I feel like giving this perhaps a few days. More specifically I've got lots to be getting on with but I won't just drop it, that's a promise.

Pretty sure I answered Ya'qub's question on the Juma Mubarak thread.

Irfan, are you still wondering "why the Jews killed Jesus"?

OK, let's try this. ftr, it isn't something Jews generally learn about - the bottom line for Jews is that we aren't Christians and aren't interested in Jesus. Everything else that follows is probably not quite right but I'll do my best. Nothing in Jewish teaching on a Messianic age suggests that a Messiah would require a "second coming" and we wouldn't be holding our breath. The Messiah as believed then would be a descendant of King David, which Jesus wasn't (especially if you believe that he was born to a virgin), and the much later Christian understanding of Isaiah as referring to a virgin giving birth is incorrect, since the word in question (and this is a polite rendition) "alma" refers only to a young lady giving birth. By no means is that the word for virgin. The Messiah would not be a son of God, he would be mortal, and in fact we should believe that any one of us if we could achieve that spirituality could be a Messiah. I mention these not as an aside, but because according to the gospels Jesus referred to himself as a son of God, as King (which the Romans didn't like) and as God's ONLY mediator. In fact he is said to have declared "no man should come to the Father but through me" which is one of many of his sayings Jews would hold as heresy. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is one of the 10 commandments. We believe that the last of the prophets were Zechariah, Hagai and Malachi, and don't ascribe revelation to either Jesus or Mohammed. The only absolutely unquestionable Jewish belief is that God spoke to the Jews on Mount Sinai and gave them the commandments as witnessed by all the Israelites.

The Romans having conquered Judea eventually destroyed the Jewish temple - after many years of relations that altered drastically depending on whom was in charge and whether any Jews fought back - and the Jewish community was in some disarray. For Jesus at that point to make claims to a new revelation and declare himself King was heresy to the Jews and sedition to the Romans.

So he had a big name for himself, and the Jews as a whole would not have been on his side. As it happens, the gospels are famously inconsistent in their accounts, many blaming the Jews or Sanhedrin (Jewish elders) for taking Jesus to task - and one might postulate that they would not want to offend the Romans - and others such as Luke not mentioning that at all. The only aspect they all agree on is that the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate put him to death. The gospel of Mark claims it is because Jesus claimed to be King.

If "the Jews" had killed him it would not have been by crucifixion but by stoning. Additionally the gospels of Mark and Matthew claim the Sanhedrin met the night before his death in order to betray him to the Romans. In fact such a meeting could never be held by night, much less on Shabbat or Pesach, when Jesus was said to have been killed, he was not in violation of the very specific charge of blasphemy (which required the utterance of the holiest name of God), and contrary to the gospels the Sanhedrin never could meet in the house of the High Priest.

The Jewish view is that Jesus was a false messiah, a great heretic, but killed by the Romans for his false claims and his association with rebels.

That's my cheap answer. I'm not well versed. I did ask a Rabbi for help with this, mainly out of curiosity, but he didn't know much on the subject or had no interest. For other views please refer to [url=http://www.jstandard.com/articles/138/1/Reclaiming-Jesus]Shmuley Boteach[/url] (who seems sympathetic, ever the controversial one) or [url=http://hnn.us/articles/3603.html]this guy[/url], who seems upset.

Absolutely no offense to anyone. Like I say, the subject of Jesus simply isn't central to Jewish belief, and the fact we don't follow him and others do is a fact of life, even if it has caused unfortunate rifts. It is what we believe.

[i]According to the gospels.[/i] I am in no position to dispute them except on grounds of established Jewish jurisprudence, although we might argue that, decades or centuries later, nobody was in any position to write them either.

If you read that Boteach article - I do like Shmuley Boteach - he asserts that "the Jews" didn't "reject him" because he made no such claim.

If you wonder why I put Jews in inverted commas it is because the guardianship of Jerusalem had switched a few times between Judea and Samaria prior to Roman conquest, and in that time a number of strands of Judaism had emerged. It is very likely that Jesus had a following that was entirely Jewish.

What is the Muslim understanding?

Jews reject that Jesus was a Messiah and that either Jesus or Mohammed or both came with a new message to supersede the Torah. To discuss further how the Jews relate to Jesus is to enter very tricky terrain, much like discussing how the Muslims viewed Siddhartha. Honestly, I think I've done my best with your question from a personal perspective, but that further inquiry is redundant. However if you want to present the Muslim understanding of Jesus we'll see if there's anything I can add. My answer is likely to amount to: "No, that isn't what we believe, and please take no offense".

As an aside: I would have thought it is a bit obvious that interfaith relations isn't about reconciling the core beliefs of different faiths. It is about constructing a model for coexistence. Naturally one cannot rewrite faith to that end, but one can look at statements, icons and models within the Torah, Qu'ran etc that can enhance the effort. For instance in the telling of several tales, and notably to my mind in reference to the ancient Pharaohs, the Qu'ran and Torah diverge, but that needn't be an impediment to implementing the Golden Rule.