• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus said such & such, question for Jewish Xians, Jews reading NT

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
This question is for Jewish Christians, or, Jews , or those with Jewish ancestry, reading the NT:

How do you:
•read the fact that Jesus was rebuking, /perhaps/, your ancestors.
• the idea that Jesus said, or may have said, things that somewhat disparaged the religio-historic paradigm of 'Jews', of the time.
• the idea that some of the text seems to disparage the religio-historic paradigm, of Jews, of the time, even though Jesus may not have said it.

I know that there are answers to all these questions, however, the question is how do you read, interpret, or justify, some of the material.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
How do you:
•read the fact that Jesus was rebuking, /perhaps/, your ancestors.
I gotta be brief.

Jesus only appears to rebuke some ancestors.

• the idea that Jesus said, or may have said, things that somewhat disparaged the religio-historic paradigm of 'Jews', of the time.
Even though Jesus seems to have supported a liberal interpretation of the Law, his main attacks are on those he considered to only go through the motions of Judaism plus an attack on the Oral Law of the mainline Pharisees.

• the idea that some of the text seems to disparage the religio-historic paradigm, of Jews, of the time, even though Jesus may not have said it.
The fact that the gospels were written decades after Jesus was martyred, plus the fact that there was a falling out between the Jesus followers and mainline Judaism by that time, animosity between the two should be expected.

Jesus was a Jew operating from a basic Jewish paradigm, although quite a liberal one.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I gotta be brief.

Jesus only appears to rebuke some ancestors.

Even though Jesus seems to have supported a liberal interpretation of the Law, his main attacks are on those he considered to only go through the motions of Judaism plus an attack on the Oral Law of the mainline Pharisees.

The fact that the gospels were written decades after Jesus was martyred, plus the fact that there was a falling out between the Jesus followers and mainline Judaism by that time, animosity between the two should be expected.

Jesus was a Jew operating from a basic Jewish paradigm, although quite a liberal one.

I would not consider Jesus to operating from a liberal Jewish perspective by today's understanding of liberal religious or political perspective. Jesus was a rebel in his own perspective. In some ways he demanded the compliance to the Law rejecting the pragmatic corrupt Jewish establishment that compromised with the Romans.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
This question is for Jewish Christians, or, Jews , or those with Jewish ancestry, reading the NT:

How do you:
•read the fact that Jesus was rebuking, /perhaps/, your ancestors.
• the idea that Jesus said, or may have said, things that somewhat disparaged the religio-historic paradigm of 'Jews', of the time.
• the idea that some of the text seems to disparage the religio-historic paradigm, of Jews, of the time, even though Jesus may not have said it.

I know that there are answers to all these questions, however, the question is how do you read, interpret, or justify, some of the material.

Not seeing a question... seeing a bunch of claims..
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Jesus rebuked both conservatives and liberals... and his points should be taken seriously by both.
All people have failings but through history in the church much of the persecution against Bible believing Christians did come from religious people (in some ways the Pharisees in the gospels were the fall guys for the problems we all have )

The phase 'the Jews" means a variety of things... the Jewish leaders... the Jewish people.... Jesus was of course Jewish.. so it needs to be taken in context... as all literature It can be a range of things and meant positively or negatively depending on the context

The gospels were written by eye witnesses and so... I think they are reliable
They date quite early, and people around to refute them for decades if untrue
but the eyewitnesses made no claims that corrections were needed
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Not seeing a question... seeing a bunch of claims..
Really...

Jesus rebuked both conservatives and liberals... and his points should be taken seriously by both.
All people have failings but through history in the church much of the persecution against Bible believing Christians did come from religious people (in some ways the Pharisees in the gospels were the fall guys for the problems we all have )

The phase 'the Jews" means a variety of things... the Jewish leaders... the Jewish people.... Jesus was of course Jewish.. so it needs to be taken in context...
Basically...
as all literature It can be a range of things and meant positively or negatively depending on the context

The gospels were written by eye witnesses and so... I think they are reliable
They date quite early, and people around to refute them for decades if untrue
but the eyewitnesses made no claims that corrections were needed

