What did the Pharisees represent?

[chokmah]

I'm not sure if Josephus would be allowed as a "Jewish" source (as he was a form of Jewish resistance fighter turned fawning Roman - but in his War with Rome, when he documents the siege of Jerusalem, he does mention the Pharisee and Sadduccees and gives each a basic 1-2 sentence description - then mentioned the Essenes and gives them 2 pages or so of glowing praise.

I just got Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill. His theory talks about Josephus and the Gospels. Maybe we should discuss that in the future, if you happen to read about it or the theory that he shares.

I'm sure I've read of somewhat unpleasant references in the Talmud, which is seized upon by anti-Semitic Christians as "proof" that Jews are evil - because they disrespect Jesus.

I can pretty much assure you that there is no mention of the Christian Jesus in the Talmud.

 

[chokmah]

Actually no, I still have alot to learn about the modern Torah, and some or most ancient Torah. I remember alot of what I was taught in sunday schools as a kid, and bits and pieces of what I've read, but I'm sure theirs is more I dont know about, or missed in the Old testament (Torah). I know a few prophecies, but I would be one of those who does error not knowing the scriptures like I should. Even the new testament I have alot to learn.... As I said before no brainiac here.

The Oral Torah is something that I believe every Christian should get a primer on, because it really helps to understand exactly what Torah is as a whole.

Oral Torah is the explanation that supports and clarifies the Written Torah. Anyways... it's a topic we should entertain more later.

Did he? "8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. 9 Now when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--that they might accuse Him. 11 Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? 12 Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. " (Again no offense, not conversion tactic, just adding to the passage previously stated)

Actually, just in the first Matthew passage there are three different instances that we could discuss:

1) Eating on a fast day.
2) Picking grain on the Sabbath.
3) And healing on the Sabbath.

Understanding whether or not Jesus broke any commandments comes from an understanding of Written and Oral Torah.

How do we know?

We can know this through research and scholarship. The answers are out there if you have the interest in pursuing it.

What is this?

Rabbinic Judaism is, essentially, what you have today for Orthodox all the way down to Reform Judaism (for the most part). Conservative and Orthodox have a much more traditional consideration in this regard, and Orthodox would be the most consistently like Pharisaic Judaism in the first century. Once again, this can be seen through scholarship and research.

Again no offense intended... But if they put him to death and his body disapeared, Why would they include it in the Talmud if they where trying to prove he was no Messiah? Knowing that even if his body was stolen rather then resurected some would waver away from Judaism towards Christ. But just my thoughts

That's the whole thing. There is no mention of Jesus whatsoever in the Talmud. Nothing about his life, death, followers, beliefs, doctrines, dogmas... nothing. If we were to look to the Torah for the verification that a Jew named Jesus lived, then we would be left with nothing. One would think that a Jew as prominent as Jesus would have been mentioned at least once, but this is not the case.

Was this actually in the Talmud or just made up by the anti-semitics?

Most of the time, the "Jesus" passages of the Talmud are misinterpretations or complete misunderstandings. Trust me, the Christian Jesus is completely absent from Talmud.

 

[bananabrain]

That's the whole thing. There is no mention of Jesus whatsoever in the Talmud. Nothing about his life, death, followers, beliefs, doctrines, dogmas... nothing.

this is not my understanding. on the contrary, there are many examples of debates between rabbis and what are known as minim or heretics. there is a considerable amount of consensus that many of these references to "minim" are understood to refer to christians. usually the story of a "min" trying to catch a rabbi out and ending up looking like an idiot. of course, this is probably rabbinic propaganda and about as impartial as, well, the gospels.

it's sometimes difficult to tell who is meant in the Talmud because the text has been edited and redacted with far less care than the Torah or Na"Kh - it's not the "word of G!D" to the same extent, of course, but often this is because of the attacks on it by the mediaeval church, which often demanded that copies be burned or rewritten to erase supposed insults to jesus or christianity. as a result, there are many references to "kutim" or "chaldeans", some of which may refer to christians, but are far more likely to refer to samaritans or other heretics. there are even references, i believe to "followers of potiris" - potiris being the name of the roman soldier said to be the real father of jesus, immaculate conception being a ridiculous idea to the rabbis. "oh, that joseph guy wasn't his real father? his real father was G!D? yeah, sure, pull the other one." - life of brian-style, if you like. whether there is any truth in this is obviously unverifiable, but certainly the chap's name came to be known and the "son of G!D" was more likely to be referred to as the equivalent of the "son of the milkman/golf pro", particularly when you come to consider that by this time the christians had the upper hand and were persecuting the jews. what could be more understandable than a desire to insult their figurehead?

