The issue is not about his identity alone but whether his teaching did or did not involve and draw from Judaism. Grimes is saying it did not. You have a baseball card view of Judaism. Grimes is not going to help you with that deficiency.

You seem to be assuming an awful lot. I think this subject just makes you very defensive for whatever reason. Perhaps you fear its the truth?

And what truth would that be?

I watched your video. You made some ill informed comments. The only assumption I have made so far is that there is some connection between the two events.
I am beginning to think you haven''t listened to the lecture.

I've pointed out a contradiction between Q and the Torah that I think is a fundamental one to the moral systems they prescribe.

Apparently you find this ill-informed? And also something about me saying Jesus was not a Jew?

Again, it seems like you're attacking me based on a position you think I've taken, but I'm having trouble figuring out what position that is.

Whatever it is, it did not take long until you became personal which is usually not a sign of confidence in one's beliefs.

Grimes is making the distinction between the Q document and Judaism in general, not specifically the Torah.
You are the one claiming there is a self evident contradiction between the Torah and that message.
Taken together, that is your position.

I take issue with both components.

I already explained that I wasn't saying that you were saying Jesus was not a Jew as a matter of identity. Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. I take issue with that position.

If that hasn't made your position perfectly clear to yourself. You will need to find help elsewhere.

Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. I take issue with that position. — Valentinus

I do agree with you that he was speaking from within Judaism. Yet he was trying to reform Judaism, and as a result some of his teachings are at a variance with the Torah.

Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. — Valentinus

This is not my position. My position is the one I have stated here clearly twice before - that there is a clear contradiction between some of the teachings and that they are, in my opinion, fundamental to their respective moral systems.

I can't figure out why you are so eager to misrepresent my position.

I've pointed out a contradiction between Q and the Torah that I think is a fundamental one to the moral systems they prescribe. — Tzeentch

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes clear his strict allegiance o the Law. @Valentinus comment about a Jew wrestling with another Jew is central to understanding this allegiance in practice as seen in Talmud and Midrash, interpretation and commentary on the Law. Even the style of Jesus' comment fits the form. It is dialectical.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes clear his strict allegiance o the Law. Valentinus comment about a Jew wrestling with another Jew is central to understanding this allegiance in practice as seen in Talmud and Midrash, interpretation and commentary on the Law. Even the style of Jesus' comment fits the form. It is dialectical. — Fooloso4

The contradiction between 'an eye for an eye' and 'to turn the other cheek' is to me a fundamental one, because the two present entirely different approaches to responding to injustice.

One teaches to respond to an injustice with (at most) an injustice of equal measure, whereas the other teaches that an injustice should never be responded to with an injustice of one's own.

The contradiction between 'an eye for an eye' and 'to turn the other cheek' is to me a fundamental one, because the two present entirely different approaches to responding to injustice. — Tzeentch

The former is legal and applies to all who are under the Law, the latter is a matter of personal choice. An eye for an eye does not teach that one should or must respond by taking an eye for an eye.

From the Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is not rejecting the Law. He exhorts his followers to righteousness beyond the Law. This can be clearly seen in what follows regarding murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, and an eye for an eye.

About eyes he also says under adultery:

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.

Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. — Valentinus

This is not my position. — Tzeentch

That is Grime's position. For him, Jesus is a Sage in the Platonic tradition.

You are using Grime's work to claim that there is an absolute contradiction between the the old and new books in regards to, as you say, their respective moral systems.

That is certainly the case.

I remember a Jewish comedian being asked why Christianity emerged. He said:

"We got too good at arguing with each other. Somebody called the cops. Then the neighbors got involved."

I never said Jesus was not a Jew — Tzeentch

Ok, I'll accept that you didn't say that but just imagine how pretty it would've been in if the founder of Judaism, Moses, were a Hindu, the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha, were a Jew, the founder of Christianity, Jesus were a buddhist, and, last but not the least, the founder of Islam, Mohammad, were a christian. All our problems would be solved - all religions would simply be a chain of revelations cum philosophy.

Jesus is not rejecting the Law. He exhorts his followers to righteousness beyond the Law. — Fooloso4

Or according to the spirit of the Law, rather affording so much importance to its letter. As any rabbi of the time, he had his own interpretation of the Torah. Things like: the sabat is made for man, not man for the sabat.

The contradiction between 'an eye for an eye' and 'to turn the other cheek' is to me a fundamental one, because the two present entirely different approaches to responding to injustice. — Tzeentch

That is true as far as contrasting the OT and NT goes. And it's not just about injustice, it's also about the relationship with gentiles.

Nine centuries separate Leviticus from the OT. Things changed a lot during this time, even within Judaism. So the people Jesus was talking to were not all fundamentalist followers of the Law of Moses to the letter. They all had their own personal and/or sectarian interpretation of the Law, some more lenient and modern, others more strict and literal.

One of the issues, as said above, was the relationship with gentiles. While the Law was written for the Jewish nation conceived as a territorial entity, at the time of Jesus many Jewish communities were already living as a minority among pagans, ie in the diaspora. Some of the Leviticus makes it difficult to develop business relationships with non-Jews. More fundamentally, the status of chosen nation was being ruffled by centuries of pagan domination. Being infeodated to Rome was humbling if not humiliating. The posture a pious Jew should adopt vis à vis Rome is broached upon in the Gospels (give to Caesar...).

Another issue calling for an agiornamento was capital punishments, liberally given in the Leviticus to anyone from an unruly child to a fan of lobster, and evidently to adulterous folks. It was already heavy-handed in the original Law, I think, and 9 centuries later it must have felt a bit 'stone-aged'.

Then the neighbors got involved. — Valentinus

They always do. :-)

Perhaps unfortunately, we all have neighbours, and our relationship with them is important. One of the questions salient in John is "who is my neighbor?"

Or according to the spirit of the Law, rather affording so much importance to its letter. — Olivier5

He says:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)

It is Paul who makes the distinction between the letter and spirit of the Law.

So the people Jesus was talking to were not all fundamentalist followers of the Law of Moses to the letter. — Olivier5

Given the quote above, it seems as if Jesus himself might have been just such a fundamentalist.

As any rabbi of the time, he had his own interpretation of the Torah. — Olivier5

Hence the old joke about two rabbis and three opinions.

Things changed a lot during this time, even within Judaism. — Olivier5

An important point. Judaism never had the "official doctrines" that are found in Christianity after the establishment of the Church. In fact, the first Christians were guided by inspiration, the indwelling of spirit. This was problematic for the development of a universal Church with a single teaching.

You are using Grime's work to claim that there is an absolute contradiction between the the old and new books in regards to, as you say, their respective moral systems. — Valentinus

No, I am not.

I linked Pierre Grimes's work because it touches on some interesting ideas about the subject of this thread.

The point I made is entirely my own and consists of spotting the contradiction I have already laid out several times now.

It's been a while since I watched those lectures, but as far as I know they never touch on this specific subject.

He says: — Fooloso4

He says many things, not all of which point to literalism. I mean, there's a certain ambiguity in Jesus, as recorded.

Judaism never had the "official doctrines" that are found in Christianity — Fooloso4

The Torah is an official doctrine, though. And it prevented the social evolution of the Jewish people for centuries. Until the Talmud sort of updated the whole thing.

He says many things, not all of which point to literalism. I mean, there's a certain ambiguity in Jesus, as recorded. — Olivier5

Yes, I agree. Previously I said:

it is questionable that what is left are the teachings of Jesus rather than of those who were inspired by and may or may not have understood him. Those who may or may not have addressed their own concerns rather than his. — Fooloso4

The Torah is an official doctrine, though. — Olivier5

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/doctrine-dogma/

Until the Talmud sort of updated the whole thing. — Olivier5

According to the Talmud, the oral Torah existed alongside the written Torah. Of course this is historically problematic since both are claimed to originate with Moses. In any case, the Torah appears to be a patchwork rather than a doctrine.

the Torah appears to be a patchwork rather than a doctrine. — Fooloso4

It's prescriptive in any case. It tells people what to do and not do, whom to worship and whom not to, how to worship, what to eat and not eat, etc. Maybe it is not a credo but it's a value system. One in which believing in God is strongly encouraged.

Yes, Torah is the Law.

In keeping with the topic, we should consider the different Jewish groups at the time of Jesus. In addition to differences between sects there were also differences with regard to such things as militantism and @Tzeentchquietism. Passages in the NT that support quitism are not evidence of a break with Judaism.

Just where Jesus fit in all this is not clear. It may be that rather than an affiliation with one or another of these groups he did what many others did then and continue to do today, accepting those beliefs and practices that seem most true to them. Many of the things he was said to have taught can be found in the diverse beliefs of the time. With knowledge of this diversity the idea that Jesus broke with or taught things contrary to Judaism becomes far less tenable.

