- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 34,888
- Reaction score
- 15,453
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I'm ready for the p0rn parody of Hard Knocks: Hard Knockers: Diana Does Sedona!
So, Hard Knockers: Cannon Fire Over Sedona! ?We call t
We call them cannons now.
Thanks again! Very interesting.I totally get the rights/nose/swing your arm point, and I get the argument about the Pharisees. It's based on the needs of the gospel writers, though in combination with whatever historical info survives in the gospels and might be gleaned from the historical earliest letters of Paul, in the context of examination without assuming belief in the religion. (The same method is used all the time re: Judaism, and I am comfortable with it.)
The historical Jesus and early Christian history is only important here to highlight how fair or unfair the depictions of the Pharisees in the Greek bible are. It's pretty much agreed upon that there's an animus there against the Jewish authorities, and an effort to make the Christian religion acceptable to Rome -- e.g.., Pontius Pilate's unlikely reluctance to deal harshly with Jesus, the "tradition" of setting one prisoner free for Passover, etc. They do make the Pharisees the villain of the story. The historicity is of course a whole field of study (as it is with historical views on Judaism, and scholars from all backgrounds are pretty savage about the storytelling freedom of those who put together the Hebrew bible.)
Here's how one religion professor explained the "Sadducees and Pharisees" in the context of first century Christian writings, especially those purporting to echo Jesus' actual words - Saying "O ye Sadducees and Pharisees" is sort of like a modern American saying "O ye Democrats and Republicans." They were the two main "parties" in the Jewish hierarchy. The Pharisees were always more numerous, and favored an interpretation of the law that everybody could embrace; the Sadducees were an elite, fewer in number, I believe more likely to be wealthy, and stricter in terms of adherence to the law. Critically, they held that you could only perform meaningful worship in the Temple in Jerusalem. No temple, no Sadducees. They also, if I recall my studies correctly, denied life after death, whereas the Pharisees were cool with varying beliefs on the topic (for example, a spiritual life to come and a physical resurrection, the same circle Christians have been squaring for a couple thousand years.)
I can't vouch for the extent to which the Jewish authorities of the first centuries were comparable to the Taliban. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that they still did some barbaric sh*t, but in practice, Jewish authorities rarely carried out death penalties (for example.) The Death Penalty in Jewish Tradition | My Jewish Learning
The famous "Eye for an eye" code we hear so much about was reduced to a monetary award system, similar to insurance payouts we hear so much about, but due from wrongdoer to an aggrieved party. I believe that also happened in ancient times, rather than the comparatively modern medieval era
By the way, I don't think it's a coincidence that the two child religions, which both preach that they have a new dispensation to universalize the religion of the God of the Jews, developed systems of enforcement that led to enormous persecutions. One simple explanation has nothing to do with "morality": They both achieved power at the level of empire. That's a huge enabler, if you have intolerant doctrine. Your local San Hedrin can't get together the resources to achieve what Christendom or Islam could, not to mention the toll they exacted vis a vis their coreligionists, when in-house disagreements occured.
Anyway, within a couple of centuries of Jesus' life, the Sadducees didn't even figure into things, although he never saw that happen in his lifetime.
This stuff will set off the same "authorities" who dictate to us all how we should feel about morality, and sorry if/when that happens. I don't have any problem, really, with Christians using the tropes of the Christian religion regarding the tag of "Pharisees"; it's more a "fun fact" point, although people do use the "Pharisees" language in such a way as to make it stealth-antisemitic (so probably there are some activists who might make more of it.) In any event, I know that no harm was intended and that there's no hidden antisemitic agenda on your part!
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
You’re no fun!CLONING NOT BONING
You’re calling names and trying to insult me just because I don’t follow your beliefs, and you think you’re not pushing your beliefs on others. SMH. You must be dumber than a post.I'll discuss the topic for however long I feel.
Still wondering where I pushed my beliefs on others.... if you're comfortable being a ****, that's on you
Still wondering where I pushed my beliefs on others.... if you're comfortable being a ****, that's on you
There isn't enough hay in Texas to build a strawman as big as the one you just came up with here.
Still wondering where I pushed my beliefs on others.... if you're comfortable being a ****, that's on you
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 17 - May 2 (Through 26yrs)











