Talk:Jewish messianism/Archive 1

Talmud and History
From the text of the article: Although there remains this view of history, according to historical evidence, at that time the Sanhedrin did not have the power to sentence any to death,...

The above gives preference to a chr. timeline. The talmud puts yeshu at 150 years prior, see sanhedrin 43 (i think), where they describe the execution, and 107 (i think) where they describe the historical period and context. As is known (see sanhedrin 76 i think) the gemorah was compiled from personal writings of the sages many of which were contemporary to the actual events. Mcnelson 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Talmud
Does anyone know why there is a blatantly Chabad interpretation here. Most Jews do not believe that there will be any supernatural occurences when the Messiah comes. That is what Maimonides taught, but his words have been distorted by Chabad commentators. Is this, that there will be two periods, the normative view? How did it end up at the top of the article? I looked in the archives and the Talmud section used to be further down.24.189.56.206 16:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

--

T'Chias Hamasim, you surely agree, is not in the normal concept of "natural". The gemorah is very clear that belief in t'chias hamasim is normative and further, the gemorah also clearly describes stages or periods. See "Perek Chelek" in Sanhedrin for example, and, note there that T'Chias Hamasim is from the Torah. We surely have to agree that Torah and Gemorah are normative in Judaism. Mcnelson 16:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maimonides words
I added this reference material for the benefit of those who would like to read Maimonides' words on the subject of the Jewish Messiah. I belive that the Jewish Messiah merits a special page, and that including all this material in the "Jewish eschatology" entry would be out of the question (and would perhaps exceed the 32kb limit). I am responsible for translating it myself from the Original Hebrew.

If it is later decided to delete this entry, a link to my site where it may be found should be added: Maimonides on the Jewish Messiah. [mailto:novartza@actcom.co.il Nahum]

I like the idea of including such material, but the title is slightly too presumptuous. A better title would be something like "Maimonides on the messiah", because this text only deals with his views. Many other views exist, som of which vary in quite significant ways. In particular, the way that many Orthodox Jews today view the messiah is actually at odds with some of what Maimonides wrote about the messiah! (I can elaborate at length, if this idea interests anyone.) A second concern is how much quoting of one person we should have on any one subject. I don't have any problem with this, but I think the Wikipedia community is still trying to hammer out a consensus of how much is enough, and when that crosses the line into Wikipedia becoming a storage house for entire documents. We do want the former, we don't want the latter. RK

Quote from Torah about mesianic prophecy
This quote is mistranslated extremely. Either that or the source is wrong. Deuteronomy 30:3-5 says, "that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the lOrd thy God hath scattered thee... I reccomend reading it so that we can change it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.76.25.244 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I fear some inaccuracy
It mentions that when messiah will comes people will rise from the dead. I am pretty sure that this prophecy will not neccessarily come with mashiach but at a later time. This article is also not written to wikipedia standards

Confused about the article
I'm a bit confused on what the subject of this article is:
 * Jewish views of the Messiah
 * eschatology in Judaism or Jewish eschatology
 * Maimonides's views on the Messiah

The phrase Jewish Messiah denotes to me, in my abysmal ignorance, a messiah who comes only TO and FOR the Jewish people. Is that what this article is about? And if so, why not include this info in Jewish eschatology or eschatology in Judaism? --Uncle Ed 16:15 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the article, and at RK and Nahum's comments, it appears to be "Maimonides on the Messiah". The article appears to suggest that the messiah will unite all the people of the world in worshipping the one God together. Doesn't sound very pluralistic. :-)  Wesley 16:46 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Nope, sounds more like Unificationism :-) Anyway, I'm going to rename the article from Jewish Messiah to Maimonides on the Messiah. --Uncle Ed 16:51 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ok by me. Nahum 12:20 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How about Messiah in Judaism (words directly from the 1st line of the article)? --Menchi 12:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I think Uncle Ed's suggestion is more appropriate, due to the nature of the contents in this article. It actually only conntains Maimonides' view. I was a newbie when I misnamed it. Nahum 12:32 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Is Maimonides' interpretation too distant from that of the mainstream view of the Messiah in Judaism? How about other non-Maimonides interpretations? Are they so extensive and consequential that separate articles can be created for each one? If not, could we combine Maimonides on the Messiah into Messiah in Judaism, among other views? Menchi 12:44 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Menchi. This article really isn't that long, and we certainly can and should add the views of other Jewish authorities on the messiah. That would be useful for encyclopedia readers, and it would also make the title of this article more appropriate. As far as I know, Maimonides's views on this issue are considered a very mainstream position within Judaism. I will begin adding some material today. RK 13:28 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Removing link talmudic quotes
I am removing the link to an article I have created about Quotations about Jesus in the Talmud. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz says Christians would do best to avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in Jewish tradition. This has been the wrong way to go about getting the other side told and setting the record straight. The controversy is an article in the Jewish press (The Forward) telling Jews not to protest the Mel Gibson film because there are Jewish sources that were not Jesus-friendly, to "misquote" Danny. [[User:Dbabbitt|Dbabbitt]

Don't want to sound like an anti-semite (i have nothing against arabs or other semites), but you know what's the difference between Christianity and Judaism? Christianity teaches you to love your fellow man, while Judaism teaches you to love your fellow jew. With respect, Ko Soi.

