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

Skip to comments.

Joe Sobran, R.I.P. [Joseph Sobran, 1946 - 2010]

Posted on 09/30/2010 7:54:18 PM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: Tribemike1
The belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of G-d is exclusive to Christianity. By saying that any Jew who calls him a false Prophet is a Christian Hater you are basically saying that all non-Christians are Christan haters?
101 posted on 10/01/2010 6:49:34 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Tribemike1
The belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of G-d is exclusive to Christianity. By saying that any Jew who calls him a false Prophet is a Christian Hater you are basically saying that all non-Christians are Christan haters?
102 posted on 10/01/2010 6:49:48 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Tribemike1

Actually looking back at your post that wasn’t what you said so I apologize.


103 posted on 10/01/2010 7:04:43 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Borges
The belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of G-d is exclusive to Christianity. By saying that any Jew who calls him a false Prophet is a Christian Hater you are basically saying that all non-Christians are Christan haters?

That's a fair point, they're not all anti-Christian. So then on the obverse what charges can a Christian level against the Talmud,Judaism and Jews without being called an anti-semite?

All of this is off topic though and to the original post: Joseph Sobran - Vechnaya Pamyat.

104 posted on 10/01/2010 9:16:17 PM PDT by triumphant values (Never criticize that to your right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

Comment #105 Removed by Moderator

To: triumphant values

There’s nothing wrong with saying that one disagrees with Jewish theology. What people mostly object to is making up fake Talmud quotes or distorting existing ones for unsavory goals.


106 posted on 10/02/2010 5:43:36 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Borges

The Talmud is absolutely hostile to Jesus Christ, blasphemes him....

Now, how about Christians who fundamentally disagree with Zionism? Are they anti - semitic or just like the 85% of American Jews who by their political philosophy also disagree with Zionism?


107 posted on 10/02/2010 9:50:18 AM PDT by Tribemike1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Tribemike1
No disagreeing with Zionism is not antisemitism although it's so often used as coded antisemitism that the distinction has almost become irrelevant.
108 posted on 10/02/2010 11:42:10 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Tribemike1

What was your FR screen name the last time you got zotted?


109 posted on 10/02/2010 3:06:56 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: safeasthebanks

I just gave to the Freepathon, have you?


110 posted on 10/02/2010 3:08:36 PM PDT by Tribemike1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

He was a neo-Nazi?

Wow!


111 posted on 10/02/2010 3:11:27 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tribemike1

Typical troll response. Try being honest for once in your life...what was your FR name the last time you got zotted? Come on, show me you have a little self respect.


112 posted on 10/02/2010 5:37:17 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Borges
What do you think?

Good riddance to Nazi rubbish.

113 posted on 10/02/2010 5:40:47 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Shofekh dam ha'adam, ba'adam damo yishshafekh; ki betzelem 'Eloqim `asah 'et-ha'adam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Due to censorship, self-censorship and coding it is impossible to determine the full extent of the Talmud's commentary on Jesus or Christians. What's certain is that these subjects are mentioned in passing probably no more than 10 times in a work that is several times longer than the Bible - despite the fact that much of it is composed in a very compressed legal shorthand.

It would be interesting to know how many of those who quote it as evidence of insidiousness can actually describe themselves as proficient in rabbinic Hebrew or late Aramaic.

114 posted on 10/02/2010 6:51:05 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

Comment #115 Removed by Moderator

To: Billy the Mountain; wideawake

One has to also keep in mind that Jews don’t regard the Talmud as Divinely inspired. It’s filled with debates and exposition from various sources.


116 posted on 10/03/2010 7:14:59 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo

RIP


117 posted on 10/03/2010 7:52:54 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billy the Mountain
Quotations from the Koran are used to damn all Muslims

According to Muslims, the Koran is not just divinely inspired, but divinely dictated word for word in the Arabic tongue. It is the normative standard for belief among Muslims. Only a tiny minority of Muslims argue that the Koran need not be taken literally, and this school of thought is quite recent.

and quotations from the New Testament are used to damn Christians. During the "Passion of the Christ" debate, many people took issue with the gospel accounts themselves and deemed the narrative to be unacceptable.

As I recall, quite a few of those misguided critics were self-professed Christians themselves. And Christians are indeed required to defend the whole text of the New Testament, since we hold it to be divinely inspired and to be normative for belief.

