Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Oh My God! Mel Gibson Wants to do the Story of Maccabees!
Sean Hannity | 3/16/04 | self

Posted on 03/16/2004 3:01:44 PM PST by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton

On Hannity, he was talking to Mel Gibson about other stories in the bible.

When Sean asked him what one he'd like to do, he said the book of Maccabees!

This is of course the book which, from the Catholic viewpoint, Luther removed from the bible due to praying for the dead, but it also covers the exciting period after the Jewish return from Babylon when the Greek general Anticus Epiphanies took over the rule of Israel.

This really is block buster material and opens up the whole debate of the Catholic bible vs. the Protestant one.

What is your freeper reaction?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: antilutherism; catholic; festivus4therestofus; hanukkah; happykwanzaa; itsjustamovie; melgibson; nitpicking; seanhannity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-264 next last
Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Lucky
The Lutheran Church doesn't consider the books of Maccabbees to be inaccurate history, we just don't believe them to be inspired Scripture.

What is the basis used for deciding what is and what isn't inspired
62 posted on 03/16/2004 3:50:40 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: george wythe
Only the smallest branch of Christianity, Protestantism, does not recognize the Maccabees as part of the canon, although there might be exceptions among Protestants

For instance, Anglicans/Episcopalians do not outright reject the books.

I don't know any Protestants who "outright reject" 1 Maccabees (assuming, of course, that they know of the book's existence). It's an excellent historical record. However, the works of Eusebius are also excellent historical records--that in and of itself does not mean that a book belongs in the canon.

The real issue concerns 2 Maccabees, in particular 12:43-46. Catholics latch onto this book because it supports prayer for the dead, a practice that Protestants and, by extension, Evangelicals reject.

The problem is that no major doctrine (and darn few minor ones) in the Bible rests upon a single passage. Indeed, you can trace any theme--salvation, eschatology, the afterlife and Resurrection, ecclesiology--through the Scriptures as a whole. You could remove any book or even several books of the Bible and still not lose the essential teachings, though you might have to dig deeper and might lose some resolution.

Therefore, when you find in a single book--2 Macc., for example--a teaching that is absent from and contradicted by the rest of Scripture, the proper response is that taken by the Reformation: You recognize that the book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit "for God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).

If 2 Macc. truely deserves to be in the Scriptures, you should be able to produce verse after verse from the undisputed books supporting prayer for the dead, and by extension, Purgatory (without which prayer for the dead becomes an entirely moot point). The only support the Catholic can find for Purgatory is an extremly strained interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:12-15--once again, as he does to show the pre-eminence of Peter (necessary to the Papacy), depending on the heavily-disputed interpretation of a single verse of Scripture rather than a solid thread of teaching throughout the Bible as a whole.

In any case, even Catholics refer to these disputed books as the Deuterocanonical books ("the second canon"), and therefore treat them as separate from and inferior to the "first" canon.

Back to the subject of the thread: Heck, I hope Gibson does. I'd love to see the Maccabean revolt captured on the big screen, and I don't see any reason that such a project could be construed as pro-Catholic or anti-Protestant--it'd be all pro-Jew.

63 posted on 03/16/2004 3:51:38 PM PST by Buggman (President Bush sends his regards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I should really clarify the Bible's position on this. Praying for the dead is not really justified either. It's really pointless since where someone is to go has already been determined.

Makes sense to me. Why would some people get the idea that you can pray people out of Hades?
I don't see anything in the Bible to support it.

64 posted on 03/16/2004 3:51:59 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
As a Lutheran I'd just like to express my outrage and verbally chastise Mr. Gibson for being soooo di-vi-sive.
65 posted on 03/16/2004 3:52:55 PM PST by Jim_Curtis (Free Milosevic.....Jail Annan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
If Gibson makes the movie, I don't think the canonical nature of the Apocrypha will be significant. I do predict, however, that he will be accused of trying to start a civil war.
66 posted on 03/16/2004 3:56:03 PM PST by DeaconBenjamin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
Hey Gibson, attack my President???

You're no better than those other two-bit Hollyweird Whores and you'll never get a dime's worth of MY money again!!
67 posted on 03/16/2004 3:57:05 PM PST by ZULU (God Bless Senator Joe McCarthy!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Jerry Doyle and Bruce Boxleitner? Why do you say that? I'm honestly confused as to why those two names spring up. Not that I got anything against them, as I love Babylon 5, but I'm just curious what they have to do with this.
68 posted on 03/16/2004 3:57:25 PM PST by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Wrong!

Eastern Orthodox DO NOT consider them on the same level as the other scriptures. They are used for teaching purposes, etc., and historical value. Only the Roman Catholics consider them "canon" (Their Council of Trent.)

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Many scholars disagree with your assessment.

For instance, the The Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Maccabee books:

Maccabees also spelled Machabees four books, none of which is in the Hebrew Bible but all of which appear in some manuscripts of the Septuagint. The first two books only are part of canonical scripture in the Septuagint and the Vulgate (hence are canonical to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and are included in the Protestant Apocrypha.
Orthodox Bishop Nathanael explains why the Orthodox Church rejects the smaller Hebrew canon, the basis for the Protestant Old Testament:
This translation, shown to be the result of the concerted effort of the entire Old Testament Church, received the appellation "Septuagint," i.e. "Of the Seventy," and has become the authoritative version of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament for Orthodox Christians.

Considerably later (apparently about the first century B.C. for the Old Testament portion of the Holy Scriptures and about the beginning of the second century A.D. for the New Testament portion), a translation of the Holy Scriptures into Aramaic appeared, known as the Peshitta, which coincides on all important points with the Septuagint translation.

But if the texts coincide so on all the important points, why do the Greek and Aramaic translations hold greater authority for Orthodox Christians than the Hebrew original? Because the Greek and Aramaic translations have been preserved free of corruption in the Church of Christ by the grace of God and the struggles of grace-bearing men whereas the Hebrew text in the Jewish community was saved by technical means.


69 posted on 03/16/2004 3:57:38 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Green Knight
Jerry Doyle guest hosted for Savage last week and BB called up. It was a great show, and they both showed that not all Hollywood types are commie.
70 posted on 03/16/2004 3:59:13 PM PST by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Heh, guess I ought to listen to Savage. ;) Jerry Doyle is awesome. I know he ran for Congress in California as a Republican. He lost, unfortunately. :( But it was nice knowing that he was on our side. Checked out his campaign site back then and agreed with most of what I saw there. I also know that Bruce Boxleitner contributed to his campaign. All in all, I think very highly of the two of them. To bad their careers aren't better then they are.

As for Maccabees, well, I really can't see them as Hebrews from back in the day. While I think they're great, they don't really fit the period.
71 posted on 03/16/2004 4:04:17 PM PST by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Floyd R Turbo
How about if I meet you half-way: The central aspect of Christianity is Christ's *death and resurrection.* That was the essential teaching of the apostles in Acts -- both the death and resurrection of Christ. One makes no sense without the other.
72 posted on 03/16/2004 4:06:18 PM PST by My2Cents ("Well...there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
My thought is it shows Gibson is not anti-Semitic, which was absurd to begin with.

I know Abe Foxman is already against it, but so what? This will expose him as being anti-Gibson personally and not for any principled reason.

As to the Protestant/Catholic issue, I would hope that we can reach the point where it is recognized that there is nothing wrong with Gibson putting forth his artistic and religious view and it is not an automatic putdown to others.
73 posted on 03/16/2004 4:06:31 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
I don't know any Protestants who "outright reject" 1 Maccabees (assuming, of course, that they know of the book's existence).

I know a few :-)

I gave a Catholic Bible to a coworker. To my astonishment, she told me that her pastor asked her cut off the "apocryphal" books and mutilate the Bible.



Therefore, when you find in a single book--2 Macc., for example--a teaching that is absent from and contradicted by the rest of Scripture, the proper response is that taken by the Reformation: You recognize that the book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit "for God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).

Thank you for posting a Protestant outlook on the Maccabees.

Of course, I disagree with your argument, since such reasoning can be used to reject James [jusfication by works, not faith alone] versus Romans [justification by faith alone].

At any rate, these minor religious arguments are never going to be settled among Christians, but I enjoyed reading your well-thought-out post.

74 posted on 03/16/2004 4:08:37 PM PST by george wythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
Right, which leads one to wonder, where did he get the authority do change the bible?

He didn't have the authority. His changes were all undone.

76 posted on 03/16/2004 4:14:05 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
I predicted that "The Passion" would be the most watched movie in history. I still think it will be.

And I predicted The Passion will be the first one-billion dollar movie. The first movie to gross a billion.

Who will be the first one-billion dollar athlete---one billion in lifetime earnings for endorsements plus salary? Tiger Woods? Sports fans, help me here.

Can you imagine the shareholders' meetings at Hollyweird movie companies right now?

"Mr. CEO, where were our marketing people? There were HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars out there ripe for the taking, pent up demand waiting to pour forth at a rate of one hundred million dollars a WEEK----and after your focus groups and surveys and white papers and consultants, you didn't see how we could be raking in millions and some one else---Mel Gibson---is eating our lunch? You're fired!"

77 posted on 03/16/2004 4:14:34 PM PST by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: per loin
Does Foxman truly believe that Mr. Gibson needs his stamp of approval?
78 posted on 03/16/2004 4:15:38 PM PST by antceecee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marron
And because they don't normally study it, they like most every one else could use the history lesson. The period of time between the Persians and the Romans is almost a blank page for most people.

I studied it. The story is magnificent. Those interested in eschatology might find Antiochus IV interesting in that he is a type of antichrist.

79 posted on 03/16/2004 4:16:42 PM PST by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
GREAT! The Book of Maccabees may not be in the Protestant canon, but it's a dynamite story!
80 posted on 03/16/2004 4:18:40 PM PST by cookcounty (John Flipflop Kerry ---the only man to have been on BOTH sides of 3 wars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-264 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson