**
Maimonides lists very specific criteria for a messiah. Fulfill those requirements, then you’re the messiah.
**
Actually, lestrange, that is wrong. The bible makes it clear in numerous places that God’s commandments are to be observed forever.
Zev Steinhardt
I don’t know the group to which you refer Gaudere, but otherwise you are correct. Simply performing the commandments does not make one a Jew. A formal conversion (if not born Jewish, of course) is required.
Zev Steinhardt
I’m mostly with you on your distinctions, but I think you overstep on this one.
I am aware of no place that Jesus advocated violating kosher laws. After Jesus had departed, as Gentiles were being converted to the new faith, the dietary laws became a point of contention between Paul and The Twelve, and they decided (or Peter had a vision that encouraged them to decide) to not enforce the dietary laws for Gentile converts.
Similarly regarding the Sabbath: I am not aware of anywhere that Jesus specifically set out to violate the Sabbath. He had a couple of run-ins with various Pharisee scholars regarding interpretations of the enforcement of Sabbath laws, but I am not aware of any place where he encouraged people to ignore the Sabbath or any place where he actually performed labor on the Sabbath.
**
I’ll admit that I could be reading this wrong, but the wording of Matthew 15:11 seems to indicate to me that eating non-kosher food is OK.
Mark 2. Picking grain is forbidden on the Sabbath (as the text makes perfectly clear). Jesus draws a precedent from David to allow his actions. However, the case is not comperable. David was on the run and his life was in danger. In addition, David’s “sin” (eating consecrated food) is not at all similar to Jesus’ actions (Sabbath violation). Now, if they were in danger of dying, then Jesus would have been justified. However, the text does not indicate this at all.
Zev Steinhardt
AFAIK, Unitarians have believed that Jesus was not the son of God for many years. (Although I hasten to add that their website emphasizes that they don’t have a particular fixed doctrine.)
Okay–see, Christianity’s claims are sort of irrelevant here. I’m not asking why Christianity believes Jesus was the messiah, I already know that. I’m asking why observant Jews can’t (not don’t). So the whole Son of God business is a red herring. I think most people agree Jesus was a historical person. So if you don’t believe that it’s possible that God impregnated Mary, you must believe Jesus got here the normal way, so Joseph is the natural choice for his father. So what you’re telling me here is, that as far as Jews are concerned, Jesus could possibly qualify as David’s descendant.
Interestingly enough, the claim that Jesus is descended from David is traced through Joseph. The whole point of all those begats in the front of the Gospel of Matthew is to establish this very claim. And Joseph, we (most mainline Christians) are told, wasn’t really Jesus’ father, the Holy Spirit was. But that’s a whole 'nother discussion.
Okay, we’re getting much, much closer to the information that I’m after (if I were better at formulating the questions…if wishes were horses…).
I know these criteria have their basis in scripture, the interpretation of which can be, to say the least, debateable. Do the passages on which this is based allow of abolutely no other interpretation but that these things will literally happen? I ask this because I am well aware that Christian claims are based on the idea that these fulfilments take place metaphorically, or at least not in exactly the way one might originally have supposed. (Something I find amusing when I run into a Fundamentalist Christian, but that’s me).
I know that Judaism, like Christianity, has a long, long history of studying scripture and considering what it might mean. Is there no variation among Jews in the interpretation of these passages? There’s an astonishing variety among Christians, and I guess I’d expect there to be among Jews, as well.
So is it a defining point of Judaism that one believe that these things will literally be accomplished by the Messiah, and not symbolically or metaphorically?
[quote**
Personal behavior
Jesus advocated eating non-kosher food and violated the Sabbath. The messiah is someone who will observe Jewish law.**[/quote]
It’s my understanding that Jesus’ arguments here were not that one ought to throw the Law out the window, but that one ought not be legalistic–one ought to understand the spirit of the law, not just strive to blindly and slavishly obey every niggling point of the law with no understanding. Now, I can see how most Jews would object to his stance (not that most Jews slavishly obey the law with no understanding, but most Jews would, I’m sure, disagree with exactly how far one might take such a thing and still be in compliance). But, once again, I know that even now not all Jews agree on what constitutes proper observance of the law, so is it impossible that someone might agree with Jesus’ principle here and still observe the law?
Definitely not. This falls under the “literal or not” category. So I guess my question is, what are the boundaries of “approved” Jewish interpretation of the Bible? Who decides what’s within those bounds?
