I thought it was San Francisco.
Yes, Daniel, I know that in Revelation “Babylon” means “Rome”.
Do you have any reason to think that the Book of Jonah is describing some actual historical event, and is not in fact a completely fictional account?
I find your statement that the teachings of Jesus “corresponded quite a bit” with the teachings of the Pharisees to be overreaching.
He says do as they say, but not as they do.
OK, given. We might presume that, in general, the Pharisees didn’t go around ordering people to do evil things.
But, Jesus goes on to enumerate the areas he disagrees with the Pharisees about in the rest of the chapter. For example, their teaching that only giving ten percent was sufficient charity (they strain out a gnat while swallowing a camel) and their teaching that taking oaths was OK (compare Matthew 5:33-7 to Matthew 23:16-22).
SuaSponte – I’ve been busy, but I’ve read much of that link with interest.
I honestly have no idea what modern Judaic teachings are in regards to charity and oaths. If you are saying they are the same as those of the Pharisees, I’ll have to disagree with you. As with most things, the devil is in the details.
A couple of quick points, on a thread that seems rapidly headed for a peacable death:
1)
a) Total Non-resistance to evil isn’t a Christian value. Non-restance to minor evil that does you no harm, is. In other words, If it doesn’t matter, why make a fuss?
b) The Bible calls for men to be lord of the household as Christ is Lord to us all: Take that in the context from which is was said. Christ washed people’s feet (parable for placing himself as the servant to mankind), practiced leadership by example, was a teacher and moral guide, and at the last, sacrificed Himself that we might live (eternally). Taken from that context, what’s the issue with men being lord of the home? It doesn’t sound too much like ‘Bring me a beer or I’ll beat you’ to me. In fact, it sounds like a lotta hard work, not much reward (save that of doing a tough job well).
2)
Again, take it in context: ‘Reject the moral and spiritual guidance in the Bible at your peril’. When some observant soul noticed that eating pork made you sick, telling his(her) fellow villagers didn’t likely carry a whole lotta weight. Saying that God would cast you out of heaven, however… Likewise, saying “Hey everone, let’s behave ourselves” is unlikely to go anywhere, especially in an enviroment where misbehaving likely has immediate rewards. Saying “God sez behave or you’re gonna burn” carries some authority, and even the biggest bully in the villiage isn’t going to tackle God. (which doesn’t mean that some priests didn’t use God to bully their flock, BTW)
3)
Hi Opal! 
4)
See #2, above. Humanism isn’t enough for many folks. They lack the discipline or willingness to do it on their own. Given the threat of Divine consequences, however unlikely, most people will toe the line, most of the time. Giving a mechanism for forgiveness allows those who DO cross the line a way back into the fold, so that once you’ve ‘sinned’, you have no excuse to keep on sinning.
4)
That works for many people. My Reverand mother (I LOVE saying that!) is UUA, but I am Born Again, and ascribe to no church whatsoever. My religeon is between me, Christ, and God, but I suppose I’m closest to the faith of the Calvary Chappel, if you must put a label on it.
Tranquilis, my point is that various people are saying (as they always say in debates like this) “But the Bible has many great moral lessons”. But which moral lessons? Based on the texts of the Bible, many people take a message of universal peace and love and brotherhood. That’s just dandy. But it’s not at all obvious to me that the people who take other messages–“All of those godless heathens are going to hell, and Christians have a duty to destroy heathendom and save the godless by any means necessary” or “Moral conduct isn’t the point–the only thing that matters is being saved by faith in Jesus”–are any more “wrong” than Christians whose views I may find more palatable. All systems of Bible interpretation find it necessary to ignore, rationalize, or “interpret” various inconvenient passages, in both the Old and New Testaments.
Like all people who attempt to derive a moral system from the Bible, you naturally believe that those other fellows got it wrong, and are ignoring/“interpreting” the wrong passages, while you are ignoring/“interpreting” the passages God wants you to ignore or “interpret”. But maybe, to God, all the peace and love talk is chaff (or is being misinterpreted, at any rate) and the hellfire and damnation and smite the idolaters is the real message. Or conversely, maybe jmullaney or the Quakers are right. Maybe God meant all that stuff about total renunciation of worldly ties and complete pacifism quite literally, and modern Christians who “interpret” these passages to their convenience are playing fast and loose with the Word of God. Personally, I don’t think any one message can be derived from the Bible as a whole, or even from one or the other Testament of the Christian Bible. The Bible was written by a lot of different people, and no matter how much theologians may try, there’s no way to harmonize all the different views of God and morality which those people had. There are parts of the Bible I basically agree with, ethically speaking, but I don’t consider them divinely inspired, any more than I consider the writings of ancient Greek philosophers I happen to agree with divinely inspired, or any more than I consider those parts of the Bible which horrify me to be diabolically inspired.
I’ve got to go with Neurotik on the similarities between the Pharisees and Jesus. If you’re just going to look in The New Testament… well, don’t be surprised if it seems anti-Pharasical. After all, certain parts of the New Testament, particulary the book of Matthew, can be largely regarded as anti-Semitic and pro-Gentile. Here are brief quotes from two independent sources (ellipses are there to comply with Fair Use, not to disguise points counter to my message; all emphasis added):
Introduction to the Bible, J.H. Hayes, p. 315
Ibid, p. 435
A History of God, Karen Armstrong, p.72
Ibid, p.81
There was a quote, I forget who authored it (maybe Lewis? Hayes?) saying that the close teachings of the Pharisees and of Jesus shock modern readers, who have always learned that the Pharisees were the antithesis of Jesus. The mystery author notes that it’s a lot like fights within a family–they always seem to be worse than disagreements between two unrelated people.
Regarding the OP (hehe), I won’t do Karen Armstrong the injustice of bastardizing and summarizing her ideas found in The Battle for God. Instead, I’ll vehemently urge you to pick up a copy and read it.
Quix
Oy vey.
I’m supposed to argue Jesus’s teachings differed from those of the Pharisees, but I can’t use the New Testament as a reference?
OK, how bout the Gospel of Thomas…
No good either? Well, heck. I guess if you are just going to arbitrarily decide that Jesus’s criticisms of the priestly class and their teachings are inauthentic, I don’t have much else to go on. I don’t pretend to know by what magic powers Hayes comes to his/her conclusions (perhaps used a time machine?). Nor do I know of any other sources for Jesus’s teachings besides these few books.
If you want to ignore the evidence, you can believe anything you like. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jmullaney *
:rolleyes: Yeah, that’s just what I said. You keep referring to Matthew, particularly Chapter 23. What about the other Gospels? Armstrong (see quote) claims that the Pharisees get “good press” in both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts–what’s your response to that? Matthew was written at a time (circa 80-90 CE) where tensions were running high between Jews and Gentiles, between pro-Gentile Jews and anti-Gentile Jews. Should you be surprised when you find one example (i.e., Book of Matthew) that lies squarely on the pro-Gentile Jews/anti-Jews side??
So, you’ve established (in my eyes) that you’re going to take the Gospel of Matthew at face value, take it (heh) as gospel. You go from this stance of “Biblical Conservatism” to a completely liberated view, by quoting the Gospel of Thomas–not even in the official Christian canon. It’s been years since I’ve read any of the Gnostic Gospels, but I do recall that they contain many teachings of Jesus that squarely contradict what he said in the Synoptic Gospels. How are you able to pick “Well, when Jesus taught this in Thomas, that’s crap, but when he taught this bit in Thomas that agreed with what he taught in Matthew, that’s ok.”
Again, I’ll ask you to address Jesus’ “anti-Pharisaical” claims found in Luke or Acts. Compare and contrast the views of this author(s) with the views of the author(s) of Matthew. Next, I’d ask you to remember that the Jews in that time frame were, indeed, literate. Why don’t you try letting them speak for themselves? See what Rabbi Hillel, for example, had to say. Here’s a hint: The Golden Rule of Christianity wasn’t a fresh, new idea.
As for Hayes’s sources: I’ll just ignore that bit about the time machine. If direct experience is the only standard you’re going to accept for historical criticism, then I don’t even know why you participate in threads such as these. Hayes doesn’t do a good job of footnoting, but Armstrong has two references in her section: Jesus the Jew by G. Vermes, and A History of the Jews by P. Johnson.
