Talk:Jewish views on Jesus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

}}

Non-authoritative views

Outside of the above-described authoritative texts common to Modern Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Jews, Reform Judaism and Liberal Judaism, there are variant minority views of Jesus within these traditions, as well as outside main Jewish denominations. Among those minority views are Jacob Emden, Moses Mendelssohn and some other religious thinkers of the Haskalah movement and Elijah Benamozegh, who even attempted to explain the Christian Trinity as an oversimplified and corrupt variant of the Kabbalistic panentheistic doctrine of Divine emanations . While these Orthodox rabbis and philosophers have presented views which vary from mainstream views in Judaism, they still do not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah.

This is getting much better, I think all it needs is a little copy-editing. Again, an encyclopedia article should not be self-referential (Jayjg has tried to make this point clear to you several times). So instead of "The main body of the article describes the authoritative texts..." how about "Outside of the authoritative texts... there are variant minority views of Jesus... Among these minority views are..." etc.? The interested reader can then click through on the individuals or references. Zad68 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Changing it. Laplandian (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Laplandian Your refs are much better now:

• http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html Emden's letter about Jesus, from the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 19:1, Winter 1982, pp. 105-111. "The Nazarene brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier, and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles"
• Gregory A. Barker and Stephen E. Gregg, Jesus beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts, pp. 29-31, Oxford University Press, 2010, ISBN-10: 0199553459 PAGE NUMBER
• Matthew B. Hoffman, From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture, p. 259, Stanford University Press, 2007, ISBN-10: 0804753717 PAGE NUMBER
• Matthew B. Hoffman, From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture, p. 22; p. 258, Stanford University Press, 2007, ISBN-10: 0804753717 ;"Mendelssohn depicts Jesus as a model rabbinical Jew... as a loyal rabbi"
• Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, p. 329, Paulist Press 1995, ISBN-10: 0804753717; "Jesus was a good Jew who did not dream of founding a rival church"
• Alessandro Guetta, Philosophy and Kabbalah: Elijah Benamozegh and the Reconciliation of Western Thought and Jewish Esotericism, State University of New York, ISBN-10: 0809135418 PAGE NUMBER

Is there on Wikipedia talk pages a way of doing a partial reflist tag so only the relevant refs in a section display? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think the title "Alternative views" is more neutral and appropriate. The paragraph states clear that those views differ from mainstream views and represent minority opinions. The term "alternative" is perfectly clear in this context and doesn't have a negative connotation, in contrast with "non-authoritative". Please read the paragraph below and tell if it's ready to be included. Laplandian (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Judging by Jacob Neusner and also Creating Judaism: history, tradition, practice Michael L. Satlow p12 the term "authoritative" is a bit problematic, however I'd be inclined to leave it, it does make clear that this article is a presentation of mainly orthodox Judaism, not simply Jewish views. Yes I think that paragraph below can go in. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In my personal experience the term "authoritative" is more than problematic. Practicing Jews have totally different views what's authoritative, judging by folk customs, stories and personal opinions, often disregarding all institutionalized authorities. But my personal course in Judaism, as a Baal teshuva, was a bit unusual: from Messianic Chabad to Breslov to Malochim (an alternative Chabad group, partially overlapped with Neturei Karta) to freethinking Neo-Hasidism. But what I have seen confirms Neusner's, Marc Shapiro's and Shaul Magid's views of Judaism as a radically decentralized network of traditions. However, Jews from larger and more mainstream movements in Judaism use this term and don't see a problem with it. Laplandian (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative views

Outside of the above-described authoritative texts common to Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform or Liberal Judaism, there are variant minority views of Jesus within and beyond these traditions. Among those minority views are Jacob Emden, Moses Mendelssohn as well as some other religious thinkers of the Haskalah movement, and Elijah Benamozegh, who even suggested to explain the Christian dogmas of Trinity and Incarnation as an oversimplified and corrupt variant of the Kabbalistic panentheistic doctrine of Divine emanations.

A few Orthodox rabbis today, including Irving Greenberg, hold similar views. While these authors present positions which vary from mainstream views in Judaism, they still do not recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah.

It's not bad, though I still don't understand why we cite Falk, Riskin or Boteach by name. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a thought. Falk can go. I have no clue who he is, though his theory about Jews being a follower of Hillel is pretty cool. Boteach can go too. I admire him for other things, but I had no clue about his views on Jesus before I read about it on this very page. Riskin can go as well. I know the guy because I work in NYC, but he is probably not so much known outside New York, is he? One person who must be mentioned here by name is Iitz Greenberg. He is a notable contemporary MO theologian, whose original thinking on this subject may be compared with Emden and Benamozegh. Look now. I'm adding a reference about Greenberg.Laplandian (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about Boteach, but agree with you regarding Greenberg. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Boteach should be added when his new book "Kosher Jesus" comes out and will receive attention. The choice of Boteach's favorite topics kinda reminds me of Emden: anti-mashichism, kosher sex and kosher Jesus. :-) Laplandian (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually meant I have mixed feelings about whether or not to mention Riskin. Boteach has a much higher profile in the non-Jewish world, but I think Riskin is taken much more seriously in the Jewish world. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that in the Jewish world much more people know about Boteach. Whether people take him seriously is another question. Lots of people, especially Hasidim, secretly rely on his books in order to get rid of certain restriction in private life, but I doubt many Jews know about his opinions on other religions. Laplandian (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I'm a little concerned about the speed up of the Talk page to 2 days -- seems to me Laplandian is reading and responding and having the more valuable material disappear into the archive so quickly is not needed. I reversed back to 7, and then undid myself back to your 2, but I'm still a little concerned. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Laplandian simply deleted the material, which is a violation of WP:TALK. I restored the deleted Talk: page conversation, and set the bot timing to archive it quickly instead. It is now archived, so I've reset to 7 days. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Zad68 suggested that I delete the off-topic parts of the discussion. It did grow horrifically long. I said sorry in advance and didn't realize it's a violation, because I assumed that people here will be comfortable with it. I tried to be careful and not delete anything that's not off topic. Sorry for that. Laplandian (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, all fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since no one seems to disagree, I insert the paragraph.Laplandian (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2.1 the indivisibility of G-d - "According to Judaic beliefs"?

"According to Judaic beliefs"?

According to the Jewish Study Bible and the Jewish Publication Society, Deut 6.4 (the shema) is "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our G-d, the LORD alone."

Why is a mistranslation of something as critical as the Shema allowed to persist, and then is used to make extraordinary claims with minimal support? (unless one considers "According to Judaic beliefs" a valid source?) Further, two of the three links that would back up such an extraordinary claim are broken. At least the one working link quotes Maimonides.

Truly fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almostchosen (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Because that 'alone' does not define Judaic belief about monotheism tout court. It defines one strand in the Tanakh about the God of Israel.Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a clear distinction. Christians and Messianic Jews use pre-Mamodian Hebrew sources that use "echad', and interpret that as a 'complex unity' that displays three facets of God's being (creator, counselor, redeemer) [1]--DeknMike (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's neither a reliable source nor about Judaism's view of Jesus, so it doesn't belong here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think the new article Jesus and the Torah should be merged into this one. The subjects of these two articles overlap significantly, and there are also content problems with Jesus and the Torah - namely, it reads like an essay, and much of it seems to be original research. I think merging the salvageable content to this article would be the best way forward. What do others think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have redirected the article here. If you, or anyone else want to merge relevant content they are welcome to view the content in the history. Sadly the user who wrote the content seems to have left Wikipedia, unable to find his place(diff). Jon513 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

this article is empty God-talk

What about Judaism's view of Jesus's *teachings*?69.120.193.55 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)captcrisis

Please state criticism unambiguously. What is "empty God-talk"? Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

People coming to this article are probably not that interested in whether Jews think Jesus was the Son of God, or the Messiah, or part of any Trinity. Those facts are self-evident. (The answers are "no", "no" and "no.) The interesting question is: what do Jews think about Jesus's *teachings*. For example, the several places where he expressly deviated from traditional Mosaic laws. ("We are polluted not by what goes into our mouths, but by what comes out of them.")69.120.193.55 (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)captcrisis

Prophecy

The prophecy section borders on מגלה פנים לתורה שלא כהלכה. The cited Aggadata contradicts the Mishneh Torah's ruling. 66.87.71.77 (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your comment in English.--DeknMike (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Background Section

The sourcing for last sentence in this section needs work. There is no citation for the claim, and the Wikilink is to a later section in the same article. I for one would rather have a 'see below' than a disguised link that is also thin on objective sourcing.--DeknMike (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Authoritative Texts?

This section needs major work. The few sources are either placed in a way to suggest more weight than is warranted by the source, or are irrelevant to the topic. For example, the discussion on [Yeshu] does not make the case that the references are actually about Yeshua (Jesus), and if that connection is severed, there remains no other reason to discuss yimach shemo, which is most often used to refer to Haman. The quotes from Maimonides are interesting, but show a disdain for the acts by Christians in the 12th century CE more than a perspective on Jesus himself.--DeknMike (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One source I've been reading is 'Christianity in Talmud and Midrash' by Robert Travers Herford [2]. He notes in the Intro (p14) points to the concept that Rabbinical Judaism adjusts itself to the times through the writings of the rabbis, but Protestant Christianity rejects tradition as authority and focuses more on the meaning of the original texts. Since most Messianic strains/denominations were influenced in their beginnings by evangelical protestants, this is then one distinction between Messianic theology and mainstream Judaism. Herford notes much of what is known about Jesus was written in the second, third and fourth centuries CE, and considers Jesus to be a minor figure, a person they call Yeshu the Nazarine (p57, etc). It is a helpful book (written 1903) in its research into rabbinical literature during the early days of the church.--DeknMike (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What's with the double standard for knowledge on Wikipedia?

We see various recommendations on factual pages that they would be a better fit for a separate Wiki (not pedia). We see factual pages littered with Citation Needed and there never seems to be enough book or other references to reach the level of quality standard Wikipedia seems to require.

Here, I see lots of claims and generalisms about what jews believe, but there seems to be a complete lack of citations to support those claims.

If you think I'm someone looking to pick a fight with religion, look elsewhere. I just googled this to find out what jews believe and noticed how very different it looked from all the other pages. I just want answers to two questions:

1) Why is this on Wikipedia rather than on a Wiki that you recommend for similar articles?

2) Why is this exempt from the scrutiny regarding Citation Needed and the other quality requirements for Wikipedia, unlike a simple article on a person now living or a video game, for example?

Henrik Erlandsson 02:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem of content (neutrality)

There is a serious bias in the article, which comes from a certain confusion concerning the content implied by the title. In fact, the article responds to the question 'Jewish authoritative figures’ view of Jesus' or "Jews' view of Jesus". At least, it could fit with a title such as 'Modern Judaism's view of Jesus'. But 'Judaism's view of Jesus' is a more complex question, since it should involve a deeper analysis of Judaism's sects or at least should state which figures of authority set the Jewish doctrine. More importantly, it should mention the differences in Judaism depending on the considered time period (in particular before or after the fall of the Second Temple with the changes provided by the redaction and codification of the Oral Law). Crucially, it shows the doctrinal diversity concerning the figure of Jesus inside Judaism at the beginning of Christianity (followers of Jesus were part of Judaism for a long time, the first Christians were Jews). Such facts are not alluded to in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judicobus (talk • contribs) 21:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I am adding additional tags. Some of the sourcing is primary, or goes right to Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. Basileias (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

On the specific point raised by Judicobus, I think it indeed makes sense that there should be a background section on historical Jewish Christian communities, although the bulk of this article should remain focused on Rabbinic Judaism. Although I don't think modern Messianic Judaism concepts are relevant here, for example the form of Yeshua (name). I also agree that too much of the sourcing is primary or even Biblical.--Pharos (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

