Verse on Paul's brothers

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by prophecynut, May 29, 2005.

  1. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    A while back I posted on who were the Sadducees and Pharisees in Jesus' time. I determined from OT Scriptures and 'The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia' that Esau's descendents became Sadducees and Jacob's descendents became Pharisees.

    Just recently I came across a verse that confirms the above. Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5), a descendent of Jacob and a Pharisee. Acts 23:6 states the Sadducees (Esau) were his brothers: "Then Paul, knowing that some (a few) of them were Sadducees and the other
    (mostly) Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, 'My brothers , I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, I....'" NIV

    This seems to be the only NT verse identifying Esau/Sadducees as the brother of Paul - this is like finding a needle in a haystack.

    Esau is the offspring of the serpent the devil (Gen. 3:14-15).
     
  2. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You are allegorizing Scripture too much. Neither the Pharisees nor the Pharisees had anything to do with Jacob or Esau. Both groups arose in the third century B.C.

    The Pharisees.
    A. Arose in the third century in protest to the Hellenizing of the Jews.
    B. The conservatives of Christ's time.
    C. Developed into self-righteous hypocrites.
    D. Their name comes from parash, meaning "to separate."
    E. They were the largest and most influential sect in New Testament times.

    The Sadducees.
    A. Arose alongside the Pharisees but were willing to become like the Greeks.
    B. Denied the resurrection and angels, and did not believe in personal immortality.
    C. The liberals of Christ's time.
    D. They derived their name of the sons of Zadok, a high priest in the days of David and Solomon.
    E. Although less numerous than the Pharisees, they possessed greater political power.
     
  3. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    How is that possible? Were not Jacob and Esau sharing the same womb? How then could they not have the same father?

    So if Esau is offspring of the devil, Jacob must be offspring of the devil!

    Oh, ya say, we're not speaking literally? Then don't post those "non-literal" scriptures, implying them to be literal.
     
  4. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK

    My understanding of the Sadducees and Pharisees is not the results of allegorizing Scripture, it comes from associating the character of the people of both groups with Biblical and secular records.

    The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under the heading "Sadducees" comments on the character of these two groups:

    Sadducees were aristocrats who derived their power from their class and collaborated with the Roman occupiers to gain domination over others. They were described as "heartless" or "savage," characterized by crudity, coarseness, loudness. quarrelsome, vulgarity, and violence. They denied the resurrection of the body and rejected belief in angels and spirits and emphasized the freedom of the human will over the doctrine of election. They were preoccupied with power and materialism.

    Pharisees derived their power from learning and knowledge of the Scriptures. They were depicted as refined, urbane, harmonious, and affectionate, amiable and believed in the resurrection of the body. For most of their history, Pharisees defined themselves in opposition to the Sadducees, they had a different temperament, reputation and essence.

    From the OT I learned that Esau was confrontational (Gen. 25:22); enjoyed killing animals (V. 27); had an aggressive spirit of violence (27:40); rebellious (26: 24-35, 28:8-9) and exhibited hostility and animosity towards his brother and others (27:41-45).

    Jacob was quiet, reserved, content and easy going (Gen. 25:27).

    I've searched books and the Web without finding any articles on the above comparison, most likely I'm the originator of it.

    I suggest you read prophecies on Edom (Eze. 35:1-15; 36:1-7; Obadiah).

    I recommend you investigate web sites on the Jacob and Esau relationship, most of them say the Anglo Saxons are the chosen 10 lost tribes of Israel and the Jews are not, but just ignore this stupid idea :rolleyes:

    You might try this sight, 5 pages long.


    www.israelect.com/reference/Willie-Martin/RitualMurder3.html
     
  5. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is Esau and his descendents the "offspring" of the Devil?

    Herod, an Edomite, attempted to kill infant Jesus.

    The Edomite Judas betrayed Jesus.

    Caiaphas the high priest was an Edomite.

    The priests and temple guards were Edomites.

    Sadducees, Pharisees and Gentiles were conspirators in the arrest of Jesus. The chief priests and temple guards arrested him while he was with his disciples on the Mount of Olives. They brought Jesus to Roman headquarters and handed him "over" to Pilate for trial (Jn. 7:32; Mt. 27:18).

    The priests remained outside the Praetorium during the interrogation and scourging by Roman soldiers and temple guards. The priests would not of entered the Gentile building where "leaven might be used on this day of preparation for Passover. Such conduct would not only render them ceremonially unclean and thereby debar them from partaking of the afternoon feast of thanksgiving but would also necessitate their subjection to purification ceremonies after sundown."

    After the scourging and mocking by a "company of soldiers" (Mt. 27:27-31), Jesus was taken outside by the soldiers and guards and handed "over" to the chief priests (V. 26). Pilate, by surrendering Jesus to the will of the chief priests, shifted responsibility for his death to them (Mt. 27:24-26; Mk. 15:15; Lk. 23:25).

    The priests and temple guards "brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha" where a "centurion" and Roman soldiers were waiting to carry out the crucifixions (Mk. 15:22-28,39).

    The chief priests were pivotal in the death of Jesus, they controlled every aspect of it from his arrest to his crucifixion. They were Edomites, the descendents of Esau who took Hittite and Canaanit women in marriage and consequently became excluded forever from "the assembly of the Lord" (Deu. 23:2).

    Sadducees/Edomites are the offspring and head of the serpent who struck Christ's heel on the cross, only to be crushed in Christ's victory over Satan (Gen. 3:14-15) - a victory in which all believers will share (Rom. 16:20).
     
  6. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two items I overlooked and not in the above post:

    The chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus (Jn 12:10).

    Pilate told the chief priests to crucify Jesus (Jn 19:6).
     
  7. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Your associations are kind of far-fetched. Both groups arose in the inter-testamental period, that is, between the end of canon of the Old Testament, and the beginning of birth of Christ. They have nothing to do with the Old Testament characters of Esau or Jacob

    My daughter has blue eyes and blond hair.
    Does that make her:
    1. Swedish,
    2. Russian,
    3. Or just plain "dumb"

    You can make the Bible say anything you want with such associations. What you have done is akin to the above stereotyping.
    DHK
     
  8. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Nevertheless

    Nevertheless
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jacob was also a liar and a thief.
     
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The primary dispute between the Ss and Ps was about the canon. The Sadducees correctly following Moses (God) accepted the first 5 books as Torah and everything else as commentary. The Pharisees claimed the Prophets and Writings were also Torah.
     
  11. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    prophecynut said:

    "I've searched books and the Web without finding any articles on the above comparison, most likely I'm the originator of it."

    Originality in theology is not necessarily a virtue. I see no basis for your analysis.

    Jesus had plenty to say against the Pharisees; Paul was being wily in his argument, knowing that the resurrection (which the Pharisees viewed more like reincarnation than what we would consider resurrection) would attack the Sadducees over the issue.
     
  12. prophecynut

    prophecynut
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jacob was manipulative and scheming; do you suppose that trait continues today in his descendents or did his encounter with God (Gen. 32:22-30) change him as indicated by his generosity torwards Esau when he returned home (33:1-15). Regardless of Jacob's faults or the inherent character of his descendents God continues to bless Jacob (27:28; 30:25-43).

    "Originality in theology" - I like this phrase, never would of thought of it until now. In fact my analysis of Sadducees as Edomites is drop in the bucket compared to my other theological perceptions. Actually its not original, I found a few web sights afterward that share the same conviction.
     
  13. Link

    Link
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prophecynut,

    From what I have read 'Saducee' is a Graecized word for 'Zadokite'-- that is, descendants of Zadok, the high priest that the OT specifies the Aaronic high priests should come from.

    I do not see where the Bible says they are bloodthirsty, or like Esau. You are basing your interpretation here on commentaries, it seems, not scripture.

    From what I have read, the Saducees believed in the first five books of the Bible, but tended not to consider the rest scripture. They were also 'cessationists' in a sense, because they would confess that God spoke to Moses and did miracles in those times, but seemed much more skeptical of the supernatural in their own time. The Saducees were fairly Gracized (Greek-ized).

    Since Saducees rejected books like Daniel, they did not believe in the resurrection. Jesus argued for the resurrection from the Torah.

    The Phairsees were a group dedicated to purely keeping the Law of Moses. They had come to prominance a few centuries early when the Jews had overthrown their oppressors. If you know about the Maccabees, they arose in that time period. They believed in what we could consider now to be the whole of Old Testament scripture. They were open to the possiblity of the supernatural, at least theoretically.

    Were Saducees descended from Edom? Unless there were som unlawful mixed marriages with Edomite _mothers_, I seriously doubt it. I do not see any scriptural evidence for this. The Bible does call the 'Saducees' as 'Saducees' which seems to argue that they were Zadokites, not Edomites.
     

Share This Page

Loading...