Would it be permissible to believe that Jesus is the messiah if that belief otherwise entails no rejection of halakha or Jewish tradition?

Question

"Messianic Judaism" is generally speaking Christianity repackaged in a Jewish veneer, so they have the same beliefs on the Torah and the divinity of Jesus/Trinity as mainstream Christianity. But suppose a Jew were to believe that Jesus was the Moshiach, while rejecting the Christian ideas that Jesus was divine, that there was a Trinity, that the Torah (including the oral Torah, Mishnah/Talmud) was to be rejected, or that the New Testament is scripture on par with the Tanach. Would such a person have left Judaism for Christianity similar to what "Messianic Jews" have done?

Some Jewish authorities, while rejecting Chabad Messianism, still accept them as Orthodox Jews, on the grounds that other than a peculiar belief about who the Moshiach is, they otherwise adhere to Judaism; could that logic be applied to a person who believed in Jesus as Moshiach without the other beliefs associated with Christianity?

I think you need to pick a question and ask it. You've asked one question in the title and more than one (other) question in the body. Your final question is good, but should be cleaned up because it's very badly worded. And you should change the title, since the final question has nothing to do with Chabad messianism, but with whether or not it would be permissible to believe that Jesus is the messiah if that belief entails no rejection of halakha or Jewish tradition. — Shimon bM, Apr 10 '13 at 23:11
@ShimonbM, you raise some good criticisms. Is it better now? — Zack Martin, Apr 10 '13 at 23:22
If he doesn't believe in that, he doesn't believe in Oso HaIsh. It's like a RZ claiming to follow the Satmar Rebbe, just not his Anti-zionism (the Vayoel Moshe [as well as all his students] is a forge), his nusach, his Piskei Dinim, or his Hashkafa. — ertert3terte, Apr 10 '13 at 23:32
You could just ask "If someone believes that a Mr. Hurkenus Ben Gamliel who owned an olive press in the Galillee in the time of R' Akiva is Mashiach, is he outside the pale?" — ertert3terte, Apr 10 '13 at 23:35
@DoubleAA yes it is. The question was kind of leading there, so I wanted to make it clear — ertert3terte, Apr 10 '13 at 23:46
@ShmuelBrin, The beliefs of Christianity which are most contrary to Judaism - i.e. Jesus being somehow divine, and the Torah to be rejected - are core to the mainstream of Christianity, but not universal. There are minority Christian groups who reject Jesus' divinity, and minority Christian groups which give the written Torah greater heed than most Christians do. So it is not quite as incoherent as a Zionist claiming to follow Rebbe Teitelbaum. — Zack Martin, Apr 11 '13 at 01:00
It is factually incorrect to say without qualification that Messianic's have the same beliefs regarding the Torah and the Trinity as other Christians, many do not. Nevertheless the unequivocal position of our Sages on the "question" of Oso HaIsh would effectively preclude someone who follows him to have an truly kosher view of Torah shebal Peh, even if they avoided the more obvious pitfalls. — Yirmeyahu, Apr 11 '13 at 02:33
@Yirmeyahu do these people worship the same Oso haish. Even if J was the Oso Haish in the Gemara, one could say that they changed his story so much that it's like someone else. — ertert3terte, Apr 11 '13 at 02:38
@ShmuelBrin, firstly there are pockets of them who do not "worship" him strictly speaking, although there can still be a general tendency towards an inappropriate "hero worship". Yet while their perspective of who the Nazarene was is effectively a different person from the view of Chazal, it doesn't change the fact Chazal had such a view which undermines the theoretical possibility of an appropriate view of Torah shebal Peh. — Yirmeyahu, Apr 11 '13 at 03:37
I have been trying to understand the question and I just don't. Maybe that's because I don't understand thhe claim/belief of the Chabad person who elevates the Rebbe to some position. There were many moshiachs. Is ther question whether one can say that a particular person, not listed in standard Jewish texts was also anointed as a king or kohen? Or is there some subtext of the belief that this person is "the" moshiach as evidenced by specific acts or attributes? Depending on what "moshiach" is meant would be the status of the individual as a member of the community. — rosends, Apr 11 '13 at 13:45
@Yirmeyahu But if he's coming back to life, couldn't he do lots of Teshuva then and proceed to become a worthy Mashiach? — Double AA, Apr 11 '13 at 15:57
@DoubleAA, ignoring for the sake of argument the fact that this is precluded by the pesak of the Rambam, this doesn't change the fact they do not accept Chazal's assessment that he wasn't fit. — Yirmeyahu, Apr 11 '13 at 16:17
@DoubleAA I don't think they can do teshuvah then either (unless you have a source that says otherwise). Someone who died presumably saw shamaim, so their teshuvah is not from free will, i.e. it's not a real teshuvah anymore. — Ariel, Apr 11 '13 at 19:29
@DoubleAA You know that's not the same, but in any case he did not (any more) have free will to believe in hashem. He had free will in his actions, but not in his beliefs. — Ariel, Apr 11 '13 at 20:48
@DoubleAA, the potential to do teshuvah in the future doesn't change the fact that they are affirming his suitability to be moshiach when Chazal said he wasn't...i.e. they say he was suitable PRIOR to his hypothetical teshuvah. — Yirmeyahu, Apr 12 '13 at 02:17
Is this a duplicate of http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/27135/472 ? — Monica Cellio, Apr 16 '13 at 20:21
Ariel is not right. Some Chabadniks beleave that Rebbe is Messiah — Josef Klimuk, Apr 16 '18 at 16:03

score 1 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 16 '20 at 10:41

1

You have a mistake in your premise. Chabad Messianism does not believe the Rebbe IS mashiach, but that he can/will be. (Which is rejected by most since mashiach is a living person.)

In your question you keep saying J "was", but he very clearly was NOT the mashiach. To believe J was the mashiach is heretical, but to believe he might be [have been] is actually what this answer says.

However once you've reduced things to this level you have almost nothing left - J might have been, but history is filled with tons of people who might have been mashiach. There is little reason to venerate any of them.

And at this point, where J is worshiped as a deity venerating him is hugely problematic, even if he never actually did anything wrong in his life (which I'm skeptical is true, but I don't think there is much definitive historical record).

From Rambam Melachim uMilchamot Chapter 11, Halacha 4

If a king will arise from the House of David who diligently contemplates the Torah and observes its mitzvot as prescribed by the Written Law and the Oral Law as David, his ancestor, will compel all of Israel to walk in (the way of the Torah) and rectify the breaches in its observance, and fight the wars of God, we may, with assurance, consider him Mashiach.

If he succeeds in the above, builds the Temple in its place, and gathers the dispersed of Israel, he is definitely the Mashiach.

He will then improve the entire world, motivating all the nations to serve God together, as Tzephaniah 3:9 states: 'I will transform the peoples to a purer language that they all will call upon the name of God and serve Him with one purpose.'

If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah. Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. God caused him to arise only to test the many, as Daniel 11:35 states: 'And some of the wise men will stumble, to try them, to refine, and to clarify until the appointed time, because the set time is in the future.'

Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'

So clearly the Rambam says the at one time belief that J would be Mashiach was not heretical, but today it is.

edited Jun 16 '20 at 10:41

Community

1

answered Apr 11 '13 at 01:10

Ariel

5,159
14
29

5

At least some Chabad Messianists believe that the Rebbe will be the Mashiach, not just could have been but turned out not to be; what if in the same way, someone believed that Jesus of Nazareth will be the Mashiach, rather than just could have been but turned out not to be. Is this belief regarding Jesus more heretical than the same belief with regarding the Chabad Rebbe? (And a small minority do appear to venerate the Chabbad Rebbe as divine, Elokism.) – Zack Martin Apr 11 '13 at 01:39
@ZackMartin Elokism is clearly not in line with Judaism so there is no point in talking about it. In this question it's clear that most are mentally ill. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 01:49
1

@ZackMartin OK, so now that you believe that, what do you do with your belief? That's where the question lies - is it just a misguided belief, or do you do more than just that? I mean, you are not allowed to worship a potential mashaiach after all. So if all you do is believe, but otherwise consider him like any other person, then there is no halacha that says someone isn't allowed to be wrong. But if you are willing to allow dead people to be mashiach, why not Moshe Rabeinu? – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 01:58
@ZackMartin But all this is beside the point because I'm still convinced that he was a sinner, and thus not worthy of believing that he might be mashiach. i.e. that he conclusively took himself out of the possibility of being mashiach (like Sabbatai Zevi), and to continue believing that is not OK. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 01:59
@ZackMartin It's one thing if we had conclusive historical records that he was a perfect individual, worthy of such belief (and that all the stuff about him being a deity was made up by other people). But we don't - in fact all records we do have show him to be a sinner. And the way the Christians talk about him makes into one of the by far worst sinners there could possibly be. There is no worse sin than to consider oneself as a God, and an even worse sin to cause other Jews to worship idols - of which worshiping a human is the worst type. Such behavior is completely unforgivable. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 02:02
4

the question is not about whether the historical Jesus was a righteous person or not, or even existed, simply whether it would be heretical for a Jew to believe Jesus will be the Moshiach, if they did not adopt the other beliefs that distinguish Christianity from Judaism. Whether he was righteous is only relevant to this question if you are arguing that the heretical status of the belief is dependent on the righteous of the person it is about. – Zack Martin Apr 11 '13 at 11:12
@ZackMartin In your last comment here you said "will be the Moshiach" while in the question you said "is the Moshiach". That difference is what Ariel is noting. – Double AA Apr 11 '13 at 16:22
@ZackMartin Of course the heretical status of the belief is dependent on the righteousness of the person! How could it possibly not be? If it was just an ordinary person, maybe. But if someone claims to be divine, then believing he might be the mashiach is totally heretical. They only way you could possibly justify this belief about J is if you truely believe he was just an ordinary person, and that everything said about him was made up later. But if you believe that, then why in the world do you think he might be mashiach? – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 18:47
@ZackMartin Please see my addition to the answer. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 19:00
@ZackMartin One last thing, do not think that Judaism denigrates Christianity for non-Jews. On the contrary Jews believe that Christians did a very important job in helping spread God to the world - it's only when people start trying to apply Christianity to Jews that problems arise. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 19:03
@Ariel, are you sure about that? Christianity is considered to be idolatry by a large number of poskim, both contemporary and medieval. That's not allowed for non-Jews. – Daniel Apr 11 '13 at 19:53
@DoubleAA, should I alter the question to replace "is" with "will be"? Basically I am asking, if a Jew believed of Jesus, whatever meschists of Chabad (especially the more radical ones, but not Elokists) believe about their Rebbe, could that be any more heretical than the Chabad belief? – Zack Martin Apr 11 '13 at 20:30
@Daniel Contemporary, Medieval, and Talmudic! – Double AA Apr 11 '13 at 20:31
@Daniel It's a shituf, but in any case the Rambam says that not me! It's in the link in my answer above. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 20:34
@Ariel, no doubt, if Jesus claimed to be divine, and if believing this a Jew thought he was a tzaddik, that would be heresy. But many people (both some Christians, and some non-Christian scholars) doubt Jesus claimed to be divine, and think the belief arose later. So if a Jew accepts the viewpoint that Jesus never claimed to be divine, and then believes he was a tzaddik, is that still heresy? You might think the belief Jesus never claimed to be divine is historically wrong, but surely not all errors amount to heresy – Zack Martin Apr 11 '13 at 20:34
@ZackMartin Did you see my edit to my answer? The Rambam answers this: Back then it wasn't heresy, today it is. Believing someone might be mashiach is not heresy, but once they have proven they are not then it is. The Lubavitcher Rebbe died, but other than that no action of his disqualified him. The Rambam says that J's actions disqualified him, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 20:36
@Ariel The Rambam says the movement accomplished some good, but that doesn't mean it's an overall Good. Even the Rambam thinks non-Jews still shouldn't be Christians, and would even execute them (in theory) for it. – Double AA Apr 11 '13 at 20:57
@DoubleAA Did I say different? But in any case I thought the Rambam permitted a shituf. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 21:17
@Ariel http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/5211.htm#4 among others – Double AA Apr 11 '13 at 21:18
@DoubleAA But see http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/968267/jewish/Chapter-11.htm#footnote24a968267 I wonder if the Christians acted differently in the Rambams time that he didn't consider them a shituf. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 21:23
@Ariel I doubt it. The gemara is clear that Christians are avoda zara. All rishonim (except possibly the Me'iri) held this way as well. Pashtus is that the Rama misread Tosfos in making his ruling, which is why most achronim reject him. Shittuf is a rule about oaths not beliefs. Even if gentiles are not prohibited from swearing in the name of God and Mickey Mantle together (which is forbidden for Jews to do, even knowing that Mickey Mantle is a regular person) worshiping and deifying anything but God is absolutely a capital crime. – Double AA Apr 11 '13 at 21:28
@Ariel In fact, I challenge you to find me a Rishon (aside from the Me'iri) who holds Christian religious practice is not Avoda Zara for Jews or non-Jews. (If you really want a challenge, see if you can find where the Rama --says-- implies it. Hint: it's not in Shulchan Aruch.) – Double AA Apr 11 '13 at 21:41
@Ariel, would it be heresy to believe that Rambam might be mistaken about J's actions? A number of scholars believe that the NT misrepresents J's actions; might Rambam have simply taken Christian accounts of what J did, prevalent in his day, at face value? – Zack Martin Apr 11 '13 at 21:47
@ZackMartin You still haven't explained why, if you believe that J was just an ordinary guy, you think he qualified to be the Mashiach. To qualify to be the Mashiach there is a list of things the person must do. Did he do them? – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 22:09
