Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

I have been asked to do an O P showing my beliefs and have written a nutshell view to fill that request.



I was a skeptic till the age of 39. I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian. Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake and that makes me as hated by Christians today as the ancient Gnostics that Constantine had the Christians kill when he bought the Catholic Church.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of the O. T. God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheep where Gnostic Christians are goats.

This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.

This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness or what I call; the Godhead.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. It does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have exaggerated tribal mentalities and poor morals as they have developed a double standard to be able to stomach their God.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to ignore whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar of excellence and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Since then, I have tried to collect information that would help any that believe that apotheosis is possible, generally not Christians, --- as they do not believe in the mythical esoteric Jesus that I believe in and churches do not dare teach it.

This first clip gives the theological and philosophical interpretation of what Jesus taught and the second clip show what I think is a close representation of the method that helped me push my apotheosis.

Alan Watts - On The Book of Eli - YouTube

1A Hidden Meanings In Bible - YouTube

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Which version do you think is more moral and deserving of praise and why?



Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

I see Jesus as a Jewish man, a rabbi (teacher). I do not believe in a virgin birth, or the 'miracles' ascribed to him. If the speeches ascribed to him are true, were written down accurately, I consider him a thoughtful man, a great man. I don't think he was 'the son' of God, or part of a trinity; he was not the Messiah the Jews are still waiting for. I actually feel a bit sad writing this, I see a beauty in the myth & it certainly inspired great art. Despite this, there is enough truth in the words he 'spoke' that I can accept living by much of it.

eta--my favorite being "We Are Our Brother's Keeper".

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

AnneBoleyn;1444501 wrote: I see Jesus as a Jewish man, a rabbi (teacher). I do not believe in a virgin birth, or the 'miracles' ascribed to him. If the speeches ascribed to him are true, were written down accurately, I consider him a thoughtful man, a great man. I don't think he was 'the son' of God, or part of a trinity; he was not the Messiah the Jews are still waiting for. I actually feel a bit sad writing this, I see a beauty in the myth & it certainly inspired great art. Despite this, there is enough truth in the words he 'spoke' that I can accept living by much of it.

eta--my favorite being "We Are Our Brother's Keeper".


Good one. As a Gnostic Christian my favorite is seek and ye shall find. We believe in the God within so seek that spark of God in everyone and in that sense we also look after our brothers.

We believe in female equality where Christianity is anti-equality of women.

Women Part 1 - YouTube

What I showed in the O P would be more of what Jesus taught after returning from the East. It is more old Jewish Kabbalistic thinking than what Christianity has become. It also works to push apotheosis.

Which of the two Jesus' I put do you think is the more moral?

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

DL: "Which of the two Jesus' I put do you think is the more moral?"

Do you mean this?:

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

[Týr]

AnneBoleyn;1444501 wrote: there is enough truth in the words he 'spoke' that I can accept living by much of it.

eta--my favorite being "We Are Our Brother's Keeper".


Ouch. No no no, Anne. On the contrary.

Firstly, it wasn't a statement, it was a question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" - and it was asked by the first murderer, Cain, when God asked where his brother was. The answer is unspoken but pretty obvious - no, you're not your brother's keeper but you know perfectly well I can't find him because you killed him and disposed of the evidence. The implied answer to "Am I my brother's keeper?" is blatantly "no", but nobody reeds it that way. I've no idea why not.

What makes you think the answer is "Yes"? Go and read the front end of Genesis again before answering.

[AnneBoleyn]

Oops! Based on my own Lectures! I sometimes get so carried away with myself. I stand corrected, you are certainly right.

[Týr]

AnneBoleyn;1444519 wrote: Oops! Based on my own Lectures! I sometimes get so carried away with myself. I stand corrected, you are certainly right.


I knew I'd mentioned this before on FG so I went looking...

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1159838

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

AnneBoleyn;1444512 wrote: DL: "Which of the two Jesus' I put do you think is the more moral?"

Do you mean this?:

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.


That is the main difference.

Should we ride Jesus as our scapegoat and savior or should we do this ----

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Should we embrace human sacrifice and God having an innocent Jesus punished instead of the guilty?

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Týr;1444515 wrote: Ouch. No no no, Anne. On the contrary.

Firstly, it wasn't a statement, it was a question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" - and it was asked by the first murderer, Cain, when God asked where his brother was. The answer is unspoken but pretty obvious - no, you're not your brother's keeper but you know perfectly well I can't find him because you killed him and disposed of the evidence. The implied answer to "Am I my brother's keeper?" is blatantly "no", but nobody reeds it that way. I've no idea why not.

What makes you think the answer is "Yes"? Go and read the front end of Genesis again before answering.


Are you a free man?

If so, what is your first moral tenet. Careful. I have a caveat.

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

Týr;1444523 wrote: I knew I'd mentioned this before on FG so I went looking...

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1159838


Never saw this before, 2009 was before my time.

"On the subject of Cain defensively asking God, when God demands to know where Abel is, "Am I my brother's keeper?" the implicit answer from God is "no, not at all, but you know very well where he is, because you have murdered him". I paraphrase - God's actual words were "the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground". There's no way you can wrestle a "yes" out of that, surely. It is only arrogant neo-colonialism which dares to assume that the rich are to be the "keepers" of the poor, the civilized of the savage, the overdeveloped of the underdeveloped."

I don't think there is an implicit answer, nor do I think Genesis is speaking of financials or other support even though that is the way *I* used it. Cain was being a smart mouth when he answered that way, there is no reason to think anything else was meant. Cain was not only the first human murderer, but the first human liar & wise guy too, if one believes Genesis that is. Besides, don't blame the "neo-colonialists" for DARING to assume this, Jesus himself speaks of the poor & our duty to them endlessly, it appears to be his main topic.

In NYC there are charities run by a group called "Our Brother's Keeper", who do great, selfless work on behalf of those in need. They are punning, & I was running on that.

eta--In a modern translation, Cain probably would have said something like: "Am I his babysitter? His watchdog? His guardian? Yo, whatcha want from me, man?"

This exchange had nothing to do, IMO, with God not being a socialist & letting us know that from the start. If anything, the moral lesson was "Don't be like Cain--not in Any way."

[AnneBoleyn]

Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Christians see the story of the Garden of Eden as the "Fall" of man & the Garden is The Place to Return to. Jewish teachings I have read view this in an opposite way---not as the Fall of Man, but as the Ascension of Man to maturity, to finding his place in the world, overseeing the world, creating our own world; indeed, that we were pushed out of the Garden by God as the birds push their babies out of the nest--to grow up, to fly, to think on one's own, to have dominion, to be the Adults. So, it seems I agree with your version, DL.

Our Fate is in Our Hands.

[tude dog]

Týr;1444515 wrote: Ouch. No no no, Anne. On the contrary.

Firstly, it wasn't a statement, it was a question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" - and it was asked by the first murderer, Cain, when God asked where his brother was. The answer is unspoken but pretty obvious - no, you're not your brother's keeper but you know perfectly well I can't find him because you killed him and disposed of the evidence. The implied answer to "Am I my brother's keeper?" is blatantly "no", but nobody reeds it that way. I've no idea why not.

What makes you think the answer is "Yes"? Go and read the front end of Genesis again before answering.


9."And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know."

After that lie he offered

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

At that point Cain was never accused. He had a chance to come clean but chose to renounce any obligation to his brother.

Seems the Lord didn't see it that way.

[AnneBoleyn]

Seems the Lord didn't see it that way.

Well said.

[tude dog]

AnneBoleyn;1444548 wrote: Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Christians see the story of the Garden of Eden as the "Fall" of man & the Garden is The Place to Return to. Jewish teachings I have read view this in an opposite way---not as the Fall of Man, but as the Ascension of Man to maturity, to finding his place in the world, overseeing the world, creating our own world; indeed, that we were pushed out of the Garden by God as the birds push their babies out of the nest--to grow up, to fly, to think on one's own, to have dominion, to be the Adults. So, it seems I agree with your version, DL.

Our Fate is in Our Hands.


"22. Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."

No longer like the cattle or other animals of the Earth, but more like the Lord and Angels.

A tough road to hoe, but a step up.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

AnneBoleyn;1444548 wrote: Basically, the usual Christian Jesus is their hero and savior while my version demand that man himself steps up to the plate and save himself.

Christians see the story of the Garden of Eden as the "Fall" of man & the Garden is The Place to Return to. Jewish teachings I have read view this in an opposite way---not as the Fall of Man, but as the Ascension of Man to maturity, to finding his place in the world, overseeing the world, creating our own world; indeed, that we were pushed out of the Garden by God as the birds push their babies out of the nest--to grow up, to fly, to think on one's own, to have dominion, to be the Adults. So, it seems I agree with your version, DL.

Our Fate is in Our Hands.


Respect grows. Sweet.

Most Jews also rejected the notion of Original Sin.

I have this link that speaks as we do but have not been able to supplement it. Where did you get your Jewish info and interpretation?

2. Orthodox Judaism: The Garden of Eden

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

"Where did you get your Jewish info and interpretation?"

I'm Jewish. Like my mother always said "We may not be religious, but we know Who We Are."

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

AnneBoleyn;1444634 wrote: "Where did you get your Jewish info and interpretation?"

I'm Jewish. Like my mother always said "We may not be religious, but we know Who We Are."


The Jesus I know would approve. Religion has ruined being religious. Better to be spiritual than religious if the religious have lost their spirituality.

Most religionists have, if they ever recognized it in the first place.

Out of all the Abrahamic cults, some of the Jewish and a small bit of the Eastern Orthodox are the only ones I respect.

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

Of Course Jesus would Approve! He was Jewish!!!!!!!!!!!! A fact most Christians love to forget!

Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. KJV

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

AnneBoleyn;1444637 wrote: Of Course Jesus would Approve! He was Jewish!!!!!!!!!!!! A fact most Christians love to forget!

Matthew 5:17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. KJV


The prophets say that the Sabbath was created for man and man must accept it's rules. Jesus says that man was created for the Sabbath and that the Sabbath should follow man's rules.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus was for the revue of traditions. Not the blind observance of the word traditionally followed.

Moses in some ways had better policies. especially in his divorce policy. He allowed divorce while Jesus and his no divorce policy is anti-love as it forces those who are not in a loving relationship to stay together.

There are other issues that are not kosher.

Jesus Christ: Madman or Something Worse? - YouTube

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

I want to apologize, DL, for bringing in scripture in my conversation, although it's awfully hard to avoid doing so. I am glad, however, that so far (to my fading memory) you have not brought up St. Paul. It's hard for me to converse in scripture, especially since I'm really not clear on who actually wrote what when.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

AnneBoleyn;1444723 wrote: I want to apologize, DL, for bringing in scripture in my conversation, although it's awfully hard to avoid doing so. I am glad, however, that so far (to my fading memory) you have not brought up St. Paul. It's hard for me to converse in scripture, especially since I'm really not clear on who actually wrote what when.


I do not accept an apology that is not required.



Scriptures do have value but they can clutter dialog. If there is a reason for listening to words from 2,000 year old supposed wisdom, --- then fine, --- but as , who was it, Rabbi Volper, who said that we should ignore anything written before 1000ce.

All scriptures are myth with messages, and their wisdom, if the speaker has taken it to heart, will come through in dialog.

Many scriptures are worthy of quote because they are plagiarized wisdom from other wiser traditions and are the ones used in popular culture. Any publicity is good publicity as they say. Even if from a book that has an immoral God in it.

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

You're a gentleman with serious intent. I like that, I enjoy 'speaking' with you.

[tude dog]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445183 wrote: If there is a reason for listening to words from 2,000 year old supposed wisdom, --- then fine,


Supposed wisdom?

A common measure of "supposed" wisdom is if among other it stands the test the test of time.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445183 wrote: --- but as , who was it, Rabbi Volper, who said that we should ignore anything written before 1000ce.


Never before heard of this guy, Rabbi David Wolpe

A Conservative Rabbi in Los Angeles, CA. I am a Conservative Jew from Los Angeles.

