Zone1 We would all do better if we followed Jewish teachings, summarized by Hillel: ”that which is distasteful to you do not do to others.”

[Man of Ethics]

I understand that Judaism uses a three legs comparison for practicing Judaism?

• Studying the Law
• Service to others
• Charity

There are many Laws required by G-d -- these are sometimes called "ritual" although they have enormous spiritual meaning and significance. For example the dietary regulations are such Laws.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Judaism is absolutely incomplete without Laws which are considered "ritual". These Laws are important as service to G-d. These Laws are also important for Spiritual Worlds.

 

[Lisa558]

Hillel died when Jesus was still a child. I heard (or read) somewhere that it was Jesus' father, Joseph, who had either been a student or admirer of Hillel and may have passed the teachings along to his son.

That may be how Jesus came to know of Hillel’s teachings, but regardless, he was a great admirer of Hillel and did use his teachings in his own.

The difference in the teachings interest me. Isn't the story that someone asked Hillel to teach as much as he could for as long as he stood on one leg? That he also included another sentence? His first sentence was, The whole law says what is distasteful to you, don't do to another. The second was, Now go and study.

This true, but the second sentence simply speaks to how Jews emphasize studying. The previous sentence - “that which is distasteful (sometimes I’ve seen it translated as “hateful”) to you do not do unto others” was Hillel’s summary of the Torah, which indeed it is said he was asked to give on one foot.

Apparently what Hillel said, some say was based on a verse in Leviticus that said not to take revenge or hold a grudge; but to love others as you love yourself.

Was there a reason Hillel used the negative and Jesus the positive? Was using the negative prompted by Leviticus beginning with the negatives of, Do not...

I remember reading somewhere, at some time, that there is a reason why so many Laws were written saying what not to do, not what to do? If so, I cannot recall what that reason for it is. Do you know?

Interesting you bring up Hillel’s use of the negative, while Jesus changed it to the positive form. We had this very analysis in my Bible class last year, but I’m embarrassed to admit I can‘t remember. (We cover a lot of ground in that class and it’s hard to retain everything.) When the class resumes next week, I’ll ask the teacher.

 

[Lisa558]

I understand that Judaism uses a three legs comparison for practicing Judaism?

• Studying the Law
• Service to others
• Charity

Yes, but it’s not only studying the law, but obeying it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Jesus, an admirer of Hillel’s, also taught the same. (He put his own spin on it, but it is basically the same.)

Can all here - those who follow a religion as well as atheists - agree this would be a good goal to aim for? After all, it’s the start of a New Year!

The Golden Rule, as it's called, is repeated in many religions--or so I have read. I have no idea if Jesus studied under Hillel but He definitely was born into a Jewish family, was "left behind" by His parents** and found in among rabbis, and read from the Scriptures in the synagogue. So it's not out of the question.

**I love this story. So relatable. "I thought he was with YOU!"

"No, I thought he was with YOU!"

Mary: panics.

Joseph: kids these days!

 

[Lisa558]

The Golden Rule, as it's called, is repeated in many religions--or so I have read. I have no idea if Jesus studied under Hillel but He definitely was born into a Jewish family, was "left behind" by His parents** and found in among rabbis, and read from the Scriptures in the synagogue. So it's not out of the question.

**I love this story. So relatable. "I thought he was with YOU!"

"No, I thought he was with YOU!"

Mary: panics.

Joseph: kids these days!

He didn’t STUDY directly under Hillel as the timing was wrong for that, but he definitely did use his teachings to influence his own.

 

[SweetSue92]

He didn’t STUDY directly under Hillel as the timing was wrong for that, but he definitely did use his teachings to influence his own.

It's highly unlikely, but I'm also not sure how exact birth dates/years were in the ancient world. Personally I usually go "in the ballpark is accurate" but maybe not exact years.

 

[Meriweather]

Interesting you bring up Hillel’s use of the negative, while Jesus changed it to the positive form. We had this very analysis in my Bible class last year, but I’m embarrassed to admit I can‘t remember. (We cover a lot of ground in that class and it’s hard to retain everything.) When the class resumes next week, I’ll ask the teacher.

I get the retention part!

Had more time this morning to do a little research. Came across two thoughts. The first is that the Mitzvah is better framed from the perspective of what we should not do. For example, one should not put one's life in great danger for another because one's life comes first, and therefore (when push comes to shove) it is not right to love all others as ourselves.

