Talk:Jewish views on Jesus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Does this article really have the right title?

I really don't wish to stir the pot any further; I can see there is a lot of passionate disagreement here, and I believe I actually may understand "both" sides (and there are at *least* two...). Not that I expect anyone to take my word for it that I understand. People have a lot invested in their own religious views, of *course*. BUT: Does anyone agree with me that something is not quite right when an article entitled "Judaism's view of Jesus" begins with the statement, "Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus"? What I think I see going on here is that some folks, observant Jews no doubt, possibly even the originator(s) of the article, felt the need -- with considerable justification which really, I *do* understand -- to attempt to educate others, especially those Christians who attempt to evangelize Jews, as to the reasons why this activity not only offends, but actually makes no sense to any Jewish person who has not completely drifted away from their Jewish roots but actually knows his or her faith. So, the purpose of this lengthy post is first of all to suggest that you reframe the discussion under the legitimate category of Jewish objections to Christian attempts to convert them. I submit to you, and intend to outline in due course as to *why*, that not understanding the legitimate historical reasons both sides have for doing what you do is going to keep you arguing forever.

It is a fact that a Jewish person who has been properly educated in his/her faith is in almost every case not going to welcome the very different views that Christians have about the relationship between G-d and man and the meaning of various prophecies or alleged prophecies found in Tanakh. It is equally difficult for most evangelizing Christians -- those who feel the need to make converts, which not all modern Christians do (and I have been both kinds... I will probably be considered apostate by the evangelizers, now that I am not one of them...) -- it's just as difficult for these Christians to fathom that traditions they have received across the millennia, which *do* in part find their historical basis, one foot so-to-speak, in long-forgotten first-century-C.E. Holy Land events, could possibly be so diametrically opposed to the normative Jewish ideas which have held *all* types of Jews together since at least the Destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.

I know I'm walking in a minefield here, but I think it's reasonable, looking at Josephus, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other sources, to propose that in late Second Temple times there really was quite a bit of diversity within Judaism, which many Jews no longer are aware of or relate to, which it is only fair to admit: I get the idea that Josephus' "four philosophies" don't really even *begin* to cover the subject. I have seen, for example, quotations from highly Hellenized Diaspora Jews like Philo of Alexandria that have assimilated a great deal of late Greek syncretistic philosophy, i.e. the "falling together" of the most popular educated Greek world-views which had taken hold as Greek philosophers had gradually grown embarrassed of and retired their polytheistic pagan stories as acknowledged myths (allegories at best): Such that in the first century of the Common Era most educated Greeks had begun to accept a blend of (1) Neo-Platonism with its transcendent High G-d, the Ruler of an Ideal Realm beyond the moon, a deity too perfect to relate directly to this imperfect, shadowy and corruptible world (Hence Plato had "punted", by suggesting our world of faulty "copies" had been created by a lesser divine mediator figure called the Demiurge; not much of a solution, but it got him over the hump...), *that* philosophy merged together with (2) the Stoic philosophy founded by Zeno, which denied the world actually had anything wrong with it, but insisted instead that we mortals were simply not able to see a big enough picture to understand that in reality, *this* world, rather than some other realm, was ideal just as it is, perfectly ordered by a force known as the Lógos Spermatikós. Philo, an important Hellenized Jewish philosopher, writes a passage sometime just before 50 C.E. (the time when missionaries like Paul were also very active) which describes the G-d of the Jews in these Greek terms, complete with a secondary creator/mediator-figure known not as the (Platonic) Demiurge but as the (Stoic) Lógos; the work really does sound a great deal like the opening of the Gospel of John (often considered by secular scholars to be "the least Jewish"), which begins, "In the beginning was the Lógos, and the Lógos was with G-d, and" [the translation is somewhat flexible here... you could say either:] "the Lógos *was* G-d", [or] "the Lógos was divine" (John 1:1 in the Christian New Testament). I don't believe for one minute that Philo was ever a Christian, but I *would* say that his now-extinct brand of Hellenistic Judaism was definitely one source for the ideas which Rabbinic Judaism now finds so abhorrent.

Similarly, there is a pre- or non-Rabbinic Jewish basis for the sort of liberties which, I am sure my Jewish friends will believe, Christians have taken with the words of Tanakh, as if to "twist" them to fit their own needs. We have in the Dead Sea Scrolls certain sectarian (I assume Essene) documents -- commentaries on Tanakh such as the Habakkuk "Pesher" -- which show clearly that one of the "four [major] philosophies" described by Josephus as existing in Judaea before the First War against the Romans (66-73 C.E.) was very much like Christian fundamentalists in *many* ways (e.g., belief in a fiery hell...), but most importantly including their tendency to interpret statements in the Prophets as having been fulfilled by events which had occurred in their own community: Seeing themselves as the exclusive true remnant of Israel (another point of view adopted on a "spiritual" level by some Christians), the "Sons of Light", as opposed to gentiles as well as "disobedient" Jews whom they considered "Sons of Darkness", naturally all prophecy concerning the End of Days, which they believed was imminent, would be about *them*.

Forgive my wordiness, but after all the verbiage that has been spilled on this Talk page, I am hoping -- since I *do* have a purpose -- that this will not be too much more to deal with.

One point I wish to make is, I think it is fairly easy to see that the "Nazarene" sect (Gk. "Nazaraíos", Aramaic NaSorayya), which was shocked by the crucifixion of the man they believed to be the Messiah, under the extreme stress of cognitive dissonance -- he was not supposed to die, he was expected to become King and usher in all the things that Judaism expects of its Messiah -- these non-Rabbinic Jews had to "regroup". I will not try to explain their experience of a resurrected Jesus, but I will not call them liars either -- i.e., I think something unusual may well have happened to them, for whatever reason (You fill in the blank). But thereupon, this belief in a crucified and resurrected Messiah (or as you'll know, Christós in the Greek LXX translation of Tanakh) was diligently searched for and successfully retrieved from various "new readings" of the Hebrew Scriptures, much in the fashion that the Essenes had also customized *their* interpretation of the Prophets: They simply projected back to make prophecies fit their experience; it's not that hard to do (and as the Essenes have demonstrated, not necessarily foreign to *all* forms of Judaism for all time). They then, believing that a glorious return of Jesus was near (with, finally, the fulfillment of all the Messianic prophecies), set out to redeem the nations from their idols; and under the influence especially of imaginative Hellenistic thinkers like Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the story of Jesus was spread to many G-d fearing gentiles who had already been attached to synagogues in Greek-speaking cities around the Empire; and quite naturally, their very special version of Messianology quickly blended with the ideas of Hellenistic Jewish philosophers like Philo, creating a new, primarily-gentile Diaspora religion; although the only intention by the first Christians had been to turn the gentiles from their idols, and toward the G-d of Israel. This was to be accomplished without any necessary conversion to Judaism, in preparation for their Messiah's return: Even as they were creating a new religion which ultimately would become incompatible with Rabbinic Judaism, they did not realize that that was what they were doing. Until the Temple's Destruction in 70 C.E., an "original" group of Jewish "Nazaraíoi" (Notzrîm, possibly the plural of Notzer ‘keepers’ or ‘guardians’ [of Torah]?? -- They *did*, in Jerusalem, as Jews continue to keep the Torah, as the New Testament book of Acts attests...), such a group persisted in Jerusalem and was considered by all types of very early Christians far away, no matter how different their religion had become, to be their "Mother Church" (so that, across the great geographical and cultural gulf, the Messianology of the Jewish sect in the Judaean homeland morphed into the Christology of the gentiles abroad...). After the Destruction, with no kind of oversight anymore from a Jerusalem "Church" (Gk. ekklesía, another term found throughout the LXX for qāhāl ‘congregation’) -- and with the matter having already been settled that to fulfill prophecy for what they had believed to be the impending End of Days, they need not convert the nations to Judaism, but only turn them away from idols and to G-d, and basically require of them only the Laws of Noah -- As even after the War they continued rallying together to wait for their Messiah's return -- With the loss of Jewish oversight from Jerusalem, it was only a few years to a few generations before this religion, born in a once-genuine Messianic movement in Israel, became something sufficiently different from Judaism to cause a great deal of misunderstanding and ultimately, hostility. Alas. (And forgive me if you already know this story -- It's just that what I have seen here, on this talk page, is an argument without end, between groups of people who use some overlapping vocabulary but are living in two different worlds and speaking essentially different languages. It really is a tragedy.)

The problem we now have is that most evangelizing Christians are not ready to accept the "accidental-sounding" aspects of this story of how the "Church" diverged from its non-Hellenistic Jewish origin (Actually, there is no reason to assume these events were accidental -- I appeal to the Stoic view: Perhaps there is a purpose in all of this, if only we can gain enough perspective). In fact, evangelizing Christians are not ready to believe that Jews will not gladly accept "the Messiah" when "the facts" and the Scriptures are appropriately "explained" to them (as offensive as the vast majority of properly-trained modern Rabbinic Jews will find this notion). And this also may be hard for Jewish people to swallow, but many modern Christians -- especially the type who evangelize -- are either unaware of the tremendous suffering of the Jews at the hands of Christians throughout these nearly two millennia, or at least they refuse to identify with those persecutors, and set them apart as not being "real" Christians, and really don't understand *how* you could see their attempt to assimilate you to pose anything like a threat to Jewish existence.

