Who exactly are the "Modern Day Jews"?

[Divine Insight]

I see Jews today proclaiming authority and basically "Cultural Ownership" of the Hebrew Scriptures dating clear back to the first 5 books of the Old Testament, what the Jews call the "Torah".

But who are these modern day Jews and what linage are they claiming?

The Christian Bible portrays a very precise picture of ancient Judaism during the Roman Occupation. It portrays the Pharisees as being in Charge of the Jewish Temples and being the Jewish "Chief Priest". They were clearly recognize by the Jewish culture well enough to be the ones who interact with the Roman Authorities.

But the "Modern Day Jews" want no part of being associated with those pharisees and Jewish Chief Priest who were in charge of the Jewish Temples.

So who do they lay claim as their ancient lineage of Judaism?

They certainly can't lay claim to being followers of Jesus. Moreover, Jesus himself was protesting against Orthodox Judaism. Not only that but the information we have concerning Jesus has Jesus supporting every jot and tittle of the Jewish Law which Modern Jews refuse to take literally.

So if they can't lay claim to having a lineage to Jesus, and they refuse to have lineage to the Pharisees, (a form of Orthodox Judaism that no Modern Day Jew would support) then who exactly do they claim as their lineage to these ancient times?

I don't see where they have a well-defined group to identify with even back to the days of Jesus much less beyond that to the days of the Torah.

So where is there any merit in their claim to have cultural lineage clear back to the Torah?

Who are these people?

They can only have been a more modern day uprising. And therefore they cannot lay claim to being able to speak to the issue of what "ancient Jews" might have actually believed.

They certainly have no business trying to lay claim to the Torah as "Their Scriptures" like as if they have some special connection to those ancient cultures.

The Modern Day Jews aren't anymore closely related to those ancient Jews than most other people. And certainly not in terms of how they believed. It's pretty clear from the actual writings in the ancient scriptures that the authors of those scriptures believed they spoke for some God. They either believed it, or fraudulently claimed it to be sure because that's what's actually written in those scriptures.

The Modern Jews apparently don't like what is literally written in the ancient scriptures and would prefer to imagine alternative "non-literal interpretations".

But where is there evidence for any lineage back to any actual ancient groups that felt that way?

Even Jesus demanded that every jot and tittle of the scriptures must stand until heaven and earth pass.

The Pharisees were also pretty obviously quite hard-nosed about demanding that laws be upheld. So much so that they called for the crucifixion of Jesus on charges of blaspheme or apostasy.

So who do the modern day Jews claim as their ancestral group?

And why wasn't that group even mentioned in Christian theology?

Where are the records that document how this unknown group actually believed?

I personally don't see where the modern day Jews even have a claim to any direct linage to their own past in terms of this specific religions paradigm.

If they can't claim the Pharisees, and they can't claim Jesus, then who's left to claim? Some lesser-known obscure group?

If that's the case, then where is there any merit in claiming a strong lineage clear back to the days of the Torah. Obviously if modern day Jews were nothing more than a lesser-known off-shoot of the Orthodox Judaism of the Pharisees then they can't lay claim to being strong enough to reach clear back to the Torah in terms of scriptural "authority".

Question for Debate:

Who exactly do the Modern Day Jews claim to be decedents of in terms of claiming the rights to "Religious Scriptural Authority".

My position is that they have no credible claim that can be dated back to the Torah. In fact, I can't see where they have any credible claims dating back even to the time of Jesus.

[Divine Insight]

If first-century Judaism was so totally confused and chaotic, it should be EASY for you to produce some sources that say so.

Why don't you?

(snicker)

You've already done this for me Charles when you posted the following link:

Pharisees, Sadducees & Essenes

The confusion and self-divisiveness of Judaism is no doubt one of the most well-documented facts of history.

In fact, you, (claiming to be a Jew) have placed great importance on "Oral Torah" and "Non-literal interpretations" Yet, look at the page you linked to. The Sadducee would have nothing to do with any "Oral Torah" or "Non-literal interpretations". They were literalists who demanded that the Written Law be obeyed.

Perhaps these were the people that Matthew was trying to win over by proclaiming that Jesus said that every jot and tittle of the Law must be fulfilled?

So the Sadducee wouldn't be in agreement with your non-literal Oral Traditions anyway. Look at the chart on the very page that YOU linked too:

Sadducees - Bible - Literalist
Pharisees - Bible - Sophisticated scholarly interpretations

According to the chart YOU linked to you would be more in agreement with the Pharisees, and NOT with the Sadducees.

Evidently the Sadducees are in agreement with me. The Bible must be taken literally! So I have Jews who agree with me!

I don't see where you have anything but self-contradictions in your own evidence.

I don't even need to look up any evidence. All I need to do is wait for you to post a link. The evidence you've been providing supports my case every time.

[cnorman19]

Evidently the Sadducees are in agreement with me. The Bible must be taken literally! So I have Jews who agree with me!

You're not paying attention.

For the third time, not counting the links:

The Pharisees disappeared with the fall of the Temple. They are extinct. There are no more Sadducees in the world.

As for the rest -- Can you respond to these pertinent, on-point questions about your "positions" and "arguments"?

Is it really your demand that the Jews, in ancient times or ANY times, must be totally unified and in complete and unanimoous agreement on reading and understanding the Torah and other matters -- or else be condemned as being totally confused and divisive, in extreme and grave disagreement about what they believed?

If so, can you give an example of another worldwide religion, movement or organization or philosophy of ANY kind where the members are ALL in TOTAL AGREEMENT about EVERYTHING, as you demand?

And if not -- doesn't your argument about the total invalidity of Jewish ideas and thoughts fall to the ground as the fraud that it is?

I don't even need to look up any evidence. All I need to do is wait for you to post a link. The evidence you've been providing supports my case every time.

So you say. You seem curiously unable to prove that from the links I've posted, and seem to depend on phony paraphrases and restatements that serve your purposes.

Answer the questions in boldface or give it up.

By the way -- are you prepared to admit now that you totally misspoke when you said that the Sadducees were the ancestors of modern Jews? Or that they didn't control the Temple till after Jesus was gone?

If those are examples of my links proving your arguments, I'm NOT impressed. How many times do you have to be CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN WRONG before you're willing to own up to it?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

And I'm not trying to do that. But if they are claiming cultural consistency in their beliefs and position on the Torah clear back to the ancient Jews then they are making claims that cannot be historically supported.

TOTAL "cultural consistency," with NO ONE disagreeing with anyone else about ANYTHING? No one here ever said that, even though you keep pretending that someone did.

Another unsubstantiated claim; another made-up argument.

That's what I'm getting.

You've been quite clear in your comments - on point, with little to no "extraneous commentary" that should lead the observer to conclude anything other'n what you present is an accurate take on the issue.

This has been like watching me try to debate Zzyzx - no matter if I put up a reasonable sounding argument, without the data to back it up, he'll make a fool of me. Or rather, he'll have me do it

[Divine Insight]

Is it really your demand that the Jews, in ancient times or ANY times, must be totally unified and in complete and unanimoous agreement on reading and understanding the Torah and other matters -- or else be condemned as being totally confused and divisive, in extreme and grave disagreement about what they believed?

IF AND ONLY IF, the Jews are claiming to have had cultural consistency in their own belief system dating back to their most ancient ancestors.

You're the one who passionately objects when anyone else suggests that the Torah appears to demand to be taken literally. Even though clearly the Sadducees themselves obviously did, and they were Jews.

You're the one who claims that Jews have NEVER taken that view of their religion. When in fact that's clearly a bogus claim.

There were clearly Jews throughout history who took the Torah very literally.

If so, can you give an example of another worldwide religion, movement or organization or philosophy of ANY kind where the members are ALL in TOTAL AGREEMENT about EVERYTHING, as you demand?

Why should I need to do that?

Where have I ever claimed that any religious or philosophical organization holds superior knowledge of anything over anyone else?

And if not -- doesn't your argument about the total invalidity of Jewish ideas and thoughts fall to the ground as the fraud that it is?

NOT if they are claiming cultural consistency in their beliefs in an effort to pull some sort of trump card of SPECIAL PLEADING.

