lftc

The Pharisees are experts in Law and righteous living and use their knowledge of Law to condemn people

The Pharisees ask questions but do not like the answers.

Sorry, I thought you were asking who the Pharisees were.

I asked: Are you asking for people's opinions of the characteristics of a historic Pharisee, from when the sect was operational during the time of the Christ? Or are you asking for people's opinions of the characteristics of people for whom they would use the term as a pejorative to describe? There are endless examples of people misusing a term lend strength to their statements. In formal logic studies, this is called equivocation. I personally try to avoid such things, although I do fail at most things I try. But in light of that I will only post my opinions on the historic Pharisees. I am out of time, so I will not look up references for you, but as the history of the Jewish sect called the Pharisees is a matter that is outside the accounts given in the scriptures, I suggest that the reader of this post conduct their own research on the internet; just watch out for deception. Here are what I think are the important points: - the Jews had a bad history of keeping the law (we can know this from the accounts in the scriptures) They pretty much failed at it all the time - the Jews got conquered by outside kingdoms as promised by the LORD for their failures. The southern kingdom was hauled off to Babylon - while in Babylon, the leaders decided to institute groups to try to do better at keeping the law. This is the origin of much of the practices of interpreting/keeping the law as we currently have in the various collections such as the mishnah and its derivatives. There were various groups striving to maintain and amplify the teachings of the Torah, among them the Saducees. These were largely oral traditions until just before the time of Christ, when they began to be written. - Somewhere around 150 years Before Christ, a new group striving to keep the Torah emerged - the Pharisees. Their name means separatists. They were very focused on precise following of the Law. Josephus (the best extra-biblical history we have) says that they were very well respected by the people. As I certainly would expect as they were doing everything in their power to obey the Law. - As you can tell from the New Testament, they were the dominant Jewish sect at the time of Christ. That's probably enough of a history from me. I expect others to hopefully quote the numerous passages about Jesus' interactions with them. Just keep in mind who they were - dedicated to keeping and teaching the Law of Moses with understandings on how ot apply the Law to daily life. Given the flame posts I got on other topics, let me be clear - I do not believe the Law ever saved anyone. In fact, the Law itself never promises to give anyone eternal life. Jesus does that. But not through the Law.

Now that I apologized for miscommunicating, allow me to respond to the questions asked, as related to this topic of "commands broken ...". I believe the context of the scriptures are that we would know the LORD. My summary of the huge statement that is the scriptures: The LORD created Man, Man died in the Garden, the LORD sent his son to die to forgive all sin and raised him from the dead. So now each individual Man has the opportunity to no longer be dead. I say that because there may be others who are afraid of me as they are unsure where I might intend the topic here to lead. So now, JustPassingThrough. Please allow me to post without accusing me of things I did not say. I can explain the spiritual principles, but not in a single post, and I will not attempt to explain to a hostile audience. You intend to teach me by telling me to study more. Good Idea! That is what these posts are - a group study as we consider together the implications of the Law as related to the account of the woman caught in adultery. You are concerned about those too timid to post. Again - I agree. Let's work together on lovingly looking at the scriptures (logos as you mentioned in your original post that led to this branch off topic). Then those who are looking at this seeking deeper understanding of the account can have an opportunity to understand. We can make no apology for the complexity, there are a vast number of voices pulling at each of the people you allude to reading this "too timid to post". Just because they don't post doesn't mean they are inferior thinkers that do not see the complexity of the issues. Our discussions, if handled with grace, can help others facing the difficulties of understanding. Your introduction of Rhema into the discussion about the woman caught in adultery is valid for speculating about what Jesus wrote in the sand. And I tried to affirm you in that by the things I said. Not that YOU need my affirmation, but I am trying to honestly find agreement while keeping the topic on topic. Let me say it again: Rhema is essential in our individual quests to know God. Extremely important. I hunger and thirst for it. If you, JustPassingThrough, are still reading at this point (as usual, I am too verbose), please hear me: good comments about Rhema.

Thanks for calling me "bro" Sorry if I confused you. I see that you are making assumptions about my underlying belief systems. I assume that is out of fear that I am opposed to your views. Again, I offer my apology: sorry to have induced this response. From your post, I appear to have communicated something to you that is not what I meant to say. How typical of me. Sorry. I am nothing. If you do not find things of interest in what I post, there are no consequences to ignoring them. In fact, I ask that God bless you as you ignore me.

Great verses from Galations! Thanks! The verses from Acts are from a very interesting part of the book. The church is in division over the introduction of non-Jews into the church. I started to point out where that verse leads, but I am tired of the debate. I am tired of life outside the City. Ready to move on. I just want to go home. God bless all.

