the modern Saduccees?

One of the primary enemies of Jesus' ministry and the ministry of the apostles in Acts, and a group Jesus condemned somewhat harshly are the Sadduccees. He calls them vipers in fact. Matthew 3:7 (King James Version)One of the main sources of criticism of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and of His Apostles in the book of Acts were the Sadduccees. John the Baptist condemned the Sadducees.(Matthew 3:7)Jesus warned us to beware of their doctrine or "leaven", their way of looking at things. Keep in mind there are a limited number of things Jesus says to beware of, and the Sadducees ideas make the list. (Matthew 16:6)
So here we have a religious group that denies the existence of the spiritual realm, of angels, and of the literal resurrection. It seems to me that a great many moralists who attempt to reduce Jesus, His teachings, and Christianity to a mere hypothetical and humanist moral code are, in fact, Sadducean in their outlook.Moreover, looking past overt theistic religion, it seems that many materialists and rationalists could rightly be considered somewhat similar to Sadducean doctrine.Imo then, Jesus takes a very dim and harsh view of many that advance ideas that the spiritual realm is a myth, and of those that overly rely on reason over revelation and who downplay the supernatural, revelatory and mystical aspects of Christ. In short, the whole Rationalist approach is condemned by Jesus, to a certain extent, imo.(Note: some of this includes phat's suggestions for an editted version.)This message has been edited by randman, 01-04-2006 08:57 AM

Were the Herodians a priestly class too? Jesus says to beware of their "leaven" as well.The fact is Jesus here and elsewhere says to beware of the leaven of the Saduccees. Now, he does say the same thing about the Pharisees and even the Herodians, and people mostly focus on the Pharisees, but both the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saduccees, Jesus warns of.The Saduccees rejected the whole concept of the spiritual realm. I really think the materialist and moral claims connected to a sense of scientific progress that came out of the 19th century fit very well with what Jesus warned about. It's not that there is nothing good about the Saduccees, but that along with some good things, like morals, comes along something Jesus feels is extremely dangerous, the denigration of the need and reality of faith.

Jesus warns of their leaven, of their doctrine. So it's not so much he is just warning about his enemies, but their basic doctrine and belief system.

That was a little hasty to attribute that to Jesus. Here are some more references. Matthew 16:7-12 Mark 12:18-27They err not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God. They know the words, but not the Scripture from the believing perspective of Jesus, and they don't know the power of God.Same event in Matthew. Matthew 22:223-29

Jesus warns of their doctrine, and the gospels, Acts and Jesus all mention the fact the Saduccees don't believe in "the spirit, angels and the resurrection", and Jesus says they err because of it. They are trying to mock the spiritual aspect of Jesus' teachings. Jesus thinks believing and knowing the spiritual and supernatural are critical, and if you discount them, you "greatly err".Note the comment in Acts of what they believed. It's important to remember that Jesus condemned both the doctrine of the Pharisees and Saduccees not because they are both the same, but because they both contain serious errors believers need to watch out for: legalism and hypocrisy on the one hand (Pharisees), and disbelief towards the spiritual and supernatural as well as over-reliance on the other hand.We hear a lot about the dangers of Pharisaical doctrine, but little about the Saduccees. The Saduccees were curiously similar, imo, to modern secular humanists and rationalists. They believe in doing good, but scoff at or downplay the supernatural aspects of God and His message.

Paulk, a few points.1. Jesus Himself says they err greatly. The context is clear in the gospels when they try to ask him a question to essentially mock belief in the resurrection.2. Jesus condemns both the doctrine (way of thinking and beliefs) of the Saduccees and Pharisees. He condemns both. It's pretty simple. Both of their different ways of thinking are condemned by Jesus.3. Jesus says we need to beware of the way they think, of their "leaven" as he put it and then plainly states "doctrine."Jesus warns of lust and bitterness too. We don't say, now the specifics of bitterness are OK because after all he also spoke of a bunch of other things that were wrong at the same time.

