Pharisees, who were they?

Oh, excuse me for my answering the first question. The second question is a flame of degradation to any one who isn't a lberal.

The Pharisees as outlined by Scripture exist in cults adhering to the standards of Judaism, they are no longer the Pharisees of yesterday, thouhg many schools use their lingo in the names of their schools.

To throw about the label of "Pharisee" and "legalist" in such a careless maner can only be attributed to immaturity and ignorance.

Those who are taught to earn salvation are not Pharisees in any form of the word except in the slang as commonly used today by many liberals, they are deceived into thinking works will grant them salvation, that makes them legalists, not necessarilly conformists, of which all Christians are to conformed to the express image of Christ through and by the sanctifying power of the Spirit of God. Those sanctified are not legalists, they are separatists in the sense of being separated from the world's systematic theologies.

 

So then, by Him telling you they were hypocrites, and I agree with Scripture, is that His granting you permission to judge others and call them "hypocrites" with the same authority?

 

Luke 18:13: And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Look at this passage here. Jesus is contrasting the Pharisee and the publican. This is important because it gives the best example of what specifically Jesus had against the Pharisees (or the Pharisees He was referring to).

Let's see if this fits...

Thank God I'm not a gay or a catholic or a liberal! Thank God I am not like those people!

Have you seen this kind of "believer"?

I have.

They can talk a holy game. Darned NIV bible - it's of the devil! Darned liberal uppity women wearin' pants! Darned gays! Darned catholics and their whore of Babylon!

But this is no more than cymbal tinkling. If a believer does not have love and compassion for the sinner he is no disciple of Christ!

That doesn't mean rules are not important. But it means that we must realize that our first priority should be to show the love that Jesus showed us. That is a far better witness than the witness of the Peter Ruckmans and Jack Hyles of the world.

 

and you should. I am not like them anymore, but to answer more of your post, I was just as bad, but not anymore. I used to be all wrong, then Jesus saved me and made me all right.

To have compassion is to see the wrong and make the effort to correct that wrong in love by telling the truth, not like those who have only a passion for others, wanting them to be linked up with their "schools" and won to their charisma, else righteousness cometh by their works which also condemn good works that honour God as the initiator of those good works.

Be merciful to me a siner, Dear Jesus, and teach me to walk circumspectly before this present evil world full of hypocrisy.

I am not what I used to be thanks to Jesus!!! I am not what I am going to be, Thank You, in advance, Jesus!!! I am no better than anyone else, but i do know what God has worked in my heart to keep me fully aware of the wiles of the devil, enough so, to be wise unto those snares used to entrap the unsuspecting soul.

You have a chip on your shoulder.

I may, or may not agree with those two men wholly, but I will not slam my brethren the way you have. Everything you believe comes into question when you make those kind of statements, and God will be sure to measure back unto you what you have meted out.

I ask you, do you have true compassion as outlined in Jude? Or do you just have a passion.

Jude spoke of apostates, which "OF SOME" having compassion, making a difference, that is making a difference in the lives of the apostates, pulling them out of the fire. Too many look at Jude in the "passion" light, and fail to see the light of having compassion to those wrapped in error.

 

Salamander said:

So then, by Him telling you they were hypocrites, and I agree with Scripture, is that His granting you permission to judge others and call them "hypocrites" with the same authority?

In fact, Jesus did command his disciples to "judge with right judgment" (John 7:24).

 

And you have not the authority to judge anyone as a hypocrite, that would judging to one's hurt. Only Jesus has that authority until the Millenium.

Since you refuse to answer the question, I had to do it for you.

 

And you have not the authority to judge anyone as a hypocrite,

Who says? I fail to find the "hypocrite exemption clause" in John 7:24 that says to judge right judgment unless the judgee is a hypocrite, then keep your mouth shut.

 

Here is what Jesus said about the Pharisees:

"Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

That describes:

1. The Episcopal church which layed aside God's commands against divorce and sodomy and ordained a man who divorced his wife to take up with a man.

2. Roman Catholics and Protestants who lay aside scriptural baptism so they can retain their ancient tradition of Scriptural baptism.

3. Churches which lay aside God's command that the women be silent in the churches and ordain them to the ministry.

4. People who lay aside God's command of corporal punishment and yet claim them they love their children too much to whip them.

5. People who make merchandise of the gospel when Jesus commanded His followers to freely give because God had freely given to them.


The list could go on and on.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark,

You're quoting Mark 7:7-9. Remember the situation here? The Pharisees were looking down on Jesus and His disciples for eating without washing.

Washing before you eat was scriptural. Why then did Jesus criticize them if they were scripturally correct. But Jesus knew their hearts, that they were paying lip service to the law. They were legalists who valued the letter of the law more than its overarching theme.

Today's liberals are not as much guilty of hypocrisy - guilty of false doctrine yes. But the hypocrisy is found in those who can quote every word of the Bible but do not live according to its themes.

 

Oh, excuse me for my answering the first question. The second question is a flame of degradation to any one who isn't a lberal.

The Pharisees as outlined by Scripture exist in cults adhering to the standards of Judaism, they are no longer the Pharisees of yesterday, thouhg many schools use their lingo in the names of their schools.

To throw about the label of "Pharisee" and "legalist" in such a careless maner can only be attributed to immaturity and ignorance.

Those who are taught to earn salvation are not Pharisees in any form of the word except in the slang as commonly used today by many liberals, they are deceived into thinking works will grant them salvation, that makes them legalists, not necessarilly conformists, of which all Christians are to conformed to the express image of Christ through and by the sanctifying power of the Spirit of God. Those sanctified are not legalists, they are separatists in the sense of being separated from the world's systematic theologies. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you say that "liberals" teach works based salvation? I believe that salvation is through faith in Christ but that a true conversion results in being born again. A born again person lives their life differently from a non-Christian. Do you call that "works based" salvation? I call it the gospel.

 

My friend, Jesus Himself ate without washing His hands because it was no law of God but, as Jesus said, a tradition of man that had been elevated to divine status. Just like the liberals keeping all their traditions yet thumbing their noses at God's true commands.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Another way in which religious liberals resemble the Pharisees and Sadducees is in their disdain for those not formally educated. The liberals, like the Pharisees of old, maintain that those not educated at their feet are not fit to be ministers of God.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Ben W, you said

===========
The Essenes were not happy that the Levites no longer served in the Temple after the Maccabean revolution - Hannukah.
===========

I have not heard this before.

What is your source?

MR

 

Ridiculous. But if you're saying that it's more difficult to get a position as pastor without an MDiv you're right. I've been on two pulpit committees for a total of 3 years (medium size church of about 350-400) and we used that as a criterion. We aren't a liberal church and neither was the committee.

 

All that proves is that conservatives can be just as Pharisaical as liberals. Does it not seem odd to you at all that if Peter, James, John or Jesus were alive today they wouldn't be qualified to pastor your church?

Mark Osgatharp

 

Peter, James, and John would certainly make fine pastors, as would many men without formal education.

My father in law is the best preacher I've ever heard and he has no formal education.

But that doesn't mean we should eschew education. Too many fundamentalist preachers wear uneducated status as a badge of honor.

And in my years with our gospel group I've set under many a "preacher" who had no business in the pulpit.

 

It is true that some men are so ignorant of the Bible that they shoulnd't be in the pulpit. It is equally true that a there are some who know a great deal about the Bible, but are so high minded and wicked that they shouldn't be in the pulpit - I'm thinking about the modernists who glory in their formal education and yet blaspheme against the faith of Christ.

Much rather would I listen to an ignorant man who was sincere in his faith than Dr. Infidel.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Pharisees are kind of analogous to deacon boards, presbytries, and the holy see including the conclave of cardinals.

Jesus had a lot to say about such groups--all negative. See Mt. ch. 23. He called them: snakes, whited sepulchers, hypocrites(actors).

Pharisees are usually highly educated and most are"lost as a northbound goose in a blizzard".

Selah,
Bro. James