Tweet
There seems to be a discrepancy in the NT regarding the status of the Pharisees. “Jesus” seems to betray his own doctrine about them. Yahushua officially recognizes the status of the Pharisees as teachers of HaTorah and he certifies them as such. He specifically instructed his disciples and to the masses of his followers to attend HaTorah classes taught by the Pharisees and to obey them in everything that they tell you to do. Hence, it is obvious that the Pharisees were an undisputed source of accurate HaTorah information, otherwise Yahushua would have warned everybody to watch out for falsing Yahweh's word like Jeremiah did. I would say that it takes a long time and a lot of effort to be able to know HaTorah the way the Pharisees did. So not everything in connection to the Pharisees is to be rejected.
Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV) Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you…
In spite of the fact that they were truthfully teaching Yahweh’s word, at the end of his speech ‘Jesus” angrily condemns all the Pharisees to Hell without any hope of parole.
Matthew 23:33 (NIV) "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
I’m not sure, but now that I come to think of it it seems to be like Reverend Swagger, Reverend Jackson, and all the Christian preachers may fall under this same condemnation, and maybe even worse so because none of them teach HaTorah. On a second thought, they may be off the hook because of that. So never mind.
Anyway, “Jesus” seems to be adding insult to injury as a matter of fact. He was calling the Pharisees all kinds of names. Which is in violation of more than one of Yahweh’s commandments about loving one’s neighbor and one’s own kin persons. It is so awkward that “Jesus” hates the Pharisees so much so that he is willing to violate his own doctrine about insulting one’s own brother calling him all kinds of names.
Matthew 5:22 (NIV) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
I was trying to understand what is the Paul connection in all this. I wonder what is that Paul did to make himself “Jesus” most favored Pharisee. Was it the stoning of Stephen or the persecution of the Jews who believed in Yahushua and were “zealous for the law”? Paul used to be a card carrying ultra conservative Pharisee, but he doesn’t make any comment whatsoever about the hatred that “Jesus” had for the Pharisees. “Jesus” even forewarned his disciples to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees. Obviously, it implies that to be a Pharisee was OK except for their lifestyle full of yeast that had to be watched. ACTUALLY, IN THOSE DAYS THERE WAS NO OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE QUALIFIED TO TEACH THE SCRIPTURES! So I wonder if Paul kept any of that yeast on him when he switched from a Pharisee HaTorah teacher to Christianity. Did “Jesus” pick Paul based on his Pharisee credential? It sounds odd that “Jesus” is telling a crowd of MANY THOUSANDS to guard themselves AGAINST the yeast of the Pharisees and then he turns around and picks Paul to be the alternate apostle to the Gentiles. Was there a double message in here? The many thousands of Jews that “Jesus” was addressing were supposed to be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, but the Gentiles were not given any such warning.
Luke 12:1 (NIV) Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
Was Paul conscious of the fact that he was selected to be the alternate second choice apostle to the Gentiles based on, or in spite of his hypocrisy? As you know, the first choice to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” was given to the 11. I think that it was Paul who later reassigned the territory keeping the world for himself and leaving the Jews under the responsibility of Peter and the rest of the apostles.
In a candid reflection of his past life as a Pharisee Paul is saying that EVERYTHING that he esteemed the most then is “DUNG” as King James says. Paul doesn’t seem to have any regard whatsoever for Yahushua’s doctrine about obeying everything that the Pharisees tell you to do because the Pharisees teach HaTorah and this is no “dung.” If Paul were faultless in legalistic righteousness he would have been more careful of what he writes. If his testimony is true about being a good Pharisee then he was in the right track and should have stayed there. The only thing left for him to do was to stop being a hypocrite. That is what Yahushua was teaching. It is obvious that Paul invented a new religion disconnected from the historical Yahushua.
Philippians 3:5-9 (NIV) circumcised 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.
7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
Paul never heard Yahushua preaching and that is why he is not telling the Gentiles to obey EVERYTHING that the Pharisees teach and tell to do. It seems to me that the bulk of Yahushua’s original commission is totally disregarded by Paul. The great commission was to go into the world…
Matthew 28:20 (NIV) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Yahushua commanded to obey the Pharisees. HaTorah is a very valuable commodity that the Pharisees had to offer. Yahushua actually commanded to obey the Pharisees and do everything they tell you to do. Yahushua said that if you love me you keep my commandments. Why is it that the Christians don’t want to know anything about the Pharisees? Even Paul claimed to be a Pharisee defector. “Jesus” didn’t teach to forsake the Pharisees and go to the Christian teachers to learn the Scriptures! There seems to be a lot of glitches in the NT. Whoever put it together was not one bit consistent, throughout. The disconnection of Paul and the real historical Yahushua is so evident while “ Jesus Christ” seems to have taken over the newly formed Grecian religion after Yahushua’s death. So what is that can be said to correct all the discrepancies that I listed?
Matthew 23:1-3 (NIV) Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you…
In spite of the fact that they were truthfully teaching Yahweh’s word, at the end of his speech ‘Jesus” angrily condemns all the Pharisees to Hell without any hope of parole.
Matthew 23:33 (NIV) "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
I’m not sure, but now that I come to think of it it seems to be like Reverend Swagger, Reverend Jackson, and all the Christian preachers may fall under this same condemnation, and maybe even worse so because none of them teach HaTorah. On a second thought, they may be off the hook because of that. So never mind.
Anyway, “Jesus” seems to be adding insult to injury as a matter of fact. He was calling the Pharisees all kinds of names. Which is in violation of more than one of Yahweh’s commandments about loving one’s neighbor and one’s own kin persons. It is so awkward that “Jesus” hates the Pharisees so much so that he is willing to violate his own doctrine about insulting one’s own brother calling him all kinds of names.
Matthew 5:22 (NIV) But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
I was trying to understand what is the Paul connection in all this. I wonder what is that Paul did to make himself “Jesus” most favored Pharisee. Was it the stoning of Stephen or the persecution of the Jews who believed in Yahushua and were “zealous for the law”? Paul used to be a card carrying ultra conservative Pharisee, but he doesn’t make any comment whatsoever about the hatred that “Jesus” had for the Pharisees. “Jesus” even forewarned his disciples to watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees. Obviously, it implies that to be a Pharisee was OK except for their lifestyle full of yeast that had to be watched. ACTUALLY, IN THOSE DAYS THERE WAS NO OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE QUALIFIED TO TEACH THE SCRIPTURES! So I wonder if Paul kept any of that yeast on him when he switched from a Pharisee HaTorah teacher to Christianity. Did “Jesus” pick Paul based on his Pharisee credential? It sounds odd that “Jesus” is telling a crowd of MANY THOUSANDS to guard themselves AGAINST the yeast of the Pharisees and then he turns around and picks Paul to be the alternate apostle to the Gentiles. Was there a double message in here? The many thousands of Jews that “Jesus” was addressing were supposed to be on guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, but the Gentiles were not given any such warning.
Luke 12:1 (NIV) Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
Was Paul conscious of the fact that he was selected to be the alternate second choice apostle to the Gentiles based on, or in spite of his hypocrisy? As you know, the first choice to “go into all the world and preach the gospel” was given to the 11. I think that it was Paul who later reassigned the territory keeping the world for himself and leaving the Jews under the responsibility of Peter and the rest of the apostles.
In a candid reflection of his past life as a Pharisee Paul is saying that EVERYTHING that he esteemed the most then is “DUNG” as King James says. Paul doesn’t seem to have any regard whatsoever for Yahushua’s doctrine about obeying everything that the Pharisees tell you to do because the Pharisees teach HaTorah and this is no “dung.” If Paul were faultless in legalistic righteousness he would have been more careful of what he writes. If his testimony is true about being a good Pharisee then he was in the right track and should have stayed there. The only thing left for him to do was to stop being a hypocrite. That is what Yahushua was teaching. It is obvious that Paul invented a new religion disconnected from the historical Yahushua.
Philippians 3:5-9 (NIV) circumcised 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.
7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
Paul never heard Yahushua preaching and that is why he is not telling the Gentiles to obey EVERYTHING that the Pharisees teach and tell to do. It seems to me that the bulk of Yahushua’s original commission is totally disregarded by Paul. The great commission was to go into the world…
Matthew 28:20 (NIV) and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Yahushua commanded to obey the Pharisees. HaTorah is a very valuable commodity that the Pharisees had to offer. Yahushua actually commanded to obey the Pharisees and do everything they tell you to do. Yahushua said that if you love me you keep my commandments. Why is it that the Christians don’t want to know anything about the Pharisees? Even Paul claimed to be a Pharisee defector. “Jesus” didn’t teach to forsake the Pharisees and go to the Christian teachers to learn the Scriptures! There seems to be a lot of glitches in the NT. Whoever put it together was not one bit consistent, throughout. The disconnection of Paul and the real historical Yahushua is so evident while “ Jesus Christ” seems to have taken over the newly formed Grecian religion after Yahushua’s death. So what is that can be said to correct all the discrepancies that I listed?