If you are one of the Defenders of the Jewish Faith who have been undergoing this prolonged argument, you may not believe me, but my version of how some native (but non-Rabbinic) Judaean elements and some Diaspora Hellenistic Jewish elements (and sure, other elements too...) converged to create a vast gentile entity that sees itself as the fulfillment of *your* Scriptures, this story will be offensive to many Christians in that it would at least appear to deny the Divine Inspiration of their movement. (Actually, I don't know for sure *what* I think about that; G-d does move in mysterious ways.) So here I am, poking my nose in in sort of a no-man's land; but on the other hand I believe that until people whose paths have become so "star-crossed" take the time to understand where their irreconcilable differences have come from, it's going to be very hard for them to live side by side in peace.

My understanding of this article is that it constitutes an attempt, in a well-intentioned fashion, to ward off Christian evangelistic intrusions. I think only a persistent effort to maintain an open mind and set hostilities aside, only considerable learning and (everybody's favorite word...) dialogue by both parties to this well-intentioned conflict will ever get you anywhere. As a first step, I would suggest re-casting this article not as being about Judaism's (non) view of Jesus, but as a frank discussion of a huge but very natural gap in understanding, and for the Christian reader, how it could possibly be that so many Jews are feeling harassed by Christian missionaries (who after all are only trying to complete a course which was charted from Judaean soil).

So I don't know *what* to call it: "Judaism's response to Christian evangelism"? -- Anyway, *something* else. It's *not* about Jesus, just as the opening sentence pretty much gives away. (And sorry, once more, for the long post -- call my disclaimers gentile guilt. :~} ) DThrax (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article about Christianity and Judaism. This article has a much narrower scope. Jon513 (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi DThrax, I have to agree with Jon, I have always seen this article as answering the narrower question of "what is the "official" view of Jesus in Judaism" (answer: view of who?). Since the depth of your historical references far exceeds my own knowledge, I regret I can't reply in greater detail, but if you can find reliable secondary sources to support your views there may be a place somewhere for "the view of Jesus among the Essenes" or something like that. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jon513 and Kaisershatner,

I should have known better than to post at 5:00 in the morning, my time. (I should have known better than to post.) And when will I ever learn that "less is more"...? -- Probably never.

I see that we, too, are already talking past each other, when e.g. my reference to the Essenes, not as a historical source for a Jewish view of Jesus (The the entire sectarian Dead Sea corpus of the Essenes mentions by name possibly only one historical person, "King Jonathan", i.e. probably the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus (Yannai), King of Judea from 103 BCE to 76 BCE; to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that the Essenes ever said anything about Jesus, or anybody else, at least by name). I brought up the Essenes only as an example of a faction of Second Temple Jewish culture which did in fact practice the very kind of self-absorbed interpretation of the Prophets that Rabbinic Judaism sees today as coming only from the outside, e.g. from Christians or maybe Muslims. Personally, I doubt the Essenes have left us even a veiled reference to Jesus; he simply wasn't that important in his time. I wanted only to make the point that, while it has indeed long been considered illegitimate by most of post-Destruction Judaism to use or "twist" the Prophets in this way, "the first Christians", so-called, who never thought of themselves as anything but Jews, probably adopted this quasi-fundamentalistic approach to biblical interpretation from other Jews around them in late Second Temple times; that while the kind of (Pharisaic/House-of-Hillel) Judaism, which was salvaged by the Rabbis at Yavneh, would never interpret Tanakh in any fashion resembling the kinds of readings Christians insist on finding in it, still it is not quite correct to say that no Jews at any time in history would have done this sort of thing. Likewise my purpose in mentioning Hellenists like Philo: he had no view of Jesus either, as far as anyone knows; but he does provide an example of a strain of Second-Temple-period Diaspora Judaism that was not as strict about G-d having no sort of "partner" whatsoever, as Rabbinic Judaism is today, and has been for so long. Similarly, "Son of G-d" has at least two apparent uses in Tanakh, including a Messianic one which would of course only apply figuratively, to any anointed King of Israel.

I agree 100% with the spirit of Jewish self-defense that I see underlying this article; it is a reasonable motive for writing an article, I believe. But as it is currently written, it goes too far in systematically denying, as I read it, everywhere and for all time, the "Jewishness" of a whole series of ideas which have, in fact, come and gone in the long history of your Faith, which it would be fair and I think sufficient to say, were never prominent or dominant, and are certainly no longer acceptable to post-Destruction, Pharisaic, Rabbinic Judaism. Unless I am really missing your point (though I have a nagging doubt about it -- Perhaps you hear the nagging? :~0 ... since repeatedly, this article explicitly rejects later Christian doctrines that were probably never even the actual views of this small-time operator named Joshua [or of any of his immediate disciples, either...], who was never an important figure in Judaism in his short life -- never "made the papers" as it were, except possibly for one brief moment, when when he posed an irritation to Roman Authority near the time of a single Pesach); unless you really insist on denying that the purpose of this article is to clarify that [Judaism] rejects not so much *Jesus* (In fact, there is even something of a movement afoot -- okay, among some Israelis maybe, not *Judaism* per se, to reclaim him, as I am told by an Israeli friend living in Jerusalem, as a Jewish person, from the Palestinians...) {...[Judaism] rejects not so much *Jesus*} as it rejects later Christian (or even Muslim) dogmas about this Jewish man who they may correctly believe existed, but was unimportant in his own time, and never impacted the Jewish Faith as we know it, nor certainly could ever have made the "Christological" claims that are now made on his behalf -- {...unless you really insist on denying this...}, I would enthusiastically encourage you to modify the article to reflect the fact that your claims are correct of Judaism as it has existed now for over 1900 years -- but not necessarily always or everywhere before that time -- and that Christian missionaries or others who try to argue that their views about this man are just as "Jewish" as yours in any sense that is relevant today (or for that matter could possibly have been embraced by him or his Galilean and Judaean followers) are fundamentally missing the mark, and must come to terms with the reality of nearly two millennia of near-monolithic Jewish development, as regards these sorts of doctrines.

At any rate, I now see the article you refer to and will read it. But it's an article, and as such, it is a fundamentally different thing from my (ill-fated?) post, which was not intended to serve as substitute text for the present article: Rather I was just asserting (and I hope you will either confirm or substantively correct me on this, by way of an explanation as to what the article *is* really about...) that the real subject of this article, for those who seem to be most interested in it and have invested the most effort into it, is something more like "Why Jewish people would like Christian missionaries to stop trying to convert them, and why it is misguided and pointless to try, given their (Christian) belief system that is essentially alien to at least 1900 years of Judaism." Obviously that would not make a good title, but still it strikes me as the essence of the subtext, and while others may disagree with the following, I think if presented in the right way, such a topic would be legitimate for a Wikipedia article. So why not say it, instead of making overgeneralized claims that historical research can falsify?

"Then Again, I May Be Totally Wrong" (i.e. maybe for reasons of completeness or symmetry, someone was tasked with developing this vacuous topic as it is currently framed; in which case, sorry for wasting your time. But it still seems to me that this article's title should *not* be "Judaism's view of Jesus" when its primary assertion is that there *is* no such thing. (It strikes me a lot like writing an article about "the present King of France".) Please clarify for me (I can be annoyingly slow): Is this article not actually more of a response to the missionaries than anything else? Jewish friends over the years -- whom I have *never* tried to convert -- have adequately demonstrated that they are, I think out of understandable discomfort, not even interested in how the present evangelizing situation -- which they *are* interested in, in that typically they wish as a matter of self-preservation to confront it and deflect it -- came to be in the first place. Hence it is probably another waste of time on my part to to suggest the works of "secular" scholars like Paula Fredriksen, among them (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Origins-Testament-Images/dp/0300084579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210622509&sr=1-1) "From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ", Yale University Press; 2nd edition (July 11, 2000). ISBN: 0300084579. I'm sure the title alone is very off-putting, but this is a secular author who does not take sides; she offers most of the references to primary sources that you would need in order to verify my claims about Second Temple Judaism's surprising diversity and the later consolidation of the Faith, in parallel to events in the Diaspora that set the stage for the accidental creation of a gentile religion that was no longer in a position to focus its attention on Israel, the Temple, and finally even on the End of Days, as it had done at the first.

(Continuing to operate on my stubborn assumption that what you really want to do is at least to have a chance to disabuse modern Christian missionaries of their many mistaken assumptions about Judaism, I will recommend, this one last time, that you look into this [really very interesting] literature; *because* I think it will increase your ability to communicate to readers of this article just how and why Christian claims pertaining to your faith are ill-informed. -- Alright, now I am shutting up; I hope I have not irritated you too much: I really just want to help you convey what I perceive to be your central message. [Respectfully however, I must acknowledge that you do not say that this is your central message... I don't want to contradict you, but assuming that you genuinely do not think the article is about what I say it's about... I would only say, this is nonetheless *profoundly* the way it strikes *me*, hence all my protestations and suggestions. No disrespect or harm intended, and now I prepare to Shut Up! :~D ] But one last word: Try it, this other approach? -- It might just enlighten a few people who, I think at present, are going to keep insisting that you are simply being too narrow in your definition of what is "Jewish". -- Remember that, eh? -- I just wanted to help. And now I'm outta here. :~/ :~\ :~] )

DThrax (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article has to be seen in contrast to Christian theology, otherwise this article would be only a few words ("Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus." the end.) - In your words about as much as you can say about the current king of France. I am not sure whether you agree with this or disagree, or what you think should be changed in the article. Jon513 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to keep this going, as my honest perception has been that no one was very interested in it (which is fine, I guess...); but effectively, it seems I've been asked a couple questions, so now I figure it would be rude not to try to answer them.

