The Pharisees

[cholland]

Let's start with the existence of "Pharisees and Jews who thought possession of Torah was going to save them."

Do you even know what a Pharisee actually was? Do you understand that Jesus was primarily a Pharisee himself?

In short, I understand the Pharisees as those who emerged some time when the Jewish people were under cultural influence from the Greeks. The Pharisees' heart was to separate the Jews from this culture in order to continue to worship the one true God. They taught not only the written Torah, but also the oral Torah that developed into extra biblical laws and rules. The Sadducees then emerged in opposition in order to return to the written Torah alone; however, they were enticed by the wealth and culture of the Greeks. (Sounds awfully familiar to Catholics and Protestants)

So in the sense that Jesus had a heart to set his people apart, yes, I would agree he was a Pharisee.

What separated the Jews from the Gentiles? Possession of Torah. This marked God's covenant with his people.

[cholland]

So, what was Jesus' big dispute with them since he apparently had it out for them (both parties)?

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

According to the writer of Matthew's gospel, Jesus did not have any trouble with the Pharisee's teachings. Jesus and his followers were all Jews. They believed and practiced the Jewish religion and did not see the need for a new and different covenant. They loved the Law of God and gave no indication that would ever be put aside or that it would be a curse. That was Paul's unique new doctrine.

What Bible are you reading?
This cup is the new covenant in my blood

Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (and the other 5 woes)
The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words.
The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.
The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.

[cnorman18]

I would refer you to a very fine book, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, by one David Klinghoffer. I think you would find it informative and interesting.

Can you give me the cliff notes? I'm in the middle of about 3 books right now and 50 in the queue.

It's a complex matter, and the book is more historical study than theological treatise. No hurry; get to it when you wish.

No on both counts. There have always, according to the tradition, been Gentiles who worshipped the God of Israel, but were not Jews, nor parties to the Jewish covenant, nor bound by Jewish laws. They are called Noachites or Noachides; in Jewish tradition, a Gentile who keeps seven laws only, the Noachide laws, is as righteous and beloved of God as any High Priest - even if he does not worship the God of Israel. In Judaism, one's righteousness is determined by action, not by proper belief.

Righteousness does not equal "salvation." For future salvation or redemption by whatever understanding or definition, the Jewish people claim no promises, whether for individuals or for the people as a whole. We do not presume to know the judgment of God; therefore we do not presume to know who is "saved" and who isn't, or what form the Next Life will take, or even for a certainty that there is one. We don't claim to know the future of THIS world, either, and we have learned not to count on the protection of God in it.

So this just begs the question, what is your hope?

I don't see how I could be accused of "begging the question" when the topic of my own personal beliefs hasn't come up; but since you ask, I don't claim to know what follows death. I hope, like most Jews, that there is something; but I do not have nor claim to have any idea what, nor do I claim Scriptural authority for that hope (as if it were necessary).

Um, to get back to the topic yet again; do you still maintain that there were, or are, "Jews who believe that the possession of the Torah will save them"?

[Jonah]

cholland,

The simple answer to your point is that historical-critical scholarship holds that the anti-Pharisaic/anti-Jewish texts you are concerned with are the gospel's writers creation...words put into the mouth of the character Jesus. They reflect the Hellenistic church's animosity and competition with the mainstream Jewish community. By the time the gospels were written, the Hellenists had broken with both the mainstream Jewish community AND the Jewish-Christian community led by James. There is NOTHING new here. There are legions of books covering this topic by all the different scholars involved with the Jesus Seminar and others who have spent the last several decades in what has been called the 2nd wave of historical Jesus scholarship. The vast majority of this scholarship has been done by those in the Christian tradition.

I have cited the book numerous times and do so again here. The best summary of this point in my opinion is Dr. Norman Beck's "Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic in the New Testament". Dr. Beck is a Lutheran clergyman and professor at Texas Lutheran University. His book will take you through the entire New Testament...text to text...and he will show you in very scholarly fashion that each particular anti-Jewish statement in the NT put into Jesus' mouth is pure BS.

So. That's the position you are free to say your own BS to...but the important point here is that no one on these boards made up that position. If you choose not to look up their work, that's your choice. It doesn't mean it ain't there.

[cholland]

cholland,

The simple answer to your point is that historical-critical scholarship holds that the anti-Pharisaic/anti-Jewish texts you are concerned with are the gospel's writers creation...words put into the mouth of the character Jesus. They reflect the Hellenistic church's animosity and competition with the mainstream Jewish community. By the time the gospels were written, the Hellenists had broken with both the mainstream Jewish community AND the Jewish-Christian community led by James. There is NOTHING new here. There are legions of books covering this topic by all the different scholars involved with the Jesus Seminar and others who have spent the last several decades in what has been called the 2nd wave of historical Jesus scholarship. The vast majority of this scholarship has been done by those in the Christian tradition.

I have cited the book numerous times and do so again here. The best summary of this point in my opinion is Dr. Norman Beck's "Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic in the New Testament". Dr. Beck is a Lutheran clergyman and professor at Texas Lutheran University. His book will take you through the entire New Testament...text to text...and he will show you in very scholarly fashion that each particular anti-Jewish statement in the NT put into Jesus' mouth is pure BS.

So. That's the position you are free to say your own BS to...but the important point here is that no one on these boards made up that position. If you choose not to look up their work, that's your choice. It doesn't mean it ain't there.

I got lost because I'm pretty slow and tired. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying the NT is corrupted because the gospel writers (Jews turned Christians) were influenced by anti-Semitic Greeks? And this is covered in a Lutheran's book?

[Jonah]

cholland,

The New Testament is a disparate corpus. But, the majority of it is the product of a Hellenized Church that had already broken with mainstream Judaism. Think chronology. The events the NT alludes to happened 30 to 60 years before the texts were produced. In that time period...before the texts were written there had already been a split between the Pauline/Hellenistic church and the Jewish community and the Jewish-Christian community under James. Everybody was pissed off at each other. So. By the time the Pauline texts were written, we see in Paul's own writing his accounts of being hounded by the Jewish-Christians over the fact that he had just written them out of his agenda, and had totally left Judaism...which the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem had not done. You can see Paul's anger in his letters which is much hotter than Luke's account of the conflict in Acts. Acts was written much later and was glossing over the conflict.

So. The really hot stuff in Paul and the gospels against the Jews was written AFTER the split...both sides were mad as hell...especially after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The Hellenistic Church barked at the Jews in its texts, and the Jews and Jewish-Christians barked back in their texts at the Hellenistic Church. And all this is standard information taught to every seminary student in mainline church seminaries. I mentioned Beck because I think the title of his book captures the whole issue in one phrase. But there is ton of books out there. The Jesus Seminar of the Westar Institute is the easiest place to go. All these folks have their own books:

http://www.westar institute.org/Fellows/list.html

Before the Jesus Seminar and other historical Jesus scholarship of this generation, we can go back to the previous generation.

I hope you will not tell me that you have never heard of Rudolf Bultmann. He's the granddaddy of historical-critical scholarship...the great separator of the Hellenistic Jesus from the historical Jewish Jesus...except Bultmann preferred the Hellenistic Jesus.

Books are fun.

[Catharsis]

Hi Jonah, your interpretation of Orthodox history is off the mark.

Mere fact that Gentile Bishops (Patriarchs) of Jerusalem form a direct line of succession back to the Jewish Christians annuls any argument that the Church somehow "split" into several parts, and ceased to exist at this time. The Church always exists - no matter which schismatic or heretic groups choose to split from the Body.

The first several Bishops all belonged "to the circumcision", and are venerated to this day in the Orthodox Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orth ... _Jerusalem
Eusebius of Caesarea provides the names of an unbroken succession of thirty-six Bishops of Jerusalem up to the year 324.[4] The first sixteen of these bishops were Jewish Christians—from James the Just through Judas († 135)—the remainder were Gentiles:

"But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time [after Bar Kokhba's revolt], it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision."[5]

1. James the Just (until 62)
2. Simeon I (62-107)
3. Justus I (107-113)
4. Zaccheus (113-???)
5. Tobias (???-???)
6. Benjamin I (???-117)
7. John I (117-???)
8. Matthias I (???-120)
9. Philip (???-124)
10. Senecas (???-???)
11. Justus II (???-???)
12. Levis (???-???)
13. Ephram (???-???)
14. Joseph I (???-???)
15. Judas (???-135)

[Jonah]

The other shoe to drop on that history catharsis is that the Jewish-Christian list of bishops you list were descendents of Jesus' family after James. That line was broken and replaced with gentiles WHILE the Jewish Christians were x'ed out of the picture. That house continued for at least another 200-300 years trying to re-establish their right to church leadership and were squelched by the Hellenistic-Pauline-Constantinian Church.

[Catharsis]

No line was broken. Gentile Christians received authority from Jewish Christians themselves.

Descent by "flesh" is meaningless if you're not following the Faith of the Apostles and the first Christians.

[Jonah]

The dynastic aspect of Jesus' family bishops was a concurrent reality to the fact that they were also theologically divergent from the Hellenistic Church on christology. Everyone in the field of the early Jewish-Christian history knows that group did not hold that Jesus was divine.

[Paul2]

According to the writer of Matthew's gospel, Jesus did not have any trouble with the Pharisee's teachings.

Matthew: Chapter 15 (CLNT)
1 Then, coming to Jesus from Jerusalem are Pharisees and scribes, saying,
2 "Wherefore are your disciples transgressing the tradition of the elders? For they are not washing their hands whenever they may be eating bread."
3 Now He, answering, said to them, "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?
4 For God said, 'Honor father and mother,' and, 'He who is saying aught that is evil of father or mother, let him decease in death.'
5 Yet you are saying that 'Whoever may be saying to father or mother, "An approach present is whatsoever you may be benefited by me,"
6 by no means shall he be honoring his father.' And you invalidate the word of God because of your tradition.
7 Hypocrites! Ideally Isaiah prophesies concerning you, saying,
8 This people with their lips is honoring Me, Yet their heart is away at a distance from Me.
9 Yet in vain are they revering Me, Teaching for teachings the directions of men."
10 And, calling the throng to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand!
11 Not that which is entering into the mouth is contaminating a man, but that which is going out of the mouth, this is contaminating a man."
12 Then, approaching, the disciples said to Him, "Are you aware that the Pharisees, at hearing the word, are snared?"
13 Now He, answering, said, "Every plant which is not planted by My heavenly Father shall be uprooted.
14 Leave them! Blind guides are they of the blind! Now if the blind should be guiding the blind, both shall be falling into a pit."

Jesus and his followers were all Jews. They believed and practiced the Jewish religion and did not see the need for a new and different covenant.

Jeremiah 31:30-33 (The Complete Jewish Bible)
Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant. Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people. And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember.

Matt 26:28 (CLNT) for this is My blood of the new covenant, that is shed for many for the pardon of sins.

They loved the Law of God and gave no indication that would ever be put aside or that it would be a curse. That was Paul's unique new doctrine.

(The Complete Jewish Bible)
Deut 27:26. Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to fulfill them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'

Paul wrote: (CLNT)
Romans 7:12 So that the law, indeed, is holy, and the precept holy and just and good.