The Passion of Christ

[Myra]

This is a commentary by DAVID LIMBAUGH about Mel Gibson's very controversial movie regarding Christ's crucifixion. It's worth reading.

 

MEL GIBSON'S passion for "THE PASSION" How ironic that when a movie producer takes artistic license with historical events, he is lionized as artistic, creative and brilliant, but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life story, he is vilified. Actor-producer Mel Gibson is discovering these truths the hard way as he is having difficulty finding a United States studio or distributor

for his upcoming film, "The Passion," which depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ. Gibson co-wrote the script and financed, directed and produced the

movie. For the script, he and his co-author relied on the New Testament Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke a! nd John, as well as the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) and Mary of Agreda's "The City of God."

 

Gibson doesn't want this to be like other sterilized religious epics. I'm trying to access the story on a very personal level and trying to be very real about it." So committed to realistically portraying what many

would consider the most important half-day in the history of the universe, Gibson even shot the film in the Aramaic language of the period. In response to objections that viewers will not be able to understand that language,

Gibson said, "Hopefully, I'll be able to transcend the language barriers with my visual storytelling; if I fail, I fail, but at least it'll be a monumental failure." To further insure the accuracy of the work, Gibson has enlisted the counsel of pastors and theologians, and has received rave reviews. Don Hodel president of Focus on the Family, said,! "I was very impressed. The movie is

historically and theologically accurate." Ted Haggard, pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and president of the National Evangelical Association, glowed: "It conveys, more accurately than any other film, who Jesus was."

 

During the filming, Gibson, a devout Catholic, attended

Mass every morning because "we had to be squeaky clean just working on this." From Gibson's perspective, this movie is not about Mel Gibson. It's bigger than he is. "I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor," he said. "But I really

feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize." Even before the release of the movie,

scheduled for March 2004, Gibson is getting his wish. "Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There

were agnostics an! d Muslims on set converting to Christianity...[and] people being healed of diseases." Gibson wants people to understand through the

movie, if they don't already, the incalculable influence Christ has had on the world. And he grasps that Christ is controversial precisely because of WHO HE IS - GOD incarnate. "And that's the point of my film really, to show

all that turmoil around him politically and with religious leaders and the people, all because He is Who He is."

 

Gibson is beginning to experience first hand just how controversial Christ is. Critics have not only speciously challenged the movie's authenticity, but have charged that it is disparaging to Jews, which Gibson vehemently denies. "This is not a Christian vs. Jewish thing. '[Jesus] came into the world, and it knew him not.' Looking at Christ's crucifixion, I look first at my own culpability in that." Jesuit Father William J. Fulco, who translated the script i! nto Aramaic and Latin, said he saw no hint of

anti-Semitism in the movie. Fulco added, "I would be aghast at any suggestion that Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic." Nevertheless, certain groups and some in the mainstream press have been very critical of Gibson's

Passion."

 

The New York Post's Andrea Peyser chided him: "There is

still time, Mel to tell the truth." Boston Glove columnist James Carroll denounced Gibson's literal reading of the biblical accounts. "Even a faithful repetition of the

Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred," wrote Carroll. A group of Jewish and Christian academics has issued an 18-page report slamming all aspects of the film, including its undue emphasis on Christ's

passion rather than "a broader vision." The report disapproves of the movie s treatment of Christ's passion as historical fact.

 

The moral is that if you want the popular culture to laud your work on Christ, make sure it either depicts Him as a homosexual or as an everyday sinner with no particular redeeming value (literally). In our anti-Christian

culture, the blasphemous "The Last Temptation of Christ" is celebrated, and The Passion" is condemned. But if this movie continues to affect people the way it is now, no amount of cultural opposition will suppress its force and

its positive impact on lives everywhere. Mel Gibson is a model of faith and courage.

 

PS. I have a copy of the trailer, if anyone of you want to watch it, I can send you via e-mail.

 

God Bless!

Myra

[Kulapavana]

yes Myra, the world is terribly degraded when it comes to religion. there were other threads on this subject here, last one: "Protesting Gibson's Passion Lacks Moral Legitimacy". anytime somebody tries to present a truly compelling religious experience, the demons get agitated. Hare Krishna!

[Guest guest]

"I began worrying about Gibson's movie back in March, when The Wall Street

Journal and The New York Times ran their stories. The piece in the Journal

rhapsodized about Gibson's religious faith as well as about his ardent

commitment to his vision: a graphic exploration of the suffering, the

torture, and the death of Jesus. The script would draw not only on the

Gospels, the article reported, but also on visions of Christ's Passion

received and written up by two seventeenth-century nuns. Gibson, the Journal

revealed, was struggling to re-capture historical reality both visually (the

gore, the pain) and aurally. Ancient languages, no subtitles: this was 'a

point of honor for Mr. Gibson.' His reason was simple. 'This is what was

spoken at the time,' he explained."