It would floor me if any Conservative Rabbi would say anything like "we should ignore anything written before 1000ce.".

It would be nice if you could supply a link to that quote by Rabbi Wolpe.

[AnneBoleyn]

Tude: "It would floor me if any Conservative Rabbi would say anything like "we should ignore anything written before 1000ce." "

I did a brief search & I can't find anything like that either.

[AnneBoleyn]

I did find this:

"On Passover 2001, Wolpe told his congregation that "the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all." Casting doubt on the historicity of the Exodus during the holiday that commemorates it brought condemnation from congregants and several rabbis (especially Orthodox Rabbis). The ensuing theological debate included whole issues of Jewish newspapers such as the Jewish Journal in Los Angeles and editorials in The Jerusalem Post, as well as an article in the Los Angeles Times. Critics asserted that Wolpe was attacking Jewish oral history, the significance of Passover and even the First Commandment.[citation needed] Wolpe asserted that he was arguing that the historicity of the events should not matter, since he believes faith is not determined by the same criteria as empirical truth. Wolpe argues that his views are based on the fact that no archeological digs have produced evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai Desert for forty years, and that excavations in Israel consistently show settlement patterns at variance with the Biblical account of a sudden influx of Jews from Egypt."

David Wolpe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

If we are to care for each other, then we, of course, are our brothers keepers.

Regards

DL

[AnneBoleyn]

Ditto

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

:-4:-6

Regards

DL

[Hope6]

Jesus is not a scapegoat. He took the punishment for all our sins but once you believe in Him you have to repent from your sins and you have to stop whatever it is that you are doing. You can't just say you believe in Jesus and go on acting like you always have, you have to change to be saved. So how is He a scapegoat?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Hope6;1445442 wrote: Jesus is not a scapegoat. He took the punishment for all our sins but once you believe in Him you have to repent from your sins and you have to stop whatever it is that you are doing. You can't just say you believe in Jesus and go on acting like you always have, you have to change to be saved. So how is He a scapegoat?


What does a scapegoat do if not take the punishment for the sins of others?

Was Jesus not the sacrificial lamb and scapegoat?

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Regards

DL

[tude dog]

[QUOTE=AnneBoleyn;1445232]I did find this:

"On Passover 2001, Wolpe told his congregation that "the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all."

That is a lot different than saying "we should ignore anything written before 1000ce.".



Casting doubt on the historicity of the Exodus during the holiday that commemorates it brought condemnation from congregants and several rabbis (especially Orthodox Rabbis).


Newsflash.

Casting doubt on the historicity of the Exodus by Conservative Jews is nothing new.

The rest of this is just bubkes.



The ensuing theological debate included whole issues of Jewish newspapers such as the Jewish Journal in Los Angeles and editorials in The Jerusalem Post, as well as an article in the Los Angeles Times. Critics asserted that Wolpe was attacking Jewish oral history, the significance of Passover and even the First Commandment.[citation needed] Wolpe asserted that he was arguing that the historicity of the events should not matter, since he believes faith is not determined by the same criteria as empirical truth. Wolpe argues that his views are based on the fact that no archeological digs have produced evidence of the Jews wandering the Sinai Desert for forty years, and that excavations in Israel consistently show settlement patterns at variance with the Biblical account of a sudden influx of Jews from Egypt."

David Wolpe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

tude dog;1445480 wrote: [QUOTE=AnneBoleyn;1445232]I did find this:

"On Passover 2001, Wolpe told his congregation that "the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all."

That is a lot different than saying "we should ignore anything written before 1000ce.".





Newsflash.

Casting doubt on the historicity of the Exodus by Conservative Jews is nothing new.

The rest of this is just bubkes.


Do you believe that Moses was real and that he wrote the first 5 books of the bible.

Was there a real talking snake and did Moses really have a staff that could turn into a snake?

Regards

DL

[tude dog]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445497 wrote: [QUOTE=tude dog;1445480]

Do you believe that Moses was real


I don't know if he was a fictional character or based on a real person.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445497 wrote: and that he wrote the first 5 books of the bible.


