[Akoue]

There were more problems than that, though one was hypocrisy. The issues with the Pharisees identified in scripture are:

1) They may have taught many of the right things, but they did not do them:

Which is hypocrisy. They said one thing but did another.

Matt 23:1-3
2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
NKJV

2) Knowledge of the scriptures, specifically the gospel and failure to follow them, and kept it to themselves so the people had to come to the priests if they wanted to know what was right, which allowed them to get away with the next item (#3).

Luke 11:51-52
52 Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
NKJV

Notice that this is addressed to the "lawyers" and not the "Pharisees". Lk.11.42-44 gives us "Woe to you Pharisess", three times no less. But Lk.11.45-52 is addressed to the lawyers. His upbraiding of the Pharisees consists in Jesus's emphasizing that the inner life is just as important as the outer. This is what I pointed out in my previous post. So while Lk.11.42-44 does speak to the Pharisees, making exactly the point I already adumbrated above, the portion of the text that you cite, Lk.11.51-52, is addressed not to the Pharisees but to the lawyers.

3) They created what was essentially an "ecclesiastical law" of their tradition which was in addition to scripture:

Matt 15:2-4
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

But I also agree that their orientation when doing those things also needed to be right.

"In addition to scripture" is your own addition. This isn't what Christ says. Mt.15.2-4 is just a snippet from a longer, and continuous, criticism of the Pharisees. And what does Christ accuse the Pharisees of? We find the answer at Mt.15.7: "You hypocrites!"

So your 1 and 3 both concern hypocrisy, and your 2 is drawn from a bit of text where Christ chastises not the Pharisees but the lawyers. In the passage a bit before what you quote, Christ does, however, chastise the Pharisees: For being hypocrites.

It seems we are, however, in general agreement that both actions and intentions (or orientation as you quite rightly call it) need to be in accord with one another. As for the question of fasting and abstaining from meat on Friday, it would be a mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church holds the view that one's orientation (if I may borrow your term) doesn't matter so long as one performs the requisite acts. On the contrary, the act is to be an expression of one's orientation. Otherwise, of course, the act is empty of meaning. At the same time, however, being called to perform an act can often can often focus the mind, and recall to one's attention what is important and what one's orientation is and ought to be. The two, the act and the orientation, are mutually nourishing.

[Akoue]

No.. But it is at odds with the teaching of the Pharisees was my point.

Well, inasmuch as the Pharisees were Jews and not yet followers of Christ that's true. Of course, many of the early members of the Christian community were former Pharisees.

[Tj3]

Which is hypocrisy. They said one thing but did another.

Yes, that is what I said.

Notice that this is addressed to the "lawyers" and not the "Pharisees". Lk.11.42-44 gives us "Woe to you Pharisess", three times no less. But Lk.11.45-52 is addressed to the lawyers. His upbraiding of the Pharisees consists in Jesus's emphasizing that the inner life is just as important as the outer. This is what I pointed out in my previous post. So while Lk.11.42-44 does speak to the Pharisees, making exactly the point I already adumbrated above, the portion of the text that you cite, Lk.11.51-52, is addressed not to the Pharisees but to the lawyers.

You may wish to read ALL of Luke 11, and see that the whole talk was addressed to the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees. Note how it ends:

Luke 11:53-54
53 And as He said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail Him vehemently, and to cross-examine Him about many things, 54 lying in wait for Him, and seeking to catch Him in something He might say, that they might accuse Him.
NKJV

The scribes / lawyers were under the Pharisees and took their direction from them. Keep in mind that it was the Pharisees who would be prime in giving direction to the people.

"In addition to scripture" is your own addition.

So you think that their "tradition" which is in transgression to the commandment of God is given to them by God? An interesting theory - perhaps you'd care to back that up by showing us where in scripture God gave tradition which transgresses His own commandments.

It seems we are, however, in general agreement that both actions and intentions (or orientation as you quite rightly call it) need to be in accord with one another.