 

 

"But something did not add up. To depict a first-century event by drawing on

visionary writings composed almost two millennia later makes no sense at

all: one might as well try to reconstruct ancient armor by peering at

Bruegel. And while Aramaic was indeed the daily language of ancient Jews in

Galilee and Judea, Latin would scarcely have figured at all. When the Jewish

high priest and the Roman prefect spoke to each other, they would have used

Greek, which was the English of antiquity. And Pilate's troops, employees of

Rome, were not 'Romans.' They were Greek-speaking local gentiles on the

imperial payroll. Gibson's pious evocations of historicity rang more than a

little hollow. How much homework had he actually done?"

 

for the whole article

 

mad max

 

whats funnier about this event ?

 

that Mel's historicaly "accurate" film was

largely based on visions by two nuns,

 

or

that the gospels "accurate" accounts of Jesus

differ whenever they tell the same story.

[Kulapavana]

you are bringing up interesting points prabhu. the use of latin or greek is debatable, but the official roman court records and proceedings were certainly done in latin. as to the troops, it was a very mixed bag, mostly mercenaries of all sorts under the command of trusted legioneers, but not neccesarily Romans, except for Pilate's personal guard. the Passion is one of the key symbols in Christianity and it's interpretation varies in different churches

[Guest guest]

Mel Gibson decided to use Latin for three reasons. One because it was historically the language of the Romans, two because it created a ‘foreigness’ that would immerse one in the film, and three because he has a personal love for Latin, observing only the Latin Mass. Scholars agree that the Romans spoke Latin amongst themselves. What they aren’t sure of is what form of Latin, and whether they would have spoken Latin (Classical, or Vulgate (common language), or some Italianized Latin) with others. Many scholars believe that they would have likely spoken Greek with non-Romans, as it was a more international trading language. It’s a fairly minor point consider Gibson wanted to go for the effect of foreignness, as well as bringing about his love for Latin. Here is what Gibson has said about his use of Latin and Aramaic:

 

 

“I've always wanted to make a Viking movie,” Gibson, who is forty-seven, explains. “You've got Alfred the Great in Wessex, this English king, saying, 'All the Danes are coming up the river here, we've got to defend ourselves.' And these guys hop off the boats and they're all hairy and they're scary and they've got axes, and some of them are berserkers and they're doing flips and twirls and they just wanna rape and kill, you know? But if they start coming out with 'I want to die with a sword in my hand' and 'Oh, fair maiden,' that would be like-you know, you don't believe them. If they come out with low, guttural German, they are frightening. They are terrifying. They're like demons from the sea. So that's what the language thing did for me. It took something away from you -- you had to depend upon the image.”

 

 

Now as for the issue of using texts outside of the Bible, this really isn’t true. Mel Gibson found inspiration from “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ” by Anne Catherine Emmerich. Apparently one day he was looking through his library for a book, and this one fell and he picked it up. The book is very descriptive and aided in his visualization of the sufferings of Christ. But here is the key. Do these people really care that he is using Anne Catherine Emmerich (a Catholic nun on her way to beatification by the Pope)? No. Paula Fredricksen doesn’t care about what the Bible says, in fact she doesn’t believe it is a worthy source for an historical examination. She goes so far as to lay virtually the entire blame for the Crucifixion on Pilate and none on the Jewish authorities. How can we trust that Gibson has remained faithful to the Biblical account? Simple. Because besides many Catholic theologians who have praised the film, it has received virtually universal praise from groups like the Southern Baptists. Now if you have the Vatican and the Southern Baptists saying a film is true to the Bible, then I’m much more willing to believe it, considering they are theologically both very conservative and very different from one another, than a group of left-leaning scholars formed by the ADL.

 

Here is what Gibson has to say about the Bible’s reliability:

 

Ask Mel Gibson who wrote the Book of John, for example, and he would not hesitate to answer that it was St. John -- that's why it's called “The Gospel According to John.” Ditto Matthew, Mark, and Luke. “John was an eyewitness,” Gibson says. “Matthew was there. And these other guys? Mark was Peter's guy, Peter's scribe. And Luke was Paul's guy. I mean, these are reliable sources. These are guys who were around.”

 

 

What is interesting is that Paula Fredricksen several years ago praised “The Last Temptation of Christ” in a Boston Globe article. Its interesting she has problems with Gibson’s ‘Passion’, yet saw nothing wrong with depicting Christ having sex with Mary Magdalene. She even mentioned that she loves to show it in her theology class. She was one member of a group of left-leaning individuals formed by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) to critique Gibson’s screenplay. The screenplay by the way was stolen.

 

Here is what Gibson has to say about these types of scholars:

 

Gibson is unconvinced by such scholarly interpretations. “They always dick around with it, you know?” he says. “Judas is always some kind of friend of some freedom fighter named Barabbas, you know what I mean? It's horses**t. It's revisionist bulls**t. And that's what these academics are into. They gave me notes on a stolen script. I couldn't believe it. It was like they were more or less saying I have no right to interpret the Gospels myself, because I don't have a bunch of letters after my name. But they are for children, these Gospels. They're for children, they're for old people, they're for everybody in between. They're not necessarily for academics. Just get an academic on board if you want to pervert something!”

