Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-06-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In each case, the comment about persecuting the church could be cut with no great loss.

So you say.

Quote:

In Acts 8, in contrast, Saul (later identified as Paul), approves the stoning of the martyr Stephen, and then "began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison." (Not the usual conduct of a Pharisee, is it?) and in Acts 9 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem."

Now, that's persecution.

So you expect narrative in a context which is not intent to give it and in which it would be out of place. I see.

Jeffrey

Toto · 06-06-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In each case, the comment about persecuting the church could be cut with no great loss.

So you say.

And what say you? Is this an interrogation or a conversation? What do you think that the mere mention of persecution of the church adds to these passages, other than a footnote saying "see the dramatic story in Acts?"

Quote:

In Acts 8, in contrast, Saul (later identified as Paul), approves the stoning of the martyr Stephen, and then "began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison." (Not the usual conduct of a Pharisee, is it?) and in Acts 9 "Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem."

Now, that's persecution.

So you expect narrative in a context which is not intent to give it and in which it would be out of place. I see.

Jeffrey

How would it be out of place if Paul had said "I persecuted the church as an agent of the High Priest and dragged members of the Way to prison?" But then he might have had to explain why an up and coming Pharisee was working as a policeman for the High Priest. :huh:

Minimalist · 06-06-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

then journeying to Damascus to arrest Christians with authority from the High Priest.

Whose "authority" in Damascus was......what?

Clivedurdle · 06-06-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

What is interesting is the false representation of pharisees here! They were not the sticklers for the law - they were the humane lot trying to fit the law into real life!

Now why might the gospels and Paul both falsely represent the Pharisees?

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-06-2008, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

What is interesting is the false representation of pharisees here! They were not the sticklers for the law - they were the humane lot trying to fit the law into real life!

Now why might the gospels and Paul both falsely represent the Pharisees?

Where does Paul here say that the Pharisees were sticklers for the law?

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 06-07-2008, 02:29 AM

The bit I bolded. What do you take that as meaning?

Amaleq13 · 06-07-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is interesting is the false representation of pharisees here! They were not the sticklers for the law - they were the humane lot trying to fit the law into real life!

From what source do we learn this? Josephus?

Clivedurdle · 06-07-2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

PhariseeJewish history

Main

member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 bc–ad 70). Their insistence on the binding force of oral tradition (“the unwritten Torah”) still remains a basic tenet of Jewish theological thought. When the Mishna (the first constituent part of the Talmud) was compiled about ad 200, it incorporated the teachings of the Pharisees on Jewish law.
The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees, i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law, i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law; men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems. Rather than blindly follow the letter of the Law even if it conflicted with reason or conscience, the Pharisees harmonized the teachings of the Torah with their own ideas or found their own ideas suggested or implied in it. They interpreted the Law according to its spirit;

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...55129/Pharisee

The alleged words of Paul above and Jesus - not one jot - are the attitudes of the Sadducees.

So why are they said to be Pharisaic beliefs? Why does Jesus attack Pharisees for attitudes they do not hold?

Amaleq13 · 06-07-2008, 12:24 PM

Since you apparently have a subscription, could you provide the citations instead of a link that requires it?

Clivedurdle · 06-07-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Link to this article and share the full text with the readers of your Web site or blog-post.

If you think a reference to this article on "Pharisee" will enhance your Web site, blog-post, or any other web-content, then feel free to link to this article, and your readers will gain full access to the full article, even if they do not subscribe to our service.

There seems to be a technical problem with non subscribers linking.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2008, 02:29 AM	#16
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	The bit I bolded. What do you take that as meaning?

06-07-2008, 12:24 PM	#19
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	Since you apparently have a subscription, could you provide the citations instead of a link that requires it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.