@DoubleAA It's interesting looking this topic up, but I doubt I'll meet your challenge :) Once thing that keeps coming up is that I don't actually know what the Christians think of J - do they worship him? Ascribe power to him? From the question you linked it's clear that their beliefs are not all the same. – Ariel Apr 11 '13 at 22:13
@Ariel, where did I say I think J is qualified to be Mashiach? Let us stipulate that J will not be Mashiach, and thus the belief that he will be is in error. The question remains, is the belief that he will be, absent the other Christian beliefs often but not always associated with it, wrong but non-heretical, or both wrong and heretical? Given that several Jewish authorities consider the belief that the Lubavitcher Rebbe will be the Mashiach to be wrong but non-heretical, why not the same judgement for the same belief about J? – Zack Martin Apr 13 '13 at 05:44
@ZackMartin But that's the entire answer: He must be qualified to be the mashiach for it not to be heretical. (And since the qualification is somewhat subjective, even more important is that he must not be anti-qualified.) – Ariel Apr 14 '13 at 01:37
@ZackMartin I am unclear if you want a generic answer or not. So the above is the generic answer. The specific answer for J is that YES it is heretical because the Rambam says so (that he is anti-qualified). – Ariel Apr 14 '13 at 01:41
@Ariel: so for those who say that the belief that the Lubavitcher Rebbe will be mashiach is incorrect but not heretical, is that because their idea of what constitutes heresy with respect to who the mashiach will be is wrong? Or is that somehow the Lubavitcher Rebbe qualifies to be mashiach even if it is false that he will be? – Zack Martin Apr 14 '13 at 07:22
@Ariel: As to the Rambam, suppose a Torah scholar is presented with some facts, and asked to make a halachic ruling. But suppose he is mistaken about the facts of the case - does that make his legal ruling wrong? Or can we say: he correctly applied the law to the case presented to him, even if he was mislead on the facts? So a person might say, Rambam was mistaken about J, even as he made the correct legal ruling with regard to the facts presented to him. Would that be heresy? Rambam was undoubtedly a Torah expert - but was he a J expert? – Zack Martin Apr 14 '13 at 07:30
@ZackMartin Today most of it is actually because he is dead, and for someone dead to be mashiach he must be as great as Daniel. So it's a question of degree - was he as great as Daniel? Some think yes, others no. So there is no issue of being heretical, just an issue of someone being right or wrong about him being as great as Daniel. But the concept is not heretical. It's much rarer to find someone who felt he was disqualified while alive, and that again, is due to a difference of opinion of degree: Was he sufficiently successful in meeting the qualifications? – Ariel Apr 14 '13 at 08:38
@ZackMartin The Rambam did not hold with the concept of someone who died being mashiach (and this is pretty much universally accepted as the correct approach). However, because there is Talmudic support for this, it's not heretical to believe this merely wrong (i.e. it's a minority opinion, so is not accepted, but is also not heretical). Others are opposed to the practice of naming anyone at all as possibly being mashiach. This is because historically it's been a disaster every time. (Although I have not seen any huge problem in this case, history will have to judge.) – Ariel Apr 14 '13 at 08:52
The Rambam ruled that way because he "was executed by the court". I don't believe that is in doubt. As for your question about a mistaken ruling, I can not answer it. Things are not always simple: For example maybe the facts mentioned were only a minor consideration? Maybe there was other information which was not included in the written ruling? You can not just dismiss a ruling because you felt there was an incorrect fact: Who is to say that it's that fact that is the important one? You certainly can't if you are not a Torah scholar of equal authority to the one originally making the ruling. – Ariel Apr 14 '13 at 08:53
@Ariel: There is a lot of doubt about who exactly orchestrated J's execution. Clearly, he was executed by the oppresive Roman authorities. The Gospels present the Sanhedrin as instigating this, and the Romans as merely complying with the Sanhedrin's request. But many scholars suspect this is a distortion, driven by later Christians' need to appeal to the Empire, and developing anti-semitism. What if Rambam accepted the Christian account of J's death, but the Christian account is wrong, and even driven in part by antisemitism? – Zack Martin Apr 14 '13 at 22:23
let us continue this discussion in chat – Zack Martin Apr 15 '13 at 04:55
@ZackMartin I already answered this. You don't get to decide what the Rambam's basis for this ruling is, if you are not at the level of the Rambam. You are focusing on one perceived error, but you have no way to know if that error mattered to the ruling or not. – Ariel Apr 17 '13 at 21:12
"So clearly the Rambam says the at one time belief that J would be Mashiach was not heretical, but today it is." I see nothing in the Rambam supporting the contention that it wasnt heretical before, nor that it is heretical now. – mevaqesh Aug 11 '15 at 04:51

Would it be permissible to believe that Jesus is the messiah if that belief otherwise entails no rejection of halakha or Jewish tradition?

1 Answers1