| Author | Message | ||
     Nik |
The largest contributing author to the new Testament, Saul of Tarsus (Paul), was a leading persecutor of early Christians and was himself not only a Jew but a Pharisee. Where did Saul get his authority to persecute the early Christians? At the time this was supposed to have taken place, the Pharisees had no authority. It was the Sadducees that were in control. Saul was acting on behalf of the Sadducee Priests. Sadducees and Pharisees did not get along. Paul may claim to be a Pharisee, but in historical context his actions run directly counter to that assertion. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Because most scholars date the transcription of those accounts at around 70-100 ACE; AFTER Christianity had split from Judaism, when it had become clear that most Jews did not accept Jesus as the messiah (and when the Pharisees had since become the dominant form of Judaism after the destruction of the 2nd temple), when it was trying to seek converts among gentiles. You don't think then, as in now, spiritual leaders distorted those words to gain followers and punish the competition? Like I said, the characterization of the Pharisees in the New Testament is inconsistent with their own writings, and independent accounts from the Romans (specifically Josephus.) Christianity was never part of Judaism. Sneeking converts? Punish the competition? Please cite your source for these ideas. I'm not following at all. I'd like specific instances where Pharisees were mischaractarized in the texts. Odd that the Pharisees were upright and holy but the Christian "leadership" was manipulative? Help me understand. | ||
| Nik |
You yourself just said the early Christians were all Jews? Okay, a specific instance. In Mark 3 Jesus heals a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, which sets the Pharisees completely against him for breaking the Sabbath. There is no historical Pharisee or Rabbinic rule that stated this healing would have violated the sabbath. You state that the Pharisees were "Uptight and Holy." But that's how they're portrayed in the New Testament! Josephus (Roman historian) would disagree completely. They were the most democratic of the sects. Yeah, they were obsessed with the Law, but expanding and exploring the spirit of it, and not the letter (that would've been the Sadducees). They brought Judaism outside of the temple and destroyed the monopoly of the Priest. Debate over the laws was encouraged and seen as the path to discover the truth! I hate to go to wikipedia, but it paraphrased the Pharisees way better than me.
| ||
| Ninefortheroad |
Nik- Very interesting perspective you have on this Anti-Semetic take that the writers of the Bible have toward the Pharisees. There no doubt were (are) many people during that time to the present that have had a tendency to view the Pharisees negatively and come across as anti-Semetic. There is also no doubt that from that time to the present that many people do not like Christians and come across as anti-Christian. The Bible story you last site is what happened at one particular time during the life of Christ. The story said that the Pharisees did not like what he did on the Sabbath. Religious leadership in all religions and all times have interpreted "written" religious laws. Without being negative, the story simply says to me that, sometimes doing good will go against the current leadership and one might be ridiculed and or persecuted for it. The leadership at that time just happened to be the Pharisees. "They were the most democratic of the sects." Since when is a belief system (religion) a democracy? That is the problem in many religions in the past and today, it is thought that a belief system should be decided on "by the people"? Jesus did not come to create a complex system, but to simplify faith, because life is complex enough without a complex set of rules to be "voted" on or instituted by decree. | ||
| Metalrabbit |
There's no question that Jesus drew the prideful anger from the Pharisees. He chastised them quite often, "clean only the outside of the cup", "you love the most important seats", you pay the tithe in garden herbs", "desire places of honor". It doesn't appear democratic to me, more of a dictatorship from my view. | ||
| Blake |
I choose truth, always. | ||
| Hex |
Or maybe just the delusion of truth...Comfortable position... | ||
| Ninefortheroad |
and Jesus took the "comfortable position" of truth? | ||
| Hex |
Personal truth vs universal truth. Ask any martyr (if you can). I saw another bumper sticker last night: An Open Mind Contains the Most Thoughts | ||
| Xb12xmike |
I saw a bumper sticker that said: F*ck you you f*cking F*CK! ROTFL! it was a small petite girl/woman with a car seat in the back. | ||
| Hex |
 | ||
| Nik |
The leadership at that time just happened to be the Pharisees. That is historically incorrect. The Saduccees were the leadership until after the destruction of the second temple. | ||
| Nik |
Since when is a belief system (religion) a democracy? That is the problem in many religions in the past and today, it is thought that a belief system should be decided on "by the people"? Jesus did not come to create a complex system, but to simplify faith, because life is complex enough without a complex set of rules to be "voted" on or instituted by decree. Well for one thing, the Pharisees got their start as more or less a political party through the Hasmonian period. The Sadduccees were the party of the ruling class and priests and the Pharisees the party of the scribes and scholars. They both evolved into sects during the Roman period. They eliminated the role of priests. Anyone with a sincere desire could participate. They didn't create a complex set of rules (That would have been the Essenes), but rather encouraged study, debate, disputation, and liberal interpretation of the existing rules given to Moses at Sinai. It's a never ending process that has not yet reached an end. | ||
