[tazarooni89]

(Original post by anyone_can_fly)
Your quote says "you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". The idea of eternal damnation is definitely not in keeping with Judaism.

It doesn't say anything about "eternal damnation" though, does it? It just says that they won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why, do Jews believe that every single person goes to Heaven, regardless of whether or not they kept the commandments?

[anyone_can_fly]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
It doesn't say anything about "eternal damnation" though, does it? It just says that they won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Why, do Jews believe that every single person goes to Heaven, regardless of whether or not they kept the commandments?

This is true. Judaism doesn't really focus much on what happens after death. Almost every single person goes to Heaven - the souls of those who're completely and utterly wicked cease to exist. But there's quite a lot of room to manoeuvre on the details, as the afterlife isn't discussed much, and I'm no authority.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by anyone_can_fly)
This is true. Judaism doesn't really focus much on what happens after death. Almost every single person goes to Heaven - the souls of those who're completely and utterly wicked cease to exist. But there's quite a lot of room to manoeuvre on the details, as the afterlife isn't discussed much, and I'm no authority.

It's interesting that you mention that people who are particularly evil cease to exist. Because if you actually look at the words of Jesus in the New Testament, the contrast he tends to make is not between "Heaven" and "Hell". The contrast he makes is between "eternal life" and "death" or "perishing". For example, there's the famous quote of John 3:15-16, and others.

[Hylean]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well from the quote I just gave, surely the former seems to be the case rather than the latter?

This is an issue in Christianity and what Laws Jesus changed and which he kept are still up for debate. Taking the strictest view, if he didn't gainsay a particular law, it should still be in force. However, many view that Jesus came and changed the rules completely so that only the laws Jesus put forth matter. This is generally an issue of Church doctrine and individual interpretation.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Hylean)
This is an issue in Christianity and what Laws Jesus changed and which he kept are still up for debate. Taking the strictest view, if he didn't gainsay a particular law, it should still be in force. However, many view that Jesus came and changed the rules completely so that only the laws Jesus put forth matter. This is generally an issue of Church doctrine and individual interpretation.

Well yes, I know some Christians are of the opinion that OT laws in general don't apply anymore - though when I ask why they believe this, they tend to point to some verse in the NT to justify it, but not something that Jesus explicitly said. I think it's Peter whose dream they refer to, to justify being allowed to eat pork for example?

So I would have thought that at least from a Jewish perspective, taking only evidence we have of what Jesus actually and explicitly said, there's no reason to believe that he changed all the rules (since presumably, the Jews don't believe that the NT is divinely inspired, so anything said elsewhere in the NT shouldn't really matter much to them).

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well yes, I know some Christians are of the opinion that OT laws in general don't apply anymore - though when I ask why they believe this, they tend to point to some verse in the NT to justify it, but not something that Jesus explicitly said. I think it's Peter whose dream they refer to, to justify being allowed to eat pork for example?

So I would have thought that at least from a Jewish perspective, taking only evidence we have of what Jesus actually and explicitly said, there's no reason to believe that he changed all the rules (since presumably, the Jews don't believe that the NT is divinely inspired, so anything said elsewhere in the NT shouldn't really matter much to them).

(Sorry for the late reply, but I saw that this threat is slipping into oblivion and I know that you're an active user, so you may benefit from a reply from a Jewish perspective.)

There seems to be a dispute in Christianity over whether or not Jesus was to disregard or fulfil the laws of what Christians know as the Old Testament. Many Jews I know are not entirely interested in other religions past a basic level of knowledge. I'm not one of them, and I think that understanding Christianity and its relationship with Judaism is essential in building relations between the two religions. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." This seems to be saying that Jesus came to fulfil the law and not to alter it, but any reading of these verses that would place Christians under the authority of the Torah is a misreading and contradicts the views of Paul and the writer of Hebrews. It was Paul's letter that really took the point forward with regards to abandoning the laws, as Paul lashes out at the Jewish elders for their position on cirucmcision and other related matters. Many consider Paul to be the founder of Christianity insofar as it is separate from Judaism, since Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah and this is a view promulgated by Paul and his followers. The reason Paul was so against circumcision is that he thought this was one of the ways by which traditional Judaism (with its observance of the 613 commandments) would dominate the new Christianity. He had tried Judaism himself and had followed the laws to the letter, and he later thanked God for having been released from these obligations. The Christian rejection of OT law has, in my view, more to do with Paul than Jesus.

