Jew perspective of Pauline view of Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter SebastianTorres
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SebastianTorres

Guest
Hello all,
What do you think about the position of some jews, that Jesus was a radical Rabi who ended up crucified for revolting against roman authority like many others on those troubling days, maybe asociated with essenians or disciples of Hillel the Elder, and after his death St. Paul and others just “mistify” his life and added the spernatural parts like the birth of Virgin Holly Mary, the resurrection, the ascent to heavens, etc…?
I don’t pretend to be offensive, is just that if you read Jesus teachings in the gospels, from the perspective of a jew, not considering later books (Acts and the followings) this theory makes sense.
It is for me confussing when I want to strenght my Faith in Cristianty, seen Jesus was a perfect jew teaching to respect the Law I go to the “source” (judaism) to learn more about the origin of my Church, and then I talk to jews and they explain to me very clear who was Jesus for them and why they don’t condier Him to fulfill the conditions to be a Messiah and all seems to be an intentioned missinterpretation from St. Paul and company.

Sorry for my bad english, thank you.
 
The Jewish people have several theories on Jesus, not just this one, and some of them do recognize him as the Messiah they are called Messianic with their own beliefs (not part of any Christian denomination, nor the Church, nor do they recognize all teachings of the Church or practice, it is too Pagan for them). To them the subject isn’t closed for sure even if some label them as stubborn and closed to this simply because they don’t give us satisfaction unless they get baptized and enter the Church.
They have their own path to which are entitled to, according to the promises God made to them in the Old Testament.
To understand them is to see it from their perspective, and in this theory of them about Jesus they are paying a homage to him, for freeing them from the Roman Empire (which can only be seen as a punishment from God for their sins according to the Old Testament if nations come upon them is punishment, not that nations have any right of their own in their actions against the children of Israel). They do not trust Paul/Saul because he was a soldier at the Temple, so he knew the Old Law very well, so it is feasible to them that he had the knowledge to construct a religion parallel to Judaism but with enough knowledge of Judaism that would seem right.
What they miss: the New Testament lacks many links to the Old one, in its own standing form without the studying of the Holy Fathers of Church who were not Jewish and they never met Paul so he couldn’t have given them some extra clues. This is proven by the protestant and neo-protestant interpretation of NT where they understand very little from the Old Testament especially linked to the New one. So Paul could not have created Christianity, if he would have he would have written a clearer New Testament where the fluidity is fully explained because he knew how. And in his letters he says that he knows the Old Law, he was a Pharisee so hence “flawless” (the Pharisees were the order that had to be spotless so they can judge others) but this is it. Doesn’t explain. Why didn’t he explain if it’s his work and invention?
 
Last edited:
Religiously yes I know Jesus is irrelevant in Judaism. But historically I meant there are several stories. If you know different please correct me.
 
Mary888 said:
But historically I meant there are several stories.
Click to expand...
I’d suggest that ‘historically’ they’re rather recent and rather ad hoc interpretations that have arisen as people have had more contact with Christians (in circumstances where talking about religion isn’t as difficult as it was).

After over two decades of discussing the subject with Christians, I think the considerable paradigmatic differences and different foci are more interesting. The tend to become hidden by discussions about the actors in what, to Jews, are neither reportage or scripture - to Christians it’s religion, to Jews it’s literary criticism.
 
Well yes, there are many different theories and viewpoints by Jewish sources on Jesus Christ. Depends on who you ask.
Some would try to say He was a magician with arts from Egypt, or that the disciples hid His Body, etc.
Or that He was a good Jew, but then stuff happened later.

However, looking at the Gospels make it clear that Jesus was quite more than this. A normal Jew would never insist on drinking blood of any kind, I’d imagine.

Nowadays Judaism is really far from the Judaism of 2,000 years ago simply due to the cut off from the language and culture. Some families just remembered the Hebrew for Hear, O Israel…

Now they rebuilt the language and stuff and we learn much from study. Modern Jewish thought on Jesus may not be a good idea for getting to see the Christian faith, especially since they deny Him (oftentimes due to ignorance of Him or a theological disagreement).
 
Kaninchen said:
I’d suggest that ‘historically’ they’re rather recent and rather ad hoc interpretations that have arisen as people have had more contact with Christians (in circumstances where talking about religion isn’t as difficult as it was).
Click to expand...
So, I’m guessing you prefer the Talmudic view that says Jesus was illegitimately born of the prostitute Mary, that he was a magician who deceived his disciples, that he set up a brick as an idol to worship, and that he is now in the afterlife boiling in feces/semen as a punishment. Is this the historical Jewish view of Jesus???
 
Last edited:
Wow, that is disturbing. I don’t think this is what most jews believe, is it?
 
The hard part: how would you try to convince a jew that Mary was a virgin, that Jesus arose from the dead and is now in Heaven? Even harder, the Holly Trinity?
 
Let’s keep to the convention of using ‘Jewish’ as the adjective and ‘Jew’ as the noun. ‘Jewish lawyer’ is like ‘Catholic Lawyer’ but ‘Jew lawyer’ is a pejorative. As fat as I know it is the only religious/ethnic word that operates like this.
 
Salutations
Jesus was a Jew. He would read from the Torah and scrolls of teachings from prophets and other wisdom writers. Our Apocrypha are scrolls He read in Temple. But, some felt those books weren’t Holy Spirit inspired. So, those who became Protestants don’t have them. Lutherans have those Books in the back of their Bible as Books Of Wisdom.
The Messiah, to aJew, is to bring Political peace to Israel. Jesus was a Carpenter from Nazareth. He couldn’t be real Messiah, they were under Roman control. He was a kind man w delusions of grander. He was a rebel. He rebelled against Pharisees and Saducees. He broke the Law, healing on the Sabbath.
He threw the tables around at His Father’s house b/c they were selling things at Gods House.
He blasphemed.
Other men thought they were the Messiah and their followers dwindled away.
I was thinking: What did Jesus gain by dying on the cross? Our reuniting w God, our Father in heaven. Abba loves us and after Adam and Eves sin, the gates of Heaven were closed. Our dead were held in the Limbo of the Elders. So, thank You ,Jesus.
Why build a church? To evangelize the world, BUT,
There was no money made. No building built. The first Apostles and disciples were killed.
The Greeks were deep thinkers. When they heard the gospel and had the question answered of “WHAT HAPPENS AFTER DEATH?” Having testimony from witnesses of Jesus or Apostles, the Greeks believed. Heaven was better thsn here. That’s why they had peace in their souls while being persecuted and killed.
Money and power would come in the 4 th century under Constantine. 300 yrs Word of mouth (tradition) and letters being shared kept the church intact.
You were guaranteed Heaven and afterlife. No one earned money or fame. No church buildings built.
Why keep it going??The persecutions were terrible.
So, no peace in Jerusalem=no Messiah.
In Thessalonians, it days: THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN YOU. So, Jesus came to bring peace to your spirits. Our spirits are Jerusalem. (First the Jew, then gentile) We found the Messiah and the Jew is still looking. There eyes are still on the geographical plane.
All ppl can make fun of Jesus and our church. Blessed are they who suffer for my name sake…
Roman Catholicism had a bad run every now and then. There can be evil in the church. The first 12 Apostles has Judas. Judas handled the money. Funny huh.
That’s all folks
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
 
Wow, that is disturbing. I don’t think this is what most jews believe, is it?
Click to expand...
Some of the more hard line religious Jews might believe it.
The hard part: how would you try to convince a jew that Mary was a virgin, that Jesus arose from the dead and is now in Heaven? Even harder, the Holly Trinity?
Click to expand...
I’d start with the resurrection of Jesus, that’s fundamental and it’s what the Christian faith is founded on. The historical support for it is very strong. I was just discussing this with an atheist in another thread actually. If you can at least have someone acknowledge that there is something going for the resurrection, that’s when you can move on from there to the actual theology of Christianity. If you need me to, I can link you to the massive amount of scholarly work on the resurrection. Keep in mind this isn’t just “apologetics”, this is from the actual field of study relating to the “historical Jesus” which includes scholars on all areas of the spectrum including non-believing scholars.

Also, keep in mind that Christianity is a much more universal religion, able to step outside itself and look at things from a grander point view, whereas Rabbinical Judaism is not and is very much within itself and only able to see things on surface level. But, it must also be kept in mind that, while Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism have a very different out look on things, we come from the same tradition. Our roots are inseparably tied. Both of our religions are the direct successors to ancient Judaism, they are both our spiritual ancestors. No other two religions are this closely tied to each other in such a way. Rabbinical Judaism is a reinterpretation of the Pharisaic Jewish sect from the Second Temple period, while Christianity is a grander continuation of the religious Second Temple Jewish sect that Jesus started.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you’re right. I didn’t knew jew was pejorative, my bad knowledge of english language is to blame (I’m argentine).
 
I honestly don’t know. How can I convince an atheist or a Christian in doubt? If there is a way to convince them then I would do it that way.
 
I did not realise you were a speaker/writer of English as a second language. Your English is very good. Some of these points are very subtle and difficult even for first language speakers. Please do not let my comment put you off using English and learning more. English is wonderful in its complexity and its ability to make very fine distinctions. But it can be challenging for those acquiring it as a second or third language. You are doing very well!
 
I knew that and after being told that I am too prissy about it I decided to give it up. Thanks for reminding me. I will edit my comment too.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
If you need me to, I can link you to the massive amount of scholarly work on the resurrection.
Click to expand...
Yes please, I would really like to. I’m going to a phase of deep doubts about my faith and this will help me to strenght it. Thanks.
 
http://www.garyhabermas.com/article...-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

That link is a nice introduction to the current research trends on the topic.


This work is a very heavy in-depth scholarly look into the resurrection from a purely historical point of view.

Read chapter 17 of “The Historical Figure of Jesus”, by E.P. Sanders, which discusses the resurrection and its historicity. Sanders is a skeptical scholar, he doesn’t accept things like the virgin birth but it perfectly happy to accept the empty tomb and resurrection appearances. Of course, this being a scholarly work he cannot explicitly conclude Christ rose, but he provides so much support for it and has no explanation for the great amount of evidence.


Don’t let the title deceive you on that one, it’s not an apologetic work but it does look at the resurrection of Jesus from a purely scholarly view and conclude that Jesus resurrection in some way is highly likely in face of the general scholalry research. The author of this work, James Dunn, is far from orthodox though. He doesn’t believe in the Trinity or deity of Christ.
 
You really do need to stop reading the “Stormfront Talmud” sites.

We won’t be talking again.
 
No, it’s not. You shouldn’t assume that most Jews give any thought at all to Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top