SC said
Does the introduction of the concept that the Messiah is born of a virgin and is God incarnate have any precedence in Jewish thought – or does it mark a kind of final breaking point that can not be resolved internally to JudaismTY
Other and possibly better final straws:
1) The last supper and Leviticus 17: 10-11
2) Temple Judaism needed the sacrifice of a Jewish god’s Son at Passover – what is Yom Kippur for, then?
3) Matthew 16: 28 (and Mark 9: 7 and Luke 9:27) but Temple Judaism was destroyed and there was no victorious Kingdom led by the Son of Man
Why is anyone looking for a “final straw”? The distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism rejects Jesus as the Messiah (sent to restore God’s chosen people), while Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah (sent to save humanity at large). Because Judaism rejects this role for Jesus, Christianity ultimately rejects Judaism (unless you count Messianic Jews, which gets complicated). What more does one need?
To understand why Jews have and continue to reject the claim. There must be reasons why…what are they? There are other earlier ones of course…which have been explored here on the blog and elsewhere. But these are two big later ones. This question was explored by a Rabbi friend of mine who pointed out these are both later developments in Christianity and, in his mind, impossible to reconcile with Judaism – and posted here for others to explore.
Wow. Good luck getting another or better response . . . or accepting something that apparently eludes you. (Most Jews during the time of Jesus probably never even heard of him, so they didn’t even necessarily reject him in any technical sense.) Is there a Rabbi who would disagree with what I have stated? Maybe you should ask one, and post the reply.
Edit: and feel free to print and show them my reply, rather than risking misquoting me.
SC said
Does the introduction of the concept that the Messiah is born of a virgin and is God incarnate have any precedence in Jewish thought – or does it mark a kind of final breaking point that can not be resolved internally to JudaismTY
Would Final Straw also mean, Jews can understand Pauline Christianity and reject it but if presented with with following a Jewish orthodox Jesus, Jews cannot do that?
I do not recall Jesus himself saying when Joseph taught him about the birds and the bees, Joseph told him, you do not have my DNA by the intercourse of my semen at conception. Jesus did not introduce the concept that the Messiah is born of a virgin. Tell me where.
I do not recall Jesus himself saying I put Adam and Eve out of Eden or I told Noah to build a boat. Jesus did not say he was G-d incarnate. Tell me where. Jesus prayed to the Father. Jesus was not the Father. Maybe, Jesus was Daath, but Jesus was not Keter or Chokmah. Tell me where or you are mistaken and have a faulty argument.
The two reasons you have given are insufficient for being the final/last straw.
Now, to do something that runs afoul of Leviticus 17: 10-11, I’d agree that would be a better reason for rejecting Jesus. Being a false prophet would also be a last straw. Not being a savior for Temple Judaism, one could argue would be a last straw. Pretending there was no need for money changers at the Temple would be a last straw. Not having diplomacy and being destructive in the Temple, one could argue would be a last straw. What(?) from age 12 to age 29, Jesus could not build a cooperative relationship with Temple authorities or put together a team of people who agreed with him and then approach the Temple authorities?
– Steefen, Argumentation and Effective Reasoning Specialist
Steefen said –
What(?) from age 12 to age 29, Jesus could not build a cooperative relationship with Temple authorities or put together a team of people who agreed with him and then approach the Temple authorities?
The entire New Testament shows Jesus not wanting in the least to agree or cooperate with the Temple authorities. Jesus didn’t reject the Torah, he rejected the application of the Torah in his time. He rejected the rule of law over the rule of the heart. Jesus, certainly, and some of his followers, probably, we’re living in a new reality of the “life breath,” (badly translated as holy spirit) a spiritual awakening of oneness and being in the moment and the spontaneity of compassion. This was diametrically opposed to the rigidity and ritual of the Temple. He was a classic reformer – the old had to reform itself to the new, not the other way around.
Judaism has always accepted Jesus as a worthy rabbi, as a wise and holy man, but not as the Messiah, and especially not as being elevated to and equal to God. Christianity isn’t Jesus, it’s Paul. Besides, the Jewish Messiah wasn’t supposed to be god’s equal, rather, he was supposed to be a holy righteous warrior king.
There is no final straw. There never was a time when Jesus, or the distortion by Paul called Christianity, could co-exist with the Temple. James taught a traditional Judaism married to the teachings of Jesus, but that experiment died out after the destruction of the Temple. And we don’t really know how James regarded Jesus – as just a man of wisdom or something more. But James was a traditional Jew, that much is known, and if that church had flourished, it would have come the closest to achieving the agreement you’re talking about. But I would think for that to happen, the teaching of Jesus would have taken a backseat to the traditional Jewish teachings.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert