Talk:Jewish views on Jesus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

}}

Subject drift

The article's title is itself putting the cart before the horse. There is no "Buddhism's view of Jesus," because no-one really expects Buddhism to take notice of Christianity's beliefs and respond to them. Similarly, Judaism has not changed its core views of the Messiah or its view of God, both of which predate the era of Jesus by hundreds/thousands of years. A difference between Buddhism and Judaism here though is that Christianity purports to supersede Judaism, while Buddhism does not, and therefore, it may make sense to have an article explaining the Jewish view of Christianity or of Jesus (as there are articles about Isa or the Muslim view of Jesus, and others). As hard as it may be to believe, however, Judaism doesn't have a position on Jesus per se, any more than it has a position on Alexander the Great, Joseph Smith, User:Kaisershatner, or anyone else in particular, because none of these people, whatever they may claim or whatever others may claim about them, have fulfilled the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. I think stating that there exists "Judaism's view of Jesus" is conceding the major point that Judaism doesn't think the Messiah has arrived. Finally, most of the rest of the introduction deals with Jewish eschatology and core priniciples of faith- it should be trimmed back to focus more on the article's subject - this isn't a forum to argue about the differences between Judaism and Christianity overall. Kaisershatner 16:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would support either rename or a merge. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."

Once again some editors are reverting any information I add and at the same time removing POV tags from this article. My additions are not spam. They are in good faith, factual and refferenced. I don't understand how they can dispute my inclusions, and then say there is no dispute?? In seeking to discuss on this page I have been told by some to leave/go elsewhere and that 'we' are not interested. What is going on here?? A majority-held faith position does not give those who hold that position a right to silence any dissent on wikipedia. I feel censored and am strugling to understand why I am being treated this way. I wonder if this article is being governed by a dogmatism? Is that an accurate assesment? Maybe those who are removing my contributions - or someone else reading this who thinks they understand - could try and shed light on the motives at work here.--Just nigel 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just coming back to this discussion after a few months, and started re-editing the article last week. Am I correct that the basic conflict is you want to add the views of Messianic Judaism as a minority Jewish viewpoint, and most of the editors don't want to include MJ views of Jesus in an article about Judaism because they contend that MJ is not Judaism? Kaisershatner 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes that was one of the conflicts. The other was that I thought the article should cover that at the time of Jesus, Jewish views about him were actually contencious with some following Jesus and others not - leading to some formal splits between the two religions.--Just nigel 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm just starting to think about this one, but I'd like to hear what other editors think about a section titled "Messianic Judaism" and Jesus, stating, "Messianic Judaism," a movement that encompasses such groups as Jews for Jesus et al., does venerate Jesus as God, however, is not considered to be a Jewish movement by any Jewish denomination. That is AFAIK an accurate statement of the facts. Is that a bad idea? Kaisershatner 15:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi K,

I definitely see where your suggestion is coming from, and it different circumstances it would be a good option. The deeper problem here is that the belief that Messianic Judaism is a part of Judaism is completely untenable and unsupported by both the Jewish and Christian religions and their associated platforms - this is not just a Jewish holding, but a Christian one as well (see the Messianic Judaism article for details). Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion - it is more akin to regulated citizenship than the looser requirements of other religions, Christianity in particular.

For these reasons, introducing a section about Messianic Judaism's views of Jesus "because MJ is a Jewish sect" would be as pointless as including a section on Christianity's views of Jesus "since Christianity is a Jewish sect," as some have said - neither is a sect of Judaism; both are a completely different religion. I've mentioned previously on this talk page that a possible solution would be a separate article with the views of the separate belief system of Messianic Judaism on Jesus - this might be particularly timely now, what with the ongoing call for the Messianic Judaism project to create articles outlining their notably different beliefs and practices rather than pre-empting those on Judaism and Christianity. Dbratton 16:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbratton, to merely state that "neither (so called Messianic Judaism or Christianity) is a sect of Judaism; both are a completely different religion" is unhelpful in formulating a NPOV for this article. It is this very issue that is in dispute. My understadning of Messianic Judaism is that they reject this dichotomy. At the inception of Christianity this dichotomy was very much in dipsute as well.

The fact that you, I, others or the majority of Judaism may accept this dichotomy does not mean we can't describe Messianic Judaism's view accurately and with due wieght.

--- or maybe for some reason it does stop you. I'm not sure why this is the case but if it is, that is OK, it does not mean the rest of us can't describe Messianic Judaism's view accurately and with due wieght. Now if you would please be so kind as to agree not to impose your religious assumptoins on wikipedia I will go ahead and edit the article once more.--Just nigel 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nigel, I'm not interested in trying to talk to you about this. The fact that you've ignored every single one of the editors who's tried to explain why the teachings and beliefs of Messianic Judaism are unrelated to Judaism, all of whom have a great deal of knowledge and experience with the subject, indicates that you're not interested in improving your knowledge. All I can recommend is that you do the requisite research to understand why MJ is not Judaism - the information is quite abundant online. Please look into this and realize that no one is pushing a POV against you. Dbratton 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets take a step back, how do we ever decide what is considered majority view, minority view, and non-existent view. For example, the majority view is that the earth is round, and that is what is said in the article Earth, the Flat Earth is a minority so it barely gets mentioned, that the earth is on the back of a turtle is such a tiny view that is not notable at all. Now, what if the Flat Earth people "self-identify" themselves as the majority view (really everyone agrees with us, they just are too embarrassed to say). Or an nonexistent view (one that isn't notable at all, but has some published writings) claims that it is a notable minority view. We don't simply count the amount of published opinions and do a poll. Perhaps one side is more prolific (the more extreme side would tend to be since they have to defend their opinion) that the other. Instead we look at the consensus of what is considered the majority view, minority view, and non-notable views, even though there are a minority that disagrees with this consensus (they think that a minority is the majority view, or that a minor view is notable, etc). Now, that consensus is not the same as the majority view. In fact, most of the time the minority view agrees that they are the minority view, and the the non-notable view agrees that they are a tiny fringe. While it is common to have a dispute on a topic, it is very rare for there to be a dispute of who is the majority and who is the minority.

In this case, there is a clear consensus by most of the world (all the denomination of Judaism, and the mainstream Christian view, the Israeli supreme court, everyone else in the world besides Messianic Jews) that Messianic Judaism is not part of Judaism, and therefore not a minority view, but outside the scope of this article. This is also why the Mormon view is not considered, since the vast majority of people reject their claim as being Jewish (Note:I'm not sure what the mormons believe). This is also why many editors have tried to show you sources that demonstrate that the general consensus is that Messianic Judaism is outside the scope of this article (they were not just restating the majority point of view as you seemed to have understood it). I understand that there are those that disagree with this consensus, but just as we don't change the earth article if the Flat Earth people "self-identify" themselves as the majority view, so to here we don't include views that the vast majority of people consider outside of its scope.Jon513 22:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Jon thank you for engaging in this discussion. I wonder if you are misunderstanding the conecpt of 'self-identification'. You may well understand it but you have applied it here in a different way to the way I was using it above. I am not suggesting that MJ identifies it self as a majority (I'm not aware that they do). Besides even if a minority group did view itself as a majority such quantifiable concepts as 'majority' and 'minority' can be objectivley measured. It would be easy to articulate from a NPOV what view was in the majority. We could even acurately report that a smaller group considered itself to be a majority - if this was significant. I was aplying the principle of self-identification because relgious identity is subjective.--Just nigel 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is, does this article cover Judaism's views on (for example) the church, or just on jesus? If it covers bodies, groups and institutions in jesus' name, then MJ would be one of those. If it's just J's view on Jesus then that's questionable. And yet, even so, a simple statement that MJ is not considered a part of Judiasm or Christianity, and is condemned or shunned by most forms of Judaism, might not be out of place. My $0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on MJ deals with the Jewish view of MJ; it's not for this article, which is about the Jewish (non)view of Jesus(,divinity and existence of). After reading Dbratton's answer above ("Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion,") I think I am inclined to agree. Nigel, your point about objective majority/minority status is correct, however, "self-identification" as the only, or even the main, criteria for defining Jewish denominations is suspect. I can identify myself as a Roman Catholic, a Martian, and a superhero, but I am not any of these by any objective measure. I think (and many above editors with far more knowledge than I) that there is more to qualifying as a Jewish denomination than stating "we are a Jewish denomination," especially when all other Jewish denominations, which agree on little else, seem to agree that MJ is not one. In fact, using that criterion would allow basically any group to claim anything about any religion (imagine: "We're Catholic only we believe in the Holy Duality and that eating cheese is the only way to salvation." I don't think it would get a lot of agreement). Also, in the case of MJ my silly cheese analogy is inadequate. Adherents of MJ apparently believe certain things, such as the divinity of Jesus, that are fundamentally incompatible with the Jewish worldview. ("We're Catholics who believe in the nondivinity of Jesus.") Finally, and separately, you mentioned that the article needs more about early conflicts at the time of Christianity's inception - if you point me to some sources I'd be happy to read up on it. Kaisershatner 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2, this article is about Judaism and Jesus. There is a separate article about Judaism and Christianity. the reason we are discussing Messianic Judaism, is because information about their view of Jesus that I include on this page is regularly edited out.

The quote Self-identification, the only possible approach for the Messianic groups, does not apply for Judaism, given the strict guidelines identifying practitioners of the religion contains a tautology or logic loop that is relavant to this disucssion. Consdier whose "guidelines" are these? It is not a suprise that these "guidelines" that exlude MJ from Judiasm are the guidelines of those who do not consider MJ as members of Judaism. No doubt, Messianic Judaism have guidelines for defining Judaism that does include themselves. This is relavant because this is my point: "authoriative texts" or "strict guidlines" are not objective judgements they are all the subjective judgements of those who hold those texts to be authorative or those who hold those guidelines strictly. I am not suggesting that people should not have authoritavie texts, or follow guidelines. I am stating the fact that they are not NPOV. And although particular denominations of Judaism or even the Isreal Supreme Court have ways of judging claims of religious identity, wikipedia doesn't.

Let the religious minorities have their voice - to do otherwise is to engage in religious persecution.--Just nigel 10:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, speaking of tautologies, as you do above, it seems like the position you are taking is equally tautological - Judaism includes anyone who says they are Jewish therefore MJ is Judaism. You're assuming the truth of the former proposition to prove the second. Kaisershatner 17:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware that "anyone who claims to be a Jew can be counted as one". The fact that there are (limited) grey areas regarding who is (individually) a Jew, does not in fact inform the debate whether some religious group or belief, is considered (communally) to be Judaism. The consensus of credible Jewish organisations appears overwhelmingly against this for MJ. This is probably verifiable, I just haven't looked formally into it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

At issue is that these Jewish organisations' consensus is not a neutral point of view but based on their subjective view of what makes an orthodox Jew. The people who they are deciding are not real Jews obviously have a different definition of Judaism if they include themselves in it. So we are left with two differnt opinions a majority one and a minority one. To say that the majority is "creidible" and the minority is not, is POV.--Just nigel 08:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Judaism is a classic ancient belief system, defined by its authoritative texts and core principles. It is perfectly OK for some group to follow a religion incompatible with Judaism, but it is not OK for that group to use deceptive names (such as blah blah Judaism) and insist that they are a part of another religion whose principles they chose to violate. Therefore it would be a severe POV to insist that MJ are a minority within Judaism. Just nigel, you seem to keep repeating the same arguments. Please stop, and stop your attempts to elbow in your extremist POV into the article. It won't stick. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to Early Christianity

Kaisershatner, conserning the cotested views of Jesus at the origins of Christianity: The article is now linked to Early Christianity which is a start. We don't want to repeat all of that information here. What I thought was relevant to this article was the fact that when Jesus - a member of Judaism - taught about his faith, and claimed to be the Messiah (or it was claimed about him by his followers) some in Judaism thought he was right and followed him, others thought he was wrong and persecuted him and his followers and others thought he was wrong or never heard of him and ignored him. Jewish followers of Jesus participated in the life of the Temple and then Synagogues until the introduction of "strict guidelines" to exclude them and stop this. There are other sources but one of the best is the New Testament gospels and to a lesser extent other sections of the New Testament. Most texts can be read not only as evidence of what their authors (and presumed audiance) beleived but conversely who they were arguing with or reacting against. For example the New Testament reports that the Jewish Temple authorities judged Jesus to be a blasphemer and that Pharisee Paul of Tarsus set out to persecute the followers of Jesus' way. It also reports that some (to start with small numbers but then growing) of Jews thought Jesus was the Messiah and trusted what he taught. I think to breifly describe this would actually help provide historic context for controversy today over the claims of religious identity by people called Messianic Jews, who want to both worship in Synagagoue as Jews and trust in Jesus' way in a way simlar to those called Christians.--Just nigel 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I in fact just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register an opinion in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

remove paragraph

I removed the second paragraph of the intro:

Because there are Christian denominations who target Jews for conversion to Christianity organizations have been formed to educate Jews on the Jewish teachings regarding the messiah. Three websites for counter-missionary organizations include Messiah Truth, Jews for Judaism, and Outreach Judaism.

because it doesn't add anything to the article. The statement is more fit for Judaism and Christianity. In any event I did not remove the links in the external links section. Jon513 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Madmen

In regards to the Epistle to Yemen, Darth Sidious added ("the Madman") after Muhammad in the article. It is accurate that the Epistle of Yemen uses the word "Madman", however I thought it was not clear why we were calling Muhammad "the Madman", so I added "who is referred to as". We cannot simply call Muhammad a Madman for NPOV reasons, so I wanted to make sure that readers knew it was the text that used the term. However, I was reverted with no reason given. Any comments?-Andrew c 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that it should be clarified that this is what the text says. In addition to the subtle NPOV issue, without your edit it actually looks a bit like vandalism. ;) Dbratton 18:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

messainic phrophesy

I have added the POV tag because my edits have again been changed to say "the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred," This is not NPOV. There are plenty of others who beleive they have been or are being. interpreting prophecy is notoriously subjective. What is at issue in this article is not whether these prophecies have been fulfilled, but what Judaism views has been fulfilled.--Just nigel 08:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say "the coming of the Messiah...etc", it says "Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah...etc". Not only does the sentence directly attribute it to Judaism's view, but the whole article is about Judaism's view. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

removed sentence

I have removed

Jews generally consider Jesus to have been an ordinary Jew, like all the other Jews of his day and age, albeit one that has become quite famous posthumously

from the background section. it was added by user:Rickyrab [1]. (1)The sentence does not belong the the background section. (2)there are many jews who doubt the historical existence of Jesus. (3) "ordinary Jew" in undefined. I don't think that any false messiah is an ordinary Jew. If it mean "not God like everyone else" it is stated explicitly latter (4)the sentence adds nothing to the flow or style of the section.

I also removed "(as of the Middle Ages)" in the section about Maimonides, as his view is not dated as is still very mainstream. Jon513 17:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The part about Islam being a mistake is mainstream or the whole section is mainstream? Is it really mainstream in modern Judaism that "the sages of blessed memory" punished Jesus rather than the Romans doing it and that Jesus was an evil man whose bones should be ground to dust? If so I think this would make Christian/Jewish relations more complicated than they already are. (To me it'd be like if the mainstream view in Christianity remained as "Muhammad was a polygamous heretic who is presumably in Hell at present")--T. Anthony 04:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

yes. As Judaism believes Jesus is not God, the Messiah or anything in between he was a liar who mislead hundreds (who mislead thousands, who mislead millions) of people in a path away from truth, as such he is not a respected figure in Judaism. Maimonides is actually a liberal view in that while he does not view Jesus positively, he views Christianity as a step away from paganism (while still considering it paganism). As to whether it was the Sages or the romans who killed Jesus, "I don't know and I don't care" was and still is the mainstream viewpoint. Judaism (and religions in general) rarely concern themselves with historical facts unrelated to their religion. There was little historical evidence at Maimonides' time either way, and there is no more now. Maimonides never intended to decide historical fact but rather to paint a picture what he thinks might have happened. Jon513 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I shouldn't have asked. I really would rather not believe Judaism has such a negative view of the founder of another religion because I'd rather think that different religions can get along. If you pretty much dislike and hate each other's founders that's not too doable. (Granted I dislike Martin Luther, but Lutherans are Christians and ultimately deem Christ their founder) So even if the answer is "yes it does" I'm going to go with ignoring that for the sake of good relations. I guess what I was really asking was just your answer, or the answer of Wikipedians, and I got that. If I really want Judaism's answer I should just check Jewish sources on my own. Thanks anyway and this was a good reminder why I should never return here.--T. Anthony 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I know, what's above is not factually incorrect, but I think it could be emphasized more diplomatically. Judaism has a non-view on the founder of another religion. Whatever Jesus may or may not have done or said, since he didn't fulfill the requirements of the Jewish Messiah as per the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible, he is not considered religiously significant to Judaism. I would say this makes Jesus irrelevant to Judaism more than "disliked" or "hated," much as the details of Jewish observance are irrelevant to Christians. Whatever is going on in Christianity in general just has no bearing on the Jewish worldview and religion, making questions about Jesus a little bit beside the point. It shouldn't be offensive to point this out - to Christians, Jesus is the central figure of their belief system - to Jews, he wasn't the Messiah, and therefore...next question. It's like asking Christians what they think about keeping kosher - "not relevant to salvation" might be the answer. I hope that people can read this to learn about Judaism's view of Jesus without expecting Judaism to validate or recognize their faith, much as Jews can read about Christianity without expecting the religion to validate or reward their belief in Judaism. (This is a subject that may inflame delicate sensitivites, and smarter people than I have treated it; at least, I hope I have been politic about it and please keep this in mind if you reply.)Kaisershatner 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The stuff about why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah I found quite interesting and even challenging. Maybe moreso than I'd like, but that's not something to be avoided in an article like this. It might even be good in that it got me reading and reflecting more on the Bible. There was just a few of the other things I thought came out a bit too aggressive and one-sided. Judaism has no Pope or even Ecumenical Council, so far as I know, so I'd have thought Rabbinical scholars were a bit more varied than I got out of this article. Or at least that over the centuries certain concepts have been explained in different ways. If thirteenth century Jewish phraseology/views remain completely intact and unchanging to present that's truly intriguing. I'm not even sure the Copts have managed that.--T. Anthony 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maimonides' view remains mostly unchallenged not because it is cannon but because there is little interest in it. There are other legitimate Jewish views (such that Jesus did not exist) but Maimonides remains one of the very few Jewish scholars that talked about Jesus at all, and therefore is a very prominent view on the topic. To say that Judaism is not varied in view point based on this article is like judging wikipedia based on a few abandoned article. For the most part this is an abandoned topic of Judaism because, beside the fundamental of faith which no one disputes, Jew don't care about who Jesus was. Jon513 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as Jew

