my small research showing how Jesus was a Pharisee?

Question

I and the father are one.


This fits classically with the Jewish philosophy of gaining perfection is tantamount with unity with the Creator. So that when Jesus was saying “I and the father are one” what he was saying is that he has reached such a level of spiritual perfection he is in tune with the will of the Creator.

The Sabbath was made for man…

In the account of Jesus justifying his men violating the Sabbath by picking grain he quotes a story about King David and his men eating the bread from the tabernacle. At closer inspection one finds that King David justified his actions by saying that he and his men are starving and are at risk of death if they do not eat now.
In the same sense this is what Jesus was saying that one is allowed to violate the Sabbath in order to save a human life. In an “ironic” this is exactly what the Talmud says that the Sabbath was made for men to enjoy not so that they die observing it.

Calling the Pharisees hypocrites

Well this one looks like he dose not like the Pharisees but what dose the word hypocrite mean. “somebody who pretends to have admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings but behaves otherwise.”

In other words Jesus might have argued that the Pharisees were not living up to the “spirit” of the law (the exact same thing the Talmud once again says) but never argued with them about the letter of the law.

Matthew 5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

As a final point Jesus shows that he dose not believe that the law can be fulfilled either by himself or by anyone until the end of days.


so tell me what you think so far.

do you agree

or if not please show me where I am wrong.

Answer 1

While there may be a small overlap between the Perushim of the time and Yeshua, I would say that overlap was only as far as the written Torah was concerned. This would be about the same amount of overlap that you would have found between the Perushim and the Karaites. The Karaites accepted the written Torah as literal, but rejected the oral traditions of the rabbis.

While Yeshua probably wasn't a Karaite either, I suspect there was more overlap with Yeshua and the Karaites than with the Pharisees.

Certainly Yeshua was a fully Torah observant teacher as far as the written Torah was concerned. But he didn't seem to have his followers wash their hands according to the tradition of the rabbis. The eating of grain directly from the field on the Sabbath is actually within the realm of Talmudic understanding of what is permissible as long as they were not carrying the grain out of the field.

There has been some interesting discussion of Yeshua saying that the scribes and Pharisees sit in the "seat of Moses". Some texts indicate that he said "therefore do whatever *they* tell you to do" while a few texts say "therefore do whatever *he* (Moses) tells you to do". Karaite scholar Nehemiah Gordan favors the minority reading here. (For obvious reasons.) Gordon is certainly not one who believes that Yeshua was the Messiah, but he has written an interesting book on Yeshua which you can find more about here:

http://www.hebrewyeshua.com/

Answer 2

I think Jesus was none of the categories such as Sadducee, Pharisee, Essene, or Zealot. Most Jews in his time were not one of these. Most Jews may have identified most closely with one or the other group, but would not have actually been in one of the groups. Jesus seems to me to have been "on his own" as far as sect. He was not the only one like him, of course. John the Baptist was another Jew who held very very similar beliefs as Jesus. Both seemed to have been apocalyptic preachers who warned of an imminent judgement that would be coming soon, in their own lifetimes.

Jesus had some things in common with Pharisees. For example, he did seem to advocate strict adherence to the Law. However, he disagreed with the particular Pharisees he encountered over some of the particulars, perhaps. Jesus had his own way of interpreting the Torah. In some ways, this was quite similar to the Pharisee interpretations, but I don't honestly believe that Jesus was actually a Pharisee.

Answer 3

the full tale is a load. The Pharisees, traditionally, weren't even corrupt. They understood the spirit of the regulation rather nicely, and weren't the robot ignorant stiff undesirable adult males that the recent testomony fairly lies approximately. Nor have been the scribes corrupt. The Sadducees have been nevertheless. So in the previous you bypass bringing up a e book it rather is punctiliously faulty traditionally, it fairly is effective to to accomplish a little investigating and analyze on your person. genuinely do not take something the recent testomony teaches approximately Jews or Judaism as precise. maximum of it rather is particularly, very unfavourable and slanderous, to boot being ridiculously faulty. Jesus did not divulge the reality. The thoughts interior the recent testomony the place Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees have been written that way on objective to demonize the Jews as Christianity moved to take over political potential (alongside with economic, land, and converts from the pagan populations) from the Jews. on each and every occasion a clean faith contains take over from an previous one, the recent one constantly demonizes the previous - its an particularly useful propaganda gadget.

Answer 4

Joh 10:30 -
I and my Father are one - The word translated “one” is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were united in the same object that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this remark. Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and others. Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:
1.The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils that is, that he had supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to omnipotence.
2.The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy Joh_10:31, Joh_10:33, and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, Joh_10:33.
3.Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. .
4.He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner, Joh_10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.

Jesus meant what He said, He and the Father were one in nature and power. The Jewish leaders knew as well, that is why they sought to stone Him. The idea of even reaching a level close to God was absurd to them.

The Sabbath:
Have you read the rest of the passage?
Mat 12:9 And moving from there, He came into their synagogue.
Mat 12:10 And, behold, a man having a withered hand was there. And they asked Him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbaths? (that they might accuse Him).
Mat 12:11 But He said to them, What man of you will be who will have one sheep, and if this one fall into a pit on the sabbaths, will he not lay hold of it and raise it up?
Mat 12:12 How much more, then, does a man excel a sheep! So that it is lawful to do well on the sabbaths.
Mat 12:13 Then He said to the man, Stretch out your hand! And he stretched out. And it was restored sound as the other.
Mat 12:14 But as they were leaving, the Pharisees took up a council against Him, how they might destroy Him.

He healed a man on the Sabbath, but it was not to save his life.
and:
Mat 12:22 Then one having been demon-possessed was brought to Him, blind and dumb. And He healed him, so that the blind and dumb one could both speak and see.
Mat 12:23 And all the crowds were amazed, and said, Is this not the Son of David?
Mat 12:24 But hearing, the Pharisees said, This One does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, ruler of the demons.

He cast out a demon on the Sabbath, again, not life threatening.

There is no indication in Scripture or other writings that considered Jesus a Pharisee. There is no evidence he ever met with them as part of the Sanhedrin or took part in any of their meetings or ceremonies. Nowhere does Jesus speak positively of them or they of Him. If He was one, and He wasn't, He was a bad one, since He continually upset them, irritated them, and angered them to the point they wanted to kill Him.

Answer 5

If you seek conflict, you will find it. Clarity and understanding come by way of the Holy Spirit. Without an open heart, you will walk in darkness.

Answer 6

I like this a lot. very interesting. thank you.

Answer 7

stop this blasphemy at once.