Why did the Pharisees not humble themselves before Christ?: An Investigation

[Thomas_White]

Hello and thank you, One Sheep.

I wasn’t around for the other discussion, so I don’t know if I’m interpreting things correctly. I may not be. However, I do know someone who knows about God, he’s from the UK, he’s known about God all his life. However, he says he hates God and wants nothing to do with him or any religion. He is not an atheist. Of course, I cannot see into his heart, but this is what he says, and this is how he acts. He will not set foot into a church or say a prayer or read anything even vaguely religious.

But why? There must be a reason for why he feels this way?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Don’t forget that Jewish teaching about the nature of the Messiah and his purpose, among many other things, is based not only on the Written Law (Torah), which actually contains precious little about the Messiah, but also the Oral Law (Talmud) and, for some, the Kabbala. The vast majority of Jews are not sola Scriptura.

Thank you for adding that.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But why? There must be a reason for why he feels this way?

I think he wants God to put a stop to all the bad things in the world, but he will not accept the fact that man is the author of sin and its consequences, not God. He simply says that God has the power to do anything. True, but while God can do anything, he won’t do everything.

He won’t understand that if everyone turned to God tonight, we’d wake up to the Second Coming tomorrow. He, himself, is part of the problem by his refusal to have anything to do with God.

 

[Kaninchen]

Well, that is one of the problems. It looks to me like Jesus was establishing a position against one already established, if I am using the concept correctly.

He certainly did not come commending the powers-that-be for a job well done.

Christians do tend to believe that Jesus was saying something new and a lot of the time he really wasn’t - these sorts of debates were commonplace (look up ‘House of Hillel’ and ‘House of Shammai’), for example.

Meanwhile, the point I was making about ‘establishing’ rather than ‘stating’ really referred to conversations such as we have here.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Christians do tend to believe that Jesus was saying something new and a lot of the time he really wasn’t - these sorts of debates were commonplace (look up ‘House of Hillel’ and ‘House of Shammai’), for example.

Meanwhile, the point I was making about ‘establishing’ rather than ‘stating’ really referred to conversations such as we have here.

Personally, I didn’t think Jesus was talking about anything new there.

Grounds for divorce, etc. had already been established.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Christ is talking about something new in Mt 16:28, and many people misinterpreted it then and now.

I wrote more about it, but this computer logged me out and I lost it!

 

[Kaninchen]

Christ is talking about something new in Mt 16:28, and many people misinterpreted it then and now.

I wrote more about it, but this computer logged me out and I lost it!

This is what I often refer to here as “a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem” (the Matthew bit, not the computer bit)

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This is what I often refer to here as “a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem” (the Matthew bit, not the computer bit)

It can’t be a Jewish problem since you don’t accept the New Testament. Since it concerns Christ, it is, by nature problematic only for Christians who don’t understand it, and many don’t.

I don’t accept the teachings of Maimonaides, so what he said is not problematic for me. I am however, open to new evidence regarding his teachings. I don’t dismiss them out of hand. That would not be intelligent or polite of me.

We can all have the computer problem from time to time.

 

[OneSheep]

I think he wants God to put a stop to all the bad things in the world, but he will not accept the fact that man is the author of sin and its consequences, not God. He simply says that God has the power to do anything. True, but while God can do anything, he won’t do everything.

He won’t understand that if everyone turned to God tonight, we’d wake up to the Second Coming tomorrow. He, himself, is part of the problem by his refusal to have anything to do with God.

Hi Lily,

On the other hand, it would do us all good to not have anything to do with a god who allows all the evil to happen with no purpose at all, i.e. just because he likes to see people suffer.

I think this is who your friend is rejecting. And I am getting the impression that his aversion is grounded in resentment toward all the evil that happens in the world, which is very understandable. A faith that is not grounded in a prayer life is an unstable one, no?

So, do you see what I mean? His judgment is clouded by resentment, his “knowing” is limited. He is not “knowingly and willingly” rejecting God, right? He is rejecting a god who is not God.

Not to start an argument, but do you see what I mean?

Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Christians do tend to believe that Jesus was saying something new and a lot of the time he really wasn’t - these sorts of debates were commonplace (look up ‘House of Hillel’ and ‘House of Shammai’), for example.

I think the whole idea of breaking down the tribal boundaries was very new, though. Loving our enemies, forgiving all we hold something against, turning the cheek, “the last are first”, etc. These concepts challenge our drive for justice in favor of mercy.

Here is another thing, we know that Jesus “grew in wisdom”. Yes, he was very critical of Pharisees and other powers-that-be, but the most cathartic moment was His statement from the cross, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”. I am thinking that His statement of forgiveness is a “bottom line” statement, it falls in line with his call to love and forgive everyone, and must be applied to the Pharisees, some of whom were probably in favor of the crucifixion.

