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

[Rival]

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.

I'm not sure it's worth wasting our time talking about him really, but here we are

 

[metis]

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

Oops!

 

[Rival]

I could make a mod post here.


Instead, I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt and just assume they forgot, somehow, to read the title.


Any other assessment would be too pessimistic for me right now.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not sure it's worth wasting our time talking about him really, but here we are

Are you implying that every other discussion on this forum is meaningful?

 

[Rival]

Are you implying that every other discussion on this forum is meaningful?

Touche!

 

[Harel13]

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.

So do you think a modern-day Jesus would've been an obscure Jewish cult leader and not close to anything mainstream?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So do you think a modern-day Jesus would've been an obscure Jewish cult leader and not close to anything mainstream?

There is a saying (I believe by Frederick Engels): "Being determines consciousness." If there was a Jesus, he would have been a product of his times.The same could be said of a modern-day Jesus. I think it pretty obvious that the two "times" are radically different.

If forced to make a wild guess i could picture him as a charismatic and passionate Rabbi in the Modern Orthodoxy part of the spectrum.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Moderator Post: This thread is in the same faith debates. Only those who identify as exclusively an adherent of Judaism or Noahide can participate.

 

[dybmh]

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

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.

Yes. Excellent points, and that is where my heart is on this issue. However...

There is opinion from a Jewish source ( I think it's Midrash Tehillim, I can look it up if desired ) that postulates that King David reduced the commandments to 11, and that Micah reduced them down to 3. I remember it because my heart sank a tiny bit after reading it.

Which leads me to a question for @Rival, Do you think Sermon on the Mount is embellishment? Just curious about your opinion...

@Harel, I would expect that the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount would be accepted at a Reconstructionist Shul. Not sure if that counts as "mizrach" or not though.

 

[dybmh]

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?

I agree with you Harel... but I would go one step further...

Is raising the dead Kosher at all? I thought that G-d did that after the in-gathering **and** after the Temple is rebuilt. But I could be wrong. I never researched it myself. ( although now I kind of want to )

I would expect that if Jesus is said to have raised the dead, it is an attempt by the authors of the NT to embellish and retro-fit Moshiach status on to Jesus.

 

[Harel13]

Is raising the dead Kosher at all?

Well, Eliyahu and Elisha did it...

I would expect that if Jesus is said to have raised the dead, it is an attempt by the authors of the NT to embellish and retro-fit Moshiach status on to Jesus.

Makes sense.

 

[Harel13]

@Harel, I would expect that the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount would be accepted at a Reconstructionist Shul. Not sure if that counts as "mizrach" or not though.

Well, I don't know much about Reconstructionists, but the idea was more directed at him supposedly being a popular figure in Orthodox movements.

 

[Rival]

Which leads me to a question for @Rival, Do you think Sermon on the Mount is embellishment? Just curious about your opinion...

I think it was likely based off some actual sermon, but considering these were written decades after the fact? To all intents and purposes made up.

 

[Tumah]

There is opinion from a Jewish source ( I think it's Midrash Tehillim, I can look it up if desired ) that postulates that King David reduced the commandments to 11, and that Micah reduced them down to 3. I remember it because my heart sank a tiny bit after reading it.

What you're thinking of is a passage in the Talmud.

Rabbi Simlai taught: There were 613 mitzvot stated to Moses in the Torah...
King David came and established the 613 mitzvot upon eleven mitzvot, as it is written: ...
Isaiah came and established the 613 mitzvot upon six, as it is written: ...
Micah came and established the 613 mitzvot upon three, as it is written:
Isaiah then established the 613 mitzvot upon two, as it is stated:
Amos came and established the 613 mitzvot upon one, as it is stated: “So says the Lord to the house of Israel: Seek Me and live” (Amos 5:4).
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: There is no proof that the verse in Amos is establishing all the mitzvot upon one; say that Amos is saying: Seek Me throughout the entire Torah, as the verse does not specify the manner in which one should seek the Lord. Rather, say: Habakkuk came and established the 613 mitzvot upon one, as it is stated: “But the righteous person shall live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4).​

Your heart can remain elated. Although there are a number of approaches to this passage, there's no commentary that entertains the possibility that this passage is saying that the commandments were reduced, G-d forbid.

