ECT Pharisees vs. disciples

[nikolai_42]

If you were alive in Jesus' day, what guarantee would you have that you would be as you are today
(i.e. a follower of Christ)? How do you know you wouldn't be in the crowd yelling "Crucify Him!"? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that you might agree with those who implied Jesus' birth was illegitimate (John 8:41) given the times and what information might be available in that day? What reasonable man would follow another if he said that you had to eat his flesh and drink his blood if you wanted life?

Point being...we have great historical and societal inducements in the modern West to be Christian and heed Christ. Given the circumstances, how do you know you would have followed Christ had you been alive in Jesus day and place?

What would ensure that you would be in the same (spiritual) position 2000 years ago (all your personality, inclinations etc...being unchanged) as you are now?

 

[Idolater]

If you were alive in Jesus' day, what guarantee would you have that you would be as you are today
(i.e. a follower of Christ)?

None. My faith in Him is post-Resurrection.

How do you know you wouldn't be in the crowd yelling "Crucify Him!"?

I don't.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that you might agree with those who implied Jesus' birth was illegitimate (John 8:41) given the times and what information might be available in that day?

If I were not a scribe or priest, I would listen to what the scribes and priests were saying on every matter, I would think. Due to I am not so proud that I think my own views are authoritative, especially in a matter of faith or morals.

What reasonable man would follow another if he said that you had to eat his flesh and drink his blood if you wanted life?

I would think that he was being symbolic, so when this man went on to say...

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

​

...I would have to conclude that, "Nope. He means it literally."

Point being...we have great historical and societal inducements in the modern West to be Christian and heed Christ. Given the circumstances, how do you know you would have followed Christ had you been alive in Jesus day and place?

What would ensure that you would be in the same (spiritual) position 2000 years ago (all your personality, inclinations etc...being unchanged) as you are now?

Nothing.

 

[nikolai_42]

None. My faith in Him is post-Resurrection.

Okay...but there were many who still came to Him and followed Him. And if you had not seen Him post-resurrection, would you have necessarily believed He rose again?

I don't.
If I were not a scribe or priest, I would listen to what the scribes and priests were saying on every matter, I would think. Due to I am not so proud that I think my own views are authoritative, especially in a matter of faith or morals.

Given that the scribes and Pharisees almost universally rejected Him, how would you have any guarantee that you wouldn't have done so also - as one who heeds their teaching?

I would think that he was being symbolic, so when this man went on to say...

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

​

...I would have to conclude that, "Nope. He means it literally."
Nothing.

And given that you would have heeded the scribes and Pharisees, why wouldn't you just reject His statements as the rantings of a madman? They rejected Him when he claimed to be the Son of God...

Taken another way, if you happened (for example) to listen to a priest who believed in Christ as the Messiah - would your faith, then, stand in the wisdom of another man? Wouldn't your acceptance or rejection of Him then be based largely on which Priest you happened to follow?

 

[Idolater]

Okay...but there were many who still came to Him and followed Him.

I know. I'm saying I might not be part of that group.

And if you had not seen Him post-resurrection, would you have necessarily believed He rose again?

Well yeah. Because that's what happened.

Given that the scribes and Pharisees almost universally rejected Him, how would you have any guarantee that you wouldn't have done so also - as one who heeds their teaching?

Before His Resurrection, I wouldn't. That's what I said.

And given that you would have heeded the scribes and Pharisees, why wouldn't you just reject His statements as the rantings of a madman?

I probably would, is what I've been saying.

They rejected Him when he claimed to be the Son of God...

They rejected Him period. They taught against Him. If His miracles didn't convince me, then I'd be without hope of ever believing in Him, unless He did something show-stopping like rise from the dead, which He did. Thankfully for me. And I don't have any shame in saying any of this, because His Resurrection was part of the plan, going back centuries before He was born to the Blessed Virgin.

Taken another way, if you happened (for example) to listen to a priest who believed in Christ as the Messiah - would your faith, then, stand in the wisdom of another man?

I would do due diligence to determine if it was justified to listen to a priest who was at odds with the majority of his colleagues, I would think.

Wouldn't your acceptance or rejection of Him then be based largely on which Priest you happened to follow?

Yes, that's what I've been saying. If I myself were not a priest, then what authority would I have to disagree with their authoritative teachings? The people who believed in Him before His Passion and Resurrection, believed because of the miracles, and because of His parabolic teachings. If I was unconvinced by these, then what hope would I have had?

But then He rose from the dead!

 

[nikolai_42]

I know. I'm saying I might not be part of that group.
Well yeah. Because that's what happened.
Before His Resurrection, I wouldn't. That's what I said.
I probably would, is what I've been saying.
They rejected Him period. They taught against Him. If His miracles didn't convince me, then I'd be without hope of ever believing in Him, unless He did something show-stopping like rise from the dead, which He did. Thankfully for me. And I don't have any shame in saying any of this, because His Resurrection was part of the plan, going back centuries before He was born to the Blessed Virgin.
I would do due diligence to determine if it was justified to listen to a priest who was at odds with the majority of his colleagues, I would think.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. If I myself were not a priest, then what authority would I have to disagree with their authoritative teachings? The people who believed in Him before His Passion and Resurrection, believed because of the miracles, and because of His parabolic teachings. If I was unconvinced by these, then what hope would I have had?