I see that you are intending to communicate in Love and Shalom. Thanks for that. It may be difficult to percieve with statements that assume ignorance on the reader's part based on their interpretations of scripture. I think it is fair to say that many with views that oppose mine know as much about the Torah as I do. I certainly see your point about God not having given the Jews an unsolvable goal that is any different than that he has left in place for today. Do you not see any commandments in the Torah that can not be followed today?

True, but discussing such individual revelations is sharing personal thoughts that may not apply to other people. This topic is posted as question of interpretation of the scriptures which are either given as if for all people or are not. So the topic here was intended to start discussion of what the scriptures represent as Law that governed in the time of the Christ. Speculation about the writing in the dirt is a branch of this topic that has spun off and is certainly completely open to Rhema. By the way, the written word without knowing Jesus (logos vs rhema, using your definitions) may help get someone started. But in the end it is a barren existence, no different than any other path of human understanding. You are correct.

Hi MissMuffet, a good question. Are you asking for people's opinions of the characteristics of a historic Pharisee, from when the sect was operational during the time of the Christ? Or are you asking for people's opinions of the characteristics of people for whom they would use the term as a pejorative to describe? Thank you, sister!

And rontiger's Heresy 303. Now we're getting into the real meat.

Perfect. I would guess at the manufacturer, but that might expose this topic to sniping.

That is certainly another verse that uses the word "written". And the forsakers will be ashamed. If it is an applicable reference, it begs the question of how the accusers were forsaking the LORD. They were attempting to apply the Law to a case of vile sinfulness. That would imply that they have not forsaken the LORD as they love his Law. If it does apply one could consider that they have Forsaken the LORD because they know enough about the LORD to see that the Law would never save them, that their only hope is in his Mercy that is clearly demonstrated over and over throughout the Old Testament, in the purposely recorded accounts that were available for them to study. They did study, probably better than any before them, but somehow they missed the fact that the LORD himself was standing before them. They knew of the LORD, and worshipped Him only. But they clearly did not know him when he saw standing in front of them. Why is a whole other long topic. I personally believe in extreme use of context in understanding the scriptures. So when a passage is referenced the entire context must be considered. So I went and read the whole Jeremiah passage. In it he (Jeremiah prophesying - speaking the thoughts of the LORD) is going through a very common theme in the scriptures - Israel was worshipping demon gods. Certainly this applies to the church age as well as to Israel. What I like about the thought (again, as long as we are keep in mind that we do not KNOW what Jesus wrote in the sand) if he wrote that passage he would be intending context (always remember that chapters, verses, and those aweful headings that so many publishers insert are not inspired word of God) - so the next verse says the cure: "Heal me, Lord, and I will be healed; save me and I will be saved, for you are the one I praise." The cry for mercy that is essential to knowing God. If he wrote that passage on the sand that would be really amazing. But I am just speculating and I feel that the account of John is designed to take us to the Law to understand the trap, then to mercy as we see Jesus defeat the trap so that he could go on to die to fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law. And twist their Law trap into a trap for them leaving them with no defense. And it is beautiful and so revealing that he left a trail of love and mercy, such as the woman in this story. Neither do I condemn you.

I take unexpressible Hope because of Jesus and what he finished for me. At least when I have the faith to believe it. So I thank God for your post that reminds us all of that foundational truth - Jesus paid for sins "not of ours only, but of the whole world".

Yes, if he was writing sins, you are correct - the possibilities are numerous. There are at least 613 of them. But we were purposely not told what he wrote. I could think of the things he could write in front of me - he would need a whole field, unless he just summarized with a question mark. Again, we are not told what he wrote in the authorized account (scripture), but it is interesting to ponder. Maybe he wrote just the Deut passage about 2 OR 3 witnesses and purging the evil of convicting without 2 OR 3 witnesses. That might make the elders leave first.

Yes, it is intriguing to imagine what he wrote. And the LORD may lead or allow each to believe something about what was written to help get one past some obstacle to his goal in one's life. I personally believe that the scriptures are inspired and carefully designed by the LORD. So he left out what was written in the sand. If that was his design, then it brings one to ponder why he left something that would be so crucial to the story ... unless it is not crucial to the story. That is part of what took me on this journey of trying to understand the Laws involved. The first part of v6, that you quoted above, is a more significant part of the puzzle: "This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him" . To quote the verse from the work of other translators "They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." . Assuming the various translators world-views were close enough to use, I see in this verse a crucial piece to understanding why the LORD recorded this event for us to ponder: What was the trap? That is why I was asking about the Laws involved as their accusation would need to be based on Law. It would be useless for them to say to the people "Look, Jesus is too nice" - that kind of an accusation would not help them towards their recently decided goal to destroy Jesus. They needed the power of Law, which is , by definition, rules that carry penalty. But I completely agree with you that it is very intriguing - what did Jesus write? Unfortunately, for a definitive anwer, I will have to wait until I get to that City that has foundations. I wonder if I will even care about that anymore - we have been told that what awaits is far beyond our imagination.

