What did the Pharisees represent?

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

Letter of the law meaning. Every "t" crossed, all sentences capitalized, ending with the proper punctuation. In other words leaveing very little room for common sense. (not saying jews are this way, but the pharisess of the time, or bishops of our time )

Are you familiar with Oral Torah?

Originally Posted by CM

Spirit of the law being Jesus (in the new testament) is said to be the WORD made flesh meaning (the law, and the Prophets) fulfilling what each said, being that he spoke it from the begining. Which is meaning God/Jesus are one.

Do you believe that Jesus "fulfilled" the Torah even though he broke commandments of Torah?

Originally Posted by CM

ok if its cosher I'll try to use a New testament example(I am not putting this up for offense or conversion reasons, just need something extra to maybe help out what I'm actually trying to say, so if any of this is offensive I apoligise, its not at all meant for offense)

Matt 12:1-8
12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, "Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!" 3 But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."
NKJV

Basically Jesus is the law/words of the prophets(the word made flesh). That is to the Christian world. Thus the fraze (I guess anyways) spirit of the law.

No offense taken there.

Would you like to discuss this passage in greater detail?

Originally Posted by CM

But back on topic what is Jewis tradition about the time period of Jesus+ Pharisees......????

The Pharisees of the first century are, essentially, the equivalent of Rabbinic Judaism. The representation of them in the Christian testament is rather fallacious.

Originally Posted by CM

Or is their anything in the Jewis history on this period of time?

There are talmudic references that speak of people during this period of history.

Originally Posted by CM

I guess in other words does the Jewis religion recognize Jesus at all in their history books?

Nope. Jesus is not in the Talmud. Pretty interesting consideration for the supposed Jewish Messiah, huh? Paul isn't mentioned as being a student of Gamaliel's even though the teacher's prominent students are mentioned.

Originally Posted by CM

And does it even say anything about the pharisees, or sects of that day?

Yes. There are discussions regarding Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Hasids and other sects.

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by CM
ok if its cosher I'll try to use a New testament example(I am not putting this up for offense or conversion reasons, just need something extra to maybe help out what I'm actually trying to say, so if any of this is offensive I apoligise, its not at all meant for offense)....
......is their anything in the Jewish history on this period of time?

Nope. Jesus is not in the Talmud. Pretty interesting consideration for the supposed Jewish Messiah, huh? Paul isn't mentioned as being a student of Gamaliel's even though the teacher's prominent students are mentioned
Yes. There are discussions regarding Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Hasids and other sects.

.Hi chokmah. Were the Chief Priests/Elders members of the Sadducees?

Concerning Paul.
Him, Jesus and the other epistles writers and the OT mention a "Day of the Lord" coming, and we do know Paul spoke against the Jewish rulers a lot, as the Chief Priests and Elders are the ones who "delivered" the Christ up to Pilate as prophecied.

I also realize a lot of "messianics" debunk Paul as a False Apostle [and wonder how they can call themselves "Christ-ans" because of this]

2 thess 2:.....just as they [did] from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up [the measure of] their sins; but the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

So do the jews feel the Day of the Lord happens "after" the Messiah comes with the New Covenant and what does the Talmud have to say on that, as I myself view this as pretty important in reconciling the Tanach prophecies to the "Christ-ian" GNT? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

Zeph 1:14 The great Day of the LORD [is] near; [It is] near and hastens quickly. The noise of the day of the LORD is bitter; There the mighty men shall cry out.

Zeph 3:14 Sing, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all [your] heart, O daughter of Jerusalem! 15 The LORD has taken away your judgments, He has cast out your enemy. The King of Israel, the LORD, [is] in your midst; You shall see disaster no more.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

Or is their anything in the Jewis history on this period of time?

I'm not sure if Josephus would be allowed as a "Jewish" source (as he was a form of Jewish resistance fighter turned fawning Roman - but in his War with Rome, when he documents the siege of Jerusalem, he does mention the Pharisee and Sadduccees and gives each a basic 1-2 sentence description - then mentioned the Essenes and gives them 2 pages or so of glowing praise.

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

I guess in other words does the Jewis religion recognize Jesus at all in their history books?

I'm sure I've read of somewhat unpleasant references in the Talmud, which is seized upon by anti-Semitic Christians as "proof" that Jews are evil - because they disrespect Jesus.

[Curios Mike]

Are you familiar with Oral Torah?

Actually no, I still have alot to learn about the modern Torah, and some or most ancient Torah. I remember alot of what I was taught in sunday schools as a kid, and bits and pieces of what I've read, but I'm sure theirs is more I dont know about, or missed in the Old testament (Torah). I know a few prophecies, but I would be one of those who does error not knowing the scriptures like I should. Even the new testament I have alot to learn.... As I said before no brainiac here.

