What did Jesus believe? What religion did you profess?

Telegram channel @ieshua.org

In 1960, Norman Cousins, former editor of the Saturday Review, wrote: “There is every reason for Judaism to abandon its rejection of Jesus. His towering presence is a projection of Judaism, not its destruction.” [1] However, decades later, Jesus still remains a mystery - a Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, Lord and God, causing billions of people to follow Him and call themselves Christians. So what religion did Jesus belong to? Simple answer: Judaism. Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher of Judaism. He taught about the Kingdom of God, He taught morals, and during His last Passover Seder He spoke of a new covenant (referring to Jer. 31:31-34) in which God would write His laws in the hearts and minds of His Jewish people . When the New Testament describes this, it is for those who understand who Jesus is: the promised Messiah, who gave His life for our sins and rose from the dead.

First century Judaism

But if Jesus' religion was Judaism, what kind of Judaism was it? If you think modern Judaism is complicated, you might be very surprised. During the time of the Second Temple—that is, during the time of Jesus—Judaism took on a variety of forms, most of which are not comparable to modern expressions, cultural or otherwise. To understand what type of Judaism Jesus belonged to, we must look at the sects of His time. Several of the first-century Jewish sects, as they are known, are mentioned in the New Testament as well as in other historical sources. There were four main sects: Essenes, Zealots, Sadducees and Pharisees. There were also people known as the “people of the earth” and another group called the Hellenists. This is not so much a sect as a description of certain groups that played an important role in the history of Israel at that time.

People of the Earth (Ammei Haaretz)

“As He passed near the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting nets into the sea, for they were fishermen.” (Matt. 4:18)

The “people of the land” (pl. ammei Haaretz, singular am Haaretz) were not a sect, but rather they made up the majority of the population of Israel. Like others, they were descendants of those who had been slaves in Egypt, crossed the Red Sea, came to the Promised Land, went into exile and returned. But these were ordinary people, inhabitants of an impoverished, exhausted and occupied country, exhausted by the weight of Roman taxes and other forms of oppression. They worked the land incessantly so that it would feed them. They threw their nets into Lake Kinneret. They were furious and silently indignant when the Roman legion invaded their villages. The Ammei Haaretz were not teachers or scribes, they did not particularly study the Holy Scriptures. Jesus was born among Ammei Haaretz, which is why both His family and the religious leaders were shocked by His deep religious knowledge and understanding at His young age (Luke 2:41-52). This is why the crowd He gathered as His disciples was a source of great surprise. “But this people are ignorant of the law, they are cursed,” said the Pharisees in John. 7:49. This is how they often viewed the common man: ignorant of the Torah and careless in keeping the commandments. The famous second-century sage Rabbi Akiva noted that before becoming a rabbi, he was an am Haaretz, and that he wanted to beat the rabbis! [2]. There was no love between commoners and scholars.

Hellenists

“No one can serve two masters.” (Matt. 6:24)

The Hellenists were also not a sect; rather, it was a way of thinking and living that a significant part of the people accepted. The word “Hellenist” means a person who follows the ways of the Greeks, and the Hellenists arose during the Hanukkah period of history. It is worth noting that the Hellenists existed both before and after Hanukkah. Extreme Hellenists could be called Hellenized. These people completely submitted to the influence of Greek culture, refused to observe the Torah and encouraged others to do the same. There were also moderate Hellenists who did not go to such extremes. In fact, there is nothing new under the sun: modern Jewish society reflects different types of Hellenism when we start talking about whether Jews should assimilate completely into the surrounding society, accept only some of the things that non-Jews do, or completely reject external ( non-Jewish) world. And it should also be noted that even the most Torah-observant Jews were influenced by Greek culture: the modern Passover Seder was probably inspired by a Greek banquet called a symposium [3]. That is, there was a whole spectrum of Hellenists, and the problem arose when Greek life began to deliberately supplant Jewish customs and commandments. Returning to Hanukkah - when Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, saw a man who, in the sight of all Israel, had killed a pig on a pagan altar, “his wrath was kindled according to the law, and he ran up and killed him at the altar” (1 Mac. 2:24). With blood dripping from his hands, Mattathias turned to the crowd and exclaimed: “Whoever is zealous for the law and stands in the covenant, let him follow me!” (1 Mac 2:27). The extreme Hellenists were those who did not follow him. Jesus was born in a Roman province called Judea into a traditional Jewish family and, although they were commoners, He was nevertheless raised in a culture of Torah observance. (As with the Hellenists, there were Ammei Haaretz before and after.) He taught that the Jewish people should not accept the materialistic and idolatrous culture of the Gentiles, saying:

“Therefore do not worry and say, “What shall we eat?” or what to drink? or what to wear? because the pagans seek all this, and because your Heavenly Father knows that you need all this. Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matt. 6:31-33)

Jesus taught His followers that they were to be the “light of the world” and the “salt of the earth.” This was in stark contrast to the pro-assimilation Hellenists, who broke God's covenant with Israel in order to fit in better with the world around them.

Now let's look at the first century Jewish sects mentioned in the New Testament: the Essenes, Zealots, Sadducees, and Pharisees.

Essenes

“How good God is to Israel, to the pure in heart!” (Ps. 72:1)

It can be said that true purity was the main concern of the Essenes. They viewed the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem as corrupt and unclean. Modern observers would probably call them an “anti-government group.” The first-century Jewish historian Josephus noted additional aspects of their beliefs:

“The Essen doctrine is that everything in the world is best explained by God’s will. They teach about the immortality of the soul and believe that the reward for righteousness is something to strive for ... and for righteousness itself: to such a degree as has never yet been among people ... so that every zealous desire is revealed among them" [4 ].

Tired of the “system” and the fruitless disputes between the Sadducees and Pharisees, the Essenes decided to continually seek God, considering themselves the true remnant of Israel. They often tested their faith by subjecting themselves to trials and living in the wilderness, like the Puritans. They left both the Temple and the Holy City, and went into the desert, never married and did not keep slaves. Most likely, it was they who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were hidden in the caves of Qumran. They treasured the sacred texts and waited for the apocalypse, expecting that judgment would come at any moment and destroy Israel. As writer Alan F. Segal has argued: “The Essenes nurtured a militant body of tradition. They considered themselves the children of Israel, who, after a second forty years in the wilderness, would conquer the Promised Land” [5]. Some historians suggest that John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, was an Essene. If so, then Jesus' relationship with John must have been Jesus' only contact with them. In any case, Jesus' life was contrary to the philosophy of the Essenes. Although He also emphasized purity and righteousness, He did not separate from Jewish society. On the contrary, He even counted prostitutes and tax collectors as His friends (Matt. 9:10) and willingly laid His hands on lepers (Matt. 8:3) and other people who were ritually unclean. Nothing highlights the difference between the two more clearly than comparing Jesus' attempts to cleanse the corrupt Temple (John 2:13-22) with the Essene "Puritans" who preferred to simply boycott it. Therefore, Jesus was not an Essene.

