This sub is not a platform to persuade others to change their beliefs to be more like your beliefs or lack of beliefs. You are welcome to explain your point of view, but please do not:
- Tell people to join or leave any specific religion or religious organization
- Insist that others must conform to your understanding of your religion or lack of religion
- Forcefully attempt to persuade others to change their beliefs
- Ask others to proselytize to you or convince you which religion to follow
Unless he comes back to life (said this with sarcasm)…which is unlikely… no.
(Edit 2: Jesus will not ever be the messiah for the Jews. He didn’t fulfill our prophecy, he potentially doesn’t even fit the criteria and he’s dead…)
It’s also questionable if he even hits basic qualifications for who the messiah is and therefore likely could never be a candidate.
Edit: short answer is no. Jews will never believe Jesus is our messiah. Because Jesus isn’t the messiah. Unless something otherworldly happens then that won’t change.
unless he comes back to life.
well do i have something to tell you about three days after passover in 33! lol.
but yeah y'all will never think he's your messiah with what i understand from your perspective.
No we won’t. It’s a “pigs flying” kind of never happen. And it won’t because Jesus never really was a serious messianic claimant. He didn’t fulfill any of our prophetic points. Including, if the gospels are right then he is only the adopted son of Joseph. As such the Davidic line through Solomon wouldn’t pass to Jesus as his mother can’t pass the Davidic line and she was a descendant of another of David’s sons and not Solomon.
And this is where there’s been discussion elsewhere in this post. But tribal affiliation within the nation of yisrael (the Jewish people) went patrilineal where traditionally actual Jewishness was through matrilineal descent. And the line of David isn’t tribal but biological. So if Joseph isn’t the father of David then he wouldn’t have been the messiah. Joseph could have passed on his tribal affiliation of Judah. But not his bloodline.
So even the basic qualifications of being a person who is descended from David through Solomon is already a no.
I always wondered about this when I used to go to church, but what disqualifies Jesus as the messiah then?
Why do Christians claim he fulfilled all the prophecies about a messiah from the Old Testament, or is it possible it's just ambiguous whether or not he did on certain things? Otherwise, why would we have Christianity at all if he wasn't? Maybe there's something Christians are missing here?
Some evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah:
1. I am a Jew that doesn't live in Israel.
2. War exists
3. There isn't a Temple in Israel
4. I had a ham and cheese for lunch
Like from a Jewish standpoint it is ridiculously obvious that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Also like, the NT claims he doesn't have a Dad which kind of makes it hard for him to be a patrilineal descendent of David.
4. Won’t you be able to have that lunch if you choose it after the Jewish Messiah come? I get that it’s mostly humor though, I am just curious if it’s actually based on something about your religion.
No he wouldn't.
In the Messianic Era he would be physically and mentally aware that God is real as well as everything within the Torah.
This sort of implies that obviously all of the rules he set for us are completely valid and to be taken seriously as well.
As such Jews will no longer go against the will of God.
This is similarly true for non-Jews.
There is a prophecy about people not sinning anymore. I’d imagine it’s related to everyone being fully aware of God and a deeper understanding on the commandments on a spiritual level.
It’s like how people are vaguely aware that gross things go into into a hotdog and will still eat it, but if you list exactly what went into it and lot of people would be too grossed out to eat.
With all due respect, you say it's obvious from a Jewish standpoint. However, all the early followers of Jesus were Jews so why do you think it was not obvious to them?
Because he was alive back then. Like except that he claimed he didn't have a dad, he could have fulfilled the prophecies while he was alive, but instead he died. It's like what going on with the Chabad Messianics. They thought that the Rebbe was the Messiah, but he died. A large number of them were so convinced that he was going to be the Messiah that they refused to believe he really died and wasn't the Messiah. Slowly over the last 30 years the number of people who think that has dwindled down as people come to terms with him dying, leaving behind only the most extreme followers who are unable to convince other Jews that he was the Messiah because well he obviously wasn't now that he's dead. The difference is that when Jesus was at that stage, his followers started to convert non Jews in order to keep their numbers up, which isn't something that the Chabad Messianics are doing.
Another example is Bar Kochba, who lived a few decades after Jesus and led a revolt against Rome that resulted in him (edit: temporarily) ruling an independent Judea as prince. Rabbi Akiva (famous Rabbi) thought he was the Messiah, then the Romans killed Bar Kochba and Akiva realize he was wrong, because once Bar Kochba died clearly Akiva was wrong.
>The difference is that when Jesus was at the stage, his followers started to convert non Jews
I agree with you here, particularly with Paul and his interpretation of Gentile Christianity. But he was a highly educated Pharisee and most likely believed in Gentile inclusion as a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
Paul tries to use some of the logical techniques of the Pharisees, but he does it wrong. He claims to have been a student of a famous Rabbi, but there's no evidence for that besides Paul claiming it. It seems pretty unlikely Paul was actually as educated in Jewish law as he claimed, but it's not like non Jews would know the difference.
Honestly makes me wonder if Paul was like many cult leaders we see today and potentially a narcissist and egotistical individual (and no one come for me, I will get to my bigger point) because Jesus’s deification only happened after his death. And Jesus himself was a community leader and someone who was speaking on Judaism (albeit as a human he did make some mistakes like destroying the temple market and not helping the community he was teaching prepare for Shabbat).
Paul’s focus on being right and convincing others, moving from Jews to non Jews when he couldn’t convince Jews to convert feels like a lot of that was about him and his wants rather than what Jesus would have agreed with or green lighted if he had lived. I think if he had lived and died a natural death it’s likely he wouldn’t have been someone we remembered. But because he died young it allowed for him to be mythicized and for someone to spin things around how he wanted.
None of this delegitimizes Christianity. But it’s something I’ve wondered about before.
“What disqualifies Jesus” isn’t really the right question from a Jewish point of view. I would flip it around and ask instead, what qualifies him? And the answer is nothing, because he meets none of the criteria to be the messiah according to Judaism.
Most notably, there isn’t room for ambiguity about the identity of the Jewish messiah, because the core of the messianic hope in Judaism is an era of world peace in which all violence comes to an end and all people share in direct knowledge of God. I think it goes without saying that the past 2,000 years bear no resemblance to this Messianic Era.
Many people have claimed to be, or been thought by their students to be, the messiah in Jewish history. But until the Messianic Era comes, none of those claims can be true.
It’s also important to note that the Jewish messiah is a regular mortal human being with a great destiny. He is not God and Jews will not worship him. A man cannot be God in Jewish theology. Christians have their own theology, including a completely different definition of the term “messiah.”
Here is a thorough explanation if you’re curious about the details: https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/jesus/#wiki_why_jews_do_not_accept_jesus_as_the_messiah
I think I get it now, thanks! Do you think such an era of world peace is possible if human nature remains unchanging, or would we have to take some evolutionary/psychological leap to all be pacifistic to that end?
Oh, it would take an enormous leap, lol. I do not believe humans can achieve it on our own in our current state without divine intervention. I don’t know what that would look like or what it would take, what combination of changing humanity and changing the world. Jewish teaching says that humanity has to play our part as best we can by laying the groundwork—this is called tikkun olam, healing the world. And God also has to somehow miraculously make it possible.
>I always wondered about this when I used to go to church, but what disqualifies Jesus as the messiah then?
In fact, the real question is what qualifies him! Oh, let me tell you, he rode a donkey as Zekharia prophesied.
>Why do Christians claim he fulfilled all the prophecies about a messiah from the Old Testament
Because what they refer to are not prophecies at all. Actually, I can also extract prophecies about myself from the Tanach if I follow the same approach.
So you come to the right place.
Here is a comment that actually walks through a lot of what you ask.
The short answer is that we know he’s not the messiah because the messianic prophecy hasn’t occurred. We have tangible things (like the end of all wars and hunger and hate) that hasn’t occurred. Also he’s dead. He can’t complete those prophecies.
The reason Christianity formed was because Jesus’s followers weren’t willing to accept that the messiah hadn’t come when Jesus died. (At that point these individuals where all Jews) it was then that the change in the narrative of what the messianic prophecy was or how Jesus fulfilled it or how he actually became a g’d like figure (which actually is counter to Jewish prophecy as our messiah is a human. Simply a human who is not a g’d) happened. And this change was then rejected by Jews as it didn’t align with Jewish values (venerating a human) and the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled.
https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/s/2gCYh6Zyae
Ah okay. The follow-up [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/p58ppb/comment/kr0iqib/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_buttonhttps://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/p58ppb/comment/kr0iqib/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) does make some alternate interpretations about these though that I find compelling to a certain degree, but I can see how some of these other prophecies are more cut and dry in their expectation of a messiah. Are all these prophecies expected to be fulfilled by a messiah in his lifetime on earth, or is it possible that they're "fulfillable" anytime later on if Jesus "acts through people," so to speak? Like applying his teachings in the real world as being a means of fulfilling some of the prophecies.
In addition, do the Jews still think the real messiah is yet to come, or that it could very well be Jesus, only that it's most likely after an extremely long period?
The Messiah has to be King of Israel during the Messianic Era. Those things have to happen for it to be the Messianic Era. A dead person cannot be King. Therefore if someone dies before the Messianic Era, they cannot be the Messiah, since they were not King during the Messianic Era.
Most of us still believe in a Messiah (although I believe the normative reform stance rejects the idea of a literal Messiah). It 100% cannot be Jesus. He died without bringing about the Messianic Era, end of discussion. It's the same reason we can say with 100% certainty that Shabbtai Tzvi or Bar Kochba weren't the Messiah. Even the crazy Chabadniks that think the Rebbe is the Messiah usually think he never died and is just hiding rather than thinking he's going to come back from the dead, they're also rapidly shrinking as people realize that he is in fact dead.
That does make sense, if you mean dead in a physical sense, but since Christians contend he's very much alive (spiritually at least), and that he rose from physical death too after three days (to go back to heaven later on), it's arguable that Jesus isn't truly dead in a way; however, that aspect of Jesus' historicity is unclear and hard to find much conclusive evidence for outside Biblical accounts.
I mean sure, but at that point practically every Jew descended from David has a claim at being the Messiah. Maybe King David himself is the Messiah, at least he actually was anointed and was King of Israel.
The messiah is yet to come it won’t be Jesus. Because the messiah is a man, a human. And Jesus has clearly been venerated as a g’d or wouldn’t be a human if he came back. He would be a diety. He wouldn’t be a person. A simple human. That’s a requirement for us.
I can see where the disagreement lies then. From my experience at least, I've been taught that though Jesus took human form and sensibilities, he was one without sin, and performed miracles as a testament to his legitimacy, which is difficult to understand in a naturalistic/scientific sense today. Then again, if he was the son of God as is claimed, he'd be able to control the laws of nature too, so it's really just a case of "you had to have been there." For me, that wasn't really doing much to help me believe in it any more, but I can see other points of view on how there is no definitive answer.
>if he were the messiah, suffering - even death itself - would have stopped altogether.
Could this be interpreted in different ways, or is it rather strict? Like is there a verse that says that suffering, and death on earth, would all stop? Or is it more figurative and means if you follow Jesus you won't suffer in heaven? Idk, but there's a lot of context missing with that for me.
I'm not sure if you are asking about a Jewish perspective or a Christian perspective, but from a Jewish perspective, the general idea is that the Olam Haba (the world to come) is so unlike this world that it can't really be described in concrete terms, but generally, it's understood to involve, an end of all suffering, what that exactly looks like is very vague, and there are lots of different debates about that. In traditional Judaism, one of the few concrete things that is talked about is the bodily resurrection of the righteous dead on earth, so it's not usually understood as an everlasting spiritual life in heaven, but you can definitely find sources, especially in modernity that views the whole thing as allegorical.
I am not Jewish and I have 0 Jewish background so I could not answer this. But I have heard rabbis talking about their view of the machiach and olam ha ba and this is what I heard from them. Now they were mostly orthodox rabbis so maybe other currents could have other views
Those rabbis claimed there are disagreement between Maimonides and Nahmanides for what it’s worth. But seriously every single Jew I ever heard talking about Jesus said the fight there are still wars proves he is not the messiah…
To interject: One does not necessitate the other.
The Moshiach can have a normal lifespan as well as children but the world is simply in a better place where wars and hunger no longer exist.
Why does being a human somehow invalidate the ability for there to be no more wars.
The whole point is this human individual is inspiring and diplomatic and ushers in the age of peace.
Last time I checked that didn’t require being a non human.
Every Jewish soul that ever lived will be resurrected—in the very body in which it lived and died (and in the case of reincarnated souls, all the bodies will be resurrected). The body and soul are partners in all good deeds performed; they must both be rewarded accordingly. For more on this topic, see Who will be Resurrected?
The Resurrection Era will be a period that will be characterized by radical changes in nature, with miracles becoming the daily norm (see A Miraculous Era?). We will then be treated to a reward that can only be viewed as a gift from Above, for its greatness is such that finite human efforts could never earn such bounty. Click here for more on the mystical significance of the Resurrection Era
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1128725/jewish/What-Will-Happen-When-Moshiach-Comes.htm
I could give the rabbanim I heard but none is in English
There is no basis =/= there are several views. Clear cope because I showed that it existed. I also said prior that I am aware that Maimonide and Nahmanide were in disagreement.
You are saying « muh it’s habbad » but my French sources are not habbad, just standard orthodox so it’s not a specific habbad view
I was unclear. (And forgot to add a sarcasm notation) He will never be our messiah.
However. It is questionable if he even qualifies on a basic level to be even considered a candidate.
Sometimes I forget that online people are not hearing the tone of my words since it’s online and text.
Edit: added a note for sarcasm.
>However. It is questionable if he even qualifies on a basic level to be even considered a candidate.
If he really was like what the Gospels describe, then he was never/cannot be a candidate in the first place. I'd trust any messianic claimant who took up the sword and tried to liberate us from the Romans more than him.
Yep exactly. Because the other requirement is Davidic line. Which comes from (unlike if a person is Jewish) comes from the father. (It’s why I’m a Bat Kohan and unless I marry another kohanim I won’t be able to pass that on to my kids since I’m a woman) So if Jesus is the son of g’d then he isn’t the son of Joseph and Joseph couldn’t pass his davidic line on.
(At least to my memory)
To my knowledge the adopted father passes the line on. (Edit checked again as adoption gets in the weeds, house or tribe doesn’t transfer in adoption) But again we’re talking Davidic line not tribal descent when discussing the messianic prophecy.
Edit: sorry Joseph is from the tribe of Judah. Wrote this on a work break and misread a source.
Edited comment, needed to double check how tribal house is passed down
1. If a priest has been adopted, he is still obligated by the priest laws (as long we know he is a priest). So you are not really adopted into a tribe.
Another example is the story of the son of Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri from Leviticus 24:11 (it was the weekly portion just a couple of weeks ago). Her son is called the son of an Israelite woman, so he was considered to be jewish, but because his father was Egyptian, he had no tribal affiliation ( his mother was of the tribe of Dan)
2. The prophecy is not just being of the Tribe of Judah ( it was and still is the biggest tribe, so many people fulfill that), but being blood descendent of king David through Solomon
I was not understanding why u/choice_werewolf1259 was saying Joseph was from the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh. The OG Joseph, but not the alleged/adoptive father of Jesus. The two genealogies in the New Testament are from the tribe of Judah with Davidic lineage.
Tribal identity (and thus house identity) doesn't pass through adoption in Jewish law. It has to be biological, the same as Jewishness. If a Jew adopts a non-Jewish child, the child can be converted and then when they grow up choose to accept to validity of the conversion. This is not an option for Tribal/House Identity. If Jesus's biological dad is God, then Jesus's Dad is not ben David (of House David), and therefore Jesus is not ben David.
>but why do you think the mostly Jewish writers of the New Testament were convinced?
Who told you that I think they were Jewish? They were most likely non-Jewish.
Well the huge issue remains that the writers of the NT have absolutely zero knowledge about Judaism and Jewish life in their era.
Which is kind of weird if they were Jews.
> Well the huge issue remains that the writers of the NT have absolutely zero knowledge about Judaism and Jewish life in their era.
They were quite knowledgeable in both actually. Thats one of the reasons we know that they (= John and Matthew) were Jews.
>The only one where we have good reason to believe that he was a gentile is Luke.
Theoretically, we have good reasons to believe that all the Gospel writers were Gentiles or at least of idolatrous backgrounds, however, good reasons are not always enough to accept them as facts.
>We do know that Matthew and John were Jewish.
I believe that the author of Matthew was in some way connected to Judaism. However, I find that Clarke's arguments in his famous publication about Gentile biases in Matthew's theme which reflect that the author was at least of some sort of Gentile background- have quite a bit of validity.
So I take Bart Ehrman's position that either he was a Gentile convert to Yeshuism or a Hellenistic Jew who adopted it. And it's almost the same view I have about the Gospel of Yohanan but with a more mystical mindset there.
Indeed, in broad contexts, the mainstream opinion tends to consider them Jewish (since the chances are higher), but in detailed contexts, the answer is often uncertain (unlike "we know that...") and even filled with doubts.
Even the answer that they were Jewish abstractly in the early historical context requires another clarifying answer as to 'how exactly they were Jewish'.
>Hellenized Jews?
Both, apostate Hellenistic Jews and educated Gentile converts from idolatrous backgrounds.
>That's the scholarly consensus as far as I'm aware
Actually, there is no consensus that all the Gospel authors were Hellenistic Jews. There are still many (especially around Mark and Luke) scholarships that suggest that some of them were Gentiles.
Definitely Luke was a Gentile. Mark may have been as well. We don't know.
Matthew was definitely Jewish, and his gospel is understood to be the most Jewish of the four. John was Jewish though probably more of a Hellenized Jew as he incorporates philosophical thinking similar to Philo of Alexandria.
I did not say all the gospel writers were Jews. I said most of the New Testament writers were Jews.
I mean they where also considered apostates. As they believed Jesus ascended to a g’d like figure. So….that’s not a good start. I mean imagine thinking you where right about Jesus. Then he dies and now you need to prove you’re actually right. Frankly they had an agenda. And Jews rejected their position. Just like we rejected Bar Kohkba.
The early Jesus movement was always the minority view among Jews. That's something that Paul wrestles with in his writings, for example. But many more than 10 Jews accepted it. Many early followers of Jesus were Jews and there was much debate about how Jewish and Gentile Christians could interact with one another, particularly regarding sharing meals together and circumcision.
> As far as I am aware, traditional Christians acknowledge 5 writers of the NT -- the writers of the four gospels and Paul.
That would actually only account for 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament per traditional authorship. In addition to these books there is also James, Jude, Revelation, the two Petrine epistles and Hebrews
This is actually a really good overview.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/
I also linked a comment I think somewhere above that had a table that’s point by point.
I’ll add it in one second. Here
https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/s/k3yTFwk0WX
Here’s some more resources:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-messiah
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/messiah
>Is it possible Jesus was not the Jewish people’s Messiah but he will be?
The answer from the Jewish point of view is: No.
The main reason he cannot "be" the Messiah is because he is dead. The Messiah will be a living human being, a descendant of King David, born as such in the normal way, who will live a natural life on earth, marry, have children, and die.
We know something about what he will do -- he will reign as monarch of a Jewish polity from the capitol city, Jerusalem, hence a descendant of King David on his father's side. (I've seen some discussion of the impact of "adoption" on this matter of paternal lineage and I have to mention that there was no institution of adoption in Jewish law in the first cent. CE just as there is no adoption in Jewish law today; there is adoption in modern Israel by Knesset legislation, not Jewish law, which recognized guardianship only. Adoption was a Roman law institution not practiced by Jews in Judea then or now -- except under modern legislation which didn't exist in the year 3 BCE.)
We know something about the Messiah's qualifications for his position, apart from lineage: he will be a person learned in the Torah, a pious Jew who observes the commandments, and a teacher of the Torah by both example and teaching, exactly like the prophets of yore (he will be a prophet, renewing prophecy) to the point where the world at large will come to recognize God -- "On that day, the Lord shall be one and his name one." (Zech. 14:9) Anyone who teaches anything against the Torah, to abrogate its laws, to state it is "fulfilled" or obsolete, by definition cannot be the Messiah, whose task is to "renew our days as of old." (Lam. 5:21)
As for his tangible accomplishments, he will build the Third Temple, clarify the priesthood, in-gather the Jews to live in the Holy Land, and either make peace with their enemies or defeat them in battle. The Temple will be a physical building as prophesied by Ezekiel in his vision.
As I mentioned, the messiah-king will die his natural death and be succeeded by his son and heir, and this will continue, as God promised an everlasting dynasty to David's house.
Judaism recognizes that the Messiah once he arrives will go through an initial stage wherein he gets noticed and people think he might be the messiah because he seems qualified -- that is perfectly fine. But if he dies before completing his missions as set forth above, that proves beyond any doubt that he was not the messiah. The one mentioned by OP had his chance and is proven (for Jews) not to be the messiah. He doesn't get a second chance.
I don’t think they are. Im really getting to the point where in a comment thread with me I am starting to think they’re trying to prove Jews killed Jesus.
You’re jumping to the conclusion that Jesus cannot be the messiah based on the belief that he won’t return. But what if he does? Does a belief of what’s going to happen equate to what does happen? I’m simply examining the counterpoint that Christians promote (2nd coming) and how that could tie in to Jewish theology. To your point I asked how Jesus was disqualified from being the Messiah to the Jewish people. But we already opened that discussion elsewhere in the thread.
Objective reality might not change but perhaps our world views will. Maybe it’s our understanding of the world that changes and not the world itself. As the story unfolds.
Additionally if this figure isn’t Christ then wouldn’t he most likely oppose Christ. Making him the anti-Christ? If the Jewish Messiah is not Christ then is he the anti-Christ? What disqualifies him from being the anti-Christ? Although the moral viewpoints that word denotes would probably vary between cultures.
And no he wouldn’t be the antichrist. Because he will be our king. But he is a human. Not a g’d and certainly not the antichrist. As Jews predate Christianity, this Christian concept doesn’t apply.
See now this gets into frankly antisemitic territory. (And I’m not calling you an antisemite so give me a moment to explain why that line of thinking is problematic). It’s problematic because it’s putting Jews into this anti-Christian, wanting to undermine Christian category. When our religion has nothing to do with you, nor is it seeking to undermine anyone. And if Jesus per Christian doctrine is the epitome of everything good then that would make the Jewish Messiah who is dubbed the antichrist the epitome of all evil. Which harkens back to tropes that claim Jews are devil worshipers looking to oppose Jesus and lead Christian’s astray.
And all this to say, our Messianic prophecy is independent of everyone else. Jesus is a non thing to Jews since he’s not noteworthy to us and if a religion hasn’t been started by his followers we wouldn’t have even known his name or of his existence since he wasn’t really doing anything new or arguably well, within Jewish history.
Furthermore, Jesus isn’t a g’d per Jewish doctrine it’s actually blasphemous for us to venerate a human, it would in our minds make us polytheists as Judaism is a strict monotheism, and he’s not our g’d since again Judaism is almost 2000 years older than Christianity. If not older.
The messiah, our king is a warrior who is meant to bring about the world to come. And in this world there is no war, there’s no pain, no famine, etc.
