News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So, like. That’s totally unsurprising.
Fascism keeps cropping up in Christianity because it’s an inherently fascist in nature. Keep in mind jeebus claimed to be the Jewish messiah who was supposed to be a king, and lead the people of Judah back into religious purity, rise up against the oppressors and defeat all the other kingdoms in their small little version of the world… and enslave them.
To this, Jeebus added the whole “I’m going to throw everyone I don’t like into a pit of fire for the rest of eternity while everyone else glazes me and gives me blowjobs”
The idea that Jesus was somehow peaceful is the crazy shit.
I'm an atheist and fiercely anti-religion, but I was raised with a certain Christian education and I don't remember anything resembling this about Jesus. Only that he said he was the son of God. Nothing about rising up against people, defeating them and enslaving them.
His message was to have some fucking empathy and stop hating each other for once.
Especially since early Christianity saw Hell as a freezing cold place, not a fiery inferno. That imagery didn't come along until much later when Dante's Inferno was written.
I hope this sarcasm
Then the people giving you that certain education either lied to you or never read the damn Bible.
Am in paraphrasing it? Absolutely. But the only peace Jesus was going to bring was the same kind of “peace” palpatine brought the empire.
As for throwing people into eternal torture, that’s just an honest reading of his words in the New Testament.
Did you read it? Because I did. For shits n giggles. Or to actually see what the fuss was all about. And I can confidently say that you're way off.
You either didn't read all of it. or you didn't understand it. Are there parts where things sound nice and kind and gentle? sure. But even Hitler occasionally advocated for social responsibility and communal welfare and I don't think anyone here would disagree on how fucking evil Hitler was. Don't just read the nice, lovey-dovey parts like "love your neighbor" and ignore the fact that Jesus literally had more to say about paying fucking taxes than slavery and saw people selling animals for sacrifice outside the temple and got pissed off despite slavery being- in my mind at least- far worse an institution and also a thing he'd have encountered near daily.
Lets start with an easy one: Mathew 28:18-20.
Theocratic Authoritarianism. Weee.
And what did jesus teach them? the law of Moses (Mathew 5:17-20:
So if you don't obey the shit he taught....you're not getting into heaven. Where do people who don't go to heaven go? Hell. Fire. eternal torture.
"well yeah, but they're awful people..." you might say... yeah. Awful people who... wear blended fabrics and eat pork or shellfish or, uh. stuff... I mean there's worse there. Like people who don't stone unruly children
the authoritarian nature of Jesus is self-apparent, and the consequences of ignoring anything are fucking psychotic... And lets be clear: the thing Jesus claimed to "fulfill" was the messianic prophecies
according to the messianic prophecies, jesus would have been expected to:
*At the time of Jesus in the early first century, jews understood the Roman occupation in the context of the exilic period. which they understood to have been a punishment for breaking the mosaic covenant. After the exile is over, they're allowed to go back and such like. Then the romans come along, kick their ass in war, and oppress the shit out of everyone around there. There's a sort of angst against the Pharisees who taught adherence to something called the Oral Law, or the Tradition of the Elders, which is a sort of updated version of the "written" law. Some things were dropped (stoning children for disobedience was severely restricted), some things were added (ritual cleansing of hands before eating,). you can see some of that in Mark 7 when Jesus was beefing with Pharisees and their followers. Jesus and people of that bend see it as punishment for stepping away- because in their Iron Age understanding, the only reason their all-powerful god would allow that is if it was angry with them for something... and uh... go read Deuteronomy 28.
as far as my claims about the Messiah being a military leader... he's supposed to bring "security" to Israel... defeat their oppressors, and such like that only happens with a military campaign. for example, Zechariah 14. (i'm snipping the unimportant bits.)
As for the rest of us being enslaved? yeah. That's because of how the ancient israelites were instructed- by god- to prosecute a war. (Deut 20, again, kinda reformating it.)
Is it really so surprising that christian nationalists (and Israelis,) are so cool with genocide? I mean. really. And I know, you're brain is probably hissing and screaming right now. something like "that was just for coming into the Promised land"... but there's also the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15(centuries after the offense, by the way. which. uh. didn't actually happen.), the Midianites in Numbers 31, too. Part of it, is that this is just how war was conducted. Everybody, not just the Israelites, were genocidal assholes that would enslave entire populations.
And Jesus taught all of that.
Or more directly, are the words of Jesus, in mat 10:28: "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell" not the the words of a psychotic fucker and a threat. Particularly as Jesus claimed to be that very person? "don't be afraid of them. Be afraid of me." totally pacifist.
Damn. You brought the receipts for that one!
Mic. Drop.
The more I've been listening to discussions about the rest of the cult's book, the more evil it shows itself to be.
Most people want to be good. Many Christians want to be good, but they're doing it in spite of their book, not because of its teachings.
I was surprised to see that you were getting downvoted so heavily despite being completely correct.
Some people really don't like to hear that shit I guess.
I'm a fervent anti religion.
But your arguments are your own interpretations of the passages that you quoted. And I gotta say, it's just as bad as the interpretations of the Christian nationalists.
I didn't even interpret these passages in the same way you did. I see them as plain metaphors.
And to say that this is directly connected to what's happening with Christian nationalism and zionism, that's a bit much. There are way more Christians and Jewish people globally that reject these movements and denounce them as nothing more than a misinterpretation to fit a violent narrative.
I'm saying it's unsurprising that christian nationalism crops up because Jesus- the figure head and literal christian god claimed to be a judean monarch and was himself authoritarian in nature.
That there's other people who chose to ignore that doesn't mean I'm wrong about Jesus saying some abhorent shit.
If you ignore all the awful shit Hitler said, you'll find there's a few times he talked about communal welfare and social responsibility in a way that isn't entirely offensive. The difference here is that we don't literally ignore all the awful shit Hitler said and recognize him as an utterly vile example of human awfulness.
For example, In Mark 7 and Mathew 15, Jesus criticizes the pharisees for not stoning disobedient children. Do you think it's appropriate to kill children who disobey their parents?
So you're saying Hitler was right????
I'm kkidding!!!
It's all good. I get your point. Maybe you interpret it that way. Maybe it was just a metaphor. But the truth, really, is that the English translation is a translation of a translation of old English of a translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation and it might even go beyond all that. It could have been a story ripped off of another story, etc.
But the core principle is, like I said, to have empathy and to be nice to each other. This has always been the message.
The BHS is a sort of compendium of all the old manuscripts and fragments more or less patched together into a cohesive edition. It's not a translation, it's still in the original Hebrew, and is roughly consistent.
The Septuagint is used for the christian apocrypha because we don't have original-language manuscripts for them... which is one of the reasons they're considered apocryphal (another being that they're sometimes just batshit crazy)
The NT was originally written in Koine Greek, and the UBS is the gold standard for those original manuscripts. So they use that. (i believe we're on the sixth update to that? things change as we find more manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts.)
If you pull out whatever bible you use, it should have an introduction explaining what the original materials were found, choices were made in that selection, and the translation philosophy they used to translate it. for the NRSVue, you can find that here, even though it's revision of the NRSV (which I can't find the intro to, grrr.) You'll also note they tell you who comissioned it, who over saw it, and how the editorial process went. (IIRC, there's resources where you can see the arguments for changes, but that could be for a different version and the reasoning for it, or against it.)
While there are old translations that don't always use good translation philosophies... modern translations have a great deal more scrutiny and reliability. They're still going to be updating and improving those translations- in part because we're still finding new manuscripts, and also in part because languages are constantly changing. As an example, when Isaiah was translated into the Septuagint, the greek word 'Parthenos' just meant 'young woman'. by the time the authors of mathew were rummaging around looking for things they can wedge jesus into... 'parthenos' became 'virgin'. We have the same kind of shifting use of language, too.
Generally, most modern translations are going to be reasonable to just trust that when they translate the words of Jesus, the meaning isn't somehow being perverted. as I side note, I'm just using NRSVue as the example because it's what I generally use myself.
And then there's the "or else". which kinda sours me on the "be nice" part. Like. mat 25:31-46. On the surface, this sounds cool right? But...Jesus is an all powerful and all knowing being (at least according to the trinitarian view,) who absoultely could have, when he created the world, created the world in such a way where it was unnecessary because destitute people simply don't exist. Or baring that for some bullshit reason, absolutely could have fed everyone and clothed everyone and gave everyone shelter... and didn't.
and in that same passage, Jesus is saying that he will throw people who may or may not have the capacity to do so, into the eternal torture of hell, for not doing the same thing he did not do, but- according to himself- had the power to do.
People are people, and everyone is some sort of chaotic mix of good and bad tendencies. We're complicated like that. I'm not saying Jesus is all-evil. I suspect he was- mostly- just a typical guy for his time and place. the 'mostly' is because pharisees felt that maybe we shouldn't stone teenagers for being, you know, typical angsty teenagers and he was. (he's referencing Deut 21:18-20 here. My opinion of him is that he was an iron-age fundamentalist trying to bring back a bronze-age legal code. and there's tons of baggage there that we just don't talk about.
Ok bro. I don't know if this is an AI generated response or you're autistic, but this is too long. I'm not going to read all of this. I'm sorry.
And the part about "be a good person OR ELSE"? Like that's a bag thing? Honestly if that can scare some motherfuckers into doing good, there's nothing wrong with that.
If you can’t see why an eternal and unending punishment is not just, I really hope you don’t have kids.
Especially because Jesus tells you to stone them when they get into the teenage-angsty phase. (Or else)
Also don’t wear blended fabrics. (Or else)
Don’t eat the wrong kind of food. (Or else.)
Mutilate the dicks of your infant sons. (Or else.)
If a punishment doesn’t fit the crime, the punishment is unjust. And eternal torment cannot eve or be appropriate for a finite crime.
That's all in the old testament. It's not what Jesus advocated.
And you need to take a chill pill. We're on the same side of the fence here. We just disagree on each other's interpretation of the story of Jesus.
Mathew 5:17-20
Tell me. What does it mean when he says “have not come to abolish the law and the prophers”…?
Does that mean he came to abolish?
It certainly doesn’t.
Indeed he goes on to say that not one letter, not one jot from the law will fall away.
According to Jesus, there is no “new covenant”.
Ok dude.
Get a life.
It was also part of Republicans "Southern Strategy" to target Christians and fold them into the party. This is the result 50 years later.
That's some very wild and original claims, lol. I know you don't want to, but I recommend you actually read the Bible before participating in these things. Just the Abrahamic religions in general, it'd be good to brush up on the basics.
If you want to be all grumpy at a teligion, speak out against those that weaponise religions, because that's actually what's happening here and has happened all the time through human history. You don't need to make stuff up and try to link a religion to facism; one that was all about showing kindness and forgiveness to the fucking Romans, no less—who coincidentally did what with religions?
Did what? I’m curious what you think the obvious answer is here.
Without wading into the core tiff you guys are having, I do need to push my proverbial glasses up my nose and point out that the Romans were pagans - polytheists. From what I’ve seen they were pretty tolerant of other gods being worshipped, which is why there was a temple, and the Sanhedrin, and the Pharisees, and so on and so forth, in occupied Jerusalem.
So I think the answer to your rhetorical question above is that the Roman’s famously absorbed or accepted other religions, as long as they didn’t disturb the peace and as long as they weren’t in direct conflict with their laws - which I think Judaism and most early sects of Christianity mostly were - in part because they were intolerant of other gods.
To the degree that there was persecution, it seems like it was mostly linked to Jews or Christians in other cities who refused to make sacrifices to the local gods. If the harvest wasn’t great one season, the locals might start to blame those weirdos who only want one god for some reason, and who offended their local gods. So even this was almost more about disturbing the peace then theology.
Even then, they were often offered amnesty if they would change their minds. They just had to stop doing the thing that was pissing off the locals and their gods.
Obviously Nero Neroed all over the Christians later on but there are good reasons for thinking that was all about framing them for the Great Fire of Rome, which he supposedly started himself so that he could build his Golden House.
Anyway, carry on with whatever this is.
Nah, that's good points and all true.
My remark was more toward societal use and punishment of religions which varied hugely and was literally opposite of true or reputationally true depending on the Caesar.
Like, Christ was ultimately killed because the Romans were being so chill, "I don't get it, but if it means that much to you, let's kill the guy." Though, Christianity's own gospel establishes itself on that whole "Go the extra mile" peg aligned to that era's oppression.
So really, what I said was just broad and kind of valueless since we know what the Romans were like in that period.
And as for what that is; wasn't ever sure. It seemed like a whole lot of regurgitated doctrine that was unfortunately very easily triggered and presented in a gigantic everything salad. I think it's still going, but it really depends on fatigue levels. My only investment was around the misrepresentation and not the details, since these are all recorded and widely known. It's never nice to see history weaponised and cherry picked, but in there lies some irony.
I think at this point it's just a typical "The devil's advocate is the devil" scenario. Faceless target dummy and all.
only if your level of understanding comes from Sunday school classes that don't actually go into anything uncomfortable. If you read the scholarship... it's not that uncommon.
First off, recognize that Jesus wasn't "christian", he was an aramaic jew. You can read about what (modern) jews say here, for example.
Of particular note is that the messiah is going to gather the exiles, restore mosiac law, bring reward to the righteous, restore the line of david (because they're a direct heir to david,) and rebuild jerusalem and the temple there.
that link also has the list of all the passages that are deemed to be messianic prophecy at the bottom. These are the prophecies that the coming messiash is supposed to fulfill. I don't think christian Sunday School teachers (or priests, or pastors, or even the pope himself) is going to admit to you that Jesus did not fulfill any of them, in the context as originally given. Which is why, for example, the authors of mathew go to Isaiah 7:14 and insist there's a virgin there. ('parthenos' originally was just a young woman. it only later came to mean, specifically, a virgin woman. the orgiinal hebrew was "a pregnant young woman" and the only purpose of that was an indication of time for the rest of the prophecy to be fulfilled.)
If you don't want to follow those links (it goes to sefaria, which uses the JPS english translation).... Here are the relevant prophecies in Isaiah, Jerimiah, Ezekiel 38:18, Hosea 3, Micah 4, Zephaniah 3, Zechariah 14, Daniel 10.
Jeremiah 30:18 pretty much sums up what I'm saying here:
it's in the middle of a prophecy about restoring Israel from exile, so definitely read the full context there.
Or, there's promises of protection as found in Ezekiel 38:17-23:
verse 18 is considered the messianic prophecy, but I've included the others fro more context. immediately prior, god is saying that he's going to CAUSE Gog to invade. he's saying he'll put hook sin their mouth and drag them to war (verse 4,) that he'll put evil thoughts into their minds (verse 10,)
or there's Micah 4:11-13
Or there's Zecharia 14:9
that's a military campaign, yo. I would call that global domination. Though they only knew about a relatively small corner of the world. it goes on in 12-19
?^16^Then all who survive of the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the Festival of Booths. ^17^If any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, there will be no rain upon them. ^18^And if the family of Egypt do not go up and present themselves, there will be no rain for them; there will be the plague that the Lord inflicts on the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths. ^19^Such shall be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations that do not go up to keep the Festival of Booths.
This is what Jesus was claiming here was here to do when he claimed to be messiah (John 4:25-26,, Mathew 16:15-17, 26:63-64)
Christians love to turn it into something else entirely, but that's a straight up lie. In Mat 5:17-20, these messianic prophecies are what Jesus is "fulfilling" (as well as the broader covenant with Moses and abraham.)
and while the authors of mathew and luke are wrong every time they say Jesus fulfilled some messianic prophecy- half aren't even prophecies- the reason they went to all that effort showing what prophecies Jesus fulfilled was to demonstrate that jesus was the messiah. Like the story of Jesus riding on a donkey to fulfill Zechariah 9:9, but jesus was never a king in jerulsalem and just riding a donkey isn't fulfillment of that.
As for the eternal torture... C'mon. Jesus practically got off on all that torture.
whose the one making shit up?
I imagine Hitler said some nice things from time to time. he was still an awful fucking human. Most people are just people. No one is all-evil or all-good. So what's your point? that the bible contradicts itself? this is known.
What I do know is that the words of Jesus in the NT contain some absolutely horrific shit and absolutely would- and should- be equated as "fascism" in modern parlance. I mean, in the words of jesus himself, as recorded in the NT: "Don't be scared of the guy who can kill you... be scared of ME as I claim to be the guy who can kill you AND TORTURE YOU FOR FUCKING ETERNITY!"
Yeah. that totally sounds like a pacifist.
Which brings us back to reading the bible, no? Like. Seriously. there's parts that are like "Don't be an ass", there's parts that are trying to not be assholish, but would be so today, and then there's parts that are total assholery. I'm not ignoring the parts that are "don't be an ass" but I'm also not ignoring the assholery, or the parts where they try to not be assholes but we'd say they are. (like those bits about not beating your slaves to death. yeah. Like. it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they don't die that day.)
Jesus was absolutely teaching the Torah and the written law of moses, as stated in mat 5:17-20. not that christians seem to understand that. the implication here is that Jesus was totally on board with all the horrific shit in the "old" testament. including slavery, and it being permissible to beat your slaves to an inch of their lives, so long as they don't day in a day or two.
Most of what you're posting isn't fact-checking, it's traditional interpretation vs another, on a position of truth, just like a Sunday school teacher acts themselves.
You've done little much more than kind of point out some distinctions of why the Christian ideology came to exist while neglecting the foundational ones. Yes, obviously there's contention of Christ meeting messianic criteria which is literally the whole fucking thing of Abrahamic religions being a plural. But then at the same time you keep referencing the Bible but no other literature whether Judaic, Islamic, or even Mesopotamian/Babylonian laws that suspiciously made their way over amongst other things.
Despite this, you seem to have picked full affirmation based on what the Torah asserts, despite being one of the main splits of Christianity. Completely glossing over how the entire function of Christian law in the NT is deeply covered by Paul—kind of the main guy that defined it all in detail, kicking off the ideology that would be established nearly three centuries later... Through the power of junk mail to different Mediterranean cities and societies, of all methods. Seriously, I don't know how modern Thessaloniki somehow managed to be cooler than other Greek cities despite being an epicentre.
And then, out of no where, fast-forward to fascism? lol
I don't think a 1st century apocalyptic preacher or even a 120-year old Nile baby is what Benito had in mind when establishing a political ideology of state rule over all other entities, including religions.
You've certainly got a position and I do not think it's scholarly nor without personal religious influence.
You don’t get to claim that a book is the word of god with binding commandments and then say that the book is incomplete and subject to interpretation.
Which book?
I can't tell if you're being rhetorical. There's many books like this...
Isn’t that a clue that they’re all bullshit and shouldn’t be heeded?
If it worked that way, we'd be ignoring sciences too. Unfortunately the only way is through good old-fashioned critical thought, which is difficult when "spread the word" is baked in.
Citing any religious text as though it holds value is reserved only for fools. There is a reality that doesn't change regardless of whether religious texts align to it or not, which makes their contents historically interesting but ultimately weightless, worthless.
Edit: my line of questioning was too harsh. But gosh I really don’t even get what you’re trying to imply about intellectual reasoning.
Can you expand on this? That’s a pretty unhinged thing to say. Do you believe that there is One Godly Scientist that writes all Scientific Texts? Is The Scientific Man Who Writes All Scientific Texts in the room with us right now?
"BUT BUT PAUL SAID!"
Paul disagrees with Jesus. so if you follow Jesus, then Paul is a heretic. Mathew 5:17-20 makes that exceptionally clear- the law of moses as written is to be in force until the earth itself passes away.
I've not mentioned Paul because he's fucking irrelevant to what JESUS says. But of course you want to dodge to that. Not that it particularly makes things better. Paul was the kind of ass who sent a ran-away slave back to his owner so that the owner could give him back to Paul as a servant. Paul doesn't overturn slavery either- and indeed tells slaves to obey their masters. He tells women to obey their husbands and be silent in church. None of this is particularly new or revalatory.
"But they were disciples!"
All a disciple was, is a follower. The women of influence in the bible were largely (rich) people with houses that the early church met at. and while bringing religious affairs into homes like that did give women more access and influence, "WOMEN BE SILENT" is Paul's instruciton. Details suck, amirite?
the definition of fascism:
Mussolini wasn't the first authoritarian autocrat to exist. Jesus himself says that:
3.2) Is a king of the line of david.
3.3) that would defeat all of Israel's enemies
3.4) and institute mosiac law on a global scale
3..5) through military force.
Yeah. Seems pretty fascist to me. Most societies back then were pretty fascist and that sometimes gets glossed over. Particularly when people today want to justify following some dude's iron age fundamentalist yearnings for bronze age legal codes.... details, amirite?
I'm curious as to why I should consider the teachings of Mohamed when talking about the teachings of Jesus?
Explain that to me. Should I also go to the Buddha, as well? Hell. why don't we go to the shamanism found in central America? or maybe the Sentinel Islanders, who I'm sure have some thoughts...
Nice distraction. As for not including judaic literature... I have been indirectly this entire time. If you don't like the NSRVUE translation of that literature, would you prefer the JPS? you can find it at Sefaria.org. Given that the topic is Christianity, though, I'd just as soon not put in that work. You're welcome to cite that if you think you'll find something relevant.
You're definitely a former Christian. Maybe Jewish Either way you were a suburban warrior and that "training" disallows you from being subjective.
Or I'm completely wrong and you just somehow naturally landed in your pile of bullshit lol.
I encourage more reading.
I’m incablemof being subjective?
What does that even mean?
Did you mean “objective”?- ie, that I can’t look at things without my personal bias?
Cuz I’d agree with that I can’t be objective- and yes, I’m considering it all from my personal subjective understanding.
As for “Mussolini invented fascism” … that’s a bit naive. Actually, that’s very naive. Yeah he named what we fascism today. He started the first National Fascist Party in Italy, too.
his fascism was a blend of nationalism, populism and extreme authoritarianism.
Now let’s consider that blend in the context of Jesus.
Claiming to be the messiah- a king of the line of David, who would defeat military enemies of Israel and liberate the oppressed Israelites and institute the theocratic monarchy, and lead that theocratic monarchy to control the entire world- means he’s very fucking nationalist.
He claims all authority comes from god. And that be is god, and that disobedience leads to death and eternal torture… he’s extremely fucking authoritarian.
His views of liberating the oppressed and uplifting the destitute; against the uncaring, immoral elite (Pharisees) who led the Jewish people away from the Law, and caused god to be angry with them and who allowed the Roman’s to oppress them in punishment.
So yeah. The term applies, even if it’s uncomfortable to admit, even if it’s anachronistic, does that change that the two have very similar commonalities?