Was Jesus really a Jewish rabbi?

[Wandering Monk]

But in other instances went against the sages.
He seemed to be inconsistent...

Did he actually go against the halakah of the period? As I understand it, some of that law had not been laid down yet. Other places, I am not sure that he defied them, but gave a different interpretation/application.

 

[Harel13]

As I understand it, some of that law had not been laid down yet.

There may not have been a consensus for everything, but as a non-affiliated scholar, he wouldn't have had the authority to pass rulings either way...

Other places, I am not sure that he defied them, but gave a different interpretation/application.

That sounds like defiance to me...

 

[Wandering Monk]

There may not have been a consensus for everything, but as a non-affiliated scholar, he wouldn't have had the authority to pass rulings either way...

That sounds like defiance to me...

Except the sages had their own interpretations as well. Was that defiance? Controversies for the sake of heaven etc.

 

[Heyo]

But in other instances went against the sages.
He seemed to be inconsistent...

It's almost as if the gospels describe different people ...

(I think of the Jesus character as a legend with possible multiple people he is based on. Maybe one was a rabbi (possibly an Essen) and others weren't.)

 

[Skywalker]

You are free to believe that, but I wonder why you differentiate between "1st century Judaism" and "rabbinic Judaism"?

Some first century Jewish people believed in Jesus. The teaching that Jesus isn't the Messiah is a belief of other rabbis. There are different beliefs within Judaism. Some Jews believe that there will be two Messiahs, others believe that the Messiah will fulfill all of the prophecies in one coming. Rabbinic Judaism - Wikipedia

Rabbinic Judaism (Hebrew: יהדות רבנית‎, romanized: Yahadut Rabanit), also called Rabbinism, Rabbinicism, or Judaism espoused by the Rabbanites, has been the mainstream form of Judaism since the 6th century CE, after the codification of the Babylonian Talmud. Rabbinic Judaism has its roots in Pharisaic Judaism and is based on the belief that Moses at Mount Sinai received two items from God; the "Written Torah" (Torah she-be-Khetav) and the "Oral Torah" (Torah she-be-al Peh). The Written Torah is the Torah itself (the Pentateuch) and the Oral Torah explanations of the Written Torah transmitted word-to-mouth. Often, these are known as the Written and Oral Law. At first, it was forbidden to write down the Oral Torah because the rabbis feared that it would become rigid and lose its flexibility, but after the destruction of the Second Temple they decided to write it down in the Talmud and other rabbinic texts.[1][2]

Rabbinic Judaism contrasts with the Sadducees, Karaite Judaism and Samaritanism, which do not recognize the Oral Torah as a divine authority nor the rabbinic procedures used to interpret Jewish scripture. Although there are now profound differences among Jewish denominations of Rabbinic Judaism with respect to the binding force of halakha (Jewish religious law) and the willingness to challenge preceding interpretations, all identify themselves as coming from the tradition of the Oral Law and the rabbinic method of analysis.

 

[Harel13]

Except the sages had their own interpretations as well. Was that defiance?

The sages had authority. Jesus didn't. If Jesus had stuck to theory, that would have been okay. For example, the in the Talmud one can find, among other things, both halachic debates and rulings and commentaries on the Tanach. For a later rabbi to make a ruling that completely goes against the Talmudic decision is not simple at all. But any person can suggest their own interpretation of non-practical portions of the Tanach. Jesus did not stick to the theoretical but also made practical rulings that went against all authorities of his era, which is why that was not okay.

 

[Harel13]

It's almost as if the gospels describe different people ...

(I think of the Jesus character as a legend with possible multiple people he is based on. Maybe one was a rabbi (possibly an Essen) and others weren't.)

Yes, it seems like that sometimes.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The sages had authority. Jesus didn't. If Jesus had stuck to theory, that would have been okay. For example, the in the Talmud one can find, among other things, both halachic debates and rulings and commentaries on the Tanach. For a later rabbi to make a ruling that completely goes against the Talmudic decision is not simple at all. But any person can suggest their own interpretation of non-practical portions of the Tanach. Jesus did not stick to the theoretical but also made practical rulings that went against all authorities of his era, which is why that was not okay.

I guess I would need some examples. What was the halakah in his day? I think there is still debate about the extent of halakah in that period.

 

[Harel13]

Some first century Jewish people believed in Jesus. The teaching that Jesus isn't the Messiah is a belief of other rabbis. There are different beliefs within Judaism. Some Jews believe that there will be two Messiahs, others believe that the Messiah will fulfill all of the prophecies in one coming. Rabbinic Judaism - Wikipedia

Sure, but I wasn't asking about that. If the rabbis, as you say, taught that Jesus wasn't the messiah, then what is this "but he was a rabbi as defined as defined by first century Jewish beliefs" that you speak about? What is a "rabbi" "as defined by first century Jewish beliefs"? Even before the 1st century we find rabbis.

 

[Harel13]

What was the halakah in his day?

That's a bit of a vague question...
What I mean is that the halacha always covered every subject in Jewish daily life and for special occasions. So the answer to "what was the halakah" would be "depends on what issue"...choose an issue, I guess.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That's a bit of a vague question...
What I mean is that the halacha always covered every subject in Jewish daily life and for special occasions. So the answer to "what was the halakah" would be "depends on what issue"...choose an issue, I guess.

I have asked for examples in which Jesus is purported to have taught against the halakah that existed in his day. So far, no response.

 

[Harel13]

I have asked for examples in which Jesus is purported to have taught against the halakah that existed in his day. So far, no response.

Oh, then I misunderstood you. Sorry.

Here's a famous example: He taught his disciples that they can pick seeds on Shabbat and eat them. The halacha at the time, to my knowledge, and still is this way, is that this was not allowed.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Oh, then I misunderstood you. Sorry.

Here's a famous example: He taught his disciples that they can pick seeds on Shabbat and eat them. The halacha at the time, to my knowledge, and still is this way, is that this was not allowed.

Is this understanding of picking grain reflected in any undisputed Tanaatic ruling prior to 30 CE?
What about rulings from the Great Assembly? I have not been able to find anything definitive.

Maybe picking was considered melacah, but even in this case, if the circumstances are severe enough wouldn't pekuah nefesh be a consideration? This may be why he cites the example of eating the shewbread by David and his men.

 

[Skywalker]

The sages had authority. Jesus didn't. If Jesus had stuck to theory, that would have been okay. For example, the in the Talmud one can find, among other things, both halachic debates and rulings and commentaries on the Tanach. For a later rabbi to make a ruling that completely goes against the Talmudic decision is not simple at all. But any person can suggest their own interpretation of non-practical portions of the Tanach. Jesus did not stick to the theoretical but also made practical rulings that went against all authorities of his era, which is why that was not okay.

What made the Talmud more credible than the interpretations of Jesus? The sages had authority within a certain sect of Judaism, it doesn't mean they had more authority than Jesus. The Talmud wasn't around during the time of Jesus, so Jesus could have made rulings that go against the teachings of the Talmud. Babylonian Talmud

The Talmud developed in two major centres of Jewish scholarship: Babylonia and Palestine. The Jerusalem or Palestinian Talmud was completed c. 350, and the Babylonian Talmud (the more complete and authoritative) was written down c. 500, but was further edited for another two centuries.

 

[Harel13]

Is this understanding of picking grain reflected in any undisputed Tanaatic ruling prior to 30 CE?
What about rulings from the Great Assembly? I have not been able to find anything definitive.

Maybe picking was considered melacah, but even in this case, if the circumstances are severe enough wouldn't pekuah nefesh be a consideration? This may be why he cites the example of eating the shewbread by David and his men.

Come now...were the disciples really about to die? Not at all. They were just hungry. Were the issue to be that they were dying of starvation, it would have been allowed in that situation. But it wasn't, and because of this, Jesus made the statement that "“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." and not "this was Pikuach Nefesh guys!".

As for the rest of your question, what they did falls under "reaping" in the list of prohibitions of Shabbat. The list is brought in a mishnah, but dating the mishnah would be tough. And even if one discovers who said the mishnah, it doesn't mean that he invented it. There's not much more info I can give on the subject. Maybe some others... @rosends? @Tumah? @Ehav4Ever? (the question is whether one can verify that reaping on Shabbat was not allowed already in the time of Jesus).

 

[Wandering Monk]

What made the Talmud more credible than the interpretations of Jesus? The sages had authority within a certain sect of Judaism, it doesn't mean they had more authority than Jesus. The Talmud wasn't around during the time of Jesus, so Jesus could have made rulings that go against the teachings of the Talmud. Babylonian Talmud

You really don't seem to understand the Talmud. The Talmud contains discussions about the Mishnah, an earlier collection of legal rulings that purport to go back to Ezra and extend to about the early third century CE. and the Great Assembly.

 

[Skywalker]

You really don't seem to understand the Talmud. The Talmud contains discussion of the Mishnah, an earlier collection of legal rulings that purport to go back to Ezra and extend to about the early third century CE. and the Great Assembly.

The early century CE was after Jesus. Jesus not being a rabbi by the Talmudic definition of rabbi didn't make him any less of a rabbi.

 

[Harel13]

What made the Talmud more credible than the interpretations of Jesus? The sages had authority within a certain sect of Judaism, it doesn't mean they had more authority than Jesus. The Talmud wasn't around during the time of Jesus, so Jesus could have made rulings that go against the teachings of the Talmud. Babylonian Talmud

It's true that by Jesus's time there were multiple sects within Judaism. But just a couple of centuries later, authority was re-centralized under what used to be the Pharisee sect. If for nothing else, it's for this reason that it would be absolutely senseless for a Christian to come up to a Jew and say: "Jesus was a Jewish rabbi". Why? Because it is highly unlikely that he received any sort of ordination from the Pharisees, who are the spiritual ancestors of the vast majority of modern-day Judaism (probably excluding the Karaites). And that is the point I am trying to make in this thread.

As to why within the Pharisee sect, the Talmudic-era teachings were more authoritative than Jesus? That's essentially the same as asking "Why is SCOTUS more authoritative than the Average Joe Schmoe on the street?" Answer: Because of traditions of authority. In the US's case, when the country was founded, it was decided by the elected officials at the time that SCOTUS would have more authority than old Joe. Likewise, within the Jewish people, there was a tradition that authority was granted to the sages via an unbroken chain of authority all the way back to Moses who received his authority from God at Mt. Sinai. And Jesus, on the other hand, didn't qualify for the receiving of this authority from the elder sages in his time.

 

[Harel13]

The early century CE was after Jesus. Jesus not being a rabbi by the Talmudic definition of rabbi didn't make him any less of a rabbi.

You have yet to explain what "rabbi" means according to the non-Talmudic definition, which, I shall remind you, is a recording of the definition that was even before Jesus's time.

 

[Skywalker]

You have yet to explain what "rabbi" means according to the non-Talmudic definition, which, I shall remind you, is a recording of the definition that was even before Jesus's time.

A rabbi was a Jewish pastor. Priest isn't the best term to describe a rabbi because it has connotations of a mediator.