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

Skip to comments.

DOWN WITH HANUKAH
FREEMAN SOCIETY / THE JEWISH PRESS ^ | December 15, 2000 | Rabbi Rabbi Meir K

Posted on 12/11/2006 10:51:02 PM PST by Yehuda

...What happened in that era more than 2000 years ago? What led a handful of Jews to rise up in violence against the enemy? And precisely who was the enemy? What were they fighting for and who were they fighting against? For years the people of Judea had been the vassals of Greece.

True independence as a state had been unknown for all those decades and, yet the Jews did not rise in revolt. It was only when the Greek policy shifted from mere political control to one that attempted to suppress the Jewish religion that the revolt erupted in all its bloodiness. It was not mere liberty that led to the Maccabean uprising that we so passionately applaud. What we are really cheering is a brave group of Jews who fought and plunged Judea into a bloodbath for the right to observe the Sabbath, to follow the laws of kashrut, to obey the laws of the Torah.

...The first act of rebellion, the first enemy who fell at the hands of the brave Jewish heroes whom our delightful children portray so cleverly in their Sunday and religious school [Chanukah] pageants, was not a Greek.

He was a Jew. When the enemy sent his troops into Modin to set up an idol and demand its worship, it was a Jew who decided to exercise his freedom of pagan worship and who approached the altar to worship Zeus (after all, what business was it of anyone what this fellow worshiped?)

And it was this Jew, this apostate, this religious traitor who was struck down by the brave, glorious, courageous, (are these not the words all our Sunday schools use to describe him?) Mattathias, as he shouted: "Whoever is for G-d, follow me!"

(Excerpt) Read more at freeman.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Israel; Miscellaneous; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: chanukah; hanukah; jews; judaism; justsaynotojinos

1 posted on 12/11/2006 10:51:05 PM PST by Yehuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

Odd post.


2 posted on 12/11/2006 10:59:59 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

You thought it was only about the oil? ,( :>)


3 posted on 12/11/2006 11:03:30 PM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

No clue. Just typing my thoughts honestly...


4 posted on 12/11/2006 11:07:21 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

When did Mel Gibson start posting here?


5 posted on 12/11/2006 11:13:06 PM PST by word_warrior_bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: word_warrior_bob

Wasn't Mel supposed to make a movie about this? What happened to that? (Not asking you specifically--just thinking out loud.)


6 posted on 12/11/2006 11:16:55 PM PST by beaversmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi; word_warrior_bob
"No clue."

ok, let me try and help.

The excerpt is a very concise explanation of the root causes of the Chanukah rebellion.

The full (and not very long) article back at the link is drenched with irony.

Simple summary: the author ridicules secular jinos who "celebrate" Chanukah, a holiday which commemorates a successful war by observant Jews against a non-Jewish state (AND their jino collaborators) that oppressed traditional Jewish observance...

(and how that observance has been abandoned and is today ridiculed by the same secular jinos...)

7 posted on 12/11/2006 11:23:20 PM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
You should have written this article.

You make far more sense than this fellow.

L

8 posted on 12/11/2006 11:25:19 PM PST by Lurker (Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

Thanks. I haven't had access to read or post much of late. An early Happy Chanukah to you and yours, Yehuda!


9 posted on 12/11/2006 11:38:25 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal (As it was in the days of NO...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
At best, then, those who fought and died for Chanukah were naive and obscurantist. Had we lived in those days we would certainly not have done what they did for everyone knows that the laws of the Torah are not really Divine but only the products of evolution and men (do not the Reform, Reconstructionist, and large parts of the Conservative movements write this daily?) Surely we would not have fought for that which we violate every day of our lives. No, at best Chanukah emerges as a needless holiday if not a foolish one. Poor Hannah and her seven children; poor Mattathias and Judah; poor well meaning chaps all -- but hopelessly backward and utterly unnecessary sacrifices.
"(E)veryone knows"?

This is really only evidence of a form or circular logic: assume that truth must either be self evident or else impossible to know ... and since there seems to be no end to the "truths" propounded it must follow that truth is unknowable since it obviously isn't self evident.

Here we see the arrogance of the uncompromising skeptic, the crass assumption that God has not revealed Himself because He has not revealed Himself.

It is one thing to be skeptical or to be curious; however, it is another thing altogether to assume that those who do not doubt everything except doubt itself or else the dim bulbs of modernity––like Marx––are worthy of the sort of condemnation heaped on these ancient Jews by the writer.