We are making progress. That is a big step in an of itself.

[sndbay]

Well, inasmuch as the Pharisees were Jews and not yet followers of Christ that's true. Of course, many of the early members of the Christian community were former Pharisees.

When we review the doctrine of the Pharisees, we should remember what Christ had said about it..

Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.

It was the idea that their traditions were taught and enforced as the likeness of (leaven that raises) throughout bread. Christ called those trditions the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees. They did not teach "The Word"

[JoeT777]

Sndbay, Akoue, et al:

Is not the gospel, the faith to follow? And to suffer as a Christain, (1 Peter 4:16) the following and doctrine of Christ. That which walked the earth as Flesh in the Word..What are we to proclaim to our brothers?(Jeremiah 7:2)

I see this as this argument about the Pharisees as a diversion from the both Traditional and Scriptural evidence of fasting. But, at the same time I must admit Akoue brings forward a concept I've held for a long time. Christ tells us quite emphatically that he didn't come to destroy the Jewish faith; “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mat 5:17) All Jewish prophetic law was fulfilled in Christ.

Pharisees A sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile.

The Pharisees weren't, strictly speaking, “a sect;” at least not at the start. The Pharisaic age started about 500 years before Christ. They held to an oral tradition, believed in a spiritual world, a legalistic dogmatic faith, and holding that every man was a priest. Pharisees held to two Torahs, one written, the other oral that were interpreted liberally. The ecclesiastical focus of the Pharisees was the beit knesset (or synagogue)

Pharisees were in opposition to Sadducees; consequently, some hold that the word Pharisee could best be translated as “separatist” (or maybe we could view them as protesters, i.e. Protestants?). You might say the Pharisee externalized his life.

The Sadducees, in large part, had secularized their faith and had interpreted the written Torah literally. Some hold that the Sadducees would be best described as a political party. The Sadducee theology was mostly connected to the Temple. The Essenes held the second Temple and the High Priest as heretical and thus internalized their faith; but so radically they withdrew from the world. Both the Sadducees and the Essenes died out with the Pharisaic class become the Rabbinic teaches seen after the Roman destruction of the Temple.

Which is hypocrisy. Notice that this is addressed to the "lawyers" and not the "Pharisees". Lk.11.42-44 gives us "Woe to you Pharisess", three times no less. But Lk.11.45-52 is addressed to the lawyers. His upbraiding of the Pharisees consists in Jesus's emphasizing that the inner life is just as important as the outer. This is what I pointed out in my previous post. So while Lk.11.42-44 does speak to the Pharisees, making exactly the point I already adumbrated above, the portion of the text that you cite, Lk.11.51-52, is addressed not to the Pharisees but to the lawyers.

I've long held this view of the Pharisee. Christ didn't come to destroy Judaism, rather to fulfill the Old Testament prophetic promises. What He found in the Pharisees were a people that wore their faith like robes; “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.” (Matt 16:4) At first glance this looks like Christ had placed a pox on the Pharisees. But, if you look closer at the story of Jonah we see that the people of Nineveh, once condemned by their own sin now saved by Jonah's preaching; and yet One greater than Jonah is will be their redemption.

"In addition to scripture" is your own addition. This isn't what Christ says. Mt.15.2-4 is just a snippet from a longer, and continuous, criticism of the Pharisees. And what does Christ accuse the Pharisees of? We find the answer at Mt.15.7: "You hypocrites!"

So your 1 and 3 both concern hypocrisy, and your 2 is drawn from a bit of text where Christ chastises not the Pharisees but the lawyers. In the passage a bit before what you quote, Christ does, however, chastise the Pharisees: For being hypocrites.

Agreed. But, what hasn't been pointed out was how Christ *didn't* accuse the Sanhedrin of illegitimacy. A Messiah could have, maybe we could have said he should have claimed they had no right hold judgment over Him. But, he didn't. Why not? Could it be, that being a Jew, the law, whether held internally or externally, demanded respect for the High Priest.