 

 

Amen to that.

[Guest guest]

What is interesting is that Paula Fredricksen several years ago praised The Last Temptation of Christ; in a Boston Globe article. Its interesting she has problems with Gibsons Passion, yet saw nothing wrong with depicting Christ having sex with Mary Magdalene. She even mentioned that she loves to show it in her theology class. She was one member of a group of left-leaning individuals formed by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) to critique Gibson;s screenplay. The screenplay by the way was stolen.

 

 

 

 

so the jews are behind it, why am i not suprised at that

coming from catholic apologists,

funny thing, mostly the critics have been christian.

 

what i find amusing is that the concept of jesus having sex

is so inimical to some christians, they believe jesus is god,therefore created sex,yet find it abhorrant that he would actaully have sex,what i find even funnier is trying to pose the gospels as authentic historically, they were written down long after the events described, they contradict each other,and can be shown

to be made up ,the so called authenticity of the gospels

is based on what ?

 

simple faith,not scholarship of any kind whatsoever.

 

gospel forgery ?

[Myra]

"....the so called authenticity of the gospels

is based on what?"

 

The Bible is Authentic because it is based on the writings of witnesses. The Bible was written by about forty different writers over a period of about 1600 years. The writers of the Bible were men who lived in different periods of time, having different occupations, living in different places. In many cases, the writers did not know each other. Yet, there are no contradictions in the Bible. This could not have happened by accident.

 

It really is from God, and really is what God reveals to us about us, about our world, and about God.

 

Scientific Facts. We can also consider the scientific facts found in the Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but it has scientific facts in it. Columbus and Magellan proved the earth is round. That was just 500 years ago. The Bible told us the earth was round thousands of years before anybody ever heard of Columbus or Magellan. “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). “When He prepared the heavens, I was there: When He drew a circle on the face of the deep” (Proverbs 8:27).

 

The Bible also tells us we are not able to number the stars. In 1940, astronomers finally came to the conclusion they were not able to count all of the stars in the universe. Almost 2,500 years ago, Jeremiah recorded: “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me” (Jeremiah 33:22). Almighty God cannot only count the stars, He can call them by name (Psalm 147:4).

 

Fulfilled Prophecies. There are more than 1,000 prophecies in the Bible. The fact that every prophecy is fulfilled is further proof that the Bible is from God. In addition to the prophecies concerning Christ, we note a few others. The prophecy and fulfillment concerning the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26; 1 Kings 16:34). We could also mention the prophecy made by the prophet Isaiah concerning Cyrus, king of Persia (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1; Ezra 1). There were also many prophecies about the church that were fulfilled (Isaiah 2:1-4; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Daniel 2:31-46; Acts 2:14-47).

 

Archaeology. Archaeology confirms the facts of the Bible. Archaeology is a young science. It wasn't until about AD 1840 that archaeology began to be used to prove that the Bible record is true. Archaeology has established the location of Bible places. The location of Sheba. The Old Testament records the story of the Queen of Sheba traveling to visit king Solomon (1 Kings 10:1-3). Jesus tells us this story is true (Matthew 12:42). About one hundred years ago, two Europeans traveled to South Arabia and found writing on walls in the city of Marib. That city was the capital of ancient Sheba. Archaeology also proved the location of Nineveh. Archaeology has supported Bible doctrine. Some claim there were not enough pools of water in Jerusalem to baptize 3,000 people as recorded in Acts 2:41. Yet, archaeologists have found pool after pool in the ancient city. One pool was longer than two football fields and wider than one football field.

 

Regarding the idea of depicting Christ having sex, it was really wrong. It was never written in the Bible. It was never written that Christ is lusty or naugthy, or stealing or enagaged with girls in his past time. Before His crucifixion, He spent His life in the temple and travelling, praying, fasting, studying and preaching. It is obvious that the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" was the product of a lustful-demonic mind in this wordly time.

 

I will not deny that I am a "Lover" of Jesus, so please forgive me if I have offended you Shiva. Moreover, I know that the love of God is not limited to the christians alone and I do not agree to those fanatic christians who chastise other communities that is serving God in a different way or in different names. I respect and Love Krishna because I believe that He is no other but my God also. I am also learning a lot from Vedas teachings.

 

What is it in the Bible that hurts you? Please don't judge the Bible by the religious people that are following it but by its scriptures.

 

God Bless!

Myra.

[Kulapavana]

JESUS' DEATH NOW DEBATED BY JEWS

 

Jewish Week, Oct. 3, 2003

 

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/n...php3?artid=8530

 

AJCommittee scholar cites Talmudic passage; others question

views and timing in light of Gibson furor.

 

 

Eric J. Greenberg - Staff Writer

 

 

The controversy over Mel Gibson's upcoming film about the

 

death of Jesus has spurred painful exchanges between Jews and

 

Christians and progressive and traditional Catholics in recent

 

days. To date, the debates have centered on the "proper"

 

interpretation of the role of Jews in Jesus' Crucifixion, as

 

presented in the four New Testament Gospels.

 

 

But this week, Gibson's $25 million biblical epic, which

 

the director insists is about love and forgiveness, has triggered

 

a new squabble among Jewish scholars.

 

The texts in question are not New Testament but rather passages

 

long censored (by Christian authorities?) about Jesus from the

 

Talmud, the encyclopedia of Jewish law and tradition considered

 

sacred by traditional Jews.

 

 

 

Raising the issue is an article by Steven Bayme, the American

 

Jewish Committee's national director of Contemporary Jewish

 

Life, which declares that Jews must face up to the fact that the

 

Talmudic narrative "does clearly demonstrate ... fourth century

 

rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of

 

Jesus."

 

 

"Jewish apologetics that 'we could not have done it' because of

 

Roman sovereignty ring hollow when one examines the Talmudic

 

account," Bayme said.

 

 

He contends that Jewish interfaith representatives are not being

 

honest in dialogue if they ignore the explicit Talmudic references

 

to Jesus.

 

 

His article was posted on the AJCommittee's Web site last week,

 

then removed after a Jewish Week reporter's inquiry.

 

 

Ken Bandler, a spokesman for the AJCommittee, said the article

 

was taken down to "avoid confusion" over whether it represented

 

the organization's official position. AJCommittee officials now

 

refer to the article as "an internal document."

 

 

Some Jewish scholars and interfaith officials were upset with

 

the article, either questioning Bayme's scholarship or his timing

 

'saying this was a particularly delicate time to call attention to

 

Jews' role in Jesus' death' or both.

 

 

But Bayme was unswayed. Citing the continuing controversy

 

over Gibson's "The Passion," which has reignited concern over

 

Christianity's ancient charge against Jews as "Christ killers," he

 

wrote that it is also important "that Jews confront their own

 

tradition and ask how Jewish sources treated the Jesus narrative."

 

 

Bayme cites a passage from the Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, which

 

relates the fate of a man called Jesus who is hanged on the eve

 

of Passover for practicing sorcery and leading the people of

 

Israel astray.

 

 

When no one comes forward to defend the accused sorcerer

 

during a 40-day reprieve, Jewish authorities put him to death,

 

despite Jesus' "connections with the government." The Talmud

 

cites this incident during a discussion of due process and capital

 

punishment in Jewish law.

 

 

Bayme acknowledges that that the passage was written by

 

Talmudic scholars in Babylon, who lived about 400 years after

 

Jesus.

 

 

"To be sure, historians cannot accept such a text uncritically,"

 

Bayme wrote.

 

 

But he says the passage is significant because the Talmudic

 

text "indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in

 

principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life

 

Jesus would indeed have been executed.

 

 

"No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans," Bayme

 

said. "Pointedly, Jews did not argue that crucifixion was a Roman

 

punishment and therefore, no Jewish court could have advocated it."

 

 

Bayme told The Jewish Week he wrote the piece for two reasons:

 

to educate Jews and promote honest dialogue with Christians.

 

 

He cited the Catholic Church's 1965 statement that Jesus' death

 

"cannot be blamed upon all Jews then living, without distinction,

 

nor upon the Jews of today."

 

 

Bayme said Gibson's movie "has alienated many Jewish leaders

 

who correctly worry whether the movie's graphic description of the

 

Crucifixion and its alleged overtones of a Jewish conspiracy to kill

 

Jesus may ignite long-dormant Christian hostilities to Jews."

 

 

That's why the Gospel and its association with anti-Semitism need

 

to be confronted as well as Jewish sources, he said. But Bayme

 

stressed that he is not suggesting a moral equivalency between

 

problematic anti-Semitic Gospel passages "which have caused the

 

death of Jews" and the Talmudic Jesus references.

 

 

Indeed, the Catholic Church, which burned copies of the Talmud

 

in the Middle Ages, officially censored the Talmud's Jesus references

 

in the 13th century. Even today the standard Vilna edition of the

 

Talmud omits any discussion about "Yeshu," Jesus in Hebrew.

 

 

The Jesus omissions began to be restored in the last century,

 

Bayme said. And the passages "re now included in most of the

 

new printings of the Talmud," said Yisrael Shaw of Daf Yomi

 

Discussions, an on-line Talmud service.

 

 

"If you do an Internet search for Sanhedrin 43a, you will find

 

that it is one of the favorite sources of the Christians to use as

 

proof of the Jewish murder and hatred of their god," Shaw said.

 

 

But Bayme is concerned that Jews know nothing about the

 

censored texts.

 

 

"Whenever I talked about the origins of Christianity with fellow

 

Jews, I discovered massive ignorance of Jewish narratives concerning

 

the death of Jesus. It's something I thought Jews ought to confront

 

fairly," he told The Jewish Week.

 

 

Bayme contends the Talmudic text resonates with the Gospel accounts

 

for several reasons. He said the Talmudic charge of practicing sorcery

 

and seducing Israel into apostasy, a biblical capital crime, matches

 

recently discovered "hidden Gospels" that "a historical Jesus was

 

indeed a first century sorcerer."

 

 

"A mature relationship between two faiths should allow for each

 

faith to ... uncover these texts and view them critically," Bayme

 

said.

 

 

But some disagreed with Bayme's analysis and policy suggestion.

 

 

His own organization pulled the piece only a couple of days after

 

it was posted.

 

 

Rabbi David Rosen, the group's director of interreligious affairs,

 

said Bayme's views were not the "fficial AJC position" concerning

 

the trial of Jesus.

 

 

He called the Talmudic text historically "dubious" and questioned

 

Bayme's connecting the text with the Gospel stories, noting the

 

actual charge against Jesus and the nature of the court "is in conflict."

 

 

Some outside specialists also refuted Bayme's article.

 

 

Brooklyn College History Professor Rabbi David Berger, a

 

specialist in Christian-Jewish issues, said it would be a mistake

 

and diversion to bring the Talmudic texts into the interfaith

 

dialogue.

 

 

"The Second Vatican council properly rejected collective Jewish

 

guilt for the Crucifixion, even though it affirmed that some Jews

 

were involved," he said. "Consequently, raising the question of

 

the historical involvement of Jews, with or without reference to

 

Talmudic texts, diverts us from the key issue, which is the denial

 

of contemporary Jewish culpability for these events."

 

 

He noted that in the Middle Ages, "most Jews assumed that Jews

 

executed Jesus of Nazareth based on these Talmudic passages,

 

though some asserted that the Jesus of Talmud is not the same as

 

the Jesus of Christianity."

 

 

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, whose Talmud edition has been translated

 

into English, Russian and Spanish, said he believed the Talmudic

 

Jesus is probably not the Christian Jesus.

 

 

"It could very well be somebody else" who lived 100 or 200

 

years earlier because the stories don't match the Gospel account,

 

he said.

 

 

Rabbi Steinsaltz noted that the Hebrew name Yeshu was popular

 

back then and that "stories about the resurrection of dead leaders

 

are a dime a dozen, before Jesus and after him. This is not a

 

historical issue."

 

 

In any case, Rabbi Steinsaltz said Christians would do best to

 

avoid these texts because there is nothing politically or theologically

 

significant to them in Jewish tradition.

 

 

Ellis Rivkin, professor emeritus of Jewish history at Hebrew Union

 

College and author of the seminal book "What Crucified Jesus," said

 

dragging in the Talmud text is "dangerous, utterly meaningless and

 

irrelevant."

 

 

But Dr. David Kraemer, professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the

 

Jewish Theological Seminary, supported Bayme's call for honesty

 

about Jewish texts and Jesus.

 

 

"I think it's very relevant to bring up evidence of the difficulty of

 

our relationship with Christianity," he said, contending that it is

 

indeed Jesus of Nazareth in the text. Kraemer believes the text was

 

written at a time of fierce competition between the early rabbis and

 

Christian leaders in the early centuries of the Common Era.

 

 

"The attitudes expressed [in the Talmud] can be pretty hateful

 

attitudes," he said. "It's not about comparing them [with the

 

anti-Semitic Gospel passages]. Just because you can't equate

 

them doesn't mean you can't raise the issues."

 

+++++++++++++++

Damage Control: Rabbis Scramble to "Explain" AJC's

 

Talmud Confession

 

Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor

 

http://www.hoffman-info.com/news.html

 

 

Oct. 8, 2003

 

 

Editor's Note: Yesterday we furnished the world-historic

 

confession by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) admitting

 

the Pharisees' guilt in the death of Jesus, based on the Talmudic

 

account of His trial and execution. Here today we present the

 

Zionist reaction to the AJC confession, a form of damage control

 

which will prove futile.

 

 

New York's "Jewish Week" newspaper is now claiming that it

 

was Christians who censored the sensitive passages in Talmud

 

tractate Sanhedrin concerning Christ. Yet in attacks on my book

 

"Judaism's Strange Gods" by various rabbinic savants online,

 

they have all claimed with the usual chutzpah, that it is an anti-

 

semitic canard to say that Jesus is in the Talmud. The propaganda

 

line of the modern rabbinate has been to claim that while the

 

Talmud refers to a certain "Yeshu," this "Yeshu" is a mysterious

 

figure having no identification with Jesus.

 

 

While certain medieval popes did indeed expurgate the homicidal,

 

pornographic and Satanic passages in the Talmud, in modern times

 

the rabbis have been free to publish any uncensored Talmud they

 

chose to print. Throughout most of the 20th century they contented

 

themselves with the English-language Soncino edition, which is

 

redacted in parts and which relegates the more heinous Talmud

 

passages to obscure footnotes, while rendering passages about

 

Jesus mostly in code. The editors of the Soncino edition were

 

rabbis, not Christians, so to blame the Christians for rabbinic

 

concealment of antiChrist Talmud citations is brazen deceit.

 

 

The rabbinic strategy runs as follows: admit nothing unless

 

forced to admit it. Until they are compelled, the rabbis will lie

 

and the modern popes and preachers of Judeo-Churchianity will

 

swear to it and consign skeptical investigators such as this writer

 

to the fever swamps of "Jew hatred."

 

 

Increasingly, in this Internet Age, this strategy cannot function

 

as smoothly as it once did. "Judaism's Strange Gods" is having

 

an impact. The establishment media does not interview me or

 

publicize my work but my influence continues to grow. My book

 

is read from Saudi Arabia to Switzerland and throughout the

 

college campuses and seminaries of America and Europe. My

 

facts are solid. There is no debating them. The choice is either

 

denial or admission. The AJC chose to confess. Other Zionist

 

factions are still in denial and they appear ridiculous as a result.

 

 

But this is only the beginning. After I finish my new book on

 

Islam later this year, I will collate all the notes and research

 

I have gathered over the past three years into a greatly expanded,

 

hardcover edition of "Judaism's Strange Gods," which will force

 

even more damaging confessions from the rabbinate.

 

 

For example, Prof. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University stated in

 

his magisterial book, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" that,

 

when passing a gentile cemetery, every pious orthodox Judaic

 

must pronounce a curse on all the gentiles buried there.

 

 

This statement was howled down and mocked by orthodox

 

Judaism as a sick fantasy of Shahak's, even though the rabbis

 

know very well that it is completely truthful. So great is their

 

contempt for the "dumb goyim" that until someone like this

 

writer searches the archives and furnishes the exact source in

 

halakha for this practice of graveyard cursing, they will deny it,

 

and why not? The Talmud decrees that they should lie to the

 

goyim as circumstances dictate (cf. tractate Baba Kamma 113a).

 

 

I have news for these liars. I have found the rabbinic law book

 

that commands that Judaics curse the dead when passing a gentile

 

cemetery (Dr. Shahak is deceased and never furnished a citation

 

for his statement). I have also unearthed the exact wording of the

 

curse. This and hundreds of other new and shocking revelations

 

will appear in the hardcover edition of "Judaism Strange Gods"

 

which will be published next spring, around the time Mel Gibson

 

intends to release "The Passion." Let's call it a one-two punch.

 

 

When the new edition comes out the American Jewish Committee

 

will have a great deal more "splainin'" to do.

 

 

The rabbinate are in a sweat about how to handle Gibson's

 

forthcoming movie and they should be. When, earlier this year,

 

it appeared that Mel was weakening in his resolve under the

 

dreadful onslaught that was directed at him and his aged father,

 

I passed on certain sensitive Talmud materials to him through

 

an intermediary. These materials included the tractate Sanhedrin

 

passages concerning Christ and His murder. I furnished these

 

passages to Gibson in both English translation and the original

 

Aramaic. The Zionist establishment in the form of the American

 

Jewish Committee, with their excellent intelligence network,

 

probably got wind of the Talmudic facts with which Gibson is

 

now armed. In response, they issued their historic confession of

 

guilt for Christ's death, which is proving highly contentious in

 

Judaic circles, as the following article demonstrates.

 

 

So great is the outcry among the rabbis and Zionists, that the

 

AJC report has been censored and pulled from their own website!

 

It now has the status of a confidential "internal document."

 

 

But this is the Internet age and suppression and secrecy no longer

 

function as smoothly as they once did. The AJC report was leaked

 

to me yesterday and published in its entirety in THE HOFFMAN

 

WIRE the same day.

 

 

Adin Steinsaltz, a Lubavitcher rabbi and translator of the most

 

accurate English Talmud in print, continues to underestimate

 

our intelligence when he decrees in response to the AJC confession,

 

"Christians would do best to avoid these (Talmud) texts because

 

there is nothing politically or theologically significant to them in

 

Jewish tradition."

 

 

Too late, Adin, the genie is out of the bottle.

 

 

[Guest guest]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Oh man, I can't stop laughing!

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

i'm not offended at all, my point is that belief

in the bible as an accurate historical document

is unfounded, if you believe it is inspired by god and therefore not held to any standard of historical accuracy, thats another thing altogether.

 

the facts of the bibles compilation shows that it was put together and edited and tinkered with

by many people over a long period, insisting that the

bible today is an accurate acount needs to account

for the scholars review of the bible as a patchwork

of stories,none of which can be proven to be

written by the authors who are claimed to be

apostles of jesus,if you want to ignore the history

of the bible in favor of a faith based ideology,

that doesn't bother me , but if you want to

go deeper,study.

 

FAQ

 

[Myra]

Dear Shiva,

 

Thanks for the attached URL's but sorry I can't find it interesting to read those messages coming from an Author who is Unbeliever (won't care if he has the Ph.D). I would rather be more interested reading claims from Vedas or Geeta or HK Pure-Just devotees that will speak more about Sri Jesus or Sri Krishna.

 

How much do you know about this author(Gordon Stein)? Can you tell what consciousness he has? I can say upon reading the outline of his Biography that he is also a lost soul. You and me, and the most of the people around are searching for the inner voice (Paramatma) within us. I know that I also have a very poor spirit, and why should I based my faith on the claims of this "blind searcher"? "...Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?(Luke 6:39).

 

This is my conviction:

 

The Bible is full of MISTAKES…

.....when Eve doubted the Word of God (first mistake)

.....when her husband did, too (second mistake)

.....And mistake after mistake is still being made because people insist on doubting God's Word.

 

The Bible is full of contradictions BECAUSE…

.....it contradicts pride and prejudice

.....it contradicts lust and lawlessness

.....it contradicts sin, yours and mine

 

The Bible is filled with failures BECAUSE…

.....it is the record of people who failed many times

There was Adam

There was Cain

There was Moses

There was David and many, many others

.....But it is also the record of God's never-failing love

 

God DID NOT write the Bible…

.....For people who want to play games with words

.....For those who like to examine good without doing it

.....For the man who does not believe because he does not want to

 

Modern man has discarded the teachings of the Bible BECASUE…

.....For the same reasons other men have discarded it throughout history…

.....Woeful ignorance as to its true message and content

.....Determined apathy in refusing to consider its claims

.....Parroted pseudo-scholarship posing as honest criticism

.....Secret conviction that this Book is right and men are wrong

 

It is clear that only an IGNORAMUS or PREJUDICED person would believe that Bible…

.....Teaches outmoded, irrational, unreasonable and archaic principles

.....Is filled with hopeless discrepancies and unacceptable statements

.....Could only be the undirected, irrelevant, uninspired and unaided work of mere men

 

The Bible is, after all, ONLY JUST another religious book…

.....For thousands who do not dare be honest with themselves and God

.....For those who are afraid to accept God's challenge to an honest examination

.....For those unwilling to look, in case it tells them what they are really like inside

 

And YOU CANNOT understand or trust what the Bible says...

Unless you are willing to consider the evidence and face up to the Author…

 

The Bible does not attempt to defend its claim to Divine inspiration—it simply states it. The writers of Scripture continuously claim their message was not human opinion, but divine revelation.

...Genesis opens with the words, "And God said," nine times in the first chapter.

...The statement, "…saith the Lord," appears 23 times in the last Old Testament book, Malachi.

..."The Lord saith," appears 560 times in the first five books of the Bible alone.

...Isaiah claims at least 40 times that his message was from God, as do Ezekiel and Jeremiah, 60 and 100 times respectively. At least 3,800 times in Scripture, writers declared their message to be divine in origin.

 

The Bible is a Book written for careful, intelligent people. It will bear the closest examination by anyone. Honest scholarship by saint and skeptic alike has always resulted in overwhelming evidence of its authenticity. The Bible does not require blind faith, but it does ask complete honesty on the part of the critic. Thorough the study of its claims, origin, historical records, and fulfilled prophecy, as well as careful consideration of every challenge and charge of its critics, enough convincing evidence will be amassed for even the most cautious of scholars.

 

Why has the Bible survived century after century of determined persecution? No other ancient book has such a vast number of surviving copies; there are thousands of Old and New Testament manuscripts. Variations between these are minor and insignificant and great care must have been taken in copying them. It is said that Jewish scribes would use a new pen each time they came to the word "LORD" and at that point they carefully compared everything they had written so far, with the original. Men in every century have been killed for owning copies. Each era brings a renewed attempt to stamp it out, but history shows it has been impossible to destroy the Scriptures. Voltaire said, "In one hundred years, this book will be forgotten." Voltaire is forgotten. One hundred years exactly after his boast, his house was being used as the headquarters for the Geneva Bible Society. And who is Gordon Stein? Jesus said, "Heaven and earth may pass away, but My Word will never pass away." (Matt. 24:35) God's Word is "quick" or living. (Heb. 4:12) It has stood the test of scholarship, centuries, and the trials of all enemies.

 

No man on earth could make unified sense out of such a mess of outdated ideas, wild speculations, and hopeless contradictions. But the Bible was written in just such a way. And any honest reader, who has carefully examined its message, has found it to be one amazing whole from Genesis to Revelation; united in theme, consistent in concept, logical in development, and agreed in doctrine. In real-life illustration, parable, and prophecy, recording historical people who lived and died, the Bible is the love-story of history—God seeking rebellious man.

 

Lastly, the greatest proof of the Bible is the difference its message can make in your life.

 

As always everytime I open the Bible or Geeta or Krishna book I ask God the Holy Spirit into my heart the truth of His power in its pages. As I pray "God, I don't know if this is your Word or not, but if it is and you can help me, please show yourself to me as I read." God will meet us in a living demonstration of His reality. Please don't make the mistake of doubting God's love and His promises.

 

 

Jai Sri Jesus! Hare Krishna!

Myra.

 

[theist]

 

As always everytime I open the Bible or Geeta or Krishna book I ask God the Holy Spirit into my heart the truth of His power in its pages. As I pray "God, I don't know if this is your Word or not, but if it is and you can help me, please show yourself to me as I read." God will meet us in a living demonstration of His reality. Please don't make the mistake of doubting God's love and His promises.

 

 

Beatifully stated Myra.

 

 

[Guest guest]

hey,i dont care if you glorify the bible and worship it,

that wasn't what this thread was about,

it was about accuracy,and percieved historical

truth versus made up historical "truth".

 

if you want to believe the bible,go ahead,

it is as valid as you make it,

but my point was that as far as being what it claims,

the actual historical record of certain people and their teachings, that is not the fact,or it least it can be shown

to be so, the history of the bible is different then

the history of the vedic literature, the vedic shastra

is much older and the details of exactly how

they came to be is based on faith in the stories that tell that history, not so with the bible, we have a historical record that is available to us, the early

christian church and records of the people who

made the bible what it is today can be studied in the words

of those people, the records are intact , for the old testament that isn't so, but in that also we can see

by careful analysis that the old testament

is a compilation of various traditions, from the vedic

to sumerian,babylonian,Canaanite, etc.

 

If you want to believe the stories in these books are historicaly verifiable , that can be shown to be incorrect,

if you want to beleive in them regardless of history,

that is a whole nother ball of wax.

 

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

 

"Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

 

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

 

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)

 

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)

 

 

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

 

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12

 

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

 

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24

 

[Kulapavana]

Many Christian sects reject Old Testament writings entirely, as they are rightly seen as barbaric and primitive: both in their concept of God and moral message. Jesus of Nazareth could not openly reject Judaism in his teachings as this would bring him certain death by stoning. The history of early Christianity is very revealing and everybody attracted to this tradition should study it in order to deepen their understanding.

[Guest guest]

“Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Matthew 10:21

 

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

 

Any city that doesn’t “receive” the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

 

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

 

 

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 10

 

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

 

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

 

 

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

 

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

 

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 7

 

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

 

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

 

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

 

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

 

 

Jesus advocates murder and death:

 

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

 

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God.(The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

 

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Revelations 19:20-21

 

 

 

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

 

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Matthew 13:10-15

 

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark4:11-12

 

 

 

Jesus advocates child abuse:

 

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

 

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

 

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

 

 

 

A few other things about Jesus:

 

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

 

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

 

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

 

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

 

[Kulapavana]

these are interesting quotes, but most of them can be interpreted in a benign way. if Jesus was indeed all for the old (Torah) ways, Jews would not have him crucified.

[Guest guest]

try this on history ?

[Guest guest]

here more on this stuff

 

now there are those who say this stuff is bunk, this site responds to their criticism and at the

bottom gives a link to that criticism.

[Kulapavana]

there is definitely some spiritual potency in Christian tradition. I doubt such potency was there if it was all just based on a Roman hoax.

[Guest guest]

what do you mean ?

 

for thousands of years the "christian" tradition

has run roughshod over human rights all over the world,

from inquisitions,to colonial fascism, the "christian"

potency has been one of violence over those who will not

submit.

[Kulapavana]

the legacy of Christianity is much more than the sins of those who used it for their own wicked reasons. pity you can't see that. it would appear to me that even Srila Prabhupada recognized Christianity as one of the valid spiritual traditions of the world.

[Guest guest]

just so much words, the reality is that Christianity

teaches what ?

 

That you must "accept" jesus, or else.

 

That God tortured himself on a cross,by doing so

he redeemed mankind from the original sin of Adam,

those who "accept" jesus are saved by his

act of suffering on the cross,they go to heaven,

those who do not "accept" jesus go to eternal damnation.

 

Suffering in this life is caused by the "sins of the fathers", you suffer because of another persons "sins",

all sins are wiped away by "accepting " jesus.

 

That is your basic christianity, not very

philosophicaly geared to give solace

and enlightenment, its basic message

is "accept" or perish.

 

What does "accept" mean ?

 

It means different things to different sects,

usually it means some type of giving of your time

or money or both, to the "authorized" priests,

again the same message is spread as being

part of "accepting" jesus.

 

so basicaly the religion gives practicaly zero

enlightenment,zero connection to God in truth,

and zero philosophical reasoning to help people

have faith.

 

Prabhupada used to say that in the west atheists were

the intelligent class because the religious philosophies

were so poor.

[Myra]

 

Shiva,

 

You are no difference to those you claimed "fanatic" christians. This fanatic x-tians are very literal, hate and thought that other denominations are of Evil, and so you are. Sorry I should have not be telling this.

 

You were asking what is "accept"/"accepting Jesus"? It means believing Jesus as the Son of God who came here in earth to bring Goodwill and Good news to those who want to hear.

 

If you don't want hear about Jesus as the avatar of God and and believe...so be it.

 

God Bless you!

 

Myra

[theist]

Myra, I'm sure you know that Srila Prabhupada taught on hundreds of occasions that Lord Jesus Christ was an incarnation of God as the Son.

 

Krsna being a name for the Father and Jesus Christ being the Son. Perfect combination.

[Myra]

 

Hare Krishna theist,

 

Thanks! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Yeah I know. I just can't understand why Shiva is so "against" or so anti with Christ - ians. Is he a HK devotee?

 

As what I have said, I am conscious that Krishna is no other the God the Father.

 

God Bless!

Myra