Announcement

**Thummim** · 08-15-2004, 10:33 AM

The good "true", and the bad "pretend" Pharisee?

...Antonio, my argument against this idea, that {Jesus} speaks against "pretend" Pharisees and not true Pharisees, is that he never says anything at all positive about any Pharisee of his time. Neither can he compliment the priesthood of Levi that is in existance during his life {to show it exceptable}. He does no work with the priesthood at all. So what about him making the offerings of this priesthood exceptable to YHWH, in the spirit that Malachi 3: 4 reads? Where does {Jesus} say anything good about the "exceptable" Pharisees so that such an argument can be made that only "pretend" pharisees are the target of his tongue in Mat. 23, and that there are true Pharisees exceptable to him in existance during his lifetime?

...I'm looking for a foundation to support this idea of his comments targeting only "pretend" Pharisees, in an exceptance of "true" Pharisees that can be read from the gospels.

....Michael

**beseder** · 08-15-2004, 10:26 PM

I am wondering...
have you read the little of the article that I have posted?

And you do also know that I have not finished posting it all up- there is still much more work to be presented.

again, have you read the little that has been posted?

another- I don't see how your question applies- Yeshuah is only Mashiach ben Yosef- "the Messiah in Rome" as the sage Rabbi Yochanan ben Levi (a hassidic) had encountered.

So i don't see what this making the priesthood acceptable before HaShem has to do with his mission.

You should realize again that I am coming from a Pharisaic perspective (the sages=Talmud) and you are not- though you do indeed recieve all Jews- you are not a Pharisee- so maybe you should learn pharisaic Judaism more concretely before you confront the very perspective of which I am eminating- Talmudic/Pharisaic Judaism.

Again, in your questioning there are too many wholes--- so maybe if you could make your line of questioning much more specific then I will be able to answer in resourceful dialogue.

Shalom u'brachot,
Antonio

**Thummim** · 08-16-2004, 09:50 AM

It might be important, but how will I know?

Our question of course, is whether this analysis and catalogue of accusations leveled against the Scribes and Pharisees is accurate and a just accusation. To answer this question we need to subject these 7 units of discourse to rigorous analysis if indeed the Textus Receptus justifies such an interpretation, and whether on the light of other evidence of equal or greater antiquity justifies such an accusation.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

...Antonio,

...The question is who is being accused by {Jesus}, and what is the charge.

_______________________________________________

So then, this first phrase of Matityahu 23:13, would be better translated as:

“Oy! You painted-Sages and painted-Pharisees”
or
“Oy! You pretend-Sages and pretend-Pharisees”

_______________________________________________

...Their is a question brought up here as to whom these words fall upon. Can you answer this question so that your answer can be understood? My question has to do with the idea that the Pharisees of the days in which {Jesus} lived are in total being charged by {Jesus} in the chronicaling of the seven woes. Are painted {pretended} sages different from those who seem to be the point of these woes? I can except that {Jesus} isn't accusing Moses and Aaron. So who are the pretend sages? How do they differ from the other {unpainted} sages of {Jesus} own time?

...I read the article in sections, going over and over different portions of it, like I often do when breaking apart any writing I am trying to understand. I seldom get the "whole" of an article upon first read. But I do find the parts that interest me the most. These I am commenting upon.

...What does {Jesus} get out of your article? Are you presenting a defense of these words with your article? What is the purpose of you even writing this article? Explain this and you will be easier to understand. What motivates you to write your article?

...You are right, you often do not explain yourself very well. If your point is taken, what will you have convinced me of?

....Michael

**beseder** · 08-16-2004, 07:18 PM

oh ok,
it is simple

the purpose of the article is to show that Yeshuah defended Pharisaic Judaism...

a gentile reading it will not understand its fullness at all...

and as I have mentioned that the book of Matthew is a Homily- it is not "LITERAL" or "Simple" i should say.

it is like this:
If I say "I ate an apple", since you speak English and were reared with it, you will automatically begin to see and question about "what kind of apple".

Each apple has its distinct taste and texture and color- So you will think of, greenand red apples, from where did they come from? to make it concrete.

now, If I say I ate an apple- and then describe the traits of this apple without making it obvious out-right, then a person who knows apples will know of which apples I am speaking of.

thus, this case is similar to the case of this specific literature- the literature and penmanship of Matthew who wanted to present his treatise in a homiletic fashion.

How can I say that Yeshuah was speaking of a certain group within the pharisees?

I will quote to you from the article in which I had presented:

“King Yannai said to his wife, ‘Fear neither the Pharisees nor those who are not
Pharisees; rather fear the “Tsvu’in” (dyed, colored, painted) who ape the
Pharisees, because their deeds are like the deed of Zimri (Numbers 25:14)
but they expect a reward like that of Pinchas (Numbers 25:11).”

Talmud Babli Sotah 22b

who was king Yannai?

