Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[Levite]

And I suggest a re-examination of the prophetic literature, such as :

Hos 2:23 I will sow her to me in the earth;
and I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy;
and I will tell those who were not my people, ‘You are my people;’
and they will say, ‘My God!’"

You can't simply ignore the fact that Hosea is using an extended metaphor of marriage and divorce to symbolize the covenant between God and Israel that has been fractured by Israel's idolatry of that time. What this passage refers to is a very specific moment in the history of the covenant, poetically depicted. It has nothing to do with anything else. We use the preceding verses, and the first one you cited as a meditation, recited when putting on tefillin in the morning: it is a text from which we learn love of God, not social ethics, and not a theology of how or what will please God. It is a given that Jews are to be monotheists, and it would be nice if others were, also.

But the verses in Amos tell us explicitly, in no uncertain terms, that God wants justice, and wants it even more than worship.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

just out of curiosity, from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism, are the people that follow the brand of "Messianic Judaism" that Shermana and Roberto follow considered Jews in good standing with their faith? Are they considered misguided but still part of the club? Or are they considered heretical and kicked off the team?

 

[Harmonious]

just out of curiosity, from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism, are the people that follow the brand of "Messianic Judaism" that Shermana and Roberto follow considered Jews in good standing with their faith? Are they considered misguided but still part of the club? Or are they considered heretical and kicked off the team?

Depending on whether they were born to the idea or chose it will determine the answer.

If they were raised to believe it, they are considered misguided. If they chose it, they are apostates who have chosen a path of idolatry for themselves.

In either situation, as long as Jesus is serving a central function in their belief system, we are not to count them amonst Jews. If roberto showed up in my shul, even if he was born Jewish (which I don't know if he was), he would not be counted for a quorum. He is Christian, not Jewish.

If they chose to return to their Jewish roots and heritage, dismissing whatever it is that Jesus does for them... That is what we believe God wants for them.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Depending on whether they were born to the idea or chose it will determine the answer.

If they were raised to believe it, they are considered misguided. If they chose it, they are apostates who have chosen a path of idolatry for themselves.

In either situation, as long as Jesus is serving a central function in their belief system, we are not to count them amonst Jews. If roberto showed up in my shul, even if he was born Jewish (which I don't know if he was), he would not be counted for a quorum. He is Christian, not Jewish.

If they chose to return to their Jewish roots and heritage, dismissing whatever it is that Jesus does for them... That is what we believe God wants for them.

I find that very difficult to understand because they reject JC's divinity. What is Jesus without divine status? From what I can see, he's just a nice Jewish guy telling people to be nice to each other and to worship God. He follows Jewish customs. The one thing that I can see Orthodox Jews having a problem with is JC claiming the ability to lay down laws like "turning the other cheek" that supercede some of the older laws like "eye for an eye". Even in such cases, does "turning the other cheek" instead of taking "an eye for an eye" really constitute a breaking of the law of Moses? I wouldn't think so. I can also see how Orthodox Jews could view JC as failing to submit to the religious leadership of his day but I fail to see how that would represent an attack on the faith itself. Sometimes church leaders need a stiff kick in the ***.

 

[roberto]

I thank the Father I do not need Christianity or Judaism to define for me what truth is.

Deu 18:15[Tyndale] The Lorde thy God will sterre vpp a prophete amonge you: eue of thy brethern like vnto me: and vnto him ye shall herken.

נביאH5030 מקרבךH7130 מאחיךH251 כמניH3644 יקיםH6965 לך יהוהH3068 אלהיךH430 אליוH413 תשׁמעון׃H8085

 

[Harmonious]

I find that very difficult to understand because they reject JC's divinity. What is Jesus without divine status? From what I can see, he's just a nice Jewish guy telling people to be nice to each other and to worship God. He follows Jewish customs. The one thing that I can see Orthodox Jews having a problem with is JC claiming the ability to lay down laws like "turning the other cheek" that supercede some of the older laws like "eye for an eye". Even in such cases, does "turning the other cheek" instead of taking "an eye for an eye" really constitute a breaking of the law of Moses? I wouldn't think so. I can also see how Orthodox Jews could view JC as failing to submit to the religious leadership of his day but I fail to see how that would represent an attack on the faith itself. Sometimes church leaders need a stiff kick in the ***.

It is more complicated than that.

Note that I never mentioned Jesus' supposed divinity, as I know that isn't every branch of Christianity's touchpoint.

Some think he is the son of God, which wouldn't make Jesus any different than Atlas or Hecules.

