-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Priest, Rabbi, Pharisee, Saduccee
- Thread starter Kemosloby
- Start date
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Priest = Kohen from the Tribe of Levi
Rabbi = A learned Jew / Teacher
Pharisee = A proto Rabbinic Jew during the late 2nd Temple Era
Sadducees = Ran the 2nd Temple and later collaborated with the Romans
No.
While we don't really like Sadducees they at least weren't Christians.
What about the priests? It seems like they might have believed. They quit their jobs once the Messiah came and replaced them.
There would be a tendency for that to happen when the temple that was the center of the Jewish world was completely destroyed.
Most Jews did not - and still do not - believe in Jesus as the Moshiach. Them "quitting their jobs" had nothing to do with Jesus "replacing" them.
The priests started out working out of a tent. I wouldn't think the temple being destroyed would slow them up considering the trials and tribulations the Jews faced previously, yet continued to be dedicated to God.
You're one of my favorite posters, because you're so open about your distaste. Its entertaining. "At least they weren't Christians!" True! Christians probably would have been way worse.
The only time Yeshua lists the Levitical 'Priest' as 'Lawyers' in Luke 11:46-52, Yeshua is challenging that the Levitical Law has allowed religious zealots, to say that the "death of the righteous can atone for the sins of that generation".
Rabbi is a specific term given only to Pharisee teachers, where Yeshua stated, 'unless our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, we will not be entering Heaven' (Matthew 5:20) or the Time to Come.
In Matthew 32:7-8 Yeshua is saying not to be called rabbi for only God is all of our teacher, and not to be like the Pharisees who like labels for human adoration.
Though some people try to conclude that Yeshua has some Pharisaic ideas, his statements (Matthew 23:15) categorically deny them as the Synagogue of Satan.
Pharisees unlike the other sects had created their own oral traditions that they claim went all the way back to Moses; Yeshua challenges them in mark 7:6-13 for having done away with the Torah through their oral traditions.
Yeshua only makes one reference to Sadducees in Matthew 16:6-11, about the Leaven of both the Sadducees and Pharisees...
Personally remember this being in contrast to the bread of the Essenes, which used no leaven.
Yeshua had numerous teachings that were inline with the Essene thought, and though he kept some Pharisaic practices, these could be deemed Jewish, and not one of the three foolish shepherds/sects to be cut off in Zechariah 11.
If we read Zechariah 11:8 'I cut off the three shepherds in one month; for my soul was weary of them, and their soul also loathed me'. we find the same in Isaiah 53:3 that he was despised by them, so he cut them all off.
The poor of the flock in Zechariah 11:11 are the Ebionites (poor ones) who were the real followers of Yeshua, and were a continuation from the Essenes.
In my opinion.
rosends
Well-Known Member
You mean according to the gospels, right? Since Jesus wasn't of the priestly caste, he couldn't replace them. Since sacrifices continued until the destruction of the temple, they didn't all quit their jobs.
Eventually they did. Perhaps they knew that when the temple was destroyed was the time appointed by God for them to retire. Since Jesus was of the order of Melchizedek, a higher priestly order than the Levitical priesthood.
The answer by Flakr as far as who they were, was great.
Who was likely to believe? Any one of them...
Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees
Probably the Sadducees had the hardest time since they didn't subscribe to the resurrection.
rosends
Well-Known Member
But they never quit their jobs. Their work site was destroyed. We still have them and they train in preparation for resuming their work. Malchitzedek was a priest of God in a sense as was Yitro in a sense a priest -- and Malkitzedek was also a tribal chieftain. Why would you assume that his title as "priest of God the most high" would put his local role above the priesthood given to the family of Aaron?
To summarize that answer, and help answer the question a bit more...
The reason these sects didn't, is because Judaism changed after the Babylonian exile, and they no longer understood an Elohim could be something similar to a Avatar/Demigod like we find in Hindu/Babylonian culture; they tried to apply a stricter form of monotheism, thus for Yeshua Elohim (Isaiah 52:10, Psalms 98:3) to claim to be a divine being was now alien to them.
Even tho it is still possible to read into the Tanakh a distinction between YHVH Elohim 'and' the God (El) Most High (2 Samuel 22:14, Psalms 18:13); this is the problem with sects creating divisions against each other, it eventually makes division alternate to the truths presented within a text.
In my opinion.
None of the 3 sects were likely to accept Yeshua based on the prophecies within the Tanakh; that is why we got cut off, and thus it was only a few who realized early, 'that when we smite the shepherd, the sheep were scattered' (Matthew 26:31), that we find in Zechariah 13:7-9, it says 2/3 of the nation was about to be slaughtered because of it.
The reason these sects didn't, is because Judaism changed after the Babylonian exile, and they no longer understood an Elohim could be something similar to a Avatar/Demigod like we find in Hindu/Babylonian culture; they tried to apply a stricter form of monotheism, thus for Yeshua Elohim (Isaiah 52:10, Psalms 98:3) to claim to be a divine being was now alien to them.
Even tho it is still possible to read into the Tanakh a distinction between YHVH Elohim 'and' the God (El) Most High (2 Samuel 22:14, Psalms 18:13); this is the problem with sects creating divisions against each other, it eventually makes division alternate to the truths presented within a text.
In my opinion.
First of all the temple in Jerusalem was where Melchizedek had his temple. Second scripture says that Jesus replaced them. There is no point in having the priesthood after Jesus since Jesus covers all their duties of making atonements to God.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant …
A Superior Priesthood
Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (upon which basis the people received the Law), why was there still a need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the Law must be changed as well. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.…
Perhaps not changing their priesthood or the law but rendering it obsolete.
Since that point is of contention by me, and hopefully some of the Jews, 'depending on sect', we'd need to move this thread to a debate section... Please.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
What do I know? (Nowt!
)But if I search a KJV bible then neither Pharisee or Saduccee is mentioned anywhere in my old testament.
The words Rabbah and Rabbim feature occasionally in the O.T. but it would need a scholar like Tumah to tell us more about Rabbis.
Priest it is!
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
lol
Ah so you are just here to proselytize and don't have a question.
I really thought that you were just a Christian being curious about something.
Why am I not surprised.
What a good start into the year.
One thing leads to another. I think you answered the question in the first post. All that's left is to wonder why the priesthood disappeared.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
They have a priesthood sacrificing animals and such?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Yes, as long as you accept Jewish sources on the matter.
You mean YOUR scripture.
Then you don't understand the full responsibilities and obligations of a priest in Judaism.
What is this notion of "perfection" that you think comes through the priests?
They didn't appear - they were born into a family, one that Jesus wasn't born into.
There was no "order" of Malkitzedek.
But the priesthood didn't change, so your argument fails.
ok, so either it wasn't changed so the whole Malkitzedek thing is irrelevant or you are saying that was is textually called eternal is obsolete. God lied I guess.