The base argument is not about Pharasee's, and never was, it is about whether or not the Bible is a principle source of the European anti-semitism that led to the holocaust. Pharasee's was a side-issue. There are several hundred verses of the Gospels that contain anti-semitic references such as these: the intent is perfectly clear. The Pharasee question was just a minor attempt, mostly on Alamo-Girl's part, to excuse one part of the Gospels of a crime the entire thing commits, in establishing the Doctrine of Salvation through the crucifixion and ressurrection, which is constitutive, and specifically aimed at definitively excluding orthodox jews from salvation.
Like your insistence that, by golly, you've captured a contradiction, if I would just quit resisting your arbitarily chosen domain of discourse, this is just avoidance through patronization; since you can't seem to figure out how to put up an argument, you are hoping that being snooty will be mistaken for a refutation.
When did that happen? My argument has nothing to do with Europeans, anti-semitism, the holocaust, or even the Bible for that matter. You give reading-between-the-lines a whole new meaning.
Once again, I simply dispute your assertion that Pharisee=Jew. (So do you, by way of your contradictory statement that Pharisees were a Jewish tribe, or merely types of Jews).
I think you're confusing me with someone else you were arguing with.