Christs And The Scribes And Pharisees

[Yep]

That is an interesting perspective. However, while the risk to apologists of pride placing them in the same position as Scribes and Pharisees as you suggestr, my experience has been that the risk has not been realized. Rather, I would think that were there any realization of the risk of pride, where men lean more on their own understanding and authority rather than on God and his authority, it would more likely be found among the ranks of the Church's critics. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Very much so. But, I believe it possible, even highly probable, that the second coming will follow the type presented in the first. We are told that most things are a type of another, and I believe that Christ's two grand arrivals are probably not exceptions. Given this, much of the Lord's people will have the problem that the jews did, namely a view different than, and in conflict with, the reality that occurs. Further, entertaining this possibility, who will the Lord's people be? Just the LDS Church or general Christianity? If it is just the LDS Church, then I believe we will, or perhaps do, have pharisees and scribes. If it is all of Christianity, we absolutely do imo.

Thank you for looking at this objectively.

[wenglund]

Very much so. But, I believe it possible, even highly probable, that the second coming will follow the type presented in the first. We are told that most things are a type of another, and I believe that Christ's two grand arrivals are probably not exceptions. Given this, much of the Lord's people will have the problem that the jews did, namely a view different than, and in conflict with, the reality that occurs. Further, entertaining this possibility, who will the Lord's people be? Just the LDS Church or general Christianity? If it is just the LDS Church, then I believe we will, or perhaps do, have pharisees and scribes. If it is all of Christianity, we absolutely do imo.

Thank you for looking at this objectively.

You may be right about the "type," However, I suspect it will be manifest more in terms of attitude rather than station--i.e. within the general membership rather than in the leadership of the Church (I may be wrong, but I have sense a marked increase in ark-steadying and interloping over the last decade or so).

Whatever the case, each of our biggest concern ought to be in making sure we personally, and those we have stewardship over, don't become Scribish, and leave the rest in the capable hands of the Lord--lest we inadvertently find ourselves trusting more in ourselves than God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rodheadlee]

please explain this: Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. according to a post above, the scribes and pharisees didn't have actual authority--they self appointed. sound familiar?

It's about the only thing they have in common. The reason Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees were many (see the enire 23rd chapter or Matthew), the main reason being they lead people away from the Father. They didn't recognize His authority because they knew not the Father that sent Him, nor did they Love Him. So are you trying to say these apologist know not God the Father or Jesus Christ? Nor do they love Him?

[Freedom]

I noticed that you said "anybody in the church". Sounds like you can at least see a distinction between people in the church and out of it. And here you are saying they are or at least can be authorities on their respective disciplines. How much authority, though? And does the fact that they have authority from God to know the things of God mean they really know it on all that they teach?

I have seen some members of the Church say things reflecting how they think BYU professors are more knowledgable and have more authority in the Church than an average man who honors the priesthood of God, but I have yet to see any proof that they really do.

You have seen some members say this? I have seen some members say it is ok to murder. They are in prison right now. This comment is just silly. Their authority is no different than that of any expert in any field. They do not have authority of God and you know this to be the case. Only the prophet has this authority. There is no evidence that a member of the church who happens to be a university professor has any religious authority, and I have never seen such an instructor claim any authority. This renders the whole accusation baseless and absurd.

[Freedom]

I apologize for offending you, that is not my intent, I do believe that the theologians and apologists must be careful to not fall into the type that was the scribes and pharisees. I do think a scribe or pharisee would have also viewed my comments as juvenile, patronizing and patently absurd.

They react this way to patent lies and intentional deception. They never hold themselves up as knowing more than the the prophet. You have not offended me, the argument is simply without merit but to be so judgmental and to make such a comparison is highly offensive. That you do not see this is troubling and perhaps speaks to your character. Apologists are responding to critics, pharisees were condemning and rejecting their own people in pursuit of power. There is no comparison even if an apologists behaves poorly.

Let's not comment on the character of others, please.

[Ahab]

Only the prophet has this authority.

No, the Prophet (President) delegates that authority he gets, which is how others who receive the priesthood get the portion they it.

There is no evidence that a member of the church who happens to be a university professor has any religious authority, and I have never seen such an instructor claim any authority. This renders the whole accusation baseless and absurd.

What accusation are you referring to? Are you saying there are no university professors who have some authority from God?

