Was Jesus Orthodox? (or Baptist?) - LOL

[SteVen]

Was Jesus orthodox?
Or did he operate outside the realm of the orthodoxy of his day?
Was he a heretic by their standards?

Perhaps being heterodox is WAY underrated. Do we worship the status quo?

• Acts 24:5
  For we have found this man to be a troublemaker,
  one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world,
  and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.
  
  
• Acts 24:14
  But I confess this to you, that I worship the God of our ancestors
  according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything
  that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets.
  
  
• Acts 28:22
  But we would like to hear from you what you think,
  for regarding this sect we know that people everywhere speak against it.”

]

 

[SteVen]

What was the standard of orthodoxy for Jews in Jesus day?
Answer: Judaism.

Did Jesus operate within the confines of orthodox Judaism, or outside them?
Answer: Outside the confines of orthodox Judaism.

Was Jesus orthodox?
Answer: No, Jesus was not orthodox.

Is that a bad thing?
Answer; No, that is not a bad thing.

If someone wants to argue that Jesus operated within the confines
of orthodox Judaism, I'd like to hear about it. Thanks.

'

 

[Mr E]

What was the standard of orthodoxy for Jews in Jesus day?
Answer: Judaism.

Did Jesus operate within the confines of orthodox Judaism, or outside them?
Answer: Outside the confines of orthodox Judaism.

Was Jesus orthodox?
Answer: No, Jesus was not orthodox.

Is that a bad thing?
Answer; No, that is not a bad thing.

If someone wants to argue that Jesus operated within the confines
of orthodox Judaism, I'd like to hear about it. Thanks.

'

Is that a bad thing?

It's necessary. The Jesus take-away is that Orthodoxy is a bad thing, when it's in error. The Law became a bad thing, because of the way it was being enforced. Temple worship became a bad thing, because of the way it was practiced. Their orthodox understanding of God was completely wrong. Jesus had to be unorthodox. He had to confront orthodoxy, and it's proponents. It cost him his life to do so.

 

[SteVen]

Is that a bad thing?

No.
That's the point I'm trying to make.

It's necessary. The Jesus take-away is that Orthodoxy is a bad thing, when it's in error. The Law became a bad thing, because of the way it was being enforced. Temple worship became a bad thing, because of the way it was practiced. Their orthodox understanding of God was completely wrong. Jesus had to be unorthodox. He had to confront orthodoxy, and it's proponents. It cost him his life to do so.

Agree.

[

 

[O'Darby III]

The Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes had very different understandings of Judaism, and the large majority of Jews did not belong to any of those sects. They were just Jews, whatever that meant to them. Jesus was entirely in line with the Jewish apocalyptic movement that thought the end was right on the horizon. To what extent Jesus' message was different from that of John the Baptist, if at all, is difficult to say. The apocalyptic mindset was prevalent among Jews during the Second Temple period, see https://thinkingtheologically.org/2...ond-temple-judaism-and-the-ministry-of-jesus/, and I think it would be accurate to call Jesus an "orthodox apocalyptic Jew." He certainly didn't think he was starting a new religion. He was highly critical of the Pharisees, but this makes sense in the context of his apocalyptic message that the end is in the immediate future and people must genuinely repent and begin living genuinely righteous lives because the final judgment is right around the corner. I think it's a mistake to view Jesus as some radical "unorthodox" character, completely sui generis and disconnected from the context in which he lived.

 

[Mr E]

The Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes had very different understandings of Judaism, and the large majority of Jews did not belong to any of those sects. They were just Jews, whatever that meant to them. Jesus was entirely in line with the Jewish apocalyptic movement that thought the end was right on the horizon. To what extent Jesus' message was different from that of John the Baptist, if at all, is difficult to say. The apocalyptic mindset was prevalent among Jews during the Second Temple period, see https://thinkingtheologically.org/2...ond-temple-judaism-and-the-ministry-of-jesus/, and I think it would be accurate to call Jesus an "orthodox apocalyptic Jew." He certainly didn't think he was starting a new religion. He was highly critical of the Pharisees, but this makes sense in the context of his apocalyptic message that the end is in the immediate future and people must genuinely repent and begin living genuinely righteous lives because the final judgment is right around the corner. I think it's a mistake to view Jesus as some radical "unorthodox" character, completely sui generis and disconnected from the context in which he lived.

In what sense was he orthodox?

He didn’t keep the sabbath.
There’s no record of him offering sacrifices—in fact he disrupted and condemned the shenanigans and the temple itself.

He disputed with and disagrees with the religious leaders at every turn. He disrespected Moses and flaunted Moses’ law.

 

[SteVen]

In what sense was he orthodox?

Agree.
He was certainly coming from a different direction than the Jews he was confronting.
They weren't acceptable to Him and He wasn't acceptable to them. Unorthodox.
They were the measure of orthodoxy.

John 9:16 NIV
Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.”
But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided.

John 5:18 NIV
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

]

 

[O'Darby III]

In what sense was he orthodox?

He didn’t keep the sabbath.
There’s no record of him offering sacrifices—in fact he disrupted and condemned the shenanigans and the temple itself.

He disputed with and disagrees with the religious leaders at every turn. He disrespected Moses and flaunted Moses’ law.

No, I think this is misguided. It is viewing Jesus through 21st century Christian eyes. For starters, it is a mistake to speak in terms of an "orthodox" Jew as though that were a single, definable category in the first century. It was far from a single definable category.

From the somewhat unlikely source of Jews for Jesus, this is a surprisingly good article that places Jesus in his Jewish context and analyzes how he related to the various factions of first century Judaism: https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/what-religion-was-jesus.

Certainly, if the Gospel accounts are accurate, which almost no one believes they are in the sense of complete historical accuracy, Jesus asserted an authority and flexibility that was shocking to hyper-legalistic Jews, but he was very much a garden-variety apocalyptic Jew. His flexibility scarcely means he was non-observant. All indications are that he was very observant. Any number of scholars emphasize that it is a mistake to disconnect Jesus from the Judaism of his time as though he were breaking completely new ground. For example: https://www.timesofisrael.com/jesus-was-more-jewish-than-you-think-says-bible-prof/.

He was certainly coming from a different direction than the Jews he was confronting.
They weren't acceptable to Him and He wasn't acceptable to them. Unorthodox.
They were the measure of orthodoxy.

Here's your mistake (IMO). There was no "they," except in the sense of the Pharisees he was confronting. There was no "they" called "orthodox Jews." There were multiple, very different Jewish sects and factions. Sure, in comparison to the hyper-legalistic leaders of the Pharisees, Jesus' message was radical and shocking; he made good use of them as foils. As the professor discusses in the second article I linked above, it was not radical and shocking in the context of what was occurring and had been occurring for many years within the context of Second Temple Judaism.

I'm not sure why some have a need to see Jesus as radical and groundbreaking to the point of being some unique phenomenon. He simply wasn't. This doesn't mean he wasn't the Messiah or the Son of God, just that he was very much a particular type of Jew of his time.

 

[SteVen]

I'm not sure why some have a need to see Jesus as radical and groundbreaking to the point of being some unique phenomenon. He simply wasn't. This doesn't mean he wasn't the Messiah or the Son of God, just that he was very much a particular type of Jew of his time.

Great post, thanks.

Granted, I don't have anyone to compare Jesus too. But based on the Biblical text he seemed to be quite the unique phenomenon.
Was anyone teaching in the way He was? The Beatitudes, the parables, healing, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the storm, etc.
Not a unique phenomenon?

]

 

[Mr E]

No, I think this is misguided. It is viewing Jesus through 21st century Christian eyes. For starters, it is a mistake to speak in terms of an "orthodox" Jew as though that were a single, definable category in the first century. It was far from a single definable category.

From the somewhat unlikely source of Jews for Jesus, this is a surprisingly good article that places Jesus in his Jewish context and analyzes how he related to the various factions of first century Judaism: https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/what-religion-was-jesus.