I pray blessings to you, precious woman. I pray that you can know, feel, experience a touch from Jesus right now. He really loves you, although sometimes the circumstances of life seem to tell you different. You have received some good advice from people here. I especially want to push on you to do what MaryJane said, find a group of women in that are raising their young children, especially a group that knows the love of Jesus. Love will get you through each day. One day at a time. Try not to worry about tomorrow, like Jesus said. When the baby is screaming for hours you may feel like you are going to go out of your mind and do something bad. Part of that feeling comes from the fear that you will do something bad. Let go of the fear, let go of the responsibility that you have to fix the baby right then. One of my babies cried for 3 months without stopping, except to sleep. I thought I would go out of my mind, but I made it through with the result of a big increase in patience. You will make it too, and then be helping other young mothers and fathers learn how to love. Again, I pray that the Spirit of God covers you right now with his warm blanket of real love.

Excellent observation - that what is meant by words is very important! Obviously in this age of internet there are vast resources available for research, all postured as authoritative. Overall I think this is good as it has become abundantly clear that the "heart of man is desparately wicked and deceitful above all things" and the www certainly oozes out of the heart of man. But one can find some good items there, such as currently generally accepted meanings of words. If you look at the various definitions of Law one sees a fairly consistent definition that I would summarize as a system of rules that IS ENFORCED through penalty. Certainly the Law of Moses fits this definition. Which then I take it that you stand by your assessment that we are not under the Law, as we do not have to kill our children when they curse us. But the LORD still does not approve of children cursing their parents. And we don't have to be killed when we don't keep the 10 commandments by walking too far on Saturday. But the LORD still wants us to rest. I see your point and at the high level agree with you. I certainly don't want to face the penalties for all the commandments in law that I have failed to keep. Not that self preservation is going to be accepted as a logical proposition for interpretation, but it is a powerful MOTIVATION to seek to understand, which journey then leads to the quest to know, really know - not just know about - the LORD, hence my screen name lftc (LookingForTheCity whose architect and builder is God). Thanks, again. Good to have valid observation about definitions and your statement about where you are at related to Law.

Thanks for the response johnthebaptist. Yes it is a very open-ended question. I will state your post a different way to see if I understand: The LORD still feels the same way about things then as now. But the Law does not still stand as Law to Christians. Is that about right?

Beautifully expressed, sister. I love your honesty. If only more would be honest. I'm not sure that the Law of Moses says that a witness cannot have done the same crime in so many words, but the Law of Liberty implies it quite strongly. But the Law of Moses indirectly makes it true - I'll illustrate with a hypothetical: - Joe and Jane have sex, but Joe is married to Aysha - Aysha's friends at synagogue hear about Aysha's suspicions about Joe's betrayal - They spread the story until Jane can stand it and admits the sin - The leaders take Joe and Jane to court - Possible outcome #1: the leaders ignore the law about witnesses and convict/kill Joe and Jane. Now they cannot be witnesses in other similar trials as they are dead. - Possible outcome #2: the leaders determine that there are no witnesses and order the community to accept that the Law declares that the crime is not there. Now Joe and Jane are free to kill their friends by being a witness in their trials. Because they love law. - Possible outcome #3: the gossip group goes on the stand and swears that they saw the sex happen. The Leaders ignore the law and do not investigate the validity of the witnesses. See possible outcome #1 - Possible outcome #4: the gossip group goes on the stand and swears that they saw the sex happen. The Leaders investigate the witnesses and determine that they are lying, they did not see the sex happen. The leaders feel really bad killing someone for telling a lie, so they just drop the whole thing. The leaders order the community to accept that the Law declares that the crime is not there. Now Joe and Jane are free to kill their friends by being a witness in their trials. Because they love law. - Possible outcome #5: the gossip group goes on the stand and swears that they saw the sex happen. The Leaders investigate the witnesses and determine that they are lying, they did not see the sex happen. The leaders love the law, so they kill the gossip group. Same results as possible outcome #2, except now there are less gossips around. - Possible outcome #6: after searching it happens that Joe and Jane commited their crime in an open field and two shepards saw them and recognized them as they were close enough to see accurately. The shepards are brave enough to face the possible death penalty if their testimony is found invalid, and testify. The leaders determine that their testimony is valid. Same outcome as Outcome #1. All of these scenarios take the assumption that Joe and Jane were God Worshippers. If you decide that they were Baal worshippers then the story gets dramatically different. Contrast all these with the story of Jesus. I see Jesus like so many here, full of grace. Beyond that, I see Jesus showing complete mastery of the Law of Moses and dodging the very clever trap the other experts in the law had set for him while still saving the woman from almost certain death. And if the just starting group of believers was starting to get the picture, a group of people to live among that would not continue to torture her for the rest of her life. Praise Jesus the KING

Thanks for keeping the topic on point!

