Sadducces : atheist priests

[mathinspiration]

Were the priests of Jesus times: Sadducces atheists because they didn’t believe in the resurrection or in angels or spiritual or the supernatural?

 

[crossnote]

Were the priests of Jesus times: Sadducces atheists because they didn’t believe in the resurrection or in angels or spiritual or the supernatural?

I would liken them to modern day theological liberals instead..perhaps worse than an atheist.

 

[Robban]

Were the priests of Jesus times: Sadducces atheists because they didn’t believe in the resurrection or in angels or spiritual or the supernatural?

Well, they were very sad you see.

 

[TuxAme]

I would say that they were like the LDS of Judaism.

 

[Ken Rank]

Were the priests of Jesus times: Sadducces atheists because they didn’t believe in the resurrection or in angels or spiritual or the supernatural?

If I remember correctly, a teaching a friend did once showed that they didn't believe in a physical resurrection but rather on something more spiritual. I mean, we do have this....

Matthew 22:23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, (24) saying: "Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. (25) Now there were with us seven brothers. The first died after he had married, and having no offspring, left his wife to his brother. (26) Likewise the second also, and the third, even to the seventh. (27) Last of all the woman died also. (28) Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her."

Kind of an odd thing to ask if there is no belief at all in some kind of resurrection.

Interesting side note.... the Sadducees (the priests) seem to disappear from history. However, they are mentioned 2 or 3 times in the Talmud and called.. are you ready.... Christians. Apparently when the Temple was destroyed and they were out of a job, they joined the faith. This is further evidenced by a 7th century Orthodox decree that says, and I paraphrase, "A priest no longer needs to be of the line of Aaron to be a priest (in their sect)." Which tells us that up until that point, they did have to be from the lineage of Aaron in order to be a priest in that church.

 

[NeedyFollower]

Were the priests of Jesus times: Sadducces atheists because they didn’t believe in the resurrection or in angels or spiritual or the supernatural?

We get the word atheist from early Greek . It literally means " without God " so just because they believed in God , many were still without God .

 

[zippy2006]

Kind of an odd thing to ask if there is no belief at all in some kind of resurrection.

The whole point of that pericope is the Sadducee's challenging the doctrine of the resurrection. It is a reductio ad absurdum argument, indicating that there could be no resurrection due to the fact of the multiple marriages.

 

[awitch]

I would liken them to modern day theological liberals instead..perhaps worse than an atheist.

I'm a Pagan liberal. Woohoo! I'm number one! Take that, atheists!

 

[JackRT]

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.


Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.


The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.


In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.


Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.


This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

As implied earlier the Sadducees were the conservatives in bed with and collaborating with both the High Priesthood and the Romans. The Pharisees were the liberals and the heroes in this aspect of history.

 

[JackRT]

I would liken them to modern day theological liberals instead..perhaps worse than an atheist.

Quite wrong. You seem to know almost nothing about either Sadducees or liberals.

 

[crossnote]

I'm a Pagan liberal. Woohoo! I'm number one! Take that, atheists!

I meant Christian liberals who are like wolves in sheepskin and are hard to spot. That's why they're dangerous. Pagans are easy to spot, as soon as they open their mouths and teach, it is obvious.

 

[crossnote]

Quite wrong. You seem to know almost nothing about either Sadducees or liberals.

Acts 23:8 ESV
[8] For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
Same as the theological liberals of today who have a tendency to downplay or even deny the miraculous.
Now can you be more specific about your faulty accusation?
Remember, I was originally addressing the Sadducee issue, not Pharisees, per the OP.

 

[awitch]

I meant Christian liberals who are like wolves in sheepskin and are hard to spot. That's why they're dangerous. Pagans are easy to spot, as soon as they open their mouths and teach, it is obvious.

Thanks for the heads up. Probably best to play it safe and not trust any Christian.

 

[crossnote]

Thanks for the heads up. Probably best to play it safe and not trust any Christian.

It's best to check out their blather with Scripture...

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
(Act 17:11)

 

[Zoness]

I'm a Pagan liberal. Woohoo! I'm number one! Take that, atheists!

Pagan liberals unite! Now accepting atheists in our midst too.

 

[awitch]

It's best to check out their blather with Scripture...

In all seriousness, liberal Christian often do justify their pov with scripture.
Ambiguous, ain't it?

 

[JackRT]

Acts 23:8 ESV
[8] For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
Same as the theological liberals of today who have a tendency to downplay or even deny the miraculous.
Now can you be more specific about your faulty accusation?
Remember, I was originally addressing the Sadducee issue, not Pharisees, per the OP.

History indicates that it was the Sadducees who were the conservatives trying to preserve the old understandings at any cost and to preserve their privileges by collaborating with the occupying Romans. It was the liberal and progressive Pharisees who were hauling the freight in loving God and serving their fellow man.

 

[Ken Rank]

The whole point of that pericope is the Sadducee's challenging the doctrine of the resurrection. It is a reductio ad absurdum argument, indicating that there could be no resurrection due to the fact of the multiple marriages.

Again, the priests who seemingly disappear from history, are shown in early Jewish sources to have converted to Christianity. So they didn't seem to have the issue with the resurrection most think.

 

[crossnote]

In all seriousness, liberal Christian often do justify their pov with scripture.
Ambiguous, ain't it?

So did satan...but out of context...

And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, “‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and “‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’” And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.
(Luk 4:9-13)

 

[crossnote]

History indicates that it was the Sadducees who were the conservatives trying to preserve the old understandings at any cost and to preserve their privileges by collaborating with the occupying Romans. It was the liberal and progressive Pharisees who were hauling the freight in loving God and serving their fellow man.

Ok,so you have a different definition of what a theological liberal is, or you are confusing it with a political liberal. For me it is one who waters down the miraculous which includes the inspiration of Scriptures by God. Historically they have challenged the integrity of Scripture because mainly of it's miracles and fulfilled prophecies such as C.H. Spurgeon and John Gresham Machen had to contend with in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries respectively.
Equally the Sadducees leaned towards denying the miraculous such as angels, resurrection and such...

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.
Acts 23:8 ESV