That's amazing to learn about the Pharisees. They get a bad rap, but I remember thinking it interesting that Christ had many followers and secret supporters from within their ranks.
I always said the Pharisees went downhill after the good ones left to become Christians. Why didn't Jesus condemn the Essenes? Were they just not powerful enough? I also thought Jesus was trained by the Pharisees, based on what John the Baptist said to them. Also, I thought the "do what they say, not what they do" meant they were not behaving properly, but still had the "Seat of Moses," was a parallel to the Seat of Peter not always behaving properly, but not being heretical with ex cathedra declarations.
Sure, Pharisees should not be labeled rigid and legalistic across the board, but Jesus also said they laid heavy burdens on others without helping them. Was that nit a reference to some rigorism/legalism? People and groups are complex.
Sorry Michael, just doing a google maps check. Mount Hermon, (the place with the pagan temple to Pan) is nearto Caesarea Philippi, but not in the centre, it;s In the district as it were. Looks like the tour guides may have it right.
In the OT the Israelites had two ways to get forgiveness of their sin. The first one is through offering sacrifice in the form of sin offering (Lev. 4) or trespass offering (Lev. 5, 6, 7). But they need to go to (Jerusalem) Temple or Tent of Meeting (during Exodus) as they need mediation of Levitical priests. The second way is stated in Eze. 33:14-16: Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); he shall surely live. Even in the Old Testament, the latter was more acceptable as it is written in Pro. 21:3: “To do righteousness [צְדָקָה] and justice [מִשְׁפָּט] is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice”. Forgiveness of sin can come through turning from sin (repenting) AND doing what is just and right. That is why David was forgiven without offering any sacrifice but he still bore punishment, that is, the death of his child with Bathsheba.
The point of the sacrifice was to atone for the sins of all the people of Israel. Christ is the real non-symbolic sacrifice for the whole world in continuing with the historic covenant. The temple was the place where they did that - you shouldn’t minimize the seeming tragedy that this was for the Jews of that time. They continued on without that entire aspect of their faith and tradition.
Antisemitism does not exist, it is a tool to shut up criticism of the jews Saint Paul is not an antisemite for calling the jews the killers of Christ and the Prophets, and the enemies of humanity
That has got to be the most historically ignorant statement I've ever come across. Antisemitism is alive and well in the West and ubiquitous in the Muslim world. I know an antisemite myself. He doesn't care about the politics of Israel, he just hates Jews and has endless stupid conspiracy theories to justify his hate. St. Paul was, of course, not an antisemite. He was a Jew who was having a disagreement with other Jews. That does not absolve Gentile Christians who used their misinterpretation of his writings to justify their prejudice.
Antisemitism exists, I've met many people online who are like that. Anyone who sins against Christ is a Christ killer because our sins got him killed. Therefore everyone except Jesus Himself and His blessed mother is a Christ killer. Lord have mercy on us. Edit: that's not to say we can't charitably criticize false religions, rabbinic judaism being one such.
@@shlamallama6433 So you’re talking about antisemitism then say that rabbinic Judaism is a false religion? Where do you think antisemitism started except with exactly others also saying that it’s a “false religion.”
I'm not sold on the hermeneutic of "that claim may substantiate antisemitic ideas, so let's look for another explanation/model", it's exactly the same thing that US professors use in sociology to *lie* when talking about transgender issues. Pharisees were more strict than other sects, but not as strict as a *desert monastic order* like the essenes: that's a hard bar to reach for any religious order that involved laity, even today! Monks are tough! Pharisees bound the faithful to the "traditions of the elders" that weren't actually in divine revelation, like the washing of hands. That's evil, that's a rigidity that Jesus didn't accept. Yes, on the matter of divorce Jesus gave a stricter reading, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule.
@@isoldam Overzealusness *for yourself* is not always evil, but misusing relogious authority to needlessly bind your subjects to something outside divine rebelation is evil. Today, if a priest tells the parishioners "you must pray the rosary daily", that's a sin. He's misusing the position of power he has to compel something that is not in divine revelation.
That's amazing to learn about the Pharisees. They get a bad rap, but I remember thinking it interesting that Christ had many followers and secret supporters from within their ranks.
Thank you for continuing to produce banger after banger Suan!
Dr Barber is awesome! His book w/ Dr Pitre & Kincaid on Paul is a personal favorite.
I know! They always enlighten me with generous dose of chuckles. Dr Bergsma’s great too! We need more of these witty, humorous, and devout Catholics!
Suan your videos are A+, learning so much from you and your guests. Thank you!
Thanks much for this video.
I always said the Pharisees went downhill after the good ones left to become Christians. Why didn't Jesus condemn the Essenes? Were they just not powerful enough?
I also thought Jesus was trained by the Pharisees, based on what John the Baptist said to them.
Also, I thought the "do what they say, not what they do" meant they were not behaving properly, but still had the "Seat of Moses," was a parallel to the Seat of Peter not always behaving properly, but not being heretical with ex cathedra declarations.
Great talk as always!
Nice work Suan!
Sure, Pharisees should not be labeled rigid and legalistic across the board, but Jesus also said they laid heavy burdens on others without helping them. Was that nit a reference to some rigorism/legalism? People and groups are complex.
Great work lads. God bless
Sorry Michael, just doing a google maps check. Mount Hermon, (the place with the pagan temple to Pan) is nearto Caesarea Philippi, but not in the centre, it;s In the district as it were. Looks like the tour guides may have it right.
Don't the Jewish scholars reject Sirach? 🤔🧐
Anyone find the article on Caesarea Philippi?
In the OT the Israelites had two ways to get forgiveness of their sin. The first one is through offering sacrifice in the form of sin offering (Lev. 4) or trespass offering (Lev. 5, 6, 7). But they need to go to (Jerusalem) Temple or Tent of Meeting (during Exodus) as they need mediation of Levitical priests. The second way is stated in Eze. 33:14-16:
Again, though I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ yet if he turns from his sin and does what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666), if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken by robbery, and walks in the statutes of life, not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him. He has done what is just (מִשְׁפָּט, Strong H4941) and right (צְדָקָה, Strong H6666); he shall surely live.
Even in the Old Testament, the latter was more acceptable as it is written in Pro. 21:3: “To do righteousness [צְדָקָה] and justice [מִשְׁפָּט] is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice”. Forgiveness of sin can come through turning from sin (repenting) AND doing what is just and right. That is why David was forgiven without offering any sacrifice but he still bore punishment, that is, the death of his child with Bathsheba.
👍🙏
The point of the sacrifice was to atone for the sins of all the people of Israel. Christ is the real non-symbolic sacrifice for the whole world in continuing with the historic covenant. The temple was the place where they did that - you shouldn’t minimize the seeming tragedy that this was for the Jews of that time. They continued on without that entire aspect of their faith and tradition.
Antisemitism does not exist, it is a tool to shut up criticism of the jews
Saint Paul is not an antisemite for calling the jews the killers of Christ and the Prophets, and the enemies of humanity
That has got to be the most historically ignorant statement I've ever come across. Antisemitism is alive and well in the West and ubiquitous in the Muslim world. I know an antisemite myself. He doesn't care about the politics of Israel, he just hates Jews and has endless stupid conspiracy theories to justify his hate.
St. Paul was, of course, not an antisemite. He was a Jew who was having a disagreement with other Jews. That does not absolve Gentile Christians who used their misinterpretation of his writings to justify their prejudice.
Antisemitism exists, I've met many people online who are like that. Anyone who sins against Christ is a Christ killer because our sins got him killed. Therefore everyone except Jesus Himself and His blessed mother is a Christ killer. Lord have mercy on us.
Edit: that's not to say we can't charitably criticize false religions, rabbinic judaism being one such.
@@shlamallama6433 So you’re talking about antisemitism then say that rabbinic Judaism is a false religion? Where do you think antisemitism started except with exactly others also saying that it’s a “false religion.”
As far as I can remember there have always been people that hate(d) “the Jews.” Isn’t antisemitism just a word for hatred of Jews?
I'm not sold on the hermeneutic of "that claim may substantiate antisemitic ideas, so let's look for another explanation/model", it's exactly the same thing that US professors use in sociology to *lie* when talking about transgender issues.
Pharisees were more strict than other sects, but not as strict as a *desert monastic order* like the essenes: that's a hard bar to reach for any religious order that involved laity, even today! Monks are tough!
Pharisees bound the faithful to the "traditions of the elders" that weren't actually in divine revelation, like the washing of hands. That's evil, that's a rigidity that Jesus didn't accept. Yes, on the matter of divorce Jesus gave a stricter reading, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule.
That's a really odd use of the word 'evil'. If overzealousness is evil, a lot of Christians are in big trouble.
@@isoldam Overzealusness *for yourself* is not always evil, but misusing relogious authority to needlessly bind your subjects to something outside divine rebelation is evil.
Today, if a priest tells the parishioners "you must pray the rosary daily", that's a sin. He's misusing the position of power he has to compel something that is not in divine revelation.