Mad_Max:

What you're saying is, Christ might have been a member of the religious council of Pharisees,since a Pharisee at the time did not have the negative connotations it does today; they were religious elders who interpreted the Jewish Laws and preached in synagogues. You're saying they might be compared to Christians in that much of Christian religious activity- preaching, praying, giving to the poor, even some religious thought- mirrors theirs? If not for labels, they might even be categorised as the same? Is that what you're saying?

Yes and no. Yes he was a member of the Pharisees and was involved with the interpretation of scripture. But the Jews also had a council called the Sanhedrin which was made up mostly of Pharisees. The Pharisees controlled the Sanhedrin pretty much like the Sadducees controlled the Priesthood and the Temple. Jesus was not a member of the Sanhedrin (as far as I can tell).

The Pharisees were defined by a certain set of doctrines that they believed and they practiced. Not by hypocrisy. It is wrong, confusing, and misleading to use the term pharisee to mean a hypocrite.

There is nothing in the doctrine (which is what defines them) of the pharisees that is in anyway different from the doctrines of the early christians. So Yes, If not for some totally arbitrary label they might be categorised as the same. Early Christianity is not as different from Pharisiac Judaism as some would make out.

But the really interesting thing in all of this is the realisation that everywhere that I've looked in the world, all religious traditions that have a basis in experience (mysticism) all come up with the same teaching.

Namely that there is an Appropriation to the lives of every individual in this world.  That there is a way things are meant to be, and that individuals can deviate from their appropriation, but it is when they reconcile back to it that they are reconciled back to God. 

This truth is articulated variously to various degrees of accuracy  in different cultures whether they call it The First Adam, the Logos, Ori, Eleda Eni in yoruba land, Chi in Igbo land, Tao in China, or Dharma in India.

I know Judaism and Christianity shared the same historical backdrop. I didn't think they had anything else in common. What doctrines did Judaism and early Christianity share?
I see you've gone from wondering if Christ was a Pharisee to concluding that he was. How did you know he was one? If he was, why does he speak about the pharisees from the outside looking in,why did they have to meet him in public or ambush him to challenge; why isn't there an instance where his departures from standard doctrine were addressed in the council to which he belonged? If he was one of their own and he erred, surely they would deal with him first as a pharisee subject to the laws of the council?
Even if he were, the ramifications would be-?

Yeah, religion is man's moral compass in most societies, and I don't think a single irreligious culture exists. They know there's 'something' out there, and each culture's history is littered with various sincere attempts to find and understand it. There's an interesting event in the NT, when Paul comes across just such an attempt.Athenians in Greece have built shrines to 'an unknown god' and worship him there. Not a temple or a church or anything 'conventional'; but shrines shrine. Paul knows whatthey are seeking and tells them,"I see you have built shrines shrine to an unknown god.I am here to introduce that god to you so you may worshiphim intelligently.' Acts 17:22-23.

Because we know a little science it's the pastime of some to acribe all religion to ancient superstition and laugh it to scorn.And of course, there is superstition. But there's also far more than that. One cannot tell a Yoruba shaman that his 'gods' does not exist; he would rightyly consider one foolish,superior and ignorant,because he knows better. You cannot tell Shirley Mclane and her New Age friends there isn't an extra dimension, because they're adepts at separating their body/ brain from their spirit/brain. You can't tell Tibetan monks nothing survives bodily death, because they travel out of their body, and are adept mystics. You can't tell the myriad of Princeton,Stanford and Harvard professors,initial atheists who changed their tunr after self experimenting with the occult (they self-experiment because they didn't really expect anything to happen but it did) and discovered the ancient Babylonians had it right.

So yeah, one would expect diverse religions to have layers in common;they're human attempts to connect with 'god', and each interperetes his own experiences differently, something founding religious philosophy on nothing but.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Hinduism teaches reconciliation with God. Isn't it karma and Nirvana for the happy Hindu?

RELIGIOUS LEADERS THAT ARE ALWAYS CORRECT ARE PHARISEE
A CHRISTIAN IS A HUMAN BEING HOW BELIEVES IN CHRSIT AND IS NOT PERFECT

Mad_Max:

I know Judaism and Christianity shared the same historical backdrop. I didn't think they had anything else in common. What doctrines did Judaism and early Christianity share?

I already answered this earlier in the thread but I'll repeated it again:
[b]
-Jesus was a Rabbi and taught in the Synagogues. This is what the Pharisees did.

- Jesus actually endorsed them (ideologically) when he tells us to do as they preach because they sit on the seat of Moses. He only tells us not to do as they do, because even they do not do as they preach.

- Jesus also demoted the importance of the Temple as the Pharisees did. He told the samaritan woman that God would be worshipped neither in the temple nor on the mountain. He dismissed the magnificence of the temple saying one day not one stone will be found on top of another. This was a typical pharisee attitude. Actually it was found more so with the Essenes, but the pharisees had a similar attitude.

- the Christian doctrine that we are all priests is a pharisee doctrine. The laws of cleanliness that they upheld were originally actually only meant for the levites and priesthood initially but they interpreted it apply to all the israelites, a people to be set apart for God.

The Pharisees believed that the idea that all of the children of Israel were to be like priests was expressed elsewhere in the Torah, for example, when the Law itself was transferred from the sphere of the priesthood to every man in Israel (Exodus 19: 29-24; Deuteronomy 6: 7, 11: 19; comp. 31: 9; Jeremiah 2: 8, 18:18). Moreover, the Torah already provided some ways for all Jews to lead a priestly life: the precepts concerning unclean meat were perhaps intended originally for the priests, but were extended to the whole people (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21); the prohibition of cutting the flesh in mourning for the dead (Deuteronomy 14: 1-2, Leviticus 19: 28; comp. Lev. 21: 5). The Pharisees believed that all Jews in their ordinary life, and not just the Temple priesthood or Jews visiting the Temple, should observe rules and rituals concerning purification.

-And indeed Paul's letters are full of Pharisee doctrines.
(This very same Gamaliel it was that Paul claimed with pride was his teacher. )

-When asked what was the greatest of the laws Jesus responded that it was the Shema. That is 'hear o israel . . . '. This is pharisee doctrine as taught by Hillel the grandfather of Gamaliel, probably the most influential pharisee ever.

And I would add to that also very importantly the belief that there were two adams.
There are just too many similarities when you look closely at it. [/b]

Mad_Max:

I see you've gone from wondering if Christ was a Pharisee to concluding that he was. How did you know he was one? If he was, why does he speak about the pharisees from the outside looking in,why did they have to meet him in public or ambush him to challenge; why isn't there an instance where his departures from standard doctrine were addressed in the council to which he belonged? If he was one of their own and he erred, surely they would deal with him first as a pharisee subject to the laws of the council?

I consider it as conclusive as it can get considering that I'm not actually an eyeball witness, and Jesus didn't tell me personally that he is a pharisee. I'm making my conclusion from the evidence available.

How do I know he was one? Well the examples I gave above are a good start.

There is nothing to suggest to me that Jesus spoke of the pharisees as an outsider looking in. Like I said earlier the Pharisees practiced self criticism as part of the tradition. It evolved according to a dialectic, usually between the two schools of Hillel and Shammai. The Talmud, a pharisaic book makes similar criticisms of pharisees as Jesus makes, denouncing ostentatious displays of piety etc.

Why wasn't Jesus' departures from doctrine brought to a council? Because there were no departures of doctrine. Jesus did not say anything contrary to pharisee tradition. Absolutely nothing.

As regards the ramifications. Well there are so many. Which ones would be considered pertinent would depend on the context.

Mad_Max:



Because we know a little science it's the pastime of some to acribe all religion to ancient superstition and laugh it to scorn.And of course, there is superstition. But there's also far more than that. One cannot tell a Yoruba shaman that his 'gods' does not exist; he would rightyly consider one foolish,superior and ignorant,because he knows better. You cannot tell Shirley Mclane and her New Age friends there isn't an extra dimension, because they're adepts at separating their body/ brain from their spirit/brain. You can't tell Tibetan monks nothing survives bodily death, because they travel out of their body, and are adept mystics. You can't tell the myriad of Princeton,Stanford and Harvard professors,initial atheists who changed their tunr after self experimenting with the occult (they self-experiment because they didn't really expect anything to happen but it did) and discovered the ancient Babylonians had it right.

Tell me about it . . . ! But it's still gonna come back to bite them on the ass, all these 'rationalists'. It is one thing to experience something and say 'there's got to be a rational explanation' and therefore leave it as unexplained phenomena . . . .

. . . But it is quite another thing to deny that the experience is even possible at all. When they do that these so called 'scientists' have overstepped their mandate from explain phenomena to actually messing with the data by saying that such and such phenomena cannot ever occur.

Mad_Max:


So yeah, one would expect diverse religions to have layers in common;they're human attempts to connect with 'god', and each interperetes his own experiences differently, something founding religious philosophy on nothing but.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Hinduism teaches reconciliation with God. Isn't it karma and Nirvana for the happy Hindu?

Diverse religions do have a great deal in common and this is why I keep saying that if religion was a mere invention by lying clerics then not only are they liars but altogether they show very little imagination. There are too many similarities that if these people were making it up surely there should be a lot more diversity in the religions.
Every language had a word for cloud. Why? I would imagine it is because clouds exists and not because they invented the idea of clouds independently.

Nirvana or Nibbana is a Buddhist concept. Karma is just the Law of Causality. Cause and effect. It is the belief that every event, every action is connected to every other event in a fixed relationship called the Law of Karma.

Both Buddhists and Hindus belief in Dharma.

What is Dharma?

What is Dharma? Dharma is so called, because it holds: Dharma alone holds the people, etc. The word Dharma is derived from the root DHR- to hold- and its etymological meaning is ‘that which holds’ this world, or the people of the world, or the whole creation from the microcosm to the macrocosm. It is the eternal Divine Law of the Lord. The entire creation is held together and sustained by the All-powerful Law of God. Practice of Dharma, therefore, means recognition of this Law and abidance by it.

That which brings well-being to man is Dharma. Dharma supports this world. The people are upheld by Dharma. That which accrues preservation of beings is Dharma. Dharma leads to eternal happiness and immortality.

That which is Dharma is verily the Truth. Therefore, whosoever speaks the truth is said to speak Dharma, and whosoever speaks Dharma is said to speak the truth. One and the same thing becomes both.

Dharma includes all external deeds, as well as thoughts and other mental practices which tend to elevate the character of a man. Dharma comes from the Divine and leads you to the Divine.

Definition of Dharma

No language is perfect. There is no proper equivalent word in English for the Sanskrit term Dharma. It is very difficult to define Dharma.

Dharma is generally defined as ‘righteousness’ or ‘duty’. Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness.

Dharma is the cementer and sustainer of social life. The rules of Dharma have been laid down for regulating the worldly affairs of men. Dharma brings as its consequence happiness, both in this world and in the next. Dharma is the means of preserving one’s self. If you transgress it, it will kill you. If you protect it, it will protect you. It is your soul companion after death. It is the sole refuge of humanity.

That which elevates one is Dharma. This is another definition. Dharma is that which leads you to the path of perfection and glory. Dharma is that which helps you to have direct communion with the Lord. Dharma is that which makes you divine. Dharma is the ascending stairway unto God. Self-realisation is the highest Dharma. Dharma is the heart of Hindu ethics. God is the centre of Dharma.

from here:
http://www.hinduism.co.za/dharma.htm#What%20is%20Dharma?

Pastor AIO:

Diverse religions do have a great deal in common and this is why I keep saying that if religion was a mere invention by lying clerics then not only are they liars but altogether they show very little imagination. There are too many similarities that if these people were making it up surely there should be a lot more diversity in the religions.
Every language had a word for cloud. Why? I would imagine it is because clouds exists and not because they invented the idea of clouds independently.

Nirvana or Nibbana is a Buddhist concept. Karma is just the Law of Causality. Cause and effect. It is the belief that every event, every action is connected to every other event in a fixed relationship called the Law of Karma.
Both Buddhists and Hindus belief in Dharma.from here:http://www.hinduism.co.za/dharma.htm#What%20is%20Dharma?

And what are your religious beliefs? Yes, I know people ask that and the moment you answer they put you in a box and think they know everything about you. I'm merely curious. Are you a Buddhist?

Mad_Max:

And what are your religious beliefs? Yes, I know people ask that and the moment you answer they put you in a box and think they know everything about you. I'm merely curious. Are you a Buddhist?

you don't ask simple questions, do you?

I don't think that I fit into any of the boxes that are out there.  I believe in the Oneness of the Truth, yet this Truth has been articulated variously by various cultures at various times in history.   When we add to this the fact that religion is a powerful tool used by Social Engineers to control societies then we find that we can account for pretty much all the diversity that we find in world religions. 


To the extent that I do not actually belong to any Buddhist group, then No, I'm not a buddhist.  I'm not a convert to Judaism either (though I like to interact with jews), and I am not a babalawo.  Neither am I hindu nor muslim.  No group of people that bear these names would recognise me as a member. 

I was baptised and raised a christian and was set to follow a career in the church but I got distracted.  I actually find the word christian, as an identifier of someone's religious beliefs and practices, to be a meaningless term.  Telling me that you are a christian tells me next to nothing about what it is you believe in and how you live.  There is too much of a diversity amongst those laying claim to the term. 

I hope you've found my answers satisfactory.

I find your answers answersory.
You were set to follow a career in the church?Interesting.As a priest? And you were distracted by global religion and man's spiritual experiences. How so? I'd think these would re-enforce your commitment to pursuing your career. Or you felt dedicating yourself only to Christianity would be too confining in the light of all the religions out there?

Mad_Max:

I find your answers answersory.
You were set to follow a career in the church?Interesting.As a priest? And you were distracted by global religion and man's spiritual experiences. How so? I'd think these would re-enforce your commitment to pursuing your career. Or you felt dedicating yourself only to Christianity would be too confining in the light of all the religions out there?

Now you are probing too deep, and I'm actually a coy guy. There were other distractions too, but I'm not going to go in to them.

. . . Sooooooo what was it that we were saying about christians and the Pharisees . . . . ?

When it comes to hypocrisy, absolutely none whatsoever.

Pastor AIO:

Now you are probing too deep, and I'm actually a coy guy. There were other distractions too, but I'm not going to go in to them.

. . . Sooooooo what was it that we were saying about christians and the Pharisees . . . . ?

Yeah, maybe I am. Sorry about that. I was sort of pretending the questions were academic. Nosy me.

This blast from the past ought to throw some light on my recent contentions over the interpretation of scriptures.

bump again.

domwas2: Hi, is as follows:
Pharisee: A self-righteous or sanctimonious person, A member of an ancient Jewish sect noted for strict obedience to Jewish traditions.
Christiian:A religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and is a member of a Christian denomination, Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

Matt5:20
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Seconded!

From your definition of a pharisee, we can conclude that anyone who practices any of the OT laws or Jewish tradition in this generation is a Pharisee and not a Christian.

So we can as well say, most of these tithe preaching Pastors and MoGs are modern days Pharisees since tithing is an OT law and a Jewish tradition.

Nairaland christians beware of phariseetic churches. They do not practice Christianity but Jew tradition! Like Obadiah777 once said, their area of specialization is gainsaying and cherry-picking of scriptures to justify their teachings!

^^^^@OP, nice thread brb to contribute.

@DoubleDx, I hail brah; true, agree with you!