# Was Paul and Jesus a Pharasiees



## Oak-flat Hunter (Dec 15, 2011)

http://www.keithhunt.com/Jesus1.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 15, 2011)

Where do you find this stuff?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 15, 2011)

Yes....of course Jesus was  Pharisee.  So was Paul.


That makes perfect sense, right?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 15, 2011)

Pharisees were lawyers. Like most groupings, they included "the good, the bad, and the ugly". Jesus never made application to graduate, to be formally recognized as a pharisee (at least, we have no such record). It is reasonable to believe that He grasped fully and accurately what the law said, as well as how it was being misapplied and twisted for the benefit of the elite. Had He responded to a review panel, they probably would have rejected His application, based on His radical teachings that reflected the very mind and heart of God.

Jesus never made claim to the title or position, nor is it attributed to Him in His biographies (the Gospels).

Saul is a different matter. His resume clearly declares himself a pharisee. We also see that, as Paul, he counted all that pomp and hyperbole as garbage or dung compared to being reconciled to God, through Christ.

My understanding is simple. Jesus never held or heralded that title, so, no, He was not a pharisee. Paul, in earlier days as Saul, was most assuredly a pharisee, but he renounced that title in favor of being a disciple of Jesus, Son of the living God. When he passed from this life into the eternal, he was a sinner, saved by grace. We should all do as well.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Pharisees were lawyers. Like most groupings, they included "the good, the bad, and the ugly". Jesus never made application to graduate, to be formally recognized as a pharisee (at least, we have no such record). It is reasonable to believe that He grasped fully and accurately what the law said, as well as how it was being misapplied and twisted for the benefit of the elite. Had He responded to a review panel, they probably would have rejected His application, based on His radical teachings that reflected the very mind and heart of God.
> 
> Jesus never made claim to the title or position, nor is it attributed to Him in His biographies (the Gospels).
> 
> ...



As I read the article suggested in the OP I was thinking the whole time how to respond to it and then I read what GT had posted. VERY GOOD.

The only thing I can add is, Paul having the title of Pharisee is not where he was wrong, his wrong was in how he conducted himself while holding that title.

I read the article from kiver to kiver and then end to end and when it was all over I still did not see any value to it at all, in any way. Sorry


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Where do you find this stuff?



crazyunmeritedassumptionsaboutthechristianfaith .org(non-profit or course)


 where else?


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2011)

thedeacon said:


> As I read the article suggested in the OP I was thinking the whole time how to respond to it and then I read what GT had posted. VERY GOOD.
> 
> The only thing I can add is, Paul having the title of Pharisee is not where he was wrong, his wrong was in how he conducted himself while holding that title.
> 
> I read the article from kiver to kiver and then end to end and when it was all over I still did not see any value to it at all, in any way. Sorry



x2..


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 15, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> crazyunmeritedassumptionsaboutthechristianfaith .org(non-profit or course)
> 
> 
> where else?


  I like your new website.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Pharisees were lawyers. Like most groupings, they included "the good, the bad, and the ugly". Jesus never made application to graduate, to be formally recognized as a pharisee (at least, we have no such record). It is reasonable to believe that He grasped fully and accurately what the law said, as well as how it was being misapplied and twisted for the benefit of the elite. Had He responded to a review panel, they probably would have rejected His application, based on His radical teachings that reflected the very mind and heart of God.
> 
> Jesus never made claim to the title or position, nor is it attributed to Him in His biographies (the Gospels).
> 
> ...


Shall we put this in biblical context; Pauls impressive self righteous resume, look at it as bricks. Each good thing, his building blocks to building his own temple, now think tower, tower of babel that is. With our good works we "try to get to God" as opposed to Abrahams promise of "I will be with you". Our works "try to make a name for ourselves" as opposed to Abrahams promise of "I will make a name for you". Our works try to "build ourselves a city" as opposed to Abrahams promise of "I will build you a city". Paul, after seeing the humility of Jesus, considered his work dung. He chose to no longer put his confidence in the flesh, but to put his confidence in the finished work of Christ. He tore down his man made temple, buried in baptismal, and chose to be a new man, a new creation, where God is the builder and we are simply the clay. Churches of today teach how to clean up the flesh, not the cross of Christ. Of them, Paul said, "If You rebuild what you destroyed, you prove yourself a law breaker". Rest in the finished work of Christ.  This rest is the true Sabbath


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 15, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Pharisees were lawyers. Like most groupings, they included "the good, the bad, and the ugly". Jesus never made application to graduate, to be formally recognized as a pharisee (at least, we have no such record). It is reasonable to believe that He grasped fully and accurately what the law said, as well as how it was being misapplied and twisted for the benefit of the elite. Had He responded to a review panel, they probably would have rejected His application, based on His radical teachings that reflected the very mind and heart of God.
> 
> Jesus never made claim to the title or position, nor is it attributed to Him in His biographies (the Gospels).
> 
> ...



^^^^^^  What he said!
Clear and precise GT.


----------



## StriperAddict (Dec 16, 2011)

*I may be opening a can ............*

Two good posts and points by 1gr8bldr and gtparts. I'm only going to take up one thought from the following...



gtparts said:


> Paul, in earlier days as Saul, was most assuredly a pharisee, but he renounced that title in favor of being a disciple of Jesus, Son of the living God. When he passed from this life into the eternal, he was a sinner, saved by grace. We should all do as well.


 
I've heard it said... (and also for a long time until recently I agred with it) the ol saying "we are a sinner, saved by grace".
Is this really corerect in light of 66 books?? 
If I am still a sinner, then is Christ a minister of sin?
If I still posess a sinful nature (or two natures, one evil, one holy), than aren't I spiritually schizophrenic, or worse still... wouldn't God be putting His John Hancock on someone committing _spiritual adultery_?

I don't believe, in light of scripture (Romans especially) that a believer posses 2 natures.  The scripture is clear that the cross killed and _eradicated_ the "old man", whose sinful nature came from the Adamic birthright.  Once this was done away with, our new man, or "new creature" in Christ is alive to serve the Lord "in the newness of the Spirit, not in the oldness of the letter (the law).  But if I claim I am a sinner, then I am digging the 'ol man outta the ground, slinging him over my shoulder to try to whip him into shape.
How preposterous!
Christ is in the crucifixion business, not me!  There's not a thing I can add to the cross to make my Spirit, my inner man any more holy than what HE alone, with no help from me, has made.
It is my behavior that is still changing, day by day, otherwise called sanctification. This is as I cooperate with His Spirit in the renewal of my mind and old belief systems that get in the way of what God has done. But make no mistake in saying that our false beliefs are from a sinful nature; they are part of the flesh, under pressure from satan's agent called the power of sin. In NO WAY is this "sin" still part of our new being God made us IN Christ!  We'd be spiritual adulterers if it weren't so!

Now, good or bad deeds aside, my works will never be fully the true "me".  We are never what we do. (We, however, make choices to allow what we do to line up with who we are, but we find ultimatly it's not us, but Christ doing this work!)
So... NEVER the cart (deeds) before the Horse (our perfect inner man).  We are, by birthright in Christ...
A Saint,
Holy,
Blameless,
Without condemnation,
Secure,
a friend and brother of our Lord,

and dead to the law and the power of sin thereby. Rom 6:5-7

I don't call myself a lowly sinner saved by grace anymore...
rather a saint who sometimes sins.  Big difference.

BUT!!! (some would say) how dare you elevate yourself to such a high place!  Isn't that presumptious?? No, because to say that I'd have my sights turned in on myself, not Christ.  

But the one who agrees with his/her position as _God states it in His word_ is saying there is NO WORK LEFT to be done after the cross and ressurection... for saving AND for making the New Creation (that's you, beloved) holy, righteous and fully redeemed!
It is finished! It's over! Hallelujah! 

Indeed, there is a (sabbath) rest for the people of God, and if you have turned to Him who died in your place, you have it by faith. 

Peace


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 16, 2011)

StriperAddict said:


> I don't call myself a lowly sinner saved by grace anymore...
> rather a saint who sometimes sins.  Big difference.
> Peace



Yeah that makes sense.

When I'm witnessing, I usually say I WAS a dirty, rotten, low down sinner until Christ started His work in me, after I was saved by grace that I did not deserve.

And thank God most of my old unsaved friends can see a difference in me, and some have even said, I want what you have....wow what a great opening for a witness, send another one Lord.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 17, 2011)

Pharasee, Jesus, no. But He was something. His mother Mary was something. His cousin John the Baptist was something. John's mother Elisabeth, Mary's relative, was something and John's father Zachariah was a rabbi and he was surely something.


Mary was visited by the angle Gabriel who said she would give birth to the messiah. Zachariah was visited by an angel of the Lord and in this we know that Luke compares their son to be John to Elijah " to turn back the hearts of the fathers to the children..Luke 1:17"

These people were Holy Ghost people... Luke 1:35 "Then the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you...

