What happened to the Sadducees?

[Tumah]

Thanks for the clarification dealing with repentance. As far as the rest, I cannot accept it, especially when it comes to innocent people being supposedly killed or allowed to die by God because someone else sinned. To me, that puts God on the "evil" side of the ledger, and even if gilgul is applied, it at least posits God as leaving a terrible example for us.

I simply don't see God interfering with every thing that happens, whether that be good or bad, and I tend to think having God pulling all the strings defies the concept of free will. After all, with what you say above, if someone repents, is this action really ordained by God so what we have is God repenting to God?

To me, an approach whereas God made all, and then let it be ours to make or to break, seems to resonate better with me. However, I'll be ther first to admit that I don't have "the answers", so I certainly cannot claim that you're wrong.

I don't understand where you are getting the line about innocent people dying from what I said. The point of what I said was the exact opposite.

I think G-d pulls the strings with regards to what we do. But we get to decide what we want to do. I think this is connected to why we can be rewarded or punished even for the deeds that we want to do.

Repentance is not an action but a choice and a thought. There's no physical action so I guess it would be the counterpoint to the choice to do evil. So it wouldn't be G-d repenting to G-d. I guess it would be something like this:

Person decides to commit evil act, using his free-will.
↓
In the way a person wants to go, that is the way he is brought (Makos 10b). This is where he is made to commit the evil he decided to do (unless G-d has other reasons for not allowing him to commit it).
↓
The person repents in his heart for his evil using his free-will.

Now he no longer is deserving of punishment. At least that's how I understand it so far. So its not G-d repenting. Its the person repenting.

I don't have it all worked out 100%, because there is still the part that G-d will reward a person for his unfruitful decision to perform a good deed, while G-d won't punish someone for his unfruitful decision to perform an evil one. But I'm working on it.

 

[metis]

I don't understand where you are getting the line about innocent people dying from what I said. The point of what I said was the exact opposite.

I think G-d pulls the strings with regards to what we do. But we get to decide what we want to do. I think this is connected to why we can be rewarded or punished even for the deeds that we want to do.

Repentance is not an action but a choice and a thought. There's no physical action so I guess it would be the counterpoint to the choice to do evil. So it wouldn't be G-d repenting to G-d. I guess it would be something like this:

Person decides to commit evil act, using his free-will.
↓
In the way a person wants to go, that is the way he is brought (Makos 10b). This is where he is made to commit the evil he decided to do (unless G-d has other reasons for not allowing him to commit it).
↓
The person repents in his heart for his evil using his free-will.

Now he no longer is deserving of punishment. At least that's how I understand it so far. So its not G-d repenting. Its the person repenting.

I don't have it all worked out 100%, because there is still the part that G-d will reward a person for his unfruitful decision to perform a good deed, while G-d won't punish someone for his unfruitful decision to perform an evil one. But I'm working on it.

I underlined part of what you posted above because, to me, that essentially negates free will. If my actions are restricted to what God does with me, I don't have free will.

Secondly, the part about the "innocents" I posted previously was in remembrance of what you had said about the Holocaust probably about a week or two ago. What I did was to put what you posted then and now together. Do you remember what you had posted on that and what my comment was?

What some have proposed is that God plans major events but not individual decisions within those events. I still have a problem with that, however, because it still involves some not having free will if the events are caused by human actions. And if it's a natural event, such as those who may be killed by a hurricane, why would God do this?

Sorry, but no matter how I look at this, these hypothetical situations defy logic-- at least my logic (that's assuming I have some).

 

[Tumah]

I underlined part of what you posted above because, to me, that essentially negates free will. If my actions are restricted to what God does with me, I don't have free will.

Secondly, the part about the "innocents" I posted previously was in remembrance of what you had said about the Holocaust probably about a week or two ago. What I did was to put what you posted then and now together. Do you remember what you had posted on that and what my comment was?

What some have proposed is that God plans major events but not individual decisions within those events. I still have a problem with that, however, because it still involves some not having free will if the events are caused by human actions. And if it's a natural event, such as those who may be killed by a hurricane, why would God do this?

Sorry, but no matter how I look at this, these hypothetical situations defy logic-- at least my logic (that's assuming I have some).

To me, free-will doesn't mean free-action. It means I have the power to choose to do what I want. But whether I will be successful is not in my hands. Probably that is why many people often pray for success. So for me, G-d's control of our actions, does not negate my ability to choose what I want to do.

I'm not sure I recall exactly what I posted and I don't recall your response. But I imagine it had something to do with the fact that the innocent people who died in the Holocaust, were guilty of something either in their present lives, or in a past life. Can you remind me or link the thread?

The question of "Hashgacha klalis" (general supervision) vs "Hashgacha pratis" (individual supervision), - what you are calling major and minor events - is one that is debated and discussed in a number of Rabbinical works (of course). I've found this direction to make the most sense to me, in a way that satisfies my sense of justice and logic.

 

[roger1440]

I tend to lean in your direction above, so what we read in the gospels includes myth, which of course does not mean falsehood. After Gandhi was assassinated, a similar process began to take place with him, but he had written so much about his just being a man with God inside of him and with all.

The word myth usually has a negative connotation to it. A story that MAY be untrue. I’m hesitant to use that term. The canonical Gospels are not about events from the past. They are about how to come to God in the present, a present without the physical Temple in Jerusalem.


Levite made a good point in post # 21. I have been during a little research on the war the last few days. It turns out there was fighting among the different Jewish sects during the war. Plain and simple; a civil war. Since the Sadducees had a close contact with the Romans the Zealots murdered many of the Sadducee leaders. For a while the Zealots took control of the Temple. Many of the remaining Sadducees must have fled for there life.

 

[metis]

To me, free-will doesn't mean free-action. It means I have the power to choose to do what I want. But whether I will be successful is not in my hands. Probably that is why many people often pray for success. So for me, G-d's control of our actions, does not negate my ability to choose what I want to do.

To me, that's not free will at all-- just freedom of thought that doesn't amount to a hill of beans since no actions on your own can come out of whatever you might think. Or are you saying that what I think might have God change his course with me but not necessarily the events, which is sorta what I pick up from your last paragraph below?

I'm not sure I recall exactly what I posted and I don't recall your response. But I imagine it had something to do with the fact that the innocent people who died in the Holocaust, were guilty of something either in their present lives, or in a past life. Can you remind me or link the thread?

It would take too long for me to look up. You had it that the Holocaust was God's punishment for us for not following the Law, and I posted back that I simply cannot take that position because of all the innocents, including children, that were the victims of this genocide. You then mentioned gilgul (rebirth of reincarnation), and I responded that I wasn't certain that there was such a thing, but if nothing else, God's setting a terrible example for us.

BTW, I believe it's in Ezekiel whereas God has it that we would be judged more as individuals versus a corporate judgement.

The question of "Hashgacha klalis" (general supervision) vs "Hashgacha pratis" (individual supervision), - what you are calling major and minor events - is one that is debated and discussed in a number of Rabbinical works (of course). I've found this direction to make the most sense to me, in a way that satisfies my sense of justice and logic.

I can better understand that position but still have major problems with it (see above). If there's going to be a judgement someday, then maybe that's when people get sorted out, but I'm obviously far from certain about that as well. But then I'm so uncertain about a lotta things.

 

[metis]

The word myth usually has a negative connotation to it. A story that MAY be untrue. I’m hesitant to use that term. The canonical Gospels are not about events from the past. They are about how to come to God in the present, a present without the physical Temple in Jerusalem.

Which is how Joseph Campbell and some others, including moi, use the term. As Campbell was fond of saying, "the myth becomes the reality".