@Tzeentchquietism. — Fooloso4

Drop the strawmanning already.

In addition to differences between sects there were also differences with regard to such things as militantism and @Tzeentch quietism. Passages in the NT that support quitism are not evidence of a break with Judaism. — Fooloso4

Indeed, they align well with the House of Hillel, and against the House of Shammai.

. With knowledge of this diversity the idea that Jesus broke with or taught things contrary to Judaism becomes far less tenable. — Fooloso4

But didn't we agree that Judaism at the time was plural? Jesus was certainly, along with the Essenes, opposed to the Sadducee leadership in the Temple. He is also affiliated with John the Baptist, who was a sort of anti-establishment prophet of doom and redemption (quite typical of the culture). The anti-Hasmonean element is difficult to miss.

Crypto anti-Hasmonean, anti-Sadducee... That's already a lot. But he seemed to have also taken issue with the by-then up and coming Pharisees. Or at least with some of them.

He was radical alright. In my view, in a good way, though a bit improvised perhaps. Not the most methodical religious figure ever. Not the clearest either. But inspired and inspiring, yes.

He did change the world, in the end. Absolutely not the way he envisaged it -- which in my view was the typical messianic angelic war, as reflected in the Book of Daniel where the title 'Son of Man' comes from. Jesus expected the end of days, quite clearly; he thought he was ushering it all in. Didn't work out this way but as I said, he still had a huge impact.

It's been a while since I watched those lectures, but as far as I know they never touch on this specific subject. — Tzeentch

To be precise, the lectures do not address the absolute differences you claim to exist between "moral systems." The lectures claim Jesus was a Sage in the vernacular of the Hellenistic philosophies current at that time. Grimes also claims the "wisdom" traditions of the "Platonic" are incompatible with the "Hebraic." and that is how he can figure Jesus was not drawing from the world of Judaism as the source of his illumination.

If it was a text, I would quote it for you. I am not going to tell you where these things are said in the video. You will have to do that bit of work by yourself.

Tzeentchquietism.
— Fooloso4

Drop the strawmanning already. — Tzeentch

I don't know what you mean. If you mean your name was combined with quietism that was not intentional. The @ function did not leave a space. If you mean that you think quietism is a strawman then you only have to read your own posts to see why I addressed it.

Indeed, they align well with the House of Hillel, and against the House of Shammai. — Olivier5

And yet despite the opposition both houses are firmly within Judaism.

But didn't we agree that Judaism at the time was plural? Jesus was certainly, along with the Essenes, opposed to the Sadducee leadership in the Temple. — Olivier5

It is this pluralism that makes the claim that he broke with Judaism questionable. Since the Essenes and Sadducees were both Jewish sects, if Jesus was with the Essenes in opposing the Sadducee leadership in the Temple, this is not an indication that Jesus was opposed to or advocated something contrary to Judaism.

He was radical alright. — Olivier5

Perhaps. I don't know enough about the different views within Judaism to say whether his views aligned with other Jews who might also have been seen as radical, as opposed to being unique in his radicalism.

He did change the world, in the end. — Olivier5

I think that is an open question. If not for Paul we might not have even heard about Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee and believed in resurrection. If Jesus was in agreement with the Essenes he would have denied the resurrection of the body.

Jesus expected the end of days, quite clearly — Olivier5

Some interpreted the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God as an internal transformation rather than the geo-political transformation envisioned in some messianic views.

Some interpreted the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God as an internal transformation rather than the geo-political transformation envisioned in some messianic views. — Fooloso4

This view was strenuously deleted by the early Christian Fathers as a species of heresy.

While I am not a mythicist - do we have good reason to believe that Jesus was actually a living person and that the Gospels contain anything this Yeshua (if he lived) might have said or done? It seems we may be commenting on literary fiction and/or myth and determining Jesus' view of Judaism is like trying to understand Slias Marner's view of Calvinism.

Fact or Fiction, the story has had many consequences. Our lives have been interwoven in the story as a matter of it being repeated many times.

It is not like figuring out the motives of a character in a novel.

It is not like figuring out the motives of a character in a novel. — Valentinus

Well it does seem to be rather similar to what you say it is not, but I agree scripture has had real world impact/repercussions, as have the myths held by all cultures. Claims made in a book can shape lives, regardless of the book's merits.