Jesus was a Pharisee

[brianbbs67]

I am coming to a conclusion that Christ was a Pharisee. It is not my doctrine yet. Still researching it thru Judica. I stumbled upon and felt compelled to buy this little 122 year old book from JPS about the Talmud. Full Talmud will come later, as they as pricey.

IMG_1002 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

I think this would explain the 20 year gap in Christ's life we are left also. At 12, he stayed behind with the Pharisees and they were amazed at his knowledge. Would they not want to recruit him and teach him? So, I am thinking he spent 20 years learning and observing all they did. Which would explain why he knew them so well and their deeds. And why he was allowed to speach harshly of them and "preach" at the Temple. Think about that. The Temple was the most holy place of worship in Isreal. Would some dirty, naysayer be allowed to speak in The Temple? I think not.

Also, some of the supposedly revolutionary sayings of Christ come from Hillel, head of the Pharisees. Maybe be why Paul was sought also.

IMG_0995 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

IMG_0998 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[brianbbs67]

Here's a little more Talmudic commentary I found interesting.

IMG_0999 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

IMG_1001 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

And a little poetry for thought

IMG_0997 by brianbbs67, on Flickr

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by brianbbs67]

I think this would explain the 20 year gap in Christ's life we are left also.

I think it more likely that we have 20 years of silence due to inactivity.

At 12, he stayed behind with the Pharisees and they were amazed at his knowledge.

Luke says nothing about Pharisees; it was the "teachers" that he amazed, and Pharisees were not "teachers of the law"--it was probably the priests and scribes.

Would they not want to recruit him and teach him?

They probably did not think much of it after his parents collected him. We do not know the content of the conversation; but we should note that Jesus "listened and asked questions". That is, he was not teaching them.

So, I am thinking he spent 20 years learning and observing all they did.

This is so conjectural, the better question for you is, "Why not just go along with all the scholars and conclude we can't know anything about those silent years"?

Which would explain why he knew them so well and their deeds.

One does not need twenty years to reach the familiarity we see in the gospels. And some scholars have accused the Jesus of the gospels of NOT understanding Pharisaism.

And why he was allowed to speach harshly of them and "preach" at the Temple.

The Pharisees had no official standing in Palestine. They were a lay-group of people that were sometimes popular, sometimes not. They were not priests or scribes. They had no control over what happened in the temple, or anywhere else for that matter.

And the temple was enormous. Jesus was most certainly not preaching in the inner areas. He was in the courtyard, or outside it where the shops were.

Would some dirty, naysayer be allowed to speak in The Temple? I think not.

The dichotomy "Former Pharisee or dirty naysayer" is false. Jesus was probably just as clean or dirty as anyone else.


But the big question you have not asked yourself is, "How plausible and probable is it that Jesus should spend years under the tutelage of Pharisees, then violently break from them, and yet this former alliance should never make it into recorded history? compare Paul's history."

The answer is, not probable or plausible at all.

The soundest historical conclusion is, Jesus was not a former Pharisee.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 1 by brianbbs67]

I think this would explain the 20 year gap in Christ's life we are left also.

I think it more likely that we have 20 years of silence due to inactivity.

[font=Serif]Or 20 years of learning[/font]

At 12, he stayed behind with the Pharisees and they were amazed at his knowledge.

Luke says nothing about Pharisees; it was the "teachers" that he amazed, and Pharisees were not "teachers of the law"--it was probably the priests and scribes.

[font=Serif]the priest, scribes and elders made up the Great Sanhedren[/font]

Would they not want to recruit him and teach him?

They probably did not think much of it after his parents collected him. We do not know the content of the conversation; but we should note that Jesus "listened and asked questions". That is, he was not teaching them.

So, I am thinking he spent 20 years learning and observing all they did.

This is so conjectural, the better question for you is, "Why not just go along with all the scholars and conclude we can't know anything about those silent years"?

[font=Serif]This whole post is conjecture seeking opinion. Why settle for what the "scholars" have done when much is added later or altered or the authors unknown?
[/font]

Which would explain why he knew them so well and their deeds.

One does not need twenty years to reach the familiarity we see in the gospels. And some scholars have accused the Jesus of the gospels of NOT understanding Pharisaism.

And why he was allowed to speach harshly of them and "preach" at the Temple.

The Pharisees had no official standing in Palestine. They were a lay-group of people that were sometimes popular, sometimes not. They were not priests or scribes. They had no control over what happened in the temple, or anywhere else for that matter.

And the temple was enormous. Jesus was most certainly not preaching in the inner areas. He was in the courtyard, or outside it where the shops were.

[font=Serif]When he read the Word on the Sabbath, was he not in the temple service? Which is why him slamming the book shut offended them?
[/font]

Would some dirty, naysayer be allowed to speak in The Temple? I think not.

The dichotomy "Former Pharisee or dirty naysayer" is false. Jesus was probably just as clean or dirty as anyone else.


But the big question you have not asked yourself is, "How plausible and probable is it that Jesus should spend years under the tutelage of Pharisees, then violently break from them, and yet this former alliance should never make it into recorded history? compare Paul's history."

The answer is, not probable or plausible at all.

The soundest historical conclusion is, Jesus was not a former Pharisee.

[font=Serif][/font]

[font=Serif]That he was not, maybe true. Maybe, he was though. And after gathering enough evidence , his ministry began. IDK. It was a interesting thought I wished to explore here.[/font]