How far did the Gibson apple fall from the tree?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


And there are plenty of reasons to be very skeptical of Paul's claims:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm

Maccoby has extensively researched the Pharisee issue, and he's found a lot that is dubious about Paul's purported adherence to them.

The article is outright self-contradictory! At one point the author argues that we should not believe the authenticity of Paul's writings because he doesn't include in his credentials that he was born in Tarsus and studied under Gamileal, then he turns around several paragraphs later and quotes a section of scripture where Paul writes just that!
Concerning Maccoby's point about the rivalry between the Pharisees and Saducees, all I have to say is that rival groups sometimes can agree to co-operate when confronted with another group which they both consider a threat.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Only if you accept the Biblical caricature of them as being accurate. Hyram Maccoby, among other scholars, has pointed out the depiction of the Pharisees as ultra-conservative pit bulls who jealously guarded their power is almost certainly false and was a notion conjured up in the first two centuries AD. In fact, the Pharisees were the sect of the people who preached Mosaic Law, while the Saducees were the aristocrats who favored Hellenism. The Pharisees were actively protecting the messianic cults of Judea from Saducee persecution.

"The third reform is the Pharisaic Reformation. To understand the Pharisees, we must compare them to their chief opponents, the Sadducees. While the Pharisees were the party of the masses and often poor themselves, the Sadducees represented the party of aristocrats and often were themselves rich. The leaders of the Sadducees were the highborn priests of the Jerusalem Temple, while those of the Pharisees were the rabbis and scholars, the latter known as "scribes." Sadduceeism centered in the Temple; Phariseeism revolved around the synagogues scattered throughout the land (Mk. 5:17). The main activity of the Temple was the sacrificing of animals as burnt offerings; that of the synagogues was to conduct prayer and to read the Bible (Mt. 23).

The Pharisees believed in the hereafter. There would come a time, so they taught, when the dead would be resurrected from their graves (Acts 23:6f.). Along with this, they believed in the immortality of the soul and the awarding of rewards and punishments in the next world. (Sounds almost Christian, doesn't it?) To the Sadducees, such doctrines were ridiculous, for they had no basis at all in the Five Books of Moses.

The Pharisees also had their own way of interpreting the Bible. Their view was that God had given Moses not only the Written Law but an Oral Law as well, so that by clever exegesis the Oral Law could be discovered.

An example: The Pentateuch has the famous punishment dictum: "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, hand for a hand, foot for a foot" (Ex. 21:24). The Pharisees abolished this harsh practice. They substituted for physical mutilation the requirement that the offender pay to the injured party a money compensation. To justify such a substitution, they reinterpreted another passage from the Pentateuch: "Ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer that is guilty of death; but he shall surely be put to death" (Nu. 35:31). Their argument stressed the word "life." Where life had been taken, there could be no money compensation; but if the injury involved an eye or a tooth or a hand or a foot, then money could be substituted.

Here's another illustration demonstrating that their method of exegesis led to reform. The Jewish dietary laws forbid the eating of milk and meat at the same meal. This is supposedly the meaning of the verse "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. 34:26). Now I ask you, how does "seethe" come to mean "eat," how does "kid" mean "meat" of any kind, and how does "its mother's milk" mean milk of any kind? Yet by resorting to such a tortuous interpretation, they were able to arrive at their predetermined reform.

Incidentally, it's most interesting to note that this law actually derives from one of the three sets of Ten Commandments we have been given-this being the tenth commandment of what is known as the Ritual Set, for it is quite different from the other two sets, one of which is found in Deuteronomy and the other in Exodus 20.

When every allowance has been made for its flaws, there remains in Phariseeism a great appealing residue. When new legislation is derived from scholarly interpretation rather than priestly fiat, prestige shifts from the priest to the scribe, from the privileged to the unprivileged, from the few to the many.

Their often convoluted way of interpretation also helped progress. New situations and new needs could be met much more quickly. Nearly all of the Pharisaic reforms involved the meeting of new conditions. To the Pharisees also must be traced the Jewish concern for education. It was a Pharisaic maxim that "the learned bastard takes precedence over the ignorant high priest."

Such oft-quoted and admired passages in the New Testament, the Christian Bible, are: "Blessed are the meek," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Blessed are the merciful," and "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you"-all these come from the Pharisees.

It is Phariseeism that has come down the centuries, reflecting itself in the rabbinical Judaism of today. The Pharisees were also the spiritual fathers of both Christianity and Islam."

in the bible Jesus is protrayed as being against both the sadduces and the pharisees

and the sadduces were the ones who were protrayed as being in charge of the temple

and Jesus disagreed with a lot of the pharisee reforms, he said that they looked good but were really wolves in sheeps clothing

so them being against him would make sense

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The article is outright self-contradictory! At one point the author argues that we should not believe the authenticity of Paul's writings because he doesn't include in his credentials that he was born in Tarsus and studied under Gamileal, then he turns around several paragraphs later and quotes a section of scripture where Paul writes just that!

You didn't read carefully. The first part is referring to the letters known to have been written by Paul himself, which are autobiographical. The second part is from Acts, which wasn't written by Paul at all--it's someone saying that Paul said this. Maccoby is trying to show why the passage in Acts is dubious, based partly on the fact that Paul never wrote such himself.

Concerning Maccoby's point about the rivalry between the Pharisees and Saducees, all I have to say is that rival groups sometimes can agree to co-operate when confronted with another group which they both consider a threat.

That's simply rampant speculation at this point. Considering the sheer number of messianic cults in Judea at the time which the Pharisees didn't have a problem with, nay even protected, I don't know how much sense this makes.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


The article is outright self-contradictory! At one point the author argues that we should not believe the authenticity of Paul's writings because he doesn't include in his credentials that he was born in Tarsus and studied under Gamileal, then he turns around several paragraphs later and quotes a section of scripture where Paul writes just that!
Concerning Maccoby's point about the rivalry between the Pharisees and Saducees, all I have to say is that rival groups sometimes can agree to co-operate when confronted with another group which they both consider a threat.

that's the way that most Bible critics are

there are a few places where they have legitment reason

and most of it is just made up crap

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You didn't read carefully. The first part is referring to the letters known to have been written by Paul himself, which are autobiographical. The second part is from Acts, which wasn't written by Paul at all--it's someone saying that Paul said this. Maccoby is trying to show why the passage in Acts is dubious, based partly on the fact that Paul never wrote such himself.



That's simply rampant speculation at this point. Considering the sheer number of messianic cults in Judea at the time which the Pharisees didn't have a problem with, nay even protected, I don't know how much sense this makes.

we don't have eveything that Paul wrote

who are you to judge what he included in different letters?

and the difference between Jesus and some other messianic cults is that Jesus lambasted the Pharisees

if someone is attacking you, and is getting more popular, of course you are going to act against them

Jon Miller

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
and the sadduces were the ones who were protrayed as being in charge of the temple

Cite. Sorry, but I don't think this is true at all... the NT is pretty clear in depicting the Pharisees as being in charge of the temple.

And as to their character:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...arch=Pharisees

The Pharisees are furthermore described by Josephus as extremely virtuous and sober, and as despising luxuries; and Ab. R. N. v. affirms that they led a life of privation. The ethics of the Pharisees is based upon the principle "Be holy, as the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. xix. 2, Hebr.); that is, strive to imitate God (Sifra and Tan., Ḳedoshim, 1; Mek., Shirah, 3; Sifre, Deut. 49; comp. Matt. v. 48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"). So "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is declared by them to be the principal law (Shab. 30a; Ab. R. N., text B, xxvi. [ed. Schechter, p. 53]; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, 4) and, in order to demonstrate its universality, to be based on the verse declaring man to be made in the image of God (Gen. v. 1). "As He makes the sun shine alike upon the good and the evil," so does He extend His fatherly love to all (Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, i.; Sifre, Num. 134, Deut. 31, 40). Heathenism is hated on account of the moral depravity to which it leads (Sifre, Num. 157), but the idolater who becomes an observer of the Law ranks with the high priest (Sifra, Aḥare Mot, 13). It is a slanderous misrepresentation of the Pharisees to state that they "divorced morality and religion," when everywhere virtue, probity, and benevolence are declared by them to be the essence of the Law (Mak. 23b-24a; Tosef., Peah, iv. 19; et al.; see Ethics).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


we don't have eveything that Paul wrote

who are you to judge what he included in different letters?

First, it's not me judging, I didn't write the article.

Second, you're taking it out of context. Read the whole article--that's just one minor aspect of his argument.

and the difference between Jesus and some other messianic cults is that Jesus lambasted the Pharisees

if someone is attacking you, and is getting more popular, of course you are going to act against them

In complete contradiction of their norm? I doubt it. Look at their history. Rarely was anyone executed, and the only documented case was for people who lied to try and get someone else executed.

Beyond that, handing over someone to the Romans to be crucified? It's simply preposterous, since the Pharisees despised the Romans and would never hand over a Jew to them. To believe they would seems to be to be almost slanderous against them.

[Dr Strangelove]

What time periods are your sources talking about? Is it possible that under the duress of Roman occpation that Pharsee practise temporarily changed, or that it may have happened that at the time of Christ's life a group of Pharsees existed that were not of the same temperment as their predecessors and/or descendents?

[Jon Miller]

it says explicitly that the Sadducees are in charge of the temple

read the book

Mathew details about when the Sadducees and Pharisees started working together

and whenever pharisees are mentioned with temple it says the chief priests and pharisees

they are different groups, the chief priests were the sadducees, people like Caiaphas were in their number

when it says elders, those are the pharisees

it all make perfect sense

I never read this critique until just now, but I have always thought that the sadducees were with the temple

also in Acts it says that the high priest and company were sadducees

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Jesus said that the Pharisees were wolves in sheeps clothing

this would seem to imply that they seemed to be good, but weren't

so of course some of their teaching would be good

also they were a party for the masses

so was Jesus, how is it so hard to see that there would be some conflict there (totally diverging this from religious ideas there would be conflict there)

Jon Miller

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

Eh... Who cares what you think. The people whose opinion really counts, the university I graduated from, and the state licensing board disagree with you. For some strange reason it's still legal for Christians to practise medicine in this country. Maybe you should try to do something about that. Just be certain to emphasize to the public that you are a libertarian.

You accused me of hypocrisy and immediately ran away from that charge when challenged and refuted (what else is new?). But instead of an apology or an admission of being wrong, you rambled onto more shaky ground in the land of Strangelove by implying I want it made illegal for people of your "intellect" to practice medicine. I hope you're better at medicine than you are at Christianity...

Imran -

I wonder if you got the 'diss' on you.

Care to explain it?

They ALL share the same belief. Really... a group share the entire gambit of beliefs? So all liberatarians are exactly the same in their beliefs? You and David Floyd exactly agree?

Who is "they"? People who believe in "collective guilt" wrt Mel Gibson's comment in his movie about "we" being responsible for Jesus' death. That is the belief I consider bogus and that is the group - people who share that belief - we are discussing. You jumped from one belief - collective guilt for his execution - and my view of that one belief to an entire "gambit of beliefs". From Strangeland to Strawman...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Care to explain it?

You are complaining about "Collective guilt" and then assigning guilt to ALL Christians, ie, collective guilt .

Like you said:

And Gibson is a practitioner of "collective guilt" as well. Spare me the BS, Mel, you didn't kill Jesus, I didn't kill Jesus, no one alive today or the past ~1900 years had a hand in his death.
And people who belong to this religion expect us to show respect for such bogus beliefs? No thanks...

[Berzerker]

Boris -

Cite. Sorry, but I don't think this is true at all... the NT is pretty clear in depicting the Pharisees as being in charge of the temple.

I thought the Sadducees were the religious or priestly class in charge of the temples, and the pharisees were the legal class in charge of the (non-religious) laws. Btw, I have a book by
Hy(r)am Maccoby, "The Mythmaker", about Paul's version of Christianity that replaced Jesus. He delves into the notion that the Pharisees were actually more allied with Jesus against the Sadducees, not enemies of Jesus... In fact, he argues that Jesus debated like a Pharisee and may have actually been one.

[Berzerker]

You are complaining about "Collective guilt" and then assigning guilt to ALL Christians, ie, collective guilt .

No where did I mention all Christians, just the one belief of "collective guilt" as defined by Gibson in his movie and those who share that belief.

Like you said:

And Gibson is a practitioner of "collective guilt" as well. Spare me the BS, Mel, you didn't kill Jesus, I didn't kill Jesus, no one alive today or the past ~1900 years had a hand in his death.
And people who belong to this religion expect us to show respect for such bogus beliefs? No thanks...

And? IF all Christians believe we are responsible for Jesus' death, then I include them all. But I don't know what every Christian (individual or sect) believes, so I limited my critique to the 1 belief I find illogical and the religion - group of people - that holds that belief. But instead of dealing with what I said you've tried to introduce the strawman that I'm attributing a "gambit of beliefs" to a group of people even though they don't share those beliefs, i.e., collective guilt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No where did I mention all Christians, just the one belief of "collective guilt" as defined by Gibson in his movie and those who share that belief.

But you did mention all Christians. You said "people who belong to THIS RELIGION". So no, it isn't a strawman.. you said it.

That's why Doc said what he did.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm on Berz's side of this.

It is for our sins, that Christ suffered, and that our sins put him upon the cross.

That seems a fairly core teaching about the atonement, so rather than chastise Berz for unfairly castigating Christians, we should acknowledge that this is what they believe.

Secondly, if you don't like the guilt, Berz, then TFB. It is not there for you to like, but rather to encourage repentence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is for our sins, that Christ suffered, and that our sins put him upon the cross.

That seems a fairly core teaching about the atonement, so rather than chastise Berz for unfairly castigating Christians, we should acknowledge that this is what they believe.

What about the Arian heresy (some who still exist, IIRC)? What about other Christian sects which aren't convinced on the Jesus died for all mankind stuff?

[Ben Kenobi]

Arians deny the divinity of Christ, and hence, they cannot be Christians.

What about other Christian sects which aren't convinced on the Jesus died for all mankind stuff?

Well, find them please. The atonement is something shared between all the denominations that I am aware of.

[The Mad Monk]

They are not Christian.

There is room for disagreement on many things, but not on the Arian Heresy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Arians deny the divinity of Christ, and hence, they cannot be Christians.

Why not? They considered themselves Christian.

[Ben Kenobi]

Standard definition of christian, is the body of churches that affirm the ecumenical councils of the church, ending with the council in Chalcedon.

Arians do not, hence they fall outside the boundaries of Christianity.

All the ecumenical councils occured before the split of the East and Western churches, and therefore, remain affirmed by both today.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't use to ecumenical councils to determine what is Christianity. If you say you believe Jesus was a prophet and consider yourself a Christian, I don't see why what the main Chruch who stamped out that heresy deciding different matters.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

But you did mention all Christians. You said "people who belong to THIS RELIGION". So no, it isn't a strawman.. you said it.

That's why Doc said what he did.

Doc is clueless, and I didn't say ALL CHRISTIANS (that's your strawman). I said people who belong to this religion - Gibson's religion - that blames us all for Jesus death, i.e., collective guilt. Are you now claiming that ALL CHRISTIANS believe we killed Jesus?

What about the Arian heresy (some who still exist, IIRC)? What about other Christian sects which aren't convinced on the Jesus died for all mankind stuff?

Well now, explain why you think I'm claiming ALL CHRISTIANS believe "we" killed Jesus when some Christians don't even believe he was crucified for our sins. Hell, there were (and may still be) some Christians who don't even believe he was crucified...

Ben -

I'm on Berz's side of this.

It is for our sins, that Christ suffered, and that our sins put him upon the cross.

That seems a fairly core teaching about the atonement, so rather than chastise Berz for unfairly castigating Christians, we should acknowledge that this is what they believe.

