Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew "p'rushi" meaning "separate one" (p-r-sh means a divided section) PHARISEES - JewishEncyclopedia.com
the Hebrew word for Persia is Paras (P-R-S) as seen in the scroll of Esther. Different spelling.
when i used the word pharisee, it was not pertaining to jews as a people. i am not antisemitic nor am i against people with different beliefs. i was pertaining to the new testamenr characters who self righteously judged people by physical standards, not the intentions of the heart.
i love jews; in fact, i think jews are good advocates for many good causes throughout the world, including homelessness and human dignity. i love everybody regardless of their belief or non-belief
If you have any consideration for Jews, you should learn something about what the Pharisees were actually like and judge whether the New testament Characters are justified in the way they are portrayed.
when i used the word pharisee, it was not pertaining to jews as a people. i am not antisemitic nor am i against people with different beliefs. i was pertaining to the new testamenr characters who self righteously judged people by physical standards, not the intentions of the heart.
i love jews; in fact, i think jews are good advocates for many good causes throughout the world, including homelessness and human dignity. i love everybody regardless of their belief or non-belief
I understand and that's why I didn't comment on your original post. However, I do think it behooves you to read up on the idea of the Pharisees (and understand why modern, rabbinic Judaism is considered the continuation of the Pharisaic system). What is also interesting to note is that, according to some of the gospel quotes, what the Pharisees taught was actually endorsed (both implicitly and explicitly) and it was only their hypocritical behavior which was criticized.
You are therefore looking in the English representation and making a claim about the Hebrew/Aramaic words. Your quote is to the transliteration (not he translation, which reads "the Persian"). A transliteration takes words and represents them as they sound, but spelled in the letters of another alphabet. In English, the S is the letter of choice for more than one Hebrew letter and clearly, this allows people to conclude that if the English uses the same letter, the Hebrew does as well. But if I were to take the two English words "Roc" (the mythical beast) and "Rock" and transliterate them identically, it would not mean that, in the English, the words are at all related. The words in Daniel (6:29) are spelled with the letter samech. This root, pey-resh-samech is "Persia" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. The other word is spelled with a "shin" not a "samech" which doesn't even sound the same (the shin has a SH sound).
Again, you are trying to draw a connection between transliterations of words, not between words.
The one that was actually spelled "prushi" and which is used in the Talmud to refer to that particular groups (I gave you a citation to that). Why would anyone use a word spelled differently?
In a language where more words have a 3 letter root, seeing a similarity between 2 of the 3 letters is very common. It just doesn't mean anything. It isn't coincidence anymore than it is coincidence that "arc" and "ark" share 2 letters and one builds a boat using geometry.
Even when we examine different Interlinear interpretations of Daniel 6:28, we can see that the Aramaic word for Persian, pā·rə·sā·’āh... pā·rə·sā·yā... phrsi·a... phrsa·e, closely resembles Pharisees.
The word Pharisees is actually an English word, and has no definitive meaning in English, other than it refers to the group mentioned in the NT. Pharisees is derived from the Greek word FarisaÃoi, or pharisaiOn (Φαρισαίοι), which is pronounced Far-i-say. This word has no definitive meaning in Greek either, other than it refers to the group mentioned in the NT. Jewish and Christian scholars have traditionally chosen to define pharisees (pharisaiOn) as being derived from p'rushi, or "separate one."
The followers of the Pharisees had beliefs that were different from the followers of the Sadducees. But the Pharisees represented a large segment of the Jewish population. Were they separate from Judaism? They certainly would not have considered themselves anything other than thoroughly Jewish.
Judaism 101
Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife
Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.
Resurrection and Reincarnation
Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses. Judaism 101: Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife
Some forms of modern Jewish beliefs have a very implicit belief in the after life. Others do not. This arises from the differing beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees the effects of which still exist today in modern Judaism. The Sadducees denied the after life as being not present in the Torah. The Pharisees, the Persian or Parsi (pā·rə·sā·’āh... pā·rə·sā·yā... phrsi·a... phrsa·e) were influenced by the Persian belief in the after life which was a very implicit part of Persian religious belief. This belief became infused into the religious beliefs of some segments of the Jewish population after the Babylonian exile and the release of the Jews by Cyrus the Great, who was a follower of the Persian Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda.
Google
Speculation abounds as to the reasoning for Cyrus' release of the Jews from Babylon. One argument being that Cyrus was a follower of Zoroaster, the monotheistic prophet: Zoroastrianism played a dominant religious role in Persia throughout its history until the Islamic conquest. https://www.google.com/search?q=reli...hrome&ie=UTF-8
Encyclopedia Americana
"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroastrianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant(Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels, resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana,"Zoroasterianism" pp.813-815).
Acts.23
[8] For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
The Pharisees were not separate from Judaism. They were thoroughly integrated into the Jewish population through force of numbers. Compared to the more conservative followers of the Sadducees however, who only considered the teachings of the Torah to be definitive, the followers of Pharisees were aliens; Persians; pā·rə·sā·’āh... pā·rə·sā·yā... phrsi·a... phrsa·e.
