The birth story about Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew explains his name. Yehoshua = "God will save." It's often written Joshua, one of the most common Jewish names of his time. Jesus is a Greek form of the name Joshua. He spoke Aramaic, his family language, and Greek, for talking with the Romans.In Judaism there were two dominant traditions. The HOUSE OF SHAMMAI was the more rigid and conservative that emphasized adherence to the letter of religious law. The key ethical principle seems to be adherence to it's very detailed, highly legalistic rules. The HOUSE OF HILLEL, by contrast, followed the great Jewish teacher Hillel and was the more liberal side that emphasizes openheartedness. We always know more than we can say, more than we can write down, it maintained.
At an early age Jesus became a Rabbi of the House of Hillel. He saw himself as a reformer, trying to work within his own tradition to improve it. There is no evidence that he intentionally set out to found a new religion. He doesn't seem to think he was doing anything new or unexpected. He seems to have picked up a number of Old Testament prophecies and figured, "this must mean me," and this apparently included saving his people through suffering and death. There are all kinds of things in Matthew like, "And Jesus did that because it is written." Jesus was especially given to quoting the Old Testament prophet Isaiah. The term "Rabbi" literally means "my master", a term which turns up frequently in the gospels. The word usually translated as "master" or "teacher in the new testament is in fact written as "Rabbi" in the Greek texts from which the English has been translated.
Where in the Bible Jesus attacks Jews for being legalistic and lacking in compassion, he is siding with the House of Hillel and attacking the House of Shammai. At this point we have an internal philosophical debate within Judaism, not Jesus as an outsider. Jesus said, "the letter kills but the spirit gives life." This was the Hillel side of the debate--for compassion. (If Jerusalem had not been destroyed, we might have found Jesus quoted along with other Rabbis. There are many close parallels to Jesus' teachings in Jewish writings, such as the Mishnah, The "Sayings of the Fathers," which dates from the 2nd or 3rd century B.C. Many of Jesus' teachings are almost identical to those found there. Lots of little bits and pieces of the Mishnah still exist in the Catholic blessing of the Eucharist.") After several centuries it came to be generally agreed within Judaism that the House of Hillel was right.
In fact, Jesus did not teach a new set of ethics. His ethics were no different from those of Hillel. Christianity focuses not on what he taught but on who he was. For example, the story is told that someone said to Hillel, "Teach me the whole of the gospel while standing on one foot." Accepting the challenge, Hillel stood on one foot and said, "Love the Lord with your whole hear, mind, and spirit, and your neighbor as yourself;all else is commentary." The central belief wasn't about heaven and hell, but about spiritual resurrection.
Jesus was, however, a reformer in emphasizing the right of women to sit with the men and learn with the men, and in emphasizing the compassionate aspect of the ethics of Hillel even more than Hillel himself did. His emphasis was on openheartedness and loving kindness. The greatest tragedy was in being spiritually dead. Where the House of Shammai said: "You get what you deserve," Jusus said, "What we get is a gift, because God is a loving parent." The Lord gives you things as a gift, said Jesus. God is unconditional love, and he's forever giving away the store to people who haven't earned it.
There was also a very heavy patriarchial, anti-woman bias in traditional Judaism. Jesus, by contrast, was notorious for conversing openly with women. He was very pro-woman in a culture that was very anti-woman. He was a leading advocate for women's liberation in his time. The Gnostics insist that Mary Magdalene was his wife and that much of their understanding was transmitted through her. The Gospels do not say at any point that Jesus was not married, and Rabbinic law awas very clear on the point that you could not be a rabbi if you were not married. When she is weeping at his tomb on Easter morning, she spoke words that mean, "My Lord and Master; my husband." The evidence seems pretty clear that Mary Magdalene was his wife. Mary Me Gadallah in Hebrew means "Mary who was great." She was also nicknamed "Mary the magnificent."
It is conceivable that if Jesus had not been killed, he would have discouraged attempts to set up a new religion in his name and would instead have been viewed as a Jewish teacher even greater than Hillel.
-Aidan Kelley, Doctor of Divinity
6 comments:
Jesus did not agree with Hillel on divorce. Hillel taught divorce for any reason. Jesus said the only in case of adultry should divorce be allowed.
Jerry I agree. I have been studying this very topic for the last couple of days trying to make sense of this MESS of scriptures given to us by Romanism. Yahshua came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel, not Hillel! He came teaching repentance from not only lawlessness (absence of the Torah, not talmud) and the adding of works with the Rabbinical talmud. Scripture is about Israel, not judaism, not christianity, but Israel. There is so much confusion going on, its unreal. Hillel also was the first to create a "loophole"in Jewish law (not the torah, the talmud), to oppress the poor.... this is totally against the teachings of the Torah in Deut. We all have much to learn
The fact that Mr. Kelley supplies no actual sources should throw up a couple red flags. His erroneous translations also show that he is grasping at thin air to try and prove a defunct belief. ALL of these claims are dubious and lack any real merit. He quoted a jewish source saying that Christ's teachings are "almost identical" but did not actually quote from them, which would graphically show us the similarities, yet he failed to do so. Are we to take what Mr. Kelley says on faith?
What is most disturbing to me is that people read this nonsense, and believe it. Mar Magdalene was from Mada, her name was given because of where she was from. To assert that Mary referred to the Lord as "my husband" has to be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Never at any point in the Gospels does Mary ever refer to Christ as "my husband", she refers to Him as "rabboni" or "master". Mr. Kelley's claim would me that for 2,000 years scholars have got this wrong. That the Greek Orthodox church cannot accurately understand their own language and that all of the other texts found must be wrong. Even in Coptic there is no such statement made by Mary.
This is all based on assumption, and not even logical ones at that, but more like gigantic leaps in logic. For instance, if it is dry outside when I go to bed and everything is wet when I wake up, I can logically assume that it rained outside while I was asleep. What Mr. Kelley is doing is saying that it was dry outside when he went to sleep and woke up and it was still dry, BUT it must have rained at some point during the night, the evidence? None. He is speculating on literally no evidence.
This is not meant to be a slam, but it seems strange that a blog entitled "the teachings of Jesus" does not quote anything of Jesus' teachings except in a vague way (not even clear quotes from the Gnostics, although after reading some of them, I am not surprised you left those out). After all, Jesus was both more compassionate than Hillel and more tough than Shammai. Forgiveness was open to all, but the standards were higher! Jesus stressed firstly the need for an understanding of our sin, then the need for repentance followed by God's forgiveness through his son.
To suggest that Jesus would fit in comfortably with Pharisaical Judaism misses some major points (which is why quoting Rabbinical Law on marriage is not relevant to Jesus). See here how much Jesus clashed with the oral Torah:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2007/02/Rabbi-Jesus-Not-Really.aspx
Of course, the Pharisees were far from being the only game in town, and there were many different opinions among them (more than just Hillel and Shammai). It is possibly on account of surviving Judaism following Rabbinical Judaism (Pharisaism) that we overlook other positions. Two other major parties quoted by Josephus are the Sadducees and the Essenes. It is quite likely that most Jews were not of the party of the oral Torah ("the traditions of men" mentioned by Jesus, Mark 7:8), i.e. the Pharisees, and that these others ended up becoming messianic Jews (christians) or being scattered by the Roman destruction into being absorbed in the Greek or Aramaic cultures around them with which they already had much in common (notably language).
Jesus did not set up a new religion, nor did he plan to - he died for the sins of all (John 12:32, 1Pet2:24). He called all of Israel back to God, away from the traditions of men, then fulfilling the ancient prophecy that Abraham through his offspring would be a blessing to all nations (Gen 18:18, 22:18).
Jerry W is right that Jesus did not agree with Hillel on divorce, indeed we could make the case that Jesus is even stricter than Shammai (see Matt 5:32) - not only does God hate divorce (instituted "because of your hardness of hearts"), but He judges you based on the desires of your heart (Matt 5:28). Of course, this is not because Jesus is more cruel, but because He wants us to see where we really are so that He can free us.
Ani is rushing down a blind alley. It is clear that Jesus is talking about the people around him when He talks about the "lost sheep of Israel". See Matt 10:5-8 that states who is not included in the lost sheep of Israel, and he does not include the Jehudi. Note that, just because Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, does not mean that his message is not ultimately for all spiritual sons of Abraham. Note that although Samaritans are excluded from the list above, Jesus did preach among them, and he also healed the daughter of the woman of Sidon (a Phoenician).
"Romanism" did not give us the scriptures that we have today. There is no support for that position historically, and much to support that the early Church chose essentially the canon of scripture that we now have (see CE Hill, "Who chose the gospels?"). The scriptures clearly predate the primacy of Rome.
Thank you John, you make a lot of good points. Nothing to add there.
Love the Lord with your whole hear, mind, and spirit, and your neighbor as yourself;all else is commentary.
I have been following this line of enquiry for over thirty years. After I discovered it in the Encyclopaedia Britannica's I got. The six pairs of Zugots (pairs), the last Zugots (pairs) were Hillel and Shammai. Gamaliel was the Grandson of Hillel, and the Nazi (Head of, not a supporter of Hitler) the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus's execution. Hillel = compassion and Shammai = an Eye for an Eye, the Letter of the Law of Moses.
Where you are wrong is about Rabbi's, YES the word existed at the time of Jesus, but ONLY meant teacher, no other meaning were applied. After the destruction of the 2nd Temple 70 AD, slowly Rabbinical Judaism took over. The Religion was VERY different, the Temple was the main way to be a Jew. Judaism no longer had a Temple, so the whole meaning of Rabbi changed the Religion. Synagogues were meeting houses, where Gentiles came to meet too, but afterwards, they became Jewish Churches. Rabbi Synagogues and indeed much of Judaism was always changing, these words cannot be used as even a thesaurus, they are entirely different mind sets. Only by studying the Mind Set of the previous history, ten twenty years before, then in that light at the time, can you make sense of it. Even the same words and phrases had ambiguity. Hebrew language was created to form the meaning of the Religion, it had letters missing, so the words could be ambiguous, it was meant to be. So phrases of Religious meaning, took on different meanings, in different times. Even when those same phrases were written down and used exactly the same wording, spelling, over centuries. Another thing, these people do not lie, we lie, we have agendas. To a very Religious person, it is on their Soul, if they lie. You have to get into their mind, at their time, not ours now.
Post a Comment