The Sadducees were pretty much out of power with the destruction of the Temple in 70.
Zev Steinhardt
As I noted in the original thread, the Pharisees were a greater threat (if that is the appropriate term) because the teachings of Jesus and the early Christians had much more in common with the Pharisees than with the Sadducees, Essenes, Boethusians(sp?) or any other group. My analogy in the other thread was that (at least prior to 9/11) the Moody Bible Institute expended huge amounts of energy pointing out the faults of Catholicism while pretty much ignoring Islam, Hinduism, or any other group. The Catholics are the terrible people who say the same things as “real” Christians, but get it “wrong.” Similarly, a person who believes with the Sadducees that there is no resurrection (and possibly no afterlife) is not going to bother with either Pharisaism or Christianity while a person who believes in the resurrection is a potential recruit away from the Pharisees (or a potential opponent in a debate in front of other not-yet-committed people to whom one is preaching.).
To answer the original question, a passage from Earth First! musician (and, thanks to the FBI, millionaire) Darryl Cherney:
And Cherney said it, and I believe Cherney, and that’s that.
Daniel
I don’t know much about the bible but I do know something of Roman History:
You can certainly blame Pilatos and the Roman Goverment in judea for Jesus death but blamin Rome itself is a little far fetched. Comunications in that day were not as good as in our’s and besides all that region wasn’t very important.
Another thing if I am not wrong Jesus was executed (in case he ever existed) during the reign of Tiberio, the empire at the time was actually managed by his right hand Elio Sejano. I seriously doubt that Sejano (with all the problems he had) had time to concern himself with the execution of a poor devil thousands of kilometers away.
Estilicon,
We used the term “Rome” to mean Roman law and Roman-appointed authority. However, the Staff Report does its best to be specific, and to put responsibility with the individuals, Pilate and Caiaphas and their entourages. Agreed, that the Emperor or Sejanus or the rest of the Roman government almost certainly had no involvment or knowledge: this was a small-time local affair.
Live, if you’re still reading this, I wish you’d drop the accusation that the Staff Report is somehow trying to “disprove” the gospels. << Name one bit of proof presented in the report that disproves the Gospels. >>
There is none, because we’re NOT trying to “disprove” anything. To the contrary, we are trying to reconcile the gospel accounts with other information and what we know about Roman rule in the provinces at the time.
We have asserted, several times, that the gospels are written as preaching, for dramtic and emotional impact. You have agreed that the gospels use poetry (like “all the world” to mean “Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea–but not Galilee.”
In a similar vein, when preaching to a gentile audience in Rome, it is much easier to say “the Jews” than it is to say “the Pharisees” or “the Saducees” or “Caiaphas and his sycophants” or “a small sub-sect of the Pharisees.” Such terms would have been, ah, Greek to the Roman audience. The gospel preachers are willing to sacrifice exactitude (or precision) for the emotional impact. This is not different than preachers today.
Repeat, we are not trying to “disprove” the gospels. But we are similarly not trying to make the gospels into something they are not.
The gospels are not a text on the economics of the Temple, even though they mention the moneylenders. They mention the moneylenders as a dramatic incident, not as a discussion of finance and economics.
The gospels are not a medical text although they mention illnesses. You would not want to use the bible as a guide for diagnosis of a disease – as a quick example, what is commonly translated as “leprosy” in the bible is NOT what medical science calls leprosy. The scenes of disease are for emotional impact – Jesus cures the disease – rather than for diagnostic purposes.
The gospels are not an astronomy text, although they mention a magical star. Again, they writers are preaching, they want the dramatic elements of the story, gthey don’t bother with describing the motion of a comet or supernova or whatever.
So, why do you insist on using the gospels as a text about Roman or Jewish judicial processes? They approach that topic the same as they approach all other topics – for the emotional and moral impact. The writers are not worrying about the details of the judicial process, nor about being precise.
The Staff Report is trying to reconcile the biblical accounts with historic accounts about those judicial processes, and to find the most likely explanation that is reasonably consistent with both. You don’t seem to like that, you’re entitled to your beliefs, but you consistently try to imply that the Staff Report is anti-gospels… and it is certainly NOT.
First time I’ve heard that one. Would you care to elaborate?
(I posted that for its analysis of the word leprosy, not in support or concurrence with its theology.)
C K Dexter Haven: On disproving the Gospels, to accuse you of anything with no proof would be as bad or worse as anything I could accuse of, and after some prayer I have been reminded that assigning blame for implications of the report – which I never sought to do regarding Jewish people as a whole – is not what I need to be after. I still disagree but that is no proof that you are out to discredit Jesus. So, I apologize for my part in handing out any blame here.
On Josephus, while I believe that he agreed with the Gospels regarding Pharisee involvement, I am inclined to think that the more common passages regarding those who indicted Jesus are the correct ones, as I have some of my own proof that his discourse to Greeks on Hades is a valid work. Nothing I can prove to anyone else, but only share in a new collection I’ve prepared on live.org, called “The Gates of Hell and Death.”
I may post in this thread later, I have some things to add but not quite prepared to offer, yet.
Thanks for engaging me,
-J
I went to the live.org message board to see what sort of discourse took place there and found…monologues. The “board” consists of Live.Org(who seems to be the moderator and only poster) starting a few threads in April, one in May, and one in June. None of these “threads” seem to have been responded to.
Good to see he’s expanding his horizons, huh?
What’s the deal with the Magen David with a cross in it on the home page?
Czarcasm: Does that mean it’s ok for me to comment here on the pictures of you and your family posted on your website, rather than in your guestbook? I thought so…
I don’t mind, since the site is there to share information and not to impress anyone. But as a moderator you should know that dragging this kind of off-topic gossip into a discussion is a cheap shot and not really appropriate.
carnivorousplant: Dig around and you’ll find the answers.
Live.org, I woner if you aren’t taking those Josephus passages too seriously, or at least too uncritically. I had been under the impression that they were added years after Josephus’ death. This was certainly what my professor of Early Christianity said - and she was a great, great, great devotee of Josephus. (Did I mention she loved Josephus?)
I googled the subject, and came up with a number of arguments for both sides, but they were all either on wesbites with URLs like infidels.org and atheists.com or very Christian websites. Perhaps someone knows of a less biased source on this topic?
Kyla: everyone wonders about it, on all sides, that’s why there is so much debate like this. Based on personal experience, what I’ve seen with my own eyes, I’m going with it.
Here is one page on the issue:
Live.org, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t take your personal belief in Jesus as a legitimate reason to believe those passages in Josephus are 100% accurate.
I’ll try to get to the library soon and do some research. I’m rather suspicious of most religion websites on the internet.
First, comment away on my family photos, as obviously off-topic they are to this conversation. Are you seeing something no one else is?
Second, you are the one who has mentioned your “board” as a point of interest several times-I merely reported what I found there. You bringing up your board makes it on-topic.
Kyla, I understand, I doubted before I actually experienced things that validated God and Jesus for me. In this case, to me, the author does not matter as much as the content, since it (Greeks on Hades) is consistent according to what I have seen.
Josephus may have felt that it was more important to comply with Rome, in order to get his knowledge recorded and promote Christianity, than to die a silent martyr. He may have also decided to become a Pharisee, but held Christian views in secret. This circumstance may have allowed Josephus to be both a Pharisee and Roman who wrote that some of his more important peers indicted Jesus, which agrees with the Gospels on both counts.
What we shouldn’t do is close our minds to what is historically possible by rejecting out of religious fear, especially when there is lack of better proof otherwise.
Czarcasm: I brought up posting the analysis of the Staff Report and material on Josephus. Resorting to unrelated comments on matters which anyone can see for themselves by following the “www” button – which you also display, and according to your reasoning, makes your page also eligible for comment – only detracts from the discussion and quality of the thread, in general.
In the future, I would suggest using PM or a more appropriate forum for banter like this, if you must.
Not to be rude, but besides those two passages about Jesus, have you even read any Josephus? The above sentence is absolutely absurd. Josephus was far, far, far too self-interested to promote anything but Josephus.