Why is this page is linked to Christian references?
This page is linked to by the Jesus article as the Jewish view of Jesus. ??? Is the Jewish Messiah the Jewish view of Jesus??? If not why the link?

Also, why any mention of Christians on this page....what do Christians have to do with The Jewish Messiah as understood by Jews? OneVoice 22:07, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with OneVoice. I know that there has been much discussion over what this page is about -- maybe it is time to rething this page from the start. It seems to me that much content here came from the article on Jesus -- perhaps someone wanted to de-Judaize the Jesus article. But as OneVoice points out, the result is an article that purports to be about something Jewish, yet starts with material on Christianity. Moreover, even the Jewish material (viz. Rambam) is reacting to Christianity; thus the article as a whole is Christian oriented. I made some simple changes by renaming some headers, and putting the Jesus stuff at the end. But I think the article needs even more changes. Here is what I propose: an article that details the changing meanings of messiah in Jewish terms. Thus, the article would start with a brief overview of the rise of the monarchy (specifically, the end of the epoch of the judges; the election of Saul as King; the establishment of the dynasty of David), then a brief mention of kings who were not of the line of David (the Kingdom of Israel and then the Hasmonean dynasty), and then the radical transformation of the concept first under Roman occupation (messiah as a form of political resistance) and then diaspora (the Christian apocalyptic notion of messiah, and the development of diasporic Jewish beliefs about the messiah that were in many ways a reaction to Christian views of the messiah). So far I'd say that the bulk of the article covers only the last of my proposed sections. I believe that the other three sections are necessary if this is to be an article on "Jewish" messiah. Slrubenstein


 * I think you're right, this must have been something leftover from a move out of the Jesus article. It shouldn't just be all about a response to Christians about Jesus.  There's an article on that already Judaism's view of Jesus. -- M P er el ( talk 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Given all the discussion I did not wish to do anything major. However, in the introduction I found the lack of any transition between what we can call ordinary Jews and messianic Jews disturbing. The proximity and sequence seemed to imply the inclusion of messianic Jews among Jewish denominations. I would favor something like the disclaimer in the article on [Messianic Judaism] itself: "...as a branch of Judaism ... is rejected by all major Jewish denominations (Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Reconstructionist Judaism), as well as most national Jewish organizations [4] and the State of Israel." This even though that disclaimer is somewhat deceptive in saying "most national Jewish organizations" rather than all except for messianic ones. I have done the most minimal editing: introduced a line break so the sentence on messianic Jews has some separation from what most everyone else in the world means when using the words Jew or Judaism. Leo Schlosberg 04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It was added today by an activist who insists that Messianic Judaism (BTW, an article which requires attention) is "the practice of the religion of Judaism". It doesn't belong here, of course. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Russian orthodox faith claims that Moshiah will be the son of satan, who is to rule the world right prior to Armageddon. With respect, Ko Soi.

IP's additions
Hi, I just removed the below edits by an IP. I shouldn't have used rollback button, it wasn't vandalism. It is, however, a first person essay or maybe the transcript of a speech. It doesn't show up on google by searching for extracts. It's below. Babajobu 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Genesis 3:15 - Messiah will come from humanity or in other words will be a man. Genesis 22:18 - The Messiah will be a Jew, a descendant of Abraham Genesis 49:10 - The Messiah will be from the tribe of Judah. Let me stop here a moment. This is a very important prophecy. As I said before we can still today know who the Jews are, so having a Messiah who is a Jew would be no problem if He showed up today. But think about this, if a Jew claimed to be the Messiah today he would have to prove that he was of the tribe of Judah. That is impossible at this point. Here is the reason. In AD 70 the Romans destroyed the Temple. In the Temple were the genealogical records of all the Jews, which tribe they were from etc... You can no longer tell which tribe a Jew is from with on exception. That is the tribe of Levi, which are the priests. You will see a lot of Jews named, Levi, Levitt, etc... They can tell they are from the Tribe of Levi, but none of the other tribes are so lucky. So if the Messiah were to show up today, he could not prove that he qualified to be the Messiah. So this prophecy proves that the Messiah had to have come before AD 70. +	-	 	+	-	I will get back to the prophecies in a moment but this brings up a very special and interesting fact. The Talmud and the Mishna are what are called Rabbinic writings or sage writings. The Jews put a lot of faith in them and believe what they say, sometimes even when they contradict the Bible itself. Anyway there is a very interesting passage in the book of Yoma in the Mishna it is Yoma 39. +	-	 	+	-	Let me kind of set this up for you so that it makes sense. Every year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) there were two goats taken to the High Priest at the Temple. They cast lots to see which one would die as a sacrifice. The other goat would have the sins of Israel symbolically put on it. The High Priest and the Elders of Israel would place their hands on the 'scapegoat' and confess the sins of the nation over it. Then it would be lead out into the wilderness, far enough to make sure it could never come back. In fact some sages tell that the person who took it out would often push it off a cliff to make sure it did not come back to Jerusalem. This was done because they believed that if it came back their sins would come with it. +	-	 	+	-	Now when the scapegoat was taken away the Talmud tells us that the High Priest would put a piece of scarlet wool cord on the door to the Temple. The sages say that the cord would turn white and then the High Priest would proclaim to the people that God had accepted their sacrifice and forgiven their sins. Okay with that all in mind now read about Yoma 39:	+ -	 	+	-	The Talmud (Tractate Yoma 39:b) records in essence that on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) it was customary to tie some red wool to the temple gate. Miraculously, after the lamb died to take away or atone for our sin, the red wool always turned white as a sign to the people that they had been forgiven. But during the 40 years before the destruction of the temple and the altar in 70 AD, the red wool tied to the temple gate remained red. The rabbis concluded God was saying, "I will not forgive, I will not forgive." +	-	 	+	-	Now think about those dates. We know the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, so 40 years before that would be about the year 30 AD. What happened about the year 30 AD? Christ, the perfect sacrifice died for our sins. If the people had accepted God's perfect Lamb they would not need another scapegoat. God quite forgiving sins through the scapegoat at that time. Unfortunately the Jews including the very sages who wrote this did not see the significance of that date. I guess if they had they would not have written what they did because it sure helps prove who Jesus Christ was. +	-	 	+	-	Okay back to prophecy:	+ -	 	+	-	Genesis 49:10 also shows that Messiah will be a King. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 Messiah would be a prophet Isaiah 7:14 Messiah would be born to a virgin, Messiah would be the God-man (both God and man) Isaiah 8:9-10 Messiah would be a King, in the line of David. Again this shows that Messiah had to have come before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, since you can't tell who is in the ling of David any longer. Of course there is no longer a need to, since their last King has already come and will reign for all eternity. +	-	 	+	-	Isaiah 9:6-7 I do want to quote this one:	+ -	 	+	-	(Isaiah 9:6-7 NIV) [6] For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. [7] Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. +	-	 	+	-	Notice that in verse 6 it says to us a 'child' is 'born' meaning that the Messiah would be a man. But it goes on to say that He would be called Mighty God, Everlasting Father, showing that He would also be God. Again it shows He will reign on David's throne, meaning He had to be a descendant of David, again showing He had to have come before 70 AD.	+ -	 	+	-	Isaiah 11:1-2 Messiah would come from the line of Jessie, which was David's father. Again only possible to prove if he was born before 70 AD. 	+ -	 	+	-	Are you beginning to see how often God showed the Jews who their Messiah would be? Or at least proved to them by what time He had to come, so that they could look back and know who He is. +	-	 	+	-	Isaiah 49:1-3 Messiah would be rejected by the Jews at His first coming. The message of salvation would be preached to the Gentiles (praise God!!) Eventually the Jews will recognize the Messiah for who He is. This will be accompanied by their being re-gathered to their own land (we are seeing that in our life time.)	+ -	 	+	-	Isaiah 52:13 - Isaiah 53:1-12 These passages show that the Messiah would be a suffering servant and be killed but not for His own sins, but rather for the sins of the people. Yes the Jews miss all these and still reject the idea of the Messiah dying for their sins. +	-	 	+	This is getting long, so I will skip many others. +	-	 	+	-	One last one: Daniel 9:24-27 This passage predicts that 483 years from the time the decree is issued to rebuild Jerusalem the Messiah would come. We know when the decree was issued and guess what 483 years later puts us right at about 30 AD. This of course is before the Temple records were destroyed so Jesus could prove who He was descended from, which tribe and when family in that tribe. This all comes through Mary, but also through His adopted earthly father. That is why there are two different genealogies listed in Scripture. One is Josephs and the other is Mary's. 	+ -	 	+	-	So again God has been merciful to the Jews. He told them that the Messiah would be both man and God at the same time. He told them that He would be born of a virgin in the town of Bethlehem. He showed them in a round about way that the Messiah had to have come before 70 AD and He even gave them the very year that the Messiah had to come. So either the Messiah has already come and they rejected Him even with all the evidence for His being the Messiah or there will never be a Messiah. +	-	 	+	-	Following the Law was never good enough to save anyone, including the Jews. The Law was instituted for two purposes, one to show man that it is impossible to please God by our own works, and two to show God's holy nature and the need for a perfect sacrifice to cover our sins.

