Beyond that, he lived in a period when prophecy had already ceased. Although, if there were to be a prophet today who met the criteria, I assume we would also have to recognize him.

The Pharisees themselves already asked Jesus a similar question twice according to the Gospel of Matthew:

Chapter 12:
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Rabbi, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 But he answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.”
40 “For just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
41 “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah—and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”
42 “The Queen of the South shall rise in judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon—and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.”

Chapter 16:
1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and testing him asked him to show them a sign from heaven.
2 But he answered and said to them, “In the evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’
3 And in the morning, ‘Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but the signs of the times you cannot discern.
4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” And he left them and went away.

It seems Jesus refused to give any sign or token at all, even though they did ask him for such a sign in light of the supernatural powers he supposedly had, and thus the reputation he had gained publicly.

“The tests a prophet has to pass” — what are they?
If he performed a wonder, and he did, and masses followed him,
what additional signs are required?

There have always been Christian sects that Judaized, and as part of that Judaizing they claimed that Jesus never presented himself as a god (and some even went further and claimed that not even in the books of the New Testament is that actually said, but rather people erred and interpreted it wrongly).
Rabbi Jacob Emden wrote that the heralds of the New Testament, including Jesus, basically only wanted to give the gentiles the Seven Noahide Commandments, and those people misunderstood them.
In short, there is such a claim—that Jesus was some kind of sage / messenger to the gentiles to proclaim to them the seven commandments (among certain Orthodox Jewish sages), and there are claims among certain Christian sects that the real gospel’s purpose was to Judaize the world (and therefore they reject the possibility that God became incarnate in flesh).

But in my humble opinion, all this comes from a certain pantheistic worldview that says every important historical development must have had some divine aspect to it. In that same direction, one of the sages of Yemen, whose name I don’t remember, wrote that Muhammad was sent to eradicate idolatry among the Arab tribes.
Who the historical Jesus was—it’s impossible to know (by the criteria of a prophet he did not qualify), and therefore if you do not believe in Christianity, all the other descriptions of him are just historical speculations.

By that logic, the Baal Shem Tov was also a prophet. The fact that masses follow you (and by the way, these really weren’t masses. There were a few disciples, that’s all. Only later did it become widespread) only says that you’re charismatic. The one who is supposed to examine a prophet is the Sanhedrin, with an authorized judicial determination. As for that, Oren already brought the sources in the previous comment.

What is “the sign of Jonah the prophet” if not a wonder? They wanted grand signs, and that he did not give.

There is no (good) evidence that Jesus performed miracles, and there is actually good reason to think he was one of the countless charlatans of the Second Temple period whom people followed even to the point of suicide, as Josephus documented. Either way, abolishing the commandments is, in the Torah, a condition for being a false prophet.
See here
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/%D7%93%D7%A2-%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A8

I looked at the link and didn’t see anything significantly new. Abolishing the commandments does not contradict Judaism!!! “Go worship other gods” contradicts Judaism, and that he did not say.
When the messiah comes, apparently the commandments will be abolished, as it says about the future, “A new Torah shall go forth from Me,” and in many midrashim, “All the commandments will be abolished except…” Who invented the idea that abolishing the commandments contradicts Judaism???!!!
P.S. If a prophet said that a particular commandment was annulled, the Sages accepted that this is like idolatry—but if Jesus claims that everything is annulled, and it is clear that such a stage is supposed to come, why is he not believed?

A. He said that God is his father, and that has a clear meaning. In every religion where the king was a god, they worshipped him (cf. Akhenaten).
B. The body that rules on religious questions in Israel ruled that he is a false prophet, and also that saying the commandments are abolished has the law of a false prophet. Too bad.
C. And independently of that, why is Jesus, in your view, a more credible prophet than the countless other miracle-workers? Because he said he was a true prophet? Great proof.

That’s assuming Jesus even existed at all. Not all scholars accept that.

Those same scholars who doubt Jesus’ existence probably doubt Moses’ existence much more, so I wouldn’t bring proof from skeptical scholars.

A. Someone who studies the Zohar is not far from the “Holy Trinity” [just with “the Jewish people” and “the Torah”]. And the Rabbi himself wrote on the site that that is not what disqualifies them on logical grounds.
He himself did not say he was born of a virgin, and that interpretation is not forced by his words.
B. Is it not true that “A new Torah shall go forth from Me” and that the commandments will be abolished in the future? If I’m mistaken, explain the verse and the midrashim to me.
C. Because at the time it was clear to everyone that the messiah was supposed to come in that period or shortly after, and they did not think [nor does it seem from Scripture] that the exile could be so long. And then a man came whom the people of his town believed in, and he performed miracles that people believed in; many believed those people were not lying, and he himself also speaks of the sign of Jonah the prophet.

It seems to me it’s better to examine the evidence. Jesus’ existence has nothing to do with Moses’. Each story stands on its own.