I see ascribing Moses authorship as an attempt to legitimize the text as being divine. In other words, those books were not the work of a single person, generation, tribe.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445497 wrote: Was there a real talking snake


I don't know who made up that story in Genesis. If all we are talking about are snakes and trees, the original story tellers would be disappointed.

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445497 wrote: and did Moses really have a staff that could turn into a snake?


Naw, if anything, given a choice it would have been a crocodile.

That's just me.

The Hebrew text on that part isn't specific as to just what the reptile was.

Like so much of the Hebrew Scriptures, much is left to the imagination.

[LarsMac]

The problem seems to be that we humans get all wrapped around the axle over the minutiae, like was it a snake, or whether Moses did the writing, and and did Jonah get swallowed by a real whale or was it a fish, or what?

Like Aesop, and Grimm, and the saga tellers, and Chaucer, the point was the in the story, and what lesson could be gleaned from the story. We all seem to have forgot that.

When Jesus said "love thy neighbor and yourself" and "Love even you enemies" he seemed pretty clear.

He was telling us pretty much all we need to know to follow him.

As Rabbi Hillel is quoted, "...All the rest is merely commentary."

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

tude dog;1445629 wrote: [QUOTE=Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445497]

I don't know if he was a fictional character or based on a real person.



I see ascribing Moses authorship as an attempt to legitimize the text as being divine. In other words, those books were not the work of a single person, generation, tribe.



I don't know who made up that story in Genesis. If all we are talking about are snakes and trees, the original story tellers would be disappointed.



Naw, if anything, given a choice it would have been a crocodile.

That's just me.

The Hebrew text on that part isn't specific as to just what the reptile was.

Like so much of the Hebrew Scriptures, much is left to the imagination.


Good. You are not a literalist.

Jewish tradition says that Moses staff did have a serpents head.

They also do not read their scriptures literally. They tend to be brighter than Christians who are literalists.

That serpent headed staff may have been a holdover from the Jewish snake cults that were well respected.

Like you have a Jesus in you, if you agree with the O P you also have a Moses.

RaceandHistory.com - Doubting the Story of Exodus

This other link shows how Jews saw Eden as a place of man's elevation and not the fall that Christians called becoming as Gods.

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1445635 wrote: The problem seems to be that we humans get all wrapped around the axle over the minutiae, like was it a snake, or whether Moses did the writing, and and did Jonah get swallowed by a real whale or was it a fish, or what?

Like Aesop, and Grimm, and the saga tellers, and Chaucer, the point was the in the story, and what lesson could be gleaned from the story. We all seem to have forgot that.

When Jesus said "love thy neighbor and yourself" and "Love even you enemies" he seemed pretty clear.

He was telling us pretty much all we need to know to follow him.

As Rabbi Hillel is quoted, "...All the rest is merely commentary."


No argument but you know yourself more than likely that it is an altogether different think to chat with a literalist as compared to someone who takes a more esoteric view of the bible as a myth.

I can talk with almost all who are not literalists. Literalism kill any wisdom the bible has.

Gnostic Christians have always known this.

Regards

DL

[tude dog]

LarsMac;1445635 wrote: The problem seems to be that we humans get all wrapped around the axle over the minutiae, like was it a snake, or whether Moses did the writing, and and did Jonah get swallowed by a real whale or was it a fish, or what?


Well, uh, to be sure. We are talking about a specific text. Just seems nice we all understand each other.

LarsMac;1445635 wrote: Like Aesop, and Grimm, and the saga tellers, and Chaucer, the point was the in the story, and what lesson could be gleaned from the story. We all seem to have forgot that.


Well. Without just coming out and saying that, I thought I was leaning that way.

LarsMac;1445635 wrote: When Jesus said "love thy neighbor and yourself" and "Love even you enemies" he seemed pretty clear.

He was telling us pretty much all we need to know to follow him.

As Rabbi Hillel is quoted, "...All the rest is merely commentary."


I am no scholar, but I am familiar with Rabbi Hillel and the quote you ascribe him. Wanting to get an accurate quote did a quick search and found this, and glad I did as it says better than what I was preparing to write.

Partial quote:



The Rest of ‘The Rest Is Commentary’

On Language



In one story about them, a gentile comes to both and asks, with the obvious intention of provoking them, to be taught the whole Torah while standing on one leg. Shammai is indeed provoked and gives the man an angry whack with a measuring rod. Hillel replies, “That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.”

It is interesting to see how “the rest is commentary” has taken on an English meaning of its own that is subtly different from Hillel’s and sometimes even opposed to it. In the Aramaic of the Talmud, “The rest is commentary – go study” (ve’idakh perusha hu, zil g’mor) is a single statement whose first half cannot be separated from its second half. Calling the rest of the Torah “commentary” has nothing dismissive about it. On the contrary, Hillel is clearly saying that commentary is crucial and that ultimate wisdom lies in it. Although not doing to others what is hateful to yourself may be the Torah’s overarching message, it is not one that can be treated in isolation from the vast body of practice and learning that surrounds it.

Yet, in our current American usage, “the rest is commentary” often means “the rest is trivial,” or at least, as Jeffrey Goldberg appears to intend it, “the rest is less important.” This isn’t just a matter of the second half of Hillel’s statement being forgotten; it is also one of its being deliberately disregarded. This disregard goes all the way back to the New Testament, in which Jesus is asked to name “the greatest commandment in the law” and replies:

“‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind’: This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

There is no “go study” here, even though Jesus surely knew what Hillel had said. For Jesus — and for Christianity — “the rest is commentary” really does mean that the rest is unimportant. Commentary — the Mishnah, the Talmud, rabbinical exegesis — is for the nitpicking Jew. Loving one’s neighbor is for the spiritual Christian.

This is not, of course, what Hillel had in mind. And yet one might ask why he, too, did not cite the verse from Leviticus “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” in his answer to his gentile questioner, though he knew it as well as Jesus did, preferring instead the more negatively phrased, “What is hateful unto yourself, do not unto your neighbor” — words that do not come from the Bible at all. What made him do this?

Here, I think, lies the true cunning of the talmudic tale. For what Hillel really is doing is, at one and the same time, tactfully rebuking Shammai while letting the gentile know that, provocateur though he is, the insult he has received is inexcusable in Jewish terms. Had Hillel said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself: This is the whole Torah,” the point would not have been made. Shammai, after all, cannot be expected to love a gentile who is making fun of him, nor can the gentile expect to be loved by him. But the gentile can expect Shammai, who would not like to be struck by a measuring rod, to know better than to strike someone else, even a mocker, and it is a mark of Hillel’s sensitivity that he addresses himself, without saying so explicitly, to this precise issue.

The story in the Talmud ends with the gentile’s converting to Judaism, which at first glance may seem strange. What, after all, has Hillel said to win him over so quickly? On second thought, however, we realize that he has said the most appropriate thing that could have been said, and that in doing so he has made the gentile feel that Judaism is a religion that can speak to his own situation.

This, too, of course, is commentary — in this case, my own — but of commentary we can never get enough. “Go study” is what Judaism is all about.

The Jewish Daily Forward

emphasis mine

[tude dog]

tude dog;1445659 wrote: Well, uh, to be sure. We are talking about a specific text. Just seems nice we all understand each other.



Well. Without just coming out and saying that, I thought I was leaning that way.



I am no scholar, but I am familiar with Rabbi Hillel and the quote you ascribe him. Wanting to get an accurate quote did a quick search and found this, and glad I did as it says better than what I was preparing to write.

Partial quote:



The Rest of ‘The Rest Is Commentary’

On Language



In one story about them, a gentile comes to both and asks, with the obvious intention of provoking them, to be taught the whole Torah while standing on one leg. Shammai is indeed provoked and gives the man an angry whack with a measuring rod. Hillel replies, “That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.”

It is interesting to see how “the rest is commentary” has taken on an English meaning of its own that is subtly different from Hillel’s and sometimes even opposed to it. In the Aramaic of the Talmud, “The rest is commentary – go study” (ve’idakh perusha hu, zil g’mor) is a single statement whose first half cannot be separated from its second half. Calling the rest of the Torah “commentary” has nothing dismissive about it. On the contrary, Hillel is clearly saying that commentary is crucial and that ultimate wisdom lies in it. Although not doing to others what is hateful to yourself may be the Torah’s overarching message, it is not one that can be treated in isolation from the vast body of practice and learning that surrounds it.

Yet, in our current American usage, “the rest is commentary” often means “the rest is trivial,” or at least, as Jeffrey Goldberg appears to intend it, “the rest is less important.” This isn’t just a matter of the second half of Hillel’s statement being forgotten; it is also one of its being deliberately disregarded. This disregard goes all the way back to the New Testament, in which Jesus is asked to name “the greatest commandment in the law” and replies:

“‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind’: This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

There is no “go study” here, even though Jesus surely knew what Hillel had said. For Jesus — and for Christianity — “the rest is commentary” really does mean that the rest is unimportant. Commentary — the Mishnah, the Talmud, rabbinical exegesis — is for the nitpicking Jew. Loving one’s neighbor is for the spiritual Christian.

This is not, of course, what Hillel had in mind. And yet one might ask why he, too, did not cite the verse from Leviticus “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” in his answer to his gentile questioner, though he knew it as well as Jesus did, preferring instead the more negatively phrased, “What is hateful unto yourself, do not unto your neighbor” — words that do not come from the Bible at all. What made him do this?

Here, I think, lies the true cunning of the talmudic tale. For what Hillel really is doing is, at one and the same time, tactfully rebuking Shammai while letting the gentile know that, provocateur though he is, the insult he has received is inexcusable in Jewish terms. Had Hillel said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself: This is the whole Torah,” the point would not have been made. Shammai, after all, cannot be expected to love a gentile who is making fun of him, nor can the gentile expect to be loved by him. But the gentile can expect Shammai, who would not like to be struck by a measuring rod, to know better than to strike someone else, even a mocker, and it is a mark of Hillel’s sensitivity that he addresses himself, without saying so explicitly, to this precise issue.

The story in the Talmud ends with the gentile’s converting to Judaism, which at first glance may seem strange. What, after all, has Hillel said to win him over so quickly? On second thought, however, we realize that he has said the most appropriate thing that could have been said, and that in doing so he has made the gentile feel that Judaism is a religion that can speak to his own situation.

This, too, of course, is commentary — in this case, my own — but of commentary we can never get enough. “Go study” is what Judaism is all about.

The Jewish Daily Forward

emphasis mine


Just to complicate things:

Do Unto Others…

The problem scholars have had to face in attempting to put together a biography of Hillel is that the major sources for Hillel and his activity are the Talmud and the Midrash and a good deal of the material in these sources dates from no earlier than the time of their compilation, often centuries after Hillel. Great caution is therefore necessary when using these sources for a reconstruction of Hillel's life and work.

For instance, much has been made of the Talmudic story (Shabbat 31a) in which Hillel, when asked by a prospective convert to Judaism to teach him the whole Torah while he stood on one leg, replied: 'That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah, The rest is commentary. Go forth and study.'

Theologians, Jewish and non-Jewish, have compared this version of the Golden Rule, stated in negative form, with that of Jesus, in the positive form. There is a total failure to appreciate that this story is told, in Babylonian Aramaic, at least two hundred years after Hillel and probably much later. Moreover, in the same set of stories related in a Midrash, the hero is not Hillel at all but Rabbi Joshua.

Hillel

The preeminent rabbi of first century Palestine.

[LarsMac]

Thanks for that.

Yes, of course there is always more to the story that the initial statement.

Like the case with Ribbi Hillel, When Jesus was asked,

according to Matthew,

35 Then one of them, who was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him and saying,

36 “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said unto him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.’

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’

40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
The inquisitor was attempting to test him.

He made it very plain.

If these two commandments are first in one's heart, he suggests that all of the other laws fall into place, naturally.

He at once rebukes the man who asked the question, and educates those who would listen.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1445691 wrote: Thanks for that.

