Why didnt Jesus like the pharisees?

[Wootah]

If the law is enough why didnt Jesus like the pharisees?

Why didnt jesus tell the young man, 'well done for following the law i'll see you in heaven'?

[Overcomer]

dio9 wrote:

After reading Matt. chapter 23 I found myself thinking this is a diatribe originating from the author of Matthew in Matthew's fight with the Pharisees after being expelled Jesus Christ's believers from the synagogues.
This diatribe originated not with Jesus but with Matthew .

And for the second question , I'd like to believe there are some righteous people among us.

Are you saying that Matthew put words in Jesus' mouth when Christ said the following of the Pharisees?

Matthew 23:27:"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean."

Mattew 23:22:"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

The Pharisees thought that they were destined for glory for two reasons:

1. They thought that being a descendant of Abraham, that is, a Jew, put them automatically in God's favour.

2. They thought that, by keeping the Law of Moses PLUS the 613 laws they added to it (things such as not plucking grain from a field to eat on the Sabbath), they could earn their way into God's favour.

They were wrong on both counts. Here is a list of the reasons that Jesus called the Pharisees white-washed tombs and vipers:

The Pharisees had developed a system of 613 laws, 365 negative commands and 248 positive laws. By the time Christ came it had produced a heartless, cold, and arrogant brand of righteousness. As such, it contained at least ten tragic flaws.

(1) New laws continually need to be invented for new situations.

(2) Accountability to God is replaced by accountability to men.

(3) It reduces a person’s ability to personally discern.

(4) It creates a judgmental spirit.

(5) The Pharisees confused personal preferences with divine law.

(6) It produces inconsistencies.

(7) It created a false standard of righteousness.

(8) It became a burden to the Jews.

(9) It was strictly external.

(10) It was rejected by Christ.

https://bible.org/illustration/pharisaic-laws

Such legalism exists today as we see people who think they can enter heaven by following the rules their church establishes for them. But Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:16). No one can earn his/her way into eternal life with God. As Jesus pointed out, he himself is the one and only door to heaven. See here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/I-am-the-door.html

[JehovahsWitness]

I would respectfully like to ask Jehovah witness to start her own thread discussion instead of hijacking every thread into a JW infomercial .

I will respectfully pass your message on to TAM who raised the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place. And respectfully point out to you that I personally believer there is a mechanism to report posts if anyone feels they violate forum guidelines.

Most of the things I listed that meet the same criteria are from the JW religion. [...]

tammy

I would respectfully request TAM to consider responding to my posts elsewhere so he does not hijack the thread, but to start another elsewhere . I would also point out to whom it does concern I don't generally let challenges to my faith go unaddressed.

I dont think we have a doctrinal issue here other than what Tam points out about the JW.

Respectfully yours,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Overcomer]

Tcg wrote:

He never disagreed with the law, but simply added to it as was the case with the "rich young ruler" which you referred to. His answer wasn't that the law was invalid, but that you have to do even more.

His response was basically, sure you've kept the law, but I require more works than that. You need to give everything.

It may look like that on the surface, but that isn't true. Jesus put it this way:

Matthew 5:17-20:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

The question is – what did Jesus mean when he said he fulfilled the Law?

He meant that he fulfilled the requirements of the Law. The Law pointed out sin, but it did nothing to help anybody keep it. No human being could fulfill all of its requirements perfectly and that's what it would take to please God.

But Jesus could keep them all perfectly because he was sin-free and he was sin-free because he was God Incarnate.

Animal sacrifices for sin were temporary. But Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, made once and for all. In Hebrews, we read the following:

Hebrews 10:10: And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:12:But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God . . . .

Hebrews 10:14: For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

Paul put it this way in Rom. 8:4: For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

Bottom line: Jesus didn't add to the Law. He fulfilled it on our behalf.

The problem with the rich young ruler lay in the fact that his money meant more to him than following Jesus. That's what Jesus was pointing out.

[ttruscott]

Does anyone on this forum think they are righteous enough to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Romans 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

the gift of righteousness - not of our own doing

[tam]

Peace to you all,

Telling people they are not permitted to drink.

Jesus drank wine. The bible doesn't suggest drinking alcohol in moderation should be prohibited.

I was not referring to your religion with this. If you recall, I did state that not everything in my list referred to the added rules of the jw religion.

Telling people they are not permitted to smoke.

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses have never told people they are not permitted to smoke* Jehovah's Witnesses have never said otherwise.

If what you says is true, and your religion simply does not permit smoking inside a KH, why then is smoking a df'ing offense?

I would respectfully request TAM to consider responding to my posts elsewhere so he does not hijack the thread, but to start another elsewhere . I would also point out to whom it does concern I don't generally let challenges to my faith go unaddressed.

(Tam[my] is a she, not a he).


Discussing the practices of the Pharisees in a modern day religion and example seems to be on topic to me. Certainly was not a problem when you listed those things that other religions did to their people.


I would like to point out that people who are part of a religion that enforces the things YOU listed, will defend those practices the same as you have done. But the comparison to what Christ taught and what men have added... that is there in the open for people to see (or... not to see).



It is certainly not my intention to go through everything on that list or your defence of it. There is also no need. Many of those things have been discussed in numerous places on the forum. Here are just a few.

Disfellowship offences and shunning (which offences include refusing to shun someone who has been df'd):

viewtopic.php?t=33518&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Smoking:

viewtopic.php?t=31022&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

viewtopic.php?p=829153#829153


Requiring vows before baptism:

viewtopic.php?t=32944



You pointed out what other religions did. I simply pointed out that the same is true of the JW religion as well.



Peace again to you all, and to your households,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Why are you so brilliant?
Obviously, I over generalize by declaring all of them, there would be individuals who broke party line.

But I can't quite read the tea-leaves, what is the impetus of your question?

Is it historic?
Because as we know from history, Pompey destroyed all official Hebrew History with the decimation of Sadducee rule, and replaced it with a verbal (alleged verbal) tradition and gave it to the Pharisee.

As it stands, there probably were those who knew what side the toast was buttered on, and knew the futility of opposing Rome.

[Overcomer]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by tam]

You pointed out what other religions did. I simply pointed out that the same is true of the JW religion as well.

I pointed out what other religions do which is unscriptural and adding to the word of God (like the Pharisees), you pointed out scriptural obligations that the bible explicitly or implicitly through principle requires of True Christians. You are right though, I have proved numerous times what the bible says on these topics (I always back what I have to say with scriptures rather than human thinking or claims of hearing a divine voice in my head which could be attributed to demonic possess .... or mental illness) and invite you to consult the links I have provided you with.

You have been respectfully asked not to hijack the thread; evidently you see no need to regard this request. Personally if I want to address an issue that is separate to that of the thread at hand I start my own elsewhere.


I will refer you to dio9's post
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 590#914590

If you would honestly want answers to your questions about my religion I do believe there is a dedicated subforum for posting to particular posters or groups, feel free to post there if you so wish.

For now I wish you a most excellent evening.


JW

[Overcomer]

It occurred to me that it might be helpful if we talked about what happened to people when they died prior to Christ's death and resurrection. They went to Sheol, a place that is referred to as Hades in the New Testament. Sheol consisted of two parts -- Abraham's Bosom, which was a place of comfort for followers of God, and hell, where non-believers ended up. That's where the story of Lazarus and the rich man takes place -- in Sheol.

The way one got to Abraham's Bosom prior to Christ's death and resurrection was through faith and obedience and sacrifices to the Lord. When Abraham talks about the Law and the Prophets to the rich man, he is talking about what one had to do in life to ensure entry into Abraham's Bosom AT THAT TIME.

Christ emptied Abraham's Bosom upon his death and resurrection. And now his followers go to heaven to be with him upon death. They no longer go to Abraham's Bosom. As Paul put it, "to die is to be with Jesus" (2 Corinthians 5:6–9). Unbelievers still go to the torment side of Hades and will remain there until Christ's second coming and the final judgment.

This means that, as I explained in my previous post, obedience, faith, and sacrifices aren't going to get a person into heaven. Only acceptance of Christ's gift of salvation will do that.

[tam]

Peace to you all,

[Replying to post 38 by JehovahsWitness]

You have been respectfully asked not to hijack the thread; evidently you see no need to regard this request.

May I respectfully refer you BACK to the words YOU gave dio when dio made this request of YOU:

And respectfully point out to you that I personally believer there is a mechanism to report posts if anyone feels they violate forum guidelines. JehovahsWitness

May I also respectfully remind you that the OP poster did not have a problem with my post and even invited you to respond. So neither my post or yours were considered by the OP to be off-topic.

Personally if I want to address an issue that is separate to that of the thread at hand I start my own elsewhere.

Then I must assume that you do not think any of my posts were separate to that of the thread at hand, because you responded to them here on this thread.

I always back what I have to say with scriptures rather than human thinking or claims of hearing a divine voice in my head which could be attributed to demonic possess .... or mental illness)

Wow, just noticed that you wrote this. Please be careful with this. They implied that my Lord was demon possessed also, if you recall. Please recall HIS warning to such ones.




Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy