M
mercygate
Guest
There is a good book dedicated entirely to this subject: Salvation Is from the Jews by Roy Schoeman.Why dont Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah?
- Status
V
Valke2
Guest
Another ineresting book on the subject is “Why the Jews Rejected Jesus” By David Klinghoffer, former literary editor at National Review.
In an interview on NPR, Mr. Klinghoffer gives this two sentence summary:
“The question is, Why don’t Jews understand that they also need the gift of unmerited grace that came with thatJesus’] death? The quickest answer is that Judaism has always understood that we received such a gift, but 1,300 years before Jesus died, at Mt. Sinai. The Christian offer of salvation through Christ’s death is an offer of a gift we already had in exchange for giving up the unique grammar of our relationship with God through the mitzvoth, or commandments.”
I think this man is brilliant, but only because he seems to agree with me.
K
Karin
Guest
so the Jews are “saved” by the Commandments?
C
Contarini
Guest
Because attempts by Christians to convert Jews have often been very coercive and ended with dead Jews on the floor.
Example: it was a common practice in the Middle Ages for the Church and/or Christian rulers to invite rabbis to public debate. The problem was that because Christianity was the dominant religion and Christians were themselves very sensitive to any criticism of their faith (and because medieval European culture was prone to sudden outbursts of anger and violence), if the Jews made serious arguments against Christianity this was likely to result in a riot, if not a massacre. And of course, if they didn’t make a good showing they would be told that they had lost the debate and would be pressured to convert.It was a lose/lose situation. I’m not saying that these debates were never fair, but it was always difficult to keep them so. One such debate is recorded in Joinville’s Life of St. Louis(13th cent.). It was interrupted before it fairly got going, because as the rabbi started to present his case one of the Christian knights present ran forward and hit the rabbi, knocking him to the floor unconscious (and half-dead). The Jews picked up the rabbi’s body and ran (I don’t recall if the rabbi survived or not). And here’s the kicker–when this was told to King Louis IX–Saint Louis, the model Christian king–he responded that the knight had done absolutely right, and that the abbot who had arranged the debate had been behaving irresponsibly by exposing laypeople to the arguments of unbelievers. If you are a layperson and a heretic tries to attack the Catholic Faith in your presence, the king added, don’'t argue with him, but stick your sword into his belly as far as it will go.
That’s the climate in which Jews lived for centuries–and in the 13th century things were only starting to get really bad. There was a lot more outright coercion in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance.
No wonder that Jews today hear any Christian invitation to religious dialogue with a good few butterflies in the belly. They’re imagining King Louis’ sword going in.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
God gave us His grace at Sinai and it is part of the covenant we have with him. The mitzvot (commandments) are how we honor the covenant on our end. There’s a thread “Why the Jews don’t Need to be Saved” that discussed this topic extensively.
C
Contarini
Guest
This is a classic example of an “insider’s” vs. an “outsider’s” perspective. However, I do have Neusner on my side–he treats the Mishna as a product of the post-Jamnia era. Of course, the same thing happens in studies of early Christianity–secular and liberal scholars take a more skeptical view, while orthodox, conservative Christians take a different approach.
I’m not saying that the Mishna was made up out of whole cloth. I’m saying that it was *codified *after the Jewish-Christian split, so that one can’t assume that because something’s in the Mishna therefore it would have been accepted by all Jews in Jesus’ day. The Qumran group, for instance, had some rather wacky theology, by later Jewish standards.
And, of course, when you quote “Talmud” I don’t know for sure if you’re quoting the Mishna itself or the later commentary.
Edwin
V
Valke2
Guest
Just adding to what Edwin said, no one likes to have their theology questioned.
K
Karin
Guest
but if in questioning you can be shown the error would that not be a good thing?
I
inJESUS
Guest
Trouble maker.
did not mean to, but well
V
Valke2
Guest
Putting aside the validity of the the source of the Mishna, most most jewish scholars, from what I have read, believe it existed prior to the time of Jesus. Assuming it was not given to Moses from God at Sinai, I could argue this would only strengthen my position, as the “Mishna” than becomes the rabbinic teachings, as they evolve over time. And it was these teachings that Jesus seemed to ignore. For example, he didn’t fail to remember the Sabbath (from his perspective) but rather did not feel that gathering food (a Talmudic or Rabbinic prohibition based on an interperation of the commandment), violated that commandment.
This is why I think, he says he did not come to abolish the law and that he talks about how the law of the Torah is still applicable.
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m not disputing that these interpretations already existed. I’m saying that there was less consensus in Jesus’ day than a hundred years later. And for that matter, the Karaites exist to this day, and as late as the time of Sa’adia (9th century I think–or is it 8th?) they were a serious threat to orthodox rabbinic Judaism. The position you ascribe to Jesus (which basically makes sense to me) sounds pretty similar to the Karaite one, doesn’t it? I.e., the laws are binding but the rabbinic interpretations are not.
Edwin
I
inJESUS
Guest
it is my own understanding that the disciples did not know immediately that Jesus is God, but after the crucifixion…can someonne correct me?
V
Valke2
Guest
From wikipedia:
It is unclear, according to J. Sussman (Mehqerei Talmud III), whether there was any writing connected to the Oral Law, or whether it was entirely oral. It **was not written down until c. 800-900 BCE, **but the reason why this was not done is unclear and perhaps rooted in a belief that only the Torah could be written. This is in contradiction with an established Israelite/Jewish practice, preserved in the Bible and Apocrypha, to write books.
Over time, different traditions of the Oral Law came into being, debating what the laws or their rulings were. Further, (according to the Mavoh Hatalmud) many rulings were given about specific things that could have been taken out of context or where a ruling was revisited but the second ruling was not as popularly known. To correct this, Rabbi took up the redaction of the Mishnah. If something was already there with no conflict, he used it without changes in language, he reordered and ruled on where there was conflict, and clarifed where context was not given. The idea was not do this at his own discretion, but rather to examine the tradition as far back as he could, and only supplement as required.
It is unclear, according to J. Sussman (Mehqerei Talmud III), whether there was any writing connected to the Oral Law, or whether it was entirely oral. It **was not written down until c. 800-900 BCE, **but the reason why this was not done is unclear and perhaps rooted in a belief that only the Torah could be written. This is in contradiction with an established Israelite/Jewish practice, preserved in the Bible and Apocrypha, to write books.
Over time, different traditions of the Oral Law came into being, debating what the laws or their rulings were. Further, (according to the Mavoh Hatalmud) many rulings were given about specific things that could have been taken out of context or where a ruling was revisited but the second ruling was not as popularly known. To correct this, Rabbi took up the redaction of the Mishnah. If something was already there with no conflict, he used it without changes in language, he reordered and ruled on where there was conflict, and clarifed where context was not given. The idea was not do this at his own discretion, but rather to examine the tradition as far back as he could, and only supplement as required.
C
Contarini
Guest
No offence, but that sounds like something only Orthodox Jews would believe. In mainstream scholarship, 800-900 is actually an early date for the redaction of the Torah. Many people–including myself–would say that parts of the Torah were written by then, but the whole wasn’t redacted till the Exile. Of course very conservative Christians, like Orthodox Jews, find this repugnant. But on the other hand, today probably the majority of scholars of the Hebrew Bible would find the view I just expressed quite conservative. It took me a couple of takes to realize that you were seriously talking about the *oral *Torah! This is simply not something you’re going to get anywhere with in a discussion with those who are not Orthodox Jews. I suspect even most Conservative rabbis would dismiss this claim.
