Pranaitis
Debunks
Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the Talmud
itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or disparaging to
Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles. One citation published by Mr.
Hoffman in his book 'Judaism's Strange Gods' proved unsustainable.
Perhaps one of the most notorious exposes' of the Talmud is the pamphlet
authored by the Rev. I. B. Pranaitis, a Roman Catholic priest and professor of
theology. Pranaitis has been repeatedly denounced and attacked on account of
his publication. Are these denunciations justified?
Perhaps now will be a good time to find out for ouselves. Just how credible is
Pranaitis? I have decided to investigate every citation pertaining to the
Talmud as presented by Pranaitis in order to personally test his veracity.
Now, if it turns out that his Talmudic quotations are accurate, then it is only
reasonable to assume that the quotations he cites from other Jewish texts such
as the Zohar and cabala , etc., are also correct unless proven otherwise.
All quotations shall be checked with my version of the Soncino Talmud on
CD-Rom.
Let's begin with the following:
CLAIM: The Talmud supports the notion that the Bible is of less weight and
authority than the rabbis who commented upon it. The citation may be found on
page 20 of Pranaitis' book. He cites in support: Babia Metsia 33a
And here it is from the Soncino:
Our Rabbis taught: They who occupy themselves with the Bible [alone] are but
of indifferent merit;30 with Mishnah, are indeed meritorious, and are rewarded
for it; with Gemara31 — there can be nothing more meritorious; yet run always
to the Mishnah more than to the Gemara. Now, this is self-contradictory. You
say, ‘with Gemara — there can be nothing more meritorious;’ and then you
say, ‘Yet run always to the Mishnah more than to the Gemara!’ — Said R.
Johanan:
END QUOTE
Pranitis is vindicated on this point, but it should be noted that he was
working with a different edition of the Talmud...not the English language
Soncino. His reads only slightly differently but fully supports the citation.
His version reads in part:
"Those who devote themselves to reading the Bible exercise a certain virtue,
but not very much..."
Next citation: Eruvin 21b "My son, give heed to the words of the scribes
rather than the writings of the rabbis"
From Soncino:
Raba made the following exposition: What is the purport of the Scriptural
text: And, furthermore my son, be admonished: Of making many books etc.?13 My
son, be more careful14 in [the observance of] the words of the Scribes than in
the words of the Torah, for in the laws of the Torah there are positive and
negative precepts;15 but, as to the laws of the Scribes, whoever transgresses
any of the enactments of the Scribes incurs the penalty of death. In case you
should object: If they are of real value why were they not recorded [in the
Torah]? Scripture stated: ‘Of making many books there is no end’.13
END
Pranaitis again validated
NEXT, Sanhedrin 88b, ala Pranaitis: "He who transgressions the words of the
scribes sins more gravely than the transgressors of the word of the law."
From Soncino:
MISHNAH. THERE IS GREATER STRINGENCY IN RESPECT TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE
SCRIBES THAN IN RESPECT TO THE TORAH. [THUS,] IF ONE [A REBELLIOUS ELDER] SAYS,
THERE IS NO PRECEPT OF TEFILLIN, SO THAT A BIBLICAL LAW MAY BE TRANSGRESSED, HE
IS EXEMPT.13 [BUT IF HE RULES THAT THE TEFILLIN MUST CONTAIN] FIVE
COMPARTMENTS, THUS ADDING TO THE WORDS OF THE SCRIBES,14 HE IS LIABle.
END Quotes
So for a third time, Pranaitis is vindicated.
AND
Pranaitis cites a passage where two rabbis disagree and yet the Talmud declares
that BOTH 'are the words of the living God.'
From the Soncino, Eruvin 13b:
R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute
between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is
in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in
agreement with our views’. Then a bath kol22 issued announcing, ‘[The
utterances of] both23 are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in
agreement with the rulings of Beth Hillel’. Since, however, both are the
words of the living God’ what was it that entitled Beth Hillel to have the
halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and
modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beth Shammai,24 and were
even so25 [humble] as to mention the actions26 of Beth Shammai before theirs,
(as may be seen from27 what we have learnt: If a man had his head and the
greater part of his body within the sukkah28 but his table in the house,29 Beth
Shammai ruled [that the booth was] invalid but Beth Hillel ruled that it was
valid.
END quote
Again, Pranaitis is sustained.
Philip Mathews
news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
censure by
> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
Talmud
> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
disparaging to
> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
Nope, you produced nothing which mentioned Christians or Gentiles.
Now you're reduced to producing the rantings of an antisemite who claimed to
understand Hebrew, but was embarrassed in a court of law when he couldn't
translate some basic words.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to attain it."
Samuel Johnson
Debunks
>From: "Philip Mathews" philip...@attbi.com
>Date: 4/17/2002 6:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <UVov8.33402$%s3.12...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
>
>"Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>
>> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
>censure by
>> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
>Talmud
>> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
>> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
>disparaging to
>> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
>
>Nope, you produced nothing which mentioned Christians or Gentiles.
>
From Pranaitis? Not yet...go back and reread what I wrote and what my
intentions are with this thread.
David Gehrig
> "Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>
>> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
> censure by
>> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
> Talmud
>> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
>> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
> disparaging to
>> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
So Joe-Joe asserted but failed to prove, in a long string
in which he was demolished by Harry Katz and then
reduced to ranting.
> Nope, you produced nothing which mentioned Christians or Gentiles.
>
> Now you're reduced to producing the rantings of an antisemite who claimed
> to understand Hebrew, but was embarrassed in a court of law when he
> couldn't translate some basic words.
>
> --
> Philip Mathews
Not like Joe-Joe had any credibility to lose, though.
--
@%<
Philip Mathews
You go back and read the paragraph to which I responded.
When you said "all the passages in questions (sic) are indeed
insulting or disparagin to Christ, His mother, Christians, and
Gentiles". The passages in question are described in the preceding
sentence. Does it mention Pranaitis?
You have presented nothing from the Talmud which disparages
Christians.
Jews commenting on the Jew Jesus is another matter.
--
Philip Mathews
Debunks
>From: David Gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>Date: 4/18/2002 5:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2rzv8.17867$L1.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> "Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>>
>>> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
>> censure by
>>> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
>> Talmud
>>> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
>>> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
>> disparaging to
>>> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
>
>So Joe-Joe asserted but failed to prove, in a long string
>in which he was demolished by Harry Katz and then
>reduced to ranting.
>
Well, let's allow other people, who are more well-versed in New Testament
Scripture than you, to draw their own conclusions.
>> Nope, you produced nothing which mentioned Christians or Gentiles.
>>
>> Now you're reduced to producing the rantings of an antisemite who claimed
>> to understand Hebrew, but was embarrassed in a court of law when he
>> couldn't translate some basic words.
>> Philip Mathews
Don't change the subject by attacking Father Pranaitis. I am testing his
credibility, and so far he is 100% reliable. Of course you know what that
means, don't you? If I can show that he maintains this high level of accuracy
throughout this investigation, then you are stuck explaining why you attack him
so vehemently. People may begin to think that you are attacking him because he
told the truth accurately and competently...
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 4/18/2002 6:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
Pranaitis is a new thread right now. The purpose of this thread is to test his
reliability and honesty by comparing his citations with those in the Soncino
Talmud. Certainly we shall soon get to the antichristian, antichrist, and
antigentile passages. All in good time.
Ken Lewis
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: David Gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>>Date: 4/18/2002 5:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <2rzv8.17867$L1.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>>
>>Philip Mathews wrote:
>>
>>> "Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>>>
>>>> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
>>> censure by
>>>> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
>>> Talmud
>>>> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
>>>> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
>>> disparaging to
>>>> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
>>So Joe-Joe asserted but failed to prove, in a long string
>>in which he was demolished by Harry Katz and then
>>reduced to ranting.
>Well, let's allow other people, who are more well-versed in New Testament
>Scripture than you, to draw their own conclusions.
Someone who is more well versed in N.T. scripture than you has already
drawn their own conclusion. You were got wiped.
Debunks
>From: kml...@nospam.shaww.ca (Ken Lewis)
>Date: 4/18/2002 11:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3cbf171b.40709908@shawnews>
Where is that person, Lewis? Mr. Katz?-Who fled the moment he saw I was
prepared to substantiate everything I claimed?
Philip Mathews
> Pranaitis is a new thread right now.
That may be, but you began the thread by making erroneous statements
about what you had demonstrated earlier. I corrected you.
(snip)
--
Philip Mathews
Brian Blank
Ken Lewis
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: kml...@nospam.shaww.ca (Ken Lewis)
>>Date: 4/18/2002 11:58 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3cbf171b.40709908@shawnews>
>>>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>>>From: David Gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>>>>Date: 4/18/2002 5:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <2rzv8.17867$L1.14...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>>>>Philip Mathews wrote:
>>>>> "Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>>>>>> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
>>>>> censure by
>>>>>> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
>>>>> Talmud
>>>>>> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
>>>>>> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
>>>>> disparaging to
>>>>>> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
>>>>So Joe-Joe asserted but failed to prove, in a long string
>>>>in which he was demolished by Harry Katz and then
>>>>reduced to ranting.
>>>Well, let's allow other people, who are more well-versed in New Testament
>>>Scripture than you, to draw their own conclusions.
>>Someone who is more well versed in N.T. scripture than you has already
>>drawn their own conclusion
>Where is that person, Lewis? Mr. Katz?-Who fled the moment he saw I was
>prepared to substantiate everything I claimed?
I am sure Gord McFee is better versed in the New Testament than you. I
KNOW that I am. We've both drawn our conclusions.
As far as Mr. Katz? He wiped the floor with you and threw you out with
the dirty water.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3cbf89e8.70103509@shawnews>
LOL! The blind leading the blind. You're a laugh riot tonight, Lewis.
Debunks
There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on anything, Mr.
Mathews.
Debunks
>From: Brian Blank nota...@earthlink.spamblocker.net
>Date: 4/18/2002 2:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <nueubu8c6qoplterj...@4ax.com>
what about it?
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 59a
But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned?
— It is both positive and negative.1
R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is
written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance;2 it is our inheritance,
not theirs.3 Then why is this not included in the Noachian laws? — On the
reading morasha [an inheritance] he steals it; on the reading me'orasah
[betrothed], he is guilty as one who violates a betrothed maiden, who is
stoned.4 An objection is raised: R. Meir used to say. Whence do we know that
even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest? From the verse, [Ye
shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments:] which, if man do, he shall
live in them.5 Priests, Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but men:
hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies6 the Torah is as a High
Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.7
‘R Hanania b. Gamaliel said: [They were also commanded] not to partake of
the blood drawn from a living animal.’
Our Rabbis taught: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood
thereof, shall ye not eat,8 this prohibits flesh cut from the living animal. R.
Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living animal.
What is his reason? — He reads the verse thus: flesh with the life thereof
[shall ye not eat]: blood with the life thereof shall ye not eat. But the
Rabbis maintain that this reading teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is
permitted.9 Similarly it is said, Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for
the blood is the life,’ and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.10
But the Rabbis maintain that the verse teaches that the blood of arteries, with
which life goes out, [is also forbidden as blood].11
Why was it first enjoined upon the sons of Noah, and then repeated at
Sinai? — As the dictum, of R. Jose b. Hanina. For R. Jose b. Hanina said:
Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was
meant for both [heathens and Israelites]; that which was given to the sons of
Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the
heathens. Now, the only law thus commanded to the children of Noah and not
repeated at Sinai was the prohibition of the sinew that shrank [nervous
ischiadicus], and in accordance with R. Judah's view.12
The Master said: ‘Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and
repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]’. On the
contrary, since it was repeated at Sinai, should we not assume it to be meant
for Israel only?13 — Since idolatry was repeated as Sinai, and we find that
the Noachides were punished for practising it,14 we must conclude that it was
meant for both.
‘That which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was
meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens.’ On the contrary, since
it was not repeated at Sinai, should we not assume that it was meant for the
Noachides and not for Israel?15 — There is nothing permitted to an Israelite
yet forbidden to a heathen. Is there not? But what of a beautiful woman?16 —
There it is because the heathens were not authorised to conquer.17 But what of
a thing worth less than a Perutah?18 — There it is because the heathens do
not forgive.19
‘Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai
was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]’.
____________________
(1) Positive: In dispense justice; negative: to refrain from injustice. But the
Sabbath is entirely positive.
(2) Deut. XXXIII. 4.
(3) This seems a very strong expression. In the J. E. (loc. cit.) it is
suggested that R. Johanan feared the knowledge of Gentiles in matters of
Jurisprudence, as they would use it against the Jews in their opponents’
courts. In support of this it may be observed that the Talmud places R.
Johanan's dictum (which, of course, is not to be taken literally) immediately
after the passage dealing with the setting up of law courts by Gentiles. It is
also possible that R. Johanan's objection was to the studying of Oral Law by
Jewish Christians, as the possession of the Oral Law was held to be the
distinguishing mark of the Jews. It is significant that it was R. Johanan who
also said that God's covenant with Israel was only for the sake of the Oral
Law. (Cf. Ex. Rab. 47.)
(4) In Pes. 49b two opinions on the reading of this verse are recorded. One
view is that it should be read, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance
(morasha varun), in accordance with the Scriptural text. Another version is
Moses commanded us a law for a betrothal (reading me'orasah varun =vxrtn i.e.,
as something betrothed, consecrated to us, from art= xrt). On the first view,
this prohibition is included in that of robbery; on the second, in that of
adultery.
(5) Lev. XVIII. 5.
(6) Which includes observing.
(7) It is meritorious for them to study these; but not laws which do not
pertain to them.
(8) Gen. IX, 4.
(9) V. infra 59b.
(10) Deut. XII, 23. Thus, the blood being equated with the life, it may not be
eaten whilst ‘the life’ is with the ‘flesh’, i.e., whilst the animal is
alive.
(11) The prohibition of blood is mentioned in the same chapter in connection
with the slaughtering of the animal: 15 seq., Notwithstanding thou mayest kill
and eat flesh in all thy gates . . . Only ye shall not eat the blood. Now,
owing to this juxtaposition, I might think that only the blood that gushes
forth from the throat when the animal is slaughtered is forbidden. Therefore
the second injunction in v. 23 equates the prohibition of blood with that of
flesh cut from the living animal. Just as the latter is forbidden in itself, so
the former is forbidden irrespective of any connection with slaughtering. In
Ker. 22a R. Johanan and Resh Lakish dispute as to what is meant by ‘the blood
with which life goes out’.
(12) R. Judah maintains that this was forbidden to the children of Jacob, who,
living before the giving of the Law, are accounted Noachians. But the Rabbis
maintain that this was given at Sinai, but that Moses when writing the whole
Pentateuch, was commanded to insert it in Gen. XXXII, 33, so as to elucidate
its reason.
(13) For if it were not so repeated, it would be natural to suppose that its
application was a universal one. Hence its repetition would seem to limit it to
Israel.
(14) V. p. 382. n. 3.
(15) The stand point of this objection is that the code promulgated at Sinai to
the Israelites should cancel any previous code not given specifically to them.
(16) V. supra 57a.
(17) I.e., Palestine. For even the Israelites were permitted this only in the
course of their conquest of Palestine, but not otherwise.
(18) The theft of which is regarded as an offence by heathens but not by Jews.
V. supra 57a.
(19) Actually, it would be theft in the case of a Jew too, but that Jews are
not particular about such a trifle, and readily forgive. Heathens, however, do
not forgive, and therefore it is theft in their case.
Brian Blank
And the Pranatis "translation" that you quoted last year resembled
this how exactly?
Regards,
Brian Blank
Philip Mathews
It's happened dozens and dozens of times.
That's why you ran away from discussing the Holocaust.
Debunks
>Message-id: <hxMv8.34197$%s3.13...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
Your peculiar fantasies are not reality, Mr. Mathews.
Debunks
>Message-id: <rn6vbuk55pl3k6nbi...@4ax.com>
Mr. Blank, do you really expect me to remember something which was posted here
a year ago? I am sure we will get to this excerpt as I proceed. My objective
here is simply to test Father's credibility and reliability, and not get
sidetracked discussing either the merits or demerits of the passages in
question.
Brian Blank
Yes, I do expect you to remember. Why not, I and I am sure many others
do. Perhaps you have a selective memory and reject those which make
you look foolish.
Let's make life easy. What do you claim Pranatis said was the
translation of Sanhedrin 59a?
Regards,
Brian Blank
Philip Mathews
(snip)
> >> >That may be, but you began the thread by making erroneous statements
> >> >about what you had demonstrated earlier. I corrected you.
> >> There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on anything,
> Mr.
> >> Mathews.
> >It's happened dozens and dozens of times.
> Your peculiar fantasies are not reality, Mr. Mathews.
Dozens of times, Bellinger.
--
Philip Mathews
Debunks
>Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
And dozens of times they still are not reality, Mathews.
Debunks
>Message-id: <9ltvbuc2611q9k2eg...@4ax.com>
Let's make this even easier: don't rush things, Mr. Blank. We shall get to it
in time.
Philip Mathews
> >Subject: Re: Pranaitis
> >From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
> >Date: 4/19/02 10:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
> >deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote in message
> >news:<20020419023334...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
> >(snip)
> >> >> >That may be, but you began the thread by making erroneous
statements
> >> >> >about what you had demonstrated earlier. I corrected you.
> >> >> There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on
> >anything,
> >> Mr.
> >> >> Mathews.
> >> >It's happened dozens and dozens of times.
> >> Your peculiar fantasies are not reality, Mr. Mathews.
> >Dozens of times, Bellinger.
> And dozens of times they still are not reality, Mathews.
They are not only reality, they are preserved in the google archives.
Now quick, run back to your Jew hating posts of material irrelevant to the
topic of this newsgroup, whose topic you are no longer brave enough to
discuss.
Debunks
>Message-id: <bM3w8.35887$%s3.14...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
>
>"Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020419183728...@mb-bg.aol.com...
>
>> >Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>> >From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>> >Date: 4/19/02 10:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
>
>> >deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote in message
>> >news:<20020419023334...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
>
>
>> >(snip)
>
>
>> >> >> >That may be, but you began the thread by making erroneous
>statements
>> >> >> >about what you had demonstrated earlier. I corrected you.
>
>> >> >> There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on
>> >anything,
>> >> Mr.
>> >> >> Mathews.
>
>> >> >It's happened dozens and dozens of times.
>
>> >> Your peculiar fantasies are not reality, Mr. Mathews.
>
>> >Dozens of times, Bellinger.
>
>> And dozens of times they still are not reality, Mathews.
>
>They are not only reality, they are preserved in the google archives.
>
And I am very grateful for that fact!
>Now quick, run back to your Jew hating posts
The Talmud is a Jew hating publication, Mr. Mathews?
>of material irrelevant to the
>topic of this newsgroup
It is quite relevant as it all goes to your rather odd definition of
'antisemitism' and also due to the fact that your colleagues opened the door to
this buisness by challenging me.
>whose topic you are no longer brave enough to
>discuss.
I shall continue with my presentation of the Talmud and examination of Father
Pranaitis. I quite understand why you do not wish to go there any longer...
Gord McFee
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>Date: 4/18/2002 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
[...]
Bellinger obviously believes there are holy days in hell since Mr
Mathews has corrected him over and over again. All of Bellinger's
bluster will not change the fact that he was unable to produce the
anti-Christian and anti-Jesus quotes that he claimed were in the Talmud.
The fact that he is reduced to trotting out the debunked idiot
Pranaitis - again - is proof of that.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Gord McFee
> Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> "Debunks" <deb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20020417193314...@mb-ct.aol.com...
>>
>>> In our continuing examination of the Talmud and the reasons for its
>> censure by
>>> Christians, we have to date examined passages cited directly from the
>> Talmud
>>> itself, as well as quotations supplied by such scholars as Herford and
>>> Kaufmann. All the passages in questions are indeed insulting or
>> disparaging to
>>> Christ, His mother, Christians and Gentiles
>
> So Joe-Joe asserted but failed to prove, in a long string
> in which he was demolished by Harry Katz and then
> reduced to ranting.
That is a common occurrence whenever anyone enters the fray who is
familiar with the primary sources.
Gord McFee
[...]
> Don't change the subject by attacking Father Pranaitis. I am testing his
> credibility, and so far he is 100% reliable. Of course you know what that
> means, don't you? If I can show that he maintains this high level of accuracy
> throughout this investigation, then you are stuck explaining why you attack him
> so vehemently. People may begin to think that you are attacking him because he
> told the truth accurately and competently...
Unfortunately for Bellinger, it doesn't work that way. He has to show
that every single Pranaitis quote is accurate and supportable. The fact
that he may find one or two means exactly that: he has found one or two.
Gord McFee
And I must say that you wiped the floor with poor old Bellinger in a
most complete way.
> As far as Mr. Katz? He wiped the floor with you and threw you out with
> the dirty water.
Hehehehe.
Gord McFee
On 4/19/2002 2:35 AM, Debunks wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: Brian Blank nota...@earthlink.spamblocker.net
>>Message-id: <rn6vbuk55pl3k6nbi...@4ax.com>
[...]
>>And the Pranatis "translation" that you quoted last year resembled
>>this how exactly?
>>Regards,
>
> Mr. Blank, do you really expect me to remember something which was posted here
> a year ago? I am sure we will get to this excerpt as I proceed. My objective
> here is simply to test Father's credibility and reliability, and not get
> sidetracked discussing either the merits or demerits of the passages in
> question.
Well, that explains it. Bellinger couldn't care less if Pranaitis is
accurate or not. He is merely scouring him for anything that will put
Jews in a bad light. Bellinger is not normally this forthcoming, at
least not consciously.
reekard
"Gord McFee" <gord....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3CC0CD22...@sympatico.ca...
WHO WAS "REVEREND" PRANAITIS AND WHAT DID HE DO?
The Reverend I.B. Pranaitis was a turn-of-the-century Russian anti-Semite
who was "Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the
Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church" in Old
St.Petersburg, Russia. He also had a criminal record. In 1892, with the
support of his Archbishop, he published an anti-Semitic tract in Latin
called "Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum" or as it became known in English,
"The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians"
which was translated into English by American anti-Semites around 1939.
Pranaitis is revered by anti-Semites as a "Talmud Scholar". For example at a
hate-site on the Web, http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/factindx.htm#Facts
are Facts we find "The Rev. Pranaitis was the greatest of the students of
the Talmud. His complete command of the Hebrew language qualified him to
analyze the Talmud as few men in history". (Interestingly, a vast majority
of the Talmud is not even written in Hebrew, but this minor problem will be
ignored for the moment.) The reality concerning this "scholar" is very
different as was even proven in an anti-Semitic court.
This occurred in the infamous "blood libel" case of Mendel Beiliss in Russia
in 1912 where Beiliss was accused of murdering a Christian child to take his
blood for alleged Jewish rituals and to put in Passover Matzah (unleavened
bread). (Incidentally, the first known "blood libel" case occurred in
Norwich, England in 1144.)
Pranaitis was called as a prosecution witness to testify to the allegedly
horrible things said about Christians in the Talmud. His credibility,
however, was quickly destroyed by the defence who asked him a few basic
questions which anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the Talmud would
be expected to know:
The particular questions that Panaitis was asked under cross-examination
that completely destroyed his credibility were as follows:
Q: What is the meaning of the word Hullin?
A: I don't know.
("Hullin" means "ordinary produce" in Hebrew as opposed to "sanctified
produce".)
Q: What is the meaning of the word Erubin?
A: I don't know.
("Erubin" means "domains which have been set up to allow Jews to carry
outside their homes on the Sabbath".)
Q: What is the meaning of the word Yevamot?
A: I don't know.
("Yevamot" means "brothers in law in reference to Leverite marriage - a
certain type of marriage relating to the command to marry one's dead
brother's wife if he died without children".)
Q: When did Baba Bathra live and what was her activity?
A: I don't know.
(Baba Bathra was not a person but it is a Talmudic Tractate.)
Ref: "Blood Accusation: The Strange History of the Beiliss Case" by Maurice
Samuel. Quote supplied by Joseph Hertzlinger (jher...@ix.netcom.com)
Other books concerning this "trial" are:
"The Russian Jew under the Tsars and Soviets" by Salo W. Baron
"History of the Jews in Russia and Poland", S. M. Dubnow
"The Decay of Czarism: The Beilis Trial" by Alexander B. Tager.
"The Beilis Transcripts: The Anti-Semitic Trial that Shook the World", E.
Leikin, Aronson, New Jersey, 1993, ISBN 0-87668-179-8
So much for Pranaitis' credibility. Nevertheless, his quotes keep getting
circulated and most recently were even taught in the class room of school
teacher Mr James Keegstra in Eckville, Alberta, Canada. He was dissmised
from his post in 1982. (See
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/k/keegstra.jim/supreme.court/facts)
The majority of the Talmud "quotes" in this document are derived from
Pranaitis' book.
Pranaitis in the Beiliss "Blood Libel" trial.
This is an extract of "Scapegoat on Trial: The Story of Mendel Beiliss - The
Autobiography of Mendel Beiliss" Shari Schwarz, editor. [Note the variant
spelling of Pranaitis.]
The star witness for the prosecution was the Catholic priest Pronaitis. He
was not a reputable Russian Orthodox priest; indeed, one could not be found
to do such "dirty work" at the bidding of the authorities. They were lucky
to have found someone like Pronaitis at all. He was presumably well versed
in both the Talmud and Kabbalah. In short, he presented himself as a great
Hebraist and was introduced to the court as such. But when this "expert"
began to speak, it was obvious to all that he was nothing short of an
ignoramus, his only talent being the ability to talk a good game. However,
since the authorities needed his long-winded verbiage to carry some weight,
they feigned to respect him as a holy man of great stature.
He began his lecture by stating matter-of-factly that the Jews offered human
sacrifices and the Jewish religion commanded its adherents to murder
gentiles. He even "interpreted" a sentence from the Talmud that supposedly
said, "Murder the best of the gentiles." In the same vein, after finishing
with the Talmud, he went on to the Kabbalah.
However, in spite of all this, when the procurator asked him if he had any
direct knowledge of Jews using Christian blood, he said he did not. His
expert opinion had made an impression on no one. In fact, many in the
audience occasionally laughed out loud when he clearly became confused and
couldn't even intelligibly answer some of the questions asked by my lawyer.
A minor sensation was produced when the testimony dealt with the number
thirteen, a number which was supposed to have great significance when used
in a Jewish context. The prosecution insisted that the thirteen wounds which
Professor Sikorsky had discovered on Andriusha's body proved that they had
been inflicted in accordance with "Jewish ritual." When it was discovered
afterwards that there were actually fourteen wounds, the ritual murder
charge lost even more credibility.
Furthermore, all the perverse and ridiculous lies that Pronaitis had
postulated were completely refuted by the brilliant, decisive testimony
given by the well-known and universally respected Rabbi of Moscow, Rabbi
Mazeh. He delivered a long, detailed speech quoting passages from the Torah,
the Talmud and many other books to conclusively reveal both the absurdity
and the stupidity inherent in the testimony of such "experts" as Pronaitis.
Any intelligent person could see that the priest had no knowledge whatsoever
of the Talmud and could hardly even read a passage in Hebrew.
==End of quote.==
David S. Maddison madd...@connexus.net.au
>
>
Debunks
>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>Date: 4/19/2002 7:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3CC0CF11...@sympatico.ca>
We are in the process of discovering just how accurate FATHER Pranaitis is or
isn't.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC0CE4B...@sympatico.ca>
Peanut gallery cheers do not impress me, Mr. McFee.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC0CDE6...@sympatico.ca>
>
>On 4/18/2002 2:19 PM, Debunks wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Don't change the subject by attacking Father Pranaitis. I am testing his
>> credibility, and so far he is 100% reliable. Of course you know what that
>> means, don't you? If I can show that he maintains this high level of
>accuracy
>> throughout this investigation, then you are stuck explaining why you attack
>him
>> so vehemently. People may begin to think that you are attacking him
>because he
>> told the truth accurately and competently...
>
>Unfortunately for Bellinger, it doesn't work that way. He has to show
>that every single Pranaitis quote is accurate and supportable
Actually, McFee, I don't have to prove any such thing. Only that he is 99%
reliable....but you demand 100%? No author is 100% reliable. Only an utter
fool would suggest throwing out an entire book because of one or two errors. I
am in the process of proving just how reliable Father Pranaitis is. At the
moment I do not know, but can only state that so far he is batting 100%...
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC0CD75...@sympatico.ca>
Your comments are amusing, Mr McFee, for it was your own Mr Katz who
precipitously fled the minute he saw I was ready, willing and able to
substantiate my case. He is gone...and I am still posting.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC0CD22...@sympatico.ca>
He has tried to 'correct' me....a complete and utter failure on his part each
and every time.
Debunks
>From: "reekard" ari...@naxos.com
>Date: 4/19/2002 7:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3j4w8.121200$%8.101...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
snip
Starting to get a little nervous already?
No, reeks, we will not be sidetracked with a smear campaign just yet. I am
completely uninterested in this information. The issue under investigation
right now is how accurately and truthfully Father Pranaitis presented his
information in the book "The Talmud Unmasked." And at the moment the man is
batting 100%. I have already explained the difficulty which faces you if he
should continue to maintain a high level of accuracy....you and your mates will
then have to justify your continued smears re this man. People will begin to
think you are smearing him simply because he told the truth...
Philip Mathews
Hehe!
> The Talmud is a Jew hating publication, Mr. Mathews?
Why do you say that?
It is your lies and motives which are Jew hating Bellinger.
> >of material irrelevant to the
> >topic of this newsgroup
> It is quite relevant as it all goes to your rather odd definition of
> 'antisemitism'
It is totally irrelevant to a newsgroup about historical revisionism about
the Holocaust.
You've been so humililated discussing that topic that all you're capable of
now is spewing your hatred of Jews day after day.
(snip)
Philip Mathews
> >Subject: Re: Pranaitis
> >From: "Philip Mathews" philip...@attbi.com
> >Date: 4/18/02 8:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <hxMv8.34197$%s3.13...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
(snip)
That's dozens, Bellinger.
reekard
Then you deny the accuracy of what I posted?
>
Hilary Ostrov
<20020419224218...@mb-mi.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
(Debunks) wrote:
>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>Date: 4/19/2002 7:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3CC0CD22...@sympatico.ca>
>>
>>On 4/18/2002 11:45 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>>Date: 4/18/2002 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
[...]
