«Home

What Is The Difference Between A Christian And A Pharisee?

We all know about the pharisee from the gospels in the new testament.  However what do we really know about them?   Apart from the fact that they were hypocrites.  There are many hypocrites in the world in every faith, ideology or society. 

What I'm asking is "What are the Doctrines of the Pharisees"?.  I'm sure their doctrines were not Hypocrisy, ie if you want to be a pharisee you must be as hypocritical as possible.  Hypocrisy was not the definition of a Pharisee, so what was it that defined the Pharisees?  What were their beliefs.  For instance we know that the Sadducees did not believe in life after death in the sense of the resurrection of the body.   And we know that they took the bible literally rather than figuratively.

What doctrine or belief marked out the pharisees?  And when Jesus attacked the pharisees was he attacking the belief system or was he only attacking the way certain pharisees practiced their belief system.

Avatar
Newbie
41 answers

^^^^@OP, nice thread brb to contribute.

@DoubleDx, I hail brah; true, agree with you!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Seconded!

From your definition of a pharisee, we can conclude that anyone who practices any of the OT laws or Jewish tradition in this generation is a Pharisee and not a Christian.

So we can as well say, most of these tithe preaching Pastors and MoGs are modern days Pharisees since tithing is an OT law and a Jewish tradition.

Nairaland christians beware of phariseetic churches. They do not practice Christianity but Jew tradition! Like Obadiah777 once said, their area of specialization is gainsaying and cherry-picking of scriptures to justify their teachings!

0
Avatar
Newbie

This blast from the past ought to throw some light on my recent contentions over the interpretation of scriptures.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yeah, maybe I am. Sorry about that. I was sort of pretending the questions were academic. Nosy me.

0
Avatar
Newbie

When it comes to hypocrisy, absolutely none whatsoever.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now you are probing too deep, and I'm actually a coy guy. There were other distractions too, but I'm not going to go in to them.

. . . Sooooooo what was it that we were saying about christians and the Pharisees . . . . ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I find your answers answersory.

You were set to follow a career in the church?Interesting.As a priest? And you were distracted by global religion and man's spiritual experiences. How so? I'd think these would re-enforce your commitment to pursuing your career. Or you felt dedicating yourself only to Christianity would be too confining in the light of all the religions out there?

0
Avatar
Newbie

you don't ask simple questions, do you?

I don't think that I fit into any of the boxes that are out there.  I believe in the Oneness of the Truth, yet this Truth has been articulated variously by various cultures at various times in history.   When we add to this the fact that religion is a powerful tool used by Social Engineers to control societies then we find that we can account for pretty much all the diversity that we find in world religions. 

To the extent that I do not actually belong to any Buddhist group, then No, I'm not a buddhist.  I'm not a convert to Judaism either (though I like to interact with jews), and I am not a babalawo.  Neither am I hindu nor muslim.  No group of people that bear these names would recognise me as a member. 

I was baptised and raised a christian and was set to follow a career in the church but I got distracted.  I actually find the word christian, as an identifier of someone's religious beliefs and practices, to be a meaningless term.  Telling me that you are a christian tells me next to nothing about what it is you believe in and how you live.  There is too much of a diversity amongst those laying claim to the term. 

I hope you've found my answers satisfactory.

0
Avatar
Newbie

And what are your religious beliefs? Yes, I know people ask that and the moment you answer they put you in a box and think they know everything about you. I'm merely curious. Are you a Buddhist?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I already answered this earlier in the thread but I'll repeated it again:

-Jesus was a Rabbi and taught in the Synagogues. This is what the Pharisees did.

- Jesus actually endorsed them (ideologically) when he tells us to do as they preach because they sit on the seat of Moses. He only tells us not to do as they do, because even they do not do as they preach.

- Jesus also demoted the importance of the Temple as the Pharisees did. He told the samaritan woman that God would be worshipped neither in the temple nor on the mountain. He dismissed the magnificence of the temple saying one day not one stone will be found on top of another. This was a typical pharisee attitude. Actually it was found more so with the Essenes, but the pharisees had a similar attitude.

