Zone1 Would studying from a Reform Rabbi genuinely hurt ones understanding of Judaism?

[Cassandro]

who branded Jesus an heretic?

In case you forgot, the Jewish authorities had him killed.

How would YOU describe his teachings? Blasphemous?

 

[shockedcanadian]

In case you forgot, the Jewish authorities had him killed.

How would YOU describe his teachings? Blasphemous?

The Roman lewdership killed him. Some senior.Jewish leaders didn't like him for the way in which he spoke and denounced religious rituals but the Romans viewed him as more of a threat to the harmony of their subjects. The Romans wrote history, they had the power to decide the life and death of any.

 

[Foxfyre]

My study has its presentational roots from Orthodox Rabbis. I am curious if there is any value in hearing from any Rabbis from the Reform movement, which is the largest growing sect of Judaism in North America apparently? Rabbi Breitowitz for my studying, outside of books, has been a treasure as he is from America (once had a promising career in law but I believe he now resides in Israel) and he is very well read on the Torah and Judaism theology. So well educated in fact, that he takes rapid fire questions from students in what I presume is his Yeshiva while being so educated that he will often throw in varying opinions, "some (insert Jewish community or person) believe _______", on such and such a subject. His deliver is also very relaxed and humble. That said, from the OP subject, are there any Reform Rabbi one could honestly learn from, or would it be a poor representation to be exposed to.and it's best to learn from the Orthodox? Even any prominent Conservatives worthwhile.learning from or would they just ruin my learning? Thank you for your time.

It's complicated regarding the young as the decisions is made for them. I was baptised as a baby as well, I suppose this is part of ones upbringing, all kids have their religion essentialy chosen for them at birth. Once a child ages, they can decide for themselves through their own exploration of theology and G-d. The signs for me really were perhaps decided by G-d. I was born in a Jewish hospital for instance. Whether my mother.who was young.when she had me made this decision consciously or because our family doctor.was Jewish is difficult to know. So even before I had life (I spent a couple of months in an incubator), I was being brought to life by G-ds Chosen People. The amazing chance of it all isn't lost on me as I never knew so many details/coincidences that is encouraging me to "go back home". I could not have known these.relwtions until I made the personal decision to pursue an interest in Judaism. My challenge now is to eventually find a synagogue and a Rabbi. I don't live in such an area but I hope to eventually. The truth is that G-d and his commands are very serious to maintain but also very enjoyable and natural for me. I'm not sure anyone really chooses their faith ultimately, it just ferments internally until it becomes a reality one day.

As a Christian I would not presume to tell other Christians what they must and cannot believe nor how they are required to worship God. I have worship in low and high church Catholic and Episcopal congregations, the most liberal of liberal Christian denominations as well as the most fundamentalist to middle of the road, charismatic, all of it. I found Christians worshiping God everywhere.

And even though I did study the basics of Judaism in order to teach comparative religions, I would not even know where to begin to tell a Jewish person what he/she must believe or how he/she must respect, obey, worship G-d. But some of the most devout, wonderful people I have known over the years have been Jewish.

My daughter brought some friends home from college one weekend and, as I was preparing dinner for everybody, she happened to mention that some of them were Jewish. I semi-panicked and said I would have to check to be sure what was kosher and what wasn't so I could advise them. One overheard that conversation and entered the kitchen and with a pleasant grin and demeanor told me that I should not be concerned. They were not orthodox and kosher was not an issue.

I remember thanking him and appreciating his friendly assurance but also feeling just a bit disappointed. I wondered if they might be missing out on some of the more meaningful aspects of their faith. (I no longer worry about it as I have decided everybody eventually works it all out as to what is right for them.)

But as a Christian I have not been harmed listening to teachings from the most liberal of the liberal to the most conservative of the conservative, from the beliefs of Catholic priests and nuns to lay and ordained protestant preachers--the whole gamut. It all has given me insights and perspectives and perhaps increased tolerance even as it has not shaken my own personal faith and relationship with the living God. I suspect the same could be true of Jewish people studying under both Orthodox and Reform rabbis.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Romans wrote history, they had the power to decide the life and death of any.

and that was the romans who chose for barabbas to live over jesus ...

 

[irosie91]

In case you forgot, the Jewish authorities had him killed.

How would YOU describe his teachings? Blasphemous?

wrong again---the Roman authorities had him killed-----Even CAAIAPHAS was not
actually "the jewish authorities" He was a Roman appointee as was HEROD---the
edomite that the Romans made "the king"---the person who killed John the mikveh
man-----the cousin of Jesus. You seem to miss the pattern

 

[irosie91]

In case you forgot, the Jewish authorities had him killed.

How would YOU describe his teachings? Blasphemous?

I would describe his teachings as that of Hillel----if there is anything reasonably
accurate in the NT. Note----I was so intrigued with the fact that Jesus, as presented
in the NT ---INCESSANTLY QUOTES HILLEL----that I checked the life of Hillel----He died
in Jerusalem at about the same time the story sets as the birth of Jesus. Some things
never change----the Pharisees have been quoting Hillel from the time of his career
and COUNTING. Ask Ross Perot. of course----then there was Paul----the son of Greek
parents and an avid HELLENIST

 

[irosie91]

The Roman lewdership killed him. Some senior.Jewish leaders didn't like him for the way in which he spoke and denounced religious rituals but the Romans viewed him as more of a threat to the harmony of their subjects. The Romans wrote history, they had the power to decide the life and death of any.

True----but even in the NT (written under aegis of Constantine) where did Jesus "denounce religious
rituals" in any way INCONSISTENT with the PHARISEE POV of his time (to wit---the school of HILLEL) ?
-----note----the story----"I can eat with my friends at the table without washing my hands" ----is utterly
idiotic-----a ROMAN THING----consistent with Roman worship of BACCHIUS. Jesus became a HELLENIST
in the dreams and hypnogogic Hallucinations of PAUL

 

[Cassandro]

The Roman lewdership killed him. Some senior.Jewish leaders didn't like him for the way in which he spoke and denounced religious rituals but the Romans viewed him as more of a threat to the harmony of their subjects. The Romans wrote history, they had the power to decide the life and death of any.

I am surprised that you would resort to historical revisionism. According to Biblical and Roman accounts, the senior Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and brought him to the Roman Governor for prosecution. Pontius Pilate twice declined to do this before finally acceding to the Jewish mob's demand for his death. Do you have an alternate historical source for your version of these events?

 

[shockedcanadian]

I am surprised that you would resort to historical revisionism. According to Biblical and Roman accounts, the senior Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and brought him to the Roman Governor for prosecution. Pontius Pilate twice declined to do this before finally acceding to the Jewish mob's demand for his death. Do you have an alternate historical source for your version of these events?

I told you the senior Rabbis didnt like him and encouraged a backlash.

The Jews didn't kill though did they? An Empire isn't going to bend to anyone unless they have their own agenda.

 

[irosie91]

I am surprised that you would resort to historical revisionism. According to Biblical and Roman accounts, the senior Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and brought him to the Roman Governor for prosecution. Pontius Pilate twice declined to do this before finally acceding to the Jewish mob's demand for his death. Do you have an alternate historical source for your version of these events?

what "ROMAN ACCOUNTS"? what "senior Jewish leaders"?-----can you name even ONE?
The one and only account you have is the New Testament written by people paid by
the Roman EMPEROR CONSTANTINE. Some facts that you were never 'taught'----Constantine
founded the Canon Law that formed the basis of the INQUISITION which was the forerunner of
the Nuremberg laws of 1933

 

[irosie91]

I told you the senior Rabbis didnt like him and encouraged a backlash.

The Jews didn't kill though did they? An Empire isn't going to bend to anyone unless they have their own agenda.

what "senior rabbis"?------

 

[shockedcanadian]

what "senior rabbis"?------

Those who rejected Jesus. He was not popular among his peers but was gaining a following since, in my opinion, he was making it easier for people to follow Judaism. Eliminating kosher restrictions etc.

 

[BreezeWood]

I would describe his teachings as that of Hillel--

hillel was a jew and unlike jesus did not repudiate judaism's false commandments hereditary idolatry religion of apartheid et al -

their similarity is limited at best in regards to the heavenly itinerant and not related whatsoever to the 1st century events unless 91 believes hillel is a crucifier as well.

 

[shockedcanadian]

hillel was a jew and unlike jesus did not repudiate judaism's false commandments hereditary idolatry religion of apartheid et al -

their similarity is limited at best in regards to the heavenly itinerant and not related whatsoever to the 1st century events unless 91 believes hillel is a crucifier as well.

What did followers of Judaism do to you? How do you know what is false and what is true?

No one knows and that's a fact.

Do you not agree with the Ten Commandments? The Sevens Laws of Noah? The 613 Mitvot?

Does a belief in being an active pursuer of peace, love and light in the world upset you?

You have a dark heart, I can sense it in your vitriol and dismissing of others beliefs.

 

[rosends]

Those who rejected Jesus. He was not popular among his peers but was gaining a following since, in my opinion, he was making it easier for people to follow Judaism. Eliminating kosher restrictions etc.

the thing is, he was watering down Judaism so people would feel like that can be a part of it without being "burdened" by all the requirements.

He was creating a "Judaism Lite" but religion doesn't work like that. That being said, there were no "senior" vs. "other" rabbis.

 

[irosie91]

hillel was a jew and unlike jesus did not repudiate judaism's false commandments hereditary idolatry religion of apartheid et al -

their similarity is limited at best in regards to the heavenly itinerant and not related whatsoever to the 1st century events unless 91 believes hillel is a crucifier as well.

In your dreams. Jesus was a full fledged Hillel man if at least some of the NT ---written under the aegis of and paid for by CONSTANTINE can be considered credible.

 

[irosie91]

What did followers of Judaism do to you? How do you know what is false and what is true?

No one knows and that's a fact.

Do you not agree with the Ten Commandments? The Sevens Laws of Noah? The 613 Mitvot?

Does a belief in being an active pursuer of peace, love and light in the world upset you?

You have a dark heart, I can sense it in your vitriol and dismissing of others beliefs.

-----some people need a theme in conversation----a kind of parlor trick

 

[shockedcanadian]

the thing is, he was watering down Judaism so people would feel like that can be a part of it without being "burdened" by all the requirements.

He was creating a "Judaism Lite" but religion doesn't work like that. That being said, there were no "senior" vs. "other" rabbis.

Well, as I understand it, Jesus was a respected scholar of the Torah. This is what made his shift so much more difficult to fathom by his peers. I cannot recall where I read it, it may have been the Talmud with a sentence or two perhaps naming or indicating respected Rabbis running counter to him due to the accusations against him of sorcery, idolatry, and leading Israel astray.

I've read too many different sources at different periods in time. Some with more focus than others due to life circumstances etc.

My opinion remains, specifics aside regarding "tenure", it is clear to me that Rabbis and many Jews took great offense to Jesus. It would be no different than today if someone approached you and told you "I am the son of G-d (or, as some suggest, he is G-d incarnated).

How would you react to such a person? You would think they were suffering from a psychological condition, right?

Take it further, imagine you are deeply religious and study the Torah closely. How would you feel then?

They disliked him and didn't hide this dislike. However, the Romans killed him. They didn't need to and I don't believe the characterization some promote that they had to struggle with the decision. These were not people who were monotheistic, they were elite figures of a conquering empire, they couldn't care less about this Jewish guy named Jesus.

Christianity only became what is was many years and centuries later. Romans wrote the history books though so of course they gave the impression they were so heart broken by their decision. It's a nice way to keep the Pope such a focus for some (the Pope wasn't too religious during the extermination of Jews in WWII was he?)

 

[irosie91]

the thing is, he was watering down Judaism so people would feel like that can be a part of it without being "burdened" by all the requirements.

He was creating a "Judaism Lite" but religion doesn't work like that. That being said, there were no "senior" vs. "other" rabbis.

Not Jesus----what evidence do you have the he did the watering down? -----he left not a single
written word and even the stuff attributed to him in the NT does not support your water-down
contention EXCEPT DREAMS by followers after he died and went away ----and none of the "gospels" are verifiably extant----My sense is that Paul- --the
clearly HELLENIST member did it. -----as to the writings of LUKE----he never met Jesus and he
spoke Greek ----not Aramaic. Anything approaching his sources were old and unrecorded.
As to "JEWISH LEADERS" hating him during his lifetime----name ONE. I do believe that he was
born in the GALIL----his cousin was John the Mikveh man. Both were literate and popular
itinerate preachers so that the Romans offed them---

 

[irosie91]

Well, as I understand it, Jesus was a respected scholar of the Torah. This is what made his shift so much more difficult to fathom by his peers. I cannot recall where I read it, it may have been the Talmud with a sentence or two perhaps naming or indicating respect Rabbis running counter to him due to the accusations against him of sorcery, idolatry, and leading Israel astray.

I've read too many different sources at different periods in time. Some with more focus than others due to life circumstances etc.

My opinion remains, specifics aside regarding "tenure", it is clear to me that Rabbis and many Jews took great offense to Jesus. It would be no different than today if someone approached you and told you "I am the son of G-d (or, as some suggest, he is G-d incarnated).

How would you react to such a person? You would think they were suffering from a psychological condition, right?

Take it further, imagine you are deeply religious and study the Torah closely. How would you feel then?

They disliked him and didn't hide this dislike. However, the Romans killed him. They didn't need to and I don't believe the characterization some promote that they had to struggle with the decision. These were not people who were monotheistic, they were elite figures of a conquering empire, they couldn't care less about this Jewish guy named Jesus.

Christianity only became what is was many years and centuries later. Romans wrote the history books though so of course they gave the impression they were so heart broken by their decision. It's a nice way to keep the Pope such a focus for some (the Pope wasn't too religious during the extermination of Jews in WWII was he?)

who disliked him? ------the romanesque description of a CRUCIFIXION PARTY ----is akin to
an historically correct description of GLADIATOR GAMES at the COLLESEUM. The statement
"THE JEWISH LEADERS HATED HIM" is fantasy based on an absolutely incorrect concept of
"JEWISH LEADER"------to wit, Herod, Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate were not the 'JEWISH LEADERS"
Beyond them----the nameless "crowd"???