Jews (and Noahides): Would Jesus be "sitting in the mizrach"?

[Harel13]

Edit: The following thread was created for discussion/debate by Jews and Noahides.

Last shabbat, one of the rabbis at my yeshiva gave us a talk about the almost-forgotten Fast of the 9th of Tevet, probably created in the memory of Simon Kipa, which led to talking about some of the history of Jews and Christianity.

At one point he half-jokingly made a comment that were Jesus alive today, "הוא היה יושב ב'מזרח'", "he would be sitting in 'the mizrach'", which is an old Hebrew expression meaning that he'd be sitting (in synagogue or at communal gatherings) with all the important figures of the community. The reason that Jews nowadays don't revere him is because of how Paul messed up his teachings and made them anti-Torah, which subsequently caused the Roman Empire to oppress many Jews.

I once heard of a book called something like "Jesus the Pharisee", written by a rabbi who tried to prove that Jesus's teachings were right in line with those of Beit Hillel (the students of Hillel). For a rough example, Jesus was lenient. Hillel and his students were known for taking more lenient positions in Halacha.

So what do you think? Do you agree with the statement? Would Jesus have been welcomed today as a learned talmid chacham? Is it "all Paul's fault"?

 

[dybmh]

Honestly, I don't know enough about Jesus to answer... {blush}

 

[Harel13]

Honestly, I don't know enough about Jesus to answer... {blush}

I think the average Jew (myself included) wouldn't know enough about him to hold his own in a discussion with Christian . Which is why I'm asking from a Jewish perspective, and not just in terms of religion but also in terms of how Jewish society is today and how it's evolved over the centuries.

 

[Rival]

He likely would. As far as scholarship goes, Jesus was a Torah Jew who was just erratic, and preached the same thing as John the Baptist. He told people to listen to the Pharisees and do what they said, and not the Sadducees. The rest seems to me like embellishment.

 

[Harel13]

He likely would. As far as scholarship goes, Jesus was a Torah Jew who was just erratic, and preached the same thing as John the Baptist. He told people to listen to the Pharisees and do what they said, and not the Sadducees. The rest seems to me like embellishment.

Yet Christianity/the authors of the new testament decided to really vilify the Pharisees. Some, I think, would argue that maybe some of what the Pharisees did in the NT was embellishment, but the rest wasn't, or was at least rooted in real anti-Jesus sentiments they may have had. Which shows, I guess, that Jesus wasn't on the same page as them.

On the other hand, others may argue against this by bringing in Nicodemus who I understand to have been a pharisee who got along okay with Jesus.

 

[Rival]

Yet Christianity/the authors of the new testament decided to really vilify the Pharisees. Some, I think, would argue that maybe some of what the Pharisees did in the NT was embellishment, but the rest wasn't, or was at least rooted in real anti-Jesus sentiments they may have had. Which shows, I guess, that Jesus wasn't on the same page as them.

Jesus says this,

The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

This well illustrates the supposed problem he had, and thus what the Christian authors had.

I don't think any of these conversations between Jesus and the Pharisees actually happened. They are always manipulated and some of the talks would not even work in Hebrew, such as the one you mention below - all of this is being written in Greek.

There's the example of the Pharisees becoming annoyed at Jesus for healing/doing miracles on the Shabbat. We know that's not even a crime.

ETA: As I mentioned to Harel, I mean serious cases, not everyday things. Of course that's prohibited. AFAIK Jesus was not just dealing with sniffles. His miracles are dramatic affairs and the whole point of them is to be 'Jesus cured this terminal illness', not 'Jesus got rid of this cough.'.

On the other hand, others may argue against this by bringing in Nicodemus who I understand to have been a pharisee who got along okay with Jesus.

I think he's just a fiction made to make Jesus look good, but as I said the conversation/pun only works in Greek; it makes no sense in any other language.

 

[Harel13]

There's the example of the Pharisees becoming annoyed at Jesus for healing on the Shabbat. We know that's not even a crime

Uh... It is... There's an actual problem of doing medical work on shabbat if it's not a life-threatening case.

 

[Rival]

Uh... It is... There's an actual problem of doing medical work on shabbat if it's not a life-threatening case.

These were life-threatening as far as I know. I'm talking about exceptional cases. Demon vanquishing and whatnot. Raising the dead (I'd say that's a pretty serious case!)

In any case, I may be recalling wrong. I don't sit and read this stuff anymore . I can recall that he was raising the dead, healing paralysed people and things like this.

 

[metis]

Hillel and his students were known for taking more lenient positions in Halacha.

But Hillel did not teach that most of the 613 Commandments could be ignored, thus not be adhered to.

Would Jesus have been welcomed today as a learned talmid chacham?

Hard to say because this would depend on the accuracy of the gospels as they were written decades after Jesus' crucifixion.

Is it "all Paul's fault"?

Not at all likely. Paul undoubtedly went beyond Jesus' teachings as "commentary", but he was being coached by those who did know Jesus or were sent by those who knew Jesus.

Jesus narrowed down the 613 to 2, but so many of the 613 don't directly relate to interpersonal relationships and love of haShem, such as keeping kosher or observing Shabbat.

At least this is my take.

 

[Rival]

but so many of the 613 don't directly relate to interpersonal relationships and love of haShem, such as keeping kosher or observing Shabbat.

Seriously?

 

[metis]

Seriously?

Yep, and I simply ain't the first to notice this.

 

[Rival]

Yep.

You think observing Shabbat has nothing to do with love of HaShem?

 

[metis]

You think observing Shabbat has nothing to do with love of HaShem?

Only as a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. Plus just a note that there are numerous aspects to observing Shabbat, plus one can love haShem without necessarily necessarily believing that all these Commandments relating to Shabbat are spot-on and directly from haShem.

BTW, I added a short bit to my last post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Virtually anything said about Jesus is close to pure soeculation, but my guess is that he was more akin to the sectarians at Qumran than to anything approximating a Pharisee.

 

[RabbiO]

Just wondering which part of "Same Faith Debates" and/or "Jews and Noachides" some people have difficulty understanding.

 

[rosends]

What we have is a very incomplete (and agendized) depiction of Jesus. What he said vs. what other said he said is not clear.

If I had to hazard a guess (and I don't) I would say he, today, would be a reform Jew. He would like the ideas of the laws but would want to make adherence less important than having the right ideas about spiritual connection. Or something like that.

 

[Flankerl]

I say no due to the simple reason that there's no contemporary writings of this individual as all of his supposed exploits were based on hearsay when they were written down.

 

[Harel13]

Raising the dead

Is it, though? I mean, if the person's dead, it's no longer a life-threatening condition... Just wait for motzei shabbat, you know?

 

[Harel13]

I say no due to the simple reason that there's no contemporary writings of this individual as all of his supposed exploits were based on hearsay when they were written down.

That's a good point. Even what's known about him on the Jewish side (from the Talmud and midrash) is both scarce and not-contemporary. Yeah, neither view is objective.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I had to hazard a guess (and I don't) I would say he, today, would be a reform Jew. He would like the ideas of the laws but would want to make adherence less important than having the right ideas about spiritual connection.

That strikes me as not at all likely. Reform Judaism can be understood as the product of the Haskalah while the Jesus sect seems to be the offspring of apocalypticism and the Nevi'im thirst for justice. As for adherence. when the author of Mark 2:27 has Jesus say "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," he may be simply emphasizing an orientation that facilitates work in the diaspora.