Divine Invitation

[Gxg (G²)]

I will read from this later. But for now I will give you my thoughts on the matter. You and I have discussed this issue before yes. But, I do not think you fully understand my position. I would agree Jesus agreed with much concerning the Pharisees. As I stated before to you, I believe the differences between the sects were few, but,,,, were serious. What I mean is, you and I for example can agree on almost everything, but there are a number of serious issues in which disagreement on one thing alone can make a huge difference. An example would be a married couple could agree on about almost everything. If they cannot agree on child discipline, or what religion to to raise their children etc. the difference between them in even ONE of these things can be a serious dispute.

I recall your own thoughts on the issue and understood your position - for as said before, it is noted where you felt the differing groups had little disagreements...although historically, that was not what was noted when it came to the severity in several prominent disagreements between each sect. I'm not certain if that was really understood from before, or if history was fully examined on the matter.

The Sadducees had differing views concerning the resurrection, angels etc. These were huge issues between them

The way they viewed scripture as well - seeing that they only accepted the first 5 books of scripture/Penteuch. And their ideologies on how to maintain power was radically different from the Pharisees on several levels.

.

The way I see it is.....These things did not matter.....It was not their office to teach on these things, and they had no authority to enforce their decisions in these things.

Historically, as noted before, they DID teach on such things - frequently - and it is because of such that there were sharp divisions in the parties and they were often in competition with one another.

What good did it do the Pharisees to be right about there being a resurrection? They denied the very resurrection when it occurred

Seeing that belief in the Resurrection either caused public influence to support an action such as living more pious in this lifetime for future reward - and thus having more people listen to you - or having others ignore you/lose influence as well as feeling that the Torah/God's word was not being presented properly, it was a VERY big deal...

.

And many priests were joined to the Lord, as well. All their arguing over things they had no authority of office to "DECIDE", in the first place simply became a divided kingdom which could not stand

They were never just arguments - nor did their authority keep them from doing so since it all was very significant..

 

[annier]

I recall your own thoughts on the issue and understood your position - for as said before, it is noted where you felt the differing groups had little disagreements...although historically, that was not what was noted when it came to the severity in several prominent disagreements between each sect. I'm not certain if that was really understood from before, or if history was fully examined on the matter.

You did misunderstand me, because you have misunderstood me in this post. Maybe I need to be clearer?

The way they viewed scripture as well - seeing that they only accepted the first 5 books of scripture/Penteuch. And their ideologies on how to maintain power was radically different from the Pharisees on several levels.

This is not what I have understood to be accurate. From what I have read, the Sadducees, held to the first 5 as the only source of LAW. In other words (and I would agree with them) They did not advocate looking to the prophets, and writings for sources to adjudicate the law, or sources to MAKE LAWS. It was not that they did not accept the rest of the scriptures or to believe them to be less. Rather they were not sources for adjudication.

.Historically, as noted before, they DID teach on such things - frequently - and it is because of such that there were sharp divisions in the parties and they were often in competition with one another.

Yes, I know they did. Those are the things that I believe Christ spoke of when he said a divided kingdom cannot stand. Those things are not sources of law to ADJUDICATE DISPUTES IN ACOURT OF LAW. I would agree with Sadducees on that aspect.

Seeing that belief in the Resurrection either caused public influence to support an action such as living more pious in this lifetime for future reward - and thus having more people listen to you - or having others ignore you/lose influence as well as feeling that the Torah/God's word was not being presented properly, it was a VERY big deal...

We see this in the scriptures. The Pharisees were held in high esteem because of their teachings. But....THEY WERE JUDGES, who's office it was, was to settle disputes between their kinsman and provide for justice. No different than a judge in our society. A judge, may be a great theologian personally. But, his theological views of the afterlife, and life in the Church ARE NOT THE SOURCE OR SCOPE OF THEIR OFFICE AS A JUDGE. They cannot make law according to their theology.

. They were never just arguments - nor did their authority keep them from doing so since it all was very significant..

