the modern Saduccees?

Actually, in Matthew 3:7 it is not Jesus speaking but John, and he is not condemning the Sadducees but rather both the Pharisees and Sadduccees. That seems to imply that it had nothing to do with there philosophical approach (the Pharisees and Sadducees approached learning in different ways) but rather their actions, their behavior.It looks like John was refering to ALL of the priestly class.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

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

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

The Saduccees were the "Old School", dedicated to maintaining the staus quo, conservative, limiting change.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We have very little definitive information on the Saduccees, since they really only existed for a short period, from about the 2^nd. Century BC to about the 1^st. 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

whatever randman.AbE:Why don't you try sticking to talking about what YOU believe and stop making assertions about whatI believe? For reference, please read all of Message 1.This message has been edited by jar, 01-11-2006 10:51 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

but Jesus did not single out the Saduccees. Waht you have done is exactly the kind of actions that created the current negative picture of the Saduccees, you have selectively chosen which parts you will address and igoresd the context of what was being said.In every one of the chapters you quoted from the Bible, both the Pharisees and Saduccees and even the Herodians come in for equal criticism.Jesus was speaking about all of the Conservative, Literalist Church of the day.To try and make those passages specific to the Saduccees is to miss the import of what was happening and what was being said.AbE:To really understand what Jesus was talking about in these passages, I believe we need to look for what was common between the Pharisees and Saduccees, not what was different. Both goups came in for equal criticism in all three of the chapters you mentioned.The lesson to be learned from this part of the Bible revolves around commonality of belief rather than differencs in belief.What was the thread common to both Pharisee and Saduccee?This message has been edited by jar, 01-12-2006 09:59 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion