The Maccabees - (166-129 BCE)

Jewish Virtual Library ^ | 2003 | Mitchell Baird

[hobbes1]

Agree with you on the LOTR thing.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Just that we Protestants DO understand that Maccabees is good history, but not inspired

I Maccabees is excellent history, probably written from eyewitness accounts. II Maccabees is later, and adds a lot of legend and folklore into the mix.

[veronica]

I like Oded Fehr...

He's not hard to look at. He would have made a great Jesus too...

[KriegerGeist]

Now, is Oded Fehr not a dark mysterious "Ranger" that would evolve into the "Return of the King"?

I like when Brandon Frasher askes him if he wants the shotgun and he says "no I prefer the Thompson" A machine-gun man! The way he wields a sword was pretty cool too when he sliced and diced Loknah

[ninenot]

And the film-score will be "Judas Maccabeus" of Handel?

[veronica]

That movie was fun.

[AnAmericanMother]

And the film-score will be "Judas Maccabeus" of Handel?

Bit on the Baroque side. Have a listen here.

BTW, the soundtrack for The Passion is remarkable. My mom (who has been a music professor as well as a dancer and producer for 50 plus years) fell in love with it at first hearing. It's sort of an "ancient music" approach and IIRC original for the film. I'm going to get her a copy.

[ninenot]

Copyright fees due Handel: $0.00
Purchase of CD: 12.99
TOTAL MUSIC COST: $12.99

Royalties to CD C/right holder: WHO CARES?

We were not as knocked over by the score (yes, original for the movie) as were you and your mom. While it did the job, I'm not sure that it would stand on its own without the movie--unlike, e.g., elements of the score to "Show Boat."

[1stFreedom]

A New Look at the LXX: The DEAD SEA Scrolls and the Septuagint

An excerpt:

Four of the apocryphal books of the Bible were found -- including Tobit, the story of an Israelite exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and his trials in Assyria, Ecclesiasticus, a book of wise sayings written about 190-180 B.C., first composed in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, the Letter of Jeremiah, a single chapter attacking idolatry, and Psalm 151. Writes VanderKam of this last finding:

"This extra psalm, also found in the Septuagint, is a STRONGLY DAVIDIC PIECE and forms a fitting conclusion to the Psalter, which is so closely associated with the poetic, musical king. The psalm is another of the compositions in the Psalms Scroll rom Cave 11 (11 QPSa) that is not part of the Psalter in the traditional Hebrew Bible. AS IN THE SEPTUAGINT, in the Psalms Scroll from Cave 11 it is the CONCLUDING PSALM" (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today, p. 36).

Why does the Masoretic text of the Old Testament leave out this Davidic psalm? It is included in the Septuagint, and attested to by the ancient Psalm Scroll found among the Dead Sea scrolls. Clearly, this fact throws some suspicion upon the completeness of the "Masoretic text" as it has come down to us, today.

Since the New Testament quotations from the Old Testament also often do not correspond to the Masoretic text
, it becomes increasingly clear that the Jewish scribes very likely in their defense of Judaism against the "upstart" Christian religion, which was making inroads into the traditional faith of Judaism, tampered with, "edited" and "altered" certain passages of the Old Testament, so that their version deliberately would not correspond to the New Testament documents!

Remember, the Masoretic "text," as we have it today, was not itself finalized and completed, in its final form, until the years 500-900 A.D., centuries after the time of the early apostles and the beginnings of the New Testament Church of God!

[AnAmericanMother]

Wooh boy. Now I have a mental picture in my head of Judas Maccabeus and Simon singing "Old Man River." That is NOT good!

[1stFreedom]

My point to my previous post is that even the Jews do not have an accurate OT! The fact that they don't speaks loudly of lack of credibilty in finalizing their canon.

The OT was written by the Jews -- that was theirs, the NT by Christians. But the canon of the OT isn't necessiarly up to the jews. They couldn't even get their own scriptures correct! (Masoretic texts are different then Septuigant texts! Two diff versions of the OT!!!!)