But then He rose from the dead!

If the only difference is that once he arose from the dead you would (you say) believe, then what of Jesus saying this :

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Luke 16:31

Remember...these were the same scribes and Pharisees that claimed to teach the Law and the Prophets.

 

[Idolater]

If the only difference is that once he arose from the dead you would (you say) believe, then what of Jesus saying this :

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Luke 16:31

Remember...these were the same scribes and Pharisees that claimed to teach the Law and the Prophets.

If you're trying to argue that I would have believed in Him before His Resurrection, then I'll take the compliment, with thanks.

 

[nikolai_42]

If you're trying to argue that I would have believed in Him before His Resurrection, then I'll take the compliment, with thanks.

No. If I'm arguing anything, I'm arguing that the resurrection wouldn't have made anyone believe that didn't already. And since you say that you would have been in line with most of the establishment and the crowd (likely, at least), I'm asserting that you likely wouldn't have believed after. At least not on the basis of the resurrection.

 

[Idolater]

No. If I'm arguing anything, I'm arguing that the resurrection wouldn't have made anyone believe that didn't already. And since you say that you would have been in line with most of the establishment and the crowd (likely, at least), I'm asserting that you likely wouldn't have believed after. At least not on the basis of the resurrection.

Then you're not listening to me. I Do believe in Him, so if you work backwards from this Fact, then by your own reasoning, I would have believed in Him before He rose from the dead also.

It's your own logic.

 

[nikolai_42]

Then you're not listening to me. I Do believe in Him, so if you work backwards from this Fact, then by your own reasoning, I would have believed in Him before He rose from the dead also.

It's your own logic.

You're not following my logic, then. You're assuming what I am asking and then saying it's proved. I'm saying that anyone who calls themselves a follower of Christ now - do they believe they would be with the crowd chanting "crucify him" or the Scribes and Pharisees insulting and persecuting (at least disbelieving) Him? If there is nothing they can point to that would indicate they would be believers 2000 years ago, then their behavior (as going along with the crowd) indicates they wouldn't believe. So is the belief a believer claims to have today dependent on circumstance?

Maybe I didn't spell it out clearly enough in the OP, but that's the sort of thought I was trying to express. So when you agreed that you would likely side with the masses but then said the resurrection would change your mind, I was just trying to be consistent with Christ's own words to show that anyone who did side with the masses would likely miss it all and not be converted. And the idea of reasoning it out would, I would think, be cast aside by Jesus' own use of parables :

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mark 4:11-12

So not all believed before the resurrection. Not all believed even after the resurrection. Jesus said just Him being resurrected wouldn't make one believe. And man's reason would (as it seems the Pharisees displayed aptly) not bring a man to faith in Christ. So is there a difference between now and then that makes faith more likely (now)? Was there some difference between the disciples and the masses and the Pharisees that no longer exists and that ensures that everyone will hear the truth equally and properly?

What is the great leveller?

 

[Idolater]

You're not following my logic, then. You're assuming what I am asking and then saying it's proved.

No, I answered your questions, and then you resisted my answer, and so you've convinced me that I would have believed in Him before He rose from the dead, because I believe in Him now.

I'm saying that anyone who calls themselves a follower of Christ now

Which I do.

- do they believe they would be with the crowd chanting "crucify him" or the Scribes and Pharisees insulting and persecuting (at least disbelieving) Him?

And I gave my answer.

If there is nothing they can point to that would indicate they would be believers 2000 years ago, then their behavior (as going along with the crowd) indicates they wouldn't believe. So is the belief a believer claims to have today dependent on circumstance?

Do you believe that Christ's Resurrection is a 'circumstance?'

Maybe I didn't spell it out clearly enough in the OP, but that's the sort of thought I was trying to express. So when you agreed that you would likely side with the masses but then said the resurrection would change your mind, I was just trying to be consistent with Christ's own words to show that anyone who did side with the masses would likely miss it all and not be converted.

And given that I do believe in Him now, then, following your logic, I would have believed in Him before His Resurrection.

And the idea of reasoning it out would, I would think, be cast aside by Jesus' own use of parables :

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mark 4:11-12

So not all believed before the resurrection. Not all believed even after the resurrection. Jesus said just Him being resurrected wouldn't make one believe. And man's reason would (as it seems the Pharisees displayed aptly) not bring a man to faith in Christ. So is there a difference between now and then that makes faith more likely (now)?

I gave you my own answer, and you showed that Christ taught against my answer, so I've relented.

Was there some difference between the disciples and the masses and the Pharisees that no longer exists and that ensures that everyone will hear the truth equally and properly?

Hebrews 13:8 KJV indicates no, I would say.

What is the great leveller?

You've convinced me by Christ's own words, that since I believe in Him now, post-Resurrection, that I would have believed in Him before that happened too, so therefore I would not be among those chanting 'crucify him.'

What more are you looking for?

 

[nikolai_42]

No, I answered your questions, and then you resisted my answer, and so you've convinced me that I would have believed in Him before He rose from the dead, because I believe in Him now.

Why? What would have effected that? You admitted you would have followed those who rejected Him. Why would you, then, have accepted Him? To answer "because I believe today" at best avoids the question. It gives no insight into why - especially in light of the fact that you believe you would have probably followed the masses.

Which I do.
And I gave my answer.
Do you believe that Christ's Resurrection is a 'circumstance?'

No. It is a foundation of the faith (though many who died not seeing that still received). Those that I call circumstances are historical settings, environment, time and place of birth and how that affects you - your choices, decisions etc...

And given that I do believe in Him now, then, following your logic, I would have believed in Him before His Resurrection.

The conclusion you gave isn't following my logic. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it isn't addressing the OP as given. You provided the question's assumption as evidence for the question itself.

I gave you my own answer, and you showed that Christ taught against my answer, so I've relented.
Hebrews 13:8 KJV indicates no, I would say.
You've convinced me by Christ's own words, that since I believe in Him now, post-Resurrection, that I would have believed in Him before that happened too, so therefore I would not be among those chanting 'crucify him.'

What more are you looking for?

 

[Idolater]

Why? What would have effected that?

I suppose that it would be related to whatever effected my believing in Him now. I suppose it would be that I Want/Desire to believe in Him, and I would have then too.

You admitted you would have followed those who rejected Him.

Correct, and I even offered my reasoning as to why.

Why would you, then, have accepted Him? To answer "because I believe today" at best avoids the question.

No it doesn't. It follows Christ's own argument, which you quoted. Luke 16:31 KJV I would have believed Moses and the prophets.

It gives no insight into why - especially in light of the fact that you believe you would have probably followed the masses.

I've granted that in the light of your position, that I would not have followed the masses (who rejected Him). Doesn't it just follow definitively from my current real faith in Him, plus Luke 16:31 KJV? I don't see why not.

No. It is a foundation of the faith (though many who died not seeing that still received). Those that I call circumstances are historical settings, environment, time and place of birth and how that affects you - your choices, decisions etc...

OK. Then no, I don't think it depends upon circumstance.

The conclusion you gave isn't following my logic.

OK. Which conclusion isn't following your logic? because I gave two of them. One, my first conclusion, is that I would not have believed in Him until He rose from the dead, and the other, my current conclusion, based upon your own argument, is that I would have believed in Him even before He rose from the dead.

I'm not saying it isn't true, but it isn't addressing the OP as given. You provided the question's assumption as evidence for the question itself.

I don't understand what you mean by 'evidence for the question itself,' which to me, means the OP itself. The OP itself is evidence of your question. You must mean something else.

 

[iamaberean]

If you were alive in Jesus' day, what guarantee would you have that you would be as you are today
(i.e. a follower of Christ)? How do you know you wouldn't be in the crowd yelling "Crucify Him!"? Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that you might agree with those who implied Jesus' birth was illegitimate (John 8:41) given the times and what information might be available in that day? What reasonable man would follow another if he said that you had to eat his flesh and drink his blood if you wanted life?

Point being...we have great historical and societal inducements in the modern West to be Christian and heed Christ. Given the circumstances, how do you know you would have followed Christ had you been alive in Jesus day and place?

What would ensure that you would be in the same (spiritual) position 2000 years ago (all your personality, inclinations etc...being unchanged) as you are now?

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

'From the beginning' means, Cain was from the seed of the Devil. Not all of the Scribes and Pharisees were children of Jacob, aka Israel, even though they claimed to be children of Abraham, and they were, but by the way of Esau, who married those of the seed of Cain, not by Jacob.

One has to believe God's word when he told the serpent in the garden,
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

zera‛
zeh'-rah
From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.

 

[nikolai_42]

Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

'From the beginning' means, Cain was from the seed of the Devil. Not all of the Scribes and Pharisees were children of Jacob, aka Israel, even though they claimed to be children of Abraham, and they were, but by the way of Esau, who married those of the seed of Cain, not by Jacob.

Jesus' point was not racial, ethnic or cultural - it was only spiritual :

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Matthew 3:9

One has to believe God's word when he told the serpent in the garden,
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

zera‛
zeh'-rah
From H2232; seed; figuratively fruit, plant, sowing time, posterity: - X carnally, child, fruitful, seed (-time), sowing-time.

 

[iamaberean]

Given that the scribes and Pharisees almost universally rejected Him, how would you have any guarantee that you wouldn't have done so also - as one who heeds their teaching?

Most of the scribes and Pharisees of that time were not true Jews.

When the Jews were taken captive, sometime in 500 BC era, and lived in Babylon, they intermarried with those of Babylon. When the King of Babylon decided he would have the Temple in Jerusalem rebuilt, true Jews, with those that had intermarried went to Jerusalem to build the Temple.

When Jesus was born King Herod, who was of mixed blood, sent out his followers to kill all the children under the age of two. He planed to kill the Messiah, Jesus, who had been born during that time.

Jesus is now speaking to those Jews of mixed blood.
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

The children of God, the true Jews, were not the ones who wanted Jesus killed.