That is a different belief from what we're discussing. In his movie, Gibson's hand is shown placing the spike about to enter Jesus' hand and Gibson says something to the effect that "we" - meaning us all - are responsible for the crucifixion. This commentary may have been added because of the controversy over the original film cut portraying the Jews as guilty (collectively) of Jesus' death. It is this notion that I reject. A group of people killed him, not everyone.

Secondly, if you don't like the guilt, Berz, then TFB. It is not there for you to like, but rather to encourage repentence.

I didn't kill him, if you did, you repent.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Like you said:

And Gibson is a practitioner of "collective guilt" as well. Spare me the BS, Mel, you didn't kill Jesus, I didn't kill Jesus, no one alive today or the past ~1900 years had a hand in his death.
And people who belong to this religion expect us to show respect for such bogus beliefs? No thanks...

What religion shares Gibson's belief in collective guilt over Jesus' death? I didn't even mention Christianity and you accuse me of ascribing this belief to ALL CHRISTIANS?

[Ben Kenobi]

Berzerker:

And my point is precisely what Gibson is trying to get out. Christ died, to redeem us from our sins, hence our sins have put him up on the cross. We may not have driven the nail, but we have done everything but. Christ, if we did not sin, would not have had to die on the cross.

Remember, Christ is the Son of God. He could call upon a chorus of Angels, should he desire, at any point of time during his time on Earth. Yet, he declined, because he wanted to serve as the sacrifice for many, and in doing so could redeem each one of us.

So it matters little who actually drove the nail into Christ's palm, because Christ would not have been there, had we not sinned.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you say you believe Jesus was a prophet

Muslims affirm Christ is a prophet, yet they are not Christians.

One of the essential teachings of Christianity, is in the trinity, in the divinity of Christ. You reject the divinity, you cannot be a Christian, you do not believe that Christ is the son of God.

Every Christian, without exception, has to profess faith in Christ, not as a man, or a teacher, or a prophet, but as God himself, equal, and enternally, the Son of God the father.

[Seeker]

why is no one using the examples of Jewish scripture with mentions of jesus(Talmud and tradition) and relying so much on Christian scripture?

BTW, it's interesting that 2000 years later the J-man still causes storms of controversy wherever he goes.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Every Christian, without exception, has to profess faith in Christ, not as a man, or a teacher, or a prophet, but as God himself, equal, and enternally, the Son of God the father.

I think that your opinion. I have discussed this topic with priests, and they say you can be a Christian without even hearing of Jesus, if you live your life in a way that is in accordance with his teachings. He cited Gandhi (a non-christian) as being like any other Christian in the eyes of God.

Who is right, you or he, comes down to doctrine or personal opinion, neither of which is authorative IMO.

[GePap]

Interestingly enough, the Daily News had an interesting piece about the movie yesterday writen by a theologian bringing up an obvious point that it seemed I had missed- I forget which Italian director it was, but one of them made a movie which was basically filming the Gospel of either Mark or Luke, but filming it straight-no script, only the gospel.

Now, Gibson is NOT using any one gospel, and the fact is that the four gospels differ significantly in what events they mention and in the events of his life- Gibson picked and chose the words from each gospel he wanted, so when he says "this is what the Bible says", well, in a way, yes, but he wrote the script, mixed up the four gospels, and thus he does have a choice of what gets included and what is not.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

And my point is precisely what Gibson is trying to get out. Christ died, to redeem us from our sins, hence our sins have put him up on the cross. We may not have driven the nail, but we have done everything but. Christ, if we did not sin, would not have had to die on the cross.

Remember, Christ is the Son of God. He could call upon a chorus of Angels, should he desire, at any point of time during his time on Earth. Yet, he declined, because he wanted to serve as the sacrifice for many, and in doing so could redeem each one of us.

So it matters little who actually drove the nail into Christ's palm, because Christ would not have been there, had we not sinned.

If Jesus wanted to serve as a sacrifice, then he's responsible. If "God" wanted him to serve as a sacrifice, then God is responsible. Sorry, but this is where I part company with those who believe he died for our sins and that we are somehow responsible... If that was what God and Jesus wanted, they can't blame us... And the Jews and the Romans should be praised for playing the role desired by both Jesus and God, but they aren't. Why is that? Notice a paradox there?