[Havoc]

Wrong. Nobody had a complete canon.

So says you.

The church and the Catholic church are one in the same. Catholic is simply the latin term for "universal", and was used to describe this very Church which you seem to think is separate.

The Catholic Church is a religion to itself. Just as Mormonism is a religion to itself. They have a different Gospel from that listed in scripture. And as such, they are seperate things. Christ gave us definitions of who his sheep are that we may know. He gave us a message as well, that we may know. If the message doesn't match and the fruits don't match, you got a different critter. And they don't match.

Wrong. Catholocism teaches the FULL gospel of the apostles, not the feel good emotional slavation gospel taught today.

Catholicism teaches that Christ's work on the cross isn't finished - though he said it was. Christ said "it is finished". "That we may know we have eternal life.." sound familiar. This is why Catholicism has countless times anathematized anyone who reads scripture for themselves and sees the truth. Without a need for Catholicism to dole out grace through the liturgy, your clergy is out of business. Catholics are a beautiful people that should not be so decieved as this. It is teaching a different gospel to keep a people blinded and in bondage when salvation is theirs for the asking. The sacrifice is over.

You should check out the facts before you make such claims.

Check my facts? Starting where? The 100 frauds of Isidore? The monumental fraud of Gratian? The spurious books of Clement? The spurious books of Ignatious? Just for starters.. They can't tell a fake from the real thing without science yet you want to hold they can tell scripture from non-scripture. Right. They have used fraud knowingly in Gratian and isidore showing a casualness with the truth that doesn't belies claims of inerrant authority. I have checked my facts.. as have countless people before me.

Exactly. But you presume, incorrectly, that you have the truth on the history of scripture. Judging from your post, you don't have much of a clue.

You presume to speak with an authority you do not possess. History is not the judge of scripture, the message it contains is the judge of it - per the longstanding and irrefuteable stance of Israel and God's word prior to Christ's coming. History was not the judge, God's prior word was and is the judge. If you wish not to be judged a liar, don't lie. Good advice to pass on to Rome though they will not and cannot take it.. they have prophecy yet to fulfill.

[Havoc]

Then I guess all Christians are "cultists," since we trust Christ and consider Him to be God/Man.

Trusting in God and trusting in a man are two seperate things. And the Apostles counseled us in the like manner that the Israelites had always been counselled - trust no man and check every word and deed. If it don't line up with scripture and what we know God has said before, let him be accursed. Plain language.

[1stFreedom]

>>So says you.

So says history. There is not one complete canon (as recognized today) until around 362. If you have a completed canon, show it!

>>They have a different Gospel from that listed in scripture.

LOL. No, it is the full Gospel. The Eucharist is part of that FULL gospel that is often left out of "half gospels". Forgiveness of sins, etc name it and it's in the GOSPELs.

>>Check my facts? Starting where? The 100 frauds of Isidore? The monumental fraud of Gratian? The spurious books of Clement?

>>The spurious books of Ignatious?

Ok, plenty of people had spurious thing attributed to them. But when you hit Ignatious, you hit a weak point of Calvinism. Calvin rejected all the works of Ignatious as spurious, and he trashed them in his Insituties.

Problem is, in the 1800's, seven of the letters were found and proven to be true. The problem is these letters prove the claims of the Catholic Church, and these letters are referecned by Eusebius. Major major flaw of Calvinism!!

>>I have checked my facts.. as have countless people before me.

Checking incorrect information is not fact checking. You need to find better sources.

>>You presume to speak with an authority you do not possess. History is not the judge of scripture,

History gives an account as to the development of the canon as well as the disputes about scripture. It gives us the factual timeline of scripture.

[Havoc]

So says history. There is not one complete canon (as recognized today) until around 362. If you have a completed canon, show it!

