Obama Embraces Anti-Semites and Racists while NJDC berates Hagee
No complaints from “Jewish” Democrats while Obama promotes and enables anti-Semites, racists, and Catholic-hating bigots
by Bill Levinson
Linda Berg of the National Jewish Democratic Council (double oxymoron, there is very little Jewish or Democratic about it) wrote the following in “It took a lot for McCain to Finally Reject Hagee’s Endorsement.”
It took a You Tube vido of Rev. John Hagee proclaiming that Hitler and the Holocaust had been part of G*d’s plan to get the Jews out of Europe and into Israel for McCain yesterday to finally reject his endorsement.
We understand where Hagee is coming from, not that we like where he is going. Many Christians of Hagee’s persuasion also believe that it was God’s plan to have Christians thrown to lions to bring pagan Romans over to Jesus. (Larry Gonick’s “Cartoon History of the Universe” shows a Christian practically jumping down a lion’s throat, whereupon a Roman asks, “How do they DO that?” His neighbor says, as if mesmerized, “Must–find–out.”) Nonetheless, if Hagee’s statement requires this kind of explanation, which is not particularly appealing either, McCain is better off without any ties to it. Now let us get back to questions that we are on record as asking the National Jewish Democratic Council, and that have not been answered. What will it take to get Barack Obama to finally reject his entourage of racists, anti-Semites, Catholic-hating bigots, and terrorist sympathizers?
Linda Berg complains, “”It took a lot for McCain to Finally Reject Hagee’s Endorsement.” We note that, not only did McCain not join Hagee’s church or remain in it for twenty years while Hagee and his official newsletter spewed blood libels of Israel and the United States (Hagee did neither, we are comparing him to Jeremiah Wright), and worse. McCain did not ask for Hagee’s endorsement the way Obama has solicited Al Sharpton and MoveOn.org Now let’s see what it took to get Barack Obama to reject the endorsement of the prominent racist, anti-Semite, and Catholic-hating bigot Louis Farrakhan.
Transcript of Democratic debate in Ohio. Note how Obama equivocates over Farrakhan’s endorsement until backed into a corner.
-
TIM RUSSERT: On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
Note Obama’s long and mealymouthed reply when a simple “No” would have sufficed, and should have been forthcoming before Obama was even asked.
- MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
Russert asked a very simple and straightforward question, to which any man or woman of character would have replied “YES.” Instead, Obama gave another long and mealymouthed reply, like the phony smile and empty speech that he is.
- MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”
[material deleted without loss of continuity with regard to Farrakhan]
…HILLARY CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. [This is a politician's polite way of saying that her opponent is so full of excrement that she could probably sell Obama's services as a walking manure cart to half the farmers in Ohio.] But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
If, as Linda Berg said, “It took a lot for McCain to Finally Reject Hagee’s Endorsement,” how much did it take to get Obama to reject the endorsement of a vicious racist, Catholic-hating bigot, and anti-Semite? The answer is that Obama had to be cornered like a rat in front of millions of people, and someone who does the right thing only when he is cornered is totally unfit to hold any position of public trust or responsibility.
It is also a matter of record that Barack Hussein Obama was asked to reject the endorsement of Michael Moore and MoveOn.org because of their insults to our Armed Forces and even sympathy for our country’s enemies. Moore’s Web site calls the terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform “Minutemen.”
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?
Now let’s take a look at what it took to get Barack Hussein Obama to distance himself from Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright. NJDC’s Linda Berg is welcome to weigh in on this at any time (just register to post at this blog, or reply at NJDC’s own taqqiya du jour page).
- (1) Wright’s known association with Louis Farrakhan–he accompanied him to Libya to visit Moammar Khadafy–did not stop Obama from joining his church.
(2) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright blood libeled the United States with a false accusation that it developed the AIDS virus.
(3) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright published a guest column that blood libeled Israel with a false accusation that it developed an “ethnic bomb” to kill Negroes and Arabs.
(4) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright published a guest column from a Hamas terrorist named Marzook.
(5) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright wrote “state” of Israel, as in “so-called state of Israel.”
(6) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright published a “War in Iraq” IQ test that equated the United States to Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
(7) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright said that America got a “wake up call” on 9/11.
(8) Obama stayed in this church when it gave Louis Farrakhan a Trumpet award.
(9) Obama stayed in this church when Jeremiah Wright called upon God to damn America.
Obama turned on Jeremiah Wright only when Wright implied that Obama would say whatever he had to say (i.e. condemning Wright’s hateful rhetoric) to get elected, which is ironic because Obama dumped Wright for telling the truth. He had no problem with Wright’s lies about Israel and the United States.
NJDC says, “It took a lot for McCain to Finally Reject Hagee’s Endorsement,” but let’s take a look at who solicited and accepted the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We encourage our readers to download, copy, and circulate this image. The spittle on General Petraeus’ uniform and service ribbons belongs to Barack Obama as much as it does to Eli Pariser (aka Eli Parasite, payback for “General Betrayus”). The mere idea of any man or woman in uniform having to address Obama as “Sir” should be repulsive to all decent Americans.
In addition, we think that all Catholic voters should see this:
while Jewish voters need to see this:
NJDC says, “It took a lot for McCain to Finally Reject Hagee’s Endorsement,” but John McCain never said, “Pastor Hagee is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What Hagee’s church has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.” Even if he had, Hagee’s rhetoric never hurt anyone. Al Sharpton damaged people’s lives in Wappingers Falls NY (Tawana Brawley scandal) and his hate speech played an indirect role in fomenting two violent hate crimes (Crown Heights riot, arson of Freddy’s Fashion Mart).
Barack Obama appeared with Sharpton at the National Action Network, where he said, ““Reverend Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up.” Fred Siegel’s outstanding “Democrats Embrace ‘Impresario of Hatred’” shows what Sharpton and the National Action Network have done to change America from the bottom up.
It would have taken no great effort for the reporters covering the Apollo debate to have walked across 125th Street from the theater to visit Freddy’s Fashion Mart, where in 1995 eight people died in a murderous rampage inspired by Mr. Sharpton. Mr. Sharpton is best-known for the Tawana Brawley hoax, in which he insisted that a 15-year-old black girl had been abducted and raped by a band of white men practicing Irish Republican Army rituals. In fact she had made up the story to protect herself from her violent stepfather. But at Freddy’s, Mr. Sharpton was even more malevolent. He turned a landlord-tenant dispute between the Jewish owner of Freddy’s and a black subtenant into a theater of hatred. Picketers from Mr. Sharpton’s National Action Network, sometimes joined by “the Rev.” himself, marched daily outside the store, screaming about “bloodsucking Jews” and “Jew bastards” and threatening to burn the building down. After weeks of increasingly violent rhetoric, one of the protesters, Roland Smith, took Mr. Sharpton’s words about ousting the “white interloper” to heart. He ran into the store shouting, “It’s on!” He shot and wounded three whites and a Pakistani, whom he apparently mistook for a Jew. Then he set the fire, which killed five Hispanics, one Guyanese and one African-American–a security guard whom protesters had taunted as a “cracker lover.” Smith then fatally shot himself.
Perhaps the National “Jewish” Democratic Council can tell us “bloodsucking Jews,” “Jew bastards,” “crackers,” and “white interlopers” why we should not vote for John McCain. Perhaps Ira Forman, who used his organization’s nominally Jewish identity to whitewash MoveOn.org’s vicious anti-Semitic hate speech, can tell us why we should not call upon God to BLESS America while voting for John McCain. Perhaps NJDC can explain to Catholic voters why they should support Obama after Obama promoted an organization, MoveOn.org, that published a derogatory photomanipulation of the Pope waving a gavel in front of the United States Supreme Court. While they are at it, they can tell members of our Armed Forces, and everyone who supports our Armed Forces, why they shouldn’t vote for a decorated Navy Captain over an individual who promotes and enables vicious and defamatory insults to senior Army officers while cheerleading for the terrorists who are murdering our soldiers. If NJDC can’t do these things, perhaps NJDC should just sit down and shut up.
Bill, I disagree with you. McCain need not throw Hagee under the bus as Obama was forced to do with his anti-Semitic pastor. Hagee’s view of the Holocaust is little different from view expressed in Israel by Orthodox rabbis. All John McCain needed to do was to say, “I do not agree with Hagee on (this or that specific) statement.” Instead McCain rejected the support of millions of pro-Israel Christians. Why should conservative Christians vote for John McCain Bill?
Why did McCain reject Parsley’s endorsement? Because Parsley rightly believes Islam is an inherently violent religious tradition from its inception.
Bill, please.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 27, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Well it would appear Joseph Farah agrees with you Bill. Still, I don’t think Hagee’s views on the Holocaust (albeit controversial) are that unusual. I am no fan of Hagee’s. I think his commitment to Israel is weak. But let’s not confuse Hagee with Reverend Wright.
Farah wrote:
Comment by Steve Klein — May 27, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Farah:
Comment by Steve Klein — May 27, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
http://www.ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2008/May/26%20o/CAIR%20Calls%20on%20McCain%20to%20Renounce%20Second%20Bigoted%20Pastor,%20Welcomes%20his%20Rejection%20of%20John%20Hagee%20Endorsement.htm
CAIR Calls on McCain to Renounce Second Bigoted Pastor, Welcomes his Rejection of John Hagee Endorsement
CAIR, May 26, 2008
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today welcomed Sen. John McCain’s rejection of bigoted Texas pastor John Hagee’s endorsement, and called on the presidential candidate to “unequivocally distance himself” from Ohio pastor Rod Parsley…..
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.210/pub_detail.asp
May 27, 2008
Cair’s ‘Reject and Renounce’ HypocrisyPrint This
E-mail This
Steve Emerson
News broke last Thursday that Republican presidential nominee John McCain had rejected the support and endorsement of Texas-based pastor John Hagee when controversial remarks Hagee made about Hitler and the Holocaust came to light. In a sermon from the late 1990s circulating on the Internet, Hagee used a biblical verse to argue that the Holocaust was God’s will, paving the way for the creation of Israel as a homeland for the Jews.
Sen. McCain’s move comes on the heels of the controversy surrounding his presumed Democratic opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Several of Wright’s sermons, seen by many as anti-American and anti-Israel, circulated on YouTube and the cable news networks for weeks, eventually leading Obama to distance himself from Wright.
In a Democrat presidential debate, Obama’s opponent, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, famously asked Obama to “reject and renounce” Rev. Wright. In fact, the phrase “reject and renounce” has become part of the political landscape, as opponents seek to find any damning associations to tar their opponents.
Ever the opportunist, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped into the fray, issuing a press release Thursday calling on McCain to “Renounce Second Bigoted Pastor.” The second pastor is Rod Parsley of Ohio, who has said that America’s role as a nation is to destroy Islam (word is that McCain is also distancing his campaign from Parsley) The release included these statements from CAIR’s National Legislative Director Corey Saylor:
“Senator McCain said he chose to reject Reverend Hagee’s support after learning some of the hateful comments he has made. With similar disturbing statements by Reverend Parsley circulating widely on the Internet, it’s time for the senator to renounce the endorsement of this second bigoted pastor.
“Millions of American Muslims may feel unsafe knowing that a candidate for the highest office in the country would embrace a man who demonizes them as “spiritually evil” and believes our country was founded, in part, to destroy their faith.
And in possibly the most unintentionally ironic moments in CAIR’s history, Saylor continued:
“In the interest of best positioning any future administration to defeat the narrative of anti-American extremists, we call on Senator McCain to unequivocally distance himself from Pastor Rod Parsley.”
Long time CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper echoed Saylor’s call on CNN, stating:
It was shocking to hear that Senator McCain would associate himself with someone who holds such bigoted views against Muslims and Islam.
Leaving aside for the moment Hooper’s hypocritical smear of “guilt by association” (a frequent charge leveled by CAIR officials against its critics), what is not shocking is CAIR’s ties to, and embrace of, controversial and hateful Muslim clerics.
Most notably, CAIR has defended leading Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi is banned from traveling both to the United States and the United Kingdom because of the many controversial, pro-terrorism, pro-suicide bombing remarks he has made.
Qaradawi issued a fatwa in 2003 stating, “Those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs given their good intentions since they consider these invading troops an enemy within their territories but without their will,” and Qaradawi also stated, “Although they are seen by some as being wrong, those defending against attempts to control Islamic countries have the intention of Jihad and bear a spirit of the defense of their homeland.”
Furthermore, Qaradawi has criticized various Muslim clerics who speak out against suicide bombings, stating, “I am astonished that some sheikhs deliver fatwas that betray the mujahideen, instead of supporting them and urging them to sacrifice and martyrdom.” On a ruling on the subject issued by the imam of Mecca’s Grand Mosque, al-Qaradawi said, “It is unfortunate to hear that the grand imam has said it was not permissible to kill civilians in any country or state, even in Israel.” This shows that Qaradawi is more extreme than a top Wahhabi cleric, yet that has not stopped CAIR from defending him wholeheartedly.
And what does CAIR have to say about Qaradawi? On July 26, 2005, in an interview on MSNBC, CAIR’s legal director Arsalan Iftikhar said:
For example, if you look at Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the - one of the most famous Muslim scholars in Cairo, Egypt, he has said unequivocally that people who commit suicide bombings and - and acts of terror are completely outside the bounds of Islam.
A famous scholar who is against suicide bombings. Right. At a 2002 CAIR fundraiser in Southern California, local CAIR executive director Hussam Ayloush referred to Qaradawi in the same vein, invoking him as a “scholar” who has approved Islamic charitable donations for CAIR:
Several people were asking about the eligibility claim for CAIR. And according to many scholars including Yusuf Qaradawi, basically this is one of the venues of Zakat for your money as vis a vis basically educating about Islam in America and the West.
And Qaradawi’s extremism doesn’t end there. The Associated Press quoted Qaradawi as writing, “There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords.” And, commenting on suicide bombings in April 2001, Qaradawi stated, “They are not suicide operations…These are heroic martyrdom operations.” In 2004, regarding the permissibility of female suicide bombers, al-Qaradawi encouraged such acts, stating, “The martyr operations is [sic] the greatest of all sorts of Jihad in the Cause of Allah.”
On his program on the Al-Jazeera satellite network, Qaradawi endorsed the practice of wife-beating, saying “There is a woman who cannot agree to being beaten, and sees this as humiliation, while some women enjoy the beating and for them, only beating to cause them sorrow is suitable…” (For much more on Qaradawi, read our profile).
And Qaradawi is not the only extremist cleric embraced by CAIR generally, and Ayloush specifically. At a 1998 event co-sponsored by CAIR in Brooklyn, radical Hamas-linked cleric Wagdy Ghoneim told the audience in Arabic, “The Jews distort words from their meanings. . . . They killed the prophets and worshipped idols. . . . Allah says he who equips a warrior of Jihad is like the one who makes Jihad himself.” Ghoneim then led the crowd in an anti-Semitic song with the lyrics:
No to the Jews
Descendants of the Apes
Years later, when Ghoneim avoided forced deportation from the United States by volunteering to leave the country, Ayloush, who had vigorously championed Ghoneim’s immigration battle, referred to the situation as a “dent in our civil rights struggle.”
CAIR’s hypocrisy on this matter could not be more evident. And regardless of what Sens. McCain and Obama do or say with respect to their spiritual advisors, the last organization that should be taken seriously on this matter is CAIR. That point was not lost on CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who had a pointed challenge for the network reporter on the story:
My question is why would we even be quoting them? They’re not exactly the pristine representatives of the Muslim people in this country, are they?
Unless and until CAIR rejects and renounces its own embrace of vile, pro-terrorism and hateful brand of preachers, no one should treat CAIR as a legitimate “civil rights” organization, and CAIR should continue to be viewed for what it is, a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group, currently an un-indicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing case.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 27, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Hagee’s God “allowed” (not caused) the Holocaust view is also pretty mainstream in conservative evangelicalism (McCain’s own church probably holds to this same view–a “high view” of God’s sovereignty, theodicy), and our silence to defend Hagee should not be taken to mean we disagree w/him on this point, some (I think most) of us dislike Hagee for altogether other reasons. It’s kind of ironic, though, that many of us criticized Hagee after his last book for mischaracterizing Jesus and he was confronted and given opportunity to repent (but instead just offered unsatisfactory cosmetic responses) and now he’s being mischaracterized. Weird, the two things he actually is sort of right on, (1)that God really is in control, and (2) that we are called to love and support the Jewish people, gets him in trouble, while his wackier, more heretical ideas aren’t even being mentioned. (The Tanakh, btw, has an entire book that’s pretty much devoted to just this question about how/why God could let such evil happen, it’s called Habakkuk, is only 3 chapters long and is in the Nevi’im.)
Comment by soren — May 27, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Steve Klein wrote,
I actually agree with this, but Parsley should have qualified his remarks as I do: “Islam 2.0,” as practiced by millions of peaceful Muslims around the world, is not violent. The problem is “Islam 1.0″ (as Mohammed taught it to get people to kill and die for him). It is important to point this out to avoid attacking people who should not be attacked or condemned.
Comment by Bill Levinson — May 27, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
With rare and miniscule exceptions, there is no “Islam 2.0″. And these exceptions are to Islam as Reform and Conservative are to Judaism, i.e., they’re wishful thinking. Except that in Judaism, the majority have stumbled down to these, while this is not so for the Muslim majority.
As for “millions of peaceful Muslims”, everyone’s still waiting for them to march in a massive (20 protesters or more) “Not In Our Name” march.
Read Robert Spencer’s article What is a moderate Muslim.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 28, 2008 @ 4:37 am
I believe he is right Bill.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 5:43 am
McCain in distancing himself from Hagee and Parsley so quickly, not only cut off his nose to spite his face, but has given reason to question his judgment.
Prudence and common sense would have dictated McCain, before taking a position would have first sought out whether Hagee still believes in his words uttered in a sermon in the early 1990’s and whether Parsley’s words that appeared to be directed against all of Islam and Muslims, was more of a mispeak in that he was referring only to radical Islam and Islamists.
After McCain denounced the endorsements of Parsley and Hagee, Parsely made a clear statement he was only speaking of radical Islam. As for Hagee, I am not sure what he said.
Nonetheless, McCain’s snap decision to distance himself from Hagee and Parsley has not only opened him up criticism for lacking in judgment, but he may well have lost most of the 50 million Christian Evangelicals who would have otherwise voted for him.
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 28, 2008 @ 8:46 am
What Hagee said about the Holocaust, albeit controversial, is little different from what some rabbis in Israel have said over the years; they’ve roundly condemned for these statements. I believe the late Harav Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal put forth this theistic view in his seminal “Eim Habannim Semeichah on Eretz Yisrael, Redemption and Unity.”
Beyond that, I think this has more to do with Hagee’s, Parsley’s and CUFI’s dissent from Republican party policy with respect to Israel. Since 9/11, President George W. Bush made the establishment of a Palestinian (no doubt terrorist) state in the Holy Land a formal goal of U.S. policy. Bush had this immoral language codified in our 2004 national party platform for the first time in the history of the GOP; Republicans commend Israel for her willingness to forcibly remove Jews from what the administration has come to accept as a judenrein (Jew-free) Muslim Arab state. John McCain also supports this immoral policy. Hagee and Parsley do not.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 10:36 am
In support of Steve’s thought that the attack on Hagee, Parsley and CUFI is about their pro-Israel/anti-Annapolis positions, BINGO! At least a year ago or more, back when I was supporting Mike Huckabee for the Republican nominee, I noticed a concerted effort by the neo-nazis, white supremacists, Ron Paulians and replacement theology (anti-Israel) denomination websites develop about how to defeat Huckabee precisely because of his support for Israel (and they said they’d use Hagee against Huckabee, because they wrongly assumed Hagee would back Huckabee), then when Huckabee got out and McCain got the endorsements of the Christian Zionists, these same anti-Israel antisemites took all the exact same standard anti-Christian Zionist arguments (i.e., the Christian Zionists don’t love Israel, they hate her and want her destroyed in judgment, they are antisemites!)and applied them to McCain’s CUFI endorsers. Thus the antisemites who so hate Israel turned truth on its head and painted the pro-Israel people as the antisemites! They often go so far as to take Jewish names when they do this, they’re obsessed.
Comment by soren — May 28, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Steve Klein & Soren, American politics is not all about Israel. The two of you remind me of the story of a teacher asking her students to write an essay about an elephant and the Jewish student wrote of “The Elephant and the Jewish Problem”.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 28, 2008 @ 11:59 am
I see nothing wrong with Hagees concept that the Jews were murderd as a means of getting jews to the Land of Israel. God gave man free choice, to choose blessings or curses, jews choose curses and stayed in and clung to the Diaspora even when it was possible to go to the land of Israel reasonably in safety. Jabotinski, Hillel cook and many others went from community to community and warned the Jews to leave Europe when it was still possible to do so. Their leaders laughed at these warnings, their Rabbis told their communities to stay put and most obeyed and stayed put. the few who left and got out of Europe most to Palestine and America were saved but for most of the others they were murdered. Was God behind this and waere the Germans the instruments? would Israel have been created were it not for the holocaust? Many see in the events taking place before our eyes Gods hand and a living great miracle happening before our eyes others give credit to chance and happenstance etc.
We’re always the victims. We’re always the ones that are oppressed. Always the ones first to be slaughtered. Israel is like the weak policeman that is always shot and targeted at. And we don’t bring justice, nor do we punish. People laugh at us because we speak a lot and do nothing. They hate us because we tell them how to live, and teach them goodness, yet we fear evil and appease the wicked. They say Israel has no authority, because we act like cowards and live as victims. So why should they listen to us and give credence to our teachings, when they know we don’t have any power and refuse to defend even our own people? In the end they always get sick of us, our frailty, our hesitence, and our inefficiency, and revert to their animal instincts. Like the german germs that rose up against us and slaughtered more than one third of our nation (more than Six Million Souls). And what did we do? Did we avenge the deaths of our brothers? Did we execute justice and condemn the evil? No. Instead we appeased the germans and blessed them with kindness and sympathy (sympathy for what, I have no idea).
The germans laugh at us because they escaped judgement, while Israel and Zionism is likened to nazism. This is the biggest absurdity the world has seen. The germans mock us and pretend to be good. They give us money, in the form of reperation payments, as if to buy “indulgances.” They pay us off to shut us up. As if to say, “look we’re sorry, what can we do? We give you money, now don’t bother us anymore.” As if to say, “all these Jews care about is money. We pay them a few dollars here and there, and already they forget and treat us like friends, even after having killed Six Million of their brothers.” And these germs come to Israel in large numbers. They send their missionaries and their pilgrims. They sing their german songs and speak their words of germs, expecting us to treat them hospitably and welcome them and their forgetful attitude. And what’s disgusting is that we do, and we treat them at times better than our own people. Instead of being punished, evil has been rewarded.
Comment by yamit82 — May 28, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Bill, you cannot possibly be this foolish or this ill-informed. The American people, by and large, are not concerned about Israel, true. I know this to be a fact from personal experience. I am a fairly regular caller on conservative talk radio, both local and national. Most listeners are not up to speed on the region, on the conflict or the history of the conflict and they are generally unconcerned. Perhaps this applies to you as well. Otherwise, why would you make such a statement?
American politicians, on the other hand, are very much concerned with Israel as well as the region. Because the average Joe does not understand the importance of the region and the conflict to his or her daily life, to world security, etc., does not make this so with elected officials like Mr. Bush and appointed officials like Dr. Rice and the U.S. State Department. Mr. Bush has invested enormous political capital on Israel and the region. Perhaps you are not aware Bill, how much political capital this administration has squandered on the region.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Pardon me Bill. You wrote:
On this, we agree. Increasingly, the Middle East and Israel will become even more of a focus of American politics as the years go by. If there is any truth at all to be found in the ancient prophets of Israel, this will also come to pass.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Narvey you are mistaken everything in the world happens to or because of the Jews.
Gen. 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’
The Book of Deuteronomy
Main Page
.
Chapter 28
1: And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I commandthee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
2: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearkenunto the voice of the LORD thy God.
3: Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.
4: Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
5: Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.
6: Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
7: The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.
8: The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
9: The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.
10: And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
11: And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruitof thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
12: The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand:and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
13: And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, whichI command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
14: And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
15: But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
16: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18: Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
19: Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
20: The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thouperish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hastforsaken me.
21: The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
22: The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
23: And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
24: The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
25: The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
26: And thy carcass shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.
27: The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
28: The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
29: And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.
30: Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt notdwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
31: Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have noneto rescue them.
32: Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long; and there shall be no might in thine hand.
33: The fruit of thy land, and all thy labors, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:
34: So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
35: The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
36: The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thouserve other gods, wood and stone.
37: And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.
38: Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.
39: Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them.
40: Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.
41: Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
42: All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.
43: The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44: He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
45: Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:
46: And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.
47: Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things;
48: Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.
49: The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
50: A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favor to the young:
51: And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.
52: And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shallbesiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
53: And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thydaughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
54: So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:
55: So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
56: The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of herbosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
57: And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shalleat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
58: If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious andfearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;
59: Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.
60: Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.
61: Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
62: And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.
63: And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
64: And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto theother; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thyfathers have known, even wood and stone.
65: And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give theethere a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind:
66: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assuranceof thy life:
67: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
68: And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.
Comment by yamit82 — May 28, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
This is central to my worldview. But alas, this is not the worldview of George W. Bush, John McCain, the Republican party or of most Americans. Nations ignore this warning / pledge at their peril.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Yamit and Steve, so you are saying there is a problem with the Elephant and the Jews?
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 28, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
California just legalized gay marriages, next comes polygamy, why not? bestiality shouldn’t be a problem either heh ea. to his own , those poor sheep and cows but I am sure animal rights groups would howl over that one. I think America is going to the dogs,er sheep? I bet the Jooos are leading the pack on these issues ! Dumb Americans don’t know that with negative natural population growth it is the Mexicans that will save the American social security as they will produce those who will pay for the
future social security. Obama is right in that America as the largest users and squanderers of the earths natural resources,and also legislated against maintaining necessary supply of fossil fuels , and allowed big oil companies and speculators to drive the prices through the roof and I understand it isn’t yet at peak highs. Food is rising and the dollar is worth shit anyplace you go. The Jews will be blamed for all of Americas woes sooner or later, I look to see a convergence of common cause between the wacko American right and the wacko liberal left in America making common cause in blaming the Jews and they would be all at least partially correct. The Muslims will be accepted as a peaceful religion and Americans always considerate will allow them to dictate much of American limitations of ethnic social correctness. Foot baths in every school and public institution. Halal menus in public eateries. Fri, an officially designated day of rest and no Muslim can legally be made to work on Fri. In a way the Jews are deserving of being singled out by just about everybody and all from different points of view and ideologies in that most have chosen to be too visable in the wrong causes at the wrong time and most won’t know what hit them one the full force of American displeasure with them finds some unifying reasson and or leader to point them out. They are always on the wrong side of any issue the side not Jewish.
Comment by yamit82 — May 28, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/15/throwing-stones-at-john-hagee/
Throwing stones at John Hagee
Thursday, May 15, 2008
New York Times column, Frank Rich recently painted a persuasive portrayal of high-profile evangelical Christian minister John Hagee as a nutty anti-Catholic bigot who does not like Jews, either. Simply put, it is a lie. Certain facts cited are, in fact, true. The most damning “facts,” however, are not. Therein lies the problem.
Mr. Rich flipped the truth on its head — and it would stretch credulity to think he made an honest mistake. In the YouTube video the Times columnist parades as evidence of bigotry, Mr. Hagee is actually doing what he has done for decades: combating anti-Semitism. In other words, Mr. Rich branded Mr. Hagee a bigot when, in fact, he was actually fighting bigotry….
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/15/throwing-stones-at-john-hagee/
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Sad but true.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 28, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Bill, one thing to remember about Israel and American Politics is that for those for whom Israel and/or Jews are an issue (and I’m thinking not just of the philosemites , but even more of the antisemites), because of the intensity of their obsession, their hate, these voices are disproportionately influential in the aggressive attacks against any candidate that appears (emphasis on appears, since I don’t think McCain is the more pro-Israel candidate) pro-Israel. Just sayin’, it’s not all about raw numbers, there’s an intensity factor. Plus, I followed the anti-Huckabee and anti-McCain websites all along and saw this building, and it was for anti-Israel reasons, definitely.
Comment by soren — May 28, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
You are wasting your time guys.
Levinson is a hard case. Not interested in discussion. He meets opposition he laughs at you and just does another post…see above!!!
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 29, 2008 @ 6:16 am
I’m a strong Christian Zionist and I want to clear up a common misconception.
It’s often stated that our “agenda” is to expedite/hope for/create the conditions for/advocate policies leading to… the coming war that is to take place in Israel so that many Jews will be killed and the rest of them become Christians and everyone lives happily after.
It’s true that I believe that a future war will take place, in Israel, and that many Jews (and others) will die, and that the ones that get through will recongize Jesus as thier Messiah , though the Jewish people maintain their nationality and special heritage.. They don’t become Gentile Christians.
It is not true that we are manipulating our relationship with Israel to cause this to happen.
If anyone wanted to “speed up” the coming of the End Time, then it requires an Israel in distress, a weak Israel, a threatened Israel. The End Time Israel is on the verge of destruction.
So… if someone wanted to get Israel in that condition , would one be in favor of israel having a strong military… israel having secure borders… Israel not under threat by Arabs within and without its borders?
These are all positions that Christians in the US advocate for Israel. There’s nothign more I want than for Israel to carpet bomb Gaza. Gaza is 1/2 half the size of the City of Chicago. It could be over in one day.
What are the policies that the “normal?” typical Leftist / Internationalist advocate for Israel? Every increasingly suicidal concessions to Jihadi Palestinians.. holding onto the fantasy that the Arabs want peace.. giving up land.. giving up the Temple Mount .. etc..
I dont know any Immiment End Time-Believing Christians who wants or is working for a weak Israel… the End Time Israel.
Frankly I’m baffled what has happend to Israel since the Gaza pullout… they seem completely demoralized.
How many times does Israel have to do these stupid things so that the world could see that it’s really the Arabs who are not peacefull. I think I remember in 2000 when the Oslo War started after the failure of the peace talks “The world sees clearly now.. Israel was ready to do anything for Peace and the arabs still attack”
Then i hear after the Gaza pullout “The world sees clearly now.. Israel was ready to do anything for Peace and the arabs still attack”
And now they’re saying it again ! Madness.
Of course my American govt is just as mad. But I rather not get into that.. I can only type so many depressing things at a time.
It’s the non-eschatological people who will cause Israel to reach the weak dispair that we find in the End Time. Not Christian Zionists.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 6:19 am
But I must say for sheer cyunicism towards the American ordinary people it is hard to beat Yamit82
So why then bother Yamit82!!!
You are full of contempt for the American people are you not!
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 29, 2008 @ 6:19 am
All the same Steve you hit the nail on the head in relation to Levinson and his version 2.0 of Islam.
Levinson has a soft spot for Islam and he certainly has for the Vatican see his photo above of the Pope. Move On was totally correct on that WAS IT NOT?
So despite all his mouthings about Obama Levinson is soft on Islam! Well well well!
To know how correct examine the alliance between US Imperialism and Vatican in war on Vietnam, with reference in particular to the cult of Fatima.
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 29, 2008 @ 6:22 am
We now can see a little clearer the real position of Levinson in his campaign for McCain and Lieberman for Presidency.
Because if ever there was an historical precedent for McCain and US Imperialism working with Iran, NOT EVER TO BOMB IRAN, it was in Yugoslavia, and McCaion Lieberman are the enemies of the Jews full stop.
So Levinson makes out a case for Islam version 2.0
That is the way into apologetic for the role of US in Yugoslavia, or they pretended there was a version 2.0
In fact we only had Tudjman Fascism, Izetbegovic Islamofascism and Kosovan stalinism cum Islam FULL VERSION
February, 19, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - As we predicted in a 2005 piece, 10 Years And Counting - Still No Exit Plan From Clinton Created, European Al-Qaeda Base the radical Muslim game plan in the former Yugoslavia, which was evident from the mid 1990s has now been realized by what is perhaps George Bush’s most serious foreign policy error, the recognition of an illegal and radical Muslim state in East Central Europe - Kosovo.
As has been the case in most of America’s blunders regarding radical Islam, the United States embarked upon this disastrous path under the Clinton administration:
“Ignored by the leftist participants in rage-filled street demonstrations is the fact that the Clinton team’s Balkan policies were viewed by establishment politicians as so outside the normal confines of American diplomacy that the actions of the US Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith and then NSC Director Anthony Lake were referred to the Justice Department by the House of Representative for possible criminal action.
“…The Iranian presence and influence [in Bosnia] jumped radically in the months following the [Clinton] green light. Iranian elements infiltrated the Bosnian government and established close ties with the current leadership in Bosnia and the next generation of leaders. Iranian Revolutionary Guards accompanied Iranian weapons into Bosnia and soon were integrated in the Bosnian military structure from top to bottom as well as operating in independent units throughout Bosnia. The Iranian intelligence service [VEVAK] ran wild through the area developing intelligence networks, setting up terrorist support systems, recruiting terrorist ’sleeper’ agents and agents of influence, and insinuating itself with the Bosnian political leadership to a remarkable degree. The Iranians effectively annexed large portions of the Bosnian security apparatus [known as the Agency for Information and Documentation (AID)] to act as their intelligence and terrorist surrogates. This extended to the point of jointly planning terrorist activities. The Iranian embassy became the largest in Bosnia and its officers were given unparalleled privileges and access at every level of the Bosnian government.” - Final Report, House Select Subcommittee to Investigate the United States Role in Iranian Arms Transfers to Croatia and Bosnia, page 201 [source, http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=bosniaislam.htm
The Islamist penetration into the Balkans especially Kosovo should be alarming to anyone concerned over the growing threat of Islamic jihad.
Read the rest at Pipeline News
Pipeline News presents the US Govt creation of Kosovo (sorry KosovA) as a blunder of foreign policy.
Sometimes some things are just staring at you in the face…In the case of Yugoslavia
1. Yugoslavia had to be destroyed because the ideology behind that state, also its revolutionary history (Jews and Israel think hard on this) had to be removed one way or another
2. In order to prepare the war plans against Russia and China, with at stake the most populous area in the world, Asia. We are talking profit, the thing that makes capitalism tick, markets and profit, product and profit, and POWER which makes it all possible
3. Do not ever forget the Nazis had much support for a very, very long time. If only they had JUST made war on Russia and those pesky commies then the US and Brits would have been OK with that
4. Islam is a very useful ally for a US Imperialist system plunging into crisis, with major workers struggles on the agenda
Conclusion…support for Izetbegovic not a mistake, base for Bin Laden in Bosnia not a mistake, emergence of Islamic state in Europe, Kosovo, not a mistake.
US Imperialists definitely are not stupid. There is a pattern and a logic here.
Conclusion
1. US will ensure Iran has bomb
2. US will seek to take Bomb from Israel
3. New ally in the world will be Iran, US and Iran are bosom buddies, really.
With a very serious deteriorating economic situation facing ordinary folks, that is workers,
With a disastrous climatic situation cause by fools who think they can pump dirt into atmosphere…even a primary 5 knows that effect always follows cause.
Expect an alliance on ideological front of
1. Mecca
2. Vatican
3. Ruling class governments with NATO to the fore
Way back in the 20s and onwards through the dreary decades the Vatican did a great trade in the Fatima hoax. But that is not so easy to sell in these days of such irreverence…thank Mick Jagger at least a little.
But there may be some mileage in Islam for US and EU Imperialism in the above scenario.
Folks mcCain did it in Yugoslavia.
Clinton did it too
Obama would have done it
Where is the difference!
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 29, 2008 @ 6:32 am
Vince, belief in the coming of the messiah is an article of faith in Judaism. There is only one messiah. Let’s say for sake of argument, the coming messiah is Jesus or his incarnation. The point is, Jesus did not fulfill any of the requirements of messiah some 2,000 ago. This is why the Jews did not accept him as messiah, though he was a talented and learned man. God’s kingdom was not established in Jesus’ day. This is a central feature of messiah. Beyond that Jews will not recognize messiah (whatever his name) “as their Messiah” in the sense Christians believe. There is no concept of vicarious atonement in Judaism. This notion of a man dying for one’s sin is foreign. Neither is messiah co-equal with the Almighty God. Messiah is an earthly ruler. He is a mortal. This is why he is called the son of David because like David, he will rule on earth by doing God’s will as David did. Was David the Almighty God? No. Was Moses the Almighty? No. Moses said that God will “raise up a prophet like me.” Was Moses the Almighty as Christians believe messiah is? No.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 29, 2008 @ 7:15 am
Actually, if you rely on the New Testament, he was quite arrogant, a hypocrite at times, and an ignoramus - let alone an apikores.
What’s to like?!
Not true. Maybe you’re not but Hagee sure is and he has plenty of fans and company.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 29, 2008 @ 7:24 am
VinceP1974, I would appreciate a clarification to your comments and some answers to a few questions I have.
I have heard of a Christian (Zionist) end of times scenario whereby it is believed Israel will be involved in a major war which with the second coming of Jesus, Israel will win and prevail and the Jews surviving would turn to accept Jesus.
I have heard more of an end of times scenario whereby when the Jews have returned to reclaim and establish their nation Israel, is strong and secure and I imagine certain other conditions make the time right, Jesus will return again and Jews in Israel and presumably the world over, will then turn to accept Jesus as their saviour and in so doing universally convert to Christianity.
You have put it somewhat differently in saying:
I presume you mean that there will be a second coming of Jesus which miraculous event would be the thing that moved Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Would they also accept Jesus as Christians accept Jesus? If Jews accept Jesus as their Messiah, saviour and lord, how can Jews possibly maintain their nationality and special heritage?
I am interested in your answers to these questions and also your comments on the several different end of days scenarios above noted.
Are there distinctly different end of days scenarios and beliefs amongst Christian Zionists and Evangelicals or is there one uniform belief in what will happen, but that differs from say the Catholic view or views of other mainstream Christian sects?
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 29, 2008 @ 7:25 am
Good questions. I will look forward to Vince’s response.
I’m not sure I said there was anything to like. You seem to make the case, there is much to hate. I say he did not fulfill the requirements of messiah. I don’t hate him. You apparently do. No? OK, let’s look at the New Testament. You said he was a hypocrite at times. Who isn’t a hypocrite at times? He was arrogant. Perhaps, but how so? An ignoramus? If an apikores is an ignoramus’s then he was an ignoramus. Which one of the following did he deny in your opinion?
Comment by Steve Klein — May 29, 2008 @ 7:56 am
Finally, another Christian Zionist on Israpundit (VinceP1974) from the pre-trib pre-mil dispensationalist worldview! Yes! I agree with what VinceP1974 said.
And Bill Narvey, should he not check back in here to see your message (#30) I’ll be happy to reply to your #30, concisely and transparently — but re: your last question, this language will probably not make sense but: yes, most definitely there are super-radically different “end of days scenarios” among Evangelicals; and among those Evangelicals that are Christian Zionists I’d estimate 4/5 share the pre-trib, pre-milenial dispensationalist worldview, 1/5 not (most of these they’re mid-trib pre-mil or post-trib pre-mil; and between Catholics and nonCatholics, the Catholic worldview is “amillenial” (essentially national Israel’s irrelevant or worse) in their view of history and time and most Evangelicals are not (though a few are) and the segment of Evangelicals that share it are the most anti-Israel — not to say there aren’t a few Catholic individuals supporting Israel, just that they do not do so because of that theology, rather more often than not because they usually are unaware of that theology and just act on basic principles of what seems right in their own eyes, basic morality.
Comment by soren — May 29, 2008 @ 8:14 am
Bill Narvey:
My version was very concise and left out many many things for the sake of making my larger point , which was I don’t want any Jews to die at all , nor would I want to cause their murder to happen.
To expand my version to account for the two versions you typed before quoting me:
I believe it goes like:
- Jews experience incredibly long exile from their land (Deut 28, Lev 26, Ez 37 )
- Jews are regathered from the ends of the earth (Ez37)
- Jews are dwelling in the land
- End Time beast attacks Israel, establishes rule in Jerusalem, wages war of extermination against Jews
- Messiah (to me, 2nd coming of Jesus) comes from heaven with resurrected saints, to fight those who are against israel
- The Jews then recognize Messiah , who then rules in Jerusalem. where all the nations will go to to worship the God of Israel.
Of course I’m Christian and you and many others are Jews, so obviously we will never agree as to the nature of the Messiah. I certainly respect your view and I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just saying what I believe.
Essentially the Jews are in the land.. but then something happens that causes Israel to be imperiled. Instead of turning to God for protection, Israel will be deceived by a false peace (Hudna anyone?) by the leader of a powerful empire.
I believe this leader to be Imam al Mahdi, and his empire to be a restoration of the Caliphate and dominated by Shiia sect.
I don’t believe the Jews will have any power to resist the war once it starts. Their only option is to flee. And had it not been for Messiah to destroy the beast and the dragan (Allah), none would survive.
And finally the last and most brutal trial of the Jewish people will end and they will be redeemed.
The OT prophets time after time after time plainly state that God will punishing various nations. All of them are Muslim nations today and most of them are direct neighbors of Israel.
The tradional Christian interpration of Rome, the EU, Russia etc.. as being involved is something I’ve come to see as being completely unsupportable by the literal statements in the OT.
It would make sense that God’s plan would culminate with the defeat of the sons of Ishmael (the human enemy of the Jews) who are under the deception of the spiritual enemy, Satan(Allah).
As a Christian it would make sense that if Christians and Jews do have a common spiritual fellowship (that is not yet reconciled but one day will be) that the enemies of the one would be the enemy of the other.. and so it is.
The same people who hate Christians usually hate Jews, just as those who hate America (the model Christian state) also hate Israel (the model Jewish state).
After the surviving remnant recongize what God has just done.. (save Israel from destruction) they will finally accept Messiah.
The first paragraph establishes that the event being described is the same one that is described so many other places… the final battle. It states that it is God himself who destroys the enemy nations.
Then the 2nd paraphrase God is saying that the people will see him, physically.. And he will be there in their prescence as they are filled with peace, and they will see him , the one they pierced (figuratively or literally?).. and then mourn as if their own child has died.
If I put myself in that circumstance , it would be an exact description of God coming to earth as Jesus (maybe Jesus is just the name of the physical manifestation of God in a human form? I’m not an expert in that level of theory), Jesus destroying the enemies. Jesus forgiving the Jewish people, and their recongnition that the long nightmare is over and they mourn bitterly for thier past disobedience , which included the crucifixion, the effects of which they now see.
Because the nation of Israel is one of blood. Why wouldn’t the Jews still be the Jewish people?
In the New Testament , the non-Jewish Christians are told:
During the time between the Roman expulsion and some future point, God will complete his work trying to redeem the Non-Jewish world. When the mission with the Gentiles is over, God will return the Jews back to their land, and them redeem the Jewish people.
All of humanity is then redeemed, and God rules from his chosen nation Israel.. and us Non-Jews worship this God which would have never happened were it not for the Jewish people. If i understand it, that was the eventual rule Israel was to play , rihgt? To be the people through which the world would come to know and worship God?
The reason why so many Christians have things so completely wrong is because I dont think many Christians thoguht it was plausible that Jews would ever return to Israel so the historical christians did a very human thing and made everything about them as a way to explain what they were reading.
Of all the denominations I know, the evangalicals in America would be the ones closest to what I have just described. Many of them wouldn’t agree with the Islam stuff,, they’re still culturally biased to the Roman Empire paradigm.
As you get close to catholism you get people who think everything becomes an allagory or has already been metaphorically fullfilled. (that’s because thier Institution is not written in the prophecies, so they conclude the liteal text is wrong)
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Bill: I said you were Jewish..actually I have no idea if you’re Jewish or not.. so that was my mistake.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Vince
You are a good man. I for one do not question evangelical support for Israel. I am not troubled by their ideology except insofar as it encompasses missionizing. I reject your theology but you are entitled to it. But as Sharansky points out in his new book, we can’t survive without identity. A life without meaning is a life not worth living.
Comment by Ted Belman — May 29, 2008 @ 8:39 am
This is conjucture but I fully expect the United States to suffer from a nuclear strike by Iran. (No, i am not saying that is in teh bible.. that is just my specualation)
That will destroy whatever security there is in the world, Israel will be desperate and the Antichrist/Mahdi, who will be from Turkey-Syria region geographically, will come onto the scene.
If one compares Islamic escathology to the scenerio I outlined earlier, they overlap almost perfectly.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 8:58 am
I am sad to say this as thirty seven year registered Republican. George W. Bush has taken the Republican party and the nation to a new low against Israel, against the land of Israel and Israel’s security.
I am convinced, but for Bush administration pressure, the Jews living in Gush Katif would not have been expelled. I am not defending Ariel Sharon. He betrayed his people. Sharon claimed he was under enormous pressure from the administration.
Bush supports these traitors like Ehud Olmert. Bush supports the establishment of a Palestinian terror state in Israel. George W. Bush in my mind is a traitor.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 29, 2008 @ 9:13 am
Thanks VinceP1974. Without getting too deeply into theology and eschatology, I have two more questions for you.
First, you say:
Without debating you on who is right, I do not believe Jews have anything to be forgiven for as regards Jesus’ crucifixtion, because they had no role to play regardless of what the gospels say.
Even if the Christian belief that Caiphus, the high priest had a hand in Jesus’ arrest and eventual crucifixtion, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that he would have done so under duress from the oppressive rule of Pontius Pilate. Surely logic and reason hold that a just and merciful God would not hold Caiphus or other Jews responsible in such circumstance.
There has been much written on the events unfolding over the several days from Jesus entry to Jerusalem, to his arrest, trial and crucifixtion which makes the Gospel version completely incredible, based on various historical accounts of the social, religious, legal, cultural and political situation in Israel in those times under Roman rule.
Witin the gospel stories themselves of Jesus arrest, trial and crucifixtion however there is, based on logic and reason, which is distinct of course from faith, all the reason in the world to exonerate the Jews from any complicity in Jesus’ cruxifixion at the hands of the Romans.
You will recall that Jesus at the last supper, so the gospels say, foretold that one desciple would betray him and one would deny him 3 times.
Accepting Christian theology that Jesus was the physical incarnation of God, then what he foretold was what he as God or as a son of God, being an inextricable part of God had chosen to happen. Neither Judas, nor Peter nor indeed any Jews who are alleged to have contributed in any way to Jesus death had any choice in the matter. They were but instruments of God’s will and thus how could any one of them be blamed for Jesus’ death.
Jesus’ last words on the cross were, ‘my God, my God, why have you foresaken me’. Theologians have struggled with this for centuries for it necessarily means Jesus himself saw himself not as God, but as a mortal. That has led to some theologians wrestling with this to advocate that those words were mis-translated to mean something else. Nonetheless those are the words of the Gospel.
By the same token, if Jesus was God and he saw that Jews had in this instance turned their backs on God, as they had turned their backs on God in other instances, why were the last words not akin to, ‘my people, my people, why have you foresaken me?
As for the Gospel account of Pilate speaking to the Jews assembled in the street and asking whom they wished crucified, Jesus or Barabas, it is said that the Jews called for the death of Jesus and said words to effect that Jesus blood would be on their hands and their children’s hands.
In a time when curses meant something very real, it is unimaginable the Jews would curse themselves, let alone their children and children’s children.
Christian antisemitism can be solely attributed to these Gospels and Constantine’s Nicean creed, cannoninzing these gospels and issuing a mandated curse for those who reject Jesus as God. As a result of that antisemitism, it is the Christians who have rivers of Jewish blood and mountains of Jewish pain on their hands.
It is not the Jews whom Jesus should be called on to forgive. It is Christians.
I would appreciate your advice as to how to rationalize the apparent conflict between logic and reason on the one hand and faith on the other.
Secondly you say:
I guess it matters as to how you define “the Jewish people” and how they define themselves.
Accepting Jesus as the lord and saviour as Christians do is obviously in direct conflict with Jewish belief. How can Judaism, Jewish culture and the Jewish people retain their distinctiveness by accepting the Christian view of Jesus as the messiah, lord and saviour?
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 29, 2008 @ 9:49 am
Vince wrote:
Bill wrote:
Not only this, our prophets made clear why the Jews were exiled. It had nothing to do with the crucifixion. Nothing what so ever.
Vince, the Jews have suffered and are suffering no effects from the rejection of Jesus as messiah.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 29, 2008 @ 10:02 am
Well, even Christians admit he was an SOB. Son of a Bethlehemite. Of course the NT can’t figure out whether that’s the Bethlehem in the Galilee or the one near Jerusalem. I wonder why……
I would expect someone’s god not to be. After all, practically any god is all about truth. Certainly Chrsitianity claims that. What a letdown.
You’ll find numerous NT versus that show his arrogance. Just to give a quick example: Mark III:31-35. That’s just one of numerous examples.
An Am Ha’aretz is an ignoramus. An Apikores is a heretic. You Am Ha’aretz.
First do some homework and then you can answer that yourself.
The same ol’ false proofs, over and over again. It’s all they’ve got.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 29, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Not only that, if you are looking for consistency,confirmation, corroboration in the gospel account or in any historical account as I and other do, you will find Matthew is the only book that presents this bizzare passage. It’s historicity is therefore suspect. It is my view, there were interpolations (insertions) in the text by the so-called early church fathers. Some were vicious anti-Semites. Some were moderate anti-Semites. Most were Jew-haters.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Even more so, look what potential disaster we would have if we would not have rejected him:
15. And Jeshurun became fat and rebelled; you grew fat, thick and rotund; [Israel] forsook the God Who made them, and spurned the [Mighty] Rock of their salvation.
16. They provoked His zeal with alien worship; they made Him angry with abominations deeds.
17. They sacrificed to demons, which have no power, deities they did not know, new things that only recently came, which your forefathers did not fear.
18. You forgot the [Mighty] Rock Who bore you; you forgot the God Who delivered you.
19. And the Lord saw this and became angry, provoked by His sons and daughters.
20. And He said, “I will hide My face from them. I will see what their end will be, for they are a generation of changes; they are not [recognizable] as My children whom I have reared.
21. They have provoked My jealousy with a non god, provoked My anger with their vanities. Thus, I will provoke their jealousy with a non people, provoke their anger with a foolish nation.
- Deuteronomy 32
There is no foundation for the false deity named Jesus in the Tanach. Christianity is in fact historically foundationless.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 29, 2008 @ 10:09 am
You are a disgusting Jew.
Comment by Steve Klein — May 29, 2008 @ 10:11 am
I immediately apologize. I thought you would get the joke and added the smiley to be certain. It failed. I did NOT mean you are. I’m truly sorry.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 29, 2008 @ 10:15 am
BTW, I myself am defintely a big Am Ha’aretz. It’s easy. Ask me how.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 29, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Hi Bill.. On my lunch break at the moment..
Before I answer , let me explain that it has taken me a while to determine just how to answer this. I trust you that this is just a civil exploration of what I think. so hopefully that spirit can be maintained. I know how touchy this area is.. it’s the major fault line between Christians and Jews because of the hundreds of years of atrocities done against Jews by so-called Christians, for which there is no justification or excuse.
I”ve thought about your question for a while. I’ve actually never thought of it that way. So this a new thought of mine.
I don’t think any specific group of people over any other group of people are “blamed” by God for the Jesus death. It was His plan to die from the beginning. When I talked about the Jews mourning and repenting to Jesus at the Last Day, I should have said that the Christians will see will do the same thing. So I hope I was giving the impression that the Jewish people had a special obligation to get rid of some judgement.
It’s my understanding that in the Torah there are two significant passages one in (Numbers 26 or 28 and one in Deut 26 or 28) that indicates the Jews would suffer a prolonged curse should they break the covenant of Moses. (I”m not Jewish and do not know the proper Jewish terminology), and it seemed almost like a prophecy rather than just a warning. So from that I take it that their general disobedience is what God has been punishing them for.
This is probably above my pay scale .
This was a pretty good point.. and why it’s taken me so long to write this.
There is no disputing that. And for that I’m profoundly sorry and also why for the past ten years I have spoken in Israel’s defense to those who show hatred toward it in my presence. For all the hatred and violence done against Jewish people throughout history, for them to back to their homeland and then face even more hatred from the Arabs.. it’s so clear to me which side is the moral , decent, loving, hard-working and which side (the Arabs) are jealous, hateful, intolerant , etc.
Judaism, Jewish culture, and the Jewish people have survived and endured for 4,000 years. You should have confidence in God that what He promised (the distinctiveness of Israel) is what will happen.
Re-read that section from the NT Book of Romans I pasted. God is not done with Israel, that is what the Christians have been told.
In Revelation a New Jerusalem is made after the 1,000 reign of God from Israel and the earth is destoryed. Built into the design of the city is the uniqueness and distinctiveness of Israel from all the other nations.
The Jewish people will endure forever.
So you folks in Israel, stop acting like pussies.
J/k
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
You’re right. They suffer from just general disobedience and will suffer until the curse is over. Which I hope is soon.
The way America has been acting lately, I get a sense of doom that we’re declining very quickly. I think Bush is betraying Israel.. hell I know it. America has been sold out to Saudi Arabia and the filth of that place will be the death of us.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
VinceP1974, thank you for your answers.
While the gospels alleged role of the Jews in the crucifixion of Jesus, can be a touchy subject, it is not for me in discussing same with you. We are not engaged in heated accusations against the other.
I did however set out why I believe as I do to see how you would answer.
I expect part of your belief in the truth of the gospels is faith based. Faith and belief or conclusions deriving from applying logic and reason to known facts, often are in conflict and cannot be easily reconciled, if at all. I am not denigrating you for your faith.
I sensed a sincerity on your part to consider what I had to say and to discuss same in a civil and friendly fashion. That is how you obviously took my points and that is how I take yours.
You say:
Actually as I understand the Gospels from what reading I have done, the Jews indeed are singled out for blame while the Romans were whitewashed.
In the historical context of the times Judaism as Jesus and some others I understand preached, was not quite accord with the Pharisees teachings. Tensions and conflicts increased between the Jewish followers of Jesus the Jew’s teachings and the Pharisees.
I think Christianity as a separate religion broke from Judaism came with or soon after Paul’s writings that many experts have characterized as the true beginnings of Christianity, where the foundational tenets of Christianity were established, being the virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection and the new religion being a salvation religion for all who accepted Jesus as lord.
That friction between Christians and Jews/Pharisees reached its greatest heights at the time John wrote his gospel about 90-100 C.E. That gospel has been characterized as the most antisemitic, but the synoptic gospels too were expressing antisemitic accusations against the Jews, including accusations of complicity in Jesus death.
From a modern viewpoint and considering the beginnings of Christianity from a psychological, political and historical standpoint, it seems logical that those who were writing the gospels knowing the Jews were harshly persecuted by the Romans, would only be attracting Roman persecution to themselves if they blamed the Romans for Jesus’ death. Such writing, would amount to a death wish for this infant religion struggling to survive. By joining the Romans in blaming Jews for Jesus death and speaking well of or excusing the Romans for Jesus death, makes practical sense, regardless of the immorality of it.
You say:
I know generally of what you speak, but are you saying that God has used Jesus or Jesus as God, has used his Christian followers to carry out his curse of the Jews and subject them to the great suffering they have undergone these past 2000 years? Does that make God feel better to cause the suffering of the Jews? Was it Jews turning their backs on Jesus that was the crime? Was it the Jews turning their backs on other of God’s commands and God sent Jesus to orchestrate a 2000 year curse of pain and death upon the Jews? Did the Jews’ punishment at the hands of the Christians, being God’s instrument to visit God’s curse upon the Jews fit the crime?
Assuming for a moment that the Jews were complicit in and called for the death of Jesus, would they have done so if they had not become the unwitting agents of the devil who in Christian theology uses trickery and deceit to turn good people into bad? If that is the case, how can the Jews be blamed for having fallen victim to Satan?
Further, do not forget that the Romans used crucifixion as part of their reign of terror to subdue the Jewish resistance to Roman rule and to still the voices of revolt, revolution and dissent.
To the extent that Jesus preached anything that was the least bit revolutionary that could inspire Jews to become more resolved in their resistance to Roman rule, to dissent or to revolt against Roman authority, Jesus would have drawn the attention of the Romans.
Romans were known to have already brutally murdered 2 - 3,000 Jews using crucifixion as an object lesson to any Jews who had any notion of revolting or causing trouble for the Romans under Pontius Pilate. Pilate was historically a most sadistic brutal Roman dictator whose excesses that actually created the potential for Jewish revolt had earlier caught the attention of Rome and he had been called back to tone it down a bit.
Jesus was one of a very great many Jews who were crucified by the Romans in that time.
I could thresh this finer, but these are questions and facts in my mind that theologians need to explore and which I invite you to consider.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 29, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
When I had answered your previous question note that I was speaking about whether or not God “blamed” or indicted the Jews specifically for the death of Jesus. And I had come to the answer, no. Becuase his Death was known from the beginning of time. It was always God’s plan to have Jesus die for the sins of the world. The animal sacrifices, Passover are all foreshadowing to that event, the death of Jesus, The God who created mankind and loved mankind so much , yet knew that humanity could never live according to his holiness.
He knew the Jewish people could never redeem themselves from perfect adherence to the Law, and the Gentile could never redeem themselves through works.
God Himself came to earth as a holy , sinless man, so that just as in Egypt, the unblemished Passover lamb’s blood on the two sides of the doorjam and the upper part (Configuration of a cross) …
…covered the firstborn of Israel , the blood protecting them as the Angel of Death killed Egypt’s firstborn.
And by God dying and paying the price that He Himself demands, there is no more need for the animal sacrifices. The Angel of Death is no longer stalking you. You are forever covered by the spilt blood of God Himself.
Steve Klien said that in Judiasm there is no vicarious atonement. I understand that to mean someone else’s atonement being accounted to you. That’s not what the Death of Jesus was.. Jesus’ death was vicarious sacrifice… just as God demanded a blood offering as an atonement for sin.. the Gospel relates that it was the High Priests of Jesus time who selected him as the Lamb to be killed (of course they didn’t know they were doing this). As Jesus was close to death , he shouted My God My God Why Have you Forsaken Me.. because at the point of death he was encumbered with all mankind’s sin and was in total seperation from God. Of course that is God up there. What an amazing act of love.
During the Passover meal, Jesus said:
I will link this with Jer 31:31 further below but first I want to observe that Jeremiah 31 is about God’s actions which bring about the restoration of Israel, I couldn’t help but notice that two things seem heavily emphasised… one is the deep and profound love that God is saying he has for his people, Israel… and the other is how, after the Jews return from the long exile, the Jewish people are full of deep sorrow, anguish, profound regret for having angered God and how sincerely they now repent of it all.
This is a good example of God’s love and Jew’s atonement, and I think the last sentence is very significant.
My bible has this note for “new” in the last sentence:
Something speculator on the order of creation is awaiting us at Israel’s redemption. I would say God returning to earth in the person would be on par with something of the magnatute the word “new” is meant to convey. I think Messiah as a temporal man would not rate as being as significant.
Next comes another affirmation of the restoration after God had once destoryed Israel and completely torn down the land.
Then
To me this seems to be saying that the Jewish people will no longer be judged collectively as a Nation. From now on each Jew is responsible for his own sin. And that each Jew will pay the individual price for the inevitable sin he will commit, which means to die.
Next is the most fundamental change that God will make, as he creates a new (or renewed) convenant on the Last Day.
This is stating that at Israel’s redemption there will be a radical change away from the Ritual law and instead the Law will be embedded in the heart and mind, taking into account that each Jewish person will be liable for his own sin (which means death). How then does the New Covenant facilitate the mitigation of sin.. by the Jew simply accepting the grace and forgiveness God extends them with the new convenent, if the Jewish person permits the blood offering of Jesus to pay the debt for all time.
God will forgive their sin without the need for animal blood offering, as the new convenant stipulates. And once the Blood of the Lamb of God is claimed , then one’s sins are covered by the sacrificed and God’s grace is given.
This is the *exact* same teachings that Christians get from the NT … that God, having never compelled Gentiles to live by the Law of Moses, instead writes the law into the heart of the believer. And that we are saved from death by Jesus’ death.. which we can claim through faith.
To conclude my comments on Jer 31,, I believe at the Last Day when God saves and reconciles with the remnant of Israel from the most evil they have ever faced in all history , the Jewish people and the Christian Non-Jewish people will be reconciled with one another.. and our relatiionship models with the God of Israel will be practically identical.
That is why I dont see God “blaming” anyone for Jesus death.
I see it similiarly as well.
Talking strictly about the text i would say the Gospels are no more or less anti-semitic than the rest of the Bible. You have to admit, the Jews are rarely , if ever, protrayed having any long period of peace or other positive experiences. The whole bible seems to be one calamity after another befalling israel do to her evil as seen in the eyes of God. So I dont think there’s anything unique about the Gospel.
I do not have anything deeper than High school-level knowedlge on teh specifics of anti-semitism by christians over time. I knwo the general events that most people cite.
I think your statement has the presumption that I’m more familiar about what you’re saying regarding specific antisemetism and that I’ll be able to intuit your point easily. I’m not really sure I do understand though, , I get the vibe that your statement is more than just a comment about history and that I should be able to figure it out.. but can you please expand on it a little more? I dont want to miscommunicate.
Romans 11 directly addresses this concern… The question was, Are the Jews to be held in contempt for the death of Jesus. Are the Jews cut off from God now. Is this curse forever?
I posted some of Romans 11 earlier if you want to scroll up. This I haven’t posted before:
Romans 11
Israel’s Rejection not Complete nor Final
This is directly addressing your concern. Here Elijah is being referred to where Elijah demands God chastise his people for killing His prophets, but God says no, because no matter how large the majority of sinful Jews, God is saving a remnant for himself.
The qustion on whether the Jews are being rejected by God forever.. forever to be replaced by the Church, is also answered.. “Absolutely not”
This is making allusions to how God’s new convenant (introduced first with Gentiles at the Last Supper and the Jewish people at the end time) requires faith in God over ritual or law.. the Law will be writen in our hearts. And that God is saving a remnant of Israel and who is saved will be based on faith not actions.
Here is another reference to Israel rejecting Messiah and that his being rejected is a blessing to Gentiles (known as the elect)
Also that around this time God is beginning to harden the hearts of Jews of the time.
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear,
to this very day.”
And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
let their eyes be darkened so that they may not see,
and make their backs bend continually.”
It’s undeniable that Christians have terrorized Jews throughout history. I do not believe there is any legitimate Biblican basis to attack jews… I do not accept that a faithful Christian would view Anti-semitism as permissible. Especially in light of the book of Romans.
Here is what God had pronounced he would do to Israel if they did not keep the convenent.
and
I dont think it’s an exgerattion at all to say that must of these things have happened to Jews in the past 2000 years old. Often times at the hands of alledged Christians. God says He does punish the nations that come against Israel… even if God Himself used that nation in an act of punishment against Israel.
Well this was exhausting…it did make me a think. So I thank you for that. I’m no Bible scholar.. and especially not a Jewish scholar in the least. So it was a lot of work putting this togther. I’m just a regular guy who thinks. So if you find some inconsistancies.. please enduldge me.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
I started getting tired as I was getting to the end.. my typing started to get bad.
I didn’t plan on writing so much the entire day. I hope I haven’t annoyed the hell out of any one.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 29, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
Where do we begin?
Did Jesus’ manner of death satisfy the animal atonement sacrifice provisions for remission of sin of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Didn’t Jesus’ death mark the culmination of his perfect observance of the Mosaic Law and the institution of the perfect and continuous sacrifice for all time?
The Passover Seder.
The doctrine of original sin is contrary to what the Tanach actually states.
There isn’t a single proof in the entire Tanach of any of the newfangled theological doctrines introduced by the very pagan belief system, which eventually was to be called Christianity.
BTW, look at a doorframe and then look at a crucifix. Do they look the same? Do you visually confuse the two? Were Roman prisoners hung on doorframes or on crosses? Are our entrances to homes doorframes or crosses? Are you that lost? Delusional?
You know, I can make a cross out of a swastika, too. Do you really want to go there?
Do you not find it confusing that a cross has never been a biblical historic symbol of the Jewish people at any time? Not by the Patriarchs. Not by Moses. Not in the times of the judges, prophets and sages. Never.
Remember: the truth will set you free.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 30, 2008 @ 1:41 am
What about at the time of the destruction of the First Temple? Read Lamentations (Eichah) for the matching details. There was no Jesus then. The whole idea of Jesus and/or Christianity was irrelevant to the causes of the destuction of both the First and Second Temples. The conquest of Israel and Jerusalem by Rome was already anchored in place way before Jesus was born. He didn’t matter.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 30, 2008 @ 1:50 am
Shy Guy: I can tell you’re just itching to argue with me, which is odd since I agree with what you said.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 30, 2008 @ 2:14 am
I agree to disagree that we agree.
Comment by Shy Guy — May 30, 2008 @ 2:29 am
VinceP1974, excellent post #49.
You are far more the bibilical scholar then I, not only as regards the NT, but the OT as well. I respect that.
Just a few more comments.
You say:
If only Christians over the past 2 millennia believed as you do Vince, the suffering of the Jews at the hands of Christians would not have come to pass.
Even if you are right that the gospels do not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, a very great many Christians from popes to the laity have so interpreted the Gospels to make that claim that Jews are Christ killers. Growing up, I encountered Christian antisemites from time to time who expressed their hatred of me because I am a Jew and some accused me of being a Christ killer.
A Minister’s son who was a fellow student told me that because Jews did not accept Jesus, the Holocaust was God’s punishment visited upon the Jews. You know as I do that he got that idea from his father, a Minister of one of the Churches in my town.
In your citing passages from LEv 26:27 and Deu 28:58 in post #49, it struck me that a fair argument could be made that God is akin to the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein who demanded absolute loyalty and for any lapse or failure in that regard, he extracted his revenge by declaring a death sentence for the offender, but not before making the rest of that person’s life an unimaginable living hell.
You readily acknowledge and I know sincerely regret Christian persecution of Jew over the past 2 millennia.
I think you are saying however that in blaming Jews for Jesus death and seeking to avenge that death by persecuting the Jews, those Christians who did so misinterpreted the Gospels or misunderstood the message that the Gospels deliver.
With your unshakeable faith in the goodness and mercy of your lord Jesus, how could Jesus have not known that his followers, moved by a mistaken belief in his teachings and their reading of the Gospels were wrongly seeking to avenge his death by persecuting the Jews and not intercede in some way to stop it and show his followers the true path to righteousness and faith that he had chosen for them and directed them towards?
If Jesus is God, would he have not only orchestrated his own death, but foreseen what his followers would do as regards the Jews?
If the Jews, the Romans and the Christians over the past 2 millennia were merely actors on a God’s stage citing words and carrying out acts all scripted by God, then God himself is responsible for writing, directing and producing this sordid and horrific play of the dynamic between victimizer and victim which the world is compelled to play out.
To take such a view, means that we humans have no free will and no Christian can be blamed for being compelled to act out God’s will and no Jew should be pitied for being persecuted by Christians, for each had their lot in life from generation to generation cast in stone for them by God.
If however one rejects such view and holds to the belief that one of God’s gifts to humanity was free will, then one must ask, what kind of God would countenance such suffering of his people over two millennia without stepping in to stop it?
With free will, is there not personal responsibility for one’s actions and the consequences therefore?
It has been stated by many Christian clergy and theologians across the Christian spectrum that one can only gain entrance to heaven if they receive God’s grace by accepting Jesus as their saviour. As I understand that, heaven is open to even the worst humanity has offered up, provided they accept Jesus, even if it is only with their last dying breath.
I further understand of Christian belief that for any Jew, regardless that they may have led an exemplary life of goodness, decency and faith in their God, if they do not at any time prior to their death, accept God’s grace through accepting Jesus as their saviour, they will be barred from heaven.
So what happens to all the people’s souls and spirits after their death who did not in their lives accept Jesus? Are they consigned to the Christian concept of hell?
By reason of these beliefs, I have characterized Christianity as a religion with a superiority complex. Such kind of belief in the superiority of one’s religion is akin to racist attitudes that are decried as offensive and inherently wrong by all good people, Christian or not.
Surely heaven should be the reward of all good people regardless of faith.
I am wondering what your thoughts are Vince on these matters and therefore look forward to hearing from you.
Again Vince, your post #49 was very informative.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 30, 2008 @ 8:23 am
In my paper, The Historical Jesus I write
Josephus
[..] Where the Gospels and Josephus agree, is on blaming the Jews and praising the Romans, in general, and Pilot (who crucified Jesus) and Titus (who destroyed the Temple) in particular, for their clemency and indulgence. The Gospels blame the Jews for rejecting Jesus and Josephus blames the Jews for rejecting Rome. For the destruction of the Temple, Josephus says “we have only ourselves to blame” and “the Temple was burned against the wishes of Caesar.”. In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus is crucified, the Jews are reputed to have said “his blood be upon us and upon our children.” and Pilot is reputed to have been agreeable to releasing Jesus or Barabbas and the Jews picked Barabbas thereby condemning Jesus. The parallels are striking. It is obvious that they were both marching to the same drummer, Rome.
Jesus
The historical Jesus was part of this resistance and as such, he would have been against the “prostitutes” and tax collectors.. He followed the law and worked toward the overthrow of the establishment and the Romans. Thousands of such Jewish revolutionaries were crucified by the Romans during his lifetime.
There may be some truth in the Gospels which say that the High Priest or Saduccees turned him over to the Romans saying he claimed to be the King of the Jews. (they meant in the political sense and not in the religious sense.) After all, the High Priest was a quisling and part of the establishment aligned with the Romans. This could explain why Paul persecuted Christians on behalf of the High Priest. The Romans then crucified Jesus for sedition. The part of the story which claimed that he was tried by the Sanhedrin before being turned over to the Romans to decide his fate can not be true. No offense was alleged in the Gospels, over which the Sanhedrin had jurisdiction and the Sanhedrin would not have convened on Passover to try him as alleged in the Gospels. The story of Jesus over-turning the tables of the money-changers in the Temple could also have been true because the nationalists were angry about what was going on in the Temple and at odds with the High Priest. The nationalist camp often robbed the establishment as part of their war against them. As a result, they were referred to as “robbers”. Jesus, we are told, was crucified along side of two such “robbers”. [..]
Aftermath of Temple destruction
The uprising resulted in the wholesale slaughter of Jews (1 million in Palestine and 1.5 million in Alexandria) and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and the lesser temple in Alexandria.
After the destruction of the Temple, the accommodationists curried even more favour with the Romans in order to survive and prosper. Pauline Christianity grew into Christianity as we know it and Jamesian Christianity died out. The other accommodationists, the Pharisees were appointed the tax collectors for the Romans and survived to become the dominant force in Judaism.
Thus messianic Judaism died out and Rabbinic Judaism took hold. There was no longer a need for the priestly class to oversee the Temple rites and sacrifices and they lost their power and position. The destruction of the Temple irrevocably changed both “Christianity” and Judaism forever.
The highly Hellenized movement that developed overseas after the destruction of the Temple, which we now call Christianity, was far different from the Jerusalem Church under James. Even so, Eusebius, a Christian scholar records around 300 CE that the first 10 Bishops of the Jerusalem Church were all circumcised Jews. They observed the dietary laws, the Jewish Sabbath and the festivals including Yom Kippur (thus showing that they did not regard the death of Jesus as atoning for their sins
Scholars assume that since Jesus appointed his brother James to lead his movement they must have been in agreement. They believe that anything in the New Testament about Jesus not in keeping with what they know about James is simply a fabrication. The scriptures are not accepted as historical because they present Jesus as anti-nationalistic, cosmopolitan, antinomian and accepting of foreigners and persons with perceived impurities. Just the opposite of James. [..]
Christ
As you know, ‘Christ’ is the Greek word for ‘Messiah’, the anointed one. That doesn’t mean that the two words today have the same meaning. For Jews, the Messiah has always meant a normal person born of a young woman in the Davidic line who would lead the Jews to a military victory and restore the Kingdom of G-d on earth with him as King. While Jesus was alive Jews may have looked to him as the Messiah destined to defeat the Romans militarily and restore sovereignty to the Jewish people. Such victory over the forces of evil, it was thought, could usher in the Messianic era of peace and prosperity; in other words, the Kingdom of God on earth. To Jews therefore, his crucifixion should have ended all speculation that he may have been the Messiah. Yet many continued to hope that Jesus, the human, had entered heaven alive and was waiting for the moment to return to earth. This was in accordance with a long standing tradition in Judaism concerning many a folk hero. Paul was in agreement, with the caveat that Jesus was also somewhat divine although he didn’t define this and probably didn’t believe Jesus was God incarnate. He also argued Jesus died for our sins, (which he did not explain), but did hint at the notion of the “original sin” of Adam. It took 400 years for such Christian theology to develop. What resulted as “Christ” is an entirely different concept from the Jewish “messiah’.
Comment by Ted Belman — May 30, 2008 @ 9:42 am
JEWS DO NO Jewish beliT ACCEPT JESUS AS THE MESSIAH BECAUSE:
Intro: (What exactly is the Messiah?)
1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3) Biblical verses “referring” to Jesus are mistranslations.
4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.<
At the end of this article, we will examine these additional topics:
5) Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
6) Jews and Gentiles
7) Bringing the Messiah
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Here is the full link to content above: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm#2
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
VinceP1974
Lets talk tachlis. Lets begin on which all Christian theology is based.
Missionaries contend that the blood sacrificial system is man’s only conduit to atonement and insist that there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. They maintain that the Bible sets forth only blood atonement to expiate sin. Evangelical Christians assert that for the past nineteen centuries, since the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E., Jews have lacked the essential and indispensable animal sacrificial system for atonement. Consequently, they maintain, God must have provided a blood atonement in place of the animal sacrifices of the past. This sacrifice, they insist, is the death of Jesus on the cross.
In support of their claim that atonement can only be achieved through the shedding of blood, missionaries cite Leviticus 17:11, which reads,
This is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.
They conclude from this verse that only by being covered in the blood of the cross can man have any hope of being forgiven by God for his sins.
In response to this argument, I have contend that contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish scriptures: the sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. Moreover, the sin sacrifice (known in the Jewish scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally. The brazen sinner was barred from the sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellious intent to sin against God. The Torah teaches this fundamental principle in Numbers 15:27-31.
If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one-year-old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven . . . . The person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him.
“If the sin sacrifice was necessary in order to atone for unintentional sin, didn’t Jesus then have to die for those sins committed unwittingly?”
The answer is simple. Jesus could not die for anyone’s sins, whether they were committed intentionally or accidentally. To begin with, the Jewish people were strictly prohibited from offering human sacrifices under any circumstances. There is not one place throughout the entire corpus of the Jewish scriptures where human sacrifices are condoned. In fact, over and over again the Bible warns the Jewish people that it is a grave sin to bring a human being as a sacrifice. In the Book of Leviticus, only distinct species of animals are permitted for use in blood sacrifices.
The ancient pagan religions promoted the same idea about atonement as Christendom continues to preach today (e.g. Molech). They would joyfully offer a child into the fires of their sacrificial offering in order to expiate their sins and appease the gods. Why would a child sacrifice be used in this pagan ritual rather than an adult? The reason is because a child is thoroughly innocent of sin. A child, they reasoned, could not have committed iniquity and thus mirrored the animal sacrifice which also had to be unblemished. The Torah therefore admonishes the children of Israel never to offer human sacrifices, and forewarned Jewish people of terrible consequences if this commandment were violated.
This message was carefully communicated at Mt. Moriah where Abraham was prepared to offer up his beloved son Isaac as a sacrifice. At that crucial juncture in history when Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, the Almighty admonished him that He did not want the human sacrifice, and directed Abraham to sacrifice the ram caught in the thicket instead. The Almighty’s directive — that he only wanted animal sacrifices rather than human sacrifices — was immediately understood. This teaching has never departed from the mind and soul of the faithful children of Israel.
Moreover, if missionaries want to use Leviticus 17:11 to bolster their position that blood sacrifices are indispensable for procuring an atonement, they must use all of the verse, not just a part of it. Leviticus 17:11 specifically says that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed “upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” That is to say, Leviticus 17:11 explicitly declares that blood can only effect atonement if it is placed on the altar. Jesus’ blood, however, was never placed on the altar. If the church is going to take the “blood” part of the verse literally, they must also take the “altar” part literally as well. Jesus’ blood was never sprinkled on the altar, and therefore his death could not provide atonement for anyone.
Finally, the prophets loudly declared to the Jewish people that the contrite prayer of the penitent sinner replaces the sacrificial system. Therefore, atonement for unintentional sins today is expiated through devotional supplication to the Merciful One.
In fact, in Hosea 3:4-5, the prophet foretold with divine exactness that the nation of Israel would not have a sacrificial system during the last segment of Jewish history until the messianic age. Hosea 3:4-5 reads,
. . . for the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They shall fear the LORD and His goodness in the latter days.
In the words of the Bible, this period of time would last for many days. Yet, despite the repeated proclamations of the church that the crucifixion of Jesus serves as a sin sacrifice today, the words of Hosea were meticulously fulfilled, and we are without an animal sacrificial system today.
Given the spiritual magnitude of this remarkable prophecy, Hosea was compelled to reveal how the ecclesiastical Temple functions were to be replaced. In essence, if the prophet is testifying that the nation of Israel will indeed be without a sacrificial system during their long exile until the messianic age, what are we to use instead? How are the Jewish people to atone for unintentional sin without a blood sacrifice during their bitter exile? What about all the animal sacrifices prescribed in the Book of Leviticus? Can the Jewish people get along without animal offerings? Missionaries claim they cannot. The Bible disagrees.
For this reason, the statement in Hosea 14:2-3 is crucial. In these two verses, Hosea reveals to his beloved nation how they are to replace the sacrificial system during their protracted exile. The prophet declares that the Almighty wants us to “render for bulls the offering of our lips.” Prayer is to replace the sacrificial system. Hosea 14:2-3 states,
Take words with you, and return to the LORD. Say to Him, “Take away all iniquity; receive us graciously, for we will render for bulls the offering of our lips.”
The prophets never instruct the Jews to worship any crucified messiah or demigod; nor does scripture ever tell us that an innocent man can die as an atonement for the sins of the wicked. Such a message is utterly antithetical to the teachings of the Jewish scriptures. Rather, it is the prayers of the sinner that would become as bulls of the sin offerings.
King Solomon echoes this sentiment as well. In I Kings 8:46-50, King Solomon delivers a startling prophetic message as he inaugurates the first Temple that had just been completed. In his inauguration sermon, King Solomon forewarns that one day the Jewish people would be driven out of the land of Israel, and be banished to the land of their enemies, near and far. During their exile they would fervently desire to repent of their sins. King Solomon then declares that they would face Jerusalem from their exile, confess their sins, “and God will hear their prayers in heaven, and forgive them for all their transgressions.”
There was no mention of a cross or a dead messiah in King Solomon’s prophetic message. Only the contrite and repentant prayer of the remorseful sinner can bring about a complete atonement. Although King Solomon’s timeless message stands out as a theological impossibility in Christian terms, it remains the centerpiece of the Jew’s system of atonement throughout his long and bitter exile.
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Bill: Thanks for the complements. It means a lot. So often on-line one puts a lot of thought into some comments, and it’s nice to know that it was well received.
I want to thank you for your good questions. You certainly have raised points of view I really hadn’t considered before. My background is Italian-American Catholic immigrant community in Chicago. Religion is more of a cultural thing there, when I was a teenager and started to question so many of the things that the Catholic church has done in its history, I would ask my parents or family friends.. or my friends, etc.. and no one knew anything about their religion or history. They had no idea why they had the religious beliefs they held.. I decided I couldn’t consider myself to be a Catholic any more.
I dont have time at the moment to type any more.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 30, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
vinceP1974 Lets continue: Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? What is the Evidence?
As Paul candidly admits, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (I Corinthians15:17) In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this claim.
Bear in mind that Christianity is not the only religion in human history to proclaim to the Jewish people that their savior or demigod was resurrected from the grave. The claim of a deity who has defeated the grip of death is one of the most common themes embedded in the plethora of religions that have emerged since time immemorial. Your question, therefore, may be expanded even more widely because the claim of a divine savior who is born of a virgin birth, suffers a brutal death, and ascends to heaven was so very common among pagan and Gnostic religions during the first century (this was especially true for the regions around Tarsus, Paul’s hometown). Mythologies throughout the Roman Empire and beyond contained widespread beliefs that notable mortals and god-men were born of virgins and returned from the dead. See accounts of Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Drusilla, Claudius, Dionysus-Bacchus, Tammuz-Adonis, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, and Buddha.
The question for the Jewish people is simple. Should we accept the numerous claims made by widespread religions of a miraculous resurrection from the dead simply because their zealous defenders promoted them, regardless of how soon following the supposed event it was alleged to have occurred? Claims of biased followers need to be particularly scrutinized, especially if they were the only claims that exist.
Since the belief in Jesus’ resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, What is the evidence for the belief that Jesus rose from the grave? Aside from the accounts in the New Testament, there is no independent supportive documentation, nor is there any circumstantial evidence. There is not even one contemporaneous historian who mentions one word about the resurrection. The entire claim hangs exclusively on the New Testament texts. Moreover, it was the creators and defenders of Christianity who promoted the stories of the resurrection. Their biased testimony must therefore be examined more carefully. Is this testimony reliable? seeker of truth, you are the judge.
Obviously, a judge must be impartial, and objectively weigh all of the relevant evidence. Realize this is not a routine case; your relationship with God is at stake. As an individual examining the case for the resurrection, you should not be swayed by conjecture or hearsay, but demand clear proof.
If you were the judge presiding over a murder case, you would want to be absolutely certain before convicting the defendant. If the prosecutor called his key witnesses, but each told a different story, his case would be very shaky. The defense attorney would argue for the acquittal of his client by demonstrating the weakness of the prosecutor’s case. He would impeach the state’s witnesses by showing how their accounts are contradictory.
The resurrection narratives in the Gospels may be convincing testimony for people who have not read them very carefully. As a responsible judge, though, you can’t be satisfied with just a casual examination of the evidence, especially if biased witnesses gave the testimony. The stories told in the New Testament, and the passion narratives in particular, are so inconsistent, that the resurrection story collapses under careful scrutiny. The conflicting testimonies of the evangelists are so unreliable, they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls.
Let’s begin this examination of the resurrection stories by studying the date of the crucifixion as told by the four Gospels.
Testament, it is difficult to point to a single event upon which all four Gospel writers agree. Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
A perfunctory examination of New Testament texts reveals that the Books of Matthew,1 Mark,2 and Luke3 all agree that the Last Supper was actually a Passover Seder. Bearing in mind that Jesus was crucified on the very next day following the Last Supper, that would mean that according to all three synoptic4 Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover, or the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan (for example, if tonight were a Passover Seder, then tomorrow would be the first day of Passover5).
The author of the Book of John, however, completely contradicts the first three Gospels, and maintains that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan. The Book of John reads, “Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover . . . . Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.” (19:14-16)
The implications of this stunning contradiction cannot be overstated because both claims cannot be true. In essence, this is not the sort of inconsistency that can be explained away by missionaries insisting that the reason for the varying Gospel accounts is due to different perspectives of the Gospel writers. Jesus was crucified either of the eve of Passover, which is the 14th day of Nissan, as John contends, or on the first day of Passover, which is the 15th day of Nissan, as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke maintain. Jesus could not have been crucified on both days.
As a result of this conflict over the crucifixion date, numerous other aspects of John’s passion narrative will differ radically with the synoptic Gospels. For instance, John’s description of what transpired during the Last Supper is entirely different from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John cannot include a Passover Seder in his version of the Last Supper because according to his reckoning of the date of the crucifixion, the night of the Last Supper fell on the night of the 13th day of Nissan, which was not a holiday. Therefore, in his Last Supper no aspect of the Seder ceremony occurs. In fact, in John’s Last Supper, there is neither eating of the matzo nor drinking of the wine because in John’s Gospel the evening before the crucifixion does not occur on the festival of Passover. In the book of John (chapter 13), where the events that occurred the night before the crucifixion are described, we therefore find no mention of anyone drinking wine, or eating matzo and herbs as we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John’s account of the Last Supper only describes Jesus’ washing the feet of the disciples.
Moreover, John begins his 13th chapter by saying, “Now before the festival of the Passover . . . .” This is a stunning opening statement because according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke that momentous night wasn’t “before the festival of Passover, but rather it was the festival of Passover. Also, according to John, when Judas Iscariot mysteriously leaves the Last Supper with the moneybag, the disciples immediately presume that he is taking money to purchase food for the festive meal (13:29). Why would Judas be purchasing food for the feast if, according to the first three Gospels, they had just eaten it?
Furthermore, John’s story describes how, when the Jews were handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified on the morning of the crucifixion, “They [the Jews] themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.”6 (John 18:28) Why were these Jews concerned about not being able to eat the Passover? According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke they had already eaten it because the Passover Seder took place the previous night. This is not a problem for John because John states that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, so that this statement makes perfect sense in his story. In contrast, the synoptic Gospels never mention in their accounts the fear the Jews had of entering the home of Pilate. Such concern would be preposterous because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s story, the Jews had already eaten the Passover lamb the previous night.
The first question that naturally comes to mind is: Why would John change the crucifixion date from the 15th day of Nissan to the 14th day? Why was it so important to the author of the fourth Gospel that Jesus be crucified on the eve of Passover rather than the first day of Passover, as the other three Gospels claim?
The simple answer becomes quite clear when we have a good understanding of what message John’s Gospel was trying to convey to its reader.
Remembering that the book of John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, the author was trying to appeal to a second century church that had already become predominantly gentile. Bearing this in mind, John had to appeal to these pagans of the Greco-Roman world whom he was addressing. This was accomplished by carefully integrating heathen practices with elements of the Jewish faith. The notion that an animal was to be revered and sacrificed as a god was well known and widely practiced throughout the Roman Empire7 in mystery religions such as Mithraism, which flourished during the time that the Book of John was being written. This book’s author was well aware of this and seamlessly fused together the Mithraic sacrifice of the redeeming bull with the Jewish sacrifice of the Paschal lamb.
It is for this reason that only in John’s Gospel does John the Baptist proclaim of Jesus, “Behold, the Lamb of God . . . .” (1:29, 36) In fact, of the four Gospels, only John ever equates Jesus with the Passover lamb. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke agreed with the fourth Gospel that the lamb was the antitype of Jesus, as John insisted, why is it that when the synoptic Gospels described the communion at the last supper, Jesus raised the matzo saying, “This is my body”? He should have raised the Paschal lamb. At mass, priests should be giving their parishioners lamb chops rather than a wafer for communion.
In addition, only John’s narrative includes the story of the Roman soldiers who pierced the side of Jesus rather than break his legs on the cross (John 19:31-37). This brief narrative only fits into the theological story line of the fourth Gospel. This is because only the author of the Book of John was eager not to have Jesus’ bones broken so as not to violate the prohibition of breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb found in the Book of Exodus (12:46).
Therefore, we have come to the reason that John places the crucifixion on the 14th day rather than the 15th. Because the Torah commands Israel to slaughter the Paschal lamb on the eve of Passover or on the 14th day of Nissan (Exodus 12:6), John’s Jesus is also “slaughtered” (i.e. crucified) on the eve of Passover or the 14th day of Nissan.
The Resurrection Accounts:
Can Both of These Stories Be True?
Matthew 28:1-10
(1)After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. (2) And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. (3) His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. (4) For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. (5) But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. (6)He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. (7) Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.” (8) So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. (9) Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. (10) Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
John 20:1-18
(1) Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. (2) So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.” (3) Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. (4) The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. (5) He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. (6) Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, (7) and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. (8) Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; (9) for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. (10) Then the disciples returned to their homes. (11) But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; (12) and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. (13) They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” (14) When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. (15) Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” (16) Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher). (17) Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (18) Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her.
What is wrong with the two stories quoted above? If taken separately, the resurrection accounts presented by either Matthew or John appear fancifully viable. When read side by side, however, they collapse because it would have been historically and chronologically impossible for both accounts to have occurred. In fact, the crucial events presented in these two Gospel narratives are so manifestly contradictory that even liberal Christians, who often allow for occasional mistakes that appear in the New Testament, must take pause.
This brief study will examine several irresolvable contradictions in the variant Gospel accounts of the resurrection chronology as reported by the authors of Matthew and John. The following discrepancies, which we will now examine, have been selected because they cannot be ameliorated or explained away by such well-worn arguments as “each Gospel writer is giving us his own personal perspective.” Such a rationalization becomes impossible because the above Gospel narratives are so irreconcilable that no explanation can account for the stark differences between them.
Matthew presents us with a post-resurrection story where the two Marys are greeted at the tomb by an angel who had just rolled away the stone from its entrance. After revealing to both women the empty place where Jesus’ body once laid, the angel proclaims to them that Jesus had already risen from the dead. The angel goes on to instruct both Marys that they are to tell the disciples that Jesus had gone before them to the Galilee to meet them. (Matthew 28:1-7)
If that encounter wasn’t convincing enough for the two women, Matthew continues to relate how, after leaving the tomb, both Marys unexpectedly meet the resurrected Jesus himself, whom they both worship. Jesus then essentially repeats the angel’s instructions to them, and sends the women to inform the disciples that they are to meet the resurrected Jesus in the Galilee. (Matthew 28:8-10)
Like Matthew’s account, John’s resurrection narrative also contains an empty tomb. However, that is where the similarities between the first and fourth Gospel end. In John’s version of the first Easter morning, when Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb, there is no angel there to greet her with information about Jesus’ whereabouts or instructions about a rendezvous in the Galilee as we find in Matthew’s account (Matthew 28:5-7). On the contrary, in John’s story, after Mary finds the empty tomb, she concludes that someone had removed the body from the grave. Mary certainly had no reason to believe otherwise. She therefore quickly runs back to the disciples and reports, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him!” (John 20:1-2)
The above account is entirely inconsistent with Matthew’s post-resurrection narrative. Why didn’t Mary know that Jesus’ body was not laid anywhere? In Matthew’s story, the angel had already reported to her that Jesus rose from the dead and had gone to the Galilee. It would therefore have been ludicrous for her to think that someone had moved the body when the angels had already informed her that Jesus’ resurrection had occurred. Moreover, if the angel’s instructions to her were not convincing enough, Matthew maintains that Mary also met the resurrected Jesus himself right after leaving the tomb (Matthew 28:9); and all this transpires before Mary ever sees the disciples. Why then in John’s Gospel is Mary clueless as to where Jesus’ body was moved, when according to Matthew, Mary had already heard from two reliable sources — the angel at the tomb and Jesus himself — that Jesus rose from the dead?
Further contradicting Matthew’s post-resurrection account, John’s story lacks the Roman guards whom Matthew places at the tomb to prevent anyone from removing Jesus’ body. How could John’s Mary have thought that someone removed the body, when according to Matthew, Roman soldiers were placed at the tomb for the specific purpose of preventing just such an occurrence? Obviously, the author of the fourth Gospel has no need for Roman guards at the tomb, so in John’s crucifixion account they simply are not there.
This Gospel problem of the missing Roman soldiers in the Book of John raises another important issue. Missionaries often contend that it would have been impossible for anyone to have surreptitiously removed Jesus’ corpse from the tomb because there were guards posted at the tomb who would have prevented such an occurrence. Therefore, they argue, without any possibility for the body to have been quietly whisked away, the only other logical conclusion is that Jesus must have truly been raised from the dead.
John’s account, however, completely nullifies this argument because according to his story line that is precisely what Mary thought had happened. Mary clearly didn’t feel as though the scenario of Jesus’ body being removed was unlikely. In fact, according to John, that was her only logical conclusion. Clearly, Matthew’s guards didn’t dissuade John’s Mary from concluding that someone had taken Jesus’ body, because, in John’s story, Matthew’s Roman guards do not exist.
To compound the problem of the conflicting resurrection accounts even further, John’s Gospel continues to unfold with Mary returning to the tomb a second time only to find two angels sitting inside the tomb. Mary is still unaware of any resurrection as she complains to the angels that someone had removed Jesus’ cadaver. As far as John’s Mary was concerned, the only explanation for the missing body was that someone must have removed it, and she was determined to locate it (John 20:11-13). Although in Matthew’s account the angel emphatically tells Mary about the resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7), in John’s Gospel the angels say nothing about any resurrection. The angels only ask Mary, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Mary then inquires as to whether the angels have removed Jesus’ body. At that point, Mary turns around only to see Jesus standing before her, and mistakes him for the gardener. Mary is still completely unaware of any resurrection, and therefore asks the “gardener” if he was the one who carried away Jesus’ body. It is only then that Mary realizes that she was speaking to the resurrected Jesus (John 20:14-16).
It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John remain hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every missionary must respond to is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus rose from the dead? According to Matthew he clearly did, and in John’s account they certainly did not. Both could not have occurred. As we survey the divergent New Testament accounts of the resurrection, we are not just looking at contradictory versions, we are simply staring at two entirely different stories.
Many Christian apologists have argued that the inconsistent resurrection accounts are similar to a traffic accident that is viewed by four different witnesses: Each who sees it has a distinct perspective. This might be a tenable idea if the evangelists were actually on the scene and watched the story unfold as the women approached the tomb. Yet this was not the case. Not only were the Gospel writers not eyewitnesses, they didn’t even write their accounts of the story until at least 40-70 years after it allegedly took place. Moreover, most of the inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives (i.e. date, time, and place) cannot be explained away as differences in perspective.
Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), a renowned philosopher and a contemporary of Jesus, wrote extensively about his time. Yet his entire corpus of works fails to mention a word regarding Jesus or his alleged resurrection. Josephus’ silence on this matter is also deafening. Consequently, the only information we have of this 2,000-year-old tale is the Greek document called the New Testament. Yet the moment our finger begins to navigate through its verses we are confronted and appalled by the plethora of glaring irreconcilable inconsistencies. Every element of the resurrection narrative is recklessly contradicted by another.
There is, however, a more significant issue here: the source. When a number of people, in different places, and at different times, write a description of an event that occurred in the significant past — whether a year ago, a decade ago, or a half a century ago — we expect and anticipate many contradictions. Why, you ask? Because humans are fallible, and are therefore likely to make unintentional and intentional errors. Accordingly, when we read descriptions of what transpired during a historical event, such as the assassination of JFK, disparities will inevitably exist among the accounts. Therefore, when various individuals witness a traffic accident and then attempt to clearly transmit the information they saw, errors will be made. This is what we expect from humans! The New Testament, however, does not make this claim. Its authors and those who promoted the Christian religion wanted us to believe that its content was divinely inspired! Every word is from God! With this claim, we must hold it to an entirely different standard of accuracy — that of perfection. The time span from the first letters of Paul to the last words of Revelation is over a half a century. Moreover, these books were penned from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. Thus, if we are to assume they were written by mere mortals, without Heavenly inspiration, mistakes and inconsistencies are expected. God, however, is inerrant.
There is another difference between conflicting accounts of a traffic accident and conflicting accounts of the resurrection. The testimonies of a traffic accident are believable because they are likely to have occurred and make sense in our world. The resurrection story, on the other hand, is a biological and scientific impossibility. Thus, the only reason for believing its miraculous occurrence — defying all natural laws — is the believer’s total reliance on the credibility of the divine author. Since the stunning contradictions clearly establish the human origins of the resurrection stories, we can no more accept their testimony than we can that of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, the resurrection story is a self-serving rationalization to account for a messianic failure.
I know there have been many frantic attempts to respond to some of the countless inconsistencies that exist in the Gospels. These answers, however, are so plainly forced and contrived that even a perfunctory examination of these rationalizations lets its reader know that they were written by desperate men, hopelessly trying to swim with shoes made of concrete. God doesn’t suffer from human fallibility and certainly wouldn’t present such a garbled account of what Christians consider the most crucial event in world history.
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Narvey God has a dilemma, to save all mankind even though they do not fulfill Gods purpose or destroy some millions so that those who do survive do fulfill Gods purpose on earth. this is a toughie
http://www.kiruv.com/blueprint1.php short clip you might find interesting!
http://www.torahohr.net/showVideo.php?vid=95
Comment by yamit82 — May 30, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Yamit, your posts #59 & 61 are fabulous. I learned much. Thanks. I do hope that Vince can provide some further insights.
Anyway, Yamit thanks again.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 30, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
I only poked my head in here to clarify the motivations of Christian Zionists, and to dispell the myth that we want to actively assist in destroying Israel.
I engaged in a substanial diaglog with Bill because he had asked me some good questions and I wanted to present my viewpoint which I suspect is not often articulated. I did not spend the time going into all that so as to say “I’m right, you’re wrong. What you believe is silly”. As I said. I was just saying what I believe.
Other than some finely-tuned questions, I really have no interest in coninting on, espeically as some of these things are getting to be 4-screens long.
Vince
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 30, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Bill: I read them. but it’s not in my mission statement to serve as the defender of 2,000 years of European history. I dont even like Europe.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 30, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
VinceP1974, I trust you know that I see you and I are on the same side in spite of differing religious views.
I, along with almost all here at Israpundit are very appreciative for the support and friendship of yourself and your fellow Christian Zionists for both Israel and the world Jewish community. The myth you speak of is much overblown by a few skeptics.
Yes I have many questions as does Yamit.
What Yamit overlooked in his analysis was what I noted before in mine.
That is that often in matters of religion, faith in the truth delivered by that religion simply cannot be reconciled with truths that fact and logic reveal. That the two are often irreconcilable and incompatible, does not shake the faith of the true believer.
Though Jews and Christians will not be able to reconcile the disparities between their respective faiths, there is far more in common between Judaism and Christianity, then differences.
Those things in common are plentiful and substantive and thus give Christians and Jews every good reason to unite in friendship and in common and mutually supportive cause as regards those challenges that confront both.
I hope you stay involved Vince. I have enjoyed our exchange very much.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 30, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
Thanks Bill.
I been reading this blog for a while, i’ll be around. What country you live in?
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 30, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Canada.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 30, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
I have no problems with any other belief system providing they are unobtrusive to my physical and spitatual well being ,not as those belief systems would have it but as I would have it. It is difficult for me to believe and accept that any believing and practicing Christian has no ulterior motivation or end game agenda re: Jews and Israel wven though they profess love and support for Jews and Israel. Based on my limited knowledge personally, i do not buy into such professions as it is in direct conflict with 2000 years of Christian Butchery. Christianity to the best of my knowledge has not changed either her Gospels, rescinded those anti Jewish passages, nor has most Christians or any that I know of come out in any public way and say Christian Dogma as pertaining to Jews is in error , wrong, and therefore the Gospels are no longer true and valid. Until that day I suspect any Christian advances of friendship even those wrapped in the veneer of love and friendship. I also believe human nature has not changed recently if at all in history of man and we are only 2 generations remove from a Christian slaughter of the Jews, the subsequent denial of Jews to have their own homeland and todays western movements against the Jews siding to this end with their own mortal enemies to the end of denying the Jews what is rightfully theirs. My gut is that if anyone wants to support us fine go ahead do your thing and even if there are no strings attached which \I tend to suspect and rather doubt do not expect a thank you from me at least, historically the burden is on the Gentiles and only from a point of historical hindsight will we be able to judge and evaluate if I am correct or not.
Comment by yamit82 — May 31, 2008 @ 4:36 am
yamit: I would say you have every right and justification to be suspicious.
But I would like you to consider that the Christians of America have had a very different expierence than the Christians in Europe. And that this difference is the fundamental reason why America is so strongly Pro-Israel.
The Zionist Christians of today can trace their ideological beginnings to the Puritans who left Britian and came to America so that they could practice their austere and often intolerant brand of Christinaity in freedom. Coming to America was a frightening prospect to many of them. It was not something that was easy to do.. many knew they would die in trying to establish a community in America. But they felt the call of God to leave Britian and go to a new land where they could live and worship thier God in freedom.
They viewed their predictment as a parrellel to Israel’s bondage in Egypt and then God leading them out of slavery to the Promised Land. The most critical aspect of this was that they did not see themselves as taking on the role of Israel but that Israel’s past release from slavery was a model for what God was doing for them now.
They had the view that God was acting through them to establish a nation devoted to him here in the Americas and that the destiny of America was to then work toward returning the Jews to their land.
The Puritans were not part of any larger institution. The Bible was the only source for their religious tenants. Tradition was rejected; therefore, any of the attitudes of the European christians that came about due to tradition, habit, culture, history and probably most importantly Catholicism were not continued here.
These ideas were very powerful and they were written into the fabric of America’s soul, even after the arrival of many more settlers up and down the Atlantic Coast who had nothign to do with those religious tenents per se.
After independence and the defeat of the Muslims of North Africa in the 2nd Barabry War, Christian Missionaries began to head to Israel. Their agenda was to motivate the Jews living there to work toward eventual reestablishment of thier homeland.
This movement was at its most busy in the period before the American Civil War.
I’m going to turn it over to this excert from the Weekly Standard.
I hope you read this and reconsider your view point in light of these important facts. You should no more hold a grudge toward people who have not earned then other people should hold one towards you.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/013/210pempp.asp
Page 2
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 31, 2008 @ 6:21 am
Yamit & VinceP1974,
Amongst Christian Zionists and Christian Evangelicals in America numbering I have read over 50 million people, there some who profess their love of Israel and Jews and give their support while at the same time persuing their own sense of religious duty to prosletyze and convert Jews today.
Those are the Christian Zionists whom Jews should and must be wary of and rebuff their missionizing efforts and thinking at the first credible sign such motive and intent is within the heart of any particular Christian Zionist.
As I noted before, rebuffing such missionizing Christian Zionist efforts and thinking need not be done rancourously, but rather done politely, but firmly. That rebuff should be followed up with our Jewish extended hand of friendship to these missionizing Christian Zionists to encourage them to take our hand in friendship, but without missionizing strings attached.
Not all and indeed from my reading, most Christian Zionists profess unconditional love of Israel and Jews and give their support accordingly. True, many of those believe that with the Jews return to Zion and the re-establishment of the Jewish nation in Israel, the condtions are coming into place that will set the stage for the second coming of Jesus at which time Jews will see that Jesus is their long awaited messiah and accept Jesus as their saviour.
That time however has not come and if or when that might happen, no one knows. Either Christian prophecy will be realized or it will not.
Israel needs all the friendship, help and support it can get now. Christian Zionists are giving that friendship, help and support. World Jewry needs as many friends, help and support as they can get and Christian Zionists are now giving that friendship, help and support.
That is what is most critically important in my view
Knowing full well of the suffering of Jews at the hands of the Christians over the past 2 millennia, just as Yamit speaks of, I take a somewhat different view then Yamit as regards Christian Zionists’ motives for the friendship, help and support they now give Israel and Jews.
Whereas Yamit harbours suspicions as regards Christian Zionists motives, though I am sure he like me feels thankful and appreciative for such show of support, I feel only the need for caution.
My caution is two fold. First it is to be vigilent that the friendship, help and support extended by Christian Zionists to Jews and Israel is and remains unconditional. Secondly, things can change depending on circumstances and Jews must remain attentive to any such change that would undermine the unconditional nature of Christian Zionist friendship, help and support being given Israel and Jews and react accordingly.
That said, it should be noted that CUFI has organized its Third Annual Washington-Israel Summit in Washington, D.C. at the Washington Convention Center July 21-24, 2008, under the banner, Your Chance to Vote for Israel. This convention will be meeting with both houses of Congress and Senate and will be trying to reach every member of those houses to make their pro-Israel views known.
Details of this event can be found at the following CUFI webpage:
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_washington_summit
CUFI also has been holding “A Night to Honour Israel” across America. Check out their following web page which links to all such events in the past and upcoming.
http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=events_honor_israel
Yamit is not completely correct in stating:
While it is unrealistic to expect that Christians would, even if they came to believe that the Gospels were in error and plain wrong as regards the Jews, would go father to say if the Gospels are wrong in that regard, the Gospels are no longer valid in total.
There are some Christians who have questioned the accuracy of the the Gospels as regards the Jews and the Gospel’s claim that the Jews were complict in deicide. John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and noted theologian, in spite of his faith in Jesus and Christianity has made a very strong case for questioning the Gospels as to Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus and how the Gospels and early Christianity in its interpretations as regards Jews, laid the foundations for antisemitism. With Constantine’s declaring Christianity the Roman Empire’s only sanctioned religion and with the Nicean Creed of 325 A.D., Christian anti-semitism became lethal for Jews.
Crossan is not the only Christian of note who has questioned the Gospel account of the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus.
The Catholic Church carried the banner for Jew hatred amongst Christians for almost 2 millennia. It is the early Catholic Church that proclaimed Jews then and forever were guilty of deicide. It was the Catholic Church that advocated replacement theology whereby God’s covenant with the Jews was at an end and a new covenant with Christians replaced it.
In October, 1965 however what for the Catholic Church amounted to a quantum leap, the Vatican decreed its Nostra Aetate that, while still accusing some Jews of the time of having been complicit in the death of Jesus, made special note that it was not all Jews then that were complicit and no other Jews then or since can be charged with such accusation. Nostrae Aetate also spoke out against antisemitism and has been interpreted to mean that the Vatican was declaring antisemitism a sin.
The full text of the Nostra Aetate can be found at the following link:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
The specific portion of Nostra Aetate concerning Jews is in the following quoted extract:
To be sure, Jews will still be concerned that Nostra Aetate did not go nearly far enough. Nonetheless, Nostra Aetate did usher in a new relationship between Catholics and may Christians and Jews.
That is certainly something to build on with Christians just as there is much to build on between Christians and Jews as is evidenced by Christian Zionists and Evangelicals.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 31, 2008 @ 8:34 am
When most people (Jewish and non-Jewish) state their objections to Christianity or the historical legacy of it, what I find usually is that the Roman Catholic church seems to be at the root of the problem(s).
Even my own problems with the past were problems that I lay at the doorstep of the RCC. I was raised Catholic, I think I was around 17 when I renounced being a Catholic.
Though I should say this about the Catholics… I went to Catholic private school from K - 8th Grade through the 1980s in Chicago. I can tell you that we were taught very matter of factly the Old Testament, the story of the patriachs, the Judges, the Kings, the Prophets. We were never taught anything that would suggest we were to harbor negative views of Jewish people. I don’t remember ever being told about Protestants though.. I didn’t know who they were until my family moved to the suburbs in time for High School.. that was funny. I suspect we got maybe one hour on Reformation and I have no memory of it. And stuff like prophecy, the future, I dont think that was touched on at all. I can’t remember how often we had religious class. if it was a daily or weekly thing. I recall almost no specifics of this education but I know in High School I was always the kid defending Israel when current events was discussed, and my high school in the SW burbs of chicago had a good sized number of Muslims. Between 88 - 92.. There was nothing particular about them though.. they were just like everyone else. (Or so it seemed(?)) so for me to go through Catholic school and be a strong supporter of the Israeli POV in a secualr school , i think i’ll complement the catholic school for any role it had . I dont think there were any Jewish kids in any of the schools I went to , until I went to Univ of IL.
I feel like applying directly to how Israel should treat its relationship with the US Govt. The US govt is such an embarassment. Bush’s 2nd term is a catastrophe. When I think of the Foreign Policy that Bush/Rice have come up with the word “Betrayal” comes to my mind. We have to be owned by Saudi Arabia. The country is compromised.
I feel culpible for having supported Bush at all.. I feel like he pulled the wool over everyone. For his sake I hope it’s due to something sinister like he’s being blackmailed , or the pressure on him is too great or something conspiratorial like that. I know many of us ask how it could be that Israel makes deal after deal with Arabs only to have the Arabs violate all the terms over and over.
Well now I ask, how can the US Govt be relied upon when it has shown that it is most destructive to its “friends” rather than the enemies. I would love for Israel to tell Rice to go home the next time she thinks of going back there and complaining that things are moving fast enough. My God what is the hurry!
That’s another thing… who can’t see the disaster that would result out of forcing a “agreement” by the end of this year. This can almost be made into a Rule of Science… forcing some agreement to meet an arbitrary deadline results in peolpe dying.
These people run our government.. it’s absolutely frightening.
The Gospel narrative says that the High Priests indicted him for blasphemy and Rome , as the soverign, implemented the sentence when leaving the decision up to the crowd.
We were taught Jesus’s entire reason for living was to be killed on the cross. Or more accurately, to die on the Cross. I have no memory ever of my friends or me having the feeling like “Those Damn Jews! If only they let him live.. he would have survived! Curse them!”
Now maybe that’s how it was in the European villages of the 1400s but no one I know thinks that way.
Many Christians realize that because of the horrible aspects of some of the culture in Europe over the past 2,000s that horrible things were done to Jewish peolpe in the name of Jesus or their religion from one end to Europe to the other… and that the United States isn’t perfect in that regard either.
All we can do is repent for their crimes , speak loudly and clearly that to be Anti-Jewish is to be Anti-Christian, and that we should be thankful that Christians and Jews have a spiritual heritage (I bet Jewish people say to themselves, we did not ask for this.. you Christians are like stalkers!) that together testifies about the God of Israel and we all long for the day that this God fullfills his promises to all.
Comment by VinceP1974 — May 31, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Bill I will address you as I do perceive you have an inquisitive mind. The God of the Jews is not the same God as the God of Islam or The Gods of Christianity. Our God is not a tolerant God he extract measure for measure for disobedience to his stated ordinances.God made a deal a contract with the Hebrews. So far god has been good to his word, it is we who have not. God uses the Jew as a bee who is the worlds pollenizer to spread the word and the concept that God is. Who the world treats the Jews reflects upon God.
“Four things does the Almighty regret having made: Exile, the Chaldeans (Babylon - modern day Iraq), the Ishmaelite and the Evil Inclination.” (Tractate Sukkot 52b)
It is obvious why the Almighty regrets having created the Chaldeans who burned the Holy Temple. It is more than obvious why he regrets having made the Ishmaelites …
And, of course, since man’s sins stem from Evil Inclination within him, that is also an obvious reason for regret. But why does the Almighty regret having made the Exile?
After all, the Exile is a punishment for Jewish sins. And having, indeed, created the Evil Inclination and the enemies who drive Jews out of their land, the Exile remains a logical punishment for the Jewish people.
The reason is, clearly, that far from chastening the Jew and bringing him to repentance, the Exile made things much worse. It did nothing less than corrupt and pervert the purity and truth of Torah, creating instead various counterfeits of “Judaism” and “Jewishness.”
The Jew does not wish to be isolated. He fears being alone, without allies. He fears man, he trusts only in man and so - in the exquisitely Divine way of the Almighty - precisely that which he fears will be sent upon him. He fears to do that which the Almighty demands - to annex the territories and establish Jewish sovereignty over them, as part of the Holy Land of Israel. The Almighty repays him by turning them into burning caldrons of an intifada, with confused Israeli youth not knowing whether these Holy lands are indeed Jewish or “occupied”. While a world that is normal and knows that if land belongs to you then you annex it, feels free to condemn a country that does not do so as an “occupier”.
He fears to throw out the cancer raging in his midst - the Arab enemy - lest the world turn on him. He is repaid measure for measure by a grim Almighty as the world,! daily, condemns him for “oppression” of people that would not have been there had he had faith in G-d rather than fear of the Gentile.
In any event, the Jew will be isolated, and that is the greatest blessing imaginable. For so long as the Jew has even one ally, he will be convinced - in his smallness of mind - that his salvation came from that ally. It is only when he is alone - against all of his own efforts and frantic attempts - that he will, through no choice, be compelled to turn to G-d. And it is only when the Jew stands alone against a world unified in hatred against him, that the Almighty will turn, in His anger and wrath, against the nations that knew Him not, and His powerful arm that will bring salvation to the Jew will be the awesome proof to the nations that the Lord, G-d of Israel, is indeed One - the only One.
That is why isolation will be. That it is why it must be. It is the greatest of blessings, and the foolish Jew of little faith sees it only as a curse. Foolish Jew, Jew of Exile, whose soul and mind has been destroyed by that Exile, who has turned from a Jew of fa! ith into one of trembling before the man of dust
Unless. Unless we become the Jews we were meant to be. The Jews of chosenness. Of might and faith. Unless we ignore both the money and the honey of the United States and their empty threats and condemnation. Condemnation? It is dandruff to be brushed away before moving on to do the will of G-d. In any event, there is no choice. The United States will turn on Israel, slowly and subtly. The difference is that if we turn from the Gentile first, we will have the Almighty as the immediate staff and our comfort. If not, we will have neither the Gentile nor, for a terrible stage, the Almighty.
“And when they came into the nations, whither they came, they profaned My Holy Name, in that the nations said concerning them: These are the people of the L-rd and they are driven forth from the land! But I had pity for My Holy Name which the House of Israel profaned among the nations whither they came. Therefore say unto the House of Israel: Thus saith the L-rd, G-d: I do this not for your sake O House of Israel, but for My Holy Name… And I will sanctify My great Name which hath been profaned among the nations which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the nations shall know that I am the L-rd, saith the L-rd, G-d, WHEN I SHALL BE SANCTIFIED THROUGH YOU BEFORE THEIR EYES. For I will take you from among the nations and gather you out of all the countries and will bring you into your own land.” (Ezekiel 36)
Comment by yamit82 — May 31, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
“Not for our sake, not for our sake but unto Thy Name give glory… Why shall the nations say: ‘Where is G-d?’” (Psalms 115)
“Oh L-rd, what shall I say, after Israel hath turned their backs before their enemies… and what wilt Thou do for Thy great Name?” (Joshua 7)
“Israel’s degradation is the desecration of the Name of the L-rd.” (The Biblical commentator Rashi, Ezekiel 39:7)
“The L-rd reigneth; let the nations tremble!” (Psalms 99)
The era of hallowed sanctification has begun; it cannot coexist with degradation and humiliation. A Jewish state cannot live side by side with the Exile. The latter is doomed; it is a Divine decree. The Exile will be
destroyed in a holocaust of horror!
“As I live, saith the L-rd, G-d, surely with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out, will I be king over you. And I will bring you out from the peoples… with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm and fury poured out.” (Ezekiel 20)
“Fury poured out.” Heaven help us!
Ephraim, he mixes himself with the peoples; Ephraim is become a cake not turned. Strangers have devoured his strength and he knoweth it not.” (Hosea 7)
Comment by yamit82 — May 31, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
How are you doing Vince? I am an American with an education so I know American history, Jewish American history and a lot you won’t read in any of the standard History books. Oren I know personally and is a nice guy but a non believer and a proponent of OSLO, Road
map and Gaza disengagement. so he ain’t my cup of Tea . His history of 6 day war is ok but I have read better. a week didn’t go by when I wasn’t fighting some Christian antisemitic kids on my block in our local playgrounds and in and out of school. I think from the age of 7 or 8. I so loved beating the crap out of Your Christian Co religionists. When I was eight some of your guys were taunting me that I killed Christ and I replied WHO WAS CHRIST The question stunned them to silence.
The following quotes convey the Christian doctrine stating that J came to Earth to voluntarily die for the sins of mankind, thus enacting the “ultimate sin atonement” and becoming the “Savior of the world”:
I Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you, it being most important, what I also received, that J died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.
Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
I Peter 3:18 For J also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.
However, one should question this tenet of faith upon evaluating J’s state of mind prior to his crucifixion:
Hebrews 5:7 J prayed with loud crying and supplications and tears to Him Who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because he feared.
Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour J cried out with a loud voice: ‘My G-d, my G-d, why have You forsaken me?’
Luke 22:43 And there appeared an angel to him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Because this verse is excessively revealing, some editions of the New Testament omit it from the text, and have it in the footnotes.
The Messiah is an individual who has attained such an exalted spiritual level as to be prepared to commune with G-d at any time.
As the leader and role model for all the human race, he will need to be capable of relating to and interacting with all nations, cultures, and individuals. He will be the perfect servant of G-d:
Isaiah 11:12 The Spirit of G-d shall rest on him
The spirit of wisdom and understanding
The spirit of counsel and might
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of G-d.
In the situations quoted below, determine for yourself if J could have been this towering spiritual giant:
John 2:13 In the Temple, J found those selling oxen, sheep and pigeons and the money changers sitting, and when he made a whip of cords, he drove them all, with their sheep and oxen, out of the Temple, and he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
From Mark 11:16 we learn : And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple.
Matthew 8:21 Another of the disciples asked him, let me first go and bury my father. But J answered him ‘Follow me and leave the dead to bury their own dead.’
To those who disagreed with him, J responded:
Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?
The Jewish People, after having seen and heard J in person rejected him, because he simply did not meet the criteria for one to be the Messiah, as our Prophets had taught us during the previous 1300 years.
Non-Jews, on the other hand, were at a double disadvantage concerning J. Firstly, they had only learned of his existence after his death, and secondly, they did not have in their possession G-d’s teachings about the real Messiah and Messianic era, as did the Jews. Therefore, they could only rely on what missionaries told them.
From these facts, one can understand why missionaries consider it worth the enormous amounts of money, time and effort they devote to converting Jews. We are the only eyewitnesses as to whether J is the Messiah or not.
In the 12th century C.E. Moshe Maimonides included in his Code of Jewish Law specifically what an individual must accomplish before he is known to be the real Messiah
(Mishne Torah Kings 11:4)
“If a king will arise from the House of David, who is learned in Torah, observant of the commandments, as prescribed by the Written Law and Oral Law, as David his ancestor was,
and he will compel all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah, and reinforce the breaches in its observance, and he will fight the wars of G-d,
we may presume that he is the Messiah.
If he does these things, and is fully successful, builds the Third Temple in its place and gathers the dispersed of Israel, then he is definitely the Messiah.
If he did not succeed to this degree, or he was killed, he surely is not the Messiah promised in the Torah”.
It is quite obvious that according to Jewish Law and Tradition, the only basis for identifying the Messiah, Jesus was definitely not him Romans 3:7 If through my lies G-d’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?
Philippians 1:18 In every way, whether in pretence or in truth, J is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
The veracity of everything that Paul said and wrote is called into question by the fact that these quotes are found in the books he himself authored.
Comment by yamit82 — May 31, 2008 @ 5:04 pm