Posted on 12/25/2001 10:35:40 AM PST by Wiley Sr
from the article
The latest version of Scofield has even advanced "anti-Semitism" to the status of a "sin." Each of the four successive editions have further advanced the claim of the self-proclaimed Jews to the real estate known today as the State of Israel. However, Scofield hardly contains a note about the hundreds of verses recording Jesus' daily conflict and the plot of his death by the Pharisees.
How can such a discourse be ignored during the entire careers of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jack Van Empe and dozens more like them? They have made a career of promoting Israel, regardless of the moral cost.
Sound like anti-Semitism to me!
BTW I do not endorse any of these men, but I question the true purpose of this article.
There were a number of Jewish denominations around the time of Christ. Included in these were the Pharisees, the Sadesses (sp?), the Zealots, the Essenes, etc.
Many Biblical students believe that Christianity is another brance of Judiasm. In fact, much of what Christians believe appears to be very closely related to what the Essenes professed.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are probably Essene writings. Obviously Jewish students have some different views of the import of those scrolls than do Christian writers, but as I understand it, there is little difference in litteral translation, but some moderately significant difference in emphisis between the Jewish and the Christian translations.
As some guy (not me) has said, in about 70 A.D. several Jewish sects fled Jerusalem after its fall. One of those sects were or became the Christians.
While Christians may be 6th cousins, thrice removed, to Islam through Ismael, we are siblings (or at least first cousins) of Jews. I believe (and hope) that Christians have a wider, shorter road to Heaven than do Jews, but that Jews, who have chosen to live by the old, tougher rules, are not ipso facto precluded from making it to Heaven.
Christ's major argument with the Pharisees is that they paid too much attention to the letter of the law and ignored the spirit of the law.
Chapter 15 of Matthew provides in part, "Just then a Canannite woman from that region came out and started shouting, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.' But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, 'Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.' He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and knelt before him saying, 'Lord, help me.' He answered, 'It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.' She said, 'Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master's table.' Then Jesus answered her, 'Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed instantly."
At least early in his preaching, Christ was not positively disposed to the Gentiles. As far as I can determine, Christ lost this arugment with this Gentile woman and it is the only arugment he ever lost. I am certin that there are others who disagree with my assessment of the situation.
As I recall, Christ had some significant arguments with the Pharisees and with most other religous "leaders" of the day, but the had some significant agreements with them also. For instance, according to Luke, Christ stayed behind in Jerusalem to discuss theological issues of the day with the then powers that were in the Temple while his mother and Joseph headed home. His take on the then religous Powers that Be (or were) seemed to be a reasonably friendly.
The long and the short of it to me is that Christ did not have much truck with slavishly following any fixed set of religous rules when that action did not promote the world as God saw fit, but that Christ had some small sympathy (but not a lot) with those who tried to do right, took some pains to figure out what God wanted to be done, but at the end of the day made an honest mistake. Of course, at the very best, each of us is going to be called upon to make judgment calls.
My take on the New Testament is that so long as we believe and make a reasonable effort to do right and use some reasonable judgment in that direction, Christ's suffered and died for us and that we will be ok at the last call. On the other hand, if we refuse to believe, or if we pay lip service to our belief and make no effort to do right, or if we insist on justifying all that we do, no matter what Christ has said, we may have some trouble later on.
Irrespective of my rantings, I hope all you Freepers have a Happy Christmas.
I believe Jesus (Happy Birthday to Him!) was condemning not any particular group that was racially or tribally defined, but rather a group as defined by those particular individuals who were hypocrites and considered themselves to be quasi-rulers who were above the common people.
MM
Jesus Christ met each person at the point of their need. Pharisees were called to task for lacking humility, a rich young ruler was called to surrender his wealth to make room in his soul for God, His own disciples were chastised for lacking faith, and a brash Christian-hating zealot named Saul was called to surrender his whole life to glorify God.
What Jesus Christ never did was relax the law to allow people to feel comfortable wallowing in their favorite sins. He fulfilled the requirements of the law and gave all mankind a means of escaping the penalty--but strictly on His terms, never theirs.
Any man who believes he has found a Pharisee should look first in the mirror of the Word of God and stand humbled.
Too harsh would be unbending, unforgiving. Too liberal would be....anything goes, if it feels good, do it. Christianity, according to the word of God is, if your brother errs and asks forgiveness, you have a duty to forgive. You also have a duty to stand up for what is right and accept responsibility. That, my friend, is the middle between the two extremes noted above.
You are angry because I condemned the actions of a group of anti-Christian ultra-orthodox Jews for burning a copy of the New Testament. You made a noxious comparison between the New Testament and the communist manifesto. I called you on this.
I have reported your comment to the moderators of this forum.
The Pharisees were the members of the the rabbinical schools of the time who engaged in the discussions, expansions and commentaries on the Old Testament that eventually were included in the Talmud. They were the progentors of what became the synagogue religion of the Jews after the destruction of the second Temple.
The Pharisees were far more likely to be sympathetic to Jesus' critical discussion of the rigid "Temple Judaism" because that is exactly what they were doing. Many of the sermons and sayings of Jesus were almost identical to those of the best of the Pharisee rabbis.
Find any such comment that I made anyplace on this forum. You won’t find it. Your problem as anyone who wants to check your record can see is an intense an irrational dislike for libertarians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.