Why are the Pharisees portrayed as antagonists in the NT? They didn't control the Sanhedrin in Jesus's time...

Because the gospels are works of fiction.

I see. Sadly a lot of objection to critical scholarship boils down to muh feelings so that doesn't surprise me.

On a related note, I've heard it argued that Paul never meant to break away from Judaism and found a new religion: he was mostly concerned with bringing the Gentiles under its wing with Jesus as a heavenly mediator. Is this the view Maccoby subscribes to?

>On a related note, I've heard it argued that Paul never meant to break away from Judaism and found a new religion: he was mostly concerned with bringing the Gentiles under its wing with Jesus as a heavenly mediator. Is this the view Maccoby subscribes to?

Maccoby's view is essentially that Paul's religious views were heavily influenced by Greek mystery religions, and was essentially trying to syncretize pre-existing stuff with more mystery religion elements. So no, not really, unless he viewed this hybrid syncretic religion as an extension of Judaism, which he might have, but I don't think too many other people had, including guys like James.

I see.

Bit of a long shot as it was a while ago but are you the guy who pointed out in that other thread that Paul's story about arresting Christians in Damascus doesn't add up?

I'm not the guy who periodically goes on about how Paul is a homosexual and untrustworthy, no.

On the other hand, he's right about that point (if firing at thin air on other parts), from start to finish, that little episode makes no sense, especially if we're believing Paul's claim that at that time, he was a righteous Pharisee, given that a righteous Pharisee ought to reject the high priest's authority to arrest anyone outside the temple grounds.

Pretty much came here to say this.

Do you also think it's plausible that Jesus didn't claim divinity, that he was instead a messianic claimant who got killed for sedition by the Romans?

Sorry to keep bombarding you with questions

Unfortunatley, there's no real source of information on what Jesus was running around saying except the Gospels, and those are less than fully reliable.

You could build a plausible Jesus saying almost anything, so yes, it's plausible that he was an apocalyptic Jewish messianic preacher. It's also plausible he really was running around claiming to be God.

And no problem, although I'm about to have to make some work calls, so any further questions will have to wait a bit.

It's for things like this that I continue visiting this board despite the amount of shit I have to read here.

>Because the Gospels were written after the Great Jewish Revolt,

le "he predicted the Temple would be destroyed, so they were written after it was destroyed"

Why don't scholars say this about Josephus as well?

Paul doesn't see Christianity as a breakaway from Judaism, he see Pharisaic Judaism as a break away from Judaism. Paul sees Christ as the Jewish Messiah, not as the proclaimer of a new religion.

>I think I'm a Jew, so I know how things operated in 32 AD Israel.

>The gospels were written after the most horrific event in Israel history, but didn't mention it. That's how sneaky those Jews are.

Who are you referring to?

More like

>le we have a whole bunch of manuscripts dated to the late 1st early 2nd century, but none before that
>le no church fathers referencing them until much later
>Or Paul mentioning them at all.

>Why don't scholars say this about Josephus as well?

No idea, to be quite honest.

> Paul sees Christ as the Jewish Messiah, not as the proclaimer of a new religion.

His arguments against the "Judaizers" and the whole circumcision thing, would seem to argue otherwise.

>Implying the Gospels were written by Jews, or even natives of Judea.

Matthew's the only one you can make a native claim with any degree of reasonableness, and even that's something of a coin flip.

>According to Maccoby, Barabbas, from the Aramaic Bar Abba, "Son of the Father," originally referred to Jesus himself, who was called thus from his custom of addressing the Father as Abba, Father, in his prayers, or else as a form of the rabbinic honorific Berab.

Oh, this is the moron who thinks Pilate offered to pardon either Jesus or Jesus.

kek

Yeah, that's some "scholar" there.

Every kike in this thread.

>What Pharisee notions of Sabbath observance did he break?
Except for one synagogue leader (who is BTFO by Christ--what’s worth noting is that he isn’t referred to as a Pharisee, meaning he could very well be a Sadducee; the context of that scene then changes to Christ defending the Oral Torah against a Sadducee with the support of the synagogue, which would make sense, since the Pharisees had wide popular support, whereas the Sadducees were made up of the ruling elites whose sola scriptura exegesis was often onerous for the common people), none of the Pharisees overtly object to Christ healing on Shabbat, they test him on it though (as he tests them, to which they don’t answer “no” clearly, as the synagogue leader, but rather appear to be unsure, or at least do not want to give any validity to Christ), but they’re not going to outright lie when Christ is an expert on the Oral Torah. As for the Pharisees in John 9:16, this Jewish source lambasts Christ for breaking Shabbat, and cites the Pharisees as in the right: simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/#2 The reason given is that he made a paste on Shabbat, rather than the healing per se.

>I don't even believe the Jewish one.

>The pharisees were cool with Jesus breaking their sabbath laws. No, really.

kek

>Maccoby claimed that Paul was a Hellenized Jewish convert or perhaps even a Gentile, coming from a background exposed to the influence of Gnosticism and the pagan mystery religions such as the Attis cult, a myth involving a life-death-rebirth deity.

Holy shit no wonder you're so fucked up.

Another thought along these lines was that the Pharisees were influential in shifting Judaism into it's modern day rabbinical form after the destruction of the Temple and barring of Jews from Jerusalem, so there may have been some attempt to use them as antagonists to more greatly differentiate the growing Christian movement.

No scholar dates any of the Gospels to the early second century, you're just lying here. The other Gospels are dated variously earlier in the first century, with right after the destruction of the Temple considered the earliest, as they predict that happening--that's why it's the cut-off point.

The Gospels were not written to be primary sources, they were written to facilitate spreading the word.

>Because the Gospels were written after the Great Jewish Revolt, nevermind what the Christian autists here will claim
Nope

pls go back to /pol/ we want smart people here

Earliest is 32 AD.

Nobody can say differently with any intellectual honesty whatsoever.

The acceptance of Mark and Matthew being written in the early to mid-40's is growing, mostly due to your side's "derp Jesus couldn't tell the future herp" mentality.

>No idea, to be quite honest.
I do, because monolithic conceptions of Pharisees taken from a hundred years after Paul are only applied to Paul, not to anyone else. What's most remarkable is that they are applied to Paul after he becomes a Christian, as in he is said to be Pharisee enough after being a Christian, and is therefore thought to be lying about having been one before, which is obviously ridiculous.

Truth hurts, huh Schlomo.

What constituted breaking Sabbath Law among the Pharisees did not include healing, but it did including making paste, which is why that is the only time the Pharisees overtly object rather than simply grill Jesus.

The work of the Pharisees was not actually legalistic ever. I do think they made unlawful attempts toward Jesus Christ.

Yes, how absurd to think that "Jesus, son of the father", as he's attested to in the earliest manuscripts of Mark, is in fact Jesus of Nazareth.

Clearly, a ridiculous notion.

For that matter, if you bothered to actually read his work, you'd know that he rejects the entire notion of the Passover Pardon (like most scholars).

That completely ignores the obvious context of Mark chapter 3 (Jesus heals, then all of a sudden the Pharisees are plotting to kill him).

Furthermore, Matthew 12 mentions nothing about mixing of pastes, just that he held out his hand and healed the dude, and again, the immediate reaction of the "Pharisees" is negative. It's only in Luke that it's just a "synagogue leader" and not explicitly a Pharisee or a group of Pharisees.

And as for the John episode, let's not forget that if we're Oral law observing Pharisees, we do allow for the mixing of medicines to cure serious ailments, even on the Sabbath. I believe it's in Mishnah Shabboth, tractate 18, but I forget exactly where.

Bullshit. Reread the man with the withered hand being healed. Or I should say read about the man with the withered hand being healed.

His quoting of non-existent scriptures, as well as his rather significant derivation from the clearly non-native Mark, throw in some doubt.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship.2C_date_and_origin

>John is usually dated to 90-110 CE.[14][Notes 2] It arose in a Jewish Christian community in the process of breaking from the Jewish synagogue

How's he fucked up exactly? Xtianity as it is has at least partial influence from assorted mystery cults common in the near east at that time.

That's not the asinine notion.

The asinine notion is Pilate standing before a mob saying free this one? Or this one over here? Free this one? Crucify this one? Got it.

And there's only one guy there.

kek

Barabbas is a pseudonym; he is a type of antichrist whom the Jews accepted in his own (fake) name, while rejecting Jesus coming in the name of the Father.

>(Jesus heals, then all of a sudden the Pharisees are plotting to kill him).
Because he's popular and they're corrupt and don't like what he preaches, and his healing gives him too much legitimacy. They collaborate with the Herodians here, it's obviously political.

>the immediate reaction of the "Pharisees" is negative.
See above. The Pharisees hate him for it, but they don't overtly object to his face because they don't have anything to work with. They only object with the paste.

>we do allow for the mixing of medicines to cure serious ailments,
Did you read the link?

>Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. (see John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37) For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"
This is from a Jewish site.

>(like most scholars).
Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Satan's children can and do get degrees in the bible; they still don't understand a single thing about it.

In every possible way. In other words, as much as you are.

appeal to authority does not mean a citation of an actual authority on a subject is a fallacy. for instance citing a professional translator on what a foreign word means would be perfectly acceptable.

So pointed out that people who study the bible for a living think it got a historical fact wrong is in fact not a fallacy

the Gospel of John seems so different from the synoptic Gospels: it is because the synoptic Gospels are written for a wide audience, including Catechumens (Christians who are not fully initiated), but the Gospel of John was written exclusively for the initiated--all Catechumens would be dismissed right after the Peace of God (and still are in many Orthodox parishes), and right before the credal confession (the final development of this Creed would be the Nicene Creed, but the first fourteen verses of the Gospel of John might well have been a record of one of the earlier ones); the priest or deacon then shouted (and still does in the Orthodox tradition), "The doors!" because a guard was sent to keep a look out in case anyone was coming by and to give the alarm; this was such a serious issue because the credal confession made it explicitly clear that Christ is God; to consider him the Messiah who rose from the dead did not technically warrant death in ancient Jewish society, but saying he's God certainly would; now the Synoptic Gospels, being privy to Catechumens and even the general public, preferred to merely imply (albeit quite strongly at times) that Christ is God, whereas the Gospel of John is written without such caution, being intended exclusively for the initiated; and now you know why the Gospel of John seems so different from the Synoptic Gospels. This is also why John 6 gives significant elaboration on the Eucharist, which is the central Christian Mystery partaken of after the Catechumens are dismissed; he explains its reality, a reality that scandalizes even the Apostles.

Aaaaand the retarded christians that pollute this board had turned this thread into shit.
I was wondering when would they appear.

Right, it has nothing to do with it being completed much later by a different group of Christians like modern scholars think

Nope. Although it probably was completed much later, it was written by Saint John. It's a Gospel written only for the initiated, and compiles the secrets they are told upon being baptized.

>Citation needed

>The asinine notion is Pilate standing before a mob saying free this one? Or this one over here? Free this one? Crucify this one? Got it.

Which is why he rejects it. I believe his notion is that what "really happened", is you have a mob of supporters demanding Jesus Bar Abba's release, which gradually transformed into what we have today to again shift responsibility away from the Romans (which is a dangerous accusation to make) and towards the Jews, especially the Pharisees.

It takes a truly autistic reading to come to the conclusion that the healing and the plotting are unrelated except insofar as Jeuss's "popularity" which isn't there established.

As for your link, pic.

And I again implore you to actually read the Mishnah. Making of medication for serious ailments is forbidden not by the Pharisees, but by the Sadducees.

Quoting a fallacy while making a broad and baseless ad hominem attack. I like your style.

The claim I was addressing was that "No serious scholar thinks that any of the Gospels were written in the 2nd century".

I provided a wiki link, admitteldy not the greatest of scholarship, but one that insists, with several internal citation, that mainstream secular scholarship considers it composed from 90-110, which the later dates would put it in the early 2nd century.

The actual content of John is irrelevant for this.

It's right in the Liturgy. The Catechumen's are sent out and the doors are guarded right before the confession of Christ's mystical relationship and oneness with God, as well as the partaking and explanation of the Eucharist. This is something that started with the early Church sending out the Catechumens then and guarding the doors for this. John covers, heavily, these things that no one was privy to but initiated Christians, he would have to be written for the initiated.

I'll give you a tip. Any time you think a liberal scholar knows something about the bible, kill yourself.

John 6, huh?

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

What are you hoping to achieve by arguing like this. Youre not convincing anyone and are driving people away from Christianity

It's asinine.

Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”

You're asinine.

>It takes a truly autistic reading to come to the conclusion that the healing and the plotting are unrelated except insofar as Jeuss's "popularity" which isn't there established.

Feel free to give me your explanation as to why the Pharisees are very selective about which healing they opening decry, and opt strictly for the paste here, and why in other cases they simply question Christ, "Is this lawful?" instead of reprimanding him.

>And I again implore you to actally read the Mishna
Written long after the Gospels, and really doesn't address your case. You say Pharisaic Jews wouldn't object to this, but they object to it today, and you just ignore that

Welcome back Elizabeth, when are you posting feet?

Liberal scholars are driving people away from true Christianity.

They are evil.

There isn't any need for misogyny on Veeky Forums.

Christ never uses the term "spirit" to mean "allegorical", he uses the term "parable" for that. He uses the term "truly" (not just the word amen, which is often translated as truly, but the word used here) to mean "literally", as does everyone else in the NT. He's saying his words aren't some manmade speculation, but directly from God.

You're engaging in eisegesis

Oh, I get it. The words are unreliable; I need YOU to tell me what they mean.

>Says the guy eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood.

You can see for yourself what they mean, you are the one trying to shoehorn in your own idea. Christ says over and over and over that his flesh is literally food and his blood is literally drink, we can tell what the words mean from how they are used elsewhere, just like we can see how the word "spirit" is used throughout the NT, and it is never, ever used to mean "allegorically". You can either read it consistently, or invent a brand new definition of "spirit" to fit your theology; you can also either accept Christ's words on the flesh profiting nothing as he uses them repeatedly throughout, or twist them to fit your theology here and say he is saying the Word made flesh is of no profit.

>Feel free to give me your explanation as to why the Pharisees are very selective about which healing they opening decry, and opt strictly for the paste here, and why in other cases they simply question Christ, "Is this lawful?" instead of reprimanding him.

Because it's

A), the Sadducees, not the Pharisees
B) They kind of plot to kill him, remember, which goes a bit more than mild questioning.

>Written long after the Gospels,

70-100 years, tops, and a compilation of long-running oral traditions. It's not so long afterwards that it's irrelavant for understanding the state of religious affairs in Jesus's time, especially since many of the opinions are attributed to Rabbis who pre-date Jesus, so unless you think all such are interpolations or attributions, you've got problems.

>You say Pharisaic Jews wouldn't object to this, but they object to it today, and you just ignore that

Except that in modern practice, the exception has swallowed the rule.

thejc.com/judaism/judaism-features/130211/why-doctors-can-heal-shabbat

jewishpathways.com/files/Tochen_-_Part_2_Healing_on_Shabbat.pdf

You mean words written decades after Jesus lived by other people.

This is something about Christian theology that stumps me. People keep insisting that the gospels aren't to be taken at face value then in later arguments different sects quote them extensively to prove their points, eg Matthew 16:18

I like how you just assume all of them are liberal, and the mere fact that they are liberal means everything they say is wrong.

Maybe it will confuse you less when you are burning in Hell and as you skin peels off it makes little puffs of smoke for me and the other saved to laugh at in Heaven.

Your screams will sound like music to me.

Wanting to see feet isn't hatred of women user.

Oh wow, look at all that xtian love and compassion you guys.

They were assburgers and couldn't handle Jesus' banter.

Not to mention that all modern Jewish denominations are directly descended from Pharisaism.

>Throughout the NT

The amount of authors involved in the NT, no matter how derivative some of them are casts at least some doubt on unifying their language trends.
Maybe across a single book or a known single author such as Luke/Acts or the 7 undisputed Epistles of Paul.

So you believe in Biblical inerrancy?

Jaysus has all of jack and shit when to comes to banter when you compare him to a guy like Dio "The Man among Men" Genes.

Educated Jew here

While it might seem, according to the New Testament, that the Pharisees were one monolithic group, they were in fact dominated by two very different, rival schools of rabbinic law. On one side you had Beit Hillel, started by the eponymous Rabbi Hillel. His school was very much in line with Jesus's teachings. Though they placed great importance on the following of Jewish ritual, Beit Hillel recognized that one may transgress in the case of a moral dilemma, when following the law violates the spirit of the law. On the other side you had Beit Shammai, started by, you guessed it, Rabbi Shammai. This school emphasized strict observance of the law as the key to being a good Jew. However, they were real assholes, and are most definitely the bad pharisees mentioned in the New Testament.

It just so happens that after the destruction of the Second Temple, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai, the father of modern Judaism, "heard a great voice from heaven telling him that, when they dispute, Hillel is always right." Thus, modern Judaism only follows the teachings of Beit Hillel, which is why religious anti-semitism was so retarded because we rejected the teachings of Beit Shammai, the faction which lobbied so furiously for Jesus's death.

Source: centralcal.com/crist2.htm

The one problem with that theory is that the debates between Hillel and Shammai (or more precisely their academies) had pretty much died down by the early-mid 1st century CE. Gamaliel was Hillel's grandkid and Av Beit Din at around the time Jesus is usually claimed to be preaching. By then, things had been pretty settled, with Bait Hillel being the winning party, if you go by what Sotah claims about the extent of his influence.

So glad you're back :)

It would be, if you knew he was serious.

Holy autism, Batman!

Nobody ate Jesus, dude. Nobody drank His blood.

His body really was broken like bread on the cross. His blood really was spilled out on the ground like drink. Really and truly.

But no, He did not tell you to violate His law and become a vampiric cannibal.

He just asked you to accept the Holy Spirit, Who does not come by eating and drinking, but by consent.

Just keep reading John 6 past the point where you stop. Keep reading. Spiritual Food. Spiritual drink.

More important than Physical Food. Physical Drink.

Inerrant things are inerrant. Oh, wait, that only applies to the bible. And then to the autographs.

I guess 99.5% intact isn't good enough for you. You're doomed.

Educated Christian here.

Thank you for your contribution, and please explain why you have not yet realized that Jesus is your Messiah.

Oh, who am I kidding. I already know your answers. "He didn't do what the Messiah was supposed to do."

Murder the Messiah.

Reject the Kingdom.

Blame the Messiah for not fulfilling the Kingdom prophecies.

Isaiah described you people well.

Because Jesus did lots of jabs at what was a part of deeper sectarian conflicts between jews.

Jesus showed them what absolute and utter failures they were at a time when they thought the were being perfectly obedient to God by their newly designed Pharisaical rules generated in Babylon for the purpose of never again violating God's commandments and never again being taken captive by Babylon or any of its successors.

In the end, Jesus showed them that they were willing that He die for His beliefs, because they were not willing to die for theirs.

You're wrong

>And the wild oxen shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be drunken with blood, and their dust expanded with fatness
>For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the controversy of Zion.
>And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall be burning pitch.

Prove I'm right.

Tell me I'm wrong.

kek

Maybe re-read the part about "Blame murdered Messiah for not fulfilling Kingdom prophecies".

Wrong again.

>This shall they have for their pride, for they have taunted and spoken boastfully against the people of the Lord of armies
>The Lord will be terrible unto them, for he will starve all the gods of the earth, then shall all the islands of the nations worship Him, every one in its nation.
>You Ethiopians too, shall be slain by My sword

>taking the b8
I know lots of people here think Christians are retards but I don't think even the most redneck of ameritard evangelicals would write that.

Yes, that will all happen in the future, when Jesus the Messiah establishes His kingdom.

That He did not establish 2000 years ago for being murdered.

The kingdom that Israel rejected.

Get it?

You don't think people enjoy justice when it's served?

Then why is it so hard to get a ticket to an execution?

Wrong again.

>That thrum on the psaltery, that devise for themselves instruments of music, like David
>That drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the best ointments, but they are not grieved for the hurt of Joseph.
>Therefore now shall they go captive at the head of them that go captive, and the revelry of them that stretched themselves shall pass away.

Because they dont sell tickets to executions any more? because taking pleasure from watching people die is sick?

Yes, that will all happen at the Great White Throne judgment, at least 1007 years from now.

You will be numbered among the guilty, unless you repent, and are saved.

Sold out months in advance. Go ahead; try to get one. Helps if you have a press pass.