5 ms·

> the first-century Jewish rabbi I don't know why they put rabbi there. Jesus is later rejected by Jewish teachings and is probably considered heretical. http

> the first-century Jewish rabbi I don't know why they put rabbi there. Jesus is later rejected by Jewish teachings and is probably considered heretical. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_Jesus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_Jesus Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).

calebio 2y ago
I think there's a decent case to be made that he was considered a "rabbi", or teacher in the time period prior to the destruction of the second temple, by a group of jewish folks. As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.
- VOIPThrowaway 2y ago
  That's the Christian viewpoint in that Christians view themselves as the valid continuation of the first convenient between god and the Hebrews.
  - calebio 2y ago
    Sure, but as far as I understand it, his followers were Jewish people, those followers called him Rabbi, so at that time... it was a "Jewish viewpoint".
- drekipus 2y ago
  That's fair. Thanks
cherryteastain 2y ago
How is it inaccurate? John 1:38 > Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? John 3:2 > The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 20:16 > Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
- drekipus 2y ago
  "which is to say, master" is the part we're talking about here. jesus isnt a modern day rabbi, but was a teacher in the classical sense. makes sense to me. thanks
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
29athrowaway 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity
dismalaf 2y ago
The fact he was rejected posthumously by those who became the dominant orthodox sect doesn't mean he wasn't a rabbi during his time.
ViktorRay 2y ago
It is possible for one to be a rabbi and also be rejected by other rabbis. Judaism wasn't a monolith then and isn't now.
- AStonesThrow 2y ago
  Yeah but as for Jesus, he was rejected by all Jews, Sanhedrin and high priests, also the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, zillions of Hellenics, and a large chunk of the entire world 2000 years hence. I’d call that a unique achievement in the history of rejections.
stared 2y ago
Jesus' teachings fit within the diversity of Jewish sects existing at the time—Sadducees, Pharisees (literally "sectarians," derived from the Greek word Pharisaios, sharing the same root as the word "pariah"), and Essenes (a mystical, monastic sect; some speculate Jesus may have been associated with them). Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.") > "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision) This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.
fuckkikes_ 2y ago
[dead]
bdcravens 2y ago
Rejected later upon evaluation of his entire life, but that's not to say he wasn't considered a teacher at the time. After all, there's plenty of modern-day preachers who have done some heinous acts, but they don't retroactively lose that title during the time they held it. It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)
aradox66 2y ago
Both "Jewish" and "rabbi" are anachronisms in discussions of Jesus
- goatlover 2y ago
  Not true at all, Jesus was a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher of some sort (likely apocalyptic prophet), historians and scholars agree on that.
  - aradox66 2y ago
    What does "Jewish" mean in that context? The dominant religion at the time was a sacrificial cult centered on Temple worship. rabbinical Judaism as we know it today developed over centuries after that temple cult was fully decimated by the Romans. Its completely anachronistic to say "Jewish" refers to Jesus in the same way that it refers to your local synagogue.
    - goatlover 2y ago
      Right, Jesus is to be understood historically as a 1st century Jew who lead a movement. Just as Paul is understood historically as a very early Christian (and Jew), not a modern day one. Paul wouldn't have even understood something called Christianity as a separate religion.
kylehotchkiss 2y ago
Or superstitions (i spent a few years living near Delhi, the nazar stuff seemed to me like a system of self inflicted oppression)
goatlover 2y ago
Because Jesus fits the definition of a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher, regardless of how he later came to be viewed. Just because later rabbinic Judaism rejected the apocalyptic movements and texts doesn't mean it wasn't part of Judaism while Jesus was live.

calebio 2y ago

I think there's a decent case to be made that he was considered a "rabbi", or teacher in the time period prior to the destruction of the second temple, by a group of jewish folks. As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.

VOIPThrowaway 2y ago
That's the Christian viewpoint in that Christians view themselves as the valid continuation of the first convenient between god and the Hebrews.
- calebio 2y ago
  Sure, but as far as I understand it, his followers were Jewish people, those followers called him Rabbi, so at that time... it was a "Jewish viewpoint".
drekipus 2y ago
That's fair. Thanks

cherryteastain 2y ago

How is it inaccurate? John 1:38 > Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? John 3:2 > The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. John 20:16 > Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

drekipus 2y ago
"which is to say, master" is the part we're talking about here. jesus isnt a modern day rabbi, but was a teacher in the classical sense. makes sense to me. thanks

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

29athrowaway 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

dismalaf 2y ago

The fact he was rejected posthumously by those who became the dominant orthodox sect doesn't mean he wasn't a rabbi during his time.

ViktorRay 2y ago

It is possible for one to be a rabbi and also be rejected by other rabbis. Judaism wasn't a monolith then and isn't now.

AStonesThrow 2y ago
Yeah but as for Jesus, he was rejected by all Jews, Sanhedrin and high priests, also the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, zillions of Hellenics, and a large chunk of the entire world 2000 years hence. I’d call that a unique achievement in the history of rejections.

stared 2y ago

Jesus' teachings fit within the diversity of Jewish sects existing at the time—Sadducees, Pharisees (literally "sectarians," derived from the Greek word Pharisaios, sharing the same root as the word "pariah"), and Essenes (a mystical, monastic sect; some speculate Jesus may have been associated with them). Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.") > "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision) This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.

fuckkikes_ 2y ago

[dead]

bdcravens 2y ago

Rejected later upon evaluation of his entire life, but that's not to say he wasn't considered a teacher at the time. After all, there's plenty of modern-day preachers who have done some heinous acts, but they don't retroactively lose that title during the time they held it. It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)

aradox66 2y ago

Both "Jewish" and "rabbi" are anachronisms in discussions of Jesus

goatlover 2y ago
Not true at all, Jesus was a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher of some sort (likely apocalyptic prophet), historians and scholars agree on that.
- aradox66 2y ago
  What does "Jewish" mean in that context? The dominant religion at the time was a sacrificial cult centered on Temple worship. rabbinical Judaism as we know it today developed over centuries after that temple cult was fully decimated by the Romans. Its completely anachronistic to say "Jewish" refers to Jesus in the same way that it refers to your local synagogue.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    Right, Jesus is to be understood historically as a 1st century Jew who lead a movement. Just as Paul is understood historically as a very early Christian (and Jew), not a modern day one. Paul wouldn't have even understood something called Christianity as a separate religion.

kylehotchkiss 2y ago

Or superstitions (i spent a few years living near Delhi, the nazar stuff seemed to me like a system of self inflicted oppression)

goatlover 2y ago

Because Jesus fits the definition of a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher, regardless of how he later came to be viewed. Just because later rabbinic Judaism rejected the apocalyptic movements and texts doesn't mean it wasn't part of Judaism while Jesus was live.