Paulk, you are correct in saying Jesus only says they "err greatly" in one passage. They are called vipers along with the Pharisees in another. Perhaps Jesus condemns their hypocrisy along with the Pharissees in greater terms.However, he clearly condemns both of their doctrines and warns us to beware of both of their doctrines. So the question is still what is it about the Saduccees that Jesus says to beware of, and says "errs greatly."I think you have to look at both passages to get a clear picture of his attitude, and since he speaks against their beliefs in both, with one time clearly not lumping them with the Pharissees, I think you have to consider whatever distinct doctrines they had that are mentioned, that are different from the Pharisees.And the Bible is very clear on what that teaching was. They don't believe in the resurrection, in angels or in spirit.Who does that sound like to you?If you want to say, hey, the Pharissees seem to be referenced with greater condemnation or whatever, let's take that up on another thread and not debate it here. This thread is about the Saduccees and why Jesus warns us of their doctrine (beleif and attitudes) and says they err greatly.I think an honest appraisal of some other sayings of Jesus show that He very much condemns disbelief in spiritual things, and that He places a great emphasis on faith.This message has been edited by randman, 01-11-2006 03:53 AM

Disbelief and materialism or rather pseudo-materialism are nothing new.Th Saduccees' doctrine was specified in the Bible, and Jesus said to beware of their doctrine.

Jar, Jesus specifically responds to the Saduccees and says "you err greatly." I think it's very clear in the other passage that he condemns both the doctrine of the Pharissees and Saduccees, but let's quit quibbling. You guys want to somehow claim he just disagreed with them as priests or their actions when he calls them vipers. I disagree. I think he warns his disciples not to accept their way of looking at things.But there is no way you can say he does not say "they err greatly" in rejecting the resurrection and in "now knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."Now, in what way did they now "know the Scriptures, nor the power of God"? They well knew the words. They read the same scriptures Jesus did. It's clear Jesus has a problem with the unbelieving way they approach the scriptures, and that this unbelieving manner corrupts their understanding and perception.They reduce the message to the morals of the scripture, and do not find the supernatural and spiritual aspects all that plausible.Hmmm...

Jesus said "you err greatly" to them in reference to their rejection of the idea of the resurrection of the dead. Your insistence, stranglely, that Jesus' statement to them was impossible is very weird.What do you think he was talking about?This message has been edited by randman, 01-11-2006 01:32 PM

PaulK, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Let's move on to something you agree with, namely that Jesus said they greatly erred.In what way do you think their biblical interpretation greatly errs?

Can you substantiate they were "more conservative" than the Pharissees?Also, in what way does Jesus mean that their bibical interpretation greatly errs? What is their great error? What part of their doctrine causes them to greatly err in "not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."

Jar, Ted Kennedy and the liberal democrats are old school as well, and dedicated to maintaining the status quo in government concerning liberal policies and court decisions.The fact they were "old school" says nothing about their approach to the Bible, to spiritual things, etc,....They clearly held similar beliefs to rationalists today in excluding acceptance of spiritual as real.If you want to define conservative as maintaining the status quo, then a lot liberals and rationalists today are actually conservatives.This message has been edited by randman, 01-11-2006 01:48 PM

I am a little puzzled at why you, jar and Paulk, have trouble with the idea of comparing ideas of groups then to ideas of groups now considering I suspect that both of you have no trouble at all connecting the doctrine of the Pharisees to some biblical literalists today, although I think connecting that doctrine to all is unwarranted.But it seems that when someone begins to talk about the beliefs of the Saduccees, all of the sudden that's impossible.Is it impossible to discuss the legalism of the Pharisees as something Jesus warns us today against?If that's acceptable, then why is it not wrong to discussion the rationalism and unbeleif of the Saduccees as something Jesus warns us against?

PaulK, I have firmly established the biblical basis for depicting Saduccean doctrine; that Jesus said to beware of it, and that he said they erred greatly. Nothing you have stated changes any of that. I have tried to be nice and say we will just have to disagree and then move on to discussing Saduccean beliefs and the extent those beliefs mirror beliefs of some today.If you do not wish to participate in that discussion, then please do not, but pretending the discussion is off-topic when it is the topic is absurd.