Zealots

“Then Jesus said to him: Return your sword to its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52)

The Zealots were political activists and revolutionaries. Fueled by their united hatred of Rome, they became a distinct sect during the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66-70 AD), although they were preceded by bandits and Sicarii (named for the daggers they carried). The Zealots ambushed the Roman legions and staged mostly unsuccessful skirmishes with them in the countryside. The public had mixed feelings towards the Zealots, perhaps best expressed by Josephus:

“But as for the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, the founder of which was Judas the Galilean... they are unquestioningly committed to freedom and say that God is their only Ruler and Master. They are also not afraid to die any death... and no fear can force them to call any person their master. And since this unshakable decision of theirs is known to many, I will not talk about it anymore.” [6]

The Zealots were up against the strongest empire the world had ever known, and were doomed to fail. In Acts 5, the famous sage Gamaliel is quoted as discouraging the Sanhedrin from taking action against the followers of Jesus, citing these earlier revolutionaries:

“After him, during the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and carried away quite a lot of people with him; but he died, and all who obeyed him scattered. And now, I say to you, get away from these people and leave them; for if this enterprise and this work are from men, then it will collapse.” (Acts 5:37-38)

One of Jesus' disciples, Simon, is called a "zealot", although it is unclear whether he was previously a revolutionary, or whether it is just his temperament. Apart from this and other incidents, the New Testament does not pay much attention to the religious revolutionaries of the time. In fact, Jesus condemned violence, placing much more emphasis on the kingdom of heaven than on the political climate of His people (Matt. 26:52; John 18:36). In one case we read:

“Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. But Jesus said to Peter, Sheathe your sword; Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:10-11)

That is, Peter thought that he was protecting Jesus from arrest and certain death, and Jesus emphasized that the “cup” that He was about to drink included exactly that.

Thus, we can confidently conclude that not only was Jesus not an Essene, but He was not a Zealot either.

Sadducees

“But the teaching of the Sadducees is that there is no life after death, and they observe nothing except what the law commands them; They consider it an example of benefactor to debate with the teachers of philosophy they meet; but this doctrine is accepted only by a few.” (Josephus, Antiquities, 18:16).

The Sadducees were associated with the Temple ministry, and they were primarily composed of priests, whose calling they believed was eternal. They were similar to Jesus in their opposition to the oral law of the Pharisees, but differed from him in that Jesus followed many of the Pharisees' traditions if, in His opinion, they did not violate the Torah. The Sadducees, unlike Jesus, insisted on following only the laws of the Torah. At the same time, the history of the priests and Sadducees shows the influence of Hellenism, since many of them were quite assimilated in a cultural sense. According to Segal, the apparent incompatibility is quite illusory, since Greek philosophy took the best ideas from Jewish wisdom:

“The difficulty the Sadducees faced was legitimizing Greek philosophy and way of life. They were able to accomplish this task using a variety of arguments that Homer and Socrates were, in fact, disciples of Moses - this was the apologetic tradition of several Hellenistic Jewish authors. Moreover, the mixture of Stoicism and Platonism, which was most popular in the Hellenistic world, was philosophically very close to the wisdom books of the Hebrew Bible.” [7].

Many of Jesus' disputes with the Sadducees were about their denial of the resurrection of the dead, which was one of the distinctive tenets of their faith. With the exception of His trial before the high priest, Jesus did not meet with the Sadducees as often as He did with the Pharisees, but we know that they did not consider Him one of their own and did not agree with Him on theological issues. Because Jesus' teachings differed from theirs regarding the resurrection, and because He followed traditions that went beyond Scripture alone [8], we know that He was not a Sadducee.

Pharisees

“And the Pharisees, when they heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, tempting Him, asked, saying: Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the law?” (Matt. 22:34-36)

The Pharisees, guardians of the oral law and traditions of Israel, were respected by the people. They reluctantly submitted to Rome in the hope that the conqueror would allow them to preserve, if not their City and Temple, then at least their holy heritage. Compared to the Sadducees and Essenes, the Pharisees had moderate views of their time, trying to create a middle path that all Israel could follow. Segal goes so far as to say that the Pharisees were trying to establish rules and procedures of exegesis by which Scripture could be understood: “In this respect they were colleagues of the Sadducees. To use an analogy from American jurisprudence, the Pharisees were 'loose constructionists' of the Torah, while the Sadducees were 'strict constructionists'.” [9]. This flexibility was one of the factors that kept the Pharisees relevant in Jewish life. Jesus had many conversations with the Pharisees (see, for example, Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 19:39), which suggests that no matter how tricky whatever their questions, they considered His voice important and worthy of their attention. (The later Talmud is full of conversations between rabbis very similar to the conversations between Yeshua and the Pharisees recorded in the New Testament.) It is important to note that in the first century teachers were called “rabbis,” although rabbinical ordination as we know it today arose later. The fact that Yeshua was called “Rabbi” on many occasions indicates His status (John 1:38; 1:49; 3:2; 3:26; 6:25). Jesus' position among the Pharisees is most evident in John. 3:2, where one of the leading Pharisees, Nicodemus, who became a follower of Jesus, calls Him “Rabbi.”

JESUS CHRIST

JESUS CHRIST

- the founder of one of the world's greatest religions - Christianity, the central character of the Christian religious-mythological and dogmatic system and the object of Christian religious cult.
Also on topic:
CHRISTIANITY

The main version of the life and work of Jesus Christ emerged from the depths of Christianity itself. It is presented primarily in the original testimonies about Jesus Christ - a special genre of early Christian literature called “gospels” (“good news”). Some of them (the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are recognized by the official church as authentic (canonical), and they therefore form the core of the New Testament; others (the Gospel of Nicodemus, Peter, Thomas, the First Gospel of James, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Gospel of Childhood) are classified as apocrypha (“secret texts”), i.e. inauthentic.

Also on topic:

RELIGION

The name “Jesus Christ” reflects the essence of its bearer. "Jesus" is the Greek variant of the common Hebrew name "Yeshua" (Joshua), meaning "God help/salvation." “Christ” is a translation into Greek of the Aramaic word “meshiya” (messiah, i.e. “anointed one”).

The Gospels present Jesus Christ as an extraordinary person throughout his life's journey - from his miraculous birth to the amazing end of his earthly life. Jesus Christ is born (Nativity of Christ) during the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus (30 BC - 14 AD) in the Palestinian city of Bethlehem in the family of Joseph the Carpenter, a descendant of King David, and his wife Mary. This answered the Old Testament prophecies about the birth of the coming messianic king from the line of David and in the “city of David” (Bethlehem). The appearance of Jesus Christ is predicted by the angel of the Lord to his mother (Annunciation) and her husband Joseph.

Also on topic:

MATTHEW, ST. EVANGELIST

The child is born miraculously - not as a result of the carnal union of Mary with Joseph, but thanks to the descent of the Holy Spirit on her (immaculate conception). The setting of the birth emphasizes the exclusivity of this event - the baby Jesus, born in a stable, is glorified by a host of angels, and a bright star lights up in the east. Shepherds come to worship him; the wise men, whose path to his home is indicated by the star of Bethlehem moving across the sky, bring him gifts. Eight days after his birth, Jesus undergoes the rite of circumcision (Circumcision of the Lord), and on the fortieth day in the Jerusalem temple - the rite of purification and dedication to God, during which the righteous Simeon and the prophetess Anna glorify him (The Presentation of the Lord). Having learned about the appearance of the Messiah, the wicked Jewish king Herod the Great, in fear for his power, orders the extermination of all babies in Bethlehem and its environs, but Joseph and Mary, warned by an angel, flee with Jesus to Egypt. The Apocrypha tells of numerous miracles performed by two-year-old Jesus Christ on his way to Egypt. After a three-year stay in Egypt, Joseph and Mary, learning of the death of Herod, return to their hometown of Nazareth in Galilee (Northern Palestine). Then, according to the testimony of the apocrypha, over the course of seven years, Jesus’ parents moved with him from city to city, and the glory of the miracles he performed followed him everywhere: at his word, people were healed, died and were resurrected, inanimate objects came to life, wild animals were humbled, waters The Jordan parted. The child, showing extraordinary wisdom, baffles his mentors. As a twelve-year-old boy, he amazes with unusually deep questions and answers from the teachers of the Law (the laws of Moses), with whom he enters into conversation in the Jerusalem Temple. However, then, as the Arabic Gospel of Childhood reports (“He began to hide His miracles, His secrets and sacraments, until He was thirty years old.”

