Thursday, May 7, 2009

Undulating Truth-How aware should a Heretic be of Biblical issues?

Though the biblical accounts give us quite an idea of what went on in their time, we have to understand how difficult it can be to accurately pull all benefit of the text from immediate and brief readings. I may be seen as heretical for these next few parts (pun not intended), but I believe that the best interpretation is a historically accurate one. In most Christian literature, I see a divorce from what would be considered good historicity and what is actually written down. Let's take for example, the Pharisees....one of the most looked down upon groups in first century history...anywhere....ever. They are seen as hypocritical, envious, evil, and downright mean and contentious naysayers that don't know Adonai because their rules and regulations get in the way. I would propose that a more thorough search into their ideas and culture would yield something that happens to be the complete opposite of what 'common knowledge' is. Let's take, for example, the fact that most of what Jesus says lines up with common Pharisaic understanding...especially that of Hillel, one of the most prominent Rabbinic figures in the Jewish first century. What of Paul? He says "I am a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee" in Acts 23, well after his conversion. His ideas fall in line with that of Hillel also.....although, as a sidenote, I think that has direct correlation to his teacher, Gamaliel, the grandson of said prominent figure, Hillel. What of James? His letter follows as much of the Jewish writing of the time, outlining a discourse in the life one should lead as a follower of Messiah. What of the very Pharisees within the Gospels that question Jesus?...not as a potential problem to faith or as an issue within greater Judaism, but as the Messiah. Not to mention, the fact that His prophecy and His miracles made Him quite popular in some of their circles; why else would He be asked to dinner so many times throughout the Gospels?! This information alone leads me to believe that there needs to be a reworking and reevaluation of our historical ideas. What if Jesus wasn't totally up in arms with all Pharisees? What would it mean if He was one? If His disciples were? Have fun, heretics. Peace.

4 comments:

  1. I agree with you, love. I don't think that Jesus was 'up in arms' with all Pharisees. However, there are points where He is obviously reprimanding portions of their practice. Honestly, though, I think its most likely the same thing that would be happening if Jesus visited most modern day churches. No one, except Him, has it down perfectly. And even many denominations and bodies who make mistakes, also do things right in line with His Kingdom philosophy. All that to say, I don't think it should cause as much of an uproar to know his opinions of the Pharisees. I don't know if that made sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the pharisees were pretty hard core, they were like the super crazy christians that yell at people and blow up stuff.
    They just need a correct understanding of Jesus's "love".
    peace john, keep it up brother.miss ya.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the part where they want to fast and they're told, why starve your self when the messiah is here... then they were all like, "ON SHAP!"

    then Jesus was like, "Totally."

    ...ya know, good stuff sir.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In Matthew 23 Yeshua pronounces eight serious woes against the scribes and Pharisees. Although, in John chapter 3, Nicodemus came to Yeshua to learn about the kingdom and He explained how Nicodemus could be born again, we assume Nicodemus believed since he helped Joseph of Arimathea with Yeshua's burial.

    ReplyDelete