Pharisees, who were they?

Whether or not the Pharisees had a Biblically appointed function is not clear. Could find no place where Jesus approved of them.

In fact he alluded to what their function might have been when he called them "blind guides". He also called them pit vipers dwelling in a den of thieves--Jewish Temple.

No doubt, they had political and religious control over Israel within the constraints of the Imperial Rome. They had their own soldiers and their own court. They convinced Pilate to crucify Jesus--in spite of Pilate finding no fault.

Pharisees are the epitomy of the unregenerated in charge of religious matters.

Amazing: just before Jesus died, He said: "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do".

Amazing Grace.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

All that proves is that conservatives can be just as Pharisaical as liberals. Does it not seem odd to you at all that if Peter, James, John or Jesus were alive today they wouldn't be qualified to pastor your church?

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]They got their information first hand. They didn't have to study books. If you know of anyone like that that's available please refer them to me.

 

Amazing! The Pharisees of today are defending the Pharisees of the Bible.

 

Once again Mark I think you are off the mark here.

The main thing for which Jesus criticized the Pharisees was hypocrisy. It had nothing to do with them being too strict. It had to do with the fact that they would keep the letter of the law to a tee, and having no tolerance for those who erred - and that they had none of the love that God's law represents. That's why he called them whited sepulchres.

Who fits this description best? The hyperfundamentalists.

Like I said the catholics and liberal have problems - but I don;t think that Pharisaism is one of them. If anything the liberals are too much the opposite, concentrating on love with a lack of sound doctrine.

 

Since Jesus told us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Christians can only be corrupted by their leaven and not actually be a Pharisee. So to call other believers "Pharisee" is very judgemental coupled with hatred, usually from the form of misunderstanding of the moral law and misunderstanding one's willingness of adherence to obeying that moral law to the best of their ability through Christ and His grace as the element of strength to empower that Christian in doing so, or so-doing.

Evidently, that hatred formulates from liberalism to try and excuse or permit deviant behaviour. By that example, those liberals would then make Christ a Pharisee, though an impossibility, the same result.

 

Jesus accused the Pharisees. He did not level accusation against all Jews. In fact He affirmed some (the publican).

In the case of hyperfundamentalists I see judgmental individuals who care more about minutiae of the "law" than about other people. Jesus condemned it then and would condemn it now.

 

Is that why the Law didn't go to hell and people do?

His "affirming" of the publican is because of the publican's awareness of his inability to save himself and his acknowledging his sin.

Jesus condemned those who used the law against people to condemn people, but to use the law as our schoolmaster tobring us to Christ is God's way, not the hyperfundementalist or the liberals way. Case in point, the woman caught in adultery; of which Jesus said, "Go, and sin no more". this could be construed as the sin of adultery, but "no more" includes sin in general, but knowing her frailty and nature in Adam, His meaning could be no less than her positionally being forgiven of all sin thus not able to sin anymore.

For one to hold fallible man above the Law of God is heresy since Jesus came to fulfill every jot and tittle of the Law, and to save sinners for breaking the infallible Law; not to save sinners in spite of the Law.

Pharisees offer no salvation; only a handwriting of ordinances which would hold charge against even the best of the Pharisees, but to their own condemnation, they are hypocrites as justly awarded the label as Jesus said.

I think maybe one of two things: either you didn't understand the ramifications of your statement, or you don't know what you're talking about.

 

The Pharisees did not keep the letter of the law. Jesus explicitly says they rejected God's commandments in favor of their own traditions. That fits liberal Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy to a tee, as well as many Fundamentalists.

It is true that the Pharisees didn't have the love that God's law represents. But that had nothing to do with tolerance or lack thereof for those who erred.

They themselves erred as greatly - if not moreso - as those they condemned, and yet they made plenty of tolerance for their own errors. Their problem was in rank hypocricy - they condemned others for doing the same things they did.

The only difference between them and the rank and file sinners was that they (the Pharisees) covered over their sins with a show of religiosity. That is an exact description of liberal Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy.

No doubt there are many "fundamentalists" in theology who are Pharisees in practice. But I wouldn't say they are any moreso than liberal Protestants or Roman Catholics, and on the whole not as much.

One of the traits, as per Jesus, of Pharisees is that they outwardly appear righteous to men - they are like graves which men walk on and don't even know it. Sounds to me like the liberals have put one over on you!

What they call "love" is not love at all - it is nothing other than lasciviousness. I might add that, for all their feiged charity, liberals are some of the meanest most hypocritical, judgmental and exclusivist folks around.

And they are kings is disguising their coveteousness and love of praise as "charitable work." No one more than they sounds a trumpet in the street when they do their alms.

Mark Osgatharp