Certainly, if the Gospel accounts are accurate, which almost no one believes they are in the sense of complete historical accuracy, Jesus asserted an authority and flexibility that was shocking to hyper-legalistic Jews, but he was very much a garden-variety apocalyptic Jew. His flexibility scarcely means he was non-observant. All indications are that he was very observant. Any number of scholars emphasize that it is a mistake to disconnect Jesus from the Judaism of his time as though he were breaking completely new ground. For example: https://www.timesofisrael.com/jesus-was-more-jewish-than-you-think-says-bible-prof/.

Here's your mistake (IMO). There was no "they," except in the sense of the Pharisees he was confronting. There was no "they" called "orthodox Jews." There were multiple, very different Jewish sects and factions. Sure, in comparison to the hyper-legalistic leaders of the Pharisees, Jesus' message was radical and shocking; he made good use of them as foils. As the professor discusses in the second article I linked above, it was not radical and shocking in the context of what was occurring and had been occurring for many years within the context of Second Temple Judaism.

I'm not sure why some have a need to see Jesus as radical and groundbreaking to the point of being some unique phenomenon. He simply wasn't. This doesn't mean he wasn't the Messiah or the Son of God, just that he was very much a particular type of Jew of his time.

You are describing what most would call a nominal Jew, but never an orthodox Jew.

If you were to say that you think he was simply Jewish by birth, and not in practice-- I would wholly agree with you. Like some of my Jewish doctors and friends.... All of whom are Jewish by birth, and only a few are what you would call practicing, or orthodox Jews. You can tell them apart from 100 meters.

 

[O'Darby III]

Granted, I don't have anyone to compare Jesus too. But based on the Biblical text he seemed to be quite the unique phenomenon.
Was anyone teaching in the way He was? The Beatitudes, the parables, healing, raising the dead, walking on water, calming the storm, etc.
Not a unique phenomenon?

I believe that's called "moving the goal post." If we're going to include things like raising the dead, walking on water and being resurrected - well, perhaps that was a bit unorthodox and unique.

You are describing what most would call a nominal Jew, but never an orthodox Jew.

Beating a dead wombat here, but my point is still that there was no such thing as an "orthodox" Jew. Jesus was as much an orthodox Jew as Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses and others are "orthodox" Christians within the overall scheme of Christianity even though many within that scheme would consider many others "not Christians at all." Jesus wasn't blazing a completely new path that no other Jew had trod.

As I said on another thread, many of us have some notion of a fairly stable first century Judaism in which the Temple chugged along under the priesthood, Pharisees and Sadduccees calmly debated fine points of doctrine and practice, and Jesus suddenly appeared like a bolt of lightning. NOTHING could be further from the truth. After just sitting through a very lengthy series on Judah and Judaism during the 150 or so years preceding Jesus, I said to my wife "Good God, this would've been like living through 150 years of the Vietnam War and Israel-Hamas conflict at the same time. It was just UNBELIEVABLE chaos.

Just a couple of tidbits about the High Priesthood I remember: At one point, the High Priest was a 17-year-old kid. The ruling king in Syria was concerned he was too popular and arranged to have him drowned after barely a week in office. Later, a different 17-year-old kid was in line to succeed to a ruling position, for which the king felt he was too young - so he gave that punk authority over the Temple and the right to appoint the High Priest. The High Priesthood was actually for sale to the highest bidder - would-be High Priests submitted their bids (literally financial bids) to the king, and the history is one of murder and political intrigue that makes the Papacy look good. It was just insane. Were the High Priests "orthodox" Jews? Well, maybe not so much ...

 

[Mr E]

Beating a dead wombat here, but my point is still that there was no such thing as an "orthodox" Jew.

That's just not accurate. The priesthood has always been propped up as special and promoted as experts in the law.... talking to a lawyer here, I know. It was positional authority at best-- a family business at it's worst, in ways that could make the mafia blush. In fact-- that's how Moses intended it. What you refer to as 'Fundies' or Catholics, or Southern Baptists et. al. --each one of them have their versions of orthodoxy.... doctrines and dogma, laws, rules, practices and 'religious' rites that are considered essential to orthodoxy. It's rather silly to insist that there was no such thing as an orthodox Jew. My evidence is the temple, and everything about it.

What's your evidence for there being no evidence?