Oldest Hebrew Text Found!

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Oldest Hebrew Text Found!


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


How much does the oldest Hebrew text differ from the Masoretic Hebrew

text of 800 AD?

Which text is closest (closer) to the original Hebrew text of the

original Hebrew Bible? Where is the original Hebrew Bible? Does

it even still exist anywhere? Who has it?

 

[Grandpa]

More importantly, what does the oldest Hebrew BIBLE text say and how close is That to the Masoretic text?

How does the oldest hebrew text of Isaiah coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah?

It coincides very well doesn't it? The only things that are different are punctuation.

I think RachelBibleStudent already showed you the inferiority of the Greek text to the Hebrew text.

The Jews have preserved their bible very well. That is why God gave it to them.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

More importantly, what does the oldest Hebrew BIBLE text say and how close is That to the Masoretic text?

How does the oldest hebrew text of Isaiah coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah?

It coincides very well doesn't it? The only things that are different are punctuation.

I think RachelBibleStudent already showed you the inferiority of the Greek text to the Hebrew text.

The Jews have preserved their bible very well. That is why God gave it to them.

Please explain how Jewish rabbis who don't believe in the Messiah are motivated to preserve, and not to falsify, Hebrew texts which testify to the Messiah? Have you ever read the Talmud? How could the Jews believe the Talmud, and also believe a Hebrew text which contradicts the Talmud? Please demonstrate that they did not falsify their Bible. Don't you understand the pernicious nature of Rabbinic Judaism? These are the descendants of the Pharisees who had Jesus crucified. We remember that all of our sins
was why Jesus chose to be crucified for us. Bless the Lord oh my soul, let all that is within me bless His holy name. But the crucifixion is a crime against the innocent Jesus Christ. The evil the Pharisees intended against Christ has become the crucifixion for the salvation of the Christian Church: Jew and Gentile alike in Christ.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

More importantly, what does the oldest Hebrew BIBLE text say and how close is That to the Masoretic text?

How does the oldest hebrew text of Isaiah coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah?

It coincides very well doesn't it? The only things that are different are punctuation.

I think RachelBibleStudent already showed you the inferiority of the Greek text to the Hebrew text.

The Jews have preserved their bible very well. That is why God gave it to them.

Grandpa, I already showed you that Isaiah 9:6 based on the Hebrew text has the Sabellian heresy.
The Greek does not have this error. Rachel did not show us any error in the Greek text; sorry you mistakenly think that she did. God bless you.
Scott in Erie

 

[Grandpa]

No. The Original text of the Hebrew OT cannot be heresy. Only your misunderstanding of the text can try to prove a heresy. And your misunderstanding is based on the re-writing of the original bible with text that is conveniently left out so that certain facts can be argued against. You can argue and you can call it heresy but it won't change any facts.

Maybe RachelBibleStudent will chime in and re-fresh your memory.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

No. The Original text of the Hebrew OT cannot be heresy. Only your misunderstanding of the text can try to prove a heresy. And your misunderstanding is based on the re-writing of the original bible with text that is conveniently left out so that certain facts can be argued against. You can argue and you can call it heresy but it won't change any facts.

Maybe RachelBibleStudent will chime in and re-fresh your memory.

How do you know the Masoretic Text is the original Hebrew text? Can you prove that it is? Any first century authors quoting from it?
You're saying it is so won't make it so. Can you prove your belief?

 

[Grandpa]

How do you know the Masoretic Text is the original Hebrew text? Can you prove that it is? Any first century authors quoting from it?
You're saying it is so won't make it so. Can you prove your belief?

Only by showing you that the oldest Hebrew texts of Isaiah, which were written 100 BC, perfectly coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah. And the Oldest Hebrew texts of other parts of the bible coincide with the Masoretic text as well.

 

[prophecyman]

More importantly, what does the oldest Hebrew BIBLE text say and how close is That to the Masoretic text?

How does the oldest hebrew text of Isaiah coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah?

It coincides very well doesn't it? The only things that are different are punctuation.

I think RachelBibleStudent already showed you the inferiority of the Greek text to the Hebrew text.

The Jews have preserved their bible very well. That is why God gave it to them.

Sorry... but there is no punctuation marks in the original Hebrew bible, it was only until the Masoretic text was formed that we have guides of punctuation and emphasis upon the words that the Rabbis interpeted.

 

[systemdown101]

Please explain[/I] how Jewish rabbis who don't believe in the Messiah are motivated to preserve, and not to falsify, Hebrew texts which testify to the Messiah?

Well, the Jews around today still believe that the Messiah is yet to come, so they're not going to start messing around with their own scriptures just to play mind games with the goyim.

Have you ever read the Talmud?

Have you? I mean, read the whole thing and not snippets of it on websites?

How could the Jews believe the Talmud, and also believe a Hebrew text which contradicts the Talmud? Please demonstrate that they did not falsify their Bible.

I'm almost at a loss for words after reading that statement. The Jews pride themselves on being the Keepers Of The Book, they are NOT gonna start messing around with it.

These are the descendants of the Pharisees who had Jesus crucified.

Well, I think that says it all.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Only by showing you that the oldest Hebrew texts of Isaiah, which were written 100 BC, perfectly coincide with the Masoretic text of Isaiah. And the Oldest Hebrew texts of other parts of the bible coincide with the Masoretic text as well.

Dear Granpa. Not good enough! You have to show every last verse,

every "jot" (yodh) and "tittle" of the Hebrew Scriptures has been

inerrantly preserved by someone. It could be 100 percent correct in

Isaiah, couldn't it, but still be wrong in other parts of the Old

Testament.

You haven't shown us any error in the Greek Old Testament.

God bless you. In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

Oldest Hebrew Text Found!


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


How much does the oldest Hebrew text differ from the Masoretic Hebrew

text of 800 AD?

Which text is closest (closer) to the original Hebrew text of the

original Hebrew Bible? Where is the original Hebrew Bible? Does

it even still exist anywhere? Who has it?

I'm not sure if you were actually trying to give a link to a YouTube video or not, but no video is attached to that link you gave. First of all I don't think anyone would claim that the Masoretic Text is the oldest Hebrew text that we possess. If anyone would make that claim it's either that they are saying it's the oldest compete copy of the Hebrew scriptures we have or it's based on some misunderstanding. The Masoretic Text is the oldest complete manuscript we have of the Hebrew scriptures we have but it is not the oldest Hebrew manuscript, in general. For instance, take the Dead Sea Scrolls for example that date roughly 100 years or so before the time of Jesus.

I am by no means a Dead Sea Scroll scholar but from everything I've read and studied on the subject there were somewhere around 1,000 texts found. Many of them were dealing with Jewish laws and such but many were manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, including the Isaiah scroll in it's completeness. So if we were going to see discrepancies or corruption in the Maoretic Text we would find major textual variants from manuscripts dated to, generally 100 BC and manuscripts dated to the 11th century, AD.. But we simply have no major textual variants that would point to any type of corruption. In fact, just the opposite we see nearly identical texts from the text we can compare and the only variants would be minor spelling differences. Nothing that would change any doctrine or anything of the sort!

So we can say with confidence that we know exactly what the original authors wrote, which you cannot make that claim with the Septuagint because it's a translation! A translation of what? Of the Hebrew, why would a translation ever become more valuable than a manuscript? The simple honest answer is "never" it cannot.

Please explain how Jewish rabbis who don't believe in the Messiah are motivated to preserve, and not to falsify, Hebrew texts which testify to the Messiah? Have you ever read the Talmud? How could the Jews believe the Talmud, and also believe a Hebrew text which contradicts the Talmud? Please demonstrate that they did not falsify their Bible. Don't you understand the pernicious nature of Rabbinic Judaism? These are the descendants of the Pharisees who had Jesus crucified. We remember that all of our sins
was why Jesus chose to be crucified for us. Bless the Lord oh my soul, let all that is within me bless His holy name. But the crucifixion is a crime against the innocent Jesus Christ. The evil the Pharisees intended against Christ has become the crucifixion for the salvation of the Christian Church: Jew and Gentile alike in Christ.

