Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate. This was not a question of ethnicity as much as theology. Hence, the theological discussion with the Samaritan women at the well. Jesus corrected her on her wrong think.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons, an attempt to give himself legitimacy. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were not considered legitimate.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons, an attempt to give himself legitimacy. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were also not considered legitimate.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons, an attempt to give himself legitimacy. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. The people also had similar attitudes towards the Samaritans that were also not considered as Jews. Even though they occupied the lands formally held by the Northern Kingdom, the Samaritans were also not considered legitimate.
Since the people did not accept Herod as a rightful king, he was angered greatly and became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons, an attempt to give himself legitimacy. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.
Yes, the Sadducean priesthood was corrupt and held all the power - not in accordance with the law. Because they failed to do their job of teaching the people, this led to the rise of the Pharisaical sect. The Pharisees did the job of teaching the people that the priests failed to do. Jesus mostly interacted with the Pharisees because he had the most in common with them theologically. A careful reading of the text shows that not all Pharisees were antagonistic to Jesus - some were simply debating and discussing the finer points of the law and how it is applied. Jesus did not waste his time with the Sadducees because he had nothing in common with them. He also had no problems calling out BS when he confronted it. But he also was gracious when others were making honest inquiry as to his opinion. It was not all bad as many presume.
The history you laid out is absolutely correct. However, I would add this point. The Jews in Israel during the second temple period were always very aware that the Edomite converts were not converts by choice, but by force. Therefore in their eyes, these Edomites were not really considered converts by the Pharisees or the people. They were considered as illegitimate and frauds. This angered Herod to no end and he became extremely paranoid because of it. He knew he did not hold a legitimate claim to the title of King of Israel and he would kill anyone that reminded him of that fact. He was such a butcher that Augustus reportedly quipped, "It is better to be Herod's pig than a son." Herod tried to make himself acceptable to the people by marrying a Hasmonean princess, whom he executed along with her sons, an attempt to give himself legitimacy. His building of the Temple was to keep up with the Roman Jones' and to quiet the people. The people were not buying it.
The point I was making was that to condemn an entire group of people based upon the actions of a few corrupt lying individuals, is in itself misguided and misplaced. They paid the price for their corruption. The Sadducean priesthood was wiped out by either the zealots during the siege of Jerusalem, or, by the Romans when they finally took the city. That generation suffered greatly for their failure to recognize the truth in their midst.
Paul said to the Gentiles, do not be puffed up in your own thinking because the Jews are blinded for your sake. Meaning, that there was - and is - a purpose for that blinding of the Jewish people initiated and held in place by God until such time as He choses to finally let them see. To condemn them for their blindness is akin to blaming God. We should be careful when hurling rocks at others because we may hit the wrong person and be held accountable by God for our hatred. This is not what Jesus taught.
Thank you for the history and taking the time to respond. Things I already knew, but others may not have known this information. We can agree to disagree as to what it all means. God bless you.