 

[Tumah]

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"?

I'm of the opinion that the Jesus of the NT is fictional stories based on traditional stories passed by some proto-Christian sect of a real person. One particular argument I found compelling by Rabbi Tovia Singer is where the authors of the NT have to place Jesus as coming from both Nazareth and Bethlehem - Nazareth because that's what the traditional stories said, Bethlehem, because that's what they interpreted as where the Messiah would come from.
However, I believe this person lived about 100 years earlier than described in the NT, conforming with the Talmud's portrayal of a Jesus. So no, I don't believe he'd be sitting on the east.

It should also be noted that while the School of Hillel often took a more lenient approach, they didn't always take a more lenient approach. And they certainly didn't lenient the Laws into oblivion.

 

[Harel13]

conforming with the Talmud's portrayal of a Jesus. So no, I don't believe he'd be sitting on the east.

There are different Yeshuim in the Talmud, and, if I remember correctly, they don't all fit the same person. The most well known one was the student of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Gamla, who apparently was close to him (having escaped with him to Egypt) and was close to receiving forgiveness from his rabbi after being motzi shem ra. If you go by that story, I would think that potentially, he could've had a place amongst talmidei chachamim today.

It should also be noted that while the School of Hillel often took a more lenient approach, they didn't always take a more lenient approach. And they certainly didn't lenient the Laws into oblivion.

No, of course not.

 

[Tumah]

There are different Yeshuim in the Talmud, and, if I remember correctly, they don't all fit the same person. The most well known one was the student of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Gamla, who apparently was close to him (having escaped with him to Egypt) and was close to receiving forgiveness from his rabbi after being motzi shem ra. If you go by that story, I would think that potentially, he could've had a place amongst talmidei chachamim today.

No, of course not.

You mean Rabbi Yehoshuah ben Perachiah. That was the one I was referring to as well as the one mentioned in Sanhedrin. Perhaps others. He wouldn't have been placed among the Sages of anytime, because he was executed for idolatry and leading others astray. Something Sages don't do.

 

[Harel13]

You mean Rabbi Yehoshuah ben Perachiah

Right, oops.

 

[metis]

Yes. Excellent points, and that is where my heart is on this issue. However...

There is opinion from a Jewish source ( I think it's Midrash Tehillim, I can look it up if desired ) that postulates that King David reduced the commandments to 11, and that Micah reduced them down to 3. I remember it because my heart sank a tiny bit after reading it.

Which leads me to a question for @Rival, Do you think Sermon on the Mount is embellishment? Just curious about your opinion...

@Harel, I would expect that the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount would be accepted at a Reconstructionist Shul. Not sure if that counts as "mizrach" or not though.

Thanks for this, and I'd like to comment on what I believe is the "big picture", starting with the School of Hillel.

We know that when asked what is the main purpose of Torah, Hillel answered "...Do not do that which you would not done unto yourself; all the rest is commentary; now go study". With this, it could give one the impression that Hillel narrowed it down to one Commandment, but that's not what he was saying. The question was in regards to the purpose of Torah, not whether one should follow the entire Law. The Hillel camp never stated that the 613 Laws were fully observed by following what Hillel thought was one main purpose of the Law.

Jesus, and eventually the Church as a whole, went beyond just citing what they thought was the purpose, which is why the early Church, as recorded in Acts, gradually walked away from the letter of the Law at least. The kosher Laws were abandoned via Peter's vision, which the Hillel camp never advocated. Circumcision was banned for admission into the Church, whereas this was a requirement for conversion into Judaism for men.

So, correctly or not, Jesus' approach was much more radical than the Hillel camp, even though the Hillel camp was more liberal than the Shammai camp with its allowing some flexibility in the application of the Law, for example.

 

[dybmh]

Circumcision was banned for admission into the Church

Oh wow, I had no idea...