Alexander Yannai was a Hasmonean ruler of Judea (103-76) B.C.E., who was not very fond of the Pharisees.
yet he said that about the Tzvu'in (colored/painted ones)

Notice that this is Gemara
and the way the sages read this is that
the Tzvu'in were "pretend-pharisees", they were pharisees who made the entire bunch look like "apes" and Alexander Yanni could tell the difference and comented on this fact!

Of course there is much more to expound on about this pasuk in sotah- but this is to get to the point.

This Pasuk was recorded by Pharisees themselves who had also agreed with the statement and wanted nothing to do with such hypocrites because they "aped the pharisees", they made them look like monkeys who have no sense what so ever- and we still have these today.... such as Anti-missionaries.

and again, even an Orthodox Rabbi comments on this same fact that I presented:

The Master of Nazareth, himself a Pharisee and a Hakham (Sage) [cf. Rabbi Harvey Falk in: “Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus” (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2003)] has no qualms or complaints with his fellow Pharisees, but like King Yannai, is utterly disgusted by those “pretend-Pharisees” and those “pretend-Hakhamim” or better put, “painted Hakhamim” and “painted Pharisees.”

By these statements alone should give a person to consider the view that Yeshuah himself was indeed a true pharisee who only spoke AGAINST the hypocrites.

notice that in the book of Matthew as well as the rest of the 4 Masorot that the pharisees are given a description to tell which group of pharisees His Majesty Yeshuah was speaking about.

I will give you a some slight homework-
If you do know Talmud,
read Matthew 15, the few first lines, and tell me what what group of pharisees was he speaking to there.
Give me their description.
Tell me if he did condemn them in the same or related manner that he did this group of pharisees in chapter 23.

shalom u'brachot,
Antonio

**Thummim** · 08-17-2004, 10:13 AM

A tongue lashing by the way of a third party.

...Antonio posts;

oh ok,
it is simple

the purpose of the article is to show that Yeshuah defended Pharisaic Judaism...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

...Great, now you have made it all simple. We have questions that ask for an answer.

_______________________________________________

2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. Mat. 23: 2 - 4

...Clearly {Jesus} is saying that the Pharisees of his own time lay the burdens of Moses upon the shoulders of the JEWish people, but do not lift up the burden themselves. I say the Pharisees of his time, because {Jesus} never points out any righteous Pharisees of his own time, with the exception of himself. Is {Jesus} really saying that there are righteous Pharisees about him? He acknowledges Moses as possessing a righteous seat that commands the authority of GD. But he is not speaking to the Pharisees directly, but to the crowd that has gathered about him. He is clearly taunting the Pharisees that are in the crowd. But does {Jesus} really point to any righteous Pharisee at all? Isn't he really telling a JEWish crowd to keep the law, but not as the Pharisees do? I can see the teethmarks of {Jesus} upon the Pharisees in the crowd. Where does {Jesus} mention any righteous Pharisees {those whom are not the pretend Pharisees}? How is he defending Pharisaic Judaism?

...Antonio, I do not see {Jesus} defending any Pharisee, but rather the law of Moses. Can you point to a single verse in the gospels that point to a Pharisee that {Jesus} himself calls righteous? It is a big step to say that {Jesus} was defending Pharisaic Judaism with what is written in the gospels.

...When you finish your article, you should come up with some evidence that doesn't require any abstract thinking.

....Michael

**beseder** · 08-28-2004, 10:22 PM

Hi Thummim,

well, i must say that in your studies of the Nazarean Codicil it is very weak for there are many times in which Yeshuah had applauded the Pharisees and spoke with them on good terms.

But, I will reserve this to the making of an article as you have advised...
thank you chaver.

But to inform you- I am greatly being discouraged to post on these forums any longer- for the one I loved is rejecting all that I am trying to give him in order that he understand his messiah in a much more clear Jewish view outside that of christianity.
So I may not be here any more but will be governing my forum and attending partially on others.

Shalom u'brachot and Shabua Tov,
Antonio

**Thummim** · 08-29-2004, 10:46 AM

...Antonio, I hold you in high esteem. I am not trying to be a thorn in your side.

...Antonio posts;

well, i must say that in your studies of the Nazarean Codicil it is very weak for there are many times in which Yeshuah had applauded the Pharisees and spoke with them on good terms.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

...This proof is what I look forward to. I want to hear {Jesus} on good terms with the Pharisee's of his day. I am having a conversation about a book that I don't even except as belonging to YHWH. But I figure that I can learn from you. I'm not going to say, "yes, yes, yes" unless you prove your point. One brick builds a poor building. Some more bricks please! It is a noble undertaking to try and prove that {Jesus} is on good terms with {most?} of the Pharisees of his day.

....Michael

Announcement

MATTHEW 23- THE 7 "OY's" vs. The 7 "woes"

MATTHEW 23- THE 7 "OY's" vs. The 7 "woes"

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment