8:17:43 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

The common Traditional Jewish stance on this issue is that no such person ever existed. It is an amalgamation of stories from Hebrew persons of that time frame that has been Hellinized. When a Learned Jew who is a practitioner of Traditional Judaism looks at the Christian New Testiment They see an essentialy Greek Religion. It is foreign in most every aspect to Judaism.

The next part of that is Jesus is no more a part of Traditional Judaism than The Buddah is Christianity, In Other words it is a non issue that has no bearing on Traditional Judaism.

You will often hear, "Oh, he was a great teacher" or "he just wasnt the guy" For the most part, and some Jews believe these things, These things are said to avoid pissing people off. Since Judaism has no mandate to spread itself to others in anyway, Many of the answers you will hear about Jewish things have been designed to avoid conflict, not inform you about Judaism.

Posted: 2/17/2006 8:23:15 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

Until you get an answer from our Jewish friends, I'd like to add to your question by asking what people make of these two verses from the New Testament.

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Also, I'd like to ask a question: When/where in all of the Bible, do we see a sin offering being sacrificed PRIOR to the commission of sin? What sin offering ever paid off sins yet to be committed?

Alien concepts to Jews. You dont need any form of sacrifice to be "redeemed" from sin. This is one of the problems Jews have with Christianity. Christianity claims, Without Blood you can not be redeemed from sin and since you can no longer Sacrifice in the Temple...Jesus answers this question, Thus Jesus is the way. Well, The problem with that is, you created a problem and solved it that doesnt exist in Jewish thouht. In Jewish thought, Blood was never needed to attone for sin. The Idea that it is the only way is simply alien to Judaism. This would explain why Christianity for all of its success as succedded least with Learned Jews.

Posted: 2/17/2006 8:37:57 AM EDT

[#4]

I'm looking forward to hear from Scuba_Ed and Old Guy on this one:

Historically (outside the responses of the Jews in the NT and the debated comments by Josephus) the only thing I could find was:

Sanhedrin 43a written between AD 70-200 says "One the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

It is interesting the warning was about stoning - but the sentance was hanging a term used in Galatians 3:13 and elsewhere as another way of describing crucifixion. Possibly this is because of the need to get Roman approval for execution and the Romans practiced crucifixion.

I did find something in Toledoth Jehu, but
1) it is from the 5th century
2) many Jews do not accept it as authentic
3) it focuses more on Jesus' disciples than Him.

Posted: 2/17/2006 8:50:00 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Alien concepts to Jews. You dont need any form of sacrifice to be "redeemed" from sin. This is one of the problems Jews have with Christianity. Christianity claims, Without Blood you can not be redeemed from sin and since you can no longer Sacrifice in the Temple...Jesus answers this question, Thus Jesus is the way. Well, The problem with that is, you created a problem and solved it that doesnt exist in Jewish thouht. In Jewish thought, Blood was never needed to attone for sin. The Idea that it is the only way is simply alien to Judaism. This would explain why Christianity for all of its success as succedded least with Learned Jews.

Wait a minute! What about the offerings for sin in the Tabernacle? There sure was a lot of blood shedding there, wasn't there?

Posted: 2/17/2006 9:02:33 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

The common Traditional Jewish stance on this issue is that no such person ever existed. It is an amalgamation of stories from Hebrew persons of that time frame that has been Hellinized. When a Learned Jew who is a practitioner of Traditional Judaism looks at the Christian New Testiment They see an essentialy Greek Religion. It is foreign in most every aspect to Judaism.

The next part of that is Jesus is no more a part of Traditional Judaism than The Buddah is Christianity, In Other words it is a non issue that has no bearing on Traditional Judaism.

You will often hear, "Oh, he was a great teacher" or "he just wasnt the guy" For the most part, and some Jews believe these things, These things are said to avoid pissing people off. Since Judaism has no mandate to spread itself to others in anyway, Many of the answers you will hear about Jewish things have been designed to avoid conflict, not inform you about Judaism.

I wasn't looking for his relevance to Traditional Judaism, didn't meant to imply there was one.

The Christian view is he was executed for claiming to be God. I was wondering what the Jewish response to this was.

If the was based on an amalgum of individuals, were any of those individuals executed for claiming to be God?

If not, have you ever read the Christian account in the synoptics? If so, do you think the Christian gospels show he was executed for claiming to be God? or anothe reason?

thanks for the responses so far, and looking forward to hearing from the other arfcom Jews on the matter.

Posted: 2/17/2006 9:03:15 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I'm looking forward to hear from Scuba_Ed and Old Guy on this one:

Historically (outside the responses of the Jews in the NT and the debated comments by Josephus) the only thing I could find was:

Sanhedrin 43a written between AD 70-200 says "One the eve of Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

It is interesting the warning was about stoning - but the sentance was hanging a term used in Galatians 3:13 and elsewhere as another way of describing crucifixion. Possibly this is because of the need to get Roman approval for execution and the Romans practiced crucifixion.

I did find something in Toledoth Jehu, but
1) it is from the 5th century
2) many Jews do not accept it as authentic
3) it focuses more on Jesus' disciples than Him.

Jesus IS NOT mentioned in the Talmud. (Sanhedrin 43a ) If you read the whole thing it is about a person who lived in 120 BCE.

Toledoth Jeshu is not a Rabbinical work of Halacha if it is authentic at all. Be very careful when trying to find out what Jewish works say. Much of the information out there is the work of various factions who have tried to cast it in a light they could use to codemn Jews because of it. Many harmless Christian groups, some that can even be Pro Jewish in nature have often taken these lies that have been told for so long and just accepted them as truth.

If you want to know what Jews think on a subject go to a Jewish source.

Posted: 2/17/2006 9:06:41 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

The common Traditional Jewish stance on this issue is that no such person ever existed. It is an amalgamation of stories from Hebrew persons of that time frame that has been Hellinized. When a Learned Jew who is a practitioner of Traditional Judaism looks at the Christian New Testiment They see an essentialy Greek Religion. It is foreign in most every aspect to Judaism.

The next part of that is Jesus is no more a part of Traditional Judaism than The Buddah is Christianity, In Other words it is a non issue that has no bearing on Traditional Judaism.

You will often hear, "Oh, he was a great teacher" or "he just wasnt the guy" For the most part, and some Jews believe these things, These things are said to avoid pissing people off. Since Judaism has no mandate to spread itself to others in anyway, Many of the answers you will hear about Jewish things have been designed to avoid conflict, not inform you about Judaism.

I wasn't looking for his relevance to Traditional Judaism, didn't meant to imply there was one.

The Christian view is he was executed for claiming to be God. I was wondering what the Jewish response to this was.

If the was based on an amalgum of individuals, were any of those individuals executed for claiming to be God?

If not, have you ever read the Christian account in the synoptics? If so, do you think the Christian gospels show he was executed for claiming to be God? or anothe reason?

thanks for the responses so far, and looking forward to hearing from the other arfcom Jews on the matter.

Again, If you take the Stance that no such person ever existed, A person or group who takes that stance would have no meaningful answer as to why something happened to him. That was my point in telling you the common stance of Traditional Jews.

So, The Christian POV is he was executed for claiming to be G-d, a common POV from Traditional Judaism on the matter would be, It never happened so how could a reason be given?

Posted: 2/17/2006 9:11:21 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Alien concepts to Jews. You dont need any form of sacrifice to be "redeemed" from sin. This is one of the problems Jews have with Christianity. Christianity claims, Without Blood you can not be redeemed from sin and since you can no longer Sacrifice in the Temple...Jesus answers this question, Thus Jesus is the way. Well, The problem with that is, you created a problem and solved it that doesnt exist in Jewish thouht. In Jewish thought, Blood was never needed to attone for sin. The Idea that it is the only way is simply alien to Judaism. This would explain why Christianity for all of its success as succedded least with Learned Jews.

Wait a minute! What about the offerings for sin in the Tabernacle? There sure was a lot of blood shedding there, wasn't there?

Dont confuse something that could be done for something that is the only way. Their are 7 ways to attone for sin in traditional Jewish thought. Only one of them involves the sheeding of Blood and the sheeding of blood can only attone for a "Cheit"..or a sin commited unitentionaly. There are three kinds of sins in the Hebrew, they have very profound and different meanings. In the English all you see is the word "Sin"

Again, The Jewish people see the Jewish works in a very different way that Christians do. One of those ways is the idea that the sheeding of blood is the only way to attone for sin is not, nor has it ever been a part of Jewish thought. It is a core belief in Chrisitanity though.

Posted: 2/17/2006 10:03:38 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Again, If you take the Stance that no such person ever existed, A person or group who takes that stance would have no meaningful answer as to why something happened to him. That was my point in telling you the common stance of Traditional Jews.

So, The Christian POV is he was executed for claiming to be G-d, a common POV from Traditional Judaism on the matter would be, It never happened so how could a reason be given?

From my reading, that is a modern response. Are there examples of early (say up to the 3rd century) Jews using that as an argument? I haven't been able to find any. Most of the Jewish apologetics I have seen concern Jesus's failure to meet the requirements of the Messiah.

thanks again for the responses

Posted: 2/17/2006 10:25:46 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Again, If you take the Stance that no such person ever existed, A person or group who takes that stance would have no meaningful answer as to why something happened to him. That was my point in telling you the common stance of Traditional Jews.

So, The Christian POV is he was executed for claiming to be G-d, a common POV from Traditional Judaism on the matter would be, It never happened so how could a reason be given?

From my reading, that is a modern response. Are there examples of early (say up to the 3rd century) Jews using that as an argument? I haven't been able to find any. Most of the Jewish apologetics I have seen concern Jesus's failure to meet the requirements of the Messiah.

thanks again for the responses

Find any Jews outside of the New testiment writing about Jesus during the time he lived. Jesus is simply a non issue to the Jewish people. As for appologetics that claim he could not have been the guy, Yep, that is an angle to it as well. Christianity is the one who makes Jesus an issue, that is understandable. Judaism responds from all angles.

Jews "He didnt exist"
Christians " He did" or "lets assume he did"
Jews "Ok, well here is the problems with that"

Again, to a person with knowledge of Traditional Judaism, looking at the New testiment doesnt make much sense. Many of the events, to our way of thinking, could not have happened as described. However, the do remarkebly resembly hellenistic philosphy. Snd the person of Jesus does share some events and traits in common with some well known other persons from an earlier time.

So a mixing of part truths, peoples, times and cultures that created something that is essentially non Jewish in nature that claims as its core point to be the very fulfilment of Judaism and uses the Jewish texts to justify its truth.

Posted: 2/17/2006 10:39:50 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Again, If you take the Stance that no such person ever existed, A person or group who takes that stance would have no meaningful answer as to why something happened to him. That was my point in telling you the common stance of Traditional Jews.

So, The Christian POV is he was executed for claiming to be G-d, a common POV from Traditional Judaism on the matter would be, It never happened so how could a reason be given?

From my reading, that is a modern response. Are there examples of early (say up to the 3rd century) Jews using that as an argument? I haven't been able to find any. Most of the Jewish apologetics I have seen concern Jesus's failure to meet the requirements of the Messiah.

thanks again for the responses

Find any Jews outside of the New testiment writing about Jesus during the time he lived. Jesus is simply a non issue to the Jewish people. As for appologetics that claim he could not have been the guy, Yep, that is an angle to it as well. Christianity is the one who makes Jesus an issue, that is understandable. Judaism responds from all angles.

Jews "He didnt exist"
Christians " He did" or "lets assume he did"
Jews "Ok, well here is the problems with that"

Again, to a person with knowledge of Traditional Judaism, looking at the New testiment doesnt make much sense. Many of the events, to our way of thinking, could not have happened as described. However, the do remarkebly resembly hellenistic philosphy. Snd the person of Jesus does share some events and traits in common with some well known other persons from an earlier time.

So a mixing of part truths, peoples, times and cultures that created something that is essentially non Jewish in nature that claims as its core point to be the very fulfilment of Judaism and uses the Jewish texts to justify its truth.

Well, not even the Jews who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament did it when he lived. I also know from personal experience that the "he didn't exist" theory isn't the only theory. I've heard other Jews say he was a Jewish Rabbi who had his teachings corrupted by the influence of Greek mysticism.

I guess I need to ask someone who is Jewish and doesn't hold to the theory that Jesus never existed.

Posted: 2/17/2006 10:40:22 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Again, If you take the Stance that no such person ever existed, A person or group who takes that stance would have no meaningful answer as to why something happened to him. That was my point in telling you the common stance of Traditional Jews.

So, The Christian POV is he was executed for claiming to be G-d, a common POV from Traditional Judaism on the matter would be, It never happened so how could a reason be given?

From my reading, that is a modern response. Are there examples of early (say up to the 3rd century) Jews using that as an argument? I haven't been able to find any. Most of the Jewish apologetics I have seen concern Jesus's failure to meet the requirements of the Messiah.

thanks again for the responses

Find any Jews outside of the New testiment writing about Jesus during the time he lived. Jesus is simply a non issue to the Jewish people. As for appologetics that claim he could not have been the guy, Yep, that is an angle to it as well. Christianity is the one who makes Jesus an issue, that is understandable. Judaism responds from all angles.

Jews "He didnt exist"
Christians " He did" or "lets assume he did"
Jews "Ok, well here is the problems with that"

Again, to a person with knowledge of Traditional Judaism, looking at the New testiment doesnt make much sense. Many of the events, to our way of thinking, could not have happened as described. However, the do remarkebly resembly hellenistic philosphy. Snd the person of Jesus does share some events and traits in common with some well known other persons from an earlier time.

So a mixing of part truths, peoples, times and cultures that created something that is essentially non Jewish in nature that claims as its core point to be the very fulfilment of Judaism and uses the Jewish texts to justify its truth.

Well, not even the Jews who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament did it when he lived. I also know from personal experience that the "he didn't exist" theory isn't the only theory. I've heard other Jews say he was a Jewish Rabbi who had his teachings corrupted by the influence of Greek mysticism.

I guess I need to ask someone who is Jewish and doesn't hold to the theory that Jesus never existed. Is that the majority view in Judaism?

thanks for the answers

Posted: 2/17/2006 10:56:33 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Well, not even the Jews who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament did it when he lived. I also know from personal experience that the "he didn't exist" theory isn't the only theory. I've heard other Jews say he was a Jewish Rabbi who had his teachings corrupted by the influence of Greek mysticism.

I guess I need to ask someone who is Jewish and doesn't hold to the theory that Jesus never existed. Is that the majority view in Judaism?

thanks for the answers

I never said it was the only theory, I was clear that it is the common stance of traditional Judaism. I have also offered that some Jews say exactly what you have heard and why some of them do. I have not used absolutes by anymeans. You must also be aware that being a Jew does not make someone knowledgable of things Jewish. "I know a Jew who says...." is not an authorative declaration. As a matter of fact, in the US the chances are very high, VERY high that anyone you come into contact with that is Jewish or claims to be will have very little if any traditional Jewish background or knowledge. They are often repeating things that arent of a Traditional Jewish nature that are part of the SECULAR Jewish experiance of this country for the last 200 years.

Do some Jews believe that Jesus existed, Sure. however, most Jews who are educated in Traditional Judaism dont.

And yes, when I say a hellenistic story, I am talking about Greek things from that time frame. So we have a form of agreement on that.

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:07:37 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Well, not even the Jews who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament did it when he lived. I also know from personal experience that the "he didn't exist" theory isn't the only theory. I've heard other Jews say he was a Jewish Rabbi who had his teachings corrupted by the influence of Greek mysticism.

I guess I need to ask someone who is Jewish and doesn't hold to the theory that Jesus never existed. Is that the majority view in Judaism?

thanks for the answers

I never said it was the only theory, I was clear that it is the common stance of traditional Judaism. I have also offered that some Jews say exactly what you have heard and why some of them do. I have not used absolutes by anymeans. You must also be aware that being a Jew does not make someone knowledgable of things Jewish. "I know a Jew who says...." is not an authorative declaration. As a matter of fact, in the US the chances are very high, VERY high that anyone you come into contact with that is Jewish or claims to be will have very little if any traditional Jewish background or knowledge. They are often repeating things that arent of a Traditional Jewish nature that are part of the SECULAR Jewish experiance of this country for the last 200 years.

Do some Jews believe that Jesus existed, Sure. however, most Jews who are educated in Traditional Judaism dont.

And yes, when I say a hellenistic story, I am talking about Greek things from that time frame. So we have a form of agreement on that.

yup, I guess i'm looking for a perspective from a "Americanized" Jew. If I'm using the correct term.

Btw, its very possible I'm stepping on your toes with my ignorance of the finer distinctions in Judaism. If so I apologize, it is not my intent.

thanks for putting up with my questions

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:28:28 AM EDT

[#16]

Wow!! What has gone so wrong...let me catch-up. 'Had a total computer melt-down.

Ed

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:33:10 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Well, not even the Jews who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament did it when he lived. I also know from personal experience that the "he didn't exist" theory isn't the only theory. I've heard other Jews say he was a Jewish Rabbi who had his teachings corrupted by the influence of Greek mysticism.

I guess I need to ask someone who is Jewish and doesn't hold to the theory that Jesus never existed. Is that the majority view in Judaism?

thanks for the answers

I never said it was the only theory, I was clear that it is the common stance of traditional Judaism. I have also offered that some Jews say exactly what you have heard and why some of them do. I have not used absolutes by anymeans. You must also be aware that being a Jew does not make someone knowledgable of things Jewish. "I know a Jew who says...." is not an authorative declaration. As a matter of fact, in the US the chances are very high, VERY high that anyone you come into contact with that is Jewish or claims to be will have very little if any traditional Jewish background or knowledge. They are often repeating things that arent of a Traditional Jewish nature that are part of the SECULAR Jewish experiance of this country for the last 200 years.

Do some Jews believe that Jesus existed, Sure. however, most Jews who are educated in Traditional Judaism dont.

And yes, when I say a hellenistic story, I am talking about Greek things from that time frame. So we have a form of agreement on that.

yup, I guess i'm looking for a perspective from a "Americanized" Jew. If I'm using the correct term.

Btw, its very possible I'm stepping on your toes with my ignorance of the finer distinctions in Judaism. If so I apologize, it is not my intent.

thanks for putting up with my questions

___

Okay, working from the bottom up...Dino...that was mean!

Re:

"Americanized" Jew"

___

What do you mean?

Judaism is universal; an Americanized Jew or a Jewish American or an Israeli-American....oh, golly...this is too ponderous.

Dino, without adding labels...what is it your asking?

Ed

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:35:52 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

yup, I guess i'm looking for a perspective from a "Americanized" Jew. If I'm using the correct term.

Btw, its very possible I'm stepping on your toes with my ignorance of the finer distinctions in Judaism. If so I apologize, it is not my intent.

thanks for putting up with my questions

Traditional Jews, Who go by many names, Torah observant, Orthodox, ultra orthodox, Chasidic, and so on are the Pharasees of old. They are the only group of Jews with an unbroken chain. Dont let the customs or dress of some groups confuse you. Halacha, actual law or doctrine, is almost universal between different Traditional Groups while customs can very a lot and are often the result of nothing more than the geographic areas that group settled in.

having said that, have other groups popped up from time to time? Sure. For the most part they dont last very long and tend to always be a more secularized version of Traditional Judaism. Some moderate a little and some a lot. For the most part Traditional Judaism doesnt hold anything these groups have to say as serious and their conversions are invalid to Traditional Jews. however, A Jew is a Jew, it is that simple, so a Jew who is a Buhddist satanist is every bit as much a Jews as Moses himself was, however, Traditional Judaism might disagree with what he believes.

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:37:32 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Wow!! What has gone so wrong...let me catch-up. 'Had a total computer melt-down.

Ed

I dont see any problem with what he is asking. Seems civil enough.

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:42:23 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow!! What has gone so wrong...let me catch-up. 'Had a total computer melt-down.

Ed

I dont see any problem with what he is asking. Seems civil enough.

___

Okay...fair 'nough.

Though I thought I saw a previous reference to the “Old Testament”, which is not the Jewish Bible.

As posted before, from a Jewish perspecitve, it’s an extremely novel reading of the Septuagint Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. So, reread, the Bible is no longer the history of covenant and Torah, but a complex web of prediction of the life, death and resurrection of jesus the “Messiah”.

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:47:15 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

___

Jewish perspective? The Romans had occupied Judea for some time; imagine a Jewish pilgramage to a holy site at one of the holiest times of the year.

By any civil concern, the Romans would have likely arrrested, much less killed, anybody with dilusions of grandeur.

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:55:27 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow!! What has gone so wrong...let me catch-up. 'Had a total computer melt-down.

