This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
I'm not sure whether Jesus belongs in the list, i.e. whether the accusation levelled against him included heresy in the sense defined above. However, that "It is Christian Scripture that considers him no longer Jewish" is a strange statement. What scripture are you talking about? The NT is quite clear that is, was and remains a Jew. Early Christians who were Jews also never claimed that they (or Jesus) were no longer Jewish. What the Talmud doesn't say is quite irrelevant (and I understand that it contains two instances that were traditionally interpreted as speaking of Jesus) as the list doesn't say "Jews accused of heresy according to the Talmud" - any source is valid here. Str1977(talk) 15:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no basis to claim that Christian scriptures consider Jesus anything other than Jewish. Its simply not supported by the texts. What is more, Eastern Orthodox Christian churches openly embrace that he and his family were Jewish, and that Christianity is, while no longer practiced by Jews, a religion that was originally Jewish. Indeed, many recent Popes, including Benedict, have also embraced this position. That the medieval Christian West and many of its schismatic descendants have chosen to denude Jesus of his Jewishness in their own eyes does not make their views historical, or canonically or textually supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is deeply steeped in the focal fallacy. Namely, relying to heavily on a single source or opinon. While their is no denying Rambam [Maimonides] was a nonpareil Torah scholar a serious critical or academic analysis of this topic cannot cite him in a vacuum. His writings are those of a da'ath yahid (a lone opinion) who, despite his market penetration on this topic in contemporary traditional Jewish circles, had many contemporaries who flatly disagreed with him on some of these points. One would be the argument that a Jew who believes God has a body is a min. Ravaad takes him to task for this saying such a view is merely ta'ut, or mistaken. Thus, according to Ravaad, such a person would notbe a min, but a toim. I am unaware of any Sanhedrin that has decided between them in the intervening years. And its not just ravaad. Other rishonim disagree with Rambam on other points listed in this article as black and white fact. One who reads the writings of the rishonim and some acharonim on these issues will find the consensus-driving power Rambam enjoys today did not exist in previous centuries. Its a straight up logical fallacy to quote him as chapter and verse without noting dissent. A good place to start would the "the limits of orthodox theology" and "Maimonides and his interpreters" by Prof. Marc Shapiro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)