Are You A Pharisee? No? Are You SURE? :-) (page 3)

Crumpet

I'm sure i am not, because I am sad you see.

(okay lame!)

I very much agree with you that "Jewish Christianity" is a bit of a misnomer. But this actually sets the standard for "Christianity" in the 4th century AD (for both creed and canon), not in the 1st.

Christ did not start a religion. Christ started a spiritual movement from which religions sprang.

If this is the case, hisrelationship to "Christianity" is just as open a question as his relationship to "Judaism" or "Islam".

ANewLeif

I agree, Narkissos. Judaizers won out. Which is why there is so much more in common with Judaism in most "Christian" religions (which I believe to be an oxymoronic expression) than there is in common with the actual philosophy of Jesus as related in the gospels.

You wrote, "If this is the case, his relationship to 'Christianity' is just as open a question as his relationship to 'Judaism' or 'Islam'."

In terms of religions, yes. In terms of philosophy any individual can nominally be any religion and still be a Christian. But that does not grant Christianity to the religion. If the religion does not match the philosophy it isn't a Christian religion. In my opinion, no religion matches the philosophy; the fact of creeds and dogma prevent the grace of God from having room to operate. Religion creates a new "mountain" where people are encouraged to worship. (John 4) It gets in the way of what Jesus taught.

ANL

Narkissos

Judaizers won out. Which is why there is so much more in common with Judaism in most "Christian" religions (which I believe to be an oxymoronic expression) than there is in common with the actual philosophy of Jesus as related in the gospels.

Not sure that is the point. First, because the whole "law-free" picture of Jesus may have more to do with the beliefs of Hellenistic, and especially Pauline Christianity upstream of the Gospels (starting with Mark) than with an original Galilean "philosophy" which might be ascribed to the "historical Jesus". Second, because the equation "legalistic = Jewish" greatly oversimplifies both terms.

What is sure (and that was the main point of FNB's post imo) is that doing away with legalism is easier said than done, and you can't deride it in others (e.g. "Pharisees") without falling victim to your own sarcasm sooner or later.

Religion creates a new "mountain" where people are encouraged to worship. (John 4)

Nicely put.

Terry

Historical Jesus is lost to view.

Personal interpretations of who/what Jesus was/said/meant are lost to view.

Representations of personal interpretations are lost to view.

Filtered redactions (heavily edited as to content and importance) are hidden to view and what remains is:

Selectively arranged redactions of filtered representations of personal interpretations of who Jesus was set forward as eyewitness accounts.

Surely, this is cause for a pause and reflection on laying the heavy burden of Proof upon such texts!

Pharisees, like Jesus, are not who/what Pharisees were. They are our tunnel view of what others have tried to represent as being valid.

Jesus himself could well have been a Pharisee.

Paul, on the other hand, most certainly was not. (I know, I know)

Borgia

What I always found interesting that Act 15 have Pharisees already in the steering committe of the Jerusalem church at a very early stage.

From their point of view: "christianty" must have had an appeal since it's adherent since Jerusalem are talked about as being examplary in fulfilling the requirements of the law.

Another note: From it's alledges inception up untill now there is discussion about what "christianity" really means despite or even because of Acts 15, provided there is a real meaning.

Cheers

Borgia

FireNBandits

Hey Deputy Dog!

I don't even know you, so I would certainly not be singling you out! I was speaking in general terms, but apparently you felt attacked. That's not my biz, thats between you and God, as is my own "righteousness." It's between God and myself and I'm not going to trumpet it here. I CAN tell you I don't know you so you have no need to justify yourself to me. We're strangers.

Martin

FireNBandits

Hi A New Leif

You were telling all of us your own personal list of who is and is NOT a real Christian. You were being just like Rutherford and the Tower in general in having the AUDACITY to think YOU KNOW and can JUDGE who is and isnt Christian! Learn humility, STOP TRYING TO CIRCUMSCRIBE THE GRACE OF GOD, and you won't get popped.

I didn't even remember that reply to you so when you PMed me about my new post "Are you a Pharisee?" and went off on me, well, it made no sense.

I certainly dont believe I know who and who isnt part of the Kingdom, BUT YOU DO! That's Pharisaic behavior, just as thinking one can circumscibe the grace of God, delimit and define who and who is not in the Kingdom, is Pharisaic behavior. -Martin

FireNBandits

Hello ANL (Do you know what it LOOKS like when someone types ANL?)

You wrote:

"I think Pharisee hunters like our friend Martin, here, often assume that every person who says someone is not a Christian also attaches a doctrine that non-Christians are destined for destruction and cannot have God's favor or any number of other dismal outcomes for the non-Christian. Such an assumption about the beliefs of others may not be Pharisaical, but it is certainly prejudiced. Hats off to you, Martin! You have proven that one need not be a Pharisee to be a judgemental pr**k."

ANL

I'm not a Pharisee "hunter" oh poor ANL, but when I read a Pharisaic post you bet I'm going to point it out. M'k? M'k. I have zero limits on the Grace of the Divine Reality, either doctrinal, denominational, or religious. The Kingdom is even open to Pharisees, ANL. By the way ANL, I think you meant to call me a prick, yes? You migt as well have called me a raca. Take good care of yourself ANL.

FireNBandits

Deputy Dog, I wonder why you feel compelled to defend yourself to me? I don't even know you. I don't consider you a Pharisee, but my post apparently touched a raw nerve in you.

Take care DD, no one is chasing you. I don't think you're a Pharisee, and this post was about Pharisaic traits in general. Certainly not you in particular.

Are You A Pharisee? No? Are You SURE? :-)

Share this