Ed

I dont see any problem with what he is asking. Seems civil enough.

___

Okay...fair 'nough.

Though I thought I saw a previous reference to the “Old Testament”, which is not the Jewish Bible.

As posted before, from a Jewish perspecitve, it’s an extremely novel reading of the Septuagint Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. So, reread, the Bible is no longer the history of covenant and Torah, but a complex web of prediction of the life, death and resurrection of jesus the “Messiah”.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I think that has been pointed out and I dont think he meant it in a derogotory way. The term "Old Testiment" is offensive to you and I, but how many Christians know that?

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:59:16 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Dont confuse something that could be done for something that is the only way. Their are 7 ways to attone for sin in traditional Jewish thought. Only one of them involves the sheeding of Blood and the sheeding of blood can only attone for a "Cheit"..or a sin commited unitentionaly. There are three kinds of sins in the Hebrew, they have very profound and different meanings. In the English all you see is the word "Sin"

Again, The Jewish people see the Jewish works in a very different way that Christians do. One of those ways is the idea that the sheeding of blood is the only way to attone for sin is not, nor has it ever been a part of Jewish thought. It is a core belief in Chrisitanity though.

This is very interesting to me since my study has included a fair amount of time spent looking at the practices of the Tabernacle for symbolic meaning in a New Testament understanding. Can you point me to some online sources that discuss these different types of sin and the atonement for sin?

Posted: 2/17/2006 11:59:34 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow!! What has gone so wrong...let me catch-up. 'Had a total computer melt-down.

Ed

I dont see any problem with what he is asking. Seems civil enough.

___

Okay...fair 'nough.

Though I thought I saw a previous reference to the “Old Testament”, which is not the Jewish Bible.

As posted before, from a Jewish perspecitve, it’s an extremely novel reading of the Septuagint Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. So, reread, the Bible is no longer the history of covenant and Torah, but a complex web of prediction of the life, death and resurrection of jesus the “Messiah”.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I think that has been pointed out and I dont think he meant it in a derogotory way. The term "Old Testiment" is offensive to you and I, but how many Christians know that?

___

Posted: 2/17/2006 12:08:17 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow!! What has gone so wrong...let me catch-up. 'Had a total computer melt-down.

Ed

I dont see any problem with what he is asking. Seems civil enough.

___

Okay...fair 'nough.

Though I thought I saw a previous reference to the “Old Testament”, which is not the Jewish Bible.

As posted before, from a Jewish perspecitve, it’s an extremely novel reading of the Septuagint Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures. So, reread, the Bible is no longer the history of covenant and Torah, but a complex web of prediction of the life, death and resurrection of jesus the “Messiah”.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I think that has been pointed out and I dont think he meant it in a derogotory way. The term "Old Testiment" is offensive to you and I, but how many Christians know that?

So, Scuba_Ed are you saying that the Jewish perspective is pretty much irrellevent because Jesus was killed by Romans?

Also, how should I refer to that body of literature if I don't want to offend you guys? Should I just reference the book? Is it acceptable to use the chapter and verse in the English form (I know the Masoretic text has different chapter and verse divisions)?

Is it OK to refer to the Christian books as "the New Testament" since that is how we view them? Which, by the way, I didn't find any references above to the "Old Testament" outside of where Bladeswitcher quoted a Christian source that refers to the "first testament."

Posted: 2/17/2006 12:12:43 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

This is very interesting to me since my study has included a fair amount of time spent looking at the practices of the Tabernacle for symbolic meaning in a New Testament understanding. Can you point me to some online sources that discuss these different types of sin and the atonement for sin?

Thje websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Also the Jews for Judaims FAQ is about as to the point as you can get for most of your questions on these matters.

www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=065f4f669595606ee06836ac6d74b304

Posted: 2/17/2006 12:16:40 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Is it OK to refer to the Christian books as "the New Testament" since that is how we view them? Which, by the way, I didn't find any references above to the "Old Testament" outside of where Bladeswitcher quoted a Christian source that refers to the "first testament."

You can call it whatever you want, but it is the Hebrew Bible and that would be a great term to use and it doesnt take away from your Christian faith in anyway.

Posted: 2/17/2006 1:21:45 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Thje websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Also the Jews for Judaims FAQ is about as to the point as you can get for most of your questions on these matters.

www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=065f4f669595606ee06836ac6d74b304

Thanks. FWIW, I'm not easily offended.

Posted: 2/17/2006 1:38:39 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Thje websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Just an initial perusal of this site leads me to believe there is more basis in the blood for sin position stated in the New Testament than you seemed to indicate. It seems to fit pretty well with what I understood from reading of the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible. One point that they seemed to make was that since Jesus's blood wasn't sprinkled on the ALTER it didn't count. That seems a bit pedantic to me. There are a LOT of things about Jesus that don't fulfill prophecy if you insist they have to take place a very particular way. So much of the new testament involves a spiritualized (read: symbolic) application of the Law. If you don't accept the spiritual pictures it would be very hard to see how the new testament happenings have much relationship to the Hebrew teachings. FWIW, I'll may be just as particular/pedantic when I say that this site's characterization of how Jesus' sacrifice "worked" doesn't really fit my understanding of what Christians believe.

Anyway, looks like there's some good reading there. I'm looking forward to going through it in more detail. I've got to go on a business trip for a few day so I probably won't get much chance to study it soon.

Suffice it to say, though, I imagine there is plenty of room for confusion and misunderstanding between the faiths. The more we can understand each other, the better.

Posted: 2/17/2006 2:16:59 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

yup, I guess i'm looking for a perspective from a "Americanized" Jew. If I'm using the correct term.

Btw, its very possible I'm stepping on your toes with my ignorance of the finer distinctions in Judaism. If so I apologize, it is not my intent.

thanks for putting up with my questions

Traditional Jews, Who go by many names, Torah observant, Orthodox, ultra orthodox, Chasidic, and so on are the Pharasees of old. They are the only group of Jews with an unbroken chain. Dont let the customs or dress of some groups confuse you. Halacha, actual law or doctrine, is almost universal between different Traditional Groups while customs can very a lot and are often the result of nothing more than the geographic areas that group settled in.

having said that, have other groups popped up from time to time? Sure. For the most part they dont last very long and tend to always be a more secularized version of Traditional Judaism. Some moderate a little and some a lot. For the most part Traditional Judaism doesnt hold anything these groups have to say as serious and their conversions are invalid to Traditional Jews. however, A Jew is a Jew, it is that simple, so a Jew who is a Buhddist satanist is every bit as much a Jews as Moses himself was, however, Traditional Judaism might disagree with what he believes.

So if someone believes Jesus was an actual first century Jew who was crucified by the Romans, could they still be a Traditional Jew?

If not, I'm looking for the opinion of someone who wouldn't fit under the umbrella of Traditional Judaism.

Basically I'm looking for an opinion of a Jew who does not hold the mythicist position when it comes to Jesus. Or someone who has read the Christian scriptures and is willing to state an opinion on them based on a Jewish perspective.

any errors in terminology are solely due to my ignorance on matters pertaining to Judaism, I was definitely not trying to get ayone riled up.

Posted: 2/17/2006 3:30:37 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

The websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Also the Jews for Judaims FAQ is about as to the point as you can get for most of your questions on these matters.

www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=065f4f669595606ee06836ac6d74b304

These websites are not written by Orthodox Jews and misrepresent what most Jewish people believe in. These are written by so-called Messianic Jews who began their lives in other religious groups, primarily Christian.
To receive a good Orthodox view from one of the main true Jewish groups in the world, try www.chabad.org

Posted: 2/17/2006 3:55:41 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Also the Jews for Judaims FAQ is about as to the point as you can get for most of your questions on these matters.

www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=065f4f669595606ee06836ac6d74b304

These websites are not written by Orthodox Jews and misrepresent what most Jewish people believe in. These are written by so-called Messianic Jews who began their lives in other religious groups, primarily Christian.
To receive a good Orthodox view from one of the main true Jewish groups in the world, try www.chabad.org

Whoah....Both of those site do indeed represent an orthodox veiw point. Both are endorsed by CHABAD and are under Rabbi Tovia Singer. The forums from those sites may be filled with all manner of people, but not the articles and what id to be found in the FAQ. Some of the members were indeed massianics, but the WHOLE GOAL of those two sites is to bring Jews out of Christianity. You are off base.

BTW, I learned at Chabad Yeshivas.

Posted: 2/17/2006 3:57:10 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Thje websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Just an initial perusal of this site leads me to believe there is more basis in the blood for sin position stated in the New Testament than you seemed to indicate. It seems to fit pretty well with what I understood from reading of the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible. One point that they seemed to make was that since Jesus's blood wasn't sprinkled on the ALTER it didn't count. That seems a bit pedantic to me. There are a LOT of things about Jesus that don't fulfill prophecy if you insist they have to take place a very particular way. So much of the new testament involves a spiritualized (read: symbolic) application of the Law. If you don't accept the spiritual pictures it would be very hard to see how the new testament happenings have much relationship to the Hebrew teachings. FWIW, I'll may be just as particular/pedantic when I say that this site's characterization of how Jesus' sacrifice "worked" doesn't really fit my understanding of what Christians believe.

Anyway, looks like there's some good reading there. I'm looking forward to going through it in more detail. I've got to go on a business trip for a few day so I probably won't get much chance to study it soon.

Suffice it to say, though, I imagine there is plenty of room for confusion and misunderstanding between the faiths. The more we can understand each other, the better.

I imagin if you are detirmined to find something you will. I dont know how to make it anymore clear than to say, The Jewish people, in the way they look at their scriptures find the concept that only blood attones for sin an alien one.

Posted: 2/17/2006 4:05:44 PM EDT

[#34]

So if someone believes Jesus was an actual first century Jew who was crucified by the Romans, could they still be a Traditional Jew?

If not, I'm looking for the opinion of someone who wouldn't fit under the umbrella of Traditional Judaism.

Basically I'm looking for an opinion of a Jew who does not hold the mythicist position when it comes to Jesus. Or someone who has read the Christian scriptures and is willing to state an opinion on them based on a Jewish perspective.

any errors in terminology are solely due to my ignorance on matters pertaining to Judaism, I was definitely not trying to get ayone riled up.

If a Traditionall Jew believed Jesus had lived he would still very mich be a traditional Jew. It is just not the position most take, nor is it the position of our sages past. That is all.

If you want an opinion of a Jewish person who is not well versed in the ways of Traditional Judaism, That is your right, but you wont get any better information than you would from asking anyone else, except to be able to say "I know a Jew who says...."

Posted: 2/17/2006 4:27:28 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The websites are not written for you, they are written from a Jewish perspective and may be offensive to you, that is not my goal, so just take it as "Jews see Jewish scriptures different than Christians see it"
www.messiahtruth.com/atone.html is a good place to start.

Also the Jews for Judaims FAQ is about as to the point as you can get for most of your questions on these matters.

www.jewsforjudaism.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=15&sid=065f4f669595606ee06836ac6d74b304

These websites are not written by Orthodox Jews and misrepresent what most Jewish people believe in. These are written by so-called Messianic Jews who began their lives in other religious groups, primarily Christian.
To receive a good Orthodox view from one of the main true Jewish groups in the world, try www.chabad.org

I just wanted to add to show how seriously off base you are

From the first Website, Messiah Truth...

As you will see many of them ARE Lubavitchers (Chabad) And their credentials are above reproach.

www.messiahtruth.com/whoweare.html

From the Jews for Judaism site...You will see endorsments FROM chabad

www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/mainpages/endorsements.html

Posted: 2/18/2006 4:40:08 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Oldguy and others,
I know the Christian explanation of why Jesus was killed, but I was wondering what the Jewish perspective is on the matter?

thanks!

I would say Neshomamench has given you the standard Jewish perspective on this matter.

It is one I should adopt instead of being so confrontational.

There is no Jesus, plain and simple.

I will say what I have said many times over, he is a Greek fairy tale. The Greeks are known to have interwoven history with legend. I do not think they did this maliciously but rather for their own entertainment.

The story of an itinerant preacher executed by Rome for sedition is a ho hum tale at best. When you spice it up by saying he was the son of God, born of a virgin come back from the dead to save mankind you now have an interesting read.

To suggest that he was what the Greeks make him to be maligns God.

Posted: 2/18/2006 4:50:41 PM EDT

[#37]

IMHO, Jesus was a nice Jewish boy (not the son of G-d, btw) who had some radical ideas for his time. The Romans were not very keen on his ideas and his popularity, so they 'took care' of him in their own 'civilized' way.

Posted: 2/22/2006 6:47:01 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
I imagin if you are detirmined to find something you will. I dont know how to make it anymore clear than to say, The Jewish people, in the way they look at their scriptures find the concept that only blood attones for sin an alien one.

OK, but FWIW, I don't believe I used the word "only" -- as in ONLY blood would atone for sin under the Law. It's pretty hard to discuss a point when someone puts you into a corner you didn't claim for yourself. I'm fully aware of other types of offerings and sacrifices. But your original comments seemed to suggest there was NO basis in Jewish law for the blood symbolism (there, I'm putting your argument in a box, aren't I?). I simply said that I don't believe the source you provided backed up that position — at least not as strongly as you seemed to be making it. There doesn't seem like there's much room to discuss anything when two people won't acknowledge any validity in the other's position.

Posted: 2/22/2006 6:57:31 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I imagin if you are detirmined to find something you will. I dont know how to make it anymore clear than to say, The Jewish people, in the way they look at their scriptures find the concept that only blood attones for sin an alien one.

OK, but FWIW, I don't believe I used the word "only" -- as in ONLY blood would atone for sin under the Law. It's pretty hard to discuss a point when someone puts you into a corner you didn't claim for yourself. I'm fully aware of other types of offerings and sacrifices. But your original comments seemed to suggest there was NO basis in Jewish law for the blood symbolism (there, I'm putting your argument in a box, aren't I?). I simply said that I don't believe the source you provided backed up that position — at least not as strongly as you seemed to be making it. There doesn't seem like there's much room to discuss anything when two people won't acknowledge any validity in the other's position.

This is about the Jewish position. It doesnt change and it is not flexible bacause some other system sees it another way. In the Hebrew Bible G-d gave the Jewish people 7 ways to attone for sin and Blood only attones for sins commited by accident. The Hebrew Bible is also very clear that the sacrifices are only valid if they are done in a specific manner, by specific people in a specific place. It is the Jewish opinion on these things written by Jews, for Jews, and in the Traditional Jewish language, that the texts mean what they say.

If you see it another way. That is your perogotive.

Posted: 2/22/2006 7:39:02 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
This is about the Jewish position. It doesnt change and it is not flexible bacause some other system sees it another way. In the Hebrew Bible G-d gave the Jewish people 7 ways to attone for sin and Blood only attones for sins commited by accident. The Hebrew Bible is also very clear that the sacrifices are only valid if they are done in a specific manner, by specific people in a specific place. It is the Jewish opinion on these things written by Jews, for Jews, and in the Traditional Jewish language, that the texts mean what they say.

If you see it another way. That is your perogotive.

Again, you seem to be assuming a position on my part that I have not taken. Maybe another time we can have a more fruitful discussion about another topic.

FWIW, I did find the web sites you linked to be very interesting. They allowed me to see things in ways that I hadn't considered.

Posted: 2/23/2006 9:00:56 AM EDT

[#41]

.

Posted: 2/23/2006 4:38:01 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

There is no Jesus, plain and simple.

I will say what I have said many times over, he is a Greek fairy tale. The Greeks are known to have interwoven history with legend. I do not think they did this maliciously but rather for their own entertainment.

The story of an itinerant preacher executed by Rome for sedition is a ho hum tale at best. When you spice it up by saying he was the son of God, born of a virgin come back from the dead to save mankind you now have an interesting read.

To suggest that he was what the Greeks make him to be maligns God.

You sound as smart as this guy

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1930053,00.html

Posted: 2/23/2006 5:42:43 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:

There is no Jesus, plain and simple.

I will say what I have said many times over, he is a Greek fairy tale. The Greeks are known to have interwoven history with legend. I do not think they did this maliciously but rather for their own entertainment.

The story of an itinerant preacher executed by Rome for sedition is a ho hum tale at best. When you spice it up by saying he was the son of God, born of a virgin come back from the dead to save mankind you now have an interesting read.

To suggest that he was what the Greeks make him to be maligns God.

You sound as smart as this guy

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1930053,00.html

Are you really equating the evidence for the Holocaust and the evidence for Jesus?

You know, a lot of people about 80% of the planet do not believe in Jesus. Some of us have some good reasons to arrive at this point of view.

Posted: 2/23/2006 5:52:22 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

There is no Jesus, plain and simple.

I will say what I have said many times over, he is a Greek fairy tale. The Greeks are known to have interwoven history with legend. I do not think they did this maliciously but rather for their own entertainment.

The story of an itinerant preacher executed by Rome for sedition is a ho hum tale at best. When you spice it up by saying he was the son of God, born of a virgin come back from the dead to save mankind you now have an interesting read.

To suggest that he was what the Greeks make him to be maligns God.

You sound as smart as this guy

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1930053,00.html

Are you really equating the evidence for the Holocaust and the evidence for Jesus?

You know, a lot of people about 80% of the planet do not believe in Jesus. Some of us have some good reasons to arrive at this point of view.

A lot of us don't deny that he existed though. I personally believe that Jesus existed and was a good prophet, just not the Son of G-d/Allah.

Posted: 2/23/2006 6:19:02 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

There is no Jesus, plain and simple.

I will say what I have said many times over, he is a Greek fairy tale. The Greeks are known to have interwoven history with legend. I do not think they did this maliciously but rather for their own entertainment.

The story of an itinerant preacher executed by Rome for sedition is a ho hum tale at best. When you spice it up by saying he was the son of God, born of a virgin come back from the dead to save mankind you now have an interesting read.

To suggest that he was what the Greeks make him to be maligns God.

You sound as smart as this guy

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1930053,00.html

Are you really equating the evidence for the Holocaust and the evidence for Jesus?

You know, a lot of people about 80% of the planet do not believe in Jesus. Some of us have some good reasons to arrive at this point of view.

A lot of us don't deny that he existed though. I personally believe that Jesus existed and was a good prophet, just not the Son of G-d/Allah.

I inderstand that pov as well. However a lot of people look at the evidence and agree with the pov that he never existed. It is as reasonable to arrive at that conclusion as it is any other. There is nothing anyone can do to prove it one way or the other at this point.

On the other hand. I can still(as could anyone)...and do very often talk with people who survived the Shoah. I can also point to members of my own family who died in the Shoah.

Posted: 2/23/2006 11:19:48 PM EDT

[#46]

Did Moses exist?

We have much more clear and explicit historical records that Jesus existed than that Moses ever existed.

But who doubts that Moses existed?

Certainly not Christians.

Eric The(FairAndBalanced)Hun

Posted: 2/24/2006 4:43:22 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Did Moses exist?

We have much more clear and explicit historical records that Jesus existed than that Moses ever existed.

Perhaps you believe you do but in reality you have have nothing.

But who doubts that Moses existed?

Certainly not Christians.

Christians do not deny that Moses ever exsisted so to be fair and balanced Jews should not deny Jesus ever exsisted?

Eric The(FairAndBalanced)Hun

Posted: 2/24/2006 4:59:41 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
A lot of us don't deny that he existed though. I personally believe that Jesus existed and was a good prophet, just not the Son of G-d/Allah.

The Koran makes many mentions of Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

I know Muslims who consider him a prophet of sorts but recoil at the idea of him being the son of God or rising from the dead.

I often wonder why the New Testament was not attached to the Koran. Jesus receives a favorable mention in it but no mention is made of him in our writings.

Posted: 2/24/2006 5:06:25 AM EDT

[#49]

Good discussion guys!

Tj

Posted: 2/24/2006 5:39:22 AM EDT

[#50]

It really is a good discussion. I've learned a lot already.

I understand the "Hellenistic influence" perspective and I agree that there was a Greek influence. I suppose it is a matter of degree on that one. However, I am surprised that the traditional Jewish position is that Jesus never existed. I can understand the arguement that Jesus was a great prophet and not the Messiah, etc., but there is ample historical evidence that he did exist. At least enough to debunk the "greek fairy tale" position.

I know that it is impossible to prove a negative but there must be more to the traditional Jewish position that just denial. Is there a place where I can read more about this tenet? I haven't hit the links you offered above. Would this information be in one of them?

I'm not trying to spark an uproar, I really would like to know. I really appreciate the mature, thoughtful, and polite nature of this thread. We are covering some sensitive areas and I really hope we can continue like this without it falling apart.

Thanks.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question for the arfcom Jews that concerns Jesus (Page 1 of 3)

General » Religion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us