[Mazzini]

Do you think Jesus was a prophet? Or divine? Or what? Just wonderin'.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Mazzini)
Do you think Jesus was a prophet? Or divine? Or what? Just wonderin'.

There is no Jewish view on Jesus. Jews regard Jesus in much the same way as Christians regard Muhammad. He came after the period of prophesy and did not fulfil the messianic requirements set down in the Tanakh. He advocated the reversal of many Jewish laws, and the idea that God can have a 'son' or be split into three is totally alien to Jewish thought. The idea that Jews consider Jesus a prophet or a great teacher/moral figure are false.

As for the New Testament, most Jews take what it says to be in complete contrast to the Old Testament. I'll give a quick example from the Gospel according to St. Matthew (8:21-22): "And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Jews have no idea what to think of this. The idea that it is possible for a man to save his soul by leaving his father's body unburied is something the Jewish mind cannot accept. To say that the end (salvation of the soul) justifies such means is not a view that Jews can adhere to.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)

(Sorry for the late reply, but I saw that this threat is slipping into oblivion and I know that you're an active user, so you may benefit from a reply from a Jewish perspective.)

There seems to be a dispute in Christianity over whether or not Jesus was to disregard or fulfil the laws of what Christians know as the Old Testament. Many Jews I know are not entirely interested in other religions past a basic level of knowledge. I'm not one of them, and I think that understanding Christianity and its relationship with Judaism is essential in building relations between the two religions. Matthew quotes Jesus as saying: "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." This seems to be saying that Jesus came to fulfil the law and not to alter it, but any reading of these verses that would place Christians under the authority of the Torah is a misreading and contradicts the views of Paul and the writer of Hebrews. It was Paul's letter that really took the point forward with regards to abandoning the laws, as Paul lashes out at the Jewish elders for their position on cirucmcision and other related matters. Many consider Paul to be the founder of Christianity insofar as it is separate from Judaism, since Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah and this is a view promulgated by Paul and his followers. The reason Paul was so against circumcision is that he thought this was one of the ways by which traditional Judaism (with its observance of the 613 commandments) would dominate the new Christianity. He had tried Judaism himself and had followed the laws to the letter, and he later thanked God for having been released from these obligations. The Christian rejection of OT law has, in my view, more to do with Paul than Jesus.

I agree that the justification given for Christians rejecting OT Law usually comes in the form of Paul and others, rather than from Jesus himself. But then my point was, surely the argument used by some Jews that "Jesus could not have been the Messiah/Prophet etc. because he tried to abolish OT Law" no longer applies? Because when we look at the reports of his life, it was never actually he who did this.

I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. In Mark 14:61-62, someone asks Jesus if he is the Messiah, and he replies "I am". If this is an accurate report, it does sound like he is claiming to be the Messiah.

If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and ordered people to keep to the Law rather than abolish it - I'm still wondering on what basis Jews can confidently say that he can't have been the Messiah.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
There is no Jewish view on Jesus. Jews regard Jesus in much the same way as Christians regard Muhammad. He came after the period of prophesy and did not fulfil the messianic requirements set down in the Tanakh. He advocated the reversal of many Jewish laws, and the idea that God can have a 'son' or be split into three is totally alien to Jewish thought. The idea that Jews consider Jesus a prophet or a great teacher/moral figure are false.

As for the New Testament, most Jews take what it says to be in complete contrast to the Old Testament. I'll give a quick example from the Gospel according to St. Matthew (8:21-22): "And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Jews have no idea what to think of this. The idea that it is possible for a man to save his soul by leaving his father's body unburied is something the Jewish mind cannot accept. To say that the end (salvation of the soul) justifies such means is not a view that Jews can adhere to.

