Ethics in Judaism and Messianic Judaism

[Lulav]

I believe both are based on the two greatest commandments, those called the greatest by R. Yeshua. Or maybe I am wrong?

Do Orthodox Jews/Conservative Jews base their actions on these two commandments?

You shall Love the L-RD your G-d with all your heart and soul and might

And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Or don't you hold the V'ahavta in this high regard?

[visionary]

I moved this thread so that those who follow Judaism can respond more freely.

[ShirChadash]

So many times, I have heard that all of the mitzvot fall under one or the other of these two categories -- the one being the vertical relationship (man's relating to HaShem) and the other being the horizontal relationship (man's relating to his neighbor). :)

[Bananna]

That is my basic understanding. Responsibility to God and to man. Recently had some comments in Matt pointed out to me:




Mat 25:31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:


Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats:


Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:


Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.


Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink?


Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]?


Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?


Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.


Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:


Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.


Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?


Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me.


Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal

No Jew and gentile, mentioned. No Christian and non Christian. In fact the ones that don't seem to know the Lord fair better than those that claim not to know him in that regard.

bananna

[LadyGarnetRose]

The two commandments weren't new in Jesus's time...

Hillel said something similar, before Jesus even got out of swaddling.

[Steve Petersen]

The two commandments weren't new in Jesus's time...

Hillel said something similar, before Jesus even got out of swaddling.

'That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.' - Hillel

It is a negative form. Unfortunately, Hillel's statement leaves room for benign neglect of others. Jesus' statement doesn't.

[LadyGarnetRose]

'That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.' - Hillel

It is a negative form. Unfortunately, Hillel's statement leaves room for benign neglect of others. Jesus' statement doesn't.

How does it leave room? You do not neglect yourself, for that is hateful to you.

There is also this...
.... Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

So, when Jesus ADDED to it...did God lie when he said

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

How can somebody claim to be The Redeemer, yet add or remove from the Law?

[Steve Petersen]

How does it leave room? You do not neglect yourself, for that is hateful to you.

There is also this...
.... Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

So, when Jesus ADDED to it...did God lie when he said

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

How can somebody claim to be The Redeemer, yet add or remove from the Law?

Added to the Law? That's a stretch.

[visionary]

Rabbi's have always had a habit of rewording and re-working the scriptures for more meaning and more understanding... So for Rabbi Yeshua to do the say would be normal.

[kivi]

kivi says: Much of Jewish ethical philosophy is expressed in the negative. This is done for 2 reasons. 1st: It makes each person personally reponsible for thier own behavior and allows the widest rage of personal possiblities/rights; 2nd: it discourages inappropriate aggressive behavior in the name of 'doing good'.

If the statement is told in the positive: 'That which you like, do to others." all sorts of co-dependent behavior comes into play. In the name of good, I can be tempted to make you do anything I think is good if I have enough power to compel you. 'Benign neglect' of others in this context means individual responsibilities/rights that can not be trampled/violated/taken way by others.

The negative form was not choosen by accident. Judaism believes the negative formuation of this sentiment is a much less potentally abusive way of defining ehtical behavior.




'That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.' - Hillel

It is a negative form. Unfortunately, Hillel's statement leaves room for benign neglect of others. Jesus' statement doesn't.

[Lulav]

How does it leave room? You do not neglect yourself, for that is hateful to you.

There is also this...
.... Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

So, when Jesus ADDED to it...did God lie when he said

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

How can somebody claim to be The Redeemer, yet add or remove from the Law?
How is midrash adding? He came to show how it was to be done, fulfill, that is what he meant by that, he came not to change one dot of the torah, he made sure to address that too.

Did Hillel take away from the law when he said "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."

[Talmidah]

So Lulav. if all that was was 'midrash', what is the different, in your eyes between Jesus and someone like Hillel?

[LadyGarnetRose]

The difference is, Hillel never said, "It is what goes out not what goes in" or something to that effect.

Hillel never claimed what Jesus did.

Hillel never "handed the keys of heaven" to a human being who was extremely faulty.