About "the present King of France": I didn't mean to be a wiseacre, that's just an old device used by philosophers of language to illustrate the use of an apparently-referential expression that applies vacuously in the real world, in that it has no actual referent. The article's title, I meant to say, implies an "article about nothing", which obviously this article is *not*.

About the article, I wish I knew a concise way to express my conviction that it does not adequately distinguish for the reader just *which* Jesus is being talked about. Many modern, usually considered "secular", scholars (some of them Jewish or Jewish-born ["Footnote" 1: See just below this paragraph]) would be quick to reinforce strong distinctions that have been drawn between what they term the enigmatic "Jesus of History" vs. the "Christ of Faith". (Obviously, there is no *one* version of either of these.) I see this present article as a, probably necessarily abridged, response to the latter, the post-mid-first-century religious figure, around whom all sorts of stories & beliefs have grown up, many of them having been projected back on him, essentially putting words in the historical man's mouth, during the several iterations of composition that produced the present Christian canonical Gospels. Some very erudite people have spent their lifetimes formulating critical methods by which to *separate* the various portraits of the historical man (extrapolated from careful readings of the Gospels, to make the case that there *was* this historical Jewish teacher of notably good character -- however unimportant he may have been to his fellow Jews in his own time...), to *separate* the historical Jew from the increasingly theologically-freighted layers of the Christian religious image, as he is iteratively altered by various contributors to these documents, who gradually built up these still-fairly-early composite works designed for very early religious indoctrination (i.e. religious biographies that have not "kept up" with the further theological developments of the 2nd-to-5th-century Christian Church which dominate the Christian religion today): So, serious scholars employing modern literary-critical and historical methods, justify a *third* distinction (sandwiched between the first two, such I should actually say a new *second* distinction... Sorry if that's confusing...), namely that of these still-fairly-primitive "Gospel Jesuses" ["Footnote" 2: See just below ["Footnote" 1]], among whom many glimpses are still visible of a non-heretical practicing Jew -- not so very different halakhically from the Pharisees, and in fact, clearly on good terms with many of them -- a man who is, these scholars show by reasonable arguments, likely to have made few if any controversial claims about himself: Instead he was simply an apocalyptic preacher and (by no means unique in his day...) healer, whose primary focus was on the belief, popular among the Jewish People in his own time, that the End of Days was near and the Kingdom of G-d was already dawning. This third distinction, between the layered "Gospel Jesuses" and the later undeniable object of worship, subject of the "High Christology" esp. as it developed, after Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed, in the absence of any further non-hellenized Jewish influence. The present article, if you will forgive my saying so, is not really up-to-date in that it responds only to this *third*, two-millienia's-traditional, exalted Christ of the Christian faith.

["Footnote" 1: Three prominent examples: (1) Oxford Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies Géza Vermes; (2) Shaye J. D. Cohen, Harvard Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy, Jewish Theological Seminary Professor of Jewish History, *and* an ordained Rabbi as well; and (3) Princeton, Clare Hall (Cambridge), and currently also Bard College Professor (and also JTS-ordained Rabbi, and author/editor of over 900 books!) Jacob Neusner.]

["Footnote" 2: Especially in the first three Gospels -- not so much the fourth, i.e., John; but even to some extent in the perceptible earlier strata of that highly-composite, finally very hellenized book, as well.]

I fear I am wasting your time, as I do not wish to change the article myself; but for clarity and accuracy's sake I think it needs to reflect that it is a clear statement of the incompatibility that exists between Judaism on the one hand, and on the other hand not the *first* of these three classes of individual -- the historical "Jewish Jesus" that so many modern scholars, including important Jewish ones, have worked to uncover and reclaim from the earlier layers of the Gospels and other sources; nor even so very much the *second* type -- the various late-first-to-early-second century C.E. theologizing and agenda-driven composite depictions of Jesus in the Gospels -- but mainly or only this *third* type of Jesus, the thoroughly-transformed, "High Christology" exalted Christ of the Christian faith. I am not making this stuff up -- Look at Paula Fredriksen's book From Jesus to Christ as I have suggested, or have a gander at a tiny sample of the immense body of work by the three Jewish scholars that I've named above, and I'm confident you'll see that *some* sort of declaration needs to be made to distinguish especially the *first* type -- the historical Jewish man as he is variously presented by many scholars -- and the *third* type, the fully-deified "Second Person of the Trinity" as presented by roughly 1800 years' worth of institutional embellishment. Perhaps someone could spend a little time investigating this three-way distinction and simply make clear that "Judaism's view" as it is here presented does not treat of the first type -- a little-known yet very-likely historical, "normative" First Century C.E. Jewish teacher -- but rather of somewhat the second, and *mainly* the *third* of these "types-of-Jesus" that have been set out -- the exalted "Christ of Faith" of the Christian religion, whose existence you may feel much more justified in denying.

You must excuse me for all this overflow, or anyway I *hope* you will. I have spent a lot time, in my own life, sorting these matters out for myself, and feel strongly that what *other* people throughout history have done with this man's name and image, which Judaism is fully justified in rejecting, is a kind of historical smear against a good and faithful Israelite -- perhaps nobody of any particular significance to the Jewish religion, but nevertheless not only a real person, but one who was committed to Judaism and broadly inclusive of his fellow Jews, rather than *exclusive* of them or in any way *rejecting* Torah or Halakhah other aspects of Jewish faith as it existed ca 30 C.E. DThrax (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you realize that this is only your personal POV, right? I mean, my personal POV is that the character of Jesus never actually existed, but was created based on a number of different false messianic characters. And that whether he existed or not, the character depicted in Christian scriptures is far from a "good and faithful Israelite", but rather a heretic who misled many. Of course, I wouldn't put that into the article, because that's my personal POV. Neither yours nor mine belongs in a Wikipedia article. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh LisaLiel, you have made me see the terrible error of my ways! How could I have been so thoughtless? I don't know how to thank you.

Of course, LisaLiel, you realize that the POV language you are referring to here on the Talk page is *also* here on this same Talk page, with your POV insults, right? -- NOT in the article. So your remark is irrelevant. I have to take exception, too, to your claim that this article does not express the views of specifically Rabbinic Judaism: If you were offended because you thought that my saying so would exclude Reform or Reconstructionist or even Conservative Judaism, you must be using some kind of Haredi dictionary. The Wikipedia article on Rabbinic Judaism, states plainly:

Although there are now profound differences among Jewish denominations of Rabbinic Judaism with respect to the binding force of halakha and the willingness to challenge preceding interpretations, all identify themselves as coming from the tradition of the oral law and the Rabbinic method of analysis. It is this which distinguishes them as Rabbinic Jews, in comparison to the Karaite movement.

Who did you want to be sure to include? The Karaites? The Jews for Jesus? Various defunct Second Temple period movements, like Sadduceeism or Essenism? How about Hellenistic diaspora Judaism, which is probably largely responsible for the existence of Christianity in the first place? Do you even *know* anything about these movements? Or do you just go around making snap judgments and treating Wikipedia articles like they're your personal property? -- I waited at least three days, after talking to several people, and being *invited* by someone to go ahead and make a change, to make one little clarification about *which* of the *many* Jesuses this article addresses -- and indeed, that Jesus is a theological construct of some other people's religion!. I didn't include anything POV in my two measly lines, which I added in good faith and for a good reason (but which I knew would not be good enough for *some* reactionary person, who would come along and say, "Don't mess with MY, or worse, OUR, property"! as all too often happens on Wikipedia). Actually, your action of removing my good-faith attempt at a needed clarification is the most POV thing I have seen here. -- Imagine if anybody would tolerate an article about "Jesus' view of Judaism", or "Christianity's view of Torah" -- I've been to enough churches to know that some Christians indeed believe that Judaism basically amounts to Torah worship, and is in fact a heretical sect in rebellion against the "true Spiritual Israel", the Church. That's not what *I* think, but tell me, would you tolerate such an article? There is a legitimate basis for describing Christian and other views of Jewish religious ideas. There *must* be, if *this* article can take on Christian religious ideas. What's the difference? Your status as a Victim? (Many Christians still look back to the persecution the first Jesus-movement endured, under probably the now-defunct Sadducees, but also a little later, under modern Judaism's founders, the Pharisees, who put them out of the synagogues and instituted the "Birkhat HaMinim" in the synagogal liturgy as a way of forcing "Nazarenes" in attendance to curse themselves.) -- It would be very easy (though it would not express my *own* POV) to claim justification for an article that says it is "the view of Christianity" that Torah, Written or Oral, is an oppressive system by which the ancients re-enslaved the Israelites upon their exodus from Egypt. Further, it could well be documented as a "view of Christianity" that the entry into the Promised Land under Joshua consisted of the genocides of several entire peoples - men, women, children, babies - who already lived there, "by order of G-d", which made it "alright". -- Again, very inflammatory, ¿no? - That's the point that nobody seems to get here - and these ideas are *not* at *all* representative of my POV, but certainly quite arguably a view of, in this case perhaps, a certain liberal form of "Christianity", or just as easily, organized atheists, or Jewish apostates. (There are books on this wretched subject of course, and their main source for the charge of genocide is the Bible itself.) Would you like to see someone create such articles? If "Judaism" can speak in condemnation of the beliefs of other faiths, why not?

I am not the type of Christian who is offended when he sees a Wikipedia article which on behalf of Judaism denounces and rejects Jesus. I don't believe that these various dogmas openly deifying Jesus and making him the Creator and "son of G-d" in some non-Hebrew sense, who got himself crucified in order to serve as the final Jewish sacrifice, putting an end once and for all to the need for the Jewish Law (as if that would somehow work...); but if I *did*, as many people do, I would be *highly* offended that apparently some Jewish people took it upon themselves to trash my religion. All I wanted to do -- but it was not good enough for you -- was to state for the record that this article addresses the standard "orthodox" Christian Jesus, a theological construct bearing implications which may tend to affect Judaism; and that therefore this article was more justifiable than it appears to be, to many Christians who see it and get upset about it. But that wasn't good enough for you. Maybe you want Christians to be offended? Maybe you resent that I'm not a member the club who you think should have a right to edit this article? -- I'm not saying either of those are your motives; but something is up with you to make this thinly-veiled attack on me, and something is up with the discourse all over this Talk page. People *do* have their personal axes to grind -- It is very clear -- they just don't want to admit it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go start an article on the non-historicity of Moses -- since there already *is* one about Jesus -- Maybe you wrote it? (You seem to have enough of a personal animus to have done so... I'll bet you haven't even *read* the gospels or availed yourself of any tools to get behind the surface text...) -- and since there's plenty of literature which makes a case that there never was any Moses, or Miriam, or Aaron or Joshua or Samson or Deborah or David or Solomon; and *certainly* some of this same literature will dispel as pure myth any Covenant giving the Holy Land to the children of Abraham ... That literature doesn't express *my* POV at all; but they're certainly reasonable topics -- aren't they, LisaLiel? -- and it only seems right to me, if you can have articles questioning the historicity of somebody else's religious figure or the legitimacy of their beliefs about him, that they should have every right to do the same for any of yours, including G-d Himself, ברוך יהיה שמו עד עולם Barukh yihyeh Shemo ad olam. Congratulations on your personal achievement, in setting it out for me in high relief that I need to go and write all these articles; your Nobel Peace Prize is in the mail.

(To be fair, I should say this not just a response to LisaLiel; nor am I as angry as this probably sounds. My apologies to anyone whose blood pressure didn't need this. I have simply had it with politically correct "reverse" bigotry -- There is actually no such thing of course, bigotry is bigotry; but some people seem to feel they are more entitled to practice it. And it is what I smell here. Not from everybody though, there are kind people here too, Wolf2191 being a fine example, for inviting me to make a change instead of obsessively staking out and protecting and controlling perceived turf. He's probably sorry now that he did -- and I to him :~/ -- but it was nice of him anyway. May more people be like him.) DThrax (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Dthrax Have you seen the Yeshu article that discusses the talmudical view of the historical. Other [[Jesus] articles focus on the other aspects that you mention. This article is more or less focusing on the Jeiwsh view of the "theological" Jesus. If you feel that the articles need to be clearer about their objectives or perhaps that some more cross referencing is in order then you are more then welcome to make the changes. Best Wolf2191 (talk) 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

DThrax, I agree with lisa's removal of your addition. I think that title is clear enough for most people to understand the scope of the article without any disclaimers. There is a Jesus sidebar for anyone who wants a different topic related to Jesus. Jon513 (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of this Talk page would seem to indicate that what you are saying is incorrect. In fact I think it is manifestly so, but when it comes to matters of religion people will have their way (in other words POV is OK if it's the *right* POV). Also I would ask this Lisa what is POV about "Rabbinic"? Does she want to include Karaites or maybe Jews for Jesus? I worked very hard to make a needed and fair & respectful clarification. *One* person comes along who has not even been part of a lengthy conversation and without finding out what's going on, decides she doesn't like it (and so it's out). DThrax (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, I was posting this much nicer message when I saw the sophomoric moral snobbery above, and left this here, and had to come back and finish it later. DThrax (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep cool, Thrax, WP:NPA. I would be happy to opine about the proposed addition, but the truth is I haven't been able to crack more than two paras of your argument at a time. Maybe my attention span or level of knowledge isn't enough to permit me to contribute here, but I know it would be helpful if you could summarize your argument in 1-2 sentences. I recognize you have provided lots of supporting arguments, but what is the main point: this article doesn't have the right title because:........." Kaisershatner (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Alternately you guys could just continue tearing into each other without my help).

(Phew.) Yeah, Kaisershatner, I apologize to everybody, especially LisaLiel who probably did not actually intend to censor, insult, or discriminate against me (at least I owe her the benefit of the doubt). I logged in today expecting to have been ganged up on and kicked off Wikipedia for flaming out in the middle of the night with hot-button examples that don't even reflect my views. No way should I have done that. And don't worry, I have no intention of continuing such an exchange.

Wow. Well, I didn't read that whole opus, because it seemed to be going on and on and on and on and... well, you get the idea.

When Christians qualify Judaism as "Rabbinic" Judaism, it's usually for the purpose of implying that what we call Judaism is no more "original Judaism" than Christianity is. That's why I objected to the POV modifier. It wasn't the primary reason I removed the disclaimer; I would have removed it even had you not put in the insulting modifier. I say insulting, because it's really no different than me writing "the possibly historical character of Jesus of Nazareth". There's nothing technically wrong with that phrase, but I guarantee you that every Christian here would have an aneurysm if I were to put that in as an edit in an article.

I removed your disclaimer, not as a form of censorship, but because it was clear that you'd added it merely because you were offended by the article. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me try once more to answer the question (Bear with me, it's hard to make it short without wording it very densely (no puns, please :~| )):

This article doesn't have the right combination of title and content, because it does not point out, as it needs to do, that this self-described commentary "by Judaism" on (apparently) the central figure of another religion -- a commentary that will be seen by many Christians as overwhelmingly negative and condemnatory -- is in fact justifiable, only because Judaism has a right to respond, to what that *other* religion has said about this highly theologized figure's alleged "rightful role" in Judaism. If it were not a response, by Judaism, to material claims about Judaism by another religion, it would not belong on Wikipedia.

"Judaism's view of Jesus" is not enough; it does not properly motivate the article's existence, and so it invites a counter-"attack". But this is Judaism's *defense* against Christian claims, only as they affect Judaism -- *not* an "unprovoked attack" on one religion by another, as it will be seen to be, if this is not made clear.

The real-or-not-real historical person, "Jesus of Nazareth", has nothing to do with it: Who would blame a man, said to have died ca. 30 C.E., for a later religious institution's claims which were in some sense laid on Judaism, putatively regarding this person, but by people who did not know him, officially for the first time and with some dissent (mostly killed off by now, or driven deeply underground in submission), only about 300 years later? -- Hence the added complication, of specifying that this response is to claims about a religion's theological construct. Reread what I wrote -- two lines. I even placed the name “Jesus Christ” in quotation marks, in a secondary, parenthetical identification, to show that this is not what Jews call him, or he ever called himself, but rather what Christianity calls him:

(Btw, the Nicene Creed is the 325 C.E. document which *defined* and still defines *all* "orthodox" Christianity worldwide.)

[This article addresses Rabbinic Judaism's response to views expressed by the Christian theology of, e.g., the Nicene Creed, regarding Jesus of Nazareth (or “Jesus Christ”), as those views may impinge upon Judaism. For other purposes, see Historical Jesus or Jesus (disambiguation).]

So: Tell me what was wrong with this, that it deserved to be summarily ripped from the page as soon as it landed? Otherwise, tweak it if needs tweaking, but don't refuse to identify the actual subject of the article. --Best regards (and I never meant any harm, but only to help), DThrax (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There actually are some Karaite discussions of Chritianity (for instance Aaron of Troki's Chizzuk Emunah is online) but the article doesn't discuss them. At it stands, the article is exactly what User:Dthrax describes. I'll leave a message at the talk pages of people who are more knowledgeable then I on WP policy to double check.Wolf2191 (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolf asked me if I'd comment here. Firstly, I want to say I think this is an outstandingly good article. It is full of reliable, sourced information written from the NPOV. The sources go right back to the best, i.e. the primary ones. This is dealt with responsibly in the light of the best analysis of these sources. I think the article is an example of the very best Wiki achieves -- matters that are of deep personal feeling, from genuinely clashing perspectives, have been documented in a fair way.

I feel the sense of DThrax' challenge to the first sentence of the lead. If Judaism has no view on Jesus, no article is possible. However, the whole article demonstrates what is hardly controversial, indeed some of the best, most reliable and even ancient Jewish sources do express views regarding Jesus. The four main comments—regarding: the uniqueness of God, the nature of the Messiah, the relevance of prophecy and the concept of salvation—are a brilliant choice of summary and accurately expressed to my understanding of Judaism (in which I must, however, defer to any Jewish source). I can say, however, they are very fair indeed to Christianity, that is self-consciously aware of disagreeing with Abraham's descendents on these matters.

I think the communication problem underlying current lack of consensus comes down to this.

