Coke Bear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Coke Bear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Man, you really don't know the Bible:
"Then he (Jesus) said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures". - Luke 24:44
Your history about the Saduccees accepting only the Torah has no historical basis in facts. The Pharisees accepted the very Tanakh being referenced by Jesus in Luke 24:44 above. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of ALL important Jewish books, which included BOTH the canonical and non-canonical.
You're the one who hasn't done the research.
If you do a modicum of (honest) research, you will discover that the Sadducees DID only accept the Pentateuch as canon.
This is affirmed in Acts 23 in the resurrection debate and Hippolytus and Origen both (2nd & 3rd century) affirm this.
No serious historian today believes that they accepted other books as canon.
This is why Jesus rebuked them only using the Torah.
The historians you got your google facts from rely on the hearsay evidence from church fathers like Origen, Hippolytus, and Jerome, none of which cited any Jewish sources for their claims. These historians did not extensively study the topic of the canon of the Jews as much as scholars like Roger Beckwith, who wrote the book on the Old Testament canon. Scholars like him disagree with the traditional claim that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon. There just aren't any primary Jewish sources from which this claim is based on. As N.T. Wright says, the only real credible evidence from which to draw conclusiions come from Jewish sources, such as Josephus, rabbinic literature, and the New Testament itself:
- Josephus - according to scholar F.F. Bruce, most historians misinterpret Josephus as saying that the Sadducees only held to the Torah. He says that actually, Josephus was only saying that they rejected the oral Torah of the Pharisees, not the Prophets and Writings of the Tanakh;
- Rabbinic Literature - in the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 90b:810 recounts a debate between a leading Pharisee and the Sadducees in the 1st century about the topic of the resurrection. In it, the Sadducees argue from the Prophets and Writings as well as from the Torah (the entire Tanakh);
- The New Testament - in Matthew 2:3-6, King Herod summons all the chief priests of Israel, who most scholars believe were the Sadducees at that time, in order to find the location where Jesus was prophesied to be born - they quoted the book of Micah from the Prophets. Also, Jesus never "rebuked the Sadducees" for only using the Torah. Acts 23 does NOT say that the Sadducees did not accept the whole Tanakh. These are just a common misinterpretations and non sequiturs from those passages.
So, your "research" is shallow, and your comment that "no serious historian" believes the Sadducees accepted books outside the Torah is a complete joke. You have no real evidence for your claim outside of hearsay from the church fathers. You just don't know what you're talking about, you're just regurgitating what you're told.
This is somewhat comical on multiple points!!!
Jesus himself ONLY used the Torah in discussion with the Sadducees. The fact alone has better legs than you forcing your narrative in Luke 24:44.
You also argue that men, who lived in the time adjacent to the apostles, didn't know better than a modern-day "scholar" like Roger Beckwith who is writing more than 1600 years later. You'll have to do better than that.
Speaking of him, you present HIS view as dogmatized canon. When one does research, you'll find that his view is the MINORITY position. Most scholars hold the traditional view of the Sadducees and their limited canon.
Jesus using the Torah to refute the Sadducees does not mean he is acknowledging that the Sadducees only held to the Torah as canon. This is a complete non sequitur. This is reading into the discourse your preconceived conclusions.
Modern day scholars have the advantage that single individuals living near the time of the apostles did not have - they have access to a broader historical picture. Earlier does not necessarily mean more accurate. Irenaeus believed Jesus was near 50 years old when he was crucified, and even claimed this knowledge came from the apostles. It is totally conceivable that those early church fathers who said that the Sadducees held to a restricted canon were merely repeating a common, mistaken belief. The church fathers were not infallible. And considering all the evidence I provided above, clearly one statement from one or two church fathers isn't enough to override that evidence.
The majority position isn't necessarily the correct one. That thinking is yet another fallacy. It's an appeal to the majority fallacy. During Jesus' time, the majority view of the Jewish scholars was that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and the disciples who had the correct belief were in the extreme minority. Your entire response here has been one big fallacy. As I expected, your response does not demonstrate accurate, objective thinking. The view I have argued is the more factually and objectively supported view. It doesn't matter it if is the minority position. Scholarship is often
plagued with "experts" being involved in "groupthink". If you don't know what that is, look it up.
To say that all this is "comical" is only exposing you as the joke.
