IS Jesus a LIBERAL Chriatian?

[SolidGround]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.


At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

By calling Jesus a Pharisee, you show that you have not studied what the term "rabbi" means, or what "Pharisees" were.
Very little of your post is accurate to history, and even less to Scripture.

Pretty close to accurate. I'm impressed... most Seminaries steer students away from Anthropological Theology.

You are being sarcastic, right?
His post was extremely inaccurate.

 

[SolidGround]

I think we found who the alt acc actually belongs to.

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTE:

Not to be a coward i have a somewhat Orthodox stance but know the value of Love and Judgement so would maybe need to soften in certain areas.

END QUOTATION

Scripture is fairly clear as to what God/Jesus said/thought of the things you listed............not sure it is OUR duty/place to "soften" Scripture in any areas to "fit" the current days beliefs/lifestyles.

 

[EdisonTrent]

Love others more than self

 

[atwhatcost]

You are quite right that Jesus himself was not a CHRISTIAN (however you choose to spell it). A careful reading of both the bible and the historical record indicate to me that Jesus was not intending to found a new religion but rather to reform Judaism itself.

Sorry, but I've already seen two of your versions of "historical record" and they're lacking. You have a tendency to trust trending best sellers versus history.

 

[atwhatcost]

Liberals support abortion and homosexuality. No such thing as a liberal christian.

Conservatives support keeping their own money and making everyone pull themselves up by their own boot straps, so there is no such thing as conservative Christian.

(Both statements could fill honeypots!)

Christ never supported American-middle-class-Christianese.

 

[atwhatcost]

By calling Jesus a Pharisee, you show that you have not studied what the term "rabbi" means, or what "Pharisees" were.
Very little of your post is accurate to history, and even less to Scripture.

You are being sarcastic, right?
His post was extremely inaccurate.

Yeah, but at least now, I'm getting this is some kind of far-fetched teaching of some kind of far-fetched church, instead of self-invented god. Church-invented god isn't any better, but once I can place where this junk comes from, I can answer a larger question residing in my brain -- "Where are these people getting this junk?"

 

[atwhatcost]

I think we found who the alt acc actually belongs to.

If only I knew what an alt acc was. (hinthint lol)

 

[crossnote]

Ok, I'm confused..............a member with the SN JUSTINE1 posts this thread, and then a member with the SN JACKRT (who just joined today) is the one defending the OP? What happened to JUSTINE1? (who just joined last Wednesday)

Shouldn't JUSTINE1 be discussing his OP?

Well first off it is JUSTNE1 that posted this thread not JUSTINE1, but as you were

 

[atwhatcost]

Firstly sorry about my spelling,

Secondly,

I havent posted because i dont feel i asked my question correctly and thus the responses are missing my point, so I have nothing to add to any discussions in those areas.
This post was really just a feeler for whether some of the New Testament peripheral doctrine is as relevant today as when written.

My point is that we often pick and choose obediance based on our arguments or biases but what would Jesus say in Regard to things like:

Reading science theory
Female leadership roles
Head Coverings and styles
Jewellery restrictions/tattoos/make up
How about modern media / music
Friendships / relationshipswith non believers

How strict/unrestricted would Jesus be?

Liberal, Orthodox??

Not to be a coward i have a somewhat Orthodox stance but know the value of Love and Judgement so would maybe need to soften in certain areas.

Peace and Love

Sorry, still not getting you. I come from an education background, so instantly I read Reading science theory" as a topic for science and English teachers to most effectively teach science theory in the classroom. (I bet you didn't expect me to go there, but I'm equally as lost to what you mean. lol)

The rest feels a bit like pressing God into a worldview. I don't. I get my views of the world by studying God's views.

 

[Mitspa]

The word "liberty" means different things to different people? In early America, liberty means freedom from the old established orders of Europe ... Liberty form oppressive government, liberty from oppressive religion. Some seen the term liberty to represent freedom from the moral restraint that they seen in the concept of a Christian God, while others seen liberty as a chance to worship God according to their own conscience without the dictates of the Roman church or the church of England.

Liberty itself is a good word that has been twisted by satan to represent the approval of evil and the rejection of Christ and His truth.

 

[JackRT]

Pretty close to accurate. I'm impressed... most Seminaries steer students away from Anthropological Theology.

I have never been a seminarian but I now find that I must do some research on Anthropological Theology. Thanks.

 

[Utah]

Conservatives support keeping their own money

Sigh.

Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity - Forbes

 

[Willie-T]

I have never been a seminarian but I now find that I must do some research on Anthropological Theology. Thanks.

It just means who the various groups were, and what their effect upon the society they lived in was.... as opposed to mental musings upon theoretical doctrine of interpreted Scripture.

 

[p_rehbein]

Well first off it is JUSTNE1 that posted this thread not JUSTINE1, but as you were

Well, I'm so glad you cleared that mystery up, I should be able to finally get some rest tonight........

 

[p_rehbein]

Conservatives support keeping their own money and making everyone pull themselves up by their own boot straps, so there is no such thing as conservative Christian.

.

I see that the production of fertilizer is in full swing, no need to worry about any fertilizer shortages this year

 

[atwhatcost]

Sigh.

Giving Differently: Liberals and Conservatives Have Radically Different Views of Charity - Forbes

Bigger sigh! I would think a NewJerseyian would get Jersey sarcasm better than that. LOL

The idea that God adheres to a political platform drives me nuts(ier!) My church (I would still go to if I could go to church) has a lot of college professors and students in it. There is no way someone can convince me they're all Republicans. It's hard to get through college as a conservative student and stay conservative. Live there and liberalism is going to affect you. Politics doesn't matter and is never talked about in church.

I am conservative. I tend to think liberals have it closer to correct, except in both cases (Republicans and Democrats), it's just talk without putting it into thoughtful practices.

 

[SolidGround]

I personally think that "liberals" sacrifice freedom for "insurance", which is retarded. (Literally making insurance mandatory)
And "conservatives" sacrifice freedom for "security", which is retarded. (Making privacy illegal)... (never mind, liberals agree with that one too.)
Excuse my middle school vernacular. But global politics are extremely dumb.
They know so little about the world, yet claim so much. They run a fools errand. They think they are bettering the world, but all they do is keep the world system in power.

 

[Budman]

We must also realize that not all the words attributed to Jesus in our gospels are his actual words

Only the ones you agree with, right?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion: David Horowitz: 9781596988125: Amazon.com: Books

[video=youtube;7IrME-un-pw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IrME-un-pw&list=PLmoS8eX74Nfty_59BjYXVviLrbRu0BLnH[/video]