Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[Desert Snake]

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.

 

[jeager106]

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.

Perhaps it's just me but I don't understand the debate part in this confusing post.
Please define "problems within the priesthood", "interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees, and what do you mean by
"aside from the nature of Jesus"?

 

[Desert Snake]

Perhaps it's just me but I don't understand the debate part in this confusing post.
Please define "problems within the priesthood", "interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees, and what do you mean by
"aside from the nature of Jesus"?

''aside from the nature of Jesus", means that we are focusing on the interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees, and leaving out possible authority from a divine nature, so forth.

Can't make the other points simpler, not sure why it is confusing, in your opinion.

 

[pearl]

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.

He was not ant-pharisaic, He was anti-hypocrisy. He agreed with the teaching authority of the Pharisees, they held the 'chair' of Moses, but warned not to do as they do.
He was opposed to the teaching of the Sadducees.

 

[wizanda]

Wasn't so much anti-pharisee... More like anti-religious nature, that leads us into dogma and further away from God.

 

[Tumah]

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.

You understand that most Pharisees were not priests right?

I would say he was anti-Pharisee. If you look at the Woes, for instance, the negative issues that are brought up that can't really be observed. For instance:
" You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matt. 23)."
Is this observable? Who can say who is getting into heaven?

"You travel over land and sea to win a single convert and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."
Well, theoretically, we can see Pharisees travelling to make conversions. But what is the standard through which we determine that the new convert is a child of hell?

" You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."
This seems to be saying that they fulfill all the external Laws, but not the internal ones. How can one determine this? I can see someone stand in prayer for half an hour and not be able to determine whether he was doing it out of haughtiness or intense concentration.

What we see from here, is someone trying to make arguments against the Pharisees. But lacking external issues he can clearly point to for others to see, he was forced to make up things that no one can really say he's wrong about. Who could say yea or nay? Only G-d is the one who can attest to the inner feelings of a person (Jer. 11:20), so Jesus had to cover that angle too. And that's really how we can see that it was all contrived to pull the rug out from under them.

 

[jeager106]

''aside from the nature of Jesus", means that we are focusing on the interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees, and leaving out possible authority from a divine nature, so forth.

Can't make the other points simpler, not sure why it is confusing, in your opinion.

O.K. thank you.
As was mentioned Jesus was against the way the Jewish authority led Jews away from God.
He was then anti-hypocracy, even saying to them " you hypocrites", saying they were a den of vipers.

 

[roger1440]

This seems to be saying that they fulfill all the external Laws, but not the internal ones. How can one determine this? I can see someone stand in prayer for half an hour and not be able to determine whether he was doing it out of haughtiness or intense concentration.

Would you agree the “internal ones” are just important as the “external laws”? That is the only point being made.

 

[Tumah]

Would you agree the “internal ones” are just important as the “external laws”? That is the only point being made.

They are just as important insomuch as they are Laws just like the external ones.
That's the only point being made where? In the OP? In Matt? By you?

 

[roger1440]

They are just as important insomuch as they are Laws just like the external ones.
That's the only point being made where? In the OP? In Matt? By you?

That's the point being made by Jesus in the gospels.

Jesus was not against the Pharisees. He endorsed them. Jesus was against hypocrisy.

“1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 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.” (Matthew 23:1-2)

 

[pearl]

I would say he was anti-Pharisee. If you look at the Woes, for instance, the negative issues that are brought up that can't really be observed. For instance:
" You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matt. 23)."
Is this observable? Who can say who is getting into heaven?[/QUOTE}


This is a metaphor expressing that the authority of the Pharisees is exercised in a way to be an obstacle, to entrance.

They tie up heavy burdens [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

"You travel over land and sea to win a single convert and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."
Well, theoretically, we can see Pharisees travelling to make conversions. But what is the standard through which we determine that the new convert is a child of hell?

Until the First Jewish Revolt against Rome many Pharisees conducted a vigorous missionary campaign among Gentiles, a "proselyte" who accepted Judaism fully by submitting to circumcision and all requirements of Mosaic law. The zeal of the convert surpassing that of the one who converted him.

" You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean."

Another metaphor illustrating a concern for appearances while inner purity is ignored. Thus the hypocrisy.

What we see from here, is someone trying to make arguments against the Pharisees.

What we see here is Jesus the Jew, a Pharisaic Jew, speaking as a prophet, Amos comes to mind. He admonishes people to follow their doctrine for they teach
with the authority of Moses.

 

[CMike]

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.

Yes, he was anti-Jewish.

 

[CMike]

O.K. thank you.
As was mentioned Jesus was against the way the Jewish authority led Jews away from God.
He was then anti-hypocracy, even saying to them " you hypocrites", saying they were a den of vipers.

It was jesus whom attempted to lead the Jews away from the true G-D.

 

[Pegg]

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.

The pharisees were a jewish sect who developed their own elevated way of applying the mosaic law. They were absolutely strict in their adherence...but unfortunately it was all an 'outward' display of piety. Jesus was against this to his very core because he knew that from within is where wicked reasonings and sin originates. According to Jesus, the pharisees were not clean at heart....they merely looked righteous for appearance sake.

Pharisees apparently felt that defilement resulted from association with persons who did not observe the Law according to their view of it. In this they are very much like ISIS and other extremist groups who, if you dont believe and practice in the way they do, view you as a sinner worthy of destruction. They were quick to enforce the death penalty on people just as extremists do today.

Also the Pharisees (the name likely meaning 'Separated ones') were not of the priestly class. They were not priests but self appointed legalistic jews... the Apostle Paul himself had trained as a lawyer in mosaic law when he was a member of the pharisees sect. Jesus was against legalism of law becuause his God was one of 'mercy and forgiveness'
This is where the two ideals become irreconcilable. Legalistic pharisees demanded law and punishment while Jesus demanded forgiveness and mercy.

I know who'd I'd rather be following.

 

[CMike]

The problem is that jesus told Jews falsely that he had divine power. That they must go through him to get to G-D which was false for the Jews. And that if they didn't accept him (jesus) they would go to hell.

For Jews that is patently ridiculous. Therefore, jesus lecturing Jews on what was wrong or right was a really big ethical and moral prolbem.

G-D told the Jews in more than 30 passages that there is only him, and to worship only him. Any other god not known by Avraham, Issac, and Jacob should not be followed.

 

[jeager106]

It was jesus whom attempted to lead the Jews away from the true G-D.

Please explain what leads you to believe Jesus led Jews away from the true god?
Without some sort of reference your assertion is purely speculative and subjective.

 

[Tumah]

That's the point being made by Jesus in the gospels.

Jesus was not against the Pharisees. He endorsed them. Jesus was against hypocrisy.

“1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 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.” (Matthew 23:1-2)

I'm sorry, but all that line does is contradict the remainder of the chapter. Because that would mean he is telling people to be hypocritical.

This is a metaphor expressing that the authority of the Pharisees is exercised in a way to be an obstacle, to entrance.
They tie up heavy burdens [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

And how did Jesus determine that they were not legitimately ruling according to what they believed correct?
I think [the author had] Jesus making an appeal to the illiterate who hated the Pharisees and would not be knowledgeable in how the Pharisees determined the Law. Or the author himself may not have been knowledgeable in this and mistakenly assumed.
As Rabbi Akiva said, "When I was illiterate (he only began learning at the age of 40), I would say 'who would give me a Sage, that I may bite him like a donkey.'"

Until the First Jewish Revolt against Rome many Pharisees conducted a vigorous missionary campaign among Gentiles, a "proselyte" who accepted Judaism fully by submitting to circumcision and all requirements of Mosaic law. The zeal of the convert surpassing that of the one who converted him.

You'll have to provide proof outside the NT that this campaign indeed happened. But as to the zeal of converts, this was already noted and is one of the reasons that in general Jews would rather not make converts.

Another metaphor illustrating a concern for appearances while inner purity is ignored. Thus the hypocrisy.

Yes, but how is this observable.

What we see here is Jesus the Jew, a Pharisaic Jew, speaking as a prophet, Amos comes to mind. He admonishes people to follow their doctrine for they teach with the authority of Moses.

Sorry, not every Joe can get up and call himself a prophet. There are rules to affirming prophecy. And according to the NT at least, the Pharisees who sit in the seat of Moses, to whom we must be careful to do everything they tell us, told us that Jesus did not fulfill those requirements. They also told us: not to pick grain on the Sabbath. Not to carry on the Sabbath in certain scenarios, not to heal on the Sabbath, etc.
Who's the hypocrite?

 

[Levite]

I doubt we can really know what Jesus truly felt and taught, since we have only third-hand and further removed accounts claiming to represent what he did and said.

If there is any truth to be had from reading between the lines of those accounts, and perhaps reading them against the earlier (and likely more reliable) accounts in the Talmud, my guess would be that the historical Jesus was not "anti-Pharisee" per se, so much as in disagreement with them about certain theologies and priorities of practice. He himself was likely a renegade Pharisee, so he was unlikely to be 100% in opposition to them. He was almost certainly opposed to the corruption that plagued the priesthood that time: but then again, the Pharisees were also opposed to that corruption.

They were absolutely strict in their adherence...but unfortunately it was all an 'outward' display of piety.

This is simply inaccurate. Pharisaic law is in fact extremely flexible and nuanced, and geared deeply toward application in mercy. The Rabbis repeatedly give us principles for tempering judgment with compassion.

Moreover, in their discussions of observance of the commandments, they frequently refer to matters of motivation and intent, and questions dealing with internal matters both as provocation to and result of action, and the spiritual meanings and ramifications of observances. The way they understood Torah and observance was in no way, shape, or form merely an outward display of piety. That simply could not be a less accurate depiction of them.

Pharisees apparently felt that defilement resulted from association with persons who did not observe the Law according to their view of it. In this they are very much like ISIS and other extremist groups who, if you dont believe and practice in the way they do, view you as a sinner worthy of destruction. They were quick to enforce the death penalty on people just as extremists do today.

Again, absolutely inaccurate, to the point of being offensively ignorant. It is, on the contrary, extraordinarily difficult to execute anyone under Rabbinic Law. During the end of the Second Temple period, they actually suspended capital hearings in the Sanhedrin altogether, since they could not be certain any convicted party would not be turned over to the Romans for execution, which was prohibited. A Sanhedrin at other times which executed someone once in seven years was called a "bloody court." Rabbi Akiva, the famous sage who was arguably the most influential of the early Rabbis, is noted for remarking that had he been on a capital Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed.

The Pharisees and Tannaim (their Rabbinic successors) were in absolutely no way comparable to ISIS. They were not radicals, and while they were certainly not always models of tolerance, they were not at all prone to simply condemning anyone who disagreed with them to death, or declaring them worthy of death. They dealt with different peoples in different ways, had more and less empathy for different groups, but were largely content to let be, if let alone.

Also the Pharisees (the name likely meaning 'Separated ones') were not of the priestly class

Pharisee comes from the Hebrew Perushi, which more or less means "Those Who Interpret" or "Those Who Find Meanings." Nothing to do with separation.

 

[Pegg]

I doubt we can really know what Jesus truly felt and taught, since we have only third-hand and further removed accounts claiming to represent what he did and said.

If there is any truth to be had from reading between the lines of those accounts, and perhaps reading them against the earlier (and likely more reliable) accounts in the Talmud, my guess would be that the historical Jesus was not "anti-Pharisee" per se, so much as in disagreement with them about certain theologies and priorities of practice. He himself was likely a renegade Pharisee, so he was unlikely to be 100% in opposition to them. He was almost certainly opposed to the corruption that plagued the priesthood that time: but then again, the Pharisees were also opposed to that corruption.

It was noted in the gospels that Jesus did not attend the rabbinical schools. If the gospels accounts really were as you say, 'third-hand/removed accounts', then telling people that Jesus was 'unschooled' was a pretty stupid claim to make about someone you wanted people to follow as disciples, don't you think?

The most influential group at the time were the pharisees as described by Josephus “And so great is their influence with the masses that even when they speak against a king or high priest, they immediately gain credence.”—JewishAntiquities, XIII, 288 (x, 5). When they spoke, people listened. Surely if Jesus disciples wanted the masses to join the following, being a pharisee would have got Jesus a lot more converts.

I believe this is evidence that the writers were giving a very true and accurate account of the character of Jesus.

This is simply inaccurate. Pharisaic law is in fact extremely flexible and nuanced, and geared deeply toward application in mercy. The Rabbis repeatedly give us principles for tempering judgment with compassion.

Moreover, in their discussions of observance of the commandments, they frequently refer to matters of motivation and intent, and questions dealing with internal matters both as provocation to and result of action, and the spiritual meanings and ramifications of observances. The way they understood Torah and observance was in no way, shape, or form merely an outward display of piety. That simply could not be a less accurate depiction of them.

You can only base your understanding of the sect of the pharisees on what you see in judaism today...and they likely are two very different schools of thought. The judaism of today may be nothing like the Judaism in the first century when the priesthood still existed. Judaism changed drastically after the destruction of the temple and with all due respect, I dont think you can really have a clear understanding of how it operated back then anymore then I can understand how my organisation functioned 100 years ago. You and I are far removed from the past and our understanding will be based on what we see and hear today.

Again, absolutely inaccurate, to the point of being offensively ignorant. It is, on the contrary, extraordinarily difficult to execute anyone under Rabbinic Law. During the end of the Second Temple period, they actually suspended capital hearings in the Sanhedrin altogether, since they could not be certain any convicted party would not be turned over to the Romans for execution, which was prohibited. A Sanhedrin at other times which executed someone once in seven years was called a "bloody court." Rabbi Akiva, the famous sage who was arguably the most influential of the early Rabbis, is noted for remarking that had he been on a capital Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed.

Again, the fact that the account of Jesus trial and execution is described in detail in the gospels as going against what was normal makes it even more believable that the writers did give us a true and accurate account. If what they wrote about Jesus trial in the dead of night is false, then everyone would have known it was false and the followers of Jesus would not have got away with such an elaborate lie.

But you yourself admit that the priesthood was corrupt... so the likelihood is that the unlawful trial by the sanhedrin (the pharisees included) was most probable and highly likely. It would be naive to claim the priesthood to be corrupt, but then at the same time claim they would never have trialed someone unlawfully. A corrupt 'anything' would act unlawfully so why wouldn't they?

The Pharisees and Tannaim (their Rabbinic successors) were in absolutely no way comparable to ISIS. They were not radicals, and while they were certainly not always models of tolerance, they were not at all prone to simply condemning anyone who disagreed with them to death, or declaring them worthy of death. They dealt with different peoples in different ways, had more and less empathy for different groups, but were largely content to let be, if let alone.

they were very intolerant of any jew who followed Jesus. They killed them. So is that ok for a jew to kill a jew? Judge for yourself.

Pharisee comes from the Hebrew Perushi, which more or less means "Those Who Interpret" or "Those Who Find Meanings." Nothing to do with separation.

some scholars say otherwise.

But if it does mean 'those who interpret', then surely that is an indication that they were already overstepping the commandment of God for only the priesthood were given the authority to teach the Mosaic law. And if so, then Jesus was right to condemn them as hypocrites who 'overstep the commandments of God'

Jesus certainly did not support them, nor was he one of them.

 

[pearl]

Sorry, not every Joe can get up and call himself a prophet. There are rules to affirming prophecy. And according to the NT at least, the Pharisees who sit in the seat of Moses, to whom we must be careful to do everything they tell us, told us that Jesus did not fulfill those requirements. They also told us: not to pick grain on the Sabbath. Not to carry on the Sabbath in certain scenarios, not to heal on the Sabbath, etc.
Who's the hypocrite?

In the conflict over the Sabbath, to pick grain or to heal, is not the real issue, which is the 'Son of Man' is 'Lord of the Sabbath', to be Temple and Torah in person. In answering the question, 'what good deed must I do to have eternal life?'. "Follow Me'.