Historicity of Jesus - 2

[acharya]

[quote name='HareKrishna' date='23 June 2010 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1277233130' post='107127']

o acharya, Hinduism is not a religion,its in fact a religious culture.

they dont call ethnic religions of China sinism or chinism,but chinese traditional religions,only in case of India is hinduism-the term is not a problem,but its connotations are.

Hellenism also is not a religion,but a religious culture

can you see the difference ?

christo-islamism is mental racism.

the dogmatic color of the mind matter for them.

[/quote]

Hello,

Please do not address my post to me. They are just articles from various people.

[HareKrishna]

[quote name='acharya' date='30 June 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1277912712' post='107236']

Hello,

Please do not address my post to me. They are just articles from various people.

[/quote]

i edited the first part.

my comment is ok now

[dhu]

Jakob is the progenitor of the twelve tribes through Leah and Rachel and their maids. He was renamed 'Israel' by the Lord God but, unlike Avram renamed to Abraham, the Biblical narrative does not retain the new name after the event.

Jacob (pronounced /ˈdʒeɪkəb/; Hebrew: יַעֲקֹב‎, Standard Yaʿakov; Septuagint Greek: Ἰακώβ; "heel" or "leg-puller", Arabic: يعقوب Yaʿqū<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />, also known as Israel (Hebrew: יִשְׂרָאֵל‎, Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "persevere with God"[1]), as described in the Hebrew Bible, was the third patriarch of the Jewish people whom God made a covenant with, and ancestor of the tribes of Israel, named after his descendants.

There is an instance in the narrative where 'Jakobed' is used as a stand-in for "tricked."



The fact that Jakob continued as the trickster even after the renaming is a generalization of his specific situation into the geopolitical realm. This is an intervention of the Colonizer Lord God in human history.

[ramana]

So the patriarchs were: Abraham, who else(Noah?) and Jacob?



As the above quote says Jacob is the third patriarch.

[ramana]

"brihaspati" wrote

European secularism was essentially about factional infighting within the then prevailing totalitarianism - that by the Church during the middle and late middle ages. The church was formed as a compromise between the Roman empire and its disgruntled elite. So Constantine gained the support by intellectual and other elite for imperial stability, and the disgruntled in the form of bishops and "Christians" gained vicarious power.



This foundational fight has remained within Christian Church from the beginning. The "empire" tries to impose a common set of beliefs which is however not indigenous and has lots of elements derived from a completely different socio-geo-political root. Therefore various region and subgroup components of the empire cannot adjust easily, and they form "reinterpretations" of the dogma as an ideological reflection of the underlying political struggle. Germans chose Arianism [or even if Arianism was by accident they insisted on maintaining the distinction in contrast to the "Roman"] against Italian Roman. Italian Roman Church fought against Greek-Byzantine Church.



Many try to see in Renaissance-Reformation a break with the Church. Not really. This was again primarily a factional fight started by regional powers against other European powers trying to use the mantle of the Church-empire to centralize power and resources into their own hands. The Northern rim - Germany, Netherlands, and their extensions England were being marginalized by the Mediterraneans - Spain and France - who had greater power over the Papacy. This was reflected in the schism led by Luther and the whole Protestant ring of fire.



The so-called "scienctific revolution" and "secularism" arose out of this struggle [okay there were other happy coincidences that helped - like the fall of Moorish Spain, and Constantinople - displacing and disseminating a lot of knowledge previously prohibited] as a tool to discredit the pre-existing ideological faction in power - the then Catholic Church. You can see, that in essentials the basic attitudes towards society and humanity in fact did not change much in its philosophical basis - there are wonderful nuggets of "racial conceptualization" or underlying superiority of the "faith" itself to all others - in the "rebels", including Luther. Even the "enlightened", liberal, Protestant Anglicans in the early stage show extreme prejudice racially and otherwise, and found nothing wrong in the most brutal forms of slave trade.



Communism or Marxism was the latest in the long line of this intra-"Church" conflict. It rose primarily within the frontier conflict zone of Catholic-Protestantism in Germany and England. When the Protestant factionalism was well-established, those of the elite/intellectuals who felt marginalized even within that world-view would be forced to look for a new "interpretation" - something even more radical that gives them the political inheritance distinct from Catholics or protestants.



But the drive remains the same : its is all about justifying imperialism in newer forms, creating distinctions in identities that give higher status to being European, and thereby ensuring or justifying one-way or net flow of global resources back into Europe.



The irony is that with each factional deviation, the message gets both diluted as well as found to be more attractive and adaptable by non-European disgruntled elite in non-European societies. Ultimately therefore even more deviations happen according to the needs of the imperial vision of regional elite in other parts of teh globe. That was how Soviet Communism evolved and from which Maoism under the label of Sinification of Marxism deviated out further.



The Pope should have recognized the ideological vacuum that has developed in Europe, when Europe constantly needs a reinvention of its basic racial/identity based claims towards global domination and imperialist extraction of resources. There has been too much deviation, and too many factional reinterpretations. In the process the ideology has lost its original purpose and function - that of unification to support renewed imperialism. Moreover, the danger is that alternative frameworks for imperialism - sharing similar claims of origins and memes - like Islamism - can fill up the vacuum. Where does it leave the factions of the pre-existing Churches?



I would not be surprised if there are attempts at convergence between the various "factions".



In India the reflection of this is going to be different. Here it is about competing with other factions for the "harvesting" of souls - all the more important because India shows signs of economic resurgence. Imperialist ideologies will be increasingly active and hostile towards the indigenous - because they need to weaken the indigenous to prepare for the next phase of imperialist revival.

[dhu]

[quote name='ramana' date='06 July 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1278438083' post='107338']

So the patriarchs were: Abraham, who else(Noah?) and Jacob?



As the above quote says Jacob is the third patriarch.

[/quote]



Isaac, the son of Abraham and the father of Jakob, is the middle patriarch.

[dhu]

It also appears that the junior patriarchs Isaac and Jakob each had their black sheep reflections in Ishmael and Esau. Ishmael was even the originator of a twelve tribes foreshadowing the twelve of Isaac>Jakob.

The twelve sons of Ishmael were named Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah (See Genesis 25)[2] Ishmael's sons settled everywhere from Havilah to Shur, i.e. from Assyria to the border of Egypt.[9]

[dhu]

deleted

[ramana]

[quote name='dhu' date='12 July 2010 - 03:42 AM' timestamp='1278905654' post='107408']

deleted

[/quote]



Why? You rarely post and what you post is is usually very informative.

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[dhu]

Ramana, the original post is here:



It is possible that the original Greek narrative consisted of Shem/Ham/Japeth and Moses (modeled as the anti-Cyrus). Upon this was interspersed the Roman narrative of the Patriarchs/12tribes and Jesus. Edomites (from the shadow Patriarch line) are, for example,specifically connected with Romans.

God again promises Abram a multitude of descendants during an episode in which Abram sacrifices to God, who also reveals to Abram the future enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, as well as their escape.[21]

As you can see, the post is incomplete because there is no indication that the (putative roman) patriarch line is counterposed or posited as the fulfillment of the (confirmed greek) Sham/Ham/japeth (seleucid/ptolemaic/greek) line. (There is, of course a forward connection of the Patriarch line to Moses' Exodus, indeed the dilemmas set forth by the two latter patriarchs (Jakob and Isaac) and their shadows (Esau and Ishamel) set the stage specifically for later conflict between the israelites and their various canaanite shadows...



My thought was that just as jesus is roman fulfillment of greek (anti-cyrus) Moshe, the Roman patriarch/12tribe line must be fulfillment of the tripartite shem/ham/japeth. The greek and roman are united however in their common opposition to cyrus an by extension, the orient...