It was vandalism. Xian vandalism. You will always find some Xian with such tolerance and "love" for the Jewish views that they need to impose their POV as being the truth. Jewish Sages have already destroyed this POV, no need to give it even space on a page about the Jewish Messiah. hasofer 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Messianic Expectations
I think a section on the history of Messianic expectations is very important. Hairouna 20:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

what happened to maimonides' view on the messiah, about how he will be human, and the messianic age wont be all that different from this one?

Christian, Jewish and Islamic views (on Jesus)
Why is this section here when the article is about the Jewish view of Messiah, I think that there should just be a link to either Jesus or Jewish view of Jesus for the Jewish view and Christian views of Jesus for the Christian view and Isa for the Muslim view. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  17:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Messiah son of Joseph?
Someone has just added a section on the "Messiah son of Joseph", claiming a talmud reference. I'm sceptical, given the mention of Satan. Can we get some kind of cite for this? FiveRings 17:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC) I wasn't the one who added Joseph Smith but here are two references that support that claim.
 * Joseph Smith has now been added as a possible candidate for "messiah son of joseph". I'm even more sceptical, and will remove the section unless it can be supported. FiveRings 17:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Messiah ben Judah, the Son of Judah, the Son of David, the Stem of Jesse, would indeed redeem. But alongside that set of prophecies and all they entailed was another set about a son of Joseph who would be a restorer of all things…If the restorer wasn't a Joseph named Smith, the world must wait for "that prophet who is to come," who is to restore all things. (Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 106.)

Encyclopedia Judaica 11:1411 states: "A secondary messianic figure is the Messiah son of [of the tribe of] Joseph (or Ephraim), whose coming precedes that of the Messiah, son of David, and who will die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel." Joseph Smith and his martyrdom could already be a fulfillment of this role. (Victor L. Ludlow, Isaiah: Prophet, Seer, and Poet [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1982], 179.)Rwf5 17:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In many ways the idea of a messiah ben Yosef (son of Joseph) is in a completely different ballpark of Jewish thought from a Messiah ben david. The Messiah ben david is what is regularly referred to when the term messiah is used.  All of the prophecies about the messiah refer to ben david.  All of laws and the fundamentals of belief refer only to ben david.  There is also a homiletic idea  that the world must be prepared for the messiah.  This can mean that a person has to prepare it, or that in general society as a whole must change in certain ways.  This idea is found in the Talmud and expanded on by latter rabbis but it was never said with the same authority (namely their statements are non-binding and the rejection of the idea of a messiah be Yosef is not in any way heretical).  Jon513 19:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jon513. Messiah ben Joseph is a separate and secondary figure and not considered to be THE Jewish Messiah (i.e. Messiah ben David) as this article is meant to discuss. However, if Messiah ben Joseph is removed a separate article should be created. (Rwf5 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

I've removed the section on Messiah ben Joseph. WRT the mormon cite, see Tautology (rhetoric). FiveRings 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

'Messiah in the Tanakh' section contains many inaccuracies
I just wanted to note that the verses cited in this section are used by Christians, not Jews, as references to the Messiah. Seeing that this is an article about the Jewish Messiah, I would give this section one of those "factual accuracy of this section is disputed" tags, and then have a real Jewish scholar redo the section.

The messianic reference to Isaiah 7:14 should not be included in this section. This passage was always known to be a time oriented prophecy of Isaiah that came to fruition in his time. This is a Christian reading and, I don't think, belongs on this page. Please see any Jewish ref. to Isa. 7:14 I'm new to this game of Wiki but will edit now. Please let me know if this is not how this site is supposed to be edited. Mifrip 03:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Mifrip


 * I've removed that section. As pointed out, the verses in that section do not refer to the Jewish Messiah.  If Christians would like to create an article called Christian Messiah, they can use those verse there.  But for an article on the Jewish Messiah, that section constituted vandalism. Lisa Liel 09:22, 12 December 2006 (CST)


 * The section needs to be rewritten from scratch, to accurately represent Judaism. Jon513 18:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you guys. You do know that Hebrew is read right to left, right?
My boyfriend's a Jew, and he says the Hebrew in this article is goofy. He doesn't know how to work with unicode, or he'd fix it himself. Keep it real. -Will —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.53.113.190 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Nope; the Hebrew here is just fine, right to left as it should be.

Perhaps your BF's web browser doesn't support right-to-left fonts. ---trlkly22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

POV - Views on Jesus of Nazareth
Yup, the section about Christian beliefs 'bout the Messiah is probably written by some Hasid, as it not only NOT INCLUDES a Christian view (but it must), but also includes links to "brainwashing" articles about what Christians are not right...

WHAT IS THIS FRIGGIN' ADVERTISEMENT??? =\ :

"Messiah Truth, Jews for Judaism, and Outreach Judaism are three websites designed to educate Jews on Jewish messianic prophecies and why most "proof texts" referenced by Christians as messianic prophecies about Jesus are not applicable."

WHERE IS SITES (THERE ARE FRIGGIN' LOT OF THEM), "educating Jews" otherwise??? And who the hell is the Jew, who follows the directions of the sites, rather than Tanach? WHY NO LINKS TO BIBLE??? Ah?

THIS IS ENCYCLOPEDIA, and statement, that Christians are wrong in their beliefs is VERY VERY POINT OF VIEW, as the Encyclopedia must be "free-of-thought", so PEOPLE CAN build their own minds on the subject... And not this is right and this is wrong stuff!

Someone add a Christian thought and make this less POV (when reading i fell like chatting with some "too-Orthodox in customs to remember Faith" Judaism-observer... On Christian beliefs, which he do not knows... At all...

AND, BTW, BOTH Judaism, as well as Christianity awaits the same: the coming of Messiah (Christ in Greek)... The difference is, while Jews wait for first coming, christians wait for second... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echad (talk • contribs) 02:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * This is an article about the Jewish idea of Messiah, there is no need to (and indeed shouldn't) talk about the Christian views. As far as the sentence you referred to, I agree that it was POV and in any event did not really serve any point.  I removed it. Jon513 14:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Jewish Messiah
I'm wondering... If the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a decsendant from David, wouldn't the Jews just reject them- because there is no way to prove he has decsended from David? Doesn't it say in the Tanakh that he will be rejected by Israel? This article has a lot left out of it... the articles for Jesus as the Messiah are much more persuasive, but it would be neat if someone listed the Tanakh passages that Christians take out of context, things that only pertain to a certain period, not the Messiah.


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know of any any source in the Tanakh that the messiah will be reject and I doubt that there is such a source. There are currently in existence genealogical records for many individuals that can accurately date their lineage to David. Jon513 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reform equation of Messianic Age with World to come
I deleted that equation in the intro since I'm aware of no such equation in any major Reform source. If there is such an identification, I welcome a citation. Savant1984 18:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking To Jews who follow Chesed; not the other type
I don't know much about Judaism, but I do know its main problem is all the Messiah stuff. From what I have observed, Judaism owes its very existence to the promise of a Messiah, that is, the Jews were assigned to preserve the law so that when the time comes, the Messiah may learn from it. Simultaneously, the whole "messiah" thing is the rason Judaism exists, but, at the same time, it seems to be a taboo subject. That is, because of the history of persecution, raising false alarms, and false hope, with a false messiah, is something many religious Jews are loath to talk about.

Jewish history is full of false Messiahs, going as far back as Judas Maccabees (is that how you spell that?), the first claimant of the Messianic throne. False hope has been raised time and again, so much so, that reform Judaism has aimed to focus primarily on the ethical aspect of Judaism, shifting the focus from not just preserving the law, but actively applying it in daily life so that other nations may not necessarily convert to Judaism, but, "learn from example." E.g., interpreted in that light, being a "light unto all nations." However to get into that would be inviting heated debate amongs Jewish religious authorities, so, I won't even try.

If it can be said that the reason Judaism exists in the first place is because of the idea of a Messiah, its understandable why religious Jews are loath to convert to christianity. Among all religions, Judaism is unique in that not only is it a religion, but it is intimately tied with the very ethnic identity of the people who practice it. In Christianity for example, European and North American christians consider the christian world, well, christian, but only in Europe and North America, are there white christians in the majority. That is, its possible to have an ethnic identity separate from a given religion, except, it seems, with Judaism. We see this, even, with Islam; Arabs are notoriously racist against blacks and asians but Europeans, christian Europeans, they often boot lick. Europeans and American white workers who work in Saudi Arabia all tend to go back to their countries speaking about how wonderful and polite Saudis are. However, when it comes to Indian and Indonesian workers on the other hand, there is often vicious treatment ranging from physical abuse, to starvation. That is, a white Christian, so long as they don't do missionary work, or bring a copy of the bible, will receive better treatment in Saudi Arabia than a nonwhite Muslim. And this supposedly from the "sacred lands of Islam." But this is diverging from the point somewhat.

The point remains, that it seems, only with Judaism, are ethnic identity and religion one and the same. The Arabs clearly separate Islam from race and ethnicity given the way they treat fellow Muslims as opposed to the way they treat white Christians. Sometimes I wonder why suicide bombers don't attack those racists instead. Whatever the case, religious hipocrisy aside, if the very reason Judaism exists is because of the idea of a Messiah, and Jewish identity is deeply and intimately tied with the religion itself, to deny the existence of a Jewish Messiah, and to claim Yeshua was the Messiah, is a double offense to a religious Jew.

The first being, in that denying the Jewish Messiah, you basically deny Judaism, and with it, you deny the identity of the Jewish people.

The second offense, in that in Judaism it is clearly written, both in traditional, and mystical Kabalist Judaism, that a human being, man or woman, can not be god.

