Does Jesus Love Everyone?

[moonflower2]

Moonflower,

     Don't throw out the baby with the baptismal water ...  All my Christian life I had been taught that baptism is for believers & therefore not for infants.  At the reformed church I now attend, I was surprised to see the ceremonial "baptism" of infants in an entirely different light:
     These children may not be baptized until the parents have sat through and agreed with a series of instruction on what their responsibilities are to Christ, as regards their home and children.  The service itself is very similar to (waterless) "dedication" practices in other churches, connoting no transference of status to the child, but signifying the public commitment of the parents to rear the child in all the ways of the Lord.  I find the practice exciting, encouraging, and was thrilled to find living examples of its fruits attending the church as children and as adults.

Al,

The only problem is putting the baby IN the bathwater.   Infant baptism isn't scriptural.
They say that infant baptism takes the place of the ceremonial circumcision of the Jews. They do believe that their children are saved and that the baptism is a sign and seal that they belong to the Lord. I was in the CRC and maybe the form that they read there is different from the form read in the reformed church.
I agree with you that they place great value on their children and take seriously the job of raising the children that were given them by God.  

Moonflower2

[moonflower2]

Moonflower----


The sense of being "Elite", of "being different than other churches who don't have the vision", and being critical of other christians and christian groups was a strong type of carnality and a sin of the spirit rather than the flesh. "When you say I am of Cephas, or I am of Appollos, or I am of Paul, or I am of Christ(the Assembly fits in here well) are ye not carnal?"  "WE are the true flock of God, the little flock, though small in numbers, we are following the true pattern of God. We need to all be of the same mind--the mind of George, oops, I mean of Christ, and take up our cross and follow "him", oops,  I mean "HIM"."  


--Joe

I agree with you, but the CRC had the same mentality of the assemblies in the older generations. Your paragraph above accurately describes the CRC when I was a child. We kids rebelled from the legalism when we went away to school. I, myself wondered why the other kids went to church on Sunday when there was no one there to make them go.  Pretty sad.
The CRC had rooms and clubs named after Calvin.  Calvin was the way, the truth and the light to them.  
When I first came out to the assembly, I wondered why all the legalism, but figured that maybe they would mature and "grow" out of it.  
The church I'm going to now is a peaceful place compared to the assembly mentality, and it is not run by a thieving dictator.  

Anyone out there want to join a IHGG club? We could make all kinds of dart boards, if anyone has any pictures around that haven't been burned yet.

IHateGeorgeGeftakys

Excuse me, I'm just having a senior moment.  

[Arthur]

I agree with you, but the CRC had the same mentality of the assemblies in the older generations. Your paragraph above accurately describes the CRC when I was a child. We kids rebelled from the legalism when we went away to school. I, myself wondered why the other kids went to church on Sunday when there was no one there to make them go.  Pretty sad.
The CRC had rooms and clubs named after Calvin.  Calvin was the way, the truth and the light to them.  

Hi Moonflower,

Were you in the Calvinettes (I think you're a female based on what you said, if not I'm sorry)?  I was in the cadets for four years.  
"Thankful to God for his gifts to me, I pledge myself to be ready to serve God, my parents, my country, my church, my neighbor, and my corp."  
"A cadet is reverent, obedient, compassionate, consecrated, trustworthy, pure, grateful, loyal, industrious, cheerful."

heh

Though there may have been elements of Phariseeism and Pharisacial people in the CRC, no doubt that was/is the same in most churches (maybe even more so before the revolutions that took place in the 60's and 70's).  However, it was nowhere near like the assembly.  I do remember some elite thinking, some hypocrisy, etc., but I also remember the love there and that it was a safe place to grow up.  Overall, I'd say that most of the people in the reformed churches that I know are pretty balanced and good-natured people. There are some exceptions of course.  

As far as how it was years ago, I heard that movies, dancing and playing cards were taboo.  My dad also told me that when the reverend (that's what the called the pastors back then) came over, the TV had to go in the closet. Sound familar?  lol, but that was until they heard the preacher's wife talking about what a good episode she saw on Gunsmoke.  

When I first came out to the assembly, I wondered why all the legalism, but figured that maybe they would mature and "grow" out of it.  

You know, it's funny you mention that.  Those were my thoughts exactly.  I thought that overall we've got a good thing going here--some good ideals and love for God, living by the Bible, etc.  There's some strangeness here, some taking things too far, but I'm sure that if we keep close to the Word, in time we'll all mature past that.

Well, that was before I learned of all the skeletons in the closet, and that was before the true nature of the beasts in leadership were revealed.  I don't think I would have been quite so hopeful, scratch that, I would have never set foot in the door in the first place.

Arthur

[moonflower2]

I agree with you, but the CRC had the same mentality of the assemblies in the older generations. Your paragraph above accurately describes the CRC when I was a child. We kids rebelled from the legalism when we went away to school. I, myself wondered why the other kids went to church on Sunday when there was no one there to make them go.  Pretty sad.
The CRC had rooms and clubs named after Calvin.  Calvin was the way, the truth and the light to them.  
When I first came out to the assembly, I wondered why all the legalism, but figured that maybe they would mature and "grow" out of it.  

Hi Moonflower,

Were you in the Calvinettes (I think you're a female based on what you said, if not I'm sorry)?  I was in the cadets for four years.  
"Thankful to God for his gifts to me, I pledge myself to be ready to serve God, my parents, my country, my church, my neighbor, and my corp."  
"A cadet is reverent, obedient, compassionate, consecrated, trustworthy, pure, grateful, loyal, industrious, cheerful."

heh

 
Yeah, I was in Calvinettes.   It's been a while, but I remember having to sew little badges on a white scarf that had to do with character or something. I think we had to learn a few verses in order to earn a badge. Frankly, I learned more at the Bible school in summer at the local Bible church in Berwyn, and a girls camp that was not run by the CRC than anything in sunday school, catechism or Calvinettes  .
I needed this smile tonight.
Hey, did your grandparents come over on the boat like mine from the "old country", ja?

[Arthur]

 
Yeah, I was in Calvinettes.   It's been a while, but I remember having to sew little badges on a white scarf that had to do with character or something. I think we had to learn a few verses in order to earn a badge. Frankly, I learned more at the Bible school in summer at the local Bible church in Berwyn, and a girls camp that was not run by the CRC than anything in sunday school, catechism or Calvinettes  .
I needed this smile tonight.
Hey, did your grandparents come over on the boat like mine from the "old country", ja?

My dad and his fam. from Delft in '47 via boat, my mom and her fam. from Hgroniegen in 62' via airplane.  I think I spelled the H-word incorrectly.

Those scarfs were cute.  I think I had my mom sew mine on that snazy merit badge holder that the boys wore.  

Arthur

[moonflower2]

Arthur,

I just found your second paragraph.
I guess it depended on which CRC people you were with. One side of my family was easy-going and fun to be around. Grandma soaked raisins in whiskey for the annual treat of buden younges or something that sounded like that, and would gobble them down before Christmas even came near.
The other side was really straight-laced and couldn't even listen to the ball game on the radio on Sunday. Playing cards were called something like"duivel kuiten" = devil cards.  
Maybe it depended on the group of people you were with. A cousin of mine described our Christian school as, "...sure, we went to a "Christian" school; we had Bible class."  

You are from California? That may be the difference right there. We had the influence of Al Capone in our back yard that we had to constantly be guarded against.   I had a couple of great room-mates from California who were CRC bred. They were more laid-back and innocent than we hoods from the outskirts of the windy city.  But we taught them how to smoke, you know, they had to learn to enjoy the real things in life.  

But yeah, even some CRC vistors that we brought out to an assembly meeting said that it was just like the CRC church to them. It might just be the area and the particular people in the area. Our particular group of people were originally from the Groningen "Quarter" (ghetto) in the city.

[Arthur]

I guess it depended on which CRC people you were with. One side of my family was easy-going and fun to be around. Grandma soaked raisins in whiskey for the annual treat of buden younges or something that sounded like that, and would gobble them down before Christmas even came near.

How about olie-bolen for new years?  I think that literally means fat-balls.

The other side was really straight-laced and couldn't even listen to the ball game on the radio on Sunday.

Oh yeah, and how about that you can't go to McDonald's on Sunday (or buy anything else for that matter).   Reason-being that it's not right to work on Sunday or even make other people work.

You are from California? That may be the difference right there. We had the influence of Al Capone in our back yard that we had to constantly be guarded against.   I had a couple of great room-mates from California who were CRC bred. They were more laid-back and innocent than we hoods from the outskirts of the windy city.  But we taught them how to smoke, you know, they had to learn to enjoy the real things in life.  

Yes, from the golden state.  I heard about what happened to my friends when they go away to Calvin, including the heavy smoking. I've also heard of some churches being a bit more prejudiced in the midwest. I had a friend who, when in high school, highly criticized smoking and drinking.  Then he went to Calvin College and came back a changed man.  

But yeah, even some CRC vistors that we brought out to an assembly meeting said that it was just like the CRC church to them. It might just be the area and the particular people in the area. Our particular group of people were originally from the Groningen "Quarter" (ghetto) in the city.

Interesting.  I would think it would be different in that there was no organ, no bulletin indicated the church service structure, no passing of the plate, and not just one pastor spoke but three brothers from the laity.
I brought one fellow CRC'er to an assembly worship time.  After it was over I asked him what he thought.  He said that he thought it went a bit long and he asked me if there were any checks on the leadership's decisions or doctorine.  Sharp guy.  

What is this Groningen ghetto?  The people that are there are from that part of The Netherlands?

Arthur

[H]

H,

     The nature of the many questions you present as evidence of the correctness of your position is troubling.  The whole "If God means thus-and-so, why would He do such-and-such?" concept seems too similar to the "If God is Love, why does He allow suffering?" arguments of the heathen (who rage & imagine a vain thing! ).  These they pose as questions, not really seeking answers, but in hopes of stymieing believers and thus shutting down their witness.
     I hope I'm wrong, but I get the impression that your questions are not asked in search of greater understanding, but to persuade others of your viewpoint.  Let me be clear:  I do not believe the desire of your heart is less than to honor Christ!  It is only the method of your presentation that I question.  Is it honest?

     I ask you in all sincerity:  What is the urgency of your point of view?  How has believing what you now do, as opposed to what you once did (and please define the two clearly) affect your relationship to Christ, and your daily life?

I promise you, I want to know...

al

Dear al,

thanks for your thoughtful comments. Sorry to hear that my post has given you a negative impression. I readily admit that my questions are mostly of a rhetorical nature and are primarily designed to try and persuade others of what I believe to be the truth. The Apostle Paul sometimes used rhetorical questions to make a point, so I believe that it is a legitimate and Biblical method, but perhaps I shouldn't have used it in this case. Do you want me to delete the post? I am perfectly willing to do so if you want me to. I am also willing to re-write it so as to remove the rhetorical questions and simply present a list of Biblical facts and passages which have led me to conclude that God does not love all men, at least not equally.

As for the "urgency" of my point of view, I did not start this thread and lots of others had posted their views before I finally decided to contribute, so I don't think I have exhibited all that much "urgency." But I do think it is important to believe and speak the truth about God, and I think it is not good to believe and speak things about God that are not true.  

As for how my change in belief has affected my relationship to Christ, I would say that it has strengthened it considerably. Before, passages such as the ones I cited bothered me, since I had a hard time seeing how to reconcile them with the idea that God loves everyone. Once I realized that the Bible doesn't teach that God loves everyone, at least not equally, the problem disappeared, and these passages no longer bother me. God's love has also become much more personal and much more precious to me, for which I am profoundly grateful.

May the Lord bless you!

H

[al Hartman]

Dear al,

thanks for your thoughtful comments. Sorry to hear that my post has given you a negative impression. I readily admit that my questions are mostly of a rhetorical nature and are primarily designed to try and persuade others of what I believe to be the truth. The Apostle Paul sometimes used rhetorical questions to make a point, so I believe that it is a legitimate and Biblical method, but perhaps I shouldn't have used it in this case. Do you want me to delete the post? I am perfectly willing to do so if you want me to. I am also willing to re-write it...

H,

     You have answered my questions , and I am grateful.  I would never ask someone to delete or alter a post for my sake.  It says what it says.  I have questioned it, and you have answered me...
     Thank you.

As for the "urgency" of my point of view, I did not start this thread and lots of others had posted their views before I finally decided to contribute, so I don't think I have exhibited all that much "urgency."

***But I do think it is important to believe and speak the truth about God, and I think it is not good to believe and speak things about God that are not true.
 

     Again, thank you.  My use of the word "urgency" may have been misleading...  By it I meant to divide between what must be believed and what may be believed.
     My own personal awakening to the realty of God's grace shown us in Jesus Christ has had much the same effect upon me as the sentiments which you:

    As for how my change in belief has affected my relationship to Christ, I would say that it has strengthened it considerably.  
     ...God's love has also become much more personal and much more precious to me, for which I am profoundly grateful.

...and Verne:

The implications of the doctrine of election first began to dawn on me as I read John Owen's writings. The effect on me was similar.
I bacame absolutely overwhelmed with an incredible sense of wonder, astonishment, fear, shame, disbelief. unspeakable joy, gratititude.

I looked up into the face of my heavenly father and asked in trembling wonder:

"You actually chose somebody like me??!!"

...have expressed.  Yet I get the impression that you both think that I (every saint) must decide at once and for always on the question of free will or I (we/they) cannot advance to the "next level" (be a real Christian).  That is what I meant by "urgent."  Is it, or isn't it?  

***In reference to your quote (underscored) above, H:  
     Are we discussing what is or is not absolutely and unquestionably true, or what you believe, but cannot prove beyond doubt to be true?  The debate that has continued for centuries between seemingly equally committed believers would appear to indicate the latter, making specious any implication that faith on the wrong side of the question is inferior.


...still learning...still hoping to learn,
al

[Arthur]

When Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", I  think that he was not referring to the Pharisees.  Reason being that they knew what they were doing.  I believe this because of the parable of the husbandmen(tenants) which Jesus declares as found in Matt 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20.  

The Bible states that the Pharisees knew this parable was in reference to them.  In the parable, the tenants know that the last representative sent by the Father was the Father's only Son and they premeditated his murder for the purpose that they may then gain his inheritance, since by the death of his only Son, the Father would be left without an heir, or so they reckoned. They did not take into account the resurrection, which they later also tried to deny, even to the point of creating a false account of it.

This being the case, how could it be said that Jesus was referring to the Pharisees when he asked the Father to forgive those who crucified him in ignorance?

Thoughts?

Arthur

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.  Matt 21

[al Hartman]

When Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do", I  think that he was not referring to the Pharisees.  Reason being that they knew what they were doing.  I believe this because of the parable of the husbandmen(tenants) which Jesus declares as found in Matt 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20.  

The Bible states that the Pharisees knew this parable was in reference to them.  In the parable, the tenants know that the last representative sent by the Father was the Father's only Son and they premeditated his murder for the purpose that they may then gain his inheritance, since by the death of his only Son, the Father would be left without an heir, or so they reckoned. They did not take into account the resurrection, which they later also tried to deny, even to the point of creating a false account of it.

This being the case, how could it be said that Jesus was referring to the Pharisees when he asked the Father to forgive those who crucified him in ignorance?

Thoughts?

Arthur

Arthur,

     Maybe it's just me, but I can't see that they understood anything more than that Jesus was somehow speaking about them.  They were angry that this laborer dared to speak out against them, angry that the people listened to Him & "took Him for a prophet," and, perhaps angriest of all because while they understood that He was painting them in a bad light, they had no idea what He was really saying.  They readily admitted that the husbandmen who killed the landowner's son were "wicked men," before they understood that Jesus was referring to them.  
     They were insulted that He dared to challenge their understanding of the scriptures, and that He dared tell them that God would take away His kingdom from them & give it to another nation, but there is no indication that they grasped His reference to Himself as the Head Cornerstone...  I think their intent in seeking His death was to shut Him up from making them look bad before the people & the Roman government, but I can't see that they ever believed He was sent from God.

Solamente mis dos centavos,
al

33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.  Matt 21

[moonflower2]

How about olie-bolen for new years?  I think that literally means fat-balls.

They had raisins in them, didn't they? And how about that yummy banket, the long pastry with the almond filling?

Oh yeah, and how about that you can't go to McDonald's on Sunday (or buy anything else for that matter).   Reason-being that it's not right to work on Sunday or even make other people work.

Exactly. And the Sunday no-swimming rule on vacation. Lots of pier shenanigans and the ensuing public humiliation and consequences. The water really was warmer on Sunday! The devil made it that way.  

I've also heard of some churches being a bit more prejudiced in the midwest.

I agree that the Midwest is more prejudiced than the east or west coasts. But I have to relate an incident that may have put a few churches in an unfair light. Tell me if you see it differently.
There was a Christian school in Cicero to which some black families wanted to send their children. The town of Cicero mobbed the first meeting that the school held to discuss the matter, so that the meeting couldn't be held. The town threatened to blow up the school. The police of Cicero said that they would not/could not give police protection to the school or any of the kids. Would the town have blown up the school. Yes. With the kids in it or out if it? Yes. Would they have blown up a re-built school? Yes. Again and again. There were 3 other Christian schools that would have accepted the black families, and in fact, there was an alternate offer made to take the children to the Desplaines Christian school, but the black families turned it down, saying that it was too far. Eventually, someone donated money to the Cicero schools and they were rebuilt further west, in Elmhurst. This was in the 60's.
Let me relate another incident that occurred at the dividing line between Berwyn and Cicero. A man rented his upstairs flat to a black family. The neighbors broke into the flat and threw all the families' belongings into the street from the upstairs window. Including the sinks! This was in the early 50's. Somehow we kids were sheltered from most of this insanity.

At the time, the mafia had a stronghold on the town of Cicero. I'm guessing a connection. The current mayor, whose deceased husband had mafia ties, just received her sentence to do her time behind bars.
A couple years ago, the KKK was planning to march through Cicero.    It became an issue, and some of the residents spoke up against it and it didn't happen.    

Interesting.  I would think it would be different in that there was no organ, no bulletin indicated the church service structure, no passing of the plate, and not just one pastor spoke but three brothers from the laity.
I brought one fellow CRC'er to an assembly worship time.  After it was over I asked him what he thought.  He said that he thought it went a bit long and he asked me if there were any checks on the leadership's decisions or doctorine.  Sharp guy.  

The formal atmosphere is what I think our guests were referring to.
Another man I brought who was the same age as the accursed, said that the accursed was a phony. Pretty perceptive, eh?

What is this Groningen ghetto?  The people that are there are from that part of The Netherlands?

Yeah, most of the Groningen immigrants settled in what was called the Groningen Quarter because there were so many of them. They even had a church there on Paulina that is still standing. Only a few of the houses are still there. It is prairie or ballfield now. Looking at the pictures, it seemed like they were in a ghetto. The homes were so close together and the "el" went right thru the settlement, directly next to some of the homes. But the whole family of 11 kids, was together, again. Back in the old country, the kids had to leave, before high school age,and live with and work for the Boer (farmer).

It was kind of fun going down memory lane, here, with Calvinettes, and all. But I don't want to begin playing what my dad's second wife (who was not dutch) referred to as the "dutch game": how we are related.  You wouldn't belive how many kids I went to school with were relatives of this fertile branch. And since your mom was from Groningen........

God help us. We're just like the Jews with keeping geneological records......
Couldn't find a king back there, though.  

[Arthur]

    Maybe it's just me, but I can't see that they understood anything more than that Jesus was somehow speaking about them.  

Perhaps you are right, Al.  In looking through the scripture references dealing with Pharisees, I see quite a few instances where they say they don't believe in him and think he's a fake.  I don't see much other support for my theory other than the fact that they had miracles performed before their very eyes or were reported to them.  e.g. the blind man in John 9 and raising Lazerus from the dead in John 11.  The stupidity of the Pharisees is clearly seen in that one, as they thought of killing Lazerus, whom Jesus raised from the dead.  Makes no sense.

8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel...Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.    Acts 4

However, consider the passage in Acts 4:8-12.  Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, lays the blame on Christ's crucifixion directly on the Pharisees and rulers of the people.  
He doesn't say, "We crucified him by our sins."  He said "whom you crucified." Similar statements are made in Acts 2:23, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" and in Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. "

These latter two statements were made to the people.  So it would appear that the Holy Spirit holds both the children of Israel and their rulers responsible for the death of the Christ.  However, within that same message in Acts 2 is also given the hope of salvation--yes, to the very same guilty people.  


Also, after both the Matt 21 parable to the Pharisees and the after the Acts 4 declaration by Peter we see that "stone the builders rejected" statement.  Question is, did they reject it because they knew what He was and yet wanted the preeminence?  Or did they reject it because they did not know His worth?

[Tony]

Arthurr, Al,


  The Pharisees knew...they definitely knew...at least that Jesus was sent from God.

John 3:1  Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2  This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

   The same ones said that His miracles were by the power of the prince of demons....

Blessings, Tony

[Arthur]

  The Pharisees knew...they definitely knew...at least that Jesus was sent from God.

John 3:1  Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
2  This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him."

I think Nicodemas was different than the other Pharisees.  Perhaps when he said "we know" it was really only him and the mouse in his pocket.

50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. 53 And every man went unto his own house.  --John 7

39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury. -- John 19