Levite made a good point in post # 21. I have been during a little research on the war the last few days. It turns out there was fighting among the different Jewish sects during the war. Plain and simple; a civil war. Since the Sadducees had a close contact with the Romans the Zealots murdered many of the Sadducee leaders. For a while the Zealots took control of the Temple. Many of the remaining Sadducees must have fled for there life.

Do you have a link about the Zealots murdering the Sadducee leaders? I do know there was some conflict, but I'm not aware that the Zealots had gone that far.

 

[Tumah]

To me, that's not free will at all-- just freedom of thought that doesn't amount to a hill of beans since no actions on your own can come out of whatever you might think. Or are you saying that what I think might have God change his course with me but not necessarily the events, which is sorta what I pick up from your last paragraph below?

Right, freedom of thought. We have the freedom to choose what we want to do. But let's say I want to steal from you and you being the sweet guy you are don't deserve to be stolen from. It will be impossible for me to steal from you. My decisions can't infringe on your life, unless you deserve the specific infringement I want to infringe you with.

I don't really understand the other option you mention here.

It would take too long for me to look up. You had it that the Holocaust was God's punishment for us for not following the Law, and I posted back that I simply cannot take that position because of all the innocents, including children, that were the victims of this genocide. You then mentioned gilgul (rebirth of reincarnation), and I responded that I wasn't certain that there was such a thing, but if nothing else, God's setting a terrible example for us.

I don't see what the terrible example is. G-d is a Judge and He is judges the person based on literally all the information that is relevant. So the only example I can see, is that a judge should judge. Which is what judges do.

BTW, I believe it's in Ezekiel whereas God has it that we would be judged more as individuals versus a corporate judgement.

I can better understand that position but still have major problems with it (see above). If there's going to be a judgement someday, then maybe that's when people get sorted out, but I'm obviously far from certain about that as well. But then I'm so uncertain about a lotta things.

I never thought about it, there will definitely be an individual judgement. But I wonder, about a general judgment as well. The verses discuss how their will also be a judgment in Heaven and the commentaries explain that this refers to the angels that are in charge of each nation. Maybe this refers to a separate national judgment.

 

[metis]

But let's say I want to steal from you and you being the sweet guy you are don't deserve to be stolen from.

Oh, you are such a poor judge of character!

I don't see what the terrible example is. G-d is a Judge and He is judges the person based on literally all the information that is relevant. So the only example I can see, is that a judge should judge. Which is what judges do.

One-third of us killed during the Holocaust were children, so what did they do that was so wrong? What about those adults who died helping others and who still kept up the Law as best they could? Were each of them guilty of disobedience to the Law?

I never thought about it, there will definitely be an individual judgement. But I wonder, about a general judgment as well. The verses discuss how their will also be a judgment in Heaven and the commentaries explain that this refers to the angels that are in charge of each nation. Maybe this refers to a separate national judgment.

It also says, but not in Ezekiel, that nations will be judged on how they deal with the poor, which more fits your drift than mine.

To me, I just tend to think that God left the world to us, sorta the "Blind Watchmaker" approach, and we can make the best or the worst of it. Afterwords, maybe then He'll sort things out. I just don't picture Him micromanaging everything, but then what do I know?

Answer: in this area, so very little.

 

[Avi1001]

I just don't picture Him micromanaging everything, but then what do I know?

Answer: in this area, so very little.

True, but from everything we know, the evidence points to either: there is no G-d or the most realistic view of G-d being, atheist, pantheist, panentheist or non-theist.

This means that a large portion of the world, being theists, are wrong !

 

[metis]

True, but from everything we know, the evidence points to either: there is no G-d or the most realistic view of G-d being, atheist, pantheist, panentheist or non-theist.

This means that a large portion of the world, being theists, are wrong !

Or are they all right?

 

[Avi1001]

Or are they all right?

They are alright by me, even if they are all wrong.

 

[metis]

They are alright by me, even if they are all wrong.

There's a cute myth, imo, found in the Upanishads whereas Brahman (God) created a manifestation of Himself in the form of a female deity, had sex with her, thus creating the future for all manifestations of lesser deities.

After a while, however, she got tired of sex, changed herself into the form of a woman, but Brahman found her, manifested Himself into the form of a man, had sex with her, thus starting the human race.

She got tired again, changed herself into the form of a mare, whereas He found her and changed Himself into a stallion, had sex with her, thus starting the horse line.

And so on, and so on, and...

OK, what's the implication of this myth?







[Hint: think Spinoza, Einstein, Joseph Campbell, etc.]

 

[Tumah]

Oh, you are such a poor judge of character!

Or am I?
...dum dum dummmm

One-third of us killed during the Holocaust were children, so what did they do that was so wrong? What about those adults who died helping others and who still kept up the Law as best they could? Were each of them guilty of disobedience to the Law?

That was where the reincarnation thing came in. If we mess up once, we can still get another chance to rectify things, one way or another.

It also says, but not in Ezekiel, that nations will be judged on how they deal with the poor, which more fits your drift than mine.

Oh, haha. I don't know Tanach so well.

To me, I just tend to think that God left the world to us, sorta the "Blind Watchmaker" approach, and we can make the best or the worst of it. Afterwords, maybe then He'll sort things out. I just don't picture Him micromanaging everything, but then what do I know?

Answer: in this area, so very little.

I hear what you are saying. Personally, I always found it odd, when people would say, "Why would G-d care about what type of clothes you wear?, etc." To me, it seems obvious that an omnipotent G-d would be capable of micromanaging the tiniest detail of every aspect of creation, without losing focus on any other aspect of creation.

 

[metis]

Or am I?
...dum dum dummmm

Hey, I hear this from my wife all the time, so no fair piling-on.

I hear what you are saying. Personally, I always found it odd, when people would say, "Why would G-d care about what type of clothes you wear?, etc." To me, it seems obvious that an omnipotent G-d would be capable of micromanaging the tiniest detail of every aspect of creation, without losing focus on any other aspect of creation.

Why do you believe God is omnipotent? Compared to us, OK, I can see that.

It's interesting that God periodically asks questions, according to Torah, including telling Samuel that he didn't think that Saul would become so much of a nasty schmuck when Saul was trying to hunt down David. And why would God try to micromanage everything? If that were to be the case, then Earth ain't really ours after all as we're just puppets.

Just some random thoughts-- even attempting to define God in any way is really well above my pay-grade.



BTW, I hope you realize that my first comment on post #48 was just tongue-in-cheek.

 

[roger1440]

Which is how Joseph Campbell and some others, including moi, use the term. As Campbell was fond of saying, "the myth becomes the reality".



Do you have a link about the Zealots murdering the Sadducee leaders? I do know there was some conflict, but I'm not aware that the Zealots had gone that far.

"In most conflicts with the Pharisees* they were clearly defending an older view. The greater popularity of the Pharisees among the people was mainly due to their trying to interpret the law of Moses, with all their strictness, with the needs of the poor in mind. Many of the Sadducean leaders were murdered by the Zealots* during the revolt against Rome, as real or suspected collaborators; the destruction of the Temple deprived their survivors of their position of religious significance. They disappeared, and the Pharisees saw to it that they left no traces behind them. Though they respected the prophetic books, they denied normative value to them. Hence they denied the resurrection as unprovable from the Pentateuch. They also maintained the concept of complete freedom of the will, and rejected scribal traditions. The denial of angels and spirits (Acts 23:8) was presumably as media of revelation. E. Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (ET 5 vols., 1886-90); J.W. Lightley, Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Jesus (1925), pp. 11-78; H.L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrash, IV (1928), pp. 339-52. Most works dealing with the Pharisees include a treatment of the Sadducees. - See more at: http://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/sadducees#sthash.fZZkYBQK.dpu"
​

Sadducees | BiblicalTraining.org​

 

[roger1440]

As I had suspected there were more Jewish sects during the first century than most of us are aware of. Josephus could not have known of all of them.

“Along with the three 'philosophical sects' of Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, Josephus lists a fourth unnamed philosophy founded by Judas of Gamala and Zaddokthe Pharisee, somewhat inconsistently describing it as having nothing in common with the other three (B.J.) ,1 yet agreeing in aU things with the Pharisees, save that 'they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master {Ant.)'.2 Judas and Zaddok announced their philosophy at the time of Quirinius's census,3 inciting the Jews to rebel against Rome and insisting that the census was designed to reduce the people to slavery, an intolerable condition for a nation whose lord was God alone,4”
1. B.J. ii 8, I (108).
2. Ant. xviii i, 6 (23). English quotations are from the translation of H. St.J. Thackeray.
3. See vol. I, pp. 381-2. Zaddok the Pharisee is not included in the account of the philosophy's ormation in B.J. ii 8, i (108).
4. Ant. xviii i, 6 (23); cf. B.J. ii 8, i (108).
Emil Schurer - The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) Vol. 2 (1979) page 599
​

 

[roger1440]

Which is how Joseph Campbell and some others, including moi, use the term. As Campbell was fond of saying, "the myth becomes the reality".

Do you have a link about the Zealots murdering the Sadducee leaders? I do know there was some conflict, but I'm not aware that the Zealots had gone that far.

It’s reminiscent of the French Revolution.

“The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794),[1] also known simply as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution". The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris), and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.” Reign of Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

 

[Tumah]

Why do you believe God is omnipotent? Compared to us, OK, I can see that.

Well, I guess because of Gen. 18:14, because our prayers are built around that idea and because Jewish literature that speaks about G-d maintains that stance. I think it also makes more sense, although that could be just because I was conditioned to think so.

It's interesting that God periodically asks questions, according to Torah, including telling Samuel that he didn't think that Saul would become so much of a nasty schmuck when Saul was trying to hunt down David. And why would God try to micromanage everything? If that were to be the case, then Earth ain't really ours after all as we're just puppets.

As I told you before, I don't really know Tanach so well and I don't know the exact verse your referring to, so I can't look it up. But, as in the instance with Adam and Eve and Cain, I find that Rabbinic literature provides a reason why G-d is asking something that He would obviously know.

Just some random thoughts-- even attempting to define God in any way is really well above my pay-grade.

I think that in general I take the apophatic stance on G-d, except for where it would make conversation more difficult. But there are also some things in Tanach that I don't think can't be explained as metaphor such as that verse in Gen.

BTW, I hope you realize that my first comment on post #48 was just tongue-in-cheek.

Of course!

 

[metis]

It’s reminiscent of the French Revolution.

“The Reign of Terror (5 September 1793 – 28 July 1794),[1] also known simply as The Terror (French: la Terreur), was a period of violence that occurred after the onset of the French Revolution, incited by conflict between rival political factions, the Girondins and the Jacobins, and marked by mass executions of "enemies of the revolution". The death toll ranged in the tens of thousands, with 16,594 executed by guillotine (2,639 in Paris), and another 25,000 in summary executions across France.” Reign of Terror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

Thanks for the links. As I mentioned, I did know there there was some violence involved but I honestly didn't know that it had gone to that extreme.

See, and old dog like me can learn new tricks-- but will I remember them tomorrow.

 

[metis]

Well, I guess because of Gen. 18:14, because our prayers are built around that idea and because Jewish literature that speaks about G-d maintains that stance. I think it also makes more sense, although that could be just because I was conditioned to think so.

As I told you before, I don't really know Tanach so well and I don't know the exact verse your referring to, so I can't look it up. But, as in the instance with Adam and Eve and Cain, I find that Rabbinic literature provides a reason why G-d is asking something that He would obviously know.

I think that in general I take the apophatic stance on G-d, except for where it would make conversation more difficult. But there are also some things in Tanach that I don't think can't be explained as metaphor such as that verse in Gen.

Of course!

Thanks for the clarifications, and...

shalom, my friend.