Was Jesus anti-Pharasaic?

[Desert Snake]

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.


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)


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.

So, are you saying that Paul was basically Pharisaic religiously? And because of this, essentially, Jesus was opposed to those teachings?

 

[anotherglenda]

So, are you saying that Paul was basically Pharisaic religiously? And because of this, essentially, Jesus was opposed to those teachings?

My post was simply a response to Levite's astute observations and had nothing to do with Paul or his claims to being a Pharisee.

Regarding my understanding of Jesus on Pharisee customs:
Pharisees believed in an oral Torah, often involving man-made laws. Jesus spoke against any man-made oral law which went against written scripture
eg
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus prioritized written scriptural law over any opposing Pharisee oral traditions.
Jots & tittles are WRITTEN symbols: MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Pharisees believed in an oral Torah. Sadducees didn't and neither did a few other sects. Sadducees were the priestly class ie Zadokites. Despite their differences, they were all zealous Jews and managed to co-exist, but their differences should be recognised.
There are some sects today which also don't believe in an oral Torah eg ancient pre-rabbinic Ethiopian Jews, Karaites etc but co-existence seems less respectful than in the time of Jesus and some Jews claim that other Jews aren't really Jews if their considerations of an oral law aren't the same.

 

[Desert Snake]

My post was simply a response to Levite's astute observations and had nothing to do with Paul or his claims to being a Pharisee.

Regarding my understanding of Jesus on Pharisee customs:
Pharisees believed in an oral Torah, often involving man-made laws. Jesus spoke against any man-made oral law which went against written scripture
eg
MK 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus prioritized written scriptural law over any opposing Pharisee oral traditions.
Jots & tittles are WRITTEN symbols: MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Pharisees believed in an oral Torah. Sadducees didn't and neither did a few other sects. Sadducees were the priestly class ie Zadokites. Despite their differences, they were all zealous Jews and managed to co-exist, but their differences should be recognised.
There are some sects today which also don't believe in an oral Torah eg ancient pre-rabbinic Ethiopian Jews, Karaites etc but co-existence seems less respectful than in the time of Jesus and some Jews claim that other Jews aren't really Jews if their considerations of an oral law aren't the same.

So, at the very least, you are proposing that Jesus was anti-Pharisaic, then. There would be a difference if Jesus singled out perhaps one Pharisee, and criticized something he was doing, however, in this presentation here, you seem to be saying, that it was the actual practice of the Pharisees that Jesus was against; basically, Jesus was against their beliefs and traditions. This is the crux of the question, the subject of the 'argument', as it were. We have actually gotten different opinions on this; for example, one, that Jesus was just criticizing the Pharisees not in practice, but hypocrisy, or action, ie something outside of their religious adherence...

 

[metis]

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.

Thanks for this and I will check this out more thoroughly.

Also, as more archaeological information comes in, what we are seeing is that, as Gandhi said, "the truth is rarely simple". They now know that there are at least four Pharisee groups that at least somewhat differ, and they think there's likely more. So, instead of dealing with them as a monolithic group, it's probably best to deal with them more as a movement.

Our lack of having a creed lends itself to myriads of commentaries whereas there's often disagreements, and the more we know about our past the more we realize that this isn't just some sort of modern development. One of the analogies I like about us is the "rope-of-sand" one, namely that we are individual "grains" tied together by Torah and tradition.

Anyhow, thanks again.

 

[metis]

We have actually gotten different opinions on this; for example, one, that Jesus was just criticizing the Pharisees not in practice, but hypocrisy, or action, ie something outside of their religious adherence...

If I can interject here, I think it's likely to be both.

What I think likely happened is that Jesus' approach is more along the line of the liberal Pharisee element that was opposed to elevating the Oral Law to the level that the mainline group did. One Christian theologian that I took a seminar through about 15 years ago used the term "love Pharisees" for this element, namely that love of God and man was what the Torah was about, and as long as one went in that direction, they were doing the right thing. With this approach, the letter of the Law become less important. Let me give an example.

If you've brought up children, if you want them to clean up their room, you have to at first show them how to do this, telling them where everything goes. But as the children get older, then all you would have to say is "Clean up your room" (unfortunately teenagers seem to revert back to not knowing how to do this). So, what Jesus could be saying is "Hey, just clean up your life and act with compassion and justice towards God and man, and if you do this, you will be fulfilling the essence of the Law".