• Judaism is in absolutely no way defined by its views on Jesus. Judaism existed long before Jesus. It continues to this day in an unbroken tradition of many millenia. That a heretical sect of Judaism has ultimately become extremely numerous, in no way justifies an encyclopedia leaving an impression of Judaism dependent on a "democracy" of POV. Much literature does indeed look at Judaism this way, and it often takes Jews to point it out. This should not be. Objective scholarship (like that of documenting an encyclopedia) should be crystal clear that Judaism has no fundamental view against Christianity or Islam for the obvious reason that it preceded both of them. It should be expected the other religions do have views regarding Judaism, since they depend foundationally on how they interpret the Tanakh.
• On the other hand, true as all the above is, it is essentially a caveat tangential to the topic. In no way does the article actually seek to suggest that Jewish views regarding Jesus are foundational or characteristic of the faith. To address this issue is really to import significant issues, but ones non-essential to materially addressing the questions underlying the topic title.
• On balance, I think suggesting that Jesus is a matter of profound indifferance and irrelevance to Jews is really overstating the case. Catholicism does not consider Martin Luther a matter of profound indifference, but nor does Catholicism consist only of reaction against Luther, very, very far from it. So, in conclusion, while some brief caveat may have some small place in this article, the current one is overstated, and caveats cannot be placed on all Wiki articles to deflect every possible misinterpretation. It horrifies me to think some Jewish writings were censored to avoid upsetting Christians and inciting anti-semitism. I am a Christian, but I like to imagine I'd give my life to allow Jews to say about him what their honest reading of their scriptures leads them to conclude. Silence such faithful scholarship (and I deliberately pun on faithful), and the world is a poorer place. Diversity of opinion is not an end, but an essential means. Grasping truth often involves comprehending and dismissing error. That which is true will defend itself, that which is false will prove itself to be false. But there are no short cuts for the human mind.

Apologies for the philosophy with which I conclude. I appeal to those who feel Judaism is poorly reflected by this article to observe that Christian answers to the Jewish challenges are not included in this article, and nor should they be imo. Diversity of view in this article means diversity of view among Jews. Judaism is pretty united on this topic in my limited knowledge, and that is accurately reflected by the current revision. Please consider this and find peace. With all my heart, shalom. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC) PS Wolf has politely pointed out I haven't expressed an opinion regarding the actual proposal. (I replied above without identifying this specific matter.) I think the wording of the protasis is very good indeed. I think it would serve as a good lead sentence. I'm less clear about the value of the redirect. I am not against it though. It is certainly true that historically the Jewish leaders confronted Jesus personally, and that documenting this is a matter of addressing a different, but closely related, question. I think this may be a good thing to express the reality of the mutual respect held by editors debating the current issue. A real issue, and a real, practical manner of accomodating it would, thereby, be acknowledged. Good for the article, but, I think, even better for our community. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the content of the disclaimer, I have a problem with the existence of the a disclaimer (I think they look ugly, and is against the style guidelines). I have moved most of the content of the disclaimer into the first sentence (diff), and I hope everyone can agree to it. Jon513 (talk) 10:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The English translation for Rambam's Epistle to Yemen seems impossible

I suspect the current English translation for Rambam's Episle to Yemen, is inaccurate. I have a translation of it in Hebrew, and the English one in the article deviates wildly from it. For example, the incendiary curse ('may his bones be ground to dust') doesnt exist in the Hebrew. Probably the English translator interpolated his own opinion about Jesus - in contradiction to the original words and tone of Rambam himself. Everywhere else Rambam is a rational, cautious, tolerant, and nuanced writer. He typically doesnt use inflammatory language like this. I would rather find another English translation that is more trustworthy. Unfortunately, Rambam originally wrote the Epistle to Yemen in Arabic. Only later was it translated to the Hebrew version that I have (even tho it is an authoritative version). Does anyone know where I can get the Epistle to Yemen, online in the original Arabic? Rambam's Epistle is an extremely important historical document because it is one of the few comments ever made about Jesus by an authoritative Rabbi. If someone here has access to the original Arabic from a book, it is worth the time to transcribe it here, so we can all look at it. --Haldrik (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pablo Cristiani

What did he say in the debate? Can someone put that in here in the relevant section, or in the article about him? KittyHawker 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't really say anything that interesting. Throughout the debate Nachmanides was on the defense, forcing him to explain different aspects of Judaism. Christiani, on the other hand, was only asking questions (mostly along the lines of "doesn't this obscure passage from the Talmud prove that the Talmudic Rabbis really believe in Jesus!"). So he never really had to explain, or defend his belief in Christianity. Whenever Nachmanidies answered him, he just moved along to the next question. Jon513 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Maybe you could mention that in the article? KittyHawker 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets discuss before using revisions.

Dbratton has made a revision that seems to be in bad faith. Can we discuss the changes here, rather than just use heavy handed revisions to remove anything you don't like. We need to imporve this page together. Some questions: 1) I added information that there have been competing views of Messiah within Judaism. What was wrong with this? 2) Some Jews are Christians. Why have their POV been removed? 3) Which words specifically did you find weasely? 4) Why do you presume writings by Paul of Tarsis or Matthew the Evangelist are not Jewish works? I think they do have something to say about the range of positions on Jesus within Judaism. 5) I'm not sure what you meant by "justifications" can you explain?--Just nigel 13:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in any revision, but I think this is about the views of Judaism not the views of Jews as an ethnicity/culture. The views of Jewish people who are Christians, Muslim, or Buddhist are not relevant I'd think. Likewise people who are not ethnically Jewish, but converted to Judaism, could be relevant if they were important to Judaism. Although I think there might be more variety within Judaism than this article has indicated. The view of Jesus I read in the Jewish Encyclopedia[1] was far less hostile. It was clear that its position was that no one can be God and that Jesus wasn't a Messiah, but it indicated he had some positive ideas and that most of their problems was with people after Jesus. This would be a bit wrong, but basically what I got from it was the view that Jesus's main faults was being a bit ignorant and insufficiently supportive of Jewish nationalism. The idea of him as bad or Christianity as bad is not quite so intense as in this even though it was also written in a non-ecumenical era.--T. Anthony 08:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nigel,

To address your questions, first I would suggest reading through the talk archives of this article, as well as examining the history of the article itself; you're by far not the first editor to make changes to the article to inaccurately put Jesus in a more sympathetic light, and by now most (all?) such changes tend to be reverted without discussion, simply because they happen so often. If it's discussion you're seeking, I would suggest bringing up your fairly major points on the talk page prior to integrating them into the article.

Anthony is pretty much right on the mark for most of your inquiries - this article is about the views of Judaism on Jesus, not those of individual Jews. There certainly are Jews who follow christianity, as well as Jewish works which state belief in Jesus as Messiah, but that is wholly outside of the religion of Judaism. In fact, the title of the article was previously changed from Jewish views to Judaism's views precisely because of this quite common misunderstanding.

Your edits included a few attempts to soften the statements that are made in the article. "These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars" is a completely accurate, straightforward sentence; "Such apparent discrepancies were debated among Jewish scholars" recasts the statement from a simple declaration into a suggestion of contention within the religion that is not present.

Finally, your use of the christian New Testament is completely inappropriate for this article. According to the views of Judaism (which are the subject of the article), the NT is a blasphemous work which contradicts the core of the religion. Using it here is an attempt to insert christian beliefs and teachings into an article which has nothing to do with them whatsoever.

I understand that you're trying to improve the article to reflect ideas that are important to you, but it's important to realize that this article has been carefully written by editors very knowledgeable about Judaism to accurately reflect the position of the religion (I'm not including myself here, since most of it came about prior to my arrival). Christian teachings have no place in the article the same way that Hindu, Islamic, and atheist teachings have no place - they're not inaccurate as descriptions, but they're wholly irrelevant to the views of Judaism.

Hope this helps! I promise that any controversial edits you might want to make which you bring up in talk beforehand to be discussed and tuned to the article won't be reverted. :) Dbratton 11:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In my case my concern is that this might be reflecting a view of a portion Orthodox Jews who may or may not be representative of Jews in Jesus's day or today. As they're likely to be the most interested and well-versed in Judaism the lack of valid argument might not mean there is no valid debate. For example if Russian Orthodox Wikipedians said that the Eastern Orthodox Church view of Muhammad is that he was an Antichrist, based on statements by Medieval theologians, few may be able to argue with them. However this may nevertheless be inaccurate. Also in Jesus's time Rabbinic Judaism, on which I believe this is based as I don't think it mentions Karaite Judaism, was not as dominant as it is now. In addition Judaism does not, as far as I know, have any body to create a standard view on Jesus or any other personage not clearly mentioned in the Talmud. Still as a non-Jewish person I'm also hesitant to say these things as I could be completely wrong, but the comparative dearth of names from the post-Medieval age makes me wonder nonetheless.--T. Anthony 13:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not misunderstanding the difference between (ethinc) Jewishnes and (religious) Judaism. I content that Jesus and Paul etc were Jews religiously not just Jewish - ethnically, culturally, nationally. Paul famously self identified this way in his line "I am a Pharisee of Pharisees." The assumption in the article seems to be that Christianity and Judaism are two separate things. It is true that this assumption is held by many - but it is not without its own bias and it would not be NPOV to exclude less black and white interpretations. Today they are usually differences between the two religions (I will mention later exceptions to this) but not so at the inception of Christianity. Around the time of Jesus there were competing views within Judaism about its relationship to nationalism, the necessity of a temple for its observance, the role of the Messiah, who the messiah was or wasn't and so on. There are Jewish people besides Jesus of Nazareth who have either claimed themselves or have had claimed about them that they are the messiah. Its not just about "justifying" Christianity. It is about accurately describing the history and range of Judaism's views of Jesus.

A few times the information that is in the article should be tempered with adjectives like "contemporary Judaism" or "Orthodox Judaism" because while they are true, they do not tell the full story. Even today there are people who call themselves Jews - in the sense of religious Jews - and see their Jewish messianic hopes fullfilled in Jesus. Just because thier view is not the majority or it is covered in more detial on a page about "Messianic Jews" it does not mean it should be completely excluded from this article. My changes to the sentence "These discrepancies were noted by Jewish scholars" were appropriate, because it is not NPOV to call these things discrepancies. Only some people think there are discrepancies. Not all Jewish scholars noted them. Only some noted them. This is an example of a sentence that needs recasting from a simple exageration to a more nuanced sentence that describes more of what is going on than you seem willing to read here.