All I'm saying is that the Jews obviously don't have any better knowledge of these ancient scripture than I do. And I'm sick and tired of them trying to pull SUPERIORITY via the special pleading that they have had some sort of "cultural consistency" in their beliefs, when in fact, that card doesn't play. It's been demonstrated to be a false claim.

The links you yourself have provided clearly demonstrate this to be the case.

So the guesses of Non-Jews are just as valid as the guesses that Jews themselves have to offer.

That's all I'm saying. Trying to claim special pleading because the religion originated in their ancient past simply doesn't hold any water. My guess about what those ancient texts have to say is just as good as any Jew's guess.

That's all I'm saying.

:
The Pharisees disappeared with the fall of the Temple. They are extinct. There are no more Sadducees in the world.

So what?

Are you suggesting that the views of dead Jews don't matter?

If that's the case then how in the world could you ever hope to make a case for cultural consistency in how the Jews believed in ancient times?

You're not making any sense Charles.

Obvious the "Modern Jews" have formed their own "Modern Opinions" about this ancient religion and any attempt at playing any "Cultural Superiority Card" in regard to having a deeper cultural understanding of scriptures simply doesn't fly.

Apparently they don't even agree with many of their now-extinct ancestors.

Just because those ancestors are now dead doesn't erase the fact that they weren't in agreement with "Modern Day Judaism".

By the way -- are you prepared to admit now that you totally misspoke when you said that the Sadducees were the ancestors of modern Jews? Or that they didn't control the Temple till after Jesus was gone?

I have no clue who the modern Jews evolved from. Apparently their history is in chaos. I don't think they know either.

If those are examples of my links proving your arguments, I'm NOT impressed. How many times do you have to be CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN WRONG before you're willing to own up to it?

You have demonstrated via these links that the Jews around the time of the Roman Occupation had vastly disagreeing view concerning their own beliefs.

The link you provided clearly states that the Sadducees were Biblical Literalists.

I have no way of verifying the information on that website. But you are the one who offered that information, and all I'm doing is pointing out that, if true, it favors my position NOT YOURS.

If the Sadducees were powerful Jews who ever had control over Jewish Temples and were recognized by the Jewish People as being "High Priests" AND they were Biblical Literalists who demanded that only the Written Law be held and they rejected Oral Traditions, then I have HISTORICAL JEWS who clearly agree with me.

This flies in the face of your claim that I have NO CLUE about Jewish traditions or history.

And I also keep pointing out Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

I know you aren't interested in Christianity or the New Testament or Jesus. But let's forget about Jesus entirely for now. Someone wrote Matthew 5:18. It's my understanding that most biblical scholars believe that Matthew was speaking to the Jews. Matthew was trying to convince the Jews that Jesus was in harmony with what they believed.

So why would Matthew claim that Jesus said that not or jot nor one tittle shall pass from law unless he was trying to impress and insure JEWS who believed that a very literal interpretation of the law is important?

Jesus himself could be a total fabrication and this question would still be relevant.

Why would the Jews be concerned that every jot and tittle of the law be upheld if they didn't even care about precise literalism?

For me this is an open and shut case that the Jews of this time period were strong literalists.

And the information in the link you've provided suggests precisely this. That the Sadducees were indeed very concerned about the literal written law.

So don't want to hear another word about me supposedly not understanding Jewish culture or history. The Jews were historically and culturally just as confused and divisive about their religious beliefs as anyone else.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by cnorman19]

Paul may not even have been Jewish — but even if he was, he was drastically out of touch with the Judaism of his time. I’ve written on that elsewhere, but for the moment, one example will do: To Paul, the Law — the Torah — was a burden, something that brings death and not life, something under which humans suffer and face condemnation. In the context of the Jewish religion of his or any other time, that’s ludicrous. Pick a Psalm; the Law is “a guide to our path and a lamp to our feet,� God’s most precious gift, which Jews treasured above all others.

I'm smelling a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Where did Paul call the law a burden? He calls it a curse right?

It's just an issue of understanding. The law is wonderful and if you understand it you know you don't measure up to it (and that is why it is considered a curse). Jesus breaks that curse.

If I curse you then I verbally express that I want some bad thing to happen to you. The law does have curses (punishments), verbal expressions of bad things that will happen if you don't follow it. But with Jesus we have a redeemer from that just punishment.

[cnorman19]

Is it really your demand that the Jews, in ancient times or ANY times, must be totally unified and in complete and unanimoous agreement on reading and understanding the Torah and other matters -- or else be condemned as being totally confused and divisive, in extreme and grave disagreement about what they believed?

IF AND ONLY IF, the Jews are claiming to have had cultural consistency in their own belief system dating back to their most ancient ancestors.

You're the one who passionately objects when anyone else suggests that the Torah appears to demand to be taken literally.

Wrong. I've agreed that it clearly APPEARS to -- but questioned the claim that everyone MUST therefore read it so. Quite a different thing, of course; but distorting and falsifying my views seems to be a (bad) habit of yours.

Even though clearly the Sadducees themselves obviously did, and they were Jews.

You're the one who claims that Jews have NEVER taken that view of their religion. When in fact that's clearly a bogus claim.

Okay, fair enough; I will admit that I was wrong about that. I would still wonder just how the Sadducees managed to do it, though, since the Torah itself -- as I have shown -- rather prohibits a strictly literal, no-interpretation reading because of its very nature. And we'll never know if the Sadducees had an answer for that, because they left no documents or records of any kind behind, and their influence on later generations was therefore nil.

The fact is, though, that the teachings about the Oral Torah WERE in place from the very beginning; and your being correct on this tiny point hardly justifies your claims that it's "anybody's guess" what Jews of ancient times -- that is, the Pharisees, whose approach was the precursor of that of today's Jews -- believed and how they approached the Torah. The records there are very clear indeed and go back in a continuous line to ancient times; and that means that your pretense that all was disagreement and chaos and confusion, and no one knows how these people thought, is a "bogus claim," too.

Where have I ever claimed that any religious or philosophical organization holds superior knowledge of anything over anyone else?

When have I made such a claim? I've only said that those who have STUDIED Biblical criticism and scholarship understand it better than those who HAVEN'T -- but you will, no doubt, continue to try to stuff that fake claim into my mouth.

NOT if they are claiming cultural consistency in their beliefs in an effort to pull some sort of trump card of SPECIAL PLEADING.

Again, please demonstrate with a quote where anyone here has ever done any such thing.

All I'm saying is that the Jews obviously don't have any better knowledge of these ancient scripture than I do.

And I'm saying that you know better, where scholars are concerned, because the Jews have left millennia of written records of their teachings and debates and arguments on those very subjects. Don't keep pretending it's a mystery, because it isn't; and don't keep pretending that you know all about it, because you have proven, over and over, that you DON'T.

And I'm sick and tired of them trying to pull SUPERIORITY via the special pleading that they have had some sort of "cultural consistency" in their beliefs, when in fact, that card doesn't play. It's been demonstrated to be a false claim.

What claims of "superiority" has anyone ever made here, other than saying that those who have STUDIED a subject know more about it than those who HAVEN'T?

The links you yourself have provided clearly demonstrate this to be the case.

My links have shown that just anybody, who has never studied the Bible or history at all, knows just as much as someone who HAS studied them? Please show me where my links demonstrate that fantasy, or delusion, or nonsense, or whatever you want to call it.

So the guesses of Non-Jews are just as valid as the guesses that Jews themselves have to offer.

And one more time, you're making a FALSE CLAIM that I ever said any such thing. I've ASKED you several times to show, with a quote, where I have ever said that JEWS know more about these matters because they are JEWS: now I'm DEMANDING it, because I'm calling that a repeated unsubstantiated claim, and a FALSE claim at that.

That's all I'm saying. Trying to claim special pleading because the religion originated in their ancient past simply doesn't hold any water.

Again, show where I've ever argued that. I DEMAND a quote that proves this BOGUS CLAIM.

My guess about what those ancient texts have to say is just as good as any Jew's guess.

That's all I'm saying.

If the Jew is as willfully ignorant and as bereft of any actual knowledge of Biblical scholarship as YOU are, I would happily agree with that -- because you would both be GUESSING, as you say. But your "guesses" haven't proven to be particularly accurate, now have they? We'll take a look at a long list of them at the end of this post.

Where they will stay, unacknowledged by you and without any kind of response, as you pretend that none of those exchanges ever happened. A reasonable guess, considering your past performance here.

The Pharisees disappeared with the fall of the Temple. They are extinct. There are no more Sadducees in the world.

So what?

Are you suggesting that the views of dead Jews don't matter?

No, and obviously no. I'm refuting your claim that "There are Jews who agree with me!"

Which you know perfectly well, and are pretending otherwise in a clumsy attempt at tactical misdirection.

Obvious the "Modern Jews" have formed their own "Modern Opinions" about this ancient religion and any attempt at playing any "Cultural Superiority Card" in regard to having a deeper cultural understanding of scriptures simply doesn't fly.

GIVE A QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT OR WITHDRAW IT. You've made that claim OVER AND OVER here, but you've never once even attempted to prove that I ever said it.

How about it? Can you prove that BOGUS CLAIM, or not? Considering your record on such requests to date, I'd say -- NOT.

By the way -- are you prepared to admit now that you totally misspoke when you said that the Sadducees were the ancestors of modern Jews? Or that they didn't control the Temple till after Jesus was gone?

I have no clue who the modern Jews evolved from. Apparently their history is in chaos. I don't think they know either.

Wait a minute. HERE is a DIRECT QUOTE from YOU -- the sort of thing you seem UNABLE to do with your claims about MY arguments. YOU SAID:

He's [that is, cnorman19] pointing to the Sadducee as being the foundation of modern Jewish beliefs.

I have no argument with that. In fact, this is precisely what I had imagined to be the case.

And you were 100% WRONG, both about the FACT and about my having SAID it. Are you prepared to admit that?

While we're at it, maybe you could find the integrity to admit to being wrong on the following points as well:

And finally where were these Sadducees and Essenes?

Why weren't they recognized as being "Chief Priests" and being in charge of Temples back in the days of Jesus? Why is there no mention of them during these historically important time period?

Answer: Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18-27; Mark 14:53; Luke 20:27; John 11:48-50; John 15:1; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 12:1-2; Acts 23:8. Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and his Jewish War.

There's also this question:

And if the Christian New Testament is that obviously false historically, then how in the world did it ever gain any respect or foothold? Even to the point where many Jews themselves have converted to Christianity.

Answer: That is, of course, a falsehood. Can you show me a number? Not likely; "Messianic" synagogues NEVER publish the numbers of actual former Jews who have become Christians. On the other hand, my small synagogue contains at least 20 members who are converts, including two entire families who converted all at once; former Christians who become Jews may very well outnumber Jews who become Christians.

Jews becoming Christians wasn't even happening in the first century.

...despite the evidence of Acts to the contrary, the Christian movement made very
little impression upon the Jewish people. Its Jewish membership probably never
exceeded 1,000 at any point in the first century, and by the 50s the Jewish
members were quite likely exceeded in number by their Gentile counterparts.

And, of course, here you're bringing up Matthew 5:18 again -- and IGNORING the rest of that same chapter, which conclusively proves that Jesus was NOT a Biblical literalist -- though of course you're going to keep on beating that drum and never mention the rest of the chapter and the rest of Jesus's words there.

Let's see now -- what else have you been conclusively proven wrong about? Oh, yes, there's this howler:

Moreover, based on this information the Sadducee themselves were NOT in charge of the Jewish Temples at the time of Jesus. They didn't gain domination over the the Temple and its Priesthood until 70 AD according to Britannica. That would have been well after the days of Jesus.

That was, of course, a straight-up misreading of the passage from the Britannica that I linked to and quoted from: "During the long period of the two parties’ struggle—which lasted until the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ad—the Sadducees dominated the Temple and its priesthood."

Unless you think "until" means "beginning with," of course.

Anything else?

ell, there's your continuing to claim knowledge about Judaism based on the New Testament, which is profoundly silly.

There's your claim that all the "Abrahamic religions" -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are nothing more than differing interpretations of the same documents.

There's your claim that Jews "literally don't believe in their own Bible."

Your often-repeated, and admitted, false dichotomy of either reading the Bible literally or discarding it as worthless.

Your often-repeated claim that interpretation of the Bible is the same thing as totally rejecting it....

Gee, I could go on and on, and I've hardly started.

I ask again; HOW MANY TIMES do you have to be PROVEN WRONG before you'll finally admit it, even ONCE?

I've just admitted being wrong, right here in this post; the Sadducees DID read the Bible literally, though we have no idea how they did it. I was wrong in saying that no one ever had.

Your turn. Will you admit that you were wrong about ANY of these things -- even those where you were PROVEN wrong?

[cnorman19]

[Replying to post 3 by cnorman19]

Paul may not even have been Jewish — but even if he was, he was drastically out of touch with the Judaism of his time. I’ve written on that elsewhere, but for the moment, one example will do: To Paul, the Law — the Torah — was a burden, something that brings death and not life, something under which humans suffer and face condemnation. In the context of the Jewish religion of his or any other time, that’s ludicrous. Pick a Psalm; the Law is “a guide to our path and a lamp to our feet,� God’s most precious gift, which Jews treasured above all others.

I'm smelling a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Where did Paul call the law a burden?

Galatians 5:1: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." The reference was to being circumcised.

He calls it a curse right?

It's just an issue of understanding. The law is wonderful and if you understand it you know you don't measure up to it (and that is why it is considered a curse). Jesus breaks that curse.

If I curse you then I verbally express that I want some bad thing to happen to you. The law does have curses (punishments), verbal expressions of bad things that will happen if you don't follow it. But with Jesus we have a redeemer from that just punishment.

Of course, that's another issue; there's nothing whatever in Jewish tradition about anyone needing a "Savior" or "Redeemer" from SIN.

Paul's ideas, including those about Original Sin, Salvation and Redemption, just have no analogues in Jewish teachings, of his own time or any other. I'm not saying that Paul was necessarily a Gentile -- but what he was teaching was NOT Judaism. That's all.

[bluethread]

I'm smelling a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Where did Paul call the law a burden?

Galatians 5:1: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." The reference was to being circumcised.

I'm not going to contest your view. However, I think one would have to take the broadest view of the term "the law" for this to work. It is my view that Paul is not speaking of the Tanakh, but of rabbinic Judaism. Brit Milah being code for conversion to an established sect. Also, as you point out, Paul speaks primarily of Salvation and Redemption, and, I say, his point is that Brit Milah is not essential to those two doctrines.

[cnorman19]

I'm smelling a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Where did Paul call the law a burden?

Galatians 5:1: "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." The reference was to being circumcised.

I'm not going to contest your view. However, I think one would have to take the broadest view of the term "the law" for this to work. It is my view that Paul is not speaking of the Tanakh, but of rabbinic Judaism. Brit Milah being code for conversion to an established sect. Also, as you point out, Paul speaks primarily of Salvation and Redemption, and, I say, his point is that Brit Milah is not essential to those two doctrines.

Hmmm, you have some good points there. I really don't have any investment in these ideas either way -- about Paul being Jewish, that is. I'm just certain that Paul is the precise point where the followers of Jesus departed from normative Judaism, and that break has remained ever since.

[Divine Insight]

Where have I ever claimed that any religious or philosophical organization holds superior knowledge of anything over anyone else?

When have I made such a claim? I've only said that those who have STUDIED Biblical criticism and scholarship understand it better than those who HAVEN'T -- but you will, no doubt, continue to try to stuff that fake claim into my mouth.

What does it require to be recognized for having STUDIED biblical criticism?

I've certainly debated these topics for decades. I think a lifetime of experience having STUDIED them should count for something.

Moreover, if the only criteria that you allow for having STUDIED these things is that a person has actually attended a school of "Bible Study" then I reject that criteria. This is what the Christians do as well. The problem with this is that what they want to TEACH you is what they believe to be true. And they consider that you haven't STUDIED it unless you pass their exams on what they claim their theology to be all about.

That's hardly "Bible Study". That more like being indoctrinated into a very specific group who TEACHES you to believe what they would like for you to believe.

I personally actually give my totally independent and open-minded personal study more credence simply because I didn't have a specific agenda in mind like schools of theology do.

So as far as I'm concerned I'm very well STUDIED in the Bible and in Biblical criticisms. Just because I don't have a degree from some university attesting to the fact that I was indoctrinated to believe like they do doesn't mean that I haven't STUDIED the Bible and its criticisms.

To even require that is a form of "Special Pleading".

This kind of thinking would actually devalue the opinions of almost all scientific atheists because they don't have time to waste going to theology universities to be indoctrinated in how those universities choose to think.

And finally where were these Sadducees and Essenes?

Why weren't they recognized as being "Chief Priests" and being in charge of Temples back in the days of Jesus? Why is there no mention of them during these historically important time period?

Answer: Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18-27; Mark 14:53; Luke 20:27; John 11:48-50; John 15:1; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 12:1-2; Acts 23:8. Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and his Jewish War.

Matthew 22:23 doesn't say anything at all about the Sadducees being "Chief Priests" or in charge of any Temples. All it says is that a Sadducee asked Jesus a question about his belief in resurrections.

I don't see anything in Mark 14:53 or anywhere near it that says that the "High Priests" were Sadducees. It simply says that Jesus was taken before the "High Priests" and the "Chief Priests". It doesn't say they were Sadducees.

Luke 20:27 is the same as Matthew 22:23. It's just an account of a Sadducee questioning Jesus on the contradiction of who's wife some woman will be if there is a resurrection. It doesn't say that this Sadducee was a "Chief Priest".

John 11:48-50 Mentions Pharisees when speaking of the Chief Priests. No mention of the Sadducees there at all.

I don't see any mention of Chief Priests or Sadducees in John 15:1

Act 4:1 "And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them"

This doesn't say that the Sadducees were the Priest or the Captain of the Temple, in fact it actually adds the Sadducees on as an additional group. If the Priest and the Captain of the Temple were already Sadducees why add the extra mention of more Sadducees?

Acts12: - I don't see anything in Acts 12 that even mentions the Sadducees.


Acts 23:
[6] But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
[7] And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.

Acts 23 has the council being made up of both Sadducees and Pharisees. And apparently when this very topic came up it set the Pharisees and Sadducees at odds with each other. Still no mention of who the official "Chief Priests" were.

~~~~~

Based on all of this I don't think it's even clear who was in charge of the Jewish Temples at that time. Apparently it was a mixture of a very divisive council of Priests.

All I know is that the New Testament makes it perfectly clear that whoever the Chief Priests were at the time, they are the ones who called for the crucifixion of Jesus. And Jesus is rumored to have publicly bashed the Pharisees calling them hypocrites and proclaiming that they will receive the "Greater Damnation". So it makes sense that it would be the Pharisees who had a bone to pick with Jesus. There's no mention of Jesus bashing the Sadducees.

Matt.23

[13] But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
[14] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
[15] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
[16] Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
[23] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[25] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
[27] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
[29] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

It's pretty clear from this that Jesus would like to see the Pharisees damned to hell. No mention of any Sadducees here.

I can't imagine why the Sadducees would be interested in having Jesus crucified. I don't see where he went around publicly bashing the Sadducees.

I've just admitted being wrong, right here in this post; the Sadducees DID read the Bible literally, though we have no idea how they did it. I was wrong in saying that no one ever had.

Your turn. Will you admit that you were wrong about ANY of these things -- even those where you were PROVEN wrong?

I'm not sure exactly what you think I was wrong about. I know that I had said that you must be pointing to the Sadducees as the most likely ancestors of Modern Jews. I'll confess that I was wrong about that. I would never dream that you would rather be associated with the Pharisees after the way Jesus had bashed them and called them immoral hypocrites.

And I didn't see any other options available to you.

So I guessed wrong on that one.

So you must be suggesting that the Modern Day Jews are actually descendents/followers of the Pharisees then?

And it still brings into question about what happened to the descendents of the Sadducees then. Did they become "extinct". Are there no modern day Jews who have lineage back to the Sadducees?

You can't believe that there were actually Jews who took the Bible literally?

I have no problem believing that at all. The original authors of the Old Testament most certainly WROTE like as if they expected you to believe what they were saying verbatim, every jot and tittle (as Matthew claims that Jesus said).

Although I will give you the very high possibility that Jesus never said what Matthew claims he said.

If Jesus was a Pharisee he would have never proclaimed that every jot and tittle of the law must be upheld.

That much I will agree on.