The real significance of Chanukah is that it speaks to a time and a place where a series of political and military struggles were capped off with a miracle of God's provision, the lights they celebrate were not the battles but the provision.

It wasn't faith that these fought and died for, it was THE Faith. It wasn't identity that these fought and died for, it was THEIR Identity.

If this Jew now insist that Jewishness (having a quality of being like Jews) now demands that they no longer should be Jewish like the Jews of old ... what does he want to be? What does he imagine himself to be?

Criticize that faith or their sense of identity if you will but if you take the route of this writer you may as well as volunteer yourself to be one of C.S.Lewis' proverbial "trousered apes."

But what do I know? I'm not a Jew.
10 posted on 12/11/2006 11:49:37 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

I have never seen anyone miss a point so badly.

Do you not know who the author is? Can't you figure out his point?

And you call yourself a philosopher?


11 posted on 12/12/2006 12:06:16 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

I thought they were vassels of Rome, rather Greece some 2000 years ago.


12 posted on 12/12/2006 12:10:50 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
Based on the text as presented, there were two primary possibilities:

Either he was being sarcastic.

Or he was playing it pseudo-straight but speaking as if he were being sarcastic.

I read the full article, and though the first paragraphs seemed suggestive that he wasn't this or that who might hold such views as follows: what followed was not properly sarcastic so much as it was venomous if attempting to be sarcastic.

Maybe I just couldn't overcome that tone, or maybe I didn't feel the need to.

We might as well debate if Plato, in Phaedrus, first states that he's speaking in metaphor before he states that he is telling the truth (as prelude to describing virtue and passion). When Plato "did it" he was really about nothing less that pulling the wool over poor Phaedrus' eyes through a rhetorical trick.

I'm far too cynical to give any writer who fails to be playful with his quarry (if he's trying to be sarcastic) that much benefit of the doubt. As for the irony, it's after midnight ... what would you expect of me? A nuanced dissertation on ontology?

It may also be inferred that I don't know this fellow and that I only had the text as presented. Given my own lack of charity, I'll allow this wasn't his best offering and it may well have suffered from its own brevity ... since it was that very brevity that gave it such an attitude to make me doubt it was ironic at all––a sort of double bluff.
13 posted on 12/12/2006 12:56:01 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

It went over your head. And you don't know and can't even be bothered to know who the (quite famous) author is.

What a laugh.

(And I read Plato in Greek, so you aren't impressing me much with your name dropping.)


14 posted on 12/12/2006 1:03:24 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
Who's name dropping?

Plato is Plato.

If I was name dropping I would have done as I was first tempted to do: to quote the Prophet that Moses spoke of (when He speaks of him speaking of Him) rather than alluding to some debate about what Plato was reputed to have said. But I chose against the former because it might offer unnecessary offense.

Mentioning Plato wasn't name dropping, his inclusion was anything but. Actually, I hold he and the other grammarians (if I may call them that) in low regard. Simply, though they touted their grammar over rhetoric they ruthlessly used rhetoric and that use was part of how Plato was presented to be a philosophos (rather than a sophos).

Whatever their flaws and the myriad disasters of their methods: I'll side with the Sophist.
15 posted on 12/12/2006 1:31:55 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

LOL!

Is no surprise you would side with the Sophists.

You have a lot in common with them.

A lot of pretense, but very little understanding.

Calling Plato a "grammarian" is about the most preposterous thing I've read -- since your last post.

Sheesh.


16 posted on 12/12/2006 1:41:59 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

"Actually, I hold he..."

It's clear you're no grammarian.

But you are pretentious. Hilariously so.


17 posted on 12/12/2006 1:43:31 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
OK, I admit I haven't read the Book of Maccabees in a long time, and you just got me to promise myself to do so this Hannukah. But I think you're full of baloney. Pork sausage, to be precise.
18 posted on 12/12/2006 1:59:11 AM PST by cookcounty (The Jew-killers love the ISG.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
I strive to entertain.

That's why I'm a "Standup Philosopher" ... though I'm happy with Bea Arthur's characterization too.

Unlike Comicus. –.^

BTW ... in Romans 17, Paul gives his presentation to the folks at the Areopagus and he keeps them going until they realize that he was speaking of the resurrection of the dead.

Now, I know it's hopelessly trivial and spurious: but I'd dearly love to know what poets he was quoting ("For we also are His offspring." Romans 17:28). There's a quaint saying about Homer with respect to his blindness: Homer didn't know why he was blind so he remained that way. Was Paul's teaching essentially taken to be proclaiming, if I may be so bold, a genuine sophos? Something that had been rejected as even being possible?

If he was taken that way by the crowd it would certainly be reasonable for someone with such a mindset (a genuine sophos is a human impossibility) to mock him (NAS uses the term "sneer").

As an extension of this idea I've respected the term deusophos (my own little conceit) to describe what Paul may have essentially been teaching the gentiles about. Of course, as a Jew, Paul mainly and correctly used the Scriptures (which kinda stopped at Malachi back in his days); however, he would clearly seem to know something of Greek philosophy given that quote.
19 posted on 12/12/2006 2:11:18 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill
"Actually, I hold he..."

It's clear you're no grammarian.

But you are pretentious. Hilariously so.
So, you've never produced a typo in the wee hours of the morning?

I just realized what time it is, I'm going to bed.

Without my beauty sleep folks may run screaming from the room tomorrow.

Not-so-ugly sleep?

Have a great night!
20 posted on 12/12/2006 2:16:07 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
Rabbi Meir Kahane wrote this in the 1970s - but unlike so many dated articles, it has a timeless and fresh quality to it, as relevant as when it was written. The Jewish Left has been drained since then of what little Jewishness it once possessed - in a word, it has become Hellenized, gentilized and desirious of following the way of the nations. For the Maccabeans, the Greek ideal of the worship of the body and the deified human idols the cult of beauty represented, was blasphemous to them. The Jewish ideal in contrast to that propounded by Hellenism, was the worship of the spirit and the idea that a love of goodness and the eternal was Man's highest aspiration. The Greeks worshipped the outward essence of Man; the Jews worshipped God and thanked Him for the soul He implanted in every human being. Jews celebrate the eight days of Hannukah every Kislev, because for them, Man is not subject to another Man; Man instead is subject to God.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

21 posted on 12/12/2006 2:33:59 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
This is really only evidence of a form or circular logic: assume that truth must either be self evident or else impossible to know ... and since there seems to be no end to the "truths" propounded it must follow that truth is unknowable since it obviously isn't self evident.

I've met the late author (he was the first victim of Al Qaida) and I know he was speaking sarcastically, mimicking the secularism of the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative points of Judaism. p.s. I also had my picture taken with him and I looked a lot better in those days.

22 posted on 12/12/2006 3:46:13 AM PST by Stepan12 (Mark Steyn: "We are all spaniards now.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12

Clarification: the author was the first assasination victim of Al Qaida on American soil proper.


23 posted on 12/12/2006 3:47:32 AM PST by Stepan12 (Mark Steyn: "We are all spaniards now.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

24 posted on 12/12/2006 4:40:15 AM PST by SJackson (had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

...very interesting. A small piece of wick standing in three or four tablespoons of olive oil in the bottom of a small, clear glass can burn for a long time.


25 posted on 12/12/2006 4:52:17 AM PST by familyop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beaversmom
Wasn't Mel supposed to make a movie about this? What happened to that?

I had heard that Mel wanted to make a movie about the two books of the Maccabees, but have not heard any updates since the time of his musing...

26 posted on 12/12/2006 5:24:37 AM PST by COBOL2Java ("No stronger retrograde force exists in the world" - Winston Churchill on Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

You're a strange one. Your notions on the Sophists, about which next to nothing is known since all we have are the merest fragments, are quite bizarre -- to put it mildly.

But Plato was probably right to portray them as for the most part relativists who denied any fixed reality or truth. Their pride (at least as represented by Plato and many others) at being able to argue opposite sides of an issue equally well, supports his view.

But it is only if you believe in an ultimate reality and/or the validity of "logic" (from logos, words, rationality, speaking) that one would be offended by their Sophistry. Others of course admired them and were willing to pay highly to learn their skills. (Being good at debate was a way to get ahead with the Demos.)

And don't know why you dragged St. Paul into this either. But it's most likely that the Greeks mocked Paul for preaching about a God who had been killed. Since the only sine qua non the Greeks had about their gods was that they were immortal. So the idea of a "god" who had been crucified and actually killed was laughable to them.

But I don't know Paul, the Sophists or Plato or anything else you have posted has to do with your inability to grasp the article. You just seem to be trying to prove that you are "philosophical." It's not working.


27 posted on 12/12/2006 7:03:35 AM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
"Whoever is for G-d, follow me!"

************

Stirring words, that leap across the centuries.

28 posted on 12/12/2006 7:11:03 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

"OK, I admit I haven't read the Book of Maccabees in a long time, and you just got me to promise myself to do so this Hannukah. But I think you're full of baloney. Pork sausage, to be precise."

The only thing I do with pork is hope it winds up on bullets for jihadis.

Read the whole article - its seething with irony / contempt for the anti-religious.


29 posted on 12/12/2006 7:31:41 AM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

"I thought they were vassels of Rome, rather Greece some 2000 years ago."

First Greece then Rome. And both "empires" are dust.


30 posted on 12/12/2006 7:32:41 AM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: trisham; familyop; Stepan12; goldstategop; Alouette; rmlew; Cacique; RaceBannon; dennisw; ...

"Whoever is for G-d, follow me!"



Stirring words, that leap across the centuries."

BUMP.


31 posted on 12/12/2006 7:37:34 AM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda

Chag Seymeyach, Chag Chanukah.
Herut Tzion.


32 posted on 12/12/2006 7:57:27 AM PST by Gideon Reader (" All of us know who the enemy is, and where the threat comes from, except for the politicians.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

"Oh. A bullshitter"


33 posted on 12/12/2006 8:00:31 AM PST by Gideon Reader (" All of us know who the enemy is, and where the threat comes from, except for the politicians.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
Yes. Mel the Ecumenist was going to try Chanukah, but it kept making the "lousy Zionist JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSS come out the winners, and looking good.
An obvious non starter. :~)
34 posted on 12/12/2006 8:03:15 AM PST by Gideon Reader (" All of us know who the enemy is, and where the threat comes from, except for the politicians.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
I'm not Jewish, however, I've decided to celebrate "Maccabee Month". Kinda like Hanukkah, but with less opportunity for abstraction.

Maccabee Month can be celebrated by both Christians and observant Jews. Specifically by taking your family to the gun range, purchasing a firearm for a family member, and praying to God/G_d that Judaism survived the Greeks.

Without the Maccabees, non of us would be here.
35 posted on 12/12/2006 8:40:37 AM PST by Dead Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stepan12
I've met the late author (he was the first victim of Al Qaida) and I know he was speaking sarcastically, mimicking the secularism of the Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative points of Judaism. p.s. I also had my picture taken with him and I looked a lot better in those days.
Cool!

(not the assassination part, of course)

Like I said, I don't know him and I probably lacked a proper amount of charity towards the writer ... my bad with no excuses.
36 posted on 12/12/2006 11:49:02 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill; goldstategop

Well, the not-so-ugly spleep didn't work. But then again I had apparently fried an extra hour's worth of cathode rays in my eyeballs from satying on the forums so long.

Fortuneately, big LCDs and Plasmas seem to be following Moore's Law too ... every 18 months or so they get less expensive and better in quality all at once. Maybe by the time my set of 21" monitors die a 30" LCD will be reasonable.

Here is a quote from Bernard Suzanne:
Socrates is not said to be "the wisest", sophôtatou, because, as a man, he was not sophos, only philosophos. No man in this life can truly be sophos, that is, know for sure what it means to be a man, the only knowledge that is worth our care. Socrates was only phronimos, that is, sensible, using to the best of his ability his god-given logos to live according to what he thought it means to be a rational animal.
Anyway, my chief notion about the Sophist––and what really distinguishes them from the Pholosophers––is that they believed that sophos––someone who truely knew what it was to be man––were possible. To them, rhetoric was only the tool by which they sought to promote this elusive excellence of being.

By contrast, the philosophers aimed lower to get a bigger portion of the bell curve––to use modern concepts. They tied the wisdom and self-knowledge of sophos to a time and a place––or so it has been said––to Pilus where the term logos was supposed to have been coined. In doing so they created the notion of a philosophos, one who had good enough wisdom and excellence to get by with. Their tool of choice, grammar, may have been the innovation that enabled them to step back from sophos or maybe it was embracing philosophos that enabled them to develop their grammar: I make no judgement.

It could have even been unrelated.

Anyway, rhetoric is a horrible tool because without structure it becomes a spotty free-for-all. Especially in comparison with grammar––if only because the latter allowed the former to be used with more uniform results.

But grammar had one other advantage quite independant of how it helped the use of rhetoric: it could even be learned by rote. Thus a the grammerians had a much easier time reproducing themselves. That alone would have doomed the Sophist to the loosing side.