When Jesus Christ reaches this age, he is baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist (Luke dates this event to the “fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius,” i.e., 30 AD), and the Holy Spirit descends on him, which leads him into the desert. There for forty days he fights the devil, rejecting three temptations one after another - hunger, power and faith. Upon returning from the desert, Jesus Christ begins preaching work. He calls his disciples to him and, wandering with them throughout Palestine, proclaims his teaching, interprets the Old Testament Law and performs miracles. The activities of Jesus Christ unfold mainly in the territory of Galilee, in the vicinity of Lake Gennesaret (Tiberias), but every Easter he goes to Jerusalem.

The meaning of the preaching of Jesus Christ is the good news of the Kingdom of God, which is already close and which is already being realized among people through the activity of the messiah. The acquisition of the Kingdom of God is salvation, which became possible with the coming of Christ to earth. The path to salvation is open to all who reject earthly goods for spiritual ones and who love God more than themselves. The preaching activity of Jesus Christ takes place in constant disputes and conflicts with representatives of the Jewish religious elite - the Pharisees, Sadducees, “teachers of the Law”, during which the Messiah rebels against the literal understanding of the Old Testament moral and religious precepts and calls for comprehending their true spirit.

The glory of Jesus Christ grows not only through his preaching, but also through the miracles he performs. In addition to numerous healings and even resurrections of the dead (the son of a widow in Nain, the daughter of Jairus in Capernaum, Lazarus in Bethany), this is the transformation of water into wine at a wedding in Cana in Galilee, miraculous fishing and taming of a storm on Lake Gennesaret, feeding five thousand with five loaves man, walking on water, feeding four thousand people with seven loaves of bread, discovering the divine essence of Jesus during prayer on Mount Tabor (Transfiguration of the Lord), etc.

The earthly mission of Jesus Christ is inevitably moving towards its tragic outcome, which is predicted in the Old Testament and which he himself foresees. The popularity of the preaching of Jesus Christ, the growth in the number of his followers, the crowds of people following him along the roads of Palestine, his constant victories over the zealots of the Law of Moses arouse hatred among the religious leaders of Judea and the intention to deal with him. The Jerusalem finale of the story of Jesus - the Last Supper, the night in the Garden of Gethsemane, the arrest, trial and execution - is by far the most heartfelt and most dramatic part of the Gospels. The Jewish high priests, “teachers of the Law” and elders form a conspiracy against Jesus Christ, who arrived in Jerusalem for Easter; Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ, agrees to sell his teacher for thirty pieces of silver. At the Easter meal in the circle of the twelve apostles (Last Supper), Jesus Christ predicts that one of them will betray him. The farewell of Jesus Christ to his disciples takes on a universally symbolic meaning: “And he took the bread and gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20); This is how the rite of communion is introduced. In the Garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives, in sorrow and anguish, Jesus Christ prays to God to deliver him from the fate that threatens him: “My Father! if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” (Matthew 26:39). At this fateful hour, Jesus Christ remains alone - even his closest disciples, despite his requests to stay with him, indulge in sleep. Judas comes with a crowd of Jews and kisses Jesus Christ, thereby betraying his teacher to the enemies. Jesus is grabbed and, showered with insults and beatings, taken to the Sanhedrin (a meeting of Jewish high priests and elders). He is found guilty and handed over to the Roman authorities. However, the Roman procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate, finds no guilt behind him and offers to pardon him on the occasion of Easter. But the crowd of Jews raises a terrible cry, and then Pilate orders water to be brought and washes his hands in it, saying: “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man” (Matthew 27:24). At the demand of the people, he condemns Jesus Christ to crucifixion and releases the rebel and murderer Barabbas in his place. Together with two thieves, he is crucified on the cross. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ lasts six hours. When he finally gives up the ghost, the whole earth is plunged into darkness and shakes, the curtain in the Jerusalem temple is torn in two, and the righteous rise from their graves. At the request of Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, Pilate gives him the body of Jesus Christ, which he, wrapped in a shroud, buries in a tomb carved into the rock. On the third day after the execution, Jesus Christ resurrects in the flesh and appears to his disciples (Resurrection of the Lord). He entrusts them with the mission of spreading his teachings among all nations, and he himself ascends to heaven (the Ascension of the Lord). At the end of time, Jesus Christ is destined to return to earth to carry out the Last Judgment (Second Coming).

As soon as it arose, the doctrine of Christ (Christology) immediately gave rise to complex questions, the main ones of which were the question of the nature of the messianic feat of Jesus Christ (supernatural power and the agony of the cross) and the question of the nature of Jesus Christ (divine and human).

In most New Testament texts, Jesus Christ appears as the messiah - the long-awaited savior of the people of Israel and the whole world, a messenger of God who works miracles with the help of the Holy Spirit, an eschatological prophet and teacher, a divine man. The idea of the Messiah itself undoubtedly has Old Testament origins, but in Christianity it acquired a special meaning. Early Christian consciousness faced a difficult dilemma - how to reconcile the Old Testament image of the messiah as a theocratic king and the Gospel idea of the messianic power of Jesus Christ as the son of God with the fact of his death on the cross (the image of the suffering messiah)? This contradiction was partly resolved by the idea of the resurrection of Jesus and the idea of his future Second Coming, during which he would appear in all his power and glory and establish the thousand-year reign of Truth. Thus, Christianity, offering the concept of two Comings, significantly departed from the Old Testament, which promised only one Coming. However, the early Christians were faced with a question: if the Messiah was destined to come to people in power and glory, why did he come to people in humiliation? Why do we need a suffering messiah? And what then is the meaning of the First Coming?

Trying to resolve this contradiction, early Christianity began to develop the idea of the redemptive nature of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ - by submitting himself to torment, the Savior makes the necessary sacrifice to cleanse all humanity mired in sins from the curse imposed on it. However, the grand task of universal redemption requires that the one who solves this task must be more than a man, more than just an earthly agent of the will of God. Already in the messages of St. Paul places particular emphasis on the definition of “son of God”; thus the messianic dignity of Jesus Christ is associated with his special supernatural nature. On the other hand, the Gospel of John, influenced by Judeo-Hellenistic philosophy (Philo of Alexandria), formulates the idea of Jesus Christ as the Logos (Word of God), the eternal mediator between God and people; The Logos was with God from the very beginning, through it all living things came into being, and it is consubstantial with God; at a predetermined time, he was destined to be incarnated for the sake of atonement for human sins, and then return to God. Thus, Christianity began to gradually master the idea of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and Christology from the doctrine of the Messiah turned into an integral part of theology.

However, recognition of the divine nature of Jesus Christ could call into question the monotheistic nature of Christianity (monotheism): speaking about the divinity of the Savior, Christians risked coming to the recognition of the existence of two gods, i.e. to pagan polytheism (polytheism). All subsequent development of the teaching about Jesus Christ followed the path of resolving this conflict: some theologians leaned towards the apostle. Paul, who strictly distinguished between God and his Son, others were guided by the concept of St. John, who closely connected God and Jesus Christ as his Word. Accordingly, some denied the essential unity of God and Jesus Christ and emphasized the subordinate position of the second in relation to the first (modalist-dynamists, subordinationists, Arians, Nestorians), while others argued that the human nature of Jesus Christ was completely absorbed by the divine nature (Apollinarians, Monophysites), and there were even those who saw in him a simple manifestation of God the Father (modalist monarchians). The official church chose a middle path between these directions, combining both opposing positions into one: Jesus Christ is both god and man, but not a lower god, not a demigod, and not a half-man; he is one of the three persons of the one God (the dogma of the Trinity), equal to the other two persons (God the Father and the Holy Spirit); he is not without beginning, like God the Father, but also not created, like everything in this world; he was born of the Father before all ages, as true God from true God. The Incarnation of the Son meant the true union of the divine nature with the human (Jesus Christ had two natures and two wills). This form of Christology was established after the fierce struggle of church parties in the 4th–5th centuries. and was recorded in the decisions of the first ecumenical councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451).

This is the Christian, certainly apologetic, point of view of Jesus Christ. It is based on the gospel story about the life and work of Jesus Christ, which for Christians is beyond doubt. Are there, however, documents independent of the Christian tradition that can confirm or refute its historical authenticity?

Unfortunately, Roman and Judeo-Hellenistic literature of the 1st century. AD practically did not convey to us information about Jesus Christ. The few pieces of evidence include fragments from Jewish antiquities

Josephus (37–c. 100), the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus (c. 58–117), the letters of Pliny the Younger (61–114), and the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 70–140).
The last two authors say nothing about Jesus Christ himself, mentioning only groups of his followers. Tacitus, reporting on the persecution of the Emperor Nero against the Christian sect, only notes that the name of this sect comes “from Christ, who during the reign of Tiberius was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals. XV. 44). The most unusual is the famous “testimony of Josephus,” which speaks of Jesus Christ, who lived under Pontius Pilate, performed miracles, had many followers among Jews and Hellenes, was crucified following the denunciation of the “first men” of Israel, and was resurrected on the third day after his execution ( Jewish Antiquities
. XVIII. 3. 3). However, the value of this very meager evidence remains questionable. The fact is that they came to us not in the originals, but in copies of Christian scribes, who could well have made additions and corrections to the text in a pro-Christian spirit. On this basis, many researchers have considered and continue to view the messages of Tacitus and especially Josephus as a late Christian forgery.

Judaic and Islamic religious literature shows much more interest in the figure of Jesus Christ than Roman and Judeo-Hellenistic writers. Judaism's attention to Jesus Christ is determined by the harsh ideological confrontation between two related religions, challenging each other's Old Testament heritage. This attention is growing in parallel with the strengthening of Christianity: if in Jewish texts of the second half of the 1st - beginning of the 3rd centuries. We find only scattered messages about various heresiarchs, including Jesus Christ, but in texts of later times they gradually merge into a single and coherent story about Jesus of Nazareth as the worst enemy of the true faith.

In the early layers of the Talmud, Jesus Christ appears under the name Yeshua ben (bar) Pantira (“Jesus, son of Pantira”). Note that in Jewish texts the full name “Yeshua” is given only twice. In other cases, his name is shortened to “Yeshu” - a sign of extreme disdain towards him. In the Tosefta (3rd century) and the Jerusalem Talmud (3rd–4th centuries), Yeshu ben Pantira is presented as the head of a heretical sect, whom his followers considered a god and in whose name they healed. In the later Babylonian Talmud (III–V centuries), Jesus Christ is also called Yeshu ha-Nozri (“Jesus of Nazareth”): it is reported that this sorcerer and “seducer of Israel,” “close to the royal court,” was tried in compliance with all legal norms (within forty days they called witnesses in his defense, but they were never found), and then he was put to death (on the eve of Easter he was stoned and his body was hanged); in hell he suffers terrible punishment for his wickedness - he is boiled in boiling feces. In the Babylonian Talmud there is also a tendency to identify Jesus Christ with the heresiarch Ben Stada (Soteda), who stole magical art from the Egyptians by carving mysterious signs on his body, and with the false teacher Biliam (Balaam). This trend is also recorded in the Midrashim (Judaic interpretations of the Old Testament), where Balaam (= Yeshu) is spoken of as the son of a harlot and a false teacher who pretended to be God and claimed that he would leave, but would return at the end of time.

A complete Jewish version of the life and work of Jesus Christ is presented in the famous Toldot Yeshu

(V century) - a real Jewish anti-gospel: here all the main events of the gospel story are consistently discredited.

According to Toldot

, Yeshu’s mother was Miriam, the wife of the teacher of the law Johanan from a royal family known for its piety. One Saturday, the criminal and libertine Joseph ben Pandira deceived Miriam, and even during her menstruation. Thus, Yeshu was conceived in a triple sin: adultery was committed, menstrual abstinence was violated, and the Sabbath was profaned. Out of shame, Johanan leaves Miriam and goes to Babylon. Yeshu is sent to study as teachers of the Law. The boy, with his extraordinary intelligence and diligence, shows disrespect for his mentors and utters wicked speeches. After the truth about Yeshu’s birth is discovered, he flees to Jerusalem and there he steals the secret name of God from the temple, with the help of which he is able to perform miracles. He proclaims himself the messiah and gathers 310 disciples. The Jewish sages bring Yesha to Queen Helen for trial, but she releases him, amazed by his abilities as a miracle worker. This causes confusion among the Jews. Yeshu goes to Upper Galilee. The wise men convince the queen to send a military detachment after him, but the Galileans refuse to hand him over and, having seen two miracles (the revival of clay birds and swimming on the reins of a millstone), they worship him. To expose Yesha, the Jewish sages encourage Judas Iscariot to also steal the secret name of God from the temple. When Yeshu is brought before the queen, he rises into the air as proof of his messianic dignity; then Judas flies over him and urinates on him. The defiled Yeshu falls to the ground. The sorcerer, who has lost his power, is arrested and tied to a column as a laughing stock, but his followers free him and take him to Antioch. Yeshu goes to Egypt, where he masters the local magical art. Then he returns to Jerusalem to again steal the secret name of God. He enters the city on the Friday before Easter and enters the temple along with his disciples, but one of them, named Gaisa, betrays him to the Jews after bowing to him. Yesha is arrested and sentenced to hang. However, he manages to make all the trees speak; then he is hanged on a huge “cabbage trunk”. On Sunday he is buried, but soon Yeshu's grave is empty: the body is stolen by Yeshu's supporters, who spread the rumor that he had ascended to heaven and that he was therefore undoubtedly the messiah. Confused by this, the queen orders the body to be found. In the end, the gardener Judas finds out where the remains of Yeshu are, kidnaps them and gives them to the Jews for thirty pieces of silver. The body is dragged through the streets of Jerusalem, showing the queen and the people “the one who was about to ascend to heaven.” The followers of Yeshu are scattered throughout all countries and spread everywhere the slanderous rumor that the Jews crucified the true Messiah.

In the future, this version is supplemented with various and incredible details and facts. So, for example, in the Aramaic “History of Yeshu bar Pandira,” which has come down to us in a 14th-century transcription, it is told that Yeshu is brought to court before the Emperor Tiberius, where with one word he makes the emperor’s daughter pregnant. When he is led to execution, he rises into the sky and is transported first to Mount Carmel, and then to the cave of the prophet Elijah, which he locks from the inside. However, the pursuing Rabbi Judah Ganiba (“Gardener”) orders the cave to open, and when Yeshu tries to fly away again, he catches him by the hem of his robe and takes him to the place of execution.

Thus, in the Jewish tradition, Jesus Christ is not a god, not a messiah, but an impostor and a sorcerer who performed miracles with the help of magic. His birth and death were not of a supernatural nature, but, on the contrary, were associated with sin and shame. He whom Christians honor as the Son of God is not just an ordinary man, but the worst of men.

The Muslim (Koranic) interpretation of the life and work of Jesus (Isa) appears completely different. It occupies an intermediate position between the Christian and Judaic versions. On the one hand, the Koran denies Jesus Christ divinity; he is not god and not the son of god; on the other hand, he is in no way a sorcerer or a charlatan. Isa is a man, a messenger and prophet of Allah, similar to other prophets, whose mission is addressed exclusively to the Jews. He acts as a preacher, miracle worker and religious reformer, establishing monotheism, calling people to worship Allah and changing some religious precepts.

The Koranic texts do not provide a coherent biography of Isa, dwelling only on individual moments of his life (birth, miracles, death). The Koran borrows from the Christians the idea of the virgin birth: “And We breathed into her [Maryam] from Our spirit and made her and her son a sign for the worlds” (21:91); “When Maryam was seventeen years old, Allah sent Gabriel (Gabriel) to her, who breathed into her, and she conceived the messiah, Isa ben Maryam” (Al-Masudi. Golden Meadows

. V). The Koran reports some of the miracles of Isa - he heals and resurrects the dead, revives clay birds, and brings down a meal from heaven to earth. At the same time, the Koran gives a different interpretation of the death of Jesus from the Gospels: it denies the reality of the crucifixion (it was only imagined by the Jews; in fact, Jesus was taken alive into heaven) and the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day (Isa will rise only in the last days of the world along with all other people), as well as the possibility of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ: in the Koran, Isa foreshadows not his imminent return, but the coming of the main prophet - Muhammad, thereby acting as his forerunner: “I am the messenger of Allah, confirming the truth of what was sent down before me in the Torah, and the one who brings good news about a messenger who will come after me, whose name is Ahmad” (6:6). True, in the later Muslim tradition, under the influence of Christianity, the motive of the future return of Isa arises for the sake of establishing the kingdom of justice.

Jesus Christ as an object of Christian cult belongs to theology. And this is a matter of faith, which excludes any doubt and does not require investigation. Nevertheless, attempts to penetrate into the spirit of the Gospels and understand the true essence of Jesus Christ never stopped. The entire history of the Christian Church is full of fierce battles for the right to possess the truth about Jesus Christ, as evidenced by the ecumenical councils, the identification of heretical sects, the division of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and the Reformation. But, in addition to purely theological disputes, the figure of Jesus Christ became the subject of discussion in historical science, which was and continues to be interested primarily in two problems: 1). the question of the real content of the gospel story, i.e. whether Jesus Christ was a historical figure; 2). question about the image of Jesus Christ in early Christian consciousness (what is the meaning of this image and what are its origins?). These problems were at the center of discussions of two scientific directions that arose back in the 18th century - mythological and historical.

The mythological direction (C. Dupuis, C. Volney, A. Dreve, etc.) completely denied the reality of Jesus Christ as a historical figure and considered him exclusively as a fact of mythology. In Jesus they saw the personification of either the solar or lunar deity, or the Old Testament Yahweh, or the Qumranite Teacher of Righteousness. Trying to identify the origins of the image of Jesus Christ and “decipher” the symbolic content of the Gospel events, representatives of this trend did a great job of searching for analogies between the motives and plots of the New Testament and earlier mythological systems. For example, they associated the idea of the resurrection of Jesus with ideas about a dying and resurrecting deity in Sumerian, ancient Egyptian, West Semitic and ancient Greek mythologies. They also tried to give a solar-astral interpretation of the Gospel story, which was very common in ancient cultures (the path of Jesus Christ with the 12 apostles was represented, in particular, as the annual path of the sun through 12 constellations). The image of Jesus Christ, according to adherents of the mythological school, gradually evolved from the initial image of a pure deity to the later image of a god-man. The merit of mythologists is that they were able to consider the image of Jesus Christ in the broad context of ancient Eastern and ancient culture and show its dependence on previous mythological development.

The historical school (G. Reimarus, E. Renan, F. Bauer, D. Strauss and others) believed that the gospel story has a certain real basis, which over time, however, became increasingly mythologized, and Jesus Christ from a real person (preacher and religious teachers) gradually turned into a supernatural personality. Supporters of this trend set the task of liberating the truly historical in the Gospels from later mythological processing. For this purpose, at the end of the 19th century. it was proposed to use the method of rationalistic criticism, which meant the reconstruction of the “true” biography of Jesus Christ by excluding everything that cannot be rationally explained, i.e. in fact, a “rewriting” of the Gospels in a rationalistic spirit (Tübingen School). This method caused serious criticism (F. Bradley) and was soon rejected by most scientists.

The cornerstone thesis of mythologists about the “silence” of sources of the 1st century. about Jesus Christ, which they believed proved the mythical character of this figure, prompted many supporters of the historical school to shift their attention to a careful study of the New Testament texts in search of the original Christian tradition. In the first quarter of the 20th century. a school of studying the “history of forms” (M. Dibelius, R. Bultmann) emerged, the goal of which was to reconstruct the history of the development of the tradition about Jesus Christ - from oral origins to literary design - and to determine the original basis, clearing it of the layers of subsequent editions. Textual studies have led representatives of this school to the conclusion that even the original Christian version of the mid-1st century isolated from the Gospels. does not make it possible to recreate the real biography of Jesus Christ: here he also remains only a symbolic character; The historical Jesus Christ may have existed, but the question of the true events of his life is hardly resolvable. The followers of the school of studying the “history of forms” still constitute one of the leading trends in modern biblical studies.

Due to the lack of fundamentally new documents and given the limited informational content of archaeological material, it is still difficult to expect any significant breakthrough in solving the problem of the historical Jesus Christ.

Ivan Krivushin

Jesus as rabbi

If Jesus was recognized as a rabbi in His day, the next logical question is: In what ways did His theological views agree and differ from those of other leading rabbis (Pharisee teachers) during His life?

What did they agree on?

As the only survivor of 70 AD. sect, the Pharisees were the spiritual predecessors of the rabbis of Israel. The following quotations from rabbinic literature largely reflect Pharisaic thinking.

Resurrection from the Dead

Pharisees: “Rabbi Jonathan says: Where do we see the resurrection of the dead in the Torah? It is derived from this verse about the truma (giving) of tithes: “And ye shall give of them the offering of the Lord unto Aaron the priest” (Num. 18:28). Does Aaron exist forever so that someone can fulfill this mitzvah (commandment) by giving him truma tithes? But did Aaron enter Eretz Israel, the only place where the Jews could give him truma? From this it is clear that the resurrection of the dead follows from the Torah.” (Sanhedrin 90b).

Jesus: “And about the dead, that they will rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, how God said to him at the bush: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. So, you are very mistaken.” (Mark 12:26-27)

Jesus [to Martha, whose brother Lazarus had just died] : “Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life; He who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live. And everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this? (John 11:25-26)

The resurrection of the dead was a key belief among the Pharisees that Jesus shared. Although they did not expect the resurrection until the end of this age, Jesus' own resurrection entered history earlier than the expected hour, confirming His claims to be the Messiah.