Edwin
V
Valke2
Guest
Then we have the issue of Zugot, a Hebrew word indicating a plural of two identical objects (pairs). The name was given to the two leading teachers of the Law during each successive generation during the period. Specifically, 5 pairs of legal scholars who ruled the Supreme Court Beit Din HaGadol from 142 BCE to 40 BCE. Teachers of the oral law would traditionally study in pairs. And the way they studied was to orally repeat the laws to each other so that they could commit it to memory. This is the oral torah. You can dispute the form of the Mishna and its “authorship”/divinity. But I don’t think you would find very many Conservative Rabbis would would agree that the Mishna was not orally transmitted prior to the time of Jesus.
V
Valke2
Guest
For centuries, Judaism’s leading rabbis had resisted writing down the Oral Law. Teaching the law orally, the rabbis knew, compelled students to maintain close relationships with teachers, and they considered teachers, not books, to be the best conveyors of the Jewish tradition. But with the deaths of so many teachers in the failed revolts, Rabbi Judah apparently feared that the Oral Law would be forgotten unless it were written down.
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html
While Conservative and Reform Judaism also believe that some kind of Oral Law was always necessary to make the Torah comprehensible and workable, they reject the belief that most of the Talmud dates back to Moses’ time. They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives. Thus, they feel more free than the Orthodox to ignore, modify, or change the Oral Law.
But even conservative and (I think) reform Rabbis believe that the oral law was being transmitted and evolving prior to the time of Jesus.
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/talmud_&_mishna.html
While Conservative and Reform Judaism also believe that some kind of Oral Law was always necessary to make the Torah comprehensible and workable, they reject the belief that most of the Talmud dates back to Moses’ time. They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives. Thus, they feel more free than the Orthodox to ignore, modify, or change the Oral Law.
But even conservative and (I think) reform Rabbis believe that the oral law was being transmitted and evolving prior to the time of Jesus.
V
Valke2
Guest
But all this aside. Whether or not there was a “mishna” in effect during the time of Jesus, there was certainly a rabbinic tradition that was used to implement the commandments set forth in Torah. Otherwise, why would Jesus be taken to task for collecting food on Shabbat?
So wheter you call it Mishna or Rabbinic Laws, either way these were an integral part of Judaism.
So wheter you call it Mishna or Rabbinic Laws, either way these were an integral part of Judaism.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
And he might be refering to the EucharistI don’t know. But if its the Jewish theologian who concedes, he or she will probalby say “…you’re correct, I agree, let’s eat.”
C
Contarini
Guest
Valke,
Again, I’m not questioning the existence of the Oral Law at the time of Jesus. I’m questioning the use of documents written down later as proof that Jesus was violating this or that universally accepted attitude. I’m suggesting (as most scholars I know, whether Jewish, Christian, or secular, believe) that Second Temple Judaism had a wide range of beliefs and practices, which were narrowed down after the fall of the Temple. I’m questioning the validity of any statement that takes the form "Jews in Jesus’ day would never have believed . . . . " Those ideas and practices that were eventually accepted as Orthodox Judaism were already present, certainly. But they weren’t necessarily as universally accepted or as clearly codified as they became later (and the example of the Karaites–the Samaritans too for that matter but they were obviously already a separate group in Jesus’ day–shows that they never did become accepted by all who called themselves Jews).
Edwin
Again, I’m not questioning the existence of the Oral Law at the time of Jesus. I’m questioning the use of documents written down later as proof that Jesus was violating this or that universally accepted attitude. I’m suggesting (as most scholars I know, whether Jewish, Christian, or secular, believe) that Second Temple Judaism had a wide range of beliefs and practices, which were narrowed down after the fall of the Temple. I’m questioning the validity of any statement that takes the form "Jews in Jesus’ day would never have believed . . . . " Those ideas and practices that were eventually accepted as Orthodox Judaism were already present, certainly. But they weren’t necessarily as universally accepted or as clearly codified as they became later (and the example of the Karaites–the Samaritans too for that matter but they were obviously already a separate group in Jesus’ day–shows that they never did become accepted by all who called themselves Jews).
Edwin
- Status