Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

rosends said:

and if you want to read the others and ignore that one then you have a point.

Click to expand...

I have ignored nothing. Just reading a text in context. At least I defend a position with a logical argument. I quoted many places of Rabbinic abuse of scripture in other threads which you still haven't responded to. Talk about ignoring.

disciple said:

I don't agree that ''Pharisaic', means the same thing as ''Rabbinic''.

Click to expand...

Why not?

Simplelogic said:

I have ignored nothing. Just reading a text in context. At least I defend a position with a logical argument. I quoted many places of Rabbinic abuse of scripture in other threads which you still haven't responded to. Talk about ignoring.

Click to expand...

I ignore because we don't share bases for conversation. Your faith and interpretive schema vests authority and explanatory control in a place different from mine. The difference is that you condemn that difference and I simply walk away from it.

Simplelogic said:

Why not?

Click to expand...

Well, they are different contextual labels, besides some possible theological differences as well. I might start a thread on this.

disciple said:

Well, they are different contextual labels, besides some possible theological differences as well. I might start a thread on this.

Click to expand...

Looking forward to it

rosends said:

I ignore because we don't share bases for conversation. Your faith and interpretive schema vests authority and explanatory control in a place different from mine. The difference is that you condemn that difference and I simply walk away from it.

Click to expand...

So, because I don't believe the Rabbi's have interpretative authority, this means you can't respond to my very specific claims of textual corruption and manipulation? I condemn the idea of blatantly distorting original texts to prove a particular doctrine. You realize that the Rabbi's have done this but you are still forced to defend their positions and even accept them as authoritative.

Simplelogic said:

So, because I don't believe the Rabbi's have interpretative authority, this means you can't respond to my very specific claims of textual corruption and manipulation? I condemn the idea of blatantly distorting original texts to prove a particular doctrine. You realize that the Rabbi's have done this but you are still forced to defend their positions and even accept them as authoritative.

Click to expand...

If you could read your own writing dispassionately, you'd see the language you used which establishes clear preconceived notions and ideas which make any explanation worthless. You can't see beyond yourself and your loaded language so it makes no sense to try and discuss things with you.

rosends said:

If you could read your own writing dispassionately, you'd see the language you used which establishes clear preconceived notions and ideas which make any explanation worthless. You can't see beyond yourself and your loaded language so it makes no sense to try and discuss things with you.

Click to expand...

Or…you simply can't defend Rabbinic authority.

Simplelogic said:

Or…you simply can't defend Rabbinic authority.

Click to expand...

Or you wouldn't understand it if I did. Should we keep guessing and imputing motives?

rosends said:

Or you wouldn't understand it if I did. Should we keep guessing and imputing motives?

Click to expand...

riiiiiiight….its so complex

A good book I recently finished was David Flusser's The Sage from Galilee, I think he's actually written the best book on Jesus's paradigm in the 2nd Temple Period.

Levite said:

Not to mention that his presumed messiahdom comes to him through Joseph's blood. It was only much later, when the whole virgin birth/literal son of God thing came into Christianity that they had to tie themselves into knots trying to find Davidic blood on Mary's side, ignoring the genealogy that still ended up leading in Matthew (and ignoring the fact that royal blood, like tribal affiliation, in ancient Israel was patrilineal, not matrilineal).

Click to expand...

I can't remember the exact source. I read about it in, but I heard about a Talmudic legend about Yocheved regaining her virginity(puberty?) before conceiving Moses. I would theorize that perhaps it was reapplied to the motif of Jesus being a new Moses. I believe my source was David Daube, but I don't remember the exact work he mentions it in.

Modern Judaism concept was revived after AD 70 by rabbis. In accordance to Josephus the Jews before AD 70 are more or less as described by the Bible. They adopt the Pharisaic basic concepts such as immortal soul, afterlife and so forth which are absent in today's Judaism.

The elite Pharisees are mostly killed in the 70 AD siege. Not even Josephus is considered in the inner circle of the elite Pharisees as Josephus actually believe in reincarnation, though in his own circle some Pharisees may ask him for opinions as he's a clever guy.

More likely today's Judaism is revived by the rabbis from outside Jerusalem (likely from Egypt). They reformed Judaism while adapting the concepts more of the Sadducees than the Pharisees as before 70 AD.

Hawkins said:

Modern Judaism concept was revived after AD 70 by rabbis. In accordance to Josephus the Jews before AD 70 are more or less as described by the Bible. They adopt the Pharisaic basic concepts such as immortal soul, afterlife and so forth which are absent in today's Judaism.

Click to expand...

Actually, Pharisaic Judaism has its roots deep into the first century or two BCE, during the Second Temple Period. There were already differences of practice in the Second Temple from the First, and by the first century BCE, many changes began evolving due to corruption in the Priesthood, first at the hands of the degenerating Hasmonean rulers, then at the hands of the Herodian puppet kings of Rome, and this corruption was widespread in the Sadducee movement of priests.

The evolution of Second Temple Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism was difficult due to the loss of the Temple, but not a complete innovation-- rather, it was a transformation, with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who succeeded them taking familiar ideas, concepts, and practices already being done, and reshaping them into the core of a Judaism without a Temple. The idea of an immortal soul and an afterlife seems to have already been in play during the Second Temple period. And they remained in Rabbinic Judaism, which is why today's Jews for the vast majority absolutely do believe in an immortal soul and some kinf of afterlife.

The elite Pharisees are mostly killed in the 70 AD siege. Not even Josephus is considered in the inner circle of the elite Pharisees as Josephus actually believe in reincarnation, though in his own circle some Pharisees may ask him for opinions as he's a clever guy.

Click to expand...

Josephus has nothing to do with Pharisee religious leadership. He was a mid-level military leader who became a Roman apostate. He had absolutely zero religious significance or authority. The elite Pharisees were not mostly killed in 70 AD. Many died in that siege, but by no means all, and the Sanhedrin had already been removed from Jerusalem to Yavneh. The Pharisee elite at that point simply continued training others to follow them, the only difference is that by that generation, we no longer called them Perushim (Pharisees) but Tannaim ("Teachers" or "Repeaters From Memory").

More likely today's Judaism is revived by the rabbis from outside Jerusalem (likely from Egypt). They reformed Judaism while adapting the concepts more of the Sadducees than the Pharisees as before 70 AD.

Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect. Modern Judaism is the evolution of Pharisaic thought. It is entirely free of Sadducee influence. The major Rabbinic centers after 70 CE were not Egyptian-- Egypt was not a major center of Jewish thought until a thousand years later. The major centers of Jewish thought immediately following 70CE were Yavneh (Jabneh or Jamnia) and Tzipori (Sepphoris), and within a couple of hundred years, the greater centers of Rabbinic thought established in Babylonia.

Pharisees were a prominent religious sect of Judaism. They were the scholars of the Law and the traditions. The Pharisees evaluated the oral (manmade) traditions OVER the God given Mosaic Law. That cause them to oppose clear Jesus teachings about God, his qualities and purpose. They rejected Jesus from Nazareth as the promised Messiah and thus caused him a painful death.

Jesus, Paul, and probably most of the disciples were likely Pharisees, but of the more liberal type. What we read in the gospels is essentially a family feud between the more orthodox and more liberal camps, mostly centering around the application of the Law by all indications.

Nadia Faiazova said:

Pharisees were a prominent religious sect of Judaism. They were the scholars of the Law and the traditions. The Pharisees evaluated the oral (manmade) traditions OVER the God given Mosaic Law. That cause them to oppose clear Jesus teachings about God, his qualities and purpose. They rejected Jesus from Nazareth as the promised Messiah and thus caused him a painful death.

Click to expand...

Can you give an example of the Pharisees evaluating oral (manmade) traditions OVER the G-d given Mosaic Law?

Can you also provide proof that Jesus' teachings were in any way more authentic than the Pharisees'?

syncretic said:

Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic, or merely bringing up problems within the priesthood?
/ we are focusing on the interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees, aside from the nature of Jesus.

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with what the Pharisees preached (Pharisaic concepts). The problem with Pharisees in general was that they didn't do what they preach.

Matthew 23:2-3 (NIV2011)
2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.
3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Levite said:

Actually, Pharisaic Judaism has its roots deep into the first century or two BCE, during the Second Temple Period. There were already differences of practice in the Second Temple from the First, and by the first century BCE, many changes began evolving due to corruption in the Priesthood, first at the hands of the degenerating Hasmonean rulers, then at the hands of the Herodian puppet kings of Rome, and this corruption was widespread in the Sadducee movement of priests.

The evolution of Second Temple Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism was difficult due to the loss of the Temple, but not a complete innovation-- rather, it was a transformation, with the Pharisees and the Rabbis who succeeded them taking familiar ideas, concepts, and practices already being done, and reshaping them into the core of a Judaism without a Temple. The idea of an immortal soul and an afterlife seems to have already been in play during the Second Temple period. And they remained in Rabbinic Judaism, which is why today's Jews for the vast majority absolutely do believe in an immortal soul and some kinf of afterlife.



Josephus has nothing to do with Pharisee religious leadership. He was a mid-level military leader who became a Roman apostate. He had absolutely zero religious significance or authority. The elite Pharisees were not mostly killed in 70 AD. Many died in that siege, but by no means all, and the Sanhedrin had already been removed from Jerusalem to Yavneh. The Pharisee elite at that point simply continued training others to follow them, the only difference is that by that generation, we no longer called them Perushim (Pharisees) but Tannaim ("Teachers" or "Repeaters From Memory").



Absolutely incorrect. Modern Judaism is the evolution of Pharisaic thought. It is entirely free of Sadducee influence. The major Rabbinic centers after 70 CE were not Egyptian-- Egypt was not a major center of Jewish thought until a thousand years later. The major centers of Jewish thought immediately following 70CE were Yavneh (Jabneh or Jamnia) and Tzipori (Sepphoris), and within a couple of hundred years, the greater centers of Rabbinic thought established in Babylonia.

Click to expand...

No. Read Josephus' works.

Pharisaic concepts:
Soul is immortal
Hell is eternal
Man has freewill but under God's sovereignty (predestination exists)

Essene concepts:
Soul is immortal
Hell is eternal
Man has no freewill but absolutely predestined

Sadducee concepts
Man has no soul
Hell doesn't exist
Man has absolute freewill, predestination doesn't exist

Jews in majority back then adapted the Pharisaic concepts. Today's Judaism concepts however resemble more of the Sadducee ones, as a result of the rabbinical fabrication (including the Talmud itself) after AD 200. Original Jewish concepts were gone with the elite Pharisees in AD 70 siege. It's actually the absence of the authenticated Pharisaic enforcement (of Oral Law) which drove the fabrication of Talmud.

Hawkins said:

Jews in majority back then adapted the Pharisaic concepts. Today's Judaism concepts however resemble more of the Sadducee ones, as a result of the rabbinical fabrication (including the Talmud itself) after AD 200. Original Jewish concepts were gone with the elite Pharisees in AD 70 siege. It's actually the absence of the authenticated Pharisaic enforcement (of Oral Law) which drove the fabrication of Talmud.

Click to expand...

Most observant Jews today are more aligned with a somewhat liberal Pharisee approach similar to that of Hillel the Elder, thus are not Sadducees.

Secondly, much of the Oral Law comes from traditions and court decisions passed down for centuries prior to its being written in the Mishnah Talmud, so they cannot be considered "fabrications".

Hawkins said:

Jews in majority back then adapted the Pharisaic concepts. Today's Judaism concepts however resemble more of the Sadducee ones, as a result of the rabbinical fabrication (including the Talmud itself) after AD 200. Original Jewish concepts were gone with the elite Pharisees in AD 70 siege. It's actually the absence of the authenticated Pharisaic enforcement (of Oral Law) which drove the fabrication of Talmud.

Click to expand...

My friend, and fellow rabbi, Levite has not been active on this forum for some time - although, for those concerned about his absence, I communicated with him a little ways back and he is alive and well. On his behalf then, on my own behalf, on behalf of just about anyone who knows the slightest bit about the history of Judaism or anything at all about Judaism, let me just say this, in the most charitable manner that I can muster.....

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.