Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[roger1440]

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.

I’m almost 100% certain the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. If I’m right the Pharisees would have been the only surviving major Jewish sect at that time, “Major Jewish sect” being defined as the sect with the highest members. The Pharisees would have posed a threat to the survival of the newly founded Christian sect or whatever they were called. One of the easiest ways to explain what a sect believes in is to point to another sect and explain what they are not. I know this from personal experience. Many years ago I used to go to a protestant church. More than once the pastor would say something like, “we are not like that other church that does this, that and the other thing”. We all knew he was talking about the Catholic Church. I have seen this rhetoric in more than one church. So to answer your question, the Gospels were anti ANY Jewish sect that was not in agreement with them. It’s always the other folks that have the wrong beliefs. We have the right beliefs.

 

[Desert Snake]

I’m almost 100% certain the gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. If I’m right the Pharisees would have been the only surviving major Jewish sect at that time, “Major Jewish sect” being defined as the sect with the highest members. The Pharisees would have posed a threat to the survival of the newly founded Christian sect or whatever they were called. One of the easiest ways to explain what a sect believes in is to point to another sect and explain what they are not. I know this from personal experience. Many years ago I used to go to a protestant church. More than once the pastor would say something like, “we are not like that other church that does this, that and the other thing”. We all knew he was talking about the Catholic Church. I have seen this rhetoric in more than one church. So to answer your question, the Gospels were anti ANY Jewish sect that was not in agreement with them. It’s always the other folks that have the wrong beliefs. We have the right beliefs.

I have to trust Scholarly sources, /that know the languages, etc., / and the parallel religious & Scriptural indications, that the Gospels were not written in Greek, or not entirely written in Greek, so forth. Hence the idea of a later Gospels, is not an option as far as I'm concerned. The other part, yes that's probably a normal thing for churches , (and religions), to do.

 

[Tumah]

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.

No but seriously. Do you have any idea how many times the Talmud discusses: the existence of the soul, Hell (Purgatory really, Hell is not eternal in Pharisaic Judaism), freewill and predestination? I can give you multiple passages describing all these things.
And they all continue to exist today in Orthodox Judaism.

 

[Desert Snake]

No but seriously. Do you have any idea how many times the Talmud discusses: the existence of the soul, Hell (Purgatory really, Hell is not eternal in Pharisaic Judaism), freewill and predestination? I can give you multiple passages describing all these things.
And they all continue to exist today in Orthodox Judaism.

Are you saying that Hell is never eternal, in any instance?

 

[Tumah]

Are you saying that Hell is never eternal, in any instance?

Yes. Hell itself is a temporary construct in Judaism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes. Hell itself is a temporary construct in Judaism.

Ah.
Actually, Hell is also not eternal in Christianity, however the Gehenna is ultimate destruction.

The 'other' hell or hells is destroyed, at some point

 

[roger1440]

I have to trust Scholarly sources, /that know the languages, etc., / and the parallel religious & Scriptural indications, that the Gospels were not written in Greek, or not entirely written in Greek, so forth. Hence the idea of a later Gospels, is not an option as far as I'm concerned. The other part, yes that's probably a normal thing for churches , (and religions), to do.

And what do these scholarly sources say?

 

[roger1440]

I have to trust Scholarly sources, /that know the languages, etc., / and the parallel religious & Scriptural indications, that the Gospels were not written in Greek, or not entirely written in Greek, so forth. Hence the idea of a later Gospels, is not an option as far as I'm concerned. The other part, yes that's probably a normal thing for churches , (and religions), to do.

What part of what I wrote do you disagree with?

 

[Desert Snake]

What part of what I wrote do you disagree with?

I don't think that what you wrote, quite explains the anti-Pharisaic content, in the NT. I do think that aside from Scripture, exclusivity in religious adherence, always plays a factor in writings, /'from the pulpit' type of thing; so, no disagreement there.
I think that the Gospels were written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and even perhaps another language, extant in Israel, at the time; and then, consequently, were translated, and used as reference, for the Greek /written Scripture. I also think that utilizing verbal tradition, this was combined with the original Scribal notations, to form the Greek text.


///
I think that there actually was 'disagreement', between not only Jesus, and some Pharisees, but also Jesus's followers, and some Pharisees. This is pretty much what we encounter in the Bible, as, for example, it is Jesus's followers, who were picking grain on the Sabbath. Anyways, that being said, I don't think that these disagreements form a religious concept itself. Rather, the Pharisaic disagreements are incidental. If anything, theologically, the Sadducees were more different in belief, from the Essenes, so forth.
//Nazarene & Essenic religious adherence, and tradition, also informing tendency that separated them from the Pharisees. Consider the /redemptive baptism, in the river, as opposed to the Mikvah that shares a similarity.
And other differences. There is nothing strange about the conflicting nature of the groups, even in the, /national relationship between these groups, as far as I can tell.
Hence, I do not make more of these disagreements, than I deem necessary, to derive the consequential teachings thereof.

 

[metis]

Let me just mention that when the Way expanded into the diasporah, it made more sense to use the Greek, and the prototype for this was the Septuagint.

 

[RabbiO]

I don't think that what you wrote, quite explains the anti-Pharisaic content....

Might by I suggest reading The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers Created a Christian Book by Julie Galambush. Dr. Galambush is a professor of religion at the College of William and Mary in Virgina. Dr. Galambush, who is a convert to Judaism, was originally a Baptist minister.

 

[roger1440]

Might by I suggest reading The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers Created a Christian Book by Julie Galambush. Dr. Galambush is a professor of religion at the College of William and Mary in Virgina. Dr. Galambush, who is a convert to Judaism, was originally a Baptist minister.

Why, what's in it?

 

[metis]

Might by I suggest reading The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers Created a Christian Book by Julie Galambush.

Why, what's in it?

Words.





Sorry, but I couldn't help myself.

 

[roger1440]

I don't think that what you wrote, quite explains the anti-Pharisaic content, in the NT. I do think that aside from Scripture, exclusivity in religious adherence, always plays a factor in writings, /'from the pulpit' type of thing; so, no disagreement there.
I think that the Gospels were written in Aramaic, Hebrew, and even perhaps another language, extant in Israel, at the time; and then, consequently, were translated, and used as reference, for the Greek /written Scripture. I also think that utilizing verbal tradition, this was combined with the original Scribal notations, to form the Greek text.

Ie only some of the content in the Gospels, is Greek language primary.
There are arguments to this /general affect presented in a far more academic manner than I could, or want to; so, to this subject, I would merely suggest researching that, to form your own conclusion, thusly.

///
I think that there actually was 'disagreement', between not only Jesus, and some Pharisees, but also Jesus's followers, and some Pharisees. This is pretty much what we encounter in the Bible, as, for example, it is Jesus's followers, who were picking grain on the Sabbath. Anyways, that being said, I don't think that these disagreements form a religious concept itself. Rather, the Pharisaic disagreements are incidental. If anything, theologically, the Sadducees were more different in belief, from the Essenes, so forth.
//Nazarene & Essenic religious adherence, and tradition, also informing tendency that separated them from the Pharisees. Consider the /redemptive baptism, in the river, as opposed to the Mikvah that shares a similarity.
And other differences. There is nothing strange about the conflicting nature of the groups, even in the, /national relationship between these groups, as far as I can tell.
Hence, I do not make more of these disagreements, than I deem necessary, to derive the consequential teachings thereof.

The disagreements with this Christian sect and ALL other Jewish sects revolve around the Temple. If we were to remove all references to the Temple in the Gospels the Gospels would be meaningless. Therefore the relevance of the Temple to Judaism must be examined. It is no mere coincidence the Gospels were written around the same time the Temple was destroyed.

 

[metis]

The disagreements with this Christian sect and ALL other Jewish sects revolve around the Temple. If we were to remove all references to the Temple in the Gospels the Gospels would be meaningless. Therefore the relevance of the Temple to Judaism must be examined. It is no mere coincidence the Gospels were written around the same time the Temple was destroyed.