But it says in the Torah that all kinds of sorcery and magic and witches and false prophets are possible. Who decides what is a true prophet and what is a false one?
Presumably the Sanhedrin is supposed to be involved, and if they knew him—as is mentioned at length according to the New Testament—that they killed him because they thought he was a sorcerer, and thus concluded he was a liar, why are you disputing that?
They lived in his time; after all, he was in Jerusalem, and according to them they themselves decided he was guilty. Who says the New Testament didn’t distort some of the things he said, not according to the protocols…
And by the way, why is Rabbi Berland not the messiah? I don’t know if you’re up to date, but not long ago there was, as I recall, a big front-page article in Yedioth Ahronoth saying he revived people who were almost dead. And you can look on the Shuvu Banim website at all the many miracles and wonders he did, and there’s much more to say about our holy master, teacher, and rabbi, the Rebbe, may he live long, our righteous messiah, Rabbi Berland, of blessed and holy memory.
Or about the Lubavitcher Rebbe, whose name became known throughout the land—there are many people who met him after the date of his death! And especially about the miracles he performed in his lifetime, there isn’t enough room on the site to write about them.
And he certainly strengthened the Jewish people in keeping the commandments, so perhaps the Rebbe restored the commandments to their proper level.

By the way, I forgot to write regarding “a Torah shall go forth from Me”: I don’t think that’s the plain meaning, but even if it is, you can’t detach the date of that Torah’s emergence from the rest of the verses in the chapter, which speak about the time of redemption, when the Jewish people return to the Land of Israel (not just before the destruction, as with Jesus). On the contrary, I’ll bring the full passage:

(1) Listen to Me, you who pursue righteousness, you who seek the Lord: look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were dug.
(2) Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for he was but one when I called him, and I blessed him and made him many.
(3) For the Lord has comforted Zion; He has comforted all her ruins, and He has made her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found in her, thanksgiving and the voice of song.
(4) Attend to Me, My people, and give ear to Me, My nation; for Torah shall go forth from Me, and My justice I will make a light of the peoples.
(5) My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth, and My arms shall judge the peoples; the islands shall hope in Me, and for My arm they shall wait.
(6) Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look at the earth beneath; for the heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall wear out like a garment, and those who dwell in it shall die likewise; but My salvation shall be forever, and My righteousness shall not be dismayed.
(7) Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is My Torah; do not fear the reproach of men, and do not be dismayed by their insults.
(8) For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool; but My righteousness shall be forever, and My salvation from generation to generation.
(9) Awake, awake, put on strength, arm of the Lord; awake as in the days of old, generations of long ago. Are you not the one who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?
(10) Are you not the one who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to cross over?
(11) And the redeemed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing, and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall attain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.
(12) I, I am He who comforts you; who are you that you fear mortal man, and the son of man who is made like grass?
(13) And you forgot the Lord your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth, and you feared continually all day because of the fury of the oppressor when he prepared to destroy. But where is the fury of the oppressor?
(14) The crouching prisoner shall quickly be freed; he shall not die and go down to the pit, nor shall his bread be lacking.
(15) For I am the Lord your God, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of Hosts is His name.
(16) And I have put My words in your mouth and covered you in the shadow of My hand, to plant the heavens and found the earth, and to say to Zion: You are My people.
(17) Rouse yourself, rouse yourself, arise, Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of His wrath; you have drunk to the dregs the bowl, the cup of staggering.
(18) There is none to guide her among all the sons she has borne, and none takes her by the hand among all the sons she has raised.
(19) These two things have befallen you—who will grieve for you? devastation and destruction, famine and sword—who will comfort you?
(20) Your sons have fainted, they lie at the head of every street, like an antelope in a net; they are full of the wrath of the Lord, the rebuke of your God.
(21) Therefore hear this, you afflicted and drunken one, but not with wine.
(22) Thus says your Lord, the Lord, your God who pleads the cause of His people: Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering, the bowl, the cup of My wrath; you shall drink it no more.
(23) And I will put it into the hand of those who afflict you, who said to you, “Bow down that we may pass over,” and you made your back like the ground, and like the street for those who pass by.

And certainly this section is connected to that same Torah mentioned in chapter 2:
(1) The word that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
(2) And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the House of the Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all the nations shall flow to it.
(3) And many peoples shall go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the House of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
(4) And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
—-
And as is well known from the Hebrew Bible, what “the end of days” means, as mentioned in Micah 4:
(1) And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the House of the Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and peoples shall flow to it.
(2) And many nations shall go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the House of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
(3) And He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for mighty nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.
(4) But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of Hosts has spoken.
(5) For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.

—————————————————
In short, Jesus does not fit that time period at all of “replacement of the Torah,” if that is how you want to interpret that Torah.