I understand and that's why I didn't comment on your original post. However, I do think it behooves you to read up on the idea of the Pharisees (and understand why modern, rabbinic Judaism is considered the continuation of the Pharisaic system). What is also interesting to note is that, according to some of the gospel quotes, what the Pharisees taught was actually endorsed (both implicitly and explicitly) and it was only their hypocritical behavior which was criticized.
Matt.23
[1] Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
[2] Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
[4] For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
[5] But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
According to the author of Gospel Matthew, Jesus does not accuse the Pharisees of false teachings. He says for his own disciples to follow their teachings, but not the example set by the scribes and Pharisees.
The followers of the Sadducees were the conservatives of their day, struggling against change. The Pharisees were the liberals, advocating beliefs that were foreign to traditional Jewish belief. Jesus was a radical, too liberal even for the Pharisees, who feared that his radical views would incite rioting, or even civil war.
Yes, and if you compared the Hebrew with that of the word for Pharisee, you would see that they aren't spelled the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Hebrew and Aramaic read right to left.
Fascinating. I've been reading both for 45 years. Have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Even when we examine different Interlinear interpretations of Daniel 6:28, we can see that the Aramaic word for Persian, pā·rə·sā·’āh... pā·rə·sā·yā... phrsi·a... phrsa·e, closely resembles Pharisees.
Again, you are looking at transliterations -- ENGLISH. Saying they "closely resemble" is a silly argument. It bears no relationship to how words work. p-r-sh is different from p-r-s whether you like it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The word Pharisees is actually an English word, and has no definitive meaning in English, other than it refers to the group mentioned in the NT.
Well, actually, the group mentioned in the Talmud also. Of course, we usually call them "P'rushim" but we also use the English version, Pharisees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Jewish and Christian scholars have traditionally chosen to define pharisees (pharisaiOn) as being derived from p'rushi, or "separate one."
Yes, because that's what the word means, and I provided the textual citations to show you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Were they separate from Judaism?
No, they were one school of thought within Judaism, as were the Essenes and the Saduccees, and later, the Karaites. Who said they are separate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Some forms of modern Jewish beliefs have a very implicit belief in the after life.
Actually, some groups have an EXPLICIT belief in the afterlife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Others do not. This arises from the differing beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees the effects of which still exist today in modern Judaism.
Untrue. This arises because of the beliefs in the divinity of the Torah and the authority of the halachic system, not the denial of the authority of any concept of oral law. The Saduccees died out long ago. Their place was taken (to some degree and in some ways) by the Karaites. A Reform Jew today is still a Reform Jew within the Pharisaic system. No reform Jew chooses not to keep kosher because he denies that the laws of keeping kosher don't exist since they aren't detailed in the Torah. He just questions whether they are divine and unchanged.
With all due respect, I believe that my position as an Orthodox rabbi, comfortable with Hebrew and Aramaic and with the history and branches of Judaism gives me a bit more insight than the snippets of websites you post.
Yes, and if you compared the Hebrew with that of the word for Pharisee, you would see that they aren't spelled the same.
Fascinating. I've been reading both for 45 years. Have you?
Again, you are looking at transliterations -- ENGLISH. Saying they "closely resemble" is a silly argument. It bears no relationship to how words work. p-r-sh is different from p-r-s whether you like it or not.
Well, actually, the group mentioned in the Talmud also. Of course, we usually call them "P'rushim" but we also use the English version, Pharisees.
Yes, because that's what the word means, and I provided the textual citations to show you.
No, they were one school of thought within Judaism, as were the Essenes and the Saduccees, and later, the Karaites. Who said they are separate?
Actually, some groups have an EXPLICIT belief in the afterlife.
Untrue. This arises because of the beliefs in the divinity of the Torah and the authority of the halachic system, not the denial of the authority of any concept of oral law. The Saduccees died out long ago. Their place was taken (to some degree and in some ways) by the Karaites. A Reform Jew today is still a Reform Jew within the Pharisaic system. No reform Jew chooses not to keep kosher because he denies that the laws of keeping kosher don't exist since they aren't detailed in the Torah. He just questions whether they are divine and unchanged.
With all due respect, I believe that my position as an Orthodox rabbi, comfortable with Hebrew and Aramaic and with the history and branches of Judaism gives me a bit more insight than the snippets of websites you post.
The Sadducees and their practices were tied to the temple in Jerusalem. When Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 ad, and the Jews expelled from the holy lands, the Sadducees were destroyed. The followers of the Pharisees, who had centered their religious practices around teachers (rabbis) during the Babylonian captivity, and those who remained in Persia for a time after their release by Cyrus, were able to continue their practice of worshiping by cleaving to teachers, rather than a specific building, after the expulsion of the Jews from the holy land.
Your position as an Orthodox rabbi denotes your specific belief within Judaism. Judaism has no one single system of belief, much as Christianity has no one single system of belief. In fact, modern Judaism is largely secular in practice.
The term "Jew" generally refers to individuals who have an inherited a background that is Jewish. Half of American Jews (an inherited background of Judaism) are atheists, having doubts concerning the existence of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
Apostate (atheist) Jews still consider themselves to be Jews. As opposed to apostate Christians (like myself), who no longer consider themselves Christian.
Where exactly is the term P'rushim found in the Talmud?
The Sadducees and their practices were tied to the temple in Jerusalem. When Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed by the Romans in 70 ad, and the Jews expelled from the holy lands, the Sadducees were destroyed. The followers of the Pharisees, who had centered their religious practices around teachers (rabbis) during the Babylonian captivity, and those who remained in Persia for a time after their release by Cyrus, were able to continue their practice of worshiping by cleaving to teachers, rather than a specific building, after the expulsion of the Jews from the holy land.
This just shows what you don't understand about Judaism. The Pharisaic system is centered around a building, a core set of beliefs and a central authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The term "Jew" generally refers to individuals who have an inherited a background that is Jewish. Half of American Jews (an inherited background of Judaism) are atheists, having doubts concerning the existence of God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism
What does any of this have to do with anything? Many Jews are also left handed. This shines no light on your claim about the origin of a Hebrew word.
Interesting to note, when the Chilonim choose to pray in a synagogue, do you know what kind of synagogue they go to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Apostate (atheist) Jews still consider themselves to be Jews. As opposed to apostate Christians (like myself), who no longer consider themselves Christian.
That's because Judaism still sees them as Jews and they know Jewish (Pharisaic) law about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Where exactly is the term P'rushim found in the Talmud?
Well, I gave you the citation from tractate Yadayim, right? (I think it was chapter 4, mishna 6, but it is in others in that chapter, 5 times in total). It is also in Avot D'Rabbi Natan 3 times and in tractate Kedushin of the Babylonian Talmud. It is also in the Jerusalem Talmud approximately 8 times. You can find it in the Mechilta, the Sifra, Sifrei, Vayikra Rabah and other texts. Just do a search in the Bar Ilan Responsa if you want all the citations quickly. Also, check out the Mishna of Niddah 4:2 which discusses the decision of certain women to separate (pershu) from the Saduccee ways (פֵּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִית).
If you have any consideration for Jews, you should learn something about what the Pharisees were actually like and judge whether the New testament Characters are justified in the way they are portrayed.
Telling you, you are looking at it from the outside just like Christians do. Put yourself in Rome because Israel has become a province of Rome and those in power are suspect in my opinion, nevertheless, Jesus told us to do whatever they said to do. To think that Jesus taught against the religion of the Pharisees is just wrong, and if this were true, Paul would have stopped being a Pharisee and Jesus would not have named them as our authority. Paul was a Roman citizen who had no reason at all to put his life in the hands of the Pharisees and yet he did OVER AND OVER. What Paul shows himself to be in Acts is a Pharisee without question, and in Acts, he handed over his life to the authority of the Pharisee who sat in charge and he was proven innocent where they were about to stone him from the rumors and lies that were being told, the same lies being discussed right now. These rumors and lies said that Paul was teaching Jews to forsake Judaism and he went way out of his way to prove they were lies. Christianity was a sect of Judaism and those Pharisees our fathers as any Jew who would have known the religion of God.
Stephen was killed because liars were paid to say that Stephen was speaking against the laws of Moses, and this is the lie everyone loves to love, it is the biggest lie that is believed by the majority, that Jesus came teaching a new religion against the Pharisees of Judaism when all I see was his problem with some hypocrites that happended to be in charge when Jesus came.....This, almost 30 years after Herod Archelaus was deposed by Caesar Augustus rendering Judah no longer able to rule themselves, and when I look at that Samaritan Herod at the time of Jesus, I wonder how he obtained power at all. Herod was no Jew in my opinion, he was a proud Roman Samartan who kept Easter instead of Passover and one has to wonder about the few individuals that gained power amongst the Pharisees. Even without temptation, in any era or amongst any religion you can have hypocrites in charge.
The whole world denies that Christianity was a sect of Judaism but that is just a fact, and yet people will believe the lie even after Jesus told us that we had better keep the laws better than the Pharisees, not that there should be another law or another religion, they sit in the seat of Moses and Jesus named them the authority along with the disciples proving that they were the authorities in their lives, and in their deaths. They all surrendered to their authority PROVING with their own lives that they didn't leave the religion.
If you begin with a lie that Christianity wasn't a sect of Judaism, it's easy to see anyone missunderstand.
Modern Christianity did not exist till 100 years after Jesus died, Gentiles were converts to the religion of the Jew with one purpose, and that was to make the two, one. Those Gentiles conveted to the religion of the Pharisees.
One, I am well able to put myself in the position of Rome having to deal with a province that was full of zealot rebels.
Two, I do not believe that Jesus said anything of the things that the Gospels claim he said. Though I think they record a surprising amount of what he did.
Three. the Gentiles did derive Christianity from Pharisee Judaism, just as Buddhism derived from Hinduism. It's rather the like the man who had been using the same broom for twenty years. He had repliced the handle twice, and the head three times, but it was still the same broom.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