>>>>That may be, but you began the thread by making erroneous statements
>>>>about what you had demonstrated earlier. I corrected you.
>>>
>>> There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on anything,
>>>Mr. Mathews.
>>
>>Bellinger obviously believes there are holy days in hell since Mr
>>Mathews has corrected him over and over again.
>
>He has tried to 'correct' me....a complete and utter failure on his part each
>and every time.
Only in your dreams, Joe-Joe ... just like your claim that you are an
"expert". Time for an encore excerpt from your theme song:
If I were an expert,
Yubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were an expert man.
No more snip 'n running.
Yubba-dubba-dubba dubba-dubba dubba-dubba-dum.
Lord who made the lion and the lamb
You decreed I should be what I am
Would it spoil some vast eternal plan
If I were an expert man?
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Debunks
>Message-id: <Ip6w8.115392$K5.98...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
The issue under examination right now is
: how accurate is the information contained in his book, "The Talmud Unmasked."
Thus far, he is 100% accurate.
Debunks
>Message-id: <2w4w8.35903$%s3.14...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
Posting excerpts from the Talmud is 'hatred?' I suppose so, in view of what
was written by the Rabbis.
Debunks
>From: Hilary Ostrov hos...@telus.net
>Date: 4/19/02 10:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <clv1cu8qnvjmmbrgu...@4ax.com>
>
>On 20 Apr 2002 02:42:18 GMT, in
><20020419224218...@mb-mi.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
>(Debunks) wrote:
>
>>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>>Date: 4/19/2002 7:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <3CC0CD22...@sympatico.ca>
>>>
>>>On 4/18/2002 11:45 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>>>>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>>>>>Date: 4/18/2002 2:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02041...@posting.google.com>
>[...]
>
>>>>>That may be, but you began the thread by making erroneous statements
>>>>>about what you had demonstrated earlier. I corrected you.
>>>>
>>>> There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on anything,
>>>>Mr. Mathews.
>>>
>>>Bellinger obviously believes there are holy days in hell since Mr
>>>Mathews has corrected him over and over again.
>>
>>He has tried to 'correct' me....a complete and utter failure on his part
>each
>>and every time.
>
>Only in your dreams, Joe-Joe ... just like your claim that you are an
>"expert". Time for an encore excerpt from your theme song:
>
snip
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself with such tawdry verses, Ms Ostrov?
(shaking head in complete dismay)
Brian Blank
Indeed, as I recall, having shown that Pranatis could not translate
the Talmud, Bellinger then claimed that he translated from a Russian
translation, which was shown not to exist.
I find it amusing that he thinks that after a few months, he can trot
out the same old stuff and expect everybody else to forget how his
so-called quotes/translations, bore no resemblance to the Talmud.
Regards,
Brian Blank
Joe Bruno
That was a rather silly tune. However, silliness is routine for
Hilly's posts. I had originally planned to call it "childish", but I
discovered through extensive research that Hillbilly has that word
copyrighted.
There is no need for me to compose a poem to describe Hilary's posts.
Old Will Shakespeare already did that:
"Tis a tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing
(MacBeth, Act III)
Bruno
Philip Mathews
> >Subject: Re: Pranaitis
> >From: "Philip Mathews" philip...@attbi.com
> >Date: 4/19/02 7:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <2w4w8.35903$%s3.14...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
> >> >> >(snip)
> >> >> >Dozens of times, Bellinger.
> >Hehe!
> >(snip)
Only a rabid Jew hater would continually post off topic material which has
as its purpose the maligning of Jews.
Gord McFee
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>Date: 4/19/02 9:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <Ip6w8.115392$K5.98...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
[...]
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There shall be a holy day in HELL before you ever correct me on
>>> >anything, Mr.
>>> >> > Mathews.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bellinger obviously believes there are holy days in hell since Mr
>>> >> Mathews has corrected him over and over again. All of Bellinger's
>>> >> bluster will not change the fact that he was unable to produce the
>>> >> anti-Christian and anti-Jesus quotes that he claimed were in the
>>Talmud.
>>> >> The fact that he is reduced to trotting out the debunked idiot
>>> >> Pranaitis - again - is proof of that.
>>> >
>>> >WHO WAS "REVEREND" PRANAITIS AND WHAT DID HE DO?
>>>
>>> snip
Bellinger snipped the point about his hero Pranaitis being an
antisemitic shyster.
>>> Starting to get a little nervous already?
>>> No, reeks, we will not be sidetracked with a smear campaign just yet. I
>>am
>>> completely uninterested in this information. The issue under
>>investigation
>>> right now is how accurately and truthfully Father Pranaitis presented his
>>> information in the book "The Talmud Unmasked." And at the moment the man
>>is
>>> batting 100%. I have already explained the difficulty which faces you if
>>he
>>> should continue to maintain a high level of accuracy....you and your mates
>>will
>>> then have to justify your continued smears re this man. People will begin
>>to
>>> think you are smearing him simply because he told the truth...
>>
>>Then you deny the accuracy of what I posted?
>
> The issue under examination right now is
>
> : how accurate is the information contained in his book, "The Talmud Unmasked."
As has been proven by experts, rather than antisemitic trash like
Bellinger, the Pranaitis book is a tissue of antisemitic lies from a man
who couldn't even speak the language of the Talmud and thought a section
of the Talmud was a person! That is Jew-hating Bellinger's kind of
"expert".
> Thus far, he is 100% accurate.
ROTFL!
Gord McFee
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>Date: 4/19/2002 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3CC0CE4B...@sympatico.ca>
[...]
>>> As far as Mr. Katz? He wiped the floor with you and threw you out with
>>> the dirty water.
>>
>>Hehehehe.
>
> Peanut gallery cheers do not impress me, Mr. McFee.
We know what impresses Bellinger. Anything that is antisemitc.
Gord McFee
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
[...]
>>>>And the Pranatis "translation" that you quoted last year resembled
>>>>this how exactly?
>>>>Regards,
>>>
>>> Mr. Blank, do you really expect me to remember something which was posted
>>here
>>> a year ago? I am sure we will get to this excerpt as I proceed. My
>>objective
>>> here is simply to test Father's credibility and reliability, and not get
>>> sidetracked discussing either the merits or demerits of the passages in
>>> question.
>>
>>Well, that explains it. Bellinger couldn't care less if Pranaitis is
>>accurate or not. He is merely scouring him for anything that will put
>>Jews in a bad light. Bellinger is not normally this forthcoming, at
>>least not consciously.
>
> We are in the process of discovering just how accurate FATHER Pranaitis is or
> isn't.
Horse manure. We discovered last year that Pranaitis is an antisemitic
hack. Bellinger assumes everyone is as stupid as he is, and has forgotten.
None of this changes the fact that Bellinger was unable to prove his
claims against the Talmud *from the Talmud*, so he is now back to
wallowing in the mire with his Jew-hating heroes.
Gord McFee
On 4/20/2002 8:21 AM, Brian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:14:41 -0400, Gord McFee
> <gord....@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 4/19/2002 2:35 AM, Debunks wrote:
>>>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>>>From: Brian Blank nota...@earthlink.spamblocker.net
>>>>Date: 4/18/02 9:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <rn6vbuk55pl3k6nbi...@4ax.com>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>And the Pranatis "translation" that you quoted last year resembled
>>>>this how exactly?
>>>>Regards,
>>>
>>> Mr. Blank, do you really expect me to remember something which was posted here
>>> a year ago? I am sure we will get to this excerpt as I proceed. My objective
>>> here is simply to test Father's credibility and reliability, and not get
>>> sidetracked discussing either the merits or demerits of the passages in
>>> question.
>>
>>Well, that explains it. Bellinger couldn't care less if Pranaitis is
>>accurate or not. He is merely scouring him for anything that will put
>>Jews in a bad light. Bellinger is not normally this forthcoming, at
>>least not consciously.
>
> Indeed, as I recall, having shown that Pranatis could not translate
> the Talmud, Bellinger then claimed that he translated from a Russian
> translation, which was shown not to exist.
Correct.
> I find it amusing that he thinks that after a few months, he can trot
> out the same old stuff and expect everybody else to forget how his
> so-called quotes/translations, bore no resemblance to the Talmud.
Brains were never his strong suit. This is all an attempt on his part
to flee the fact that he was unable to find anything in the Talmud to
back up his claims; hence, he must go back into the mud with his
Jew-hating heroes.
Debunks
>Message-id: <62n2cugurq3oqi3h6...@4ax.com>
Well, Mr. Blank, need I remind you that I have been posting direct quotations
from Pranaitis' book and then posting the same citation from the Soncino
Talmud, and that Pranaitis is batting 100%? Need I remind you of that?
Debunks
>From: joeb...@indystart.com (Joe Bruno)
>Date: 4/20/2002 5:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <4bc3e2e1.02042...@posting.google.com>
LOL! In other words, the mouse that roared!
Debunks
>Message-id: <GVew8.36421$%s3.14...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
Well, Mathews, I have already stated my motives for posting these citations and
they do not conform to your diseased fantasies. And you shall be very hard put
to prove I am posting 'lies' when I copy and paste straight from the Soncino
Talmud. Try again.
Philip Mathews
Well Bellinger, what you claim to be your motive is hardly believable.
Brian Blank
Sanhedrin 59a?
Regards,
Brian Blank
Debunks
>Message-id: <muh4cu07o0u478krk...@4ax.com>
Patience, Mr. Blank...one page at a time...even if what you say is true, that
still leaves us with a man batting 99% accuracy! But lets' see when we get to
that point, ok>?
Debunks
>Message-id: <OLqw8.36710$%s3.15...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO ulterior
motives involved.
Philip Mathews
> >Subject: Re: Pranaitis
> I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO
ulterior
> motives involved.
Your motives are Jew hatred, as well as vainly attempting to show the Talmud
says bad things about Christians, something you've yet to show.
Gord McFee
[...]
> >Indeed, as I recall, having shown that Pranatis could not translate
> >the Talmud, Bellinger then claimed that he translated from a Russian
> >translation, which was shown not to exist.
>
> Well, Mr. Blank, need I remind you that I have been posting direct quotations
> from Pranaitis' book and then posting the same citation from the Soncino
> Talmud, and that Pranaitis is batting 100%? Need I remind you of that?
Bellinger's little game is obvious to everyone. He will find a few
posts in the Pranaitis book that are accurate (even a stopped clock is
right twice a day) and then claim that "proves" all the quotes are
accurate. Then he will trot out the antisemitic stuff. So obvious. So
old.
--
Gord McFee
Gord McFee
Debunks wrote:
[...]
> I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO ulterior
> motives involved.
Bellinger's motives are the same as always - to spread antisemitic
venom. He hasn't changed in all the years he has been here, other than
to begin spouting Christian Identity insanity. Remember that the same
man who said he has "no ulterior motives" also said the following:
<begin quote>
From: rblac...@juno.com
To: ns...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Oh Where, Oh Where Have My Nizkooks Gone?
References: <1.5.4.16.1996121...@earthlink.net>
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-26,28-82
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:33:43 EST
Indeed, they are far from silenced. Right now they have been attacking
me unremittingly with spams from porno sites on the web. They have also
somehow cut me off from posting through my ISP---and I have heard not a
word about it from my ISP, though I have sent email after email. When I
attempt to post to alt revisionism, a message appears on my screen: You
have no permission to talk! If they are unusually dormant right
now--perhaps they are celebrating Hannukah--
Rockin around the Hannukah bush,
Have a happy holiday...
Christmas gifts are selling fast
The money's on the way....
The stupid Goy, is spending his cash
On our cheap and shoddy goods,
While we go to the bank and deposit the dough,
For vacations in Hollywood....
Izzy gets a sentimental feeling every year
Everyone can hear him holler
"Deck my tree with silver dollars"
Rockin around the Hannukah bush
Izzy's tribe is here to stay
Ripping dumb old Goyim off
In that good old Jewish way
<end quote>
and this:
<begin quote>
Sung to "Your Feets too Big" by Fats Waller:
Yea, I'm gonna a build a gas chamber or two
One for me, and one for you
The first one just wouldn't do
So I had to build me two
Because your feets too big
It can't take ya cuz your feets too big
It really hates ya cuz your feets too big
It don't want ya cuz yer feets too big
Well the strain on the furnaces was colossal
Your feet stuck out like a fossil
They all said twas impossible
Because Yer Feets too big
<end quote>
and this:
<quote>
In article <19990112213243...@ng31.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
(Debunks) wrote: "I post deliberate misinformation . . ."
</quote>
--
Gord McFee
David Gehrig
> On 4/19/2002 10:38 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>>Date: 4/19/2002 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <3CC0CE4B...@sympatico.ca>
>
> [...]
>
>>>> As far as Mr. Katz? He wiped the floor with you and threw you out with
>>>> the dirty water.
>>>
>>>Hehehehe.
>>
>> Peanut gallery cheers do not impress me, Mr. McFee.
>
> We know what impresses Bellinger. Anything that is antisemitc.
INcluding now, apparently, Pranaitis.
Every time you think he's hit bottom, the boy goes
and rents himself a steam shovel to dig a new subbasement.
--
@%<
David Gehrig
> On 4/19/2002 10:37 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>And the Pranatis "translation" that you quoted last year resembled
>>>>>this how exactly?
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Blank, do you really expect me to remember something which was
>>>> posted
>>>here
>>>> a year ago? I am sure we will get to this excerpt as I proceed. My
>>>objective
>>>> here is simply to test Father's credibility and reliability, and not
>>>> get sidetracked discussing either the merits or demerits of the
>>>> passages in question.
>>>
>>>Well, that explains it. Bellinger couldn't care less if Pranaitis is
>>>accurate or not. He is merely scouring him for anything that will put
>>>Jews in a bad light. Bellinger is not normally this forthcoming, at
>>>least not consciously.
>>
>> We are in the process of discovering just how accurate FATHER Pranaitis
>> is or isn't.
>
> Horse manure. We discovered last year that Pranaitis is an antisemitic
> hack. Bellinger assumes everyone is as stupid as he is, and has
> forgotten.
But Joe-Joe hasn't forgotten because he's stupid. He's forgotten
because if he doesn't he loses another source to "justify" his
irrational hatred of the Jews.
> None of this changes the fact that Bellinger was unable to prove his
> claims against the Talmud *from the Talmud*, so he is now back to
> wallowing in the mire with his Jew-hating heroes.
As was to be expected.
--
@%<
Brian Blank
Of course this is what he is doing. That is why he keeps running from
the Sanhedrin 59a reference.
Regards,
Brian Blank
Debunks
>Message-id: <NJzw8.36783$%s3.15...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
Leave it to me to state my motives, Mathews. Your confederate, Mr. Katz,
posted statements which were untrue. He challenged me and now you can reap
what he sowed.
>as well as vainly attempting to show the Talmud
>says bad things about Christians, something you've yet to show.
Oh, you mean you missed this?-
Subject: Pranaitis 4
From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Date: 4/20/2002 10:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <20020421013127...@mb-bk.aol.com>
Continuing with our examination of Father Pranaitis' book, "The Talmud
Unmasked," we pick up where we left off on page 31, where he is citing a
passage which refers to the Mother of Christ, in confirmation of Sanhedrin 67a,
where the Talmudists refer to Jesus as the 'son of Stada'…or son of a
prostitute. Proving that the reference is indeed to Mary, Pranaitis cites
Chagigah 4b as follows:
"When Rabbi Bibai was visited once by the Death Angel (the devil), the latter
said to his assistant: 'Go and bring to me Mary the hairdresser' (this is,
kill her). He went and brought Mary the hairdresser - in place of the other
Mary."
A marginal note explains this passage as follows:
"This story of Mary the Ladies' hairdresser happened under the second Temple.
She was the mother of Peloni, 'that man,' as he is called in the tract
Schabbath," (fol. 104b).
In schabbath the passage referred to says:
"Rabbi Eliezer said to the Elders: "Did not the son of Stada practice Egyptian
magic by cutting it into his flesh?" They replied: 'He was a fool, and we do
not pay attention to what fools do. The Son of Stada, Pandira's son, etc.'"
as above in Sanhedrin 67a.
This magic of the son of stada is explained as follows in the book Beth Jacobh,
fol. 127a:
"The Magi, before they left Egypt, took special care not to put their magic in
writing lest other peoples might come to learn it. But he devised a new way by
which he inscribed it on his skin, or made cuts in his skin and inserted it
there and which, when the wounds healed up, did not show what they meant." (An
explanatory footnote appended to this passage reads: "This is treated at
greater length in the book Toldoth Jeshu, where it speaks of Jesus as a
conjurer, as we shall see further on. It is also mentioned in the Jerusalem
Talmud in chap. 12.
Father Pranaitis then cites the opinion of Talmudic scholar Buxtorf in his
"Lexicon Jud in verbo Jeschu" where he comments:
"There is little doubt who this Ben Stada was, or who the Jews understood him
to be. Although the Rabbis in their additions to the Talmud try to hide their
malice and say that it is not Jesus Christ, their deceit is plainly evident,
and many things prove that they wrote and understood all these things about
him. In the first place, they also call him the son of Pandira. Jesus the
Nazarene is thus called in other passages of the Talmud (i.e., Abodah Zarah,
ch. II and Schabbath, ch 14 and Beth Jacobh, 127a) where express mention is
made of Jesus the son of Pandira. St. John Damascene (Book 4) also, in his
Genealology of Christ, mentions Panthera and the Son of Panthera. "Secondly,
this Stada is said to be Mary, and this Mary the mother of Peloni 'that certain
one,' by whih without doubt Jesus is meant. For in this way they were
accustomed to cover up his name because they were afraid to mention it. If we
had copies of the original manuscripts they would certainly prove this. And
this also was the name of the mother of Jesus the Nazarene.
COMMENT: No would be a good time to break from the texts in question and cite
them as they appear in the Soncino Talmud, the two exceptions being Toldoth
Jeshu, which was not a part of the Talmud but a later polemical diatribe, and
Beth Jacobh, which is a book of commentary.
The first passage is Sanhendrin 67a, which has already been cited.
The second passage is Chagigah 4b, which was also cited.
And the third is Schabbath 104b, to which I now cite directly from the Soncino
Talmud:
OR WITH ANYTHING THAT LEAVES A MARK. What does this add?14 -It adds what was
taught by R. Hanina: If he writes it [a divorce] with the fluid of taria,15 or
gall-nut [juice], it is valid.16 R. Hiyya taught: If he writes it with dust,17
with a black pigment, or with coal, it is valid. HE WHO SCRATCHES A MARK ON HIS
FLESH, [etc.] It was taught. R. Eliezer said to the Sages: But did not Ben
Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt by means of scratches18 [in the form of
charms] upon his flesh?19 He was a fool, answered they. and proof cannot be
adduced from fools.20
The footnote pertaining to this passage reads:
(19) Which proves that scratches are important. and so one should be liable
therefore. In the uncensored text this passage follows: Was he then the son of
Stada: surely he was the son of Pandira?-Said R. Hisda: The husband was Stada,
the paramour was Pandira. But the husband was Pappos b. Judah? - His mother was
Stada. But his mother was Miriam the hairdresser? - It is as we say in
Pumbeditha: This one has been unfaithful to (lit., 'turned away from' - satath
da) her husband. - On the identity of Ben Stada v. Sanh., Sonc. ed., p. 456, n.
5.
END QUOTES
Thus, it is proved that all citations taken from Father Pranaitis in this
section are truly and accurately reported, and independently confirmed by
scholars Herford, Dalman, et. al.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC32168...@sympatico.ca>
>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO ulterior
>> motives involved.
>
>Bellinger's motives are the same as always - to spread antisemitic
>venom. He hasn't changed in all the years he has been here, other than
>to begin spouting Christian Identity insanity.
I don't spout Christian Identity, but they are not all wrong in their
interpretations. The rest of grasping at straws snipped. Live with it. You
are being exposed for the liars you are---again.
Debunks
>From: David Gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>Date: 4/21/2002 3:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <nhHw8.42$%S4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Gord McFee wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2002 10:38 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>>>Date: 4/19/2002 7:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <3CC0CE4B...@sympatico.ca>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> As far as Mr. Katz? He wiped the floor with you and threw you out with
>>>>> the dirty water.
>>>>
>>>>Hehehehe.
>>>
>>> Peanut gallery cheers do not impress me, Mr. McFee.
>>
>> We know what impresses Bellinger. Anything that is antisemitc.
>
>INcluding now, apparently, Pranaitis.
That's true. At the moment, I am VERY impressed by Father's credibility.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC31FD5...@sympatico.ca>
Need I point out to you that I am taking the excerpts PAGE by
PAGE....methodically....systematically.
Debunks
>Message-id: <l8g6cuc8sip9d9lit...@4ax.com>
No, Mr. Blank, that is NOT what I am doing. You will have to WAIT until I
arrive at the excerpt you are itching to address here....and I really don't
know why, because this time I am completely prepared to discuss these
issues--and the lot of you know it. Now, you have been following these posts
on Pranaitis, haven't you? Therefore you know good and well that I have been
proceeding through his chapter on the Talmud in methodical fashinon...quote
after quote...page after page...and I cite them all in each post. so there is
no question here of my jumping from one passage or one page to the next. To
date, Father is batting 100 out of 100.
Gord McFee
On 4/21/2002 7:38 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>Date: 4/21/2002 1:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3CC32168...@sympatico.ca>
>>
>>Debunks wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO ulterior
>>> motives involved.
>>
>>Bellinger's motives are the same as always - to spread antisemitic
>>venom. He hasn't changed in all the years he has been here, other than
>>to begin spouting Christian Identity insanity.
>
> I don't spout Christian Identity, but they are not all wrong in their
> interpretations.
In other words, Bellinger *is* spouting Christian Identity insanity.
> The rest of grasping at straws snipped. Live with it. You
> are being exposed for the liars you are---again.
Bellinger is terrified of his own words.
Gord McFee
Precisely. He is hoping everyone will forget the flaying he took on that.
Gord McFee
On 4/21/2002 7:42 PM, Debunks wrote:
[...]
> No, Mr. Blank, that is NOT what I am doing. You will have to WAIT until I
> arrive at the excerpt you are itching to address here....and I really don't
> know why, because this time I am completely prepared to discuss these
> issues--and the lot of you know it. Now, you have been following these posts
> on Pranaitis, haven't you? Therefore you know good and well that I have been
> proceeding through his chapter on the Talmud in methodical fashinon...quote
> after quote...page after page...and I cite them all in each post. so there is
> no question here of my jumping from one passage or one page to the next. To
> date, Father is batting 100 out of 100.
So far, Pranaitis is not batting at all. Bellinger continues to
intersperse his little comments - already debunked by Harry Katz and
others - and pretends they justify Pranaitis' rubbish. They didn't last
year and they don't this year.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC37345...@sympatico.ca>
>
>
>On 4/21/2002 7:42 PM, Debunks wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> No, Mr. Blank, that is NOT what I am doing. You will have to WAIT until I
>> arrive at the excerpt you are itching to address here....and I really don't
>> know why, because this time I am completely prepared to discuss these
>> issues--and the lot of you know it. Now, you have been following these
>posts
>> on Pranaitis, haven't you? Therefore you know good and well that I have
>been
>> proceeding through his chapter on the Talmud in methodical fashinon...quote
>> after quote...page after page...and I cite them all in each post. so there
>is
>> no question here of my jumping from one passage or one page to the next.
>To
>> date, Father is batting 100 out of 100.
>
>So far, Pranaitis is not batting at all.
Of course he isn't....to YOU.
LOL!
Debunks
>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>Date: 4/21/2002 7:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3CC37345...@sympatico.ca>
>
>
Here, save this one to disk with last year's:
We are now on page 35 of "The Talmud Unmasked," where we read:
"In the tract Sanhedrin 103a the words of Psalm 91:10:
'No plague shall come near thy dwelling,' are explained as follows:
"That thou mayest never have a son or a disciple who will salt his food so much
that he destroys his taste in public, like Jesus the Nazarene."
To salt one's food too much or destroy one's taste, is proverbially said of one
who corrupts his morals or dishonors himself, or who falls into heresy or
idolatry and openly preaches it to others.
COMMENT: Was the passage cited correctly? Let's refer to the Soncino Talmud:
Another interpretation: 'There shall no evil befall thee' - thou wilt not be
affrighted by nightmares and dread thoughts; 'neither shall any plague come
nigh thy dwelling' - thou wilt not have a son or a disciple who publicly burns
his food.30 Thus far his father blessed him: beyond this, his mother blessed
him:31 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy
ways. They shall bear thee in their hands etc. . . .Thou shalt tread upon the
lion and the adder.32 Thus far his mother blessed him, beyond this, Heaven
blessed him:
END
The footnote to this passage reads:
(30) [By the addition of too much salt; A metaphor for the open acceptance of
heretical teachings. v. Hereford, op. cit., pp. 60f.]
End
Now, referring to Herford, "Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash, page 60 we
read:
"It has already been mentioned that the phrase, 'a son or disciple who burns
his food' occurs in two passages, b. Ber. 17b, and b Sanh. 103a…In the
former, the Gemara, in an exposition of Ps. Cxliv. 14: 'There is no breaking
in and no going forth, and no outcry in the streets,' says: 'There is no
breaking in,' that our company of David from which Ahitophel went out, and
'there is no going forth, and 'no outcry,' that our company be not as the
company of Elisha from which Gehazi went out, and 'in our streets' that there
be not to us a son or disciple who burns his food in public like Jeshu the
Nazarene. (In a footnote, Herford remarks: "The printed text does not mention
'Jeshu ha-Notzri.' The reading, however, is found in all the older editions of
the MSS. See Rabinowicz on the passage…)
Comment: Father Pranaitis is validated
Moreover, Herford continued:
"Now we shall see hereafter, that Ahitophel, Doeg and Gehazi, are all, in the
view of the Talmud, tainted with heresy (Minuth). These three, along with
Balaam, the chief infidel, are said in the Mishnah, Sanh. X.1, to have no part
in the world to come. And the same Mishnah makes a similar declaration in
regard to Jeroboam, Ahab and Manasseh. The passage in b. Ber. 17b, as quoted
in the Aruch (The Schulchan Aruh of Rabbi Joseph Karo) reads thus, "burns his
food in public, like Manasseh." And this has probably led the author of that
work to explain the meaning of 'burns his food in public' by 'sets up idols in
public,' establishes false worships. But, as Rabbinowicz has shown, not
'Manasseh,' but "Jehu-ha-Notzri" (Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene) is
the original reading; and this fact is conclusive against the explanation o
fthe author of the Aruch. It is absurd to say of Jesus that he set up idols.
I conclude, therefore, that in the passage before us the reference to Jesus is
intended as an example of one who inclined to heresy." -Herford, pp. 60, 61.
COMMENT: Herford is half-right, for the reference 'sets up idols in public'
can only refer to Christ having made the claim that 'He' was the "Son of God'
thereby setting Himself up as an 'idol' in the opinion of the Talmudists.
Returning back to page 35 of "The Talmud Unmasked," Father Pranaitis writes:
"In the same book Sanhedrin 107b we read:
"Mar said: "Jesus seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel."
Referring back to the Soncino Talmud re 107b, we read:
[So] 'The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed
for ever.' And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.17
END
Now, the footnote to this passage is most enlightening:
(17) II Kings V, 27. The uncensored edition continues: What of R. Joshua b.
Perahjah? - When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus)
fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent
to him: 'From me, (Jerusalem) the holy city, to thee, Alexandria of Egypt (my
sister). My husband dwelleth within thee and I am desolate.' He arose, went,
and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him. 'How
beautiful is this Acsania!' (The word denotes both inn and innkeeper. R. Joshua
used it in the first sense; the answer assumes the second to be meant.)
Thereupon (Jesus) observed, 'Rabbi, her eyes are narrow.' 'Wretch,' he rebuked
him, 'dost thou thus engage thyself.' He sounded four hundred trumpets and
excommunicated him. He (Jesus) came before him many times pleading, 'Receive
me!' But he would pay no heed to him. One day he (R. Joshua) was reciting the
Shema', when Jesus came before him. He intended to receive him and made a sign
to him. He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and
worshipped it. 'Repent,' said he (R. Joshua) to him. He replied, 'I have thus
learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the
means of repentance.' And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practised
magic and led Israel astray.' For a full discussion of this passage and
attempted explanation of this anachronism making Jesus a contemporary of King
Jannai (104-78 B.C.E.). v. Herford, op. cit. 51ff. [The tradition of an early
Jesus was also known to Epiphanius. Whether he derived this tradition from the
Talmud or from an independent source is a moot point hotly contested by
Klausner and Guttmann; v. MGWJ. 1931, 250ff. and 1933, 38. In any case there
does not appear to be sufficient data available to account for this tradition.]
END
Father Pranaitis is again worthy of belief on all points.
On page 36, Father Pranaitis cites from the ZOHAR, which purports to be a
Jewish Mystical Book. Now, we have already posted a rather horrendous citation
from the Zohar as reported by Israeli scholar Kaufman. In this passage Jesus
and his apostles and adherents are referred to as follows:
"Jesus and his troublemakers were dead dogs, loathsome, evil-smelling."
Father Pranaitis cites another passage from the Zohar in which he writes:
"The book Zohar III, (282), tells us that Jesus died like a beast and was
buried in that 'dirt heap…where they throw the dead bodies of dogs and asses,
and where the sons of Esau (the Christians) and of Ismael (the Turks) -(And
Arabs-Debunks), also Jesus and Mahommad, uncircumcised and unclean like dead
dogs, are buried."
In an explanatory footnote, Father Pranaitis adds:
"In the book Synag. Judaica, (Ch. III, p. 75) is the following: 'He who cuts
himself off (namely, who does not believe blindly in the Rabbinical teachings)
(Which Christ Himself condemned-Debunks) will suffer the tortures of the
damned, as is decreed in the Talmudic law of punishment in the Tract de
Rupudiis (Gitt. C. 5): He who despises the words of the wise men shall be cast
into the dirt heap with the damned." I shudder to repeat that they
blasphemously narrate that our Savior Jesus Christ, whose name be forever
blessed, suffered this penalty by being cast into Gehenna, although it is
contrary to the traditions and teaching of the Fathers of the Church…"
COMMENT: Clearly, this was the entire unedited passage referred to by Kaufman.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC372B5...@sympatico.ca>
Here is where we are to date, and Father Pranaitis' record stands unblemished:
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC3727C...@sympatico.ca>
LOL! Be terrified of this:
Debunks
>Message-id: <3CC372B5...@sympatico.ca>
Today is the day for your flaying:
Subject: Father Pranaitis, Continued
From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Date: 4/21/2002 6:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <20020421213448...@mb-mj.aol.com>
Proceeding now to page 34 of Father Pranaitis' The Talmud Unmasked," he writes:
"Furthermore, 'In the secret books, which are not permitted to fall easily into
the hands of Christians, they say that the soul of Esau came into Christ, that
he was therefore evil and that he was Esau himself."