This second hypothesis is fascinating. It notes that since we truly love ourselves, our own faults and flaws don't disturb because we understand the depths of who we are. However, if someone else points out our faults to us, our immediate response towards them may be anger. We can criticize ourselves, due to our love of self--a love now being infringed upon by our critic. Since criticism is hateful to us, let's not do it to others. It flouts love.

 

[Lisa558]

I get the retention part!

Had more time this morning to do a little research. Came across two thoughts. The first is that the Mitzvah is better framed from the perspective of what we should not do. For example, one should not put one's life in great danger for another because one's life comes first, and therefore (when push comes to shove) it is not right to love all others as ourselves.

This doesn’t sound familiar at all. As I said, I’ll ask the teacher next week, but if she had said something like this, I’d remember.

This second hypothesis is fascinating. It notes that since we truly love ourselves, our own faults and flaws don't disturb because we understand the depths of who we are. However, if someone else points out our faults to us, our immediate response towards them may be anger. We can criticize ourselves, due to our love of self--a love now being infringed upon by our critic. Since criticism is hateful to us, let's not do it to others. It flouts love.

This might be closer to what the teacher said - that it‘s easier to recognize what upsets us and thus not do it to others. Again, I’ll come back with more clarity next week.

 

[norwegen]

Apparently what Hillel said, some say was based on a verse in Leviticus that said not to take revenge or hold a grudge; but to love others as you love yourself.

Yes, it was already established law.

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself." Lev 19:18​

Jesus apparently considered this the essence of law, along with loving God with all heart, soul, and might (Deut 6:5).

We don't know if Jesus knew or studied Hillel, but we do know he quoted the Hebrew texts, as did Paul, to argue for Jesus' coming as the Christ.

 

[Lisa558]

I get the retention part!

Had more time this morning to do a little research. Came across two thoughts. The first is that the Mitzvah is better framed from the perspective of what we should not do. For example, one should not put one's life in great danger for another because one's life comes first, and therefore (when push comes to shove) it is not right to love all others as ourselves.

This second hypothesis is fascinating. It notes that since we truly love ourselves, our own faults and flaws don't disturb because we understand the depths of who we are. However, if someone else points out our faults to us, our immediate response towards them may be anger. We can criticize ourselves, due to our love of self--a love now being infringed upon by our critic. Since criticism is hateful to us, let's not do it to others. It flouts love.

Oh wow. I’m taking a second crack at my response to you. I just looked up this topic on Chabad.com, and they said essentially what you did. Still, interesting to hear what the teacher will tell me.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5410546/jewish/Is-Hillels-Teaching-the-Same-as-the-Golden-Rule.htm

 

[Meriweather]

Oh wow. I’m taking a second crack at my response to you. I just looked up this topic on Chabad.com, and they said essentially what you did. Still, interesting to hear what the teacher will tell me.

May have been a Chabad site! I always add, "Judaism" when I am looking up something from a Jewish perspective, and even then one has to be careful. Amazing how many Christian sites are at the top of the Google list--all with Christian perspectives--when one is looking for something from the Jewish perspective.

The online Jewish Encyclopedia had a great article on Hillel, and this one (if I don't have it confused with another) emphasized love. Somewhere was the thought that the reason Hillel may have phrased the answer in the negative was because he was responding to a heathen who may not have known God or His love. I was also scanning My Jewish Learning and Jewish Virtual Library.

 

[ding]

Truth is discovered. God is the author of truth because God is truth, among other things.

 

[hobelim]

So, in addition to being a blasphemer, he's a plagiarizer?

Oy.

 

[hobelim]

He repeated what Hillel said. He was echoing the teachings of a great Jewish rabbi.

Everything that Jesus made known to people he had drawn from the teaching of the Law and Prophets, everything from the first Ten Commandments to Kosher Law to Ritual sacrifice.

What Jesus did, what no one else had done, what no other man in heaven on the earth or under the earth (except the messiah) could do, is reveal the hidden teaching and wisdom of God in giving the law, by showing the intelligent that the words used in the written law are figurative, the subjects hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. A revelation that God spoke through Moses, a prophet, in the same way that He spoke through all the prophets from Adam to Zechariah, in metaphor and allegory.

What was never written down, before and after Jesus, is the meaning of the figurative words.

"I will put my words into his mouth and he shall convey all of my commands." Deut. 18:18

 

[Lisa558]

Everything that Jesus made known to people he had drawn from the teaching of the Law and Prophets, everything from the first Ten Commandments to Kosher Law to Ritual sacrifice.

