Are there Pharasees around today?

[spauline]

.

How was the Pharisee’s position on Shabbat hard headed?

I said hard HEARTed. The Pharisees are Hard HEADed, which is GOOD, but they are also hard HEARTed, which is bad: just as the liberal is soft HEARTed, which is good, but also soft HEADed, which is bad. Jesus had a hard HEAD, but a soft HEART.

Pharisees are hard HEARTed because they are judgemental, self-righteous, and because they cannot admit of exceptions to the rule, like in the Sabbath. It’s like modern day fundamentalists who are TOO hard headed, they think we have to treat the Bible like a science book. I would dare say that were it not for modern pictures from space of earth, they would think the earth was flat because that’s how the Bible “says” it is.

 

[Valke2]

I said hard HEARTed. The Pharisees are Hard HEADed, which is GOOD, but they are also hard HEARTed, which is bad: just as the liberal is soft HEARTed, which is good, but also soft HEADed, which is bad. Jesus had a hard HEAD, but a soft HEART.

Pharisees are hard HEARTed because they are judgemental, self-righteous, and because they cannot admit of exceptions to the rule, like in the Sabbath. It’s like modern day fundamentalists who are TOO hard headed, they think we have to treat the Bible like a science book. I would dare say that were it not for modern pictures from space of earth, they would think the earth was flat because that’s how the Bible “says” it is.

Jesus was a liberal. Deal with it. Exactly what exceptions to the rule regarding Sabbath are you referring to?

 

[mercygate]

Jesus was a liberal. Deal with it. Exactly what exceptions to the rule regarding Sabbath are you referring to?

Here’s one place:

Mt. 12:1-2: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? . . . And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

And in the next pericope:

And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they [the Pharisees] asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. He said to them, “What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, whole like the other. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how to destroy him.

I believe that in mercy, milking animals was permitted under the Law. Jesus was challenging the learned guardians to live up to their own standard.

 

[Valke2]

Here’s one place:

Mt. 12:1-2: At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? . . . And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Ok. SO the priests pointed out that Jesus’ followers were doing something that was prohibited on Sabbath. How is that hard hearted. I point out that if they needed to eat in order to survive, that is, if they were not just “hungry” but starving, they would be permitted to take food from the field on the sabbath.

And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they [the Pharisees] asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. He said to them, “What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.” Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, whole like the other. But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how to destroy him.

ANd would the man with the withered hand had suffered terribly or lost his life if Jesus waited until after sabbath to heal him? I don’t see how this is hard hearted. No one disputes the value of a human life. BUt a human life was not at risk in this example.

The fact is the rabbis were living up to the standrad. Jesus was not healing those in dire need of healing – those that could not wait for the sabbath to end. If he was, there would not have been any issue. Same with the taking of wheat. His disciples were not suffering phyiscal harm, other than they were hungry.

 

[Valke2]

Truthfully, it seems as if Jesus was setting the rabbis up. He intentionally committed acts that were forbidden so that he could use his actions to highlight the rigidity of the rabbis.

 

[mercygate]

ANd would the man with the withered hand had suffered terribly or lost his life if Jesus waited until after sabbath to heal him? I don’t see how this is hard hearted. No one disputes the value of a human life. BUt a human life was not at risk in this example.

Frankly, when they ask Jesus (I think it is in Luke): Are there not six days in which to heal? – I always thought that was a pretty good question. Unless you look at it from the point of view that Jesus’ time was short to accomplish his work, and he was constantly being pressed by hordes of people clamoring to be healed. He was packing in as much as he could do. Many places in the Gospel describe scenes not unlike the rush to get Elvis away from crowds who were clawing at his clothes (and body), so the pressure was on. Jesus had a healing power nobody else could deliver, and in mercy “delivered” as much as he could in the time allotted.

Also (still thinking like a Christian), in John, again, Jesus, healing on the Sabbath, is challenged and replies “My Father is working still i.e., always], and I am working.” Now (remember: thinking like a Christian) if Jesus is the Son of God, and does what the Father does, he can without guilt heal on the Sabbath because the Father heals on the Sabbath.

I understand the Rabbis of that time used to say that God was always working, holding the world in existence, and that if He should stop, the whole enterprise would disintegrate. So “working” on the Sabbath kind of fits in that context.

Jesus also states that “The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In another place, he really packs a wallop by stating that “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

We Christians, I think, really have no IDEA what an inflammatory statement that must have been to the guardians of the law.

 

[Valke2]

Frankly, when they ask Jesus (I think it is in Luke): Are there not six days in which to heal? – I always thought that was a pretty good question. Unless you look at it from the point of view that Jesus’ time was short to accomplish his work, and he was constantly being pressed by hordes of people clamoring to be healed. He was packing in as much as he could do. Many places in the Gospel describe scenes not unlike the rush to get Elvis away from crowds who were clawing at his clothes (and body), so the pressure was on. Jesus had a healing power nobody else could deliver, and in mercy “delivered” as much as he could in the time allotted.

Also (still thinking like a Christian), in John, again, Jesus, healing on the Sabbath, is challenged and replies “My Father is working still i.e., always], and I am working.” Now (remember: thinking like a Christian) if Jesus is the Son of God, and does what the Father does, he can without guilt heal on the Sabbath because the Father heals on the Sabbath.

I understand the Rabbis of that time used to say that God was always working, holding the world in existence, and that if He should stop, the whole enterprise would disintegrate. So “working” on the Sabbath kind of fits in that context.

Jesus also states that “The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” In another place, he really packs a wallop by stating that “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

We Christians, I think, really have no IDEA what an inflammatory statement that must have been to the guardians of the law.

