Whom do you serve?

Meowzltov said:

You certainly have a right to your opinion, which is basically the mainstream Christian opinion.

My opinion is based on a quite a few things:
1. As a Jew, I have FAR greater knowledge of Pharisaism than Christians, and it is very obvious to me that if you isolate Jesus' teachings on the Law that they line of with a particular form of Pharisaism taught by Hillel.

Click to expand...

As a non-Jew who studies Jewish academic literature, culture and history, and who has being doing so for a fair amount of time as a part of my overall study of Philosophy, History, The Bible and Christianity, the extent to your 'greater' knowledge of Pharisaism over mine will be relativized accordingly to other facts. So, you can tone down the condescension since it would be more appropriate to see me as a research peer rather than an inferior.

My contention isn't to deny that Jesus was likely associated with the cultural context of the School of Hillel. If anything, my disagreement with you is less than a full-fledged remonstrance and only one that maintains Jesus held a critical view of those who were Pharisees in Palestine. As with any ancient historical research, there are finer, deeper questions to apply to all of the various interrogatives that need to be answered on this issue as it pertains to Jesus, Paul and the sections among the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees, The Zealots, and The Essenes.

Meowzltov said:

2. I read a book on this topic that lays out such a strong case for it that I think it is beyond doubt: "Jesus the Pharisee" by Harvey Falk.

Click to expand...

That's always a good place to start. But just know that while I'll note your source and put it on a bibliographic list for further consideration, I also have some books by equally qualified people who may (or may not) agree exactly with Harvey Falk's position on what is, at bottom, an undetermined premise. But I can see its relevance.

Since I very much appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to cite a source supporting your current view, I'll likewise give you a few of my own sources (and like you, I have more) to at least establish my angle of things:

Jesus the Jewish Theologian - Brad H. Young
Jesus Among Friends and Enemies - (an anthology) edited by Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado
Jesus Against the Scribal Elite - Chris Keith
Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus - Frederick Murphy

Meowzltov said:

3. There are hints of this in the gospels that are so strong, that even Christians should notice them, and don't only because they read the gospels through an anti-Pharisee lens.

a. Jesus accepted the prophets, a belief promoted by the Pharisees.​

b. Jesus accepted the resurrection of the dead, another belief associated with Pharisaism.​

c. Jesus accepted Oral Law​

(1) He taught his followers to observe an do EVERYTHING the Pharisees teach in Matthew 23:1-3.​

(2) He told the Pharisees to BOTH keep the main ideas of the Torah AND keep Oral Torah like the spice tax. Matthew 23:23​

(3) We know he observed the Pharisaical custom of ritual hand washing because when the Pharisees griped about it, they accused some of his disciples but did not accuse Jesus.​

Click to expand...

I don't read the Gospels through an 'anti-Pharisee lens' any more than I read the Bible through an anti-creationist lens even though I'm an evolutionist. Keep in mind that some of us here attempt to be more academically fair minded because we are educated. And while I may agree with some level of your original premise, I won't agree with statements saying that either Jesus or Paul were wrong in the extreme or went too far in dealing with Pharisaism, of whichever variety.

Say it aint so said:

Great. I am not saying Jesus per say was part of the Hillel sect. If one could consider Jesus a Pharisee, it would be the Hillel variety.
I say that because, again having to consider all the Gospels, Jesus position of not being so adherent given words surrounding the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

Hillel‑type Pharisees taught repentance and mercy, but they never taught that a person could forgive sins. Forgiveness belonged to God and the Temple system. So when Jesus declared forgiveness directly, He wasn’t acting as a Pharisee — He was doing something no Pharisee claimed the authority to do.

2PhiloVoid said:

As a non-Jew who studies Jewish academic literature, culture and history, and who has being doing so for a fair amount of time as a part of my overall study of Philosophy, History, The Bible and Christianity, the extent to your 'greater' knowledge of Pharisaism over mine will be relativized accordingly to other facts. So, you can tone down the condescension since it would be more appropriate to see me as a research peer rather than an inferior.

My contention isn't to deny that Jesus was likely associated with the cultural context of the School of Hillel. If anything, my disagreement with you is less than a full-fledged remonstrance and only one that maintains Jesus held a critical view of those who were Pharisees in Palestine.


That's always a good place to start. But just know that while I'll note your source and put it on a bibliographic list for further consideration, I also have some books by equally qualified people who may (or may not) agree exactly with Harvey Falk's position on what is, at bottom, an undetermined premise. But I can see its relevance.

Since I very much appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to cite a source supporting your current view, I'll likewise give you a few of my own sources (and like you, I have more) to at least establish my angle of things:

Jesus the Jewish Theologian - Brad H. Young
Jesus Among Friends and Enemies - (an anthology) edited by Chris Keith and Larry W. Hurtado
Jesus Against the Scribal Elite - Chris Keith
Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus - Frederick Murphy



I don't read the Gospels through an 'anti-Pharisee lens' any more than I read the Bible through an anti-evolutionary lens even though I'm an evolutionist. Keep in mind that some of us here attempt to be more academically fair minded because we are educated. And while I may agree with some level of your original premise, I won't agree with statement saying that either Jesus or Paul were wrong or went too far in dealing with Pharisaism.

Click to expand...

Agape lives in us by grace through faith; even faithfulness requires faith. In the Logos matrix, sin is deviation from God’s holy character — not merely breaking a rule. Repentance is the objective return from deviation, and compassion is the objective good that serves a community. Dis‑compassion objectively harms it.”

Meowzltov said:

No. We really don't know what the historical Jesus said since he left no writings. All we have are collections of legends. We have to use our common sense and knowledge of the culture to figure out what is more likely than not, and know that we may be mistaken.

However, many times in here the conversation is simply not on this level.

Click to expand...

No, we need to use a lot more than just common sense and a generic appeal to 1st century Judaism. We need to be applying as much academic, scholarly acumen as we can muster............................... and I for one am not about to diminish the learning curve simply because others might not be able to keep up. If someone is going to put forward a hard critique against Christianity, then I'm going to pull out all of the scholarly stops to dam it up.

childeye 2 said:

Hillel‑type Pharisees taught repentance and mercy, but they never taught that a person could forgive sins. Forgiveness belonged to God and the Temple system. So when Jesus declared forgiveness directly, He wasn’t acting as a Pharisee — He was doing something no Pharisee claimed the authority to do.

Click to expand...

In which the divide from Judaism takes place. I am just not convinced with the idea of what we read about Jesus in the Gospels (and again we don't have Jesus direct words) it's kind of hard to consider him a Pharisee.

Meowzltov said:

Em, no. Murder and adultery are BEHAVIORS.

Click to expand...

Yes and behaviour is the end result of a corrupt heart. You don't think people are entertaining such ideas whether holding hate and anger towards the person in their mind before the act. Or were lusting after the person and entertaining the idea before they actually did it ?

Just picked out some random person to have an affair with without any previous thought about it. Even putting themselves in a position to do so before they actually acted on it ?

Meowzltov said:

No, you are mistaken here. Both schools of Pharisees place a fence around the Torah. For example, even though more lenient in general, Hillel maintained boundaries on preparing certain acts too close to Shabbat to avoid confusion between permitted preparation and prohibited labor.

Click to expand...

Then you would have to apply the same logic to yourself. Much of the Old Testament is not the words of the prophets themselves. The claims that they were are just claims. We cannot go back and directly verify this.

childeye 2 said:

Words can be clumsy, so between the person you were responding to and what you saw in their articulation there is some dissonance. As for the narrative in Matthew, it's about anger that leads to murder, and anger is not in the same category as hunger. Jesus is denoting that sin is something more than an action; similar to why the inside of the cup needs to be cleaned so that the outside is clean, the cup being the soul.

Click to expand...

This becomes a case where the metaphorical language becomes a hindrance rather than a help. Because it is obviously possible to clean the inside apart from the outside of a literal cup and vice versa.

Is anger that not lead to murder unproblematic, or murders not done in anger?

Meowzltov said:

What is it that you just said that you think I take issue with?

Click to expand...

When you said "No. We really don't know what the historical Jesus said since he left no writings".

The same can be applied to the old testament writers. We don't know what the historical prophets like Moses said since he himself left no writings. Same logic.

Meowzltov said:

Can I see the heart? I can see what people do.

Click to expand...

So people are mindless zombies who just act without intention. This is psychology 101. Why do you think they have CBT or other therapies. Its to change behaviour through changing the thinking.

Ever heard of the idea of attitude and beliefs and how they influence behaviour. How would anyone change if they don't change their thinking first.

What about positive and negative thinking. Seeing the negative affects behaviour. Always complaining and everything is too difficult. Compared to someone with a positive outlook who gets things done ect. Or how the mind is in the drivers seat which controls the body. Your mind fist signals your arm to move and not the other way around.

YOur virtually disputing 100 years of psychological research and claiming its nothing.

A Psychological Exploration of the Power of Our Mindset and Its Influence on Physiological Health
The brain is the control center for our bodies and determines our emotions, thoughts, and actions.
A Psychological Exploration of the Power of Our Mindset and Its Influence on Physiological Health - PMC

Christ fullfilled the law. When He said that the law says not to commit adultery. Jesus said now I tell you if anyone lusts in their heart (mind) over someone they are commiting adultery.

Why because He knew that the heart/mind is where the sin began. If you have a lustful heart then your more likely to act on that lust because its always in your thoughts and your encouraging it. So get the lustful thoughts out of your head and there is no voice that keeps telling you to lust over someone.

But this is a basic psychological principle. Sort out the head first to change the behaviour.

I was just watching a video on all the Kings of Israel & Judah. When they got to the first King Saul and how God then chose David the youngest and smallest and less known son. Compared to King Saul who was tall and mighty in the eyes of the Isrealites who wanted a King.

They mention 1 Samuel 16:7. I remember this verse and I think its pretty well known.

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

What struck me is that this is exactly what Christ was saying. Around maybe 800 years before Christ. I am pretty sure this is mentioned a few times in the old testament. That God looks and judges the heart. You may not even have taken any action and you can be judged by your heart.

Jesus was the fullfillment of this when He was speaking to the pharisees. That is why Paul said that it is Christs spirit living in the heart and not the flesh body. Which is the external body that does the actions. Christ spirit transforms the heart and mind to please and obey God and not follow after the desires of the flesh like lust and anger. Which are in our nature from the fall.