I think that most Jewish discomfort with Jesus is related to two factors: theology and history.

Christian beliefs in the incarnation (that God became flesh) are simply anathema to Judaism. In a jewish context, the idea that a human being could be God is bizarre. This idea runs counter to the entire concept of God as Jews understand it. Jews see it as confounding and blasphemous - and certainly does not make Jesus the man and his teachings any more attractive to Jews.

And obviously the religious persecution that was perpetrated in the name of Jesus. Crusades, expulsions, the Inquisition, forced conversion, pogroms and more.

I don't think that Jesus and the Gospels have a great deal to contribute to Jews and Judaism(and yes, I've read them).  Granted that the Sermon on the Mount is beautiful and expresses many sublime religious ideas - but one can find similar expressions of those ideas in Midrash and other Jewish sources.

But Christianity and Islam have exported many of Judaism's beliefs to the Gentile world - monotheism, the idea that God requires justice and mercy, the ideal of peace among all humankind - and foremost that man was created in God's image and has an innate dignity and rights. Christianity has certainly made the Bible a best seller all over the world.

I am not convinced that Judaism would have succeeded on its own in making these ideas and the Bible so central for much of human civilization.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:12AM, NahumS wrote:

I think that most Jewish discomfort with Jesus is related to two factors: theology and history.

Christian beliefs in the incarnation (that God became flesh) are simply anathema to Judaism. In a jewish context, the idea that a human being could be God is bizarre. This idea runs counter to the entire concept of God as Jews understand it. Jews see it as confounding and blasphemous - and certainly does not make Jesus the man and his teachings any more attractive to Jews.

And obviously the religious persecution that was perpetrated in the name of Jesus. Crusades, expulsions, the Inquisition, forced conversion, pogroms and more.

I don't think that Jesus and the Gospels have a great deal to contribute to Jews and Judaism(and yes, I've read them).  Granted that the Sermon on the Mount is beautiful and expresses many sublime religious ideas - but one can find similar expressions of those ideas in Midrash and other Jewish sources.

But Christianity and Islam have exported many of Judaism's beliefs to the Gentile world - monotheism, the idea that God requires justice and mercy, the ideal of peace among all humankind - and foremost that man was created in God's image and has an innate dignity and rights. Christianity has certainly made the Bible a best seller all over the world.

I am not convinced that Judaism would have succeeded on its own in making these ideas and the Bible so central for much of human civilization.

 

Yes. It is hard to separate the Jesus who probably really existed from the 'Jesus Christ' of the NT - hard, but maybe not impossible.

We often get accused of 'denying Jesus', but quite honestly I don't think we are - not the 'Jesus who probably really existed' anyway. The 'risen Christ' and the 'God incarnate', though - those we DO 'deny' and it is certainly a major theological sticking point.

As for the 'Jesus who probably really existed' - I don't think we have any major objection or problem with that guy. It's just that - as far as we can tell - he didn't add anything significant to the faith we already HAVE. Most of the 'teachings' attributed to him (including the lovely Sermon on the Mount, and the lord's Prayer) are topics and ideas that ALREADY EXISTED within the Jewish tradition. He didn't teach anything new - until you reach ideas about 'being God incarnate' (which can be argued fairly persuasively, weren't anything Jesus taught, but instead a theology ABOUT him that developed within his followers later in the first or in the second century).

Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts  religious believers. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence of the origins and presentations of various religion gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims.  Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.  In this case since nothing about a Jesus has ever been found in Hebrew or Aramaic (and not for want of trying) and the story supposedly happened in Judaea, it is doubtful that the story was even written by Jews.  There were plenty of pagans living in Judaea at that time, and since much of the earliest stories ever found were in Greek, it seems quite obvious that Greeks eventually  wrote down the stories from hearsay.  Besides, much of the gospels sounds too much like some of the Greek myths interspersed with some Jewish stories.

"In addition, no one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from the writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations,  the information and dates show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts."

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

May 31, 2012 -- 6:36PM, LeahOne wrote:

May 31, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Kingdom357 wrote:

Why this qustion was post here on a Jewish forum is totally beyond me.  There is quite a bit of evidence supporting the Bible, matters little you don't believe it.

Would you define Jesus as a Jew or a Christian?

That's the question the OP asked.  If you feel that there's some reason why Jews shouldn't have a right to have an *opinion*  on whether Jesus-the-human was a Jew or a Christian, what is it?

The OP did NOT ask a question about 'evidence supporting the Bible' - so whether there is or isn't such evidence is totally irrelevant.  As are the 'comments' about whether the OP or anyone else believes  what you do.

Seriously, if you have a problem with the OP's question - take it up with the OP or with the mods, who can and 'should' do something about it if it's in error.

 

What a bizarre and inaccurate over reaction.

The OP At least in my view was a sincere question, asked with respect. And I believe the persona asking is a Christian. She first asked it on the multi-faith board, but almost no one there would be able to answer it.

Kingdom, you are reading more into the question then was there, completely misunderstanding it. Why do you do that?

The OP was clear and straight forward. Absolutely nothing to do with the bible, in any direct sense.