That would be wrong, if you were to say that. There are many who do.

[Freedom]

No, the Prophet (President) delegates that authority he gets, which is how others who receive the priesthood get the portion they it.

What accusation are you referring to? Are you saying there are no university professors who have some authority from God?

That would be wrong, if you were to say that. There are many who do.

No university professor has authority from God, the role of university professor is not in any way ecclesiastical The only person who has authority over doctrine is the prophet. This authority is not delegated. There may be university professors who hold church callings, but these callings do not put them in a position to declare doctrine or to rule according to their academic titles. They are there solely to minister to the needy. There is no relationship between their occupation and their calling. You are presenting a logical fallacy.

So we have people who are not members of the church seeking to mock, criticize, tear down and otherwise find fault with a religion they do not believe in, so members of the church come to respond to this fault finding and evil speaking and you refer to these respondents as pharisees. This is a little like putting the rape victim in prison for adultery. But setting the hypocrisy aside for a moment, if an apologists is a pharisee, I tremble to know what title you reserve for the critics that invited said apologists to defend what they hold sacred.

[volgadon]

Matthew 13:52 usually seems to be neglected in such discussions. "Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”"

I have to go with Wade on this. In this passage Jesus is expressing the valuable contribution a scribe by virtue of his training can make once he accepts Jesus' message.

Edited February 23, 2013 by volgadon

[volgadon]

He did take exception to their scriptural exegesis in several occasions:

John 5:39 (Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Their interpretation of Scripture was that an understanding of the Torah granted life (in some way), and they failed to have the proper understanding of them as a witness to the Christ.

I essentially agree with your last sentence, but Jesus' objection was not the method, rather it was the conclusion. Were his objection the method, he'd hardly have encouraged them to use it, let alone claim that properly employed it proved his message.

They did recognize themselves as the primary interpreters of the Law:

Matthew 23:1-2: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.

Yet the very next verse (which you've quoted) lends approval to their interpretation of the law. "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do..."

HIs objection to them was not that they attacked the Christ, but rather, they're attitude toward the flock:

Matthew 23:3-7 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 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.

This has direct reference to the Rabbinical tradition (Pharisees) that places additional requirements around the law -- the "fence around the law", embodied in the Talmudic oral transmission that was not yet written down at the time.

Problematic misunderstanding of the "fence." The "I say unto you" passages in the Sermon on the Mount are actually a classic example of building fences. The point of a fence was either to prevent a serious transgression, or to enable greater virtue. R. Akiva's saying in Avot 3:13 is a classic example. "Tradition (or, possibly, masorah, the textual standard of the Hebrew Bible) is a fence around the Law; tithing is a fence around wealth; vows are a fence around abstinence; and silence is a fence around wisdom." Compare the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus requires the additional observance of proper thoughts to prevent breaking the commandment against adultery.

[volgadon]

Nope. Not what I said, though easy to misconstrue that. Two separate facts: They are apologists. They (at least some) are employed by BYU. Their employment by BYU puts them into a category of being, as I said, in the modern equivalent of Moses' seat -- as BYU religion and history professors, they carry what many might consider the highest credentials to talk about "Mormon History" and intepret "Mormon Scripture", although we all know that doctrinal interpretation is the exclusive provenance of the Q12 & FP. I was saying they are "metaphorically" in Moses' seat.

Edited: As well, when they were writing for MI, they were working under the imprimatur of the Church, whether they got paid or not. That, again, would be a metaphorical "Moses Seat" -- moses being the interpreter of the Law.

A strained analogy. Sitting down, especially in a seat or on a stone, was a mark of authority and special honour. It was intrinsically tied to leadership and rule. Here is a good overview. http://books.google.com/books?id=ke5pM7EryagC&pg=PA348&dq=seat+of+moses&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AQYpUe_lDoq8qAH5-4GgAg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=seat%20of%20moses&f=false

[volgadon]

Oops, hadn't noticed that wayfarer was banned.

[volgadon]

From p. 266 of Saldarini's "Pharisees, Scribes, and Saducees in Palestinian Society."

"Mark presents them as a unified, political group because for him their salient, unifying characteristic is opposition to Jesus. Actually, the scribes probably stand for a plethora of Jewish community officials (many of them scribes) who opposed Jesus' claim to authority and growing following."