Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the modern Saduccees?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 57 (278028)
01-11-2006 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
01-11-2006 2:17 AM


Re: good point on John
But there is still nothing to imply that Jesus is speaking only of the Sadducees.
Further, there is nothing to connect any of the groups with modernists. If anything, just the opposite seems to be indicated. The Pharisees and Saduccees are the Jewish Traditionnalists. If any comparision could be made it would be to today's Conservative Christians and Evangelical movement. Jesus is saying to the conservative movement of the time, "Change is coming. Give up your blind grasp on your traditions and move with me into the future."

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 2:17 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:21 AM jar has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 17 of 57 (278063)
01-11-2006 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
01-10-2006 11:03 PM


Condeming the actions would be very Jewish. It would also go along with the fact that the early christians were reaching out to those who could not be considered 'clean' enough to enter the temple. (the blind, the lame, and the diseased). It also would go along with the warning not to 'Pray in public so all can see you' (which I read as don't make a big show on how religious you are, but rather just be religious in your own heart. Don't be pious for society, be pious for yourself.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 01-10-2006 11:03 PM jar has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 18 of 57 (278066)
01-11-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jaywill
01-11-2006 7:15 AM


Re: Herodians
Condsidering that the Sadducee's were older than the Pharisees , calling them 'modernists' is amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jaywill, posted 01-11-2006 7:15 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jaywill, posted 01-11-2006 4:39 PM ramoss has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 19 of 57 (278103)
01-11-2006 11:15 AM


modernists?
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.

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 20 of 57 (278110)
01-11-2006 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
01-11-2006 8:37 AM


Re: good point on John
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 8:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 12:08 PM randman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 57 (278136)
01-11-2006 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by randman
01-11-2006 11:21 AM


Re: good point on John
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."
Of course I can. That's not even an issue or consideration. The resurection hadn't happened so there was no way they could have rejected it. There'svno quibble. What you assert is simply impossible.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:21 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2006 12:25 PM jar has replied
 Message 24 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:31 PM jar has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 22 of 57 (278145)
01-11-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
01-11-2006 12:08 PM


Re: good point on John
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 12:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 1:09 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 25 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:33 PM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 57 (278159)
01-11-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
01-11-2006 12:25 PM


Re: good point on John
I tend to agree with you. Furthermore, there is no way that I can see to equate the Saduccees with any modernist or liberal group. They were even more conservative than the Pharisees and far older.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2006 12:25 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:35 PM jar has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 24 of 57 (278165)
01-11-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
01-11-2006 12:08 PM


Re: good point on John
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 12:08 PM jar has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 25 of 57 (278166)
01-11-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
01-11-2006 12:25 PM


Re: good point on John
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2006 12:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2006 2:31 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 57 (278167)
01-11-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
01-11-2006 1:09 PM


Re: good point on John
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 1:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 1:44 PM randman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 57 (278172)
01-11-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by randman
01-11-2006 1:35 PM


Re: good point on John
The Saduccees were the "Old School", dedicated to maintaining the staus quo, conservative, limiting change.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:35 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:47 PM jar has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 28 of 57 (278175)
01-11-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
01-11-2006 1:44 PM


Re: good point on John
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 1:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-11-2006 2:07 PM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 57 (278177)
01-11-2006 2:00 PM


interesting side-note
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 01-11-2006 2:40 PM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 57 (278178)
01-11-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by randman
01-11-2006 1:47 PM


Re: good point on John
We have very little definitive information on the Saduccees, since they really only existed for a short period, from about the 2nd. Century BC to about the 1st. Century AD. It also appears that as in many such splinter groups, there was much dissension and varying opinions (anyone familar with the Talmudic tradition should understand that).
They were primaily followers of the teachings of the high priest Zadoc who annointed Solomon but it may also have been some other Rabbi of the same name. They were closely associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, generally wealthy, well educated and very much tied to a very narrow and strict interpretation of the Laws.
We need to remember that none of their own documents have survived. All we have is the comments from those groups that were opposed to them, all supporting documentation having been purged. That means while we have many passages (for example, Paul was a Pharisee) denouncing their beliefs, we have absolutely none that actually tell us what they did believe or that defend their position.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 1:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by randman, posted 01-11-2006 11:38 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024