For the focus on Rabbinic Judaism, agreed. Basileias (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved with strong oppose and no additional support. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Judaism's view of Jesus → Judaist view of Jesus – Move to get rid of awkward mass noun possessive.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  01:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose ~ Using the term Judaist, which is uncommon, could result in the article never being found in search. Basileias (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Basileias — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• Jewish views on Jesus, since it's obviously not monolithic? ah I see there is a difference --JFH (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Jewish" definitely beats "Judaist." H. Humbert (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment ~ Changing Judaism to Jewish will not work as it would necessitate changing the content of the entire article. Basileias (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Jewish won't work as it implies jewish people rather than Judaist views from a formal religious context. If people are in agreement that the awkward possessive is not a problem and that "Judaist" is too obscure we can close this as not moved.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  09:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest closing, however we could open up a discussion on the talk page for potential title changes to address your concern. I am very open to that. Basileias (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the term "Juadist" is not widely understood, awkward, and could be misunderstood as referring to Judas. I think the collective possessive is fine but an alternative might be Jewish theological view of Jesus or Rabbinical views of Jesus. Alexander's Hood (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The reason given for the move is "Move to get rid of awkward mass noun possessive." There's nothing awkward about it, and it seems to be the responsibility of the requestor to establish that before using it as a reason for a move. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Suggested name is not how this would be addressed in the English language. -- Avi (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose obscurist language. I also have no issues with the current name. --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 22 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by a page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Judaism's view of Jesus → Jesus in Judaism – wp:PRECISE, wp:CONCISE, and wp:CONSISTENCY with Jesus in Christianity and Jesus in Islam. Also, Judaism isn't a person; the 's possessive should be avoided for impersonal possessives. Judaism not being a person means it doesn't have views of its own; it has views associated with it (e.g. Jewish views would be a step in the right direction).
Judaism's view of Jesus → Jewish views on Jesus – wp:CONSISTENCY (see here) and clears up the issue of Jesus not being a religious figure in Judaism. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC), amended 03:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: its not a comparable situation, Jesus is a figure in Christianity and Islam. Jesus is not part of the Jewish faith therefore he is not in its teachings. The proposed title fails WP:PRECISE, while the current title meets it perfectly. Ebonelm (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that since Judaism considers Jesus to be a false prophet, that puts him in Jewish teachings just as much as false prophets are in Christian teachings. Which they are—1 Tim, 2 Tim, 2 Peter, Acts, 1 John, and Rev all warn against them, and there are too many references to the same effect in the Hebrew Bible / OT to count right now. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I continue to oppose this nomination even in its new form. This is about Judaism's view on Jesus not the view of the Jewish people. See: Who is a Jew?. Ebonelm (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a view about Jesus according to Judaism, but he is not acknowledged as a Jewish figure by Judaism itself. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't agree that the current title is necessarily grammatically incorrect. I googled "inanimate object" possessive grammar and there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule saying you can't use the apostrophe -s possessive for non-living things. Some sources even prefer it in the spirit of conciseness (e.g., "The book's cover was red" vs "The cover of the book was red"). I wonder if OP's preference is due to the difference between British vs American English? Jesus in Judaism could have multiple meanings that don't really apply as much to Jesus in Christianity/Islam. Another option if the current title really irks some editors so much could be, "Views of Jesus in Judaism"? —PermStrump(talk) 02:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a US–UK difference (it very well might be), but it's always been drilled into my head that the 's form is generally reserved for people or collections of people, and "of" is generally used for impersonal contexts. I would say a good alternate new title would be "Jewish views on Jesus". Actually, this would probably be the most WP:CONSISTENT; see here. Will amend nomination. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW People who participated in move proposal 6 months ago apparently didn't like "Jewish views on Jesus". Who would have thought it would be so difficult to come up with a less awkward name for this article? —PermStrump(talk) 05:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Warning to Jujutsuan: do not alter my comments. I have reverted the parts of your most recent edit which altered my and JudeccaXIII. You should have closed this nomination and opended a new one. Ebonelm (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, please wp:LIGHTENUP. It takes time to learn every last detail of proper procedure around here. No need to use scare-boldface "warnings". Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. It was never, ever expressed to me by my English teachers that apostrophe-s is reserved for people or collections of people. I've never even heard of such a thing before. So if that's your concern, don't worry about it. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII, Jujutsuan has altered my comments in the past, which is against policy. Jujutsuan, if I see it again, you are getting reported. ✉cookiemonster✉ ^𝚨755𝛀 02:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@CookieMonster755 and JudeccaXIII: My "alterations" were a very tame instance WP:REFACTORing. The meaning of the comment was entirely preserved, and unambiguously clarified. Not everything around here is report-worthy. I recommend WP:RELAX. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the nomination as proposed (both versions), but I would support moving from "on Jesus" to "of Jesus", since it's clearer and more natural. I have never heard of the supposed rule about possessive nouns mentioned here, and don't believe it is a concern. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose A Jewish view is not necessarily the same as a Judaism view. That really is two articles. Basileias (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Content dispute regarding addition of material from User:GoodJBoy

In this edit, GoodJBoy has re-introduced the following material

 === God is not corporeal ===
 A central tenet of Judaism is that God does not have any physical characteristics. God’s actual essence cannot be fathomed.  Judaism therefore rejects the concept of a man being a god.

References

Originally, the statement was sourced to Chovot HaLevavot, an eleventh century Jewish theological treatise by Bahya ibn Paquda. When it was pointed out that this book does not hold the status of "central Jewish tenet", the material was reintroduced without this source, but now sourced to Maimonedes' The Guide to the Perplexed, another book that, rather than holding the status of "central tenet", has been described by some Jewish communites as heretical. The torah.org source does, in fact, state that "God's actual essence is unfathomable.", but this is not the same as the basic statement of the section, that God is not corporeal. This may well be a central tenet of Judaism, but the sources that GoodJBoy has provided to not verify this fact. The final statement, "Judaism therefore rejects..." can only be regarded as synthesis of the available sources, as none of the sources actually state this fact. I have tried twice to remove this addition, as it is poorly sourced, but GoodJBoy has twice restored it. I ask him and any other interested editors to join this discussion as to whether this material should be included. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judaism's view of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061123100943/http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/virtualtalmud/2006/08/jews-for-jesus-whos-who-whats-what.html to http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/virtualtalmud/2006/08/jews-for-jesus-whos-who-whats-what.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929141607/http://faithstrengthened.org/FS_TOC.html to http://faithstrengthened.org/FS_TOC.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't patience a potential value?

Wouldn't it be possible for everything to be fulfilled during the Second Coming'''? I don't exactly know, but I just wait for it. Anyways, I would be happy to hear your opinions.2601:845:8100:A016:AD90:A857:D9C0:5642 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judaism's view of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221220040/http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2819&pge_prg_id=26382&pge_id=3453 to http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2819&pge_prg_id=26382&pge_id=3453

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Move to "Views of Jesus within Judaism"

I propose the rename above instead of the current name "Judaism's view of Jesus". Two reasons

1. There is not one view
2. Judaism is not a person, and has no views

I saw that page was renamed back in 2010 to "Jesus in Judaism" and it was moved back. That was not a great name. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The article misrepresents Judaism by characterizing it as unified religion. Contemporary Judaism is in fact extremely pluralistic, yet paradoxically sectarian. Movements (or branches) within the umbrella of the Jewish identity continue to grow, adding deeper levels of rabbinical interpretation to scripture and the subject of the Messiah. The movement Jews for Jesus is proof of this, and a Jew who recognizes Yeshua ben Miriam as the Messiah does not cease being Jewish as a result. As Chabad Chasidism notes, the defining nature of a Jew is his/her responsibility to perform mitzva (the Law of Moses aka 613 Commandments), a co-participant who holds an ancestral Covenant with G-d.

The language uses Weasel Words that create a reductive article with factual omissions. Eliezer40 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Along the same lines, I think Judaism's views on Muhammad should be moved to Views of Muhammad within Judaism (note the current title's of and my proposed title's on, per WP:CONSISTENT). Should I submit a formal move request, or is this section sufficient? Michipedian (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Jesus and Salvation

This section where it says people were not born in sin makes no sense. Does this form of Judaism deny Scripture when it says in Psalms 51:5: (David saying) “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me? Furthermore, didn’t mankind start to sin after Adam’s sin, thus being “born in sin”? Silly biased scholars... Savvyjack23 (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ll be more than happy to vouch for the editors of this article and answer these questions from a skeptical/agnostic POV. What you’re probably committing is tahrif (al-Maidah [5:]13) or plainly quoting a psalm of forgiveness out of its proper context. Jews reject original/inherited sin which is alien to their doctrine.

Suggest that you study Judaism more, and you will eventually see the connection between the three major faiths. Anything else, Mr. @Savvyjack23? GBWY, ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 15:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Reliable source?

In the "Jesus as the Jewish Messiah" section, the fourth paragraph relies on a Google Drive document as a source, using an external link which is presented as a citation ("[1]"). Can another source be provided for this text? Is an image embedded in a Google Drive document reliable? azwaldo (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph, as it is not supported. Regarding the interpretation of Sanhedrin 67A, another text describes "that identification as erroneous". azwaldo (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The deity of Jesus

For more than a decade, the opening summary has described the question of Jesus' divinity as not being significant ("...has never been a central issue for Judaism", 2009: Old revision of Judaism's view of Jesus). To now say that this is either heretical or "a serious issue" suggests a strong objection in the matter, and alters the nature of the opening summary. azwaldo (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)