Priest, Rabbi, Pharisee, Saduccee

[rosends]

What do I know? (Nowt! )
But if I search a KJV bible then neither Pharisee or Saduccee is mentioned anywhere in my old testament.

The words Rabbah and Rabbim feature occasionally in the O.T. but it would need a scholar like Tumah to tell us more about Rabbis.

Priest it is!

Rabbah and Rabbim as (quasi) Hebrew words aren't related to Rabbi. Rabbim means "many" or "plural." Rabbah is a more current word and I won't discuss what it might mean here.

 

[Tumah]

One thing leads to another. I think you answered the question in the first post. All that's left is to wonder why the priesthood disappeared.

I don't know why you keep insisting that the priesthood disappeared. Although the Temple was destroyed, so that aspect of their job is currently not possible, they still fulfill their other roles, such as blessing the nation, redeeming the first born, priestly gifts and avoiding ritual defilement. When circumstances permit them to work in the Temple again, they'll do so as well.

 

[Tumah]

Rabbah is a more current word and I won't discuss what it might mean here.

How diplomatic of you.

 

[Flankerl]

They have a priesthood sacrificing animals and such?

This has already been answered.

No Jew in this thread is going to join your Greco-Roman Religion.


Don't you have something better to do?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

In Judaism or the Christian bible or as pertains to the Jews of the old and new testament. What is the difference between a Priest, Rabbi, Pharisee and Saduccee? Was one of these groups more inclined to believe Jesus was the Messiah?

Oh, I thought this was joke. A priest, a rabbi and a cleric walk into a bar in Singapore...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

First of all the temple in Jerusalem was where Melchizedek had his temple. Second scripture says that Jesus replaced them. There is no point in having the priesthood after Jesus since Jesus covers all their duties of making atonements to God.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant …

A Superior Priesthood
Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (upon which basis the people received the Law), why was there still a need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the Law must be changed as well. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.…

Perhaps not changing their priesthood or the law but rendering it obsolete.

I believe, through a study of Romans, that the unconverted Jewish people were willing to be judged under their own Law.

 

[oldbadger]

Rabbah and Rabbim as (quasi) Hebrew words aren't related to Rabbi. Rabbim means "many" or "plural." Rabbah is a more current word and I won't discuss what it might mean here.

Thankyou!

And so......... neither pharisee, saduccee nor rabbi were/are mentioned once in the KJV of the Old Testament.

 

[wizanda]

And so......... neither pharisee, saduccee nor rabbi were/are mentioned once in the KJV of the Old Testament.

Jeremiah 39:13 So Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard sent, and Nebushasban, Rab-saris, and Nergalsharezer, Rab-mag, and all the king of Babylon's 'Rabbi' (princes).

Here is the Hebrew analysis; where each of these titles starts with Rab-Officer, Rab-Magician, and the king's Rabbi.

In my opinion.

 

[oldbadger]

Here is the Hebrew analysis; where each of these titles starts with Rab-Officer, Rab-Magician, and the king's Rabbi.

In my opinion.

Thankyou.............

Do you know what the meaning or significance of 'Rab' is?

Rab-Magi looks very interesting.........

Does Rabbi break down into Rab-Bi?

 

[wizanda]

Rab-Magi looks very interesting.........

Rab-magi is chief magician, rab-saris is chief officer...

Does Rabbi break down into Rab-Bi?

That end word is RBI, which wikipedia says is how we spell Rabbi, as does Strongs (H7227).

In my opinion.

 

[Tumah]

Does Rabbi break down into Rab-Bi?

No, the double 'b' I suspect is because in English we double the consonant between vowels. In Hebrew, it's simply rabi. Rabbi seems to come through the version used in Israel rabi, rather than the version used in Babylon (ie, the Babylonian Talmud) rab.

That end word is RBI, which wikipedia says is how we spell Rabbi, as does Strongs (H7227).

The end word is rabei, which is the plural possessive form of rab, ie. "[the] officers of the king of Babylon". It's spelled the same as the Hebrew rabi, but is pronounced slightly different.

 

[rosends]

If I could guess (my etymological dictionary is in storage) I would connect the r-b root with the word for "large" or "great" or "many". So when Daniel (2:48) is elevated to a higher rank, the word "רַבִּי" (rah-bee) is used in Aramaic. (so maybe a Rav, a teacher, is one greater in knowledge)

 

[Phantasman]

In Judaism or the Christian bible or as pertains to the Jews of the old and new testament. What is the difference between a Priest, Rabbi, Pharisee and Saduccee? Was one of these groups more inclined to believe Jesus was the Messiah?

Difference? None. All profess celestial authority. No man has celestial authority but Christ Jesus.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In Judaism or the Christian bible or as pertains to the Jews of the old and new testament. What is the difference between a Priest, Rabbi, Pharisee and Saduccee? Was one of these groups more inclined to believe Jesus was the Messiah?

All sorts of persons believed in Jesus in the Bible--the Pharisees, who took God at His Word--believed in large numbers. The Saducees, who were the most liberal in doctrine of all the ancient Jewish groups--never had ONE person who converted in the New Testament!

What does that tell you about religious people with liberal doctrines?

 

[Kemosloby]

All sorts of persons believed in Jesus in the Bible--the Pharisees, who took God at His Word--believed in large numbers. The Saducees, who were the most liberal in doctrine of all the ancient Jewish groups--never had ONE person who converted in the New Testament!

What does that tell you about religious people with liberal doctrines?

If you mean by "liberal doctrine" they strayed most from scripture, they found themselves without reason to believe. But were they really "liberal"? They had drawn a hard line not believing in the resurrection. No longer liberal, just on the other side of the truth.

 

[Phantasman]

If you mean by "liberal doctrine" they strayed most from scripture, they found themselves without reason to believe. But were they really "liberal"? They had drawn a hard line not believing in the resurrection. No longer liberal, just on the other side of the truth.

That's how I see it, as well. Jesus attacked not only the belief but the office of the Pharisee's, Sadducee's and scribes. And it was the power that they had, that made them envious of Jesus message. Destroying the physical veil in the Temple, opened man to deal directly with Spirit without physical (fleshly) mediators. A practice that was returned to by catholic orthodoxy.

It drove Paul to say that he was the least of the (office) of apostles placing himself below the lead of the Spirit, while others created a path to rely on men to understand that path. An elder teaches others the discovery of the Spiritual path on their own, so they find it and become elated through their efforts. The Priests say to follow them, because they have found it for you.

Where you place your faith, dictates what you will believe. What you believe is what dictates your path (in life). And the easiest path isn't always the best one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you mean by "liberal doctrine" they strayed most from scripture, they found themselves without reason to believe. But were they really "liberal"? They had drawn a hard line not believing in the resurrection. No longer liberal, just on the other side of the truth.

Are we talking about the Saducees or non-biblicists of today? The Saducees rejected the resurrection in part because to them, only the 5 books were possibly canon and they tossed aside the other 34 volumes of the OT! It wasn't "just the resurrection".

AND! By putting aside a resurrection, what happened to the Saducees' liberal "faith" WHEN THE CHRIS RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD?! That's the point!

 

[Akivah]

Oh, I thought this was joke. A priest, a rabbi and a cleric walk into a bar in Singapore...

That would have been a more useful subject.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would have been a more useful subject.

And funnier.

 

[Shaul]

First of all the temple in Jerusalem was where Melchizedek had his temple. Second scripture says that Jesus replaced them. There is no point in having the priesthood after Jesus since Jesus covers all their duties of making atonements to God.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 Behold, the days come, said the LORD, that I will make a new covenant …

A Superior Priesthood
Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (upon which basis the people received the Law), why was there still a need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the Law must be changed as well. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar.…

Perhaps not changing their priesthood or the law but rendering it obsolete.

You misquoted Jeremiah 31:31. It says, “The days are coming,” declares the L-rd, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.” Since this covenant is between the L-rd and the people of Israel it could not be the Christian covenant since that is supposed to be between the L-rd and all those, Jew AND gentile, which are under the Christian covenant.

Since the covenant between the L-rd and Israel is an eternal one, the one In Jeremiah supplements it, it could not possibly replace it. You make the common error of replacement theology.

If you believe that Jesus eliminated the need for sacrifice of any Temple then you have a problem. Ezekiel is clear that there will be a Third Temple, including sacrifices. That contradicts your theology.