COMMENT: In support of this passage, Father Pranaitis refers to J. Buxtorf's,
"Lexicon in verbo Jeshu". Buxtorf is an acknowledged Talmudic scholar. Also
cited is Synag. Judaica, p. 217.
Pranaitis then proceeds to prove that Christ is referred to as a 'fool' and
'insane' in the Talmud and other Jewish books and commentaries. He writes:
'In Schabbath 104b:
"They, (the Elders) said to him (Eliezer): 'He was a fool, and no one pays
attention to fools.'
NOTE: This passage has already been cited in previous posts as accurately
cited from the Soncino Talmud.
Back to Pranaitis:
"In the infamous book Toldoth Jeshu, our Savior is blasphemed as follows:
"And Jesus said: Did not Isaiah and David, my ancestors, prophesy about me?
The Lord said to me, thou art my son, today I have begotten thee, etc. (Ps.
2:7) Likewise in another place: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou at my right
hand. (Ps. 90:1) Now I ascend to my Father who is in heaven and will sit at
his right hand, which you will see with your own eyes. But you, Judas, will
never reach that high. Then Jesus pronounced the great name of God (YHWH) and
continued to do so until a wind came and took him up between the earth and sky.
Judas also pronounced the name of God and he likewise was taken up by the
wind. In this way they both floated around in the air to the amazement of the
onlookers. Then Judas, again pronouncing the Divine Name, took hold of Jesus
and pushed him down to earth. But Jesus tried to do the same to Judas and thus
they fought together. And when Judas saw he could not win out over the works
of Jesus he pissed on Jesus, and both thus being unclean they fell to earth;
nor could they use the divine name again until they had washed themselves."
Pranaitis comments: "Whether those who believe such devilish lies deserve
greater hatred or pity, I cannot say."
Pranaitis concludes this section with the following:
"In another place in the same book it is related that in the house of the
Sanctuary there was a stone which the Patriarch Jacob anointed with oil.
(Genesis 28) On this stone were carved the tetragrammatic letters of the Name
(YHWH), and if anyone could learn them he could destroy the world. They
therefore decreed that no one must learn them, and they placed two dogs upon
two iron columns before the Sanctuary so that if anyone should learn them the
dogs would bark at him coming out and he would forget the letters through fear.
Then it is related: "Jesus came and entered, learned the letters and wrote
them down on parchment. Then he cut into the flesh of his thigh and inserted
them there, and having pronounced the name, the wound healed." (Buxtorf.
Lexicon, op cit.)
Comment: All the passages cited by Father Pranaitis from the Sefer Toldoth
Yeshu are true and correct and may be verified by a reading of the scurrilous
book in question. Note that the American Atheist Society has published a
complete English translation of this infamous work. Other excerpts may be
accessed on-line by searching www.google.com and entering the key words 'Sefer
Toldoth Jeshu.' (Or Yeshu)
Philip Mathews
No, I will state what your clear motives are, hatred of Jews.
>
> >as well as vainly attempting to show the Talmud
> >says bad things about Christians, something you've yet to show.
> Oh, you mean you missed this?-
>
> Subject: Pranaitis 4
> From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
> Date: 4/20/2002 10:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
> Message-id: <20020421013127...@mb-bk.aol.com>
>
> Continuing with our examination of Father Pranaitis' book, "The Talmud
> Unmasked," we pick up where we left off on page 31, where he is citing a
> passage which refers to the Mother of Christ, in confirmation of Sanhedrin
67a,
> where the Talmudists refer to Jesus as the 'son of Stada'.or son of a
> prostitute. Proving that the reference is indeed to Mary, Pranaitis cites
> Chagigah 4b as follows:
Neither of whom were Christians.
Bellinger continues with the same nonsense.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3cLw8.38091$%s3.15...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
Claim whatever you like Mathews. It will still be your own fantasy.
>>
>> >as well as vainly attempting to show the Talmud
>> >says bad things about Christians, something you've yet to show.
>
>> Oh, you mean you missed this?-
>>
>> Subject: Pranaitis 4
>> From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
>> Date: 4/20/2002 10:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: <20020421013127...@mb-bk.aol.com>
>> Continuing with our examination of Father Pranaitis' book, "The Talmud
>> Unmasked," we pick up where we left off on page 31, where he is citing a
>> passage which refers to the Mother of Christ, in confirmation of Sanhedrin
>67a,
>> where the Talmudists refer to
>Jesus as the 'son of Stada'.or son of a
>> prostitute. Proving that the reference is indeed to Mary, Pranaitis cites
>> Chagigah 4b as follows:
>
>Neither of whom were Christians.
>
>
Christ is the founder of Christianity. Perhaps you were not aware of that fact?
Philip Mathews
No he wasn't.
Christ was a Jew. He was born, lived, and died as a Jew.
Debunks
>Message-id: <vLLw8.38151$%s3.15...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
In fact, he was unjustly murdered by Jews, isn't that right, Mr. Mathews?
Brian Blank
Well, there we have an example of Pranatis' lies. There are no "secret
books, which are not permitted to fall easily into the hands of
Christians". Thank you for posting proof of Pranatis' (anti-semitic)
agenda.
>
>COMMENT: In support of this passage, Father Pranaitis refers to J. Buxtorf's,
>"Lexicon in verbo Jeshu". Buxtorf is an acknowledged Talmudic scholar. Also
>cited is Synag. Judaica, p. 217.
"IS"? Well never mind. I can find plenty of references to Buxtorf's
lexicons, but not the one quoted.
>
>Pranaitis then proceeds to prove that Christ is referred to as a 'fool' and
>'insane' in the Talmud and other Jewish books and commentaries. He writes:
>
>'In Schabbath 104b:
>
>"They, (the Elders) said to him (Eliezer): 'He was a fool, and no one pays
>attention to fools.'
>
>NOTE: This passage has already been cited in previous posts as accurately
>cited from the Soncino Talmud.
>
>Back to Pranaitis:
>
>"In the infamous book Toldoth Jeshu, our Savior is blasphemed as follows:
This book is not part of the Talmud. So, if Pranatis is claiming it
is, he is simply lying.
Yep, do a Google search and you get one result. It is a Zundel Site.
On the other hand, look for the American Atheist Society and you get
"The Great Forum
... American Atheist Society The homepage of the American Atheist
Society, the home
orginization of Ronald Barrier. Look here for information on what
atheists ...
www.thegreatforum.com/links.html "
Click on the link however and you get "the page cannot be displayed."
As an alternative go to http://www.atheists.org/ which works and
includes a search engine of its own. Put in "Sefer Toldoth Jeshu"
and you get no results. Change it to "Sefer Toldoth Yeshu" and you
still get no results.
In other words. All of the last paragraph of yours is bogus.
Interesting huh?
Regards,
Brian Blank
Philip Mathews
> >Subject: Re: Pranaitis
> >From: "Philip Mathews" philip...@attbi.com
> >Date: 4/21/2002 8:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <vLLw8.38151$%s3.15...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
> >> >> >> >> >> >(snip)
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Posting excerpts from the Talmud is 'hatred?'
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >It is your lies and motives which are Jew hating Bellinger.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Well, Mathews, I have already stated my motives for posting these
> citations and
> >> >> >> >> they do not conform to your diseased fantasies.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Well Bellinger, what you claim to be your motive is hardly
> believable.
>
> >> >> >> I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO
> ulterior
> >> >> >> motives involved.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your motives are Jew hatred
> >> >>
> >> >> Leave it to me to state my motives, Mathews.
> >> >
> >> >No, I will state what your clear motives are, hatred of Jews.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Claim whatever you like Mathews. It will still be your own fantasy.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >as well as vainly attempting to show the Talmud
> >> >> >says bad things about Christians, something you've yet to show.
>
> >> >> Oh, you mean you missed this?-
> >> >> Continuing with our examination of Father Pranaitis' book, "The Talmud
> >> >> Unmasked," we pick up where we left off on page 31, where he is citing
> a
> >> >> passage which refers to the Mother of Christ, in confirmation of
> Sanhedrin
> 67a,
> >> >> where the Talmudists refer to
>
> Jesus as the 'son of Stada'.or son of a
> >> >> prostitute. Proving that the reference is indeed to Mary, Pranaitis
> cites
> >> >> Chagigah 4b as follows:
> >> >
> >> >Neither of whom were Christians.
> >> Christ is the founder of Christianity.
> >No he wasn't.
> >Christ was a Jew. He was born, lived, and died as a Jew.
> In fact, he was unjustly murdered by Jews, isn't that right, Mr. Mathews?
He was killed by Romans Bellinger.
What does that have to do with Jesus being a Jew, not a Christian?
--
Philip Mathews
Debunks
>From: phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews)
>Date: 4/22/2002 6:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <c6bd4de7.02042...@posting.google.com>
He was killed by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews, Mathews.
Debunks
>Message-id: <qoq7cuolkq6fa3sjl...@4ax.com>
>
snip
PS: Father Pranaitis is STILL batting 100 out of 100.
Philip Mathews
Ah, so you admit what you said above was wrong.
Debunks
>Message-id: <qoq7cuolkq6fa3sjl...@4ax.com>
I see no lie in this. We already have confirmation that passages were altered,
excised, and carried on in oral tradition, so this shows some very concerted
attempt at subterfuge. Now, I think he is probably referring here to books
like the ZOHAR and CABALA which, if not 'secret' are certainly esoteric and
arcane and extremely difficult for an average person to research.
>>COMMENT: In support of this passage, Father Pranaitis refers to J.
>Buxtorf's,
>>"Lexicon in verbo Jeshu". Buxtorf is an acknowledged Talmudic scholar.
>Also
>>cited is Synag. Judaica, p. 217.
>
>
>"IS"? Well never mind. I can find plenty of references to Buxtorf's
>lexicons, but not the one quoted.
