Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[pearl]

Joh 3:2 One night he went to Jesus and said, "Sir, we know that God has sent you to teach us. You could not work these miracles, unless God were with you."

I always found it interesting that Nicodemus sought Jesus at night.

 

[ChristineES]

I always found it interesting that Nicodemus sought Jesus at night.

Me, too. I can only guess why.

 

[Awoon]

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.

Jesus picked Saul/Paul, the Pharisee of the Pharisees personally. So, no way was he against them.

 

[Sariel]

Considering Paul unapologetically called himself a Pharisee to other followers, I can only assume any anti-pharisee sentiment must have been a later development.

 

[Levite]

I confess I have always found it...odd...that Paul so vigorously claimed to have been a Pharisee-- even claimed to have been a student of one of the most significant Rabbis of his era, whose work is well documented in our tradition-- and yet never once in Rabbinic literature is there mention of a student of Rabban Gamliel's who ran off to become an apostate and the leader of the followers of Jesus. There are other stories in Rabbinic literature of Rabbis and students of Rabbis who fell to heretical notions (including Jesus himself), so it's not as though they simply excised such failures from their records. They were often used as cautionary tales, and I would think Paul would be the acme of such, were his autobiography factual.

It is even odder since Paul claims to have come from Tarsus, a town which, during that era, did not have much (if any) Pharisaic community. It was, to the contrary, a deeply Hellenized Jewish community. And Paul took a Greek name, wrote in Greek, apparently adopted Greek concepts into his theology (though that is only what I have been told by scholars of my acquaintance, I am not enough of a scholar of Christian writings to know if it is the case), and worked to open Christianity to non-Jews, especially Greeks. This would be an extraordinarily strange sequence of events for a Pharisee. It would, on the other hand, be entirely reasonable for a non-Pharisaic very Hellenized Jew.

 

[metis]

Anyone could claim to be a Pharisee, and maybe Paul saw himself as such, and maybe he was. Also, even though I basically disagree with most of where Paul was coming from, nevertheless I see him as being quite well-educated overall (maybe not so much in Judaism, however), and his theological teachings are actually quite innovative.

I also have to note that, according to Acts, Paul met at least three times with Peter and the others, which tells me that he must have eventually overcame their suspicions about him. However, I'm not going so far as to claim that they necessarily always agreed with all that he taught, and there does seem to be some friction between he and James, which may or may not have gotten patched up over time.

 

[roger1440]

Anyone could claim to be a Pharisee, and maybe Paul saw himself as such, and maybe he was. Also, even though I basically disagree with most of where Paul was coming from, nevertheless I see him as being quite well-educated overall (maybe not so much in Judaism, however), and his theological teachings are actually quite innovative.

I also have to note that, according to Acts, Paul met at least three times with Peter and the others, which tells me that he must have eventually overcame their suspicions about him. However, I'm not going so far as to claim that they necessarily always agreed with all that he taught, and there does seem to be some friction between he and James, which may or may not have gotten patched up over time.

I don’t think Paul met any of the Apostles. Paul doesn’t seem to know anything about the life of Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say and do something with his life? Certainly Peter would have known. You would think Paul would have asked Jesus’s buddy Peter something like, “Hey Pete, tell me a nifty quote from Jesus I could use. What did your buddy teach?”.

 

[metis]

I don’t think Paul met any of the Apostles. Paul doesn’t seem to know anything about the life of Jesus. Didn’t Jesus say and do something with his life? Certainly Peter would have known. You would think Paul would have asked Jesus’s buddy Peter something like, “Hey Pete, tell me a nifty quote from Jesus I could use. What did your buddy teach?”.

It would have been very difficult, maybe even silly, for Luke to have falsified Paul having at least three meetings with Peter and the others as we find in Acts, plus there's what is found in Paul's letters that involved the apostles, some of which show up as "epistles". To me, it would have been too difficult to have faked this plus, if caught, the label of "dishonest" would have possibly killed the movement.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

It would have been very difficult, maybe even silly, for Luke to have falsified Paul having at least three meetings with Peter and the others as we find in Acts, plus there's what is found in Paul's letters that involved the apostles, some of which show up as "epistles". To me, it would have been too difficult to have faked this plus, if caught, the label of "dishonest" would have possibly killed the movement.

Amusing, Saul of Tarsus / Paul, clearly states in several ways that he is dishonest,
acting as a Jew amongst Jews and as a Gentile amongst Gentiles ...

 

[metis]

Amusing, Saul of Tarsus / Paul, clearly states in several ways that he is dishonest,
acting as a Jew amongst Jews and as a Gentile amongst Gentiles ...

I was referring to Luke, not Paul, and this was in reference to the meetings mentioned in Acts.

 

[Levite]

It would have been very difficult, maybe even silly, for Luke to have falsified Paul having at least three meetings with Peter and the others as we find in Acts, plus there's what is found in Paul's letters that involved the apostles, some of which show up as "epistles". To me, it would have been too difficult to have faked this plus, if caught, the label of "dishonest" would have possibly killed the movement.

I am much less certain. For one, it was infinitely easier to lie about such things in those days, the means of verifying stories being few and far between. For another, it was common practice in those days-- and had been for centuries, and would continue to be for centuries-- to introduce new religious or philosophical works by pseudepigraphically attributing them or support for them from greater authorities of the past, and sometimes by claiming direct revelation of some sort. Paul simply seems to have been covering all his bases. Since all these things were so common, I am less convinced that, even if someone did figure out his game and spill the beans in their community, it would have been a "movement-killer" even in that community, much less anywhere else.

Also, we have no clear idea when the final redaction of Luke took place. It is not at all impossible for the meetings in question to be a Paulinist interpolation.

 

[metis]

I am much less certain. For one, it was infinitely easier to lie about such things in those days, the means of verifying stories being few and far between. For another, it was common practice in those days-- and had been for centuries, and would continue to be for centuries-- to introduce new religious or philosophical works by pseudepigraphically attributing them or support for them from greater authorities of the past, and sometimes by claiming direct revelation of some sort. Paul simply seems to have been covering all his bases. Since all these things were so common, I am less convinced that, even if someone did figure out his game and spill the beans in their community, it would have been a "movement-killer" even in that community, much less anywhere else.

Also, we have no clear idea when the final redaction of Luke took place. It is not at all impossible for the meetings in question to be a Paulinist interpolation.

I hear what you're saying, but what I'm referring to is not so much a question of Paul lying but Luke, who wrote Acts. Too many would have known the truth, so I simply cannot see room whereas Luke could have pulled it off that big a whopper. Also, we need to remember that it is Paul's writings that were the most circulated in the very early church, which would be hard to explain if the Twelve wanted nothing to do with him.

Gotta go and have my expresso.

 

[Sleeppy]

There are numerous ones:

1) Saying that you have to accept himself, jesus, as lord and savior to get to heaven.

2) That you can only get to G-D through him

3) That he (jesus) is the "master of the sabbath"

This is all highly insulting to Jews.

4) Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-D, the L-ord is ONE (Deut)

The central principle of Judaism is that only the one and only G-D has divine power.

...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah, 46:9)

... so that all the peoples of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other. (1 Kings, 8:60)

Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the Earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:22)


You are my witness--the words of Hashem--and My servant, whom I have chosen, so that you will know and believe in Me, and understand that I am He; before me nothing was created by a G-D, and after Me it shall not be (Isaiah 43:10)

... O Lord; no deeds can compare with Yours. All the nations You have made will come and worship before You, O Lord; they will bring glory to Your name. For You are great and do marvelous deeds; You alone are God. (Psalms, 86:8-10)

5) This is what the Lord says—your Redeemer, Who formed you in the womb: I am the Lord, Who has made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, Who spread out the Earth by Myself. (Isaiah, 44:24)

I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from Me there is no savior. (Isaiah, 43:11)

They will say of Me, "In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength."... (Isaiah, 45:24)

This is what the Lord says—I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no god. (Isaiah, 44:6)

1)
John 5:20-24
Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son in like manner does. For the Father does love the Son, and does show to him all things that He himself does; and greater works than these He will show him, that you may wonder. For, as the Father does raise the dead, and does make alive, so also the Son does make alive whom he wills; for neither does the Father judge any one, but all the judgment He has given to the Son, that all may honor the Son according as they honor the Father. He who is not honoring the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him. Verily, verily, I say to you -- He who is hearing my word, and is believing Him who sent me, has life age-during, and to judgment he does not come, but has passed out of the death to the life.

Of course, none of this makes any sense to you (nor many Christians), so I'll give you its meaning.

• Whenever Jesus refers to himself, he referring not only to himself, but the Son of Man, i.e. mankind. Therefore:
  • Mankind is not able to do anything apart from God.
  • Whatever God wills, is accomplished by mankind, and/or the other sons, i.e. angels.
  • Greater scientific, medical, technical, and social advancements, etc. are planned in mankind's future.
  • We have a responsibility to raise one another from death, i.e. prevent one another from sinning.
  • God is God; He does not judge Himself, and therefore does not judge His creation.
  • When the Son of Man does pass judgement against his brother, he dishonors himself, and he dishonors the Father.
    • The correct response to sinful behavior is not judgement, but true understanding of Deuteronomy 6:4, and therefore forgiveness.

Isaiah 43:25
I -- I am He who is blotting out your transgressions for My own sake, And your sins I do not remember. Cause me to remember and we are judged together. You declare this, that you may be justified.
​

• • The Son of Man requires God, the Father, for righteousness. The elders are required to honor the youth, before the youth achieves the competency to honor their elders. If the elders have not loved the youth, the future is accursed.

Malachi 3:24
And he hath turned back the heart of fathers to sons, And the heart of sons to their fathers, lest I come and have utterly smitten the land!
​

2) Your claim is that gentiles need to be taught by yourself, Jews, in order that they know the one God.

Micah 4:1
And it has come to pass, in the latter end of the days, that the mountain of the house of God is established above the tops of all mountains. It has been lifted up above the hills, and flowed unto it have peoples.​

• • • • • The mountain that mankind must climb, to see the face of God, isn't any physically designated mountain. It is the same metaphorical mountain that Jacob climbed, when he saw God face to face, and took his new name.

Jeremiah 31:34
And they do not teach any more, each his neighbor, and each his brother, saying, "know God." For they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest, an affirmation of God. For I pardon their iniquity, and of their sin I make mention no more.​

And even after you've reviewed this post, you will attempt to claim the exclusive right to know God. And this is something Jeremiah (and other prophets) still maintained to support in his book; exclusivity of Godly knowledge, despite these words being manifested into reality alone.

3) The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath, i.e. mankind determines when it appropriate to rest, and when it is appropriate to honor the Father. But, mankind's determination is not able to exist independently of the Father's. That is the correct interpretation of Jesus' words. You can determine your own judgement of God and His creation.

4 & 5) Refer to 1.

 

[roger1440]

I hear what you're saying, but what I'm referring to is not so much a question of Paul lying but Luke, who wrote Acts. Too many would have known the truth, so I simply cannot see room whereas Luke could have pulled it off that big a whopper. Also, we need to remember that it is Paul's writings that were the most circulated in the very early church, which would be hard to explain if the Twelve wanted nothing to do with him.

Gotta go and have my expresso.

There is no way to determine what is true or false in the book of Acts. What can possibly be used? There is a likelihood that the speaking in tongues story found in Acts chapter 2 isn’t literally true. It’s a sort of retelling of the Tower of Babel story. If the speaking in tongues story isn’t literally true, what about the other stories in the book of Acts? How is anyone to know?

 

[Levite]

I hear what you're saying, but what I'm referring to is not so much a question of Paul lying but Luke, who wrote Acts. Too many would have known the truth, so I simply cannot see room whereas Luke could have pulled it off that big a whopper. Also, we need to remember that it is Paul's writings that were the most circulated in the very early church, which would be hard to explain if the Twelve wanted nothing to do with him.

Gotta go and have my expresso.

If I recall correctly, there is considerable scholarship that offers doubts as to the historical accuracy (or even verity) of much of Acts, and the depiction of Paul is considered particularly troublesome in that he is depicted quite differently in Acts than in his own accounts of himself.

If I had to speculate, I would wonder two things: one, how much did his claim to be a prophet of a divine Jesus lend him theological authority in the expanding Christian world; and two, how much might the antipathy of at least some of the Twelve for him (he and Peter, at least, ended up quite at odds) be counterbalanced in regard to his power by virtue of his vigorous agenda of de-Judifying Christianity and making it a universalist non-Jewish religion.

After all, Peter and those who followed him would have been limited in numbers by virtue of being technically still Jewish, and of requiring non-Jews to convert to Judaism (in some fashion) and observe the commandments (in some fashion) before becoming Christian-- plus they still seem to venerate Jesus as messiah but human. Whereas Paul redefines everything, theologically nullifies the need to observe the commandments, theologically advocates for Christianity to be open to everyone simply willing to believe, and offers the vision of a divine Jesus whose word Paul carries, with whom Christians can in some measure be joined: a much more attractive sell to non-Jews. Paul's numbers must have grown much more swiftly, since his version of Christianity had virtually no boundaries and few specific requirements in terms of ritual practice.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, he was anti-Jewish.

In the manner in which the OP topic is set up, and my understanding of the situation, I am having a difficult time disagreeing with this. That being said, There are other opinions, of course; I don't really think this statement is just flat out ''true'' in all aspects; that seems doubtful, especially since Jesus had Jewish followers etc/

 

[metis]

There is no way to determine what is true or false in the book of Acts. What can possibly be used? There is a likelihood that the speaking in tongues story found in Acts chapter 2 isn’t literally true. It’s a sort of retelling of the Tower of Babel story. If the speaking in tongues story isn’t literally true, what about the other stories in the book of Acts? How is anyone to know?

Very true, and not only do I take scriptural accounts with much skepticism, but historical ones as well. Therefore, one should not read my opinion as fact but more of a "leaning", and I believe my words expressed that tact.

 

[metis]

If I recall correctly, there is considerable scholarship that offers doubts as to the historical accuracy (or even verity) of much of Acts, and the depiction of Paul is considered particularly troublesome in that he is depicted quite differently in Acts than in his own accounts of himself.

Of course, and I'm certainly no fan of Paul.

If I had to speculate, I would wonder two things: one, how much did his claim to be a prophet of a divine Jesus lend him theological authority in the expanding Christian world; and two, how much might the antipathy of at least some of the Twelve for him (he and Peter, at least, ended up quite at odds) be counterbalanced in regard to his power by virtue of his vigorous agenda of de-Judifying Christianity and making it a universalist non-Jewish religion.

I agree with most of the above, but since Paul and Peter are talking, plus Paul's sending both letters and money back to the Twelve, there had to be some collaboration it appears. If there wasn't, then way too many people within "the Way" would have realized that Luke's accounts were entirely bogus, so we should see lots of bad-mouthing of him and Paul, which we don't see, with the exception of James. However, did James eventually come to accept Paul? I don't know.

Also, just a reminder: two Jews = three opinions on everything. That there are some disagreements should be expected, and the main reason appears to me to have been that Jesus wasn't clear on many items, including even some basic teachings, such as keeping kosher. Also, it appears that some of Paul's theology and actions were controversial even amongst the Twelve.

After all, Peter and those who followed him would have been limited in numbers by virtue of being technically still Jewish, and of requiring non-Jews to convert to Judaism (in some fashion) and observe the commandments (in some fashion) before becoming Christian-- plus they still seem to venerate Jesus as messiah but human. Whereas Paul redefines everything, theologically nullifies the need to observe the commandments, theologically advocates for Christianity to be open to everyone simply willing to believe, and offers the vision of a divine Jesus whose word Paul carries, with whom Christians can in some measure be joined: a much more attractive sell to non-Jews. Paul's numbers must have grown much more swiftly, since his version of Christianity had virtually no boundaries and few specific requirements in terms of ritual practice.

You're rendering Jesus as a normative-observant Jew within the mainstream ranks of the Pharisee movement, and I don't think it's likely that view is correct. He seems much more liberal, more emphasizing inclusion and less parochialism. He doesn't seem to like the Oral Law, nor the movement to build a fence around the Torah (both probably he seems to refer to as "laws made by men"). When the numbers of Jewish converts to "the Way" diminished or maybe even reversed, it may well have been Paul who pushed for greater inclusion, especially with the "God-Fearers".

Would Jesus have approved of what Paul was doing? Maybe some ideas but maybe not some others. I can possibly see the greater inclusion part being possible, but I have a hard time seeing the deification of Jesus aspect of Paul's teachings being accepted by Jesus.

Again, I'm speculating, and I'm certainly not gonna bet my house on me batting a thousand here.

 

[Sariel]

That there are some disagreements should be expected, and the main reason appears to me to have been that Jesus wasn't clear on many items, including even some basic teachings, such as keeping kosher.
You're rendering Jesus as a normative-observant Jew within the mainstream ranks of the Pharisee movement, and I don't think it's likely that view is correct. He seems much more liberal, more emphasizing inclusion and less parochialism. He doesn't seem to like the Oral Law, nor the movement to build a fence around the Torah (both probably he seems to refer to as "laws made by men").

Interestingly, your views are close to Daniel Boyarin, while I don't agree with everything he says i'd greatly recommend his scholarly work. Although in regards to the relationship between Jesus and Oral Torah, even that's murky. While on one hand(pun intended), he seems apathetic about practices such as the mandatory washing of hands, yet he doesn't reject other pharisic practices such as Tefilin(although he criticizes making them too wide). Two things I consider are that halakha wasn't fully codified yet, and that Galileans and Judeans often had clashing views. Although others characterize Jesus's conflict of Hillel vs Shammai,with the latter being his adversaries, or somewhere in between several dichotomies.

 

[anotherglenda]

If I recall correctly, there is considerable scholarship that offers doubts as to the historical accuracy (or even verity) of much of Acts, and the depiction of Paul is considered particularly troublesome in that he is depicted quite differently in Acts than in his own accounts of himself.

From my perspective this is a bonus, since Acts offers a witness AGAINST Paul.
Paul thought there was a spy reporting against him (Gal 2:4) and considering what Luke reported about Paul, it's possible Luke may have been that spy to our benefit .
In Acts he told us these facts which discredit Paul:
* the names of the true apostles of Jesus, including the replacement of Judas, and their qualifications had to be eye-witnesses to the complete ministry of Jesus (Acts 1:21-26, Jn 15:27).
* Peter is God's chosen apostle to the Gentiles and the other true apostles accepted this and stated it in front of Paul (Acts 15), who didn't disagree openly but only in letters
* Paul was a trouble-maker and the apostles and followers of Jesus had peace and their numbers grew when Paul was removed (Acts 9:31)
* After being appointed as apostle to the Gentiles, Peter ate with Gentiles which the Jerusalem Council accepted (Acts 11). Paul seemed unaware & said the opposite in his letters (Gal 2:12).
* Paul had heated arguments with other emissaries appointed by the true apostles (Acts 15:39) & Paul split from them (1 Jn 2:19 confirms) & promoted an 'unknown god' as warned about in Deut 13:2 as being the test of a false prophet/teacher. The unknown god which Paul promoted was actually Zeus according to the quotes he used in reference to him eg from 'Hymn to Zeus' (Acts 17:28 entire verse is excerpt of pagan hymn) As an educated Greek, Luke would have known these common quotes about Zeus and Luke noted all Paul's pagan references (.
* James heard public outrage that Paul taught anti-law & anti-Jew, so instead of ignoring these serious accusations, he set a test for Paul to settle whether the claims about him were true or not and Paul failed the test! (Acts 21:20 ... Acts 24, during which situation Paul abused the Jewish chief priest in ignorance .... serious mistake obviously not inspired by God, and he admitted being Roman & appealed to Caesar. Jesus had talked about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar!)

When Jesus told seed parables, he likened truthful words from God as good seeds (aka 'children of God') to be planted in this world which can grow & mature into beneficial plants. In one of the seed parable, good seed was planted but later an enemy came and planted bad (lying) seeds (aka 'children of the devil). The eye-witness apostles asked if they should remove the bad seeds but Jesus said 'no!' James did not remove Paul's teachings, but simply countered them in his own letter.

If I had to speculate, I would wonder two things: one, how much did his claim to be a prophet of a divine Jesus lend him theological authority in the expanding Christian world; and two, how much might the antipathy of at least some of the Twelve for him (he and Peter, at least, ended up quite at odds) be counterbalanced in regard to his power by virtue of his vigorous agenda of de-Judifying Christianity and making it a universalist non-Jewish religion.

Sad that Christianity in general doesn't heed Deut 13 or they would easily recognise Paul as a fraud. Jesus himself said if his own claims lacked witness then he shouldn't be believed (Jn 5:31, Jn 7:18) yet people would not heed him but would heed one who witnessed of himself (Jn 5:43) ... which Paul did ... & even admitted to being a crafty liar who tricked by guile (2 Cor 12:16, Rom 3:7)

After all, Peter and those who followed him would have been limited in numbers by virtue of being technically still Jewish, and of requiring non-Jews to convert to Judaism (in some fashion) and observe the commandments (in some fashion) before becoming Christian-- plus they still seem to venerate Jesus as messiah but human. Whereas Paul redefines everything, theologically nullifies the need to observe the commandments, theologically advocates for Christianity to be open to everyone simply willing to believe, and offers the vision of a divine Jesus whose word Paul carries, with whom Christians can in some measure be joined: a much more attractive sell to non-Jews. Paul's numbers must have grown much more swiftly, since his version of Christianity had virtually no boundaries and few specific requirements in terms of ritual practice.

I agree on all points. Truth is that Jesus taught that people should heed his eye-witness apostles (Mt 10:40, Lk 10:16) and Jesus taught against heeding anyone who claimed to meet him in the desert etc (Mt 24:26 which supposed encounter Paul claimed he had en route to Damascus). People love Paul because he appeals to the base nature which seeks to ignore God's instructions (aka 'law'). It's like Eden again ... heed God's instruction or the appealing words of a subtle anti-God's-instruction snake.