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

I have outlined my view of the direction of further investigation here (the originating thread can be found on a blog:





The interventionist state is a direct transformation of the Christian Church. Dharma and Monotheism are, thus, only united as theism from the point of reference of the secular state. So, your claim of a symbiotic relationship between Dharma and Monotheism is made under the typical secular assumptions. Of course, it is another matter that the monotheists/seculars may end up getting acculturated by the heathens, instead of vice versa, but it cannot be claimed that Monotheism is a waystation to Dharmic sensibility. Native Americans were not culturally dispossessed as part of a symbiotic exchange.



Again, working with these categories of theism versus secular nontheism, right versus left, liberal versus conservative only serves to mask our perception of the colonial project. The diversity among the monotheisms is ideological; while among the heathens, diversity is cultural.



1857 was a failure of the missionary project in India and henceforth the Missionary efforts were confined to the peripheral “tribal areas” (Northeast), in addition to being transferred over to the Americans (Methodists, Baptists). At this point, the secular, liberal project gained currency (as a forced alternative) among the colonizer and Macaulayite education was instituted to alienate Indians from their traditions. What the missionaries could not accomplish was accomplished by the liberals/seculizers of the Empire.



If the native traditions are contextualized as ideological, if a certain community is described as the owners of the sankritic and the imposers of the culture on the basis of ideology and as the agents of historical and ideological change, then the rest will automatically be alienated from the culture. If India’s culture and the native response to colonialism is described as an instance of rightist (read bigot) ideology, then the populace will automatically lose its fervor for such an “enterprise.” The missionaries could not accomplish with umpteen convoluted argument about ‘original sin’ and the consequent need to be “saved” was accomplished by our beloved secular. The Liberals and Seculars have salted the field and the set the heathen civilization itself to wither away, merely by ‘norming’ one category of heathen against another and by describing the culture of India as ‘religious’ in the fashion of monotheism. The heathens’ response to Colonialism is thus a mere rightist and bigoted religious sentiment. The heathen concern has been trivialized by the liberal discourse as mere Religion.



That cultural diversity is a result of the imposition of ideology is the typical abrahamic claim; thus, they can deem culture itself as a manifestation of false religion and false belief!! The claim works only in the closed world of ideology but not in our real world where each being’s vyaktigatt dharma is unique!! Thus these fellows can further claim that any positive happening is due to the application of liberal principles and any untoward happening is due the absence of the same. If you are standing next to your mother and not killing her with your bare hands, it is due to your liberal principles!! They are merely redescribing a reality by christening it as an instantiation and implementation of the pet ideology!! And, in turn, these types of chimerical constructs are then used to describe the native heathen as irremediably repressive or unmindingly libertine, as the situation demands. That is Orientalism.



Said’s perspective was limited to the the modern liberal project; though he mentions KM Pannikar in the Introduction, because of conceptual constraints, he was unable to delineate the Monotheist origin of Orientalism. Islam as a colonizer in its own right thus escapes his scrutiny as well as the heathen survival narrative. In fact, the Enlightenment itself resulted as a way to cope with the inherent instability introduced into Protestantism by the “discovery” of heathens in the colonies (ghent group). This story is, of course, glossed as an internal development to Europe with the priests suddenly “wondering” about the ubiquitous pagan ruins in Greece. To admit the “heathen challenge” would automatically discredit the entire modernist movement as merely reactionary; for they blamed the Church for their plight while the native heathen was Orientalized (eg Rousseau’s Romanticist Noble Savage). The developments represented by Schopenhauer and Freud must be seen in such a light, as attempts to forestall the threat posed to the “ideology” prism itself by the heathen’s dynamic. These have been transformed into the the current appropriation of Buddhism and the Doniger type “analyses” (as described by Rajiv Malhotra). FW Engdahl even describes how the ‘saffon revolution’ in “Burma” was a Western-sponsored ‘color revolution’. The same has been described by Sandhya Jain for the Maoist “People’s Revolution” in Nepal .



Of course, they managed to produce some great art as well, but the magnificence of Chartres is not the heathen’s point of dispute; only colonialism (alienation from one’s Traditions). Shelley and the like are thus not being contested.



Twain, Thoreau, Emerson do represent a true heathen thread somehow transplanted into abrahamic absolutism, IMO, but these were eclipsed by the statist Whitman. No one denies the tragedy of conversion; we must cut relations with those who were once our own. In Sindh, when the time came to convert to the “liberator’s” Islam, the jatis chose certain sections which were to continue to remain Hindus, and these were protected by their muslim caste compatriots. But where are the Hindus in that land today? The break may be distant in time but it seems mandated nonetheless by the nature of the colonialist monotheist beast we’re confronting.

[dhu]

another snippet:



Orientalism was a categorically legitimate enterprise in the last century, such that (I’m sure) even Tilak would have referred to themselves as orientalists, and, in all earnestness, would have declared that ” we are the real orientalists, we love the orient more than the orientalists,” oblivious to the exact nature of the orientalists’ “love” for their “subject”. Today, Orientalism is defunct because the ideological basis of the discourse has been made unbearably plain to everyone. The same need to be accomplished with the “Modern” and “Liberal” rubrics behind which the colonizer is currently masked. AIT, a major cornerstone of the colonial project (most developed by the liberals), has already been successfully assailed.

[ramana]

Two things:

Comte De Volney was an important Enlightnement figure in France who influenced European thinking.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comte_de_Volney



Please do read about him and understand his importance to evolution of Western thought.

Hegel etc came after he already infleunced the course of history.

and



Book review:

American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation How Indian Spirituality Has Shaped the West

Philip Goldberg

(Author)



Hardcover: 288 pages

Publisher: Doubleday Religion; 1 edition (November 2, 2010)

Language: English

[acharya]

For over 400 hundred years, 1,000 to 586 BCE, Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish kingdom of Judah & again during the 2nd temple. Jews remained in Jerusalem continuously from then till today only with foreign (not Palestinian) powers in control till '48. This is not a religious, but a historical fact that can be verified. Interestingly the Arabs that since 1964 identify as Palestinians came to Israel in 1900's in search of work as a result of economic activity created by ZIONISM!

[dhu]

[quote name='acharya' date='17 July 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1279359000' post='107493']

For over 400 hundred years, 1,000 to 586 BCE, Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish kingdom of Judah & again during the 2nd temple. Jews remained in Jerusalem continuously from then till today only with foreign (not Palestinian) powers in control till '48. This is not a religious, but a historical fact that can be verified. Interestingly the Arabs that since 1964 identify as Palestinians came to Israel in 1900's in search of work as a result of economic activity created by ZIONISM!

[/quote]



Too pleading. Sounds almost like thousand years of Pakistan. Thankfully, we are not yet subjected to "thousand years of America" Which is probably due to America's current power. These ideological states (eg PAkistan, America) allow for these type of appropriations. As difficult as it is to believe, Jews are simply nativized Greeks, the identity of which was transferred to the natives.

[ramana]

The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book

Publisher: HarperOne | ISBN: 0061238848 | edition 2008 | 224 pages

In this unexpectedly delightful (if juvenile) little book, two Bible professors and a journalist unpack some of the more outrageous interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, focusing on juicy tales of sex, dysfunctional families and body parts. What if Eve was not made from Adam's rib bone but, as one biblical scholar has suggested, his penis bone? (Don't laugh this theory away until you've read the chapter.) Despite taking on serious questions of biblical interpretation and Hebrew translations, the authors maintain a tongue-in-cheek demeanor as they address questions like Did Abraham pimp Sarah? Did Ruth and Boaz have a roll in the hay on the threshing floor? and Was Joseph a cross-dresser? (Answers: yes, maybe, and probably not.) One chapter proposes that the assassin Ehud (Judges 3) escaped King Eglon's rooftop after murdering him by slipping down through Eglon's latrine. Some of the authors' conclusions are a stretch, but it's always in good fun. This is perfect bathroom reading, and PW means that in the best possible way.

[ramana]

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48939692.html







History Crash Course #28: Greek Persecution

Alexander's vast empire did not survive his death in 323 BCE, but fragmented into three large chunks centered in Greece, Egypt, and Syria and controlled by his former generals. These three smaller empires were known as:



* Seleucid or Syrian Greece

* Ptolemian or Egyptian Greece

* Macedonian or Greece proper, including the independent city-states of Athens, Sparta, etc.



Initially, Israel falls under the Ptolemies of Egypt. They are generally liberal and open-minded in keeping with the spirit of their capital city of Alexandria which is the world's cultural center.



But this changes in 198 BCE after the Battle of Panias (or Banyas-Tel Dan in northern Israel). After their victory at Panias the Seleucids of Assyria, led by the King, Antiochus III, take over control of Israel from the Ptolemies.



The picture is volatile, however. The next Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, finds himself under a lot of pressure, holding back the Ptolemies and worrying about the rising might of Rome.



He decides that the weak link in his defenses is Israel. Israel is bordered by (1) Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea (from whence the Romans could come), and worst of all, the majority of Jews are not into Greek culture. This situation he now moves to remedy.



WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE



Some years before, when the Greeks who had conquered the entire known world first met the Jews, they were astonished. They'd never encountered people like this before. On the positive side the intellectual, spiritual and legal aspects of Judaism were totally unique and no doubt fascinating to the philosophical Greeks.



The Jews were just so different from anyone else they had ever encountered. They were the only monotheists in the world and they subscribed to a worldview that is totally different from anyone else's - namely, that everything that exists had been created and is sustained by one infinite, invisible and caring God. This idea -- particularly that this caring, perfect Being busies Himself with the lives of imperfect mortals -- the Greeks found just about incomprehensible. The Greek historian Hecateus (ca 360-290 BCE) describes the unique monotheism of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.



There is no image, nor statue, nor votive offering therein; nothing at all is planted there, neither grove nor anything of the sort. The priests abide therein both nights and days, performing certain purification rites, and drinking not the least drop of wine while they are in the temple



On top of that, the Greeks could not understand the Jewish view of the Torah. This was an ancient book, which the Jews claimed they got from God, and which contained odd teachings on how to lead a life of peace, brotherhood, social responsibility, and respect for life -- all values that were far removed from Greek ideals.



In short, the Greeks didn't know what to make of the Jews.



The Jews were likewise confounded. The Greeks were people who valued education and intellectual pursuits -- something the Jews also valued and very much admired. The Greeks spoke a beautiful language, which the Jews appreciated very much. (The Talmud says that ancient Greek is the most beautiful language in the world, it's the only language you can write a kosher Torah scroll besides Hebrew.) (2)



Indeed, the Torah was promptly translated into Greek (in the 3rd century BCE) by Ptolemy III -- the first such translation in Jewish history. This translation was called the "Septuagint" after the 70 rabbis who did it.



It happened that King Ptolemy gathered seventy-two sages and placed them in seventy-two houses without telling them why he had brought them together. He went to each one of them and told him, "translate for me [into Greek] the Torah of your master Moses(3).



(This translation is considered a national disaster for the Jewish people. In the hands of the non-Jewish world, the now accessible Hebrew Bible has often been used against the Jews, and has been deliberately mistranslated. Most Christian Bibles in English today depend on the Greek translation which was then translated into Latin, the language of the Roman Empire, and from there into English. You can just imagine how many interpretations and mistakes and deliberate mistranslations were made along the way.(4))



However, it was inevitable that the Hebrew Bible would be translated into Greek because Greek became the international intellectual language of the ancient Mediterranean world. It was as common everywhere as English is today! And the Jews who were mostly speaking Aramaic thanks to their foray in the Babylonian exile become conversant in Greek as well. (Hebrew was then a language primarily of prayer and of study but not the spoken language of the street, even in Israel.)



Despite this mutual appreciation -- which incidentally lured a lot of Jews -- the vast differences could not be tolerated by the dominant culture for long.