The Talmud enjoys no special protection from criticism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The Talmud is not Scripture, let alone the normative Scripture of Judaism. The Torah is. That important distinction being made, there is another point: how do you critique the Talmud? The Koran and New Testament are texts that make declarations and assertions about absolutes. The Talmud is an enormous collection of debates and commentaries about the Torah, usually in the form of disputes over whether interpretation A by Rabbi X is better or worse than interpretation B by Rabbi Y. Very often there is no clear answer. A random quotation from the Talmud, devoid of any context, completely ignores the nature of the text.

118 posted on 10/03/2010 8:06:43 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Billy the Mountain; Borges
Probably the same percentage of people who are proficient in ancient Greek (New Testament) or Arabic (Koran) and yet quote those scriptures to damn those groups.

Not even close. First, there are plenty of critical translations of both texts that have been produced by adherents of both faiths that allow non-adherents access to scholarly editions. Also, the New Testament is about 400 pages of text and the Koran is about 250 pages in translation. A non-adherent can pick up a translation and read it in a day and get the sense of it, without becoming an expert of course.

Moreover there are more than a hundred million people who can read the Koran in the original with comprehension and at least ten million who can do the same with the New Testament. Plenty of critiques of both texts come from people who are very proficient in the languages - one of the most prominent critics of the New Testament is Bart Ehrman, a former Christian who is considered to be an expert in the text to the extent of having assisted in the editing of the standard text.

When it comes to the Talmud, there is no standard translation. The closest is the Steinsaltz, which is recent. The Talmud is written in Rabbinic Hebrew (a different dialect than the Biblical Hebrew that so many Christian scholars have studied), Eastern Aramaic (a different dialect from the Biblical Aramaic that has been studied by a smaller number of Christian scholars), and even a large amount of transliterated Old French. Moreover, the Talmud is not written discursively like the New Testament and Koran, but in a very technical jargon full of abbreviations and references. Add to this the size of the Talmud, probably 4000 pages in full translation, and you have a text that very few non-Jews have the education or the patience to read in full even in translation. Certainly only a small minority of self-professed Jews have the education or the patience themselves.

The reality is that those who quote the Talmud to "damn" Jews have no concept of what the Talmud is, what it is for, how the text works, how accurate the supposed translation they are using is, or whether the supposed quote is in context.

It is much more likely that a critic of the New Testament or the Koran has a clue about what they are discussing. I have never heard of a critic of the Talmud who had any clue at all.

119 posted on 10/03/2010 8:40:59 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Many Jews don’t even read the Talmud. It’s primarily read by the highly orthodox only. The average Jewish family who Bar Mitzvahs their son and goes to Temple on the High Holidays most likely never set their eyes on it.


120 posted on 10/03/2010 9:23:41 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Comment #121 Removed by Moderator

To: wideawake
And Christians are indeed required to defend the whole text of the New Testament
 
No, "Christians" are required to "defend" [really, reconcile themselves with] Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
 
Saul of Tarsus was a latecomer to the party.
122 posted on 10/03/2010 10:06:44 AM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Billy the Mountain

Muslims regard Jesus as a Prophet (though not divine) whereas he holds no role in Judaism.


123 posted on 10/03/2010 10:06:44 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
And Christians are indeed required to defend the whole text of the New Testament
 
No, "Christians" are required to "defend" [really, reconcile themselves with] Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
 
Saul of Tarsus was a latecomer to the party.
124 posted on 10/03/2010 10:06:56 AM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
If one considers any portion of the New Testament not to be divinely revealed Scripture, one belongs to a different religion than Christianity.
125 posted on 10/03/2010 10:12:02 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Billy the Mountain
The Talmud is a central text of mainstream Judaism which says some very unpleasant things about my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So you claim.

You can whitewash it away by saying that is only a collection of debates, however the discussions about Jesus Christ are not in that context.

That's the only context the Talmud has.

There are plenty of translations of the Talmud.

No, there aren't. If there are "plenty" please cite 5.

All of them contain the same basic comments when discussing Christ.

Bold claim. Why don't you find a passage in the Talmud you consider to be blasphemous toward Jesus, and cite it in 5 separate translations.

A Christian only needs to see the blasphemy of Jesus Christ once to know that there is great antipathy towards him.

The issue here is what is actually seen. Anyone can go on the Internet and find quotes from any neo-Nazi site they like purporting to be Talmud passages. How many Christians have bothered to even read the original? Despite your magisterial tone, I can tell you certainly haven't.

Even the Muslims don't speak about Christ in such a manner.