Thus, when a Christian professes Christianity, or tries to convert a Jew, it is indeed deeply, deeply offensive, again, two reasons being; at its very core, the whole idea, the whole religion of Judaism, revolves around the promise of a Messiah, a coming generation's "Adam" figure, who will redeem the world and make it the way God meant it to be. To deny this, and profess Yeshua is the Messiah, is the same thing as saying that Judaism is not a valid belief, plus it is a direct violation of Jewish law in making the very claim that a man is God. At their very worst points in Biblical history, when Jewish people abandoned their beliefs and became idolaters, even in Israel with some corrupt Israelis, the very worst of the worst Israelis, the least religious, the least ethical, do not believe themselves to be God. To say that a man is God, even if he is Jewish, is deeply offensive to a Jew, religious or not, because it negates the validity of Judaism as a belief, and with it, the identity of the Jew in question.

Most Christians don't understand this, nor do they care to understand. I wish the article would have have a section on the debate with Christians, or at the very least, ellaborate more on this issue. Ultimately though, Christianity was a religion that was, indeed, created to invalidate and delegitimize Judaism. Even Pope John Paul II admitted it; the early clergymen of the Catholic church made their intentions plainly clear, that they wanted Christianity to be a system of belief separate from Judaism. To achieve this, when writting the New Testament, they downplayed Roman involvement in the crucifiction, while portraying Jews in the most vile and evil manner possible. The truth is, it was more convenient for the Romans to crucify Jesus than it was for the Jews; very few Jews enjoyed the wealth, status, and power of the corrupt Rabbinical authorities of the time.

Given the dishonest origins of Christianity I personally question the so-called "scholarship" which claims to validate it, especially given the religion's history of savagery and barbarism. To who ever wrote this article, please look into the stuff on the anti-christ. I personally think, the whole idea of the "anti-christ" was another method of invalidating Judaism. That is, because people in power are paranoid, and the early clergy was out to control and brainwash the masses, to ensure that no one would doubt Christianity, and with it, the authority of the Papacy, a "just in case" scenario was presented in the New Testament where, "just in case" the Jewish messiah DID appear, Christendom would immediately brand them as a "son of Satan." Its a favorite tactic of Christianity to brand all differing belief systems as "works of the devil."

As a whole though, the religion doesn't stand up very well to logical scrutiny. No form of tyranny does. For example, why is it that a truly despicable and evil person who is a Christian is said that they will go to heaven when they die, when a kind, saintly, lets say, pagan idolater who rejects christianity, will go to hell?

What manner of God looks more at the religion of the person, and not at the heart?

That is a glaring problem with christianity which no christian apologetic has been able to satisfactirily answer without resorting to bible thumping.

What manner of God looks at the religious practices of a person, and not at the heart?

A black hearted Jew, if there is a heaven and hell, or as the Jews call it, a "sheol," will go to that dark place, whereas a kind hearted pagan idolater, will go to heaven.

This is a big problem, and the inability of Christian apologetics to answer it basically tells me, that Christianity's intention was two fold;

1) Brainwash and control the masses to insure the expansion of the papal treasure coffers.

2) Delegitimize Judaism, in any way possible.  If you read the New Testament carefully, the reader is constantly reminded how kind and gentle the Romans are, and how quick they were to accept the word of God.  Examples of this are in the "faith of the Centurion" section, and the speeches made by Pontious Pilate.  Not only that, but Jesus' very Jewish identity is downplayed as much as humanly possible, so much so, that the overwhelming majority of Christians and Jews don't even think of Jesus as Jewish anymore.  Jesus was de-Jewed.  Indeed, the Papacy made it a point to turn rome into the "New Jerusalem."  A Cathedral in Italy in fact, has artwork revealing this intent; pictures of the old testament (e.g. the Hebrew bible) are shown in the dark sections, when one enters.  Closer towards the altar though, it gets brighter and brighter, images of Jesus and the new testament, the brightest of all. Implying, that the old testament is a word of darkness, while the New Testament, is a word of light.

Another problem with Christianity is the acceptance of Papal authority. Not a single pope has ever displayed the powers or miracles often atributed to Catholic saints. Among catholics, there are legends and stories of people who became "close to God" and as a result, acquired some of his power and wisdom. Many saints were revered healers, and according to Catholic lore, "smelled of flowers" when they died, rather than stinking up a place. I question the Catholic church in how it accepts the words of an overeducated dry old man, over the words and teachings of an alleged Saint.

If indeed the stories of the saints are true, you'd think that having developed that kind of power and closeness with God, that their authority would be more respected over a scholar who hasn't. Clearly, a person able to perform true miracles has more authority on God than someone who does not, regardless of the latters education. What it tells me, is that it was never the papacy's intention to save anyone, but to control the masses, any way they could. Any threat to that control, like for example, Judaism which predates Christianity, or a separate belief system, they quickly and ruthlessly stamped out.

The history of the early church, and the intention of the clergy, which abundantly and clearly enough was set out to delegitimize Judaism, justify the notion that Jesus is the "son of God," and on top of that threaten non-believes or questioners with excomunication, basically says that at its very heart, Christianity was a form of thought control more than anything else. Taking away threats of hell if people don't agree with the dogma, taking away Jesus's claims that he is "the son of God," when you read the New Testament carefully, all it is, is Judaism with an emphasis less on legalism, and more on chesed.

Jews in general are so hell-bent in following the law they forget chesed. My view is that Jesus was not the Messiah, nor did he ever claim to be the son of God (because no self-respecting Jew would), but, that he was a reform Jew, who wanted the Jews to follow a brand of Judaism centering around chesed, or mercy and compassion. Please do not forget, Jesus lived in a time where it was common (and encouraged) for husbands to beat their wives, dicease was rampant, and violence was up close and personal, not just something you saw on T.V. Even in the Bible, as twisted and falsified as the history was, it is written that most of Jesus' followers were women. Reason being, his "chesed" brand of Judaism made him very popular with female Jews. Again, please do well to remember; ancient Judaea was a world of wife beaters, barbaric Romans, and rampant disease. A Rabbi preaching a message of Chesed was bound to be very popular with the Jewish masses, especially the Jewish poor of the time. It is my belief, that the revolt of 70 A.D. had a direct link with the crucifiction of Jesus.

Please, think from a Psychologists' perspective; Jewish people, poor Jewish people, being ruled by barbaric Romans who thought nothing of committing acts of brutality.

Enter an angry Rabbi of sorts, named Jesus who, to give his people hope for the future, seeks to reform Judaism, and preach a message of "chesed," or mercy, and nonviolence.

The Romans kill him, but not before torturing him with great brutality.

The Romans, torturing and killing a man preaching a message of chesed.

As Jews living in that time, how would that make you feel?

Angry enough to start a revolt perhaps?

See, the twisted thing about this, is that the Romans said "oh no, it wasn't us; it was THE JEWS who were cruel......." when writting the New Testament.

Shift the blame, make Rome the New Jerusalem, falsify history, and presto, you have a new religion.

There is no way to prove this, because you can't source something that was never written down. That is, scholarly work is written by people right? Citations, sources, all these things, come from people.

What happens when the people though are of questionable ethical character, like for example, the early Catholic church and for that matter the Nicean council, made up entirely of corrupt wealthy men?

Naturally you have to debunk the history from a logical standpoint by asking very tough questions.

I wrote too much, and violated a rule of Wikipedia, but, to any Jews reading this, I hope this helps.

At least, Jews who follow chesed. Not the other kind.

New Covenant
64.149.82.81 restored my deletion of the 'see New Covenant' reference since it 'has a Jewish interpretation as well which is very different from the Christian interpretations, read the article for details'. First of all, the article is essentially about the Christian concept, only dealing tangentially with Jewish readings of Jeremiah. (Note that it is even part of the Christianity series.) Second, it deals not at all, as far as I can tell, with Jewish messianism as such, but merely with scholarly readings of the Jeremiah passage, rather than a traditional treatment of them. Third, the term 'New Covenant' is simply never used in Jewish circles with reference to the Messianic Age, any more than 'Christ' is -- it is simply a Christian term. The reference is simply not relevant to Jewish Messianism as such. Savant1984 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. New Covenant is in the Jewish Bible! In Judaism, it is the messianic belief that: "Jews will know the Torah without study (Jeremiah 31:33)", which is a quote right from this (Jewish messianism) article! As for the article on New Covenant, perhaps you missed this section: "Jewish view — Israel includes primarily those who can trace their physical ancestry to the Biblical patriarch Jacob (renamed Israel by an unnamed wrestler, see Gen 32:22-32, 35:9-15), i.e. the children of Israel or Israelites, see also Strong's H3478. Since the New Covenant was prophetically made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," it cannot be understood apart from the united nation of Israel, i.e. the group of all people who are naturally related to Jacob, i.e. Israel, Judah's father (note that the modern political nation-state of Israel is not directly in view here). For many this is matrilineally determined. While proselytes have had a place in Judaism from early times, and most Jewish leaders advocate that non-Jews obey the Noahide laws (because all modern people are a part of the covenant made with Noah, see also B'nei Noah), and the prophets speak of the time as coming when the proselytes shall share in all the privileges of Israel (Ezekiel 47:22; Isaiah 2:2; 11:10; 56:3-7; Micah 4:1), even still, the closest a non-Jew (or non-convert) can come to the covenant is to be considered a ger toshav, or sojourning foreigner. In this view, Gentiles are not required to keep the Ten Commandments, per se, because they are not of the Israel which was forever bound by the covenant which the Decalogue described in stone. While many Jews await the coming of the Jewish Messiah, few Jewish scholars have explored, or developed a theology of, the New Covenant. The New Covenant has never been a significant feature of Jewish eschatology, other than the belief that eventually all Jews will know and follow the Torah without the need to study (Jer 31:32-33). For example, the article Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament states: "The idea of the new covenant is based chiefly upon Jer. xxxi. 31-34 (comp. Heb. viii. 6-13, x. 16). That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel (Jer 31:35-36; comp. 33:25); he obviously looked for a renewal of the Law through a regeneration of the hearts of the people."" 68.126.20.142 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As your own comment indicates ('few Jewish scholars have explored, or developed a theology of, the New Covenant'), the 'New Covenant' is simply not an issue in Jewish messianism as such. When that bit of Jeremiah is discussed in Jewish dialogue, it is never (as far as I know) with the nomenclature 'New Covenant'.  Even if it is true that that is the appropriate term and that it is an important issue in Jewish messianism, in the absence of serious citation otherwise, it would seem to me to be original research.  Neither the term nor the link to the article, therefore, have a place in an article on Jewish messanism, except as a compare and contrast with the Christian notion(s).  (By the way, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum, you are mistaken about converts to Judaism.  See our article on the topic.) Savant1984 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to just address your one statement:
 * "When that bit of Jeremiah is discussed in Jewish dialogue, it is never (as far as I know) with the nomenclature 'New Covenant'."

Jewish Encyclopedia: Covenant: The Old and the New Covenant: "When Jeremiah spoke of "the new covenant" which the Lord "will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" (Jer. xxxi. 31) he immediately explained his words by saying: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (ib. xxxi. 33; compare xxxiii. 40). Judaism knows of no other than the old Sinaitic covenant. Eternal as the covenant with heaven and earth is God's covenant with the seed of Jacob (Jer. xxxiii. 25 et seq.)."

68.126.20.142 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that your link just proves my point. The term 'new covenant' shows up there only as 1) a literal translation of the words of Jeremiah and 2) in the context of contrast with Christianity which is, in fact, the primary topic of the section of the article.  (Judaism, as the article notes, knows only of the 'old' covenant.)  'New Covenant' is only used as a term in Messianism in a Christian context, including comparison with Christianity.  If you wish to include such a reference as such, that is, as a reference to the Christian idea discussed in the 'New Covenant' article in an appropriate place, then I'm all for it, but the current placement is misleading at best. Savant1984 21:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that Jeremiah, that rather famous Jewish prophet of old, prophesied a New Covenant/ברית חדשה that is only relevant in Christian Messianism? 75.0.1.55 08:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that if you're going to say that 'the New Covenant', by that term, is relevant to Jewish messianism, then you'd better cite some serious sources, since, as a simple matter of common knowledge, it's a Christian term and notion. Savant1984 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the problem just one of terminology? For example, Old Testament is Christian whereas Tanakh is Jewish, the primary difference being that Old Testament is generally translated into a particular common vernacular whereas Tanakh is generally untranslated, left in the original Hebrew/Aramaic. Therefore, New Covenant is Christian, in English translation, as you say by so-called "common knowledge", which in the West would be "Christian common knowledge", whereas ברית חדשה is Jewish, because it's in the original Hebrew? Should there be a wikipedia article on New Covenant in Judaism or ברית חדשה ?
 * 75.15.205.20 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You make some valid points. In Christianity, there is a concept of "new covenant".  They base this partly on the words of Jeremiah.  In Judaism, these words refer to the end of days when something, in some way will be different.  In Judaism, these words of Jeremiah, while they are important as all prophecy is, it is not a fundamental part of Jewish theology like it is for Christians.  The interpretation of these words are left to the subject of biblical exegesis, and not a major subject in Judaism.  To parallel the Jewish interpretation with the Christian one would give the incorrect impression that this is as important in Judaism as it is in Christianity.  The article New Covenant is correctly focused on the Christian idea and points out that these words have little relevance in Judaism.  In Judaism these words are seem along with many other prophetical statement to give a vague idea of what the end of days looks like.  This article is the correct place to elaborate on the Jewish idea of a "new covenant" is.  Since in Judaism the two ideas are identical.
 * As far as the particular interpretation of the verse "that Jew will know Torah without study", I am a bit concerned. This goes beyond what the verse itself says "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" which may mean that it will be easier to study, or will do so with greater zeal or some other interpretation.  While there is nothing wrong with the interpretation that Jews will know Torah without study, there is also nothing right about it. When a contributor goes beyond what the original source say is s/he also introduces his or her own bias which we want to avoid at all times.  We try to solve this by quoting secondary sources.  In this case any of the many biblical commentator that comment on this verse.  Jon513 13:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire new covenant passage is. That "Jews will know and do the Torah without the need to study" is. Sometimes the verse numbering is slightly different, for example. 75.15.204.127 18:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Menachem
Sanhedrin 98b has a discussion among the rabbis as to what the messiah's name will be. One opinion is Menachem. One is Shilo. One is Yinon. One is Chanina. Using this as a source to say that the messiah's name must be Menachem is a highly POV trick used by Lubavitch messianists, and should not be permitted in this article. -LisaLiel (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It it clear that Rabbi Akiva didn't have a problem with a messiah of the name Simon. Jon513 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah." This line seems to me misleading, as it implies that the Talmud does not believe in a Messiah. Could it be removed?Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)