To rely on someone without there being visible reasons why he is right—that’s blind faith.
Apparently Jesus performed wonders; it seems clear the messiah was supposed to arrive in that period; clearly he also did not honor the community bosses and the rich and gave everyone a platform, and therefore the “community leaders” didn’t like him. Without knowing why they rejected him, you can’t use that as sole evidence.
The claim that the people of that generation did not accept him is not forced; it is possible that even some of the sages accepted him to some extent in secret, but the rulers excommunicated him. That claim is plausible, but not by itself—only as an addition.

As for the claim that the Temple was supposed to be rebuilt—there is something to that argument, but not much. Maimonides הרי writes that the sacrificial service was mainly in order to prevent idolatry, and the people of Betar, as is known, were ashamed of the existence of the Temple. And in the words of the Sages there is also “two thousand years of the days of the messiah.”
Go and see the countless contradictions regarding the messianic era; it is not at all clear what it is supposed to look like.
As for “A new Torah shall go forth from Me,” it is pretty clear that that is indeed the plain meaning. On the contrary, explain why you interpret it differently.

What is messiah?

A. I’m not discussing Kabbalah. Whoever discusses it can answer you. The motif of a man as son of God is an utterly pagan motif, like other motifs in Christian theology, and proof of this is that they indeed see him that way.
B. I stated a simple fact. The supreme court authorized to interpret the verses said that one who abolishes the Torah—and Jesus—is a false prophet. End of story.
C. Also, anyone who thought the messiah was supposed to come also thought the messiah would bring world peace, and that too did not happen. By every view, they were mistaken. You ignore the fact that in Jesus’ time there were many other miracle-working messiahs, and Josephus gave some of their names. Jesus is no different from them or from the other miracle-workers. Believing that someone did a trick (especially when there is no good proof that Jesus worked miracles at all), and on that basis changing one’s religion, is meaningless evidence.

By the way, Nur, I just reread your reply.
So after you answer what the messiah is, and how you understand the concept, we can continue talking.
But I saw that you didn’t address almost everything I sent. Maybe it was too long? But a substantial part of the questions you wrote I had already addressed there.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin for their corruption. Bringing proof from the Sanhedrin is problematic, because anyone who accepts his words will claim that the Sanhedrin institution had strayed from the path. You can also see in the Hebrew Bible how the prophets criticize the governmental and religious corruption of their times.

In any case, the discussion of whether Jesus was a prophet or the messiah is doomed to fail. Because Christians and Jewish-Christian sects interpret the texts one way, and rabbinic and Pharisaic Judaism interpret them another way.
There are also quite a few contradictions between the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, and they are no less problematic and deep than the contradictions between Pharisaic Judaism and Christianity or the early Jewish Christians. In fact, all of Second Temple Judaism was made up of dozens of different sects.

Gabriel, you want to argue that no truth can be reached.
But this whole site is built on trying to reach the truth even in situations of uncertainty, and doing that by trying to do the best we can in that situation.
For example, if you’re talking about the Written Torah, we have methods for examining the texts: similar passages, similar words, meanings that are the plain sense of the text.
If you’re talking in terms of reliability of tradition, here too we have tools to decide which tradition is preferable and which less so.

Greetings, Nur. Thank you very much for the question and for the fascinating discussion. Your question and comments are immeasurably stronger than the excuses that have been offered. Indeed, your points should be answered calmly and thoughtfully, not under pressure…
I would ask to direct attention to the question: who handed over Jesus’ case to the Romans? (The question is directed mainly to M, who raised the point in section B of his remarks above.)
Well said, Gabriel, the people are with you!

In short, there’s no real question because there’s no real claim.
You can believe Jesus was a prophet,
just like you can believe Buddha was a prophet,
or that Martin Luther King was a prophet.
If you turn every charismatic person who left a mark on history into a prophet on the grounds that you can somehow reconcile that with Judaism, you won’t reach logical conclusions.

It looks like you’re starting from the assumption that Jesus was a prophet / messiah, and you want to hear whether there is some refutation of that assumption. The right question is whether there is any sufficient criterion that should bring us to such a strange conclusion.
Miracles? We’ve heard of plenty, throughout the generations.
Similar verse-interpretations and pilpulim? We’ve had more than enough of those too over the generations [even Sabbatai Zevi and Hezekiah Hayon argued for long hours over which of them could be proved to be the messiah…], and the position of the site’s owner on pilpulim and such דרשות is well known.
Fulfillment [even partial] of what is said about the messiah—after all, the prophets speak of world peace etc.; did any of that happen?
What exactly is under discussion here—shaky scriptural interpretations and that’s it?

I’ll list the arguments:
1. “Nachmanides’ argument” — the matter of the Trinity is not intellectually tolerable.
2. The Trinity is a “pagan motif,” heresy, not a continuation of Judaism.
3. The “prophecies” that prove things in their favor—those are proof against them: there was no peace in his time, the Temple was destroyed.
4. There is no reason at all to believe in him; he is equivalent to “our teacher Rabbi Berland,” to Buddha, and the like.
5. The Sanhedrin ruled in this trial; we were commanded to listen to all the words of the Sanhedrin, who were wise and elevated men, and certainly they clarified the truth.

1–2. As far as I know, Jesus himself did not say he was born of a virgin [maybe I’m mistaken—correct me if so]. What he called himself, “son of God,” is no more than “Our Father, Our King”; it is certainly much less than what the Kabbalists say. If one can explain them, one can explain Jesus too; the fact that some of his non-Jewish disciples explained him badly does not reduce his standing.
3. This is the most complicated point. One has to be expert in the Hebrew Bible to know for sure. Sorry to K that I didn’t read all of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve. In the Talmud there is an opinion that the messianic era is 40 years; Rabbi Hillel’s opinion is that there is no messiah [because they already “consumed him” in the days of Hezekiah], which gave me proportions—that the messianic era is not necessarily what we think. Even if Jewish law does not follow those views, there is some middle ground between what we think about the messianic era and those positions.
4. Why believe in all the prophets for whom there is no clear proof of their truth? We believe the Torah, which said to believe prophets. Why believe a prophet more than a charismatic person who performed a miracle? Because prophets are believed. [The cases of Sabbatai Zevi and Bar Kokhba show that they did indeed believe a prophet.] Who is the prophet—that is what I want to know.
5. Why did the Sanhedrin rule that way? As written in Maimonides: one who performed a sign is a prophet unless he abolished one of the commandments. And I ask: in the future, when the messiah will abolish the commandments [I still haven’t received an answer why to interpret “A new Torah shall go forth from Me” and all the midrashim on it differently], how will we believe him?
True, this argument is strong; presumably they were right. But without understanding why they were right—that’s blind faith.

1–2. I think it depends very much on which book of the New Testament you’re reading.
3. So what is messiah? Where is it mentioned anywhere in the whole Hebrew Bible in the sense you are calling it? The answer is that maybe it’s mentioned once in the whole Hebrew Bible, if we’re generous to you, because even there we don’t know exactly what it means, and even then apparently it means a prince… but in all the other places the meaning clearly comes out differently.
The idea of messiah is someone who has been anointed, like “the anointed priest” or “the shield of the mighty, the shield of Saul, not anointed with oil” (meaning they did not anoint the shield with oil), and so there are various kings in the Hebrew Bible who were anointed and called messiah.
When do you anoint a king? Either at the beginning of a dynasty or when the kingship is contested. Since the royal line got stuck, they waited for “the messiah” who would save the Jewish people and reestablish the Davidic kingdom, as is mentioned for example in Ezekiel… In any case, the figure of the messiah in the Bible is not mentioned as someone in the distant future. Rather, it says there will be a king in the future, and that’s what is meant. And still, it is a relatively “esoteric” figure in the Hebrew Bible compared to the number of prophecies that speak of redemption, in which he plays a very central role. Sometimes in those very prophecies you meet the king who will stand for the Jewish people at that time—and that is the messiah. (Now factor that in with the Talmudic statement of Hillel that they already “consumed him” in the days of Hezekiah…)
In any case, Jesus not only came right before the destruction, he also got the Jewish people killed as they had perhaps never been killed before…
4. As I understand it, the simple reason is either because the Jewish people ended up accepting them in a noticeable way, or because the sages of Israel understood that they were true prophets, as mentioned in Deuteronomy regarding them. But in biblical times you can read how full things were of false prophets, and how true prophets “suffered” from various people, in my understanding…
5. I don’t think that’s the reason mentioned either in the “New Testament” or in the Talmudic passages. In particular, in Matthew, maybe chapter 5, Jesus talks about not coming to abolish any commandment, but on the contrary to uphold the Torah and even be stricter in it. And in another chapter, I think, he speaks about the obligation to obey the Pharisees, only that the Pharisees say and do not do, whereas one should do.
But later, I think, Paul came and abolished the commandments.

Regarding “a Torah shall go forth from Me,” I only just read that now—I addressed it. Even if you interpret the verse that way, which doesn’t sound entirely reasonable, it speaks of the future in exactly the way you think the Sages understood it.
And I showed in Micah and Isaiah what the nature of that period is—see above.

I still haven’t managed to understand how one knows who is a true prophet.
Is there no way to know? “Whoever the Jewish people accepted”? And how did the Jewish people know whether to accept him?
This unresolved question led to the false prophets during the Temple period and to Bar Kokhba and Sabbatai Zevi, and it raises the question: what is the standard? And why didn’t Jesus meet that standard?
As for the verses about the end of days, it is possible there is a first and second redemption. I’m not expert in the topic, but I think it is clear to everyone [or to many views] that there is the coming of the messiah, about which someone says “there is no difference between this world and the days of the messiah except subjugation to foreign kingdoms.”
[By the way, regarding what Gabriel said, that there is no proof from the Sanhedrin because Jesus claimed they were corrupt—that is not right, because the One who governs the world commanded us to obey the sages—the Sanhedrin—and therefore they could not have been wrong. According to Rabbi Michi, who says God does not know human free choices, it isn’t certain, but there is a high probability.]

