(September 18, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Jenny-

This article will provide a good overview.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/p...he-gospels

I think you missed the point.  Anyone can look them up.  I've done that myself.  The question is, What did you know BEFORE I asked the question?

Shame on you Jenny. You know Randy can't answer without linking to something.

And it has to have the pope's seal of approval!

Without looking anything up... The Sadducees and Pharisees were the high priest ruling class. The Sadducees were in power and had control of the Sanhedrin (majority vote) the differed from the Pharisees in several key points of theology the most distinct being they did not believe in the bodily resurrection after death, and the Pharisees did. Their were a couple other points but I'd have to look them up as I remember they were ceremonial and philosophical.

Durning the destruction of the temple by Rome the reign of the Saducees ended, and so to did "OT Judaism" as they were blamed by Rome for the Jewish rebellion and were all killed on the spot or hunted down and killed. So the version of Judaism we have today has evolved from the Pharisacial doctrinal beliefs.

So why did Jesus not have anything good to say about the either of those groups? Because they used God law for their own personal gain. They were the TV ministers of their day IF our TV ministers could tax everyone, and create laws that oppressed people and made it hard for people to connect to God.

(September 18, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(September 18, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Jenny-

This article will provide a good overview.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/p...he-gospels

I think you missed the point.  Anyone can look them up.  I've done that myself.  The question is, What did you know BEFORE I asked the question?

Jenny-

I have been studying this stuff for a long time, but so have you, apparently.

I provided the link for the benefit of anyone who had not done so before you posted.

Quote:Durning the destruction of the temple by Rome the reign of the Saducees ended, and so to did "OT Judaism" as they were blamed by Rome for the Jewish rebellion and were all killed on the spot or hunted down and killed.

False.  The Sanhedrin was re-established at Yavne after Jerusalem was sacked.  Yavne being somewhat northwest of Jerusalem and almost on the Mediterranean coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavne

Quote:After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai moved the Sanhedrin to Yavne. Some scholars believe the so-called Council of Yavne met there. The Sanhedrin left Yavne for Usha in 80 CE and returned in 116 CE.

(September 20, 2015 at 11:04 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Durning the destruction of the temple by Rome the reign of the Saducees ended, and so to did "OT Judaism" as they were blamed by Rome for the Jewish rebellion and were all killed on the spot or hunted down and killed.

False.  The Sanhedrin was re-established at Yavne after Jerusalem was sacked.  Yavne being somewhat northwest of Jerusalem and almost on the Mediterranean coast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yavne

Quote:After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai moved the Sanhedrin to Yavne. Some scholars believe the so-called Council of Yavne met there. The Sanhedrin left Yavne for Usha in 80 CE and returned in 116 CE.

Yes, yes very nice Minnie. But you do understand the what the Sanhedrin is right? The word means 'sitting together' it's a word that describes a consul of high ranking priests. Not just one sect of priest

The Saducees were not the only ruling class that sat on the Sanhedrin... After the Saducees were slaughtered the remaining Pharisees and esseans re established the "sitting together" of high ranking priests.

I believe Josephus is the historian who records the end of saducacial rule in 70 ad

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees

The Saducees were dependent on the temple.  The fucking temple was gone.  They died out but they were not hunted down and killed by the Romans.

Please pull your head out of your ass, drippy.  You'll find that the world smells a lot better.

(September 20, 2015 at 11:32 am)Minimalist Wrote: The Saducees were dependent on the temple.  The fucking temple was gone.  They died out but they were not hunted down and killed by the Romans.

Please pull your head out of your ass, drippy.  You'll find that the world smells a lot better.

So it's your believe that the Destruction of herod's temple this the reason that the Saducees were disbanded?

Is it also your belief that the Saducees did not know that all the temple requirements could have been met by erecting a tent (like they had done before Solomon and between the second and the completion of the third temple?

History records that the Romans did indeed target the Saducees because they were the leadership behind the insurrection that resulted in the looting and destruction of herod's temple

I'm not going to pretend I didn't cheat by refreshing my reading, but whatever.

What Drich said, with some modification:

Pharisees
There are problems with bias of all our sources on them
They operated a purity code as part of a wider agenda of national liberation, but could also use violence.
The Temple was still their controlling symbol, but they had influence rather than power.
Their belief was in the restoration of God's kingdom, in which resurrection was one part.

Importantly, Jesus wasn't against Pharisees as such. Nicodemus and Gamaliel come out well, for example, and Jesus socialised with them at dinners. However on the whole, the Pharisaic movement regarded the claim that Jesus was inaugurating the Kingdom of God as dangerously wrong, and opposed it. Hence the beef.


Sadducees
Little is known about them.
They were the party with the power (secular and priestly).
Because trying to bring God's Kingdom in would have been a political power move against them as the authority, they had little time for resurrection ideas.

Jesus' claim to act as a Temple replacement brought him into direct conflict with the Sadducees. Also, they tended to want to stamp out religious movements without further discussion. Hence the grief.

(September 20, 2015 at 1:08 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 20, 2015 at 11:32 am)Minimalist Wrote: The Saducees were dependent on the temple.  The fucking temple was gone.  They died out but they were not hunted down and killed by the Romans.

Please pull your head out of your ass, drippy.  You'll find that the world smells a lot better.

So it's your believe that the Destruction of herod's temple this the reason that the Saducees were disbanded?

Is it also your belief that the Saducees did not know that all the temple requirements could have been met by erecting a tent (like they had done before Solomon and between the second and the completion of the third temple?

History records that the Romans did indeed target the Saducees because they were the leadership behind the insurrection that resulted in the looting and destruction of herod's temple

The Romans targeted jewish rebels.  Do you really think they gave a flying fuck about these absurd philosophical differences they invented for themselves?  Drippy, you have to drop this absurd idea that everything in the world revolves around your silly, bullshit, religion.  The rest of the world did not care.

BTW, if you take the time to read Josephus he gives a marvelous explanation of the internecine strife among the various zealot groups and how none of them gave a fuck about the various priests, either.  And probably rightly so.  The priests were in collusion with the Romans and the king.