A number of Jewish scholars have written works which establish Jesus within Judaism. To provide information on this movement, I posted an article "Jesus as Jew". This was redirected, without my content, to this page. I added my content to this page and it was deleted. Here is the content:

There have been a number of works written by Jewish scholars emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus:

• Constantin Brunner / Our Christ, 1921.
• Joseph Klausner / Jesus of Nazareth, 1922.
• Leo Baeck / The Gospel as a Document of Jewish Religious History, 1938.

The rationale for deletion was that these scholars are not representative of Judaism itself, and that no one argues that Jesus was not a Jew. On the first point, I think it is clear that there is a movement to reclaim Jesus as an authentic voice for Judaism. On the second point, those who argue that Jesus is mythical certainly do argue that he was not a Jew. So where should this content go? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barrett Pashak (talk • contribs).

Hi Barrett, I believe it might be more appropriate in one of the articles in the Jesus and history series, probably more specifically at Historical Jesus#Jesus' Jewish background or at Quest_for_the_Historical_Jesus#The_Third_Quest. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Very helpful. Thanks also for signing me in.Barrett Pashak 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tried out your suggestions and Jayjg shot me right down. Any other ideas?Barrett Pashak 19:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't have any ideas offhand, but I'll think on it a bit and in the meantime, I recommend you ask User:Slrubenstein if he has any suggestions. He edits frequently on topics on academic/historical aspects of Jesus. And you might also simply ask Jayjg where/how he suggests this material should be presented. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

MPerel, there is something strange going on here. Jayjg certainly did not object to anyone emphasizing Jesus' Jewishness, he objected to the suggestion that Jesus has had a significant influence on contemporary Jewish thought. If the point is simply acknowledging Jesus as Jewish, I think that the three scholars listed above are irrelevant. Only one, Baeck, was a major thinker. Why pick the other two. The fact is, I think virtually all Jews who believe that there was a historical Jesus agree he was jewish. Rambam said as much. The claim that "Jews think Jesus was jewish" is so unexceptional it needs no mention beyon what is already in articles - I see no reason to single out three specific Jews if the point is simply to say "they acknowledge jesus was jewish." It is important only if a bigger claim is being made and that is what jayjg is objecting to. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes, I think I initially misunderstood Barrett to be simply saying that there were Jewish scholars asserting the Jewishness of Jesus. Now I see on the talk page of Historical Jesus that Barrett meant to claim there is a movement of Jewish scholars who "perceive Jesus as a pivotal figure within Judaism." I think that's something quite altogether different and a bit of a stretch for which evidence is lacking. I'm skeptical that these three found him a "pivotal figure" and even if they did, they certainly don't constitute a movement and would be a very tiny-minority viewpoint that might only merit mention in their individual biographical articles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

merger

I have removed the proposed merger with Yeshu by User:82.6.114.172 since s/he didn't write any argument for it on the talk page. I for one strongly oppose a merger since the name "Yeshu" cannot be defiantly identified with Jesus. Therefore there are aspect of the reference "Yeshu" that do not refer to Jesus. Furthermore Jewish views of Jesus are not based on any supposed talmudic reference to him. Jon513 10:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

question on respect

Some jewish people refuse to even spell the names : Christian or Jesus and I find it childish to do so. Can not one be respect of another faith and not be little another. Some jews are not alone the catholic and born again christian feel their way or high way. To say Jesus had no part of judaism is a lie, but i understand to jews he not messiah. I respect disagree, but I understand if they can not call Christ, but Jesus was a jew. both side of early rabbical and christain faiths were fighting and divlde each other to such we can not see we are cousins. Can anyone else share with me these thoughts ? (Irishmonk)

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.; not as a forum for their personal views. If you feel that any part of the article needs to be changed, either change it yourself or comment about it here. Jon513 15:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what Irishmonk was doing (albeit it in a roundabout way), and I also noticed some of the same issues and made mention of them further down the page.Eno-Etile 08:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

DaVinci Code article

Why is the point of view expressed in this well-researched article from Jews for Judaism not allowed in this article; viz, that the historical Jesus and his initial followers practiced within normative Judaism? http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/web/j4jlibrary/DaVinciCodeBook.pdf 64.180.176.230 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The document that you reference from JfJ is wholly unrelated to the subject, being an examination of the truthfulness of the novel "The DaVinci Code" within Christianity and Judaism. I was able to find one instance in the document where the point of view you mention is noted, in a secondary quote from Rabbi Jacob Emden. If you want to put this forward as being a notable viewpoint within Judaism you'll need to find better sources than a single unrelated article quoting an 18th century talmudist. Daniel^C/_T+ 11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the document was to show that, contrary to the position of Christianity, the historical Jesus and his first followers were practicers of normative Judaism and, consequently, Christian claims about Jesus cannot be true. More than half of the document is devoted to this point. It used "The Da Vinci Code" only as a hook to draw interest. You will find that Rabbi Skobac quotes not only Rabbi Emden, but also modern authors such as Rabbi Gil Student, Rabbi Harvey Falk, Dr. James Tabor, Dr. Bart Ehrman, Dr. E.P. Sanders, and others. The footnotes are extensive, as anyone can see. Jews for Judaism is certainly not a "fringe" organization within Judaism, and its opinion and adoption of secular scholarship on the matter is at least notable, whether widely accepted or not. 64.180.176.230 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jews for Judaism is not a group within Judaism at at all. Jews for Judaism is categorically rejected by all of the branches of Judaism. As such it does not belong in an article about Judaism view. Jon513 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC) see my comments below. Jon513 09:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Jews for Judaism is widely respected by all branches of the Jewish community for its work in retrieving Jews from cults and non-Jewish movements. As such, its opinion is relevant to an article about Judaism's view. 64.180.176.230 22:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, this really doesn't come close to approaching a dispute needing mediation, seeing as it's been under discussion for just two days, one of which was shabbos. I'm perfectly happy to accept this viewpoint and totally agree that it's valid - all you need is a suitable reference from a scholarly source. JfJudaism is a reputable organization that is quite acceptable for citing on subjects pertaining to their mission of countering christian missionaries, but this document really doesn't directly relate to this subject and would confuse anyone who visited it looking for support of the statement without time to read the entire 18 pages in depth. For your purposes, even a simple quote of the Rabbi Emden statement would probably be sufficient. Daniel^C/_T+ 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, the IP user didn't even make the mediation request, it was done by User:Wlmh65, who isn't involved in the discussion, and as far as I can tell has never even contributed to the article or talk page. What was the reason for that? Daniel^C/_T+ 23:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, it appears likely that the IP user is in fact User:Wlmh65, seeing as the notice was added to this page by the IP user at 22:48 and Wlmh65 created the mediation request at 22:51, although Wlmh65 refers to the IP user in 3rd person. I'm not too sure what's going on here, but either way, a mediation request is extremely premature. Daniel^C/_T+ 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your position is. On the one hand, the quote from R' Emden is sufficient, and on the other it's not. Also, the booklet is brimming with citations backing up the point--just because people might be too lazy to read it isn't reason not to use it as a source regarding Jews for Judaism's viewpoint. People are probably too lazy to read the tax code--doesn't mean it shouldn't be cited. I will remove the mediation request--I probably did put it up too hastily, but I was concerned that my position would not get a fair shake with someone saying Jews for Judaism is not a Jewish organization--which is absolute nonsense. I think the article presents an interesting, notable viewpoint for a Jewish organization to take on this issue, and I think it can and should be referenced. Wlmh65 21:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

We pretty much agree on this - my only reservation about the source is that it's quite indirect and could both throw off someone who wanted to look into the issue further, and possibly be removed at some point in the future when we're not around by a well-meaning editor who didn't read it in depth. If just the Emden (e.g.) is quoted, it's concise and indisputable. I don't mind putting it in myself, but since you did the work finding the information it's yours to contribute - I just offer input. :)

As for the JfJudaism issue, I think Jon513 just misinterpreted when I referred them as JfJ, since that's usually used in reference to Jews for Jesus. It's easy to do, and I've done it myself repeatedly. I doubt that he meant to disparage the counter-missionary organization. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, I read Jews for Jesus. Sorry for the confusion. I have no comment on the article, as I have not read it. Jon513 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Karaite Judaism?