And your point is. The churches did fine with what was handed down from the Apostles till wolves came in even as Paul spoke to the crowds. Yes it is necessary to know what you have is correct. But the spirit bears witness to the Christian who having the mind of Christ - recognizes the word of God. If you wish to state that Christians don't have the mind of Christ or that Christ's mind can't recognize his own testimony, you're fighting an uphill battle that you will be fighting alone as it will betray your teachings for what they are. If you wish to invoke what Protestants have done, you're wasting your time as they follow the same line of bondage your theology does. The Theology is the bondage - the pretense of standing philosophy next to scripture or in it's place - the which both protestantism and Catholicism have done to the detriment of those they presumed to tell were Christian because of their philosophical beliefs instead of due to Christ's Gospel.

Ok, plenty of people had spurious thing attributed to them. But when you hit Ignatious, you hit a weak point of Calvinism. Calvin rejected all the works of Ignatious as spurious, and he trashed them in his Insituties.

OK, but. That means 'i'm ignoring what you say so that I can point the finger at something else and cry fowl. Rome has no basis for their claim of authority in defining canon. Period. You've lost that argument by their testimony. Point surrendered. No buts about it. Either they know or they do not. If they do not, they are no authority. If they are no authority in determining canon, they have likewise no authority in dealing with any other spiritual matter touching the scriptures. And hearin is the boldness of the truth - however painful it may be.

Problem is, in the 1800's, seven of the letters were found and proven to be true. The problem is these letters prove the claims of the Catholic Church, and these letters are referecned by Eusebius. Major major flaw of Calvinism!!

Um, no. There are a total of 15 letters of ignatius by title. To date, 8 of them have been proven frauds. Of the 7 remaining, they have 2-3 versions and in multiple languages. The versions do not match. It isn't a matter of a few out of place words, they are different works with some things in common. And of the multiple copies, none of them has been smiled upon as being authentic ignatius. They could all be frauds, the question last wrestled with has been which of the multiple copies might be the original of the texts in question. That is not definitively answered either.. except among Catholics who want the books to be authentic to the point even of picking favorites. And quoting from them as though they were authentic. I've been through this game countless times before. It isn't doing you any favors.

Checking incorrect information is not fact checking. You need to find better sources.

Typical response. I've played the sources game. That's why I stick to official documents anymore with regard to what you teach. Like the fact that Vatican II which is supposed to make us all Cozy together REAFFIRMS TRENT and the countless ANATHEMAS against any christian who is'nt catholic and reaffirms UNUM SANCTUM. Vatican II is an interesting document when You know what's in it.. mostly doubletalk.

History gives an account as to the development of the canon as well as the disputes about scripture. It gives us the factual timeline of scripture.

Scripture gives an account of what is relevant. Whatever you wish to argue, if you can't stand up to the same standard the prophets and scriptures stood up to before you, then you are a fraud. It doesn't matter what label you wear. That is God's stance in his own scriptures before Christ ever stepped into Human form. And I defy you against Judaism to show otherwise. The OT will show you a liar and so will any Jew who can read it. History is an excuse and a smokescreen to sidestep the standard you and I and everyone else claiming to come from Christ is to be measured against. One wonders why you so artfully dodge the issue.

[johnb838]

Why do they sometimes call it Palestine and sometimes call it Judea and sometimes Israel? I thought Judea was limited mostly to the West Bank, and that Israel was most of the rest from Gaza to Lebanon. And that "Palestine" didn't exist at all until the Romans dispersed the Jews in 70 A.D.

Appreciate any clarification you can give.

J

[johnb838]

I think the story of the Passover would be very touching.

[ninenot]

How about Judas' wife singing "Can't Help Lovin' That Man of Mine," truly the finest pre-1950 torch song EVER written?

[Nachum]

I kind of like the idea of a Passover story. -But there just isn't enough warfare, torture, or gore in it for Mel.

[Aquinasfan]

If it don't line up with scripture and what we know God has said before, let him be accursed. Plain language.

Which Scripture? The Protestant canon or the Catholic canon?