>>
Well, it exists. Father did not conjure these quotations out of a hat.
>>Pranaitis then proceeds to prove that Christ is referred to as a 'fool' and
>>'insane' in the Talmud and other Jewish books and commentaries. He writes:
>>
>>'In Schabbath 104b:
>>
>>"They, (the Elders) said to him (Eliezer): 'He was a fool, and no one pays
>>attention to fools.'
>>
>>NOTE: This passage has already been cited in previous posts as accurately
>>cited from the Soncino Talmud.
>>Back to Pranaitis:
>>
>>"In the infamous book Toldoth Jeshu, our Savior is blasphemed as follows:
>
>This book is not part of the Talmud. So, if Pranatis is claiming it
>is, he is simply lying.
He never CLAIMED it was part of the TALMUD, Mr. Blank. He knows the
difference.
I believe there are more references. let me help you:
Intro. To the New Testament Study Guide for Quiz #3
... Toldoth Yeshu. ... Toldoth Yeshu: Mary engaged to Yohanan
(John): Raped by Joseph Pandera Mary from Bethlehem: ...
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Courses/NewTest/Study/nt_s3s01.html - 6k - Cached -
Similar pages
Intro. to the New Testament:: Study Guide for Tests
... Nativity stories. Commonalties and differences: Luke Matthew Proto-gospel
of James Toldoth Yeshu Genealogies Form criticism. ...
ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Courses/NewTest/Study/nt_studyall_f97.html - 16k -
Cached - Similar pages
Christian Tradition
... Alternate viewpoints to the gospels. Alan Humm posts & analyzes references
to Jesus in Josephus, the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud & Toldoth Yeshu. ...
religion.rutgers.edu/vri/xnity.html - 101k - Cached - Similar pages
EDITORIAL: WHAT DID YAHSHUA CALL HIS FATHER?
... The "Toldoth Yeshu", is a rabbinic anti-gospel document dating back to 400
CE,
with clear linguistic connections to Matthew's ORIGINAL Hebrew gospel. This ...
www.yourarmstoisrael.org/editorials/what_did_yahshua_call_his_father.htm - 11k
- Cached - Similar pages
Library/IT: The Quest for the Historical Jesus - General ...
... U. Pennsylvania's Alan Humma assembles information on Jesus from Josephus
and other
Jewish sources, including the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud & Toldoth Yeshu. ...
www.ants.edu/library/jesus/general.htm - 42k - Cached - Similar pages
Profiel: Jezus
... Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, München, 1992;; HJ Schonfield, ‘According to
the Hebrews;
a new translation of the Toldoth Yeshu', Kemp Hall Press, Oxford, 1937. ...
www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Profiel/Jezus/godsdiensten.html - 13k - Cached - Similar
pages
The above are all from Google, Mr. Blank
>On the other hand, look for the American Atheist Society and you get
>"The Great Forum
>... American Atheist Society The homepage of the American Atheist
>Society, the home
>orginization of Ronald Barrier. Look here for information on what
>atheists ...
>www.thegreatforum.com/links.html
>Click on the link however and you get "the page cannot be displayed."
>
Well, that is not my problem, is it? I once posted the ISBN number of the book
in this ng, btw...
>
>As an alternative go to http://www.atheists.org/ which works and
>includes a search engine of its own. Put in "Sefer Toldoth Jeshu"
>and you get no results. Change it to "Sefer Toldoth Yeshu" and you
>still get no results.
Perhaps it is currently out of print. Anyway, I posted the ISBN number here
for Mathes or whatever his name was....he entered the information and found the
reference.
>
>In other words. All of the last paragraph of yours is bogus.
>
>Interesting huh?
>Regards,
>
>Brian Blank
>
What is more interesting is that you are wrong,---again. Don't try so hard to
refute someone who is telling the truth, Mr. Blank. It won't pay off in the
end.
Debunks
>Message-id: <e00x8.39613$%s3.16...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
Not at all. And God punished the JEWS for the crime; not the Romans.
Philip Mathews
> Not at all.
> And God punished the JEWS for the crime; not the Romans.
No he didn't.
You said he was murdered by Jews. Then you said the was killed by Romans.
Confused aren't you.
Debunks
>Message-id: <Vk0x8.39770$%s3.16...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net>
According to the Gospels and Fathers of the Church, He did.
>
>You said he was murdered by Jews. Then you said the was killed by Romans.
>Confused aren't you.
>
>--
>Philip Mathews
Not at all. It is you who is confused, so let me clear it up for you:
Charles Manson did not kill Gary Hinman, but incited others to do it. Manson
did not kill those at the Tate residence; he incited others to do it for him.
Manson did not kill the LaBianca's; he incited others to do it for him...yet
he is sitting in a jail cell just the same, isn't it? Get the picture yet,
Mathews?
Gord McFee
No one else was either, since it is incorrect.
Philip Mathews
> Not at all. It is you who is confused, so let me clear it up for you:
Gee, watch this.
> Charles Manson did not kill Gary Hinman, but incited others to do it.
But you didn't claim that Jews incited the Romans to kill Jesus.
You said Jews murdered Jesus.
I'm glad I could help you see your error.
Gord McFee
That's his usual state.
Gord McFee
What was the Jews' punishment?
Gord McFee
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>Date: 4/21/2002 7:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3CC3727C...@sympatico.ca>
>>
>>
>>On 4/21/2002 7:38 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>>>Date: 4/21/2002 1:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <3CC32168...@sympatico.ca>
>>>>
>>>>Debunks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>> I clearly stated them at the time I began posting and there are NO
>>ulterior
>>>>> motives involved.
>>>>
>>>>Bellinger's motives are the same as always - to spread antisemitic
>>>>venom. He hasn't changed in all the years he has been here, other than
>>>>to begin spouting Christian Identity insanity.
>>>
>>> I don't spout Christian Identity, but they are not all wrong in their
>>> interpretations.
>>
>>In other words, Bellinger *is* spouting Christian Identity insanity.
No answer.
>>> The rest of grasping at straws snipped. Live with it. You
>>> are being exposed for the liars you are---again.
>>
>>Bellinger is terrified of his own words.
No answer.
[rubbish deleted]
Gord McFee
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: Gord McFee gord....@sympatico.ca
>>Date: 4/21/2002 7:19 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3CC37345...@sympatico.ca>
>>
>>On 4/21/2002 7:42 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> No, Mr. Blank, that is NOT what I am doing. You will have to WAIT until I
>>> arrive at the excerpt you are itching to address here....and I really don't
>>> know why, because this time I am completely prepared to discuss these
>>> issues--and the lot of you know it. Now, you have been following these
>>posts
>>> on Pranaitis, haven't you? Therefore you know good and well that I have
>>been
>>> proceeding through his chapter on the Talmud in methodical fashinon...quote
>>> after quote...page after page...and I cite them all in each post. so there
>>is
>>> no question here of my jumping from one passage or one page to the next.
>>To
>>> date, Father is batting 100 out of 100.
>>
>>So far, Pranaitis is not batting at all. Bellinger continues to
>>intersperse his little comments - already debunked by Harry Katz and
>>others - and pretends they justify Pranaitis' rubbish. They didn't last
>>year and they don't this year.
No answer.
[rubbish deleted]
Gord McFee
No answer.
Gord McFee
Still no answer.
[rubbish still deleted]
Gord McFee
On 4/22/2002 6:22 PM, Debunks wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Pranaitis
>>From: Brian Blank nota...@earthlink.spamblocker.net
[...]
>>>>>>> >Indeed, as I recall, having shown that Pranatis could not translate
>>>>>>> >the Talmud, Bellinger then claimed that he translated from a Russian
>>>>>>> >translation, which was shown not to exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, Mr. Blank, need I remind you that I have been posting direct
>>>>quotations
>>>>>>> from Pranaitis' book and then posting the same citation from the
>>Soncino
>>>>>>> Talmud, and that Pranaitis is batting 100%? Need I remind you of that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bellinger's little game is obvious to everyone. He will find a few
>>>>>>posts in the Pranaitis book that are accurate (even a stopped clock is
>>>>>>right twice a day) and then claim that "proves" all the quotes are
>>>>>>accurate. Then he will trot out the antisemitic stuff. So obvious. So
>>>>>>old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course this is what he is doing. That is why he keeps running from
>>>>> the Sanhedrin 59a reference.
>>>>
>>>>Precisely. He is hoping everyone will forget the flaying he took on that.
>>>
>>>Today is the day for your flaying:
>>>
>>>Subject: Father Pranaitis, Continued
>>>From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
>>>Date: 4/21/2002 6:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <20020421213448...@mb-mj.aol.com>
>>>
>>>Proceeding now to page 34 of Father Pranaitis' The Talmud Unmasked," he
>>writes:
>>>
>>>"Furthermore, 'In the secret books, which are not permitted to fall easily
>>into
>>>the hands of Christians, they say that the soul of Esau came into Christ,
>>that
>>>he was therefore evil and that he was Esau himself."
>>
>>Well, there we have an example of Pranatis' lies. There are no "secret
>>books, which are not permitted to fall easily into the hands of
>>Christians". Thank you for posting proof of Pranatis' (anti-semitic)
>>agenda.
>
> I see no lie in this. We already have confirmation that passages were altered,
> excised, and carried on in oral tradition, so this shows some very concerted
> attempt at subterfuge. Now, I think he is probably referring here to books
> like the ZOHAR and CABALA which, if not 'secret' are certainly esoteric and
> arcane and extremely difficult for an average person to research.
A lot of blabber to confirm that Pranaitis was wrong.
[remaining antisemitic blather deleted]
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20020422182237...@mb-bd.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 22 Apr 2002 22:22:37 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
[snip]
> I see no lie in this. We already have confirmation that passages
> were altered, excised, and carried on in oral tradition, so this
> shows some very concerted attempt at subterfuge. Now, I think he
> is probably referring here to books like the ZOHAR and CABALA
> which, if not 'secret' are certainly esoteric and arcane and
> extremely difficult for an average person to research.
Assuming that the average person is unable to use a web browser or
visit a library.
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPMThBZQgvG272fn9EQITkwCgkNb4e9q8xtm8YTNvezyKhQtYlEEAnjkN
2jZ7L/b8115NcTfMBgLKv4eo
=Ku4I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----