The theology of Islam says that Jesus was a lesser prophet whose role was to proclaim the great prophet Mohammed. This was part of Mohammed's conversion strategy: absorb Abraham, Moses and Jesus into his narrative in order to convince Jews and Christians to follow him. So Islam speaks sweetly about Jesus, but in doing so calls all Christians liars who have betrayed Jesus and diminishes Jesus into a mere man subordinate to Mohammed. Jews do not see conversion of all Christians to Judaism as one of the purposes of their religion.

126 posted on 10/03/2010 10:33:18 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

Comment #127 Removed by Moderator

To: Billy the Mountain
There are plenty of sources in this information age in which one can view the Talmud. No one needs my help.

In point of fact, there are only two translations of the Talmud into English available on the Internet. One isn't a very good translation: it' s based on a flawed text, and no site seems to have the entire text.

This is because there are, as opposed to your claim of "plenty" of translations available, only four translations of any completeness or value: the Steinsaltz, Soncino, Schottenstein, and the Neusner - only one of which is available online.

You can't just make outrageous claims and say: "I don't need to back up anything I say - just google it." You made the claims, so cite specific passages that substantiate those charges.

If a Jew said: "Christianity says horrible things about the rabbinic Sages, so Christianity is just objectionable" and you asked which Christians said what things about these sages, and the response you got was: "Just check the Internet, dude. There's like a ton of Christian stuff on there that's all nasty and stuff" - well, you'd be pretty unimpressed by the quality of the scholarship.

You made a claim. You said there are "plenty" of translations, you cultivate an air of being conversant and cultivated in the knowledge of Talmudic blasphemy.

Give us one citation, just so we know you're not a complete fake.

128 posted on 10/03/2010 3:29:17 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

Comment #129 Removed by Moderator

To: Billy the Mountain
three English translations

Of the 4 given, there are really two: the Soncino (Slotki is one of the Soncino translators, the Gutenberg looks to be a tiny selection of passages from the Soncino) and the Rodkinson. Rodkinson is not very good, the Soncino is generally good.

However, the full Soncino is several thousand pages long. Care to indicate which pages contain the material that substantiates your claim?

The claims I made are common knowledge.

Oh, of course they are. That's why no one can find them anywhere.

Every known copy of the Jerusalem Talmud

There are plenty of known copies of the Jerusalem Talmud, which is a different work from the Babylonian Talmud you linked to. The Babylonian was the popular one in the European world, and the Jerusalem one was not well-known or used much outside of the Holy Land. The Church's destruction of the Babylonian Talmud (not the Jerusalem, which was not mentioned) was based on the claims of converts not actually substantiated by any specific blasphemous references that any prelate cited in any specific document.

Why do you defend blasphemy?

That's the equivalent of asking "when did you stop beating your wife?" You're alleging blasphemy, but have so far proven completely incapable of substantiating your claim. If I'm defending blasphemy, please show me precisely which blasphemy I am allegedly defending. Slander is a sin.

130 posted on 10/03/2010 5:14:34 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #131 Removed by Moderator

To: Billy the Mountain

I just googled the matter and came up with primarily kook sites making those claims and a few other sites refuting them.


132 posted on 10/03/2010 9:44:10 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

That assertion is rank nonsense.


133 posted on 10/04/2010 9:14:32 AM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
That assertion is rank nonsense.

Of course it isn't. The New Testament canon is precisely that: a canon, or rule of faith.

What Christian community has ever rejected the Pauline corpus?

Even the tiniest, unaffiliated nondenominational congregations recognize the canon of the New Testament as inviolable.

Every other Christian denomination - Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, Reformed, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc. includes the whole New Testament as a foundational element of their faith.

134 posted on 10/04/2010 9:42:39 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Billy the Mountain
There are plenty of references on the web that can direct people to the blasphemy if they so choose to look.

You made the claim, back it up.

Why would Christians find comments, that as far as you can ascertain don't even exist, offensive?

135 posted on 10/04/2010 9:46:14 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: hampdenkid
Wonderful, brilliant man. He was unfairly pilloried at the end of his life. Likely drove him to an early grave.

It wasn't "unfair."

Joe went around the bend a few years back and pretty much alienated his audience. It seemed like almost overnight that he went from a sober, deep, engaging writer to a shrill, hysterical one, and after the transition he was basically never heard from again.

I always had a feeling that his sudden shift was more medical than intellectual.

136 posted on 10/04/2010 9:53:44 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Borges; Billy the Mountain
I just googled the matter and came up with primarily kook sites making those claims and a few other sites refuting them.

After making all this noise and then coming up with exactly nothing to substantiate it, I am forced to consider whether BTM is trying to get me to give hits to neo-Nazi sites to follow his baseless assertions down the rabbit hole.

I don't see Christian sites making these claims.

I see two sets of sites: neo-Nazi sites parroting BTM's claims (or, more likely, BTM is the parrot in this analogy) and fringy atheist sites claiming that the lack of concrete Talmudic references to Jesus is proof He didn't exist.

137 posted on 10/04/2010 9:55:27 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
If one considers any portion of the New Testament not to be divinely revealed Scripture, one belongs to a different religion than Christianity.

....

Just to pick one ... Consider the Epistle of James, which Luther derided as "the epistle of straw." Still, it's generally accepted as part of the Canon of Scripture. Are you suggesting that Martin Luther, in rejecting it, belonged to a different religion than Christianity?

138 posted on 10/04/2010 10:00:36 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Are you suggesting that Martin Luther, in rejecting it, belonged to a different religion than Christianity?

Had he insisted to the contrary, even after being corrected by his colleagues, then he would have belonged to a different religion.

That a man so deeply egotistical and headstrong as Luther would bow on this point is testimony to how essential the canon is.

139 posted on 10/04/2010 10:07:37 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Saul of Tarsus is no more an authority on Christian [Christ-ian] teachings than is Teresa of Lourdes or Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin.
 
Beyond Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John [and a tiny handful of others], it's all just hearsay.
140 posted on 10/04/2010 10:21:47 AM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I guess when I said “unfair,” I meant the extent and manner of the ostacization, not the rationale for it.


141 posted on 10/04/2010 10:31:24 AM PDT by hampdenkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
Saul of Tarsus is no more an authority on Christian [Christ-ian] teachings than is Teresa of Lourdes or Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin.

Who is "Teresa of Lourdes"?

Beyond Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John [and a tiny handful of others], it's all just hearsay.

Interesting take.

Luke tells us the history of Paul in Acts, including Paul's personal encounter with Jesus.

If we are to discard Paul, we must also discard Luke as an unreliable witness.

And that would create further difficulties.

I would also point out that much of the Gospels is inescapably "hearsay" because all four evangelists relate events at which they themselves were admittedly not present.

142 posted on 10/04/2010 10:39:34 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: hampdenkid
I guess when I said “unfair,” I meant the extent and manner of the ostacization, not the rationale for it.

The problem was that Joe flouted the First Law of Holes, which is to stop digging once you find yourself in one.

Sobran used to be one of my must-reads. I remember being shocked at the time, when Sobran's tone suddenly changed, and it became evident that it wasn't just a one-off rant. After not too long, I crossed him off my list, and I was far from alone in that.

I checked Sobran's writings a couple of years later, just to see, and it just as shrill, and (understandably) a whole lot more bitter. That was it -- I was through.

Still, RIP to Mr. Sobran. I hope in his final days he found the peace he needed.

143 posted on 10/04/2010 10:41:08 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Maybe they meant Teresa of the Andes?


144 posted on 10/04/2010 10:42:10 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

The last time I saw Joe — which was, perhaps, at the incipience of his fall — he seemed morose, but over the edge. Do you think he developed a drinking problem?


145 posted on 10/04/2010 10:43:55 AM PDT by hampdenkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo

Please be compassionate. Often, one of the first signs of serious illness is a person’s change in thinking and personality. I was not aware of what was making Joe sick, but many cancers may begin with deep depression and such changes, if you review medical literature. May God rest his soul.


146 posted on 10/04/2010 10:44:52 AM PDT by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hampdenkid; r9etb
From what I gather Sobran lost his dream career and ended his second marriage in a relatively short period of time.

That would cause many a man to simply snap.

147 posted on 10/04/2010 10:54:40 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
If we are to discard Paul, we must also discard Luke as an unreliable witness.

That goes too far (as did the previous post to which I objected).

You seem to be setting up an either/or test for Scripture (and by extension, to Christianity as a whole), that is not needed and possibly harmful.

I see the point -- but I think it's possible to take such points too far.

148 posted on 10/04/2010 10:54:47 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: hampdenkid
Do you think he developed a drinking problem?

No clue -- I only knew him through his writing. It just seemed to me that such a sudden change in tone, and such tenacity in defending it, wasn't something a healthy man would do.

149 posted on 10/04/2010 11:08:15 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
That goes too far

Excluding Paul from Christianity is going too far.

If insisting on Paul is too strong, what then would qualify as being too weak a standard?

That road leads to Jesus Seminar land, in my opinion.

150 posted on 10/04/2010 11:18:43 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 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