Modern day Pharisees versus the ones in the Bible

Instrument150

Active Member
Aug 6, 2017
339
160
36
Pensacola
✟14,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Widowed
My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

Unfortunately, hypocrisy is part of our nature. In this I mean to say that since we have the ability to understand and explain that you're not supposed to sin, we still do it. So when we try to convince people to join Christ because of how awesome we are, the plan fails ... without fail. So when you are attacked for your sin, thank them for bringing it to your attention if you didn't know, and agree with them if you did. It proves nothing. Other than the fact they you need Jesus as much as they do.

So say, "Thanks for understanding why I decided to accept Jesus."
 
Upvote 0

Friend-of-Jesus

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2017
647
474
54
Alberta
✟45,031.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

Jesus teaches many things. We must obey.
 
Upvote 0

Instrument150

Active Member
Aug 6, 2017
339
160
36
Pensacola
✟14,208.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Widowed
My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

But regarding the pharisees, i'd say the difference between them then and them today is time and experience, "knowledge" compiled, multiplied and expanded upon, making them a much larger and more powerful force today.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,563
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,985.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I think Paul was identifying himself as a Pharisee to make a point of the difference between beliefs the Sadducee and the Pharisees held on resurrection. I do not think was calling himself a corrupt religious leader.

True to a point... but the fact remains... Paul said "I am a Pharisee" not "I was a Pharisee." Ego Ami... I AM... which means, even if he was trying to differentiate between two people who saw an aspect of messiah differently... he was STILL saying he was a Pharisee "at that time."

This leads me to the core of the issue. Jesus was rebuking corrupt religous leaders whom used their position to exploit people for personal gain and power. John the Baptist did the same. This notion of having a Pharisee "spirit" of someone who comes off as holier than though is really an issue of pride, not a Pharisee. Pharisee's stand behind pulpits and sit on boards. They enrich themselves off the gospel, they abuse power for personal gain and most importantly when someone brings correction in the words of Jesus they call for their crucifixion. They slander character and murder fellowship.

Again, you are correct but only to a point. The fact remains that there were two schools of Pharisees at that time and Yeshua rebuked the school that taught "Letter of the Law" EVERY TIME we see Him rebuking Pharisees... save for once. And that time was on the topic of divorce because the school of Hillel had far too liberal of a view as to when divorce could happen.

This was the culture of the day... two groups of Pharisees, Sadducees (priests and the elite), Hellenized (Greek thinking/raised) Jews, The Qumran Community, and a few other sects of Judaism AND Christianity... which itself was considered a sect of Judaism in the first century. Context is not the verse before and after... it is anything that effects the writing or influences the writing. So... if these groups and their various beliefs effect the context... or if the differences between God's law and Jewish law (also called "halacha") effect context... we need to have at least a basic understanding of these things. Sadly... the church doesn't bother... we read the NT almost exclusively even though almost a third of it is the OT quoted directed or inferred... we only read in English and we are ignorant of the culture of that day and think we have a clear view. We don't.... we are leaving food on the table God designed for us to eat.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's a mistake calling modern Christians as Pharisees. The modern equivalent of the ancient Jewish Pharisee is the Muslim Taliban.

Calling Christians that you don't like Pharisees is probably sin.
You don't understand the question of the OP.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
15,284
3,556
Louisville, Ky
✟820,856.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?
Love, love love....
Define who you think modern day Pharisees are. I would say hierarchy of churches that misuse scripture to control their flock in ways that they, themselves, cannot follow.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,194
9,201
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You mention above Jesus railing against the Pharisees in Matthew 23. I am convinced that these are the words of Matthew placed in Jesus' mouth. We have to remember that Matthew wrote his gospel about AD 90 at the time when the Jews, led by the Pharisee rabbis, finally drove the Christians from the synagogues. There was much bitterness on both sides.

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

Considering all the many instances in all the gospels in which repeatedly we see those who were trying to trap Christ, picking up stones to stone Him, taking Him to a cliff to throw Him off to His death....

Putting all those various instances together, not only in Matthew, and then you can't really say --"It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites." -- as if only a small few. Because an individual or even 3 isn't enough to be a crowd of people that might drag Him to a cliff, etc. At the least, they were numerous and easily gathered into groups that had to be more than just a scattered few.

That is, that prideful and judging spirit is commonplace. Both then, and now. Always. It's a basic human wrong, like greed or lust.

Also, we see the Pharisee wrongs in the Gospel of Mark too (chapters 7, 8), and this gospel was written down before the sack of Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,194
9,201
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I wish the number were that few. Modern day Pharisees however, surely abound. The danger in pointing fingers at people and proclaiming them Pharisees is that by so doing I might find that I may be one myself. Nonetheless, I will gladly repent Tuesday for a small Pharisaical rant today. I believe I may see many more neo Pharisees in the mainstream non prosperity preaching arena preaching about love and forgiveness while showing hatred and holding grudges than I see prosperity gospel preachers. I see a situation in some parts of Christendom where the poor are deified and the rich are demonized by some in the same way the reverse was the situation of the clergy in Jesus time. We are to love all of our neighbors not just the groups we consider more worthy. Modern Pharisee may think that berating the opposite group from the group the Pharisees berated makes them holy.

A good thing through to remember is that a Pharisee style of preaching would not be preaching specifically love and forgiveness. It would be preaching something that omits love and forgiveness, and is instead about legalistic points or such other things that diverts us from the central real message of Christ to us to love one another. But about your other point that we most of us have at times been tempted and sometimes fallen into it and had to repent out of it, yep, that's right.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A good thing through to remember is that a Pharisee style of preaching would not be preaching specifically love and forgiveness. It would be preaching something that omits love and forgiveness, and is instead about legalistic points or such other things that diverts us from the central real message of Christ to us to love one another. But about your other point that we most of us have at times been tempted and sometimes fallen into it and had to repent out of it, yep, that's right.

As we were speaking of figurative and not literal Pharisees, I believe the point is I made was a good one. For the literal Pharisee, the Law was the standard to be lived up to. For the figurative modern Christian Pharisee, love and forgiveness is the standard. Just as for those of Jesus time the rich were considered inherently morally superior whereas today the poor are considered to be inherently morally superior.
 
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,350
14,508
Vancouver
Visit site
✟335,689.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
As we were speaking of figurative and not literal Pharisees, I believe the point is I made was a good one. For the literal Pharisee, the Law was the standard to be lived up to. For the figurative modern Christian Pharisee, love and forgiveness is the standard. Just as for those of Jesus time the rich were considered inherently morally superior whereas today the poor are considered to be inherently morally superior.
When you speak of the poor then Jesus's teachings on the mount are brought into view. Is that the standard Matthew 5-7 the standard for those who would not be called hypocritical compared to?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,194
9,201
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As we were speaking of figurative and not literal Pharisees, I believe the point is I made was a good one. For the literal Pharisee, the Law was the standard to be lived up to. For the figurative modern Christian Pharisee, love and forgiveness is the standard. Just as for those of Jesus time the rich were considered inherently morally superior whereas today the poor are considered to be inherently morally superior.

The thing with the Pharisees is that they didn't get the essential message of the Old Testament scripture -- Love God with all of your heart, and do justice, and love your neighbor as yourself, but just as you know, they were concerned instead with other things, like whether someone did some action during a Sabbath. This other concern trumped the essential, replaced it, and thus they were not "knowing" God, as Christ said.

They wanted to prosecute Christ for healing someone on the Sabbath.

Completely agree with "We are to love all of our neighbors not just the groups we consider more worthy." See? That's getting the essential message, instead of the legalistic wrong of focusing on judging people. I guess you just worded one sentence in a way that...perhaps needed better clarity or explanation? We do have a lot of preaching today like on the radio, etc., that is about anything but love.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When you speak of the poor then Jesus's teachings on the mount are brought into view. Is that the standard Matthew 5-7 the standard for those who would not be called hypocritical compared to?

I'm sorry but I am not understanding the question you are asking. As for the poor of spirit though, from what I can tell, being poor of spirit is completely unrelated to being financially poor.
 
Upvote 0

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The thing with the Pharisees is that they didn't get the essential message of the Old Testament scripture -- Love God with all of your heart, and do justice, and love your neighbor as yourself, but just as you know, they were concerned instead with other things, like whether someone did some action during a Sabbath. This other concern trumped the essential, replaced it, and thus they were not "knowing" God, as Christ said.

They wanted to prosecute Christ for healing someone on the Sabbath.

Completely agree with "We are to love all of our neighbors not just the groups we consider more worthy."

They were actually quite right to be interested in all of the Law not just the parts dealing with love and justice. Being a descendant of Abraham carried with it certain responsibilities toward the community and the Temple and the Law and ritual. I would fault them more for their priorities as they seem to have been more interested in ritual law than the love and justice part.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Halbhh
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,194
9,201
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,853.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
They were actually quite right to be interested in all of the Law not just the parts dealing with love and justice. Being a descendant of Abraham carried with it certain responsibilities toward the community and the Temple and the Law and ritual. I would fault them more for their priorities as they seem to have been more interested in ritual law than the love and justice part.

Totally agree. I just figured out you word things very different than I do. Tower of Babel. But there are about I don't know 10 or 15 preachers that never are preaching love but anything else but love for each one that preaches love and is also acting pharisee at least in the preachers I've heard, which admittedly in modern times often are on the radio, about 1/2 of them, so that is a sort of selected group. I don't know if I've encountered anyone (any congregant, etc.) emphasizing "love and forgiveness", and then acting Pharisee though. That's just uncommon in the churches I've been in. Instead, you run into dozens, eventually hundreds, preaching their pet things, rigidly, and it's just never about love or forgiving.

I wish I could find people, more of them, not just a handful, talking love!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,350
14,508
Vancouver
Visit site
✟335,689.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry but I am not understanding the question you are asking. As for the poor of spirit though, from what I can tell, being poor of spirit is completely unrelated to being financially poor.
Financially poor is as unrelated to being blessed as is poor in spirit also.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grasping the after wind

That's grasping after the wind
Jan 18, 2010
19,458
6,354
Clarence Center NY USA
✟237,637.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Totally agree. I just figured out you word things very different than I do. Tower of Babel. But there are about I don't know 10 or 15 preachers that never are preaching love but anything else but love for each one that preaches love and is also acting pharisee at least in the preachers I've heard, which admittedly in modern times often are on the radio, about 1/2 of them, so that is a sort of selected group. I don't know if I've encountered anyone (any congregant, etc.) emphasizing "love and forgiveness", and then acting Pharisee though. That's just uncommon in the churches I've been in. Instead, you run into dozens, eventually hundreds, preaching their pet things, rigidly, and it's just never about love or forgiving.

I wish I could find people, more of them, not just a handful, talking love!

I hear love and forgiveness all the time from the preachers I frequent. Even radio ones. Of course, if they did not preach those things I would not frequent them, I would avoid them instead.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm sorry but I am not understanding the question you are asking. As for the poor of spirit though, from what I can tell, being poor of spirit is completely unrelated to being financially poor.

I agree with that insight. I suspect that "poor in spirit" refers to those suffering from stress or depression or other mental illnesses.
 
Upvote 0

Godlovesmetwo

Fringe Catholic
Mar 16, 2016
10,398
7,257
Antwerp
✟17,860.00
Country
Djibouti
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
You mention above Jesus railing against the Pharisees in Matthew 23. I am convinced that these are the words of Matthew placed in Jesus' mouth. We have to remember that Matthew wrote his gospel about AD 90 at the time when the Jews, led by the Pharisee rabbis, finally drove the Christians from the synagogues. There was much bitterness on both sides.

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.
I'm glad you've challenged the stereotype that most of us have about the Pharisees in the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Peter J Barban

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,474
973
62
Taiwan
Visit site
✟97,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You mention above Jesus railing against the Pharisees in Matthew 23. I am convinced that these are the words of Matthew placed in Jesus' mouth. We have to remember that Matthew wrote his gospel about AD 90 at the time when the Jews, led by the Pharisee rabbis, finally drove the Christians from the synagogues. There was much bitterness on both sides.
If Matthew is creating false quotes of Jesus, then his gospel is a fraud, and should not be trusted. Is there any evidence that Matthew is putting words in Jesus' mouth, words that he never said? If not, then JackRT is slandering Matthew and the Bible.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

amariselle

Jesus Never Fails
Sep 28, 2004
6,648
4,194
The Great Northern Wilderness
✟60,500.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
If Matthew is creating false quotes of Jesus, then his gospel is a fraud, and should not be trusted. Is there any evidence that Matthew is putting words in Jesus' mouth, words that he never said? If not, then JackRT is slandering Matthew and the Bible.

Worse even, if Matthew just made up things to "put in Jesus' mouth" to fit some agenda or some narrative, then the Gospel of Matthew isn't even the inspired word of God. If that's true, why is it in the Bible?

Like I said earlier, you start pulling on that thread, pretty soon you can't know anything for certain, not even the Gospel of our salvation in Christ.
 
Upvote 0