Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Basically, who was correct, Jesus, or the Pharisees? Or were they both correct? Different options are available for variable in literalism, or possible non-literalism, in the NT.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus and the Pharisees, who was correct? Vote.
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Basically, 'more' correct. In the entire discourse, arguments.
Deadtroopers
Member
Presumably what is written in the New Testament. Disciple needs to clarify what part(s) of the NT h/she is refering to specifically. Given that there are almost as many Jesuses as there are NT authors and that even within particular writings Jesus can be understood to contradict himself I don't think a consensus can be achieved.
I understand the 'Jesus' of later Christianities as retrojected into the texts. The texts themselves are supporting various sides of various Christological/
Theological disputes that took place over about a century within the texts and for several centuries, both before and after, outside it. These disputes were for the most part intra-mural: between first various Jewish groups we have only the scantiest knowledge of; then between various Christian Jewish groups and then, only when we step out of the texts into Patristic history, various Christian groups. The disputes were not with actual Pharisees or other Jewish groups outside this Christian Jewish circle. That is why all Jesus' opponents come across as cartoon-like and strawman. It wasn't about disputing with Judaism but disputing within Christianity.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Ah, I think I misunderstood your question. They could both be correct, by being correct, in different arguments, subjects. So, for example, Jesus could have been more correct concerning the Sabbath prohibitions, yet the Pharisees could have been more correct in their overall religious approach concerning the verbal Torah.
Deadtroopers
Member
I'll stand corected by someone who knows Second Temple Judaism(s) better; but the oral/verbal Torah appears to be another retrojection; this time by Rabbinic Judaism. Regardless: at the supposed time of Jesus the Pharisees were nowhere near as important as is made out by either Rabbinic Judaism or Christianity.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Could be, but this doesn't stop us from examining the 'literal text', arguments, imo. I don't think that they are ''inaccurate'' enough to be dismissed as entirely meaningless. If someone thinks they are, they can simply voice that opinion, and vote for whatever option might fit, or just not vote.
This is something that may be noted, regardless, and might sway opinion, either way.
Deadtroopers
Member
It could not; but what do you see as hypocrisy? The Gospels are probably documents of internal Christian disputes and dialogues written up as origin stories. Their authors are Greek speakers of Greek education writing outside Judea and the Galilee with varying and insecure understandings of either the geography or the religion of either. They are all writing well after the purported "facts" and it is doubtful if any of them were Jewish or had practiced anything that could be said to be Jewish outside of their particular Christian Jewish syncreticisms. Their "priests and scribes" and "Pharisees and Sadducees" were stand-ins for other Christian Jews they were in dialogue and dispute with; not an actual Palestinian Judaism.
Your question as asked by others already, isn't well specified...
Many people don't even comprehend Yeshua's angle against the Pharisee...
Which from my own understanding of both heaven and hell, is that where as the only requirements for heaven are unconditional love, faith and to share wisdom; the Pharisee had emphasized law, religious ritual and dogma, thus completely missing the point, and leading people closer to hell.
Many people don't even comprehend Yeshua's angle against the Pharisee...
Which from my own understanding of both heaven and hell, is that where as the only requirements for heaven are unconditional love, faith and to share wisdom; the Pharisee had emphasized law, religious ritual and dogma, thus completely missing the point, and leading people closer to hell.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Sure it is. I think you mean,it is not pertaining to one subject. No, it isn't. Would discussing one subject answer the OP question? We are talking about who is more correct, overall.
That's not my problem; hopefully, they don't vote.
Which from my own understanding of both heaven and hell, is that where as the only requirements for heaven are unconditional love, faith and to share wisdom; the Pharisee had emphasized law, religious ritual and dogma, thus completely missing the point, and leading people closer to hell.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There is more to what Jesus disagreed with, with the Pharisees, then merely the hypocrisy subject. The Pharisees literally had different views on how the Sabbath should be observed, for example.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, what God tells Moses to teach was all wrong, and the Ten Commandments were just dumb little rituals, and this doesn't even include the 603 other Commandments as found in Torah that are also stated in Torah to have come from God? Can I then assume you took your Bible, took out all the pages in what Christians call the "Old Testament", and then just tossed them into the garbage? Sorry to be snarky, but you just trashed your Bible.Your question as asked by others already, isn't well specified...
Many people don't even comprehend Yeshua's angle against the Pharisee...
Which from my own understanding of both heaven and hell, is that where as the only requirements for heaven are unconditional love, faith and to share wisdom; the Pharisee had emphasized law, religious ritual and dogma, thus completely missing the point, and leading people closer to hell.
First off it isn't my Bible, because there are so many holes and plagiarizations of other religions within it, would be embarrassed to even comprehend such a thing.
Yeshua quoted the ten commandments and said the law will still stand until judgement day, so none of that was being removed... The point is, that the religious ritual aspect of that, isn't what gets anyone into heaven; instead it keeps them in hell.
Unfortunately that has gotten worse as well, with even more Pharisee laws; causing more debates and less faith... You don't need any religion to have faith.
Religious laws lead to religious bigotry; religious ritualistic behavior can lead to self righteousness... So Yeshua was quite clear on all of this; yet sadly was murdered for trying to help.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Here's the Law as it appears in Torah, and you'll see that it's a lot more than just the Decalogue: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)First off it isn't my Bible, because there are so many holes and plagiarizations of other religions within it, would be embarrassed to even comprehend such a thing.
Yeshua quoted the ten commandments and said the law will still stand until judgement day, so none of that was being removed... The point is, that the religious ritual aspect of that, isn't what gets anyone into heaven; instead it keeps them in hell.
Unfortunately that has gotten worse as well, with even more Pharisee laws; causing more debates and less faith... You don't need any religion to have faith.
Religious laws lead to religious bigotry; religious ritualistic behavior can lead to self righteousness... So Yeshua was quite clear on all of this; yet sadly was murdered for trying to help.
Secondly, which Bible are you using if the "O.T." isn't found within it? Are you aware of the fact that without it, then the background information about items like "God", the prophetic writings, and the "Messiah" are missing?
Thirdly, only some of the Law deals with what you call "ritual", but most don't.
Fourthly, "faith without works is like symbols clashing", and guess where that came from?
Fifthly, Jesus was pretty much working from a liberal Pharisee position.
And finally, Jesus was killed, not murdered ("murder" is a legal term) by the Romans.
My main point of getting into this (this is my last post on this, however), is that picking and choosing which Laws you prefer to label as valid is quite problematic since how exactly do you supposedly know which is valid and which is not, and I would suggest that unless you think you're God, it's pretty much a non-starter. Without the "O.T.", the "N.T." becomes quite meaningless.
Not sure why you're interrogating and accusing me, like I'm a Christian or something... Regardless of that; didn't say the Tanakh was removed, said it was there until judgement day...Like Yeshua did.
All the laws are required to establish what is legally correct; yet legality doesn't get you into heaven, faith, unconditional love and wisdom do....Yet illegality can remove you from heaven, thus why the law is required until J-day.
The topic is on are the Pharisees wrong Vs Yeshua... So since oral tradition is orthodox Judaism now, then there are so many rituals in that, it is beyond counting.... Quoting the Torah laws and saying that is all there is, is a strawman argument to the topic; Yeshua Challenged the Pharisees for fabricating oral traditions, and creating additional ritualistic behavior, which wasn't intended.
Sorry don't actually care for a religious mumbo jumbo approach to the word faith. Faith is a feeling from the heart that even atheist have, It takes great faith for Richard Dawkins to challenge the ideas he has. It takes faith to climb a mountain, and if you climb with someone, you must have faith in their abilities... This is the faith Yeshua was referring to.... What Pauline Christianity established was 'The Faith', which is merely a religious belief.
Just because people arrive at similar understandings from using the Tanakh, doesn't automatically make someone a Pharisee; Yeshua denied much of the oral traditions, thus clearly defining him separately.... He has views that are Essene in nature as well.
The Bible is a legal book, thus it makes sense to use legal terminology; the Pharisees and high council premeditated his death, and orchestrated it by forcing Pilates decision, this is premeditated murder.
Since I've not stated that at any point, and you are going on your own presumptions, that don't match anything I'm saying.... You've completely missed the point of what was said.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Oh, I can't just help to comment on your misunderstandings or manipulations here.
If you believe in "Yeshua", you're a "Christian". Whether you decide to call yourself as such, I have no concern with.
We were not talking about heaven, and I find it quite comical that you actually think you know what would get one there if it indeed exists. Who made you God's counselor?
It's called the "Oral Law" and you obviously have no clue what it's about. Also, orthodox Judaism is a lot more than just the Oral Law as it only helps to clarify points of contention, and it also includes various court decisions over the centuries, which were mandated by God to Moses. The Oral Law cannot supersede Torah.
The quote I gave you about faith actually was from Paul, but I guess you're not familiar with his writings.
The Pharisees were not a monolithic group but was actually a movement that had different schools within it. The fact that Jesus taught about heaven, rabbis, went to synagogue, etc. was a characteristic of the movement in general. Also, Paul identifies himself as being a Pharisee upon arrest, and being a Pharisee is a choice and not something one's born into.
The Bible is not a legal book but a book about faith and moral teachings, and it's clear that you have decided to come up with your own definition of "murder" that defies even basic logic. Under Roman law, which was what Jesus was condemned on, they carried out that which their law contained, thus it cannot be viewed as being "murder".
What's bizarre about your approach is your "picking & choosing" approach, viewing some items as being literal but then just pooh-poohing that which you don't want to accept. That is not good theology or even remotely close to it.
BTW, the word "faith", as it is found in Koine Greek, is "pistis", and it's used as a noun that implies actions. IOW, one doesn't have faith; one lives out faith. James covers this as well in the book attributed to him, but then it wouldn't surprise me if you rejected him as well so as to stick with your predetermined beliefs..
Levite
Higher and Higher
The question in the OP is not well constructed.
"Right" about what? Jesus said to care for the poor, the ill, the disenfranchised. So did the Rabbis (Pharisees). Both right. Jesus said to worship God. So did the Rabbis. Both right. Jesus said to keep to the laws in the Torah and the teachings of the Prophets. So did the Rabbis. Both right.
Jesus was a renegade, trained but not ordained by Pharisaic teachers, who apparently constructed some of his own theological and practical interpretations, influenced in part by ascetic theology and practice. He also apparently claimed to be the messiah-- much like any number of other charismatics running around ancient Israel in those days. In setting his own interpretational authority above the Rabbis, in demanding strictnesses of his followers not mandated by Jewish Law, and in promoting himself as the messiah when he was not, he was wrong.
The Rabbis were right in what they taught about halachah (Jewish Law), about Rabbinic authority, about how to observe the commandments, about how to live an effective Jewish life. And they were right in rejecting Jesus as a heretic and false messiah, and about rejecting his followers as first heretics and apostates, and then as non-Jews seeking to usurp the name of Judaism. Because the followers of Jesus who came after him made his case far worse than I would think he ever made it himself, by rejecting the commandments in every meaningful way, by usurping the language of the covenant between God and Israel and trying to make it something for non-Jews, by deifying Jesus, and by alternately oppressing Jews and trying to induce them to apostasy.
"Right" about what? Jesus said to care for the poor, the ill, the disenfranchised. So did the Rabbis (Pharisees). Both right. Jesus said to worship God. So did the Rabbis. Both right. Jesus said to keep to the laws in the Torah and the teachings of the Prophets. So did the Rabbis. Both right.
Jesus was a renegade, trained but not ordained by Pharisaic teachers, who apparently constructed some of his own theological and practical interpretations, influenced in part by ascetic theology and practice. He also apparently claimed to be the messiah-- much like any number of other charismatics running around ancient Israel in those days. In setting his own interpretational authority above the Rabbis, in demanding strictnesses of his followers not mandated by Jewish Law, and in promoting himself as the messiah when he was not, he was wrong.
The Rabbis were right in what they taught about halachah (Jewish Law), about Rabbinic authority, about how to observe the commandments, about how to live an effective Jewish life. And they were right in rejecting Jesus as a heretic and false messiah, and about rejecting his followers as first heretics and apostates, and then as non-Jews seeking to usurp the name of Judaism. Because the followers of Jesus who came after him made his case far worse than I would think he ever made it himself, by rejecting the commandments in every meaningful way, by usurping the language of the covenant between God and Israel and trying to make it something for non-Jews, by deifying Jesus, and by alternately oppressing Jews and trying to induce them to apostasy.