1. “Nachmanides’ argument” — the matter of the Trinity is not intellectually tolerable.
2. The Trinity is a “pagan motif,” heresy, not a continuation of Judaism.
3. The “prophecies” that prove things in their favor—those are proof against them: there was no peace in his time, the Temple was destroyed.
4. There is no reason at all to believe in him; he is equivalent to “our teacher Rabbi Berland,” to Buddha, and the like.
5. The Sanhedrin ruled in this trial; we were commanded to listen to all the words of the Sanhedrin, who were wise and elevated men, and certainly they clarified the truth.

1–2. As far as I know, Jesus himself did not say he was born of a virgin [maybe I’m mistaken—correct me if so]. What he called himself, “son of God,” is no more than “Our Father, Our King”; it is certainly much less than what the Kabbalists say. If one can explain them, one can explain Jesus too; the fact that some of his non-Jewish disciples explained him badly does not reduce his standing.
It’s impossible to know how Jesus saw himself; I’m not expert.
3. This is the most complicated point. One has to be expert in the Hebrew Bible to know for sure. Sorry to K that I didn’t read all of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Twelve. In the Talmud there is an opinion that the messianic era is 40 years; Rabbi Hillel’s opinion is that there is no messiah [because they already “consumed him” in the days of Hezekiah], which gave me proportions—that the messianic era is not necessarily what we think. Even if Jewish law does not follow those views, there is some middle ground between what we think about the messianic era and those positions.
4. Why believe in all the prophets for whom there is no clear proof of their truth? We believe the Torah, which said to believe prophets. Why believe a prophet more than a charismatic person who performed a miracle? Because prophets are believed. [The cases of Sabbatai Zevi and Bar Kokhba show that they did indeed believe a prophet.] Who is the prophet—that is what I want to know.
5. Why did the Sanhedrin rule that way? As written in Maimonides: one who performed a sign is a prophet unless he abolished one of the commandments. And I ask: in the future, when the messiah will abolish the commandments [I still haven’t received an answer why to interpret “A new Torah shall go forth from Me” and all the midrashim on it differently], how will we believe him?
True, this argument is strong; presumably they were right. But without understanding why they were right—that’s blind faith.

In short, again, your only claim is that there is no reason not to believe.
Besides, if we assume he was a messiah and not the son of God (that is, you don’t need to believe in him to be saved, the commandments remain in force, and everything), then why exactly should that move me? In that case, what difference does his messiahship or non-messiahship make exactly? It’s just a sort of belief in Jesus like belief in the Lubavitcher Rebbe—that it doesn’t really matter to me whether there really was in him a spark of the soul of messiah, half a spark, potential, or nothing. Because it’s something speculative that can’t be proven and in practice says nothing.
If the claim is like Rabbi Jacob Emden’s (that Jesus and the apostles wanted to proclaim the seven Noahide commandments), then again this is not something that changes anything, just historical speculation. True, there are certain figures like Uri Sherki who are already sure the redemption has arrived, and all that remains is to adapt the Torah so it will speak to all the millions of gentiles who are about to knock on the doors of the study halls—and I don’t say that mockingly; I wish I had such simple faith—but seriously, if you don’t accept the Holy Trinity and all the Christian examples that come with it, there is no value in clarifying his historical figure.
Also the attempt to attribute to him prophecy or a heavenly mission (and I’m not talking about that famous Maimonides) is just a kind of hidden pantheism. In the same way I could see all the monotheistic religions in the world—not only Islam and Christianity but also the monotheistic streams in Indian religion, the Baha’is and the like—as missions of divine providence (and maybe the first deists should also be seen as prophets?). In short, all these pantheistic games shouldn’t really matter to anyone in day-to-day life.

He performed “the sign of Jonah the prophet”; why shouldn’t we believe?
If he was a true prophet, perhaps the commandments were abolished, as his disciples said. His words “I did not come to uproot but to uphold” [perhaps] were about the matter of connection to God.
The fact that the complete redemption did not come is not proof, as above.
The only argument is the Sanhedrin’s ruling, and on that I ask: by what did they determine this? By a gut feeling?

For me too it’s not exactly clear who a true prophet speaking in God’s name is. If you look in Maimonides and so on, as far as I remember, they were examined beforehand, and I assume that’s what they did too. After all, everyone knew about the prophet who was called a “seer”; you can see this idea in 1 Samuel chapter 9.
But on the other hand, as I understand it, a large portion of the false prophets did not prophesy in God’s name, though there were also some who did, as we see in Jeremiah 23.
Bar Kokhba, as you see, tried to lead a political independence movement; that is exactly what I was talking about, and therefore they thought him the messiah. And how did they discover he was not the messiah? Because it didn’t succeed… Your words themselves are proof for my approach for the one who says there is no difference between this world and the days of the messiah except subjugation to foreign kingdoms… I don’t think that’s agreed by all, but that’s the minimum. There is Hillel’s view too, but even there the basic idea is clear. In any case, there is supposed to be a difference between the messianic period and the ordinary exile period… And see Maimonides at the end of the Laws of Kings about this.