I've read the gospels, and if you say that the primary purpose therein is to get Jews to "turn the other cheek" (which goes against Torah law - an enemy out to kill you should be struck first and hard enough to stop him, even if it means killing that person - ask me about Rodef sometime), we aren't reading the same book. Claiming that perfection is necessary in performance of commandments is Jesus' invention to make himself necessary in whatever fashion. Claiming that "none come to the father but through him" is outright idolatrous.

The way Jesus embarasses Rabbis publicly, humiliates non-Jews, disrespects his mother in front of his disciples... There is NO part of Jesus' model of behavior that is appropriate for Jews.

I am aware that Jesus fed the hungry, healed the sick, and even exorcised demons. It was his overall behavior to people I object to. These charitable things are good, but his general condescending attitude, especially to non-Jews and elders, is not.

If a person studied Torah law thoroughly, all the loving kindness that Jews might be looking for in Jesus is already there. If they don't find it, it is because they have convinced themselves of God's, or perhaps Moses' cruelty without paying attention to the details.

Anyone who has studied the works of the Chofetz Chaim, or Reb Moshe Chaim Luzzato, or Rav Yisrael Salaanter, or Reb Eliyahu Dessler, knows how deeply ingrained loving kindness is in Torah law and philosophy.

At best, Jesus is truly irrelevant. At worst, he set himself up as an idol, and if not as a god, like the Golden Calf.

 

[Tarheeler]

It's the same in my conservative synagogue.

A messianic church has set up near us, and they like to come to our services occasionally. They're welcome, as is everyone, but they can't be counted as Jews. Even their pastor, who was born and raised Jewish, isn't because he follows Christianity rather than Judaism.

 

[roberto]

just out of curiosity, from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism, are the people that follow the brand of "Messianic Judaism" that Shermana and Roberto follow considered Jews in good standing with their faith? Are they considered misguided but still part of the club? Or are they considered heretical and kicked off the team?

KingOfTheJungle please be aware that I follow no ones brand.
Neither do I want to be jewish or to "follow" judaism in any form or fashion.
but I understand your question.

 

[sojourner]

KingOfTheJungle please be aware that I follow no ones brand.
Neither do I want to be jewish or to "follow" judaism in any form or fashion.
but I understand your question.

According to the OT, Judaism is God's "brand." According to Matthew and the early church (no offense to my Jewish friends) Xy is God's true brand.

Are you following your own brand, then? Because both Judaism and Xy are about the community -- not the individual.

 

[Shermana]

which goes against Torah law - an enemy out to kill you should be struck first and hard enough to stop him, even if it means killing that person - ask me about Rodef sometime

Turn the Other cheek is highly oft-confused, Jesus said to pack swords and that it's better to sell the shirt off your back if you don't have one. Jesus was referring to petty slaps and insults.

Likewise, even Rabbis today follow the same idea of "Eye for an eye" that he was saying. When was the last time a fellow Jew had a blow returned to him by community-ordained punishment? He was talking about how it was being abused to include accidents and minor offenses. Along with healing on Sabbath, I believe Jewish surgeons are allowed to perform life-saving surgery are they not?

Most of the objections to Jesus's teachings probably have to do with miserable misinterpretation by gentile authorities.

but his general condescending attitude, especially to non-Jews and elders, is not.

You'd really hate a lot of Israelis then! The context nonetheless in the story is that his condescension was based on their corruption and mismanagement.

If a person studied Torah law thoroughly, all the loving kindness that Jews might be looking for in Jesus is already there. If they don't find it, it is because they have convinced themselves of God's, or perhaps Moses' cruelty without paying attention to the details.

I totally agree. Except Jesus wasn't teaching something radical and revolutionary. A lot of so-called "Christians" put a huge emphasis on the "love" part more over than Jesus's clear instructions to obey every letter, every iota, every jot and tittle of the Law without exception, often misunderstanding what the text itself says about Love. What the context is, is that Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for ignoring the parts of the Law that deal with love and kindness, accusing them of robbing the Widows and Orphans. The same charge is leveled against the Jewish elders in the Tanakah over and over again.

Jesus calls himself a prophet. His disciples call him a prophet. How is what Jesus says much different than what the other prophets say?

It is very important to look at what the gospels themselves say (and in context, and even then, with regard to interpolation and redaction issues) and not what the Gentile "Christians" claim with their doctrines and cherry pickings and selectively ignored verses. Because of this rampant misrepresentation, the strawman Jesus is most often what is attacked, not the real thing, and when I say "real thing" I mean what the text itself actually says when read objectively away from distorted gentile doctrines.

