Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the modern Saduccees?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 8 (274072)
12-30-2005 1:22 AM


One of the primary enemies of Jesus' ministry and the ministry of the apostles in Acts, and a group Jesus condemned somewhat harshly are the Sadduccees. He calls them vipers in fact.
7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Matthew 3:7 (King James Version)
One of the main sources of criticism of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and of His Apostles in the book of Acts were the Sadduccees.
Nelson Bible Dictionary writes:
SADDUCEES -- members of a Jewish faction that opposed Jesus during His ministry. Known for their denial of the bodily resurrection, the Sadducees came from the leading families of the nation-the priests, merchants, and aristocrats. The high priests and the most powerful members of the priesthood were mainly Sadducees (Acts 5:17).
Some scholars believe the name Sadducees came from Zadok, the high priest in the days of David (2 Sam 15:24) and Solomon (1 Kings 1:34-45). Many of the wealthy lay people were also Sadducees. This may be the reason why the Sadducees gave the impression of wanting to preserve things as they were. They enjoyed privileged positions in society and managed to get along well under Roman rule. Any movement that might upset order and authority was bound to appear dangerous in their eyes.
The Sadducees rejected "the tradition of the elders," that body of oral and written commentary which interpreted the law of Moses. This automatically placed them in direct conflict with another Jewish group, the PHARISEES, who had made the traditions surrounding the Law almost as important as the Law itself.
John the Baptist condemned the Sadducees.(Matthew 3:7)
Jesus warned us to beware of their doctrine or "leaven", their way of looking at things. Keep in mind there are a limited number of things Jesus says to beware of, and the Sadducees ideas make the list. (Matthew 16:6)
So here we have a religious group that denies the existence of the spiritual realm, of angels, and of the literal resurrection. It seems to me that a great many moralists who attempt to reduce Jesus, His teachings, and Christianity to a mere hypothetical and humanist moral code are, in fact, Sadducean in their outlook.
Moreover, looking past overt theistic religion, it seems that many materialists and rationalists could rightly be considered somewhat similar to Sadducean doctrine.
Imo then, Jesus takes a very dim and harsh view of many that advance ideas that the spiritual realm is a myth, and of those that overly rely on reason over revelation and who downplay the supernatural, revelatory and mystical aspects of Christ. In short, the whole Rationalist approach is condemned by Jesus, to a certain extent, imo.
(Note: some of this includes phat's suggestions for an editted version.)
This message has been edited by randman, 01-04-2006 08:57 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 12-30-2005 8:17 AM randman has not replied
 Message 3 by AdminBen, posted 12-30-2005 9:34 AM randman has not replied
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 01-04-2006 7:29 AM randman has replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 8 (274117)
12-30-2005 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-30-2005 1:22 AM


Tentative disapproval
Isn't this going to be a thread on labelling people? How does that fit with the forum rules?
I don't much like this topic. But I will leave the PNT open for comments or possible action by other administrators.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 12-30-2005 1:22 AM randman has not replied

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 8 (274136)
12-30-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
12-30-2005 1:22 AM


A second opinion
randman,
You've got two themes going on in this thread; one is interesting and promotable, one is simply slander and not.
I'd suggest you drop the whole "modern Saduccess" business, as it is, as AdminNwr suggests, simply an investigation on labelling and slandering.
The question you bring up at the end--does Jesus speak against the rational approach--is interesting, and I'd like to see it discussed. So, again, I'd suggest you rewrite your post (and title) around that discussion. I'd be happy to promote it to "Bible Study" in that case.
Thanks.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by randman, posted 12-30-2005 1:22 AM randman has not replied

    AdminPhat
    Inactive Member


    Message 4 of 8 (275647)
    01-04-2006 7:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by randman
    12-30-2005 1:22 AM


