What does the Jewish community think of Jesus?
They haven't got a vested interest in Jesus because they see Him as forming a different religion to their own. (I would like to thank the Jewish Community Online™, http://jewish.com for the following quotes)
(1) Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis wrote in 2000:
"...What do Jews believe about Jesus?
That Jesus is not God or the "only begotten son" of God. Jesus was a child of God, just as we are all children of God.
Jesus lived in the land of Israel in the 1st Century.
He was a charismatic teacher and leader and developed a group of devoted followers.
After Jesus was killed by the Romans, his followers continued to believe he was special and from them Christianity developed its own beliefs and practices that are different from Judaism...."
As Christians we wouldn't agree with his view of Jesus, but he doesn't dismiss Jesus as a myth.
(2) Rabbi David J.B. Krishef wrote in 1997:
"....Jews do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Jews believe that Jesus was just a regular Jew, probably a rabbi. But Jesus taught some things that disagreed with the Torah, and because of this, Jews do not think that Jesus is important to Judaism.
Jesus taught that he could forgive all sins; Jews believe that only God can forgive sins, and even then only after you have asked forgiveness from the person you have sinned against.
Jesus taught that we should turn the other cheek against evil - in other words, we should not respond. The Torah teaches us to fight against evil.
Jesus taught that the only way to pray to God was to pray through Jesus. Jews believe that anyone can pray to God directly....."
Jesus taught things from the 'Torah' (Old Testament part of the Bible) and He explained a deeper meaning to these things.
It's true that only God can forgive sins, but Jesus is God, God's Son, so He can forgive sins.
Again, it is interesting that the Rabbi David J.B. Krishef is not denying Jesus' existence.
(3) And it is the same with Rabbi Michael Feshbach who wrote in 1998:
"....the very early Christians were Jews who followed this man (Jesus) as a teacher, but who later focused more and more on the man over even the message. With Paul.... the new group was transformed from people who still tried to use the Torah as a way of life, to those who viewed the "Old Testament" only as a book of predictions for the coming of the messiah. ....the fact that Christians concentrated so much on the messenger as well as the message, is really how a Jewish teacher wound up as the founder of another faith...."
(4) Haim Cohn, past Chief-Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court and author of The trial and Death of Jesus, has raised a number of inconsistencies with what should have happened at that time with the Jewish jury system:
"1. It is known that the Sanhedrin which was claimed to have tried and convicted Jesus, does not meet to try criminal cases at night. According to Jewish law, such cases could only be tried and completed during daylight hours. Nor did the Sanhedrin sit outside the Temple precincts. Therefore, the trial of Jesus could not have taken place where Matthew claims it to have been conducted. Nor did the Sanhedrin meet on a festival day."
I can see that they would normally meet during the day, but there isn't a problem with them doing this, when you consider that the Jewish religious leaders were so concerned about pushing the trial through and having Jesus executed before the Passover.
Also I see no problem with them conducting the trial away from the Temple, because they in themselves knew that it was going to be a hasty trial, which was going to be out of sight and away from the general public. If they had held an 'official trial', it would have been carried out after the Passover and the leaders would have thought that there was a danger of it being disturbed by the crowds who thought Jesus was the Messiah.
"2. According to Jewish legal practice, no person may be convicted on his own testimony or on the strength of his own confession. Nor may a person be convicted of a capital offense upon the testimony of two witnesses. In addition, at least two witnesses to the crime are required to warn the individual who is about to commit the transgression that the act that he is about to commit is a criminal offense and the penalty that is prescribed for committing such an act. It is therefore, very stringent for a governing body to convict a person of committing a capital offense."
That is the way an honest and fair trial should be conducted, but the religious leaders were not behaving logically and they were allowing their hatred of Jesus to cloud their minds.
In John's Gospel we can see what 'impartial judges' these leaders were going to be!
"Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
"What are we accomplishing?" they asked.
"Here is this man performing many miraculous signs.
If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him,
and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."....
So from that day on they plotted to take his life." John 11:47-48 & 53 NIV.
Do judges make up their minds to who is guilty and what the sentence will be, before they have heard the evidence?!
"3. It was mentioned earlier that the offense of blasphemy was highly unlikely due to the nature of the crime itself. Jesus probably did not have the knowledge of knowing Gods ineffable name. Therefore, he could not have possibly been convicted of an improbable crime....Jesus was probably arrested and crucified by the Roman's who occupied Judea because he was a political dissident who was a rabble-rouser. His punishment, crucifixion, was a popular form of punishment for such a crime. The actions of Jesus were just as much a crime against the Roman state as it was against the Jewish state. ..."
The only person to know God's Name was the High Priest, so the arguement here is, how could Jesus have blasphemied God's Name if He didn't know it?
Also there wasn't a problem with Jesus calling Himself a son of God, because all the Jews believe that they are.
But what is overlooked here, is that Jesus didn't say that He is 'a son of God':
"The high priest said to him,
"I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."
"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you:
In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One
and coming on the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest tore his clothes and said,
"He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses?
Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.
Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists.
Others slapped him and said, "Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"
Matthew 26:63-68 (NIV)
In 1999 the Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel said:
"...Rather than looking to Jesus as a great example being,* they instead made him the great exception ** and in doing so, severed its roots from historic Judaism...."
(* ie; of sonship to God the Father), (** ie; the Son of God)
(5) There is another Jewish view on Jesus' trial. It is in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, under 'The "Trial" and Crucifixion'.
The writer has a number of points which make the "trial" - in his view - as probably not being recorded correctly:
"In the first three Gospels, the Pharisees are not mentioned in connection with the trial, and in John, only once (18:3). Luke (22:66) and Matthew (26:59) explicitly mention the Sanhedrin once, and Mark mentions it twice (14:55; 15:1). In the whole of Luke not just in his description of the Passion there is no mention of the Sanhedrin's verdict against Jesus, and John records nothing about an assembly of the Sanhedrin before which Jesus appeared. Thus it seems very probable that no session of the Sanhedrin took place in the house of the high priest where Jesus was in custody and that the "chief priests and elders and scribes" who assembled there were members of the Temple committee (see also Luke 20:1): the elders were apparently the elders of the Temple and the scribes were the Temple secretaries. The deliverance of Jesus into the hands of the Romans was, it seems, the work of the Sadducean "high priests," who are often mentioned alone in the story. A man suspected of being a messianic pretender could be delivered to the Romans without a verdict of the Jewish high court. In addition, the high priests were interested in getting rid of Jesus, who had spoken against them and had predicted the destruction of the Temple...."
To the Christian, it probably isn't significant whether it was the Sanhedrin or the Sadducean "high priests" who held the trial, but because the Sanhedrin is mentioned we have no reason to doubt that. Again it is interesting to see that Jesus is written about as an actual historical figure.
If you have got any specific Jewish questions,
I believe the Jewish Community Online™, http://jewish.com
would be willing to answer them for you.
Back to Historic Jesus Menu
Scroll image: thanks to Serif ARTGallery CD
© 2004 seeking-god.co.uk