You had pointed out the council in acts concerning Paul. In reading them what do we find? The rulers both Sadducees and Pharisees were attempting to "get Paul". They begin this process by bringing charges that they cannot prove. Charges which if they could have proved, they would have had cause to punish him BY THE LAW, of both Caesar, and the Jews.
Paul, brings up a matter of sectarian dispute. The nature of the dispute is one in which THEIR OWN LAW gives them no authorirty to JUDGE. They cannot adjudicate whether or not Christ was raised, or whether he had spoken to an angel. They disaband and try again later with charges which they can adjudicate. Again, they cannot prove the charges. The disputes between them MADE NO DIFFERENCE in their offices of authority as JUDGES IN THE LAW.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You did misunderstand me, because you have misunderstood me in this post. Maybe I need to be clearer?

No need - as again, you said the same thing others have said before in previous discussion when it was addressed - concerning ideas on the Sadducees that were not fully accurate and the same with the Pharisees. When someone says they don't feel there were many disagreements between groups (although the few disagreements were sharpy/significant) and then someone else says that's not historically accutate and says many disagreements were present, it's not a matter of misunderstanding to repeat the matter and get the same answer.

This is not what I have understood to be accurate. From what I have read, the Sadducees, held to the first 5 as the only source of LAW. In other words (and I would agree with them) They did not advocate looking to the prophets, and writings for sources to adjudicate the law, or sources to MAKE LAWS. It was not that they did not accept the rest of the scriptures or to believe them to be less. Rather they were not sources for adjudication.

If going for technicality, the Sadducees accepted only the written law and prophets as binding. They rejected the entire traditional interpretations and the further developments of the Scribes. "The Sadducees say only what is written is to be thought of as legal...what has come down from tradition of the fathers need not be observed." (Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, 10,6). In legal matters the Sadducees were very rigid in judging offenders, while the Pharisees were much milder. "They saw in the tradition of the elders an excess of legal strictness which they refused to have imposed upon them, while the advanced religious views were, on the one hand, superfluous to their worldly-mindedness, and on the other, inadmissible by their higher culture and enlightenment" (Scheurer, Jewish People, Div. II, Vol. I, p. 41). A more thorough discussion of legal matters among the Sadducees can be found in Unger's Bible Dictionary, pp. 952,953.

The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the body or in retribution or reward in a future life. They did not feel bound by any doctrine which did not proceed from Moses, and there was no assertion by Moses in the Pentateuch of any resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees would have given much more weight to Moses' writings than to any of the prophets or historians, even though they regarded those writings canonical. Additionally, the Sadducees denied that there were angels or spirits, independent spiritual beings besides God. Even the soul, they said, was only refined matter and would perish with the body.

Yes, I know they did. Those are the things that I believe Christ spoke of when he said a divided kingdom cannot stand. Those things are not sources of law to ADJUDICATE DISPUTES IN ACOURT OF LAW. I would agree with Sadducees on that aspect. We see this in the scriptures. The Pharisees were held in high esteem because of their teachings. But....THEY WERE JUDGES, who's office it was, was to settle disputes between their kinsman and provide for justice. No different than a judge in our society. A judge, may be a great theologian personally. But, his theological views of the afterlife, anf life in the Church ARE NOT THE SOURCE OR SCOPE OF THEIR OFFICE AS A JUDGE.

Sadly, people can bring things into a court and end up judging with partiality rather than with justice - and that was something which often happened in the Court systems, just as with today when people claim they wish justice but still have their own personal views influence what they do or don't weigh more seriously in court - and with others who favor others counter to them more than the judge, it often has led to unjust balances. That was not something foreign to the court systems in scripture.

You had pointed out the council in acts concerning Paul. In reading them what do we find? The rulers both Sadducees and Pharisees were attempting to "get Paul". They begin this process by bringing charges that they cannot prove. Charges which if they could have proved, they would have had cause to punish him BY THE LAW, of both Caesar, and the Jews.
Paul, brings up a matter of sectarian dispute. The nature of the dispute is one in which THEIR OWN LAW gives them no authorirty to JUDGE. They cannot adjudicate whether or not Christ was raised, or whether he had spoken to an angel. They disaband and try again later with charges which they can adjudicate. Again, they cannot prove the charges. The disputes between them MADE NO DIFFERENCE in their offices of authority as JUDGES IN THE LAW.

Nonetheless, what did happen was that a fight broke out severely and it required Roman intervention to shut it down since a mob riot broke out - as had happened before. It was not a peaceful coexistence - nor were they all unified and their theological views made a difference in the things they were willing to do in trying to hound Paul (even it if meant plotting murder - DESPITE their status as judges).

 

[annier]

No need - as again, you said the same thing others have said before in previous discussion when it was addressed - concerning ideas on the Sadducees that were not fully accurate and the same with the Pharisees. When someone says they don't feel there were many disagreements between groups (although the few disagreements were sharpy/significant) and then someone else says that's not historically accutate and says many disagreements were present, it's not a matter of misunderstanding to repeat the matter and get the same answer.
If going for technicality, the Sadducees accepted only the written law and prophets as binding. They rejected the entire traditional interpretations and the further developments of the Scribes. "The Sadducees say only what is written is to be thought of as legal...what has come down from tradition of the fathers need not be observed." (Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, 10,6). In legal matters the Sadducees were very rigid in judging offenders, while the Pharisees were much milder. "They saw in the tradition of the elders an excess of legal strictness which they refused to have imposed upon them, while the advanced religious views were, on the one hand, superfluous to their worldly-mindedness, and on the other, inadmissible by their higher culture and enlightenment" (Scheurer, Jewish People, Div. II, Vol. I, p. 41). A more thorough discussion of legal matters among the Sadducees can be found in Unger's Bible Dictionary, pp. 952,953.

The Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the body or in retribution or reward in a future life. They did not feel bound by any doctrine which did not proceed from Moses, and there was no assertion by Moses in the Pentateuch of any resurrection from the dead. The Sadducees would have given much more weight to Moses' writings than to any of the prophets or historians, even though they regarded those writings canonical. Additionally, the Sadducees denied that there were angels or spirits, independent spiritual beings besides God. Even the soul, they said, was only refined matter and would perish with the body. /

Here is the issue as far as I am concerned. In the differences above. What would any of that have to do with judging a dispute between men?
What possible relevance would any of this have to do with a law suit between two men?

Sadly, people can bring things into a court and end up judging with partiality rather than with justice - and that was something which often happened in the Court systems, just as with today when people claim they wish justice but still have their own personal views influence what they do or don't weigh more seriously in court - and with others who favor others counter to them more than the judge, it often has led to unjust balances. That was not something foreign to the court systems in scripture.



Nonetheless, what did happen was that a fight broke out severely and it required Roman intervention to shut it down since a mob riot broke out - as had happened before. It was not a peaceful coexistence - nor were they all unified and their theological views made a difference in the things they were willing to do in trying to hound Paul (even it if meant plotting murder - DESPITE their status as judges).

They still could not TRY HIM concerning it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here is the issue as far as I am concerned. In the differences above. What would any of that have to do with judging a dispute between men?
What possible relevance would any of this have to do with a law suit between two men?.

When you're dealing with men (especially ones of influence and with financial resources) who you know take sides - and thus, can influence others to do the same and get more people to back your party if/when they go free - you understand the reality of how partiality makes a difference. It's no different than what happened in the South during the Jim Crow era where judges were meant to judge disputes and yet would be gracious more so on people they favored while being more harsh on others they were trained to dislike outside the courtroom. It doesn't matter whether or not they have a view that has nothing to do with a case - as men often judge solely based on their personal stances rather than truth....and that happened then just as it did then. Yeshua noted that often when pointed out how many leaders loved money/finances more than justice.

Luke 16:6
Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

6 “‘Eight hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,’ he replied.

“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.’

7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels[b] of wheat,’ he replied.

“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

13 “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.
​

They still could not TRY HIM concerning it

WOuldn't matter if they couldn't try him - as many were pragmatists and concerned SOLELY for the ends rather than being concerned on the means. Thus, what was legal was of no consequence...

 

[annier]

When you're dealing with men (especially ones of influence and with financial resources) who you know take sides - and thus, can influence others to do the same and get more people to back your party if/when they go free - you understand the reality of how partiality makes a difference. It's no different than what happened in the South during the Jim Crow era where judges were meant to judge disputes and yet would be gracious more so on people they favored while being more harsh on others they were trained to dislike outside the courtroom. It doesn't matter whether or not they have a view that has nothing to do with a case - as men often judge solely based on their personal stances rather than truth....and that happened then just as it did then. Yeshua noted that often when pointed out how many leaders loved money/finances more than justice.

My question has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with the original jurisdiction given Judges in of the law of Moses.

Matters of the next life were not matters the rulers in the law were given for adjudication between men in this world and this life.

Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. 2 So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’

3 “The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— 4 I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
5 “So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’

6 “‘Eight hundred gallons[a] of olive oil,’ he replied.

“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred.’

7 “Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels[b] of wheat,’ he replied.

“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

13 “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God’s sight.
​

WOuldn't matter if they couldn't try him - as many were pragmatists and concerned SOLELY for the ends rather than being concerned on the means. Thus, what was legal was of no consequence...

Again, the point I was addressing is jurisdiction given in the law to the Judges.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My question has nothing to do with bias. It has to do with the original jurisdiction given Judges in of the law of Moses. Matters of the next life were not matters the rulers in the law were given for adjudication between men in this world and this life. Matters of the next life were not matters the rulers in the law were given for adjudication between men in this world and this life.

.

The original jurisdiction given to Judges has nothing to do with the fact of what happened when it came to judges in that time not being concerned with that - be it in trying to find loopholes or even being willing to pervert justice. Jurisdictiction was inconsequential in many respects to what others wanted to do - just like it was when it came to stonning others against the Law (like they did with Stephen in Acts 6 even when they had no right to do so per Roman Law and other things in the Mosaic code on justice...and all of that was over Stephen's views over matters of the next life in regards to His trust in the Ressurrection/the Messiah to come - something they all hated because it disagreed with their view of the Messiah/Resurrection).

Historically, Matters of the next life were oftn involved in what the rulers of the law did in deciding cases - and one would be historically inaccurate to say otherwise when seeing how many disputes occurred over the matter.

 

[annier]

The original jurisdiction given to Judges has nothing to do with the fact of what happened when it came to judges in that time not being concerned with that - be it in trying to find loopholes or even being willing to pervert justice. Jurisdictiction was inconsequential in many respects to what others wanted to do - just like it was when it came to stonning others against the Law (like they did with Stephen in Acts 6 even when they had no right to do so per Roman Law and other things in the Mosaic code on justice...and all of that was over Stephen's views over matters of the next life in regards to His trust in the Ressurrection/the Messiah to come - something they all hated because it disagreed with their view of the Messiah/Resurrection).

Historically, Matters of the next life were oftn involved in what the rulers of the law did in deciding cases - and one would be historically inaccurate to say otherwise when seeing how many disputes occurred over the matter.

Jurisdiction mattered because that was the point of my post. The Matters of the next life, and matters of the next world, were not the jurisdiction of the rulers in the law. Therefore it does not matter who believed what about it. It was beyond their jurisdiction of authority as Judges. They BOTH of the ruling sects had divided the kingdom, both had become corrupt. The Pharisees in teaching the things of the next life simply had no authority in the law to decide anything on that. There was no office given the rulers in the law for that authority. The prophets YES, but not the rulers in the law.

John the baptist, Christ himself, and his Apostles were GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Jurisdiction mattered because that was the point of my post. .

A point that needed accuracy in order to be fully consistent with the times judging occured in.

The Matters of the next life, and matters of the next world, were not the jurisdiction of the rulers in the law

Doesn't matter as it again (historically) did not stop the judges from making rulings or decisions against others.

The only way to claim otherwise is to show in history where religious views did not influence judgement in the times Yeshua lived in. Otherwise, the historical times and data are ignored.

It was beyond their jurisdiction of authority as Judges. They BOTH of the ruling sects had divided the kingdom, both had become corrupt. The Pharisees in teaching the things of the next life simply had no authority in the law to decide anything on that. There was no office given the rulers in the law for that authority. The prophets YES, but not the rulers in the law.

