Talk:Rejection of Jesus

Rejection?

I'm not sure that the Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum episode really deserves to be described as a "rejection". Matthew says that they "did not reform", but it's not clear that this means that they actively rejected Jesus (as in the rejection at Nazareth), or that they merely ignored him. In any case I've removed the reference to Luke (which only contains the curses and not the reason for them). Grover cleveland 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas

I removed the referances to the Gospel of Thomas from the Snoptic Gospels section, Christians dont hold the Gospel of Thomas as true scripture. It shouldnt be referaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 75.14.219.167 (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read that I believe this is neutral to not incude that information. Unless you can show somewhere that the majority Jewish view includes using the Gospel of Thomas to discredit Jesus, but if it is added back it in might be inportant to note then that that arguement is invalid for Christians since the vast majority dot use the G of Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the historical Rejection of Jesus. For the Jewish view of Jesus, see Jewish view of Jesus. For the New Testament view of Jesus, see New Testament view on Jesus' life. The Gospel of Thomas is a primary source on the Historical Jesus and is used by such Wikipedia reliable source groups as the Jesus Seminar. It would not be a neutral point of view to restrict this article to canonical books only. If you wanted a restricted article, you could create Rejection of Jesus in the New Testament. 64.149.82.253 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(Same person as above, different computer) But my contention isnt that you cant use that or the aprochiphal book to diprove Jesus (if the Jews use them as their reasoning) but it should be in a differnt section then under a section label Snopic Gospels. If you want to include with the Luke and other Gospel quotes the term Snopic Gospel should be used since the Gospel of THomas isnt a snoptic gospel. I dont have a problem using it, just the way it is being used. Either rename the section or have seperate section.

Jewish or Musism?

Is this article supposed to be a rejection of jesus from the jewish or the muslim persective? Becuase both religiions have different reasons for rejecting Jesus, might consider clarifying the title to something like "Rejection of Jesus (Jewish POV)" and then have a seperate article "Rejection of Jesus (Muslim POV)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"continues today"

I removed the line at the top because it should not be in the lead. The lead as it is now adequately introduces the topic. The way that line was phrased implies that

1) Jesus was "rejected"-- it is an equally valid POV that the Gospels are inaccurate or that J never existed at all, so that is not NPOV

2) That the "rejection" faced by him in Roman times (i.e. he was brutally and horrifically crucified) is in some way the same as the modern "rejection" by people who don't believe in God, or who believe he didn't represent God. I, for one, do not think that mistakenly believing/saying that he was the son of God merited crucifixion or any punishment at all. Not that anything could merit crucifixion. BillMasen (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it not agreed by most sources that he was executed by the Roman authorities as a rebel leader? Heavenlyblue (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with Other Wiki Pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_4 In the section on Luke in "Hometown Rejection," this page claims that the author of Luke was unfamiliar with the geography of Nazareth, whilst the corresponding section on the linked page (despite being identical in almost every other aspect) says "not unfamiliar," indicating (IMHO) a writer that rejects this writer's analysis.

I'm not sure if that's allowed or not on Wikipedia, but I like to bring these things to attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.210.163 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Subjective information and race hate image not central to theme

The page has an image titled "An illustration from a medieval manuscript. Top: Jews (identifiable by rouelle) reject Jesus. Bottom: Jews are being burned at stake." Please can this be removed as it is a race-hate image and does not contribute information to the core topic the image relates to a medieval viewpoint many centureis later and not to the rejection experienced at the time of Christ. There are also subjective comments by Jeremy Cohen and Emily Fackenheim that suggest a particular view that the Jewish rejection of Jesus is a reason to reject or hate Jews. This is not central to the main article and should really be moved into a new article focusing on anti-semitic viewpoints. Keep the article clean so it only discusses the rejection Jesus experienced in an objective sense at the time of Christ , rather than a very biased presentation of how this is used to justify a viewpoint of racism in more recent centuries. Cgullcharlie (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC) cgullcharlie 09:38, 09 Aug 2011 (UTC)

If you want to limit the scope of the article to the gospels, it should be retitled to "Rejection of Jesus in the Gospels". 75.0.1.161 (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"save in his own country"

Who do scholars believe that Jesus is referring to when he says that prophets are not honored in their own homes? Are there any Old Testament figures that this resembles? I know that there are many stories in the Old Testament of prophets facing opposition, but are there any particular prophets that he is supposed to be alluding to?24.189.108.166 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"many Jewish people"?

Is there a NPOV way to rewrite "many Jewish people" as "all Jews (with the exception of so-called "Messianic Jews" who are not regarded as Jews by anyone except themselves and their fundamentalist Protestant allies)"?.

In any event "Jewish people" is an oddly circumlocutory way of saying "Jews" and almost always raises the question of whether the writer thinks that "Jew" is somehow a deprecatory word that has to be euphemized. ("The Jewish people" when referring to Jews as an ethnic group is completely acceptable, but "Jewish person/people" just to mean "Jew/Jews" is not: at best awkward, at worst, insensitive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.3.165 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wholesale Undo

Please read what I have contributed and edit manually rather than just undoing everything that I worked on yesterday! If you have a specific point of disagreement, Rbreen, can you tell me what it is? WeAreHeWho (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the whole mass of edits consists of WP:Original Research, with personal interpretations being added without any citation from any published, let alone scholarly source. Feel free to re-insert any if you can find a scholarly citation to back them up. --Rbreen (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just undone the (same?) edits. The old version cited Biblical scholars and other secondary sources, while WeAreHe's version only cited the Bible directly. That brings up issues of original research; it's a better route to go with scholars' interpretations of the Bible than try to write our own. @WeAreHe: If you think the changes should be made, I suggest discussing them here first; going in smaller, incremental changes rather than making sweeping changes as once; and making sure to cite secondary sources other than the Bible itself. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know I had to ask your permissions to edit out irrelevant and extraneous info, but I didn't remove any of the citations from biblical scholars or secondary sources as you said. You say my version only cited the bible directly, what you must mean is that I didn't add any citations from biblical scholars or secondary sources; I was planning to but I don't have access to my library at the moment. (Scholars all agree that earlier records are more reliable than later ones, and anyone can tell if something contradicts another thing, through common sense.) If you think that page is good enough then perhaps I'll just leave it alone WeAreHeWho (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Rejection as Jewish Messiah by Judaism

These are not my personal views/point of views; these are the views by all denominations of Judaism, fully corroborated by the Judaism's view of Jesus, Jesus, Messiah in Judaism and Christianity and Judaism articles with reliable sources. I wrote that? Of course God is not a person according to Judaism - all stripes of Judaism. Jewish rabbis what? Jews what? Many Jews -and of course many non-Jews for that matter- throughout history have committed all kinds of terrible sins, that doesn't mean Judaism condones it; and this is strictly about Judaism's perspective/views of Christianity/Jesus. Many Jews and non-Jews have worshiped numerous idols in every form - golden calf, baal, people, Jesus, Haile Selassie, famous rabbis, their own rabbis, money, and an endless amount of others; that doesn't mean that Judaism condones that either. This is strictly about Judaism's perspective/views of Christianity/Jesus. Your problem is with the fact that all denominations of Judaism totally reject the divinity/messiahship/trinity claims of Christianity/Jesus. I can understand if you don't agree or want the actual Biblical verses listed because they can be interpreted in any way by anyone, but this is strictly about all denominations of Judaism's perspective/views of Jesus/Christianity. How do you think that every denomination of Judaism comes to the same conclusion (interpreted; interpretations) basing their total rejection of the divinity/messiahship/trinity claims of Christianty/Jesus? Read the Judaism's view of Jesus (with Biblical verses listed both in the article and as references) article with all the reliable sources cited for your answer. And I NEVER wrote nor edited even one word in the Judaism's view of Jesus article, none, not one. My edits are completely corroborated by the Judaism's view of Jesus, Christianity and Judaism, Rejection of Jesus and Messiah in Judaism articles, with an endless amount of reliable sources cited.

I will list some for you directly from the Judaism's view of Jesus article, as well as directly quoting the article. Of which I never wrote nor edited at all. What are your problems (or lack thereof) with this article and reliably sourced references? I quote: "Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. In Judaism, the idea of God as a duality or trinity is heretical — it is even considered by some polytheistic. According to Judaic beliefs, the Torah rules out a trinitarian God in Deuteronomy (6:4): "Hear Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one." Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'anit 2:1). thirteen principles of faith includes the concept that God has no body and that physical concepts do not apply to God. It is a central tenet of Judaism that God does not have any physical characteristics; that God's essence cannot be fathomed. The Jewish Messiah is expected to return the Jews to their homeland and rebuild the Temple, reign as King, and usher in an era of peace and understanding where "the knowledge of God" fills the earth, leading the nations to "end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel". Ezekiel states the messiah will redeem the Jews. No divergence allowed from the tenets of biblical Judaism. As traditional Judaism believes that God's word is true eternally, one who claims to speak in God's name but diverges in any way from what God himself has said, logically cannot be inspired by divine authority. Deuteronomy 13:1 states simply, "Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you; neither add to it nor take away from it." What are your problems (or lack thereof) with all these words written in the name of Judaism (with reliable sources) in this [Judaism's view of Jesus]] article?

Here is some more for you in the Messiah in Judaism article: Judaism has never accepted any of the claimed fulfillments of prophecy that Christianity attributes to Jesus. Judaism forbids the worship of a person as a form of idolatry, since the central belief of Judaism is the absolute unity and singularity of God. Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Messiah will be associated with a specific series of events that have not yet occurred, including the return of Jews to their homeland and the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace and understanding during which "the knowledge of God" fills the earth." And since Jews believe that none of these events occurred during the lifetime of Jesus (nor have they occurred afterwards), he was not the Messiah. What are your problems (or lack thereof) with all these words written in the name of Judaism (with reliable sources) in this Messiah in Judaism article? Also, why are you selectively leaving in Biblical verses (Deut. 6, Ezek 37, Isa 2, 43, etc) in the Jesus article referring to the Oneness of God and Jesus not fulfilling messianic prophecies, when these Biblical verses can be interpreted in any way by anyone? You are totally contradicting yourself.ShivatTzion (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

References