What Jesus did, what no one else had done, what no other man in heaven on the earth or under the earth (except the messiah) could do, is reveal the hidden teaching and wisdom of God in giving the law, by showing the intelligent that the words used in the written law are figurative, the subjects hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. A revelation that God spoke through Moses, a prophet, in the same way that He spoke through all the prophets from Adam to Zechariah, in metaphor and allegory.

What was never written down, before and after Jesus, is the meaning of the figurative words.

"I will put my words into his mouth and he shall convey all of my commands." Deut. 18:18

Yes, that’s all true. But the Messiah, who has yet to arrive, was never said to be a deity or son of Gd. I don’t think Jesus ever claimed that, as any practicing Jew would not make such a blasphemous claim. It is the very anthesis of Jewish beliefs. I believe the Gospels put words in his mouth that he never said. IMO of course.

Jesus fits the description for a prophet, which he was.

 

[hobelim]

Yes, that’s all true. But the Messiah, who has yet to arrive, was never said to be a deity or son of Gd. I don’t think Jesus ever claimed that, as any practicing Jew would not make such a blasphemous claim. It is the very anthesis of Jewish beliefs. I believe the Gospels put words in his mouth that he never said. IMO of course.

Agreed. Except the Messiah is apparently "yet to be revealed", even if he appeared a long time ago. The title 'Son of God' was just a relational metaphor. When superstitious Romans usurped authority over the gospels in 325 they perverted what was written, being diverted, perhaps deliberately by the authors, with existing mangod superstitions and mithraic beliefs.

Mithraism was the secret "mystery religion" of the Roman military, government, and elite.

 

[BreezeWood]

Everything that Jesus made known to people he had drawn from the teaching of the Law and Prophets, everything from the first Ten Commandments to Kosher Law to Ritual sacrifice.

What Jesus did, what no one else had done, what no other man in heaven on the earth or under the earth (except the messiah) could do, is reveal the hidden teaching and wisdom of God in giving the law, by showing the intelligent that the words used in the written law are figurative, the subjects hidden and not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. A revelation that God spoke through Moses, a prophet, in the same way that He spoke through all the prophets from Adam to Zechariah, in metaphor and allegory.

What was never written down, before and after Jesus, is the meaning of the figurative words.

"I will put my words into his mouth and he shall convey all of my commands." Deut. 18:18

their accomplishment is not for them alone but for all as a choice to fulfill themselves.

and no, the laws need not be read and are intrinsic for all beings on planet earth with or without the desert religions ...

in truth the difference was in portrayal they accomplished the goal set by a&e and become pure to free their spirit for judgement and heavenly remission.

- and what they were not examples of were the laws made up by the jews at the time that cost them and those that understood their accomplishment their lives.

 

[hobelim]

and no, the laws need not be read and are intrinsic for all beings on planet earth with or without the desert religions ...

You misunderstand.

The law does not need to be believed in or followed by anyone, yet everyone is bound by those laws because they are not about crime and punishment but cause and effect.

No one has to believe in or even understand gravity but if they jump off a cliff there are real and verifiable consequences for disregarding that law whatever you believe or don't believe.

Now with the written kosher law you do not have to believe that eating the flesh of swine will defile and contaminate anything or anyone, but if you can grasp the deeper implications, something any grade child should be able to do, then you will see that if you accept the irrational beliefs and degrading practices of unclean human creatures that do not ruminate the consequence is clear and verifiable and demonstrated daily by many posters on this message board who 'just believe' in the absurd without thinking rationally about it at all.

Unclean flesh, teaching, defiles and contaminates the mind crippling and even killing its ability to think and reason rationally which perverts everything seen felt and heard in life and causes many people affected to critically injure themselves and their loved ones daily.

If this knowledge was intrinsic no one would be eating a lifeless matzo for spiritual life. No one would have ever sacrificed a child to Moloch, no one would have voted for Trump. derp.

 

[ding]

Yes, that’s all true. But the Messiah, who has yet to arrive, was never said to be a deity or son of Gd. I don’t think Jesus ever claimed that, as any practicing Jew would not make such a blasphemous claim. It is the very anthesis of Jewish beliefs. I believe the Gospels put words in his mouth that he never said. IMO of course.

Jesus fits the description for a prophet, which he was.

Jews for Jesus would disagree.

Jesus as Messiah in the Gospels - Jews for Jesus

An answer to the allegation that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah.

jewsforjesus.org