HATE PROPAGANDA VS. THE CHRISTMAS STORY

By Gordon Ginn, Ph.D.

Opposition to traditional Christmas terms in 2004 was stronger than ever before. More specifically, the use of the words "merry Christmas" was forbidden by government and some non-government employers more extensively. These efforts were paraded as an attempt to uphold the First Amendment under the bogus concept of separation of church and state. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), established in 1920, has vigorously pursued this cause celebre, and its tentacles reach further as time passes. Let us look at the First Amendment:

Where does the ACLU find its clever but counterfeit "separation of church and state" doctrine in those words? Millions of Americans see freedom of religion and speech without government interference, because those words prohibit Congress from passing any law that would interfere with religion or free speech. Yet in December of 2004 we saw federal and state employees told not to use the word "Christmas" on the job, and we saw some big non-government organizations forbidding their employees to use "Merry Christmas." Instead, they were to use "Happy Holidays." One small but enterprising periodical, National Weekly Edition, asked this pertinent question: "So why all the Christophobia at Christmas?"

If this were not enough anti-Christianity, big-time media such as Newsweek and Time published their very clever propaganda pieces on the birth of Jesus. Why do I use the word "propaganda?" It’s because their articles are replete with Bible quotations and artwork that appeal to Christians whose expertise on propaganda technique is limited, but the insertion of material which is contrary to the theme clouds the reader’s mind. For example, paintings by famous artists who depicted Christian themes, along with ample quotations from the Bible are seemingly supportive of Christianity and the virgin birth of Jesus, but managing editor of Newsweek Jon Meacham, in his article The Birth of Jesus then tossed a bombshell. He stated:

"In later years Christians had to contend with charges that their Lord was illegitimate, perhaps the illicit offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier. Now, at the beginning of the 21^st century, some scholars treat the Christmas narratives as first-century inventions designed to strengthen the seemingly tenuous claim that Jesus was the Messiah."

Where did Meacham, prize-winning influential writer, obtain that blasphemous information? Well, it came out of the Jewish Talmud. How many Christians know anything about that colossal work of anti-Christian hate? His mention of the claim that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier is hate material. Is he Jewish? After some searching of the Internet, it seems that Mr. Meacham possesses extensive knowledge of the Jewish Bible (the Talmud) and Jewish history. Perhaps his name "Jon" is short for Jonathon? At any rate he is anti-New Testament so his biased article about the birth of Jesus tells us volumes.

That isn’t all. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), that infamous, somewhat clandestine, extremely powerful organization for world leaders. He is a "Global Leader for Tomorrow" of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In 2004 he was named one of the most powerful men under the age of 38 by Details magazine. A contributing editor for The Washington Monthly, he also has written for The New York Times Book Review and The Los Angeles Times Book Review.

About Mel Gibson's "The Passion" film Meacham said he would take his children to it "...but only after spending a lot of time discussing the theology of the Passion: that Jesus went to the cross by the order of the Roman prefect, for, in Christian terms, the sins of the world, and that certain passages of the New Testament had been tragically misused and misinterpreted to justify anti-Jewish violence down the centuries. And afterward I would have the same conversation again and again." (MSNBC News)

About the Bible he said: "But the Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance. And the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings--which are, in fact, mis-readings--of many New Testament texts."

It is ironic that the millions of Christians in America who read the Bible literally are the ones who are actively supporting contemporary "Israel" and the Jews as "God’s chosen people." Yet they get no accolades from Mr. Meacham. And as far as anti-Semitism and Jew hatred go, accurate history records quite a different story. For example, consider the millions of Christians that Bolshevik Jews murdered in Russia after they conquered the masses in 1917. The so-called Jewish Holocaust promoters claim only six million victims but Jewish Bolsheviks murdered more than three times that many Christians. Mr. Meacham is conveniently silent about that!

Let us now consider the article in Time magazine dated Dec. 13, 2004 entitled Behind the First Noel by David van Biema.

Probably the most convincing words in the Newsweek and Time articles, especially to unknowledgeable readers, is the frequent use of the words "most scholars agree," or "scholars believe." Who are those nameless scholars? Only a very few are referenced, and Meacham of Newsweek and Van Biema of Time seem happy about appealing to those ethereal, faceless "authorities" for legitimacy. And yet Van Biema stated that scholarship is constantly evolving so that he and others alike should pay more attention to how Jesus’ message was spread than how he was born. I take that to mean that he, Meacham and others of their persuasion don’t trust the Bible but trust constantly evolving scholarship! By that method we would never know the truth.

David van Biema of Time does about the same kind of job as Meacham of Newsweek. He stated: "In the debates over the literal truth of the Gospels, just about everyone acknowledges that major conclusions about Jesus’ life are not based on forensic clues." There he goes again with those magic words, "just about everyone acknowledges..." Well, I have spent 30 years reading theologians, historians, et al., and he obviously has not read the scholars whom I have. He is depending on such people as those who make up The Jesus Seminars of The Westar Institute who, for example, use "authorities" like the "Right Rev. John Shelby Spong," who has said that the Apostle Paul was a self-loathing, repressed gay male. He got the idea from a work by Arthur D. Nock of Harvard, a professed atheist. From an atheist to a "Christian" bishop, to the Westar Institute and the Jesus Seminars. Now you know why I hesitate to trust those who use the "just about everyone agrees" cliche so popular with Newsweek and Time.

Was Judaism the parent to Christian beliefs and patterns? If one equated Mosaic teachings with Judaism, one might fudge a mite and follow the "logic" of another modern renegade whom Van Biema quotes. L. Michael White of the University of Texas at Austin thinks that Matthew and Luke should have fit Judaistic themes and symbols into emerging beliefs about Jesus. No, thank you. Judaism developed in Babylon during the exile of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin from 586 to about 516 B.C. It was there that Talmudic nonsense and blasphemy began to take form as the Israelites grew away from Moses. The northern ten tribes had already abandoned him and were carried captive to Assyria in 721 B.C.

Because the temple had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, the tribes of Judah and Benjamin could not follow God’s plan for worship and service, and so they became apostate and developed Pharisaism which opposed Jesus when He came. The English word "Jew" was unknown until about the 14^th century after Christ.

When I read the two articles in Time and Newsweek published in December 2004, it seemed that the two authors were trying to tell God exactly how He should have instructed writers of the New Testament what to write and how to write it. Meacham and Van Biema should read that old, old story with a little more humility. They might find that being "born again" is the first essential to understanding the Bible, especially the New Testament. Furthermore, Van Biema’s statement that the Old Testament is the "Jewish Scriptures" is essentially an error. Properly speaking, the Talmud is the Jewish Bible and its contents contain so much hate that the ACLU and the ADL should have cited it as anti-Christian.

Isn’t it about time that Christians wake up and smell the coffee? They should realize that the present push for political correctness, vis-a-vis "Christmas," targets Christians and no one else.

In closing, I should mention some good and positive information that came out of this season of pushing and shoving believers to abandon the word "Christmas." Under a headline of "CHRISTmas Is Under Attack" The Washington Times of December 13-19 tells of a movement to defend Christmas from harassment. Ads are being placed in newspapers and on radio stations to enlist support to defeat the anti-Christmas bulldozer. We hear of churches being denied participation in Christmas parades, children forbidden to use any and all religious words and themes for plays, recitals, etc., and other brazen efforts to remove Christmas from public notice.

There is much, much more to write about the Talmudic trend to discredit Christ, but space restricts me. I wish all of you a blessed and profitable new year.