 

[Shermana]

According to the OT, Judaism is God's "brand." According to Matthew and the early church (no offense to my Jewish friends) Xy is God's true brand.

Are you following your own brand, then? Because both Judaism and Xy are about the community -- not the individual.

What is called "Judaism" today is far different than what the ancient Israelites believed. To say that modern Judaism is the same style of belief as the OT says and the ancient Israelite version of Judaism is a can of worms fit for its own thread. As for "community", that would be why Jesus said brother will be against brother doesn't it? There's nothing communal about Christianity as the Gospels state it except maybe in the Pauline sense of having a "Church meeting", and if you go by the dubious Pastoral Epistles, to have a "Bishop" and "Deacon". "Christianity" is completely individualistic. What Jesus taught compared to Paul was completely individualistic, if anything being about ABANDONING your community due to its corrupt doctrines. The word 'Church" in its actual sense doesn't connotate an actual "Assembly" anymore so than the word "school" constitutes an assembly, it's merely a way of saying the collective whole whether they are "Community-based" or not. If you can't find other people who believe like you do, you don't have to change your beliefs or visit those who believe differently just to be "Communal".

If your idea is that one must conform their beliefs to the "community", you'd be basically defying the very essence of what Jesus actually taught on this issue, which is to not compromise your beliefs for the sake of the "community" if the "Community" does not agree. Why do you not go to Catholic church? Shouldn't all 'Christians' be Catholic by your logic? How individualistic of them to avoid going with the largest and mainstream church.

Even Judaism isn't really necessarily so much about "Community" as it is about individual adherence to the Law within the community itself, with aspects of how to deal with the community in terms of individual regards. Perhaps the community may be needed to combine talents, like goldsmiths were needed to fashion the Temple gear, threaders were needed for the Tabernacle, skilled slaughterers are needed to properly prepare the animals, and so on.

What is "Community" anyway? A bunch of people gathered together who claim to believe the same thing? Shouldn't Orthodox Jews ditch their views and join the Reform by your logic since they represent only 10%? Or is it because they have a large enough number that they now constitute a "community"?

 

[Nakosis]

What is called "Judaism" today is far different than what the ancient Israelites believed. To say that modern Judaism is the same style of belief as the OT says and the ancient Israelite version of Judaism is a can of worms fit for its own thread. As for "community", that would be why Jesus said brother will be against brother doesn't it? There's nothing communal about Christianity as the Gospels state it except maybe in the Pauline sense of having a "Church meeting", and if you go by the dubious Pastoral Epistles, to have a "Bishop" and "Deacon". "Christianity" is completely individualistic. What Jesus taught compared to Paul was completely individualistic, if anything being about ABANDONING your community due to its corrupt doctrines. The word 'Church" in its actual sense doesn't connotate an actual "Assembly" anymore so than the word "school" constitutes an assembly, it's merely a way of saying the collective whole whether they are "Community-based" or not. If you can't find other people who believe like you do, you don't have to change your beliefs or visit those who believe differently just to be "Communal".

If your idea is that one must conform their beliefs to the "community", you'd be basically defying the very essence of what Jesus actually taught on this issue, which is to not compromise your beliefs for the sake of the "community" if the "Community" does not agree. Why do you not go to Catholic church? Shouldn't all 'Christians' be Catholic by your logic? How individualistic of them to avoid going with the largest and mainstream church.

Even Judaism isn't really necessarily so much about "Community" as it is about individual adherence to the Law within the community itself, with aspects of how to deal with the community in terms of individual regards. Perhaps the community may be needed to combine talents, like goldsmiths were needed to fashion the Temple gear, threaders were needed for the Tabernacle, skilled slaughterers are needed to properly prepare the animals, and so on.

What is "Community" anyway? A bunch of people gathered together who claim to believe the same thing? Shouldn't Orthodox Jews ditch their views and join the Reform by your logic since they represent only 10%? Or is it because they have a large enough number that they now constitute a "community"?

This should be good.

opcorn:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This should be good.

Want to bet ...

 

[Harmonious]

I imagine it would be interesting, if someone like me rose to take the bait.

Orthodox Jews maintain that what we do today is as close to how Jews lived Biblically, without the Temple.

Christians and Jews who have their own reasons for believing otherwise posit that the Pharisees invented many things.

While certain fences around the law and remembrances of the Temple were put into place by Rabbinic Jewry, it has never made sense to me when various Christians try to say that earlier Judaism was so radically different than today.

