Modern rabbinic Judaism, Deut.13:1-5 and Yeshua

[Sepharad]

And you weren’t awed by the Sermon on the Mount? I can’t imagine not being moved by something so profound and beautiful.

I was not awed because I had read a very similar version of it previously, in traditional Jewish writings from which Jesus probably learned it.

You see, much of what Jesus said was not original. You THINK it is, because he never gave proper credit to his rabbinic sources, as other rabbis traditionally do.

This is perhaps why Gentiles are wowed by what he said, but Jews who are knowledgeable of Jewish rabbinic sources are not. They are hearing it for the first time, but we often are not.

The Jewish conservative commentator, Dennis Prager, once said about Jesus’s teachings: “What he said that was true was not new. And what he said that was new, was not true.”

 

[inJESUS]

The Jewish conservative commentator, Dennis Prager,

 

[Eden]

I was not awed because I had read a very similar version of it previously, in traditional Jewish writings from which Jesus probably learned it.

You see, much of what Jesus said was not original. You THINK it is, because he never gave proper credit to his rabbinic sources, as other rabbis traditionally do.

This is perhaps why Gentiles are wowed by what he said, but Jews who are knowledgeable of Jewish rabbinic sources are not. They are hearing it for the first time, but we often are not.

The Jewish conservative commentator, Dennis Prager, once said about Jesus’s teachings: “What he said that was true was not new. And what he said that was new, was not true.”

So, when Jesus is consistent with the Old Testament, you scoff and when you try to claim that the authors of the New Testament knew nothing about Judaism you scoff? Now being knowledgeable of traditional Jewish writings is negative? Being a sermon, I think it’s pretty evident he was using Jewish scripture to support Him. And what is unique about the Sermon on the Mount, is that “Jesus expounds the law explaining its heart application and also its practicalities. It is an astonishing setting forth of eternal truth at the personal level, challenging and uplifting”.

That’s from this article:

christianvoice.org.uk/Articles/Beatitudes.html

And from St. Augustine:

The Sermon on the Mount “regards the highest morals, a perfect standard of the Christian life”.

Finally, “the spiritual character of the Messianic kingdom – the paramount idea of the Beatitudes – is consistently put forward, in sharp contrast with Jewish%between% prejudices”.

From New Advent:

64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:H5_DVTE68koJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/02371a.htm+beauty+of+sermon+on+the+mount+christian+life&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

And regarding Dennis Prager, for me personally, Pope Benedict XVI has a much greater theological authority on Jesus of Nazareth (the title of his most recent published work, of course), than does radio host Dennis Prager.

 

[Sepharad]

the Jewish conservative commentator can question the truth of what Jesus said, but he cannot prove that the man who told “lies” was not crucified and resurrected. The disciples did not die because of what Jesus only said, but because of what they witnessed…so long as they were witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus, other humans’ opinions are meaningless until they prove that Jesus was neither crucified nor resurrected…or that He was crucified but not resurrected…something that first century Jews were not able to prove, let alone you, Dennis Prager or anyone else.

 

[inJESUS]

it is not only the NT…we have a tradition…Jews will not die for something they doubt …it is much easier to prove the death and resurrection than proving the opposite, historically. Given this approach, the whole tradition, historically, is better than what some thinker thinks.