Nur, the claim should be simple and clear: the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion was Sadducean!!!

As far as I know, according to the Rabbi’s view that doesn’t matter… And it’s always very easy to make claims without basis.

I still haven’t gotten an answer from K about how one knows who is a true prophet and why Jesus didn’t meet the criteria. The claim that he had to lead to independence etc. is unclear and not written anywhere; rather, once he is verified as a prophet, one believes him.
To Binyamin Gurlin—I didn’t understand. Explain what you mean.

The claim was about being the messiah; I wasn’t talking about a prophet. You’re mixing two planes and for some reason want to merge them.
In any case, whatever it is, why do you assume people saw him as a prophet? Presumably when there is a prophet, people understand that it’s a prophet… People in Jesus’ style existed in every period and in many religions… so there is no reason to think this is the level of prophecy. He’s no different from all the others.

Dear Nur, the Sanhedrin that ruled Jesus should be crucified was Sadducean, and behold the wonder: how do the heirs of the Pharisees justify the ruling of the Sadducees…?

Binyamin—thank you very much, I didn’t know that. Indeed, that weakens the Sanhedrin argument. I’d be glad if you’d bring a source for it.
.
To K—I assume that a prophet who says he is the messiah is credible. It doesn’t seem to me that the messiah needs conditions beyond being a prophet; that’s your invention.
The answer that there were many people in Jesus’ style calms the heart to say: this isn’t true—but it’s not really an answer! If he performed a wonder, and says he is continuing Judaism, why should we not believe him? What further basis is needed—that the Sanhedrin approve? Why didn’t it approve [unlike other true prophets whom it did approve, and also how can one identify other false prophets]?

I think there is no reason at all to think he was a prophet, but even if so, if someone says he is king when he is not king, I would think he’s foolish… that alone is proof he’s not a prophet. But you have no proof at all that he did anything; half the time here you’re all busy with theory. “Who says”—usually the one making the claim has to prove it, but here the roles have reversed…. First you’re invited to prove to me that Rabbi Berland is not the messiah and not a prophet, and then we can start talking about Jesus. Or that Rabbi Michael Abraham is not the messiah….
Why assume that someone who performs signs becomes a prophet? All the Talmudic literature is full of wonder-workers; the whole Second Temple period was full of that. To this day there are communities full of miracle stories…
To claim that the Sanhedrin was Sadducean is a distortion of the facts. Aside from there being no proof of it, it also says in the New Testament that there were Pharisees there too, though in any case the ratio among the people there is not mentioned.

I don’t understand these topics well—how one knows whether a prophet is a true prophet or a false one. For that there are the experts whose field this is, or a Sanhedrin, like Rabbi Akiva who learned cucumber laws from Rabbi Eliezer…

You’re welcome to strengthen yourself and learn a little from the Torah of the great Rabbi Berland, and remember that disciples tend to exaggerate over time. By contrast, Rabbi Berland is our contemporary, and apparently you’ve never argued with a real Breslover from Shuvu Banim or something, if you’re asking this here.
https://www.shuvubanimint.com/category/art-and-stories/%d7%a1%d7%99%d7%a4%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%99-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%9d/

By the way, all the rumors about the true righteous one are fabrications, or higher-order rectifications, as you’ll see in Isaiah 53—that the servant of God needs to be in prison 🙂 and that they will think he is a sinner, when really we are the sinners. In short, you have here a complete prophecy about the true righteous messiah, may he live long. And I would add: after all, why was he in the hospital? Was he sick? In order to fulfill the verse “Surely he has borne our sicknesses.”

Nur, here are sources:
Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 57a.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, chapter 2, paragraph 2, section 35.
There, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1, section 198.
The New Testament, the Gospel according to Luke, chapter 3, verses 2–3.
There, the Gospel according to John, chapter 18, verses 12–13, 19–24.
Megillat Taanit, in the words of Shimon ben Shetach, “On the twenty-eighth…”

Why does that mean the Sanhedrin was Sadducean? Almost always the High Priest in that period was Sadducean, no?
And especially according to what you brought from Megillat Taanit, certainly the Sanhedrin was Pharisaic in his time, if in the time of Shimon ben Shetach the Sanhedrin became Pharisaic…

Nur, just regarding your question what the difference is between Jesus and the other prophets—you don’t change your whole way of life because of those prophets. There isn’t much practical consequence to believing in them. The prophet Jesus says to abolish the whole Torah. The miracle-working prophet, apparently the Baba Sali, says to keep it. In order to change your entire way of life, you need strong proof that he is a true prophet more than the other wonder-workers after his time who said the opposite of him. The expectation of the messiah is, as stated, meaningless, because in that generation they certainly also expected peace, since when Bar Kokhba was killed they stopped believing in his messiahship. From this you learn that if you go by their expectation, he certainly was not the messiah. And since no one met their expectation, the messiah did not come at that time—either because of sins or because they were mistaken. Either way, you can’t use that argument.

The new commandments of the messiah could be the renewed covenant, as some commentators have already argued.

I repeat what I said:
1. There is no evidence at all that Jesus did even one miracle besides twelve oddballs.
2. The occurrence of a miracle is not proof of messiahship or prophecy.
3. The authorized court and almost that entire generation did not regard Jesus as messiah (an empirical fact).
4. In order to change your whole way of life, you need strong evidence. Belief in Isaiah has no great practical significance. Belief in Lord Jesus requires good proof.
5. The words of the prophet Jesus contradicted the words of the wonder-workers after him. So who says he is preferable?
6. In the generation that thought he was the messiah—they thought messiah brings world peace. Therefore to use that argument while taking their view of the timing but ignoring their view of the essence is not rational. (And there is a difference between authority as in argument 3 and facts as in this argument.)
7. The verse “a new Torah” was interpreted in 400 different ways over the generations. Don’t worry—look in Otzar Vikuhim or in Sefer HaNitzachon.
8. The pagan characteristics in Christianity are not only the Trinity (which, by the way, is itself a pagan idea from Egyptian religion), but almost everything in their religion, and that says a lot.
9. Jesus says he is His son in a generation where that statement has a clear meaning (unless Jesus meant something else—and if so, the burden of proof is on you), and “coincidentally” that’s also how the generations after him understood him. All by chance, of course.
10. Nice that on the basis of Jesus’ miracles you conclude that Paul is also right. Have we not found disciples who went astray? What is your proof that Paul was right too?

In practice I have no interest in going deeper into this discussion. You’re asking for a refutation of something while not understanding that you are the one who needs to provide proof, and the occurrence of a miracle proves nothing. All the more so because you ignore problems in the model you’re proposing. That’s all, I’m done.

And again, you need to explain what the difference is between Jesus and the other false prophets of the Second Temple period.

M, well done, big guy—you just knocked down the whole “Torah of Moses”…

Binyamin, as far as I know, you know very well how to find distinctions… For some reason, when it comes to Christianity your arguments suddenly get blocked? And not only that—you suddenly started becoming “kabbalistic” and hunting fragments of quotations in all kinds of books? And moreover, listening to all kinds of ancient missionaries?
Even the early wicked Zionists who established the state, Heaven forfend, and cast off every yoke of commandments and any scent of Torah, did not love Christianity… Suddenly you found shelter in Greek mysticism and are grazing in foreign fields!? And not out of genuine questions in faith… but just to provoke?
Someone really needs to speak with the great Rabbi Michi, may he live long, soon, about the complaints forum that needs to be opened. After all the censorship here on the site.

No, that’s not my claim. I’m claiming that there is no meaning to a discussion with people of a different tradition using the tools of your own tradition.
It’s like discussing another country according to Israeli law. That isn’t valid in that country.

Also on this site the Rabbi argues that the Sanhedrin has formal authority, not that they are right about everything. Christians have a different authority that rules on the matter. They have other books that were accepted into the canon, and so on.
By the way, in Jewish-Christian debates in the Middle Ages, both sides came away feeling victorious. In my opinion the reason is that both sides rely on a different tradition and a different interpretation.

The only way to discuss with Christians is by means of modern scholarly tools and the rules of scientific inference and logic that are acceptable to everyone. And even there, not everything is agreed upon.

Nur, you wrote that the Sanhedrin that sentenced Jesus to death was Sadducean. What is the source for that? Thanks.

If “the occurrence of a miracle is proof of nothing,” then what is proof of anything?!?!
Even the Talmud admits he performed miracles, only if it wasn’t from holiness [because after all he is a false prophet] then that means it was from impurity and sorcery [Sanhedrin 43a: “for practicing sorcery and leading Israel astray…”]. It is also possible that there are some ways to check in heaven whether this comes from impurity or holiness, but in general I find it hard to believe in mysticism.
I’ll respond to Rabbi Michael’s words:
1. In the Talmud—“for practicing sorcery.” The fact that he performed miracles was clear [today it has become blurred]; “for practicing sorcery” is an interpretation.
2. Obviously a miracle is the proof of a prophet! If not, then what is? See Maimonides and Sefer HaChinukh.
3. Why??????????
4. One may not test a prophet even if he tells me to change my life!!!!!! If Jesus had the signs of a prophet, we are obligated to obey him!
5. What nonsense! Who are these “wonder-workers after him”? People about whom there was no testimony, or who did not continue the Torah of Moses. I didn’t ask whether to believe in Jesus because of miracles, but because God commanded us to obey one who performs miracles.
6. So “they thought he would bring peace”—that’s not conclusive proof. True, there is some probability here, but Bar Kokhba did not perform a wonder. They thought he was the messiah not because he was a prophet, but because he would bring the redemption; therefore, when he did not bring it, he was not the messiah. Jesus is different: the reason to believe him is not because he will bring peace, but because he is a prophet. The proof from abolishing the commandments is not such strong proof.
7. The plain meaning certainly is that the Torah will be abolished. Also in our own sources there is much support for that, and also logically, according to Maimonides’ interpretation that fled from mysticism, the commandments ought to be abolished [of course we would not abolish them without a prophet, but that is no reason not to believe a prophet—maybe the opposite].
8. I don’t know what “that says a lot” means, and I also don’t have to accept all of Christianity, just as I can believe there are mistakes in Judaism.
9. Rabbi Isaac ben Moses HaLevi and Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Mühlhausen proved that Jesus did not intend the Christians’ mistake [Wikitekst].
10. Obviously if Jesus was the messiah there is a certain probability that his disciples, or some of them, were true prophets; at the very least, heavenly assistance was with them.
In general, if anyone at all comes and claims to be a prophet as a continuation of the Torah of Moses and performs a sign—we are obligated to believe him. If fire had descended for the false prophets and not for Elijah, then Elisha too would have been obligated by Torah law to obey the false prophets even if he thought they were lying. It seems to me the false prophets did not perform a sign [maybe I’m mistaken]. You explain what a prophet is supposed to do in order for people to believe him. What are the “problems in the model I’m proposing”?
If the messiah comes today, how will we believe him? By what tools do we test the messiah? Mysticism and gut feelings?!?!
Sorry for the delay; I’ll still await an answer. Thanks.

As for Binyamin’s claim that the Sanhedrin was Sadducean—I did not see any basis [all the sources I saw were only about the High Priest]. If he is right, then there isn’t even a probability based on the fact that the Sanhedrin judged him.

The wording of Maimonides in chapter 9 of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah:
“Thus you find that every prophet who arose after Moses our teacher, we do not believe in him because of the sign alone… but because of the commandment that Moses commanded in the Torah and said: if he gives a sign, to him you shall listen… even though we do not know whether it is true or through sorcery and occult arts.” Meaning, one who performs a sign must be believed if he claims to be a prophet.

Now Maimonides immediately adds that if he seeks to uproot the prophecy of Moses we do not listen to him. But if he says the commandments have been abolished, why should he not be believed? True, Maimonides wrote that one may not trust someone who uproots the commandments, but it is clear that “the commandments will be abolished in the future.” And although an ordinary prophet would not be believed if he said that, if the prophet says he is the messiah he should be believed in abolishing the commandments. And although some say otherwise, it seems to me that the accepted view is that the commandments will be abolished [and they discuss which commandments will not be abolished in the future].
Waiting for an answer,
Nur.

Waiting for an answer, hoping for salvation.

When the future era arrives, then we’ll talk. Meanwhile, it doesn’t seem to have arrived. The proof is that you too are still hoping for salvation.

I didn’t get an answer!!
If a sign that a prophet gives obligates us to obey him, why did the Sanhedrin rule that Jesus is not a true prophet, and why does the Talmud say about him “he practiced sorcery,” while Maimonides ruled that if he performed a sign, one must not inquire whether it was sorcery or truth, and we are obligated to obey him? Abolishing the commandments is something that apparently will happen at some stage, so what prevents us from accepting him?
I see only the argument of abolishing the commandments as an existing one, but even that is not so strong, as mentioned at length.

There are quite a few errors in what you wrote. I’m willing to correspond with you privately on the topic if the discussion will be logical, defined, and substantive. If you’re interested, ask the Rabbi privately for my email.

What an astonishing exchange. If Jesus was the messiah, why was he crucified alone and wretched, crying out: “Why have You forsaken me?” If he was a true prophet and brought redemption, is that what your messianic era looks like?! Unspeakable suffering was bundled up in the wings of that accursed man. If the commandments are to be abolished in the future, only God Himself in His glory could announce that to you by means of a reversed Sinai revelation. You are leaning on a distorted interpretation of aggadic statements that neither add nor subtract anything (like the eccentric Alexandrov in his time), and in frontal contradiction to the law in Deuteronomy 13—which it is doubtful whether the prophet who said “A new Torah shall go forth from Me” even knew. That is assuming you are interpreting his words correctly. And you really are not.
In short—it’s sad to even address this. Read a bit of Leibowitz on Christianity; maybe something there will get balanced for you. His correspondence with Flusser in I Wanted to Ask You is recommended. (Jesus the man is irrelevant to anything; he was actually a fairly nice type overall. But he too knew how to deliver empty sermons in the style of peace and love. How did that go again…)