Why were the Pharisees consistently depicted as the bad guys in the Christian gospels?

Freddy Figbottom said:
I'm certain Michael will destroy Satan and his minions.

biblical-representation-archangel-michael-glorious-battle-armor-powerful-depiction-archangel-michael-armored-332836071.jpg
Click to expand...
OIP (1).webp
 
Guno צְבִי said:
The gospel writers were writing what today would be called fanfiction.

And stories need conflict.

And conflict needs a villain.

They needed a reason for all the things Jesus promised would happen and didn’t happen.

The Jews fit the role perfectly. 99% of them rejected the messianic claims of Jesus and his followers.

So they MUST be evil.

Then, since the Jews were mostly wiped out by the time the Gospels were written, not a lot of people in Judea had much contact with them.

And what they heard about Jews and Judaism was distorted and twisted by Roman propaganda.

You would never know it from reading the "New Testament", but in the early first century there were two main kinds of Pharisees: the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel.

Broadly speaking, the school of Shammai was punctilious about observing the fine points of Jewish law; they were strict and unforgiving. The school of Hillel was more laid back, more lenient, more accommodating to human weakness.

Modern Rabbinical Judaism is largely descended from Pharasaism, and from the school of Hillel in particular, the Sadducees having largely disappeared with the Temple in the wake of the Jewish War of 66–73.


In the xtians bible Mark, the Pharisees don’t just represent Pharisees. They represent a Jewish faction within Christianity. Evidently James in particular insisted that Gentiles become Jews as part of the process of becoming Christians, and that they should comply with the Jewish laws.

The requirement of circumcision especially was a real deal-killer for potential converts among the Gentiles targeted by Paul’s marketing. Paul sought to eliminate this requirement, along with others, at least within his ministry.

By the time Mark was being written in the 70’s, James and Paul were both long gone, but there remained a schism between the Gentile-friendly Christianity of Paul’s churches and the Judaized Christianity among the spiritual descendants of the Jerusalem church. The author of Mark belonged to the Pauline faction, and slanted his narrative accordingly.
Click to expand...
I agree with your information. BTW, did that come from your head or were you quoting a source?
 
In the Bible, the pharisees clearly plotted to kill Jesus.

if you want to decide the bible is all fiction, then maybe it should just be banned for anti-semitism?
 
Freddy Figbottom said:
In the Bible, the pharisees clearly plotted to kill Jesus.

if you want to decide the bible is all fiction, then maybe it should just be banned for anti-semitism?
Click to expand...
So what you're telling me is that the Jews killed the Christian Son of God, and that's why thy deserve to suffer pogroms from century to century for the last 2000 years.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
There was no title of Rabbi then , Jesus was named a co god in 325 CE , Paul accepted pagan beliefs into his new religion in order to get followers, ie virgin birth , humans impregnated by a god . Christianity was spread by the sword . Christianity's spread involved significant use of the sword, particularly through state-sponsored coercion, military conquest (like Charlemagne's forced conversions of Saxons with severe penalties for refusal), and later, holy wars like the Crusades,
Click to expand...
no on the orthodox side.

the real side.

catholicism is the bullshit you speakof , they schismed from those practicing "Aryan heresy".

Catholics invented the niceness creed. not real Christians from the east who are also being murdered along with gazans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top