Originally Posted by
ETWolverine
There are quite a few people here who are answering this post that are NOT Jewish, have not studied Judaism, and do not know Jewish history or culture, but are answering as if they do. That bothers me. Just for the record, I am an Orthodox Jew, generally observant of Jewish Law, and a student of Jewish History, Talmudic studies and the Old Testament. I have also taken the time to read the New Testament so that I can speak on the subject of the NT when it comes up.
Before I answer the original question, I would like to comment on Messianic Judaism. Messianic Judaismis not accepted by any of the "mainstream" sects of Judaism as a Jewish sect. Orthodox, Reform and Conservative Judaism all resoundingly reject Messianic Judaism for a number of reasons, including the fact that Messianic Judaism (most especially but not exclusively "Jews For Jesus") is supported by the Southern Baptist Church and is actually an extension of Southern Baptism, not Judaism. Furthermore, their beliefes are diametrically opposed to that of all other Jewish sects.
It would be like calling a sect that believes that Jesus was not the Messiah a Christian sect. It would be an untrue statement, because Christianity is DEFINED as the beliefe that Jesus was/is the Messiah and the son of G-d. Anything that is contrary to that beliefe cannot be defined as Christianity.
Now... on to the original post.
Who was Jesus (according to Jewish beliefe)?
That's a difficult question to answer. The Talmud mentions the name "Yeshu Hanotzri" or Yeshu of Nazareth on two occassions. However, these events take place centuries apart from each other. There is also reference to someone called "Oto Ha'Ish" or "That Man" which could be an oblique reference to Jesus. However, the reference seems to predate the story of Jesus by about a century.
There are those who believe that the story of Jesus that is told in the NT are actually an amalgam of several people. That is, there was no single person named "Jesus" to whom all these events occured, but rather these were events that happened to a few different people over a few centuries, and were combined into a single story.
I personally disagree with that. I think that there was a guy named Jesus, born of a mother named Miriam and a father named Joseph. He was a student of some of the greatest Rabbis of the time, and he attempted to teach Roman citizens about monotheism. Because the power of the Roman Senate stemmed from beliefe in the Roman pantheon of gods ("divine right of kings" and all that), and because Jesus was starting to have some success in his recruiting of Rman citizens to monotheism, he became a threat to the power base of Rome. As a result, the Roman Senate, and a particular governor named Pilate, decided to take action to get rid of this rabble-rouser. They put him to death... perhaps in the manner described in the NT, perhaps not. Doesn't matter from my perspective.
The followers of this "Jesus" guy continued to follow his teachings, and continued to spread the word about him. However, for the first three centuries of their existence, they were too weak a group to take on Rome in a straight-up fight for their survival and the survival of their philosophy. Since they didn't want to insult Rome for fear of being wiped out, they had to change the story of their genesis so that Rome wasn't seen as the bad-guy. Romans didn't like it when they were seen as the bad-guy in historical records. So these early followers of Jesus needed someone else to blame it on. The Jews were in no better political shape than they were, and couldn't effectively fight back against the revised history, so they were a good target for becoming the bad-guy in the Jesus story. Furthermore, these early Christians had tried to recruit Jews into their group and had pretty much failed, so they looked upon the Jews with enemity. So the Jews were a perfect target for a host of reasons.
There are a number of parts of the Jesus story in the NT that do not ring true. For instance, the story is told that Jesus was called before the Sanhedrin immediately following the "last supper". The Last supper was the first night of Passover (the first Seder), which is the begining of a 7-day holiday (8-days outside of Israel, but the story takes place inside Israel, so I'll use that as my reference). What most people outside of Judaism (and many inside Judaism) don't know is that the Sanhedrin is prohibited from meeting on Jewish Holidays like Passover. Which means that the story could NOT have occured as it was written in the NT. This leads me to believe that major parts of the story were changed from whatever really occured by people who didn't really know or understand Jewish law.
As to the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah or not, the universal Jewish beliefe (meaning the beliefe of all sects of Judaism) is that he was NOT the Messiah. According to Maimonides, there are 4 things that the Messiah must accomplish in order for him to be recognized as the Messiah. These are:
1) The ingathering of the Jews to Israel,
2) An end to war, hunger, pain, disease and strife,
3) The beliefe of all mankind in monotheism, and
4) The rebuilding of the Great Temple.
Jesus did NONE of these four things.
The majority of Jews were already in Israel at that point. They weren't exiled for another 35 years, after the destruction of the second Great Temple in 70 AD.
We do not have an end to war, pain, hunger and strife. In fact, there has NEVER been a period of time in human history in which we have not been at war with each other. And take a look at Africa and tell me if there is an end to hunger, disease, pain and strife.
Despite 2000 years of Jesus' followers being missionaries to the world regarding beliefe in monotheism, the majority of the world is NOT monotheistic.
The Great Temple has still not been rebuilt. In fact, the Second Great Temple was still in existence at the time Jesus was supposed to have been crucified.
Since these requirements have not been met, Jesus cannot have been the Messiah according to Jewish beliefe.
On the subject of the "enemity" between Jews and Christians, yes there is quite a bit of bad history between us. But while you might think that all of that stuff is in the past, from the Orthodox Jewish perspective, that "bad stuff" is still going on. Missionary groups, Messianic cults, etc. still target Jews for protelization, especially unaffiliated or uneducated Jews. While you may see this as "bringing them closer to Christ", WE see it as an attack on Jewish souls, and one that continues through this day. Christianity once tried to convert us through the sword. Today they do it using kind words. The EFFECT from the Orthodox Jewish point of view is the same, though... Jewish souls lost. And that is why there continues to be a level of distrust by many Jews of Christians.
I refuse to take this discussion to the level of cursing and name calling. I simply wish to explain a (as in "ONE") Jewish perspective on Jesus and Christianity. I see no advantage to the name-calling. Dialogue is preferred 90% of the time, and I happen to enjoy such dialogues.
Please feel free to post any questions you might have on the subject or on anything I have posted here.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Elliot