Are there Pharasees around today?

[UBERROGO]

yea i got historical books but unfortunately to anyone here, they are in Arabic

can you give me thier translated titles please and authors too.

 

[Exalt]

Pharasees Or Saducees? Or Essenes?

---

I’m still learning - can someone clarify the difference between these three?

At the time of Jesus, there were a number of Jewish sects. Among them were the Pharisees, Saducees, and Essenes.

Pharisees: Emphasised the synagouge as opposed to the temple. Centered around “teachers” (Rabbis).

Saducees: Centered around the temple and priests. Disbelieved in the Resurrection of the dead, tended to be very strict on Jewish law. These ideas died out in the aftermath of the fall of the temple in 70 AD.

Essences: A small community of Jews who believed the Jerusalem temple was no longer being controlled by good people. Tended to be very strict on Jewish laws. The vast majority of knowledge we have of these people come from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

It’s interesting to note that Jesus was basically a pharisee…

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Or Saducees? Or Essenes?

It would be strange that all these groups would be outlived by Samaratins, wouldn’t it?

Sure–in the form of politicians, and in the case of the States, Congress and the Senate.

 

[Atreyu]

While the Christian bible may villify Pharisees, they were really just the sect in Judiasm that was more concerned with study and making ruling than with the temple based aspects of Judaism. This is why they survived after the Temple’s destruction and became what is now known as rabbinic judaism.

On the contrary, I don’t believe the “Christian bible” villifies the Pharisees at all. Rather, it villifies the hypocritical actions of some of the Pharisees. But Jesus also states that the Pharisees have authority, in that they sit “on the seat of Moses”. And as also pointed out in this thread, Paul himself was a Pharisee before he converted. I’ve always thought that most of the apostles and the first Christians were all Pharisees, but I can’t back that up. I mean, it’s just something I’ve assumed rather than something I’m trying to claim is the truth.

Elzee your study group friend’s comments could almost be a compliment. There is nothing wrong per se with the Pharisees (in the time of Jesus), it is just that he condemned their actions so much that I think that the word “Pharisee” in modern times is associated somehow with hypocrisy. I believe this is a modern innovation. Actually, maybe Jesus was so harsh on the Pharisees for the very reason that they are so close to the truth. Do you know what I mean?

 

[Exalt]

Actually, maybe Jesus was so harsh on the Pharisees for the very reason that they are so close to the truth. Do you know what I mean?

Maybe Jesus was never as harsh as writings like Matthew make him out to be?

I just can’t see God telling off people like Jesus is reported to have done in Matthew. “Thier souls are like whitewashed tombs”? Sounds like the words of flawed, angry men than God, doesn’t it?

 

[Valke2]

correct, it is SOME, this “some” that believed in Jesus as the Messiah…and we all know what tension this created between orthodox Jews and Jews who believed in Jesus.

 

[Valke2]

On the contrary, I don’t believe the “Christian bible” villifies the Pharisees at all. Rather, it villifies the hypocritical actions of some of the Pharisees. But Jesus also states that the Pharisees have authority, in that they sit “on the seat of Moses”. And as also pointed out in this thread, Paul himself was a Pharisee before he converted. I’ve always thought that most of the apostles and the first Christians were all Pharisees, but I can’t back that up. I mean, it’s just something I’ve assumed rather than something I’m trying to claim is the truth.

Elzee your study group friend’s comments could almost be a compliment. There is nothing wrong per se with the Pharisees (in the time of Jesus), it is just that he condemned their actions so much that I think that the word “Pharisee” in modern times is associated somehow with hypocrisy. I believe this is a modern innovation. Actually, maybe Jesus was so harsh on the Pharisees for the very reason that they are so close to the truth. Do you know what I mean?

That may be. However, when I hear christians talk about the Pharisees, they tend to view them negatively, as you point out. I assume this is because of what is written in their scripture. As for Paul, he pretty much took his message to the nonjews because the jews weren’t buying it. Had he been better received, it is very possible that, as desired by James, the “christians” would have kept their message for the jews and not spread christianity to non-jews. In other words, Jesus as messiah would have remained a subset of Judaism.

 

[inJESUS]

Why would they be alienated from Christianity?

I mean, wasn’t St. Paul a pharasee? So why would people who accepted Paul reject the other pharasees.

A lone Raven

they were not alienated from Christianity ; they wanted to judaize (sp?) the gentile Christians; they had problems with the apostles’ teachings regarding the Mosaic Law so they started abandoning their teachings by adopting more “jewish” interpretations and behavior as a sign of distinction between them and “gentile” Christians; with these clashes between them and gentile Christians on one part, and the orthodox Jews on another part, both parts rejected them…with time they embraced gnosticism and other heresies including ebionism and they were totally alienated from both Jews and orthodox Christians ( who included both gentile and jewish-Christians who accepted the apostles’ teachings). The schism started as nationalistic ( that is Jews-christians vs Gentiles Christians)…after the destruction of the temple the schism included adoption of heresies by this sect and due to alienation they ended up in Hijaz and Mecca.

 

[inJESUS]

can you give me thier translated titles please and authors too.

The Quran is a nazaritic mission by Professor Yussuf Durra Al-Haddad.
muhammadanism.com/haddad/nazaritic_mission/quran_nazaritic_mission_1.pdf
and :

Priest and Prophet : Study on origin of Islam by Abu Musa Al-Hariri

muhammadanism.org/Arabic/book/hariri/priest_prophet_book.pdf

you find this book in French on Amazon i think.

Both these links are in Arabic…if you know someone who can translate them for you, it’s very worth it.

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;1537537:

Beleiving that Jesus was the messiah would not be cause for starting another religion in biblical times. Jews had followed who that thought was the messiah before and after. It did not result in new religions. Or even in new sects of Judaism. I have done a bit of research and find no evidence that the pharasies founded Islam. Which is no surprise since there is what? 800 years between the destruction of the Temple and the founding of Islam?
I don’t think it is close to accurate to say that it is “historical fact”.

Valke it’s not a matter of : Be and it was …it’s progression. Muhammad did NOT found Islam. He said in Quran he came to confirm what was before him, the Islam before him; what Muhammad taught was not an innovation; it was taught by others BEFORE Muhammad but Muhammad “perfected” the teachings as he said. Who were these people who believed in what Muhammad “confirmed”? you find about these people in Quran, Ahadith, Sira nabawiyya, Bible history and Church Fathers writings…that’s history…tracing Muhammad’s belief to those before him. For example, the crucifixion account in Quran matches that of Basilides and gnostics who believed that the messiah was not crucified cuz:

the messiah left Jesus on the cross and was elevated to God hence the one who was crucified and died was Jesus the man and not the messiah ( gnostics)

Jesus put his resemblance on someone else because according to some Jews the messiah does not die ( Ebionites)

If you read Quran, both interpretation fit coz muhammad said : it appeared to jews that they killed him ( Ebionism)

and if you read that ALL messengers before Muhammad died, then Jesus as well died…yet we read he was elevated to God on the crucifixion day…which concluded that Jesus died ( as a man, not a messiah) and was elevated ( the messiah in him) on the crucifixion day. (gnostics)

Ignorant about these teachings, you find Muslims not understanding anyting.Some say he was crucified, others no…some say he died, others no…but it’s clear from Quran that Jesus died and was elevated…the same orthodox Christian teaching with the difference regarding crucifixion : islam adopts gnostic/ebionitic interpretation.

No Jesus did not start a religion…but to orthodox Jews, Christians were a “sect”…Paul the Pharisee did not persecute Christians for no reason.

 

[inJESUS]

That may be. However, when I hear christians talk about the Pharisees, they tend to view them negatively, as you point out. I assume this is because of what is written in their scripture. As for Paul, he pretty much took his message to the nonjews because the jews weren’t buying it. Had he been better received, it is very possible that, as desired by James, the “christians” would have kept their message for the jews and not spread christianity to non-jews. In other words, Jesus as messiah would have remained a subset of Judaism.

with the sole difference that Jesus did not come only for Jews. First for Jews yes, but after to all. what some Jews did not like are the apostles’ teachings regarding the Mosaic law and salvation…they wanted gentiles to be circumcized ecc but Paul, Peter and James taught it’s not obligatory on gentiles hence these zealous Jewish-Christians did not like it.

 

[deb1]

That may be. However, when I hear christians talk about the Pharisees, they tend to view them negatively, as you point out. I assume this is because of what is written in their scripture…

I think that the reasons Christians speak negatively about Pharisees is because we don’t alway take the history and society behind the gospel writings into account when we read them. That is a fault of Christians though, not the gospels themselves.

 

[Valke2]

with the sole difference that Jesus did not come only for Jews. First for Jews yes, but after to all. what some Jews did not like are the apostles’ teachings regarding the Mosaic law and salvation…they wanted gentiles to be circumcized ecc but Paul, Peter and James taught it’s not obligatory on gentiles hence these zealous Jewish-Christians did not like it.

That’s not really the case. The fact is that James was interested in preaching about Jesus only to Jews. Paul wanted to go to the gentiles. And Paul wanted this because the Jews were not listening to his message. Paul’s view won out. I understand that it is a christian belief that jesus came for all. But that is something that developed, I think, over time.

the few jews that heard Jesus speak, might object to some of what he said or did, but the objections would be focused on, I think, any assertion that Jesus was God, if he blasphamied in public, and his apparent insistance that only Torah, and not Talmud (I guess this would fall under your statement about some jews not liking how he or his apostles taught the Mosaic law), was to be followed. Of those three, only the first two would trigger a death penalty.

 

[inJESUS]

And Paul wanted this because the Jews were not listening to his message.

i don’t remember reading this…can you quote please? or is it your opinion?

Paul’s view won out.

 

[mercygate]

While the Christian bible may villify Pharisees, they were really just the sect in Judiasm that was more concerned with study and making ruling than with the temple based aspects of Judaism. This is why they survived after the Temple’s destruction and became what is now known as rabbinic judaism.

I spend a good part of the first session of my first 6th grade CCD class (curriculum for that year is Scripture) DEFENDING the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus’ day for their defense of Sacred Scripture. We would not have the Scriptures Jesus so frequently refers to: " . . . have you not read . . .?" if it were not for those zealous guardians. Besides, Paul was the best of 'em. To a large extent, we can consider the faith of the early Church Pharisaic Christianity.

 

[mercygate]

i don’t remember reading this…can you quote please? or is it your opinion?

Paul and Peter and James agreed .

it’s in the NT and OT as well.

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;1539381:

Um. Try the New Testament. “I have come to the lost sheep of Israel.” Paul goes first to the synagogues. When they were thrown out of the synagogues, the message went out to the Gentiles.

You could look it up! (as Casey Stengel used to say . . .)

yes i know Paul faced problems…but i did not know that going to gntiles was a “result” of his being rejected by Jews…cuz as i know, they must go to gentiles anyway…

 

[mercygate]

mercygate;1539406:

yes i know Paul faced problems…but i did not know that going to gntiles was a “result” of his being rejected by Jews…cuz as i know, they must go to gentiles anyway…

But in the master plan, “salvation is from the Jews.” (Jn 4:24) The Messiah of the world had to come from the Jews. The beginnings of the mission to the whole world had to start with the chosen people.

 

[Contarini]

Maybe Jesus was never as harsh as writings like Matthew make him out to be?

I just can’t see God telling off people like Jesus is reported to have done in Matthew. “Thier souls are like whitewashed tombs”? Sounds like the words of flawed, angry men than God, doesn’t it?

No. Not to me. I have no reason whatever to think that God is not “harsh” on hypocrisy and self-righteousness. I have every reason to think that He is.

God is good and gracious and merciful. But God is not a tame lion.

Edwin

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;1539412:

But in the master plan, “salvation is from the Jews.” (Jn 4:24) The Messiah of the world had to come from the Jews. The beginnings of the mission to the whole world had to start with the chosen people.

yes sure, i alread wrote it : first Jews then gentiles…thx