Legalism

[crystalpc]

Let’s

No TV, no smoking, no drinking, no cursing, no “minced oaths”, no card playing, no ball games, no slacks on women, no makeup on women, no hairspray on men, no long hair on men, no moustaches, no beards, no movies, no sports, no fraternizing with non-Pentecostals, no patent leather shoes, no short sleeves in the pulpit, no colored shirts in the pulpit, no modern per-versions of the Bible (KJV only), no missing church, no jewelry, no disagreeing with the preacher (“touch not the Lord’s ANNOYING and do his PROFIT$ no harm” ), no questioning beliefs, no “mixed bathing” (they said nothing about mixed showering ), no novels … etc.etc., ad infinitum. In short, no fun, no joy, no freedom.​

Yep sounds familiar, but if you were raised in the AoG we considered you all worldly
I didn't mind the rules though as I said earlier I still adhere to a lot of them. There were some you forgot.
No sleeveless dresses, no coffee or other stimulants, no mixed swimming, which is probably your mixed bathing, yet we were all allowed to be baptized together in the same lake.

 

[Jim B]

Blessed2003 wrote:

I am of the opinion based on my life experiences that there are "Pharissee's" today, we just call them a different name!

Sorry to get back so late on this subject, Blessed, but I found an interesting study in my files on Pharisaism based on Jesus’ words to/about them in Matthew 23 that you may find interesting. Yes, there are Pharisees alive and well today.

• Pharisees elevate themselves to controlling positions, 23.2-3.
• Pharisees are not to be emulated, 23.3.
• Pharisees are inconsistent in their teachings and practices, 23.3.
• Pharisees make godliness difficult without offering support, 23.4.
• Pharisees emphasize external appearance and performance over internal purity, 23.5.
• Pharisees seek to elevate their own offices, titles, influence and authority, 23.6-12.
• Pharisees take without giving, 23.13-15.
• Pharisees major on minors and minor on majors, 23.23-24.
• Pharisees practice an external religion of appearance, 23.25-28.
• Pharisees persecute those who disagree or resist them, 23.29-39.

This is legalism run rampant. All of these traits are commonplace in the modern Christian church. Pharisaism is alive and well in the Twenty-first Century.

 

[sojeru]

This is not Pharisaism- but it is Hypocracy.
To say that Pharisaism is Hypocracy shows that a person does not care to know the meaning of words. These two words have nothing in common.
Even the ancient pharisees- the original sect followers spoke against many pharisees- yet they do not equate their groups name to hypocracy.

Those that render it such do not care to learn and keep things in its correct place.

I agree that hypocracy has found its place in all of the religions and sects of religions.
However, do not make the error of calling an entire religion or sect Hypocrites or Hypocracy.

shalom

 

[Jim B]

sojeru wrote

This is not Pharisaism- but it is Hypocracy.
To say that Pharisaism is Hypocracy shows that a person does not care to know the meaning of words. These two words have nothing in common.
Even the ancient pharisees- the original sect followers spoke against many pharisees- yet they do not equate their groups name to hypocracy.

Those that render it such do not care to learn and keep things in its correct place.

I agree, Sojeru … sort of. However, Pharisaism, as it is has come to be defined among Christians is, “Pharisaism = Hypocritical observance of the letter of religious or moral law without regard for the spirit; sanctimoniousness; rigid observance of external forms of religion, without genuine piety; hypocrisy in religion; a censorious, self-righteous spirit in matters of morals or manners” (see dictionary.com).

The original motive for the creation of the sect of the Pharisees was to return post-Captivity Israel to a more strict observance to the Law and many good and well-intentioned Pharisees existed in Jesus’ day, including Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (I think they were both Pharisees). However, for the most part, Jesus had very few (if any) praiseworthy things to say about Pharisees and, in fact, especially denounced them throughout the Gospels.

This is the common root for our modern meaning of the word 'Pharisaism' and that is how I used it. Phariaism has become, and is, synonymous with hypocrisy.

Jim

 

[sojeru]

Hi Jim,

indeed, i understand the common way of using "Pharisee" amoung christianity today.
However, this is one of the things that seperates today's Jews from Christians because of the fight of terms.

However, have you not ever noticed that Jesus himself was a pharisee?
His brother James was also a pharisee.
In the Talmud he is called Ya'acov Ha Tzaddik (James the righteous/Just)
as historians attribute this name to him.

The pharisees themselves denounced the practices of many pharisees, again nothing different from what Jesus himself engaged in.

Antonio

 

[Jim B]

Sojeru makes this amazing statement:

However, have you not ever noticed that Jesus himself was a pharisee?
His brother James was also a pharisee.

Sigh!

This is the first time I have ever heard this!! I suppose you have documented primary proof that Jesus and James were Pharisees? If so I would like to see it.

Some people also believe Jesus is a Republican, but that don’t make it so!!

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

No TV, no smoking, no drinking, no cursing, no “minced oaths”, no card playing, no ball games, no slacks on women, no makeup on women, no hairspray on men, no long hair on men, no moustaches, no beards, no movies, no sports, no fraternizing with non-Pentecostals, no patent leather shoes, no short sleeves in the pulpit, no colored shirts in the pulpit, no modern per-versions of the Bible (KJV only), no missing church, no jewelry, no disagreeing with the preacher (“touch not the Lord’s ANNOYING and do his PROFIT$ no harm” ), no questioning beliefs, no “mixed bathing” (they said nothing about mixed showering ), no novels … etc.etc., ad infinitum. In short, no fun, no joy, no freedom.​

​

Yep sounds familiar, but if you were raised in the AoG we considered you all worldly
I didn't mind the rules though as I said earlier I still adhere to a lot of them. There were some you forgot.
No sleeveless dresses, no coffee or other stimulants, no mixed swimming, which is probably your mixed bathing, yet we were all allowed to be baptized together in the same lake.

Wow, what AG did you all go to? LOL. I remember those rules from the Penticosatal Holiness but I was too young to care My personal fave, for humor only is the "no mixed bathing". Yup, yup!

Now. . .when we left the PH and went to the AG it was different. We could not go to movies, although they bent that rule when a Billy Graham moving came out in the local theaters. We could not dance but we could go to the beach where there girls still wore little bitty suits. Had a hard time figuring that one out. Then when I left that AG and went to another, we could go to movies. . .wow. I remember the first time I went to one. I worried the whole time "what if Jesus comes back and I'm here in this movie theatre?". Nope, nope. . .don't miss that legalism at all.

I'm free, I'm free

 

[crystalpc]

Hah Jim, I thought you were raised in the assembly, seems we had similar raising, I was a member of the CoG cleveland assembly. We had the same teaching about movies! What if Jesus came? I didn't go, and I really don't go to movies now, but that is personal choice again. I just don't like them, even the ones I see on tv that are suppose to be "modified".
Sleevless then backless dresses was a big thing in our church. Remember during the 70s when the dresses got so short that they were uncomfortable, it was then when I started wearing slacks. One of the sisters came over to my house, and it really bothered her, although she said that she would like to wear slacks when she was shoveling snow, but if she did someone would come over from the church for sure. I told her I wasn't worried about someone from the church seeing me. If it was wrong, you couldn't hide it from Jesus. He sees everything and slacks were a lot more modest than the dresses they were making. Wow how far i have fallen

Sorry this is addressed to Quaffer!

 

[sojeru]

Greetings Jim,
May this letter find you and your loved ones in good health.

Sure, I can provide information on how Jesus is a pharisee. If i can provide that, then it is obvious James was a pharisee himself. But after I compile the information as to how MessiahYeshuah is a pharisee then I will compile James.
However, it will take a little since I have not compiled the information into an article.

shalom u'bracha
Antonio

 

[Jim B]

Thanks sojeru.

If you can prove that Jesus and James were Pharisees that would be an eye-opener to me.

I am aware that there is a book called “Jesus the Pharisee” by Harvey Falk, an orthodox rabbi, on the market. There is another book by the same title written by Hyam Maccoby, According to James Holding, “Few scholars take the works of Hyam Maccoby seriously; you will not often see him quoted as an authority, and his books … belong on the same shelf as items like Holy Blood, Holy Grail and James the Brother of Jesus. In other words, Maccoby is a conspiracy theorist.” Holding, himself, has been the subject of debate, but I offer his quote as a way of showing that Maccoby, if he is your authority, has his distractors.

I am not sure how much light a conspiracy theorist and an orthodox rabbi who rejects the divinity of Christ can shed on the Truth about Jesus, but I would be open to hear your arguments.

I would be more interested in primary historical records to the fact that Jesus was a Pharisee than merely quotes from secondary sources like Falk and Maccoby.

Anyhow, whether Jesus was a Pharisee or not is of little value in view of the many hard things He had to say about the sect of Pharisees in the Gospels.

Respectfully,
Jim

 

[crystalpc]

Jim,
I have also read that Jesus was pharisee in beliefs. There were two main bodies of Jewish thought in those days, Sadducee's who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, and Pharisees who did believe there was a resurrection. So they performed the law with zeal. There were groups called the zealots, but they fell into one of these two doctrines of thought. Which means you could be a zealot and a sadducee (although unlikely because they were of the aristocratic priesthood) or a zealot and a pharisee. The terms came from these two doctrines of thought at the time.
Jesus was called Rabbi, which was reserved for a teacher of the law.
Pharisee's tried to practice Judaism in it's purest form. It sort of got out of hand, many traditions arose, such as methods of washing hands, rather than reasons for washing. In other words they lost the spirit of the law.
Jesus was a purist in the best sense, because he remembered why the law was given, and came to fulfill it.
Sadducees not only didn't believe in a resurrection, but they attempted to demystify God all together. No miracles, no angels, no spirt Acts 23:8 Sound familiar? It is a lot like today, with the liberal church and the fundamentalist church. I think that the reason Jesus was so hard on the pharisees and did not have much about the seduce, was that there was still hope for the Pharisees, in that they did really try to please God in their own way, while the saducees didn't care one way or the other, very Hellenistic, they wanted a god to please them, or no God at all.
There were also the essences of the day, as you know. They are not mentioned in the scriptures so not much was known about them until lately when we found the dead sea scrolls.
This is interesting, these scrolls fell into the hands of the elite, yet they have not yet been completely translated for public consumption! It is the only ancient writing that has been found and not been completely translated. I read some of the translated document several years ago dealing with the teacher of righteousness, I couldn't help thinking at the time that it would be fascinating to know what all the scrolls said or at least the ones that were still intact and readable, just for historic content alone.
I use to love world history, and the study of cultures.
Max Dimont had some good books on Jewish culture after the fall of the temple and into the Renaissance ages. Fascinating!

 

[Jim B]

crystalpc wrote:

Jim,
I have also read that Jesus was pharisee in beliefs. ...........

I must have been living uder a rock. I have simply never heard this before.

Thanx for sharing.

But you will have to show me in scripture where Jesus was a Pharisee. Otherwise, you are drawing broad conclusions. How could a member of the sect of the Pharisees say the things he did about them in Matthew 23, like, calling the hypocrites and “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ‘The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.’”

Would he have belonged to a sect like this?

Of course Christ believed in the same Law that the Pharisees had set themselves up as champions of, but He was constantly running afoul of their interpretation of it - healing on the sabbath, touching lepers, etc. In that respect, Jesus' approach to the Law was different from theirs and He was in constant conflict with their views of the Law.

Jim
\o/

 

[crystalpc]

crystalpc wrote:


I must have been living uder a rock. I have simply never heard this before.

Thanx for sharing.

But you will have to show me in scripture where Jesus was a Pharisee. Otherwise, you are drawing broad conclusions. How could a member of the
Jim
\o/

In thought only. The sect was right to begin with, but they let traditions come in. Couldn't you see a teacher of the law calling them back to repentance? Remember many Pharisees believed on him, Nicodemus of the sanhedrin, was a Pharisee. Paul called himself a phariesee in order to explain to the people how he practiced judaism in the strictest of forms. People of his time knew what he was saying and was able to draw the comparison then, between the law and grace.
Jesus was bar Mitzvahed (apologies for spelling) At age 12 and amazed the doctors of the law, at his understanding of the scriptures. Not that he knew so many scriptures, but he had knowledge of them. This was a pharisees training.
Jim it would be similar to me saying I am holiness, yet gag at a gnat and swallow a camel, because someone who came to church for salvation and healing, didn't dress the way I wanted them to, or kneel the way I thought they should. That is law rather than spirit.
There is a pharisaic joke that i use to tell I may have posted it here once.
The bishop visiting a local church, passed the sanctuary and was suddenly over come of how worthless he was, and how merciful God was. He hit the altar praying oh God I am nothing.
The pastor of the church passed by, seeing his overseer in such a manner thought if this great man is nothing, then I most certainly am nothing! So he also overcome with emotion he slid on his knees next to the bishop.
The Janitor came by seeing these two men of God on their knees in this manner, was overcome with the same realization, that if these two men felt they were nothing in Gods eyes he was nothing too. So he slid on his knees weepingly, beside the pastor. The pastor's prayer stopped immediately, and he nudged the bishop and said "now look who thinks he is nothing"!

 

[Shannonkish]

scripture please?

 

[crystalpc]

scripture please?

Of course there is no scripture except for Nicodemus and Paul, I am going by the Jewish historians of the day. There are some very good commentaries on the culture of Jewish life at the time. In fact e-sword has several of them you can download for free.

 

[Shannonkish]

I would have to agree with Jim... if Jesus was a Pharasee, why would he have been talking about them as he did?

 

[crystalpc]

I would have to agree with Jim... if Jesus was a Pharasee, why would he have been talking about them as he did?

To convict them of sin?

 

[Jim B]

I suppose Shannon's question would be better phrased, Would Jesus have been part of a sect (the Pharisees) whose leaders were so totally corrupt that He spent so much of His valuable time condemnining them?

If Jesus was a Pharisee, as some are claiming on this thread, then where is the scripture that says so? Otherwise, if there is no scriptural (or for that matter, historical mention to support the idea) it is purely conjecture.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I suppose Shannon's question would be better phrased, Would Jesus have been part of a sect (the Pharisees) whose leaders were so totally corrupt that He spent so much of His valuable time condemnining them?

If Jesus was a Pharisee, as some are claiming on this thread, then where is the scripture that says so? Otherwise, if there is no scriptural (or for that matter, historical mention to support the idea) it is purely conjecture.

I think I'm gonna sound ignorant here but what was the group Jesus was associated with in the temple? When He went to temple. . .who was the group He was part of and ministered to?

 

[Jim B]

Quaffer wrote

I think I'm gonna sound ignorant here but what was the group Jesus was associated with in the temple? When He went to temple. . .who was the group He was part of and ministered to?

I am not sure if I understand exactly what you mean, Q? I do not believe Jesus represented any, nor do I believe He was associated with any, “group.” He was a Jew “born under the Law to redeem those who were under the Law” and the only group He represented was the Kingdom of God, of which He is, of course, King. The Kingdom transcends any human group.

Did I correctly get your drift?

Jim
\o/