Perhaps it assuages feelings of some sort to defend Jesus' break from normative Judaism, because "the Pharisees didn't represent real Judaism, anyway," or some such nonsense.

If it makes people happy to believe that Judaism was so very different, that is their prerogative.

It is a matter of belief in who you believe were more accurate recorders of the time. And many people have reasons to want to invalidate the Orthodox Jewish view. (Granted, Orthodox views are far from monolithic, but we have more in common than differences in perspective.)

And since you can't prove faith, we'll have to leave it as "agreeing to disagree," because nothing productive comes out of arguing this further. Been there, done that, gave back the tee-shirt.

 

[Shermana]

While certain fences around the law and remembrances of the Temple were put into place by Rabbinic Jewry,

^ Nuff said.

And there's the issue of Canon too. The DSS authors for whatever reason seemed to have a different base of texts and beliefs from their texts than the post-dark age Masoretes. Did they not count as "BIblical Jews"? There's a reason why those "Apocryphal" texts even circulated in the first place. Even traditional Canon like "Ecclesiastes" was fiercely contested.

And on Theological issues, we can see from writings such as Philo and ancient Midrash that the general Theological opinions differed even from what is seen today.

 

[Nakosis]

Want to bet ...

A dollar? That's all I got. This past year has been hard times.

 

[Harmonious]

^ Nuff said.

You know... I get the feeling that while that "says it all" for you, it may not be all that radically different as what you might imagine.

It was forbidden for Jews then, as now, to write on Shabbat. That Rabbis created the concept of Muktza, so that Jews didn't pick up a pen (or quill) to write on Shabbat. The whole "writing on Shabbat" was still forbidden.

Without the pageantry of the holidays at the Temple, some liturgy had to be created to fill the void until we can have the real deal.

But it is usually challenged.

Chanuka was Rabbinically established out of whole cloth, as the miracle in the Temple happened after what Jews considered the Canon was closed. (Even if the ultimate decision of what was in Canon was made a bit later.) But this is not the part of Rabinic Jewry that is challenged.

Things that are far more fundamental are, and I can't really see there being such a vast difference of opinion amongst the Jews who considered themselves Pharisees, who are eventually the traditional ancestors of Orthodox Jews.

And there's the issue of Canon too. The DSS authors for whatever reason seemed to have a different base of texts and beliefs from their texts than the post-dark age Masoretes. Did they not count as "BIblical Jews"?

Are you asking about the people who lived in the times of Tanach, or the people who worked out what Canon was?

There's a reason why those "Apocryphal" texts even circulated in the first place. Even traditional Canon like "Ecclesiastes" was fiercely contested.

I do believe that the Anshei Kinnesset Hagedola, or the Men of the Great Assembly (who lived, more or less, between the two Temple periods) established what was Canon.

The fact that there might have been discussion about it later... I don't know. I would have to learn more about it to say anything definitive about the matter.

Regardless... Torah law is derived from the Five Books of Moses and the Oral Law that was handed down with it. The other books in Tanach often back it up, or help to refine how we understand what is there, but other than Purim (which, from start to finish, is in the Book of Esther), which is considered a holiday of Rabbinic origin, the laws are mostly all there.

There are Rabbinic decrees that were made over time. Did they completely change the face of what Torah Judaism looked like from ancient days until now? I would posit: not so much.

The Rabbinic ordinance which forbade polygamy probably didn't change the shape of Judaism all that much, as one man with one wife was more often the norm.

What point are you making, or do you want to quibble about every Torah law and ordinance that you think is "too new", or...

What point are you trying to make?

And on Theological issues, we can see from writings such as Philo and ancient Midrash that the general Theological opinions differed even from what is seen today.[/quote]
Not as much as you might like to think.

 

[Shermana]

What point are you making, or do you want to quibble about every Torah law and ordinance that you think is "too new", or...

My point is, as I said, modern "Judaism" isn't necessarily the same as in the Ancient Temple period. I believe they are similar in that they both regarded the Torah as binding. From there, the "devil's in the details". Also, I made a post showing that even modern Rabbis now follow the same belief about "Eye for an eye" and healing on Sabbath that Jesus proclaimed, and that "Turn the other cheek" doesn't mean to commit suicide by refusing to defend yourself (i.e. "sell your shirt if you can't buy a sword"). When was the last time a Rabbi mandated an equal strike for an injury? Are Jewish surgeons not allowed to perform life-saving surgery on Sabbath? Thus, once you eliminate the ridiculous "Trinity" concept and other gentile misrepresenting strawmen versions of Jesus, you have no more idolatry, when you look at the actual context of what Jesus said, you have no more breaking of the Law (as much as they think he "abolished the Law"), once you accept that he called himself a "prophet", you run out of excuses to accuse the "Christian" of heresy. And that's not even beginning to discuss what exactly the Messianic qualifications are or the time period or length of time in question.

Unfortunately, 99% of "Christians" are in fact heretics by Jewish standards. And that has nothing to do with what the text actually says...(Interpolations and redaction issues considered).

 

[Harmonious]

My point is, as I said, modern "Judaism" isn't necessarily the same as in the Ancient Temple period. I believe they are similar in that they both regarded the Torah as binding. From there, the "devil's in the details". Also, I made a post showing that even modern Rabbis now follow the same belief about "Eye for an eye" and healing on Sabbath that Jesus proclaimed. When was the last time a Rabbi mandated an equal strike for an injury?

I'm not sure that they ever did. While Hammurabi was all about an eye of a slave who injured the eye of his master, Torah law ALWAYS involved assessing money for these injuries.

A note might have been made somewhere to say that this was practiced literally anywhere, which I've never heard of.

This didn't originate with Jesus. I'm not sure why he is given credit for it, as Jews were living this way, but for some reason, he is given this credit by his fans.

Are Jewish surgeons not allowed to perform life-saving surgery on Sabbath?

Always has been, to the best of my knowledge. "Live by them" is, in itself, a commandment. So it always has been.

This also didn't originate with Jesus.

It is the elective surgery that has been an issue.

Thus, once you eliminate the ridiculous "Trinity" concept and other gentile misrepresenting strawmen versions of Jesus, you have no more idolatry,

The very statement "None come to the Father but through me" is idolatrous.

when you look at the actual context of what Jesus said, you have no more breaking of the Law (as much as they think he "abolished the Law"),

Of COURSE there is still breaking of the law. With VERY few exceptions, it was never as dramatically as "all or nothing" as Jesus painted the situation. Partial credit was always available (why do you think there are so many facets and details of all the commandments? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't to find fault with how we do things.), and mitigating circumstances are always taken into consideration. If that didn't pan out in an Ecclesiastical court, it did in the Heavenly court.

Jesus determining that nothing but perfection would be accepted by God is wholly arrogant, and never has anything to do with the law as it was given by God.

once you accept that he called himself a "prophet", you run out of excuses to accuse the "Christian" of heresy.

And dismissing as much of Torah law as he did, he proved to be a false prophet. So, the Christian heresy still stands.

And that's not even beginning to discuss what exactly the Messianic qualifications are or the time period or length of time in question.

It involves being a king. It involves bringing all the Jews back to Israel. It involves so very much that Jesus didn't accomplish.

He wasn't even born from the right father to make being a candidate useful.

Unfortunately, 99% of "Christians" are in fact heretics by Jewish standards. And that has nothing to do with what the text actually says.

I would go so far as to say 100%. If Jesus has a central role of any kind, that IS a heresy.

Jesus is totally irrelevant to Torah Judaism. I'm not completely sure he actually existed. But assuming that he did, he has always been irrelevant as a theological concept to Torah Judaism.

He might have been a teacher. He might have even been an effective teacher. But if the gospels are to be believed, I wouldn't have wanted anything to do with him. The method of delivering rebuke is often more important than the words of the rebuke itself.

There is a specific commandment to rebuke one's neighbor if he sins, but the rest of the verse says that it should be done in such a way so that the one doing the rebuking is not sinning in the process.

All that I've read about Jesus and his style of rebuke does not fit any model I would ever wish to follow. He didn't follow Torah, and he was often cruel.

Some might say it was to "prove a point." The fact is that there are certain points that are better to forego than to be as crass as the gospels say Jesus was.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not sure that they ever did. While Hammurabi was all about an eye of a slave who injured the eye of his master, Torah law ALWAYS involved assessing money for these injuries.

I don't think Jesus meant to not seek monetary compensation. When he said "You have heard" he didn't mean to say "You have heard some false and wrong story", he meant to say "You are interpreting it wrong".

A note might have been made somewhere to say that this was practiced literally anywhere, which I've never heard of.

Ancient records are scarce.

This didn't originate with Jesus. I'm not sure why he is given credit for it, as Jews were living this way, but for some reason, he is given this credit by his fans.

I'm not saying it originated with him anymore so than Isaiah and Jeremiah's and Ezekiels' rebukes originated with them. We don't know if they had taken this reactionary "eye for an eye" literal policy or not by that time.

Always has been, to the best of my knowledge. "Live by them" is, in itself, a commandment. So it always has been. This also didn't originate with Jesus.

It is the elective surgery that has been an issue.

We have no way of knowing either way.

The very statement "None come to the Father but through me" is idolatrous.

This begins a whole another issue for another thread I suppose, but I believe Jesus was the incarnation of the Highest Angel, who in the Book of Enoch (which was disavowed by Rabbinicsts but apparently well circulated and kept by the DSS before them) serves as a sort of Gatekeeper.

Of COURSE there is still breaking of the law.

Where? In emergency situations like pulling your donkey out of a ditch?

With VERY few exceptions, it was never as dramatically as "all or nothing" as Jesus painted the situation.

I don't think I understand what you're saying, unless you're saying that Jesus wasn't carving out exceptions either, which is funny because I have to explain to gentiles often that Jesus wasn't nullifying the Sabbath with his exceptions for emergencies like pulling your donkey out of a ditch.

Partial credit was always available (why do you think there are so many facets and details of all the commandments? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't to find fault with how we do things.), and mitigating circumstances are always taken into consideration. If that didn't pan out in an Ecclesiastical court, it did in the Heavenly court.

I also don't think I understand what your point is here either. The details in the commandments are to tell us how Heaven wills us to live, what are you saying? Of course there will be mitigating circumstances, that's what Jesus was saying, so long as its not done outside the framework of the Law, as many "Christians' like to think Jesus said the Law itself is undone. I totally agree that each situation is judged according to how one handled it. For instance, honoring your parents is not always a viable option especially in modern days, especially in Reform families that don't teach Torah to begin with.

Jesus determining that nothing but perfection would be accepted by God is wholly arrogant, and never has anything to do with the law as it was given by God.

This concept I believe has Rabbinical and Mystical basis, including in some of Chassidism and Kabalah, that we must attain perfection to achieve a presence with God in heaven. This is also addressed in the aforementioned apocryphal texts to a degree. If you don't think that obeying the Law has to do with achieving perfection, I don't even think the Rabbis agree with you there. This is a reason why I believe (as do many Jews and is in found in Kabalah) in reincarnation. It's not too far off from the Eastern idea of Samsara.

And dismissing as much of Torah law as he did, he proved to be a false prophet. So, the Christian heresy still stands.

Please prove that he actually dismissed a "Jot or tittle" of the Law. Thanks. I have countered your examples so far. What do you have left?

It involves being a king. It involves bringing all the Jews back to Israel. It involves so very much that Jesus didn't accomplish.

Was it all supposed to be done in one generation? The process has been happening since the days of the Zionists. Is the Messiah supposed to pick up the ones who didn't go or is he supposed to make the process start happening? Again, this is a whole subject for a detailed debate on an appropriate thread.

He wasn't even born from the right father to make being a candidate useful.

Please show where it says it had to be Paternal and not Maternal.

I would go so far as to say 100%. If Jesus has a central role of any kind, that IS a heresy.

Why? Because of your strawman interpretations?

Jesus is totally irrelevant to Torah Judaism. I'm not completely sure he actually existed. But assuming that he did, he has always been irrelevant as a theological concept to Torah Judaism.

I can understand this personal opinion. I happen to agree with assessment about all the little changed details getting in the way.

He might have been a teacher. He might have even been an effective teacher. But if the gospels are to be believed, I wouldn't have wanted anything to do with him. The method of delivering rebuke is often more important than the words of the rebuke itself.

Then you wouldn't like what the Talmud often says either, talking about people being boiled in dung in hell and such.

There is a specific commandment to rebuke one's neighbor if he sins, but the rest of the verse says that it should be done in such a way so that the one doing the rebuking is not sinning in the process.

Quote exactly.

All that I've read about Jesus and his style of rebuke does not fit any model I would ever wish to follow. He didn't follow Torah, and he was often cruel.

Quote the cruelty and quote where he didn't follow Torah, with your examples countered in consideration.

Some might say it was to "prove a point." The fact is that there are certain points that are better to forego than to be as crass as the gospels say Jesus was.

Please explain in detail why he was so crass and what he should have said. Do you think "brood of vipers" is so much worse than what the Rabbis have said about others? Heck, you should read what they wrote about him? Are they allowed to say some of the nastiest things possible about him and "Christians" in your logic?