Wikipedia:Peer review/Judaism's view of Jesus/archive1

Judaism's view of Jesus

This article has gone through many changes resulting in a great amount of sourcing and better organization. Any comments would be appreciated. I am not sure if it is ready for FA, but I hope it is on the way. Jon513 18:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block quotes are a little intimidating. I suggest you summarize some of the information. Also, it would be nice if some sort of pictures could be added. — The Man in Question 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of pictures? certainly chirstain art of jesus is not fitting, and there is no jewish art of him. I'll see what I can do. Jon513 13:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of quotes, quotes should not be in italics, see the MoS--Peta 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have a picture for you, Jon513. It's Image:Jesusinjosephus.jpg, a woodcut by John C. Winston used in an old copy of Josephus that I've just uploaded for you. — The Man in Question 20:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where you are going with the image. Granted it is better than a Christian art depicting Jesus, but not by much. I think a picture relating to Christian Jewish dialogue. Perhaps an artist painting on the debate in Barcelona. Jon513 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., you should read the article on Josephus on Jesus, and add a little about that into yours.

The article was changed some time ago from Jewish views of Jesus to Judaism's view of Jesus. This was done to make clear that not everything that any Jew believes belongs in the article. Josephus doesn't and never did represent Judaism. He is viewed as a traitor. I have heard my own rabbis say that the statements in his works referring to Jesus are forgeries, but that is really beside the point. Even if he did write them he would just be like the other Jews who followed Jesus (early Christian), and they certainly don’t represent Judaism. Jon513 13:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. I noticed that the section Jewish prophecy and Jesus has two major problems: 1) it says that if Jesus violates any of the rules, he could not be a Jewish prophet. The section needs to address any instances where Jesus does violate the rules (aside from calling himself the son of God), or else the section should be dropped. 2) Jesus is not considered a prophet by Christians; he is viewed as a prophet by Muslims. This should probably be clarified in the section.[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]] 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that responded to your post inline. I add you signuture to each paragraph. As for Judaism's view of Jesus#Jewish prophecy and Jesus, you are right on both point. For the first, such reference were always removed with a "Jesus didn't come to change to law but to fulfill it" line and I don't have the strength to keep adding it. You can see Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law for a full treatment of this topic. As for point two, I am not sure how much of the article has to compare and contrast ideas. There is a link at the top for other views of Jesus. However in this case it should be make clear why it needs to be said that Jesus was not a prophet (i.e. who believed he was). Jon513 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next problem is the embodied in the article's title, "Judaism's view of Jesus". All other such articles (Christian views of, Islam's views of) acknowledge that there is more than one view on the subject. This article, however, seems merely intent on proving that Jesus was wrong according to Judaism. Obviously, this is the common belief of Jews (otherwise they'd all be Christians), but even so, some Jews undoubtedly agree with many of his teachings, while other Jews probably deny his very existence. There's a lot more that could be addressed. [User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]] 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a major difference with Christian and Islamic views and Judaism’s. For Christians and Muslims they are required to believe something about Jesus. For Jews there is no such requirement. Judaism requires one not to believe in something. For the most part Judaism doesn't care about Jesus. He is an unimportant person that died long ago. So long as you don't think that he is a God or a prophet, or died for your sins there really aren't any requirement what you must believe. Granted there are differing views on Jesus but it not differing in the same way as the Christian and Islamic views differ. In Christianity and Islam there are different views of what one has to believe. For Jews there are arguments of what one personally believes. Hence it is an issue of Jewish views of Jesus not Judaism's view. Jew believes every possibility under the sun about Jesus. Judaism has a few red lines and allows the individual to decide the rest. Jon513 13:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere the article should discuss Jesus as a rabbi; does he meet the criteria? (The two biggest discrepencies — he wasn't married [unless you're Dan Brown] and he had no teacher; of course, one might say that he was married to the church and his teacher was God…).[User:The Man in Question|The Man in Question]] 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

see Semicha to understand rabbi ordiantion (having a teacher - God doesn't count - is nessisay, being married is an impartant part of Jewish Law but one can become a rabbi single). Why it important if he was a rabbi? He isn't quoted in any rabbinical literature, and he certainly doesn't represent Jewish views. Does it make a difference wheather he was a respected rabbi and then was ousted for teaching views incosistent with Judaism, or was never a rabbi. Do you know of sources one way or the other? Jon513 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good friend of mine knows a rabbi (I know that sounds contrived, but I mean it) who read the New Testament. He said that Jesus teaches exactly the way a rabbi should, using remez (saying part of a verse, expecting one's disciples to complete it), etc. He also said that many of the parables Jesus tells are Jewish parables, but that Jesus changed the ends to make his point. I find this vary interesting. ~~If you wanted to make this a really good article, you could interview various rabbis and other Jewish scholars to find out their point of view.~~ — The Man in Question 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to interview various rabbis, however WP:NOR wouldn’t allow me to include it. How much of the New Testament is consistent with Jewish views and how much is not, is up for debate but that debate is just as much about what Judaism teaches as what Jesus taught. Also in orthodox circle it is well accepted not to read it even if there are ideas consistent with Judaism in it (so it is hard to get an orthodox answer on this question). This also wouldn’t relate to what the rabbi of the time felt about his writings. Once he was rejected there was no need to point out locations that he was correct. Everything true that he said is already taught somewhere else! However everyone is clear that the New Testament is not part of the canon. Jon513 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thank you for enlightening me. With all due respect, The Man in Question 03:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above you say that "he had no teacher...[but] one might say ... his teacher was God". Does no significant Jewish view argue that John the Baptist was his teacher? It seems plausible that in the missing years (9-30) he had some teacher, even if it was only the local rabbi that his parents brought round being good Jewish parents(TM). So, although I can see some Christian counter arguments to such possibilities, I seems odd that no Jewish source argues them. Clinkophonist 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not strange at all that no Jewish sources mention anything. You have to understand the Jews don't care about Jesus. There are very sources that relate to him at all, and much of those of much later only in reaction to christanity. Jon513 15:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]