One would think that a Jew as prominent as Jesus would have been mentioned at least once, but this is not the case.

only if he (and paul) were as prominent as their followers would like to have believed. again, it's impossible to find the "truth" amongst the detritus of a 1700-year-old battle of the spindoctors. either way, i don't think it's unreasonable to say that the "christian jesus" is absent from jewish texts - even if his followers occasionally pop up in them.

similarly, josephus is considered not especially reliable, being a traitor and collaborator - but he's good enough for historians, if not religiously.

and, yes, there are many "days of G!D", as well. we have one every week.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[chokmah]

this is not my understanding. on the contrary, there are many examples of debates between rabbis and what are known as minim or heretics. there is a considerable amount of consensus that many of these references to "minim" are understood to refer to christians. usually the story of a "min" trying to catch a rabbi out and ending up looking like an idiot. of course, this is probably rabbinic propaganda and about as impartial as, well, the gospels.

it's sometimes difficult to tell who is meant in the Talmud because the text has been edited and redacted with far less care than the Torah or Na"Kh - it's not the "word of G!D" to the same extent, of course, but often this is because of the attacks on it by the mediaeval church, which often demanded that copies be burned or rewritten to erase supposed insults to jesus or christianity. as a result, there are many references to "kutim" or "chaldeans", some of which may refer to christians, but are far more likely to refer to samaritans or other heretics. there are even references, i believe to "followers of potiris" - potiris being the name of the roman soldier said to be the real father of jesus, immaculate conception being a ridiculous idea to the rabbis. "oh, that joseph guy wasn't his real father? his real father was G!D? yeah, sure, pull the other one." - life of brian-style, if you like. whether there is any truth in this is obviously unverifiable, but certainly the chap's name came to be known and the "son of G!D" was more likely to be referred to as the equivalent of the "son of the milkman/golf pro", particularly when you come to consider that by this time the christians had the upper hand and were persecuting the jews. what could be more understandable than a desire to insult their figurehead?

I apologize for over-stepping my bounds. I should have just said that there is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud. There are many passages that people try to tie to the Jesus of Christianity; yet, I have seen refutation after refutation regarding each and every supposed passage. Anyways...

only if he (and paul) were as prominent as their followers would like to have believed. again, it's impossible to find the "truth" amongst the detritus of a 1700-year-old battle of the spindoctors. either way, i don't think it's unreasonable to say that the "christian jesus" is absent from jewish texts - even if his followers occasionally pop up in them.

similarly, josephus is considered not especially reliable, being a traitor and collaborator - but he's good enough for historians, if not religiously.

Just to ask: have you heard of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill? It has a unique theory on what role Josephus actually played.

and, yes, there are many "days of G!D", as well. we have one every week.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I like that.

 

[InChristAlways]

quote Curious Mike: But back on topic what is Jewis tradition about the time period of Jesus+ Pharisees......???? Or is their anything in the Jewis history on this period of time? I guess in other words does the Jewis religion recognize Jesus at all in their history books? And does it even say anything about the pharisees, or sects of that day?....The Pharisees of the first century are, essentially, the equivalent of Rabbinic Judaism. The representation of them in the Christian testament is rather fallacious.

Originally Posted by Dave the Web The Pharisees were the letter of the Law. Jesus was the spirit of the Law. That is my interpretation.

Originally Posted by bananabrain
"pharisee" is not a word that jews ever used to signify a particular group. there is a word "mefarshim", with the root being Peh-Resh-Shin (P=F in hebrew) meaning 'commentators'.

Originally Posted by InChristAlways
Were the Chief Priests/Elders members of the Sadducees?

A simple breakdown would be:

Priesthood => Sadducees.
Sages/Teachers => Pharisees.

May I ask another question? Does judaism have to make sure that a Priest is from the Levite tribe, as Levite is only mentioned 3 times in the GNT.

Here in the GNT, John appears to say the priests were seperate from the Levites and that is confusing to me? What did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

John 1:19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests [#2409] and Levites [#3019] from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"

Leuites (Strong's 3019) occurs 3 times in 3 verses:

3017. Leui lyoo'-ee of Hebrew origin (3878); Levi, the name of three Israelites:--Levi. Compare 3018 3881 Leviyiy lay-vee-ee' or Leviy {lay-vee'}; patronymically from 3878; a Levite or descendant of Levi:--Leviite.

 

[chokmah]

May I ask another question? Does judaism have to make sure that a Priest is from the Levite tribe, as Levite is only mentioned 3 times in the GNT.

Kind of a like the square - rectangle situation: all Priests are of the Levite clan; not all Levites are priests.

Here in the GNT, John appears to say the priests were seperate from the Levites and that is confusing to me?

The base concern is that the Gospels do not represent first century Judaism very well (at least from a Pharisaic POV); therefore, there is a good chance that it's not very trustworthy when it comes to understanding the Priesthood and such.

Case in point: the High Priest was determined by Caesar. This was a ploy by Caesar to have a hand in what was going on and also to be somewhat over the Jewish people.

Who did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

I'll have to defer to someone that is more "in the know" than me on this topic.

 

[iBrian]

Just to ask: have you heard of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill? It has a unique theory on what role Josephus actually played.

I've not read it, but it could be interesting if you posted up some summary points of note.

 

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways
Were the Chief Priests/Elders members of the Sadducees?

Quote: A simple breakdown would be:

Priesthood => Sadducees.
Sages/Teachers => Pharisees.

What did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.

quote chokmah: I'll have to defer to someone that is more "in the know" than me on this topic.

Does anyone else here have a view on how the Levites differed in respect to the priests, sadducees and pharicees, as this is kind of puzzling to me.

Here in the GNT, John appears to say the priests were seperate from the Levites.

What did the Levites represent and what was their function in respect to the priests? Thanks and Peace.
Steve

John 1:19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests [#2409] and Levites [#3019] from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?"

Leuites (Strong's 3019) occurs 3 times in 3 verses:

3017. Leui lyoo'-ee of Hebrew origin (3878); Levi, the name of three Israelites:--Levi. Compare 3018 3881 Leviyiy lay-vee-ee' or Leviy {lay-vee'}; patronymically from 3878; a Levite or descendant of Levi:--Leviite.

....We read also that during the reign of David the rest of the Levites, to the number of thirty-eight thousand, ranging from the age of thirty years and upwards receive a special organization (1 Chronicles 23-26). They carried out their various functions week by week, their particular duties being determined by lot (cf. Luke 1:5-9). Levites are mentioned only three times in the New Testament (Luke 10:32; John 1:19; Acts 4:36), and these references throw no light on their status in the time of Christ.

 

[wil]

Originally Posted by chokmah Just to ask: have you heard of Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill? It has a unique theory on what role Josephus actually played.

a long time ago I read a couple of different books which indicated that Josephus and family wrote the gospels and much of the NT. That the Romans were concerned as to the number of Jews and sought to create a system which would divide them... tis this of what Joseph Atwill wrote? I also remember a pamphlet regarding same which was saying that their was no reason to not prove Jesus was messiah, simply prove he never existed...

 

[chokmah]

I've not read it, but it could be interesting if you posted up some summary points of note.

I'll attempt to do that when finished. :thumbsup:

 

[chokmah]

a long time ago I read a couple of different books which indicated that Josephus and family wrote the gospels and much of the NT. That the Romans were concerned as to the number of Jews and sought to create a system which would divide them... tis this of what Joseph Atwill wrote? I also remember a pamphlet regarding same which was saying that their was no reason to not prove Jesus was messiah, simply prove he never existed...

Here are the key points that I can think of that Joseph wants to present as theory:

1) The Flavians wrote the Gospels. This would include Domitian, Titus, and the adopted son: Josephus.
2) The purpose was two-fold: give the Jews a pacifistic Messiah to follow instead of the one dictated in the Tanakh, get them to worship Caesar as G-d.

There may be more, but I'm only at the beginning of the book.

 

[bananabrain]

I apologize for over-stepping my bounds.

no need to apologise! personally, experience has taught me to be very careful making categorical statements, particularly about the Talmud.

May I ask another question? Does judaism have to make sure that a Priest is from the Levite tribe, as Levite is only mentioned 3 times in the GNT.

if you want to learn about this, i suggest taking a look at http://www.cohen-levi.org which is dedicated to providing information about it.

Case in point: the High Priest was determined by Caesar. This was a ploy by Caesar to have a hand in what was going on and also to be somewhat over the Jewish people

the rabbis also complain about the corruption of the high-priesthood in various places.

as for this:

1) The Flavians wrote the Gospels. This would include Domitian, Titus, and the adopted son: Josephus.
2) The purpose was two-fold: give the Jews a pacifistic Messiah to follow instead of the one dictated in the Tanakh, get them to worship Caesar as G!D.

sounds a little far-fetched to me. there was never any chance of jews worshipping caesar, for a start.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[chokmah]

sounds a little far-fetched to me. there was never any chance of jews worshipping caesar, for a start.

Granted. I think that is a secondary issue to the idea of a pacifistic Messiah.

The thing that I am finding out somewhat fascination thus far is that the timeline of Titus' battles falls in line with ministerial considerations of Jesus.

 

[Curios Mike]

Quoted from Chokmah

Nope. Jesus is not in the Talmud. Pretty interesting consideration for the supposed Jewish Messiah, huh? Paul isn't mentioned as being a student of Gamaliel's even though the teacher's prominent students are mentioned.

Are their any ancient Historical documents of Moses and The exodus in any Ancient Egypt Historical writings?

 

[chokmah]

Are their any ancient Historical documents of Moses and The exodus in any Ancient Egypt Historical writings?

Honestly, I do not know. Sorry.

 

[iBrian]

Mike, try "Test of Time" by David Rohl. It's the only book I can think of offhand focused on the topic. Some contentious ideas, but interesting.

 

[bananabrain]

it's about as likely as the current egyptian government putting up a statue to commemorate the battle of mitla pass in the 1973 yom kippur war.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Curios Mike]

I guess the reason I posted this is why do you think its hard to find history on Moses and Jesus aside from the groups who follow them? Both where I guess a thorn in the side of their adversaries, and possibly and Imbarressment to their adversaries. But Yes I do find it an

interesting consideration for the supposed Jewish Messiah

, and the chosen one of God to deliver Isreal from Egypt not be in any other historical documents other then that of those who follow both of their teachings. But yes if any of you can find something on both I would love to see, it would make great reading. Becuase it is puzzling, but doesnt mean neither existed, or done the things they did does it?

 

[wil]

...why do you think its hard to find history on Moses and Jesus aside from the groups who follow them? Both where I guess a thorn in the side of their adversaries, and possibly and Imbarressment to their adversaries. ... not be in any other historical documents other then that of those who follow both of their teachings. But yes if any of you can find something on both I would love to see, it would make great reading. Becuase it is puzzling, but doesnt mean neither existed, or done the things they did does it?

While I can't with any completeness answer your question, and feel it is a valid question...it causes me to ask more. What documents do we have of that time period, discussing that time period? I'm referring to what is available in the area and of the time that these men walked the earth...that does not reference them?

I say this because I consider the texts that make up the books, and how they were written over time by various groups of people...and then later compiled into their seperate canonized works. ie they were only 'today' compiled as the books of those that follow them..and when you read some of the books that were not included...you can see why the followers chose what appeared to be the books most in line with the thinking of the followers...

 

[chokmah]

I guess the reason I posted this is why do you think its hard to find history on Moses and Jesus aside from the groups who follow them? Both where I guess a thorn in the side of their adversaries, and possibly and Imbarressment to their adversaries. But Yes I do find it an , and the chosen one of God to deliver Isreal from Egypt not be in any other historical documents other then that of those who follow both of their teachings. But yes if any of you can find something on both I would love to see, it would make great reading. Becuase it is puzzling, but doesnt mean neither existed, or done the things they did does it?

Personally, I wouldn't put Moses and Jesus on the same level. But that's just me.

One thing that supports Moses' actual existence is that he penned five books. Jesus never wrote a thing (at least that we have record of).

As a side note, considering that Jesus is supposed to be the greatest human being who ever walked the earth, one would think that there would be tons of substantiation to his existence outside of the Christian canon. Moses is important only to the Jews. Therefore, the consideration that you raise is a bit askew.