The essence of the Torah

Pharisees: “What is hateful to you, do not do to another; This is the whole Torah, the rest is interpretation” (Shabbat 31a). Bar Kappara explains: “What is the short text on which all the basic principles of the Torah depend? 'In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths' (Prov. 3:6). (Berachot 63a).”

Jesus: “In everything therefore, whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12)

"Teacher! What is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind: this is the first and greatest commandment; the second is similar to it: love your neighbor as yourself; On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22:36-40)

Although they quoted different verses, Jesus and the Pharisees agreed that the Torah as a whole is based on several fundamental commandments about our relationship to God and to other people.

Israel, a nation of priests

The Pharisees believed in a broad and literal interpretation of the verse: “Therefore, if you will obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you will be My special possession above all nations, for all the earth is Mine, and you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation; These are the words that you will speak to the children of Israel” (Ex. 19:5-6), and the words “God, who has preserved all His people and restored to all the inheritance and the kingdom and the priesthood and the sanctuary...” (2 Mac. 2:17). The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their daily lives, not just the Temple priesthood and Jews visiting the Temple, were required to observe rules and rituals regarding purification [10]. This became even more important after the destruction of the Temple.

Jesus: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48).

Peter, disciple of Jesus: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” (1 Pet. 2:9)

How were they different?

Not all of the Pharisees' teachings were onerous, and Yeshua fulfilled many of the extra-biblical traditions developed by the Pharisees. However, we have the following statement from Jesus:

“Then Jesus began to speak to the people and to His disciples and said, “The scribes and Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses; So whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do; do not act according to their deeds, for they speak and do not do: they bind heavy and unbearable burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves do not want to move them with a finger.” (Matt. 23:1-4)

The difference between the two comes in verse 5 when Jesus says, “But all they do is that they may be seen by men.” Instead of keeping Torah and traditions to serve God, these Pharisees kept them to serve themselves. The Pharisees that Jesus talks about in Matthew 23 do not represent all Pharisees. In fact, the Talmud (Sotah 22b) describes seven types of Pharisees—six negative and one positive. And although Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees as a whole, the majority of them rejected Jesus as the Messiah. Therefore, Jesus criticizes them for not being true shepherds of the people, many of whom believed in Him, but rather leading them astray. In Matt. 23 He explains His criticism. He tells people to do as the Pharisees teach, but not to live as they live (verse 3). He points out that some placed burdens on others that they themselves could not bear (verse 4), or boasted about their religiousness (verses 5-7). Yeshua noted that they emphasized the lesser commandments at the expense of the more important ones, thereby missing the very essence of the Torah (verse 23). Although this may seem quite harsh to the modern reader, we find the same things in the TaNakh, where the prophets rebuked the spiritual leaders of their time.

II. Israel to the time of the New Testament

It is one thing to know both the written and oral Law, and another thing to fulfill it in every detail. The scribes succeeded in the first; the Pharisees embodied the second in their lives. The first evoked respect and reverence, the second ensured the unquestionable authority of a standard and example to follow. And although fulfilling the Law was the sacred duty of every Jew, only a few saw this as the main matter of life and faith. This was the Pharisees' movement. In terms of their genealogical and social origins, they belonged to a variety of segments of the population, but traced their ideological and spiritual background to the famous “Hasidim” who opposed the Hellenization of Judaism since the persecution of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (see above). The theological leadership of the Pharisaic movement was carried out by the scribes. For the most part, this movement consisted of ordinary people - traders and artisans. A combination of various factors: a patriotic position, practical piety and a low level in the class hierarchy - explain the great popularity of the Pharisees among the Jewish people. They were a kind of standard of righteousness21.

“Their numbers have always been small. According to Josephus, during the time of Herod the Great in Palestine, with a population of almost half a million, there were only about 6,000 Pharisees. Throughout the country they united in secret meetings. There were two chief duties which were imposed on the members of the Pharisaic assemblies, and the observance of which served as a test for applicants before they were accepted after a probationary period: scrupulous fulfillment of the popularly neglected duty of paying tithes, and conscientious adherence to the precepts of purity. Moreover, they were distinguished by their charity, through which they hoped to win the favor of God, and by their punctual observance of the rule of three daily one-hour prayers and two weekly fasts [cf. Parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, Lk. 18, 12 – A.S.], which was allegedly done on behalf of Israel. The purpose of the Pharisaic movement is most clearly seen in the light of one of the injunctions of purity that all its members were required to observe - the obligatory washing of hands before eating (Mark 7:1-5). Ablutions were not just a hygienic measure; originally it was a ritual duty imposed only on the priests - whenever they ate the priestly share22. Being laymen, but imposing on themselves the obligation to observe the priestly regulations of purity, the Pharisees thereby showed that they (in accordance with Exodus 19:6) wanted to present themselves as a people of priests, saved at the end of times.”23

Their self-names are eloquent: pious, righteous, God-fearing, poor, and especially Pharisees. The latter is a Greekized (sing. farisai/oj) Hebrew word meaning “set apart” and is understood as a synonym for “holy.” It should be noted that it is in this sense that the word “holy” is used in the Old Testament, where we are talking about the sacred sphere (for example, Exodus 19, 23, etc.), and in Jewish literature (in the Tannaitic Midrash) the words parus (“ separated") and qados ("holy") are used interchangeably. In other words, the Pharisees wanted to be that same holy people, i.e. separated from the rest of the unclean, pagan, sinful world, the true Israel, the people of priests, with whom God made a Covenant24 (see Ex. 19, 6; 22, 31; 23, 22; Lev. 19, 2). All that is outside the Law and all who do not know the Law are unclean, cursed (cf. John 7:49).

“A clear distinction should be made between the Pharisees and the scribes, which, however, is not done everywhere in the New Testament. The confusion arose primarily due to the fact that Matthew, in the collection of seven proclamations of grief in ch. 23 everywhere, with the exception of Art. 26, they are addressed simultaneously to the scribes and Pharisees; thereby he obscures the differences between the two groups (which, in his view, is partly justified, since after 70 AD the Pharisaic scribes took over the leadership of the people). Fortunately, a parallel tradition presented in Luke helps to understand this. He divides the same material compositionally into two parts, in one of which he proclaims woe to the scribes (11, 46–52; here 20, 46 ff.), and in the other to the Pharisees (11, 39–44). Moreover, only in one place, in 11:43, did Luke introduce an error into the tradition: the vanity attributed here to the Pharisees was in fact characteristic of the scribes, as Luke himself correctly points out in another place (20, 46 and par.; Mark 12, 38 ff.). Based on this division of material in Luke, the material in Matthew should also be divided into two parts. 23: art. 1–13. 16–22. 29-36 are directed against theologians, vv. 23–28 (and probably also v. 15) – against the Pharisees. A similar division can be made in the Sermon on the Mount: in Matt. 5:21-48 speaks of the scribes, 6:1-18 - of the Pharisees”25.

In their piety, the Pharisees were guided by the oral Torah - in Matt. and Mk. “the tradition of the elders” or simply “tradition”26 (Matthew 15, 2. 6; Mark 7, 9. 13) - no less than written (see above). It would be more correct to say that the oral Torah had a more specific and particular, and therefore frequent, application. However, the Pharisees were convinced that when God gave Moses the Law, “He also gave him an oral tradition explaining exactly how the laws should be carried out. For example, although the Torah requires tit-for-tat, the Pharisees believed that God could never demand physical retribution. Rather, the person who blinded another had to pay the victim the price of the lost eye."27

The reverence with which the Pharisees understood the oral Torah (as well as the written one) was to be treated was a correct intuition. The same one that inevitably and quickly led to the appearance of its oral tradition in the Christian Church28. We call this oral tradition of the Church Sacred Tradition with a capital letter. In fact, Scripture is perceived as the Word of the Living God, that is, the Word addressed to His people always, just as the Torah was for the Pharisees - people, undoubtedly, believers. And at the same time, Scripture cannot provide answers to all questions related to the diversity of life. From this it automatically follows that there is a need for some kind of commentary that would concretize the meaning of the written Word in connection with a particular current situation. Moreover, such a commentary cannot but be authoritative (otherwise why is it needed?), and its authority is co-natural, equivalent to the authority of the written text being interpreted.

