Posted on 11/17/2007 9:31:32 PM PST by Psychic Dice
You sound like someone who has lived and battle a long time and ascended to a higher place. I envy you the feeling of satisfaction that you have said your piece and it is enough. I feel a little less compelled to grab the floor than I once did, but I have not achieved your admirable state. Salute.
Nah. You're forgetting Increase Mather and those crazy Puritans. Everyone is familiar with the Jewish/Puritan affinity, but unfortunately many people make the mistake of equating Puritanism with contemporary New England liberalism (the old "Ted Kennedy is merely the ultimate descendant of Jonathan Edwards" thing). The contemporary counterparts of the old New England Puritans are not New England liberals but Southern "Bible-thumpers." Why can't more people see this?
Nineteenth century Jewish liberals liked to say that "Hebraic mortar cemented the bricks of American democracy," but that isn't correct. Actually Hebraic mortar cemented the bricks of New England Puritan theocracy (back when New England was horrified of the Jacobinism of the Southern planters and convinced that Thomas Jefferson was going to confiscate and burn all the Bibles).
But the LEFT, that is to say the Enlightment crowd, have bought into a rosy view of Islam. His monotheism was acceptable to the deists and even to the atheists among them because it denied the notion of incarnation that was so hated by the Enlightenment. The fallacy of this approach is that they “misunderestimated” the power of his religion to resist their own doctrines.
Barbara Tuchman argues that it was English Protestants who were the founders of Zionism.especially Lord Shaftesbury, a major player in the politics of the 19th Century. The English Puritans more or less adopted the ancient Hebrews has their spiritual ancestors because their actual ancestors, the Anglo-Saxons, had been Papists. Hence the common use of obscure Hebrew names among them.
Jehovah.
You really should actually know what you are talking about before embarrassing yourself by posting such drivel
Yes, there were preachers who did that, but it wasn't most of the US or done for generations. A few kooks who preached to the ignorant
God gave Joshua and the Children of Israel, fresh from the Exodus, all of the land their feet touched after crossing the Jordan River.
I have not seen evidence that Pharisees did not participate in Caiphus’s trial.
I understand that yes, there were Saducees and more political members too rather than just Talmudic scholars but if you have evidence that the Pharisees were excluded please show me.
I don’t pretend to be a Christian scholar and candidly have not much delved into the nuance between Pharisee and who composes the Sanhedrin.
The usual explanation taught to little Southern Baptist boys like me was that the Jewish religious and civil hierarchy at the time feared Jesus’s teachings which they considered a threat or simply blasphemous. Hence when the opportunity arose in Jerusalem some of them paid Judas to betray Jesus so they could try him on some serious charges. They were unable to impose capital charges so they claimed blasphemy and asked the Romans to kill him. Pilate and his wife in particular were not really keen on this and tried to sate them with some old fashioned scourging and torture, but that would not do since they preferred Jesus gone. Then the Sanhedrin including Pharisees (yes the term has been used loosely over the years I’d reckon) insisted Jesus be put to death and roused some local mob to help along and Pilate fearing unrest and that trouble drifting back to Rome would be his undoing agreed to crucify Jesus and makes a big show of washing his hands of it. Pretty cowardly most folks now observe..
It should be noted that Herod (a quasi-Jew I believe...not sure) passed on Jesus for political reasons...let the Romans squirm with this one basically.
It should also be noted that some of the Sanhedrin.....Nicodemus(a Pharisee) and Joseph of Arithemea in particular defended Jesus....in vain.
That’s a simply synopsis made from memory sitting here....you have anything to refute that take of substance I should know, I’m open to it.
Happy Thanksgiving
“God gave what is now Israel to the Jews
It’s theirs”
He gave Israel a heckuva lot more than present day Israel!! And they WILL get it back-all of it!
Very true. There's a line of thought that the Pilgrims celebration was essentially their celebration of Sukkot.
Thanks for the comment Drammach. I fear Sergei is jousting with a windmill that doesn’t exist. SJackson’s ping list as a force on FR, give me a break.
Incidentally, there is speculation that the Gospel of Luke depicts the birth of Christ as having occured about that time. That would explain the crowding in Bethlehem, and of course, the shepards in the fields.
Jefferson wouldn't have burned Bibles, just done a cut and paste job. Imagine what he could have done with internet access in his post Presidential years at Monticello.
Issues with people on FR you should take up with them. Other than that, this shouldn't vex you, Israel isn't necessarily the top issue for most Jews, misdirected social concerns are.
Zacharias served as a high priest and based on his tribe, we know when he served John would have been born on Pesach. Most Jews believed that Elijah would come at Factor in when Miriam visited her cousin Nine months back from Sukkot is Chanukah where the light entered the temple. Yah'shua's birth on Sukkot is supported by Elizabeth's pregnancy of John the Immerser.
shalom b'shem Yah'shua
The time sequence is outlined by the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 with Zacharias.
and when he was struck dumb and when John was conceived.
Pesach to announce the coming of the Messiah
Elizabeth, timing of Yah'shua's birth can be ascertained.
Who said I had issues with Jewish freepers?
very few are social libs....quite the contrary
by this reckoning, the Anuniciation would have come about this time. Could be that the Christian calandar we have might have come about as the Church sought to disaccosociate herself from the Jewish calendar, to brinbg herhelf in line with the Roman calendar.
Right. There was the Jewish state and there was what was left of the Palestinian mandate, which was unorganized.
>>This question is stupid. The Israelis do not OCCUPY Israel.
You should learn some manners and possibly English.
I meant “occupy” in the sense that they became established, as in a building, just like I occupy in my apartment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.