Do you believe that Jesus "fulfilled" the Torah even though he broke commandments of Torah?

Did he? "8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. 9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--that they might accuse Him. 11 Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. " (Again no offense, not conversion tactic, just adding to the passage previously stated)

The Pharisees of the first century are, essentially, the equivalent of Rabbinic Judaism. The representation of them in the Christian testament is rather fallacious.

How do we know?

Rabbinic Judaism

What is this?

Nope. Jesus is not in the Talmud. Pretty interesting consideration for the supposed Jewish Messiah, huh? Paul isn't mentioned as being a student of Gamaliel's even though the teacher's prominent students are mentioned.

Again no offense intended... But if they put him to death and his body disapeared, Why would they include it in the Talmud if they where trying to prove he was no Messiah? Knowing that even if his body was stolen rather then resurected some would waver away from Judaism towards Christ. But just my thoughts

I'm sure I've read of somewhat unpleasant references in the Talmud, which is seized upon by anti-Semitic Christians as "proof" that Jews are evil - because they disrespect Jesus.

Was this actually in the Talmud or just made up by the anti-semitics?

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways

.Hi chokmah. Were the Chief Priests/Elders members of the Sadducees?

A simple breakdown would be:

Priesthood => Sadducees.
Sages/Teachers => Pharisees.

Originally Posted by ICA

Concerning Paul.
Him, Jesus and the other epistles writers and the OT mention a "Day of the Lord" coming, and we do know Paul spoke against the Jewish rulers a lot, as the Chief Priests and Elders are the ones who "delivered" the Christ up to Pilate as prophecied.

I also realize a lot of "messianics" debunk Paul as a False Apostle [and wonder how they can call themselves "Christ-ans" because of this]

2 thess 2:.....just as they [did] from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up [the measure of] their sins; but the wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

So do the jews feel the Day of the Lord happens "after" the Messiah comes with the New Covenant and what does the Talmud have to say on that, as I myself view this as pretty important in reconciling the Tanach prophecies to the "Christ-ian" GNT? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

I believe there are many "Day(s) of the L-rd" in Judaism. There is not just a singular situation. As for the Talmud and what it says regarding the renewing of the covenant, I cannot say. I'm not a Talmudic scholar. I have simply researched a great deal as to the supposed "Jesus" passages.

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm not sure if Josephus would be allowed as a "Jewish" source (as he was a form of Jewish resistance fighter turned fawning Roman - but in his War with Rome, when he documents the siege of Jerusalem, he does mention the Pharisee and Sadduccees and gives each a basic 1-2 sentence description - then mentioned the Essenes and gives them 2 pages or so of glowing praise.

I just got Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill. His theory talks about Josephus and the Gospels. Maybe we should discuss that in the future, if you happen to read about it or the theory that he shares.

Originally Posted by Brian

I'm sure I've read of somewhat unpleasant references in the Talmud, which is seized upon by anti-Semitic Christians as "proof" that Jews are evil - because they disrespect Jesus.

I can pretty much assure you that there is no mention of the Christian Jesus in the Talmud.

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by Curios Mike

Actually no, I still have alot to learn about the modern Torah, and some or most ancient Torah. I remember alot of what I was taught in sunday schools as a kid, and bits and pieces of what I've read, but I'm sure theirs is more I dont know about, or missed in the Old testament (Torah). I know a few prophecies, but I would be one of those who does error not knowing the scriptures like I should. Even the new testament I have alot to learn.... As I said before no brainiac here.

The Oral Torah is something that I believe every Christian should get a primer on, because it really helps to understand exactly what Torah is as a whole.

Oral Torah is the explanation that supports and clarifies the Written Torah. Anyways... it's a topic we should entertain more later.

Originally Posted by CM

Did he? "8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. 9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--that they might accuse Him. 11 Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. " (Again no offense, not conversion tactic, just adding to the passage previously stated)

Actually, just in the first Matthew passage there are three different instances that we could discuss:

1) Eating on a fast day.
2) Picking grain on the Sabbath.
3) And healing on the Sabbath.

Understanding whether or not Jesus broke any commandments comes from an understanding of Written and Oral Torah.

Originally Posted by CM

How do we know?

We can know this through research and scholarship. The answers are out there if you have the interest in pursuing it.

Originally Posted by CM

What is this?

Rabbinic Judaism is, essentially, what you have today for Orthodox all the way down to Reform Judaism (for the most part). Conservative and Orthodox have a much more traditional consideration in this regard, and Orthodox would be the most consistently like Pharisaic Judaism in the first century. Once again, this can be seen through scholarship and research.

Originally Posted by CM

Again no offense intended... But if they put him to death and his body disapeared, Why would they include it in the Talmud if they where trying to prove he was no Messiah? Knowing that even if his body was stolen rather then resurected some would waver away from Judaism towards Christ. But just my thoughts

That's the whole thing. There is no mention of Jesus whatsoever in the Talmud. Nothing about his life, death, followers, beliefs, doctrines, dogmas... nothing. If we were to look to the Torah for the verification that a Jew named Jesus lived, then we would be left with nothing. One would think that a Jew as prominent as Jesus would have been mentioned at least once, but this is not the case.

Originally Posted by CM

Was this actually in the Talmud or just made up by the anti-semitics?

Most of the time, the "Jesus" passages of the Talmud are misinterpretations or complete misunderstandings. Trust me, the Christian Jesus is completely absent from Talmud.

[bananabrain]

That's the whole thing. There is no mention of Jesus whatsoever in the Talmud. Nothing about his life, death, followers, beliefs, doctrines, dogmas... nothing.

this is not my understanding. on the contrary, there are many examples of debates between rabbis and what are known as minim or heretics. there is a considerable amount of consensus that many of these references to "minim" are understood to refer to christians. usually the story of a "min" trying to catch a rabbi out and ending up looking like an idiot. of course, this is probably rabbinic propaganda and about as impartial as, well, the gospels.

it's sometimes difficult to tell who is meant in the Talmud because the text has been edited and redacted with far less care than the Torah or Na"Kh - it's not the "word of G!D" to the same extent, of course, but often this is because of the attacks on it by the mediaeval church, which often demanded that copies be burned or rewritten to erase supposed insults to jesus or christianity. as a result, there are many references to "kutim" or "chaldeans", some of which may refer to christians, but are far more likely to refer to samaritans or other heretics. there are even references, i believe to "followers of potiris" - potiris being the name of the roman soldier said to be the real father of jesus, immaculate conception being a ridiculous idea to the rabbis. "oh, that joseph guy wasn't his real father? his real father was G!D? yeah, sure, pull the other one." - life of brian-style, if you like. whether there is any truth in this is obviously unverifiable, but certainly the chap's name came to be known and the "son of G!D" was more likely to be referred to as the equivalent of the "son of the milkman/golf pro", particularly when you come to consider that by this time the christians had the upper hand and were persecuting the jews. what could be more understandable than a desire to insult their figurehead?

One would think that a Jew as prominent as Jesus would have been mentioned at least once, but this is not the case.

only if he (and paul) were as prominent as their followers would like to have believed. again, it's impossible to find the "truth" amongst the detritus of a 1700-year-old battle of the spindoctors. either way, i don't think it's unreasonable to say that the "christian jesus" is absent from jewish texts - even if his followers occasionally pop up in them.

similarly, josephus is considered not especially reliable, being a traitor and collaborator - but he's good enough for historians, if not religiously.

and, yes, there are many "days of G!D", as well. we have one every week.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

this is not my understanding. on the contrary, there are many examples of debates between rabbis and what are known as minim or heretics. there is a considerable amount of consensus that many of these references to "minim" are understood to refer to christians. usually the story of a "min" trying to catch a rabbi out and ending up looking like an idiot. of course, this is probably rabbinic propaganda and about as impartial as, well, the gospels.

it's sometimes difficult to tell who is meant in the Talmud because the text has been edited and redacted with far less care than the Torah or Na"Kh - it's not the "word of G!D" to the same extent, of course, but often this is because of the attacks on it by the mediaeval church, which often demanded that copies be burned or rewritten to erase supposed insults to jesus or christianity. as a result, there are many references to "kutim" or "chaldeans", some of which may refer to christians, but are far more likely to refer to samaritans or other heretics. there are even references, i believe to "followers of potiris" - potiris being the name of the roman soldier said to be the real father of jesus, immaculate conception being a ridiculous idea to the rabbis. "oh, that joseph guy wasn't his real father? his real father was G!D? yeah, sure, pull the other one." - life of brian-style, if you like. whether there is any truth in this is obviously unverifiable, but certainly the chap's name came to be known and the "son of G!D" was more likely to be referred to as the equivalent of the "son of the milkman/golf pro", particularly when you come to consider that by this time the christians had the upper hand and were persecuting the jews. what could be more understandable than a desire to insult their figurehead?

I apologize for over-stepping my bounds. I should have just said that there is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud. There are many passages that people try to tie to the Jesus of Christianity; yet, I have seen refutation after refutation regarding each and every supposed passage. Anyways...

Originally Posted by B-brain

only if he (and paul) were as prominent as their followers would like to have believed. again, it's impossible to find the "truth" amongst the detritus of a 1700-year-old battle of the spindoctors. either way, i don't think it's unreasonable to say that the "christian jesus" is absent from jewish texts - even if his followers occasionally pop up in them.

similarly, josephus is considered not especially reliable, being a traitor and collaborator - but he's good enough for historians, if not religiously.