- the Christian doctrine that we are all priests is a pharisee doctrine. The laws of cleanliness that they upheld were originally actually only meant for the levites and priesthood initially but they interpreted it apply to all the israelites, a people to be set apart for God.

The Pharisees believed that the idea that all of the children of Israel were to be like priests was expressed elsewhere in the Torah, for example, when the Law itself was transferred from the sphere of the priesthood to every man in Israel (Exodus 19: 29-24; Deuteronomy 6: 7, 11: 19; comp. 31: 9; Jeremiah 2: 8, 18:18). Moreover, the Torah already provided some ways for all Jews to lead a priestly life: the precepts concerning unclean meat were perhaps intended originally for the priests, but were extended to the whole people (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21); the prohibition of cutting the flesh in mourning for the dead (Deuteronomy 14: 1-2, Leviticus 19: 28; comp. Lev. 21: 5). The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification.

-And indeed Paul's letters are full of Pharisee doctrines.

(This very same Gamaliel it was that Paul claimed with pride was his teacher. )

-When asked what was the greatest of the laws Jesus responded that it was the Shema. That is 'hear o israel . . . '. This is pharisee doctrine as taught by Hillel the grandfather of Gamaliel, probably the most influential pharisee ever.

And I would add to that also very importantly the belief that there were two adams.

There are just too many similarities when you look closely at it.

I consider it as conclusive as it can get considering that I'm not actually an eyeball witness, and Jesus didn't tell me personally that he is a pharisee. I'm making my conclusion from the evidence available.

How do I know he was one? Well the examples I gave above are a good start.

There is nothing to suggest to me that Jesus spoke of the pharisees as an outsider looking in. Like I said earlier the Pharisees practiced self criticism as part of the tradition. It evolved according to a dialectic, usually between the two schools of Hillel and Shammai. The Talmud, a pharisaic book makes similar criticisms of pharisees as Jesus makes, denouncing ostentatious displays of piety etc.

Why wasn't Jesus' departures from doctrine brought to a council? Because there were no departures of doctrine. Jesus did not say anything contrary to pharisee tradition. Absolutely nothing.

As regards the ramifications. Well there are so many. Which ones would be considered pertinent would depend on the context.

Tell me about it . . . ! But it's still gonna come back to bite them on the Bottom, all these 'rationalists'. It is one thing to experience something and say 'there's got to be a rational explanation' and therefore leave it as unexplained phenomena . . . .

. . . But it is quite another thing to deny that the experience is even possible at all. When they do that these so called 'scientists' have overstepped their mandate from explain phenomena to actually messing with the data by saying that such and such phenomena cannot ever occur.

Diverse religions do have a great deal in common and this is why I keep saying that if religion was a mere invention by lying clerics then not only are they liars but altogether they show very little imagination. There are too many similarities that if these people were making it up surely there should be a lot more diversity in the religions.

Every language had a word for cloud. Why? I would imagine it is because clouds exists and not because they invented the idea of clouds independently.

Nirvana or Nibbana is a Buddhist concept. Karma is just the Law of Causality. Cause and effect. It is the belief that every event, every action is connected to every other event in a fixed relationship called the Law of Karma.

Both Buddhists and Hindus belief in Dharma.

from here:

http://www.hinduism.co.za/dharma.htm#What%20is%20Dharma?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I know Judaism and Christianity shared the same historical backdrop. I didn't think they had anything else in common. What doctrines did Judaism and early Christianity share?

I see you've gone from wondering if Christ was a Pharisee to concluding that he was. How did you know he was one? If he was, why does he speak about the pharisees from the outside looking in,why did they have to meet him in public or ambush him to challenge; why isn't there an instance where his departures from standard doctrine were addressed in the council to which he belonged? If he was one of their own and he erred, surely they would deal with him first as a pharisee subject to the laws of the council?

Even if he were, the ramifications would be-?

