How did the Pharisees "shut up" the kingdom of heaven?

[Beck]

Right on Beck... I guess I missed your post...

Once knowledge is received it can never be taken away, that is why religious fanatics like the Pharisee's sought to keep knowledge from the people, thus keeping them in bondage.

Hos.4:7 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Knowledge leads to truth...
Rose

I also thought of how Jesus told them that he came into the world that they which see not might see, and they that see might be made blind. The pharisees then asked Jesus were they then blind?

John 9:4141Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

[Rose]

I also thought of how Jesus told them that he came into the world that they which see not might see, and they that see might be made blind. The pharisees then asked Jesus were they then blind?

John 9:4141Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Jesus implied that because the Pharisee's could see and were not walking in the light of truth...all the while keeping others from seeing by withholding knowledge, they were in sin.

Rose

[Beck]

Jesus implied that because the Pharisee's could see and were not walking in the light of truth...all the while keeping others from seeing by withholding knowledge, they were in sin.

Rose

I would express it this way. Because they said they see for they said they understood the laws and prophets which forshadows the good news of Christ. All the while still blind to the truth standing before them and not acknowledging this truth to other's Jesus implied that becasue of this their sin remains. So indeed knowledge is the key.

[Silence]

Hi Rose,
Your statement - " A good example is of the story of Adam and Eve. They are portrayed as being the original humans untouched by sin, yet Eve had an innate desire for knowledge...where did that come from? Her inner self." - is an assumption that cannot be proven. Unless a person grows up isolated from all outside influences, how can they know that their desires come from themselves and not from inferring the desires that others seem to have from their behavior? Eve did not have an "innate desire" for knowledge. That desire was modeled to her by the serpent. Prior to her dialogue with him, she was afraid to even touch the fruit on the tree of knowledge.

We don't really realize just how "plastic" or change-able "we" are. When I think of "me", who is this "me"? One of the offshoots of Rene Girard's theory of mimetics is the realization that we are not so much "individuals", as we are "inter-dividuals". We only become a "me" in relation to and in response to, someone else. I am starting to believe that this is how "Adam and Eve" died in the day that they ate of the forbidden fruit. The "me" that each of them was before eating died when their eyes were opened and they knew something that they did not know before. The modeling of desire and the relational basis for our existence is, I believe, the reason Adam was to "guard" or "keep" the garden. Knowledge is not the key. The subject of a person's knowledge is.

As I was thinking about the nature of "modeled desire" one day, I realized that the episode with Eve and the serpent in the garden has it's paralell in the new testament with Mary and Gabriel. Both Eve and Mary were confronted with an "angelic being" that was very powerful. In both cases their male counterpart is not involved in the exchange. In both cases a scenario is laid out to them by the visitor that will affect the way things are in the future. I also find it interesting that Mary's exchange with Gabriel takes place in "Nazareth", and though the meaning of this town's name could come from one of two different root words, the fact that one of those possibilities is a word that means "to guard" makes the connection to Adam's failure to guard the garden another possible hint at the paralells between the two events.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,
Your statement - " A good example is of the story of Adam and Eve. They are portrayed as being the original humans untouched by sin, yet Eve had an innate desire for knowledge...where did that come from? Her inner self." - is an assumption that cannot be proven. Unless a person grows up isolated from all outside influences, how can they know that their desires come from themselves and not from inferring the desires that others seem to have from their behavior? Eve did not have an "innate desire" for knowledge. That desire was modeled to her by the serpent. Prior to her dialogue with him, she was afraid to even touch the fruit on the tree of knowledge.

We don't really realize just how "plastic" or change-able "we" are. When I think of "me", who is this "me"? One of the offshoots of Rene Girard's theory of mimetics is the realization that we are not so much "individuals", as we are "inter-dividuals". We only become a "me" in relation to and in response to, someone else. I am starting to believe that this is how "Adam and Eve" died in the day that they ate of the forbidden fruit. The "me" that each of them was before eating died when their eyes were opened and they knew something that they did not know before. The modeling of desire and the relational basis for our existence is, I believe, the reason Adam was to "guard" or "keep" the garden. Knowledge is not the key. The subject of a person's knowledge is.

As I was thinking about the nature of "modeled desire" one day, I realized that the episode with Eve and the serpent in the garden has it's paralell in the new testament with Mary and Gabriel. Both Eve and Mary were confronted with an "angelic being" that was very powerful. In both cases their male counterpart is not involved in the exchange. In both cases a scenario is laid out to them by the visitor that will affect the way things are in the future. I also find it interesting that Mary's exchange with Gabriel takes place in "Nazareth", and though the meaning of this town's name could come from one of two different root words, the fact that one of those possibilities is a word that means "to guard" makes the connection to Adam's failure to guard the garden another possible hint at the paralells between the two events.

Addressing your one point that I highlighted in Red I would like to respond by first quoting Genesis 3...

Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Notice that the two things the serpent says to the woman are "You shall not die", and "Your eyes shall be opened". From that we can conclude, once the woman's eyes were opened she immediately knew she had a desire for knowledge...that desire was already innate within her. The serpent did not have the power to place that desire in her, only to cause her to look and question. Once they ate from the tree, they did not die...the only thing that died was their innocence.

Knowledge is the "Key" that opens every door, once we allow ourselves to question and look for the answers we can never go back to a state of ignorance...our minds become open to discover the universe.

All the Best,
Rose

[Silence]

Hi Rose,
I think you have the order wrong.

" Notice that the two things the serpent says to the woman are "You shall not die", and "Your eyes shall be opened". From that we can conclude, once the woman's eyes were opened she immediately knew she had a desire for knowledge. "

Eve started out thinking that just touching the fruit of the tree would result in death. There is no record of Eve seeing the fruit of the tree as being desirable until after her dialogue with the serpent. This dialogue was before her eyes were opened. So having her eyes opened had nothing to do with her seeing the tree as desirable to make one wise.

If Eve was really helped by having her eyes opened, how accurate was her perception and knowledge about her earlier dealings with the serpent? Did she then have clear knowledge about that? If she did, then it follows that she really was deceived by the serpent, because after her eyes were opened, that was her testimony when questioned by God. If she wasn't deceived by the serpent, then she was either lying when she said that she had been deceived, or her new state of having "open eyes" didn't really help her discern the truth.

If she was deceived by the serpent, what was the deception? "Your eyes will be opened" and "You will be like God knowing good and evil" were the two results promised. The text does say that their eyes were opened, so there is no way that was the deception. The part about being like God and knowing good and evil isn't as clear. Later on, God said that Adam and Eve had become like 'one of us' so that part appears to have taken place. The way it is written in Hebrew doesn't make it clear if the part about actually knowing good and evil took place. English translations have either "... the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (implying that they had achieved their purpose), or "the man has become like one of us to know good and evil." (could mean that they had "become like one of us" with the goal or purpose of knowing good and evil, but not stating whether or not they had achieved that goal). If they did really come to know good and evil, other questions arise. How well did they know either good or evil? To be like God in this respect would require full knowledge of both. How many people can handle that? On the other hand, if you are going to operate on the basis of good and evil, not having full knowledge of either can be dangerous.


If we assume that Adam and Eve really did come to know good and evil, this would mean that the two outcomes that the serpent promised actually took place, and that he hadn't deceived Eve like she accused him of doing. Unless you take into account the fact that both outcomes promised by the serpent were conditioned by the first part of his statement - "God knows that in the day you eat of it you will ...". Maybe that was the point of deception. Their eyes were opened immediately, but the only immediate knowledge they had was of their nakedness, and their response to that did not portray much knowledge about "good and evil" (can be translated "functional and dysfunctional"). They made coverings of fig leaves, which are irritating to the skin and dry out very quickly and crumble into small pieces. So the promised knowledge did not seem to happen all at once. Which means that operating in the area of knowledge, we are going to make mistakes all along the way as we learn, many of which will result in things we cannot make right or fix. We are also vulnerable to "not knowing if we really know what we think we know". We are limited in our ability to look back and learn from the past since the things used to record knowledge can deteriorate and forms of communication change over time. We are also limited when looking at the future. Who knows if the things that are called "cosmological constants" have always remained constant in the past, and more importantly, will remain constant in the future? We did not create them and to this day do not fathom them, so what we are left with is an assumption that they will remain the same as they have been during the past that is visible to us.

Final thought - Ignorance isn't always bliss, but knowledge doesn't always cut the mustard either. Thank God He can deal with our problems in both areas.

[Rose]

Hi Rose,
I think you have the order wrong.

" Notice that the two things the serpent says to the woman are "You shall not die", and "Your eyes shall be opened". From that we can conclude, once the woman's eyes were opened she immediately knew she had a desire for knowledge. "

Eve started out thinking that just touching the fruit of the tree would result in death. There is no record of Eve seeing the fruit of the tree as being desirable until after her dialogue with the serpent. This dialogue was before her eyes were opened. So having her eyes opened had nothing to do with her seeing the tree as desirable to make one wise.

If Eve was really helped by having her eyes opened, how accurate was her perception and knowledge about her earlier dealings with the serpent? Did she then have clear knowledge about that? If she did, then it follows that she really was deceived by the serpent, because after her eyes were opened, that was her testimony when questioned by God. If she wasn't deceived by the serpent, then she was either lying when she said that she had been deceived, or her new state of having "open eyes" didn't really help her discern the truth.

If she was deceived by the serpent, what was the deception? "Your eyes will be opened" and "You will be like God knowing good and evil" were the two results promised. The text does say that their eyes were opened, so there is no way that was the deception. The part about being like God and knowing good and evil isn't as clear. Later on, God said that Adam and Eve had become like 'one of us' so that part appears to have taken place. The way it is written in Hebrew doesn't make it clear if the part about actually knowing good and evil took place. English translations have either "... the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." (implying that they had achieved their purpose), or "the man has become like one of us to know good and evil." (could mean that they had "become like one of us" with the goal or purpose of knowing good and evil, but not stating whether or not they had achieved that goal). If they did really come to know good and evil, other questions arise. How well did they know either good or evil? To be like God in this respect would require full knowledge of both. How many people can handle that? On the other hand, if you are going to operate on the basis of good and evil, not having full knowledge of either can be dangerous.


If we assume that Adam and Eve really did come to know good and evil, this would mean that the two outcomes that the serpent promised actually took place, and that he hadn't deceived Eve like she accused him of doing. Unless you take into account the fact that both outcomes promised by the serpent were conditioned by the first part of his statement - "God knows that in the day you eat of it you will ...". Maybe that was the point of deception. Their eyes were opened immediately, but the only immediate knowledge they had was of their nakedness, and their response to that did not portray much knowledge about "good and evil" (can be translated "functional and dysfunctional"). They made coverings of fig leaves, which are irritating to the skin and dry out very quickly and crumble into small pieces. So the promised knowledge did not seem to happen all at once. Which means that operating in the area of knowledge, we are going to make mistakes all along the way as we learn, many of which will result in things we cannot make right or fix. We are also vulnerable to "not knowing if we really know what we think we know". We are limited in our ability to look back and learn from the past since the things used to record knowledge can deteriorate and forms of communication change over time. We are also limited when looking at the future. Who knows if the things that are called "cosmological constants" have always remained constant in the past, and more importantly, will remain constant in the future? We did not create them and to this day do not fathom them, so what we are left with is an assumption that they will remain the same as they have been during the past that is visible to us.

Final thought - Ignorance isn't always bliss, but knowledge doesn't always cut the mustard either. Thank God He can deal with our problems in both areas.

You are right...I got the order wrong, but you didn't quote my main point which was..."that desire was already innate within her. The serpent did not have the power to place that desire in her, only to cause her to look and question."

Gen.3:4-6 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

As you pointed out, the woman's eyes were not yet "opened" when the serpent tempted her, but she still saw that the tree was desirable to make her wise, which seems to imply that the desire for wisdom was innate within her.

All the Best,
Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

What did Jesus mean when he spoke of those who were "entering" the kingdom of heaven? What were they actually doing? What did the Pharisees do that hindered them?

What is the "key of knowledge?"

Part of the answer is in the context and then understanding the temporal conditional nature of the mosaic covenant.

1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Somewhere in the OT, it is stated that the law would eventually weigh on them and oppress them. And we know of their inability to keep it due to it's nature being opposite the intended free nature God created in man. Yet the PHarisees continued to push a obligation to the mosaic law after Jesus and knowledge of God came with a message contrary to the law. He brought the words of the "NEW COVENANT" which would be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant.

I'm wondering if the 'key of knowledge might be connected to the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ [and the Holy Spirit] being referred to as eternal life in John 17:3. It was this experiential knowledge which Adam/Eve lacked.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

13If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Did the lawyers of the mosaic law take away the experiential knowledge of God through Christ and push it aside to perpetuate their law, interpretations and codes?

34The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

35Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.

Is the singular eye the abiding in Christ while the 'evil eye' is the darkness of the conditional mosaic law?

[Brother Les]

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

Somewhere in the OT, it is stated that the law would eventually weigh on them and oppress them. And we know of their inability to keep it due to it's nature being opposite the intended free nature God created in man. Yet the PHarisees continued to push a obligation to the mosaic law after Jesus and knowledge of God came with a message contrary to the law. He brought the words of the "NEW COVENANT" which would be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant.

I'm wondering if the 'key of knowledge might be connected to the knowledge of God through Jesus Christ [and the Holy Spirit] being referred to as eternal life in John 17:3. It was this experiential knowledge which Adam/Eve lacked.

No one was ever able to keep the Law of Moses. The Pharisees and Scribes knew this and pushed forward their own Laws. The out cry Jesus and John the Baptist and Apostles against the Pharisees and Scribes was not their pushing of keeping the Mosaic Law, but their pushing upon The People their (man made) Rabbinical Laws, that were even far more harsher. Churchanityhas no clue about the Rabbinical Talmud and the strick precepts of it. Churchanity ass-u-me(s) that when the words 'Law' are spoken that it always points to the Mosaic Law. This is not always the case. The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and he knew 100% about their teaching of 'Moses' +,+,+,+,+,+, what the Rabbis wanted to add on and change and change again (six pluses for mans number is 6)

[Bob May]

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Luke 11:52 "Woe to you [religious] lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

What did Jesus mean when he spoke of those who were "entering" the kingdom of heaven? What were they actually doing? What did the Pharisees do that hindered them?

What is the "key of knowledge?"

Hi all,
I missed this discussion so I am late in arriving.
Lots of good answers.
All seem to have something in common.
Freedom from Dogma.
Knowledge lies within.
Bad propaganda.
Omitting weightier matters of the law. Faith, mercy and judgement.
Blind leading the blind.

So what is the key of knowledge? (Gnosis true experiential knowledge.)

Rose tied it to the Key of David:

Isa. 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Rev. 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

This key of David is the knowledge (his "experiential gnosis") is the awareness that David had. Even though he was a sinner, he knew that the sin would not be held against him.
That is the knowledge that cannot be taken away from us.
That is the key to the kingdom.
It is held back by the Pharisees (even modern day Pharisees) because
once a person realizes this, they, the Pharisees, are out of a job.

Ps 32:1 A Psalm of David, Maschil. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Ps 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

I agree with Silence that it is not the knowledge that is the key, but the subject of that knowledge.
That subject is that our sins are no longer held to our account.
That is the knowledge that cannot be taken away because it is true experiential knowledge. Spiritually discerned.

The Accuser would try to but he has to use the law in order to accuse us.
But since we are no longer under the law that will not work.

If others try and talk us out of knowing that our sin is not counted against us they also are unarmed in that they too must use the law in order to prove us wrong. In that case they are either working for the side of the Pharisees, or they have not come to that revelation yet.

Beck brought up Peter's Revelation from heaven.
That is the key. Gnosis,...Revelation,... flesh and blood did not reveal it to him. The Father in heaven did.
As a Catholic boy we were taught that Peter was special because he had the keys to heaven.
He had an experience that was the key to him and for all of us. The Father revealing things to us.
That is Gnosis (knowledge) and those are the keys that cannot be taken away.

Bob