Yes, of course there is always more to the story that the initial statement.

Like the case with Ribbi Hillel, When Jesus was asked,

according to Matthew,

The inquisitor was attempting to test him.

He made it very plain.

If these two commandments are first in one's heart, he suggests that all of the other laws fall into place, naturally.

He at once rebukes the man who asked the question, and educates those who would listen.


Can one be commanded to have an emotional response like love?

If so, then one can also be commanded to hate. Right?

Love to be true love most have works and deeds between the two parties.

How can one love an absentee God when reciprocity is a requirement for love?

Regards

DL

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445716 wrote: Can one be commanded to have an emotional response like love?

If so, then one can also be commanded to hate. Right?

Love to be true love most have works and deeds between the two parties.

How can one love an absentee God when reciprocity is a requirement for love?

Regards

DL


Interesting play on words, there.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1445719 wrote: Interesting play on words, there.


Interesting is always an interesting word that says not much of anything.

Do you agree with the logic or not?

Regards

DL

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445723 wrote: Interesting is always an interesting word that says not much of anything.

Do you agree with the logic or not?

Regards

DL


Not particularly.

Logic based on invalid assertions delivers invalid conclusions.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1445726 wrote: Not particularly.

Logic based on invalid assertions delivers invalid conclusions.


Which invalid assertion?

Regards

DL

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445784 wrote: Which invalid assertion?

Regards

DL


Your first seems to be that if one is commanded, one must obey. (this is implied, rather than stated, so perhaps I misunderstand)

The second is the idea of an absentee god.

That god may not meet your expectations is hardly proof that he is not around. Perhaps your expectations are unreal.

The commandment is stated, and you have the choice to either comply, or to ignore.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1445832 wrote: Your first seems to be that if one is commanded, one must obey. (this is implied, rather than stated, so perhaps I misunderstand)

The second is the idea of an absentee god.

That god may not meet your expectations is hardly proof that he is not around. Perhaps your expectations are unreal.

The commandment is stated, and you have the choice to either comply, or to ignore.


Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop View Post

Can one be commanded to have an emotional response like love?

If so, then one can also be commanded to hate. Right?

Love to be true love most have works and deeds between the two parties.

How can one love an absentee God when reciprocity is a requirement for love?

Regards

DL

--------------------------------------------

I made only one assertion and the other 3 lines are questions.

Other than going into trying to prove an un-provable God, my statement that God is absentee is an obvious truth. Let's ignore that shall we?

Do you think reciprocity is a component of love?

I would like answers to the other 3 questions if you feel inclined.

Can we be commanded to produce emotions like love and hate?

Regards

DL

[Mickiel]

Who could compare to Jesus?

[LarsMac]

Gnostic Christian Bishop;1445847 wrote: Quote Originally Posted by Gnostic Christian Bishop View Post

Can one be commanded to have an emotional response like love?

If so, then one can also be commanded to hate. Right?

Love to be true love most have works and deeds between the two parties.

How can one love an absentee God when reciprocity is a requirement for love?

Regards

DL

--------------------------------------------

I made only one assertion and the other 3 lines are questions.

Other than going into trying to prove an un-provable God, my statement that God is absentee is an obvious truth. Let's ignore that shall we?

Do you think reciprocity is a component of love?

I would like answers to the other 3 questions if you feel inclined.

Can we be commanded to produce emotions like love and hate?

Regards

DL


I see no valid argument in your statement, or your questions.

Basically, anyone may issue commands. It is up to you to decide what commands and from whom you will obey.

Reciprocity is irrelevant to love. Were you a parent, you might get that.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Mickiel;1445880 wrote: Who could compare to Jesus?


He says many.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.



Don't you believe Jesus?

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

LarsMac;1445886 wrote: I see no valid argument in your statement, or your questions.

Basically, anyone may issue commands. It is up to you to decide what commands and from whom you will obey.

Reciprocity is irrelevant to love. Were you a parent, you might get that.


Then you do not see very well.



Thanks for agreeing that you cannot be commanded to create an emotion within you like love.

Regards

DL