- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If we are not supposed to bash other religions, then why did Jesus Christ do that with the Pharisees? I always though he loved sinners but hated sin. After seeing Christ call the Pharisees vipers from the Bible I don’t know. Your thoughts? Ilovechrist77 wrote:If we are not supposed to bash other religions, then why did Jesus Christ do that with the Pharisees? I always though he loved sinners but hated sin. After seeing Christ call the Pharisees vipers from the Bible I don’t know. Your thoughts?
His contempt was for church leaders of his own jewish religion.The Pharisees perceived themselves as the leaders(they were the ‘rabbinical’ tradition, the rabbis), requiring exact obedience to their definition of the Law (the “fence” around the Law), and fostering a model that required money to enter the temple (the moneychangers). He said nothing about the leaders of the Samaritans, nor of the roman pagans who were the ‘other religions’ of the day. In fact, he said, “
Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’sHis main objection was that the Pharisees, as leaders, set aside the
love of godPerhaps some of this sounds familiar. Many of the condemnations found in
Matthew 23In the church today, obedience is not just to God’s laws, but rather, to social structures — the Fence, aka “Standards” — put around the law. It’s not enough to eschew adultery and fornication, but everything associated with sexuality becomes part of required obedience: a young woman in a completely beautiful dress showing a little knee or cleavage becomes contemptable. I know the church means well, but in the end, it becomes a hostile place for those who don’t share the same paranoia about ‘the law’. Reading LDS.net, I see people being concerned about paying tithes on anise and cumin, of determining whether vanilla extract violates the Word of Wisdom. But if someone expresses doubts or isn’t ‘in line’ with the fence around law, they’re banned forever. Is this the Christ?
I think, today, there are two churches within the church: the church that believes that god is love, and that each of us need to turn to christ and in unity with Christ, to each other to get help, and the other church, the one that says you have to follow these exact rules before god will love you and jesus will help you.
And then there’s the possibility that the writers of what became the NT put those words in his mouth. I’m not an expert, but the history of first and second century Christianity is a lot more complex (and interesting) than I have been lead to believe. doug wrote:And then there’s the possibility that the writers of what became the NT put those words in his mouth. I’m not an expert, but the history of first and second century Christianity is a lot more complex (and interesting) than I have been lead to believe.
Pauline revisionism is perhaps alive and well. As the Church grew and lost the jerusalem center, being compatible with roman thinking may have influenced the material. If the the writers thought that the romans might think that the enemy of their enemy is their friend, then strongly dissing the jewish leadership might be in order.In the 60s (that is 60-69 CE), Paul went captive to Rome, and James, clearly the leader of the Jerusalem center of the church (he presides over the councils in Acts) is martyred on the steps of the temple. The uprisings that ensued after James was martyred — he must have been a popular figure, resulted in a roman decision to put an end to rebellion once and for all, and left no stone on top of another in the destruction of the Temple. This cut the heart out of judaism, as there now were a significant number of mitzvah that no longer could be performed. But it also cut the heart out of Christianity, for what remained was only the greek missionary work, and a number of minor offshoots. Judaism, and Jewish Christianity became a pariah, and perhaps the material reflect that.
wayfarer, thank you for the posting & the link to Richard Poll’s talk. Very interesting as always. I think I’m a Liahona mormon with Iron Rod tendancies. (Just alittle joke.)
I read his biography on Wikipedia. Assuming it’s correct, the article quotes a General Conference address by Apostle Harold B. Lee:
Quote:If there is any one thing most needed in this time of tumult and frustration… it is an iron rod as a safe guide along the straight path on the way to eternal life… There are many who profess to be religious and speak of themselves as Christians, and, according to one such, “as accepting the scriptures only as sources of inspiration and moral truth,” and then ask in their smugness; “Do the revelations of God give us a handrail to the kingdom of God, as the Lord’s messenger told Lehi or merely a compass?”… Wouldn’t it be a great thing if all who are well schooled in secular learning could hold fast to the “iron rod”, or the work of God,…
He also quoted the phrase “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”
IMO, I think the Liahona mormon is an endangered species & always will be.
As a personal note, the biography said that Bro. Poll left BYU to become VP at Western Illinois University (Nauvoo Stake). That’s the same school where my son teaches.
Mike from Milton.
Mike, I know a Mormon who is a professor at Western Illinois University. I love him dearly, and he is not politically conservative, to say the least. I’m sure your son would know him if they both teach there. My sense is that Jesus DID originate those sayings, as they are found in Q, the earliest sources of Jesus’ saying. That doesn’t make it certain, but it does mean that it was part of the early tradition of his teachings. I think it’s pretty congruous with Jesus’ teachings and actions. He was always for the little guy, and the professional Scribes and Pharisees had a reputation as quite the opposite. Jesus was himself an outsider. They represented oppressive power by station, and Jesus taught that all are loved of God and that even the weakest can become part of the Kingdom of God.
wayfarer wrote:
I think, today, there are two churches within the church: the church that believes that god is love, and that each of us need to turn to christ and in unity with Christ, to each other to get help, and the other church, the one that says you have to follow these exact rules before god will love you and jesus will help you.Personally, i think that Christ was a
Liahona saintIn fairness I think that pharisees then and now are in 2 camps. The ones then that just wanted to bring the blessings temple observance into the home by living those laws that God required of those that served in the temple and now it’s much the same with people trying to be as good and obediant as they can. The problem as you’ve pointed out is when the spiritual reason for observance is lost and you end up with white shirt wearing sepulchres.
Quote:The problem as you’ve pointed out is when the spiritual reason for observance is lost and you end up with white shirt wearing sepulchres.
I agree, GB, wholeheartedly. Ironically, perhaps, that’s also why I have absolutely NO problem with people who wear a white shirt and tie to church every Sunday who do so because they do believe in and value the spiritual reason in which they believe. Like I said in the “carnal nature” post, it’s not the white shirt and tie that is the issue to me; it’s what we do with them (the attitude we bring to the table, why we wear them and if we build hedges about the original spiritual reason).
I just moved into a new ward. I really don’t know anyone well. I wear a white shirt and tie (and suit coat) to church every week right now (even though I didn’t the last few months in my previous ward, once I was released from the High Council), partly because I don’t want any negative assumptions when nobody knows me well, but mostly because I’m alone and might be asked to help pass the sacrament – and I have no problem with the spiritual reason that was given for the counsel from Elder Holland (I believe) about the symbolism of baptism and the sacrament.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying everyone should have to wear a white shirt and tie to participate in administering the sacrament. I don’t believe that, since I don’t believe the white shirt and tie have anything intrinsic to do with worthiness to do so. I’m just saying I have no problem with the LDS Church wanting to model the administration of the sacrament after the administration of baptism – the spiritual reason given for the white shirt counsel. To me, that’s not “pharisaical” in nature; it’s an attempt to refocus an important ritual back to its core meaning. That’s an important distinction to me, especially when the original counsel stated explicitly that it was NOT a universal command or requirement.
I agree with Doug’s reference above–Jesus may never had said those things. John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar noted that the Pharisees in Jesus’ day were a very insignificant group at the time of Jesus. However, when the Gospels were written (last 1st century), the Pharisees were much more powerful and missionary minded. So Crossan believes that Gospel writers inserted condemnation of Pharisees into Jesus’ mouth, to show that Jesus didn’t agree with Pharisees. I don’t know if it is true or not, but it is an interesting theory–Jesus may never have condemned the Pharisees. On Own Now, as I understand it, Q is a hypothetical book, so nobody has ever read it. I’ve heard that Gospel of Thomas might be source Q (though that is disputed), but you seem to be overstating the case of this Q. Do you have a source on that?
mormonheretic, Great question, and a topic of interest for me.
Q is a theoretical document, but it’s widely acknowledged that a collection of sayings (that are referred to as Q) existed prior to the composition of the gospels.
Quote:An example of a source hidden inside the four canonical gospels is the reconstructed document known as Q, from the German word Quelle meaning Source, which is now imbedded within both Luke and Matthew. Those two authors also use Mark as a regular source so Q is discernible wherever they agree with one another but lack a Markan parallel. Since, like Mark, that document has its own generic integrity and theological consistency apart from its use as a Quelle or Source for others, I refer to it… as the Q Gospel. –John Dominic Crossan,
http://www.johndominiccrossan.com/Jesus%20A%20Revolutionary%20Biography.htm Q is fairly easy to extract from Matthew and Luke. Most agree that these two gospels were written independently, both using Mark as a framework, but that they inserted sayings attributed to Jesus, and there was significant symmetry between the sayings added by Matthew and the sayings added by Luke (implying a common source).
For example, the whole passage containing John the Baptist’s speech “O Generation of Vipers” is nearly identical in both Matthew and Luke, yet not found in Mark, Luke has John the Baptist directing it to the “multitude that came forth to be baptized of him”, while Matthew has it directed at “Pharisees and Sadducees” who apparently came to observe. Assuming that the authors of Matthew and Luke didn’t know about the work of the other, then there must have been a source from which they transcribed John the Baptist’s words; each providing his own context for the speech.
The Sermon on the Mount is a different example Matthew and Luke both contain it, but in quite different wording, and at different locations. This supports the idea that they had some loose sayings of Jesus, and the Gospel of Mark, which they combined into their own unique coverage of the Sermon on the Mount (which we call the Sermon on the Plain in Luke). Matthew uses a more spiritual approach, Luke a more social… Matthew: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven… Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” Luke: “Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.”
It’s not known what form Q took. It could have been an actual document, which became obsolete once Matthew/Luke appeared on the scene, and was therefore no longer propagated. It could have been a litany of verbal tradition. It could have been a combination. There will always be those that offer alternatives, but most NT scholars seem to accept the existence of Q.
The Gospel of Thomas is not Q, but is a collection of other sayings. Some of the Q sayings may have influenced some of the GofT sayings or vice versa. GofT is touted by some as a 1st century gospel, and by others as a 3rd century gnostic work. There’s no consensus on it.
I don’t discount John Dominic Crossan’s argument that the attack on the pharisees might have been embellished for reasons more timely in the late 1st century, but that can only be used to discuss whether the pharisees were the specific target of the language, not whether Jesus spoke in those terms. If you strip away everything that Jesus MIGHT not have said, you find a “Gentle Ben” version of Jesus… yet Jesus was clearly viewed as a threatening character to the Temple-based social/religious hierarchy of his time. Jesus’ invective against the “scribes and pharisees” fits quite nicely with that reality, even given the possibility that he didn’t use the word “pharisee”.
As for information on Q, the Jesus Seminar published a book called the Complete Gospels, which includes assumed text of Q. It’s editor is Robert J. Miller (a fellow of the Jesus Seminar). It’s an interesting work… it also contains the Gospel of Thomas along with fresh translations of the canonical gospels. On my copy of the book, it has a quote from Crossan on the front cover that states, “Everything you need to empower your own search for the historical Jesus.”
A great place to start, in my opinion, is Fortress Introduction to the Gospels, which gives a good summary of current scholarly views of the gospels, without getting into the weeds. It describes the widely-accepted Mark-first and Q “theories”.
All very good points. Quote:If we are not supposed to bash other religions, then why did Jesus Christ do that with the Pharisees?
Actually they were the same religion as him.
He criticized them for being more interested in overinterpreting the law than the spirit of it.
On Own Now, interesting links! I too am a Crossan fan. I’ll have to check out his books. Actually, SamBee. I forgot about that. Christ and the Pharisees were part of the same religion. Christ had to keep them in line because they were distorting his teachings. Thanks. That made perfect sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.