Thanks for posting a good analysis by Kevin Cornette. I agree that understanding the ceremonies that the Jewish leaders had added to the Law brings deeper meaning to the actions of Christ. I am not saying that they should or should not have added more ceremonies. I am agreeing with the article that understanding those cermonies that were in existence at the time of Christ brings a greater understanding of the words and actions of Christ as the article you posted observes. Placing the events in context is good. I could go off on a tangent here about the Feast of Tabernacles (as described in the article) being the context for the healing of the man born blind. Another story that becomes astounding when viewed in the context. (Also heartbreaking when we realize what that man faced). But I won't go tangental. One point I would like to clarify from the article, a semantics point. The article refers to the trial of the woman as a ceremony. In one sense of the word, that is applicable: all court systems include a tremendous amount of ceremony. But the common modern english reader infers a level of insignificance to ceremony. We must not lose sight of the fact that the woman was on trial for her life, her community standing already permanently destroyed. The Law of Moses had strict requirements as to the goal of the trial which I already addressed. The ceremony or capital punishment trial was really intended by the Pharisees to trap Jesus (as the scriptures tell us). That this woman would be destroyed, psycologically tortured, then killed did not matter to them, as it does not matter to many who profess love today. My opinion only, yes. Jesus, expert in the Law, used the Law as written in the Torah, to force the accusers to abandon their EVIL pursuit of her. I am not calling it EVIL, the Torah calls it EVIL (see the Deut passage quoted previously). No Witnesses or false witnesses = EVIL. I'll leave you to apply that to the system of Law in whatever country has your allegiance. Please don't overapply my observation there. This does not mean Jesus was going to use the Law to save us. That is not possible as Jesus quite emphatically illustrated over and over. And then Paul explained quite lucidly numerous times. Law of of the flesh cannot save, and in fact has no promise of salvation. The Law never says anything about work (obedience) being paid with eternal life, the promise of blessing IF THE WHOLE LAW is kept is earthly blessing - read it towards the end of Deut. Hence Peter's words "Only you have the words of eternal life". Again, friend "other one", I liked what you brought to this discussion. Good insights!

Well said! I can see that your love of grace empowers you to see his grace in this story. I share your love of his grace - it is my only hope. But what a clever, strong and surprising hope it is! May Jesus bless you too!

Greetings, Brother. Language is blunt instrument. We have concepts in our mind/soul/spirit that exist without words. When we speak we are trying to translate that concept into a series of words in our chosen language. Our hope is that the person we are communicating with will build a concept in their mind that matches the concept we sent them. Based on the words. As I am doing here. So the Apostle Paul was doing that in the verses you quote. But the whole concept requires the whole letter in each case, and the whole understanding of what concepts Paul had been inspired by God to hold and convey. Discovering that is a journey all on its own, but I get the feeling from your post that you are not new to the journey. I think if you understand Paul's Gospel (as he referred to it), these verses communicate a concept that can be accomplished as opposed to a concept of a goal that no one has ever accomplished - controlling every thought, which you accurately observed includes all the things that pop in our heads. Jesus said "My yoke is easy and my burden is light". He also said other things that many will jump to point out in opposition to the quote I just did. How one understands all that is critical to one's understanding of the concept of the Gospel. Suffice it to say that my concept of the gospel leaves me with peace about the verses you quoted. The bad thoughts are subject to (captive) to the truth of the gospel. At least when I have the faith to believe in Jesus words. Proving what the will of God is, as He has carefully revealed to us. Perfect fit. Hope that helps.

As Jesus was being approached by those who would adjudicate the law, and he is in the location where the law is to be adjudicated (the temple courts) the question posed to him is a law question. And since they left (oldest first) after he makes his great and powerful statement and writes on the ground, she was then freed, which indicates that the question to Jesus was her hearing. Which then means that the all the Law was in full force, which means that the 2 OR 3 witnesses had to be presented. I know some of you are, of course, concerned about why I am asking this. Maybe I am trying to trap you like the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. I wanted to point out the laws that apply. I think they are very important. I think it is amazingly powerful to see Jesus in action as an expert in the Law, especially before the Crucifixion and all that that means. What a great awesome High Priest we now have.