As an example you might remember Paul's run in with the “authorities”

“ And Paul, looking upon the council, said: Men, brethren, I have conversed with all good conscience before God until this present day. And the high priest, Ananias, commanded them that stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him: God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For, sittest thou to judge me according to the law and, contrary to the law, commandest me to be struck? And they that stood by said: Dost thou revile the high priest of God? And Paul said: I knew not, brethren, that he is the high priest.” (Acts 23:1-5)

The point here is that Paul is being insolent to the High Priest which was contrary to Jewish law and faith. Immediately, he explains that he didn't recognize Ananias as the High Priest, in effect an apology. How much more did Christ show respect to 'authority' then when He, the Messiah, allows the High Priest to question Him and ultimately pronounce a death sentence? Now that's the type of faith every Catholic strives for.

It seems we are, however, in general agreement that both actions and intentions (or orientation as you quite rightly call it) need to be in accord with one another. As for the question of fasting and abstaining from meat on Friday, it would be a mistake to suppose that the Catholic Church holds the view that one's orientation (if I may borrow your term) doesn't matter so long as one performs the requisite acts. On the contrary, the act is to be an expression of one's orientation. Otherwise, of course, the act is empty of meaning. At the same time, however, being called to perform an act can often can often focus the mind, and recall to one's attention what is important and what one's orientation is and ought to be. The two, the act and the orientation, are mutually nourishing.

Accordingly, we do see that fasting, as typified by Christ's life, to be an essential part of our faith.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Joe,

I see many problems in your dissertation, but don't have time to go through it all. One key item seems throw a lot of the rest off kilter - Are you aware that the Pharisees were not legitimate priests under OT Judaism? You speak as though you believe that they are. Jesus did not come to destroy Judaism, but the Pharisees, by the addition of their tradition as being equivalent to scripture, had already altered it. That is why Jesus condemned their tradition, and binding the people with their addition of manmade laws and practices which had no basis in scripture.

[JoeT777]

I see many problems in your dissertation, but don't have time to go through it all. One key item seems throw a lot of the rest off kilter - Are you aware that the Pharisees were not legitimate priests under OT Judaism?

Yes, that was precisely what caused conflict with the Sadducees.

You speak as though you believe that they are.

You might want to consider that your own prejudices lead you to this conclusion.

Jesus did not come to destroy Judaism, but the Pharisees, by the addition of their tradition as being equivalent to scripture, had already altered it. That is why Jesus condemned their tradition, and binding the people with their addition of manmade laws and practices which had no basis in scripture.

Well, when you have time show how this isn’t substantially true.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Yes, that was precisely what caused conflict with the Sadducees.

You might want to consider that your own prejudices lead you to this conclusion.

It always has to be an accusation, doesn't it, Joe. Reading your post leaves a clear suggestion that you believe that the Pharisees were legitimate leaders of OT Judaism.

Well, when you have time show how this isn't substantially true.

I take Jesus' word for it.

Matt 15:1-3
15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

[JoeT777]

It always has to be an accusation, doesn't it, Joe.

Not exactly an 'accusation;' rather more like a tweaking of a child's nose. It's the reaction you're more interested in.

Reading your post leaves a clear suggestion that you believe that the Pharisees were legitimate leaders of OT Judaism. [/QUOTE]

The Pharisees were legitimate leaders and formers of the socioeconomic conditions of their secular theological societal construct prior to and shortly after Christ. They were not the sole influence in this age. In the 2nd Temple, they usually played second fiddle to the Sadducees. Their rabbinic leadership was played out mostly in the synagogue; not the most powerful and prominent leaders in the Judaism (I said this in post 85). By far they were not the single most influential force in Judaism. The Pharisees would be like a prominent political party in the U.S. today.

Are you suggesting that one of Christ's rebukes aimed at the Pharisees condemns all of Judaism, all of the tradtions of the Torah? Why then did Christ offer redemption to the Pharisee? Or, is it that you hold that Christ withheld redemption from the Pharisee?

I take Jesus' word for it.

Matt 15:1-3
15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
NKJV

Yes, precisely as I stated before; if you would continue reading you'll see Christ saying that they are 'hypocrites'.

Vs 7. Hypocrites, well hath Isaiah prophesied of you, saying:
Vs 8. This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.
Vs 9. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

Now, not only have I properly undstood Christ, but Isaiah as wll as Jonah, have come over to my side.

Instead of 'taking' Christ's words out of context you should try to understand Jesus guided by the Magisterium of the Church; much more reliable than relying on oneself.

JoeT

[Tj3]

Not exactly an 'accusation;' rather more like a tweaking of a child's nose. It's the reaction you're more interested in.

I guess for the some folk, respectful discussion is too much to ask.

Reading your post leaves a clear suggestion that you believe that the Pharisees were legitimate leaders of OT Judaism.

The Pharisees were legitimate leaders and formers of the socioeconomic conditions of their secular theological societal construct prior to and shortly after Christ.

Like I said - they were not legitimate leaders of OT Judaism. Why not just admit it?

Are you suggesting that one of Christ's rebukes aimed at the Pharisees condemns all of Judaism, all of the tradtions of the Torah?

I neither said nor implied it. I also note that you chose not to qute me because that would have quickly made it obvious that I neither said nor implied it.

Why then did Christ offer redemption to the Pharisee? Or, is it that you hold that Christ withheld redemption from the Pharisee?

Silly question. Jesus offered redemption to ALL people. (John 3:16)

Yes, precisely as I stated before; if you would continue reading you'll see Christ saying that they are 'hypocrites'.

But don't stop there, as I pointed out with references, He said much more than that.

Instead of 'taking' Christ's words out of context you should try to understand Jesus guided by the Magisterium of the Church; much more reliable than relying on oneself.

The private interpretations of your denomination, or any other denomination are not what guides my beliefs. God's word are what guides my beliefs. If you think that I took His words out of context, then quote what I said, and what He said, and let's discuss. But don't take my words out of context!

[JoeT777]

Like I said - they were not legitimate leaders of OT Judaism. Why not just admit it?

Why is this so important to you?

My previous statement:

“ The Pharisees were legitimate leaders and formers of the socioeconomic conditions of their secular theological societal construct prior to and shortly after Christ. They were not the sole influence in this age. In the 2nd Temple, they usually played second fiddle to the Sadducees. Their rabbinic leadership was played out mostly in the synagogue; not the most powerful and prominent leaders in the Judaism (I said this in post 85). By far they were not the single most influential force in Judaism. The Pharisees would be like a prominent political party in the U.S. today.”

Are you suggesting that one of Christ’s rebukes aimed at the Pharisees condemns all of Judaism, all of the tradtions of the Torah?

I neither said nor implied it. I also note that you chose not to qute me because that would have quickly made it obvious that I neither said nor implied it.

And the answer is?

“Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Mat 5:17)

Christ didn’t come to destroy Judaism, rather to fulfill the Old Testament prophetic promises. What He found in the Pharisees were a people that wore their faith like robes; “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.” (Matt 16:4) At first glance this looks like Christ had placed a pox on the Pharisees. But, if you look closer at the story of Jonah we see that the people of Nineveh, once condemned by their own sin now saved by Jonah’s preaching; and yet One greater than Jonah is will be their redemption.

Silly question. Jesus offered redemption to ALL people. (John 3:16)

We’re not discussing John 3, what’s being discussed in Matt 5:17;16:4? How does this affect the Pharisees?

But don't stop there, as I pointed out with references, He said much more than that.

VS 7 - ‘hypocrites’

The private interpretations of your denomination, or any other denomination are not what guides my beliefs.

What’s a ‘denomination? I don’t have experience with a denomination.

God's word are what guides my beliefs. If you think that I took His words out of context, then quote what I said, and what He said, and let's discuss. But don't take my words out of context!

?

JoeT

[Tj3]

Why is this so important to you?

Why? To ensure that the asker gets an accurate answer. Why is it so important to you?

And the answer is?

You are asking me a question about something that you suggested that I said, but which I did not say. It is therefore irrelevant. You are trying to distract.

VS 7 - ‘hypocrites’

My point is don't be so single focused on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that you miss what else Jesus said about them. I don't understand why you are so single focused on one thing but appear to ignore the other point that we find in scripture.

What’s a ‘denomination? I don’t have experience with a denomination.

Odd - you keep promoting one denomination over all others.

[sndbay]

That was the point back in post # 74 and the reason it was posted Quote: Would it be better to proclaim the Words of the Lord? Showing glory to God in a spirit of love.

Religion is the different denominations in fellowship, but the doctrine of Christ for each should hold firm in "One"

Because: Is not the gospel, the faith to follow? And to suffer as a Christain, (1 Peter 4:16) the following and doctrine of Christ. That which walked the earth as Flesh in the Word..What are we to proclaim to our brothers? (Jeremiah 7:2)

All denominations should watch causiously to remain firm in the traditions shown by Christ and His way.

We show more honor and praise to God's glory in that manner.

When each attempt to do more at the hand of man, we then are enforcing man's traditions (or) doctrine in error as shown by example of the Pharisees.

Christ did fulfill all that is written "The Word made Flesh in Him. He brought forth His Father's Truth.

Our Lord's Truth!

[arcura]

Joe,'
I agree with you but you and Tj3 can go 'round and 'round on this forever.
Fred

[arcura]

sndbay
I agree very much when you said this, "All denominations should watch causiously to remain firm in the traditions shown by Christ and His way."
That includes what Jesus taught by both word and deed as well as what He taught His apostles to do and teach.
It's almost all in the bible but some is in other writings of the apostles called sacred tradition.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

[galveston]

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

[Tj3]

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

Quite right. It all depends upon what a persons holds to believe is their standard of truth in doctrine, and when it differs, it is no surprise that disagreements arise.

[sndbay]

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

The reason for not dropping this discussion, or any form of reaching out to others with the gospel, is that we are sevants for God. From there it is up to the open ear to discern, and Our Father will reveal by the spirit unto whom He wills. (1 Th 2:4)

I will let Tom speak for himself, but I feel if we have a heart of love for Christ, we do exactly what our hearts offer in love to everyone.

1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

As for infallibility, I trust Our Lord, and His Word.

[sndbay]

sndbay
I agree very much when you said this, "All denominations should watch causiously to remain firm in the traditions shown by Christ and His way."
That includes what Jesus taught by both word and deed as well as what He taught His apostles to do and teach.
It's almost all in the bible but some is in other writings of the apostles called sacred tradition.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

Fred, God was well pleased with all that His son Christ Jesus did. And we should look to do what is pleasing to God. We are told to follow Christ, His ways, and hear His voice. All that is written was of His Flesh that brought forth from His Father, and revealed in The Word.

You might ask yourself why so many follow man's way in baptism, why so many denominations changed the righteousness of baptism. And instead of hearing and following with that which God looked upon and said He was pleased.

[JoeT777]

Tj, you just as well drop it. You (and I) believe in the infallibility of the Scripture, and the Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Since Pope and Scripture disagree in several points, both views cannot be right, and they cannot be reconciled.

Pope and Scripture do not disagree.

While it is true there is disagreement on the interpretation of Scripture, however there is but one absolute truth. Whether you realize it or not, what's being suggested is God made one truth for you, one for me; a different truth for everyone. Wouldn't you say this philosophy makes our God schizophrenic?


JoeT