So no he wouldn’t be an antichrist. Unless it’s Jesus’s ultimate goal to keep the world at war and people dying of disease and hunger and hate. Which clearly isn’t what you meant. So no the Jewish messiah wouldn’t be an antichrist.
Who’s invited to your king’s world? Christ is not a g’d to you all but is he a king? Is he the king of kings? Does he exist? Also it sounds like you’re saying you don’t want to fight against Christ but are fighting for self preservation. This is a bit of a side note but I’ve always wanted to ask people. What if your idea of heaven is different than mine? Who gets to go to heaven?
I’m sorry but no. Jesus isn’t a king. At least for us he’s not. And our Messiah is the king of our people. Other people can have their own people.
But also Olam haBah is global peace. So everyone. But also we believe all people are important and have value and deserve peace. The call for peace and repairing the world (tikkun Olam) is to improve the world for everyone. Not just Jews.
I think the disconnect is Jews are much more focused on our own beliefs within our own community. But we are outwardly focused in improving and repairing the world and environment. So ending hunger, standing in the face of hate, preserving life (which is why most Jews are against death penalty in practice), fighting climate change, etc. that’s what we find important. And that’s what the messiah in our prophecy fights for as a human and helps to bring about. He fights for us and he fights to improve the world.
And as of now Jews are very focused on our own self preservation. Mostly because we have faced multiple millennia of massacre.
Also Jews don’t believe in heaven and hell like Christian’s do. Frankly we don’t really think about the afterlife. We think about here and now and repairing the world and making a difference because its the right thing to do. We believe in doing good for the sake of being good. And we trust HaShem has the back of all people since HaShem loves all his creation. All people.
I think ultimately what you’re coming up against is the fundamental difference in world view between Jews and Christian’s. We just don’t see the world the same. Which isn’t wrong. It’s just different. And in terms of what impacts us, and the timeline we have of our history, Christianity is kind of…new on the world stage or maybe in its middle. As such it’s something that came after us and while Judaism influenced Christianity. It doesn’t really reverse theologically back up the stream.
Maybe more in the fact that Jews where scattered so our traditions changed to accommodate. But that’s more cultural and less theological.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
He needs to be a descendent of Davidic line through Solomon. Which he can’t because Joseph isn’t his biological father. His mother is a Davidic line Jew but not through Solomon. And as it where that bloodline would pass through father to child as would tribal affiliation in our nation. So Jesus would have been a member of the tribe of Judah because Joseph was (nothing bars an adoptive father from passing on his tribe to an adoptive child). But Jesus wouldn’t fill the basic prophecy of being a descendent of David.
In that he doesn’t qualify and he doesn’t meet other points and requirements. And we know this because the things that the messiah is supposed to do or bring about haven’t happened yet. Like an end to war and famine and bigotry and hate. Those kinds of things.
>Is it possible Jesus was not the Jewish people’s Messiah
Well, he truly was not the Messiah of the Jewish people, and although he died and will not come, I want to say that even if he came a hundred times and did not fulfill the prophecies, his position according to the Torah would not differ from his fate, which was 2000 years ago.
Based.
Actually this was my Torah portion. I even had a rare trope in my chanting that did a whole scale of notes up and down.
The whole portion was about burning false prophets who had led people astray at the stake.
So...
Christians believe he died and will come back as the messiah.
Jews believe he died and won't be coming back.
Muslims believe he did not die and will come back as the messiah.
Everyone else generally isn't so big on anyone who's believed to be dead coming back.
So probabilisticly, it's a 50/50.
Jews believe Jesus never was the messiah to begin with. And to maybe argue he wasn’t exceptional at his job or doing anything revolutionary. If anything he was fine, but not noteworthy in our history.
Yeah, I'm aware, I think at best, some Jews believe he was a rabbi that deviated. But the messiah, is a shared figure among all abrahamic faiths, and each one has different beliefs surrounding the figure. The scriptures are also somewhat aware of each other.
So rabbis actually didn’t exist then. If anything I think the argument could be made he was a Pharisee as he believed in a decentralization of Judaism.
But I think Jews don’t really think about him.
(Or they’re like me and think he was average to below average at his job being a theological leader, within Jewish context he likely would have been fired from a community for some of the things he did)
>If anything he was fine, but not noteworthy in our history.
I always read this and it kinda confuses me. Christians have made him incredibly noteworthy in Jewish history. Judaism has historically been very concerned with defending itself against Christian supersessionism. As well it should be.
Christianity and the figure of Jesus have been an existential threat to Judaism since most of its(Christianity's) history. I would certainly call this very *noteworthy*.
I mean he’s only noteworthy in so far as his followers kill us or persecuted us.
But he himself wasn’t noteworthy. And we wouldn’t think of him, and we don’t think of him unless someone asks us about our position on him. Noteworthy implies I think about him a lot in relation to my Jewishness. And I don’t. I think about Hillel and Rashi and Rambam and so many others. I don’t think about Jesus. And, if I’m being Frank, I mean personally, I don’t think he was even very good at his job even if people liked him as a person. As there are some stories I have been told as “gotcha” stories from Christian’s that are supposed to paint Jesus as a wonderful insightful person, that from a Jewish lens, don’t make him come out smelling like a rose. (Specifically the one where he was flipping tables, damaging property and blemishing animals to make a point about capitalism in a market with set lower prices for poor people so they could pilgrimage to the temple and not be barred due to the cost of purchasing ritual items and livestock)
>I mean he’s only noteworthy in so far as his followers kill us or persecuted us.
I'm not meaning to split hairs, but this is exactly what I meant. Antisemitism is very *noteworthy* in Jewish history, and the Church has gone out of its way to involve itself in antisemitic activity and has been a champion of such beliefs for most of its history until recently.
>Noteworthy implies I think about him a lot in relation to my Jewishness.
I am not Jewish and I don't mean to speak for you or your friends/family, but I could imagine one being very concerned with a figure/tradition that historically has and currently is attempting to usurp my entire faith and would basically be ok if I died and my entire people group died. Christians only need the Jewish faith and not the Jewish people, this is what supersessionism essentially means to me at least.
>I think about Hillel and Rashi and Rambam and so many others. I don’t think about Jesus.
That's good. I can only mention that brilliant rabbis like The Rambam went out of his way to write polemics against Christianity and Jesus and in defense of Judaism. Whether there was a specific pogrom or event going on during his time that caused him to do so, I am not aware. Just to mention that great rabbis have historically thought a ton about Jesus and why he was a false messiah and his religion is incorrect.
Anyway, I am not meaning to bother you and I appreciate your thoughts. I just sometimes feel that it is ok to be honest that Jews have historically been very concerned with Jesus and his religion and have spent a great deal of time thinking about and writing about him. It doesn't give him or his religion any power or special significance by admitting this, it is just being honest about history.
I don’t think Jews resent Jesus or think about him…at all really.
I mean I’m more concerned with Christian’s who subscribe to replacement theology or supersessionism. And I wouldn’t ever blame anyone for what followers of a religion do. I mean I think more Jews are concerned about the actual tangible individuals and institutions that have enacted harm against us. Also…it’s not just Christian’s. Jews have faced antisemitism everywhere and even before Christianity was born.
He just simply, whether you understand or not, not noteworthy to us. He’s not something we would concentrate on. And frankly when Jews are together we focus much more on our community and often much more on joy and togetherness then allowing for hate to permeate and steal more from us it already has. We have refused to allow for the hate of others to take away the joy we have in our religion. We have refused to allow for other religions to insert themselves into our theology and practice. It’s ours. And I feel very proud and blessed to be a Jew. Despite the pain and heartache I feel, despite the bigotry I face. And I don’t really want to be defined by those who would do me harm. So I don’t think about Jesus. And I don’t see him as a noteworthy person in my religion as he’s just not noteworthy to Judaism.
And at least in the Talmud no, Jews and famous rabbis haven’t really written about him. (Partly because if Christian’s got a whiff of critique we likely would have been massacred)
And I don’t know of a lot of Jews who actually wrote or do in-depth analysis of Jesus. It’s again mostly about Christian’s and certain theological stances that have led to harm that are mostly discussed. I mean unless it’s for interfaith dialogue work, I don’t know of any rabbi who would even be able to quote Jesus except for famous paraphrases like “turn the other cheek” which is no different then Hindus or Buddhists who aren’t thinking about Jesus.
>I don’t think Jews resent Jesus or think about him…at all really.
It's possible that I am misunderstanding things then. Although I would not say *resent* as in constant bitterness. I did not mean that and those are not my words.
>I mean I’m more concerned with Christian’s who subscribe to replacement theology or supersessionism
This is baked into the Christian faith. Christianity is inherently anti-Jewish. I acknowledge that individual Christians may choose to feel however they like regardless.
>Also…it’s not just Christian’s. Jews have faced antisemitism everywhere and even before Christianity was born.
Of course. I was just trying to stick to the topic and share thoughts about this specific issue.
>And frankly when Jews are together we focus much more on our community and often much more on joy and togetherness then allowing for hate to permeate and steal more from us it already has. We have refused to allow for the hate of others to take away the joy we have in our religion.
This was never what I meant to imply or insinuate. While this is beautiful and quite touching, it is irrelevant to my point.
>We have refused to allow for other religions to insert themselves into our theology and practice. It’s ours.
It's more like the Christian institution is attempting to pry it from your cold dead hands. There was never a serious effort to *insert oneself* and live "side by side", as far as I am aware.
>And I feel very proud and blessed to be a Jew. Despite the pain and heartache I feel, despite the bigotry I face. And I don’t really want to be defined by those who would do me harm.
Very beautiful and touching once more. I was not meaning to "define" your beliefs and people group by your enemies or those who stand opposed to you. I apologize if it appeared that way.
>So I don’t think about Jesus. And I don’t see him as a noteworthy person in my religion as he’s just not noteworthy to Judaism.
Again it is possible I am very mistaken. Sorry if so. I would just personally feel very comfortable defining the most significant false messiah claimant in history as *noteworthy.* No one has ever heard of Sabbatai Zevi for example.
>And at least in the Talmud no, Jews and famous rabbis haven’t really written about him. (Partly because if Christian’s got a whiff of critique we likely would have been massacred)
One of the [links](https://imgur.com/a/dead-messiah-N1kbb) in the r/judaism wiki has a handy list taken from David Berger's *The Rebbe, The Messiah, and The Scandal of Orthodox Indifference*. That is only a small number of examples however.
I think you’re misunderstanding me.
So when I talk about Jews kind of not allowing for hate and the antisemitism that has been caused by the religion that stemmed from Jesus’s teachings not affect us or our thoughts or our religion, it was only to emphasize that we wouldn’t and don’t care to include or think about Jesus or his followers.
As for false claimants I would actually say Bar Kohkba is more influential in Jewish history as it actually affected a lot more Jews than Jesus did in his lifetime.
Ultimately I think there’s some separation in at least my mind and other Jews I’ve talked to between Christianity as a religion and Jesus as a person or figure. He himself isn’t really an impact on our life or religion. Christianity alternatively as a religion impacted our lives and safety.
So kind of a split. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance. Maybe it’s a form of mental protection to not think about him often if at all unless asked.
I mean I think the longest I have gone without thinking about Jesus would be like…8-9 months in my adulthood. Maybe 10-11 years as a kid from birth to when kids started realizing in my class that the Jewish kids didn’t believe in Jesus (not that I grew up in a Bible thumping or particularly religious community, people where more secular and liberal rather than conservative and religious, if anything the Jewish families where more religious)
>So when I talk about Jews kind of not allowing for hate and the antisemitism that has been caused by the religion that stemmed from Jesus’s teachings not affect us or our thoughts or our religion, it was only to emphasize that we wouldn’t and don’t care to include or think about Jesus or his followers.
No I get the thought you are expressing. It's just that I am aware of a lot of writings directed against Jesus and Christianity and in defense of Judaism throughout history. There is no other parallel or approximate amount of polemic writings directed at other faiths that have been composed by Jews throughout history that I am aware of.
This is not to say that every single individual Jew is constantly thinking about Jesus. This was never the benchmark we began our discussion with. I specifically singled out the word *noteworthy* for a reason. The amount of anti-Christian/anti-Jesus writings and works that Jews have composed is *noteworthy* to me is all. Even to the present day, organizations like "Jews for Judaism" are still fighting the good fight.
>As for false claimants I would actually say Bar Kohkba is more influential in Jewish history as it actually affected a lot more Jews than Jesus did in his lifetime.
In his lifetime yes but throughout all subsequent history? Obviously not.
>So kind of a split. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance. Maybe it’s a form of mental protection to not think about him often if at all unless asked.
Yes I mentioned this earlier. It is not giving Jesus or Christians any special power to do this. Certainly the Jews who lived in 1930s Germany spent a lot of time *thinking* about Germans and their specific institutions/groups. It is perfectly normal and appropriate to do when faced with existential threat. This specific existential threat of Christian supersessionism has only very recently begun to be lessened by the Church.
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts and sorry to beat a dead horse. I do appreciate your perspective.
>You are confusing his rabid murdering followers with him.
I don't think I am. Great rabbis such as The Rambam and The Ramban (and many others throughout history) wrote *specifically* about Jesus and why he is not the moschiach. Supersessionism and the history of Christian antisemitism is a topic which is intimately linked to the person of Jesus, and there is a ton of overlap, but it is ultimately a different subject.
Of course, much has been written and said about both subjects.
>The dude was dead, his followers made a massacre out of it.
Certainly.
That was Pinchas Lapid's belief at least. He accepted the resurrection (sort of) and took the view that Jesus is the messiah of the non-Jews who could also be revealed as the Jewish messiah at the end of days.
As Christians we do not share his view of course. But its nontheless an interesting idea that he as an Orthodox Jew approved of so I am mentioning it here.
"Messiah of the non-Jews" is a meaningless concept. It would be like saying "The Queen of England of the Japanese". The Messiah is definitionally a future King of Israel, there cannot be a Messiah of the non Jews except in the generic meaning of the word, in which case King Charles III is the messiah of the English purely because he was anointed in oil.
As a Christian I do consider that a part of “messiahship”. Though I cannot speak for the exact understanding of the late Lapide since its been a while since I have looked into him.
I don't see why Christians making up a new meaning for a word has any effect on Judaism. Moshiach is a prophesized future King of Israel. There are additional things that they need to do to prove that they are The Messiah, and not just a messiah, but that's the core concept of it. You cannot argue that someone is both Moshiach and not King of Israel, since Moshiach definitionally is King of Israel.
Maybe they use the word more broadly as the anointed one and not under the specific context of Judaism. I think he is Messiah for Christian’s and Muslims under some contexts.
The Messiah will be a King that rules Israel. I think you're mixing it up with Zechariah 14:9 "And GOD shall be sovereign over all the earth; in that day there shall be one GOD with one name." The word translated as sovereign is literally "king" but the translation I use tries to avoid using gendered language for God.
You have to understand Lapide in a broader context. That context is this: what are Jews supposed to do with Jesus? He was after all a Jew (if he existed historically). For the most part, Judaism regards him as not relevant to its beliefs, practices and concerns. If what he said accords with Jewish teachings, fine but we don't need him; if what he said contradicts Jewish teachings, then it can be ignored.
But some within Judaism think this dismissive attitude is not equal to his impact on humanity and would like to reclaim **some part of him** for Judaism. This idea crystallized within Reform Judaism around the turn of the century and some rabbis advanced the idea that Jesus, although neither the messiah, the son of God or God, could be reclaimed as a teacher and preacher of righteousness, someone within the Jewish tradition (not outside it) who had something to say, just like any other "rabbi" or sage of the first century CE in Judea. Sermons were given and books written along these lines -- until the idea petered out without leaving a trace in Judaism.
Lapide was a diplomat and per wiki his degree was in Romance language philology. So he had no credentials either in religious studies or theology. Whether he was Orthodox is unknown to me and irrelevant. His attempt to reclaim part of the Jesus narrative for Judaism and show compatibility ("Judaism knows of the resurrection concept too") strikes me as similar to the what the Reform rabbis were doing a generation earlier, and equally not meaningful. In any case, it's a quirky take on the subject and really can't be interjected into any serious discussion of these topics imho.
> His attempt to reclaim part of the Jesus narrative for Judaism and show compatibility ("Judaism knows of the resurrection concept too") strikes me as similar to the what the Reform rabbis were doing a generation earlier,
Yeah, that could definitely be the case. Although I could not help but notice that European Jews (particularly intellectuals) tend to have a much more…positive…view of Christianity than American/Israeli Jews? But that may be a coincidence.
I think that’s either coincidence or self preservation.
Hearing from the Jews I know on my end who lived in Europe. Ended up in Europe after the war, etc. they have the same perspectives as other Jews. But there’s in some ways less security. The US allows for free speech and freedom of religion in a way that I know I feel safer (at least in some areas) having a vocal opinion. Jews in Russia are fleeing, in eastern block countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union jews where blamed for the economic crisis, Poland (more specifically polish citizens) are constantly trying to rewrite its holocaust participation narrative and subsequent programs that happened after the war, France has had jews leaving due to discrimination, Spain has had significant increases of Jew hate as well, same with Hungary and the Netherlands and even the Nordic countries.
And a lot of those countries don’t allow for protection of speech the way the US does.
> But there’s in some ways less security. The US allows for free speech and freedom of religion in a way that I know I feel safer (at least in some areas) having a vocal opinion.
Thats sounds very counterintuitive to me tbh. At least I personally prefer the European way.
> Jews in Russia are fleeing, in eastern block countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union jews where blamed for the economic crisis, Poland (more specifically polish citizens) are constantly trying to rewrite its holocaust participation narrative and subsequent programs that happened after the war, France has had jews leaving due to discrimination, Spain has had significant increases of Jew hate as well, same with Hungary and the Netherlands and even the Nordic countries.
There has been a rise in antisemitism for sure.
I mean it doesn’t though. It doesn’t prevent that.
I mean here’s a list of cults in different countries outside of the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects
Here’s for France: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/cito/w10/annex2_en.htm
And here’s an article about not knowing how to combat it as it isn’t legally defined: https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-calls-for-more-research-to-combat-rise-in-dangerous-cults/
This article actually says that cult membership is actually wide spread in Europe.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387179
And to your last point. The rise in antisemitism is coupled with the fact that things feel more hush hush, and like there is less room to speak out.
I’m not saying the US is better. Not at all. I mean we have sundown towns here where I as a Jewish person need to be aware of while doing interstate travel. But I do think Us Jews may feel more comfortable speaking our minds about the kind of antisemitism we face and from who, when Jews in other countries with less secure freedom to speech laws may not.
So I would caution you against thinking that Us Jews uniquely hate Christianity more than European Jews. I also would caution you against making the assumption that we hate Christianity. I know I don’t hate it. I don’t like certain antisemitic theological positions that premise me not existing or needing to convert, or followers who use it to justify and abuse my people. But on the whole I am apathetic about Christianity. It’s not something I uniquely hate. And likely that’s how other Jews feel in Europe but aren’t able to voice to the same extent.
> I’m not saying the US is better. Not at all. I mean we have sundown towns here where I as a Jewish person need to be aware of while doing interstate travel. But I do think Us Jews may feel more comfortable speaking our minds about the kind of antisemitism we face and from who, when Jews in other countries with less secure freedom to speech laws may not.
I think thats fair.
> I also would caution you against making the assumption that we hate Christianity.
Ok, I need to gently push back against this though. Its undeniable that some/many Jews dislike/hate Christianity. Like I myself was called idolater by Jews online before (which is bizzare because even the Orthodox chief rabbi of my country accepts that we are monotheists…) and I read an article a while ago about how (somewhat counterintuitively) Jews view Christianity far more negatively now than before Vatican II. I think this is the one:
https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/2020-08-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/we-curse-christianity-three-times-a-day-can-jews-and-christians-truly-reconcile/0000017f-ed48-dc91-a17f-fdcd7c1b0000
So I do think there is quite a bit of dislike/hate.
I think a lot of that negative view is more from how we have been treated rather than actually hating Christianity as a religion. That’s where my point is. There is no doubt in my mind that there are Jews who do not like and hate Christian’s. And it’s not really surprising that would be the case given the course of history.
But I think if there hadn’t been all the history between Jews and Christian’s that Jews there wouldn’t be a negative association with Christianity. (Ie it’s highly contingent on our experiences rather than an innate hatred)
I'm israeli born and raised, I had to Google, who is Pinchas Lapid, that's how his ideas are representing of basically nothing.
Edit: I think he was mostly trying to appease and nothing more with his weird ideology that rooted in nothing pretty much
He was a scholar active in Jewish - Christian dialogue but his material is in German not English and I have no clue if anything was translated so I am not really surprised people in the anglosphere are not really familiar with him.
See it’s not really anglosphere though. Jews engage with and discuss relevant Jewish philosophers and thinkers. Regardless of the language. So the fact that we haven’t heard of him isn’t because I and others don’t read German. It’s because he’s not influential in Jewish spaces.
>Jesus is the messiah of the non-Jews
I know someone else already mentioned how little sense this makes (is negative sense even a thing?), but the word *messiah* is the Hebrew word *moshiach.* The word only applies to Jews in the context of this discussion.
This sub is not a platform to persuade others to change their beliefs to be more like your beliefs or lack of beliefs. You are welcome to explain your point of view, but please do not: - Tell people to join or leave any specific religion or religious organization - Insist that others must conform to your understanding of your religion or lack of religion - Forcefully attempt to persuade others to change their beliefs - Ask others to proselytize to you or convince you which religion to follow
Unless he comes back to life (said this with sarcasm)…which is unlikely… no. (Edit 2: Jesus will not ever be the messiah for the Jews. He didn’t fulfill our prophecy, he potentially doesn’t even fit the criteria and he’s dead…) It’s also questionable if he even hits basic qualifications for who the messiah is and therefore likely could never be a candidate. Edit: short answer is no. Jews will never believe Jesus is our messiah. Because Jesus isn’t the messiah. Unless something otherworldly happens then that won’t change.
unless he comes back to life. well do i have something to tell you about three days after passover in 33! lol. but yeah y'all will never think he's your messiah with what i understand from your perspective.
No we won’t. It’s a “pigs flying” kind of never happen. And it won’t because Jesus never really was a serious messianic claimant. He didn’t fulfill any of our prophetic points. Including, if the gospels are right then he is only the adopted son of Joseph. As such the Davidic line through Solomon wouldn’t pass to Jesus as his mother can’t pass the Davidic line and she was a descendant of another of David’s sons and not Solomon. And this is where there’s been discussion elsewhere in this post. But tribal affiliation within the nation of yisrael (the Jewish people) went patrilineal where traditionally actual Jewishness was through matrilineal descent. And the line of David isn’t tribal but biological. So if Joseph isn’t the father of David then he wouldn’t have been the messiah. Joseph could have passed on his tribal affiliation of Judah. But not his bloodline. So even the basic qualifications of being a person who is descended from David through Solomon is already a no.
Just you wait until the pigs evolve.
Gonna be one heck of a while until that happens but it's more plausible than someone coming back from the dead.
I always wondered about this when I used to go to church, but what disqualifies Jesus as the messiah then? Why do Christians claim he fulfilled all the prophecies about a messiah from the Old Testament, or is it possible it's just ambiguous whether or not he did on certain things? Otherwise, why would we have Christianity at all if he wasn't? Maybe there's something Christians are missing here?
Some evidence that Jesus wasn't the Messiah: 1. I am a Jew that doesn't live in Israel. 2. War exists 3. There isn't a Temple in Israel 4. I had a ham and cheese for lunch Like from a Jewish standpoint it is ridiculously obvious that Jesus wasn't the Messiah. Also like, the NT claims he doesn't have a Dad which kind of makes it hard for him to be a patrilineal descendent of David.
טרייפה! I reluctantly give you an upvote cause it was indeed a good answer. However, I don't support ham and cheese sandwich 🤣
I should definitely not tell you how my Zaidie broke fast for Yom Kippur. It would blow your mind. (A Denver omelette and a side of sausage)
At least he had a clean plate (slate)😆
4. Won’t you be able to have that lunch if you choose it after the Jewish Messiah come? I get that it’s mostly humor though, I am just curious if it’s actually based on something about your religion.
Its not that I’d be physical unable to eat it, it’s that I wouldn’t choose to if we were in the messianic era.
Why? Would it be your personal choice or it’s something related with religious prophecies?
No he wouldn't. In the Messianic Era he would be physically and mentally aware that God is real as well as everything within the Torah. This sort of implies that obviously all of the rules he set for us are completely valid and to be taken seriously as well. As such Jews will no longer go against the will of God. This is similarly true for non-Jews.
There is a prophecy about people not sinning anymore. I’d imagine it’s related to everyone being fully aware of God and a deeper understanding on the commandments on a spiritual level. It’s like how people are vaguely aware that gross things go into into a hotdog and will still eat it, but if you list exactly what went into it and lot of people would be too grossed out to eat.
With all due respect, you say it's obvious from a Jewish standpoint. However, all the early followers of Jesus were Jews so why do you think it was not obvious to them?
Many of the communist rebels who builded the Soviet Union were jews, does it mean that there's no god?
I'm not saying that at all.
The fact that a small fringe group of jews believed in something doesn't make it right nor the main truth about judaism.
Because he was alive back then. Like except that he claimed he didn't have a dad, he could have fulfilled the prophecies while he was alive, but instead he died. It's like what going on with the Chabad Messianics. They thought that the Rebbe was the Messiah, but he died. A large number of them were so convinced that he was going to be the Messiah that they refused to believe he really died and wasn't the Messiah. Slowly over the last 30 years the number of people who think that has dwindled down as people come to terms with him dying, leaving behind only the most extreme followers who are unable to convince other Jews that he was the Messiah because well he obviously wasn't now that he's dead. The difference is that when Jesus was at that stage, his followers started to convert non Jews in order to keep their numbers up, which isn't something that the Chabad Messianics are doing. Another example is Bar Kochba, who lived a few decades after Jesus and led a revolt against Rome that resulted in him (edit: temporarily) ruling an independent Judea as prince. Rabbi Akiva (famous Rabbi) thought he was the Messiah, then the Romans killed Bar Kochba and Akiva realize he was wrong, because once Bar Kochba died clearly Akiva was wrong.
>The difference is that when Jesus was at the stage, his followers started to convert non Jews I agree with you here, particularly with Paul and his interpretation of Gentile Christianity. But he was a highly educated Pharisee and most likely believed in Gentile inclusion as a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy.
Paul tries to use some of the logical techniques of the Pharisees, but he does it wrong. He claims to have been a student of a famous Rabbi, but there's no evidence for that besides Paul claiming it. It seems pretty unlikely Paul was actually as educated in Jewish law as he claimed, but it's not like non Jews would know the difference.
Honestly makes me wonder if Paul was like many cult leaders we see today and potentially a narcissist and egotistical individual (and no one come for me, I will get to my bigger point) because Jesus’s deification only happened after his death. And Jesus himself was a community leader and someone who was speaking on Judaism (albeit as a human he did make some mistakes like destroying the temple market and not helping the community he was teaching prepare for Shabbat). Paul’s focus on being right and convincing others, moving from Jews to non Jews when he couldn’t convince Jews to convert feels like a lot of that was about him and his wants rather than what Jesus would have agreed with or green lighted if he had lived. I think if he had lived and died a natural death it’s likely he wouldn’t have been someone we remembered. But because he died young it allowed for him to be mythicized and for someone to spin things around how he wanted. None of this delegitimizes Christianity. But it’s something I’ve wondered about before.
>Jesus’s deification only happened after his death. No, not according to the Gospels.
That’s my point. Paul had an agenda.
Wait till you find out that Paul really surrounded himself with women that didn't question him.
Haha. Not surprising. Feel vindicated. He also says women should be submissive and not speak. So, there’s that.
“What disqualifies Jesus” isn’t really the right question from a Jewish point of view. I would flip it around and ask instead, what qualifies him? And the answer is nothing, because he meets none of the criteria to be the messiah according to Judaism. Most notably, there isn’t room for ambiguity about the identity of the Jewish messiah, because the core of the messianic hope in Judaism is an era of world peace in which all violence comes to an end and all people share in direct knowledge of God. I think it goes without saying that the past 2,000 years bear no resemblance to this Messianic Era. Many people have claimed to be, or been thought by their students to be, the messiah in Jewish history. But until the Messianic Era comes, none of those claims can be true. It’s also important to note that the Jewish messiah is a regular mortal human being with a great destiny. He is not God and Jews will not worship him. A man cannot be God in Jewish theology. Christians have their own theology, including a completely different definition of the term “messiah.” Here is a thorough explanation if you’re curious about the details: https://www.reddit.com/r/Judaism/wiki/jesus/#wiki_why_jews_do_not_accept_jesus_as_the_messiah
I think I get it now, thanks! Do you think such an era of world peace is possible if human nature remains unchanging, or would we have to take some evolutionary/psychological leap to all be pacifistic to that end?
Oh, it would take an enormous leap, lol. I do not believe humans can achieve it on our own in our current state without divine intervention. I don’t know what that would look like or what it would take, what combination of changing humanity and changing the world. Jewish teaching says that humanity has to play our part as best we can by laying the groundwork—this is called tikkun olam, healing the world. And God also has to somehow miraculously make it possible.
>I always wondered about this when I used to go to church, but what disqualifies Jesus as the messiah then? In fact, the real question is what qualifies him! Oh, let me tell you, he rode a donkey as Zekharia prophesied. >Why do Christians claim he fulfilled all the prophecies about a messiah from the Old Testament Because what they refer to are not prophecies at all. Actually, I can also extract prophecies about myself from the Tanach if I follow the same approach.
So you come to the right place. Here is a comment that actually walks through a lot of what you ask. The short answer is that we know he’s not the messiah because the messianic prophecy hasn’t occurred. We have tangible things (like the end of all wars and hunger and hate) that hasn’t occurred. Also he’s dead. He can’t complete those prophecies. The reason Christianity formed was because Jesus’s followers weren’t willing to accept that the messiah hadn’t come when Jesus died. (At that point these individuals where all Jews) it was then that the change in the narrative of what the messianic prophecy was or how Jesus fulfilled it or how he actually became a g’d like figure (which actually is counter to Jewish prophecy as our messiah is a human. Simply a human who is not a g’d) happened. And this change was then rejected by Jews as it didn’t align with Jewish values (venerating a human) and the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/s/2gCYh6Zyae
Ah okay. The follow-up [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/p58ppb/comment/kr0iqib/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_buttonhttps://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/p58ppb/comment/kr0iqib/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) does make some alternate interpretations about these though that I find compelling to a certain degree, but I can see how some of these other prophecies are more cut and dry in their expectation of a messiah. Are all these prophecies expected to be fulfilled by a messiah in his lifetime on earth, or is it possible that they're "fulfillable" anytime later on if Jesus "acts through people," so to speak? Like applying his teachings in the real world as being a means of fulfilling some of the prophecies. In addition, do the Jews still think the real messiah is yet to come, or that it could very well be Jesus, only that it's most likely after an extremely long period?
The Messiah has to be King of Israel during the Messianic Era. Those things have to happen for it to be the Messianic Era. A dead person cannot be King. Therefore if someone dies before the Messianic Era, they cannot be the Messiah, since they were not King during the Messianic Era. Most of us still believe in a Messiah (although I believe the normative reform stance rejects the idea of a literal Messiah). It 100% cannot be Jesus. He died without bringing about the Messianic Era, end of discussion. It's the same reason we can say with 100% certainty that Shabbtai Tzvi or Bar Kochba weren't the Messiah. Even the crazy Chabadniks that think the Rebbe is the Messiah usually think he never died and is just hiding rather than thinking he's going to come back from the dead, they're also rapidly shrinking as people realize that he is in fact dead.
That does make sense, if you mean dead in a physical sense, but since Christians contend he's very much alive (spiritually at least), and that he rose from physical death too after three days (to go back to heaven later on), it's arguable that Jesus isn't truly dead in a way; however, that aspect of Jesus' historicity is unclear and hard to find much conclusive evidence for outside Biblical accounts.
I mean sure, but at that point practically every Jew descended from David has a claim at being the Messiah. Maybe King David himself is the Messiah, at least he actually was anointed and was King of Israel.
The messiah is yet to come it won’t be Jesus. Because the messiah is a man, a human. And Jesus has clearly been venerated as a g’d or wouldn’t be a human if he came back. He would be a diety. He wouldn’t be a person. A simple human. That’s a requirement for us.
I can see where the disagreement lies then. From my experience at least, I've been taught that though Jesus took human form and sensibilities, he was one without sin, and performed miracles as a testament to his legitimacy, which is difficult to understand in a naturalistic/scientific sense today. Then again, if he was the son of God as is claimed, he'd be able to control the laws of nature too, so it's really just a case of "you had to have been there." For me, that wasn't really doing much to help me believe in it any more, but I can see other points of view on how there is no definitive answer.
What I heard from rabbis is mainly that if he were the messiah, suffering - even death itself - would have stopped altogether.
>if he were the messiah, suffering - even death itself - would have stopped altogether. Could this be interpreted in different ways, or is it rather strict? Like is there a verse that says that suffering, and death on earth, would all stop? Or is it more figurative and means if you follow Jesus you won't suffer in heaven? Idk, but there's a lot of context missing with that for me.
I'm not sure if you are asking about a Jewish perspective or a Christian perspective, but from a Jewish perspective, the general idea is that the Olam Haba (the world to come) is so unlike this world that it can't really be described in concrete terms, but generally, it's understood to involve, an end of all suffering, what that exactly looks like is very vague, and there are lots of different debates about that. In traditional Judaism, one of the few concrete things that is talked about is the bodily resurrection of the righteous dead on earth, so it's not usually understood as an everlasting spiritual life in heaven, but you can definitely find sources, especially in modernity that views the whole thing as allegorical.
I am not Jewish and I have 0 Jewish background so I could not answer this. But I have heard rabbis talking about their view of the machiach and olam ha ba and this is what I heard from them. Now they were mostly orthodox rabbis so maybe other currents could have other views
[удалено]
Those rabbis claimed there are disagreement between Maimonides and Nahmanides for what it’s worth. But seriously every single Jew I ever heard talking about Jesus said the fight there are still wars proves he is not the messiah…
To interject: One does not necessitate the other. The Moshiach can have a normal lifespan as well as children but the world is simply in a better place where wars and hunger no longer exist.
Why does being a human somehow invalidate the ability for there to be no more wars. The whole point is this human individual is inspiring and diplomatic and ushers in the age of peace. Last time I checked that didn’t require being a non human.
Where did I said he would be a non human ?
Every Jewish soul that ever lived will be resurrected—in the very body in which it lived and died (and in the case of reincarnated souls, all the bodies will be resurrected). The body and soul are partners in all good deeds performed; they must both be rewarded accordingly. For more on this topic, see Who will be Resurrected? The Resurrection Era will be a period that will be characterized by radical changes in nature, with miracles becoming the daily norm (see A Miraculous Era?). We will then be treated to a reward that can only be viewed as a gift from Above, for its greatness is such that finite human efforts could never earn such bounty. Click here for more on the mystical significance of the Resurrection Era https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1128725/jewish/What-Will-Happen-When-Moshiach-Comes.htm I could give the rabbanim I heard but none is in English
[удалено]
There is no basis =/= there are several views. Clear cope because I showed that it existed. I also said prior that I am aware that Maimonide and Nahmanide were in disagreement. You are saying « muh it’s habbad » but my French sources are not habbad, just standard orthodox so it’s not a specific habbad view
> Unless he comes back to life Uhh…
I was unclear. (And forgot to add a sarcasm notation) He will never be our messiah. However. It is questionable if he even qualifies on a basic level to be even considered a candidate. Sometimes I forget that online people are not hearing the tone of my words since it’s online and text. Edit: added a note for sarcasm.
>However. It is questionable if he even qualifies on a basic level to be even considered a candidate. If he really was like what the Gospels describe, then he was never/cannot be a candidate in the first place. I'd trust any messianic claimant who took up the sword and tried to liberate us from the Romans more than him.
Yep exactly. Because the other requirement is Davidic line. Which comes from (unlike if a person is Jewish) comes from the father. (It’s why I’m a Bat Kohan and unless I marry another kohanim I won’t be able to pass that on to my kids since I’m a woman) So if Jesus is the son of g’d then he isn’t the son of Joseph and Joseph couldn’t pass his davidic line on. (At least to my memory)
Can the davidic line be passed on through adoption or must it be through biological descent?
To my knowledge the adopted father passes the line on. (Edit checked again as adoption gets in the weeds, house or tribe doesn’t transfer in adoption) But again we’re talking Davidic line not tribal descent when discussing the messianic prophecy. Edit: sorry Joseph is from the tribe of Judah. Wrote this on a work break and misread a source. Edited comment, needed to double check how tribal house is passed down
I don't understand. David's tribe is Judah?
1. If a priest has been adopted, he is still obligated by the priest laws (as long we know he is a priest). So you are not really adopted into a tribe. Another example is the story of the son of Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri from Leviticus 24:11 (it was the weekly portion just a couple of weeks ago). Her son is called the son of an Israelite woman, so he was considered to be jewish, but because his father was Egyptian, he had no tribal affiliation ( his mother was of the tribe of Dan) 2. The prophecy is not just being of the Tribe of Judah ( it was and still is the biggest tribe, so many people fulfill that), but being blood descendent of king David through Solomon
I was not understanding why u/choice_werewolf1259 was saying Joseph was from the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh. The OG Joseph, but not the alleged/adoptive father of Jesus. The two genealogies in the New Testament are from the tribe of Judah with Davidic lineage.
Tribal identity (and thus house identity) doesn't pass through adoption in Jewish law. It has to be biological, the same as Jewishness. If a Jew adopts a non-Jewish child, the child can be converted and then when they grow up choose to accept to validity of the conversion. This is not an option for Tribal/House Identity. If Jesus's biological dad is God, then Jesus's Dad is not ben David (of House David), and therefore Jesus is not ben David.
Would it matter if his mom was descended of David or no?
No.
What if he once sat on a chair used by a descendent of David?
I asked this of another user, but why do you think the mostly Jewish writers of the New Testament were convinced?
>but why do you think the mostly Jewish writers of the New Testament were convinced? Who told you that I think they were Jewish? They were most likely non-Jewish.
The only one where we have good reason to believe that he was a gentile is Luke. We do know that Matthew and John were Jewish.
Well the huge issue remains that the writers of the NT have absolutely zero knowledge about Judaism and Jewish life in their era. Which is kind of weird if they were Jews.
> Well the huge issue remains that the writers of the NT have absolutely zero knowledge about Judaism and Jewish life in their era. They were quite knowledgeable in both actually. Thats one of the reasons we know that they (= John and Matthew) were Jews.
Nah they get too much basic stuff wrong.
>The only one where we have good reason to believe that he was a gentile is Luke. Theoretically, we have good reasons to believe that all the Gospel writers were Gentiles or at least of idolatrous backgrounds, however, good reasons are not always enough to accept them as facts. >We do know that Matthew and John were Jewish. I believe that the author of Matthew was in some way connected to Judaism. However, I find that Clarke's arguments in his famous publication about Gentile biases in Matthew's theme which reflect that the author was at least of some sort of Gentile background- have quite a bit of validity. So I take Bart Ehrman's position that either he was a Gentile convert to Yeshuism or a Hellenistic Jew who adopted it. And it's almost the same view I have about the Gospel of Yohanan but with a more mystical mindset there. Indeed, in broad contexts, the mainstream opinion tends to consider them Jewish (since the chances are higher), but in detailed contexts, the answer is often uncertain (unlike "we know that...") and even filled with doubts. Even the answer that they were Jewish abstractly in the early historical context requires another clarifying answer as to 'how exactly they were Jewish'.
Hellenized Jews? Edit: you edited your response. That's the scholarly consensus as far as I'm aware, but of course you're free to disagree.
>Hellenized Jews? Both, apostate Hellenistic Jews and educated Gentile converts from idolatrous backgrounds. >That's the scholarly consensus as far as I'm aware Actually, there is no consensus that all the Gospel authors were Hellenistic Jews. There are still many (especially around Mark and Luke) scholarships that suggest that some of them were Gentiles.
Definitely Luke was a Gentile. Mark may have been as well. We don't know. Matthew was definitely Jewish, and his gospel is understood to be the most Jewish of the four. John was Jewish though probably more of a Hellenized Jew as he incorporates philosophical thinking similar to Philo of Alexandria. I did not say all the gospel writers were Jews. I said most of the New Testament writers were Jews.
I mean they where also considered apostates. As they believed Jesus ascended to a g’d like figure. So….that’s not a good start. I mean imagine thinking you where right about Jesus. Then he dies and now you need to prove you’re actually right. Frankly they had an agenda. And Jews rejected their position. Just like we rejected Bar Kohkba.
[удалено]
There are more than 5 writers of the NT and not all of them were Jews, but most of them were.
[удалено]
The early Jesus movement was always the minority view among Jews. That's something that Paul wrestles with in his writings, for example. But many more than 10 Jews accepted it. Many early followers of Jesus were Jews and there was much debate about how Jewish and Gentile Christians could interact with one another, particularly regarding sharing meals together and circumcision.
> As far as I am aware, traditional Christians acknowledge 5 writers of the NT -- the writers of the four gospels and Paul. That would actually only account for 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament per traditional authorship. In addition to these books there is also James, Jude, Revelation, the two Petrine epistles and Hebrews
What are the criteria for the messiah? Or where can I find them? I know of the book of Daniel and Isaiah
This is actually a really good overview. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-is-the-messiah/ I also linked a comment I think somewhere above that had a table that’s point by point. I’ll add it in one second. Here https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/s/k3yTFwk0WX Here’s some more resources: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-messiah https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/messiah
>Is it possible Jesus was not the Jewish people’s Messiah but he will be? The answer from the Jewish point of view is: No. The main reason he cannot "be" the Messiah is because he is dead. The Messiah will be a living human being, a descendant of King David, born as such in the normal way, who will live a natural life on earth, marry, have children, and die. We know something about what he will do -- he will reign as monarch of a Jewish polity from the capitol city, Jerusalem, hence a descendant of King David on his father's side. (I've seen some discussion of the impact of "adoption" on this matter of paternal lineage and I have to mention that there was no institution of adoption in Jewish law in the first cent. CE just as there is no adoption in Jewish law today; there is adoption in modern Israel by Knesset legislation, not Jewish law, which recognized guardianship only. Adoption was a Roman law institution not practiced by Jews in Judea then or now -- except under modern legislation which didn't exist in the year 3 BCE.) We know something about the Messiah's qualifications for his position, apart from lineage: he will be a person learned in the Torah, a pious Jew who observes the commandments, and a teacher of the Torah by both example and teaching, exactly like the prophets of yore (he will be a prophet, renewing prophecy) to the point where the world at large will come to recognize God -- "On that day, the Lord shall be one and his name one." (Zech. 14:9) Anyone who teaches anything against the Torah, to abrogate its laws, to state it is "fulfilled" or obsolete, by definition cannot be the Messiah, whose task is to "renew our days as of old." (Lam. 5:21) As for his tangible accomplishments, he will build the Third Temple, clarify the priesthood, in-gather the Jews to live in the Holy Land, and either make peace with their enemies or defeat them in battle. The Temple will be a physical building as prophesied by Ezekiel in his vision. As I mentioned, the messiah-king will die his natural death and be succeeded by his son and heir, and this will continue, as God promised an everlasting dynasty to David's house. Judaism recognizes that the Messiah once he arrives will go through an initial stage wherein he gets noticed and people think he might be the messiah because he seems qualified -- that is perfectly fine. But if he dies before completing his missions as set forth above, that proves beyond any doubt that he was not the messiah. The one mentioned by OP had his chance and is proven (for Jews) not to be the messiah. He doesn't get a second chance.
What does the messiah mean to the Jewish faith? And what are your sources? I would like to investigate more
[удалено]
Is Jesus not capable of fulfilling these requirements? Why is he disqualified. Isn’t he of Jewish descent?
[удалено]
I don’t think they are. Im really getting to the point where in a comment thread with me I am starting to think they’re trying to prove Jews killed Jesus.
And it’s confirmed. They where saying Jews killed Jesus and deserved the 2+ millennia of persecution and genocide. So, yep. Confirmed.
You’re jumping to the conclusion that Jesus cannot be the messiah based on the belief that he won’t return. But what if he does? Does a belief of what’s going to happen equate to what does happen? I’m simply examining the counterpoint that Christians promote (2nd coming) and how that could tie in to Jewish theology. To your point I asked how Jesus was disqualified from being the Messiah to the Jewish people. But we already opened that discussion elsewhere in the thread.
He's dead. Dead people are dead. They generally don't do a lot of things, up and including messianic prophecies.
Isn’t it possible he will return? Or he never left? Or maybe both? Depends how you look at it
Bruh what if my grandfather is the messiah and he's just dead for now or hides because he's an asshole Just imagine Bruh
[удалено]
Do you believe anything is possible?
[удалено]
Objective reality might not change but perhaps our world views will. Maybe it’s our understanding of the world that changes and not the world itself. As the story unfolds.
Additionally if this figure isn’t Christ then wouldn’t he most likely oppose Christ. Making him the anti-Christ? If the Jewish Messiah is not Christ then is he the anti-Christ? What disqualifies him from being the anti-Christ? Although the moral viewpoints that word denotes would probably vary between cultures.
And no he wouldn’t be the antichrist. Because he will be our king. But he is a human. Not a g’d and certainly not the antichrist. As Jews predate Christianity, this Christian concept doesn’t apply.
[удалено]
Lots of people oppose Jesus's messiah status without being the antichrist
Then we can probably rule it out
See now this gets into frankly antisemitic territory. (And I’m not calling you an antisemite so give me a moment to explain why that line of thinking is problematic). It’s problematic because it’s putting Jews into this anti-Christian, wanting to undermine Christian category. When our religion has nothing to do with you, nor is it seeking to undermine anyone. And if Jesus per Christian doctrine is the epitome of everything good then that would make the Jewish Messiah who is dubbed the antichrist the epitome of all evil. Which harkens back to tropes that claim Jews are devil worshipers looking to oppose Jesus and lead Christian’s astray. And all this to say, our Messianic prophecy is independent of everyone else. Jesus is a non thing to Jews since he’s not noteworthy to us and if a religion hasn’t been started by his followers we wouldn’t have even known his name or of his existence since he wasn’t really doing anything new or arguably well, within Jewish history. Furthermore, Jesus isn’t a g’d per Jewish doctrine it’s actually blasphemous for us to venerate a human, it would in our minds make us polytheists as Judaism is a strict monotheism, and he’s not our g’d since again Judaism is almost 2000 years older than Christianity. If not older. The messiah, our king is a warrior who is meant to bring about the world to come. And in this world there is no war, there’s no pain, no famine, etc. So no he wouldn’t be an antichrist. Unless it’s Jesus’s ultimate goal to keep the world at war and people dying of disease and hunger and hate. Which clearly isn’t what you meant. So no the Jewish messiah wouldn’t be an antichrist.
Who’s invited to your king’s world? Christ is not a g’d to you all but is he a king? Is he the king of kings? Does he exist? Also it sounds like you’re saying you don’t want to fight against Christ but are fighting for self preservation. This is a bit of a side note but I’ve always wanted to ask people. What if your idea of heaven is different than mine? Who gets to go to heaven?
I’m sorry but no. Jesus isn’t a king. At least for us he’s not. And our Messiah is the king of our people. Other people can have their own people. But also Olam haBah is global peace. So everyone. But also we believe all people are important and have value and deserve peace. The call for peace and repairing the world (tikkun Olam) is to improve the world for everyone. Not just Jews. I think the disconnect is Jews are much more focused on our own beliefs within our own community. But we are outwardly focused in improving and repairing the world and environment. So ending hunger, standing in the face of hate, preserving life (which is why most Jews are against death penalty in practice), fighting climate change, etc. that’s what we find important. And that’s what the messiah in our prophecy fights for as a human and helps to bring about. He fights for us and he fights to improve the world. And as of now Jews are very focused on our own self preservation. Mostly because we have faced multiple millennia of massacre. Also Jews don’t believe in heaven and hell like Christian’s do. Frankly we don’t really think about the afterlife. We think about here and now and repairing the world and making a difference because its the right thing to do. We believe in doing good for the sake of being good. And we trust HaShem has the back of all people since HaShem loves all his creation. All people. I think ultimately what you’re coming up against is the fundamental difference in world view between Jews and Christian’s. We just don’t see the world the same. Which isn’t wrong. It’s just different. And in terms of what impacts us, and the timeline we have of our history, Christianity is kind of…new on the world stage or maybe in its middle. As such it’s something that came after us and while Judaism influenced Christianity. It doesn’t really reverse theologically back up the stream. Maybe more in the fact that Jews where scattered so our traditions changed to accommodate. But that’s more cultural and less theological.
/r/religion does not permit demonizing or bigotry against any demographic group on the basis of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual preferences. Demonizing includes unfair/inaccurate criticisms, arguments made in bad faith, gross generalizations, ignorant comments, and pseudo-intellectual conspiracy theories about specific religions or groups. Doctrinal objections are acceptable, but keep your personal opinions to yourself. Make sure you make intelligent thought out responses.
[удалено]
When talking about Christ you carry Christian concepts. There’s a clear overlap between both sects given the history both cultures acknowledge.
Uh no. It's an entirely Christian concept. There is no anti-Moshiach.
He needs to be a descendent of Davidic line through Solomon. Which he can’t because Joseph isn’t his biological father. His mother is a Davidic line Jew but not through Solomon. And as it where that bloodline would pass through father to child as would tribal affiliation in our nation. So Jesus would have been a member of the tribe of Judah because Joseph was (nothing bars an adoptive father from passing on his tribe to an adoptive child). But Jesus wouldn’t fill the basic prophecy of being a descendent of David. In that he doesn’t qualify and he doesn’t meet other points and requirements. And we know this because the things that the messiah is supposed to do or bring about haven’t happened yet. Like an end to war and famine and bigotry and hate. Those kinds of things.
>Is it possible Jesus was not the Jewish people’s Messiah Well, he truly was not the Messiah of the Jewish people, and although he died and will not come, I want to say that even if he came a hundred times and did not fulfill the prophecies, his position according to the Torah would not differ from his fate, which was 2000 years ago.
The only Jewish prophecy Jesus fulfilled as far as Jews are concerned was beware of false prophets.
Based. Actually this was my Torah portion. I even had a rare trope in my chanting that did a whole scale of notes up and down. The whole portion was about burning false prophets who had led people astray at the stake.
based on what?
So... Christians believe he died and will come back as the messiah. Jews believe he died and won't be coming back. Muslims believe he did not die and will come back as the messiah. Everyone else generally isn't so big on anyone who's believed to be dead coming back. So probabilisticly, it's a 50/50.
Jews believe Jesus never was the messiah to begin with. And to maybe argue he wasn’t exceptional at his job or doing anything revolutionary. If anything he was fine, but not noteworthy in our history.
Yeah, I'm aware, I think at best, some Jews believe he was a rabbi that deviated. But the messiah, is a shared figure among all abrahamic faiths, and each one has different beliefs surrounding the figure. The scriptures are also somewhat aware of each other.
So rabbis actually didn’t exist then. If anything I think the argument could be made he was a Pharisee as he believed in a decentralization of Judaism. But I think Jews don’t really think about him. (Or they’re like me and think he was average to below average at his job being a theological leader, within Jewish context he likely would have been fired from a community for some of the things he did)
>If anything he was fine, but not noteworthy in our history. I always read this and it kinda confuses me. Christians have made him incredibly noteworthy in Jewish history. Judaism has historically been very concerned with defending itself against Christian supersessionism. As well it should be. Christianity and the figure of Jesus have been an existential threat to Judaism since most of its(Christianity's) history. I would certainly call this very *noteworthy*.
I mean he’s only noteworthy in so far as his followers kill us or persecuted us. But he himself wasn’t noteworthy. And we wouldn’t think of him, and we don’t think of him unless someone asks us about our position on him. Noteworthy implies I think about him a lot in relation to my Jewishness. And I don’t. I think about Hillel and Rashi and Rambam and so many others. I don’t think about Jesus. And, if I’m being Frank, I mean personally, I don’t think he was even very good at his job even if people liked him as a person. As there are some stories I have been told as “gotcha” stories from Christian’s that are supposed to paint Jesus as a wonderful insightful person, that from a Jewish lens, don’t make him come out smelling like a rose. (Specifically the one where he was flipping tables, damaging property and blemishing animals to make a point about capitalism in a market with set lower prices for poor people so they could pilgrimage to the temple and not be barred due to the cost of purchasing ritual items and livestock)
>I mean he’s only noteworthy in so far as his followers kill us or persecuted us. I'm not meaning to split hairs, but this is exactly what I meant. Antisemitism is very *noteworthy* in Jewish history, and the Church has gone out of its way to involve itself in antisemitic activity and has been a champion of such beliefs for most of its history until recently. >Noteworthy implies I think about him a lot in relation to my Jewishness. I am not Jewish and I don't mean to speak for you or your friends/family, but I could imagine one being very concerned with a figure/tradition that historically has and currently is attempting to usurp my entire faith and would basically be ok if I died and my entire people group died. Christians only need the Jewish faith and not the Jewish people, this is what supersessionism essentially means to me at least. >I think about Hillel and Rashi and Rambam and so many others. I don’t think about Jesus. That's good. I can only mention that brilliant rabbis like The Rambam went out of his way to write polemics against Christianity and Jesus and in defense of Judaism. Whether there was a specific pogrom or event going on during his time that caused him to do so, I am not aware. Just to mention that great rabbis have historically thought a ton about Jesus and why he was a false messiah and his religion is incorrect. Anyway, I am not meaning to bother you and I appreciate your thoughts. I just sometimes feel that it is ok to be honest that Jews have historically been very concerned with Jesus and his religion and have spent a great deal of time thinking about and writing about him. It doesn't give him or his religion any power or special significance by admitting this, it is just being honest about history.
I don’t think Jews resent Jesus or think about him…at all really. I mean I’m more concerned with Christian’s who subscribe to replacement theology or supersessionism. And I wouldn’t ever blame anyone for what followers of a religion do. I mean I think more Jews are concerned about the actual tangible individuals and institutions that have enacted harm against us. Also…it’s not just Christian’s. Jews have faced antisemitism everywhere and even before Christianity was born. He just simply, whether you understand or not, not noteworthy to us. He’s not something we would concentrate on. And frankly when Jews are together we focus much more on our community and often much more on joy and togetherness then allowing for hate to permeate and steal more from us it already has. We have refused to allow for the hate of others to take away the joy we have in our religion. We have refused to allow for other religions to insert themselves into our theology and practice. It’s ours. And I feel very proud and blessed to be a Jew. Despite the pain and heartache I feel, despite the bigotry I face. And I don’t really want to be defined by those who would do me harm. So I don’t think about Jesus. And I don’t see him as a noteworthy person in my religion as he’s just not noteworthy to Judaism. And at least in the Talmud no, Jews and famous rabbis haven’t really written about him. (Partly because if Christian’s got a whiff of critique we likely would have been massacred) And I don’t know of a lot of Jews who actually wrote or do in-depth analysis of Jesus. It’s again mostly about Christian’s and certain theological stances that have led to harm that are mostly discussed. I mean unless it’s for interfaith dialogue work, I don’t know of any rabbi who would even be able to quote Jesus except for famous paraphrases like “turn the other cheek” which is no different then Hindus or Buddhists who aren’t thinking about Jesus.
>I don’t think Jews resent Jesus or think about him…at all really. It's possible that I am misunderstanding things then. Although I would not say *resent* as in constant bitterness. I did not mean that and those are not my words. >I mean I’m more concerned with Christian’s who subscribe to replacement theology or supersessionism This is baked into the Christian faith. Christianity is inherently anti-Jewish. I acknowledge that individual Christians may choose to feel however they like regardless. >Also…it’s not just Christian’s. Jews have faced antisemitism everywhere and even before Christianity was born. Of course. I was just trying to stick to the topic and share thoughts about this specific issue. >And frankly when Jews are together we focus much more on our community and often much more on joy and togetherness then allowing for hate to permeate and steal more from us it already has. We have refused to allow for the hate of others to take away the joy we have in our religion. This was never what I meant to imply or insinuate. While this is beautiful and quite touching, it is irrelevant to my point. >We have refused to allow for other religions to insert themselves into our theology and practice. It’s ours. It's more like the Christian institution is attempting to pry it from your cold dead hands. There was never a serious effort to *insert oneself* and live "side by side", as far as I am aware. >And I feel very proud and blessed to be a Jew. Despite the pain and heartache I feel, despite the bigotry I face. And I don’t really want to be defined by those who would do me harm. Very beautiful and touching once more. I was not meaning to "define" your beliefs and people group by your enemies or those who stand opposed to you. I apologize if it appeared that way. >So I don’t think about Jesus. And I don’t see him as a noteworthy person in my religion as he’s just not noteworthy to Judaism. Again it is possible I am very mistaken. Sorry if so. I would just personally feel very comfortable defining the most significant false messiah claimant in history as *noteworthy.* No one has ever heard of Sabbatai Zevi for example. >And at least in the Talmud no, Jews and famous rabbis haven’t really written about him. (Partly because if Christian’s got a whiff of critique we likely would have been massacred) One of the [links](https://imgur.com/a/dead-messiah-N1kbb) in the r/judaism wiki has a handy list taken from David Berger's *The Rebbe, The Messiah, and The Scandal of Orthodox Indifference*. That is only a small number of examples however.
I think you’re misunderstanding me. So when I talk about Jews kind of not allowing for hate and the antisemitism that has been caused by the religion that stemmed from Jesus’s teachings not affect us or our thoughts or our religion, it was only to emphasize that we wouldn’t and don’t care to include or think about Jesus or his followers. As for false claimants I would actually say Bar Kohkba is more influential in Jewish history as it actually affected a lot more Jews than Jesus did in his lifetime. Ultimately I think there’s some separation in at least my mind and other Jews I’ve talked to between Christianity as a religion and Jesus as a person or figure. He himself isn’t really an impact on our life or religion. Christianity alternatively as a religion impacted our lives and safety. So kind of a split. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance. Maybe it’s a form of mental protection to not think about him often if at all unless asked. I mean I think the longest I have gone without thinking about Jesus would be like…8-9 months in my adulthood. Maybe 10-11 years as a kid from birth to when kids started realizing in my class that the Jewish kids didn’t believe in Jesus (not that I grew up in a Bible thumping or particularly religious community, people where more secular and liberal rather than conservative and religious, if anything the Jewish families where more religious)
>So when I talk about Jews kind of not allowing for hate and the antisemitism that has been caused by the religion that stemmed from Jesus’s teachings not affect us or our thoughts or our religion, it was only to emphasize that we wouldn’t and don’t care to include or think about Jesus or his followers. No I get the thought you are expressing. It's just that I am aware of a lot of writings directed against Jesus and Christianity and in defense of Judaism throughout history. There is no other parallel or approximate amount of polemic writings directed at other faiths that have been composed by Jews throughout history that I am aware of. This is not to say that every single individual Jew is constantly thinking about Jesus. This was never the benchmark we began our discussion with. I specifically singled out the word *noteworthy* for a reason. The amount of anti-Christian/anti-Jesus writings and works that Jews have composed is *noteworthy* to me is all. Even to the present day, organizations like "Jews for Judaism" are still fighting the good fight. >As for false claimants I would actually say Bar Kohkba is more influential in Jewish history as it actually affected a lot more Jews than Jesus did in his lifetime. In his lifetime yes but throughout all subsequent history? Obviously not. >So kind of a split. Maybe it’s cognitive dissonance. Maybe it’s a form of mental protection to not think about him often if at all unless asked. Yes I mentioned this earlier. It is not giving Jesus or Christians any special power to do this. Certainly the Jews who lived in 1930s Germany spent a lot of time *thinking* about Germans and their specific institutions/groups. It is perfectly normal and appropriate to do when faced with existential threat. This specific existential threat of Christian supersessionism has only very recently begun to be lessened by the Church. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts and sorry to beat a dead horse. I do appreciate your perspective.
You are confusing his rabid murdering followers with him. The dude was dead, his followers made a massacre out of it.
>You are confusing his rabid murdering followers with him. I don't think I am. Great rabbis such as The Rambam and The Ramban (and many others throughout history) wrote *specifically* about Jesus and why he is not the moschiach. Supersessionism and the history of Christian antisemitism is a topic which is intimately linked to the person of Jesus, and there is a ton of overlap, but it is ultimately a different subject. Of course, much has been written and said about both subjects. >The dude was dead, his followers made a massacre out of it. Certainly.
It stands to reason that my statement can be true if you interpret the meaning of each of their beliefs with that possibility in mind.
From an Islamic standpoint, it's awkward wording but we wouldn't really argue against it.
Maybe they’re saying the same thing in a different way.
I wouldn't be too quick to jump on that train, but I can see how it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Or maybe just pointing
Maybe
That was Pinchas Lapid's belief at least. He accepted the resurrection (sort of) and took the view that Jesus is the messiah of the non-Jews who could also be revealed as the Jewish messiah at the end of days. As Christians we do not share his view of course. But its nontheless an interesting idea that he as an Orthodox Jew approved of so I am mentioning it here.
"Messiah of the non-Jews" is a meaningless concept. It would be like saying "The Queen of England of the Japanese". The Messiah is definitionally a future King of Israel, there cannot be a Messiah of the non Jews except in the generic meaning of the word, in which case King Charles III is the messiah of the English purely because he was anointed in oil.
I may be misremembering so take the following with a grain of salt but I think it means that he brought ethical monotheism to the non-jewish world.
So does Muhammad, who brought ethical monotheism to so many pagans around the world. Maybe he is also the Gentile messiah
Okay but that isn't what makes someone the Messiah.
As a Christian I do consider that a part of “messiahship”. Though I cannot speak for the exact understanding of the late Lapide since its been a while since I have looked into him.
I don't see why Christians making up a new meaning for a word has any effect on Judaism. Moshiach is a prophesized future King of Israel. There are additional things that they need to do to prove that they are The Messiah, and not just a messiah, but that's the core concept of it. You cannot argue that someone is both Moshiach and not King of Israel, since Moshiach definitionally is King of Israel.
Maybe they use the word more broadly as the anointed one and not under the specific context of Judaism. I think he is Messiah for Christian’s and Muslims under some contexts.
Haha, I somewhat agree with you that it makes no sense, but is it not believed that the Messiah will rule all nations, not just Israel?
The Messiah will be a King that rules Israel. I think you're mixing it up with Zechariah 14:9 "And GOD shall be sovereign over all the earth; in that day there shall be one GOD with one name." The word translated as sovereign is literally "king" but the translation I use tries to avoid using gendered language for God.
I think I'm mixing it up with maybe that and prophecies of all nations coming to.Israel to worship her God.
You have to understand Lapide in a broader context. That context is this: what are Jews supposed to do with Jesus? He was after all a Jew (if he existed historically). For the most part, Judaism regards him as not relevant to its beliefs, practices and concerns. If what he said accords with Jewish teachings, fine but we don't need him; if what he said contradicts Jewish teachings, then it can be ignored. But some within Judaism think this dismissive attitude is not equal to his impact on humanity and would like to reclaim **some part of him** for Judaism. This idea crystallized within Reform Judaism around the turn of the century and some rabbis advanced the idea that Jesus, although neither the messiah, the son of God or God, could be reclaimed as a teacher and preacher of righteousness, someone within the Jewish tradition (not outside it) who had something to say, just like any other "rabbi" or sage of the first century CE in Judea. Sermons were given and books written along these lines -- until the idea petered out without leaving a trace in Judaism. Lapide was a diplomat and per wiki his degree was in Romance language philology. So he had no credentials either in religious studies or theology. Whether he was Orthodox is unknown to me and irrelevant. His attempt to reclaim part of the Jesus narrative for Judaism and show compatibility ("Judaism knows of the resurrection concept too") strikes me as similar to the what the Reform rabbis were doing a generation earlier, and equally not meaningful. In any case, it's a quirky take on the subject and really can't be interjected into any serious discussion of these topics imho.
> His attempt to reclaim part of the Jesus narrative for Judaism and show compatibility ("Judaism knows of the resurrection concept too") strikes me as similar to the what the Reform rabbis were doing a generation earlier, Yeah, that could definitely be the case. Although I could not help but notice that European Jews (particularly intellectuals) tend to have a much more…positive…view of Christianity than American/Israeli Jews? But that may be a coincidence.
I think that’s either coincidence or self preservation. Hearing from the Jews I know on my end who lived in Europe. Ended up in Europe after the war, etc. they have the same perspectives as other Jews. But there’s in some ways less security. The US allows for free speech and freedom of religion in a way that I know I feel safer (at least in some areas) having a vocal opinion. Jews in Russia are fleeing, in eastern block countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union jews where blamed for the economic crisis, Poland (more specifically polish citizens) are constantly trying to rewrite its holocaust participation narrative and subsequent programs that happened after the war, France has had jews leaving due to discrimination, Spain has had significant increases of Jew hate as well, same with Hungary and the Netherlands and even the Nordic countries. And a lot of those countries don’t allow for protection of speech the way the US does.
> But there’s in some ways less security. The US allows for free speech and freedom of religion in a way that I know I feel safer (at least in some areas) having a vocal opinion. Thats sounds very counterintuitive to me tbh. At least I personally prefer the European way. > Jews in Russia are fleeing, in eastern block countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union jews where blamed for the economic crisis, Poland (more specifically polish citizens) are constantly trying to rewrite its holocaust participation narrative and subsequent programs that happened after the war, France has had jews leaving due to discrimination, Spain has had significant increases of Jew hate as well, same with Hungary and the Netherlands and even the Nordic countries. There has been a rise in antisemitism for sure.
I mean it doesn’t though. It doesn’t prevent that. I mean here’s a list of cults in different countries outside of the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects Here’s for France: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/cito/w10/annex2_en.htm And here’s an article about not knowing how to combat it as it isn’t legally defined: https://www.politico.eu/article/mep-calls-for-more-research-to-combat-rise-in-dangerous-cults/ This article actually says that cult membership is actually wide spread in Europe. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387179 And to your last point. The rise in antisemitism is coupled with the fact that things feel more hush hush, and like there is less room to speak out. I’m not saying the US is better. Not at all. I mean we have sundown towns here where I as a Jewish person need to be aware of while doing interstate travel. But I do think Us Jews may feel more comfortable speaking our minds about the kind of antisemitism we face and from who, when Jews in other countries with less secure freedom to speech laws may not. So I would caution you against thinking that Us Jews uniquely hate Christianity more than European Jews. I also would caution you against making the assumption that we hate Christianity. I know I don’t hate it. I don’t like certain antisemitic theological positions that premise me not existing or needing to convert, or followers who use it to justify and abuse my people. But on the whole I am apathetic about Christianity. It’s not something I uniquely hate. And likely that’s how other Jews feel in Europe but aren’t able to voice to the same extent.
> I’m not saying the US is better. Not at all. I mean we have sundown towns here where I as a Jewish person need to be aware of while doing interstate travel. But I do think Us Jews may feel more comfortable speaking our minds about the kind of antisemitism we face and from who, when Jews in other countries with less secure freedom to speech laws may not. I think thats fair. > I also would caution you against making the assumption that we hate Christianity. Ok, I need to gently push back against this though. Its undeniable that some/many Jews dislike/hate Christianity. Like I myself was called idolater by Jews online before (which is bizzare because even the Orthodox chief rabbi of my country accepts that we are monotheists…) and I read an article a while ago about how (somewhat counterintuitively) Jews view Christianity far more negatively now than before Vatican II. I think this is the one: https://www.haaretz.com/life/books/2020-08-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/we-curse-christianity-three-times-a-day-can-jews-and-christians-truly-reconcile/0000017f-ed48-dc91-a17f-fdcd7c1b0000 So I do think there is quite a bit of dislike/hate.
I think a lot of that negative view is more from how we have been treated rather than actually hating Christianity as a religion. That’s where my point is. There is no doubt in my mind that there are Jews who do not like and hate Christian’s. And it’s not really surprising that would be the case given the course of history. But I think if there hadn’t been all the history between Jews and Christian’s that Jews there wouldn’t be a negative association with Christianity. (Ie it’s highly contingent on our experiences rather than an innate hatred)
I'm israeli born and raised, I had to Google, who is Pinchas Lapid, that's how his ideas are representing of basically nothing. Edit: I think he was mostly trying to appease and nothing more with his weird ideology that rooted in nothing pretty much
I’ve also never heard of him. He’s clearly not really influential in our communities.
I grew up in a fairly traditional jews family in secular Israel. He is well forgotten and nothing but a gimmick Edit: he wasn't an orthodox jews
He was a scholar active in Jewish - Christian dialogue but his material is in German not English and I have no clue if anything was translated so I am not really surprised people in the anglosphere are not really familiar with him.
See it’s not really anglosphere though. Jews engage with and discuss relevant Jewish philosophers and thinkers. Regardless of the language. So the fact that we haven’t heard of him isn’t because I and others don’t read German. It’s because he’s not influential in Jewish spaces.
I see.
>Jesus is the messiah of the non-Jews I know someone else already mentioned how little sense this makes (is negative sense even a thing?), but the word *messiah* is the Hebrew word *moshiach.* The word only applies to Jews in the context of this discussion.
He is the messiah of the sons of israil and Ali is the messiah of humanity brother!
Who is Ali?
The cousin of Muhammad