Modern Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai?

by WontLeave 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TD

  Where Jesus comments on heavy rules imposed by men, we can assume it's Shammai and where Jesus comments on God's standards being lowered by men, we can assume it's Hillel.

  ???

  I don't see how you can assume anything of the sort.

  In order to substantiate the idea that any "stated standard" had been violated you would have to produce such a standard from the Law. The reality is Jesus had instituted a newer and stricter standard than had existed under the Law where a man was allowed to divorce a wife for reasons other than infidelity.

  Jesus' primary bone of contention with Pharisees throughout the Gospels was with rigid interpretation. While it's certainly true that Jesus advocated a much more positive view of women than had existed among the Jews of the period, that is his principal disagreement with the school of Hillel. Time after time after time in the Gospels, he advocates their liberal interpretation of the Law.

  He is so close to Hillel that a number of Jewish scholars argue that Jesus himself was a Pharisee. And this is one of the reasons that the controversy stores are so perplexing to Jews today. Jesus appears to be jousting at windmills because the position he takes vis a vis the Law is that of normative Judaism.
• 

  WontLeave

  Jesus' primary bone of contention with Pharisees throughout the Gospels was with rigid interpretation.

  As, over the course of the 1st century, public indignation against the Romans grew, the House of Shammai gradually gained the upper hand, and the gentle and conciliatory House of Hillel came to be ostracised from the House of Shammai's public acts of prayer. - Wikipedia, source: Jewish Encyclopedia under "House of Hillel and House of Shammai"

  One reason Jesus primarily addressed the hard line approach that would have been indicative of Bet Shammai, might have been due to Bet Hillel being marginalized and of little consequence in the Jewish society and Sanhedrin. Another reason may be exactly what you're saying: Hillel was closer to the spirit of the Law and thus required less correcting. Unless you're implying Hillel's interpretation of the Law was perfect, I believe it's fair that Jesus didn't agree with every aspect of Hillel's version; the above-mentioned excerpt from Babylonian Talmud being an example.
• 

  Band on the Run

  There a lot of jokes about UU. Many Jews who intermarry marry in UU b/c it is considered a religion. Religion, like cult, is a loaded word. My denomination, Episcopal, suffers some of the same flaws. Doctrine exists in theory but no lay personis reprimanded for having contrary beliefs. It wa quite an adjustment after the Witnesses. The Witness had tons of rules and extraneous beliefs. When I first became interested, I would ask a priest how the church defined something or what their position was. Perhaps b/c it was born of the Tudor political and religious struggle at a mammoth price for the English, things are now loose. This is the same religion that employed Thomas Cromwell and others to burn heretics. All English citizens were forced to sign a document condemning Henry's marriage to Katherine, making the previous legal heir a bastard.

  Within this culture, rituals are performed. The Apostlle's Creed and the Nicene Creed are used, unlike most Protestant religions. The service is structured with ancient responses. Many churches use incense. Within a parish, some will stand and others will kneel when praying. This atmosphere is not a recent development. One of the reasons the Constitution had trouble with ratification was that too many Episcopalians were active in the process. Their influence was feared. Historians believe many went into the political process b/c the church itself had encouraged wheeling and dealing.

  I'd be curious as to just what a UU service entailed. HOw is legitimacy obtained? Are there professional cleregy?
• 

  designs

  The Gospels get it completely wrong with Jesus and Judaism...........

  ....think about it