Replies

You continuously use “”pharisee” to the point of it sounding like a pejorative. On purpose?

Go ask your Hebrew-speaking new pastor friend. Jew is the word for Jews. It is a translation and transliteration of Yehud... ie, the people of Yehuda. (Judea, etc) it is etymologically derived from the word Acknowledge and Submit. Jews acknowledge and submit to G-d alone.

Chronos brought up my clay vase analogy to refute the Talmud (as I refuse the NT.) Incorrect. To paraphrase you ‘scripture’ The rabbis sit in the seat of Moses. JC understood the oral law better than you and you don’t recognize it (or thwart it) in your own scripture. The Talmud is the extention of the Oral Law (given at Sinai and replete throughout the Jewish Bible. It does not contradict G-d or the Torah though you’ll try to pull out of context evidence to the contrary. Your Aramaic is as non-existwnt as your Hebrew.

I am glad for the conversation as it shakes Christians to their core and gives them the chance to return to the one true G-d of Israel and abandon man-god idol worship.

Deny Christ at your peril.

CC

No Pejorative intended Phinneous, I heard Rabbis Singer call himself on and said he was part of the movement, I realize and have stated in these articles, Phariseeism is a respected term to Jews...

The term "pharisee" is used as that is the best way to

That is the best way to describe what is incorrectly just called "Judaism" today

in reality, "Judaism" includes both the sects

Pharisee-derived Judaism (called "Judaism")
Jesus-movement Judaism (called "Christianity")

These are the only two Jewish sects that survived.

with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD the Pharisees reinvented themselves by replacing the temple sacrifices and the Christians already before the destruction by saying that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice so negating the needs for sacrifices at the temple and negating the need for a physical temple

=================

"pharisee" due to the negative contexts in the Gospels and epistles can be taken as a pejorative in the Christian context, while in terms of the Talmud can be taken as opposite. I use it as a defining term for modern day Pharisee-Judaism vs Jesus-movement-judaism

Chronos brought up my clay vase analogy to refute the Talmud (as I refuse the NT.) Incorrect. To paraphrase you ‘scripture’ The rabbis sit in the seat of Moses. JC understood the oral law better than you and you don’t recognize it (or thwart it) in your own scripture. The Talmud is the extention of the Oral Law (given at Sinai and replete throughout the Jewish Bible. It does not contradict G-d or the Torah though you’ll try to pull out of context evidence to the contrary. Your Aramaic is as non-existwnt as your Hebrew.

Firstly - your clay vase analogy was

Imagine a perfect vase or clay vessel. You don’t understand its depth and beauty but its guardians tell you the Creator of the World gave it to us.

You think you’ll make a few renovations and lump your clay right on top of it.

to which I replied

Pharisee-derived-Judaism dates to 70 AD and the recreation under Rabbi Ben Zakkai.

Pharisee Judaism as read in the Talmud negates the omnipotence of God, binding Him. That's why the Sadducees rejected what the Pharisees preached. That's also why the Samaritans - a first temple Israelite sect, rejected what the Pharisee-Jews taught.

So before accusing others of "adding on the perfect vessel", I'd suggest taking a look at the numerous additions as read in the Talmud

The rabbis may in your belief system "sit in the seat of Moses" and yes, for your own belief system, they may put in the Oral Torah - that is rabbinical/Pharisee Judaism's prerogative. However, that IS adding on to the basic "clay vase" of the Torah, just as much as you stating that the New Testament is an adding on the basic "clay vase" of the Torah.

I am glad for the conversation as it shakes Christians to their core and gives them the chance to return to the one true G-d of Israel and abandon man-god idol worship.

Actually it goes the other way - we do see that the Pharisee-derived Jews rejected the one true G-d of Israel and stuck to their man-made "Oral Torah" as we have

[5] He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you; doth he do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of the faith?

[10] For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it is written: Cursed is every one, that abideth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law to do them.

...[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. [19] Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. [20] Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one.

We would point out that you hold to a lot of additions to the basic Torah - you have the Oral Torah, the detailed Talmud.

I will also point out that the Pharisee-Jewish beliefs are filled with "add-ons" that are rejected by other Israelite sects

Let's take the oldest - the Samaritans. They have the Samaritan Torah - the Pentateuch and that is their SOLE scripture - they state that you, we, have added on to the Torah.

And in terms of just "adding on" - you, the pharisee-jews and we, the jesus-movement-jews HAVE taken the Prophets and the Oral Torah / NT respectively on top of the Torah

Next, the Sadducees were appalled by the Pharisees and the invention of the Oral Torah in the post Babylon exile.

So, accusing Christians of "adding on" when you have added on the Prophets and then the Oral Torah and now pretty much the Talmud, well, that is hypocritical