Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Yes, in general Jesus harshly criticized the Pharisees.  However, he seemed to
be on good terms with some of them.

	One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into
	the Pharisee's house, and sat at table.
					Luke 7:36 (RSV)

This particular Pharisee, named Simon, was rebuked later in the story:

	I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has
	wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.  You gave me
	no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my
	feet.  You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my
	feet with ointment.  Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which are many,
	are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves
	little.
					Luke 7:44b-47 (RSV)

Despite this rebuke, I think it's interesting that one of the Pharisees had
enough regard for Jesus to invite him to dinner.  Here's another example
(where again the host doesn't appear in an entirely positive light):

	One sabbath when he went to dine at the house of a ruler who belonged
	to the Pharisees, they were watching him.  And behold, there was a
	man before him who had dropsy.  And Jesus spoke to the lawyers and
	Pharisees, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not?"  But
	they were silent.  Then he took him and healed him, and let him go.
					Luke 14:1-4 (RSV)

And on at least one occasion some of the Pharisees warned him of danger:

	At that very hour some Pharisees came, and said to him, "Get away from
	here, for Herod wants to kill you."
					Luke 13:31 (RSV)

Some Pharisees were eager to hear Jesus's message and supported him:

	Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
	Jews.  This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know
	that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs
	that you do, unless God is with him."
					John 3:1-2 (RSV)


	Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to
	them, "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and
	and learning what he does?"
					John 7:50 (RSV)

	They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind.  Now
	it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.  The
	Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight.  And he said
	to them, "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see."  Some of
	the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the
	sabbath."  But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such
	signs?"  There was a division among them.
					John 9:13-16 (RSV)

    Also, Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin and seemed to have a good
    rapport with Jesus.
    
    And then there was Saul of Tarsus.
    
    Just goes to show you God is no respector of persons and will use
    anybody as a vessel.
    
    -Jack

Other religious leaders, not necessarily Pharisees, who supported Jesus
or asked him for his help:

	Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go
	over to the other side.  And a scribe came up and said to him,
	"Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go."
					Matthew 8:18-19 (RSV)

	And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one
	another, and seeing that he answered him well, asked him, "Which
	commandment is the first of all?" ... And the scribe said to
	[Jesus], "You are right, Teacher" ... And when Jesus saw that he
	answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom
	of God."
					Mark 12:28,32a,34a

	And when the evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation,
	that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a
	respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for
	the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for
	the body of Jesus.
					Mark 15:42-43 (RSV)

	And there was a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue;
	and falling at Jesus' feet he besought him to come to his house,
	for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she
	was dying.
					Luke 8:41-42 (RSV)

    Nicodemus in John 3 was also rebuked for not knowing what he should
    know as the Chief Pharisee (was also the wealthiest).
    
    The Pharisees also wanted to/tried to stone Christ more than once.
    
    Mike

Note 1158.4

>    Nicodemus in John 3 was also rebuked for not knowing what he should
>    know as the Chief Pharisee (was also the wealthiest).

Jesus sometimes spoke harshly to even those closest to him.
    
>    The Pharisees also wanted to/tried to stone Christ more than once.

All of them, eh?

Richard

    >Jesus sometimes spoke harshly to even those closest to him.
    
    Like who?
    
    >All of them, eh?
    
    never said that.

          <<< Note 1158.6 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    >Jesus sometimes spoke harshly to even those closest to him.
>    
>    Like who?
    
    	"Get behind me, you Satan!"

Note 1158.4

>    The Pharisees also wanted to/tried to stone Christ more than once.

Note 1158.6

>>   All of them, eh?
    
>    never said that.

That's right.  You didn't.  You only said all the Pharisees were off the
mark.

The following succession might explain whence my mistaken notion came:

================================================================================
Note 1149.13        What do you mean by "the Kingdom of God"?           13 of 17
OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                10 lines   5-OCT-1995 21:41
                  -< Jesus Christ wasn't politically correct >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    I must take exception to the notion that simply because someone was a
>    Pharisee that they had it all wrong.  The things Jesus criticized in
>    some Pharisees were the very things other Pharisees criticized as well.
>    
>    Ask your rabbi.
    
    Ask your rabbi/pastor (if you don't know) the cultural significance of
    being called a "whitewashed tomb" and you'll probably change your mind.
    
    Mike

================================================================================
Note 1149.15        What do you mean by "the Kingdom of God"?           15 of 17
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Ps. 85.10"                         6 lines   6-OCT-1995 13:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .13
    
    So, you think all the Pharisees were off the mark?  Fine.
    
    Richard
    
================================================================================
Note 1149.16        What do you mean by "the Kingdom of God"?           16 of 17
OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                  1 line   6-OCT-1995 14:33
                               -< Jesus said so >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't think, I know ;-)

    

I have to confess, I too sometimes speak in generalities that are all too
encompassing.  I too have spoken of the mindset of the Pharisees with
scorn.  It is easy, even expeditious, to identify a group by certain
characteristics.  Stereotypes can be quite accurate.  The thing to remember
is that stereotypes tend to lose a lot of clarity at their edges.

I have heard that the varieties of modern Judaism descended from the
Pharisees, all other factions having been wiped out.  Can anyone here
confirm or refute this?

Shalom,
Richard

    >    	"Get behind me, you Satan!"
    
    Joe, you not only took this out of context, you quoted it wrong.
    
    Mike

    Still Mike, I imagine the rebuke cut Peter to the quick, considering
    Jesus just got finished telling him that he had great faith.
    
    -Jack

    

    MARK 8:33 At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked
    Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God
    does, but as human beings do."

    Pleasem, tell my how Joe took this is out of context with regard to
    Jesus speaking harshly to those close to him.

    Eric

    Jesus was talking to Satan, not Peter, who was using Peter to try and
    hinder the will of God.  Christ looked right through Peter into the
    supernatural and saw what was going on.  He didn't even address Peter.
    
    Mike

    
    RE .13

    This is not scriptural. It is highly interpretive.

    Eric

    read the words, "Get behind me, Satan."
    
    Where do you see Peter?

    It is scriptural that Satan did enter the lives of the
    apostles....Judas being the main one.
    
    It is very possible this was the case with Peter.
    
    -Jack

    
    Read the words "...rebuked Peter"
    
    Eric

    
    re .16

    In the other text regarding possession, it was made explicitly clear.
    Mike is using a high level of interpretation in order to make his point
    against Joe.

    Eric

    Yes but it does say that Satan entered Judas at the time of the
    betrayal.  And yet Jesus speaking of Judas said Woe unto the man who
    betrays me.  For it would have been better had that man not been born.
    
    It appears that although Satan is the deceiver, the individual is held
    responsible!
    
    -Jack

    
    > Yes but it does say that Satan entered Judas at the time of the
    > betrayal.  And yet Jesus speaking of Judas said Woe unto the man who
    > betrays me.  For it would have been better had that man not been born.

    Interesting, but I think it goes to support my view since this verse
    (and those in Matthew and Luke) doesn't mention Satan entering Peter,
    there is no reason to make the false assumptions that Mike does. Other
    (all?) verses referring to demons have Jesus addressing the demons and
    to the human. Here it states unequivocally that Jesus is rebuking
    Peter. For someone professing a literal Bible, I'm stunned to see this
    this level of assumption and inference.

    > It appears that although Satan is the deceiver, the individual is held
    > responsible!

    Bummer. I can see why some people are so afraid to open their minds to
    the possibility of their own erroneous judgment. If you can convince
    yourself that every other idea is wrong, then you must be right.... and
    therefore satan-free.

    .13 just goes to show there *is* a difference between what is said
    and how it's interpretted.
    
    Richard
    

>    It is scriptural that Satan did enter the lives of the
>    apostles....Judas being the main one.
    
    Jack, I think you incorrectly assume that Judas was saved.  

    You're twisting the point.  Joe used this as an example to state that
    Jesus spoke harshly to those closest to Him.  He quoted "Get behind me,
    you Satan!" when Christ wasn't even talking to Peter when using that
    phrase.
    
    Jesus was talking to Satan, who was attempting to manipulate Peter. 
    Given Peter's place in the R.C. church, I'm surprised Joe would
    claim Christ called Peter "Satan."  This degrades him.
    
    Mike

    
    Jesus was rebuking Peter (the man) because Peter (the man) was telling
    Jesus what he should and shouldn't say. Referring to Peter as "Satan"
    was in the form of a rebuke, nothing more supernatural than that.

    So there we are. I think you are misinterpreting this passage, and you
    obviously think I am.

    Eric

          <<< Note 1158.23 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    You're twisting the point.  Joe used this as an example to state that
>    Jesus spoke harshly to those closest to Him.  He quoted "Get behind me,
>    you Satan!" when Christ wasn't even talking to Peter when using that
>    phrase.
    
    	I disagree with your interpretation and I think you are the
    	one twisting.  You have provided no evidence other than your
    	assertion that Jesus was not speaking to Peter.  It clearly
    	says that Jesus rebuked Peter with these words.
    
>    Given Peter's place in the R.C. church, I'm surprised Joe would
>    claim Christ called Peter "Satan."  This degrades him.
    
    	The Pope is a sinner as are we all.  Denying that degrades
    	our understanding of human nature.  Given your anti-Catholic
    	rhetoric and your decision to bring up this argument point
    	here, I have to wonder how that might be tainting your
    	interpretation of the scripture passage in question.

>When Christ wasn't even talking to Peter...

Huh?  You should read your bible more carefully:

Matt 16:23:	But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind
		me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou
		savourest not the things that be of God, but those
		that be of men.

Mark 8:33:	But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples,
		he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me Satan: for
		thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the
		things that be of men.

Navarre commentary on Matt 16:23:  Shortly before this (Mt 16:17), Jesus
had blessed Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona"; now he reproves him,
"Get thee behind me, Satan".  In the former case, Peter's words were inspired
by the Holy Spirit, whereas what he says now comes from his own spirit which
he has not yet sloughed off.

      re: .15
    
      Hi Mike,
    
      The choice to be used as a vessel for Christ or Satan is ours.
      When Jesus rebuked Satan, it is implied He rebuked Peter for
      Peter had accountability.  He permitted Satan to speak through
      him.
    
    						Tony

    If Jesus rebuked Peter, why did He call him "Satan"?

    	Jesus called lots of people lots of things.

>    If Jesus rebuked Peter,

What do you mean "if"?

The bible says that Jesus rebuked Peter.

No "if" about it.

/john

    Okay, avoid the question.

Matthew 23:27  (KJV) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful
outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all
uncleanness.  [Jesus speaking]

    In .32, Jesus, in contrast to the current discussion, is indeed addressing
    the hypocrites.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, He wasn't being very PC either ;-)
    
    Because of the ritual purity laws, it is my understanding that they
    painted these occupied tombs white to avoid becoming unclean and to 
    also avoid the stench of rotting flesh.  That's about as hard-hitting
    as you can get.
    
    As for Peter, since no one else will address it...  I will concede that
    Jesus was rebuking Peter, but I thought that was obvious.  What I'm
    basically trying to get at is that this rebuke wasn't addressed to only
    1 person and it was a multi-part rebuke.  I believe the gentle
    clarification to Peter afterwards shows this.  Why else would Jesus
    call Peter "Satan"?
    
    Mike

    Whatever PCness has to do with anything under discussion...
    
    The point is Jesus was addressing the hypocrites -- the hypocrites.
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Richard
    

    Okay Richard...I'll play....who are the hypocrites?
    
    Is it me...who?  Talk to me chief.
    
    Richard's notorious for the hidden messages.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, please spend less time thinking people are talking about you. It
does get kind of annoying. :-)  I don't think there is anyone who is shy about
telling you what they think up front. :-)  This pretty much goes for any
notesfile you note in. Trust me, people will tell you up front if they are
talking about you. The way you go about it you paint this guilty picture in my
mind. :-)


Glen

glen, i thought jack's .36 was funny.

and anyhow, why should our trusted friend jack be above the odd
little feeling of insecurity or the need for confirmation.

we're all human, no?



andreas.

    Actually, I am kidding a little bit.  Richard is notorious for his
    quoting Jesus' hypocrites and the seven woes here in the file.  Kind of
    out of the blue and we here in C-P land have to figure out why he
    posted it and to whom it is directed.
    
    Glen's just mad because I won the Pope discussion in Soapbox.  Ya see,
    in Christian Perspective, we are here to share ideas and learn.  In
    Soapbox, it is either kill...or be killed and I went for Glen's jugular
    and was victorious!!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

    .39
    
    PLEASE, do not drag SOAPBOX stylings in here, Jack.
    
    Richard
    

    .36
    
    See the basenote, and don't call me "chief."
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    You brought it upon yourself because of your usual vague style of
    communicating.  I repeat, who is a hypocrite in here...or who were you
    directing your remark to.  
    
    I see it as an unwarranted attack on somebody and hence you are guilty
    of bringing in a Soapbox style in here!  
    
    -Jack

    .42
    
    Well then, Jack, you see it wrongly.
    
    Did you see the basenote as I suggested?
    
    Was Jesus indicting the Pharisees, as has been suggested, or the
    hypocrites?  I say the hypocrites.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, I owe you an apology here.  As far as keeping my Soapbox ways
    in here, I fail to see where I have done this.  I was pointing out why 
    Glen might be mad at me!  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1158.39 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Actually, I am kidding a little bit.  Richard is notorious for his quoting 
| Jesus' hypocrites and the seven woes here in the file.  

	Jack, Jack, Jack.... be real. You're always claiming that people are
throwing you into negative type groups......

| Glen's just mad because I won the Pope discussion in Soapbox.  

	I didn't know it ended yet. 



Glen

| <<< Note 1158.44 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I was pointing out why Glen might be mad at me!

	Bad assumption. I am not mad at you. If ya would ask, ya would know!

ZZ    Jack, Jack, Jack.... be real. You're always claiming that
ZZ    people are throwing you into negative type groups......
    
    Oh give me a break Glen.  Everybody knows your the resident victim over
    there!!! :-)
    

                                                  
    Jack, 
    
    He does have a point.  You've reacted to me based on stereotypes that
    (supposedly) have been assigned to you by others even times when I
    wasn't participating actively.  I've pointed out at least two in the
    last few weeks.
    
    It is frustrating at times.  Assumptions are the key cause of
    communication breakdown.  As someone once said, they make an 'Ass' out
    of 'u', and an 'Ass' out of 'me'.  (Ass-u-me).
    
    Cindy 

    Of course he has a point Cindy.  Glen and I actually rib each other
    constantly as he did quite a bit of it at the C-P outing...to which I
    was quite amused!  I was simply giving him some back for a change.  I
    knew he wasn't mad at me.
    
    But since you bring it up, exactly when were two incidences where I
    made assumptions?
    
    -Jack

    
    The ones I remember offhand are where you say you've been accused of
    being 'anti-feminist' in the conference, and I told you that I had
    never done that, yet you responded to me prior to that in such a way
    that you assumed that I subscribed to that view of you.  Therefore your
    response made very little sense in light of what I had actually
    written...that is until you wrote that 'in this conference I've been
    accused...'.
    
    There was also a reference to your chosen way of being the 'spiritual
    head' at home, and apparently in the past someone has taken issue with
    this, and I then responded that I really didn't care what you did at
    home (as long as you didn't abuse your wife), as long as you didn't 
    try to insist that *I* should do the same in my home, even if you think
    'the Bible says so'.
    
    Cindy

    Well, regarding the Spiritual leadership thing, the issue was brought
    up and I gave my opinion.  I don't ever recall you saying anything
    other than "whatever works for you...as long as you don't insist that I
    subscribe to this."  I always agreed with you as far as the choice.  I
    did however insist that the concept of the man being the spiritual
    leader in the family is scriptural.  And of course was immediately
    accosted by some as an oppressive type.  But I don't believe I accused
    you of this.
    
    Re: The Anti Feminist thing, please excuse me for this.  Sometimes I
    feel in this conference like I'm the resident sexist...since most
    accuse me of this.  Kind of like Pavlovs dog...or paranoia perhaps! 
    It's a conditioning thing!  Sorry!
    
    -Jack

    
    You're forgiven, Jack.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Yes but am I loved???????? :-)

| <<< Note 1158.51 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Re: The Anti Feminist thing, please excuse me for this.  Sometimes I
| feel in this conference like I'm the resident sexist...since most
| accuse me of this.  Kind of like Pavlovs dog...or paranoia perhaps!
| It's a conditioning thing!  Sorry!

	jm..... the above is what I was talking about. It appears that you feel
you are the resident sexist, racist, etc......it just depends on what notesfile
you're in. ask the person, don't assume. pretty simple.

    Glen:
    
    And you assumed I was a god to be bowed to in the other camp!  In fact,
    you made it a point to mock me in regards to this.  You assumed I was
    saying one thing when I made it clear I was stating something else.
    
    You also implied I was a racist and a bigot for stating a juror should
    be of a standard age and education just as congresscritters are held to
    it.  You assumed I was a racist and a bigot!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1158.55 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| And you assumed I was a god to be bowed to in the other camp!  In fact,
| you made it a point to mock me in regards to this.  You assumed I was
| saying one thing when I made it clear I was stating something else.

	Jack..... you knew that was sarcasm......

| You also implied I was a racist and a bigot for stating a juror should
| be of a standard age and education just as congresscritters are held to
| it.  You assumed I was a racist and a bigot!

	No jack, I stated you claim to not be one. From your notes, people can
get another picture. I have only stated that you're not one.

    
    Yes, Jack...I thought that was assumed!

                  <<< Note 1158.56 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| You assumed I was
>| saying one thing when I made it clear I was stating something else.
>
>	Jack..... you knew that was sarcasm......
    
    	What -- all that stuff about Jack believing the Pope to be
    	closer to God than others was all just sarcasm?  I guess I
    	should have asked instead of assumed that dragging it out
    	so long and incessantly was not sarcasm...  Silly me...

.53

>    Yes but am I loved???????? :-)

Yes, but not in any touchy-feely kind of way. ;-}

Richard

    Awwwwww that stinks! :-)

    In a class with Rabbi Howard Hirsch last night (conservative branch of
    Judaism, serving conservative and reform congregations of Temple Shalom
    here in Colorado Springs), Hirsch indicated that when Jesus spoke harshly
    to the Pharisees in Matthew 23, it was like Jesus was addressing the
    board of directors.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Mike,

I disagree that *all* Pharisees were blind and misguided. Like any group they
were not completely homogenous. I think there were Pharisees among Yeshua's 
followers -- Nicodemus comes to mind, I think Joseph of Arimethea was also a
Pharisee. In fact, I think that Yeshua probably aligned more closely with the
Pharisaic sect of the Judaism of His day than with any other of the Jewish 
sects. I think he strongly castigated them at times because He loved them
dearly and wanted to reach those who would listen. I expect you'll want more
detail to back up what I am saying, and I will try to provide it. My mind
tends to remember the main point of what I've learned, but forgets the detail
and things that led me to a particular conclusion.

Leslie

    Yes unfortunately it is a general term and names aren't often named. 
    My apologies for lumping them all under 1 umbrella.
    
    Mike