Phariseeism is the same thing as modern day Judaism. The Pharisees were eliminated in Israel, as prophesied, but survived in Babylon, and created the Talmud in the sixth century of our lord. Modern day Judaism is Talmudism, and the Talmud is a great pile of horrifying demonic stuff.
Christianity plausibly claimed to revive a faith more ancient than Abraham, of which Phariseeism was a heretical corruption. Christ is King and High priest in the line of Melchizedek (mortal) and also the Stoic Logos made flesh (divine). (Thus Christianity incorporates Greek stoicism)
Worship of the God of Abraham long predates Abraham, and worship by an organised priesthood was operating at the time of Abraham. Melchizedek, King of Salem (and King of Righteousness), interacts with Abraham as a King interacts with an ally who possesses a substantial armed force, and as a priest to an adherent of his well established and widespread faith. As King of Salem, and dealing with political and military troubles, obviously mortal, and nothing in the Bible says he was not wholly mortal. On the other hand, nothing in the Bible says he was not also something more. In the war the bible describes, we see armed forces cohering on the basis of kinship in the male line, and also cohering with nonkin on the basis of shared faith and piety. Christianity is that shared faith, more ancient than Abraham, plus the sacrifice of God to Man bringing forgiveness of sins.
There are frequent unkind references to Jews in the New Testament. These should be interpreted as references to Pharisees, to the Jews of modern Judaism, who are under a curse for Deicide. And the way the wind blows, they are likely to be expelled from Israel yet again.
Phariseeism
The problem was that the Jews were holiness spiralling the letter of the law to evade the spirit of the law. They were, and still are, Jewing God. They holiness spiral the letter in order to flat out disobey the commandments.
The letter of the law ended because following the letter of the law had become wicked, and this wickedness led to catastrophic consequences.
Gnon was not amused, so sent his son down to tell them to cut it out. They, as Jesus prophesied, killed him. They then became the unchosen people, eternally cursed for deicide. Kings who accept Jesus Christ as Lord have interpreted his commentary on legalism as requiring them to compose laws suited for their times, their circumstances, the nature of their people, and the history of the people, but which give effect to the spirit of Old Testament law. Which seems an obvious and obviously correct interpretation. King Alfred saw himself as divinely appointed to issue laws for the Angles and Saxon whose spirit followed the Old Testament, but whose letter adapted Roman law and Saxon custom.
I have told this story many times, and will now tell it yet again. (Finally promoting it to a post:)
The Jews were Jewing God. They still are.
In the time of Jesus, as now, the Jews were Jewing God, violating the law by scrupulously and carefully obeying it. Gnon was not amused, and the Jews suffered dreadful consequences.
Legalism had become rejection of the commandments, instead of observance of them.
It was divinely prophesied that if the Israelites collectively violated the commandments, they would be expelled from Israel. They violated the commandments, Jewing God by strictly observing the letter of the law in ways that violated the spirit and intent of the commandments, and, by massively violating the commandments, pissed off their neighbours, among them the Romans. Cause and effect. And because they were terribly self righteous about their violation of the commandments, one thing led to another. Chance and necessity. And the Romans expelled them.
The letter of the law, under the accretion of new laws to deal with new circumstances, and the scribes and pharisees re-interpreting and re-re-interpreting old laws, had come to have meanings and effects grossly contrary to the spirit and intent of the commandments.
This is addressed at length in the New Testament, but is most unambiguously revealed not in the New Testament, but in the incidents that led to the prophesied expulsion of the Jews from Israel and the prophesied destruction of the Temple.
The New Testament ends just before these incidents, probably because the people who were writing it all got killed in them.
Legalism had became the grossest possible violation of the commandments, which violation pissed off not only Jesus and Christians, but also Israel’s neighbours, and among them, the short tempered six hundred pound gorilla, Rome.
Shortly after murdering Paul, James the just, brother of Christ, and James’s wife, the Jews murdered a Roman cop. And because they were as self righteous about this incident as they were about murdering the disciples one thing led to another, and eventually to mass murder on an enormous scale.
The Jews were so uptight about avoiding contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on land contaminated by chicken blood, they proceeded to violate the commandments on coveting, stealing, and murder. They got themselves covered in the blood of a Roman cop who was courageously attempting to impartially enforce Roman order to the benefit of all, illustrating in blood Jesus’s rant about whited sepulchers and his lectures on the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. And not long thereafter, they illustrated those lectures in oceans of blood.
Pharisaical legalism manifested as coveting, robbery, and murder, while Christian legalism (which is far less common) tends to manifest first in adultery, then in sodomy and trannieism.
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘The Wages of Sin is Death’
The Pharisaical Jews at the end of the second temple period wound up murdering a whole lot of Pharisaical Jews, and burned the food stores while Jerusalem was under siege by the Romans.
The second Christian heresy was the super strict chaster than thou sexual morality of Nicolas the Deacon, one of the seven Deacons appointed by the apostles, which in practice manifested as cuckoldry and adultery, as the strict sexual morality of today’s Vatican manifested first in liberally nullifying inconvenient marriages, and now as sodomy. Married priests with obedient children are unacceptable, but priests having sex with each other in a great big pile are consenting adults.
The Logos
I explain the meaning of “Logos” at length in “The Logos”
For Aristotle, “logos” (“word”) was rational and responsive debate, and the meaning of that debate – the kind of debate I encourage on my blog. But obviously this debate is going to be substantially about moral truths
Natural law is law and right conduct deduced from the way the universe is, and the way it works: the moral and social meaning of physical law, of material and effective causation.
But meaning requires a meaner, requires a person. So, around three hundred years before Christ, fifty years after Aristotle, “the logos” (“the word”) came to mean a person. That person, the person that gave rise to physical law, logos spermatikos, to material and effective and causation, was The Logos (the word). A person who meant the moral and social truths that arise from material and effective causation.
I explain the tactical and strategic consequences of this doctrine (by their fruits you will know them) in “The Logos has risen“.
Nature is not amoral. It is the logos manifest. A bird must fly, and a human must cooperate. Failure to fly is failure of telos, failure to succeed in cooperation is failure of telos. Our race is about to go extinct by the inability of men and women to cooperate on reproduction, assuming we do not nuke ourselves first. This natural condition implies certain rightful norms of natural law and biblical law, norms that progressivism has repudiated for men and women, repudiated for races, and repudiated for armed nation states, some of them nuclear armed.
The God of Abraham was the God of Melchizedek, and Melchizedek was priest King, and Abraham was not. Christianity is the restoration of a faith older than Abraham. If you purge all the Aryan “additions” from Christianity, such as natural law and sacramental marriage, it is not Christian any more. The Christian doctrine of the Logos gives reality moral authority, since reality is a manifestation of will of God. Sacred marriage comes from the old Greek Aryan tradition, and was plonked into Christianity by Jesus himself. The logos comes Greek philosophy, and was plonked into Christianity directly by the apostles, who attributed it to Christ himself. The attribution is complex and arguable, but they were there and we were not. Christmas comes from a later period, from the fourth century of our lord, when Christians were a minority in power, and wanted to pull in the majority, hence its nature as Christian celebration to which all are invited regardless of faith. Although sacramental marriage comes directly from Christ, also directly from old Aryan faith, the Aryan tradition of only one wife (all children by concubines being illegitimate and not inheriting the property and rank of nobility of the father) seems to have been quietly assumed and accepted a little later, assumed as implied, the Jewish tradition at the time being many wives of equal status.
Anyone who uses the term “logos”, as in “The Logos is Rising” is usually aggressive defender of trinitarianism and Christ’s deity, and is usually also an aggressive opponent of egalitarianism, feminism, and all that. What I see is a strong correlation between forceful support of the ancient other worldly doctrines of Christianity, and forceful support of the ancient this worldly doctrines of Christianity, from marriage to Christmas, “Pagan” additions and all. Those who want to purify Christianity from “Pagan” additions want to count Melchizedek as pagan and will tell us that Paul was wrong or disingenuous to count the temple in Athens as dedicated to “I am that I am”.
The Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius justifies the Stoic doctrine of forgiveness and mercy from the fact that we necessarily have imperfect information about the other, paralleling the Game Theoretic Dark Enlightenment rationale for one tit for two tats. And he practised this doctrine, while at the same time performing his job as emperor, which frequently required him, like Saint Justinian the emperor, to kill people in considerable numbers.
