Posted on 03/05/2004 1:17:40 PM PST by presidio9
It's an age-old story with a modern twist: Even as the boy is being devoured by a real wolf, he continues to point to one that is, if not imaginary, at least toothless.
To some Jews, indirect anti-Semitism is worse than deadly anti-Semitism. Because it's the former that ineffectual groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center can fight. It's rather like looking indoors for a quarter that was lost outdoors — because the lighting is better.
If some Jews were upset over The Passion of the Christ even before seeing it, it's because we gave the exclusive contract on anti-Semitism to Muslims. But why rob Gibson of the benefit of the doubt we gave Arafat? True, the film depicts an imaginatively unflattering Jewish role in Christ's crucifixion — beyond what the Gospels suggest. So yes, Mel Gibson is his father's son. But any Jew who supported the Oslo Peace Process — and there were more of us than readily admit now — should be keeping a low profile amid The Passion. Unless blowing up Jews is more forgivable than Mel's movie. It's certainly easier to point the finger at the Christian, if you want to keep that finger.
When a movie like The Passion of the Christ comes along, it's the professional Jew-defender's dream come true. Mouthing off about Mel is basically a paid vacation for these types, who even with all the Jewish financial contributions from over the years at their disposal weren't doing their job — not during Crown Heights and not during seven years of genocide bombings in Israel leading up to the second Intifada in 2000, which managed to catch them off-guard. Only then did they kick into gear, as unabashed anti-Semitism exploded throughout the Middle East and resurged in Europe. Only then did it occur to organized Jewry that they forgot to equip a generation or two of college students to fight, much less preempt, the anti-Semitism they would encounter at their left-wing college campuses. Where did all that Jewish money go? To the NAACP, gay rights, injured Palestinian children and Albanian Muslims.
One need only look at Elie Wiesel, the picture of timeless Jewish suffering, to understand the farce that is Jewish outrage today. When three genocide bombs went off in a single week in Israel last year, where was Elie? Elie was in Romania, giving a speech to a village to remind them that 60 years ago "Jews were killed here too." Understandably, Wiesel survived a horrific Holocaust experience, but he devotes his energies to past threats, choosing to remain a universally sympathetic figure rather than a useful one. He and the rest spent the past decade looking for cheap Holocaust analogies everywhere except Israel, where a more literal parallel was in the making. These days, these types seem to come out only when it's safe, like when Jesus is involved. Tragically, the Jewish people reserve greater scorn for the guy wanting to save them from hell than the one trying to send them there.
If Jews spent less time worrying about ancient hatreds and more time worrying about the glaring contemporary ones, we wouldn't have come to a point where the legitimacy of Israel's very existence is regularly questioned and where the Jews get blamed when Muslims bomb America. While Jews worry about things like intermarriage, a sleepy KKK, an Austrian named Haider, a second president named Bush, and now a movie about Christ, the real threats spiral out of control.
Despite building careers on six million dead, the professional defenders have shied away from the harder fights. So along comes Mel to give them some relevance and put them back in business.
And to put media indignation over anti-Semitism back in business. Both Mel and the Jews should feel used. There's a reason the controversy got as big as it did. The liberal media acting like they care whether someone is anti-Semitic or not is not only insulting but insidious as well. The plan is to keep the Passion ruckus they raised in their pocket, for fuel in countering accusations of anti-Semitism the next time they diminish terrorism against Israelis, the next time they misrepresent Israeli raids of terror camps as massacres, and the next time they demonize Israelis for building a wall to stay alive. All they'll have to say is: "We can't be anti-Semites. Just look at the hell we gave Mel!" The very fact that the notoriously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel New York Times took the lead a year ago in condemning Gibson's film and family should be telling.
Networks and newspapers are dutifully up in arms over whether a movie will be offensive to Jews, and they give front-page space to recovered paintings stolen from Jews by Nazis, but whom have they let know that the Palestinian Authority televises sermons with titles like "Blessings to Whomever Saved a Bullet to Stick in a Jew's Head"? Or that Mein Kampf hit No. 6 on the Palestinian bestseller list a few years ago? Or that Palestinians brew terror plots against Americans? By the same token, did any reporters take to task antiwar protesters who held up placards comparing Israelis to Nazis? Only the likes of Pat Robertson's 700 Club exposes what the Jew killers are up to week to week.
The elites and their media are using Mel to wash their hands of the Jewish blood they accumulated when their sympathies enabled the violence to escalate from brick-throwing at Israeli soldiers to the first suicide bombing against Israeli civilians in 1994 — and all the bombings since.
The media of the elites know well that it's not the anti-Semitism that yells "Christ killer" which kills today, but their enlightened anti-Semitism and Islamic anti-Semitism that do. Behold the unholy alliance between the two: The Passion is their opportunity to put a rift in the rival alliance between Christians and Jews. It's a chance to further the Left's war against religion, and the Muslims' war against religion that isn't theirs.
By going after The Passion of the Christ the media are using Jews to attack Christianity, the ultimate target of extermination by the Left and its Islamic friends. (Neatly enough, immediately following the Diane Sawyer interview with Mel Gibson, ABC announced a report that thousands more molestations took place within the Catholic Church than previously estimated.)
The feigned indignation over whether Mel Gibson is calling Jews Christ killers is transparent, not to mention ironic. Jesus was a Jew, so calling someone a "Christ killer" is essentially calling him or her a Jew killer.
And the last time I checked, the secular world doesn't have a problem with those.
Looking back in the thread, I cannot see where I made that statement. I can see where I ASKED if the Gospels claimed to record historical events. I don't see where I said they do NOT make that claim. Perhaps you can provide a quote.
OK. Luke claims to be recording historical events. However, we know Luke was not always truthful. In Acts 5, he claims that a false messiah named Theudas is mentioned at the trial of Peter and James. That is impossible. Theudas came too late to have been mentioned at that trial.
BUMP
You line of reasoning all along was based on the fact that the New Testament is historical. The very fact that you would make this argument is laughable. BTW, if you actually had read the New Testament, rather than (I suspect) a couple of books about the New Testament, you would know that this is hardly the only time that they are proclaimed to be truth.
Luke claims to be recording historical events. However, we know Luke was not always truthful. In Acts 5, he claims that a false messiah named Theudas is mentioned at the trial of Peter and James. That is impossible. Theudas came too late to have been mentioned at that trial.
Josepus marks the appearance of Thaudas in 42AD. Peter was martyred in 67AD. Once again you are simply incorrect.
Look, it's been fun, but I can't keep doing this with you. The you obviously have issues, but I simply don't have the time to keep addressing your erroneous points. You are not a good debater, and you are not up to speed on Catholic scripture.
This is not a date, that is a referrence.
Are you saying that the trial of Peter and John was later than 42AD?
And, by the way, how is it that you know when Peter died, but not when Jesus was crucified?
You are merely avoiding the question I asked you as to whether you believe the trial of Peter and John occured after 42 AD.
The fact is it could not have because Caiaphas presides over the trial and Caiaphas left office in 37 AD. Therefore, the trial had to have occured before that. So the trial occured at least 5 years before the Theudas rebellion. The mention of Theudas in Acts 5 is a mistake by Luke.
Answer the following question: If Jesus never existed, as you say, and he was forged into Josephus, as you say, why does he appear in the arabic Josephus? Is it Divine Intervention?
The Arabic version of Josephus is dated about 900 AD. The insertion of the passage about Jesus probably was made sometime in the 300's.
The key point is that Josephus has obviously been tampered with over the years.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Your religion is that of the Antichrist. You are not interested in intellectual honesty, so I see no point in researching your compulsive nitpicks. None of the points you are making are new. People have been attacking Jesus since before they killed him. If your line of questioning is one of intellectual curiosity, your answers are available here. Since your last response is simply another evasion (why would the ARABS have tampered with their text, and if they did, why would they have made ROME the center of Christianity?). I can rightly surmise that were I to continue answering your questions, you would simply try to think of others. Because thats what you do. You hate Christ. Good for you. He loves you anyway, and He still died for you. He has more patience than me however. So I'll be on my way. Have fun with your obsession.
But even if you were trying to convert, so what? People claim to believe in free speech in this country but when it comes to religious free speech they go nuts. They act like it's a violent assault or some kind of hate crime. Everyone has a right to try and covert (if that's their cup of tea) and everyone also has the right to say "no thanks." I never have understood why some people get their knickers all twisted when someone tries to convert them. People come to my door all the time trying to convert me. I shake their hand, take their literature, wish them well, and then go back to what I was doing before they came. But I don't get mad at them. I don't consider their attempts to convert me to be a hate crime. They have their point of view and I have mine. That's life in the big city.
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.