Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan
It could be that Hillel taught the rabbis that taught the rabbis that taught Jesus of Nazareth.
What Hillel said is actually a more inclusive version of what Christians refer to as the Golden Rule.
|
Yes, I mentioned the Golden Rule in my post you're quoting heh heh!
And yes - it is certainly possible that Hillel taught the rabbis who taught the rabbis who taught Jesus.
In the end, like I posted, it appears to go back to the law in Leviticus:
....Love your fellows as yourself: I am [YHWH]. (Lev 19:18, NJPS)
The prophets later took up this call, and chastised Israel for not practicing this law, especially in regards to their treatment of the poor, widows, orphans, etc. Abraham Heschel, in
The Prophets, writes that:
What the LORD [God] requires of man is more than fulfilling one's duty. To love implies an insatiable thirst, a passionate craving. To love means to transfer the center of one's inner life from the ego to the object of one's love. (p. 207, 1966, JPS, New York)
Hillel, and later Jesus, would preach this same doctrine of Love as the primary commandment and condensation of Torah.
Wow - we've strayed far afield from polygamy, haven't we? Well, I suppose there's some sort of love involved there, right?
So, Walter, besides focusing on Hillel and his influence - do you agree with my post that Paul favored the condensation of Torah into the commandment to Love, rather than the strict keeping of the entire 613 Mitzvot? I'm not asking you to agree with his theology, just to note that this was probably his teaching. 2000 years of history have shown that his teachings have affected the Christian Church on this one, very important point; after all, there's a reason why Christians consider the Tanakh as the "Old Covenant" and feel that their writings have replaced it with the "New Covenant" (better translations than the usual "Old Testament" and "New Testament"). For an adherent to Judaism, however, since Christ is not believed to have been the 'condenser' of and replacement for the "whole law", it's perfectly acceptable to continue keeping the full Torah, and it is indeed still required as an "eternal pact".
The Ebionites presumably taught this latter point, and were probably the sect referred to as "the Judaizers" in the NT. The Damascus Church was obviously opposed to these believers, as would be Paul after his exposure to the Church. A Christian will claim that it was Christ's commission to Paul on the road which led him to his new conversion and theological outlook, but it seems much more likely that the Damascus Church had a bigger influence. Whatever happened on the road, Paul's conversion to Christianity had far-reaching consequences that we still live with today - some good consequences and some bad consequences, as the relationship between Jews and Christians have shown since that time.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