And, I must add, that is part of the idea of this thread. A mature forgiveness involves understanding people’s reasons and motives; and I am grateful for all of the insights people have given thus far concerning the Pharisees.

Meanwhile, the point I was making about ‘establishing’ rather than ‘stating’ really referred to conversations such as we have here.

Hmmm. Well, there is a time for “establishing” and there is a time for “stating”, right? For example, if someone is leaning toward prejudice against a specific group of people, it may be more of a “problem” to refrain from establishing the humanity of the group (be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, or other). Note the “establishing” tone here.

“Thy Kingdom Come” is a call to establish. I will grant that pushiness can be self-defeating… if that is what you are implying…

 

[Kaninchen]

I think the whole idea of breaking down the tribal boundaries was very new, though. Loving our enemies, forgiving all we hold something against, turning the cheek, “the last are first”, etc. These concepts challenge our drive for justice in favor of mercy.

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.

That was Rabbi Hillel, who was teaching in the century before Jesus and ‘loving your neighbour’ has its roots in Jewish tradition.

And, I must add, that is part of the idea of this thread. A mature forgiveness involves understanding people’s reasons and motives; and I am grateful for all of the insights people have given thus far concerning the Pharisees.

Please remember that you’re talking to somebody who doesn’t regard the NT as scripture/reportage but, rather, as literature - in other words, to me, Jesus is a hero character in a book. That’s not to say that I’m denying that he existed at all, by the way.

Meanwhile, In the decades I’ve been discussing religion with Christians, I’ve started to think more and more that many of the NT Jesus doing stuff/saying stuff sequences have their origins in ‘performance’ rather than ‘text’ - that the passing on of the story was not by sermon but by theatre (something which would make sense given the level of literacy at the time). Note that I’m not saying that he didn’t do/say certain things, I’m talking about how it’s presented and the context.

Thus Jesus does/says something good and it’s ‘Enter Pharisees moaning and scheming, Upstage Left’ - the massed feeding/moaning Pharisees/curing of the blind man (blind to what?) in Mark 8 is an example.

So, are the Pharisees real Pharisees or are they Stage Pharisees?

 

[meltzerboy]

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.

That was Rabbi Hillel, who was teaching in the century before Jesus and ‘loving your neighbour’ has its roots in Jewish tradition.

Please remember that you’re talking to somebody who doesn’t regard the NT as scripture/reportage but, rather, as literature - in other words, to me, Jesus is a hero character in a book. That’s not to say that I’m denying that he existed at all, by the way.

Meanwhile, In the decades I’ve been discussing religion with Christians, I’ve started to think more and more that many of the NT Jesus doing stuff/saying stuff sequences have their origins in ‘performance’ rather than ‘text’ - that the passing on of the story was not by sermon but by theatre (something which would make sense given the level of literacy at the time). Note that I’m not saying that he didn’t do/say certain things, I’m talking about how it’s presented and the context.

Thus Jesus does/says something good and it’s ‘Enter Pharisees moaning and scheming, Upstage Left’ - the massed feeding/moaning Pharisees/curing of the blind man (blind to what?) in Mark 8 is an example.

So, are the Pharisees real Pharisees or are they Stage Pharisees?

Your theatrical hypothesis is very interesting and original, as far as I am aware.

Insofar as Jesus is concerned, I agree that He borrowed quite a lot from the teaching of Rabbi Hillel the Elder. Even the concept of loving one’s enemies is not entirely new although it does add in its scope to what Judaism taught.

 

[Kaninchen]

Your theatrical hypothesis is very interesting and original, as far as I am aware.

Inevitably, when I started thinking that way (I was arguing with a Protestant fundamentalist about the Gospel of John at the time), I discovered that there’s something of an argument about Greek theatre and the Gospels so it was only new to me.

The thing is that a lot of the set pieces are very theatrical - including choruses.

 

[OneSheep]

What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary.

That was Rabbi Hillel, who was teaching in the century before Jesus and ‘loving your neighbour’ has its roots in Jewish tradition.

I am familiar with the roots of “loving your neighbor”, which is quite common in religious traditions, though not necessarily stated that way. Would Rabbi Hillel also refer to an Assyrian or Roman as a “neighbor”? If so, great!

Please remember that you’re talking to somebody who doesn’t regard the NT as scripture/reportage but, rather, as literature - in other words, to me, Jesus is a hero character in a book. That’s not to say that I’m denying that he existed at all, by the way.

Meanwhile, In the decades I’ve been discussing religion with Christians, I’ve started to think more and more that many of the NT Jesus doing stuff/saying stuff sequences have their origins in ‘performance’ rather than ‘text’ - that the passing on of the story was not by sermon but by theatre (something which would make sense given the level of literacy at the time). Note that I’m not saying that he didn’t do/say certain things, I’m talking about how it’s presented and the context.

Thus Jesus does/says something good and it’s ‘Enter Pharisees moaning and scheming, Upstage Left’ - the massed feeding/moaning Pharisees/curing of the blind man (blind to what?) in Mark 8 is an example.

So, are the Pharisees real Pharisees or are they Stage Pharisees?

IMO it doesn’t really matter if they are real or staged. This is meant to be an exercise of the Gift of Understanding, and if anyone holds any resentment towards “The Pharisees” such could be transferred to “The Jewish non-believers” or any other “antagonist” in the NT.

This thread started as an extension of my last thread, “Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God” (a common impetus for condemnation). At the end of that thread, someone brought up the Pharisees, and we did not get a chance to investigate their case.

So, whether the antagonists are fact or fiction, the use of the Gift remains the same, for all humans are human. And, if we can learn to understand/forgive the fictive ones, then, we can learn to do the same for the real ones. For example, “why did Kylo Ren kill people in the latest Star Wars movie?” is a great question, a great starting point.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[Kaninchen]

This thread started as an extension of my last thread, “Does any human ever knowingly and willingly reject God” (a common impetus for condemnation). At the end of that thread, someone brought up the Pharisees, and we did not get a chance to investigate their case.

Sometimes an exercise in talking at one another has its uses.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hi Lily,

On the other hand, it would do us all good to not have anything to do with a god who allows all the evil to happen with no purpose at all, i.e. just because he likes to see people suffer.

I think this is who your friend is rejecting. And I am getting the impression that his aversion is grounded in resentment toward all the evil that happens in the world, which is very understandable. A faith that is not grounded in a prayer life is an unstable one, no?

So, do you see what I mean? His judgment is clouded by resentment, his “knowing” is limited. He is not “knowingly and willingly” rejecting God, right? He is rejecting a god who is not God.

Not to start an argument, but do you see what I mean?

Thanks.

He knows that God has a plan for everyone’s life and that God does what is most fitting for us. He just wants to be the one to choose what is fitting for him. He doesn’t want God interfering in his life.

No, he doesn’t despise all evil. He despises some good, too. For example, he hates all Muslims. Doesn’t matter if they are kind and generous people. He still hates them for no reason other than they are Muslim. If someone were to kill a group of kind and peaceful Muslims, he would be glad.

He lives in the Canary Islands. His former boss publishes s small paper. G. will pick up all the papers for sale by the sea and throw them into the sea. He is big into revenge.

We all have things in life we could resent. None of us knows God at the outset. I think he knows God as well as the rest of us. Trouble is, he wants to be God. I used to give him the benefit of the doubt. I had to break off the friendship because he is just so filled with hate. He even hates the Canarians and he lives on their island! He is from the UK, but hates the weather there.

I am not trying to argue, either. Just trying to clarify.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This is what I often refer to here as “a Christian problem, not a Jewish problem” (the Matthew bit, not the computer bit)

I would assume you believe all Christian scholars have misinterpreted the 9th chapter of Daniel? Calculated wrong?

Of course I interpret it as saying that at the end of the 490 years, all the prophecies of the HS will have been fulfilled.

I know the translation is a sticking point between Christians ans Jews.

 

[Kaninchen]

I would assume you believe all Christian scholars have misinterpreted the 9th chapter of Daniel? Calculated wrong?

Of course I interpret it as saying that at the end of the 490 years, all the prophecies of the HS will have been fulfilled.

I know the translation is a sticking point between Christians ans Jews.

If you want to get involved in “Oh, Yes it is!/Oh, No it isn’t!” proof text arguments, you really need to find another Jew.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If you want to get involved in “Oh, Yes it is!/Oh, No it isn’t!” proof text arguments, you really need to find another Jew.

Fair enough. None of us has to discuss anything we don’t want to discuss. I just thought it was germane to the topic. I didn’t mean to insult you and apologize if I did. I don’t want any arguments, either.

If someone else wants to answer the question, fine. If not, fine, too.

 

[Kaninchen]

Fair enough. None of us has to discuss anything we don’t want to discuss. I just thought it was germane to the topic. I didn’t mean to insult you and apologize if I did. I don’t want any arguments, either.

If someone else wants to answer the question, fine. If not, fine, too.

Google can be your friend.

I think you’ll need to find somebody who is new to Internet discussion, it soon gets very boring and repetitive.