The Pharisees also believed in what also constituted and, by the way, constitutes in the Orthodox Church the content of Tradition, and not Scripture (more precisely, even in the Orthodox Church this partly became Scripture - the New Testament): in the resurrection of the dead, in the reward of the righteous and the punishment of sinners, into the doctrine of angels, etc. They believed in both the Coming of the Messiah and the gathering of Israel at the end of time.

Politically, the Pharisees most often represented a passive, and sometimes very active opposition to the ruling regime. For example, during the Hasmonean dynasty (see § 3) they believed that royal power, although national, should not combine political and priestly functions. During the time of the Romans, rejection was dictated at least by the fact that the Romans were pagans.

The Pharisees for the most part (probably in the same proportion as the whole society) were ideological opponents of Jesus. However, unlike the Sadducees (see below), He directed against them, so to speak, “constructive” criticism, hoping at least for a fruitful debate, dialogue (cf. Lk. 7:36) or even sympathy (cf. Lk. 13, 31). There were also cases of direct conversion: Nicodemus (see John 3:1; 19:39), apparently, was not the only exception (see Acts 15:5).

It was among the Pharisees that the first Christians could find at least some kind of, if not understanding, then at least a restrained, wary desire to “do no harm.” Thus, Gamaliel, a prominent Pharisaic authority in the Sanhedrin, proclaimed the principle that saved Christians from persecution at that moment:

38 If this enterprise and this work are of men, then it will be destroyed, 39 but if it is of God, then you cannot destroy it; Take heed lest you also prove to be enemies of God (Acts 5:38–39).

It is also worth remembering that when the Pharisees were faced with a choice of which side to take in the dispute between the Sadducees and Christians, they chose the latter (see Acts 23:6-9). True, with the skillful presentation of the former Pharisee Paul, experienced in the intricacies of Pharisee-Sadducee relations.

What happened to the Pharisees?

After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. the Sadducees ceased to exist, the Zealots were no more, and the Essenes also seemed to have disappeared. The remaining group, the Pharisees, moved north to Yavneh, where they wrote down the oral law, thus preserving the teachings of the sages. Eventually these texts became the basis of the Talmud. Thus began the era of the rabbis. As Yosef Eisen sums it up:

“Before the destruction of [Jerusalem] by the Romans, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, a great and tireless leader, laid the foundations for Jewish survival. With the consent of Rome, he brought the greatest Torah sages from among the people to Yavneh, organized a large yeshiva, and recreated the Sanhedrin. Free from the Sadducees, the Herodians, the Hellenists, the corrupt kings, the Kohanim Gdolim (High Priests), and the nobles, all those who abandoned the Jewish people in times of trouble, the only wise men had the trust of the people.” [eleven]

The followers of the Pharisees today are Orthodox and Conservative Jews. (Reform Judaism emerged in the 18th century as an alternative to traditional Judaism.)

What happened to Jesus' disciples?

“And they sold estates and all property, and distributed it to everyone, depending on the need of each. And every day they remained in the temple with one accord and, breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with joy and simplicity of heart, praising God and being in the love of all the people. The Lord added daily those who were being saved to the Church.” (Acts 2:45-47)

Jesus himself was called a Nazarene (Matt. 2:23; Mark 14:67), so His followers were eventually called notzrim - Nazarenes (“representatives of the Nazarene heresy” in the synod. Translation - approx. Trans.) (Acts 24: 5). Later, they began to be called Christians (Acts 11:26; Greek Christianoi, where the word “Christians” comes from). Originally the Nazarenes, Jewish believers in Jesus came from every type of Jewish belief and heritage. Yeshua's disciple Simon was probably a Zealot [12], Stephen was a Hellenist [13], Paul was a Pharisee, Peter was one of the Ammei of Haaretz. Today Christians in Israel are still called notzrim. Although the term can now refer to a Christian from any background, it originally referred to a specific group within Jewish society.

So what religion did Jesus belong to?

Jesus (Yeshua) was a rabbi - a teacher of Judaism. What He taught pointed the way back to the core of the Jewish faith—salvation as it had always been offered: through faith in God and His Messiah, through God's grace and unmerited mercy. Jesus made the final atonement so that salvation would be available to everyone, from Israel to the ends of the earth.

In beliefs and lifestyle, He was close to the Pharisees, but He also showed a clear difference between the Pharisees and Himself. Jesus spent his life not creating a new religion, but proclaiming God's Kingdom, teaching and healing, and His sacrificial death became the entry into the New Covenant already promised to Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures (Jer. 31:31). In this New Testament, God's Torah is to be written on the hearts and minds of the people, made available to us only through the love and sacrifice of the Messiah.

If Jesus came to earth today, where would He be found? No doubt in Jerusalem, discussing Torah with Haredim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) and ministering to people of all classes and statuses near the Kotel (Wailing Wall), in the streets and in synagogues. Or perhaps He would have interacted with people in America at a Jewish community center or worshiped in a synagogue in Amsterdam. He would teach, He would heal, and He would ask the same question that He asked His disciples: “ you say that I am? ”

[1] “The Jewishness of Jesus,” American Judaism 10:1 (1960), 36 [2] Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downer's Grove, IL: IVP Academic), 272. [3] Rich Robinson, “What is Authentically Jewish” [4] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston. The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus: The Jewish Historian. Master Books, 2008, 423 [5] Alan F. Segal, “Society in the Time of Jesus.” Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World, Belknap Harvard, 50 [6] Josephus, 423 [7] Segal, 46 [8] One example can be seen during the Last Supper, Jesus' last Passover seder, when He drank several cups is a later addition to the requirements of the Torah. [9] Segal, 53 [10] #Free_will_and_predestination [11] Yosef Eisen, “Spiritual Leadership in Yavneh,” https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2713638/jewish/Spiritual-Leadership-in- Yavneh.htm [12] Or his name indicated his temperament. [13] Although, obviously, not of the extreme type; at least he spoke Greek.

Source - jewsforjesus.org Translation - Anna Ivashchenko for

Donate Last: 02/28. Thank you!

Subscribe: Telegram • Facebook • • • Twitter • Instagram • Youtube

How Jesus is presented in different religions. And how real He is

Often, as an employee of “Jews for Jesus,” I am asked the question: “If there is one God and Jesus is the Messiah, then why are there so many religions, each insisting that it is right?” Which religion teaches correctly, and where is Jesus represented correctly? If such questions interest (and outrage) you as well, then it may be useful to take a closer look and analyze exactly how Jesus is presented in these religions.

Jesus in Judaism

Judaism accepts that Jesus really existed. That He was supposedly the illegitimate son of Mary, crucified for witchcraft, and His name was “ ye shu.” Of course, this is the “official version” of Judaism regarding the identity of Jesus. In fact, such a “Jesus” never existed! There wasn’t even a name “yeshu”! By the way, do you have at least one Jewish friend with that name? Of course not. Because “Yeshu” is not a name, it is an abbreviation that translates: “may his name and memory of him be blotted out.” Today, even in Israel, not everyone knows about this. Jesus was called by the well-known name of Yeshua/Yeshua in the biblical and modern era (see 1 Chron. 24:11 and 2 Chron. 31:15).

More moderate followers of Judaism have another "version of Jesus." If you follow what is being written about Him now, you will certainly come across expressions like “Rabbi Yeshua”, “Jesus is an Orthodox Jew”, etc. This restrained and cautious recognition of Jesus as a Jew and a rabbi will perhaps comfort someone. But there was no such “Jesus” either, this is not the biblical Jesus! “Jesus is an ordinary rabbi” is a compromise version invented by people. If Jesus is the dead and risen Messiah, if He has a divine nature and only He (we believe) leads us to the eternal God, then any “lesser” version sounds, at best, like a figment of fantasy.

By the way, until quite recently one could also hear a rarer, almost extinct “version of Jesus”: “Such a person simply did not exist.” As they say, “no person, no problem.”

Jesus in Orthodoxy and Catholicism

It is difficult to speak about Orthodoxy and Catholicism only in certain tones. These historically established (after the schism of 1054) denominations have long sought to be representatives of Jesus for all nations - and for us Jews. We know what came of it.

The best thing to note is that some modern Jews received the very idea of the existence of God, the doctrine of messiahship and the divine nature of Jesus, as well as translations of the Bible precisely thanks to these confessions. Jesus is presented truthfully in their doctrines, in accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The problem with the perception of Jesus is that the Word of God in Orthodoxy and Catholicism has been supplemented by many human opinions. For example, the Bible says:

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...” (1 Tim. 2:5).

However, to the Messiah Jesus they added: mediation of saints, prayers for the dead, veneration of icons, relics, the cross, tradition, as well as priesthood, indulgences, monasticism, papacy, infant baptism, politicization, etc. As a result, instead of Yeshua’s joyful message about the Kingdom of God, so desired by the Jewish heart, we have been hearing pagan “additions” for centuries and, alas, experiencing their consequences.

It is very difficult to get through to such a “Jesus”. Too many intermediaries.

Jesus in Islam

In Islam, Jesus is portrayed in two ways. On the one hand, the Koran declares in the name of Jesus His death and resurrection from the dead: “And peace be with me on the day that I was born, and on the day that I die, and on the day that I am raised alive!” (Surah 19:33). On the other hand, modern Islam rejects His death for our sins and His resurrection from the dead. It is believed that Jesus simply ascended to heaven.

In Islam, Jesus is the Messiah, but at the same time he is an ordinary prophet. There is no such “Jesus”.

Jesus in pseudo-Christian movements

If you are gullible enough to listen to everything that Jehovah's Witnesses tell you, then most likely you will be surprised. Their religious doctrine changes periodically, and as a consequence, “their Jesus” also “changes.” However, the New Testament states the opposite:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

This organization's "version of Jesus" sounds more like a dry formula than the One who gives eternal life. There never was such a “Jesus.”

The same can be said about the so-called “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Mormon) version. “Their Jesus” personally visited America after rising from the dead.

But how good it is that the New Testament warned us in advance:

“...There are people who confuse you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:7-8).

Jesus in Eastern Religions

The fashion for the “Orient” most likely came as a result of disappointment in traditional Judeo-Christian ideas. Eastern religions are relatively ancient and do not contain references to Jesus.

Hinduism as a set of teachings and concepts (for example, reincarnation of souls, yoga) does not include Jesus, but prevents its followers from accepting Jesus as the Savior from sin. No wonder. Jesus' call to every person to “Follow Me!” leaves no stone unturned against any such religion.

Buddhism also does not focus on Jesus and also tries to solve the problem of dissatisfaction with life through spiritual practices. Krishnaism emphasizes several parallels from the lives of Jesus Christ and Krishna. But, as we know from school courses, parallel lines never intersect!!

Jesus "historical"

“In search of the historical Jesus” there are people whose minds do not accept anything divine. The attempt to refer to “scientific” research led the authors of this version to reject the miracles of Jesus and, in general, to reject the spiritual world and the Bible.

Their “material” Jesus also never existed.

Jesus in atheism

Whether communism can be considered a religion is a controversial issue. However, such manifestations as faith (in a bright future), glorification (“Glory ...!”), admiration and worship of the heart (before leaders and ideas), life in hope, etc. allow us to think that this is so. Although... absolute atheism does not exist - man is incurably religious. Let's listen to the atheists themselves.

In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Denial of Death, Jewish atheist writer Ernest Becker repeatedly states:

“If you don’t have God, then you will always be inclined to something and turn something in life into some kind of god.”

Both in communist atheism and in ordinary secular irreligion, Jesus exists only as a legend. It is useless to look for Him there.

Jesus is real

How to distinguish the real Jesus from the non-existent Jesus, from the “Jesus in religions”? In the New Testament, Jesus Himself explains to His disciples how to identify those who preach lies:

“By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:16).

Unfortunately, for us Jews, the fruits of religion turned out to be very, very bitter. As, indeed, for all people. If someone wants to tell you about Jesus, please compare their words with the Bible and their actions with what they should be.

You don't have to read mountains of religious literature to find the real Jesus. One day an employee of an exchange office was asked: “How do you manage to instantly identify counterfeit banknotes by touch? You probably constantly study them, feel them?” The employee replied: “No, I study the genuine ones all the time.” If we want to know the real Jesus, we need to study the real Word of God - the Bible, and test everything else against this Word:

“Turn to law and revelation. If they do not speak according to this word, there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

The real Jesus has nothing to do with “religion.” The words “religion” and “religious” are not found in the Bible. Religion is something dead and sinister. But when we accept Jesus the Messiah and His Word, He raises us from the spiritual dead, giving us eternal life.

The real Jesus gives faith instead of religion. He brings us His gifts - the love and forgiveness of God. Can anyone love us more than the One who forgives and accepts us, giving his most precious things for us?

Our faith in the Messiah's death for our sins and His resurrection from the dead saves us from God's judgment. Have you heard this somewhere before? Perhaps people have testified to this to you. And in the lives of believers, the Holy Spirit Himself testifies that “we are children of God” (Romans 8:16).

Jesus teaches us how to live in this dirty and crazy world without becoming defiled and going crazy.

Yeshua does not reject us, He says:

“Him that comes to Me I will never cast out” (John 6:37).

He longs for us with all His heart, even when we diligently avoid Him.

Which Jesus will you choose?

It seems that we humans treat Jesus like a potter treats clay. In our hearts we make a certain “image” of Jesus that is convenient for us, and we think that it is excellent. This is roughly how new religions are created. But there is also a real Jesus - Creator and Redeemer, Judge and Intercessor, Messiah and God incarnate. Despite the immeasurable greatness of His power, He will always find time to help us know Him.

But if Jesus is so close and accessible, why do we continue to look for Him where He is not - in religions created by men? After all, if we're not satisfied with the "religious" Jesus, maybe it's time to look and find the real one ?

Mikhail Vaishengolts cis.jewsforjesus.org, mission “Jews for Jesus”

INVICTORY is now on Youtube, Instagram and Telegram!

Want the best content delivered straight to your favorite platforms? We prepare for you reviews of new films, interesting podcasts, breaking news and useful tips from ministers on popular platforms. Many materials are published only on them, without even getting to the site! Subscribe and be the first to receive the most interesting information!