the modern Saduccees?

Since that Saducees and Pharisees are directly linked and condemned with the same words there are no grounds for assuming that the condemnation was based on a doctrine held solely by the Saducees. Moreover the quoted part does not identify any particular belief - or even make it clear that it refers to beleifs as such.The context of Matthew 16:6 is the Pharisees and Saducees testing Jesus and asking for a miracle (16:1). Again the Pharisees and Saducees are joined in condemnation (16:6 16:12). The only hint of the actual basis for the condemnation is 16:2-4 which allege that there are clear "signs of the times" which the Saducees and Pharisees do not notice and state that no sign will be given "except the sign of Jonah".The parallel passage in Mark (8:11-15) does not mention the Saducees at all and condemns the "leaven" of the Pharisees and the Herodians. Luke 11 agrees with Mark in not mentioning the Saducees.Thus any attempt to single out a particular belief of the Saducees as prompting this exclamation is eisegesis and a misuse of the Gospels and of words attributed by them to Jesus.

"look again" actually means "don't look again. look somewhere else instead".The issue is whether the condemnations cited specifically referred to the Saducees rejection of the resurrection. Since the first does not refer to beliefs at all and the second only mentions the Saducees in a single version of the event (neither Mark nor Luke mentioning them) - and in the context of requests for a "sign from heaven" we cannot conclude that it eas "really" about the Saducees lack of belief in the resurrection in either case. Looking again at these passages will only confirm that.The comment in Acts is mostly relevant in that it confirms that the Pharisees did not share this belief and thus we cannot assume that a combined denunciation of both referred to one specific belief.The reference from Matthew 22 (also in Mark 12, Luke 20) also fails to confirm that the denial of the resurrection is the reason for the earlier condmenations. Jesus loudly disagrees with it but does not condemn the Saducees with the same vigour as in the passages cited earlier - which also serves to undermine the idea that the resurrection beleif was the primary issue in the passages cited earlier.e

1) Which is a far cry from calling them "vipers" or referring to an "evil and adulterous generation"2) That Jesus condmens both in the same breath suggests that the primary fault is shared. It certainly does not suggest that the primary reason for condemning the Saducees is one particular belief that is not even raised in the passages you originally cited.3) And the context of that remark is a request for a sign - which is assigned to the Saducees and the Pharisses by one Gospel. But another two do not include the Saducees in that condmenation at all.Really you are making it quite clear that your interest is not in what the Bible says but in using it to attack people whose views you dislike.e

The real question is whether that doctrine is so central to Jesus's condemnation of the Saducees that agreement on that point alone justifies the label "the new Saducees".We have three condemnations from the Gospels. In the first we can only say that the condemnation applies equally to the Pharisees who believed in the resurrection. In fact Mark omits this condemnation altogether and Luke presents it as a general condemnation of everyone present so we certainly cannot take it as a specific condemnation fo the Saducees for not beleiving in the resurrection !In the second, Mark and Luke fail to mention the Saducees at all, though keeping the reference to the Pharisees - and the context is asking for a "sign from heaven".Only in the third, mildest condemnation is this doctrine an issue - and according to the Gospels the reason it is an issue is because the Saducees themselves bring it up as part of their attack on Jesus' teachings.Thus from the Bible the answer to the central question of this thread is a clear "no". There is no justification for singling out this particular belief.

The resurrection referred to is a general resurrection, not the resurrection of Jesus.However it is absurd to argue that either of the two condemnations mentioned in the OP were primarily about that issue - nothing in the context of either supports such a view. All we can say is that it is one of the issues on which Jesus disagreed with the Saducees.

I have to say that if it is relevant to the OP then you should be the one to make the connection. If it is not then it is off-topic.And I would add that I do not necessarily agree with Jesus. If you wish to claim that the Saducees erred in this respect and it is relevant to the OP then you should support the claim. At this point I have no firm opinion on the matter and do not see it as relevant to the topic of the thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't have a problem with genuine and honest comparisons of beliefs. My objection is to trying to label a group as "Modern Saducees" based on one single belief and trying to link that to Biblical passages which do not reference that belief and equally condemn another group which does not even share that group.

quote:

---

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.

---

For the simple reason that nothing I said disputed any of it. Nor is any of it relevant to the OP.

quote:

---

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.

---

The OP - even in it's edited form - represented an attempt to stir up hostility amongst Christians against people who disagreed with them on the issue of the immortality of the soul. It did so by attempting to unjustly fix the label of "Sadducee" on your targets. And it misrepresented the Bible to do so. That is not "nice".So basically your offer is, that if we ignore the actual points I raised and instead pretend that I was arguing against points that I didn't dispute you won't turn even nastier. That's an offer too contemptible to be worth consideration.

quote:

---

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.

---

Let me quote what I said in the message you are replying to:

quote:

---

I have to say that if it is relevant to the OP then you should be the one to make the connection. If it is not then it is off-topic.

---

So I did not "pretend" that it was off-topic. I asked you to show that it was on-topic. And you did not. In fact it seems that you beleive that it is the topic and that it is unrelated to the OP. And that really is absurd.

quote:

---

What was it about the Saduccees approach to the Bible that made Jesus say they "err greatly not knowing the scriptures"? Imo, the scriptures cannot be properly understood by man alone without faith in God and without the aid of the Spirit of God.

---

What is the basis of this opinion ?

So in other words Jesus says that they made a big error not "knowing" the scriptures. Without specifying the details of the error or more importantly the nature of their ignorance. We can reasonably suppose that the particular error is their rejection of the resurrection and thet the lack of knowledge is ignorance of the particular passage Jesus referred to. Perhaps you can tell me where that passage can be found which should give us more insight.It is clear that there is no significant support for your opinion in the passage itself. Which seems to be the pattern in your referecnes to scripture - your major points are never really suppported by the passages you cite. So it seems that you err because you don't know the scripture. Does that make you a "Modern Sadducee" ?t

In other words your only support is something that you say is in the passage but is certainly not found in the NASB translation: Nothing to support you there.

You know full well that that point is not under contention.