schilling.klaus

That's Paulinic/Marcionite agenda, more strong in Mark's than in the other Synoptics
Klaus Schilling

storytime

"Pharisees" as a denominational label sounds fitting enough. And Jesus could have also been a Pharisee but one that disagreed with the other Pharisees. I agree that we can rule out Jesus being a Sadducee because of their non-belief in the resurrection.

I read the article at -
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

I disagree, for now at least, with the connection made to Rome. I read the story as Jesus concerned only with building his body of men for the priesthood that would take over at Jerusalem. Jesus wanted the Pharisees out. Jesus warned his disciples to "Beware, the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Elders" in one part of the story, and in another to "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod". Nothing is warning about the Romans. The "leaven" speaks of sin and how it was mixed into the soup of doctrines.

Then there is Paul who is a Pharisee and starts his own ministry because he says that his doctrine that he preaches declares "Christ crucified".

What was Paul up to? How might Pauls background of both Gentile and Jew have played on his determination to make a name for himself? Not in Rome, but in Jerusalem as part of the hirachy ruling class? What was the qualifying rules for being considered as membership of the inheritance [the promise] as "sons"? Did Paul's Gentile father prevent his legal right to inheritance compared to the sons whose parents were both Jewish? And is this why Paul told the Gentiles that even if they became circumcised that their conversion to Judaism would do them no good?

WVIncagold

LOL I am reminded of mystery men and the sphinx character. "you cannot see where you tread until you tread where you cannot see."= sphinx

"oh yes! terribly mysterious!." =blue raja