He's not hard to look at. He would have made a great Jesus too...
Posted on 03/17/2004 6:16:16 AM PST by veronica
The Maccabees - (166-129 BCE) - By Mitchell Bard
The death of Alexander the Great of Greece in 323 BCE led to the breakup of the Greek empire as three of his generals fought for supremacy and divided the Middle East among themselves. Ptolemy secured control of Egypt and the Land of Israel. Seleucus grabbed Syria and Asia Minor, and Antigonus took Greece.
Palestine was sandwiched between the two rivals and for the next 125 years Seleucids and Ptolemies battled for the prize. The former finally won in 198 B.C. when Antiochus III defeated the Egyptians and incorporated Judea into his empire. Initially, he continued to allow the Jews autonomy, but after a stinging defeat at the hands of the Romans he began a program of Hellenization that threatened to force the Jews to abandon their monotheism for the Greeks' paganism. Antiochus backed down in the face of Jewish opposition to his effort to introduce idols in their temples, but his son, Antiochus IV, who inherited the throne in 176 B.C. resumed his father's original policy without excepting the Jews. A brief Jewish rebellion only hardened his views and led him to outlaw central tenets of Judaism such as the Sabbath and circumcision, and defile the holy Temple by erecting an altar to the god Zeus, allowing the sacrifice of pigs, and opening the shrine to non-Jews.
The Jewish Hammer
Though many Jews had been seduced by the virtues of Hellenism, the extreme measures adopted by Antiochus helped unite the people. When a Greek official tried to force a priest named Mattathias to make a sacrifice to a pagan god, the Jew murdered the man. Predictably, Antiochus began reprisals, but in 167 BCE the Jews rose up behind Mattathias and his five sons and fought for their liberation.
The family of Mattathias became known as the Maccabees, from the Hebrew word for "hammer," because they were said to strike hammer blows against their enemies. Jews refer to the Maccabees, but the family is more commonly known as the Hasmoneans.
Like other rulers before him, Antiochus underestimated the will and strength of his Jewish adversaries and sent a small force to put down the rebellion. When that was annihilated, he led a more powerful army into battle only to be defeated. In 164 BCE, Jerusalem was recaptured by the Maccabees and the Temple purified, an event that gave birth to the holiday of Chanukah.
Jews Regain Their Independence
It took more than two decades of fighting before the Maccabees forced the Seleucids to retreat from Palestine. By this time Antiochus had died and his successor agreed to the Jews' demand for independence. In the year 142 BCE, after more than 500 years of subjugation, the Jews were again masters of their own fate.
When Mattathias died, the revolt was led by his son Judas, or Judah Maccabee, as he is often called. By the end of the war, Simon was the only one of the five sons of Mattathias to survive and he ushered in an 80-year period of Jewish independence in Judea, as the Land of Israel was now called. The kingdom regained boundaries not far short of Solomon's realm and Jewish life flourished.
The Hasmoneans claimed not only the throne of Judah, but also the post of High Priest. This assertion of religious authority conflicted with the tradition of the priests coming from the descendants of Moses' brother Aaron and the tribe of Levi.
It did not take long for rival factions to develop and threaten the unity of the kingdom. Ultimately, internal divisions and the appearance of yet another imperial power were to put an end to Jewish independence in the Land of Israel for nearly two centuries.
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.
He's not hard to look at. He would have made a great Jesus too...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which Scripture? The Protestant canon or the Catholic canon?
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.