"And it occurred that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with and controlled by the Holy Spirit.z' Luke 1: 41

"And She cried out with a loud cry, and the exclaimed, Blessed favor of God above all other women are you!....Luke 1;42

If you continue with the conversation of these two women they were what we might describe today as charismatics, not religious conservative. Their experiences of God,  of His Holy Spirit, were individual, intimate and day to day.

Now my question would be what was, who was Zachariah? Of all the people surounding the family of Jesus, Zachariah was the first to be visited by an angel concerning great and significant spiritual change.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 17, 2011)

*No can of ..........., here.*



StriperAddict said:


> Two good posts and points by 1gr8bldr and gtparts. I'm only going to take up one thought from the following...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did not clarify, so, thanks for doing so. My heart resonates with what you added. I guess I am so conscious of "where I am" that I made no effort to emphasize the idea that "was" and "saved" can indicate a past condition that existed only in the past or one that existed in the past and continues. Paul was a sinner, not that he dwelt in sin all his earthly life, but was subject to fail in God's sight, to not always handle himself according to the will of God. That is not an indictment, but a recognition of the dual nature of how all Christians conduct themselves. We all, even Paul, "slip" in our daily walk. When we shuffle off our mortal coils, we are finally beyond the human frailty we are all plagued with, even the occasional  sin. Salvation is of the later description, having an identifiable beginning, but no end, even into eternity.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 18, 2011)




----------



## Riding Shotgun (Dec 18, 2011)

Jesus was not a Pharisee

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/word.htm


----------



## mtnwoman (Dec 18, 2011)

I've been mulling this over.

Jesus was not a Pharisee...Jesus was all about freedom from bondage.

I think Paul had a few remnants of a Pharisee left over in him. But when you're raised a certain way, it's hard to purge all that before you die. Just like the Jews in the wilderness who'd never been anything but slaves, they were wanting to go back into slavery, just for security. God bred that out of them for 40 yrs on a 12 mile hike to the promised land. They were His chosen and He chose to lead them home, even against their will. God can do that, ya know?

Paul/Saul feeling chosen all of his life to be saved by his mighty God was out to kill anyone who believed in Christ, who was not his God. He gained a name for himself, like Wyatt Earp or Jesse James. God did choose Saul/Paul, and I believe as an example of true 'phariseeism' (is that a word?) he rendered Saul so that others might see that even Saul now believed in Christ to the other Jews. Didn't do a whole lot of good though, the Jews were still in the bondage mindset....like some of us are, having to be chosen to be saved.

Paul and Saul were still the same person, the old man and the new man. He still believed God chose special ones (ie the Jews in the OT) to be saved. He transcended into someone who chose to serve God by an extreme action on God's part, to show us and the Jews that even a pharisee can be saved thru Jesus Christ. The freedom in Jesus Christ rendered on the cross, offered to anyone who will believe and repent, including not only the chosen Jews (as once believed) but for the entire world.

There are Jews still in bondage to the OT, they are not free from that and believe that they are still the only chosen of God. I believe they are chosen, but not the ONLY chosen.

What are we free from unless we are free from having to be chosen by God? We are free to choose thru Jesus Christ who died for all of us...the Jews did not choose Christ but we (whosoever believeth that Christ is who He says He is and repents) all can be saved, free to chose...what else could freedom mean? That we are forced, chosen, picked, selected, elected, how is that freedom on our part? God/Jesus offers us freedom to chose and not to be forced to be saved or abide by the old law or the 'we/us' are chosen. We are not still under the old law of having to be chosen to be saved, as the Jews once were, and some still believe that.

Do I believe that someone's witness to me who believed in Christ was used to tenderize/circumsize my heart? yes I believe by them telling me of the gospel that it opened my heart to either believe in Christ or not, that is freedom from the law, that every one was chosen, but not all will accept.


----------



## Riding Shotgun (Dec 22, 2011)

With all due respect, the Bible is very clear that Jews are not God's chosen people.

1 John 2:21-23
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 *Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.*  KJV

Also, read this:
2 John 7-11
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine [Christianity], receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.  KJV

Do we really think because a pastor or some commentary tells us otherwise that we can't read and understand our own Bible without someone's interpretation?

Does God want the Christian Church to be unequally yoked with people that deny Christ?

Those are just a couple of passages to ponder.

It is important that you seek the truth.  I don't know about you, but verse 11 gives me chill bumps.


----------