Let me be a bit more precise on this and say that it's more about the Mosaic Law and how it should be dealt with, plus the issue of the "Oral Law". Obviously, you are correct in that the Temple is one of the main focus points.

 

[roger1440]

Let me be a bit more precise on this and say that it's more about the Mosaic Law and how it should be dealt with, plus the issue of the "Oral Law". Obviously, you are correct in that the Temple is one of the main focus points.

The “Oral Law” would be only one point. Another would be the Pharisees were hypocrites. The Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. Whoever wrote the Gospels saw the end of the Temple period once and fall all. There would be no future second or third Temple, however you want to count them. The Pharisees represents the past. These writers were offering a fresh new approach to Judaism. To the best of my knowledge there was no game plan on how Judaism would continue without the Temple. No one foresaw its destruction. Not even Rome.

 

[roger1440]

Let me be a bit more precise on this and say that it's more about the Mosaic Law and how it should be dealt with, plus the issue of the "Oral Law". Obviously, you are correct in that the Temple is one of the main focus points.

Any sect that represented the past would have been an opponent to this new Christian sect, regardless of what they believed in. If this new sect was in agreement with the Pharisees on the “Oral Law” then this new sect would have just picked something else about the Pharisees. Did there socks match? Did they have bad breath? It wouldn’t make a difference.

 

[RabbiO]

Why, what's in it?

Prof. Galambush's position is that, and here I primarily lift some of her words from her introduction and epilogue, the material that comprises the Christian New Testament was written by Jews who lived as Jews, thought of themselves as Jews, worshiped as Jews, and who considered themselves part of a movement that had a Jewish future.

In arguing for their belief in Jesus as Messiah, the authors frequently engaged in polemic against those who disagreed with them. Because the sect of Jesus’ followers was a Jewish sect these arguments are necessarily directed against other Jews. Over the centuries the original context of the debates was lost; consequently, Christians have inherited a legacy of texts that often appear simply to condemn Jews as Jews. Read without proper context by non-Jews fundamentally changes - and distorts - its authors' portrayal of Jews.

The book provides a brief historical look at the history of early Christianity, but the heart of the book is a book by book analysis of the components of Christian scripture.

 

[metis]

The “Oral Law” would be only one point. Another would be the Pharisees were hypocrites. The Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. Whoever wrote the Gospels saw the end of the Temple period once and fall all. There would be no future second or third Temple, however you want to count them. The Pharisees represents the past. These writers were offering a fresh new approach to Judaism. To the best of my knowledge there was no game plan on how Judaism would continue without the Temple. No one foresaw its destruction. Not even Rome.

Realistically, one simply should not label the Pharisees as hypocrites. Was Jesus a hypocrite? Paul? However, some undoubtedly were.

Secondly, the Pharisees were not a monolithic group, and I remember reading one archaeologist's book saying that there were at least four different sects of them. If my memory is correct, I think even the Wikipedia article on them may mention that there were different groups of them, and they didn't always get along too well. Jesus' and Paul's direction seems to have fit fairly well into the more liberal Pharisee approach.

Thirdly, we had operated before without the Temple, and that brought about some changes that definitely helped with the making of adjustments after 70 c.e. whereas we put more emphasis on the scriptures and less on ritual. Jesus in turn also reflected that shift.

 

[metis]

Any sect that represented the past would have been an opponent to this new Christian sect, regardless of what they believed in. If this new sect was in agreement with the Pharisees on the “Oral Law” then this new sect would have just picked something else about the Pharisees. Did there socks match? Did they have bad breath? It wouldn’t make a difference.

I can't agree with you here, as I don't believe that the main issues can be that trivial.

We have to remember that the Law is paramount in Judaism, but how the Law was to be interpreted and observed was often quite contentious.

Essentially the Jesus'camp took the very liberal position, imo, of seeing the entire Law in terms of compassion (the "law of love"), thus explaining Jesus' response to which was "the greatest Commandment"? IOW, it wasn't an anti-Law position from their point of view, but it was interpreted as such from the more mainline Pharisee point of view.

If one reads the confrontations in this context, one can much more easily see why this question of the Law kept on resurfacing and why the battle lines were so sharply drawn and contentious.