Pharisees vs Sadducees

>>2656417
It's really hard to choose the Sadducees, given how little of their beliefs have actually survived the ages.

Still, they were a smaller sect than the Pharisees even when the temple was around, and that was before they lost their main locus of support.

>>2656451
We know they didn't believe in the Resurrection and may have doubted the existence of angels. Their doctrine seems somewhat materialistic by comparison to others. They also were the pro-Roman and pro-Hellenistic side despite being the ruling caste (you'd think it'd be the opposite).

>>2656462
Why? They benefited the most from collaborating with the Romans.

>>2656462
>We know they didn't believe in the Resurrection and may have doubted the existence of angels
No, we have statements from their opponents claiming they believed that. We may as well say that we know that Gnostic Christians believed in having huge orgies.

>>2656477
I'm use to traditional forces of power = avoiding alien influence. Take for example India. The Brahmin have more (theoretically) to lose than the Sudras by westernization.

>>2656488
Not him, but the Sadducees were in power precisely because they collaborated with the Romans, and what's more, as they were tied to a central location and were a geneology based cult (largely, not all Sadducees were hereditary priests, but most of them were), as opposed to a spread out cult based on certain teachings, they were enormously more vulnerable to Roman displeasure.

>>2656483
Just because it was written by an opponent of theirs doesn't mean it was false. We have no reason to assume it was made in bad faith. As for Gnostic, as a very diverse group of people its generally accepted some of them did do weird sexual acts including having orgies. It may have been Valentinus who admitted to such. Ape of thoth has more info about it.

>>2656521
>Just because it was written by an opponent of theirs doesn't mean it was false
It also doesn't mean it's true, and in this case we have ZERO Sadducee theological tracts to compare it to for any kind of accuracy.

>We have no reason to assume it was made in bad faith.
Well, other than the fact that it was written by an opposing sect and is contradictory with another of their claims of belief that they ascribed unusual and inerrant conviction in the plain text of the Tanach, which mentions things like angels and an example of resurrection. So yes, I consider that reason to assume it was made in bad faith.

> its generally accepted some of them did do weird sexual acts including having orgies.
First I've heard of it. Can you show me some scholars who believe such?

>>2656537
https://books.google.com/books?id=3XxxkESCWz4C&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=sophia+curses+into+the+outer+darkness&source=bl&ots=p-No0s-TZ4&sig=nNOFjQYFIvaxOfL8m90G6loo3lk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0mO7f3qHTAhUHJCYKHRTRCAwQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=sophia%20curses%20into%20the%20outer%20darkness&f=false

>>2656537
Scroll up to the part on sperm cults.

>>2656559
>https://books.google.com/books?id=3XxxkESCWz4C&pg=PA250&lpg=PA250&dq=sophia+curses+into+the+outer+darkness&source=bl&ots=p-No0s-TZ4&sig=nNOFjQYFIvaxOfL8m90G6loo3lk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi0mO7f3qHTAhUHJCYKHRTRCAwQ6AEIJjAB#v=onepage&q=sophia%20curses%20into%20the%20outer%20darkness&f=false
>>2656567

He quotes Epiphanius and even says that
>all the details of Epiphanius' descriptions are not to be taken seriously; in his exposing polemic he exaggerates a good deal. In places he appears to give full rein to phantasy and to indulge in concupiscence.

Even if he did take the guy seriously, and it certainly doesn't seem like he does, that's a long way from saying that it is "generally accepted" that they acted such.

>>2656417
>Sadducees


TORAH UBER ALLES

>>2656613
So at the very least logic would dictate it's likely that certain Gnostic sects involved sexual exploits in some capacity considering the liberal use of sexual metaphors

>>2657055
No, it doesn't. Because when the only source about it is a document listing various heresies and why they're all shit, logic would dictate that this is not the best or most accurate source of information as to actual practices, especially when an accusation like that can torpedo a group's reputation, real or not.

Logic dictates that one guy wrote something, and modern scholarship takes a rather skeptical look at his views.

>>2656417
ESSENES I CHOOSE YOU

>>2657077
>especially when an accusation like that can torpedo a group's reputation, real or not.
Don't project modern morality unto the past. Romans at the time thought a magic phallus would ejaculate into the evil eye to ward it off. Sexual religious imagery is commonplace in India, Japan etc even today. Romans weren't puritans and these gnostics practices give off nothing that would have torpedos the groups reputation at the time. It seems more like various Christian and gnostics didn't like the practices themselves. Not that their reputation was on the line.

>>2657114
>Don't project modern morality unto the past.
I'm not. But accusations of sexual peccadilloes has existed for a long, long time. All the way back to the Old Testament with Lot and his sons and the tribes that are considered born from his incest in the local region, and probably further back than that.

>Romans weren't puritans and these gnostics practices give off nothing that would have torpedos the groups reputation at the time.

https://thebibleisnotholy.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/historical-introduction-early-christian-writings.pdf
Skip to chapters 11 and 12. Sexual misconduct accusations were common and were done with the intent of disrupting rival groups. Or even take it away from Christianity entirely

>It seems more like various Christian and gnostics didn't like the practices themselves.
Oh sweet summer child. Go look up Paul's epistles about stuff as to how the Judaic law was supposed to work, stuff like how blood offerings were necessary for atonement despite it being very clear from the bare text of the OT that it isn't. And remember he's supposed to be one of the most well informed and literate members of the church at the time, a pocket expert. You really think these are well informed, rational people offering up detailed analyses and conclusions based on that?

>>2656417
Pharisees, because they knew that human beings were resurrected to eternal life/existence.