: :
: : The modern 'Christians' are Neo-Pharisees and we all know that Jesus didnt actually have much kind words for them dont we?: Piper: actually lark, there is a book by a pharisee, called (i think) the 'the testamentsof the 12 patriarchs' (written between 109 & 107 BC) which contains ethical teachings very similar to the gospels (read between the lines: jesus et al plagiarised it!).
Yeah, and that ain't all. While Lark's analysis is consistent with the pragmatic meaning of the term 'pharisees' as it is used in modern Christian teaching (i.e. taken to mean "overly rule conscious", "hypocritical" "illegitimate authority" etc.) the ACTUAL Pharisees were a moderate branch of Judaism at the time, and like Jesus, anti-Roman. They were comparatively cosmopolitan, liberal. They believed in applying the law in a reasonable manner. The ones who were inflexible, fundamentalist and nationalists were the priestly caste, the Saducees.
Jesus' teachings echo a part of a third sect of Judaism, the Essenes, but Jesus was almost certainly not one. Essene writings were apocalyptic and militaristic (like some of Jesus' teaching) but also narrow and bigoted (and there are very few examples of Jesus being bigoted--Matthew 15 being one, but he changed his mind). Historians think John the Baptist to have been an Essene and if you know anything about John the Baptist, you know that he was one wild sumbitch.
Jesus' betrayal and subsequent crucifixion represent a very rare example of cooperation between the Pharisees and the Saducees. The contours of their arguments could be and example of what Freud called "the narcissism of small differences", a lesson which has immense applications in the Capitalism room.
Cheers Lark.
P.S. Have you gotten a copy of "The Gnostic Gospels"? I'm anxious to hear what you think
