Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[roger1440]

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.

I’m not saying the Pharisees are hypocrites, the Gospels are. Why the Gospel writers labeled them hypocrites is less important than the motivation behind it. The very existence of the Pharisees challenged the legitimacy of this new sect. By claiming how wrong the Pharisees are would inadvertently claim how right this new sect is. The importance of the “Oral Law” or lack of would have created a dividing line, true. What about the “after life” or resurrection? The Sadducees did not believe in those concepts. You would think that would have created a very deep dividing line between this new sect and the Sadducees. Without a resurrection the whole story about Jesus falls apart. But the Gospels criticize the Sadducees far less the Pharisees. Then we have the Essenes. Not a single word is mentioned about them in the Gospels. Yet they were far stricter then the other sects on ritual purity. According to Josephus the Essenes wouldn’t even defecate on the Sabbath. The Gospel writers criticize the Pharisees for washing a cup but not the Essenes for not taking a crap. What’s up with that?

The answer is simple. There were no Sadducees or Essenes when the Gospels were written. The Pharisees were the only other game in town.

 

[roger1440]

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.

Does the author mention that the agreements may have been fictional? Justin Martyr used this technique in his “Dialogue with Trypho”. In this writing Martyr argues with rabbi Trypho that Christians are the true people of God. Most scholars believe Typho is a fictional person. I use this writing as a counter agreement in defense of a non-virgin in Isaiah 7:14. In other words there was never, ever a time when Jews interpreted the woman in Isaiah 7:14 as a virgin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho

 

[Tumah]

I’m not saying the Pharisees are hypocrites, the Gospels are. Why the Gospel writers labeled them hypocrites is less important than the motivation behind it. The very existence of the Pharisees challenged the legitimacy of this new sect. By claiming how wrong the Pharisees are would inadvertently claim how right this new sect is. The importance of the “Oral Law” or lack of would have created a dividing line, true. What about the “after life” or resurrection? The Sadducees did not believe in those concepts. You would think that would have created a very deep dividing line between this new sect and the Sadducees. Without a resurrection the whole story about Jesus falls apart. But the Gospels criticize the Sadducees far less the Pharisees. Then we have the Essenes. Not a single word is mentioned about them in the Gospels. Yet they were far stricter then the other sects on ritual purity. According to Josephus the Essenes wouldn’t even defecate on the Sabbath. The Gospel writers criticize the Pharisees for washing a cup but not the Essenes for not taking a crap. What’s up with that?

The answer is simple. There were no Sadducees or Essenes when the Gospels were written. The Pharisees were the only other game in town.

Not necessarily. I think Trump would have had a harder time winning the ticket had he devoted most of his arguments against Johnson and Stein.

 

[metis]

I’m not saying the Pharisees are hypocrites, the Gospels are. Why the Gospel writers labeled them hypocrites is less important than the motivation behind it. The very existence of the Pharisees challenged the legitimacy of this new sect. By claiming how wrong the Pharisees are would inadvertently claim how right this new sect is. The importance of the “Oral Law” or lack of would have created a dividing line, true. What about the “after life” or resurrection? The Sadducees did not believe in those concepts. You would think that would have created a very deep dividing line between this new sect and the Sadducees. Without a resurrection the whole story about Jesus falls apart. But the Gospels criticize the Sadducees far less the Pharisees. Then we have the Essenes. Not a single word is mentioned about them in the Gospels. Yet they were far stricter then the other sects on ritual purity. According to Josephus the Essenes wouldn’t even defecate on the Sabbath. The Gospel writers criticize the Pharisees for washing a cup but not the Essenes for not taking a crap. What’s up with that?

The answer is simple. There were no Sadducees or Essenes when the Gospels were written. The Pharisees were the only other game in town.

To your first point, I completely agree that the writers were stacking the deck against those who did not recognize and support Jesus, and this especially shows up in John's gospel, which has a very late writing.

I think we run across much more about the Pharisees than the other sects for a couple of reasons, although there could be more. One is that the Way's criticism of "the Pharisees" is probably a "family argument", and they, as you well know, can be the worst. Secondly, it appears that this branch was more along the line of the "people's choice", thus more popular, and the concept of heaven probably fed into that because who wouldn't want to live forever in Paradise.

Thirdly, the Essenes were not in the immediate area whereas most of the action was taking place, thus preferring isolation. Even though people can easily go from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea today, back then this distance was not that easy to travel, plus I believe there was a on-going strike at that time at Avis Rent-A-Camel.

 

[roger1440]

Not necessarily. I think Trump would have had a harder time winning the ticket had he devoted most of his arguments against Johnson and Stein.

You lost me on that one.

 

[Kemosloby]

I think Jesus was not anti anything, except he was anti not recognizing Jesus as the messiah. If the Pharisees recognized Jesus as the Messiah they would have done whatever he told them, without him having to get angry with them.

 

[Tumah]

You lost me on that one.

I'm saying that when you're trying to get the vote of the people, you fight the big guys not the little guys. So it could just mean that we were the biggest group at the time.

 

[roger1440]

I'm saying that when you're trying to get the vote of the people, you fight the big guys not the little guys. So it could just mean that we were the biggest group at the time.

It was the only group. That's my point

 

[Tumah]

It was the only group. That's my point

I understood, I'm saying maybe it wasn't the only group, just the biggest group.

 

[roger1440]

I understood, I'm saying maybe it wasn't the only group, just the biggest group.

Was the Messiah born on the day the Temple was destroyed?

 

[rosends]

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/qu...the-connection-between-moshiach-and-tisha-bav
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/...h-will-be-born-or-was-born-on-Tishah-bAv.html

 

[metis]

Was the Messiah born on the day the Temple was destroyed?

The estimate most often used was he was borne around 3 or so b.c.e. whereas the Temple was destroyed in 70 c.e.

 

[Tumah]

Was the Messiah born on the day the Temple was destroyed?

Yes and no. And kind of.

 

[roger1440]

http://judaism.stackexchange.com/qu...the-connection-between-moshiach-and-tisha-bav
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/...h-will-be-born-or-was-born-on-Tishah-bAv.html

I read that page from the second web page you listed the day before. Christiani had asked Nahmanides the same question during a debate in the year 1263. I was trying to find a transcript or a good commentary on the debate. So far all I can find is a movie made in 1986. Since I don’t have a transcript I’m not sure how close the movie is to the actual debate.