| Ninefortheroad |
Nik You seem to have a very good knowledge of the history of this time period, which I must say is quite impressive. Very few people have this sort of historical insight you have. I do stand corrected that the Pharisees where not the leaders in power at the time, but their were leaders none the less. It is interesting and a good thing to be able to use historical reference and compare and relate to the Bible. I would also venture to say that the Bible firstly is not a historical text book and is not to be taken as such. | ||
| Nik |
I would also venture to say that the Bible firstly is not a historical text book and is not to be taken as such. Even historical text books contain bias, and often say more about the people who wrote them than the events they detail (or omit.) I find the cannons to be of great value in a historiographic sense. | ||
| Blake |
"Or maybe just the delusion of truth...Comfortable position..." Eric, You asked if I would choose to know the truth even if it was counter to my faith. I answered that "I choose truth always." Delusion is not truth, it is a lie that you choose to believe. Again, I choose truth. For me the truth is glaringly obvious. It wasn't always. Logic works. | ||
| Hex |
Delusion is not truth, it is a lie that you choose to believe. How can you convince me that man's lies like your own are the universal truth, when I haven't yet made my decision. I am happy for the truth you have found in your life. And I am grateful that you have the voice to share it with others. It keeps me on my quest. | ||
| Blake |
"How can you convince me that man's lies like your own are the universal truth...?" I have no idea what you are talking about; not making any sense. | ||
| Hex |
I suppose from your perspective, having made up your mind, that my sentence might not make sense. You claim to know the truth, or at least follow it. Does it change? Have you actually sat down and talked this over with your savior? Quite possibly an attorney of God? or what human written words have you read to be convinced of your truth? Why does your truth discount all others truths? Does it tells you so? Does that suit your ego? I am fascinated with Jainism, and mildly interested in the rest of the faiths. Riding the bike can be a meditative experience, but it is not religion. You could claim that you have had a catharsis, or near death experience, that shaped your beliefs. That I might understand. But to believe the words of man as the words of god, makes me question your faith, and thankfully my own. I hope to never know the answer, only the questions and their relative answers. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." Douglas Adams That pretty much sums it up right? You can't prove the existence of God. That's why we call it faith. If you're looking for proof in the writings of men, you won't find it. | ||
| Blake |
Eric (Hex), You no read good, and are even less skilled at understanding my faith. However, you are free to doubt my personal faith as you wish. Matters not a wit to me. Again, Eric, You asked if I would choose to know the truth even if it was counter to my faith. I answered that "I choose truth always." Delusion is not truth, it is a lie that you choose to believe. My answer to your question was "yes". I didn't understand your sentence because I gave you the benefit of doubt that you were not meaning to call me a liar. My bad. You were calling me a liar. So then what we have is you strangely choosing to offer up personal insult and derision rather than thoughtful discussion. I've seen the same from others when confronted by expressions of faith by believers. It's a queer reaction, but all too common. Some folks are threatened by the faith of others and lash out at them. Awfully strange behavior for someone who pretends to be on a "quest." I see no quest whatsoever, just a lot of arrogant bloviating. A quest in involves more questioning, less preaching. (Message edited by blake on January 26, 2010) | ||
| Hex |
Honest people have Faith. Dishonest people have Truth. | ||
| Blake |
That's nonsense. Most believers have both. | ||
| Hex |
You made it personal by using my first name, when we have never met. I am Hex to you. You made it personal when you said "it is a lie that you believe." It is not. It is just as much a lie that you believe. The Jains said it best to me so far. "in some ways it is indescribable." | ||
| Hex |
Most believers have both. Most believers have neither. | ||
| Blake |
Mr. Ryan, You made it personal when you said "it is a lie that you believe." My statement that "delusion is a lie that you believe" was obviously a general definition, not a personal comment. It was in response to your rude insulting comment "Or maybe just the delusion of truth...Comfortable position...", which concerned my answer to your question, that I choose truth, always. I made it personal? You are hard pressed to know any truth from what I see. (Message edited by blake on January 26, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
"Most believers have neither (truth or faith)" That is very judgmental and spoken like someone absolutely not on a quest who is well versed in arrogance and looking down upon others. (Message edited by blake on January 26, 2010) | ||
| Jstfrfun |
Your truth is your faith. That which you have had an epiphany and found understanding is yours, mine is different in these things. I find organised religion fouled and muddied by man, deferring to the simplicity of the knowledge that the ultimate sacrifice was made for me personally, and that my god is a loving god, not one who requires other mens blood for his satisfaction. | ||
| Hex |
You have your perspective....carry on. | ||
| Blake |
"I find organised religion fouled and muddied by man" I do as well. So? |