Okay thanks.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
I agree that the justification given for Christians rejecting OT Law usually comes in the form of Paul and others, rather than from Jesus himself. But then my point was, surely the argument used by some Jews that "Jesus could not have been the Messiah/Prophet etc. because he tried to abolish OT Law" no longer applies? Because when we look at the reports of his life, it was never actually he who did this.

I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah. In Mark 14:61-62, someone asks Jesus if he is the Messiah, and he replies "I am". If this is an accurate report, it does sound like he is claiming to be the Messiah.

If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and ordered people to keep to the Law rather than abolish it - I'm still wondering on what basis Jews can confidently say that he can't have been the Messiah.

The main argument that Jews hold against Jesus has nothing to do with the altering or abolition of the laws. His or his followers' claims that he is the Messiah contradict the messianic requirements of the OT. The Messiah must:

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Jesus did not fulfil all of these conditions, nor can he do so in any 'Second Coming' as this is not mentioned as part of the messianic prophecy. Many other factors count in the rejection of Jesus, such as the idea of a virgin birth precluding him from fulfilling the requirement of being a descendent of King David, the fact that the Messiah has to lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance, and the fact that the Messiah will be a prophet whilst Jesus arrived almost 300 years after the end of prophecy; prophecy can only take place when the Land of Israel is inhabited by a Jewish majority. Judaism is a religion of national revelation. As Maimonides said:

The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us ― who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)

I'd recommend reading this to fully understand the Jewish view.

[NJA]

Is water baptism (immersion) practiced in Judaism today?

If so, can anyone please give details?

What about ceremonial washing of clothes?

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day:" (Exodus 19:10-11)

[anyone_can_fly]

(Original post by NJA)
Is water baptism (immersion) practiced in Judaism today?

If so, can anyone please give details?

What about ceremonial washing of clothes?

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, And be ready against the third day:" (Exodus 19:10-11)

As part of the process of conversion to Judaism, converts have to immerse themselves in a mikveh. Is this what you mean?

[okonomiyaki]

Apologies for not having read through all these pages!

Both of my mother's parents come from Jewish families, but aren't incredibly practising. I'm not too sure what religion my mum considers herself to be. I mentioned this to someone and was told that since "Jewishness" passes down the maternal line, I am therefore, Jewish.

Is this correct? I am agnostic, by the way

[NJA]

(Original post by anyone_can_fly)
As part of the process of conversion to Judaism, converts have to immerse themselves in a mikveh. Is this what you mean?

That's certainly relevant, I received more information here.

[anyone_can_fly]

(Original post by okonomiyaki)
Apologies for not having read through all these pages!

Both of my mother's parents come from Jewish families, but aren't incredibly practising. I'm not too sure what religion my mum considers herself to be. I mentioned this to someone and was told that since "Jewishness" passes down the maternal line, I am therefore, Jewish.

Is this correct? I am agnostic, by the way

Yep. You're Jewish if your mother is Jewish (because her mother is Jewish), or if you convert to Judaism. Belief doesn't come into it. (Some branches of Judaism also consider you Jewish if your father is Jewish and mother isn't, but that isn't the Orthodox view.)

[Matthew12]

I was just wondering that since its assur(prohibited) to write two or more letters on Shabbat andYamin Tovim on account of the melecha (prohited labour acts) (Mishnah Shabbat 7:2)whether one could write one letter on one page then another letter on another page to make up a word since the person would still be writing but one letter on another page?

[ZeeAli]

Why do jewish women wear wigs to cover their hair ? why dont they just use a scarf or something else ?
i just think it defeats the purpose of covering up their hair.. is it not meant for your hair to be covered in modesty and not just with a wig

[Charlottie93]

(Original post by ZeeAli)
Why do jewish women wear wigs to cover their hair ? why dont they just use a scarf or something else ?
i just think it defeats the purpose of covering up their hair.. is it not meant for your hair to be covered in modesty and not just with a wig

They do use scarves e.t.c. but sometimes a wig is easier and it's still modest as only their husband / family members will see what they truly look like.

Although some Orthodox members believe they should be avoided as it gives the appearance that the hair is uncovered!

[PandyAndy]

I think the Orthodox ones shave their heads,but I may be wrong.