Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He's trying as hard as he can to invent a Syria-Palestine in the Roman Era, so as to delegitimize the modern state of Israel. It's a shame because he has obviously spent a lot of time learning. To bad it's been learning through hate tinted glasses.
You can't follow the spirit of the law unless you are following the written law too, and an oral understanding of it. Yes, Jesus taught to first get the basics of the law before all else. But he never neglected the Law itself. He taught AGAINST lawlessness. Indeed when asked how to gain eternal life, his answer was the commandments. Not only this, but in Matthew 23:1-2 he tells his followers to do EVERYTHING the Pharisees taught, which includes the ORAL law, and in Matthew 23:23 he tells the Pharisees to keep both the written law, and also the ORAL law (the spice tax). Most of what Jesus said regarding the Law gets misunderstood by Christians, because they don't understand Jewish law or the history of Second Temple Judaism.
If I can add my take on this.
Hi Metis. Nice to chat with you again.
My friend, this is a good example of where Christians may be helped in their understanding of the gospel by learning a little bit about Jewish history. Your text records a conflict over halakhah (Jewish law) between two schools of thought, bet Hillel and bet Shammai. The two were often arguing -- their debates are recorded in the Talmud. Jesus is simply participating in a time honored Jewish tradition.
This question is dealt with in the Quran which says in essence that Jesus bought modification to the Mosaic law.
The thing is that Haile Selassie I dealt with the question of whether the Qur'an was binding on it's claim about Jesus' modification to the Mosaic Law. He says no. As an incarnation, he has that authority and now we're back to square one.
Yo, IC, and ditto.
I do not believe that Jesus saw himself as belonging to the School of Hillel as his theology is much too liberal for that, imo (I'll explain this further down on this post). Plus it was the custom that one identified with a mentor rabbi and build on what you were taught by that mentor, but there's no indication that Jesus ever did that.
The problem I have with that is that the behavior of the apostles doesn't reflect that, nor does the behavior of the Sanhedrin reflect that.
, and then the eventual acceptance of Gentile ("God-Fearers") converts minus circumcision. It is unimaginable to me that they would do that if Jesus taught full adherence to both the Written and Oral Torahs, especially since Jesus' martyrdom made him bigger than life itself.
I absolutely dispute your statement that Jesus was "more liberal" than Hillel. Let's examine one of the most famous stories of Hillel.Yo, IC, and ditto.
I do not believe that Jesus saw himself as belonging to the School of Hillel as his theology is much too liberal for that, imo (I'll explain this further down on this post). Plus it was the custom that one identified with a mentor rabbi and build on what you were taught by that mentor, but there's no indication that Jesus ever did that.
The problem I have with that is that the behavior of the apostles doesn't reflect that, nor does the behavior of the Sanhedrin reflect that.
Instead, I do believe that Jesus taught a much more radical viewpoint that is exemplified whereas he's asked which is the greatest Commandment? We generally know what that response was, and we know what the apostles did afterward, and that indicates to me that Jesus' position was much more likely to be significantly to the left of Hillel. Yes, Hillel was definitely more liberal on his theology than Shammai, but I do believe there's enough evidence for me to believe that Jesus was more liberal than Hillel.
After Jesus was executed, the apostles began to walk away from the Law, such as after Peter's vision whereas they started eating cheeseburgers
Jesus taught what often is called the "law of love", and even though the School of Hillel also had that as an emphasis, they didn't go as far as teaching that the basic letter of the Law could be abandoned, and yet that's exactly what happened with the "School" of Jesus.
Anyhow, that's my take.
I have quoted the above probably a hundred times or more.
Actually there is. Hillel taught that the Law was flexible but that the Law itself was from haShem and given to Moshe, thus it cannot be negated nor watered down. This viewpoint resulted in many disputes when it came to the application of the Law especially.
We simply do not know that.
It absolutely dealt with the keeping of kosher, but the implication of what was said goes well beyond just those series of Laws. Also, there are numerous verses whereas Jesus says things like "You have read that "X", but verily I tell you ...".
There are at least four groups of Pharisees that archaeologists are aware of, and there may have been more. The more liberal elements tended to be more in the north of eretz Israel and along the northern coastal areas, which were heavily Hellenized areas. Whether Jesus saw himself as being of one of them is unknown.
See above.
With his quite liberal viewpoint, he undoubtedly didn't believe he did. IOW, to him and Jesus, it appears that following the "law of love" covered all the 613 Commandments because they appear to feel that this is what the Law is 100% about. There is no way that an observant Jew when asked "Which Commandment is the greatest?" is going to just say two of them. Most of the Commandments do not directly relate to interpersonal relationships and the belief that the love of G-d is all there is, therefore it's really a s-t-r-e-t-c-h if one believes that saying that there are only these two that are going to be accepted as some sort of cover for all 613.
I see what you are saying. There was an underlying assumption in my comment that we were discussing Second Temple Judaism. Other approaches to Torah that we have today were simply not in existence back then. Hillel's view would have been the most liberal around. Jesus certainly was not more liberal than Hillel. He didn't throw out observing the Torah (for Jews).
Actually scholars do have access to this information. I wish I did. I can only tell you what I remember being taught. After Hillel died, a bit into the first century CE, bet Shammai quickly seized power in the Sanhedrin. However, it lasted but a blink of an eye.
We are I think going to have to disagree agreeably on this. I do not believe Jesus ever, EVER abrogated any of the laws of Torah. Indeed, if you believe the gospels, he expressly stated that not a brushstroke of the Torah would pass away until heaven and earth would pass away.
Are you proposing that the only Jewish believers that kept the Sinai covenant were the ones who were Pharisees? Because that is not what Acts 21:20 say. It says that of the thousands that had come to believe, they were ALL zealous for Torah.
I've got several similar discussions going on regarding the Oral Torah and Jesus, so I don't remember what I've said to you. Have I given you the verses showing that Jesus supports the Oral Torah, and what would give context to the verse you are quoting about the "laws made by men?" Honestly, it deserves it's own thread the proofs of Jesus and the Oral Torah are so extensive. You have to remember that when I read the gospels, I see them through Jewish eyes. It is extremely obvious to me that Jesus was an observant Jew, written AND oral Torah.
The Rabbis I have studies under, including my most beloved Orthodox Rabbi, have taught me that loving God with all of your heart, your soul, and your strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself, are the heart and soul of the Torah. It is not just Jesus' idea. Jesus was simply teaching good Judaism. You cannot deduce from his words that he was advocating breaking the commandments any more than my Orthodox Rabbi was. It simply means that all of the 613 can be grouped under one of those two laws. If you think that's a stretch, I assure you that's just you thinking. It's not how Jews see it, not me, not my Rabbi, and not Jesus.
AGAIN, we see it because they were areas where the Oral Torah was still in formation. Can one heal on the Shabbat via prayer? One Pharisaical school says yes, the other Pharisaical school says no. We should EXPECT to hear arguments over it.
Oh, my friend, life is two short for religious wars.Anyhow, I gotta go, and I don't mind discussing this as long as the discussion remains friendly-- I'm too old for pissing contests.
I never get personal, and I won't be taking anything you say personally. For me this is enjoyable.
Acts 10[9]The next day, as they were on their journey and coming near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour.
There were four different Pharisee groups but may have been more, and this was reported in BAR at least once that I recall but probably more than that. However, if my memory is correct, something also on that order is also mentioned in Wikipedia under the "Pharisee" topic. IOW, the Pharisees were not a unified group and some of them were quite Hellenized.
You really don't know anything about my background, so I'll end my part of this discussion with that. No one can categorize "how Jews see it" on much of anything. As it is, I have time issues anyway, which is why I have hardly posted here at all lately, ...