Hillel never claimed to have the keys of heaven to begin with.

Hillel never proposed that he was above the law.

And it is commentary, the whole of the law tells us how to deal with ourselves, God and our fellow man, and that is to treat each with love.

[GerTzedek]

Lady, I would have to agree that most of the stuff JC said didn't 'add on' so much as simply interpret, or view things from a different angle. For example, society requires justice, and so we have "an eye for an eye." That is what is best for society. But what is best for the individual? To hold grudges? To hate? To never let go of the need for personal justice even when it cannot be obtained? I don't think JC was replacing "an eye for an eye." I think he was simply putting it in its proper place, and teaching what is actually good rabbinic teaching about hatred and grudges in addition.

I've said this many times: Except for the stuff JC says ABOUT HIMSELF, and the one exception regarding remarriage, all his teachings were pretty straightforward bet Hillel. I fully admit to being influenced most strongly in this matter by the book, "Jesus the Pharisee" by HarveyFalk, an Orthodox Rabbi.

[GerTzedek]

Kivi, your posts were super-duper.

[LadyGarnetRose]

Lady, I would have to agree that most of the stuff JC said didn't 'add on' so much as simply interpret, or view things from a different angle. For example, society requires justice, and so we have "an eye for an eye." That is what is best for society. But what is best for the individual? To hold grudges? To hate? To never let go of the need for personal justice even when it cannot be obtained? I don't think JC was replacing "an eye for an eye." I think he was simply putting it in its proper place, and teaching what is actually good rabbinic teaching about hatred and grudges in addition.

I've said this many times: Except for the stuff JC says ABOUT HIMSELF, and the one exception regarding remarriage, all his teachings were pretty straightforward bet Hillel. I fully admit to being influenced most strongly in this matter by the book, "Jesus the Pharisee" by HarveyFalk, an Orthodox Rabbi.

Ok I see where you are coming from in regards to Hillel.

He did diminish, many use this passage to explain why it's ok to eat things that we were told not to.

(Matthew 15:16-18 NKJV)
16 So Jesus said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 "Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.

(Deuteronomy 14:7-8 NKJV for consistency)7 "Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, [such as] these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they [are] unclean for you. 8 "Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet [does] not [chew] the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses.

[GerTzedek]

JC used a lot of hyperbole -- the deliberate use of shocking exaggeration to make clear a point. He was not saying that it's okay to eat non-kosher food. You realize if he himself had eaten treif, we'd have no end of conversations between the religious leaders and him, they condemning this and he justifying it -- but such conversations are non-existant in the gospels. What is actually happening in these kinds of conversations is putting things into a sort of heirarcy or priority or balance.

For example, in Matt 23 he never actually tells the Pharisees to stop making their spice tax. Actually he tells them to keep doing it. But he rakes them over the coals for obsessing over a minor point while missing the main ideas of "law, judgment, mercy, and faith." Remember to whom he is speaking -- these are not just any Pharisees, they are the Pharisees of bet Shammai. Don't we see them in the same light?

Let me compare this to an incident in a book I'm reading, a book which is simply awesome. It is called, "Garden of Emunah," by a Rabbi inspired in turn by the famous Rabbi Nachman of Breslev. In this book I read of two brothers. One is highly observant, really shomer shabbas, and life is treating him badly, and he is very unhappy. The other is very far from observant, but has faith that HaShem is in control, and his life is is happy. The frum brother is disturbed by this and talks to his rabbi about it. Why is it that his brother who is so sinful has it so much easier. The rabbi explains to him that it is the emunah of his brother. Not that the brother shouldn't become observant. But that his brother had understood the main idea, while he on the other hand was merely going through the practices without any essense of faith behind his actions. The rabbi actually told him that his non-observant brother was at a higher spiritual level.

That is Orthodox Judaism. It might not be everyone's Orthodoxy, but it's certainly within the mainstream. It was this sort of thinking that you see in JC's sermons over and again. He was not original, and he was mainstream. He just wasn't in line with the school in control of the Sanhedrin at the time.

And aren't we all glad that bet Hillel is what we follow, and not bet Shammai?

[LadyGarnetRose]

Of course I'm glad we follow bet Hillel...VERY MUCH SO am I glad ;) ;)

My point of it, even if hyperbole...he still said it, and it encouraged wrong thinking.

[kivi]

For example, society requires justice, and so we have "an eye for an eye." That is what is best for society. But what is best for the individual? To hold grudges? To hate? To never let go of the need for personal justice even when it cannot be obtained?

Kivi says: If I might make a point. The phrase 'eye for an eye' has nothing to do with 'holding grudges' or 'hating'. The phrase refers to the basis of 'tort' law in Torah. Tort law are the laws that governs damages. Exodus 21: "23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." refers to the monetary value of the injury done to the offended party and the amount for which they are to be compensated. It includes the actual physical damages, the monies spent on medical intervention, time lost from work and family duties, the monies spent during the healing process, the monies spend if re-training is necessary, and, of course, pain and suffering. In comparison to Torah Law in regards to torts, contemporary Babylonian law alotted different levels of compensation based on social status. A nobleman's injury was worth much more than a commoner's, that not being the case on Torah Law.

[kivi]

I've said this many times: Except for the stuff JC says ABOUT HIMSELF, and the one exception regarding remarriage, all his teachings were pretty straightforward bet Hillel. I fully admit to being influenced most strongly in this matter by the book, "Jesus the Pharisee" by HarveyFalk, an Orthodox Rabbi.

kivi says: If I might also comment on this: There is a lot in the Gospels that raise doubts. Jesus Christ/the New Testament made serious claims against the Pharisees: that they created onerous Laws which they, themselves, did not follow; that they were sons of vipers; that they forbad healing on the Shabbas; that they were ritual obsessed; and that they purposely distorted the Law for their own benefit. These are not small matters. They strike directly at the authority of the Torah True Tradition and can not be taken lightly. Of course, the Jesus Christ character also had some nice words about the Pharisees. However, if you watch how the Gospels are laid out, there is a 'nice' thing said and then there is a 'but' and then there is a criticism. Functionally, the word 'but' means: ignore everything that has been said up to now, because now I'm going to do the real deal. I have read R' Falk. While he has some points, the problem I have is the history of the New Testament and the total lack of evidence that we have for any of the words of the character found in the Gospels or that he even existed. Further, there is a real lack of understanding of how Torah Law works, in actuality, found in all of the New Testament.

[Steve Petersen]

kivi says: If I might also comment on this: There is a lot in the Gospels that raise doubts. Jesus Christ/the New Testament made serious claims against the Pharisees: that they created onerous Laws which they, themselves, did not follow; that they were sons of vipers; that they forbad healing on the Shabbas; that they were ritual obsessed; and that they purposely distorted the Law for their own benefit. These are not small matters. They strike directly at the authority of the Torah True Tradition and can not be taken lightly. Of course, the Jesus Christ character also had some nice words about the Pharisees. However, if you watch how the Gospels are laid out, there is a 'nice' thing said and then there is a 'but' and then there is a criticism. Functionally, the word 'but' means: ignore everything that has been said up to now, because now I'm going to do the real deal. I have read R' Falk. While he has some points, the problem I have is the history of the New Testament and the total lack of evidence that we have for any of the words of the character found in the Gospels or that he even existed. Further, there is a real lack of understanding of how Torah Law works, in actuality, found in all of the New Testament.

The late doctor David Flusser wrote a book titled Jewish Texts in the New Testament. His opinion is that the NT gives insight into Second Temple Judaisms that are not included in other Jewish works.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Flusser:
While critically distinguishing the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus) from the visionary portrayal in the Gospels and other Christian writings, Flusser advocated Jesus as an authentic Jew, though misunderstood by his non-Jewish followers. David Satran, a professor of comparative religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_University_of_Jerusalem), said, "Dr. Flusser was rather remarkable in his strong insistence that not only was Jesus a Jew from birth to death, but that Jesus did nothing that could be interpreted as a revolt or questioning of the basic principles of the Judaism at the time." [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Flusser#cite_note-2) Personally, Flusser viewed Jesus as a tsadik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsadik) with keen spiritual insight and with a "high selfawareness" that near-contemporaries similarly expressed, such as Hillel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel) in the Talmud and the "Teacher of Righteousness" in certain Dead Sea Scrolls.

[GerTzedek]

The late doctor David Flusser wrote a book titled Jewish Texts in the New Testament. His opinion is that the NT gives insight into Second Temple Judaisms that are not included in other Jewish works.

This is from the Wikipedia article on Flusser:
While critically distinguishing the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus) from the visionary portrayal in the Gospels and other Christian writings, Flusser advocated Jesus as an authentic Jew, though misunderstood by his non-Jewish followers. David Satran, a professor of comparative religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_University_of_Jerusalem), said, "Dr. Flusser was rather remarkable in his strong insistence that not only was Jesus a Jew from birth to death, but that Jesus did nothing that could be interpreted as a revolt or questioning of the basic principles of the Judaism at the time." [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Flusser#cite_note-2) Personally, Flusser viewed Jesus as a tsadik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsadik) with keen spiritual insight and with a "high selfawareness" that near-contemporaries similarly expressed, such as Hillel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel) in the Talmud and the "Teacher of Righteousness" in certain Dead Sea Scrolls.

My old professor, Dr. Eisenmann, argues that the "Teacher of Righteousness" is none other than James, the brother of Jesus.

[GerTzedek]

What I see is rather an ASSUMPTION that the reader of the gospels (and a good portion of the rest of the NT) already knows how Torah law works. In the case of Paul's letters to the gentile churches, it wasn't necessary for them to know. In its earliest history, believers simply depended upon the community in Jerusalem to understand the Jewish componant. Later, when the Jewish community in Jerusalem was destroyed, the gentile churches lacked the necessary Jewish background to interpret the gospels. And that state has continued ever since. The Protestant notion that every uneducated christian can just open their Bible and know what it is supposed to mean hasn't helped at all either.

[Steve Petersen]

What I see is rather an ASSUMPTION that the reader of the gospels (and a good portion of the rest of the NT) already knows how Torah law works. In the case of Paul's letters to the gentile churches, it wasn't necessary for them to know. In its earliest history, believers simply depended upon the community in Jerusalem to understand the Jewish componant. Later, when the Jewish community in Jerusalem was destroyed, the gentile churches lacked the necessary Jewish background to interpret the gospels. And that state has continued ever since. The Protestant notion that every uneducated christian can just open their Bible and know what it is supposed to mean hasn't helped at all either.

We're on the same page here. But I wonder if there would have been an exploration of the Jewish roots if there was no Reformation? It is only the ability to strike out in new directions that even allowed Christianity to explore this.

[kivi]

What I see is rather an ASSUMPTION that the reader of the gospels (and a good portion of the rest of the NT) already knows how Torah law works. In the case of Paul's letters to the gentile churches, it wasn't necessary for them to know. In its earliest history, believers simply depended upon the community in Jerusalem to understand the Jewish componant. Later, when the Jewish community in Jerusalem was destroyed, the gentile churches lacked the necessary Jewish background to interpret the gospels. And that state has continued ever since. The Protestant notion that every uneducated christian can just open their Bible and know what it is supposed to mean hasn't helped at all either.

kivi says: :clap:exactly. Moreover, from about 70 CE onwards, there was an active and consistant effort on the part of the Christian church to seperate itself out from Judaism, to minumize the Jewish component, to emphasis the differences and to make itself more acceptable to the larger Greco-Roman civilization by incorporating pagan elements. By the reign of Constantine, this effort was successful and the church, finally armed with power of the civil government, switched over to violent confrontation and persecution of the Jews. That is the Constantine Arrangement: The Church will give up its independence and submit to the gentile/pagan government in return for the power of that government ot destroy the Jews.