JEW VS. JEW



The Chanukah story is often portrayed as a struggle for national liberation -- the Jewish revolt against the Greek occupation of Israel. In reality it is much complicated that that. The real conflict was not physical but intellectual. Chanukah was ultimately an ideological-spiritual war between paganism and Judaism. It was also not a struggle purely between Greeks and Jews. It was first a foremost a civil war of Jew against Jew. The initial impetus for the Greek attack against Judaism came from a certain splinter group of the Jewish people -- the Hellenized Jews.



These were Jews who were sucked into Greek culture. And it is no wonder why; Greek culture was the major culture milieu of the ancient world.



We see this as a pattern in Jewish history. A world culture comes along which is enlightened and progressive and is changing the world, and some of the upper class Jews always get into it. Why? Because they are rich, sophisticated, and have lot of spare time. Then they say to the rest of the Jewish people: "Let's get modern. Forget this ancient Jewish stuff." (We will see this pattern repeated in Spain, and in Germany, and even today in America and Israel.)



At this time, we have a small but very vocal and powerful group of Jews, who align with the Greek authorities and who become Hellenized. They do everything the Greeks do.



They send their children to the gymnasium, and they reverse their circumcisions -- a very painful operation -- since so much of Greek stuff is done naked and the Greeks would consider them mutilated otherwise.



To make matters worse, the schism between the Hellenized Jews and mainstream Jews is paralleled by another schism -- between two factions of religious Jews.



It begins in the third century BCE when two students named -- Zadok and Bysos -- begin preaching a new form of Judaism, devoid of belief in the Divinity of the Oral Torah. There is little doubt that Greek thought played a significant role in creating this early break with mainstream Judaism. Their followers are called the Sadducees and Bysosim, though it is the Sadducees that go down in history. The mainstream observant Jews, who follow the Rabbis and keep Jewish law as it has always been practiced, are called ironically "Pharisees," meaning "separatists," to distinguish them from the others.



Since the Sadducees do not believe that the Oral Torah comes from God, they maintain that they are only obligated to keep the laws of the Written Torah, which they read literally. (This denial of the Oral Law will occur later in Jewish history with the Karaite schism in Babylon.) But so many of the laws of the Written Torah are incomprehensible without the Oral Torah. Their answer? Each man for himself; anyone can decide what it means and act accordingly.



The Sadducees find natural allies among the Hellenized Jews, as Rabbi Berel Wein explains:



The Sadducees were always more acceptable in the eyes of the Hellenist Jews than their rabbinic foes. The alliance of the Hellenists and the Sadducees against traditional Judaism guaranteed constant turmoil in Jewish life throughout the time of the Second Temple and even thereafter. (Echoes of Glory, p. 38)



(We shall discuss the Sadducees in greater detail in future segments when we come to the Roman Empire and its domination of the Jews.)



This is how the ancient historian Josephus explains the beliefs of the Jews at this time:



The Pharisees [who are considered most skillful in the exact explication of their laws and are the leading school] ascribe all to fate and to God and yet allow that to do what is right or to the contrary is principally the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are imperishable but that the souls of good men only pass into other bodies while the souls of evil men are subject to eternal punishment.



But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order and exclude fate entirely and suppose that God is not concerned with our doing or not doing what is evil. They say that to do what is good or what is evil is man's own choice and that the choice of one or the other belongs to each person who may act as he pleases. They also exclude the belief in immortality of the soul and the punishment and rewards of the afterworld.



Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another and cultivate harmonious relations with the community, but the behavior of the Sadducees towards one another is to some degree boorish, and their conversation with those that of their own party is barbarous as if they were strangers to them.(5)



You can see how the Sadducees were influenced by Greek thought. They are part of the reason that the High Priesthood and the Temple service became so corrupt (as many of the priestly class, an upper class at that time, became Sadducees). And this is why the Talmud says that so many High Priests died during the service of Yom Kippur.



FORCED HELLENIZATION



It isn't long before the Hellenized Jews draw the Greeks into the conflict by enlisting the support of the Selucid king. Antiochus IV Epiphanes takes deliberate steps between 169 BCE and 167 BCE to Hellenize the Jews of Israel by attempting to destroy Judaism. The Book of Maccabees calls this period a "reign of terror" and describes its beginnings as:



Not long after this, the king sent an Athenian senator to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their fathers and cease to live by the laws of God, and also to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and call it the temple of Olympian Zeus...(6)



One of the first things that Antiochus does take control of the Temple through influencing the office of the High Priest. He removes the High Priest from his position and replaces him with a Jew that he has in his back pocket. From this point on the High Priesthood becomes, to a large extent, a corrupt institution.



So here we begin to see a pattern which is going to evolve through later Jewish history of all the basic institutions being corrupted: the monarchy, the priesthood, the Temple service. What is going to be left relatively intact is the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court, and its rabbis who will eventually write the Talmud, as we shall see.



After he installs his own High Priest, Antiochus tries to dissolve the Jewish calendar.



Antiochus, by this time, understands the Jews very well. To him these people are time obsessed - they try to make time holy. Destroy time and you destroy the Jews' ability to practice Judaism. Therefore, Antiochus forbids the observance of Shabbat, the observance of the New Moon (Rosh Chodesh), and the observance of the holidays -- Passover, Shavuot, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot.



Next, Antiochus forbids keeping kosher and studying Torah. Torah scrolls are publicly burned, and swine are sacrificed over sacred Jewish books to defile them. Indeed, Antiochus seems obsessed by swine, knowing that this animal is particularly repugnant to the Jews; he even forces the High Priest to institute swine sacrifices in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and also to permit worship there of a whole array of Greek gods. (See 1 Maccabees 1:41-64.)



Lastly, Antiochus forbids circumcision. To the Jews, this is the physical, tangible sign of their covenant with God. And it's the one thing the Greeks - who worship the perfection of the human body - find most abhorrent. To them, circumcision is a mutilation.



Jews resist, so Antiochus and his henchmen go about driving the point home in a crude and cruel fashion. The Jewish historian, Rabbi Berel Wein relates this graphically in his Echoes of Glory:



Women who allowed their sons to be circumcised were killed with their sons tied around their necks. The scholars of Israel were hounded, hunted down and killed. Jews who refused to eat pork or sacrifice hogs were tortured to death ... Even the smallest hamlet in Judah was not safe from the oppression of the Hellenists. The altars to Zeus and other pagan deities were erected in every village, and Jews of every area were forced to participate in the sacrificial services. (p. 63)



This type of religious persecution was, until then, unknown in human history. Up to that time, no one in the ancient world declared war on other people's religions, because the attitude of polytheism was "I'll worship your god, you worship mine. The more gods the merrier."



(Later we will see Greek and Roman mythologies blending with Zeus becoming Jupiter, etc. The ultimate in pluralism - everyone's religion is as good as the next.)



In the polytheistic world no one died for their religion. No one, except the Jews.



The Jews maintain that there are things in this life that are worth dying for - things that are more meaningful than life itself. Jews are willing to give up their lives for Judaism. Not because God needs people to die for Him but because the ideology of Torah is something without which humanity is doomed. The Jews, who are supposed to be "the light unto the nations," cannot abandon their mission, even when their lives are threatened.



In the early stages of the conflict many Jews chose the path of "passive resistance" by choosing to ignore the Greek restrictions and continue to learn Torah and circumcise their infant sons. This form of resistance often proved fatal as many Jews were martyred for their continued loyalty to Judaism. Resistance to Greek persecutions could also take a more active form - they could also fight against this type of tyranny and they do. What is most terrible in this fight, however, is that the Jews who are defending Judaism must fight the Greeks as well as some of their own fellow Jews who have converted to Hellenism.



The corruption of the Temple and the forced Hellenization and persecution finally becomes too much to bear for mainstream observant Jews. When they finally revolt against the Greeks, they take on their collaborators among the Jews as well.