Yeah, religion is man's moral compass in most societies, and I don't think a single irreligious culture exists. They know there's 'something' out there, and each culture's history is littered with various sincere attempts to find and understand it. There's an interesting event in the NT, when Paul comes across just such an attempt.Athenians in Greece have built shrines to 'an unknown god' and worship him there. Not a temple or a church or anything 'conventional'; but shrines shrine. Paul knows whatthey are seeking and tells them,"I see you have built shrines shrine to an unknown god.I am here to introduce that god to you so you may worshiphim intelligently.' Acts 17:22-23.

Because we know a little science it's the pastime of some to acribe all religion to ancient superstition and laugh it to scorn.And of course, there is superstition. But there's also far more than that. One cannot tell a Yoruba shaman that his 'gods' does not exist; he would rightyly consider one foolish,superior and ignorant,because he knows better. You cannot tell Shirley Mclane and her New Age friends there isn't an extra dimension, because they're adepts at separating their body/ brain from their spirit/brain. You can't tell Tibetan monks nothing survives bodily death, because they travel out of their body, and are adept mystics. You can't tell the myriad of Princeton,Stanford and Harvard professors,initial atheists who changed their tunr after self experimenting with the occult (they self-experiment because they didn't really expect anything to happen but it did) and discovered the ancient Babylonians had it right.

So yeah, one would expect diverse religions to have layers in common;they're human attempts to connect with 'god', and each interperetes his own experiences differently, something founding religious philosophy on nothing but.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Hinduism teaches reconciliation with God. Isn't it karma and Nirvana for the happy Hindu?

0
Avatar
Newbie

RELIGIOUS LEADERS THAT ARE ALWAYS CORRECT ARE PHARISEE

A CHRISTIAN IS A HUMAN BEING HOW BELIEVES IN CHRSIT AND IS NOT PERFECT

0
Avatar
Newbie

But the really interesting thing in all of this is the realisation that everywhere that I've looked in the world, all religious traditions that have a basis in experience (mysticism) all come up with the same teaching.

Namely that there is an Appropriation to the lives of every individual in this world.  That there is a way things are meant to be, and that individuals can deviate from their appropriation, but it is when they reconcile back to it that they are reconciled back to God. 

This truth is articulated variously to various degrees of accuracy  in different cultures whether they call it The First Adam, the Logos, Ori, Eleda Eni in yoruba land, Chi in Igbo land, Tao in China, or Dharma in India.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes and no. Yes he was a member of the Pharisees and was involved with the interpretation of scripture. But the Jews also had a council called the Sanhedrin which was made up mostly of Pharisees. The Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin pretty much like the Sadducees controlled the Priesthood and the Temple. Jesus was not a member of the Sanhedrin (as far as I can tell).

The Pharisees were defined by a certain set of doctrines that they believed and they practiced. Not by hypocrisy. It is wrong, confusing, and misleading to use the term pharisee to mean a hypocrite.

There is nothing in the doctrine (which is what defines them) of the pharisees that is in anyway different from the doctrines of the early christians. So Yes, If not for some totally arbitrary label they might be categorised as the same. Early Christianity is not as different from Pharisiac Judaism as some would make out.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well the bible states explicitly that he was a rabbi. Well the Rabbis were pharisees. Too many of their religious doctrines not to mention the rhetoric with which they articulated these doctrines were the same. Where perhaps there may have been a difference between christians and Pharisee is in whether or not Jesus was that Primordial Adam, the Messiah. (And also the Pharisees did not necessarily see the messiah as a military leader either. )

0
Avatar
Newbie

What you're saying is, Christ might have been a member of the religious council of Pharisees,since a Pharisee at the time did not have the negative connotations it does today; they were religious elders who interpreted the Jewish Laws and preached in synagogues. You're saying they might be compared to Christians in that much of Christian religious activity- preaching, praying, giving to the poor, even some religious thought- mirrors theirs? If not for labels, they might even be categorised as the same? Is that what you're saying?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now the following is very interesting. It looks at three different sources of the christological belief. The basic gist of it is that the Pharisees believed that two Adams were created. The primordial Adam was the one through whom the world was given form. He was the Messiah and it was also believed that this primordial Adam would one day incarnate as a human being, flesh and blood. This first Adam was quite different from the Adam made of clay that became our progenitor. There was also a Jewish philosopher from Alexandria called Philo who went on to equate this Primordial Adam with what the Greeks called the Logos. Again the Logos was seen as the Form or the Order of the Universe. Or in other words the Ordering principle of the universe.

Then a few decades Later St. Paul, who remember claimed he was a pharisee that studied under Gamaliel, goes on to articulate in 1Corinthians chapter15 a christology that relies heavily on the idea of 2 Adams. The second Adam (ie the primordial) having incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ. In other words the difference between Paul and the Pharisees, presumably, is that whereas most pharisees were still waiting for the incarnation of the primordial Adam, ie the Messiach, Paul was saying that he had already incarnated.

And then a few more decades laters the writer of John's gospel doesn't mince his words and states straight that Jesus was the Incarnation of the Logos. Remember that the Greek Logos and the Pharisee Primordial Adam had already been equated by Philo.

From here:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=761&letter=A

0
Avatar
Newbie

The fact is that we simply can't make that statement with certainty. We only have a couple of accounts and they only describe two of the Essene sects. There were a minimum of seven. The Essenes also weren't as seclusive as many believe - according to Josephus, the Essenes had settled "not in one city" but "in large numbers in every town". They are considered to have had "headquarters" at Qumran and Engeda.

Personally, I don't see it as a huge step for Jesus to be an Essene and decide to spread their message. Remember, we're looking at a guy who stepped outside the box.

When we take a look at the message, we see that it is much, much more compatible with the teachings of Jesus than with the teachings of the Pharisees or Saduccees.

The main factor to take into account is that the Essenes were amongst the only Jews who were messianic.

Then take into account their attitude to wealth, their pacifism, their attitude to divorce, their abstinence from worldly pleasures, their attitude to commerce, their rituals of baptism and a myriad of other similarities to the Christian message and they look by far the likeliest candidate to have produced Jesus.

We can also take into account the description of John the Baptist (that certainly seems to describe an Essene) and even the word used to describe one certain sect of Essenes - Nazarean. The latter is the word that may clear up the confusion over Nazareth - a town that didn't even exist in Jesus' time.

Luke 4 would seem to be describing Jesus' relationship with the Essene sect that raised him and how he came to preach. It would also explain their reaction to his preaching. I believe that we can swap the word "Nazareth" for "town of the Nazareans". The verse can't be describing Nazareth anyway - as I've said, it didn't exist and Verse 29 says: "And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong."

Nazareth wasn't built on a hill. It was built in a valley. In contrast, the Essene towns of Qumran and Engeda were both built on hills.

0
Avatar
Newbie

No difference at all, they are simply different cadres in a profession of lies.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Pharisee mean the distinguished one,and they call non member Amaharets meaning people of the dust(the masses) they love showy display,load and public prayer so to be heard seen by others, they make long prayers to impress onlookers,the hobnob with the ruling class(hand in hand with herod and pontius pilate) have elaborated the mosaic laws in their book Mishnah,thereby arrogating to themselves interpreters of the law and vicars of God,we hve them

0
Avatar
Newbie

Whatever is being said ex-cathedra is binding upon all Christians. For example the fact that we cannot have or support abortions is binding on all Christians, or that we cannot support gay marriages or unions is binding on all christians or embryonic stem cells and all teaching having to do with faith and morals. So in actuality the only thing that can 100% be known by all christians is something ex-cathedra. If it is not ex-cathedra, I am not bound to following it and I can disagree with the Pope. Popes give personal opinions and their personal opinions can and have been wrong, however it is just that his personal opinions and is therefore not of the Church. Just because the Pope said doesn't mean it is true. However if the Pope says it ex-cathedra we know that it is true and is from God, and is not his own personal opinion. So even if a Pope wishes to state his persoanl opinion ex-cathedra he cannot. A Pope tried and he couldn't speak in the duration of his audience. He could only open his mouth after everyone left, so ofcourse people looked at him as if he was silly and those who disagreed with him were very happy.

As for indulgences the Pope didn't even know it was being sold and in reality it was done by one very silly Bishop. Indulgences aren't wrong, infortunately ppl weren't even told what indulgences were.

