Posted on 02/29/2004 9:16:18 PM PST by SJackson
Wish I wrote it.
Waste of time. Abe Foxman is no more "Jewish" than is Mel Gibson. He is a Marxist, his theology Secular Humanism. Foxman aspires to be the Jewish Jesse Jackson. He is nothing but a fat, self-despising jackal. Real Jews see him for the fraud he is, and continue to forge alliances with Righteous Gentiles who see the common enemy in Islam (the one group that Foxman NEVER criticizes).
Foxman is a JINO. He would bring all Jews to ruin so long as it enriched his bank account. He is to be ignored and ridiculed. Nothing more.
BTTT
Excellent article.
I support Israel. I disagree with essentially everything I hear from the ADL. Does that make me an anti-Semite? Maybe it is the ADL that is really anti-Semitic.
Lousy grammar. Was does not equal "WERE". Idiot. Probably a 22 year old guy who.. never mind. Seen 'em reading and weeping when they push through lines of patient folks waiting to get on the bus.
Wow. You've got the ADL and Fuxman down to a 'T' - in three sentences no less.
Excellent job!
Understanding human nature and all the baggage we carry can go a very long way to understanding this story in its historical context. Jewish religious leaders (during a particular period of political weakness and religious uncertainty) were both worried about the Finger Pointer's impact on the Judeans causing Rome to crack-down, and on Jesus having become more popular than them. They "conveniently" put aside in their own minds the tacky irksomeness of the second issue for the high-minded concern of the first issue. If they were stronger in popularity, character and faith they would not have done it. (It was as if a ram had never been provided Abraham to spare Isaac -- specifically, innocents are not to be sacrificed for the guilty.)
But their reaction is understandable. It's a natural offshoot of any who are in position of authority and fearful of losing it.
What they did was in keeping with the patterns of their Roman overlords. They employed a very Roman method for ridding themselves of both problems. No, I don't mean the crucifixion, I mean employing a mob to make it appear that Jesus' removal was widely popular.
Now, next, is a very important element to consider. What is so smarmy about Pilate's role in all this, and normally ignored, for it depends a good deal on how one reads the words of the gospels, and it is very helpful to know Roman history when you do.
First off, Pilate certainly knew (just as most of us today could not know unless we studied Roman History) how Romanesque was the mob which demanded Jesus' execution.
It was thru the employ of the mob that Rome herself had been transformed by politically astute and ambitious schemers from a Republic (that thoroughly hated Kings) to a Dictatorship.
Since the Roman Emperor continued to cultivate its own rabble in order to retain control, Pilate almost certainly knew the Jewish Priests were following the Roman pattern. It can be read that he was needling them with his "But this man has committed no crime. I can see no guilt in him." After all, it is Jewish law which centers itself around God-based morally, not the whim of an Emperor. In light of this, I think anyone could see that Pilate's comments were quite urbane and cynical, a proudly Roman tradition by this time.
Those who despise the United States have been trying to use mobs to undermine us too. A good reason to suppress knowledge of the Bible and any of its stories, not just this one, is the same reason history courses have been revised. A populace unfamiliar with history is more easily led down old roads to enslavement.
Lately, Yasser Arafat has taken to declaring that the original inhabitants of Israel were Palestinians. But there are no Palestinians in Gibson's Jerusalem, just as there were none in the Gospels. Jesus and his disciples are as Israeli as Ariel Sharon.
The Arabs are still 600 miles and 600 years from the Holy Land.
If the Anti-Defamation League were smart, it would stop bugging Mel Gibson for an apology and ask instead for a couple hundred copies of the movie."
I'm glad to see someone else noticed this!
The New Testament does NOT try to "discredit" Judaism. Christianity is built on the foundation of Judaism. If we were to "discredit" our foundation, then the structure built upon it is weak and will not stand.
There were debates early in the history of the church about not including the Old Testament in the Bible of the new church... obviously that did not happen.
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.