The revolt of the Maccabees -- which we celebrate today as Chanukah -- is as much a story of a civil war between Jews as against Greece. It's not a war for national liberation, nor is it a struggle for physical freedom -- it is a struggle of ideas.



Refs:

1)Lawrence H. Schiffman, Text and Tradition-A Source Reader for the Study of the Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. New Jersey: Ktav Publishing House. 1998. 142. Hecateus is quoted by the great first century CE Jewish historian, Josephus, in his book Contra Apion. What was most astounding to Hacateus was the complete lack of the images and idols so ubiquitous in every pagan temple of antiquity.

2) See Talmud-Megillah 9:a-Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: "Even books of scripture the sages did not permit to be written in any foreign language other than Greek." It is important to mention that the Talmud here refers to the original, pure ancient Greek, not the common ancient Greek dialect, koine, of the Hellanstic world nor the modern Greek of today.

3)Talmud-Megillah 9b.

4)Deliberate mistranslations were usually done by Christians scholars in-order-to "bend" the text to prove Christian theology. The classic example is Isaiah 7:14 where the Hebrew word almah meaning "young woman/maiden" is deliberately mistranslated into "virgin" (in Hebrew the word is b'tulah) to support the Christian concept of virgin birth.

5)Josephus, Jewish War II 119-166

6)II Maccabees 6:1.

[ramana]

[quote name='dhu' date='17 July 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1279367897' post='107495']

Too pleading. Sounds almost like thousand years of Pakistan. Thankfully, we are not yet subjected to "thousand years of America" Which is probably due to America's current power. These ideological states (eg PAkistan, America) allow for these type of appropriations. As difficult as it is to believe, Jews are simply nativized Greeks, the identity of which was transferred to the natives.

[/quote]



Dhu can you explain the bolded part? How are they nativized ancient Greeks? And when did this happen? During the Persian interlude?

[G.Subramaniam]

[quote name='ramana' date='23 July 2010 - 06:49 AM' timestamp='1279847463' post='107579']

Dhu can you explain the bolded part? How are they nativized ancient Greeks? And when did this happen? During the Persian interlude?

[/quote]





Ashkenazi DNA shows that they are 50% greek

whereas Sephardic jews are palestinians

[ramana]

Can you write an article on this?

[dhu]

I do not think she needs to read anything. Question that "the experts" need to

figure out is, a point which Angela tries alluding to albeit not strongly

enough, accent in European languages would never have been understood and made

into a law by Verner without taking help from Sanskrit. Every time Verner got

stuck in trying to figure out where to put stress he had to seek help from

sanskrit.



What this means is that the fundamental issues related to the structure of

european languages would never have been understood if it was not for sanskrit.

It is bizzare that "learned people" do not understand this and this is the same

group which is hanging on to Aryan invasion theory for dear life.



I will try and give an analogy. Suppose an arab/european comes and tells a Hindu

"you know what arabs taught you the numerals and even the zero!". Hindu would

laugh at him and shake his head and walk away. Now the arab/european is pissed

and says alright it is ok if you don't believe us but we are certain that "we

all" learned numerals from common "proto numeral knowers who even knew the proto

zero!"





-Shivraj

By contrast, in monotheism, the phantasm and shadow race (the israeilite, the aryan) is used as a mask for imperial subjugation. But, in reality (i.e., at a deeper level), the construct is one of defeat and admission, as the above shows..



What is surprising is how the construct can reproduce itself while being plainly ironic, satiric, and self-flagellating at the most obvious level.. for example, mohammad bargains down the number of prayers and abraham had done the same when he dissuaded the lord god from smiting some waywards. Either, the progenitor of Islam (i.e, the RCC) was aware of the ironic instance in which their Deity is shown as a powerless, fake, and a sham and they do not take their construct as seriously as presumed; or the construct can reproduce itself at the level of discourse.. Thus, Liguistics and statistics, the two authentically normative disciplines, are the refuges of these shams...