Nonetheless, they still TOOK authority on those things without warrant - as did other groups. The entire issue of why religious views on the next life did make a difference when seeing what it drove others to.

John the baptist, Christ himself, and his Apostles were GIVEN THAT AUTHORITY

Didn't stop others from trying to take it wrongly - just like Acts 3-5 when the apostles had multiple encounters with the judges telling them to not preach on the Resurrection of Yeshua and His coming kingdom ...having others being told to be silent and later beating others for doing so against what they viewed to be wrong - and later, under Saul in Acts 8, starting a full scale persecution against the believers for not submitting to their authority.

 

[annier]

A point that needed accuracy in order to be fully consistent with the times judging occured in.
Doesn't matter as it again (historically) did not stop the judges from making rulings or decisions against others

Yes it matters to my point. The law gives the ruling judges no authority of jurisdiction in matters concerning the next world, the next life.
The times that judges judged in did not change their inability to decide matters of the next life.

The only way to claim otherwise is to show in history where religious views did not influence judgement in the times Yeshua lived in. Otherwise, the historical times and data are ignored.
Nonetheless, they still TOOK authority on those things without warrant - as did other groups. The entire issue of why religious views on the next life did make a difference when seeing what it drove others to.
Didn't stop others from trying to take it wrongly - just like Acts 3-5 when the apostles had multiple encounters with the judges telling them to not preach on the Resurrection of Yeshua and His coming kingdom ...having others being told to be silent and later beating others for doing so against what they viewed to be wrong - and later, under Saul in Acts 8, starting a full scale persecution against the believers for not submitting to their authority.

I have already acknowledged YOUR POINT about corruption, bias ETC. And their views on these things caused bias, and corruption among them.
But......... that is not what mattered to my point. Which is....The law of moses does not give the Sanhedrin, whether priests of a legitimate line, judges meeting the moral character for the office. They were given, no jurisdiction to decide matters of the next life, the next world. Though some sects did make such things paramount to their office. It simply was not.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes it matters to my point. The law gives the ruling judges no authority of jurisdiction in matters concerning the next world, the next life.
The times that judges judged in did not change their inability to decide matters of the next life.

As they already decided on matters of the next life, it was never the case that there was inability. That simply does not line up with what they practiced and there's no way around that if trying to make the point valid.

I have already acknowledged YOUR POINT about corruption, bias ETC. And their views on these things caused bias, and corruption among them.
But......... that is not what mattered to my point. Which is....The law of moses does not give the Sanhedrin, whether priests of a legitimate line, judges meeting the moral character for the office. They were given, no jurisdiction to decide matters of the next life, the next world. Though some sects did make such things paramount to their office. It simply was not.

Nonetheless, they did it. Again, it all comes down to what the text makes plain (regardless of any points being made) when it comes to the basic reality of practice - and that must always be rememebered.

 

[macher]

As they already decided on matters of the next life, it was never the case that there was inability. That simply does not line up with what they practiced and there's no way around that if trying to make the point valid.

Nonetheless, they did it. Again, it all comes down to what the text makes plain (regardless of any points being made) when it comes to the basic reality of practice - and that must always be rememebered.

The Pharisee's believed in the after life. Yeshua said to obey those that sit in Moses Seat and condemned their hypocrisy. There's nothing more or less.

 

[Yahudim]

Hi annier,

On the matter of Messiah, you disagree based on your opinion. I can respect that.

Did you not grasp that these two sentences were intended to go together? I get the feeling that you might see this exchange as an adversarial debate. Not my intention. Just trying to be informative.

Annier, most of the people in this forum have at one point, held your viewpoint or something similar. But they have moved past it. Through a better understanding of the historical, cultural, sociological and political context of these writings, we have changed our thinking. You may think you are sharing a revelation or educating us. However, you aren't providing anything new.

But while you have only opinion to go on, there are some scriptures that do indicate a relationship. What you don't seem to understand is that Pharisee, Esscene, etc., were a lot like Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc., in that they were simply political affiliations with many differences within each party.

What you see as exclusive, we know to be different. All teachers had disciples within the framework of their theocratic background and alliances. Perhaps a better analogy would have been Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Assembly of God, etc. We see something similar in the televangelists that owe an allegiance to their respective denominational affiliations or roots, but who have distinct doctrines within that frameworks and a distinct set of disciples that support their ministry. Since you didn't address this I presume you either have no knowledge or opinion to share.

You have made some very simplistic general statements about the Judean environment in the day of the Messiah and His disciples that indicates to me that your view is somewhat one-dimensional and devoid of both cultural and religious understanding. Research teaches us that 1st century Messianic Judaism existed in a much more complex reality than you evidently acknowledge.

It is estimated that there were more than 8 individual political parties in Judea at the time of Messiah. Paul identified himself as being a Pharisee. So what makes you think Y'shua and the other disciples were not?

Annier, considering that there were many party affiliations and many teachers within those groups, each with many disciples, would you care to take a stab at the question above; the one that you ignored in your original reply? However, before you do, you might also wish to consider some interesting facts about the 'Sadducees'.

This was not strictly speaking, a political affiliation, but a priestly caste. Nor did it evolve into one in the classic sense of Judean politics except for the leaders of the caste. The current name we have in the English is the derivation of a transliteration. The original name was (without giving any lessons in Hebrew for which I am ill qualified) a familial designation for the descendants of Zadok, (Zadokim) the Aaronic priest loyal to King David (read 2 Sam). And even this was not that Aaronic priesthood per se. It was the familial line within the Aaronic priesthood that was designated by King David to be the only source of High Priests thereafter. By the time of the Messiah, the High Priesthood was a lucrative concession awarded by Rome that elevated certain elements of the Priesthood to that of a wealthy upper class.

John the baptist was indeed a prophet. He was also the son of an Aaronic priest of the line of the Zadokim (read:Sadducee) that had a rather illustrious notoriety with the Judean people due to the events that surrounded his birth. 'Sadducee' not a designation that John could shed, anymore that I can stop being the son of my father. But because of the corruption associated with the office of High Priest, there were repercussions among the general populace. Zadokim means 'righteous one' (an extremely simplistic explanation) but many Judeans, with a small change in pronunciation of the name, started calling them the 'self-righteous ones'.

Y'shua was from a priestly family in that His mother was the daughter of a Zadokim. But His affiliation with the Pharisees was noted in the Apostle John's account of John the Baptist. It is also recorded that the youngest Apostle, John was also of a priestly family, steeped in the symbolism and training of a Zadokim from an early age. But contrary to popular belief among Christians, being of a priestly family did not preclude an individual from adopting some or all of the doctrinal or prophetic conclusions of the Pharisees or the Essenes or anyone else for that matter. Haven't you ever heard of a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican?

On the matter of the mikvah of repentance (John's baptism), what do you know about baptism within the ancient Judean culture? Do you see John's baptism as the initiation or the advent of a new political party in Judea?

Your silence on this issue is deafening, even though many of your conclusions seem to be based on traditional Christian interpretations of this decidedly Jewish religious and cultural practice. You seem to have no shortage of opinions. Do you have an opinion on this subject or did you skip it because you don't? I'm just curious.

Thanks in advance,
Phillip

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Pharisee's believed in the after life. Yeshua said to obey those that sit in Moses Seat and condemned their hypocrisy. There's nothing more or less.

That'd be still go in line with the ways that Yeshua directly confronted them when it came to wrong things they taught and that he did not tolerate (Matthew 23). And the Saduccees also sat in Moses's seat since they were the ones who led/ruled the priesthood (Acts 4-5, Acts 5:16 , etc.) - with Yeshua noting on a number of occassions where they were in error on their own beliefs, the resurrection being one of them (Matthew 22:28-30 /Matthew 22/Mark 12:23-25 /Mark 12 ).

 

[macher]

That'd be still go in line with the ways that Yeshua directly confronted them when it came to wrong things they taught and that he did not tolerate (Matthew 23). And the Saduccees also sat in Moses's seat since they were the ones who led/ruled the priesthood (Acts 4-5, Acts 5:16 , etc.) - with Yeshua noting on a number of occassions where they were in error on their own beliefs, the resurrection being one of them (Matthew 22:28-30 /Matthew 22/Mark 12:23-25 /Mark 12 ).

I'd have to disagree. Yeshua said the scribes and Pharisee's sit on Moses Seat he didn't reference the Saduccees.

 

[annier]

Hi annier,

Did you not grasp that these two sentences were intended to go together? I get the feeling that you might see this exchange as an adversarial debate. Not my intention. Just trying to be informative.

No, not adversarial, nor debate. Merely expressing my opinion. I understood your sentences went together for you.

Annier, most of the people in this forum have at one point, held your viewpoint or something similar. But they have moved past it. Through a better understanding of the historical, cultural, sociological and political context of these writings, we have changed our thinking. You may think you are sharing a revelation or educating us. However, you aren't providing anything new.

Again, I mean no insult here, but you have not provided anything of substance concerning your new thinking. How does your new thinking prove my thinking lacking?

What you see as exclusive, we know to be different. All teachers had disciples within the framework of their theocratic background and alliances. Perhaps a better analogy would have been Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist, Assembly of God, etc. We see something similar in the televangelists that owe an allegiance to their respective denominational affiliations or roots, but who have distinct doctrines within that frameworks and a distinct set of disciples that support their ministry. Since you didn't address this I presume you either have no knowledge or opinion to share.

I have shared my views. But, I have not seen the same with you. The priests and the Pharisees were those which made up the Sanhedrin. It was they whom made legal decisions. Jesus himself said to listen to them and do as they say. So, I am not understanding what importance all the other sectarian groups make.

You have made some very simplistic general statements about the Judean environment in the day of the Messiah and His disciples that indicates to me that your view is somewhat one-dimensional and devoid of both cultural and religious understanding. Research teaches us that 1st century Messianic Judaism existed in a much more complex reality than you evidently acknowledge.

Again, no insult intended here. You also have made some very simplistic statements.

Annier, considering that there were many party affiliations and many teachers within those groups, each with many disciples, would you care to take a stab at the question above; the one that you ignored in your original reply? However, before you do, you might also wish to consider some interesting facts about the 'Sadducees'.

Again could you respond with what this knowledge benefits you to have a better grasp on things of the Gospel.

This was not strictly speaking, a political affiliation, but a priestly caste. Nor did it evolve into one in the classic sense of Judean politics except for the leaders of the caste. The current name we have in the English is the derivation of a transliteration. The original name was (without giving any lessons in Hebrew for which I am ill qualified) a familial designation for the descendants of Zadok, (Zadokim) the Aaronic priest loyal to King David (read 2 Sam). And even this was not that Aaronic priesthood per se. It was the familial line within the Aaronic priesthood that was designated by King David to be the only source of High Priests thereafter. By the time of the Messiah, the High Priesthood was a lucrative concession awarded by Rome that elevated certain elements of the Priesthood to that of a wealthy upper class.

John the baptist was indeed a prophet. He was also the son of an Aaronic priest of the line of the Zadokim (read:Sadducee) that had a rather illustrious notoriety with the Judean people due to the events that surrounded his birth. 'Sadducee' not a designation that John could shed, anymore that I can stop being the son of my father. But because of the corruption associated with the office of High Priest, there were repercussions among the general populace. Zadokim means 'righteous one' (an extremely simplistic explanation) but many Judeans, with a small change in pronunciation of the name, started calling them the 'self-righteous ones'.

Why is it that Sadducee is something he could not shed? Are you saying that every Levite was a Sadducee? We know Josephus was a Levite, and he claimed to have become a Pharisee. In his writings he also records other Levites which had become Pharisees.

Y'shua was from a priestly family in that His mother was the daughter of a Zadokim. But His affiliation with the Pharisees was noted in the Apostle John's account of John the Baptist. It is also recorded that the youngest Apostle, John was also of a priestly family, steeped in the symbolism and training of a Zadokim from an early age. But contrary to popular belief among Christians, being of a priestly family did not preclude an individual from adopting some or all of the doctrinal or prophetic conclusions of the Pharisees or the Essenes or anyone else for that matter. Haven't you ever heard of a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican?

Your silence on this issue is deafening, even though many of your conclusions seem to be based on traditional Christian interpretations of this decidedly Jewish religious and cultural practice. You seem to have no shortage of opinions. Do you have an opinion on this subject or did you skip it because you don't? I'm just curious.

Thanks in advance,
Phillip

It does seem to me that while you ask for my opinions, you really do not care to hear them. While I have offered my opinion (which was ill spoken of), you have offered nothing but simplistic statements of your own. It would appear to me at this point, your statements are to say, because I have not studied more indepth, that I am lacking understanding. So, isn't it about time you respond with some substance of your own, rather than simplistic statements? It would be greatly appreciated.

 

[annier]

I'd have to disagree. Yeshua said the scribes and Pharisee's sit on Moses Seat he didn't reference the Saduccees.

He did reference the priests IMO. Moses seat included the body of Judges which the law makes their decisions final. That they were sectarians in that body made no difference. As that BODY was not made up of that sect only.
Christ spake of them as strictly a sect, outside of that body, when he spoke of their hypocrisy.
Otherwise Christs statements would not make much sense. Listen to them and do as they say, then do not do as they do. The Pharisees were certainly teaching the people what to do. There fore the seat of Moses was not strictly Pharisee. It included the priest as we see in acts on a variety of levels. Letters from the high priest, giving authority to Paul to round up Christians from all the synagogues far and wide within the empire. the high priest being present to slapping Paul. Paul acknowledging his authority and apologizes once he realizes who he is. ETC.

 

[mishkan]

I'd have to disagree. Yeshua said the scribes and Pharisee's sit on Moses Seat he didn't reference the Saduccees.

I agree. His statement was explicitly pro-Pharisee, as opposed to including the Sadducees.

Did he engage the Sadducean beliefs on occasion? Yes. But generally only wen they came to him with a she'ilah/question.

I really think we all underestimate the the amount of disagreement and the vehemance of the arguments between rabbinic schools from 500BCE to 100CE. Judaism has never been monolithic, and it was particularly splintered at that time, both geographically and philosophically.

The Talmud contains numerous vicious pot-shots at the Sadducees from the Pharisaic composers of that work.

 

[annier]

That'd be still go in line with the ways that Yeshua directly confronted them when it came to wrong things they taught and that he did not tolerate (Matthew 23). And the Saduccees also sat in Moses's seat since they were the ones who led/ruled the priesthood (Acts 4-5, Acts 5:16 , etc.) - with Yeshua noting on a number of occassions where they were in error on their own beliefs, the resurrection being one of them (Matthew 22:28-30 /Matthew 22/Mark 12:23-25 /Mark 12 ).

From what I have read in Josephus, the Sadducees did side with the Pharisees often when it came to actions of public judgment. For he say's, otherwise the people would not tolerate them. The Pharisees had gained alot of power in that seat, due to the people admiring them greatly. But, the priests remained as heads of the Sanhedrin (even if as a prop essentially to their facad) a matter of being in keeping with the law. However when it came to Christ, this was no facad for the people, nor the Romans. It was real.

 

[Yahudim]

I agree. His statement was explicitly pro-Pharisee, as opposed to including the Sadducees.

Did he engage the Sadducean beliefs on occasion? Yes. But generally only wen they came to him with a she'ilah/question.

I really think we all underestimate the the amount of disagreement and the vehemance of the arguments between rabbinic schools from 500BCE to 100CE. Judaism has never been monolithic, and it was particularly splintered at that time, both geographically and philosophically.

The Talmud contains numerous vicious pot-shots at the Sadducees from the Pharisaic composers of that work.

Hi David!

Just for clarification's sake, would you agree with the notion that there were also pronounced differences between the priesthood in general and the Sadducean leadership? If so, how would you characterize Messiah's chastisements of the Sadducean leadership because of this? Was His ire directed to the leadership or the Sadducees as a whole.

After all, there were Levites starving and dying in the streets during that same period, so obviously they were not receiving their just portion of the Temple sacrifices, the portions of the harvest in the storehouses or anything else. In short, they weren't all in one accord. So how did these thing play out?