Modern Day Scribes and Pharisees

What angered Jesus was hatemongering, legalistic, self-righteous, Pharisees; the modern-day equivalent are the foaming-at-the-mouth, militant fundamentalists who think they have God all figured out and in their own eyes are the self-appointed spokesmen for God. They alone know the truth, and if you disagree with them, you are a hellbound heretic.

The opposite are those who genuinely love their brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of doctrinal differences.

 

That about says it.

Spooky thing though, Mike; that post was your 666th....

 

Don,

Then I'd better hurry and post this one.

 

And yet, all those great traits of theirs cause them to be so self-righteous, so dependent on their own wisdom in interpreting the scripture, and so arrogant in their affairs that they separated themselves from the "world" that they themselves subjectively rejected, and as a consequence, most of them missed the Messiah when he came. Then, because their pride had been wounded from missing him, and he himself not being one of them, they brought about his destruction and proceeded to lead the persecution against his followers. It was the Pharisees that initiated and forever separated Judaism from its redemptive means in Christianity, and it was Pharisaic attitudes that developed the exclusivism among Jewish Christians over circumcision.

They are like the clique of people in many churches, the self appointed leadership to which the rest of the church must defer in order to get anything done. They are the ones who contribute to such exclusivity regarding doctrine, practice and policy in the church that they drive out those who disagree, usually crippling a church.

I think I'd rather be a part of a church full of fishermen.

(And greetings to Yankee fans! In brotherly love, of course!)

[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: ellis ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
What a relief, Michael! We had a wager going on the private forums whether you were the antichrist . . or false prophet . . or beast.

Or BAPTIST! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*gulp* If there was debate that Michael was any of the above, I shudder to think what will happen if my posts hit that number.

 

Only when they break a leg. Which makes them useless. I may not agree with Joshua's views, but in God's eyes he must not be useless, cause he's still breathing.

 

This describes the scholars of today who set themselves up as interpreters of the ancient scrolls and decide which Bible we should use. Like the Pharisees they had no faith only knowledge, for if they had faith they would have recognized the Mesiah (Living Word of God)
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Today if the scholars had faith they would recognize the true Word of God.
Ernie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ellis:
And yet, all those great traits of theirs cause them to be so self-righteous, so dependent on their own wisdom in interpreting the scripture, and so arrogant in their affairs that they separated themselves from the "world" that they themselves subjectively rejected, and as a consequence, most of them missed the Messiah when he came. Then, because their pride had been wounded from missing him, and he himself not being one of them, they brought about his destruction and proceeded to lead the persecution against his followers. It was the Pharisees that initiated and forever separated Judaism from its redemptive means in Christianity, and it was Pharisaic attitudes that developed the exclusivism among Jewish Christians over circumcision.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by keith:
I wonder who (or what groups of people) ya'll think are the equivalent of the scribes and Pharisees in Jesus's Day.

Please before you go equating all those you disapprove of (for actions or words or beliefs), consider a Gospel event or perhaps a parable and relate what the parrallel is between then and now.

I think it would be good to truely understand what angered Jesus so. And then say what the opposite is just so this won't get too negative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would equate the Pharisees of Jesus' day to the long time members of local church who state, "we've never done it this way before" in response to any stylistic or programmatic change in a church's direction.

I would equate the Scribes of Jesus' day to those folks in our churches who seem to record every misstep, offence, slight, etc... by the leadership (and other members for that matter) but fail to also note the joyful times when things go as planned.

In another direction, I would consider Pharisees to be those folks whose definitions of things are so precise as to be unable to deal with change. In my own Southern Baptist community, these folks exist both to the left and to the right.

 

Keith,

The scary part of answering the question is to realize how close to home the answer might be. Mark 7:1-9 reminds me of much that is taking place in Fundamental Baptist Circles. Sad when the commandments of God are laid aside for the traditions of men.

Case in point. A friend of mine was trying to pastor a small mission work. Hardly anyone came on Wednesday services, so he canceled the service. He has taken all sorts of heat for this from fellow Baptists in my circle. When asked what was biblically wrong in not having a Wednesday service, he has been told, “All Fundamental Baptist have Wednesday services, brother. You are forsaking “one another” to do this.” Sad to be reminded of how close to home the “Pharisees” are sometimes.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PackerBacker:
Mark 7:1-9 reminds me of much that is taking place in Fundamental Baptist Circles. Sad when the commandments of God are laid aside for the traditions of men. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting you say this because what is going on in "moderate" Baptist circles (such as the CBF, the churches of Josh and Michael for instance) sounds to me like laying aside the commandments of God for the traditions of men.

I guess its all in perspective isn't it.

[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

At present, I do not support any national Baptist body; I do support my state Baptist convention because they refuse to be dictated to by anyone, including the fundie SBC with its new creed, the BF&M 2000.

The larger body that comes closest to my beliefs is the General Baptists, and the Baptist General Convention of Texas--conservative, not fundamentalist, Southern Baptists.