So I'm reading about the origins of the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
Basically after the destruction of the first temple and the return from exile, Jews were allowed to have their religions again, but not their monarchy. The Sadducees tried to continue the liturgical and priestly traditions that had been there in the past, however, the Pharisees presented themselves as "the party of the people" and were aggressively nationalist. They were the primary drivers of the conflict with the Romans and were against hellenisation. The Saducees on teh other hand supported hellenisation, and wanted to continue the priestly tradition whereas the Pharisees were obsessed with Mosaic law.
Much of what the Saducees wanted could be said to have continued on in the Christian movement. Whereas the Pharisees continued on as what we today known simply as "Jews", after writing the Talmud in which they attacked Christ and His mother Mary. Many elements of modern Zionism particularly its nationalist supremacist rhetoric and rejection of the liturgical traditions can be reflected in the Pharisees, and one could say the modern day conflict between Christianity and Zionism (along with its pawns such as the US military-industrial complex and western banking system) could be said to be a continuation of the struggle between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Many people have said that the Pharisees drifted further and further away from the original religion of the Israelite tribes, some even going so far as to say they later reached a point akin to devil worship with their worship of the canaanite god Baal.
This is why its eternally false when people say "Jesus was a Jew". What Jesus would have been, and what "Jews" are now are two completely different things, almost different religions. Due to a monopoly of political power, the Pharisees became synonymous with the term "jew" in modern day usage wheras back then Jews would have been many different sects, not just Pharisees.
No, but the Catholics are the modern day Pharisees. They have developed a lifestyle of going to church, confessing their sins, doing penance, and receiving absolution from human beings. They perform rites and rituals like cleansing baptisms and eating crackers and drinking juice, thinking it makes them more holy.
they are not modern day Sadducees because that group did not believe in an afterlife.
Julian Watson
By any definition your crooked mind can come up with, Jesus is a Jew.
Jason Foster
Absolute rubbish. The Essenes thought there would be two messiahs.
Christians know Jesus is The Messiah.
Leo Ramirez
>This is why its eternally false when people say "Jesus was a Jew". What Jesus would have been, and what "Jews" are now are two completely different things, almost different religions. Due to a monopoly of political power, the Pharisees became synonymous with the term "jew" in modern day usage wheras back then Jews would have been many different sects, not just Pharisees.
That's the dumbest logic I've ever heard. Yes, there were numerous different Jewish sects, but as far as I'm aware, none of these sects denied that the others were Jewish, they just had doctrinal differences with the others. That Jesus was more like one or the other doesn't deny his essential Judaism.
It's just as dumb as that one proddie poster who keeps claiming that Catholics aren't Christians.
>Much of what the Saducees wanted could be said to have continued on in the Christian movement
Are you high? Since when is Christianity a religion that's ambivalent about the afterlife and centered around ritual sacrifices by a hereditary caste at a central location?
Jackson Sanders
>Catholics aren't Christians.
They're not. Different membership requirements, different groups of people, different actions, different beliefs, different everything.
That you can't notice that is ponderous.
Bentley Sanders
>Absolute rubbish. The author argue that the Pharisees and Sadducees were more Hellenized than the Christians because they used Greek(formal logic) logic, whereas Early Christians and Essenes didn't.
>Christians know Jesus is The Messiah.
What is John the Baptist ?
Luis Peterson
>That's the dumbest logic I've ever heard. Yes, there were numerous different Jewish sects, but as far as I'm aware, none of these sects denied that the others were Jewish, they just had doctrinal differences with the others. That Jesus was more like one or the other doesn't deny his essential Judaism.
No you fucktard. Pharisees and Saducees were considered antithetical to each other. When people say "Jews" nowadays, they mean rabbinacal judaism, which was established by the pharisees 200 years after Jesus. That Jesus opposed the pharisees makes it that he was not the same as them, when the word "Jew" in the modern sense can be synonymous with Pharisee. Saying Jesus was a Jew is like Jesus was a pharisee.
Jacob Harris
The Hellenization of the Jews occurred at least a century prior to Jesus' birth. Some were Hellenized, some were not. The ones that were aren't really important to history. If you read Paul's gospel to the Hebrews, he's making arguments to this Hellenized group of people who were not really Jews, were not really Greeks, and were not really Christians.
John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah to point to the Messiah, and he fulfilled his role. Had Israel accepted their Messiah, John would have been Elijah. As they did not, the real Elijah is slated to come back and reprise the role.
John was not an Essene, but he was at least partly influenced by their beliefs as while he was in prison, he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was The Messiah, or if there was going to be another one. Jesus said I Am, and told John's disciples to note the miracles he was doing that were attributed some to Moshiac ben Joseph and some to Moshiac ben David.
The Essenes were the raiders who killed Roman soldiers, and ended up dead at Masada later. Their homes were to the west of Jerusalem, while John's territory was to the north.
Xavier James
Both groups were hostile to Jesus, and Jesus showed both groups how wrong they were. Both groups were represented in the Sanhedrin, and both groups carried out a kangaroo court trial and sentenced Jesus to death.
The main contention between the two was the presence of the Afterlife.
Jesus said that God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not that God WAS the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, indicating that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive somewhere else.
Sadducee BTFO.
Luis Thompson
There are also many ways that Christians are closer to Pharisees than Sadducees.
For example the Old Testament is almost identical the modern Jewish Tanakh. Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as scripture. Sadducees didn't believe in souls, resurrection, angels, or demons. Christians and Pharisees do.
And don't forget that the Sadducees were the ones that orchestrated Jesus' death, according to the gospels.
Ethan Thompson
The OT is the Jewish tanakh. It's just organized differently.
I'd like to get a cite on the Sadducees only accepting the torah.
Seems like your statement is an old misunderstanding:
When Josephus says that they rejected all but the written law, he probably meant that they did not permit legal or doctrinal deductions from the prophets. He most likely meant that they opposed unwritten traditions. According to the Talmud, in the debates the Sadducees were attacked from other books of the Bible and used them themselves in their arguments. This strongly suggests that they viewed them as Scripture as well.
The Pharisees had a large body of oral interpretation that had become binding. It was this that the Sadducees opposed.
Michael Hernandez
>Pharisees and Saducees were considered antithetical to each other.
No they weren't. They were just different sects that struggled for supremacy, same as quite a few religions.
>When people say "Jews" nowadays, they mean rabbinacal judaism,
Not necessarily. Certainly not in an academic context.
> That Jesus opposed the pharisees makes it that he was not the same as them,
The only "evidence" for that is the Gospels themselves, and given their rather vague demarcation of then current Jewish religious sects, (consider Mark 3's first verses; the "Pharisees" are quite upset with Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath, when that was one of the points of contention they had with the Sadducees, who were in fact the party that held that healing on the Sabbath was forbidden, whereas the Mishnah, a Pharisee document allows it in all but the most trivial cases.) they are rather unreliable.
> when the word "Jew" in the modern sense can be synonymous with Pharisee. Saying Jesus was a Jew is like Jesus was a pharisee.
No, that's idiotic. Especially since while "Modern Rabbinical Judaism", that you talk about earlier in the post, is ultimately derived from Pharisee Judaism, it is not exactly the same, but rather a derivation with significant drift in terms of law codes and cultural mores; they no longer have princes leading academies as their leaders, last I checked.
Aaron Martin
I consider all papist nonsense to be garbage, but thanks for providing a cite I wouldn't trust my goldfish's life to, had I a goldfish.
Brody Price
They don't have anything, last time I checked. No Temple, no High Priest, no animal sacrifices, no atonement for sins, no High Holy Days, no relationship with the living God, no Covenant with the living God, nothing but the promise God made to Abraham.
Camden Clark
the sadducees don't believe in the angels or spirits, that's why they're sad you see.
Julian Green
>Catholics aren't Christian >Baptists aren't Protestant I bet you'd also say Mormons are. I wonder what all those mosaics, reliefs, paintings, and crosses were for then, as well as why they pray Jesus's mother of all things.
Grayson Martin
No. Christ spoke about against both of them. The Sadducee are lost to history like the Essenes while the Pharisees evolved into rabbinical Jews.
Cameron Mitchell
Jesus was the first Christian. His teachings were distinctly Christian, as was the teachings of his Church.
Jose Ward
What if Jesus was a continuation of a preexistent syncretic Jewish Gnostic current that might have been under the influence of Buddhism and then a more hardline literalist sect arose from this movement which became the Proto-Orthodox.
Jace Lewis
I'd argue Christ teachings are closer to something like Zoroastrianism than Buddhism. As for the idea that he was part of a sect lost to history but which we can refer to the proto-Christians, I have a theory that the line of David and those who would be part of the group DID practice a sect of Judaism which was distinct from pharisee's and Sadducee's which would become Christianity.
> and then a more hardline literalist sect arose Christians aren't as hardline literalist as you think they are. Especially in early church history when no official canon existed. In fact, for Catholics, the current canon was only ratified during the council of Trent in the 1500s.
Jaxon Nelson
You really don't know very much about Judaism.
Juan Sullivan
The Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife or resurrection of the dead, so their doctrine was pretty different than Christianity.
Tyler White
Well he still exposed them as the spawn of Satan in their own fucking land That takes more balls than all of /pol/ combined