Once again, you are ignoring history. We have manuscripts of the Hebrew scriptures that date before Jesus. So these were not "Jewish rabbis who don't believe in the Messiah". You then ask "Have you ever read the Talmud?" my answer is yes, yes I have. You then ask "How could the Jews believe the Talmud, and also believe a Hebrew text which contradicts the Talmud?" The answer is actually in the Talmud (you know, that book you asked if anyone has ever read before?) The answer is very simple. Let's just go with your logic here and agree, so what is the Jewish answer to the idea of a contradiction within holy text? Well, as I said it comes right from the Talmud itself, "eilu v'eilu divrey elohim chayim" which translates to "these and these [are both] words of the living God".. It means that just because we may see something as a contradiction, in our eyes (not the eyes of God). Still it's all God's Word and we must accept them both [what we see as contradictions]. That is roughly what it means, at least.

"Please demonstrate that they did not falsify their Bible. Don't you understand the pernicious nature of Rabbinic Judaism?"

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that you understand the nature of Rabbinic Judaism and the theory that Rabbinic Jews falsified the Bible. Honestly, as if that doesn't sound far fetched enough your next few comments does even more so! "These are the descendants of the Pharisees who had Jesus crucified. We remember that all of our sins
was why Jesus chose to be crucified for us." What is your point here? Do you understand that the Masoretic Text was written by, predominantly Karaite Jews.. Karaite Jews rejected Rabbinic authority just as much as you do today! I really think you should study out history and take off the anti-Semitic lenses while you do so.

Please let me know if you want me to clarify any point or give a source to authenticate it.

Peace and blessings.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

[quote=

Grandpa;596143]More importantly, what does the oldest

Hebrew BIBLE text say and how close is That to the Masoretic text?

How does the oldest hebrew text of Isaiah coincide with the Masoretic

text of Isaiah?

It coincides very well doesn't it? The only things that are different are

punctuation.

I think RachelBibleStudent already showed you the inferiority of the

Greek text to the Hebrew text.

The Jews have preserved their bible very well. That is why God gave it

to them.

[/quote]

Dear Grandpa: Here is living proof that the Jews translate the Hebrew

Bible in ways very different from Christian translations of the Hebrew

Old Testament. Here is the 1917 JPS (Jewish Publication Society)

Old Testament from Hebrew into English; and the King James Version

and the NIV (New International Version) translations of Genesis 3:15.

1. Genesis 3:15 JPS 1917 "And I will put enmity between thee and

the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy

head, and thou shalt bruise their heel".

The Hebrew Bible in English according to the JPS 1917 Edition

Copyright 2002

http:// Hebrew Bible in English / Mechon-Mamre

This has the Jewish people bruising the head of the serpent, and the

serpent bruising the heel of the Jewish people.

2. Genesis 3:15 KJV "And I will put enmity between thee and the

woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,

and thou shalt bruise his heel".

3. Genesis 3:15 NIV "And I will put enmity between you and the

woman, and between your offspring and hers," he will crush your

head, and you will strike his heel".

In the KJV and the NIV, the Messiah will crush the serpent's head,

and the serpent will bruise (strike) the Messiah's heel."

The JPS version deifies the Jewish people; the KJV and the NIV

deify the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Big difference, Grandpa.

See: "Judaism's Strange Gods", by Michael A. Hoffman. See

articles online about Michael A. Hoffman's germinal work.

Key refutation of Talmudic/Pharisaic Rabbinic Judaism. From a

Christian perspective.

God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I'm not sure if you were actually trying to give a link

to a YouTube video or not, but no video is attached to that link you

gave. First of all I don't think anyone would claim that the Masoretic

Text is the oldest Hebrew text that we possess. If anyone would make

that claim it's either that they are saying it's the oldest compete copy of

the Hebrew scriptures we have or it's based on some

misunderstanding. The Masoretic Text is the oldest complete

manuscript we have of the Hebrew scriptures we have but it is not the

oldest Hebrew manuscript, in general. For instance, take the Dead Sea

Scrolls for example that date roughly 100 years or so before the time of

Jesus.

I am by no means a Dead Sea Scroll scholar but from everything I've

read and studied on the subject there were somewhere around 1,000

texts found. Many of them were dealing with Jewish laws and such but

many were manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, including the Isaiah scroll

in it's completeness. So if we were going to see discrepancies or

corruption in the Maoretic Text we would find major textual variants

from manuscripts dated to, generally 100 BC and manuscripts dated to

the 11th century, AD.. But we simply have no major textual variants

that would point to any type of corruption. In fact, just the opposite we

see nearly identical texts from the text we can compare and the only

variants would be minor spelling differences. Nothing that would

change any doctrine or anything of the sort!

So we can say with confidence that we know exactly what the original

authors wrote, which you cannot make that claim with the Septuagint

because it's a translation! A translation of what? Of the Hebrew, why

would a translation ever become more valuable than a manuscript? The

simple honest answer is "never" it cannot.

Once again, you are ignoring history. We have manuscripts of the

Hebrew scriptures that date before Jesus. So these were not "Jewish

rabbis who don't believe in the Messiah". You then ask "Have you ever

read the Talmud?" my answer is yes, yes I have. You then ask "How

could the Jews believe the Talmud, and also believe a Hebrew text

which contradicts the Talmud?" The answer is actually in the Talmud

(you know, that book you asked if anyone has ever read before?) The

answer is very simple. Let's just go with your logic here and agree, so

what is the Jewish answer to the idea of a contradiction within holy

text? Well, as I said it comes right from the Talmud itself, "eilu v'eilu

divrey elohim chayim" which translates to "these and these [are both]

words of the living God".. It means that just because we may see

something as a contradiction, in our eyes (not the eyes of God). Still it's

all God's Word and we must accept them both [what we see as

contradictions]. That is roughly what it means, at least.

"Please demonstrate that they did not falsify their Bible. Don't you

understand the pernicious nature of Rabbinic Judaism?"

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that you understand the

nature of Rabbinic Judaism and the theory that Rabbinic Jews falsified

the Bible. Honestly, as if that doesn't sound far fetched enough your

next few comments does even more so! "These are the descendants of

the Pharisees who had Jesus crucified. We remember that all of our

sins was why Jesus chose to be crucified for us." What is your point

here? Do you understand that the Masoretic Text was written by,

predominantly Karaite Jews.. Karaite Jews rejected Rabbinic authority

just as much as you do today! I really think you should study out

history and take off the anti-Semitic lenses while you do so.

Please let me know if you want me to clarify any point or give a source

to authenticate it.

Peace and blessings.

Dear friend: I am not anti-Semitic. And it's false to say I have "anti-

Semitic" lenses. You are falsely accusing me of something I am not

guilty of. Take care! God bless you. See:

"The Truth About the Talmud: Racist, Rabbinic Hate Literature"

by Michael Hoffman, foremost scholar on Judaism in the English-

speaking world

http:// revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

God save us all from prejudice of any kind, including from the

prejudice of the peoplewho are prejudiced against the Septuagint and

against the Eastern Orthodox Church. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R.

Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

Grandpa, I already showed you that Isaiah 9:6 based on the Hebrew text has the Sabellian heresy.
The Greek does not have this error. Rachel did not show us any error in the Greek text; sorry you mistakenly think that she did. God bless you.
Scott in Erie

Hi again, I just want to give my input on this matter as well. First you assume that the Greek is correct, why do you presuppose that? Do you understand that the Greek is a translation of the Hebrew?

Second, this is a good example of anachronism because Sabellianism did not exist in 100 BC because Sabellius existed in the 3rd century (AD). We have entire copies of the Isaiah scroll dating to 100 BC and they contain Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in Hebrew).

I think it's your interpretation that leads on to Modalism rather than what Isaiah actually meant. Simply "Father of eternity" in that context does not mean "Father" in the sense of "God the Father" but it simply means "Creator" for example you can see Malachi's usage of the word "Father" in Malachi 2:10 starting with "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?...." So you can see "Father and the idea of a Creator are simply interchangeable. The Father in the sense of of God the Father is brought to light in the New Testament, not so much in the Hebrew Scriptures. Also,the New Testament agrees in John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, etc that Jesus is the one who created all things. So in that sense of being a "creator" Jesus is the father of creation but not God the Father. I hope that makes sense.

Peace in Jesus.

 

[Shwagga]

Dear friend: I am not anti-Semitic. And it's false to say I have "anti-

Semitic" lenses. You are falsely accusing me of something I am not

guilty of. Take care! God bless you. See:

"The Truth About the Talmud: Racist, Rabbinic Hate Literature"

by Michael Hoffman, foremost scholar on Judaism in the English-

speaking world

http:// revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

God save us all from prejudice of any kind, including from the

prejudice of the peoplewho are prejudiced against the Septuagint and

against the Eastern Orthodox Church. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R.

Harrington

I was really hoping you would respond to some of the points that I made rather than an observation I had. First of all Michael Hoffman is by no means a scholar of any sort. Can you name for me what his degrees are or what qualifies him to be the "foremost scholar on Judaism" in the English speaking world? That is simply atrocious. He denies that the holocaust ever happened, what kind of scholar is he? The guy is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and those are not my words, he is self described as a "heretic writer". How you could ever appeal to someone like that blows my mind. I really was hoping you were serious about this.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

[quote=

Shwagga;596617]I was really hoping you would respond to some of

the points that I made rather than an observation I had. First of all

Michael Hoffman is by no means a scholar of any sort. Can you name

for me what his degrees are or what qualifies him to be the "foremost

scholar on Judaism" in the English speaking world? That is simply

atrocious. He denies that the holocaust ever happened, what kind of

scholar is he? The guy is an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist and those

are not my words, he is self described as a "heretic writer". How you

could ever appeal to someone like that blows my mind. I really was

hoping you were serious about this.

[/quote]

Dear friend: I didn't read any anti-Semitic conspiracy theory in him.

Nor did I read anywhere where he denied the Holocaust happend.

If so, he's wrong. That would not prove he isn't right about other

things. Is it correct, as he states, that the Talmud says, "Christ is

in hell, boiling in his own excrement"? If it says that, it's blasphemy.

Do the Jews of today have a high, favorable opinion, toward the

LORD Jesus Christ? That's the real question. It has nothing to do

with anti-semitism. Why have they been waiting for another "Messiah"

other than Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is the only true Messiah. God

bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington PS Of course, Judaism

considers Christianity, faith in Christ, to be a heresy, so that would

make Hoffman a "heretic writer" against Judaism, because he believes

that Christ is God. But he's wrong if he does actually deny the

Holocaust. I haven't read that in his works.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Hi again, I just want to give my input on this matter as well. First you assume that the Greek is correct, why do you presuppose that? Do you understand that the Greek is a translation of the Hebrew?

Second, this is a good example of anachronism because Sabellianism did not exist in 100 BC because Sabellius existed in the 3rd century (AD). We have entire copies of the Isaiah scroll dating to 100 BC and they contain Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in Hebrew).

I think it's your interpretation that leads on to Modalism rather than what Isaiah actually meant. Simply "Father of eternity" in that context does not mean "Father" in the sense of "God the Father" but it simply means "Creator" for example you can see Malachi's usage of the word "Father" in Malachi 2:10 starting with "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?...." So you can see "Father and the idea of a Creator are simply interchangeable. The Father in the sense of of God the Father is brought to light in the New Testament, not so much in the Hebrew Scriptures. Also,the New Testament agrees in John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, etc that Jesus is the one who created all things. So in that sense of being a "creator" Jesus is the father of creation but not God the Father. I hope that makes sense.

Peace in Jesus.

Dear friend: You're overthinking this! Thinking too much. In the Hebrew, it calls the Son "The Everlasting Father", and that is Sabellianism. It really is that simple. If it meant God, it would say "God". As it is, it says, "The Mighty God", which is good.. But it then confuses the persons of Father and Son together, and that is indeed Sabellianism. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Shwagga]

We are getting into a completely different topic now. I never heard of that guy you quoted before so I googled his name and his Wikipedia page called him a holocaust denier. So, I couldn't quote you some of his works to prove that other than what's on his Wikipedia page. As far as the Talmud goes and the quote you gave. I've personally asked the question to people, one man with a PhD in Semitic languages (which includes Hebrew/Aramaic - the languages the Talmud is written in) and heavily involved with Jewish/Rabbinic literature and his assistant wrote to me back and said: "There are various references in the Talmud that some scholars have concluded are speaking of Jesus. One challenge is that the name Jesus (Yeshua) was not an uncommon name in ancient times. So a reference to Yeshua in the Talmud may or may not be “our Yeshua.”

Also, it is key to note that the Talmud only began to be recorded several generations after Yeshua...and far away from the events (the Talmud was recorded in Babylon). So the information about Yeshua, even if it is speaking of our Yeshua, may not be historical but rather a response to the various polemical issues that were arising at the time the Talmud was being composed. "

So it's not so easy to just say "Yes, this is our Jesus being spoken about right here!" As for the specific reference, a friend of mine recommended this website to me and it addresses the quote head-on! http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html#hell << Check that out.

And the fact that they are waiting for a Messiah is simple, they do not believe Jesus is our Messiah. As to what is the Jewish view of Jesus, well simply there no standard view. Some Rabbis have a very high respect for Jesus as a Rabbi and a teacher, others would not even utter His name. So the opinions vary.

 

[Shwagga]

Dear friend: You're overthinking this! Thinking too much. In the Hebrew, it calls the Son "The Everlasting Father", and that is Sabellianism. It really is that simple. If it meant God, it would say "God". As it is, it says, "The Mighty God", which is good.. But it then confuses the persons of Father and Son together, and that is indeed Sabellianism. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Actually you can translate the Hebrew "aviad" many ways. "Father Forever, Father of Eternity, Eternal Father" etc etc. It can be translated various ways and I had explained you why the son is called father here. It's in terms of creatorship not in terms of "God the Father". Sorry if you think I am over thinking this, sometimes you need to go into depth when it comes to exegesis. I think you would agree with me on that, on some level. So to clarify again it's not speaking about "Father" in terms of "God the Father" but in terms of "Creator", which the New Testament directly affirms the fact that Jesus is indeed the eternal Creator.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

We are getting into a completely different topic now. I never heard of that guy you quoted before so I googled his name and his Wikipedia page called him a holocaust denier. So, I couldn't quote you some of his works to prove that other than what's on his Wikipedia page. As far as the Talmud goes and the quote you gave. I've personally asked the question to people, one man with a PhD in Semitic languages (which includes Hebrew/Aramaic - the languages the Talmud is written in) and heavily involved with Jewish/Rabbinic literature and his assistant wrote to me back and said: "There are various references in the Talmud that some scholars have concluded are speaking of Jesus. One challenge is that the name Jesus (Yeshua) was not an uncommon name in ancient times. So a reference to Yeshua in the Talmud may or may not be “our Yeshua.”

Also, it is key to note that the Talmud only began to be recorded several generations after Yeshua...and far away from the events (the Talmud was recorded in Babylon). So the information about Yeshua, even if it is speaking of our Yeshua, may not be historical but rather a response to the various polemical issues that were arising at the time the Talmud was being composed. "

So it's not so easy to just say "Yes, this is our Jesus being spoken about right here!" As for the specific reference, a friend of mine recommended this website to me and it addresses the quote head-on! http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html#hell << Check that out.

And the fact that they are waiting for a Messiah is simple, they do not believe Jesus is our Messiah. As to what is the Jewish view of Jesus, well simply there no standard view. Some Rabbis have a very high respect for Jesus as a Rabbi and a teacher, others would not even utter His name. So the opinions vary.

So, you can't answer the question with a simple yes or no? Why not? Maybe you have read the Talmud more than I have. Maybe you can tell me whether or not it speaks against Christ. It is not logical that it would not speak against Christ. Judaism is only true if Christ is not the Messiah. So they would tend to be open to unkind statements against Him. It's not anti-semitism. It's history. By the way, the whole world was involved in the crucifixion of Christ: that is, the Romans and the Jews together. Of course, the disciples mourned the death of their Lord. They had no part in condemning Christ to death.
The whole Testament speaks against those who deny Jesus is the Christ. See I John, for example.
Muslims, too, deny Jesus.