Some Karaites, specifically Jacob Qirqisani, apparently believed that Jesus was Jewish, but that Christianity become non-Jewish because of Paul the Apostle.Jewish Encyclopedia He criticized Christianity a fair amount, but I take it he criticized Jesus less so. Is this worth mentioning?--T. Anthony 11:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the current article that directly contradicts Qirqisani's view. Jon513 14:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops hadn't read it for a time. I remember awhile back someone asked about Karaites. Sorry.--T. Anthony 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Qirqisani works should be added to the "texts of Judaism that mention Jesus" sections. However the Jewish encyclopedia does not have enough information to really have a section. If someone could find the actual text (preferably online) and summarize it, it would make a great addition to the article. Jon513 16:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

New image

Kriplozoik (talk · contribs) added the picture to the right to the article. I removed it because I don't think it adds anything to the article. The hebrew (as best I can make out) is the word Kadosh (holy) on both sides of the cross as well as on top and the word on the front left seems to be the word tzevaot or sabaoth ("hosts" or "armies", Hebrew: צבאות). I can't make out the words on the front right. The fact the the words "kadosh" on the sides are the opposite orientation as the words on the front make it very hard to read. In any event the picture does not seem to be "Jewish" in any way and certainly doesn't not illustrate anything with Judaism's view of Jesus (which does not view Jesus as "holy" or anything to do with hosts or armies). The picture itself is on the commons and can stay there (so long as the copyright is valid) even if it is unused in any article. Jon513 18:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I hesitated to remove it when it was first added because I couldn't make out the words for translation apart from the top Kadosh, but based on your translation I can't really see a place for it within the article. Maybe the editor simply associated the presence of Hebrew with Judaism, although the lack of a caption makes it hard to know what the intent was. Daniel^C/_T+ 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to say, I'm absolutely not an expert to this theme, I just made this photo and wanted to expose it somewhere where it would be suitable. You are welcome to attach it anywhere else, where it would fit best (not only connecting to the Judaism). Kriplozoik 21:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks most like a piece of Messianic artwork, though the upside-down "kadosh" words are very confusing. Also, the aleph in "tzevaot" is upside-down. I have a nasty feeling that the word in the lower-right is supposed to be the Tetragrammaton. The combination of the crucifixion and one of the verses of kedushah is very disturbing and offensive to Jews, and I think you would need a very good reason to use this picture or one like it at any article. --Eliyak T·C 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent catch; I didn't recognize the Kedushah in there, but now that you point it out that's obviously what the text is. I agree, this image isn't appropriate for any Judaism or Christianity articles - it may work in an MJ article, but they'd probably have a problem with the crucifix (though I still don't entirely understand why). Daniel^C/_T+ 23:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, where was the photo taken? I haven't seen this imagery before - Christianity doesn't usually touch Hebrew, and MJ doesn't often go for crosses. Daniel^C/_T+ 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is a photo of a statue on the Charles Bridge in Prague. In fact, the placement of the Hebrew text (from Isaiah) has a disturbing history in its own right - see this. As an example of (unforced) Jewish views of Jesus (rather than an example of official antisemitism), it's a pretty poor one. I believe the removal of the vav and part of the hei of the Tetragrammaton is a matter of vandalism - or whatever you'd call vigilante third-commandment enforcers. Harpo Hermes (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right - it is from the charles bridge, but it seems to be the List_of_statues_on_Charles_Bridge#The_Crucifix_and_Calvary not "the statue of the Lamenting Christ" see the image image:St Calvary at Charles Bridge.jpg. Jon513 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Chistian Slant?

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything but the article seems to have a strong anti-Christian slant. The article mis-represents basic Christian beliefs in a way that forces them to be incompatible with Jewish doctrine. A good example is where it says it says that Jesus as God is heretical which would be true if the typical interpretation of the Holy Trinity is that it is made up of 3 separate entities instead of the more common interpretation (to my knowledge) that it is made up of aspects of one being. There are several ways to interpret both religions so making definitive statements about compatibility and representing them as absolute fact is highly POV IMO. Eno-Etile 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both the idea that God has three separate entities, and the idea that God is made up of different aspect are both heretical. It think that this is explained in the section "Indivisibility of God". The intro says:

...Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind,[1] and belief in Jesus as deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.

I changed it to:

...Jewish principles of faith is the belief in one God and one God only with no partnership of any kind,[1] and belief in Jesus as deity, part of a deity, son of God, or Christ, is incompatible with Judaism.

Does that work for you? I don't think that this article needs to deal with any particulars of christain theology and to try as much as possible to focus on the Jewish theology. Jon513 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No because it is still BS. I don't see anywhere in the Old Testament (And I doubt it appears in any Jewish religious text) where it says that God cannot have parts nor manifest himself in different ways. If you go by that logic then the burning bush that God used to speak to Moses is a heretical idea.The majority Christian view is that Jesus is not a separate entity or part of God Jesus is God manifest as a man. And stating it it as factually heretical is not only unsupported but insulting to Christianity. If you want so say that many Jews or the current Jewish doctrine or something along those lines considers it heretical thats all well and good. Also did you noticed how we both capitalized words like God., Jewish, and Judaism, but you fail to capitalize Christian; it speaks of great deal of disrespect IMO.Eno-Etile 07:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't state anything as "factually heretical", it gives sourced statements about Judaism's view of Jesus, such as the view that Jesus being a deity is incompatible with Judaism. Your suggested version actually sounds more harsh. Compare the existing "one of the most important Jewish principles of faith is...and belief in Jesus as deity...is incompatible with Judaism", to your suggestion, "Jewish doctrine...considers it heretical". Btw, you said you didn't see anywhere in the "Old Testament" etc, but there are plenty of places such as Numbers 23:19 that say things like God is not a man nor a son of man. In Judaism, anthropomorphisms are figures of speech, a means of making God's actions more comprehensible to human beings. --MPerel 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You said "I don't see anywhere in the Old Testament (And I doubt it appears in any Jewish religious text) where it says that God cannot have parts nor manifest himself in different ways" - this does appear in many Jewish religious texts many of which are quoted in the article. Please read the article. Jon513 11:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the references and they're dubious at best. And Jesus as a part of God or as God manifest as flesh can be interpreted as heretical, but thats not the only interpretation. Also the Numbers reference is a bad example since its in the present tense and Jesus wasn't alive at the time of the writing. I'm not saying that the article needs to be Christianized or Christian positive but there are bits that are disrespectful to the views of others. There are also several instances where the article is worded in such a way so as to be offensive instead of informative. Also I'd like to clarify what I meant by Jewish religious text. What I meant was the basic principles of the religion found in the Tanakh (I was unaware at the time of my last post that the Tanakh is essentially the same thing as the Old Testament and that the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim were just parts of it).Eno-Etile 02:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, there is nowhere in Tanakh that says "Jesus is not God". There are many verses that are interpreted by Jewish scholars to preclude such ideas. You can dispute whether Deuteronomy (6:4) precludes any duality or trinity in God - you cannot dispute that this was interpreted as such by many Jewish scholars for generations. There are many authoritative Jewish sources that state explicitly that it is impossible for a man to be God, or for God to have a plurality whatsoever, or any physicality at all. I do not understand how you can say that the sources are dubious. Nahmanides' Disputation of Barcelona is a great source. The Mishneh Torah is the basis of modern Jewish Law. Aryeh Kaplan's various works on the subject are great contemporary sources. Jon513 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may add, Eno-Etile, please assume the good faith of the contributors here. To assert "There are also several instances where the article is worded in such a way so as to be offensive instead of informative," suggests deliberately motivated insults. I am sure none of the regular contributors here has that in mind. If you could bring down the rhetoric a few levels and point out some precise examples, I for one would be willing to work with you on neutralizing the language. Kaisershatner 14:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of good faith, I just browsed your contrib history, here and noticed the most recent 98% of your edits are exclusively to the talk pages of fairly controversial subjects. Interesting niche you've got there. Kaisershatner 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhg, OK I'll admit I took my argument overboard. It was due to a complete lack of any consideration that I might have been correct. Also I am more familiar with Christianity , and probably know less about Judaism than I should. For instance, in Christianity no one minister or priest is likely to present doctrine that represents the beliefs of everyone or even majority. Also I shy away from considering most internet sources to be definitive. So basically I'm saying I was wrong. But I do think the article could use more neutrality.Eno-Etile 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Now about Kaisershatner's implication that I post for teh sake of controversy. Yes, most of my edits do tend to be on the talk pages of controversial subjects. This isn't because I seek to antagonize anyone or even engage in debate its because my interests happen to coincide with the controversial. The reasons that I make very few edits to actual articles are: I'm a lazy researcher, I don't know how to cite sources (using wikipedia) and I'm too lazy to look up how, and because I try for a consensus before making edits ( due to the topics a consensus is rarely reached)Eno-Etile 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no harm done as far as I'm concerned. And if you prefer to edit talk pages, go for it. It's a free wiki, right? We have done lots of work here to make the article inoffensive (you should have seen it when the section titles were "Jesus: NOT THE MESSIAH" etc. Wow. I'll give it another read-through now and see if I can find some places that need work. If you want to suggest some, I'm listening. Kaisershatner 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have specific complaints or suggestions (mostly because I'm too lazy to re-read the article) just some of the wording could stand to be more neutral. On a side note did anyone on this page vandalize my talk page calling me a racist? Eno-Etile 06:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

removed section

I removed the follow section (entitle "The notes of the Masoretes"):