    My opinion
    Phats suggested edit writes:
    One of the main sources of criticism of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and of His Apostles in the book of Acts were the Sadduccees.
    Nelson Bible Dictionary writes:
    SADDUCEES -- members of a Jewish faction that opposed Jesus during His ministry. Known for their denial of the bodily resurrection, the Sadducees came from the leading families of the nation-the priests, merchants, and aristocrats. The high priests and the most powerful members of the priesthood were mainly Sadducees (Acts 5:17).
    Some scholars believe the name Sadducees came from Zadok, the high priest in the days of David (2 Sam 15:24) and Solomon (1 Kings 1:34-45). Many of the wealthy lay people were also Sadducees. This may be the reason why the Sadducees gave the impression of wanting to preserve things as they were. They enjoyed privileged positions in society and managed to get along well under Roman rule. Any movement that might upset order and authority was bound to appear dangerous in their eyes.
    The Sadducees rejected "the tradition of the elders," that body of oral and written commentary which interpreted the law of Moses. This automatically placed them in direct conflict with another Jewish group, the PHARISEES, who had made the traditions surrounding the Law almost as important as the Law itself.
    John the Baptist condemned the Sadducees.(Matthew 3:7)
    Jesus warned us to beware of their doctrine or "leaven", their way of looking at things. Keep in mind there are a limited number of things Jesus says to beware of, and the Sadducees ideas make the list. (Matthew 16:6)
    So here we have a religious group that denies the existence of the spiritual realm, of angels, and of the literal resurrection. It seems to me that a great many moralists who attempt to reduce Jesus, His teachings, and Christianity to a mere hypothetical and humanist moral code are, in fact, Sadducean in their outlook.
    Moreover, looking past overt theistic religion, it seems that many materialists and rationalists could rightly be considered somewhat similar to Sadducean doctrine.
    Imo then, Jesus takes a very dim and harsh view of many that advance ideas that the spiritual realm is a myth, and of those that overly rely on reason over revelation and who downplay the supernatural, revelatory and mystical aspects of Christ. In short, the whole Rationalist approach is condemned by Jesus, to a certain extent, imo.
    Thats my suggestion, Randman. We need to leave out any references to "evos" or to anyone whom we disagree with. Let the scripture and the argument speak for itself.
    If you like my edit, put it in your own words. rewrite the O.P. and I'll promote you to Faith/Belief.
    This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-04-2006 05:33 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by randman, posted 12-30-2005 1:22 AM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by randman, posted 01-04-2006 8:57 AM AdminPhat has not replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 5 of 8 (275661)
    01-04-2006 8:57 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by AdminPhat
    01-04-2006 7:29 AM


    Re: My opinion
    Phat, since your version was already somewhat in my words but editted, I just added the edit with your language, but no intent on plagiarizing and noted this at the end. Hopefully, that's OK with you.
    This message has been edited by randman, 01-04-2006 08:59 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 01-04-2006 7:29 AM AdminPhat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by AdminBen, posted 01-09-2006 10:11 AM randman has replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 8 (277509)
    01-09-2006 10:11 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by randman
    01-04-2006 8:57 AM


    Re: My opinion
    Just saw this one with the edited version. I think the OP is good now; I think the appropriate place is "Bible Study".
    Now we just need a meaningful title. I would highly suggest something along the lines of "Does Jesus condemn the Rationalist approach?"

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by randman, posted 01-04-2006 8:57 AM randman has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by randman, posted 01-10-2006 6:20 PM AdminBen has replied

    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 7 of 8 (277853)
    01-10-2006 6:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by AdminBen
    01-09-2006 10:11 AM


    Re: My opinion
    I like the title. I think the ? softens it. It is an exploration first and foremost of what are the modern versions of Saduccean thought we should watch out for, assuming that Jesus' warnings were for our generation as well.
    Imo, attacking rationalism per se misses the point. I know I mention rationalism, but it's after I lay out how rationalism may intersect with Saduccean thought.
    The thread, for me, is about modern Saduccees. The Saduccees were establishment types, but rejected the whole concept of the spiritual realm. I really think the materialist and moral claims connected to a sense of scientific progress that came out of the 19th century fit very well with what Jesus warned about. It's not that there is nothing good about the Saduccees, but that along with some good things, like morals, comes along something Jesus feels is extremely dangerous, the denigration of the need and reality of faith.
    This message has been edited by randman, 01-10-2006 06:21 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by AdminBen, posted 01-09-2006 10:11 AM AdminBen has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by AdminBen, posted 01-10-2006 10:52 PM randman has not replied

    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 8 (277932)
    01-10-2006 10:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by randman
    01-10-2006 6:20 PM


    Promoted
    I reread the OP, and I see now how you're tying everyting in. I guess I missed that on first read.
    I have a feeling Adminnemoseus is going to edit the title to help explicate what the thread's about, because alone it just isn't enough to understand, except for those who know the Saduccees.
    In other words, I'm promoting it like this. Thanks for the updates, edits, notes, etc.
    AbE: Promoted to the modern Saduccees in the Bible Study Forum.
    This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2006/01/10 07:54 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by randman, posted 01-10-2006 6:20 PM randman has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024