Zev! You’re losing me here! Jesus being deified by Christians (and that’s not unanimous, btw) is irrelevant. Or should be. Someone’s claims to messiahood ought not be considered moot just because some other group believes something about him you disagree with. (That was not my best sentence–sorry).
All Christians believe Jesus was the messiah. Most Christians believe in the Virgin Birth, but not all. So the Virgin Birth is not neccesary to believing that Jesus was the messiah. In fact, as I pointed out above, it could be considered a bar to believing it.
The trinity is a particulary divisive issue in the right circles, and back in the day cause no few deaths. Christians, who are all agreed that Jesus is the messiah, do not all agree on the trinity. So it’s not neccesary for belief that Jesus was the messiah.
And I will say with confidence that all of your etc. falls under the same category. About the only belief one can say all Christians hold in common is that Jesus was the messiah–and I would say all recognize the authority of the 4 gospels.
Now, I imagine you’re saying, “if all Christians believe that Jesus was the messiah, then Jews who believe this are Christians!” Not neccesarily–all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Darn! I have to take the elder lestrangelet to her violin lesson now. so I have to say…
to be continued…
That’s pretty circular, I think. Obviously, any Jew who believes in a Messiah will consider him/herself exempt from this particular Article of Faith of Maimonides, so it wouldn’t bar any observant Jew who truly believes the messiah has come, be it Jesus, or Smith, or whoever, from still being Jewish.
These are all very good and interesting reasons why Jews don’t believe Jesus is the messiah. But they don’t answer my question–why is it not possible for an observant, religious Jew to conclude on his or her own reading of scripture that Jesus was the messiah and still remain a Jew?
That’s what I thought. Thanks.
There’s a third problem. Jesus wasn’t killed by the Jewish elders for heresy–he was executed by the Romans for sedition. the Jewish elders weren’t in the habit of crucifying heretics, I think, nor did they generally use Roman soldiers to enforce religious orthodoxy.
But that’s another issue.
Anyway. On the way back from the lestrangelet’s lesson, I was trying to find a way to clarify what I was thinking on this matter, and keep from getting bogged down in side issues. Here’s my attempt.
I despise Jews for Jesus. The reason? Let me count the ways. First, it’s owned and operated by Christians. It doesn’t advertise itself as a Christian outfit, but a Jewish one.
Now, in that other J for J discussion the motives of J for J fonders were characterized as less than honest. Let me say that I firmly believe that said higher ups wouldn’t understand that. I guarantee that they believe that Christianity is, in fact, the true heir to the covenant, that Jews are imperiling their souls by refusing to recognize Jesus, and that the “true” Judaism is now Christianity. And not just any Christianity, but their particular brand of it. And they probably feel they’re being very compassionate, caring about the souls of those poor, deluded Jews. So they wouldn’t be lying, by their lights, to say that one could take their path and still be true to Judaism. (ugh. The things I hate about them just keep piling up). Of course, they don’t say it like this. They have to lie to get folks in the door to begin with. And that’s entirely dishonest. They’re not honest about their attitude towards Judaism. Doubtless they brush it off as a little white lie that, in the end, serves a good purpose, and they perhaps should consider the proverb about the paving on the road to Hell.
I do believe, however, that a Jew who chooses to believe that Jesus was the messiah and still practices Judaism is still a Jew, and doesn’t fall into the same category as J for J. After all, if someone meets the definitional requirements, one is a Jew, right? The only definitional requirement that forbids it is one that becomes invalid once one accepts a messiah, so it doesn’t stand in the way. Excluding Jesus from the list of possibilities just because Christians have deified him doesn’t make logical sense.
I’m not saying that Jews must or should believe Jesus was the messiah. Personally, my money says he wasn’t. I’m saying that if a Jew interprets scripture in such a way that he concludes that Jesus was, in fact the messiah, but otherwise is entirely observant of the law and meets all other requirements for Jewishness, that person may or may not be severely mistaken, but he is still a Jew. (And I very much doubt that person would come up with a catchy alliterative name for himself and hand out fliers on the subway.)
So ultimately one could take issue with J for J’s dishonest tactics, for what is basically a hidden anti-semitic agenda, but not for claiming that a Jew might accept Jesus as the messiah and still remain a Jew. Because, after all, that’s not really what they’re trying to do, is it?
Does that make sense?
Which is, of course, what happened 2000 years ago. What I’m saying is, the reason Christians aren’t considered Jews anymore had a lot more to do with letting gentiles in without requiring them to be circumcised, etc. than it did with Jesus’ eligibility for messiah candidate. If Peter had won the argument, and not Paul, I bet we’d have messianic and non messianic Jews, not Jews and Christians, today. Or else the sect would have died out and become just another obscure footnote in the history of Judaism.
I don’t follow this. Jews are, and have been waiting for a messiah. Right? So someone concluding that messiah has come isn’t really outlandish. Disagreeing with what’s been decided centuries ago while still remaining within the community isn’t outlandish, either. The real problem with J for J, as I see it, isn’t that they present Jesus as the messiah as a reasonable tenet of Judaism, but that they present themselves as a Jewish organization, in favor of and respectful of Judaism as practiced by Jews today and for the past 2000 years. In fact, they believe that Judaism ought to be eradicated in favor of Christianity. The only good thing I can say about them is that they choose to implement this agenda with flyers on the subway, not guns.
Not unusual at all. Sure.
These groups would be analogous to Jews for Jesus, of course, which is your point. But not what I’m trying to say. I agree with you, this is basically what J for J is about. But that’s not what I meant. My point, hampered very much by my ability to get it across, is that “Jews can’t believe Jesus is the messiah” isn’t a very good objection to J for J. Because, at least in theory, Jews can. The real problem is the deception, the way they present themselves as being Jewish while really intending to convert people to Christianity, and a brand of Christianity that is contemptous of Judaism, at that.
As Chronos pointed out, “Christ” by definition IS the messiah. The terms “Jesus” and “Christ” may be interchangeable for Christians, but for Jews they have very specific and different meanings. When I say “Jesus” I’m talking about the man (whom, btw, I do believe in, at least as far as I believe that such a historical person probably existed). When I say “Christ”, I’m talking specifically about Jesus as the messiah. Thus when I say “Jews can’t believe in Christ,” that is exactly the same as saying Jews can’t believe that “Jesus is the messiah.”**
[/quote]
Yes, sorry, I’ve been trying to separate the terms, myself, and slipped there. Still, among Christians, the phrase “believe in Christ” includes a lot more than just believing Jesus was the messiah. In fact, one has to be very cautious with that phrase. One Christian might just mean “believe Jesus died for our sins” and another might think the same statement includes things like taking the Bible literally and not drinking alcohol. It makes me jumpy for that very reason, and I tend to avoid it.
I’ll buy this. If someone wanted to make a reasoned argument for Jesus being the messiah as defined by the Jewish criteria outlined in the other thread, they might have an argument, if, as I said before, this possibility hadn’t been dismissed by Jews for 2000 years. **
[/quote]
For nearly the past 2000 years, the Catholic Church (and some number of Protestant churches) have dismissed the possibility that, among other things, sexual pleasure was a gift from God and sex between a properly married husband and wife might legitimately be fun. Instead, the church held, desire for sex and sexual pleasure were sins, specifically a punishment for Original Sin. Sex for procreation was fine, if you couldn’t keep it in your pants well enough to be celibate all your life. But to enjoy it, even with your husband or wife, that wasn’t cool. It was wrong. Augustine of Hippo said so, so there it was. This all feeds into his ideas about Original Sin and Grace, of course.
The Pelagian heresy, which held otherwise (not only about sex, but about original sin and grace), has, officially, been supressed ever since Augustine declared them in the wrong. 'Ain’t no Pelagians in the Catholic Church, no sirree Bob.
Wrong. I was well into High School before I realized that I had been raised by heretics. They, and everyone around them, would (and do) identify themselves as Catholics. They are, in fact, Pelagians, or at least Semi-Pelagians (yet another heresy). I do not put the St. in front of Augustine of Hippo’s name not because not everyone’s religion recognizes him as holy, but because he was definitely not considered so in my house when I was growing up.
My point isn’t that my family was secretly correct all this time–I would never presume to say so. My point is, the amount of time things have been “officially” dismissed isn’t always relevant.
I’m trying to say that “If someone wanted to make a reasoned argument for Jesus being the messiah as defined by the Jewish criteria outlined in the other thread, they might have an argument.” Whether that person would be right or not, I have no idea. But that person, if they were Jewish, would remain Jewish until they forsook the law. Right?
You’ll get no argument from me there. I’m not arguing the value of J for J, I’m arguing the validity of objecting to them on the grounds that Jews can’t believe Jesus is the messiah. I don’t think it’s a correct objection, and it doesn’t get to the heart of what’s really wrong with the organization. IMHO.
True enough.
J4J’s are deceptive. The neighborhood I live in is full
of Jews who have come here from the former USSR. They were forbidden to study or practice Judaism. As a result, many know almost nothing about the religion. The J4J’s move in and teach them what they claim is Judaism. The Russian J4J pamphlets don’t even claim that Jesus was the Moshiach(This is the proper Hebrew term), but the Messiah. From there, they move further and further away from Judaism.
I don’t bother other Christians or destroy their pamphlets. I tear up J4J tracts and restrain my urge to do the same to J4J’s.
On a side note: Could Uncle Cecil be a cover? Could the Doper, hiding behind the mask of his columns, be a Jew? And descended from David? Hmmm.
There has been (until some Southern Baptists came along) a unanimous opinion among Jews that Jesus was not the messiah.
Just because some Christians came along in the last 25 and convinced some Jews that this is the case does not make it so.
In any event, to answer your questions, most Jews understand the requirements that a messiah to fulfill literally. These requirements were codified by Maimonides in his work Mishneh Torah. These requirements are considered authoritative by all Orthodox Jews today.
There is no problem with believing that someone living is the messiah. Rabbi Akiva (one of the most famous and well-respected rabbis of the Talmud) thought that Bar Kochba (who revolted against Rome circa 160) was the messiah. No one considered Rabbi Akiva to be a heretic. However, when Bar Kochba died without having fulfilled the requirements, then Rabbi Akiva dropped the idea. Once Bar Kochba died, it was obvious that he was not the messiah, simply because he didn’t do all the things a messiah was supposed to do.
Secondly, the vast majority of Jews living in Jesus’ time did not accept him as the messiah. If that’s the case, why should I, living 2000 years later, accept him when my anscestors did not?
Zev Steinhardt
To me the most basic reason that Jesus cannot be considered the messiah by Jews is that we are not now living in a messianic age.
My understanding of Jewish law is that when the messiah comes (and does all of the required messiah things) the messianic age will commence and we’ll be over all sorts of bad things like war and plagues. (I realize that some branches of Judiasm quibble over the details of how the messianic age will begin and whether there will in fact be an individual messiah, but I believe that all Jews believe in the eventual coming of a messianic age.)
One thing that is missing entirely from Jewish law is the concept that the messiah might show up on earth for a bit and get killed, only to show up later to usher in the messianic age. The core concept of Christianity, that Jesus was the messiah, lived on earth as a man for a while and, after his crucifiction, will be coming again at a later point, is inconsistent with Jewish thought.
There is an interestingly similar situation going on within the Lubavich Hasidim, a small group of ultra-Orthodox Jews. It concerns their late leader, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, who died in 1994. During his life, some of his followers came to believe that he was the messiah, and even now,
years after his death many continue to believe that he was the messiah, bitterly dividing the sect. I find it eerily similar to the outlines of the Christian view of Jesus’s stay on earth and eventual second coming.
You misunderstand me. I am not trying to argue that Jesus is the messiah. I’m trying to say that arguing that J for J is wrong because it’s not possible for someone to believe that Jesus was the messiah and still be a Jew isn’t really a valid argument. That Jew may be sorely mistaken, but he would still be a Jew. Far more valid, and important, to my mind, is the argument that J for J is deceptive and ultimately anti-semitic.
No reason I can see. I’m not trying to convince you that you should. I’m just wondering why it would be impossible to do so and remain a Jew. Especially since that’s most emphatically not what J for J is trying to do. They’re not trying to get Jews to accept Jesus and remain Jews, they’re trying to convert Jews to Christianity.
I can see that it wouldn’t be very likely. But I don’t see that it would compromise one’s Jewishness unless and until one began to believe in Christian concepts of the messiah or abandoned one’s observance of the law. The argument that one can not be a Jew and believe Jesus was the messiah is technically not a valid one. That’s my point.
Far stronger is that they’re run by Southern Baptists–and not only Southern Baptists, but an organization dedicated to converting Jews. And the reasons they want to convert Jews are the same reasons that most Jews wouldn’t come within a hundred yards of them if they admitted who they were and what they were after right up front.
Let me say it again for emphasis. I very much dislike Jews for Jesus. And I have no interest whatever in you or any Jew believing Jesus is the messiah. Hell, I don’t believe it myself. It just seemed to me that one particular argument against them was weak, and I wanted more details. I still think it’s a weak argument, but I still think Jews for Jesus sucks, too.
Why is it so bad that they are run by Southern Baptists? Would it be better if they were run by Nazarenes?
lestrange:
Yes, but the religion he is practicing would not be Judaism…it would be Christianity.
Clearly you’ve never met them or read their literature. While they are in effect trying to convert them to Christianity, they are doing so by telling them that they can accept JC and remain Jewish (keeping in mind the distinction I made above). This is the line that they try to sell.
Chaim Mattis Keller
puddleglum: I think the problem is, since they’re run by the Southern Baptist church, they’re not really Jews for Jesus.
They seem to have a different definition of Jew than others do but under their definition they can be both Southern Baptist and Jewish.
Under their definition??? Who the hell do Southern Baptists think they are to make a their own definition of Jew?
Well, I am a Vulcan under my definition. I just define the planet Vulcan to be Louisiana. So I am from the planet Vulcan.
I think they are jerks, at least under my definition of jerk.
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix - Live long and prosper
Well, as I understand it there are two definitions of being a jew. One is to actively believe in and practice the religion of Judaism. The other is to be descended from the Patriachs. The second definition is used more popularly in this country. Adam Sandler’s “the Chanukah song” is an example of this definition. Jews for Jesus’s use of the second definition may not please those who ascribe to the first definition but it is not dishonest. The level of vitriol directed at them seems inappropriate for what is essentially a semantic disagreement.
I guess having a woman only every seven years can make you a little snippy.
So you’re telling me that the one, the only difference between Christianity and Judaism is the belief that Jesus was the messiah.
What defines a Jew? I’m under the impression that if one is born a Jew or has converted appropriately, observes the law, and holds Maimonides’ 13 articles of faith, one is a Jew. Now, if one was born or previously converted in an acceptable fashion, and one is still observing the law, one is practicing Judaism. And I don’t read in the articles of faith that believing any particular person is the messiah is forbidden, only that one must believe that one will come.
I do understand that Judaism has lots of valid reasons for believing Jesus was not the messiah. But there’s nothing forbidding a Jew to believe it.
I realize this. That’s why I think it’s important to clarify just what the objections are to the group. If you try to argue that the group is no good because their argument that you can be a Jew and believe Jesus is the messiah is wrong, you will get nowhere, especially with someone who is being swayed by J for J to begin with, or who is vulnerable to them.
In the brand of Christianity I was raised in, there’s a particular kind of temptation that involves lying with the truth. The most dramatic example would be if Satan appeared to you and began to tell you things that will happen tomorrow–and they do, things happen just as he says. Or, even trickier, what he tells you can be construed in such a way that it seems to be an accurate prophecy, but maybe it’s not unquestionable. So you keep listening to what he has to say. And you keep thinking about what he’s told you. Let’s say he (or his minions) keep this up for a period of time. And you begin to rely on the truth of what Satan is telling you, because every time you try to catch him in a lie, he can quite handily point out how what he said was really the truth, one way or another. And when he really starts to lie, you’re not sure if he really is lieing. And I don’t need to tell you where that leads. You don’t combat this by contesting the truth of what he’s telling you upfront–you won’t succeed, that’s exactly why he’s beginning by telling you the truth (or at least something that can be construed as true). You combat this by remembering the source of what you’re hearing and refusing to rely on anyone but God.
If you point out that these people are ultimately directed by Christians, Christians, moreover, who have no interest in Jews remaining Jews, and who believe not only that one must accept Jesus as the messiah to be saved, but that one must accept their version of Jesus, and their concept of messiah,you have a much stronger argument. The beliefs of Southern Baptists (especially their criteria for salvation) are easily determined. The incompatibility of these beliefs with the stated goal of J for J gives rise to a question–why are these Baptists spending time and money trying to convince Jews of something they, themselves don’t believe? Obviously, their motives must be other than stated. And for this argument, one does not need to rely on interpretations of anything, or debate theology with anyone–the identity and religious beliefs of the founders are plain for all to see.
Does that make sense? I don’t always succeed in communicating what I’m thinking, and I do apologize if I’m not always clear.
A few points here:
“Messiah” means two completely different things to Judaism and Christianity.
J4J does not want people to state “Hey, we’re ethnically Jewish, you know we’re descendants of the Hebrews, and we’re now honest to goodness Christians.” They want people who are Jews to convert from Judaism to Christianity and to make it more palatable, if that’s even possible, to Jews, they disguise it as “keeping your Jewish faith” or even “completing your Jewish faith.”
“Messiah” means two completely different things to Judaism and Christianity.
“Messiah” means two completely different things to Judaism and Christianity.
“Messiah” means two completely different things to Judaism and Christianity.
“Messiah” means two completely different things to Judaism and Christianity.
Let me know if you want me to repeat any of these points.