And no I dismissed the doctrine itself as Catholic, not the author.
What EXACTLY is the "Catholic doctrine" in that post? Is it "Roman Catholic" if other protestants believe it. or should the Roman Catholics be called in question for believing something that many Protestants also believe?
I'm sure that the gentleman or men responsible for printing this doctrine may indeed be fine men. That doesn't make their doctrine anymore correct John.
You have not supplied ANY other source for that definition of the terms I posted. Would you call this also "Roman Catholic"?
1. The Historical Background:
Since the invasion of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Jewish people, both of the Northern and of the Southern kingdom, had been without political independence. From the Chaldeans the rulership of Judea had been transferred to the Persians, and from the Persians, after an interval of 200 years, to Alexander the Great. From the beginning of the Persian sovereignty, the Jews had been permitted to organize anew their religious and political commonwealth, thus establishing a state under the rulership of priests, for the high priest was not only the highest functionary of the cult, but also the chief magistrate in so far as these prerogatives were not exercised by the king of the conquering nation. Ezra had given a new significance to the Torah by having it read to the whole congregation of Israel and by his vigorous enforcement of the law of separation from the Gentiles.
His emphasis of the law introduced the period of legalism and finical interpretation of the letter which called forth some of the bitterest invectives of our Saviour. Specialists of the law known as "scribes" devoted themselves to its study and subtle interpretation, and the pious beheld the highest moral accomplishment in the extremely conscientious observance of every precept. But in opposition to this class, there were those who, influenced by the Hellenistic culture, introduced by the conquests of Alexander the Great, were inclined to a more "liberal" policy. Thus, two opposing parties were developed: the Hellenistic, and the party of the Pious, or the Chasidim, chacidhim (Hasidaeans, 1 Macc 2:42; 7:13), who held fast to the strict ideal of the scribes. The former gradually came into ascendancy. Judea was rapidly becoming Hellenistic in all phases of its political, social and religious life, and the "Pious" were dwindling to a small minority sect. This was the situation when Antiochus Epiphanes set out to suppress the last vestige of the Jewish cult by the application of brute force.
2. Antiochus Epiphanes:
Antiochus IV, son of Antiochus the Great, became the successor of his brother, Seleucus IV, who had been murdered by his minister, Heliodorus, as king of Syria (175-164 BC). He was by nature a despot; eccentric and unreliable; sometimes a spendthrift in his liberality, fraternizing in an affected manner with those of lower station; sometimes cruel and tyrannical, as witness his aggressions against Judea. Polybius (26 10) tells us that his eccentric ideas caused some to speak of him as a man of pure motive and humble character, while others hinted at insanity. The epithet Epiphanes is an abbreviation of theos epiphanes, which is the designation given himself by Antiochus on his coins, and means "the god who appears or reveals himself." Egyptian writers translate the inscription, "God which comes forth," namely, like the burning sun, Horos, on the horizon, thus identifying the king with the triumphal, appearing god.
When Antiochus Epiphanes arose to the throne, Onias III, as high priest, was the leader of the old orthodox party in Judea; the head of the Hellenists was his own brother Jesus, or, as he preferred to designate himself, Jason, this being the Greek form of his name and indicating the trend of his mind. Jason promised the king large sums of money for the transfer of the office of high priest from his brother to himself and the privilege of erecting a gymnasium and a temple to Phallus, and for the granting of the privilege "to enroll the inhabitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch." Antiochus gladly agreed to everything. Onias was removed, Jason became high priest, and henceforth the process of Hellenizing Judea was pushed energetically. The Jewish cult was not attacked, but the "legal institutions were set aside, and illegal practices were introduced" (2 Macc 4:11).
A gymnasium was erected outside the castle; the youth of Jerusalem exercised themselves in the gymnastic art of the Greeks, and even priests left their services at the altar to take part in the contest of the palaestra. The disregard of Jewish custom went so far that many artificially removed the traces of circumcision from their bodies, and with characteristic liberality, Jason even sent a contribution to the sacrifices in honor of Heracles on the occasion of the quadrennial festivities in Tyre.
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
That's usually the way it works. BTW John, Professor Achtemeier isn't merely an "editor" of a magazine but rather the president of the Catholic Biblical Association.
Guilt by association! POOR LOGIC!!!
I dismissed the doctrine you quoted as being from Roman Catholicism, John.
No, it was from the Harper's Bible Dictionary. It is NOT a Catholic dictionary. Your prejudice is showing again!
Um, if it looks like a fish, swims like a fish and in this case smells like a fish, it's most likely a fish.
Would you say that about other sources, also not having anything to do with the RC church, and agreeing with the HBD?
If that be so, then you are hopelessly bigoted. You spew out the term "Roman Catholic" with the same sort of hatred which that a northern cracker does as he slanderously utters the N-word.
Your position is to be pitied for I have respectfully asked you now three times for other Bible Dictionaries saying differently, You have supplied nothing but your prejudice as a response to that.
I ask in all sincerity, and not flaming you nor the SDA church, but is that sort of bigoted hatred that they teach you in Sabbath School and in the pulpits?