Who are the J's: the Pharisees, or the sinners?

Though it's already been said in earlier posts, I'd agree that typing an entire social class, not to mention an ancient one, doesn't really work imo.

On an unrelated note, one amusing tidbit that I remember from worshipjesusonsaturdayschool is "The Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife. That's why they were sad. U see?" X) Ahhh....
 
knight in battle said:
Were the Pharisees J's?
Are they too focused on their rigid standards to know the right context to have fun and party? :w:
Are all J's partypoopers? :D
Were the disciples P's?
Click to expand...

No, the pharisees were a political group, what we would consider conservatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
GracieRuth said:
What makes you think that brother J and his disciples didn't fast and pray? I'm just really confused by your remark, because while I may take the gospels and epistles with a big grain of salt, I seem to recall a number of occasions where fasting and praying is mentioned.
Click to expand...

I was obviously speaking of the time the Pharisees were talking about that impelled Jesus to respond regarding the bridegroom.
 
just me said:
I was obviously speaking of the time the Pharisees were talking about that impelled Jesus to respond regarding the bridegroom.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay, got it. I can't imagine Jesus not keeping the mandatory fasts, and I wonder if this is referring to additional voluntary fasts, but quite frankly this is not something I've studied. I'll inquire into it and get back to you.
 
It was because of something said because of something happening at the moment, I think.
 
The Doctor said:
No, the pharisees were a political group, what we would consider conservatives.
Click to expand...
Interesting analogy. I remember how "conservative" I was during the Clinton impeachment/removal trials and how people kept telling the conservatives to quit casting stones at him. :w:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst http://bible.cc/john/8-4.htmthey said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. http://bible.cc/john/8-5.htmNow in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” http://bible.cc/john/8-6.htmThis they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. http://bible.cc/john/8-7.htmAnd as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:4-7
Click to expand...
 
knight in battle said:
Interesting analogy. I remember how "conservative" I was during the Clinton impeachment/removal trials and how people kept telling the conservatives to quit casting stones at him. :w:
Click to expand...

One of the nice things about going to a bible college is you get to learn about the history that surrounds the bible

Edit: just to add in, if we are to consider the Pharisees conservative, the we have to note that the Sadducees were liberals. The Pharisees wanted to return to the ways of the Old Testament and refused to take up the traditions of Rome, where as the Sadducees cared very little for Old Testament and believed it to be nothing more then book of traditions, they wanted to adapt to Rome to help make their society better.

Neither of them liked Jesus very much, the Pharisees saw him as a heretic and the Sadducees thought his teaching the Old Testament was backward and getting in the way of progress.


P.P.S. That's your history lesson for the day, that in nearly nearly two thousand years things haven't changed all that much.
 
Last edited:
The Doctor said:
No, the pharisees were a political group, what we would consider conservatives.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider them political. They were a religious group. Nor were they conservative. Conservative views of the day underscored temple sacrifice. The Pharisees were very liberal in interpreting things in a manner that imbued every individual with the ability to deal directly with G-d.

It was the Sadducees who were the conservatives, who wanted the people dependant upon the priesthood and temple sacrificial system.
 
GracieRuth said:
I wouldn't consider them political. They were a religious group. Nor were they conservative. Conservative views of the day underscored temple sacrifice. The Pharisees were very liberal in interpreting things in a manner that imbued every individual with the ability to deal directly with G-d.

It was the Sadducees who were the conservatives, who wanted the people dependant upon the priesthood and temple sacrificial system.
Click to expand...

the Saducees were nearly areligous with little care to how those matters were handled and were more focused on the relationship with Rome. The Pharisees weren't liberal by any standerds that I can consider, they believed in creating laws to protect laws and while yes they were indeed a religious group, this is an era where That was usually the same thing as a political group. Judah's monarchy was(prior to occupation by fill in the blank nation) a combination of divine election and patriarchy, religion and government were the same thing.

There reasoning for continued use of the temple was mostly out of tradition


Edit: Actually I may be wrong can you show me a link or article saying otherwise? (it's been a while since I've looked up the info)
 
Last edited:
The Doctor said:
the Saducees were nearly areligous with little care to how those matters were handled and were more focused on the relationship with Rome. The Pharisees weren't liberal by any standerds that I can consider, they believed in creating laws to protect laws and while yes they were indeed a religious group, this is an era where That was usually the same thing as a political group. Judah's monarchy was(prior to occupation by fill in the blank nation) a combination of divine election and patriarchy, religion and government were the same thing.

There reasoning for continued use of the temple was mostly out of tradition


Edit: Actually I may be wrong can you show me a link or article saying otherwise? (it's been a while since I've looked up the info)
Click to expand...
From Judaism 101: http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm
The Sadducees evolved out of the Hellenistic elements of Judaism. The movement was made up of the priests and the aristocrats of Jewish society. They were religiously conservative but socially liberal. The Sadducees believed in a strict, narrow and unchanging interpretation of the written Torah, and they did not believe in oral Torah. The Temple and its sacrificial services were at the center of their worship. Socially, they adopted the ways of the neighboring Greek culture.

The Pharisees believed that G-d gave the Jews both a written Torah and an oral Torah, both of which were equally binding and both of which were open to interpretation by the rabbis, people with sufficient education to make such decisions. The Pharisees were devoted to study of the Torah and education for all.
Click to expand...

Use of the temple to make sacrifices is much more than "tradition." It is commandment. It is still commandment. Right now it's tricky because there is a mosque there and it would be wrong to simply tear it down. But sooner or later there will be an earth quake or some Palestinian suicide bomber will bring down the mosque, and then we will rebuild the temple and sacrifices will resume. Why? It's commandment.
 
GracieRuth said:
From Judaism 101: http://www.jewfaq.org/movement.htm


Use of the temple to make sacrifices is much more than "tradition." It is commandment. It is still commandment. Right now it's tricky because there is a mosque there and it would be wrong to simply tear it down. But sooner or later there will be an earth quake or some Palestinian suicide bomber will bring down the mosque, and then we will rebuild the temple and sacrifices will resume. Why? It's commandment.
Click to expand...

Thanks, It's interesting to see that we were both kind of right. They were into adopting the Hellenistic culture that had spread from Rome and Greece, and had some though not entirely liberal views religiously as well such as in a lack of a belief in a afterlife. But the real point to make about them being liberal is in their views of how adjust to Roman occupation.


Also, you are Messianic Jew correct?
 
I feel compelled to say this is the silliest, most illogical thread that I have ever seen
 
The Doctor said:
Thanks, It's interesting to see that we were both kind of right. They were into adopting the Hellenistic culture that had spread from Rome and Greece, and had some though not entirely liberal views religiously as well such as in a lack of a belief in a afterlife. But the real point to make about them being liberal is in their views of how adjust to Roman occupation.
Click to expand...
True enough that. It's always difficult applying modern terms to some other time -- our boxes don't fit very well. I just see as liberal the ones who are trying to do something new for their age, but compared to NOW they may seem incredibly conservative.


Also, you are Messianic Jew correct?
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm a regular every day run of the mill Jew. Very boring. In terms of observance I tend to be what we call Conservadox, or "Orthodox Lite" or Modern Orthodox. However, in my theology I relate more to the Conservatives and Reform, like I accept evolution and stuff and I know that Moses did not write the Torah. But I have no problems with my Christian friends. Christians who are truly devout in their faith are good people, and in the end that's what matters. What makes me different from most of the Jews you will meet is that I grew up in a Converso home -- somewhere in time my family became Christian but still kept many Jewish traditions, like we wouldn't carry money on shabbat. Over time, we forgot we were Jews, and didn't even know why we did these things. I was over 40 when I found out I was a Jew. So anyhow, being a pastor's daughter yada yada yada I am far more fluent in Christian thought, and don't really have the same innate fear of Chistians that a lot of Jews have.
 
GracieRuth said:
Use of the temple to make sacrifices is much more than "tradition." It is commandment. It is still commandment. Right now it's tricky because there is a mosque there and it would be wrong to simply tear it down. But sooner or later there will be an earth quake or some Palestinian suicide bomber will bring down the mosque, and then we will rebuild the temple and sacrifices will resume. Why? It's commandment.
Click to expand...

Maybe the mosque will be sacrificed.

Sacrifices may still be observed by my Jewish friends, but I thought the "taking away of the daily sacrifices" spoken of by Daniel may have already happened(haven't studied it in years, though).

The NT says something different about sacrifices and burnt offerings, but I'll have to find the verse and see if it is out of context. It was Hebrews 10 I was thinking about. I understand my Jewish friends do not grasp this as part of their theology.
 
Last edited:
just me said:
Maybe the mosque will be sacrificed.

Sacrifices may still be observed by my Jewish friends, but I thought the "taking away of the daily sacrifices" spoken of by Daniel may have already happened(haven't studied it in years, though).

The NT says something different about sacrifices and burnt offerings, but I'll have to find the verse and see if it is out of context.
Click to expand...
Christians of course have their own spin on it, and I'm not really here to try to convince them otherwise. It IS interesting that you bring up Daniel. Remember that Daniel was taken into Captivity and the first Temple was destroyed, so Daniel and Friends had to figure out what they were going to do without a temple sacrificial system. It was the prophet Hosea who told us that when we don't have a temple, "the words of our lips shall be as bullocks," IOW our prayers will be our atoning sacrifices. When the second Temple was destroyed, we simply reverted to what we had done in Babylon.

Wanna hear something really unusual? One of my friends is tribe of Ephraim, meaning that his forefathers went into diaspora much earlier, when Israel fell to Assyria. The way his family learned to adapt in captivity was very different than Judah -- they continued doing sacrifices, just did them without a temple. He always gets a little irritable when the traditions of Judah trump the traditions of his family. For example, most Jews will not have lamb for Passover since we have no temple in which to sacrifice it, but my friend cooked up a wickedly scrumptuous lamb dinner for our Seder meal last night.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top