 

[inJESUS]

Law was made for man, not man for the Law. Rabbis at Jesus’ time made the Law a burden and were a stumbling block for believers. The Law is love…to avoid a leprosy for example and cast him as unclean is againt the Moral Law hence Jesus rejected it…Sabbath as well, if it were to compromise the Moral law of love, then it became a burden and not righteousness…That’s how i see it.

 

[Valke2]

Law was made for man, not man for the Law. Rabbis at Jesus’ time made the Law a burden and were a stumbling block for believers. The Law is love…to avoid a leprosy for example and cast him as unclean is againt the Moral Law hence Jesus rejected it…Sabbath as well, if it were to compromise the Moral law of love, then it became a burden and not righteousness…That’s how i see it.

That’s a bad example because the hebrew word for leporsy was not the same leporsy that we think of today. Basically, and scaly skin disease. And that was just the way people thought back then. That physical deformaties meant spiritual deformities. And quite frankly, I don’t recall reading about a lot of leporsy mixers post jesus.

 

[inJESUS]

That’s a bad example because the hebrew word for leporsy was not the same leporsy that we think of today. Basically, and scaly skin disease. And that was just the way people thought back then. That physical deformaties meant spiritual deformities. And quite frankly, I don’t recall reading about a lot of leporsy mixers post jesus.

was there a law that prohibits mingling with pple who have leprosy? was it a general law or a tradition or what?

 

[Valke2]

was there a law that prohibits mingling with pple who have leprosy? was it a general law or a tradition or what?

There was a law that required them to dwell outside the town/people until the condition cleared.

 

[inJESUS]

There was a law that required them to dwell outside the town/people until the condition cleared.

that’s what am talking about.

 

[Valke2]

that’s what am talking about.

That’s proof that the pharisees were hard hearted? I would say that’s proof that we obeyed God’s law.

 

[inJESUS]

That’s proof that the pharisees were hard hearted? I would say that’s proof that we obeyed God’s law.

doesn’t it go against the highest Moral Law of Love? the Law is made for men. When the law causes suffering, it means it is not applied properly.

 

[Golden]

Or Saducees? Or Essenes?

You asked “Are there Pharasees around today?”
First, correct your spelling. It is Pharisees and not Pharasees.

If the scribes were the *doctors of the law of Moses *then the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people.

Pharisees may still continue to live but ofcourse among the Jews only because Jesus Christ did not convert them nor asked them to accept his “gospel” as there was no Gospel of Matthew or Mark or Luke or John or any other NT’s book in his life time nor his message should be different from Mosaic Law and teachings of the prophets.

On the contrary Jesus adviced people and his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. 3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

This opens up the pandora box of what exactly Jesus’ message was.

 

[Valke2]

doesn’t it go against the highest Moral Law of Love? the Law is made for men. When the law causes suffering, it means it is not applied properly.

Does that mean you support gay marriage? Since the prohibition causes suffering for some? All law causes “suffering.” And I don’t know if Love is the highest moral law. That sounds like a lot of fluff. Because withoutl laws, people do the right thing when it is convenient. One of the main purposes of halacha is to ensure that we do what is right even when we don’t feel like it.

 

[Golden]

On his second coming what would Jesus say to his people if he sees a pharisee again - who is among the precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law?

Is Jesus going to tell his people to follow what that pharisee teaches but not his deeds or follow Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all other NT’s book of Cathoic Bible or Protestant’s KJV’s 5th revised version or Orthodox Bible?

 

[inJESUS]

On his second coming what would Jesus say to his people if he sees a pharisee again - who is among the precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law?

Is Jesus going to tell his people to follow what that pharisee teaches but not his deeds or follow Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all other NT’s book of Cathoic Bible or Protestant’s KJV’s 5th revised version or Orthodox Bible?

no Jesus is going to tell a Muslim like you that Muhammad was a false prophet

 

[spauline]

Jesus was a liberal. Deal with it. Exactly what exceptions to the rule regarding Sabbath are you referring to?

Jesus was liberal in his heart, but not in his head. Jesus was hard headed. Read the Gospels. St. Paul, who expands on Jesus, lays out a conservative message. I recall verses in Galatians and Corinthians and maybe elsewhere:

“For neither fornicators nor drunkards, nor theives, nor sodomites, nor slanderers, etc, etc, will inherit the kingdom of God”.

From Christ’s lips: “And you have heard it said, ‘you shall not commit adultery’, but what I say to you is, whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

“I say to you, do not fear men who can kill the body and then do no more harm. Rather, fear Him who has the power to kill both body and soul in Gehenna!”

these don’t sound very liberal to me in the essence of the mind. Don’t think liberal prots (or for that matter, liberal “Catholics”) like these verses very much.

From what I understand, Jesus was himself of the Pharisaical tradition. It’s just that he was soft hearted enough, as others have pointed out here, to emphasize that when “following rules,” if it interferes with common sense compassion and love, it is going overboard.

 

[inJESUS]

Does that mean you support gay marriage? Since the prohibition causes suffering for some? All law causes “suffering.” And I don’t know if Love is the highest moral law. That sounds like a lot of fluff. Because withoutl laws, people do the right thing when it is convenient. One of the main purposes of halacha is to ensure that we do what is right even when we don’t feel like it.

oh i see…it seems we do differ on the purpose of Law. Since Jesus said Love God and love the other sums up the law, i though this was the same truth you hold. No i do not support gay marriage, but it does not mean that i marginalize gays or ask them not to mingle with me. Jesus was criticized for this, and when the actions oppose the law of love then you make the Law vain because you can’t love the One you don’t see if you can’t love the one you see.