The Masoretic notes often cite mnemoic devices as an aid to remember specific word forms. The mnemoic device cited to help recall the three verses containng the word Ha'Almah העלמה (Gen. 24,43 Ex. 2,8 and Isaiah 7,14) (available |here) is the following cryptic statement:

"The young woman "went out" was called mother and gave birth to a son, and it's sign is in the "order of the day".

R' Solomon Judah Leib Rappaport in his letters (Igrot Shir- available on google books} understands this as a polemic of the Tiberian Masoretes against Christianity. The term "went out" was a euphemism for a harlot (cf. the Targumim on the word Zonah). The Tiberian Masoretes, who lived in 7th century Roman Palestine dominated by Christians most likely had to hear as a "proof" to Christianity the verse in Isaiah 7,14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, an virgin shall conceive" (Standard American translation) as referring to the "virgin" birth of Jesus. Almah is translated by Christians as "a virgin", whereas Jews translate it as a young woman (cf. Proverbs 30,19). Thus the Masoretes took this opportunity to say what they really belived about the virgin birth by translating and arranging the content of these three verses to say that "a young woman (i.e. Mary), went out (i.e. committed adultery), was called mother (the mother Mary) and gave birth to a son (i.e. Jesus)." It's sign is in the order of the day (i.e. everyday life) is referring to the debates that the Christians would incite on this subject.

It doesn't cite any sources ("Igrot Shir- available on google books" - is not a source), but even if that were cleaned up it should be moved to Yeshu - the main article on the topic of references to Jesus in the Talmud. Jon513 13:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with your removal. (It doesn't really fit the intent of the aricle. I skimmed the article when I added it and I thought it was more general.) The link for the source is here [2]. I will move it to Yeshu (though I'm not sure if it fits there either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf2191 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It could probably be merged with either Virgin birth or Isaiah 7:14.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Its mostly importants as one of the few (and possibly the only) source of Christian-Jewish tensions during the 7th century - 11th century. The statement itself is a fairly standard polemic.Wolf2191 14:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is jesus the only itinerant preacher wich is mentioned in the talmud?

or there are some more except him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.118.40 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

For information about whether Jesus is mention in the Talmud see yeshu, for information about itinerant preachers in Judaism see Maggid. Jon513 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

actual POV in intro

The statement in the intro that there is "no canonical Jewish scripture making reference to him, contrary to Christian arguments of prophecies allegedly foretelling Jesus' advent therein" seems to assert one POV over another; at the least it is argumentative. Christians do argue that such references exist, so it is apparently debatable whether they do, but clearly Jewish scholars do not accept the validity of those arguments. It would be more objective to state that there are no clear and specific prophecies about him (i.e. references that both Jewish and Christian scholars recognize as such) and leave the counter/arguments about interpretation out of it. I would propose instead: "Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus, with very few texts in Judaism directly referring to or taking note of Jesus, and no canonical Jewish scripture making a clear and specific prophecy foretelling the advent of Jesus in particular." This still states the position of Judaism, without appearing to take sides in a debate between Christian and Jewish thinking. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many statements in the Tanackh that Christians believe refer to Jesus. Judaism believe that these verses are not references to Jesus. It is not a matter of whether the it is clear or specific, but just that Judaism believes them to not refer to Jesus. I have added the words "according to Judaism" [3]. Jon513 (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon513, I agree with your latest edit, works better. 69.249.104.253 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire intro was a bit too argumentative. Judaism does not exist to "reject" later religious ideas. It had its ideas first, and is not bothered when other religions come around with new ideas at a later time. It's kind of like Christianity and Islam. Christianity had nothing to say about Islam for 600 years because Islam had not come around yet, and Christians don't spend a lot of time thinking about Mohammed. He's someone else's religious prophet, but they have no specific doctrines about it. In Judaism, Jesus is someone else's prophet, but Jews have no specific doctrines about him. In any case, the earlier intro made it sound as if Jews spend a lot of energy on Jesus. They don't.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I happen to share the Jewish disinterest in the subject. If someone is willing to edit war on the intro, a simple revert will do with no complaints from me. It takes two to tango ;-).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. I don't like lumping Jesus and other far more minor false-messianic figures together. It minimizes things in a biased way. The lede should simply say what Judaism's position is, and if that position happens to be argumentative, then so be it. It should not add reasons, such as "Since Judaism preceded Christianity, it developed with no need for a view of Jesus. As such, Jesus is seldom mentioned in later Rabbinic literature." It's enough to say that Judaism isn't interested in Jesus except with regards to the negative effects of Christian rule and Christian missionizing and Christian maltreatment of the Jews. Nor is the article about other false messiahs, so I can't imagine why those were inserted into the lede.

And do I really need to address the "Judaism does, however, recognize the positive aspects of Christianity" bit? The suggestion of Maimonides that God may have used Christianity for this purpose does not reflect a Jewish sense that it's a positive aspect of Christianity. Maimonides begins by saying "His ways are not our ways and His knowledge is not our knowledge", explicitly noting that although we have nothing favorable to say about Christianity, God works in mysterious ways, and even Christianity and Islam will serve a purpose in the divine plan, despite the Jewish view that they are errors. -Lisa (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it minimizes things to point out the Jewish view that it's fine for Gentiles, but just another false messiah for Jews. The existing article makes it sound as if Jews obsess over Jesus all the time. We don't. Whoever wrote that lede obviously does obsess over Jesus, but it's hardly representative of Judaism. It's so argumentative that it sounds almost... Christian!SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a rhetoric contest, Tim. Most Orthodox Jewish views state that it is not okay for non-Jews. It's simply less not-okay than it is for Jews. And no, I don't think the article makes it sound like we obsess over Jesus, and I don't think the person who wrote that lede probably does either. You're attributing motives to other people that aren't necessarily there. Would you mind rereading what you wrote and asking yourself whether that last sentence is helpful? Is it the kind of thing that's likely to add to your argument, or is it just an incendiary comment, which neither of us really needs. -Lisa (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisa -- that was the heavily edited response.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Lisa, since the article is about Judaism's (non)view of Jesus, and not about Judaism's view of Christianity, I removed the phrase about Judaism's "opposition" to Christian beliefs. Even if you think this is relevant, it is not necessary to stress it in the lede. The article isn't about comparative religion, but rather Judaism's perspective on Jesus. Kaisershatner (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that this article has nothing to do with Islam. Why mention it? Kaisershatner (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the word "islam" (though Islam believe that Jesus was a prophet which Judaism does not).

But I do think that the reference to the rejection of Christian proofs in the old testament is relevant. While Judaism has very few text that refer to Jesus, many believe that the old testament (which is of course Jewish) has multiple references to Jesus. It is important to make clear that Judaism does believe that there are any references whatsoever to Jesus in Tanakh. Jon513 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jon, I concur, and the reference to rejection of Christian proofs is still there, para 2 of the intro. Best- Kaisershatner (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

great. I didn't see that. Jon513 (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with the removal of the reference to Islam, but since the Jesus that Judaism has no serious view about is the one presented in Christian sources and arguments, I think that's what needs to be in the lede. -Lisa (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On an aside, we need help in clearing up the obvious contradiction in the lede that says on the one hand that Judaism has no particular view of Jesus and on the other that it strongly opposes a host of particular views. I tried to clean it up a few days ago, but Lisa has an interest in deleting anything I write on the subject. I don't care WHO fixes the contradiction or how it's done, but I would appreciate it if someone not on Lisa's bad list can do so.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've bumped the alternate intro so someone other than Lisa can have an opportunity to review. I'm not married to my version, but would appreciate it if a final lede wouldn't contradict itself like Lisa's does. My lede does not contradict itself (and avoids obvious blunders regarding Christianity too). Lisa's proof texts belong in the body of the article rather than the lede. Since Lisa and I have a long and bad history -- I'd appreciate it if someone OTHER than she and I poke around here for a few days and fix the lede. Neither her version nor mine are sacrosanct -- but our previous history requires others to step in. Thanks.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have strong objections to the version which begins "Since Judaism preceded Christianity...".

• To start with the reason that Judaism does not have a definitive view of Jesus is that he plays no role in Judaism - not that Judaism existed before him. Judaism does have a view of Isaiah, a view of Rabbi Akiva, and a view of Haman, which do play a role in Judaism, even though they have no role in the creation of Judaism. Were someone to say that Haman was a great man, and Rabbi Akiva was evil, I would be clear they are not expressing a view of Judasim.
• "Modern Judaism, however, does not believe that the Messiah has come" is overly broad and possibly untrue. The article deals with whether a specific person was the Messiah, not whether the Messiah has come in general. And there are Messiahic movement in Judaism unrelated to Jesus, such as Chabad messianism or Religious Zionism
• " on the grounds that ..." These reason are not exclusive and yet give the appears of these being the only reason to reject that Jesus as a Messiah.
• "grounds which exclude Jesus, Shabbatai Zevi, Menachem Schneerson, or any other deceased person from being considered the Messiah. " There is no reason to bring up the question of whether a deceased person can be the Messiah. And this issues is completely unrelated to where a decease person already was the Messiah in his lifetime.
• "Judaism does, however, recognize the positive aspects of Christianity " - I don't think that one statement of the Rambam in a letter can be taken and the view of Judaism. In fact I am sure you could find many that would disagree with this.Jon513 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is no contradiction. Judaism doesn't consider Jesus -- per se -- as significant. But as one of many false messianic figures, Judaism does have something to say on the issue.

Calling religious Zionism a messianic movement is an abuse of language. Religious Zionists do not believe the Messiah has come. And the argument about a deceased person "already was the Messiah in his lifetime" is irrelevant. The normative Jewish position is that dying proves someone was not the Messiah.

I wasn't bringing the Rambam as a source for Judaism having a negative view of Jesus. I was rebutting the idea that what you quoted from the Rambam means Judaism has a positive view of Jesus. It does not. Nor was it a letter of the Rambam; it was in Rambam's Mishnah Torah. -Lisa (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks, my primary problem with the regular lede here is that it is self-contradictory. It starts off with the statement that Judaism has no particular view of Jesus and then is cobbled with citation after citation disproving that statement. I do think that the citations should be in the body of the article, with the lede merely serving as a summary.

That said, the Mishneh Torah certainly does lend to the idea that Judaism is more tolerant of Christianity than Christianity has historically been toward Judaism. Rambam is generally regarded to be normative, and tolerance is a good reflection on Judaism.

Also, the rationale for Jesus being relatively unimportant to Judaism is that he's simply someone else's Messiah who came around later. It's like Mohammad to Christianity -- someone else's prophet who came around later. Christianity is not built on a denial of Mohammad, and doesn't need to be, since it formed before Mohammad came around. In the same way, Judaism is not built on a denial of Jesus, and doesn't need to be, since it formed before Jesus came around. That explains why Judaism can have some views of Jesus but not be built upon them.

In any case, the obvious whoppers about "part of god" in the regular lede can stay if everyone is okay with Judaism looking -- er -- ignorant. Christians don't believe that, but I suppose it's accurate to say that some Jews, even Messianic Jews, think Christians do. It's possibly one of the reasons that Messianic Judaism holds to the "compound unity" heresy that is neither Jewish nor Christian.

As I said, I'm not married to the lede I wrote. I do have objections to the regular lede, and tried to resolve them. If someone can do better they are more than welcome to do so. But I did want to bump my version back for a moment so that someone other than Lisa would have a chance to look at it.

Can we at least take a look at a few pros and cons of each and do better than either side has thus far? My proposal is merely a suggestion, and is not anything I'm willing to fight over by any means.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't too pointy, but when Tim posted this above:

By the way, I happen to share the Jewish disinterest in the subject. If someone is willing to edit war on the intro, a simple revert will do with no complaints from me. It takes two to tango ;-).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was both amazed and gratified. However, it turns out that I needn't have revised my view of Tim after all, because he apparently didn't mean it. -Lisa (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I meant it -- but I think you and I both agree that you have no need to actually read anything I've put in before you reject it. I even endured your knee-jerk revert in silence until it was obvious that other people had problems with the existing one too. If Jon doesn't like mine, fine. It's merely a suggestion -- one that deserves something better than a knee-jerk from a long standing personal feud I have no interest in.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon, thanks for the review. As you can see I have reviewed and rejected the existing intro as well, and invite you to fix the internal contradiction. How much time do you think you'll need, or would you like to collaborate and work together? It shouldn't be too diffucult.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tim, I understand you objection the lead having a contradiction between "Judaism doesn't have a view" and "Judaism strongly believes", and I think it can be more easily dealt with then cleaning up the other version.

One problem with the other version is the focus on the current Jewish world view that the Messiah has not arrived. The question of whether the Messiah has or has not arrived is completely unrelated the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah. Imagine if tomorrow a person comes forward and claims to be the Messiah. The question of whether Judaism accept him or rejects him has no bearing on Judaism's view of Jesus, and yet the article would have to be rewritten. The article almost implies that it is a fundamental of faith that the Messiah has not arrived, as opposed to the current situation which may change at any moment.

It is not relevant that Modern Judaism currently does not believe that the Messiah has come because the temple has not yet been rebuilt. It is relevant that Judaism rejected Jesus because the temple was already built. Even if the temple were to be rebuilt Judaism would still reject Jesus.

Also the issues of Jesus being dead misses the point. I agree that the normative Jewish position is that dieing without fulfilling the prophesies associated with the the Messiah proves someone is not the Messiah. But a person could fulfill the prophesies and then die and be the Messiah, which some Christians may claim. I think that the whole sentence misses the point, the rejection of Jesus is because he didn't fulfill the prophecies and the rejection of the idea of a "second coming" of the Messiah (ie no second chaces). Him being dead is besides the point. Judaism has no problem with the idea the messiah coming, fulfilling the prophecies and then dieing. So the statement "Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is dead" misses the point.

Lisa, In regards to the Rambam you are right, I was thinking of his Epistle to Yemen, but I still think it should not be presented so prominently in the lead as the Jewish view.

Also:

• I don't think that the criteria that "Jews have not been fully gathered into the land of Israel" is indisputably a criteria for someone the be the Messiah. What does "fully gathered" mean? There is no period in Jewish history that there weren't at least some Jews living in the diaspora.
• What are the "kinds of things Jesus is claimed to have accomplished in the New Testament" referring to?

Tim, I think we can work on the intro to deal with the "contradiction" without a complete rewrite. Jon513 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jon -- I've attempted just that. Let me know what you think.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon -- just read your points and they were very well thought out. Thanks for the time you've spent in reasoning through them. One other change I made was "part of God" to "divine" because the original lede made Judaism appear to be rejecting a religion that doesn't actually exist. Christians DO believe Jesus is divine, but do NOT believe God has parts. It's admittedly tangental, but easily resolved with a simple change. Judaism rejects the Trinity (however Jews or Christians understand it), and reject the divinity of Jesus. Mucking up the lede with an absurd formulation of the Trinity itself only serves to diminish that rejection, and isn't necessary anyway.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote my version at the same time that you wrote yours (edit conflict). I prefer mine. I think that the conflict between the Jewish and Christian view of Jesus is deeper than how to read scripture (which your version implies). What do you think of my version?` Jon513 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon, I think your second sentence gives strength to the first, and your version certainly does improve things. Good job! The only problem I now see is the statement that it's unJewish to believe someone is the Christ (i.e. Messiah). Although you and I understand that while "Christ" DENOTES "Messiah", it actually CONNOTES a divine aspect not included in the Hebraic idea. I'll try a tweak in a moment and look forward to hearing what you think.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon -- made the slight tweak. Let me know what you think.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. Jon513 (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Great working with you. Glad you were here. :-)SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Maimonides on Jesus

The part about Maimonides is quite long. Perhaps it could be split into a new entry entitled Maimonides' view of Jesus. ADM (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

New lede

The previous lede spent too much time talking about Christian theology. Also, it began with a patently false statement, which was that Judaism has no particular view of Jesus. Judaism has a very strong view about Jesus, but it is peripheral in the extreme. In other words, it has next to no effect on the average Jew, because Jewish rejection of Jesus is so absolute that it's virtually beneath notice. Only those who confront Christian missionaries or who engage in Jewish-Christian dialog consider it an important subject.

Hopefully, this removes the "contradiction" which so troubled Tim. But it's also far more accurate. -Lisa (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I prefer this version. Jon513 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why? It's demonstrably untrue that "Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus". That statement has stood, unsupported with citations and unchallenged by anyone (including me) for a very long time. Judaism has a very strong view of Jesus. It simply isn't important to us on a day-to-day basis unless we're engaging with Christians. -Lisa (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is the methodology involved. Jon and I collaborated to a certain extent and compromised. Then you came and overwrote the collaboration. That said, it's precisely the same thing that I did initially.

There are merits to each version, but I do have to say that I prefer your first sentence immeasurably. To say a view is peripheral allows details. To say that there is no particular view does not.

As you commented, you eliminated the contradiction that concerned me. And "peripheral" cuts, in a single word, to the idea I was trying to get in my initial volley. I'm okay with the version you have. I wish we could figure out how to do this in a neater way than all the overwriting you and I end up doing, though.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what WP:BOLD is about? I'm open to reactions, correction, etc. I asked Jon why he preferred the previous one. And as far as what I did being similar to what you did, you were actually my inspiration for it. I thought you had a good idea; I just phrased it a little differently. I didn't mean to step on your toes or anything. -Lisa (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem -- I was just being clear that you didn't step on anything I didn't step on to begin with.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, there are some things about your version I prefer, but overall I think the previous lede was a better foundation for the article, although it required improvement. Perhaps at least we can all meet on the talk page now. For convenience here is the major diff between the current and previous lede versions [4]. I will add some comments below about things that I think could be better at present. Hope we can all work together, it seems at least there is a common goal of improving the article. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Comments:

• First, a note about structure. What I preferred about the previous lede was what seemed to me to be a logical order of argument: (1) Judaism's view of Jesus is peripheral (or not special or particular). (2) Indivisibility of God is fundamental to Judaism and (3) The coming of the Messiah is to be associated with certain things that have not happened, therefore (4) giving lots of thought to Jesus has never been a religious or academic focus in Judaism, and (5) Judaism therefore rejects any imputed prophecy fulfillment, etc. As to the current lede:

• "Judaism's view of Jesus is a very peripheral one." Peripheral or very peripheral? Needs cite.
• "Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history." Needs cite for a view asserted to be traditional. Not disputing that but if it is in fact clearly traditional, let's prove that w/citation.
• "Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging of all false messiahs." This serious assertion needs citation.
• "However, since Judaism is not "messiah focused", the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism." This is messy- what is meant by "messiah focused"?
• "While modern liberal Jewish movements such as Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism have moderated some of their views of Jesus, considering him a faithful Jew whose subsequent deification was the work of the founders of Christianity,"[cite]

Kaisershatner (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Consider Judaism's view of almost anyone, Louis XIV of France for example. If I were to ask you "what is Judaism's view of Louis the 14th" you might respond - "none". Which would almost be right. Judaism doesn't say anything particular about Louis the 14th, but it does say many things in general about everyone. So you could say for example that Judaism believes that no man can be God, or that Louis XIV did not meet the criteria for the the Messiah, eventhough there are no Jewish sources that deal directly with him.

That is what is meant by the statement in the previous lead of there being no "special or particular" view of Jesus. The most important things that Judaism says about Jesus comes from Judaism view of everyone. No human can be God. No one who contradict the Bible can be a prophet. No one who doesn't fit the criteria of Messiah can be the Messiah.

Those few statement in Judaism that refer directly to Jesus are not of the same importance to Judaism view of Jesus as those that refer to everyone. Nachmanidies statement in the Dispute that Jesus likely lived around 150 BCE simply does not carry the same weight as the talmudic statement that a man cannot be a God. One can reject Nachmanidies statement (as many do) and still be well within Jewish thought on Jesus, but one cannot accept that he was a god and remain Jewish.

Focusing on the few direct statement in Judaism that refer to Jesus, misses the context in which these statements were made. It was understood by those making these statement that Jesus was not a god, messiah or prophet. The question of whether he was a good guy or a bad guy was understood to be a side issue.

In general I think that the earlier version was focused on "the big stuff" that applies to everyone and the current version focuses on small stuff that was just said about Jesus himself.

In particular my problem with the version are:

• The first paragraph presents Judaism view of Jesus as one of many false prophet, without explaining was that view entails. Fine, Jesus was a like every other false prophet - what were other false prophets like?
• the total rejection of Jesus as either messiah or deity in Judaism has never been a central issue for Judaism - the rejection of anyone as a deity is a central issue for Judaism. The rejection of Jesus is not. This sentence is misleading.
• The second paragraph jumps right into the least important issue. Whether Jesus was a good guy or a bad guy is simply not as fundamentally important as that fact that Judaism believes that he was just a guy. Instead of focusing on the wide range of agreement on many issues relating to Jesus, the second paragraph focus on a minor issue that has no clear consensus.
• The third paragraph says that Judaism does not accept (I prefer rejects, or disputes) Christian interpretations of the bible that read in Jesus, and that Judaism forbids worshiping of a person and that God is one. These three issues are lumped together in a awkward way, as neither one is dependent on the other. Also rejection of "worship" of Jesus hints at but does explicitly state the major issue of the divinity of Jesus.
• I don't like the word putative. supposed, alleged, or claimed, are better.
• Nor does Judaism accept the worship of a person as anything but idolatry, - forbid or rejects are better words to discribe Judaism view on idolatry than the more passive "does not accept". Also "as anything but" would be better as simply "is"
• the fourth paragraph is similar the previous versions second, focusing on Jesus not being the messiah. But that "the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred" (current version) is not the same as "the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that did not occur in the time of Jesus" (previous version). Whether the Messiah has arrived in the intervening 2000 years since Jesus has nothing to do the the question of whether Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.
• I like the last sentence "since Judaism holds that none of these occurrences were brought about by Jesus, he is not a candidate for Messiah." in the current version and I think should be added to the previous version. Jon513 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of stuff to deal with. I'll make a start here, but I may not complete it all in one sitting.

• "First, a note about structure..." I think the proper structure depends on what's being said here. I can understand from certain points of view why there might be a desire to first define Judaism's positions vis a vis the concept of messiah. And vis a vis why worshipping a man is forbidden. But the article isn't "Judaism's view of false messiahs". It's "Judaism's view of Jesus". In particular. As such, I think that structurally, the article should start with Judaism's view of Jesus. Starting with the traditional view over the centuries, and mentioning the existence of varying views today. I think that explaining this belongs in the body of the article. Isn't that how we generally do it? Give a broad picture directly addressing the topic of the article in the lede and then fill it out in the body?

• Kaisershatner noted several things which need citations. He's correct on all of them, and cites will be forthcoming. They're not hard to find.

• Regarding Kaisershatner's question about "messiah focused", I can see how that might not be clear on its own. The problem is that Christians and those living in a predominantly Christian society have the impression that the messiah is a huge, central idea. But it doesn't take center stage in Judaism. Not by a long shot. How do we say that?

• Regarding Jon513's point about Judaism not saying anything specifically about Jesus, it just isn't true. If you go to a rabbi, regardless of movement, and ask what Judaism says about Jesus, you're going to get an answer. And I can find you an endless stream of articles on the subject online, without even having to open a treeware book. Is it true that Judaism's view of Jesus stems primarily from a general view of false messiahs? Mostly. But Jesus is the one false messiah that's been pushed down Jewish throats for almost 2000 years, and that results in a very strong and defined view. Please note, Jon, that I agree with you theologically. But I don't think that encyclopedically we can pick and choose which aspects are the most important and least important about Judaism's utter rejection/distaste of Jesus. Certainly not without a powerful and central cite or group of cites supporting it.

• Jon513 asks "Fine, Jesus was a like every other false prophet - what were other false prophets like?" I think that can be dealt with simply by wikilinking to Jewish Messiah claimants.

• Jon513 suggests that instead of saying "Nor does Judaism accept the worship of a person as anything but idolatry", we should say "Judaism forbids the worship of a person, considering it idolatry". Or something along those lines. I wholeheartedly agree, and if it's okay with you all, I'll go ahead and make that change. Or wait until we work the whole lede out. I'm equally okay with changing "putative" to "alleged" or "claimed".

• Lastly, I agree with Jon's ideas about the last paragraph in the lede.

I'll get to those citations asap. -Lisa (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this. Lets call it "lead #3". Jon513 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup. This version, Lisa's version, and my earlier version, are all acceptable to me as improvements over the previous lede, and each eliminates the seeming contradiction that was my concern.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with lede #3. It comes across as both hesitant and overly careful to me. Rather than simply saying what Judaism's view of Jesus is, it starts by saying what Judaism's view of Jesus is based on. And even there, it runs into WP:WEASEL problems, in my opinion. When we say "Judaism's view of Jesus is largely defined by", what does "largely" mean? The fact is, that's only one element of Judaism's view of Jesus. Theologically, it's the most important. The weightiest. But I think it's better to address the actual subject of the article first, and then bring details and sources later. Fact: Judaism rejects Jesus, both as messiah and as a deity. It's easily sourceable. Fact, Judaism has traditionally abhored Jesus, and this view continues today among Orthodox Jews. So as not to misrepresent the various non-Orthodox movements, I think it behooves us to note right there that they have different views.

"Details of Jesus' life, or even whether he existed at all, are not considered relevant in Judaism". This isn't true. Jesus has been viewed traditionally as a very negative figure. Take the Rambam, for example. Again, this view continues today in Orthodox Judaism, with a very few exceptions, all of which are on the left edge of Modern Orthodoxy.

Jesus is referred to as oto ha-ish or yesh"u in Jewish sources (the latter is an acronym for "may his name and memory be erased), and they aren't as rare as lede #3 makes them out to be.

Judaism's view of Jesus is not limited to proving he wasn't the messiah. If this article were called "Judaism's rejection of the messiahship of Jesus", lede #3 would probably be spot on. But it isn't. -Lisa (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, I see where you are coming from, although I don't think #3 is particularly more weaselly than the previous (cf. "very peripheral") but one reason I prefer #3 is that I think your lede is unnecessarily confrontational. I think it is possible, especially given the insignificance of Jesus as a theological or historical subject among Jews, to establish that Judaism doesn't have any response to the existence of Jesus except (largely) to consider him as a distinguished member among a group of false messiahs and (among the traditional (cite needed) orthodox view) as a pathway toward idolatry, without opening the article by stating "Judaism rejects Jesus and has traditionally abhorred Jesus." To me it is preferable to point out that Judaism rejects everyone about whom it is claimed that they are a part of God, and Jesus is among that group, but is also singled out for some special notability due to the significant relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Both are correct on the facts, but one moves from a basic explanation of why Judaism has a non-view of Jesus in general, and a negative one in particular, while the other leads with what is IMO an unnecessarily confrontational tone. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lisa that the first sentence should make a positive statement that describes what Judaism's view is, not vaguely describe what the view is like. Lets look at the topic sentences of some recent versions.

• Judaism's view of Jesus is a very peripheral one. fails completely. Not describing Judaism's view at all. The second sentence Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history. is worth considering, but think it is not informative enough.
• Judaism's view of Jesus is largely defined by the Jewish principles of faith, rejecting any view of Jesus as divine "Christ", or "son of God". falls short, being too hesitant. perhaps simply.Judaism reject any view of Jesus as divine "Christ", or "son of God".
• Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus, with very few texts in Judaism directly referring to or taking note of Jesus, and disputes all Christian interpretations of canonical Jewish scripture that allegedly make reference to him. does a decent jobs but the lack of text reference and disputing Christian interpretation are not really the most important things for an intro.

I would love to hear some ideas for a better topic sentence. Jon513 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a try: Judaism's view of Jesus is determined by the core Jewish principles of faith, which include belief in an indivisible God with no partnership and a Messiah whose coming will be associated with specific worldly events. Therefore, Judaism has no special or particular view of Jesus other than that of a historically notable false Messiah, one of many in Jewish history. Very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus directly, and where such references exist, the traditional orthodox view of him is largely negative. Kaisershatner (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "Judaism's view of Jesus is a reactive view, rejecting claims made for Jesus by Christianity. Christianity claims that Jesus was the messiah, and Judaism rejects that claim based on the criteria by which the messiah is defined in Judaism. Christianity claims that Jesus is a deity, and Judaism rejects that claim based on Judaism's insistence on a unitary and indivisible God, and its prohibition of worshipping anything or anyone but that one God."

I recognize that it sounds confrontational, but there's no real and honest way to avoid that, given that Judaism's primary views of Jesus are purely reactive. They are views of what Jesus is not, rather than what Jesus is. Judaism also has views of what Jesus is, but they're far less complimentary than merely "not-messiah" and "not-deity". Illegitimate of birth, sorcerer, false messiah, causer of destruction to the Jewish people. Those are just some of the views Judaism has.

Maimonides says that Jesus caused Israel to be destroyed by the sword, and to scatter and humiliate their remnant, and to change the Torah and cause most of the world to erroniously worship a god other than God.([5]) Is that "no particular or special view"? Do you think Judaism has this position about all false messiahs?

Judaism's traditional views of Jesus are (1) not the messiah (2) not a deity (3) a disaster for the Jews. The question should be, how do we formulate that in the lede? -Lisa (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Some good stuff there for sure- btw I think one helpful thing to consider is the difference between Judaism's view of Jesus and the view of particular Jews. That tilts me toward the reactive part of your proposal and is also why I have wanted to emphasize the fundamental irrelevance of Jesus in the Judaic framework.Kaisershatner (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus is largely reactive, since Judaism's insistence on a unitary and indivisible God, and its specific view of the coming of the Messiah, lead Jews to reject out of hand the divinity of Jesus or the possibility of his being the Messiah. Accordingly, very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus, and Jewish scholars dispute Christian interpretations of canonical Jewish scripture that Christians believe make reference to him. Where the existence and nature of Jesus is considered at all in Jewish scholarship, the view is largely negative, with some notable rabbis harshly critical of Jesus. Kaisershatner (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the word reactive is winner; much better than peripheral, or no special or particular view.

Kaisershatner, I think your a bit to wordy. How about:

Judaism's view of Jesus is reactive, insisting on a single indivisible God, and rejecting the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah. Accordingly, very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus, and Jewish scholars dispute Christian interpretations of canonical Jewish scripture that Christians believe make reference to him. The few references in Jewish scholarship are largely negative, with some notable rabbis harshly critical of Jesus.

While "largely negative" is an OK description of Jewish scholarship on Jesus, I think we can do better. Jon513 (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Kaisershatner's new version. The only slight revision I might make to it would be to change "dispute" to "reject", but I can live with "dispute". I think that "largely reactive" is better than "reactive", because it's not only reactive. Just mostly. And I like the "Where the existence and nature of Jesus is considered at all" part. I think it should stay in, because it contains the idea that Judaism doesn't necessarily hold that Jesus existed.

Also, I'd take out the first two commas in Kaisershatner's version. Minor quibble. -Lisa (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon, what's your objection to "largely negative"? For details, we have the body of the article. Since you think it's an okay description, why not have it in the lede? -Lisa (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Judaism's view of Jesus is for the most part reactive, since Judaism's insistence on a single indivisible God and its specific view of the Messiah lead Jews to reject Jesus as divine or as the Messiah. Accordingly, very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus, and Jewish scholars reject Christian interpretations of canonical Jewish scripture that Christians believe make reference to him. The few references in Jewish scholarship are largely negative, with little attention to Jesus among contemporaneous rabbinic writings, and some notable rabbis in later centuries harshly critical of Jesus. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, and no. Judaism's view of Jesus is not reactive by any means. That's a Christian misnomer. Judaism pre-existed Christianity and did not develop its views of the Messiah in reaction to Jesus. Rather, Judaism already had its views and did not change them when Jesus failed to meet those expectations. Jesus did no more to Judaism than Mohammed did to Christianity.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about if we add the words "Despite Judaism having existed prior to Jesus,"? I don't see being reactive as being a Christian misnomer. If it weren't for Christianity, we might not even remember that Jesus existed. If indeed he did. The fundamental Jewish views of Jesus are all a matter of looking at Christianity and saying, "Uh, no. No he wasn't." What would you call that if not reactive? -Lisa (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that Judaism existed before Christianity, but that the concept of the Messiah existed before the Christian claim. If it's just a choice between your lede and the reactive one, I much prefer your lede. It's not that we reacted negatively to Jesus' claim, but that we did not react positively because of pre-existing ideas of what the Messiah is supposed to be and do.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. And I'm not averse to going back to my proposed lede. But how about this change to Kaisershatner's:

Judaism's view of Jesus is largely reactive, since Judaism's insistence on a unitary and indivisible God, and its specific view of the coming of the Messiah, both of which existed prior to Jesus, lead Jews to reject out of hand the divinity of Jesus or the possibility of his being the Messiah. Accordingly, very few texts in Judaism directly refer to or take note of Jesus, and Jewish scholars dispute Christian interpretations of canonical Jewish scripture that Christians believe make reference to him. Where the existence and nature of Jesus is considered at all in Jewish scholarship, the view is largely negative, with some notable rabbis harshly critical of Jesus.

Does the insertion of ", both of which existed prior to Jesus," help with your objection? I can't think of another way to do it, and Kaisershatner's version is so concise that I think it'd be a shame not to use it. -Lisa (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still some problems here. The fact that few texts even address Jesus is more to the point of a lack of positive reaction than a presence of a negative one. This makes the second sentence seem incongruous with the first.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we're at least working constructively together. To me this is somewhat of an impasse since I don't have the education to reconcile SkyWriter & Lisa's conflicting opinion about non view vs. reactive view. Is there a way I don't see? Kaisershatner (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)