What Will Happen September 23, 2017? Jonathan Cahn

[houston]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Pharisees weren't strict, hence straining out the smallest unclean beast, then going to swallow the largest unclean beast. The whole calling a person a "Pharisee" is a Christianism. Because they believe that anyone who is dogmatic is a pharisee. Pharisees debated over everything, not to be Biblically correct, but just to solidify their agenda. Total liberals, always claiming they wanted to be consistent in their views but swallowing a camel in their religious life.

As what was witnessed in the lives of some that used to post here. Sad.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by houston

As what was witnessed in the lives of some that used to post here. Sad.

That is what is scary.

If anyone has been here since the Jim Yohe or Vicki Yohe days. They have witnessed posters who were socalled debaters and "Bible" teachers go off the reservation never to return. Some who became straight up preaching material.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I don't understand how you can say this. They were strict, from the implications of scripture AND they twisted certain, specific rules to solidify their agenda as you stated.

You do understand. You just posted that the wrested the scripture. They complicated things, made the burdens heavier, but couldn't help to move those burdens because they didn't have any solutions. A child who cursed his parents were to be stoned to death. They just made an offering up and therefore the evil child was allowed to roam free in Israel. If they were so strict the kid would of been dead.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You do understand. You just posted that the wrested the scripture. They complicated things, made the burdens heavier, but couldn't help to move those burdens because they didn't have any solutions. A child who cursed his parents were to be stoned to death. They just made an offering up and therefore the evil child was allowed to roam free in Israel. If they were so strict the kid would of been dead.

I understand that the Pharisees were strict and they twisted scripture. That is exactly what I understand.


"The commitment to relate religion to daily life through the law has led some (notably, Saint Paul and Martin Luther) to infer that the Pharisees were more legalistic than other sects in the Second Temple Era. The authors of the Gospels present Jesus as speaking harshly against some Pharisees (Josephus does claim that the Pharisees were the "strictest" observers of the law.[47] It is more accurate to say they were legalistic in a different way."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Nice post. Took a lot of time to write.

Doesn't take away from the simple truth that NONE of the "ultra-conservative" Christians that you and I have ever known would ever call themselves a Political Liberal.

Liberalism is a broad-specttum disorder.

These same people have very, "Pharisee-ical" views on Christian living where they do "strain at gnats and swallow camels." They are very strict, very religious, just like the Pharisees.

See? You do not know what either conservative or liberal means. "Strict" isn't part of the definition. I said it earlier, you are proving it, in your world "conservative" just means "people I don't like."

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I don't understand how you can say this. They were strict, from the implications of scripture AND they twisted certain, specific rules to solidify their agenda as you stated.

They were NOT strict. They were actually known as "givers of smooth interpretations" ie loosey-goosies, by the Qumran community. They created all sorts of doctrines and beliefs just to AVOID STICKING STRICTLY TO THE BIBLE.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Without a clear definition of terms and context, we will just keep talking past each other.

For now, I agree to disagree with everyone.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Without a clear definition of terms and context, we will just keep talking past each other.

For now, I agree to disagree with everyone.

JD, if they were strict they wouldn't of had divorce for any reason.

They wouldn't of allowed the guilty to go unpunished by means of a pay off to a temple.

They wouldn't of tried to execute a woman without the man who she was caught in the very act of adultery.

JD, the Talmud is a collection of debates on how NOT to keep the law. These guys like modern day liberals want to have church without God. No judgement, no condemnation of any kind. Come as you are, and stay as you are. The pharisees had rabbis which never agreed, that is why Judaism has NO doctrine, because it is incapable of holding to a doctrine because everything is debatable. Hence the BAbylonian Talmud was born in Babylon from Rabbis who refused to return to Jerusalem. They were living all those years without a temple. Therefore the law and its temple constantly got in the way. They beat and killed every single prophet who pointed out that they were way off base. Then like typical liberal legalists they killed them, by Antifally shutting them up. Then when the Son/rightful husband shows up to make a collection, also to reconcile with His wife. But as Nicodemus TOLD US, they KNEW Jesus was of God, because He had all the indicators. Therefore she finally can get her hands on Him. She had her lovers grab Him and murder Him. She foolishly believed that she would know cease upon the inheritance because her husband was finally dead.

The pharisees were rebuked because they were ACTORS they made out like they were strictly following God. But in works/fruit they denied Him.

[Evang.Benincasa]

[Evang.Benincasa]

Get out those shofars!!!!!