Just a nitpick–the Pharisees were hardly the “priestly class.” They were a very inclusive, quite grassroots effort to extend Judaism outside of the Temple, the domain of the Sadducees. Just because they advocated that everyone could become, in effect, “priestly,” doesn’t mean that they were a “priestly class.”
Quix
I haven’t read acts in a long long time. Perhaps Luke is slightly “more balanced” than Matthew. For example, Luke 5:20-26 portrays some Pharisees filled with awe at Jesus’s power. Yet, shortly thereafter, Luke 5:30 has the Pharisees and their scribes murmuring against his disciples. A paragraph later, Luke 6:2 has at least some of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of illegal activity. At some later sabbath, they conspire to again accuse him of violating sabbath laws if he heals on the sabbath, and once he does so and essentially mocks their fundamentalist view, they become angry and begin discussing how to put a stop to him (Luke 6:6-11).
Luke 7:24-35 describes the Pharisees and lawyers as having rejected John’s baptism and Jesus rebukes those who rejected both John and himself, an apparent slight at those same Pharisees. Luke 7:37-50 has one Pharisee not believing in the forgiveness of sins, and not showing as much love for Jesus as a sinner.
Luke 11:37-54 is basically the same rant as appears in Matthew 23.
The very first verse of Jesus’s Sermon to the Multitudes begins with “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”
Luke 13:31 does have some Pharisees warning Jesus that he should flee because Herod is planning on killing him. Their motivation, based on much of the above, is questionable, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Luke 14:1 mentions they were watching him carefully when he dined at one of their houses. But again, taken by itself the motive is unclear.
Luke 15 begins with them murmuring again, and Jesus goes into several parables about the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 16 10-14 says that the Pharisees were lovers of money who scoffed at his teaching that a man can’t serve two masters and must serve God if he wishes to have treasure in heaven.
Luke 17 briefly mentions Pharisees inquiring about the kingdom of God. That can’t be a bad thing.
Then in Luke 18:9-14 is the parable about the self-righteous Pharisee versus the tax collector who admits he is a sinner.
Finally, and I do believe I have touched upon every reference to the Pharisees in Luke, there is Luke 19:37-40 – which must have been what you were talking about earlier, where some Pharisees are upset that Jesus’s disciples are calling him a king.
I don’t consider this all to be a Jew/Gentile issue. If that is what you are afraid I’m saying, you should not fear. I believe the, for lack of a better term, “power plays” that went on here are so typical of any ideolgical revolution even in recent history, that they have a serious ring of truth to them. (For example, Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto, later Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin implement it. Lenin doing an OK job except for letting Stalin hang around. Lenin dies, both Trotsky and Stalin claim to be the “real” Communists – but Trotsky has to flee to Mexico where he writes many tracts which AFAIK call Stalin a hypocrite. Stalin has Trotsky killed – the end.)
I have to go by the source material.
I’m sure there are some more “off the wall” gospels out there – but Thomas squares fairly well with the canon. (I’ve never bought into the whole “gnostic” label for it.)
That’s fine – and I get that. But there is the question of how to implement such a rule otherwise all you have is a platitude. Apparently, Jesus and, with a few exceptions, the Pharisees had some basic disagreements as to the implementation of the love of God and neighbor as their scoffing and anger show.
I accept source material. I am willing to attempt to understand other people’s interpretation of source material. But I’ve always been fond of verse 2:170 from the Koran:
when it comes to quoting “authorities” who base their authority upon other “authorites” and so on, and maybe when you get to that last footnote it cites what a drunk at a bar scrawled on a cocktail napkin. Not that it means I know what I am talking about any more than them, I just have always prefered to think for myself when I have at least an inkling.
Interesting. Thanks, I’ll keep that in mind.
Just for the record, in Jewish accounts of history, the difference between Pharisees and Saducees was that Pharisees believed in the divinity of the oral tradition (what we know today as the Talmud) and Saducees did not. The association of the Saducees with the Temple Mount was mainly due to a power struggle between the two factions during the time of the Hasmoneans; the Pharisees were in control of the educational system (not surprising, since Talmudic academies were the main training grounds for new Rabbis), so the Saduccees used the priesthood as a base for their political power.
It’s not very surprising that the Christian Gospels are very much anti-Pharisee, as the Pharisees (the Rabbis of the Talmud) rejected any claim to divinity by JC.