...
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I would not consider Jesus to operating from a liberal Jewish perspective by today's understanding of liberal religious or political perspective. Jesus was a rebel in his own perspective. In some ways he demanded the compliance to the Law rejecting the pragmatic corrupt Jewish establishment that compromised with the Romans.
Seems to me, that we know what 'Jesus's religious beliefs, are', or, what He was teaching, within the religious paradigm of, from the text. However, there are variables in interpretation, or might be variables, so forth.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
This question is for Jewish Christians, or, Jews , or those with Jewish ancestry, reading the NT:

How do you:
•read the fact that Jesus was rebuking, /perhaps/, your ancestors.
• the idea that Jesus said, or may have said, things that somewhat disparaged the religio-historic paradigm of 'Jews', of the time.
• the idea that some of the text seems to disparage the religio-historic paradigm, of Jews, of the time, even though Jesus may not have said it.

I know that there are answers to all these questions, however, the question is how do you read, interpret, or justify, some of the material.
I don't take the NT as history. But what I see in the text is a reformatting of the fundamental tenets of Judaism as expressed in the Torah to highlight certain principles.

One example of this is Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 19:9-18 - English Standard Version

And that extends to the words and writings of the Jewish sages:
"Let the good in me connect with the good in others, until all the world is transformed through the compelling power of love.”
Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
This question is for ... Jews

How do you:
•read the fact that Jesus was rebuking, /perhaps/, your ancestors.
• the idea that Jesus said, or may have said, things that somewhat disparaged the religio-historic paradigm of 'Jews', of the time.
• the idea that some of the text seems to disparage the religio-historic paradigm, of Jews, of the time, even though Jesus may not have said it.

The answer to all of that is: Who cares? The dead Jew called Jesus is of absolutely no importance to Judaism and therefore observant Jews.
While there are heretics like in all Religions their opinions are of no value whatsoever.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I don't take the NT as history. But what I see in the text is a reformatting of the fundamental tenets of Judaism as expressed in the Torah to highlight certain principles.

One example of this is Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 19:9-18 - English Standard Version

And that extends to the words and writings of the Jewish sages:
"Let the good in me connect with the good in others, until all the world is transformed through the compelling power of love.”
Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
Mmhmm, interesting.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
All of that also happened after the death of Augustus.

Super relevant to Judaism.
Just because Jesus is a heretic to Rabbinical Judaism, doesn't mean that everyone previous to canonization etc, was. However, Jesus is, it's codified, and that's that.

Except he was.

What isn't subjective is basis of canonization, etc.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Just because Jesus is a heretic to Rabbinical Judaism, doesn't mean that everyone previous to canonization etc, was.

Of course, Jesus was assumed by many of the priesthood of Rabbinical Judaism of the time it does not make it so.

However, Jesus is, it's codified, and that's that.

That's that is an assumption of faith on your part. The contemporary traditional view of what is codified is not necessarily so. I consider it a Roman view of what was codified.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Of course, Jesus was assumed by many of the priesthood of Rabbinical Judaism of the time it does not make it so.
Ok, that is why I mentioned the Canonization, the Talmud...
That's that is an assumption of faith on your part. The contemporary traditional view of what is codified is not necessarily so. I consider it a Roman view of what was codified.
It was still codified. That's why I'm calling it Rabbinical Judaism.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Can you clarify this comment?

To codify scripture is the commitment of a religion is valid regardless at the time the scripture is codified. I do not think it is compelling argument for the the validity or theistic certainty as Revelation of the scripture as codified.
 
Last edited:

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
Just because Jesus is a heretic to Rabbinical Judaism, doesn't mean that everyone previous to canonization etc, was. However, Jesus is, it's codified, and that's that.

Actually there is no universal view of the man called Jesus among Jews.
Many Jews won't even know about him. He is just completely unimportant.

But now I know about your bias. :)


What isn't subjective is basis of canonization, etc.

See above.



Of course, Jesus was assumed by many of the priesthood of Rabbinical Judaism of the time it does not make it so.

The heck is "the priesthood of Rabbinical Judaism"?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Actually there is no universal view of the man called Jesus among Jews.
Many Jews won't even know about him. He is just completely unimportant.

But now I know about your bias. :)




See above.
Hence, subjective, and your use of the word, 'heretic', arbitrary. Or, such, not really clear what you mean.
[Subjectively a heretic
 
Last edited:
Top