![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.gardenofpraise.com\/images\/jesu13b.jpg\")
<\/a>Sadducees get a bad rap. If one attended Sunday school, one probably learned that as they didn\u2019t believe in an afterlife, they were \u201csad you see\u201d (which sounds like Sadducee). We only know about the Sadducees from their critics (or at the very least those who disagreed with them): Josephus is probably the least negative source, then there are the New Testament and Rabbinic literature, both of which are polemical.<\/p>\nIt is interesting to note that the Sadducees\u2019 views, as described by Josephus, are similar to those held by the more progressive Christians of our time: a denial of \u201cfate\u201d (i.e. determinism), of supernatural beings such as angels, and the afterlife<\/a>. It may seem ironic that the most progressive voices today sound like the most conservative from Jesus\u2019 time. But being \u201cprogressive\u201d doesn\u2019t mean adopting the newest ideas. If it did, fundamentalism is relatively new, and so we\u2019d all be clamouring to hop on that bandwagon. But in fact, being progressive means being willing to change and listen, even though sometimes that means being willing to return to views one once dismissed out of hand.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what Josephus tells us:<\/p>\n Sadducees\u2026take away Fate, and say that there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. [Jewish Antiquities 13<\/a>.172-173]<\/p>\n They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in the Underworld. [Jewish War 2<\/a>.162-166]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Josephus also says that Sadducees viewed it as a virtue to dispute with one\u2019s teachers, to question authority, to not simply accept the answers given. Progressive Christians can say \u201cAmen\u201d to that. But do we have the courage to do something akin to what not only Reform but even traditional Rabbinic Judaism has done in arguing with God and with Moses? Do progressive Christians have the courage to point out clearly when they disagree with Jesus?<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Although the scenario posed by the Sadducees is somewhat farcical, it raises intelligent questions<\/a>. Jesus\u2019 response cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory, can it? Surely it simply raises the question of what the point is of this life if it contains so many aspects that will not be worth preserving for eternity, and the question of in what sense an eternally-existing \u201cme\u201d that does not share my relationships with others that I have now will in any sense be \u201cme\u201d.<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Jesus Creed talks about Scripture and reason<\/a>. Vision has a video clip<\/a> of Paula Fredriksen<\/a> speaking about Paul.<\/a> April DeConick continues her discussion<\/a> of the diversity<\/a> of early Christianity<\/a> (and Mystical Seeker<\/a> joins in). Loren Rosson talks about politics in Romans 13<\/a>. Ken Schenck distills out the issues covered<\/a> in his New Testament survey class. Scotteriology points out that God\u2019s name isn\u2019t \u201cGod\u201d<\/a>. An und fuer sich<\/a> has some controversial thoughts about Paul, Judaism and Christianity<\/a>. Conrad Roth has an interesting post about magic and modernism, silence and speech<\/a>. IO9<\/a> mentions a graphic novel about those left behind fighting back<\/a> against the rapture and its paramilitary angel harbingers.<\/p>\n Keith Miller<\/a> discusses whether the academic science community is a hostile environment for faith<\/a>. Experimental Theology begins a series on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin<\/a>. The Panda\u2019s Thumb discusses creationism\u2019s latest mutation<\/a>. John Pieret discusses Intelligent Design<\/a> and the \u201cacademic freedom<\/a>\u201d bills<\/a> (Science Avenger<\/a> also covers the latter). ERV points to online Rockerfeller lectures.<\/a> Undeception talks about limits of science<\/a>. There are science articles about a fossil of the missing link between salamanders and frogs<\/a> (a \u2018frogamander<\/a>\u2018?), whether the sun is fine-tuned<\/a> for life on Earth, and the recent disappointing statistics about high school biology teachers<\/a>. Can you believe that Denyse O\u2019Leary is inflicting yet another<\/a> blog<\/a> on cyberspace?<\/p>\n Greg Boyd reviews Ehrman\u2019s God\u2019s Problem<\/em><\/a>, while Mystical Seeker also touches on theodicy<\/a>. Richard Carrier<\/a> draws attention to a web site<\/a> connected to his book The Empty Tomb<\/em>. There\u2019s also a post about Pagan Christianity<\/em><\/a>. De-conversion discusses post-Christian ethics<\/a>. Jon Birch<\/a> has some new cartoons: <\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n Sadducees get a bad rap. If one attended Sunday school, one probably learned that as they didn\u2019t believe in an afterlife, they were \u201csad you see\u201d (which sounds like Sadducee). We only know about the Sadducees from their critics (or at the very least those who disagreed with them): Josephus is probably the least negative […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a>The Sadducees<\/a> famously tried to stump Jesus with a question about levirate marriage and the resurrection<\/a>. If a woman married all of seven brothers<\/a>, but had no children, whose wife <\/a>would she be in the resurrection<\/a>? Although one may agree that the question presupposes a rather crude understanding of resurrection and the afterlife, popular piety has often held such views, and so the question is not an inappropriate one, even if there were surely people in that time who held to more sophisticated, less crassly physicalist<\/a> sorts of views.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n