Now, why I believe that this was his approach comes from what happened after Jesus died, namely a gradual walking away from the letter of the Law. In Acts, we see Peter's vision negating following the kosher Laws, for just one example. It's impossible for me to imagine how the could happen without Jesus opening the door, so there had to be some things he said that created a new paradigm.

Am I certain that this is what happened? No.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I can interject here, I think it's likely to be both.

What I think likely happened is that Jesus' approach is more along the line of the liberal Pharisee element that was opposed to elevating the Oral Law to the level that the mainline group did. One Christian theologian that I took a seminar through about 15 years ago used the term "love Pharisees" for this element, namely that love of God and man was what the Torah was about, and as long as one went in that direction, they were doing the right thing. With this approach, the letter of the Law become less important. Let me give an example.

If you've brought up children, if you want them to clean up their room, you have to at first show them how to do this, telling them where everything goes. But as the children get older, then all you would have to say is "Clean up your room" (unfortunately teenagers seem to revert back to not knowing how to do this). So, what Jesus could be saying is "Hey, just clean up your life and act with compassion and justice towards God and man, and if you do this, you will be fulfilling the essence of the Law".

Now, why I believe that this was his approach comes from what happened after Jesus died, namely a gradual walking away from the letter of the Law. In Acts, we see Peter's vision negating following the kosher Laws, for just one example. It's impossible for me to imagine how the could happen without Jesus opening the door, so there had to be some things he said that created a new paradigm.

Am I certain that this is what happened? No.

Interesting. My contention with the 'soft' opposition idea, is that, we have to guess at this. Reading the verses straight, I at least, have to conclude that Jesus was being fairly literal. At the risk of going off topic, //but I think there is relevance/, I am of the opinion, that there can be more than one, 'reaction', 'perspective', to this attitude taken by Jesus. This will vary, I believe, from individual to individual, because...Judaic belief has more than one 'expression'. An example, readily available here, is that we have the Saducees in the narrative..so, different perspectives on the words of Jesus.
Personally, reading the text and verses in somewhat of a literal manner, I do 'read' the content as anti-Pharisaic...actual difference in religious perspective. This also, and like I said, I believe this will vary person to person, means, to me, the same as the earlier comment posted in the thread, namely, ''anti-Jewish''. To a Karaite, this is probably not anti-Jewish; Who knows, however this means that to me, Jesus is going against my understanding, of Judaic belief.
We can note that, this a text that, being somewhat incomplete, I don't believe we can be completely sure of the intent, /of Jesus....yet, I think there can be enough content to draw a conclusion of intent and meaning, here.

 

[metis]

Interesting. My contention with the 'soft' opposition idea, is that, we have to guess at this. Reading the verses straight, I at least, have to conclude that Jesus was being fairly literal. At the risk of going off topic, //but I think there is relevance/, I am of the opinion, that there can be more than one, 'reaction', 'perspective', to this attitude taken by Jesus. This will vary, I believe, from individual to individual, because...Judaic belief has more than one 'expression'. An example, readily available here, is that we have the Saducees in the narrative..so, different perspectives on the words of Jesus.
Personally, reading the text and verses in somewhat of a literal manner, I do 'read' the content as anti-Pharisaic...actual difference in religious perspective. This also, and like I said, I believe this will vary person to person, means, to me, the same as the earlier comment posted in the thread, namely, ''anti-Jewish''. To a Karaite, this is probably not anti-Jewish; Who knows, however this means that to me, Jesus is going against my understanding, of Judaic belief.
We can note that, this a text that, being somewhat incomplete, I don't believe we can be completely sure of the intent, /of Jesus....yet, I think there can be enough content to draw a conclusion of intent and meaning, here.

Yes, interpretation is really quite a bugger, no doubt.

However, Jesus is coming from a Pharisee paradigm in general (synagogues, rabbis, belief in heaven, etc.), so what I perceive is more of a anti-mainline Pharisee position and, therefore, sort of a "family" argument, which of course can often be the nastiest. Instead of trying to create a new religion, I see him as one who feels there's a need to reform the Judaism of the day, both mainline Pharisees and Sadducees espeically, and that really isn't that unusual as he certainly wasn't alone with that thought.

Also, please note that his confrontations with the leaders mostly settled around questions dealing with the Law, so to me this sends me in the direction that his approach on the Law was hardly orthodox, and indeed this approach would also be true of the liberal Pharisees in general.

Again, just some impressions I've developed over the decades.

 

[pearl]

Again, just some impressions I've developed over the decades.

I think these impressions are right on. Both the Pharisees and Jesus were concerned with the 'heart' of the Torah. The major differences seem
to be the expression of it, or how to live it. There continues to be disagreement as to whether Jesus intended to found a separate church. I don't
think that was ever His intention which I believe was to renew His own Jewish religion as He stood within the tradition of Judaism seeking to renew it.
Some religious figures seek to establish a new religion while others seek to renew an existing religion. The latter is the case with both Jesus and the
Buddha, even though "new" or separate religions later emerged in their names. Just as Buddhism began as renewal movement within Hinduism, so
Christianity began as a renewal movement within Judaism. All this sort of collapses the popular image of Jesus. Due to the beleaguered society of
first century Palestinian Judaism, falling under the control of the Roman Empire, oppressed by Roman political and economic policies as well as threatened by
the danger of assimilation to the cultural force of Hellenism, it was a climate that produced a number of Jewish renewal movements, (Pharisees, Essenes,
resistance fighters), each having their own 'program' for what Israel should be, its own vision of what faithfulness to God meant.

 

[Sariel]

Also since Paul has already been brought up, I'm not a fan of the idea that everything was just kosher until he showed up. Simply throwing him under the bus seems like an overly easy "solution" to a more complex situation. I'm not sure we really appreciate the complicated problems of identity. Sacrificing to the gods of your nations was part of your ethnic identity, to totally abstain from it was much like separating from your community. While there have always been God-fearers had been part of synagogue communities, early gentile "Christians" had some things going against them.

They followed a messiah that may have been rejected by the rest of the community, and they may have begun outnumbering the original members of said Jewish communities which may have felt threatened by them. I'm also pretty sure that there wasn't a neat Noahide halakha in place yet to help organize the movement. You essentially have a bunch of people who are basically "orphans" that are neither fully Romans in practice anymore nor Jews. They are dying for a cause that gives them no known identity. This type of dilemma usually leads to marginalization on both sides. This is not something that would be easy to deal with.

Although I don't take Acts at face value, gentiles were obligated some form of dietary rules such as not eating things polluted by blood or idols, as well as certain sexual laws. Assuming Paul followed the Jerusalem Council, his doesn't strike me as "law-free" gospel since these are already pretty big burdens for those coming from a Hellenistic world. I think Paul simply wanted to make clear that gentiles need not fully convert to become people of God and discouraged them in the same manner that later Judaism eventually followed as well. It's not because of "inner lawlessness" that Paul appealed to gentiles, I think it's more so because he made them a priority.

 

[anotherglenda]

So, at the very least, you are proposing that Jesus was anti-Pharisaic, then. There would be a difference if Jesus singled out perhaps one Pharisee, and criticized something he was doing, however, in this presentation here, you seem to be saying, that it was the actual practice of the Pharisees that Jesus was against; basically, Jesus was against their beliefs and traditions. This is the crux of the question, the subject of the 'argument', as it were. We have actually gotten different opinions on this; for example, one, that Jesus was just criticizing the Pharisees not in practice, but hypocrisy, or action, ie something outside of their religious adherence...

This is a fair summation of my opinion thank you.

The biggest example of hypocrisy is breaking the golden rule, Jesus, Shammai and Hillel all promoted the golden rule and the Pharisee leaders who Jesus confronted believed they were lawful, including the golden rule, yet they failed to treat others as they wished to be treated. I'm certain they wouldn't like anyone seeking fault with them and yet they sought fault in Jesus and his disciples eg they picked on lack of ritual hand-washing, they picked on healing on the sabbath, they picked on disciples picking and eating grain when they were hungry on a sabbath etc etc. Jesus gave them accepted precedents for all these merciful actions but they persisted in their ill will

God created humans in his image. How we treat God's visible image is how we are actually treating God, which both King David and Jesus confirmed (Ps 51:4, Mt 25:45). God wants mercy rather than picking on each other. Often people who consider themselves religious, think they are righteous because they perform religious rituals of going to religious services and partaking in religious festivals and knowing scripture and dressing and talking in a way that their peers and subordinates hold in esteem ... but what God requires is merciful behaviour in the form of the golden rule (Is 58:1-10) and Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Truly evil people are obvious to the world eg Hitler, Pol Pot etc In the same way, truly righteous people are famous eg Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the most famous of all is Jesus the merciful righteous Jew. His life and behaviour are so inspiring that other religions attempt to claim him but Jesus assured everyone that salvation is of the Jews since only they know the One true God who is spirit. Jesus came to heal any blindness his countrymen suffered and then enlighten the rest of through his eye-witness apostles. His ministry embraced and promoted merciful scriptural behaviour rather than man-made oral traditions, which sadly offends some Jewish people enough for them to mercilessly disdain, discredit and slander him to their shame for their obvious unrighteous behaviour. Sadly many (not all) Pharisees are the biggest offenders and fail to recognise how this reflects badly on them rather than Jesus. They are caught in the trap they set for another.

 

[Tumah]

This is a fair summation of my opinion thank you.

The biggest example of hypocrisy is breaking the golden rule, Jesus, Shammai and Hillel all promoted the golden rule and the Pharisee leaders who Jesus confronted believed they were lawful, including the golden rule, yet they failed to treat others as they wished to be treated. I'm certain they wouldn't like anyone seeking fault with them and yet they sought fault in Jesus and his disciples eg they picked on lack of ritual hand-washing, they picked on healing on the sabbath, they picked on disciples picking and eating grain when they were hungry on a sabbath etc etc. Jesus gave them accepted precedents for all these merciful actions but they persisted in their ill will

God created humans in his image. How we treat God's visible image is how we are actually treating God, which both King David and Jesus confirmed (Ps 51:4, Mt 25:45). God wants mercy rather than picking on each other. Often people who consider themselves religious, think they are righteous because they perform religious rituals of going to religious services and partaking in religious festivals and knowing scripture and dressing and talking in a way that their peers and subordinates hold in esteem ... but what God requires is merciful behaviour in the form of the golden rule (Is 58:1-10) and Jas 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Truly evil people are obvious to the world eg Hitler, Pol Pot etc In the same way, truly righteous people are famous eg Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the most famous of all is Jesus the merciful righteous Jew. His life and behaviour are so inspiring that other religions attempt to claim him but Jesus assured everyone that salvation is of the Jews since only they know the One true God who is spirit. Jesus came to heal any blindness his countrymen suffered and then enlighten the rest of through his eye-witness apostles. His ministry embraced and promoted merciful scriptural behaviour rather than man-made oral traditions, which sadly offends some Jewish people enough for them to mercilessly disdain, discredit and slander him to their shame for their obvious unrighteous behaviour. Sadly many (not all) Pharisees are the biggest offenders and fail to recognise how this reflects badly on them rather than Jesus. They are caught in the trap they set for another.

According to what you are saying, when a judge hands down a sentence of imprisonment or worse, to a criminal, he is acting as the Pharisees did.

 

[anotherglenda]

According to what you are saying, when a judge hands down a sentence of imprisonment or worse, to a criminal, he is acting as the Pharisees did.

Only if that judge you are discussing has committed an equally offensive crime and doesn't hand himself the same sentence ... judging in hypocrisy is not righteous judgment ... like Jesus teaching get the log out of your own eye before you assume to get the speck out of someone else's.

 

[Tumah]

Only if that judge you are discussing has committed an equally offensive crime and doesn't hand himself the same sentence ... judging in hypocrisy is not righteous judgment ... like Jesus teaching get the log out of your own eye before you assume to get the speck out of someone else's.

That doesn't match the case. We don't find stories of the Pharisees wandering around on the Sabbath picking wheat, or telling others not to wear large phylacteries. That would be hypocrisy.

 

[anotherglenda]

I have no clue what you are talking about, however, G-D mentioned that Jews should follow the Shabbat commandments numerous times. In fact, it's one of the Ten Commandments.

So by Jesus saying he is the "Master of the Sabbath" he is saying that he is "Master of G-D" which is highly heretical.

Jesus and Joshua are the same name.
In full awareness of Torah, another Joshua was master of the sabbath when he made Israel march around Jericho for 7 days straight (so it must have included a sabbath) laden with weapons etc
Jesus actually pointed out that it is lawful for all sons of men to do good works on sabbath (eg pull a sheep from a mire or heal a human etc) while it is not lawful to do non-beneficial things ... we are to love God with all our minds and filter all the Law through the golden rule, so it's not hard to view what Jesus said as approx ... you work out if what you intend to do on sabbath is good or bad since you must decide how to act in any given situation on sabbath ... sabbath was made for the benefit of living things ... you master what happens on it which involves you.
In context, the comment of lording the sabbath day was in regard to hungry disciples eating grain and being accused by some merciless Pharisees of breaking sabbath. They had a problem with hungry men picking grain and eating while Jesus didn't and discussed David and his men eating the priestly bread when they were hungry, which also could be picked on as law-breaking by merciless people, yet it was ok with merciful God.

So was the biggest problem that of hungry men picking and eating grain or some Pharisees being merciless and accusing them and choosing to misunderstand Jesus?
Nowhere in scripture does it say that sabbath is God ... so I don't see how mastering a God-given rest day is mastering God. Doing God's merciful Will on His chosen rest day is surely honouring God. The Pharisees chose to pick on people rather than hungrily pick grain.
Scripture tells us how God sees it:
Isa 58:9 Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;
Isa 58:10 And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday:

 

[anotherglenda]

That doesn't match the case. We don't find stories of the Pharisees wandering around on the Sabbath picking wheat, or telling others not to wear large phylacteries. That would be hypocrisy.

The Pharisees can be thankful they weren't suffering hunger which is not a crime but you are promoting it is even although it was not a crime for David's hungry men to eat holy priestly bread which is not lawful under normal circumstances of not being hungry.
God's greatest law is mercy ... even over sacrifice. God hates pointing the finger and failure to ensure hungry people eat. It may have been more appropriate for the Pharisees to invite the disciples to eat priestly bread like David did with hungry men.
I think the judge you are discussing is intent on seeking fault in a non-criminal case and blind to mercy and should withdraw from judging.

 

[pearl]

That doesn't match the case. We don't find stories of the Pharisees wandering around on the Sabbath picking wheat, or telling others not to wear large phylacteries. That would be hypocrisy.

But we do find them at prayer thanking God that they are not sinners as the others.

 

[Tumah]

The Pharisees can be thankful they weren't suffering hunger which is not a crime but you are promoting it is even although it was not a crime for David's hungry men to eat holy priestly bread which is not lawful under normal circumstances of not being hungry.
God's greatest law is mercy ... even over sacrifice. God hates pointing the finger and failure to ensure hungry people eat. It may have been more appropriate for the Pharisees to invite the disciples to eat priestly bread like David did with hungry men.
I think the judge you are discussing is intent on seeking fault in a non-criminal case and blind to mercy and should withdraw from judging.

Why was it not a crime for David and his hungry men to eat from it? Doesn't Lev. 24:9 expressly state that the showbread was only to be eaten by priests? Do you think it makes sense that simple hunger is enough to void that Law? Imagine, there are only 12 loaves of bread, now its Passover and hundreds of thousands of Jews are at the Temple. You think anybody that's hungry can just walk up to a priest and demand a slice of bread? That's not logical.

You can't void Laws in order to be merciful. That defeats the purpose of having Laws. Mercy is meant to be constrained by justice. Otherwise you have anarchy.

No, sorry. A judge that can't follow the Law, is not called a judge. That's pure Ex. 23:3

 

[Tumah]

But we do find them at prayer thanking God that they are not sinners as the others.

You're going to have to provide more information to you post, because I don't know what you want from me.

 

[anotherglenda]

Why was it not a crime for David and his hungry men to eat from it? Doesn't Lev. 24:9 expressly state that the showbread was only to be eaten by priests? Do you think it makes sense that simple hunger is enough to void that Law? Imagine, there are only 12 loaves of bread, now its Passover and hundreds of thousands of Jews are at the Temple. You think anybody that's hungry can just walk up to a priest and demand a slice of bread? That's not logical.

You can't void Laws in order to be merciful. That defeats the purpose of having Laws. Mercy is meant to be constrained by justice. Otherwise you have anarchy.

No, sorry. A judge that can't follow the Law, is not called a judge. That's pure Ex. 23:3

There is no scriptural law which states that hungry people may not pick and eat grain on the sabbath. They were not stealing. They were not doing the work of harvesting or reaping which doesn't involve only picking and eating what you personally need at that moment. They were not breaking any of God's Laws. They may not have been conforming to that particular judges personal preferences but they were not breaking any laws. God said to feed the hungry. If the Pharisee didn't like seeing a hungry person picking and eating grain then that well-fed Pharisee should have fed the hungry person rather than see him do something that Pharisee considered wrong and then accuse and judge him of evil.
Also you could accuse and judge Joshua of evil for forcing people to tramp around Jericho carrying weapons on the sabbath.
If your personal oral traditions (not scriptural laws of God) omit mercy from accusing and judgment then that is certainly not righteousness!
You left out the context of poor people in judgment in Ex 23:3 ... it's when a multitude do evil, including poor people. They don't get away with it simply because they are poor. There is a verse after it about poor people and it's different to the non-context verse you offered
Exo 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice;
Exo 23:3 neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause.
Exo 23:4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his *** going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
Exo 23:5 If thou see the *** of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forbear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him.
Exo 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.

Your comment about the possibility of many hungry people at the temple needing feeding is also addressed by God even if you think it's not logical:
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with the curse, yet ye rob Me, even this whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.

Your disdain for the poor and your accusations against those who have not broken God's Laws and your contempt for mercy are against God's Laws and against righteousness.
God specified sacrifices in his Laws, put specified prioritizing mercy over sacrifices.
HOS 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

This discussion is so totally relevant to the OP and shows what Jesus was discussing.
Thank you for a beneficial talk

 

[Tumah]

There is no scriptural law which states that hungry people may not pick and eat grain on the sabbath.

Sure they were. Ex. 20:9 "And the seventh day is Sabbath for G-d. Do not do any work..."

They were not stealing.

Well, I think its assumed that they were not stealing. There's no statement about that at all.

They were not doing the work of harvesting or reaping which doesn't involve only picking and eating what you personally need at that moment.

Where does it say that harvesting and reaping doesn't include what you personally need at the moment? You can't define it to suit your preferences.

They were not breaking any of God's Laws.

I'm not sure how relevant that is. Even if the Law had only been a Rabbinical Enactment, it would still be relevant to someone who wants to call himself a Pharisee. We don't find the Pharisees going to the Hellenized Jews or Saducees complaining about how they are going against the Law. Clearly then the case is someone who wants to identify with the Pharisees, without actually following Pharisaical Law. That doesn't work.

They may not have been conforming to that particular judges personal preferences but they were not breaking any laws.

Which particular judge?

God said to feed the hungry. If the Pharisee didn't like seeing a hungry person picking and eating grain then that well-fed Pharisee should have fed the hungry person rather than see him do something that Pharisee considered wrong and then accuse and judge him of evil.

That wouldn't help after the fact. If they were hungry, they should have knocked on a Pharisee's door and asked for food. They wouldn't have been turned down. Why did they choose the path of breaking the Law?

Also you could accuse and judge Joshua of evil for forcing people to tramp around Jericho carrying weapons on the sabbath.

What exactly would be the problem with that?

If your personal oral traditions (not scriptural laws of God) omit mercy from accusing and judgment then that is certainly not righteousness!

I repeat. Mercy is meant to be constrained by justice. There is mercy, but only within the framework of the Law. Think what would happen if every thief or murderer was let off the hook by a merciful judge.

You left out the context of poor people in judgment in Ex 23:3 ... it's when a multitude do evil, including poor people. They don't get away with it simply because they are poor. There is a verse after it about poor people and it's different to the non-context verse you offered
Exo 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice;
Exo 23:3 neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause.
Exo 23:4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his *** going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
Exo 23:5 If thou see the *** of him that hateth thee lying under its burden, thou shalt forbear to pass by him; thou shalt surely release it with him.
Exo 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.

This doesn't say what you are saying it says.
The first verse says not to follow others doing evil.
The second verse says not to show favoritism in judgement towards a person, just because he's poor.
The third verse says to return lost objects.
The fourth verse says, to help people who are carrying heavy burdens.
The fifth verse says not to show disfavor to a poor man.

Your comment about the possibility of many hungry people at the temple needing feeding is also addressed by God even if you think it's not logical:
Mal 3:9 Ye are cursed with the curse, yet ye rob Me, even this whole nation.
Mal 3:10 Bring ye the whole tithe into the store-house, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency.

I don't understand what you want from these two verses. They are saying that a person will not lose out for giving the tithe. G-d will pay the person back with blessings of bounty.

Your disdain for the poor and your accusations against those who have not broken God's Laws and your contempt for mercy are against God's Laws and against righteousness.

Disdain for the poor? Contempt for mercy? No sir.

God specified sacrifices in his Laws, put specified prioritizing mercy over sacrifices.
HOS 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Its kind of weird that you bring a verse that doesn't say what you are trying to prove. The verse is saying that G-d didn't institute sin-offerings because He wanted us to sin and then receive atonement. Rather G-d prefers that we not sin so that we don't need to bring sin-offerings.
What you are saying doesn't make any sense. If G-d didn't want sin-offerings at all, then why would He have issued Laws about them to begin with?

This discussion is so totally relevant to the OP and shows what Jesus was discussing.
Thank you for a beneficial talk

Yes. I agree.