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.
Where do you find this stuff?
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
I like your new website.crazyunmeritedassumptionsaboutthechristianfaith .org(non-profit or course)
where else?
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 SabbathPharisees 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.
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.
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 don't call myself a lowly sinner saved by grace anymore...
rather a saint who sometimes sins. Big difference.
Peace
Two good posts and points by 1gr8bldr and gtparts. I'm only going to take up one thought from the following...
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