Just to ask: have you heard of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill? It has a unique theory on what role Josephus actually played.

Originally Posted by B-brain

and, yes, there are many "days of G!D", as well. we have one every week.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I like that.

[InChristAlways]

quote Curious Mike: But back on topic what is Jewis tradition about the time period of Jesus+ Pharisees......???? Or is their anything in the Jewis history on this period of time? I guess in other words does the Jewis religion recognize Jesus at all in their history books? And does it even say anything about the pharisees, or sects of that day?....The Pharisees of the first century are, essentially, the equivalent of Rabbinic Judaism. The representation of them in the Christian testament is rather fallacious.

Originally Posted by Dave the Web The Pharisees were the letter of the Law. Jesus was the spirit of the Law. That is my interpretation.

Originally Posted by bananabrain
"pharisee" is not a word that jews ever used to signify a particular group. there is a word "mefarshim", with the root being Peh-Resh-Shin (P=F in hebrew) meaning 'commentators'.

Originally Posted by InChristAlways
Were the Chief Priests/Elders members of the Sadducees?

A simple breakdown would be:

Priesthood => Sadducees.
Sages/Teachers => Pharisees.

May I ask another question? Does judaism have to make sure that a Priest is from the Levite tribe, as Levite is only mentioned 3 times in the GNT.

Here in the GNT, John appears to say the priests were seperate from the Levites and that is confusing to me? What did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

John 1:19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests [#2409] and Levites [#3019] from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"

Leuites (Strong's 3019) occurs 3 times in 3 verses:

3017. Leui lyoo'-ee of Hebrew origin (3878); Levi, the name of three Israelites:--Levi. Compare 3018 3881 Leviyiy lay-vee-ee' or Leviy {lay-vee'}; patronymically from 3878; a Levite or descendant of Levi:--Leviite.

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways

May I ask another question? Does judaism have to make sure that a Priest is from the Levite tribe, as Levite is only mentioned 3 times in the GNT.

Kind of a like the square - rectangle situation: all Priests are of the Levite clan; not all Levites are priests.

Originally Posted by ICA

Here in the GNT, John appears to say the priests were seperate from the Levites and that is confusing to me?

The base concern is that the Gospels do not represent first century Judaism very well (at least from a Pharisaic POV); therefore, there is a good chance that it's not very trustworthy when it comes to understanding the Priesthood and such.

Case in point: the High Priest was determined by Caesar. This was a ploy by Caesar to have a hand in what was going on and also to be somewhat over the Jewish people.

Originally Posted by ICA

Who did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

I'll have to defer to someone that is more "in the know" than me on this topic.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by chokmah

Just to ask: have you heard of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill? It has a unique theory on what role Josephus actually played.

I've not read it, but it could be interesting if you posted up some summary points of note.

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways
Were the Chief Priests/Elders members of the Sadducees?

Quote: A simple breakdown would be:

Priesthood => Sadducees.
Sages/Teachers => Pharisees.

What did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.

quote chokmah: I'll have to defer to someone that is more "in the know" than me on this topic.

Does anyone else here have a view on how the Levites differed in respect to the priests, sadducees and pharicees, as this is kind of puzzling to me.

Here in the GNT, John appears to say the priests were seperate from the Levites.

What did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

John 1:19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests [#2409] and Levites [#3019] from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"

Leuites (Strong's 3019) occurs 3 times in 3 verses:

3017. Leui lyoo'-ee of Hebrew origin (3878); Levi, the name of three Israelites:--Levi. Compare 3018 3881 Leviyiy lay-vee-ee' or Leviy {lay-vee'}; patronymically from 3878; a Levite or descendant of Levi:--Leviite.

....We read also that during the reign of David the rest of the Levites, to the number of thirty-eight thousand, ranging from the age of thirty years and upwards receive a special organization (1 Chronicles 23-26). They carried out their various functions week by week, their particular duties being determined by lot (cf. Luke 1:5-9). Levites are mentioned only three times in the New Testament (Luke 10:32; John 1:19; Acts 4:36), and these references throw no light on their status in the time of Christ.

[wil]

Originally Posted by chokmah Just to ask: have you heard of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill? It has a unique theory on what role Josephus actually played.

a long time ago I read a couple of different books which indicated that Josephus and family wrote the gospels and much of the NT. That the Romans were concerned as to the number of Jews and sought to create a system which would divide them... tis this of what Joseph Atwill wrote? I also remember a pamphlet regarding same which was saying that their was no reason to not prove Jesus was messiah, simply prove he never existed...

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I've not read it, but it could be interesting if you posted up some summary points of note.

I'll attempt to do that when finished. :thumbsup: