E
exoflare
Guest
The truth is the truth. Jesus would have spoken no less than the truth. It’s your own problem if you don’t like hearing it.
- Status
V
Valke2
Guest
M
mercygate
Guest
inJESUS;1539381:
I
inJESUS
Guest
E
Exalt
Guest
That’s cool. I get that position. I believed it myself, for a while.
How do you know that what the Bible says is true? How do you know that Jesus really said everything that a given gospel said about him? Just because an ancient text (albiet a respected and revered text) says Jesus said something, doesn’t mean he actually said it.
To me, it seems much more likely that Matthew was acting out of a community in conflict. It’s easy to understand Matthew ascribing these harsh words for the pharisees when the Christians and Pharisees were competeing. But to believe that the Pharisees are *actually *like that is sort of like believing Bill Maher when it comes to George W. Bush.
The prejudiced, angry sentiment in Matthew becomes especially apparent when you read the works of the Pharisees themselves from this time period.
A
Atreyu
Guest
This notion is easy to refute: just look at the Corban tradition. Surely this is a tradition that reeks of hypocrisy, and Jesus would be right to condemn it. Do you dispute the historicity of the Corban tradition?
M
mark_a
Guest
What are ebionitic teachings?
S
spauline
Guest
not to change the subject slightly, but modern day Fundamentalists and Liberals are sort of a “type” of what were the old Pharisees and Sadducees.
The Pharisees are basically of the sense that they are like Jesus in that there is Divine Revelation, absolute truth, but they are so stubborn and freaking hard-hearted that they cannot admit of exceptions. Hence, their constant battle with Jesus over the Sabbath. Modern day fundies are like this: they are so stubborn that they take things too literally and are too strict: the world was created in six literal twenty four hour days, we cannot drink, smoke, dance, or gamble. All non-Christians will burn in hell even if they have never heard of Jesus through no fault of their own. And need we mention that they blaspheme Our Lady.
As a side note, Bruno the Italian had already done the first fridays but then fell into severe fundamentalism. On the very day that the pope in 1950 was about to solemnly proclaim the Assumption of Our Lady as dogma, he was in the very park spot in Rome that St. Paul had been martyred and was preparing to murder the pope. But Our Lady appeared to him in a cave there and removed what were like “scales” from his eyes, and she proceeded to confirm to him that She was indeed conceived without sin and was assumed. Bruno was reverted to the faith and worked zealously to bring back the lost fundamentalist sheep to the bosom of Rome.
Sound familiar? St. Paul was a self-righteous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, when he was “knocked off his horse”, the “scales were removed” from His eyes and he was converted to Jesus.
Hence, just as St. Simeon proclaimed to Mary that Her Son would be a “sign of contradiction” (i.e, in one sense b/ Christiand and Pharisees) so now OUR LADY is a sign of contradiction b/ Catholics and Fundamentalists.
At least that is my view, considering these events, once again, took place on the very site of St. Paul’s martyrdom.
The Pharisees are basically of the sense that they are like Jesus in that there is Divine Revelation, absolute truth, but they are so stubborn and freaking hard-hearted that they cannot admit of exceptions. Hence, their constant battle with Jesus over the Sabbath. Modern day fundies are like this: they are so stubborn that they take things too literally and are too strict: the world was created in six literal twenty four hour days, we cannot drink, smoke, dance, or gamble. All non-Christians will burn in hell even if they have never heard of Jesus through no fault of their own. And need we mention that they blaspheme Our Lady.
As a side note, Bruno the Italian had already done the first fridays but then fell into severe fundamentalism. On the very day that the pope in 1950 was about to solemnly proclaim the Assumption of Our Lady as dogma, he was in the very park spot in Rome that St. Paul had been martyred and was preparing to murder the pope. But Our Lady appeared to him in a cave there and removed what were like “scales” from his eyes, and she proceeded to confirm to him that She was indeed conceived without sin and was assumed. Bruno was reverted to the faith and worked zealously to bring back the lost fundamentalist sheep to the bosom of Rome.
Sound familiar? St. Paul was a self-righteous Pharisee who persecuted Christians, when he was “knocked off his horse”, the “scales were removed” from His eyes and he was converted to Jesus.
Hence, just as St. Simeon proclaimed to Mary that Her Son would be a “sign of contradiction” (i.e, in one sense b/ Christiand and Pharisees) so now OUR LADY is a sign of contradiction b/ Catholics and Fundamentalists.
At least that is my view, considering these events, once again, took place on the very site of St. Paul’s martyrdom.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
That’s my thoughts on it too. Reading from our modern Western perspective, it’s extremely easy to read the Scriptures as utterly slamming pharisaic thought. But I don’t think this is the case.
I think Atreyu points out some very good points in his post above.
To this I would like to add that Jesus himself said…
Some read this as a slam against them. But I don’t think it is. I think it’s actually quite a strong warning for all people to note that the Pharisees were indeed righteous people, even if their expectations for the kingdom of heaven may have been grounded in their desire for political/warrior messiah.
By some accounts, the Irish monks considered it part of their Christian duty to copy all the books in danger of being lost as the Roman Empire crumbled. And like the Irish monks that preserved the Christian Scriptures for us during these destructive periods, I think that the Pharisees, Scribes, and teachers of the law also preserved the Scriptures for us as well.
Admittedly, Jesus did warn the apostles, using the anology of yeast, to guard against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees-- and I can’t seem to find anything said by Christ which praised the Sadducees in any way. In this sense, regarding his thoughts against the Pharisees and Sadducees, he seems to identify more with some thoughts found within the teachings of the Essenes.
V
Valke2
Guest
And what do you suppose the worldview of the Pharisees was/is?
E
exoflare
Guest
Very rigid, legalistic. Concerned more with orthopraxy than orthodoxy.
V
Valke2
Guest
ahh… that would go to what I had answered on a previous thread. When someone asked me what the biggest misconception about Judaism was. I answered, that it is a religion of deeds and not faith.
E
exoflare
Guest
I don’t think all Jews today are like that. But the Pharisees that Jesus encountered in the Gospels were mostly of that sort. That’s what is usually implied when the word “Pharisee” is mentioned among Christians, but I guess that can be a bit misleading if you aren’t familiar enough with common Christian parlance.
E
exoflare
Guest
On a somewhat related note, Valke… do you know whether most of the Jews that exist today are members of Pharisiac (sp?) Judaism as opposed to some other sort?
To tell you the truth, I wasn’t really aware that Jews in this day ever referred to themselves as “Pharisees” anymore.
To tell you the truth, I wasn’t really aware that Jews in this day ever referred to themselves as “Pharisees” anymore.
V
Valke2
Guest
But that assumes that the response to what Jesus said was due to the fact that the Pharisees were unyielding and unspiritual and not to the fact that Jesus preached something alien to Judaism.
If I preached that in order to gain the kingdom of Heaven, Christians would be required to believe that undergo circumcision and renounce the concept of trinity, would a Catholic’s refusal to accept this be a sign of their stubborness in rejecting God’s law or would it be a sign of their refusal to abandon their religion?
V
Valke2
Guest
We don’t refer to ourselves as “Pharisees”. But the Pharisees are what rabbinic judiasm is based on. This is the type of Judaism that survived, as it was not centered around Temple Practices, but upon Torah and the observance of its commandments, as understood by the rabbis.
M
mercygate
Guest
I came across this wry characterization from the Talmud in the book *Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. *I think everybody can recognize himself in this list – perhaps in more than one way:
From the Talmud (ca first century AD): Seven types of Pharisee:
From the Talmud (ca first century AD): Seven types of Pharisee:
- The “what am I going to get out of it?” Pharisee.
- The “I look the part” Pharisee.
- The “Oh my poor head” Pharisee (who goes around with downcast eyes to avoid looking at women and bumps into walls).
- The pestle Pharisee (who goes around like a pestle in a mortar, with only the top of his head showing).
- The “Show me my duty that I may do it” Pharisee.
- The “I do one good deed every day” Pharisee.
- The Pharisee who fears and loves God with a generous and open heart: the only true Pharisee.
N
Neo_Canaan
Guest
YUP!!
V
Valke2
Guest
V
Valke2
Guest
I’m reviewing this thread and for some reason have almost no recollection of what I had posted. So I apologize if I’m repeating myself. the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees were on issues of law. So of course they are going to be making legal arguments with him. I don’t know if you that makes them legally rigid.
- Status