Sadducees debate Christ re: Resurrection

[BobRyan]

Matt 22
23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,[/b]

Sadducees beliefs according to Josephus:

In Ant 13 §293 Josephus refers to only the Sadducees’ belief in free will, and in Ant 18 §16–17 he refers to their claim that the soul perished along with the body at death.
http://www.nelc.ucla.edu/Faculty/Schniedewind_files/DSS/SADDUCEES.pdf[/font]

Other sources -

Sadduceesa religious party at the time of Christ among the Jews, who denied
that the oral law was a revelation of God to the Israelites, and
who deemed the written law alone to be obligatory on the nation,
as the divine authority. They denied the following doctrines:
1a) resurrection of the body
1b) immortality of the soul
1c) existence of spirits and angels
1d) divine predestination, affirmed free will

http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Sadducees



Acts 23:
6But perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!"
7As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.
8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.


In the Matt 22 debate between Christ and the Sadducees ( referenced above )

-- what do the Sadducees think happens while you are dead?

What do they think of the Resurrection?

Which argument does Jesus use to convince them of error?

1. I am Jesus just believe whatever I say when you debate me?

2. Since you won't listen to me -- how about listening to the OT - I can prove from that text alone that there has to be a resurrection.


What "problem" does Jesus present to the Sadducees - for which the only "solution" was to lose the debate on resurrectoin and admit that Jesus was correct?

What did the Phrarisees think of the "proof" that Christ gave according to Matt 22?


in Christ,

Bob

 

[peterotto]

I don't know what you are trying to debate here.

What I have found interesting is the belief of the Sadducees only believing in the Torah. I couldn't find anything in Josephus writing that said that. After some investigating, it turns out the ECF put that label on the Sadducees. In fact, through later debates with the Sadducees, the other books in the OT were used as evidence. It goes to show they do hold to the other books, just not as high standing as the LAW.

I think the real problem with the Sadducees is the information we have about them. We are lacking in evidence. And the historical writings were written by people who disliked them, so you end up with a skewed representation.

 

[billwald]

>What I have found interesting is the belief of the Sadducees only believing in the Torah.

Correct. Believing /concluding that only the first 5 books are Torah, not the entire Tanakh. Moses teaches this in Deut. The first 5 books are the canon, everything else is commentary on Torah. I agree. There is nothing in the Prophets or Writings or Jesus' statements that disagree with the first 5 books.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't know what you are trying to debate here.

What I have found interesting is the belief of the Sadducees only believing in the Torah. I couldn't find anything in Josephus writing that said that. After some investigating, it turns out the ECF put that label on the Sadducees. In fact, through later debates with the Sadducees, the other books in the OT were used as evidence. It goes to show they do hold to the other books, just not as high standing as the LAW.

I think the real problem with the Sadducees is the information we have about them. We are lacking in evidence. And the historical writings were written by people who disliked them, so you end up with a skewed representation.

Josephus is not an ECF.

Also you did not comment on the information given in the OP regarding Acts Matt 22 and Acts 23 stating the beliefs of the Sadducees.

The "perspective" of the Sadducee is key to how they would have reacted to a debate with Christ to prove/disprove the resurrection.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

>What I have found interesting is the belief of the Sadducees only believing in the Torah.

Correct. Believing /concluding that only the first 5 books are Torah, not the entire Tanakh. Moses teaches this in Deut. The first 5 books are the canon, everything else is commentary on Torah. I agree. There is nothing in the Prophets or Writings or Jesus' statements that disagree with the first 5 books.

I thought it would be the Mishnah that they were objecting to -- just as Christ does in Mark 7.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Giving them the benefit of the doubt then - that they accepted the OT text but continued to reject "spirit and angel and resurrection" the question is - what do they conclude about a person when that person dies --- before they enter the debate with Christ?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I don't know what you are trying to debate here.

What I have found interesting is the belief of the Sadducees only believing in the Torah. I couldn't find anything in Josephus writing that said that. After some investigating, it turns out the ECF put that label on the Sadducees. In fact, through later debates with the Sadducees, the other books in the OT were used as evidence. It goes to show they do hold to the other books, just not as high standing as the LAW.

I think the real problem with the Sadducees is the information we have about them. We are lacking in evidence. And the historical writings were written by people who disliked them, so you end up with a skewed representation.

GE
Your last observation is good, is true, and is very, important! It applies to some 'technicalities' regarding the interpretations given to the Passover Feast in particular.

 

[eightball]

If I am correct the Sadducees only accepted the first 4 books of the OT.. Jesus wisely used the OT in His Matthew discourse to show their hypocrisy.

Secondly, when questioned with the hypothetical of a woman losing six husbands, and being asked of Jesus, who she's married to (Deut. 25:5) in the ressurrection, the questioner representing the Sadducees was basically raising a hypothetical question that went against their belief in no ressurrection. Matt. 22:23-33. Jesus' reply revealed or rebuked their unbelief in the ressurrection by by quoting Exodus 3:6, "I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

 

[BobRyan]

Ahh now we are getting closer to the actual subject matter IN one of the few DEBATES Christ agrees to engage in - where doctrine is at issue . The Pharisees had a long standing debate with the Sadducees and could not get them to see the sense in the resurrection.

So Christ states HIS Purpose "But CONCERNING the RESURRECTION have you not read...".

The PROBLEM with the proof that Christ gave for Christians today is that many Christians suppose ANOTHER SOLUTION is possible for the puzzle Christ presents -- one that DOES NOT require resurrection.

But when we put on the perspective of the Sadducess -- the RESURRECTION is the ONLY SOLUTION possible to the puzzle Christ gives. And so even the Pharisees (who did not hold to the Sadducees views) see instantly that Christ had brilliantly boxed them in with no possible solution other than "THE RESURRECTION".

Now time "to think" what is the context - what "detail" has to be TRUE for the RESURRECTION to be "THE SOLUTION"?

This is where some degree of bias has to be dropped to evaluate the text and instantly get the point so clear to the Sadducees confronted with the problem Christ gave them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Daniel1654]

I don't know what you are trying to debate here.

What I have found interesting is the belief of the Sadducees only believing in the Torah. I couldn't find anything in Josephus writing that said that. After some investigating, it turns out the ECF put that label on the Sadducees. In fact, through later debates with the Sadducees, the other books in the OT were used as evidence. It goes to show they do hold to the other books, just not as high standing as the LAW.

I think the real problem with the Sadducees is the information we have about them. We are lacking in evidence. And the historical writings were written by people who disliked them, so you end up with a skewed representation.

I must have it wrong, but I always thought that the Sadducees believed in the Traditions of the Elders, which today is called the Talmud.
And the Pharisees believed it the Torah which is pretty much our old testament part of the bible.
I could be wrong though.

 

[BobRyan]

The net.Bible link makes it appear that the Sadducees accepted what we call SCRIPTURE and the Pharisees liked the idea of inventing a lot of oral tradition to go along with it.

In any case - Christ's debate with the Sadducees in Matt 22 relies on the writing of Moses.

So how were they "stumped"? When Christ said "but regarding the resurrection" -- how was his argument viewed soooo compelling to the Sadducees that even the Pharisess had to admit "Christ put them to silence"?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

>I thought it would be the Mishnah that they were objecting to -- just as Christ does in Mark 7.

I believe the following Wiki is correct.

Mark 7:9-13 (New International Version)

New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[a] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[c] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Mishnah teaches the opposite: that the command to obey parents takes precident. On the other hand (even) Jacob Neusner admits that the NT is the only commentary on Jewish practice we have from the 1st century. Mishnah was written in reaction to the Destruction and to the Christian takeover of the Tanakh?

Mishnah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mishnah or Mishna (משנה, "repetition", from the verb shanah שנה, or "to study and review") is a major work of Rabbinic Judaism, and the first major reduction into written form of Jewish oral traditions, called the Oral Torah. It was debated between 70-200 CE by the group of rabbinic sages known as the Tannaim[1] and redacted about 200 CE by Judah haNasi when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions would be forgotten. The oral traditions that are the subject of the Mishnah go back to earlier, Pharisaic times.[citation needed] The Mishnah does not claim to be the development of new laws, but merely the collection of existing traditions.
The Mishnah is considered to be the first important work of Rabbinic Judaism[2] and is a major source of later rabbinic religious thought. Rabbinic commentaries on the Mishnah over the next three centuries[3] were redacted as the Gemara.