PS It it true that I have not read the history of comments. But then I did not try and remove information. I was trying to add information.--Just nigel 04:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The text says The Christians were just one, apparently usual, sect with which the authors contended (others included Sadducees, Samaritans, and Gnostics). This is a list of Jewish sects. Christianity was a Jewish sect. It is the most successful Jewish sect. The issue of what is "a Jewish view" or what is Judaism (in terms of what the article intends to cover) should be directly addressed by the article and not just on the talk page. Is the article defining "What is Judaism" by the points of view expressed in the article so that the views of Jews who differ and the views of Jewish sects that differ are defined not to be really Judaism? Is the article saying that if a Jew accepts Jesus as Messiah then by definition his beliefs are not Judaism beliefs? WAS 4.250 12:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Religions routinely go through schisms, reformations, etc. Even Catholics, Protestants & Eastern Orthodox don't get along well. After the historical schism of almost 2 millennia ago, Christianity made a complete breach from Judaism. It is a totally different belief system and is not a Jewish sect any more than Islam is. There is no need to address "What is Judaism" in this article because across all denominations of Judaism, there is a quite common view on Jesus: they reject both his divinity & messiahship. As for the Messianics, it would be a severe POV to identify them as a part of Judaism. For all practical purposes, they do not belong in this discussion. WAS 4.250, the answer to your question may be found here: Jews_for_Jesus#_note-incompat. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The pre-cursor to Christianity was a Jewish sect; Christianity split from Judaism 2,000 years ago, and they've been completely different faiths for that entire time. Christianity is not Judaism, and this article discusses Judaism's view of Jesus, not Christianity's view of Jesus. There are plenty of articles that discuss Christianity's view of Jesus, feel free to add this material in those articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is going poorly. I guess I communicated poorly. I'll start over. WAS 4.250 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are very few Jewish sources that directly mention Jesus, I doubt you can find any Karaite sources talking about him, but if you do it would be great if that could be added. The sources quoted are from before the split of Orthodox, conservative and reform and reflects all of them. If you want to add modern sources from each movement stating as much I will not object. The reason Christianity and Messianic Judaism is not reflected in the article is because they are not recognized as a Jewish sect by any of the major denominations. Just because a group says that it represents Judaism does not mean it is representing Judaism. Jon513 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"There are very few Jewish sources that directly mention Jesus" so therefore let us not engage in original research. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"it would be great if that could be added" but I am interested in the subject and questioning the sourcing rather than saying I can add data. I know enough to help make the article more neutral, maybe; I am asking questions to try to help. If I knew enough to add; I would add. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"The reason Christianity and Messianic Judaism is not reflected in the article is because they are not recognized as a Jewish sect by any of the major denominations." - I think this and any other such criteria need to mentioned in the article and not just on the talk pages. I would do so myself, if I felt I could do so in a way that is appropriate (I know' there are many others that can phrase this subsection better than me.) WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Just because a group says that it represents Judaism does not mean it is representing Judaism." Yes. For sure. And the article needs to reflect and deal with this and it does not. Again, this is something I wish to learn about and am not in a position to teach about. WAS 4.250 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article does not contain original research, and accurately quotes the authoritative texts of Judaism that do mention Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok to begin the article by defining its content/subject as "authoritative texts of Judaism that are broadly accepted among Jews as mentioning the Jesus refered to in the New Testament"? WAS 4.250 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another try at a formulation: "This article is about authoritative texts of Judaism that mention the Christ Jesus refered to in the New Testament according to modern Jewish experts on Judaism." That's still not quite right. WAS 4.250 02:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"This article is about what modern Jewish experts on Judaism say about what they consider to be authoritative texts of Judaism that mention the Christ Jesus refered to in the New Testament." Well, that says accurately what I think should be said, but I can't say much for its elegance. WAS 4.250 02:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism has to mean something, and that's basically whatever its authoritative texts and religious leaders say it means. Judaism is not Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Animism, Mormonism, Shintoism, Baha'ism etc. While Judaism is far from monolithic, the only opinions that matter in Judaism are the opinions of Judaism; the views of or about various leaders/prophets/gods of Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, etc. are simply not relevant to Judaism. The fact that Judaism considers Amos to have been a prophet is not relevant to Shintoism. The fact that Islam considers Muhammad to be the last and greatest prophet is not relevant to Christianity. The fact that Mormonism considers Joseph Smith to have been a prophet is not relevant to Islam. The fact that the Unification Church considers Sun Myung Moon to be "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent" is not relevant to Christianity or Islam or Judaism. And the fact that Christianity considers Jesus to be the Messiah is not relevant to Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Humas, you assert "Christianity made a complete breach from Judaism. It is a totally different belief system and is not a Jewish sect." That is a common opinion, but you already seem aware that others such as Messianic Jews discagree and believe they can following Jesus within their Jewish faith. How do you think this article can best describe that difference? I can't see the sense in just leaving it out because you, and others who think like you on this issue, disagree with them.

Jon, I had not realised the sources all came from before the split of Orthodox, conservative and reform denominations. Thanks for explaining that to me.

You also say Christianity and Messianic Judaism are not reflected in this article because they are not recognised as Jewish sects by any of the three "major" Jewish denominations. By your own words this is not a neutral point of view but the subjective point of view of these "major" denominations. Sure, these denominations are free to make judgements about what they consider Jewish and such judgements can be accurately described here. But by the same liberty Messianic Jews make a different judgement about themselves that should also be accurately described in an encyclopedia. Part of that accuracy could be to ensure it is clear how this view varies from that of the majority. To do otherwise would be to have wikipedia take sides in theological disputes.

Appeals to "majority" are relevent in balancing the promanence in the article of different views. But to say that a "minority" view is not worthy of inclusion just becuase the "majority" disagree with it is not being encyclopedic - it is being dogmatic. I feel strongly about the opression of religious minorities - including through exclusion - by "majority" religious groups.--Just nigel 17:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Christianity is not a "minority view" in Judaism, it is a different faith. This article is about Judaism's view of Jesus, not Christianity's view. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel, this case is not about "opression of religious minorities" but about WP:NPOV#Undue weight. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Humus I do understand the importance of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. That is why I said: "Appeals to 'majority' are relevent in balancing the promanence in the article of different views." I propose this article would be more accurate if it said somthing like:

"Today the majority of Jews including all the three largest denominations of Judaism (orthodox, conservative and liberal/reform) belive this... " These views would be spelt out in detail. It would including the fact that they really don't beleive much about Jesus becuase they don't feel the need to talk about him; and what they do beleive about God that they find contradicted or compromised by what mainstream Christians believe about Jesus. Then haven given due weight to this majority view two other relevant areas (which I find missing from this article at the moment) need to be mentioned...

"The historical emergence of Christianity from within Judaisim meant (particularly at its inception) more ambiguity about Judaism's beliefs about Jesus. And that today a minority of Jews continue in this tradtion and see in Jesus a Messiah who never left Judaism". I fail to see how adding these two points is a threat to the integrity of this article. I think they would improve it. --Just nigel 00:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid weasel word claims about what "the majority of Jews" believe or don't believe. This is an article about the tenets of Judaism, not about what individual Jews believe. The split between Judaism and Christianty came precisely because of Christianity's beliefs about Jesus. The elements that introduced the new belief of Jesus as deity etc., and spread that belief among gentiles, became Christianity. There is no "ambiguity" about Judaism's view of Jesus; that issue was decided 1900 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

By your words then Jay, the ambiguity ended 1900 years ago. So do you think the ambiguity of the first 100 years is worthly of being acurately described in one sentence in 190?--Just nigel 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't describe the views of Baha'i regarding prophethood in the article on Islam precisely because Baha'i broke from Islam over that issue - similarly, there is no "ambiguity" in Judaism over Jesus. 2000 years ago a small number of Jews believed Jesus to be the messiah, and Paul in particular convinced a larger number of gentiles to believe it as well. Christianity evolved in a new direction, and broke away from Judaism over this and related beliefs, eventually deifying Jesus. Religions evolve, and James' view of Jesus was markedly different from that codified in the Nicene Creed. Trying to impose modern Christian views of Jesus on ancient Judaism is at best an anachronism, and trying to impose them in an article about Judaism's view is at best insulting. The Christian view of Jesus is well described in articles about Christianity, and these views aren't relevant to Judaism's views. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jay, on the Islam page the Baha'i faith does rate a sentence - even though Baha'i consider their faith to be "a distinct tradition with its own scriptures, teachings, laws, and history". How much more relavent to this discussion would be people who see Messianic faith in Jesus as being perfectly consitent with the tradition, scriptures, teaching, laws and history of Judaism? Don't you reckon they are worth ... They should get at least two sentences :p. An encyclopedia - to be encyclopedic - should include not just the mainstream or majority view.--Just nigel 10:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Islam page briefly mentions that Baha'i emerged from Islam; it doesn't described Baha'i's belief which diverge from Islam's, or insist they are one valid (minority) set of beliefs in Islam. The Judaism article give much greater play to Christianity and its beliefs, and mentions Islam and Baha'i as well. And, again, the article discusses Judaism's views, not the views of what "Jews" or "people" believe, because "people" believe 6 billion different things. Christian views are not a "minority" view in Judaism, even if some Jews have converted to Christianity; rather, they are a majority view in Christianity, where those views are discussed. Jews who have converted to Islam consider Abraham to be the first Muslim, and Islam to be the original faith of the Jews before they corrupted it. But you know what? That isn't mentioned in articles about Judaism, because those are the views of Islam, not the views of Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To say that the Messianics are a minority would imply that they belong to Judaism. This would be an extreme POV. Please take your activism elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a subjective point of view to say that Messianics belong to Judaism. It happens to be their view. Just as it is a subjective point of view for anyone (even a majority of Judaism) to say that they do not belong to Judaism. It is not the role of Wikipedia to take sides in such religious controversies. It is the role of Wikipedia to accurately describe them.

Please do not tell me to "take your activism elsewhere". I find that offensive. It does not presume good faith on my part, it suggests you have more right to be here than I do (which you don't we can both be here), and worse it seeks to end dialogue. I am here because I am happy to have dialogue with people who disagree with me. If the issue is you are uncomfortable with this conversation you have the choice to withdraw for a while. You would still be welcome to rejoin the conversation later. --Just nigel 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

They can't have eat their cake and have it too, much as they'd like to. Once you convert to another faith, your beliefs are not part of Judaism any more, no matter how much you kick and scream and insist that Blue is really Red. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Once you convert to another faith, your beliefs are not part of Judaism any more" that is not a neutral point of view that is a subjective point of view. Messianic Jews have a different subjective point of view. That is why neither point of view should be the basis for editorial revisions. The most accurate thing for wikipedia to do is accurqately describe both - giving due weigth to the domimant view.--Just nigel 15:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "subjective point of view", it's a simple logical truth. And, again, we're not interested in what various groups of Jews think, we're talking about what the authoritative texts in Judaism say. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jay, your statement "it's simple logical truth" sounds dogmatic to me. Repeating your point of view - as valid as your point of view is, or as widely supported as it is - doesn't prove or disprove that your point of view is still subjective. If you wanted to demonstrate your point of view was not subjective you would need to point to objective evidence for it. And while looking into that you could ask yourself 'why if this POV is not subjective am I able to quote other subjects who have another point of view?'

Also, when you say "Were not interested in what various groups of Jews think" (emphasis added), on whose behalf were you speaking? You were not speaking for me. If by "we" you meant the editors of this article I am concerned by the implied sectarianism of making sweeping statements that exclude me. It sounds like you are perceiving this as "Us/We" versus "Them/You". By your comments and revision, removing information from the article I can see that you are not to be interested in what various groups of Jews think. Once again this is a subjective POV and not the basis for a good encyclopedia article.--Just nigel 00:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be helpful to return to that example given of the mention of the Baha'i faith on the Islam page? I had two points about this:

1) The Baha'i faith is mentioned (in one sentnece I think) on the Islam page. It is an informative and accurate sentence but it is appropriate that not much more is said there, because...

2) Members of the Baha'i faith do not self-identify as Muslims. As I quoted above, they consider themselves to be a separate religion. No one is insisting they are a "valid (minority) set of beliefs in Islam".

I see a better annalogy for the dispute over this article presenting alternative views from within Judaism, in the range of information about the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints (Mormons) included on pages about Christianity. Latter-day Saints self-identify as Christian. The majority of the world's Christians including the large denominations of orthodox, catholic and protestant christianity do not agree with the Latter-day Saints on many issus of beleif and practice, and consider them heretical. The feelings are mutual - Latter-day saints call most of these churches apostate. Yet call up the Christianity page, or the Trinity page and you will see that their view is given space. It is encyclopedic to include it.

It is not the job of wikipedia editors to take sides with subjective POV on such disputes about what constitutes orthodoxy or heresy. Our role is to accurately describe. And I object to the constant editing of this article to remove factual and referrenced information about vies with which some editors happen to personally disagree.--Just nigel 11:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this article about?

What is this article about? "Judaism's view of Jesus", obviously. But what is meant by "Judaism" and what is meant by "Jesus"? I think the article is unclear and would benefit from greater clarity in identifying what is and is not covered by the article. One example to show what I mean : "some Jews doubt the historical existence of Jesus". Is the article meant to cover official Judaism or what "some jews" think? Does "Jesus" refer to the mythalogical Jesus of the New Testament who comes back in power and glory in the second coming thus fullfulling prophesy or the historical Jesus whose existence is as uncertain as that of King Arthur? (There were several healers with the right name and lived at the right time and place and so could have inspired the stories of Jesus; just as there are several people whose real lives could have been inspirations for the King Arthur myths.) WAS 4.250 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is complication and summary of many of the view expressed by Judaism as a religion about Jesus. The reason the "some Jews..." line is important is because it reflects a view expressed by the Talmud and multiple non-trivial later sources, I will change it to make that clear. While the article does not concern itself directly with the issue of what is meant by "Jesus", Judaism view on any definition of Jesus should be clear from the article. 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

opps, thought you were referring to the next line "Based on a Talmudic tradition...", anyway I changed both sentences. Jon513 11:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "Judaism view on any definition of Jesus should be clear from the article" and I agree with should. But it is not clear to me. Please help make it clear. WAS 4.250 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith and Judaism does not impose any particular beliefs about Jesus. If an idea of Jesus doesn't contradict any fundamental of faith it is compatible with Judaism. This article tries to outline what beliefs about Jesus are incompatible with Judaism and leaves it to reader to understand that anything else is fine. I have tried to make the article a bit more readable by removing all refers to "Jews" and replacing it with "Judaism". Jon513 11:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The statment "Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith" sounds very subjective to me. If this article is edited on that assumption we would need verifiable soruces that show it is the case. It would also seem relavant to address New Testament sources where both Jesus describes himself and is described by others as part of the Jewish faith.--Just nigel 16:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel: What makes Judaism a different religion to Chrisatinity is that it (Judaism) rejects Jesus, all of his claims and claims about him by Christians and Christianity, and every word of the New Testament 101% -- that is Judaism 101. IZAK 18:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, repeating a statement does not make it better sourced. Restating a point of view with more emphatic puncutation does not make it more neutral. It seems to me that you want to silence disent, not find the best way to accurately describe it. It is important to me that contributors follow wikipedia conventions on things like WP:NPOV--Just nigel 19:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith" is not that Jesus wasn't Jewish, but that we don't care. I meant to says "the belief in Jesus, or any other beliefs about Jesus is not required by Judaism at all". The only way Jesus comes up in Jewish Theology is what beliefs Judaism proscribes. There are many things that Judaism forbids one to believe in about Jesus (i.e. not God, not son of God, not messiah, etc), nothing that Judaism requires one to believe about Jesus. According to Judaism one may believe almost anything about Jesus (including that he was Jewish, or a rabbi, or a racer or whatever else you want to say) so long as it does not contradict any fundamental of faith. Just like Judaism does not impose any beliefs about most historical figure. For example, according to Judaism believing that napoleon was king of china is stupid not heretical. Jon513 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just nigel: Ok, this is very simple and you seem to not realize this. Here are some readily available online sources with lots of proofs about Judaism's views about Jesus. Take a look at all the points and citations at:

• The Jewish Concept of Messiah and the Jewish Response to Christian Claims (jewsforjudaism.org)
• Why Don't Jews believe in Jesus? (simpletoremember.com)
• Jesus, The Crucifixion, Pontius Pilate and the New Testament (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)
• Is belief in Jesus-as-G-d compatible with any Jewish movements? (shamash.org/lists/scj-faq)
• Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus as the Messiah? (shamash.org/lists/scj-faq)
• Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (aish.com)
• Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (ohr.edu)
• Can a Jew believe in Jesus? (chabad.org)
• What About Jesus? (mechon-mamre.org)
• Looking for Jesus? (jewfaq.org)

All these sources explain the view of Judaism about Jesus. Please read all the sources before responding. Do you want the details from each and every one of them in the article? I will be glad to include them. IZAK 20:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we need to cite that Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) is not the Jewish Lord and Savior, who suffered, died, and achieved Nirvana (and then came back to tell everyone about how awesome it was) too? Sure, maybe he was a decent guy (perhaps even a great guy, just for some cognitive dissonance), but he's not part of the Jewish religion. I find it hilarious that this point is even being disputed, it's plainly obvious to anyone with even a vague understanding of Judaism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 23:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, I have have not reread all those sources since you posted them here in the discussion, but I have looked at some of them as they are referenced within the article. Of the ones I have read I see them sharing and supporting your opinion that "Judaism rejects Jesus, all of his claims and claims about him by Christians and Christianity, and every word of the New Testament 101%" - even if they do not employ the exagerated rehtoric.

What I haven't seen yet is accurate description of (minority) views that disagree with your opinions. Could you direct me to where any of these sources address that point?--Just nigel 00:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Karimarie, in good faith, this article is about opinions on Jesus from within Judaism. I don't think views on Siddhartha Gautama (aka Buddha) would be relavent. I do wonder if you were using sarcasm, and were you asking why we should care to write about Jewish views on Jesus, if Judaism doesn't as a dogma recognise the man as relavent to their faith?

My answer to that would be that ellements of Judaism have through history felt opressed by dominant forms of Christianity and find a need to articulate to themselves or others what they believe - especially where this differs from Christianity. I think this is a shame. Members of Judaism should be free to express what they do beleive without the need to always defend it in this way.

By way of example, since I have tried to include some of the more ambiguis ellements of Judaism's relationship with Christianity (particularly at its inception) and mention the existsence of Jews who beleive Jesus is their Messiah, the style of the article has become more defensive and argumentative. This sentence in the opening paragraph reads more like a polemic than an encycopedia:

"In Jewish eschatology the idea of the Messiah is so different from the Christian Christ that the slightest possibility that Jesus fulfilled any Messianic prophecies to embody the criteria for a Messiah has always been rejected." (emphasis added).

I thnk it would be better and simpler to say something like:

"In mainstream Jewish eschatology, the idea of the Messiah differs significantly from mainstream Christian Christology. The majority of Judaism have always rejected claims that Jesus was the Messiah."--Just nigel 00:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

and Jon, your clarifcation makes sense to me. I had misunderstood you.--Just nigel 00:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is a weasel word; what other "Jewish eschatology" would you be referring to? And why would the fact that some Jews believe Jesus is the Messiah be relevant? Some Jews believe Sun Myung Moon is the Messiah; does that belong in an article about Judaism's views? Some Jews believe Muhammad was the last prophet; does that belong in an article about Judaism's views? Some Jews believe that Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí was the last prophet; should that be in an article about Judaism's views? This is an article about Judaism's views, not what "some Jews" believe, because "some Jews" believe everything you can imagine. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus maintains that the notion of Jesus being a God, part of a Trinity, a Messiah, or a even a prophet, to be heresy. This view is shared by all Jewish denominations unequivocally. In Jewish eschatology the idea of the Messiah is so different from the Christian Christ that the slightest possibility that Jesus fulfilled any Messianic prophecies to embody the criteria for a Messiah has always been rejected.[1] These statements and the rabbinic views derived therefrom present a specific picture of the indivisible Jewish steadfastness in rejecting Jesus as a God, Divine Being, an intermediary between humans and God, Messiah or saint.

This opening seems a little overly emphatic as I believe Just nigel pointed out above, but also it seems to contradict somethings which I've heard from a jewish friend. She said that many Jews believe that Jesus could have been holy, or sent by god (i.e. prophet) but not the son of god. Chooserr 00:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia reflects reliable and verifiable sources. BTW, my friend says your friend is wrong. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, but by stopping at the point before Conservative and Reform Judaism existed I think this could be giving a skewed view. It explains Medieval tension between Christians and Jews, which as I said was apparently more mutual than I had assumed (Don't misunderstand, Jewish people obviously suffered more from such tension), but says almost nothing about the modern age. I think the views of Messianic Judaism, Hebrew Christians, Judaeo-Muslims, etc can indeed be ignored. However I think this is ignoring a good deal of writers within Judaism itself and giving undue focus on people battling against Messianic Judaism. (The alternative is that Judaism truly has done nothing on inter-religious dialogue since the sixteenth century, but I find that to be rather unlikely)--T. Anthony 00:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

But this article isn't about inter-religious dialogue, it's about Judaism's view of Jesus, which is ancient, and ranges from negative to very, very negative. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First that's not precisely right. This relates to how one religion views the founder of another, so interreligious issues are going to come to play whether you want them to or not. Second that was only one small part of my difficulty anyway. If it's true that Judaism has not had any consideration on this matter worth mentioning since 1300, and still views Christians exactly as they did during the Inquisition, than I find this remarkable and worthy of an explanation. Because every other religion I know of has tried to modify its view of the founders of other religions. (Excepting maybe Islam) If Judaism's view of other founders of religions has remained frozen in the fourteenth century it'd be interesting to know why. Plus I do have concerns in the wider world and you'll just have to accept that. Because if the article's point is that Judaism truly is inherently Anti-Christian and hostile to Christ than the article may have real world consequences it's not considering. It's nice to think you're living in a vacuum where no one will be influenced or incited by what they read, but it's not reality. (If Judaism really is inherently hostile to my religion I would still be sympathetic to the reasons why and accept that, but I'm saying many in the world would not go that way)--T. Anthony 02:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus has not been mentioned all that much in Jewish thought, but every so often some authoritative source in Judaism will mention him, and the thinking is pretty much the same. Given that the modern, liberal Reform movement fairly recently came out with a ruling that differed little from the rulings of centuries ago, it's clear that not much has changed as regards this. As for Judaism being "anti-Christian", that's a leap. Naturally Judaism disputes the fundamental claims of Christianity, since they essentially (and literally) claim to supersede Judaism - if anything, the "inherently hostile" view is of Christianity towards Judaism, and one needs only to read the New Testament to understand that. However, saying that worship of Jesus is fundamentally opposed to the beliefs of Judaism is not the same as being "anti-Christian" or "inherently hostile" to Christianity. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused as to what I'm responding to. I'll try this one last time, but then I give up. This really does give a worse view of Christianity than anything in mainstream Christian denominations today do to Judaism. I've never seen a mainstream church indicate that Judaism is the most warlike religion, that it's founders were wicked, and that exists only as a stumbling block. I think you may feel I'm being unfair, but that's pretty clearly in it. The impression left is that most everything useful to be said on the subject ends at 1300. Therefore Judaism believes that Christianity is proven false, that Jesus was a wicked man warned of in prophecy, that Judaism killed Jesus rather than Romans doing so, and that Christianity itself is a force of only misery. All these things make sense in the context of Medieval European religious hostility, but then it stops. If this truly is the view of Judaism up to today then this is indeed intensely peculiar. It is also, sorry, more intolerant than Christianity in the developed world. However this is Wikipedia so I try to be intensely skeptical of every religion article here. Also I warn people to never use this place on those subjects. (After all Wikipedia practically indicates Catholicism is based on Anti-Semitism and invented Fascism. On religion issues it's the biggest source of half-truths and misinformation going)--T. Anthony 04:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there just aren't a lot of authoritative sources on Jesus in modern Judaism. You're right, the statement of the Reform movement should be there, and any by the modern Conservative movement (I haven't found any by that movement referring to Jesus as all), and any by significant Orthodox groups. But again, keep in mind, while they might have made statements about "Jews for Jesus" or other "Hebrew Christian" groups, they rarely, if ever, comment about Jesus. We're not left with a huge amount of stuff. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, to include "My friend says Jesus was an honorable bloke" would be unencyclopedic. One of my concern with the article as it stands is that some glaring reliable and verifiable sources have been edited out of the article, because some of the editors have a point of view oposing them. Can we include more sources or is there a dogmatic objection among this article's editors?--Just nigel 09:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that point of contention is as follows: Most editor believe that Messianic Judaism is not a form of Judaism. Not a minority view, not an unpopular view, but completely unrelated to Judaism, and therefore is outside the scope of this article. This is not to say that these editors believe on way of another about their own faith, but they have a view about which religion Messianic Judaism is part of. Just nigel, on the other hand, seems (correct me if I am wrong) to believe that Messianic Judaism is a minority view in Judaism.

Just nigel has said that the fact that the three major denominations of Judaism reject Messianic Judaism doesn't not mean to him that it is not Jewish because that is just three opinions. I am sure that he would be equally unimpressed with the Israeli Supreme court that rule the same. In fact, any sources that could be shown to contradict him will alway just be the majority opinion.

As there is no way mathematically possible to resolve this dispute it seems to me that it is time to end it and follow the opinion of the majority of the editors. I does not make sense to me to put a POV tag on the article when there is no way possible for it ever to be removed. Jon513 17:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

At issue is not whether I judge them to be part of judaism. At issue is acuratley describing that they beleive they are part of Judaism. So I have added one sentence:

Some alternative forms of Judaism differ from these views, most notably those often called Messianic Jews who believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

It is a statement of fact and refferenced. I hope people who read this article find this extra information adds to their understanding of the topic.--Just nigel 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-identification is a ridiculous argument. Not everyone who wakes up thinking he is a reincarnation of Buddha is one, or even is a Buddhist. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why Humus wants to ridicule the argument of self-identification. Whatever your reasons, it is a standard definition of religion used in sociology. As the first sentnce on the Wikipedia page on religious identity states:

"Religious identity is a matter of self–identification and self–declaration of those, who only believe in, or also follow the doctrines of a particular religion."

It is the definition I have always used in such forums and I am not aware of any other NPOV that is available to us. Are you?--Just nigel 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying; I think you are wrong. I believe that to include messianic Judaism as a minority view despite the fact that is rejected as part of Judaism by the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people would be POV. Also religious identity is an article not policy. Jon513 12:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, wouldn't we then have to include the view of Mormons about Jesus? According to that article, they consider themselves to be part of the Jewish nation, even if Jews don't see it that way.Kaisershatner 14:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon, if you think it is wrong to apply the principle of religious self-identification as a basis for NPOV, what do you suggest instead. (I am not convinced by earlier suggestions on this discussion that wikipedia should be bound by decisions of the Israeli court system.)

Kaisershatner, if you were you seriously suggesting it and you know about it I would not try to stop you being bold and editing away. I don't know so much about it myself, but I suspect Latter-day saints notions of being 'in the house of Israel' may not be exactly the same as being Jewish. Also as the article notes "Mormons' claim to membership in the House of Israel has led to some complex relationships with Judaism. The concept of non-Jews claiming membership in the House of Israel produces various cultural and interfaith problems." and it would be tricky to cover complexities in brief here.

I thought Messianic Jews were particularly relevant to this articel becasue they are people who identify themselves as Jewish and hold a peculiar view of Jesus that differs from mainstream Judasim, and (I suspect) this difference is the major cause for the emotional dispute about their jewish legitamacy.--Just nigel 14:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)