Replies

Is this then your final arguement to support the assertion that 'Parisee=Jew' and simultaneously 'Pharisee=type of Jew'?

I'll say this one more time. Pharasee is a synonym for orthodox jew, and has been since the bible was written. I brought up a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia to demonstrate that to you. It was the intention of the writers of the gospels to paint the orthodox jews in a bad light in order to win converts from orthodox jewery to the catholic church. The catholic church officially admits to this. Defaming Pharasees served that purpose admirably, just as it served admirably to defame all jews throughout christendom for 1600 years. If I defame a non-evangelical, ethnic tribe of jews who have laws against intermarriage, and all of their children for all time, who am I condemning? All of the jews--you do the math.

Your insistence that the separation of the Pharasees from the rest of the jews matter of any gravity reminds me of the great battle between the hoomoosians and the hoomoeosians, over the question of whether Jesus was of the "substance", or of the "essence" of God. 23 priests were slaughtered in the debates over this question, which is why we now live with the doctrine of consubstantiation: jesus is of the substance of god. Which is why an orthodox jew regards being "saved" by accepting christ as a violation of the 1st commandment, and when you take the communion biscuit, of the 2nd commandment.

Your words:
(1) "Pharisees is just another word for jews."--donh post 1133
(2) "What ethnic tribe, inhabiting Judea, were they [the Pharisees], then?"--donh post 1141 (brackets mine)
(3) "'After the conflicts with Rome (A.D. 66-135) Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism.'"--donh post 1147 quoting some Catholic source

My abbreviation:
(1) "Pharisees" = "Jews"
(2) "Pharisees" = "some tribe of Jews"
(3) "Pharisees" <> "Jews"

Your two statements (1) and (2) are contradictory. The statement you think supports one of your two contradictory claims actually does (the benefit of holding contradictions I suppose). However, (3) and (1) are contradictory.

"reminds me of the great battle between the hoomoosians and the hoomoeosians, over the question of whether Jesus was of the "substance", or of the "essence" of God"

You should talk with nicmarlo about that one. On second thought, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even you.

It isn't hard once you recognize an absurdity, to make adjustments, and move on. It makes more sense than trying to defend it or just glossing over it. It would allow the debate to advance (hint hint).