Krauthammer: "Gibson's Blood Libel"

Washington Post ^ | Mar. 5, 04 | Charles Krauthammer

[churchillbuff]

Gibson's Blood Libel

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23

Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]

Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.

Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.

[Just mythoughts]

Remember we are told "ask and you shall be given".

Stay in the WORD and our Heavenly Father will send a teacher for help when you need it. Through Christ of course.

I use a Campanion Bible and a Strongs. The Companion is really helpful in that it helps in the side notes to set the stage, connection of scripture and what words mean and usage in the early translation.

What I keep finding is no matter how much I study there are so many pieces of the puzzle still missing.

[Qwinn]

"You issued three unsolicitied personal attacks on me (939, 942, and 979)."

You know, prior to reading this statement, I hadn't read the whole thread, just the last couple pages, but when I saw this, I had to check your references, because I'm always fascinated by what people will call a "personal attack", and how rarely it actually is one.

/rant on

And man, do you exaggerate. For one, post 979 isn't even from sfRummyGirl to you, nor is any neighboring post that I can see. Another "personal attack", apparently, is the response "Balogna. And not the fat free kind" to you putting yourself on a pedestal of tolerance.

That's a personal attack? Man, if you consider that a personal attack, no wonder you think the movie is anti-Semitic. One has to wonder, being how sensitive you are to the slightest slight, how you can miss the massive insult of accusing Christians of being so anti-Semitic that they're just -looking- for a reason to start another pogrom (despite the fact that there's been ONE Passion-inspired murder of a Jew since the Middle Ages, in Germany, and never once in the United States).

Oh, and by the way, I'm agnostic. I don't feel -personally- insulted or offended when I see people act as if most Christians are closet Jew-haters, but I am offended -for- them. I find the more-than-simply-implied insult of the critics to be INFINITELY more hostile and bigoted than anything Gibson has said. Hell, I find it more bigoted than anything Hutton has said. Hutton isn't going around claiming that Jews are closet murderers waiting in the wings for any reason to kill Christians, the way Maureen Dowd and Charles Krauthammer do.

I saw the film for the first time today, and I can tell you that I am now absolutely -repulsed- by the critics of this movie now (the ones charging that it is anti-semitic, that is). They repulse me because they are anti-Christian bigots of the highest order. The claims I have seen made about this movie are of such outrageously false nature that I can see nothing else to explain it but sheer malevolence and -virulent- anti-Christian bigotry.

No, I cannot even -fathom- how anyone can look at this movie and claim anti-Semitism, unless they are themselves -virulently- anti-Christian. I cannot fathom how someone can honestly believe that the Jews were depicted in a worse light than Romans - it's not even -close-. Every single good person in this movie (other than Claudia, who is pagan) is a Jew!!!! I cannot fathom some of the lies I've seen stated, such as the lie I heard on TV that "the movie leaves out Jesus saying "Forgive them" - BULL - he says it THREE TIMES in the movie, more than in the Bible! - or the lie that "Gibson leaves out anything that makes Jews look good" - BULL, he -fabricated- stuff that makes Jews look good that wasn't in the Bible, like some high priests in the sanhedrin defending Jesus!!

The simple fact is, as of seeing that movie today, this agnostic is now far more worried about anti-Christian sentiment on the part of Jews, than of anti-Jewish sentiment on the part of Christians. That has been a result of the demonization and absolutely horrific and vicious propaganda I have seen directed against Gibson and Christians in response to this movie, and how much of it is coming from Jews.

The only thing about this movie that could spur anti-Semitism is the incredibly bigoted behavior of the Jewish critics of this movie (though I realize it's not limited to them). From what I've seen of your posts, you are among them.

Me, I know there's a good number of Jews on this board who have defended Gibson and criticized the critics. I am very grateful for them, because frankly without them, the sheer and malevolent bigotry I've seen directed against Christians (of which I am not, remember) by Jews lately would tempt me to become an anti-Semite - not because they're supposed to be greedy, or because they're supposed to have killed Christ, or any other stereotype - but because so many of them are EVERY BIT the bigots than they accuse Christians of being!

So no, I don't see your criticisms as "trying to sow tolerance", sorry. If you cared about tolerance, you'd be outraged at the lies that have been told about Gibson and this movie, and at least COGNIZANT of the vast collective-guilt implications of the accusations being made. No, what you care about is tolerance for yourself, while incredibly bigoted innuendo, slander and persecution against Christians gets a free pass. That ain't tolerance.

/rant off

Qwinn

[Just mythoughts]

Balaam is about Antisemitism?

Wait a minute this is before the civil war that broke up the houses.

Balaam, so written after the Greek. In Hebrew his name is Bil'am. He was a spiritist or medium. He is identified by Sayce with Bela, Genesis 36:31,32 where Moses incorporates a list of Edomite kings. According to the Tel-el-Amarna tablets he was a Hittite chieftain, who established a kingdom for himself: and he died fighting agains Israel by the side of his Midianite allies.

You are not going to claim that both Houses of Isreal, those of the Northern Kingdom, Christ called them "lost sheep" and the Southern Kingdom have been rejoined now are you? As it is written that will not happen until the second advent of Christ.

This being the case the using Balaam will not fit what you claim.

[AlbionGirl]

I use a Campanion Bible and a Strongs. The Companion is really helpful in that it helps in the side notes to set the stage, connection of scripture and what words mean and usage in the early translation.

I've been using a Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (King James Version), and it too has study aides and references historical usage of words, etc. I also use a Daily Devotional which helps me.

What I keep finding is no matter how much I study there are so many pieces of the puzzle still missing.

True enough, and that's why sometimes historical knowledge can be helpful. But I'm a firm believer that God will assist all who are in the pursuit of knowledge of Him, and asking Him for that help is all you need to do.

[Torie]

Agnostic one gives the film a clean bill of health. Agnostic two has not seen it yet. I am not sure either agnostic knows enough of the nuances of the texts and the religious history, to fathom all the subtleties. But that does not worry me much. The audiences don't either, and the charge is that the audiences, the masses, will be suffused with a bad and bigoted spirit. If they are, it will not be due to Medieval tropes, or subtle changes from the gospels. It will be due to compelling visual images that depict Jews as a people as Satanic and as killers. Absent that, the intellectuals are just full of themselves.

[Just mythoughts]

By the way, since we are doing a little history, whatever happened to Esau? Who are his modern day children?

[af_vet_1981]

Oh, and by the way, I'm agnostic.

I don't have the same expectations of your behavior as those who claim the name.

The only thing about this movie that could spur anti-Semitism is the incredibly bigoted behavior of the Jewish critics of this movie (though I realize it's not limited to them). From what I've seen of your posts, you are among them.

You have called me a bigot. I have not called you a comparable name. In fact, I don't even think I wrote any comments directed to you.

Me, I know there's a good number of Jews on this board who have defended Gibson and criticized the critics. I am very grateful for them, because frankly without them, the sheer and malevolent bigotry I've seen directed against Christians (of which I am not, remember) by Jews lately would tempt me to become an anti-Semite - not because they're supposed to be greedy, or because they're supposed to have killed Christ, or any other stereotype - but because so many of them are EVERY BIT the bigots than they accuse Christians of being!

There really are not that many Jews on this board. Most Jews who participate in the Jewish communities would be shocked at what goes on here and/or it would reinforce their stereotyped perceptions of conservatives, RightWingChristians, whatever label they might use to describe the various folks (many of whom are very good people and inspiring) who read and post on FR. This post of yours would reinforce those stereotypes.

I note that you have seen the movie and it seems to have produced in you much anger and hatred toward those who criticize the movie, especially those who are Jews. In fact you blame said Jews should they become the object of the Antisemitism you write you are tempted to employ. That would seem to put you in an at risk category after you have seen this movie.

[Qwinn]

"I am not sure either agnostic knows enough of the nuances of the texts and the religious history, to fathom all the subtleties."

Agnostic One is quite well versed in his Bible history. Actually, I've had quite a few Catholics on this board state that Agnostic One has a better grasp of Catholic teaching than most Catholics do. (Agnostic One was raised Catholic and became agnostic at 15 years of age)

"It will be due to compelling visual images that depict Jews as a people as Satanic and as killers."

Which, when you see the movie, you will realize is absolutely, overwhelmingly absurd. There is simply no justification for it. The Romans are depicted as 10,000 times worse than any Jew. There is absolutely no way to assume that Christians would hold the Jews responsible, and NOT Italians responsible, unless it is with the specter of "Medieval tropes", as you put it. What is being done is laying collective guilt on all Christians for the sins of their distant ancestors, which is bigotry itself - exactly the same kind of bigotry that Christians are being falsely accused of harboring.

If you don't think people would walk out of Schindler's List wanting to kill Germans - if you don't think people would walk out of the Passion wanting to kill Italians - then there is no way one can glean from this movie that Christians will walk out of it wanting to kill Jews, unless you are possessed of some -extreme- anti-Christian bias.

Qwinn

[Theophilus]

And in the story, they come off rather badly

To some this is just a "story" but to others this is HISTORY. Surely Krauthammer knows that in history and truth, it does not matter who comes off badly.

Romans 11:32 - "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

[af_vet_1981]

By the way, since we are doing a little history, whatever happened to Esau? Who are his modern day children?

Why are you concerned with Esau's descendants ?

• The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
• I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
• And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
• Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.

[Qwinn]

"That would seem to put you in an at risk category after you have seen this movie."

No - it would put me "at risk" after having read the false reviews of said movie. Not one thing in the movie itself made me have any problem with any individual Jew. Reading Krauthammer's review, however, makes me believe that Krauthammer is a Christian-loathing bigot.

Nice try at twisting cause and effect.

Qwinn

[Just mythoughts]

"There really are not that many Jews on this board. Most Jews who participate in the Jewish communities would be shocked at what goes on here and/or it would reinforce their stereotyped perceptions of conservatives, RightWingChristians, whatever label they might use to describe the various folks (many of whom are very good people and inspiring) who read and post on FR. This post of yours would reinforce those stereotypes."

This is a very interesting description which I must inform you that I as a Christian, without seeing that movie has been most enlightening from this side of the fence. I had no idea how much Christians are despised and why because no one will take Christ Himself on with His words.

I must also tell you that I have seen no outrage by those who hold claim of the Torah, and the abominations that occur daily in this Christian nation.

Why no outrage about removal of the TEN COMMANDMENTS?\

Why no outrage about giving sodomy a civil right?

Why no outrage about a court demanding the perversion of the institution of Marriage.

Why no outrage about law breaking by that city by the bay.


No all I hear is outrage about a man, his movie using his Father as a scapegoat. What sin has Mel's father committed and where is it WRITTEN?

[af_vet_1981]

For one, post 979 isn't even from sfRummyGirl to you

Correct, my mistake, change 979 to 939.

No - it would put me "at risk" after having read the false reviews of said movie. Not one thing in the movie itself made me have any problem with any individual Jew. Reading Krauthammer's review, however, makes me believe that Krauthammer is a Christian-loathing bigot. Nice try at twisting cause and effect.

You make a distinction of no difference. You wrote that you just saw the movie and as a result of that viewing you have launched a bitter, hate-filled attack directed primarily against the movie's Jewish critics but also directed against me personally. You wrote you are tempted to Antisemitism now.

[AlbionGirl]

Not only is not anti-semitic, I thought the portrayal of Caiaphas was a bit mercurial. His face seemed to soften as he was witnessing the Scourging of Christ, implying that a bit of compassion was seeping in. But then as soon as he began to try to get Christ to denounce his claim that he was the Messiah and Christ refused, his face became hard again as did his heart. He really didn't come off as totally bad to me or as a one-dimensional character, but instead a hard-headed, powerful mixture of Church and State man.

[Just mythoughts]

Esau was Jacob's twin. The older and the one by tradition to receive the "blessing and the birthright". That event cause a great jealousy among the brothers. Even in the womb our father hated Esau and loved Jacob and it is written.

Now Esau being the brother of Jacob a child of Abraham did not disappear off the face of this earth. Yet I hear none claim heritage from him, just wondered WHY?

[Theophilus]

By the way, since we are doing a little history, whatever happened to Esau? Who are his modern day children?

South Jordan?

Edom, Idumaea, or Idumea, mountainous country, called also Mt. Seir. According to the Book of Genesis, it was given to Esau, also called Edom, and his descendants. It extended along the eastern border of the Arabah valley, from the Dead Sea to Elat. Edomite history was marked by continuous hostility and warfare with Jews, Assyrians, and Syrians. At the end of the 2d cent. B.C., they were subdued by Hasmonaean priest-king John Hyrcanus I, forcibly circumcised, and merged with the Jews. Herod the Great was Idumaean. The Romans grouped Idumaea with Judaea and Samaria in one procuratorship. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Idumaea was included in Arabia Petraea.

[Just mythoughts]

South Jordan?

No not there think brothers jealously and modern day.

[AlbionGirl]

Herod the Great was Idumaean

True. His father was Idumaean and his Mother was an Arab.

[Just mythoughts]

Genesis 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger."


Now if the Promise to Abraham still hold so does this promise to Rebekah wife of Isaac.

[Just mythoughts]

Idumaean should give away who it is, form of that word is used this day.