Also, please remember that when you use the term Sophistry of Sophist that you are essentially––much as you admit when you say little is known of them––that you are speaking from the opinions of those who were their most bitter enemies.

If the American Conservative were to disappear today and the Socialist rule the world, what sort of pejorative diatribe would you expect of the descendants of today's DNC? Especially considering the virulent nature of their rhetoric at this time?

The Sophist may not have been all they were described to be. One need only consider Plato's unkindness to


37 posted on 12/12/2006 12:27:23 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

You are hopelessly confused. And your invention of terms and neologisms aren't going to help you find clarity.

Maybe you should read some books about the Sophists -- and even the fragments that have come down to us from them. And perhaps you should re-read Plato, if you have read him before. Eschew the Cliff notes and the nonsense that is "deconstructionism."

You are so busy reading things that aren't there, it's no wonder you completely and entirely misunderstood the article. Which after all, was written in plain English.

What chance do you have with translations of ancient languages -- and fragments even of those?


38 posted on 12/12/2006 12:45:13 PM PST by Sam Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sam Hill; goldstategop
Fiddlesticks! I hit the wrong button!

Well, no editing of that, I suppose. ^.^



Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that judging the Sophist based on the condemnations heaped on them by their enemies may be unwise. Especially since it was those selfsame enemies who preserved some of their musings.

Then there is another point to draw out: despite the uneven and sometimes disastrous end result of an education at the hands of Sophist, the base assumption that one could be sophos is what makes me more willing to accept them.

Not that I imagine that the bell curve of human society (being what we are) that it's really likely to produce anyone besides those who are only phronimos; but, that the apparent assumptions that made philosophos preferable as a goal for education is not one enjoined by Moses or the prophets.

Namely, that one cannot be sure what it is to be man. If David––a man after God's own heart––or Solomon––who was the wisest––or even Moses: the fact of God's revelation is precisely what places these closer to being like the Sophist than the Philosophers.

You can even see the distinction in modern Jewry in the virulent sarcasm of the writer: they have indeed become Hellenized ... but not because they have stopped being Jews. No, rather because they seem to have progressively lost the notion that there ever was a genuine revelation of God in the first place.

Of course, Moses and the prophets––or the Apostles––were not Sophist and they most certainly did not rely on either grammar or rhetoric as their official tools of trade. But the comparison is valid in this limited sense.

To these a man could indeed know for sure what it was to be man. Even considering sin, a man could understand even if he was not such.

And this is where I dragged Paul into things. There is another aspect of the Homer bit, that a philosopher who was blind––because he knew why he was blind being philosophos––regained his sight. He was a poet.

That is why I'm curious about who Paul was quoting. Please consider Messiah by my term deusophos––my stab at "god fully man"––and maybe it isn't unreasonable that Paul knew that his crowd would react that way. It was not talk of a dying god that shocked them to the point of sneering at him, it was talk of the resurrection of the dead. (more proof that I was tired, it is Acts 17 ... not Romans).

Anyway, the reason I ever brought up Plato (and by extension the Sophist) was because I decided against quoting Yeshua/Jesus in that very first post. Why would I even want to quote Him? Because when He says that if they had believed Moses they would believe Him because he spoke of Him: He was referring to Deuteronomy 18:15-19 which speaks of the Prophet who was to be like Moses. I've had individuals essentially prove Yeshua's assertion by stating that there will never be another like Moses no matter what Moses said. This despite the fact that they've allowed my arguments that the Prophet indicated is: a singular individual: that He must have authority like that which Moses had if He is to be "like" him: that he will be ignored by some (or else why would God speak to the effect that He would require it of them Himself if they did not listen to Him?).

Maybe that is what swayed me against the writer: he may accept all of the Law and the prophets but this; but, if he doesn't accept this then the text itself states what will be the final outcome. This is the final chink in the armor of those to state from the Christian perspective that Jews apart from Messiah have salvation.

As for this pretender Muhammad (and many others):
I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you,
... if you aren't an Israelite then you just don't even quality to stand in the proverbial starting gate.

Well, time to go to work. ^.^
39 posted on 12/12/2006 1:22:01 PM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog

Happy ("PULL!") Chanukah!

,( : >)


40 posted on 12/12/2006 9:35:45 PM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
Goy vey! (posters)

Happy Chanukah!!!!!!!!

41 posted on 12/13/2006 1:45:40 PM PST by Jeremiah Jr (Saturn is in Leo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jeremiah Jr

Happy Chanukah All!


42 posted on 12/14/2006 6:36:07 AM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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