Sadducces : atheist priests

[Jane_the_Bane]

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

You are a Trump supporter, are you not?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Associating the Sadducees with "liberal" anything seems very bizarre. If anything the Sadducees were arguably the most conservative element of Judaism in the first century--their chief interest was in maintaining the status quo, not ruffling any feathers, and acting as the old guard. They were, after all, comprised of the rich aristocratic priestly families who had, effectively, held the religious (and to lesser extent political) power for centuries. Roman occupation had limited their power and authority of course, but by comparison to the people on the streets, they had far more power.

The Pharisees, by comparison, were basically the Judaism of the every-man, it was the Judaism of the synagogue, of the people in the towns and villages. It was the common man's Judaism. Jesus' criticism of "the Pharisees" had basically nothing to do with Pharisaism itself (Jesus was, all things considered, Himself basically a Pharisee as far as religion is concerned), but instead was with religious hypocrisy and abuses of religion that Jesus takes issue with. That's why Jesus said that one should listen to the Pharisees because they "sit in Moses' seat", that one should do as they say, but not as they do, "because they do not practice what they preach".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Associating the Sadducees with "liberal" anything seems very bizarre. If anything the Sadducees were arguably the most conservative element of Judaism in the first century--their chief interest was in maintaining the status quo, not ruffling any feathers, and acting as the old guard. They were, after all, comprised of the rich aristocratic priestly families who had, effectively, held the religious (and to lesser extent political) power for centuries. Roman occupation had limited their power and authority of course, but by comparison to the people on the streets, they had far more power.

The Pharisees, by comparison, were basically the Judaism of the every-man, it was the Judaism of the synagogue, of the people in the towns and villages. It was the common man's Judaism. Jesus' criticism of "the Pharisees" had basically nothing to do with Pharisaism itself (Jesus was, all things considered, Himself basically a Pharisee as far as religion is concerned), but instead was with religious hypocrisy and abuses of religion that Jesus takes issue with. That's why Jesus said that one should listen to the Pharisees because they "sit in Moses' seat", that one should do as they say, but not as they do, "because they do not practice what they preach".

-CryptoLutheran

Yeah, but... don't Republicans pretend that THEY are the "every-man party" (and their voters somehow gobble up that blatant untruth)?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yeah, but... don't Republicans pretend that THEY are the "every-man party" (and their voters somehow gobble up that blatant untruth)?

Republicans say a lot of things.

Not that I think Democrats are blameless (hardly). Fundamentaly the United States has two dominant political parties that are, by and large, right-wing and tend toward the interests of the oligarchs.

Recently comedian Jon Stewart came before Congress, along with a couple dozen 9/11 First Responders to act on behalf of all the First Responders. Jon had some words to say to what amounted to an almost empty panel. It was a moment to realize that it sometimes takes a comedian to point out that the real clowns sit in seats of power.

-CryptoLutheran