So how would I know? It has to be taught. So all Bishops are informed and they in turn inform the Priests in their diocese or archdiocese, and the priests informs the people.

They do not have to tell us the Pope said it if he was saying it while on the toilet seat.

That's why Catholics on this board have been trying to explain that the Pope's infallibility doesn't lie with the Pope personally, but with the Papal Office. So the Pope can make personal statements that can be wrong, however he cannot make statements on faith and morals wrongly. The Holy Spirit won't allow that.

And if God forbid a Pope happens to be a thug we pray for his happy death.

None of the atrocious acts that I still haven't received a citing for, have ever been announced ex-cathedra, meaning it cannot be attributed to the Church, it can only be attributed to those persons who commit the act.

Just as we can't say ALL fathers are killers because some fathers killed their children, or that all christians are hypocrites because we see christian hypocrites everyday, we also cannot say that the Catholic Church committed those acts. And even at that no one has yet produced the acts the Church supposedly committed from credible historical sources.

Oh as to your earlier post, I was stating my personal opinion, which was why I stated "I think we all misunderstand"

I also wasn't trying to say that your information was incorrect I was only stating actually from what I perceived from your posts that each sect had a job to do and instead of working together, they tried to show that this one is better than the other and vice versa

0
Avatar
Newbie

I didn't just say that Jesus was not different from the pharisees. I said that Jesus was a pharisee.

As a pharisee there cannot really be a major difference between Jesus and the pharisees. As a pharisee Jesus has every right to criticise his own.

As a nigerian I have every right to criticize and complain about the rampant corruption, superficiality and idiocy of nigerian society. That does not make me not a nigerian.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I ask u what was the major difference and bone of contention (apart from the status of Jesus) between Jesus and the Pharisees?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I hear you but there are some differences there. The Essenes did not interact with the world and get involved with politics. Jesus was out in the world and also Jesus was part of the Rabbinic tradition. He was a Rabbi and taught in the synagogues. On the other hand it is thought that the Essenes were the real original Jewish priests that left Jerusalem in disgust after the Greeks imposed a puppet high priest. They called their community the New temple. The pharisiac tradition on the other hand tried to blur the distinction between Priests and laymen. Laymen were called to perform the purification rites and live purely like the Levitical priests were supposed to do. Pharisees called on every one to be priests. The Rabbinical tradition belonged to the pharisees. Jesus was a Rabbi.

Jesus never baptised. His disciples did, but he never did. Baptism was mainly practiced by the Essenes, but I don't think the pharisees baptised. This matter of baptism is the main point that you could say could distinguish early christians from pharisees. Although there is no record that the pharisees didn't baptise. However the bible says clearly that Jesus didn't baptise.

0
Avatar
Newbie

A number of things . . .

First, the title of this thread is 'What is the Difference between a Christian and a Pharisee?'. Not 'What is the Main Purpose of Jesus Coming?'. So I have not refused to identify anything. To make a refusal one must first hear a request. If you are making a request I think I can oblige you and yet satisfy the topic of this thread, but first let me answer a couple of other things you've said.

Second, You need to show me where pharisees 'condemned those who are unrighteous, full of sin and not of God'. If that was a part of Pharisee doctrine then can you please show me where they said that. Yes they wanted to preserve Jewish culture and not mix with the Greeks and adopt greek customs, but that is not a condemnation of Greeks. Love your neighbour as your self is in the Jewish Torah and the Pharisees upheld that. They are the ones who first articulated the Shema as the most important law: Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is One, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your strength and all your might.

Thirdly you have not showed me one place where Christian doctrine differed from Pharisee doctrine. Perhaps first you need to find out what the doctrines of the Pharisees were.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm sorry, but that's a really tall order. How is anyone supposed to know whether the popes were sitting in the kathedra or not when they were using their authority to order all manner of atrocities? How would I know whether the sale of indulgences was done from the Cathedra or not? Heck, how would you know, as a catholic which orders are binding and which are not? How do you know if the pope was giving it ex-cathedra or while he was on his toilet seat? All you know is that the pope has said such and such.

0
Avatar
Newbie

My personal take on it is that Jesus was much more likely to have been an Essene rather than a Pharisee.

http://latter-rain.com/Israel/essenes.htm

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ AIO

To some extent u have a point but have refused to identify the main purpose of Jesus coming.

Jesus expects us to be "holier" than the pharasee`s like He was. but the difference is that while the pharasee condemned those who are unrighteous, full of sin and not of God, He commanded us to love them.

so in reality Christianity is holiness, humility, love kindness and all the other goodies the Father teached about.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ Pastor AIO

I will return to yours.

@ KunleOshob

The fullness of the christian truth is knowing what the Bible says truly and fully and interpreting all passages in light of the other passages. Understanding the exegesis of what Christ and his apostles convey. It is really too long to post here. It is understanding who God is, why he created us, why after adam and eve sinned, he didn't wipe out humanity and started all over again, why he chose abram, why he changed his name and why he chose jacob and why he changed his name. why he chose moses, why he permitted certain things to happen, why he decided to redeem the world, why he decided to redeem the world through a messiah, why did the messiah have to be born of a woman, why didn't he just appear in human form, what is the purpose of his birth from a woman and why does the woman have to be a virgin when she conceives him, why mary, why did the woman have to marry, what is the purpose of the man she married, why did he have to have 12 disciples, why not 11 or 20, why did they all have to be men or why were they men. why did he have to die by crucifixion, why couldn't he have just been stoned to death, why couldn't his legs have been broken, after all he had power to heal his legs when he resurrected. why did he start his ministry at the prompting of the woman, why does he call his mother woman at beginning of his ministry, why does he call her woman at the foot of the cross, after all he did go on to say to the disciple that the woman was now his mother, why didn't he just call her mother and then give her away, why did he have to give her away, didn't she have other children that could have taken care of her? why give her away?

why does he call himself the son of man, what does the son of man mean? why does he institute the eucharist or holy communion? why did he have to be betrayed, everyone already knew his whereabouts and they had chances to catch him and take him to trial, why didn't they do it at that point. why does he take his last breath at 3pm, what is the significance of that 3pm. why does he have to carry the cross? why does he go through the crucifixion during the feast of the passover? why does he give holy communion in the form of bread and wine? why do we have to do it in remembrance of him? why forgiveness? and so many more questions are answered by the Catholic church.

nope, it includes honouring God's mother and honouring his saints, after all the Bible does instruct us to do so, and we see it too many times in the Bible. And mostly Mary tells us that all generations will call her blessed. You can't ust skip through passages in the Bible and hold some as more important than the other, they are all equally infallible.

Yes it was being practiced by the Church, and the Church teaches the fullness of truth. Now there are members of the Church that do not practice the fullness of the truth. However just because people do not always practice what they preach does not mean that they do not preach the truth.

The church's teaches the truth and it is up to its members to practice them.

If we are to go by your reasoning, then no one earth has the fullness of truth, and Christ would not leave us without us knowing the truth, and mostly it would mean that Christ failed when he said he will send us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.

Unless you Kunle are trying to say that you are perfect.

Infact it would mean that the apostles also didn't know the fullness of the truth, and that infact would cast doubt on the New Testament writings. No where does it state that the requirement for the true church would be that all the members would be sinless or perfect. Even those who walked with Christ weren't. Even the one he gave the Keys to Kingdom of Heaven denied him 3 times. Go figure. If the Bible states that the members of the Church would be sinless, pls show me. The Church is sinless because the Church is the body of Christ, but the members are not.

Also pls make sure that you do some more research on the history of the Catholic Church as there are hardly any credible historians who would claim that the atrocious acts that were taught as being fashioned by the Church were really by the Church. Just because it is popularly known does not make it true.

Let it be noted, that the Catholic Church has never taught error and neither has she practiced error, but her members have. There has never been a Pope that sits on the chair pf Peter (remember the chair of moses from the other discussion?) that has ever issued a decree ex-cathedra, that is from the Chair of Peter binding upon all christians as a belief, that is atrocious.

If there ever has been let someone cite a source for it. Let me remind you that you will have to post that the Pope called for it ex-cathedra, not just that he stated it, but that he called for it ex-cathedra.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The Pharisees were the most righteous of the Jews, a fact acknowledge by Jesus himself when he enjoined people to have a degree of righteousness exceeding that of the Pharisees.  This is a far cry from the charge of hypocrites that some have levelled on them.  The high recommendation of the Pharisees comes from God himself.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What you've given above is an extrapolation, an interpretation. I was referring to the translation not the interpretation of what the verse said. The word official does not occur in the greek and neither does the word interpreters. (I know I said I wasn't sure about the interpretation of the verse, what I meant was the translation of the verse.)

The direct translation says that they sit in moses' chair. That could also be taken to mean not just that they interpreted Moses but that they wield the same authority that Moses wielded. Interpretations extrapolate from the text, while translations should try to stay as close to the text as possible.

This is quite wrong. What are you basing what you've said here on? There were no Sadducees or Pharisees originally in Jewish religion. The Sadducees emerged when the Greeks conquered Israel and instated their own puppet High Priest in the temple. The Sadducees rose in support of this new priesthood and were in favour of Israel becoming hellenized. This is all history, not a matter of opinion.

The pharisees rejected this hellenization and they had the popular support of the people. That is why they were as powerful as they were. To the point that the Sadducees had to compromise with them to keep the peace. They were not just different parts of Jewish religion. Their beliefs and ideologies were different.

I don't know how you arrived at your notion. Perhaps you can provide sources. However I know it not to be true as a matter of historical fact.

I've already given a few outlines above. I'll repeat them.

-Jesus was a Rabbi and taught in the Synagogues. This is what the Pharisees did.

- Jesus actually endorsed them (ideologically) when he tells us to do as they preach because they sit on the seat of Moses. He only tells us not to do as they do, because even they do not do as they preach.

- Jesus also demoted the importance of the Temple as the Pharisees did. He told the samaritan woman that God would be worshipped neither in the temple nor on the mountain. He dismissed the magnificence of the temple saying one day not one stone will be found on top of another. This was a typical pharisee attitude. Actually it was found more so with the Essenes, but the pharisees had a similar attitude.

- the Christian doctrine that we are all priests is a pharisee doctrine. The laws of cleanliness that they upheld were originally actually only meant for the levites and priesthood initially but they interpreted it apply to all the israelites, a people to be set apart for God.

[color=#000099]The Pharisees believed that the idea that all of the children of Israel were to be like priests was expressed elsewhere in the Torah, for example, when the Law itself was transferred from the sphere of the priesthood to every man in Israel (Exodus 19: 29-24; Deuteronomy 6: 7, 11: 19; comp. 31: 9; Jeremiah 2: 8, 18:18). Moreover, the Torah already provided some ways for all Jews to lead a priestly life: the precepts concerning unclean meat were perhaps intended originally for the priests, but were extended to the whole people (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21); the prohibition of cutting the flesh in mourning for the dead (Deuteronomy 14: 1-2, Leviticus 19: 28; comp. Lev. 21: 5). The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification.

-And indeed Paul's letters are full of Pharisee doctrines.

(This very same Gamaliel it was that Paul claimed with pride was his teacher. )

-When asked what was the greatest of the laws Jesus responded that it was the Shema. That is 'hear o israel . . . '. This is pharisee doctrine as taught by Hillel the grandfather of Gamaliel, probably the most influential pharisee ever. [/color]

And I would add to that also very importantly the belief that there were[b] two adams[/b].

There are just too many similarities when you look closely at it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Oh KunleOshob

You mentioned that Catholics are misled to believing that pentecostals or protestants are not christians. Just wanted to correct you there. We aren't misled into thinking so. We acknowledge them as christians, we just know that they only have partial truth of the christian faith.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Sitting in Moses' chair means one has the authority to interpret scripture and define law for the people. Sitting in Moses' chair gives them the authority to interpret the scriptures. That's why they have the authority to interpret the scriptures.

You'll have to map out the similarities between Jesus and the Pharisees.

I think we all have a grave misunderstanding of the system of that time. The Pharisees and the Sadducees all had their respective roles in the Jewish religion and they were supposed to stay within the constraints of their roles, but couldn't. Instead of realising that they each had their roles. The Pharisees for interpreting the law, and the sadducees for carrying out the law. They were to work together and not against each other. They couldn't comprehend that, call it elitism. But it's the human nature.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why was Jesus so effusive in his praising of the pharasees in the following gospel text taken from Matt 5:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For 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.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

0
Avatar
Newbie

And herein lies the problem. Pharisee has become synonymous with hypocrisy to the point that we probably think that the qualifications for becoming a pharisee is that they had to demonstrate how hypocritical they could be. Yet that is not the case. You cannot have an association of people for hypocrisy. They had their beliefs and tenets. There are hypocrites in all walks of life. Pharisee does not equal hypocrite. Dictionary definitions will not help you none. If you want to know anything about the pharisees you'll have to do some research.

The following is taken from a christian website that talks about their history and then about their doctrines and characteristics. The history is factual but then when talking about their beliefs they miss the facts.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/pharisaism.html

The part that I've marked blue is filled with many inaccuracies.

Let us look at what a Jewish website has to say about the Pharisees.

From here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html

I've put in bold the key points and words.

The Christian websites makes many grave errors as follows:

This is unfounded, in fact the contrary seems to be true when you study what the pharisees believed.

And this bring us to the crux of my point. The Talmud is a Pharisee book. It is the Oral Tradition written in a book. So what we have here is Self Criticism. If a pharisee is upbraiding another pharisee to stop being hypocritical does that mean that the definition of pharisee is a hypocritical person.

The pharisee tradition was a very democratic tradition. There were many debates and varying viewpoints. The tradition developed from this dialectical approach. Jesus could be a pharisee and still upbraid other pharisees. In fact as a pharisee he would focus his teachings on his fellow pharisees. This was the pharisee approach.

In fact the pharisee tradition at the time of Jesus can be seen as a dialectic between the Hillel viewpoint and the Shamma viewpoint. It is the Shamma pharisees that are strictly ritualistic and the Hillel pharisees are more liberal.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi, is as follows:

Pharisee: A self-righteous or sanctimonious person, A member of an ancient Jewish sect noted for strict obedience to Jewish traditions.

Christiian:A religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and is a member of a Christian denomination, Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

Matt5:20

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well i won't be able to do the research immeditely as i a working on some things that need my attention right now, but i think the issue is not the pharisees doctrine per se it is actually that they are hypocrites as jesus stated in Matthew 23. Jesus did not critisize what they said (doctrine) he cristisized what they did (Hypocrisy) That apart i also have the impression that the pharisees had a very rigid interpretation of the law which was oppressive ( i can't remember the verse which buttresses this point). Also matthew 23:23 is a reminder of how the pharisees implement the law. they focus on the showmanship of it and ignore the weightier matters of justice, equity, mercy and honesty.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I can understand that it is confusing especially as we have learned to think of pharisees as evil people, but what I'm saying is that after actually taking a look at what their doctrines and ideologies are, I do not see the difference with christianity.

Apart from any prejudice you may have against the name pharisee can you tell me one thing that they say ideologically that is at odds with christian beliefs? I understand that you may not be familiar with Pharisee doctrine but if you study into it I think you'll find that there is no disparity with christianity. Try googling the pharisees and researching what they believed in. I'm interested to know what you think after a bit of research.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@PastorAIO

I think this your posts are really confusing, one thing is certain Jesus was definitely not a pharisees even if he had certain doctrines in common with them. Today we have over 30,000 christian denominations in the world with a number of them at each others throats, some would even deny others are christians. the distrust between the catholic church and the evangelical pentecostals is very obvious. the average pentecostal is mis-led to believe catholics are not christians and vis -versa and that does not make either one of them christian or not. My point being even though he may have similarities with them like we have in most churches today they are still very different ideologically

0
Avatar
Newbie

Matthew 23:2:

2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.

Pharisees were the religious leaders of that time, i think a better header for this topic would have been "what is the difference between a pastor/preacher and a pharisee?" since pastors are now our religious leaders and most of them have that hypocritical attribute of pharisees.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.