Fact Sheet about Talmud
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
Where a Jew Should Do Evil
Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city
where he is not known and do the evil there.
Penalty for Disobeying Rabbis
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be
punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be
killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed
him for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite
there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an
Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen")
it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).
Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an
old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to
a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be
no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and
God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a
Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from
birth.
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Insults Against Blessed Mary
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the
descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters."
Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is
stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that
Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are not Human
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human
animals, and specifically dehumanizes Gentiles as not being descendants
of Adam. Here are some of the Talmud passages which relate to this
topic.
Kerithoth 6b: Uses of Oil of Anointing. "Our Rabbis have taught: He who
pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over
gentiles (goyim) or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to
cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: "Upon the flesh of man
(Adam), shall it not be poured (Exodus 30:32]); and cattle and vessels
are not man (Adam).
"Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt,
since after death one is called corpse and not a man (Adam). But why is
one exempt in the case of gentiles (goyim); are they not in the category
of man (Adam)? No, it is written: 'And ye my sheep, the sheep of my
pasture, are man" (Adam); [Ezekiel 34:31]: Ye are called man (Adam) but
gentiles (goyim) are not called man (Adam)."
In the preceding passage, the rabbis are discussing the portion of the
Mosaic law which forbids applying the holy oil to men.
The Talmud states that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to
Gentiles, because Gentiles are not human beings (i.e. are not of Adam).
Another example from tractate Yebamoth 61a: "It was taught: And so did
R. Simeon ben Yohai state (61a) that the graves of gentiles (goyim) do
not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel [standing or bending over a
grave], for it is said, 'And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are
men (Adam), [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men (Adam) but the idolaters
are not called men (Adam)."
The Old Testament Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or the
grave of a human imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But the
Talmud teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a Gentile, the Jew is
not rendered unclean, since Gentiles are not human (not of Adam).
>From Baba Mezia 114b: ""A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard.
When asked why he was standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic
law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law only prohibits
Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans (Adamites), and
he was standing in a gentile graveyard. For it has been taught by Rabbi
Simon ben Yohai: 'The graves of gentiles [goyim] do not defile. For it
is written, 'And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men (Adam)'
(Ezekiel 34:31); only ye are designated men (Adam)."
Ezekiel 34:31 is the alleged Biblical proof text repeatedly cited in the
preceding three Talmud passages. But Ezekiel 34:31 does not in fact
support the Talmudic notion that only Israelites are human. What these
rabbinical, anti-Gentile racists and ideologues have done in asserting
the preceding absurdities about Gentiles is distort an Old Testament
passage in order to justify their bigotry.
In Berakoth 58a the Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as proof of the sub-human
status of gentiles. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who
reveals this Talmudic teaching about non-Jews deserves death, since
revealing it makes Gentiles wrathful and causes the repression of
Judaism.
The Talmudic citation of this scripture from Ezekiel as a "proof-text"
is specious, since the passage does not prove that Gentiles are animals.
The passage from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital
organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even
connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were
considered animals. Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by
means of distorted interpretation.
Other Talmud passages which expound on Ezekiel 23:20 in this racist
fashion are: Arakin 19b, Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a,
Yebamoth 98a. Moreover, the original text of Sanhedrin 37a applies God's
approval only to the saving of Jewish lives (cf. the Hesronot Ha-shas,
Cracow, 1894).
Henry
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" wrote:
I think you are entirely full of shit. This nonsense below tell us nothing
about "the Talmud" but it tells much about your personal chracter and how
devious your mind works.
Obviously you have the morality of a worm. And a brain like a ditto machine
who repeats quotations originating from many Jew-hate sources including the
lines below by the Nazis and was widely distributed in many languages ti
stir up hatred. You have done no research or investigation- obviously simply
savoring the juicy tidbits you read.
1. No Jew anywhere reads anything what you printed below.
2. Do you know when the Talmud was completed?
3. How Many Volumes does the Talmud contain?
4. What language did you read it in (if you actually saw one)
IF you were an honest person wouldn't you figure out that the Jews presented
to the world the
Ten Commandments which is in daily use throughout the civilized world?
How would you reconcile the Ten Commandments that is every Church and
Synogogue that the same people would never preach the trash you copied?
--
And the star spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave!
Francis Scott Key
yourturn
It's no wonder so many people hate and distrust Muslims.
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" <adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:3CC36726...@centrin.net.id...
Pan
wrote:
>
>
>"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" wrote:
>
>I think you are entirely full of shit. This nonsense below tell us nothing
>about "the Talmud" but it tells much about your personal chracter and how
>devious your mind works.
[snip]
You're right. I just looked at a little of it. The idea of "being
boiled in excrement in Hell" is very odd, considering that Jews are
not at all sure "Hell" exists in the first place. And the idea of
"obeying the rabbis" is also really odd, as the whole structure of
debate on points of Law - indeed, Talmudic debate - is that it is not
possible for rabbis to agree on everything. One could go through the
entire piece of excrement and rebut everything point-by-point, but it
would be a waste of time.
Michael
To reply by email, please take out the TRASH (so to speak). Personal messages only, please!
ade_kimhook
> >
> >I think you are entirely full of shit. This nonsense below tell us nothing
> >about "the Talmud" but it tells much about your personal chracter and how
> >devious your mind works.
eh Adrian !
Jangan ngaku kamu netter dari Indonesia ya, okay ?
Jangan sekali-sekali lah, kita-kita yang disini akan malunya menta
ampun dah gara-gara ente. Bilang dan ngaku aja ente itu orang Yemen kek,
dari Bangladesh kek, dari Pakistan kek.
- Ade -
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
gua posting ke sana
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
gua posting ke sana
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
gua posting ke sana
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
Ahmad Sayuthi
Apr 2002 08:08:14p news:3CC6A02E...@centrin.net.id:
> plz give to me some prove if i'm spreading evil and lies!!!
For one thing, you're not snipping.
Now *that* is evil!
--
icq23582...@time.net.myasayuthi@softhome.net
alphaque.com star-techcentral.com 17040pasir mas, kelantan
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
gua posting ke sana
Paul Saccani
<adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote:
>plz give to me some prove if i'm spreading evil and lies!!!
Your lips are moving.
cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth West Australia
John Knight
have concluded exactly what Adrian Dharma Wijaya posted below for it
to not be accurate. It's one of the many reasons the Talmud is burned
every two or three centuries and the jews expelled. So where is your
proof that it's not in the Talmud?
John Knight
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" <adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote in message news:<3CC6A2CD...@centrin.net.id>...
John Knight
>>> ... In your posts I read that the Talmud -- in specific
>>> Abodah Zarah 22a-22b -- claims Christians prefer sex with
>>> cows. But when I read the passage, I see it's not referring to
>>> Christians. It's about idolators. I also see that it's
>>> offering a variety of opinions, including several which say the
>>> idolators don't have sex with their cows. So my reading
>>> ability allows me to conclude that you've totally distorted the
>>> section of the Talmud you're talking about.
John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
>> The following was posted from another thread.
Moggin:
> Which thread? Posted where? What's the message ID number?
John:
[ No reply ]
Interestingly enough, Google doesn't show any other copies
of the article John claims to be quoting: only the one he
posted here. That explains why he won't say where the original
appeared -- he invented an imaginary friend to defend his
equally imaginary Talmud quotation. Of course his make-believe
ally is just as unreliable. Neither "Iore Dea" nor "Orach
Chaiim" is in the Talmud. And John's notion about Avodah Zarah
22 remains false.
-- Moggin
===========================================
Here is an update from the previous post regarding the belief by jews that
"Christians prefer sex with cows".
John Knight
John:
I have a typo in two places where my post says - ". . . starts and planets."
It should read - "stars and planets." It seems the finger is fatter than
the key. By the way what is the usenet thread youy're speaking of?
As a compendium, Abhodah Zarah means strange worship, idolatry. The Talmudic
Tract on Idolatry is thus entitled: Obhde Abhodah Zarah - Idol Worshippers.
The certainty that Abhodah Zarah really means the cult of idols is expressed
clearly from the Talmud itself: 'Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham
was not a server of Abhodah Zarah.'
Also, it is important to note that the Talmud surreptitiously codifies names
and words. For instance, the real name of Christ in Hebrew is Jeschua
Hanotsri - Jesus the Nazerene. He is called Notsri from the city of Nazereth
in which he was brought up. Thus in the Talmud, Christians are also called
Notsrim - Nazerenes. Other references in the Talmud concerning Christ Jesus
are "That Man (Otho Isch)," "A Certain One (Peloni)," "The Carpenter's Son
(Naggar bar naggar)***," "The Son of a Wood Worker"(Ben charsch etaim), "The
One Who Was Hanged (Talui)," etc.
The word Jeschua means "Savior," the name Jesus rarely occurs in Jewish
books.* It is almost always abbreviated to Jeschu, which is maliciously
taken as if it were composed of the initial letters of the three words
Immach SCHemo Vezikro - "May his name and memory be blotted out."**
* ex. gr. in Maien ieschua, fol. 66b
** cf. I. Buxtorf in Abbrev. Jeschu: "The jews among themselves do not say
Jeschu, but Isschu, so nearly corresponding to the words of this curse. When
talking to a certain Jew about this some years ago he told me that it not
only meant this, but also Jeschu Scheker (liar) Utoebah (and abomination).
Who would not be deeply horrified at this? This Jew lived at Frankfort and
at Hanover and had travelled all over the world. When he saw how this
horrified me, his faith in Judaism began to weaken, for he was not not
adverse to the Christian faith and had often discussed it with me and Dr.
Amando Polano. I also discovered here and there two other secret words from
the Jewish Cabala which have to do with this name. It is well known that the
Israelites are often warned in their sacred writings to shun the worship of
Elohe Nekhar - strange gods or god. What does Eloe Nekhar really mean? By
the numbering method of the Gammatria these letters equal 316, which taken
together make the word Jeschu. This is found at the end of the book Abhkath
Rokhel. They therefore teach that to dishonor God by the worship of Elohe
Nekhar is the same as to dishonor him by the worship of Jeschu. Behold the
malice of the Serpent! Antonius also found a marginal note in a book about
the Jewish faith and religion. In a Jewish prayer book there is a certain
prayer beginning with Alenu . . . Formerly the wording contained certain
things which were afterwards deleted for fear of the Christians, but the
space remains vacant to warn children and adults that something is omitted
there. The deleted words were - hammischtachavim lehebhel varik umitpallelim
lelo ioschia - "Those who bow down exhibit vanity and foolishness and adore
him who cannot save." This is generally said about idols, but is secretly
meant for Jesus whose name is here signified by the letters . . . " Rev. I.
B. Pranaitis.
*** cf. from Abhodah Zarah, 50b
There are two additional caveats. Eustace Mullins in his research of "The
Curse of Canaan" discovered that the Carthaginians not only called
themselves the "Punics" (hense, the Punic Wars), but secretly call
themselves "Chanani," or Canaanites. This name was like a secret code; they
never used it in dealing with other people. Isn't it powerful that Willie's
and your research have identified this race of people to be the same? And
yet there are more identical characteristics between Canaanites and Jews.
After 1200 BC, the Canaanite name vanished from history. Chamber's
Enclopaedia notes that the Canaanites "changed their name to Phoenicians."
Thus the most notorious and most hated people on earth received a new lease
on life. Who does this sound like today? Even the name "Phoenicians" becomes
known to the rest of the known world out of identical traits to Jews today.
Phoenicians, or phoenicia comes from the Greek word - phoenikiea. The word
for purple. There's no doubt the Phoenicians exercised a monopoly of this
essential product as they also had on tin for centuries. Herbert Armstrong
in his book, "The Mystery of the Ages," comments that the Canaanites, who
were racially dark, had settled the land (Palestine); God commands the
Israelites to drive them out." (p.172).
Once again we see Talmudic (Cabalic) Numerology where it was stated - "What
does Eloe Nekhar really mean? By the numbering method of the Gammatria these
letters equal 316, which taken together make the word Jeschu. This is found
at the end of the book Abhkath Rokhel."
Also, the Talmudic Numeric Code tells us that the Hebrew "V" or "VAU"
represents the number "6." Jewish Cabalists insist the number "6" to be
"Jaweh's" number, a sinister power, which Judaism calls God. Thus, we have
also compunded 6's, which include "666" (18 = 6 + 6 + 6) that the Talmudic
Jews believe are signs from the holy. When this compound number appears in
working out dates in advance (mysticism), such a date should be taken with a
great amount of care caution and circumspection. In the year, 1919 the
Jewish proclamation of the missing 6-million Jews in Ukraine was by no means
a coincidence. Jewish prophesies - "You shall return", is interpreted as:
"You shall return minus 6 million." (Ben Weintraub, The Holocaust Dogma,
Cosmo Publishing, Washington, 1995, page 3). Thus, the holocaust had to
happen because the Jews must prepare the way for their Messiah (even if it
is by swindling God himself). Go figure, eh?
John Knight
John you wrote:
====================================
If so, why is it that you missed the part where the jew claims that this
excerpt from the Talmud itself reads: "Christian prefer sex with cows"?
http://christianparty.net/pearlston.htm
Why can't you fathom that he spent two weeks claiming that he believed it to
be TRUE?
Why is it that you don't seem to be at all concerned that at least ONE jew
believes this?
If one jews believes this, then how many others do you think believe this?
John Knight
====================================
This phrase of "Christian prefer sex with cows" isn't the only statement of
hatred that the Talmud makes about Christians. This phrase has become
somewhat stagnated even though there are numerous other statements that
should be high-lighted in the Talmud about harming Christians. Nevertheless,
I need to respond to Moggin's incorrect statement.
Moggin stated: ".isn't even about Christians -- it's discussing idolaters"
It is manifest that Jewry worldwide believe that ALL Christians are
"idolaters." However, he has either misinterpreted the Talmudic text or is a
liar concerning Christians not being these "idolaters." Indeed, this vile
Jewish race intends to harm and destroy Christians whenever they get the
opportunity to do so. I submit these proofs below to ascertain your
correctness that the phrase "Christian prefer sex with cows" refers to
Christians.
In Abhodah Zarah (2a) it says:
"For three days before idolatrous festivals it is not permitted to buy or
sell them anything. It is also forbidden to give or take any help from them,
to change any money with them, to pay them back any debts or allow them to
pay back debts."
In Abhodah Zarah 78c (the Perusch of Maimonides. Fol. 8) it says:
"All the festivals of the followers of Jesus are forbidden, and we must
conduct ourselves towards them as we would towards idolaters. The first day
of the week is their principal feast, and it is therefore forbidden to do
any business whatsoever with those who believe in Jesus on their Sabbath. We
must observe the same rules on their Sabbath as we do on the feastdays of
idolaters, as the Talmud teaches."
Could this be in part why businesses are closed on Sundays and the Jews are
generally quiet concerning this day? Now we learn that there is deceit
behind their silence.
In Iore Dea (139,1) it says:
"It is forbidden to have anything to do with idols and everything that is
used in their form of worship, whether they are made by *Akum or by the
Jews."
*Akum is a word designated by the Talmud to be Christians. Christians are
called by other names as well, but those words are not Germaine to this
particular topic. The word Akum is made of the initial letters of the word
Obhde Kokhabkim U Mazzaloth, which means worshippers of starts and planets.
The Jews formerly styled this word to gentiles who lacked all knowledge of
the true God. The word Akum has now taken on a more specific meaning in
Jewish books, especially the Sehulkhan Arukh, where it is applied to
Christians.
In the Orach Chaiim (113,8) those who use a cross are called Akum. In the
Iore Dea (148, 5, 12), those who celebrate the feasts of Christmas and New
Year, eight days afterwards, are called worshippers of the starts and
planets:
"thus if a gift is sent to the Akum, even in these times, on the eighth day
after Christmas, which they call the New Year," etc.
So you see John, your statement of "Christian prefer sex with cows" is
affirmed by the Talmud itself. Moggin wants us to believe that Avodah Zarah
22a-22b is really about idolaters and not Christians. Well, the Talmud tells
us explicitly that Christians are idolaters. His argument is moot.
John Knight
> napalmed, and remember Littleton where this god damned little jew
> slaughtered innocent children along with his little friend - Jewish
> Trench Coat Mafia stuff.....oh they had a teacher alright.
> Note these ugly people went straight for the most popular kids and all
> Christians though there was abundance of jews at Littleton.......
Most Christians in this putative Christian nation probably haven't made the
connection between these events and the Talmud, OSaba. Thanks for bringing
it all together for all to see.
Sincerely,
John Knight
----- Original Message -----
From: <saba...@webtv.net>
To: <Sonsof...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [SonsofLiberty] The Truth About the Talmud: Judaism's
HoliestBook
> Might add this is what certain jews and queers were stating on the CTRL
> list - one in particular such a gross person, professing to be a
> Christian - and this woman if she is a woman is a defender of the queers
> and claimed Jesus was bastard and his mother had been knocked up.....and
> then claimed to be a Christian.
>
> The same jews on list no doubt that Bill Cooper claimed were communists
> and pointed out - and then signed off the list.
>
> It is hilarious to think that the jews took over the assassination
> committee run by Bud Fensterwald, who was a jew but at the time I never
> gave that a thought back in 1969 - but today I see how work of
> researchers was stolen by these people, and how they covered the truth
> to protect their jewish asses.
>
> All very enlightening at this point in time
> but tell me when was the last time you read anything about this Jewish
> Mafia, and Council of 12 - who judge at midnight, ane order executions
> for you see Mafia murder is ordered by - Murder by Decree.
>
> this same element Castro kicked out of Cuba and closed down the gambling
> houses - this is what the Bay of Pigs was all about and JFK didnot have
> a hand in this burlesque but took responsibility....
>
> This is like this phoney god damned bunch of liars on the CTRL list -
> jews - they want to destroy the Masons, the Knights templar, the
> Constitution of the United States for "slave owners" drew it up - and
> these pigs are making a cesspool out of America. Pornography on the
> air and pigs at the trough.
>
> Best think Remember the USS Liberty where our men were murdered and
> napalmed, and remember Littleton where this god damned little jew
> slaughtered innocent children along with his little friend - Jewish
> Trench Coat Mafia stuff.....oh they had a teacher alright.
> Note these ugly people went straight for the most popular kids and all
> Christians though there was abundance of jews at Littleton.......
>
> Why hasn't the FBI gone after this ADL and Jewish Mafia and confiscated
> their property - consider Meyer Lansky and his daughter working for ADL
> - this organization is a corrupt criminal organization and it is
> laundering virtually dirty money from prostitution, pornography, drugs,
> and murder.
>
> take another good look at the Simon Wiesenthal foundation - and
> consider this man was informer for the Nazis.....get the picture?
>
> This trash, this garbage was behind the murder of JFK, RFK, and even
> little John John.....these low life belong in he gutter with their
> counterparts - they are pushing sodomists and blacks on our white
> children.....but all over America people are awakening to this fact and
> never before in the history of the world, have the jews been more hated
> other than the day Christ was crucified.
>
> OSaba
>
John Knight
can be viewed at http://christianparty.net/talmud.htm
John Knight
<begin http://christianparty.net/talmud.htm >
Confirmation of the Talmud from a Jewish defector
http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/freedmn1.html
"FACTS ARE FACTS"
Benjamin H. Freedman
THE TALMUD on Christians
"The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning
Christians," was written by Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, Master of Theology and
Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of
the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg, Russia. 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.
The Rev. Pranaitis scrutinized the Talmud for passages referring to Jesus,
Christians and the Christian faith. These passages were translated by him
into Latin. Hebrew lends itself to translation into Latin better than it
does directly into English. The translation of the passages of the Talmud
referring to Jesus, Christians and Christian faith were printed in Latin by
the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg in 1893 with the
Imprimatur of his Archbishop. The translation from the Latin into English
was made by great Latin scholars in the United States in 1939 with funds
provided by wealthy Americans for that purpose.
In order not to leave any loose ends on the subject of the Talmud's
reference to Jesus, to Christians and to the Christian faith I will below
summarize translations into English from the Latin texts of Rev. Pranaitis'
"The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning
Christians". It would require too much space to quote these passages
verbatim with their foot-notes form the Soncino Edition in English.
First I will summarize the references by Rev. Pranaitis referring to Jesus
in the Talmud in the original texts translated by him into Latin, and from
Latin into English:
Sanhedrin, 67a -- Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
Sanhedrin, 67a -- Hanged on the eve of Passover. Toldath Jeschu. Birth
related in most shameful expressions
Abhodah Zarah II -- Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son of Pandira, the Roman.
Sanhedrin, 43a -- On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
Schabbath, 104b -- Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
Sanhedrin, 103a. -- Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
Sanhedrin, 107b. -- Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.
Zohar III, (282) -- Died like a beast and buried in animal's dirt heap.
Hilkoth Melakhim -- Attempted to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus
Abhodah Zarah, 21a -- Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.
Orach Chaiim, 113 -- Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
Iore dea, 150,2 -- Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
Abhodah Zarah (6a) -- False teachings to worship on first day of Sabbath
The above are a few selected from a very complicated arrangement in which
many references are obscured by intricate reasoning. The following are a few
summarized references to Christians and the Christian faith although not
always expressed in exactly that manner. There are eleven names used in the
Talmud for non-Talmud followers, by which Christians are meant. Besides
Nostrim, from Jesus the Nazarene, Christians are called by all the names
used in the Talmud to designate all non-"Jews": Minim, Edom, Abhodan Zarah,
Akum. Obhde Elilim, Nokrim, Amme Haarets, Kuthim, Apikorosim, and Goim.
Besides supplying the names by which Christians are called in the Talmud,
the passages quoted below indicate what kind of people the Talmud pictures
the Christians to be, and what the Talmud says about the religious worship
of Christians:
Hilkhoth Maakhaloth -- Christians are idolators, must not associate.
Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
Iore Dea (153, 2). -- Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
Abhodah Zarah (25b). -- Beware of Christians when walking abroad with them.
Orach Chaiim (20, 2). -- Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.
Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Suspect Christians of intercourse with animals.
Schabbath (145b) -- Christians unclean because they eat accordingly
Abhodah Zarah (22b) -- Christians unclean because they not at Mount Sinai.
Iore Dea (198, 48). -- Clean female Jews contaminated meeting Christians.
Kerithuth (6b p. 78) -- Jews called men, Christians not called men.
Makkoth (7b) -- Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
Orach Chaiim(225, 10) -- Christians and animals grouped for comparisons.
Midrasch Talpioth 225 -- Christians created to minister to Jews always.
Orach Chaiim 57, 6a -- Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.
Zohar II (64b) -- Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.
Kethuboth (110b). -- Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.
Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. -- Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of beast.
Kethuboth (3b) -- The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.
Kidduschim (68a) -- Christians like the people of an ass.
Eben Haezar (44,8) -- Marriages between Christian and Jews null.
Zohar (II, 64b) -- Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.
Zohar (I, 28b) -- Christian idolators children of Eve's serpent.
Zohar (I, 131a) -- Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.
Emek Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews' souls come from death and death's shadow.
Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) -- Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.
Rosch Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews souls go down to hell.
Iore Dea (337, 1). -- Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.
Iebhammoth (61a) -- Jews called men, but not Christians called men.
Abhodah Zarah (14b) T -- Forbidden to sell religious works to Christians
Abhodah Zarah (78) -- Christian churches are places of idolatry.
Iore Dea (142, 10) -- Must keep far away physically from churches.
Iore Dea (142, 15) -- Must not listen to church music or look at idols
Iore Dea (143, 1) -- Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.
Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) -- Jews must not resell broken chalices to
Christians.
Chullin (91b) -- Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
Sanhedrin, 58b -- To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.
Chagigah, 15b -- A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.
Gittin (62a) -- Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.
Choschen Ham. (26,1) -- Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or laws.
Choschen Ham (34,19) -- Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.
Iore Dea (112, 1). -- Avoid eating with Christians, breeds familiarity.
Abhodah Zarah (35b) -- Do not drink milk from a cow milked by Christian.
Iore dea (178, 1) -- Never imitate customs of Christians, even hair-comb.
Abhodah Zarah (72b) -- Wine touched by Christians must be thrown away.
Iore Dea (120, 1) -- Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown away.
Abhodah Zarah (2a) -- For three days before Christian festivals, avoid all.
Abhodah Zarah (78c) -- Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as idolatry.
Iore Dea (139, 1) -- Avoid things used by Christians in their worship.
Abhodah Zarah (14b) -- Forbidden to sell Christians articles for worship.
Iore Dea (151,1) H. -- Do not sell water to Christians articles for
baptisms.
Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) -- Do not trade with Christians on their feast days.
Abhodah Zarah (1,2) -- Now permitted to trade with Christians on such days.
Abhodah Zarah (2aT) -- Trade with Christians because they have money to pay.
Iore Dea (148, 5) -- If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.
Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) -- Send gifts to Christians only if they are
irreligious.
Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) -- Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because dangerous.
Iore Dea (153, 1 H) -- Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.
Iore Dea (155,1). -- Avoid Christian doctors not well known to neighbors.
Peaschim (25a) -- Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians meant.
Iore Dea (156,1) -- Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by Jews.
Abhodah Zarah (26a). -- Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when alone.
Zohar (1,25b) -- Those who do good to Christians never rise when dead.
Hilkoth Akum (X,6) -- Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.
Iore Dea (148, 12H) -- Hide hatred for Christians at their celebrations.
Abhodah Zarah (20a) -- Never praise Christians lest it be believed true.
Iore Dea (151,14) -- Not allowed to praise Christians to add to glory.
Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) -- Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of Christian god.
Iore Dea (146, 15) -- Refer to Christian religious articles with contempt.
Iore Dea (147,5) -- Deride Christian religious articles without wishes.
Hilkoth Akum (X,5) -- No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.
Iore Dea (151,11) -- Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages friendship.
Iore Dea (335,43) -- Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.
Iore Dea (154,2) -- Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian
Babha Bathra (54b) -- Christian property belongs to first person claiming.
Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Keep what Christian overpays in error.
Choschen Ham(226,1) -- Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by Jew.
Babha Kama (113b) -- It is permitted to deceive Christians.
Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Jews must divide what they overcharge Christians.
Choschen Ham(156,5) -- Jews must not take Christian customers from Jews.
Iore Dea (157,2) H -- May deceive Christians that believe Christian tenets.
Abhodah Zarah (54a) --Usury may be practiced upon Christians or apostates.
Iore Dea (159,1) -- Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.
Babha Kama (113a) -- Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.
Babha Kama (113b) -- Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.
Kallah (1b, p.18) -- Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
Schabbouth Hag. (6d). -- Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge
wording.
Zohar (1,160a). -- Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
Iore Dea (158,1) -- Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.
Orach Cahiim (330,2) -- Do not assist Christian's childbirth on Saturday.
Choschen Ham.(425,5) -- Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his death.
Iore Dea (158,1) -- Christians not enemies must not be saved either.
Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) -- Do not save Christians in danger of death.
Choschen Ham(386,10) -- A spy may be killed even before he confesses.
Abhodah Zorah (26b) -- Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.
Choschen Ham(388,15) -- Kill those who give Israelites' money to Christians
Sanhedrin (59a) -- `Prying into Jews' "Law" to get death penalty
Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) -- Baptized Jews are to be put to death
Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. -- Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.
Choschen Ham(425,5) -- Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.
Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 -- Christians and others deny the "Law" of the Torah.
Zohar (I,25a) -- Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.
Zohar (II,19a) -- Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.
Zohar (I,219b) -- Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.
Obadiam -- When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.
Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. -- "Even the best of the Goim should be killed."
Sepher Or Israel 177b -- If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.
Ialkut Simoni (245c) -- Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to God.
Zohar (II, 43a) -- Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.
Zohar (L,28b,39a) -- High place in heaven for those who kill idolators.
Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) -- Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians
Hilkhoth Akum (X,1) -- Either turn them away from their idols or kill.
Hilkhoth Akum (X,7) -- Allow no idolators to remain where Jews are strong.
Choschen Ham(388,16) -- All contribute to expense of killing traitor.
Pesachim (49b) -- No need of prayers while beheading on Sabbath.
Schabbath (118a). -- Prayers to save from punishment of coming Messiah.
In the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library, unless recently
removed, you can find a copy of "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical
Teachings Concerning Christians" by the Rev. I. B. Pranaitis. A copy of the
original work printed in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1892 can be made
available to you by our mutual friend if you are interested in reading the
above passages in the original Hebrew text with their Latin translation. I
trust my summaries correctly explain the original text. I believe they do.
If I am in error in any way please be so kind as to let me know. It was very
difficult to reduce them to short summaries.
The National Conference of Christians and Jews need not scrutinize the "63
books" of the Talmud to discover all the anti- Christ, anti-Christian, and
anti-Christian faith passages in the books which are "THE LEGAL CODE WHICH
FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW" and which is "THE TEXTBOOK USED IN
THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". They can also keep that, as Rabbi Morris Kertzer
also points out, as explained earlier, that "ADULTS STUDY ANCIENT WRITINGS
TOO... IN... GROUP DISCUSSION OF TALMUD BEFORE EVENING PRAYER". If the
National Conference of Christians and Jews are genuinely interested in
"interfaith" and "brotherhood" do you not think, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that
they should compel a start at once to expunge from the Talmud the
anti-Christ, anti- Christian, and anti-Christianity passages from the Talmud
in the "brotherly" way they expunged passages from the New Testament? Will
you ask them?
Throughout the world the Oxford English Dictionary is accepted as the most
authoritative and authentic source for information on the origin, definition
and use of words in the English language. Authorities in all fields
everywhere accept the Oxford English Dictionary brings out clearly that
"Judaist" and "Judaic" are the correct forms for the improper and incorrect
misused and misleading "Jews" and "Jewish". You will agree completely with
the Oxford English Dictionary if you consider the matter carefully.
"Judaist" and "Judaic" are correct. "Jews" and "Jewish" are incorrect. "Jew"
and "Jewish" do not belong in the English language if the use of the correct
words is of interest to the English-speaking peoples.
The so-called or self-styled "Jews" cannot truthfully describe themselves as
"Jews" because they are not in any sense "Judeans". They can correctly
identify themselves by their religious belief if they so wish by identifying
themselves as "Judaists". A "Judaist" is a person who professes so-called
"Judaism" as his religious belief, according to the Oxford English
Dictionary. The origin of "Jew" has not its roots in "Judaism" as explained.
The adjective form of "Judaist" is "Judaic". "Jewish" as an adjective is
just as incorrect as "Jew" is as a noun. "Jewish" has no reason to exist.
Well-planned and well-financed publicity by so-called or self-styled "Jews"
in English-speaking countries in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries created
a wide acceptance and use for "Jewish". "Jewish" is being used today in many
ways that are no less fantastic and grotesque than incorrect and inaccurate.
"Jewish" is used today to describe everything from "Jewish blood", whatever
that may be, to "Jewish Rye Bread", strange as that may sound. The many
implications, inferences and innuendoes of "Jewish" today resulting from its
commercial uses beggar description.
At the 1954 annual meeting of the St. Paul Guild in the Plaza Hotel in New
York City before more than 1000 Catholics, a Roman Catholic priest who was
the main speaker and the guest of honor referred to "my Jewish blood". It
just happens that this priest was born a so-called or self-styled "Jews" in
eastern Europe and was converted to Catholicism there about 25 years ago. It
seems unique that a priest who has professed Catholicism that length of time
should mention "my Jewish blood" to Catholics. The radio blasts and the
out-door signs blazon "Levy's Jewish Rye Bread", in the same city at the
same time. Between these two extremes are countless other products and other
services which advertise themselves in print, on radio and television, as
"Jewish".
This priest who talks to Catholics about "my Jewish blood" when he addresses
audiences also refers to the "Jewish blood" of Mary, Holy Mother of Jesus,
to the "Jewish blood" of the Apostles, and to the "Jewish blood" of the
early Christians. What he means by "my Jewish blood" mystifies those
Catholics who hear him. They query "What is `Jewish blood' "? They ask what
happens to "Jewish blood" when so-called or self-styled "Jews" are converted
to Catholicism? And in the extreme case when a so-called or self- styled
"Jew" becomes a Roman Catholic priest? How is "Jewish blood" biologically
different from the blood of persons who profess other religious faiths, they
ask. It is hard for me to believe that there is anything biologically
different which determines characteristics typical of a specific religious
belief. Are the inherent racial and national characteristics determined by
religious dogma or doctrine?
The word "Jewess" raises a similar question. If "Jewess" is the female for
the male "Jew" I must admit that I have been unable to find female as well
as male designation for persons professing any religious belief other than
so-called "Judaism". Are there any other that you know? I have searched for
the female of Catholicism, Protestantism, Hindu, Moslem, and others but
without success. It seems very popular now to refer to Mary, Holy Mother of
Jesus, as a "Jewess". It does seem unrealistic to identify the sex of
members of any religious belief by appropriate designations. If the word
"Jew" is regarded as descriptive of a race or a nation, as is often the
case, it is equally unrealistic to indicate the sex of members of a race or
a nation by a suffix used for that purpose. I know of no case in that
respect except "Negress", and the Negro race strongly objects to the use of
that designation, and strongly.
Another word is creating more problems among Christians. I refer to
"Judeo-Christian". You see it more and more day by day. Based on our present
knowledge of history, and on good sense applied to theology, the term
"Judea-Christian" presents a strange combination. Does "Judeo" refer to
ancient "Pharisaism", or to "Talmudism", or to so-called "Judaism"? In view
of what we know today, how can there be "Judeo-Christian" anything? Based
upon what is now known "Judeo-Christian" is as unrealistic as it would be to
say anything is "hot-cold" , or "old-young", or "heavy-light", or that a
person was "healthy-sick", or "poor-rich", or "dumb- smart", or
"ignorant-educated", or "happy-sad". These words are antonyms, not synonyms.
"Judeo-Christian" in the light of incontestable facts are also antonyms, not
synonyms as so-called or self-styled "Jews" would like Christians to
believe. More sand for Christian's eyes.
An "Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies" has been established by Seton Hall
University. It is actually a "one-man Institute". Father John M.
Oesterreicher is the "one-man Institute". The "Institute of Judaeo-Christian
Studies" occupies a small office in a down-town office building in Newark,
N. J. This "one-man Institute", according to their literature, has no
faculty except Father Oesterreicher, and no students. Father Oesterreicher
was born a so- called or self-styled "Jew" and became a convert to
Catholicism. I have had the pleasure of hearing him talk on many occasions.
Addresses by Father Oesterreicher and literature by mail are the principal
activities of the "Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies". Father
Oesterreicher also plans to publish books and circulate them throughout the
world, in large quantities.
Father Oesterreicher leaves no stones unturned to convince Catholics that
"Judaeo-Christian" is a combination of two words that are synonyms
theologically. Nothing could be further from the truth. Father Oesterreicher
impresses that viewpoint upon his Catholic audiences. Father Oesterreicher
talks to Catholic audiences only, so far as I am able to tell. In his
addresses Father Oesterreicher impresses upon Catholics the opinion he
personally holds on the question of the dependence of the Christian faith
upon so-called "Judaism". His audiences depart Father Osterreicher's
addresses very much confused.
It would make better Catholics out of Father Oesterreicher's audiences if he
would "sell" Jesus and the Catholic Church rather than try to "sell"
so-called "Judaism" to his audiences. Well-planned and well-financed
publicity by so-called or self-styled "Jews" manages to keep Christians well
informed on the subject of so-called "Judaism". If Father Oesterreicher
would concentrate upon "selling" Jesus and the Christian faith to audiences
of so-called or self-styled "Jews" he would be doing more towards realizing
the objectives of Christian effort. The activities of this "one-man
Institute" are somewhat of a deep mystery. But I am certain that Monsignor
McNulty will never allow the "Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies" to
bring discredit upon the fine record of Seton Hall as one of the foremost
Catholic universities anywhere. But it will bear watching, and Monsignor
McNulty will always appreciate constructive comment.
The word "anti-Semitism" is another word which should be eliminated from the
English language. "Anti-Semitism" serves only one purpose today. It is used
as a "smear word". When so-called or self-styled "Jews" feel that anyone
opposes any of their objectives they discredit their victims by applying the
word "anti-Semite" or "anti-Semitic" through all the channels they have at
their command and under their control. I can speak with great authority on
that subject. Because so-called or self-styled "Jews" were unable to
disprove my public statements in 1946 with regard to the situation in
Palestine, they spent millions of dollars to "smear" me as an "anti-Semite"
hoping thereby to discredit me in the eyes of the public who were very much
interested in what I had to say. Until 1946 I was a "little saint" to all
so-called or self-styled "Jews". When I disagreed with them publicly on the
Zionist intentions in Palestine I became suddenly "Anti-Semite No. 1".
It is disgraceful to watch the Christian clergy take up the use of the word
"anti-Semitism". They should know better. They know that "anti-Semitism" is
a meaningless word in the sense it is used today. They know the correct word
is "Judaeophobe". "Anti- Semite" was developed into the "smear-word" it is
today because "Semite" is associated with Jesus in the minds of Christians.
Christians are accessories in the destruction of the Christian faith by
tolerating the use of the smear-word "anti-Semitic" to silence by the most
intolerant forms of persecution employing that smear word Christians who
oppose the evil conspirators.
It no doubt grieves you as much as it grieves me, my dear Dr. Goldstein, to
see our nation's moral standards sink to new all- time lows day by day. Of
that there is very little doubt. The moral standards of this nation in
political, economic, social and spiritual fields are the factors which
determine the position we will occupy in world affairs. We will be judged on
that basis from afar by the other 94% of the world's total population. Our
6% of the world's total population will succeed or fail in its efforts to
retain world leadership by our moral standards because in the last analysis
they influence the attitudes and activities of the nation. The moral
standards are the crucible in which the nation's character is refined and
molded. The end product will never be any better than the ingredients used.
It is something to think about.
There is much for which this Christian country can still feel very proud.
But there is also much for which we cannot feel proud. A correct diagnosis
of our nation's rapidly deteriorating moral standards in all walks of life
will reveal the cause as the nation's current psychosis to concentrate
primarily on how to (1) "make MORE money" and (2) "have MORE fun". How many
persons do you personally know who include among their daily duties service
and sacrifice in the defense against its enemies of that priceless
birthright which is the God-given heritage of all those blessed to be born
Americans? What services? What sacrifices?
With very few exceptions this generation seems to regard everything as
secondary to our accountability to unborn generations for our generation's
breach of the faith and betrayal of our trust to posterity. The sabotage of
our nation's moral standards is more incidental to the program of that
inimical conspiracy than accidental in the continued march of mankind
towards an easier existence. The guidance and control of this nation's place
in history has gravitated by default into the hands of those persons lease
worthy of that trusteeship. This notable achievement by them is their reward
for their success in obtaining effective and numerous Christian "male
prostitutes" to "front" for them. Too many of these efficacious Christian
"male prostitutes" are scattered throughout the nation in public affairs for
the security of the Christian faith and the nation's political, social and
economic stability.
A "male prostitute" is a male who offers the faculties of his anatomy from
the neck up for hire to anyone who will pay his "asking price" exactly as
the female of the same species offers the facilities of her anatomy from the
neck down to anyone who will pay her "asking price". Thousands of these
pseudo-Christian "male-prostitutes" circulate freely unrecognized in all
walks of life proudly pandering pernicious propaganda for pecuniary profit
and political power. They are the "dog in the manger". The corroding effect
of their subtle intrigue is slowly but surely disintegrating the moral fiber
of the nation. This danger to the Christian faith cannot be overestimated.
This peril to the nation should not be under- estimated. The Christian
clergy must remain alerted to it.
The international "crime of crimes" of all history, that reprehensible
iniquity in which this nation played the major role, was committed in
Palestine almost totally as a result of the interference of the United
States in that situation on behalf solely of the Zionist world-wide
organization with its headquarters in New York City. The interference of the
United States in that situation on behalf of the aggressors illustrates the
power exerted upon the domestic and foreign policies of this government by
the "male prostitutes" fearlessly functioning on behalf of the Zionist
conspirators. It is the blackest page in our history.
The responsibility for that un-Christian, non-Christian and anti-Christian
"cause" can be honestly deposited on the door-step of the Christian clergy.
They must assume the full guilt for that inhumane and unholy crime committed
in the name of Christian "charity". Sunday after Sunday, year in and year
out, the Christian clergy dinned into the ears of 150,000,000 Christians who
go to church regularly that Christians must regard it as their "Christian
duty" to support the Zionist conspiracy for the conquest of Palestine. Well,
we "sowed a wind", now we will "reap a whirlwind".
The 150,000,000 Christians in the United States were "high pressured" by the
Christian clergy to give their unqualified support to the Zionist program to
"repatriate" to their "homeland" in Palestine the so-called or self-styled
"Jews" in eastern Europe who were the descendants of the Khazars. Christians
were exhorted by the Christian clergy to regard the so-called or self-styled
"Jews" in eastern Europe as God's "chosen people" and Palestine as their
"Promised Land". But they knew better all the time. It was a case of
cupidity not stupidity you can be sure.
As a direct result of the activities of the "male prostitutes" on behalf of
the Zionist program, and contrary to all international law, to justice and
to equity, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, the 150,000,000
Christians in the United States, with few exceptions, demanded that the
Congress of the United States use the prestige and the power of this nation,
diplomatic, economic and military, to guarantee the successful outcome of
the Zionist program for the conquest of Palestine. This was done and the
Zionists conquered Palestine. We are responsible.
It is a well-established and an undeniable historic fact that the active
participation of the United States in the conquest of Palestine, on behalf
of the Zionists, was the factor responsible for the conquest of Palestine by
the Zionists. Without the active participation of the United States on
behalf of the Zionists it is certain that the Zionists would never have
attempted the conquest of Palestine by force of arms. Palestine today would
be an independent sovereign country under a form of government established
by self-determination of the lawful and legal Palestinians. This was aborted
by the payment of countless millions of dollars to Christian "male
prostitutes" by Zionists on a scale difficult for the uninitiated to even
imagine.
With your kind permission anticipated, I beg to respectfully and sincerely
now submit to you here my comments on several passages in your latest
article which appeared in the September issue of the A.P.J. Bulletin under
the headline "News and Views of Jews". Deep down in my heart, my dear Dr.
Goldstein, I truly feel that I can make a modest contribution towards the
big success I wish you in the valuable work you are attempting, under such
discouraging handicaps. My reactions to what you state in your article may
prove helpful to you. My comments here were conceived in that spirit. May I
suggest that you favor them with your consideration accordingly. I feel that
you may be so close to the "trees" that you cannot see the "forest" in its
true perspective. You may find a genuinely sincere outsider's point of view
helpful to you in orienting your yesterday's attitudes to today's realities
and to tomorrow's seemingly certain probabilities. I believe you will.
You realize, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that all "Laws of Nature" are
irrevocable. "Laws of Nature" can neither be amended, suspended or repealed
regardless how we fell about them. One of these "Laws of Nature" is
fundamentally the basic reason "WHY JEWS BECOME CATHOLICS", the subtitle in
your article which attracted my attention. The "Law of Nature" to which I
refer is the law that "TO EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE
REACTIONS." In my respectful opinion that "Law of Nature is the alpha and
omega of all questions as to "WHY JEWS BECOME CATHOLICS."
In your article you make this mystery sound very complicated. However, it
really is very simple. The so-called or self-styled "Jews" who become
Catholics today are subconsciously reacting to that "Law of Nature". The
conversion to Catholicism of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" is the
"EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION" of that "Law of Nature". Their conversion is a
"REACTION" not an "ACTION". Can you any longer doubt that after reading
these facts?
Catholicism has proven itself spiritually the "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION"
of the religious worship practiced today under the name "Judaism", and prior
to that name under the names "Talmudism" and "Pharisaism". What is
spiritually conspicuous in Catholicism is conspicuous by its absence in
so-called "Judaism". What is spiritually conspicuous in so-called "Judaism"
is conspicuous by its absence in Catholicism, thank God. Anything which may
be said by anyone to the contrary notwithstanding, Catholicism and so-called
"Judaism" are at the opposite extremes of the spiritual spectrum.
Our subconscious mind never sleeps. It remains awake all the while the
conscious mind is asleep. This subconscious mind of so-called or self-styled
"Jews" is "WHY JEWS BECOME CATHOLICS". The more spiritually sensitive
subconscious minds of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" for 2000 years has
been seeking a spiritually secure beach-head as a refuge from the terror of
the Talmud. After a lifetime breathing the atmosphere of the Talmud
so-called or self-styled "Jews" found Catholicism a wholesome and refreshing
change of spiritual climate. They could not resist the spiritual force of
the "EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION" WHICH ATTRACTED THEM TO CATHOLICISM.
Catholicism supplied a sacred sanctuary for the more spiritually sensitive
subconscious mind of the so-called or self- styled "Jew" seeking security in
his escape from the Talmud. Before sailing into the safe port of Catholicism
the subconscious mind of the more spiritually sensitive so-called or
self-styled "Jews" would embark upon that voyage of their more courageous
co-religionists but for one reason. They fear reprisals by their co-
religionists.
In your article you mention just a few of the many penalties imposed by
reactionary so-called or self-styled "Jews" upon their co-religionists who
become converts to Catholicism. Conversion to Catholicism has even deprived
many former so-called or self-styled "Jews" from earning their living. Many
families faced starvation for that reason. A convert to Catholicism must be
ready and willing to suffer the economic, social and political hardships his
former co- religionists will make him pay as the price for the spiritual
wealth he will acquire with conversion to Catholicism.
Investigation by you will convince you that so-called or self-styled "Jews"
never turn spiritually to Catholicism "BECAUSE SUCH WAS THE JEWISH RELIGION:
BECAUSE SUCH IS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION", as you state in your article. A
so-called or self-styled "Jew" might question the wisdom of conversion from
the original to a copy of the original. Inasmuch as so-called "Judaism" is a
modern name for "Talmudism", and "Talmudism" is a name given to the ancient
practice of "Pharisaism", how can you reconcile what you state that ". . .
SUCH WAS THE JEWISH RELIGION: . . . SUCH IS THE CATHOLIC RELIGION".
Several so-called or self-styled "Jews" who were recently converted to
Catholicism are my personal friends. Not one of those whom I have asked
became a Catholic because they felt "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE JEWISH
CHURCH GLORIFIED", as you state in your article. What "JEWISH CHURCH" they
ask me? I am unable to answer. What "JEWISH CHURCH" I ask you? "Pharisaism"?
"Talmudism"? Surely you would not venture the opinion that the Catholic
Church is "Pharisaism" or "Talmudism" now "GLORIFIED" as Catholicism, would
you?
It must be quite apparent to you now that so-called or self- styled "Jews"
who became converts to Catholicism do not believe that the Catholic Church,
as you state in your article, "IS THE CHURCH OF JEWISH CONVERTS AND THEIR
DESCENDANTS". They do not regard Jesus as a "CONVERT" to the Catholic
Church. You include Jesus as a "CONVERT" to the Catholic Church, in your
article. In your article you state, "FIRST CAME CHRIST, THE JEW OF JEWS". I
never heard that designation before. Is it original? Nor will converted
so-called or self-styled "Jews" concur at all with "THEN CAME THE APOSTLES,
ALL JEWS", as you also state in your article. There is unquestionably too
big an area of disagreement here to disregard the views of those who have
become converts to Catholicism. Nor can these converts to Catholicism be
made to believe as truth "THEN CAME THE THOUSANDS OF THE FIRST MEMBERS OF
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WHO WERE JEWS", as you state in your article under
discussion here.
My dear Dr. Goldstein, as a former so-called or self-styled "Jew" for almost
half your life, when you became a convert to Catholicism did you do so for
the reasons you state in your article "WHY JEWS BECOME CATHOLICS"? That
would be difficult for me to believe in spite of the further statements you
make in your article "IN FACT THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CATHOLIC CHURCH
WERE IT NOT FOR THE JEWS". That statement appears incredible in view of
incontestable facts, but these facts may not have been available to you when
you made it.
If so-called or self-styled "Jews" believed what you state in your article
they would undoubtedly prefer to stay put spiritually in their "JEWISH
CHURCH", by which you mean no doubt so- called "Judaism". They would query
why Catholics expected them to leave their "JEWISH CHURCH" to enter the
Catholic Church. It might appear more logical to expect Catholics to return
to the original of the Catholic Church, the "JEWISH CHURCH", or so- called
"Judaism". On the basis of what you state, that would not be inconsistent.
You take away my breath when you further state "CATHOLICISM WOULD NOT EXIST
WERE IT NOT FOR JUDAISM". That leaves very little for me to say after
writing these 62 pages of facts and comments. In a certain sense there is
certain sense to what you state if you feel that the existence of so-called
"Judaism", in the time of Jesus and since then, created the necessity for
the existence of Catholicism. But in no sense can the Catholic Church be
adjudicated the projection of "Pharisaism", "Talmudism", or so-called
"Judaism".
We should get together in person to go into this matter more fully. I hope
you will extend that privilege to me in the not too distant future. In
closing this letter I sincerely request that you bear in mind while reading
this letter Galatians, 4:16, "Am I therefor become your enemy, because I
tell you the truth?" And to this I add, "I hope not". I hope that we shall
continue to be the very best of friends. If the Christian faith is to be
rescued from its dedicated enemies we must all join hands and form a "human
lifeline". We must pull together, not in different directions. We must "bury
the hatchet" but not in each other's heads.
Looking forward with pleasant anticipation to the delight of meeting with
you in person whenever you find it convenient and agreeable for yourself,
and awaiting your early reply for which I take this opportunity to thank you
in advance, and with best wishes for your continued good health and success,
please believe me to be,
Most respectfully and very sincerely,
<Signed>
Benjamin H. Freedman
<end http://christianparty.net/talmud.htm >
John Knight
Thank you, Willie, for this update on the Talmud.
Sincerely,
John Knight
----- Original Message -----
From: Willie Martin
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:04 PM
Subject: Fact Sheet about Talmud
?Talmud - Mas. Avodah Zarah 22a
- R. Simeon b. Eleazar has not in mind the metayage principle at all; but
the reason why he permits in the case of an
idolater is because, if he is told [to abstain from work on forbidden days]
he obeys. But a Cuthean, too, if told would
surely obey! - A Cuthean would not obey; he would say: 'I am more learned
than thou!' If that is so, why then
mention the objection of the field being called by the owner's name; he
could have given the reason of not placing a
stumbling block before the blind?1 - He mentions that reason as an
additional one, as if to say: There is the one
reason of [not placing a stumbling block] before the blind, and there is
also the objection of its being called by his
name.
Two2 saffron-growers, [one of whom was] a heathen who took charge of the
field on the Sabbath, and [the
other] an Israelite who did so on the Sunday, came before Raba; he declared
the partnership as permissible. Rabina,
however, cited the following in refutation of Raba's ruling: If an Israelite
and a heathen leased a field in partnership,
the Israelite must not say subsequently to the heathen, Take as thy share
the profit in respect of the Sabbath, and I will
take as mine that in respect of a week-day;3 only when such a condition was
made originally is it permitted.
[Likewise] if they just calculate the profit4 it is forbidden! Whereupon he
[Raba] blushed. Subsequently, the fact came
to light that the partners had indeed laid down that condition originally.
R. Gabiha of Be-Kathil5 said: That was a case of 'orlah6 plants, the
produce of which the heathen was to eat
during the forbidden years and the Israelite during [a corresponding number
of] permitted years, and they came before
Raba who permitted it.7 But did not Rabina cite a statement in objection to
Raba's ruling? - [No,] it was in order to
support it.8 Then why did Raba blush? - That never occurred at all.
The question was asked: What if no arrangements at all were made? - Come
and hear [the above passage]:
'Only when such a condition was made originally is it permitted,' hence, if
there was no arrangement it is forbidden.
Continue, then, with the next part: 'If they calculated the profit it is
forbidden,' which implies that, if there was no
arrangement it is permitted! - The fact is, no answer can be deduced from
this passage.
CHAPTER II
MISHNAH. ONE SHOULD NOT PLACE CATTLE IN HEATHENS' INNS,9 BECAUSE THEY
ARE
SUSPECTED OF IMMORAL PRACTICE WITH THEM. A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE ALONE WITH
THEM,
BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF LEWDNESS, NOR SHOULD A MAN BE ALONE WITH THEM,
BECAUSE THEY ARE SUSPECTED OF SHEDDING BLOOD.
____________________
(1) Lev. XIX, 14. V. supra. 6a.
(2) Lit., 'these'.
(3) As the partnership was entered into unconditionally, the duty of working
the field devolved equally on both
partners. The work carried out by the heathen on the Sabbath is therefore
done by him, in respect of one half thereof,
as the agent of the Israelite.
(4) If the Israelite apportions the profits in respect of the Sabbath to the
heathen even without telling him explicitly to
work on the Sabbath it is likewise forbidden, as in the absence of specific
conditions, the assumption is that the
heathen is to work on behalf of the Jew on the Sabbath - which is in direct
opposition to Raba's ruling.
(5) [On the Tigris, north of Bagdad (Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 147).]
(6) Lit., uncircumcised', newly-planted trees, the produce of which is
forbidden during the first three years. V. Lev.
XIX, 23.
(7) This is quite in order since even during the forbidden years, the
Israelite is only forbidden to eat of the produce,
but is permitted to do the work. There is therefore no objection to the
heathen's working even though he does so as
the Israelite's agent.
(8) The statement in Rabina's citation, that where the prohibition does not
extend to the work - as in the case of
laying down the conditions originally - the arrangement is permitted,
distinctly supports Raba's ruling in regard to
produce of 'orlah trees.
(9) (On the ill-repute of the Greek and Roman inns, v. Elmslie a.l.]
Talmud - Mas. Avodah Zarah 22b
GEMARA. The following was cited in contradiction: One may buy of them cattle
for a sacrifice, and it need not be
feared lest it committed, or had been used for, an immoral act, or had been
designated as an offering to idols, or had
been worshipped.1 Now we are quite right not to fear about its having been
designated as an offering to idols or
having been made an object of worship, since if it had been so designated or
worshipped, its owner would not have
sold it; but we surely ought to fear as to committing an immoral act!2 -
Said R. Tahlifa in the name of R. Shila b.
Abina in the name of Rab: A heathen would have regard for his cattle, lest
it becomes barren.3 This would indeed
hold good in the case of female cattle but what answer would you give in the
case of males? - Said R. Kahana:
Because it has a deteriorating effect on their flesh. Then what about that
[Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One may
buy cattle of any heathen shepherd'; ought we not to fear lest he used it
for an immoral purpose?4 - The heathen
shepherd would be afraid of forfeiting his fee. What then about this [other
Baraitha] which has been taught: 'One
should not entrust cattle to a heathen shepherd';5 why not assume that the
heathen shepherd would be afraid of
forfeiting his fee? - They fear detection by one another since they know a
good deal about it, but they are not afraid
of us who do not know much about it. Rabbah said: This is what the popular
proverb says. 'As the stylus penetrates
the stone so one cunning mind detects another.' In that case, neither should
we buy male cattle6 from women, for fear
of their having used them for immoral practice! - She would be afraid of
being followed about by the animal. What
then about this which R. Joseph learnt: 'A widow should not rear dogs, nor
accommodate a student as a guest'? Now
it is quite right in the case of a student, as she might reckon on his
modesty,7 but in the case of a dog why not say that
she would be afraid of being followed about by it? - Since it would follow
about on being thrown a piece of meat,
people will say that it is because of being given such pieces that it
follows her. Why then should we not leave female
animals alone with female heathens?8 - Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because
heathens frequent their neighbours'
wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there,
he might use it immorally. You may also say
that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has
said:9 Heathens prefer the cattle of
Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came
unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her.10 If
that be so [the same should apply] also to Israel! - When Israel stood at
Sinai that lust was eliminated, but the lust of
idolaters, who did not stand at Sinai, did not cease.
The question was asked: How about fowls?11 - Come and hear: Rab Judah
said in the name of Samuel on
behalf of R. Hanina: I saw a heathen buy a goose in the market, use it
immorally, and then strangle it, roast, and eat it.
Also R. Jeremiah of Difti12 said: I saw an Arab who bought a side [of meat],
pierced it for the purpose of an immoral
act, after which act he roasted and ate it.
____________________
(1) Any of which uses would disqualify it for the purpose of sacrifice
(Tosef. 'A.Z. II). V. B.K. 40b.
(2) The Baraitha which rules out such possibility is therefore in conflict
with our Mishnah.
(3) Hence the Baraitha does not suspect immoral practice in the case of the
heathen's own cattle, while our Mishnah,
which deals with other people's cattle left in a heathen's inn, does suspect
it.
(4) As the cattle does not belong to him.
(5) Supra 15b, Tosef. A.Z. III.
(6) For sacrifices.
(7) Which would deter him from making it known.
(8) V. supra, 15b.
(9) Git. 38a.
(10) Shab. 146a; Yeb. 103b.
(11) Does the suspicion connected with animals apply to them?
(12) [Identified with Dibtha below the Tigris, S.E. Babylon, Obermeyer, op.
cit. p. 197.]
Royce Buehler
In article <3cd05...@nopics.sjc>,
Well, it does have the advantage that, for a change, it quotes the
actual words of the Talmud.
In so doing, of course, it shows that all your assertions about this
section of Avodah Zarah were lies, and all the assertions Moggin and
myself have made about it were true. In particular, it is about
idolaters, not about Christians, and nowhere does it contain any
statement that "Christians prefer sex with cows," as you had claimed.
> Here is an update from the previous post regarding the belief by jews that
> "Christians prefer sex with cows".
Jews have no such belief. The Talmud - which you just quoted
_in extenso_ - contains no such statement. Why do you continue to
spread what you know perfectly well is a lie?
Answer: because the truth matters nothing to you, just as Jesus
matters nothing to you. All that matters to you is finding a
justification for your peculiar form of idolatry - bowing down
morning and night before the beloved whiteness of your own
skin - and a justification for your favorite sin, namely, entertaining
fantasies of enslaving two thirds of the world, and slaughtering
the Jews.
> John Knight
Never was knight more benighted.
> As a compendium, Abhodah Zarah means strange worship, idolatry. The Talmudic
> Tract on Idolatry is thus entitled: Obhde Abhodah Zarah - Idol Worshippers.
> The certainty that Abhodah Zarah really means the cult of idols is expressed
> clearly from the Talmud itself: 'Let Nimrod come and testify that Abraham
> was not a server of Abhodah Zarah.'
Very good. Please remember that, in future. The subject is idolaters,
not Christians.
> * ex. gr. in Maien ieschua, fol. 66b
> ** cf. I. Buxtorf in Abbrev. Jeschu: "The jews among themselves do not say
> Jeschu, but Isschu,
What are these texts you are quoting? (Or, more likely, misquoting?)
There is no "ex. gr." or "Maien ieschua", or "I. Buxtorf" in the
Talmud, so even if you were breaking with your training and
quoting *something* accurately, it has no bearing on the contents of
the Talmud, and no place in a post titled "Fact Sheet about Talmud."
> There are two additional caveats. Eustace Mullins in his research
Eustace Mullins never did "research." He simply spent his entire
life generating as many vicious lies about the Jews as he could
dream up. For example, he maintained that, since the polio vaccine
was developed by a Jew (Jonas Salk), it must be poisonous, and you
shouldn't allow your children to be vaccinated with it.
In sum, he was even more astoundingly idiotic than "John Knight."
;-) Or, have you too forbidden your children protection against polio?
> Also, the Talmudic Numeric Code tells us that the Hebrew "V" or "VAU"
> represents the number "6." Jewish Cabalists insist the number "6" to be
> "Jaweh's" number, a sinister power, which Judaism calls God.
So this "researcher", Mr. Mullins, believes that the "Jaweh" of the
Bible is a sinister power, and is not really God. Mr. Knight will
believe anything Mr. Mullins says, no matter how preposterous,
because Mr. Mullins hates the Jews. And Mr. Knight believes that
hating the Jews gives people the magical power to be always
correct about everything.
Come out of your delusionary fog, "John." Life is a lot more
pleasant out here in reality, where we don't make hatred the whole
purpose of our existence.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu
"Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
-- Pierre Delalande
John Knight
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
news:3cd0762a$0$3950$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>
> In article <3cd05...@nopics.sjc>,
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
> >
> > Thank you, Willie, for this update on the Talmud.
>
> Well, it does have the advantage that, for a change, it quotes the
> actual words of the Talmud.
>
> In so doing, of course, it shows that all your assertions about this
> section of Avodah Zarah were lies, and all the assertions Moggin and
> myself have made about it were true. In particular, it is about
> idolaters, not about Christians, and nowhere does it contain any
> statement that "Christians prefer sex with cows," as you had claimed.
>
Read the following carefully, Royce, which is from
http://christianparty.net/pearlston.htm
From: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbp...@access1.net>
To: "John Knight" <fathersm...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bestiality and Kol Nidre
> John, where do you get your history? Haven't you ever heard the old Greek
> myths of Leda and the Swan, and
> Europa and the Bull? Where do you think those came from, if no one
> practiced bestiality? Note that 17% of American males are estimated to
have
> practiced this at least once. I've attached a few notes from the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, which should be authoritative enough for anyone.
> Why haven't you taken the trouble to check this out? Why do you consider
> this a slur on gentiles, when it is just a matter of historical fact that
> bestiality and homosexuality were fairly common in the Middle East, and
the
> Jews condemned both in their Bible and forbade the practice.
Do you see me claiming that the Talmud says this?
NO.
What you see is a jew claiming that, not only does it say that, but that it
MUST be true because ...?
Because it's in the Talmud, right? Or do you think Encyclopedia Britannica
makes such a claim?
This is an indefensible argument. You can't blame Christians for any such
writings, because it was jews who wrote it, it's jews who read it, it's jews
who defend it as "true", and it's jews who evidently *believe* that this is
in the Talmud.
Not Christians, Bryce. jews!
John Knight
Kater Moggin
> This phrase of "Christian prefer sex with cows" isn't the only statement
> of hatred that the Talmud makes about Christians.
Note that John Knight has been unable to show anywhere the
Talmud contends that "Christians prefer sex with cows."
Seems as if he'd rather repeat his mistake than admit the truth.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
Kater Moggin
> Here is an update from the previous post
John Knight has still failed to say where the article that
he claims to be quoting from was posted -- and Google still
showns no sign of the supposed original. Maybe JK realizes how
weak his case is, so he's invented an imaginary ally to
defend him. Only natural his pal would be handing out the same
brand of misinformation.
Kater Moggin
[...]
You've still offered no evidence supporting your assertion
that the Talmud claims Christians prefer sex with cows. The
passage you pointed to -- Avodah Zarah 22a-22b -- is discussing
idolators, and the remark you misquoted is no more than the
opinion of an unnamed rabbi, disputed by other rabbis mentioned
the same section.
Royce Buehler
>
> The following is a re-post from a post that seems to have gotten
> lost
>
Which is "John Knight"'s way of saying,
"Every time I post a lie, two or three people jump in to prove me
wrong. I can't keep up with all the good sense. So I will save
myself the labor, and just dig up VERY LONG lists of lies that I
didn't even have to bother typing myself. After all, my neo-Nazi
friends have been writing up these lists of lies for many
decades now. If I can post their canned lies fast enough, the
truth-tellers may not be able to keep up with me."
So, I'll point out what the truth is on the first dozen or so of
the many dozens of lies in Knight's post, but I won't waste my energy
debating John Knight's file drawers full of anti-Semitic boilerplate,
since he isn't going to waste his energy composing his own posts.
> "FACTS ARE FACTS"
Lies are lies.
> First I will summarize the references by Rev. Pranaitis referring to Jesus
> in the Talmud in the original texts translated by him into Latin, and from
> Latin into English:
>
> Sanhedrin, 67a -- Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
This one appears to be accurate, although of course it's only
one rabbi's opinion, not the authoritative statement of the
Talmud. We Christians insisted that Jesus
was conceived before Mary was married, and that Joseph was not
His father. Jews don't believe in the Virgin Birth. So they
have no alternative but to believe one of two things: That
Christians are lying about Joseph not being the father, or that
Jesus' birth was illegitimate.
So this basically amounts to the statement that Jews don't believe
in the Virgin Birth. It's not exactly a shocking piece of news.
> Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
A lie. There is a story there about a man who was illegitimate and
conceived during menstruation. Neither he nor his mother is named,
and there are no details which suggest the person was Jesus.
> Sanhedrin, 67a -- Hanged on the eve of Passover. Toldath Jeschu.
Since Christians affirm that Jesus was hung on the tree on the eve
of Passover, it's hard to see what would be shocking about this,
if it's actually there.
> Abhodah Zarah II -- Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
Same as previous instance of this story, if it's actually there.
> Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son of Pandira, the Roman.
Same as previous instance of this story, if it's actually
there.
> Sanhedrin, 43a -- On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
Since Christians affirm that Jesus was hung on the tree on the
eve of Passover, it's hard to see what would be shocking about
this, if it's actually there.
> Schabbath, 104b -- Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
Haven't had a chance to look this one up yet. Presumably a lie,
Jesus not actually being mentioned.
> Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Toldoth Jeschu.
> Sanhedrin, 103a. -- Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
A lie. Jesus is not mentioned.
> Sanhedrin, 107b. -- Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.
A lie. Jesus is not mentioned.
> Zohar III, (282) -- Died like a beast and buried in animal's dirt heap.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Zohar.
> Hilkoth Melakhim -- Attempted to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Hilkoth Melakhim.
Although, if saying "Christians err" were a good reason for
killing the Jews, it would be an equally good reason for killing
everyone who isn't a Christian. If they thought we weren't
mistaken, they'd be believers themselves. Killing everyone who
doesn't believe us sort of puts the kibosh on any further efforts
at evangelism, doesn't it?
But evangelism doesn't matter to the likes of "John Knight."
Killing, not saving souls, is the heart of his religion.
> Abhodah Zarah, 21a -- Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.
Haven't had a chance to look this one up yet. Presumably a lie,
Jesus not actually being mentioned.
> Orach Chaiim, 113 -- Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Orach Chaiim.
> Iore dea, 150,2 -- Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Iore dea.
> Abhodah Zarah (6a) -- False teachings to worship on first day of Sabbath
This is actually there, and so what? It is hardly news that Jews
consider the seventh day, not the first, to be the Sabbath.
Seventh Day Adventists also consider Sunday worship to be a
"false teaching," yet John Knight doesn't propose to murder all
the Adventists - only all the Jews.
> Hilkhoth Maakhaloth -- Christians are idolators, must not associate.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Hilkhoth
Maakhaloth.
> Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
A lie. The subject of Abhodah Zarah is idolatry, and avoiding
contamination by idolatry. Monotheistic Gentiles, like Christians
and Muslims, are not under discussion.
> Iore Dea (153, 2). -- Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate named Iore Dea.
> Abhodah Zarah (25b). -- Beware of Christians when walking abroad with them.
A lie. Christians are not mentioned. The subject of Abhodah Zarah
is idolaters.
> Orach Chaiim (20, 2). -- Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate named Orach Chaiim.
> Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.
A lie. Christians are not mentioned. The tendency of heathens to
have sex relations with animals is attributed to the corrupting
influence of their idolatry.
Well, his lies go on for a good many more pages, but they
don't improve in quality as they go.
John Knight
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 5:22 PM
Subject: Re:4
Moggin stated:
>>Interestingly enough, Google doesn't show any other copies
of the article John claims to be quoting: only the one he
posted here. That explains why he won't say where the original
appeared -- he invented an imaginary friend to defend his
equally imaginary Talmud quotation. Of course his make-believe
ally is just as unreliable. Neither "Iore Dea" nor "Orach
Chaiim" is in the Talmud. And John's notion about Avodah Zarah
22 remains false.
My Reply:
"An edition of the work of Maimonides, expurgated of all philosophical
innovations and of all the old, useless laws, was edited in 1340, in strict
accord with the ideas of the Rabbis, by Jacob ben Ascher, to which he gave
the name Arbaa Turim -- The Four Orders, which are:
1. Orach Chaiim: The seeds of Life, and treats of the daily life in the home
and in the Synagogue.
2. Iore Deah: which teaches knowledge about foods, purifications and other
religious laws.
3. Choschen Hammischpat: private judgments about civil and criminal laws.
4. Ebhen Haezer: The rock of Help, which treats of the laws of marriage." by
Rev. I.B. Pranaitis
John, what shall we call the misinformation that Moggin spews -- "Talmud
denier" perhaps?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent suggestion!
Where those who are more concerned about 48 million REAL DEAD Christians in
WWII than about 6 million MYTHICALLY DEAD jews are known as "holocaust
deniers", Moggin shall from here on out be known as:
MOGGIN THE TALMUD DENIER!
John Knight
John Knight
My, my, Royce, suddenly you as a "born again Christian" sure do seem to
"know" a lot about the Talmud.
After you claimed that Ruth's descendants are no longer subject to Israeli
law because Ruth was a woman it's REALLY going to be a tough choice between
you and Rev. Pranaitis, eh?
Which do you think I'm going to trust? You get two choices. Even a STUPID
jew should be able get that one right, for a change.
John Knight
"Royce Buehler" <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3CD0B656...@earthlink.net...
> John Knight wrote:
> >
> > The following is a re-post from a post that seems to have gotten
> > lost
> > John Knight
> >
> Which is "John Knight"'s way of saying,
> "Every time I post a lie, two or three people jump in to prove me
> wrong. I can't keep up with all the good sense. So I will save
> myself the labor, and just dig up VERY LONG lists of lies that I
> didn't even have to bother typing myself. After all, my neo-Nazi
> friends have been writing up these lists of lies for many
> decades now. If I can post their canned lies fast enough, the
> truth-tellers may not be able to keep up with me."
>
> So, I'll point out what the truth is on the first dozen or so of
> the many dozens of lies in Knight's post, but I won't waste my energy
> debating John Knight's file drawers full of anti-Semitic boilerplate,
> since he isn't going to waste his energy composing his own posts.
>
> > "FACTS ARE FACTS"
>
> Lies are lies.
>
> > First I will summarize the references by Rev. Pranaitis referring to
Jesus
> > in the Talmud in the original texts translated by him into Latin, and
from
> > Latin into English:
> >
> > Sanhedrin, 67a -- Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
>
> This one appears to be accurate, although of course it's only
> one rabbi's opinion, not the authoritative statement of the
> Talmud. We Christians insisted that Jesus
> was conceived before Mary was married, and that Joseph was not
> His father. Jews don't believe in the Virgin Birth. So they
> have no alternative but to believe one of two things: That
> Christians are lying about Joseph not being the father, or that
> Jesus' birth was illegitimate.
>
> So this basically amounts to the statement that Jews don't believe
> in the Virgin Birth. It's not exactly a shocking piece of news.
>
> > Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
>
> A lie. There is a story there about a man who was illegitimate and
> conceived during menstruation. Neither he nor his mother is named,
> and there are no details which suggest the person was Jesus.
>
> > Sanhedrin, 67a -- Hanged on the eve of Passover. Toldath Jeschu.
>
> Since Christians affirm that Jesus was hung on the tree on the eve
> of Passover, it's hard to see what would be shocking about this,
> if it's actually there.
>
> > Abhodah Zarah II -- Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
>
> Same as previous instance of this story, if it's actually there.
>
> > Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son of Pandira, the Roman.
>
> Same as previous instance of this story, if it's actually
> there.
>
> > Sanhedrin, 43a -- On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
>
> Since Christians affirm that Jesus was hung on the tree on the
> eve of Passover, it's hard to see what would be shocking about
> this, if it's actually there.
>
> > Schabbath, 104b -- Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
>
> Haven't had a chance to look this one up yet. Presumably a lie,
> Jesus not actually being mentioned.
>
> > Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Toldoth Jeschu.
>
> > Sanhedrin, 103a. -- Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
>
> A lie. Jesus is not mentioned.
>
> > Sanhedrin, 107b. -- Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.
>
> A lie. Jesus is not mentioned.
>
> > Zohar III, (282) -- Died like a beast and buried in animal's dirt heap.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Zohar.
>
> > Hilkoth Melakhim -- Attempted to prove Christians err in worship of
Jesus
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Hilkoth Melakhim.
> Although, if saying "Christians err" were a good reason for
> killing the Jews, it would be an equally good reason for killing
> everyone who isn't a Christian. If they thought we weren't
> mistaken, they'd be believers themselves. Killing everyone who
> doesn't believe us sort of puts the kibosh on any further efforts
> at evangelism, doesn't it?
>
> But evangelism doesn't matter to the likes of "John Knight."
> Killing, not saving souls, is the heart of his religion.
>
> > Abhodah Zarah, 21a -- Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.
>
> Haven't had a chance to look this one up yet. Presumably a lie,
> Jesus not actually being mentioned.
>
> > Orach Chaiim, 113 -- Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Orach Chaiim.
>
> > Iore dea, 150,2 -- Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Iore dea.
>
> > Abhodah Zarah (6a) -- False teachings to worship on first day of Sabbath
>
> This is actually there, and so what? It is hardly news that Jews
> consider the seventh day, not the first, to be the Sabbath.
> Seventh Day Adventists also consider Sunday worship to be a
> "false teaching," yet John Knight doesn't propose to murder all
> the Adventists - only all the Jews.
>
> > Hilkhoth Maakhaloth -- Christians are idolators, must not associate.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate called Hilkhoth
> Maakhaloth.
>
> > Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
>
> A lie. The subject of Abhodah Zarah is idolatry, and avoiding
> contamination by idolatry. Monotheistic Gentiles, like Christians
> and Muslims, are not under discussion.
>
> > Iore Dea (153, 2). -- Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate named Iore Dea.
>
> > Abhodah Zarah (25b). -- Beware of Christians when walking abroad with
them.
>
> A lie. Christians are not mentioned. The subject of Abhodah Zarah
> is idolaters.
>
> > Orach Chaiim (20, 2). -- Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
>
> A lie. Talmud does not even contain a tractate named Orach Chaiim.
>
> > Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with
animals.
>
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-297CE9....@netnews.attbi.com...
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com>:
>
> > This phrase of "Christian prefer sex with cows" isn't the only statement
> > of hatred that the Talmud makes about Christians.
>
> Talmud contends that "Christians prefer sex with cows."
> Seems as if he'd rather repeat his mistake than admit the truth.
>
> -- Moggin
You just didn't pay attention, Moggin.
Lots of people showed you EXACTLY where it is, even your fellow jew
Pearlston. But here are a few more cites from a different perspective.
John Knight
ps--note that Michael Hoffman also cites Abodah Zarali 22a-22b (pp. 113-114)
as the source of "Gentiles prefer sex with cows".
http://christianparty.net/talmudhoffman.htm
THE TALMUD
Judaism's Holiest Book
By M. Hoffman
The Talmud is Judaism's holiest book. Its authority takes precedence over
the Old Testament in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud
itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition p. 149): "My Son, be more careful in the
observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (Old
Testament).
The supremacy of the Talmud over the Bible in Israel may also be seen in the
case of the Black Ethiopian Jews. Ethiopian kessim (rabbis) are thoroughly
knowledgeable concerning the Old Testament's teachings and laws. However
their branch of Judaism is so old, it pre-dates the Scribes' Talmud, of
which they have little knowledge. Because of this the Black Ethiopian rabbis
are discriminated against and have been forbidden to perform marriages,
funerals and services in Israel.
According to the N.Y. Times (Sept. 29, 1992, p. A4): "The problem is that
Ethiopian Jewish tradition goes no further than the Bible or Torah - the
later Talmud and other commentaries that form the basis or modern traditions
never came their way.
Orthodox Jews allege that the Talmud is a collection of laws and
instructions God gave to Moses. This rabbinical tradition was then passed
from one Pharisee to another in oral form. It had not yet been written down
in Jesus' time. In Mark 7:3 Jesus referred to the Mishnah ("tradition of the
elders') which would later comprise a major portion of the Talmud: "Full
well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition."
Christ told the Pharisees that through the Mishnah they were, "Making the
word of God of none effect through your tradition." (Mark 7:9, 13)
To the Mishnah, the Pharisees added the Gemara or rabbinical commentaries.
Together these comprise the Talmud. The Talmud is divided into six major
books known as Tractates. A seventh book is known as the Minor Tractates.
Each of these seven books of the Talmud are divided into smaller books.
There are two versions of the Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud and the
Babylonian Talmud. Orthodox Jews regard the Babylonian Talmud as the
authoritative version: "The authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also
greater than that of the Jerusalem Talmud. In cases of doubt the former is
decisive." (R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, From Torah to Kabbalah: A Basic
Introduction to the Writings of Judaism, p 40).
Our study is based on the Jewish-authorized, English language translation of
the Babylonian Talmud: the Soncino edition.
VERIFICATION
To verify the Talmud passages cited here, refer to the page number given in
parentheses. This corresponds to the page number in the Soncino edition
Talmud itself. (The Soncino edition Talmud may sometimes be found in large
city. university and Yeshiva libraries. The Soncino edition Talmud may also
be purchased from book dealers).
TRANSLATION NOTE
The translators of the Talmud sometimes translate the Hebrew word goyim
(Gentiles) under any number of terms such as heathen, Cuthean, Egyptian,
idolater etc. But these are actually references to Gentiles (all non-Jews).
See for example footnote 5 on p. 361 and footnote 5 on p. 388 of the Soncino
edition Talmud: "Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the original
goy. Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word Min or Minim in
the Talmud. For proof of this, see the Soncino edition Talmud, p. 604
(footnote 12).
DEATH PENALTY
TheTalmud has the unique distinction of being one of the few books in the
world that carries the death penalty if studied by non-Jews. This is stated
in Sanhedrin 59a. Soncino edition Talmud p. 400. A footnote to this passage
(#3) states that the rabbis feared that if Gentiles had knowledge of the
Talmud they would use it against the Jews in courts of law. The footnote
also states that the death penalty for studying the Talmud was specifically
intended for Christians because the 'possession of the Oral Law (Talmud) was
held to be the distinguishing mark of the Jews."
SOME TEACHINGS OF THE TALMUD
Auburn 21b (p. 149-150). The commands of the rabbis are more important than
the commands of the Bible. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and
will be punished by being boiled in hot execrement in hell.
Baba Mezia 59b. (p. 353). A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits
the rabbi won the debate.
Erubin 21b (p. 150). "Rabbi Akiba said to him 'Give me some water to wash my
hands.' 'It will not suffice for drinking.' the other complained, 'Will it
suffice for washing your hands? What can I do? The former replied, when for
neglecting the words of the Rabbis one deserves death? It is better that I
myself should die than that I transgress against the opinion of my
colleagues." [This was the ritual hand washing that Jesus condemned in
Matthew 15: 1-9].
Moed Kattan 17a (p. 107). If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a
city where he is not known and do the evil there.
Pesahim 111a (p. 571). It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass
between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees.
Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a
crossroads.
Shabbath 41a. (p. 190). The law regulating the rule for how to urinate in a
holy way is given.
Gittin 69a (p. 329). To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies
within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.
Gittin 57b (p.266). Recounts how four billion Jews were killed by the Romans
in the city of Bethar.
Gittin 58a (pp. 269-270). Recounts how sixteen million Jewish children were
wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans.
Yebamoth 63a (p.42O). States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the
animals in the Garden of Eden.
Yebamoth 63a (p.420). Declares that agriculture is the lowest of
occupations.
Erubin 41 b (p.287). Those who suffer great poverty or persecution by the
Romans or who have a bowel disease or a bad wife, will not go to hell.
Pesahim 1 13b (p. 584). He who stays unmarried, does not wear phylacteries
(two small black leather cubes) or doesn't wear shoes, cannot go to heaven.
Pesahim 113b (p. 583). This passage states that hate is commanded by God:
".is it permitted to hate him?" (i.e. an enemy or Israel). "Again if there
are witnesses that he had committed wrong, then all indeed hate him! It is a
duty to hate him..."
Sanhedrin 58b. (p.398). If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew (the Gentile must
be killed. hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.
Yebamoth 98a (pp.670-671). All Gentile children are animals.
Abodah Zarali 36b (p. 176). Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth)
from birth.
Abodah Zarali 22a-22b (pp. 113-114). Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
Abodab Zarah 67b (p. 325). "The vessels of Gentiles, do they not impart a
worsened flavor to the food cooked in them?"
Abodah Zarah 70a (p.336). The question was asked of the rabbi whether some
wine stolen in Pumbeditha might be used or if it might be defiled due to the
fact that the thieves might have been Gentiles (a Gentile touching wine
would make the wine unclean). The rabbi states that the wine is permissible
for Jewish use because the majority or the thieves in the place where the
wine was stolen are Jews.
Hagigah 27a (p.171). No rabbi can ever go to hell.
Yoma 22~23a (p.103). No one can be a true Jewish scholar unless he takes
vengeance on his enemies.
Baba Bathra 16b (p.83). "Yet happy is he whose children are males and alas
for him whose children are females."
Sanhedrin 1OOb (p. 681). "A daughter is a vain treasure to her father:
through anxiety on her account he cannot sleep at night As a minor, lest she
be seduced; in her majority, lest she play the harlot; as an adult lest she
not be married; if she marries lest she bear no children, if she grows old,
lest she engages in witchcraft...woe to him whose children are females."
Menahoth 43b-44a (p. 264). A Jewish man is obligated to say the following
prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a
slave.
Berakoth 43b (pp. 266-267). A Jewish scholar should not talk to women in the
street, not even his wife or, daughter or sister. He must also not wear
perfume or patched sandals, or take long strides when he is walking (long
strides will hurt his eyesight and he must not walk at night unless he is
going to an appointment with a rabbi. Also, he must not walk stiffly
(because to do so is to "push against the heels of the divine presence").
Sanhedrin 57a (p. 389). A Jew need not pay a Gentile ('Cuthean") the wages
owed him for work.
Baba Kamma 37b (p.211). "If an ox of a" Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite
there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an
lsraelite...the payment is to be in full."
Baba Mezia 24a (p. 151). If a Jew finds an object lost by a Gentile
("heathen') it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma
113b, p. 666).
Sanhedrin 76a (p.517). God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to
an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a
Cuthean..."
Sanhedrin 57a (p. 388). When a Jew murders a Gentile (Cuthean"). there will
be no death penalty What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.
Baba Kamma 37b (p.213). Gentiles are outside the protection of the law and
God has "exposed their money to Israel."
Baba Kamma I 13a (p. 664). Jews may use lies (subterfuges") to circumvent a
Gentile.
Abodah Zarah 26a (p.130). Gentile women want to poison Jewish children.
Sanhedrin 55b (p.376). A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically,
three years "and a day" old).
Sanhedrin 54b (p.371). A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child
is less than nine years old.
Kethuboth 11b (p.58). "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little
girl it is nothing."
Yebamoth 59b (p. 397) "A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible
to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible
to marry a Jewish priest.
Gittin 69b (p.329). To heal the disease of pleurisy ("catarrh") a Jew should
"take the excrement of a white dog and knead it with balsam, but if he can
possibly avoid it he should not eat the dog's excrement as it loosens the
limbs."
Shabbath 86a-86b (p.409). Because Jews are holy they do not have sex during
the day unless the house can be made dark. A Jewish scholar can have sex
during the day if he uses his garment like a tent to make it dark.
Kethuboth 61b (p.369). The frequency with which a Jewish male may have sex
is listed as follows: "For men of independence, every day. For laborers,
twice a week, for ass-drivers once a week; for camel-drivers, once in thirty
days; for sailors, once in six months."
Abodah Zarah 17a (p.87). States that there is not a whore in the world that
Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.
Gittin 7Oa (p.333). "The Rabbis taught On coming from a privy (outdoor
toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long
enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for
that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic."
Sanhedrin 106a (p.725). Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the
descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also
in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b (p. 504) it is stated that in the
"uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the
hairdresser," had sex with many men.
The passage from Sanhedrin 106 also contains gloating over the early age at
which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? He replied:
It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men
shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or
thirty-four years old."
Sanhedrin 43a (p.281). Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in footnote #6, Yeshu "the
Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery.
Sanhedrin 90a (p.680).Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books."
see footnote #9) will have no portion in the world to come.
Shabbath 116a (p.569). Jews must burn the books of the Christians. i.e., the
New Testament. See footnote #6.
Rosh Hashanah 17a (pp. 64-65). Christians ("minim") and others who reject
the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations (see
footnote #11 on p.64 for the definition of minim).
Baba Mezia I 14a-1 14b. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men").
Also see Kerithoth 6b (p.45) under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and
Berakoth 58a (pp.361-362) in which Gentile women are designated animals
(she-asses).
Gittin 57a (p.261). Jesus ("sinners of Israel." see footnote 14) is being
boiled in hot excrement.
Sanhedrin 43a (pp. 281-282). Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the
Passover, Yeshu was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a
defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom
Scripture says, Neither shall thou spare, neither shall thou conceal him?
Kallah 51a (Soncino Minor Tractates). God approves of rabbis who lie: "The
elders were once sitting in the gate when two young lads passed by; one
covered his head and the other uncovered his head. Of him who uncovered his
head Rabbi Eliezer remarked that he is a bastard. Rabbi Joshua remarked that
he is the son of a niddah (a child conceived during a woman's menstrual
period). Rabbi Akiba said that he is both a bastard and a son of a niddah.
"They said, 'What induced you to contradict the opinion of your colleagues?'
He replied, 'I will prove it concerning him.' He went to the lad's mother
and found her sitting in the market selling beans.
"He said to her, 'My daughter, if you will answer the question I will put to
you. I will bring you to the world to come. (eternal life). She said to him,
'Swear it to me.' Rabbi Akiba, taking the oath with his lips but annulling
it in his heart, said to her, 'What is the status of your son?' She replied,
'When I entered the bridal chamber I was niddah (menstruating) and my
husband kept away from me- but my best man had intercourse with me and this
son was born to me. Consequently the child was both a bastard and (the son
of a niddah. It was declared, "Blcssed be the God of Israel Who Revealed his
Secret to Rabbi Akiba."
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben
Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the Gentiles should all be
killed").
This selection is not from the Soncino edition but is from the original
Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted by The Jewish Encyclopedia.
published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled by Isidore Singer, under the
entry, Gentile," (p.61?).
It is interesting to note how this original Talmud passage has been
concealed in translation. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that, "...in the
various versions the reading has been altered, 'The best among the Egyptians
' being generally substituted."
The Soncino edition has censored Rabbi Yohai's statement about killing even
the best of the Gentiles and described it as "killing the best of the
heathens" (Minor Tractates Soferim 41a-b].
Both the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Soncino edition Talmud claim that Rabbi
Yohai was a fanatic and his utterance is not to be taken as indicative of
the general view of Jewish rabbis. Nonetheless, the Jewish Press, a
newspaper published by orthodox Jews, in its edition of June 9, 1989, p.
56B, contains a photograph of. orthodox Jews taking their sons to the grave
of Rabbi Yohai in Israel as part of a national Jewish pilgrimage to honor
him.
ANOTHER JEWISH HOLY BOOK
Among some Jews (chiefly the Hasidim). a work known as the Kabbalah (also
Cabalah) is revered. This book pertains to the application of curses and the
study of astrology.
Copyright 1992 by M. Hoffman Extra copies or this tract: 15 copies: $3.00.
50 copies: $8.00. 100 for $14. [Price includes shipping). Further Reference:
Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. Illustrated, 115 pages.
$8.00.The Hole in the Sheet 219 page hardcover $16.95. Prophecy and
Politics, 210 pp. $7. Controversy of Zion, 580 pages. $14. The Great
Holocaust Trial Video (VHS color, 65 minutes) $22. All prices subject to
change without notice. Canada/Foreign add 20% to all prices & pay in U.S.
Funds from U.S. Bank. NY add sales tax. Order from: Wiswell Ruffin, I3ox
236, Dept. G Dresden, New York 14441.
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-F969CD....@netnews.attbi.com...
> John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
>
> > Here is an update from the previous post
>
> John Knight has still failed to say where the article that
> he claims to be quoting from was posted -- and Google still
> showns no sign of the supposed original. Maybe JK realizes how
> weak his case is, so he's invented an imaginary ally to
> defend him. Only natural his pal would be handing out the same
> brand of misinformation.
>
> -- Moggin
Typical jewish claptrap. You know the Talmud is indefensible so you create
all kinds of diversionary tactics to attempt to sidetrack the presentation.
ho, hum.
So, back to the subject at hand: The facts about the Talmud. Following is
a slightly different perspective from another member of the forum.
John Knight
Like you, at one time I believed that the essential difference between Jews
and Christians was that the Jews believed in the Old Testament and the
Christians believed in the New Testament. The truth is that their "real
bible" is The Talmud. The Jewish book "The Mitzbeach" states that "there is
nothing superior to 'Holy Talmud'." While the Jews profess to be attached to
the Old Testament to the outside world, the real essence of the Jewish creed
is not the Old Testament as such, not the books of Moses, but The Talmud.
There are several branches of Jewry such as the Orthodox, Reform, Liberal,
Conservative, Sephardim, Ashkanazim, Zionist, etc., but they all use The
Talmud in their synagogues, just as all different branches of Christians use
the same Bible. The Talmud is made up of 63 books in 524 chapters and is
often printed in 18 large volumes. It was written by Rabbis between the
years 200AD and 500AD. It basically contains all the Jewish laws in their
relationships between each other, and also in relationship of the Jews
towards the Gentiles. Eight Catholic popes condemned the Talmud. Martin
Luther, founder of the Protestant Church, ordered it burned. Pope Clement
VIII declared, "The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of
the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned
and prohibited and this law must be perpetually observed." The Talmud holds
that only Jews are true human beings and Gentiles are "goyim" (meaning
cattle or beast). The following are shocking but exact quotes from the
various books of "The Talmud."
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty
of death."
4. Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious
relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew
what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."
5. Libbre David 37: "If a Jew be called upon to explain any part of the
rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Who ever will
violate this order shall be put to death."
6. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she
is three years of age."
7. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
8. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
9. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
10. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the
money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent
consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
11. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to
the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins
against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It
is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the
name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and
look upon them as honorable people."
12. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make
a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against
them."
13. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the
world are not human beings but beasts."
14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have
2800 slaves."
15. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form
so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is
consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and
night."
16. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be
violated."
17. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
18. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is
responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a
Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he
denounces."
20. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations
belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon
it without any scruples."
21. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy
is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a
Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
22. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and
blood of all
nations."
23. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his
clutches,
another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive
him, so that
the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our
law, belongs to
no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
24. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a
glass of wine
which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
25. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year
be valid, let
him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may
make in the
future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."
We could provide many more quotes from this offensive book, but I believe
that the point is clear:
The Jews are involved in what can be called, and indeed has been called, a
conspiracy against all mankind and will take whatever steps they deem
necessary for them to dominate the rest of the world. It is because of these
beliefs, and the willingness of the Jews to act upon them, that
"anti-semitism" exists and perhaps the reason why the Jews have been
disliked and driven out of every nation in which they have inhabited at
least once. In the pages that follow, I hope to make clear to you just how
far the Jews have gotten with this Talmudic conspiracy.
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/benjaminfranklin.htm
From the written records of CHARLES PINCKNEY of South Carolina, of the
proceedings during the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 concerning the
statement of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN at the convention concerning Jewish
immigration. (Original in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia.)
"There is a great danger for the United States of America. That great danger
is the Jew. Gentlemen , in whichever land the Jews have settled, they have
depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They
have created a State within a State, and when they are opposed, they
attempted to strangle the nation financially as in the case of Portugal and
Spain."
"For more than 1700 years they have lamented their sorrowful fate, namely
that they were driven out of the motherland; but gentlemen, if the civilized
world today should give them back Palestine as their property , they would
immediately find pressing reasons for not returning there. Why? Because they
are vampires and cannot live on other vampires. They cannot live among
themselves. They must live among Christians and others who do not belong to
their race."
"If they are not excluded from the United States by the Constitution, within
less than a hundred years they will stream into our country in such numbers
that they will rule and destroy us, and change our form of government for
which Americans have shed their blood and sacrificed life, property and
personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded, within 200 years our
children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews, while they remain
in the Counting House gleefully rubbing their hands."
"I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jew forever, your
children`s children will curse you in your grave."
"Their ideas are not those of Americans. The leopard cannot change his
spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter,
they will imperil its institutions."
"They should be excluded by the Constitution."
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/kolnidre.htm
John Knight
"All vows, oaths, promises, engagements, and swearing, which beginning this
day of reconciliation til the next day of reconciliation (one year) we
intend to vow, promise, swear, and bind ourselves to fulfill, we repent of
beforehand; let them be illegalized, acquitted, annihilated, abolished,
valueless, unimportant. Our vows shall be no vows, and our oaths no oaths at
all." Schulc,han Aruch, Edit. I, 136.
(This is known as the KOL NIDRE (All Oaths) OATH. It is sung as a chant each
Yom Kippur, Jewish New Year Service (Sept. 17] and absolves a Jew from any
promises he makes during the year." How can one trust a Jewish judge, or a
Jewish politician, who takes an oath to protect the Constitution of the
United States, when we KNOW he takes this religious oath which allows him to
break his promise to the American people?)
46 people were falsely charged of "child abuse" in Wenatchee, Washington,
based on allegations a 13 year old wouldn't believe. Why did the judges
"believe" these charges anyway? The 3,000 false convictions discovered in
the Los Angeles "rampart investigations" by the FBI, which are described as
"a tip of the iceberg", would never have happened if judges obeyed the laws.
The McMartin Pre-school Trial, which took 5 years, cost we the taxpayer $8
million, and falsely imprisoned numerous innocent citizens, was based on
stories from children who claimed their entrails had been ripped out of them
and spread out on a table before them. Do you really think that a grown up
man judge would believe something a 13 year old boy wouldn't believe? This
is the Kol Nidre in action.
http://www.crosswinds.net/san-diego/~manifesto/kolnidre.htm
The Amirault convictions are equally as preposterous. The FBI studies are
even more preposterous. They show that a third of the men IN PRISON for
rape whose DNA they tested didn't even match the DNA from the "crime scene".
This should give us a clue that we have a third of the world's prison
population, NOT because we have a third of the world's crimes, but because
we have 43% of the world's Jews, AND because we only recently allowed them
to become "judges".
Should we *really* be comfortable that, contrary to almost two centuries of
requiring judges to be Christians, we allowed Jews to become judges? Or
that it happened at the very same point of time in our history that our
legal system became a *criminal* to mankind?
What other explanation could there be for why this happened?
* How jews rationalize the Kol Nidre
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/910906_Kol_Nidre.html
* A discussion of the effects of the Kol Nidre
http://x52.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=683555972&CONTEXT=972009657.8834
90827&hitnum=13
* The Encyclopaedia Britannica provides the additional key revelation
about the intentions of the Kol Nidre. ALL oaths made by jews are considered
sinful.
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/2/0,5716,46992+1+45920,00.html?que
ry=kol%20nidre
Kol Nidre
(Aramaic: "All Vows"), a prayer sung in Jewish synagogues at the beginning
of the service on the eve of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). The name,
derived from the opening words, also designates the melody to which the
prayer is traditionally chanted. Though equally ancient versions exist in
Hebrew and Aramaic, the Aramaic is generally used in the predominant
Ashkenazic and Sephardic rites. The prayer begins with an expression of
repentance for all unfulfilled vows, oaths, and promises made to God during
the year. Some Jewish authorities contend that even fulfilled vows are
included since the act of vowing itself is considered sinful.
According to some historians, forced Jewish converts to Christianity in
7th-century Spain recited the Kol Nidre to annul oaths forcibly extracted
from them by their persecutors. All that is known with certainty, however,
is that the prayer was used as early as the 8th century. Rabid anti-Semites
in the European Middle Ages, brushing aside the repeated Jewish assertion
that the absolution referred only to matters between God and man, used the
prayer as a pretext to question the trustworthiness of all oaths taken by
Jews in Christian courts. Fears of misunderstanding led to the elimination
of the Kol Nidre from the Reform Jewish liturgy in the 19th century, but a
revised form was reintroduced in 1945.
The melody to which the Kol Nidre is sung in the Ashkenazic (German) rite
became famous when the Protestant composer #6 Max Bruch used it (1880) as
the basis for variations for cello. The melody is widely popular because of
its plaintive and appealing qualities and can be heard in several variations
in different localities. Its origin is unknown, although many
unsubstantiated theories have been offered. The earliest known mention of a
specific--rather than an improvised--melody dates from the 16th century. The
earliest surviving musical notation is the work of an 18th-century cantor
(hazzan), Ahron Beer, and is closely related to the version used by Bruch.
Other composers, such as Arnold Schoenberg (1938), used the Kol Nidre melody
as a basis for musical compositions. The Sephardic (Spanish), Italian, and
Oriental Jewish traditions use their own distinct melodies that are
unrelated to the Ashkenazic melody.
<http://www.britannica.com/bcom/images/dot.gif>
Kater Moggin
>> John Knight has still failed to say where the article that
>> he claims to be quoting from was posted -- and Google still
>> showns no sign of the supposed original. Maybe JK realizes how
>> weak his case is, so he's invented an imaginary ally to
>> defend him. Only natural his pal would be handing out the same
>> brand of misinformation.
John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
> Typical jewish claptrap. You know the Talmud is indefensible so you
> create all kinds of diversionary tactics to attempt to sidetrack the
> presentation.
Heh. I've kept strictly to the point, viz. the false idea
you offered that Avodah Zarah 22a-22b insists Christians
prefer sex with cows. In reply you quoted a seemingly invented
friend who's unable to stay on-topic.
> The following are shocking but exact quotes from the
> various books of "The Talmud."
Forget about accurate, dude -- most of them aren't even in
the Talmud. There's no "Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore
Dia" found there. Also no "Schulchan Aruch," "Choszen
Hamiszpat," "Schabouth Hag.," "Simeon Haddarsen," and "Nidrasch
Talpioth." Etc. It's obvious that you're merely
cut-and-pasting propaganda without any idea what you're talking
about.
Kater Moggin
>>> This phrase of "Christian prefer sex with cows" isn't the only
>>> statement of hatred that the Talmud makes about Christians.
Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>> Note that John Knight has been unable to show anywhere the
>> Talmud contends that "Christians prefer sex with cows."
>> Seems as if he'd rather repeat his mistake than admit the truth.
JK:
> You just didn't pay attention, Moggin.
I paid close attention. I even looked up the passage that
you referred to, viz. Avodah Zarah 22a-22b. It didn't have
the statement "Christians prefer sex with cows." It quoted one
rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi who claimed something
along those lines was true of heathens, meaning idolators. And
it quoted other rabbis who disagreed.
> TheTalmud has the unique distinction of being one of the few books in the
> world that carries the death penalty if studied by non-Jews. This is
> stated in Sanhedrin 59a. Soncino edition Talmud p. 400.
That's another falsehood. Sanhedrin 59a gives the opinion
of one rabbi, named Johanan, who states, "A heathen who
studies the Torah deserves death." No indication he's speaking
literally, and in any case he's strongly disputed by several
other rabbis quoted in the same passage, one of whom -- a fella
called Rabbi Meier -- argues exactly the opposite. In his
view, "Even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest."
> A footnote to this passage
> (#3) states that the rabbis feared that if Gentiles had knowledge of the
> Talmud they would use it against the Jews in courts of law.
Yet another distortion. Footnote 3 suggests Rabbi Johanan
-- not "the rabbis" in general -- was worried about how
Gentiles might use their knowledge of the Talmud, and it offers
the above as one possible explanation of his very strong
language, which it says is "of course not to be taken literally."
> The footnote
> also states that the death penalty for studying the Talmud was
> specifically intended for Christians because the 'possession of the Oral
> Law (Talmud) was held to be the distinguishing mark of the Jews."
Another lie. Again, there's no death penalty for studying
the Talmud: only the opinion of one rabbi, not to be taken
literally, according to the notes, and disputed by other rabbis
quoted in the same passage.
Speculating about that one rabbis' feelings, the note says
he might have been objecting "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."
> Auburn 21b (p. 149-150). The commands of the rabbis are more important
> than the commands of the Bible.
Another falsehood. Eiruvin 21b does not say the commands
of the rabbis are more important than the commands of the
Bible. A rabbi there claims observing the words of the Scribes
takes more care than ditto the words of the Torah.
> Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and
> will be punished by being boiled in hot execrement in hell.
Yet another lie. Eiruvin 21b gives the opinion of a rabbi
who says, "He who scoffs at the words of the Sages will be
condemned to boiling excrements," then quotes another rabbi who
completely disagrees: "Is it written: Śscoffingą? The
expression is Śstudyą! Rather, this is the exposition: He who
studies them feels the taste of meat."
> Moed Kattan 17a (p. 107). If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a
> city where he is not known and do the evil there.
A distortion of the text, which refers to a rabbi who says
that if you realize you're under the sway of evil -- not
merely "tempted to do evil," but in its grip -- then you should
dress in black clothes, put on a black coat, and perform the
black action somewhere you're unknown, "rather than profane the
name of Heaven openly."
I could go on, but that's plenty to show what kind of lies
and half-truths you're peddling.
Kater Moggin
>> Interestingly enough, Google doesn't show any other copies
>> of the article John claims to be quoting: only the one he
>> posted here. That explains why he won't say where the original
>> appeared -- he invented an imaginary friend to defend his
>> equally imaginary Talmud quotation. Of course his make-believe
>> ally is just as unreliable. Neither "Iore Dea" nor "Orach
>> Chaiim" is in the Talmud. And John's notion about Avodah Zarah
>> 22 remains false.
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com>:
[...]
Let's re-cap. You falsely suggested that according to the
Talmud, Christains prefer sex with cows. The passage you
pointed to, Avodah Zarah 22, offers one unnamed rabbi's opinion
about the sexual preferences of idolators, and then quotes
several other rabbis who disagree with him. If you gave a damn
about the truth, you'd admit you were wrong.
Instead you've decided to paste in reams of standard-issue
propaganda -- all of it easily available at anti-Semitic
websites -- claiming it's from an ally you've never named. The
cut-and-paste job is filled with bone-headed mistakes, like
for example the claim that "Iore Dea" and "Orach Chaiim" are in
the Talmud.
I've detailed some of the other lies and distortions which
you're offering in a nearby post. It's funny, in a way:
you're trying to defend one false claim by tacking on literally
dozens of others.
John Knight
The question you will never answer, Royce, is why it is that a fellow
jew Karl Pearlstein believes that Christians DO prefer sex with cows?
Do you think he got this idea out of the Encyclopedia Britannica, or
the Talmud?:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: CARL PEARLSTON
Subject: Kol Nidre
The Guttmacher Institute study, which is the most credible, puts
homosexuality around 3%; some estimate it a bit higher, some a bit
lower.
Everyone, including myself, discount the Kinsey 10% figure. I have no
idea
what percentage of males engages in sex relations with animals, but I
recall
a story about Sal Mineo and his dog that made the rounds several years
ago.
If Kinsey says 17%, maybe its 3x too high, and the number is 5% or
less--I
have no idea. The point is not what I believe is the percent of
Christians
or others who engage in bestiality. I have no idea and know no one
personally who does, but there are web sites galore with pornographic
pictures of such activity that pop up if you enter that search word in
your
browser, so it cannot be an unknown practice as you suggest. The point
is
that the Encyclopedia Britannica gives the 17% figure. You choose not
to
believe it; fine, go argue with the Encyclopedia or the Kinsey
Institute or
do your own study. The point is that you seem to believe that the
Talmud and
the Torah prohibitions on bestiality came out of thin air and are a
slur on
unknown people, having nothing to do with the practices of the
societies in
which the Jews found themselves; you are wrong, and you should be
honest
enough to admit it instead of descending to ad hominem attacks, which
is
really all you have done.
Carl
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above statement is not an indictment of the sexual mores of this
putative Christian nation, because most normal citizens recognize
that:
1) As a Christian nation, we have laws against bestiality.
2) Those who engage in bestiality are shunned and punished.
3) Bestiality is not as common a practice in this putative Christian
nation as Carl would like to have you believe.
4) Christians are about the last people you would expect to engage in
bestiality.
5) Even amongst the rare minority that engages in bestiality, cows
can't be too high on the list.
6) The last case of bestiality we've heard of that involved cows was 4
years ago, it didn't involve an American, as a Swede his odds of being
a Christian were pretty low, and I'd bet that not even you jews can
prove that he "prefers sex with cows".
Not only does such a writing in a "religious" document defy common
sense, but it's inflammatory and intentionally incendiary. Such
semantics obviously inflamed Karl Pearlstein's sense of the community
he lives in, because he BELIEVES it.
Of course you would deny that this is the purpose of this writing.
But of course Karl believed it anyway. You can deny it until the cows
come home (pretty brown eyes, and everything), but you cannot deny
that this passage had its intended effect on at least ONE jew.
oops, wrong. Of course you can continue to deny it. Anyone who
thinks that the mere presence of a woman in the genealogy of a race
invalidates all the laws of that race can be *counted on* to deny it.
Only your fellow jews, who are only 0.25% of the world population,
will fail to see right through this charade. The other 99.75% of us
already know enough about the Talmud to realize that it's the entire
problem with the jewish "race" and why 86 nations before us burned
that screed and booted you jews out.
John Knight
ps--this is from The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion
Oxford University Press 1997
The burning of the Talmud occurs every two or three centuries
The Burning of the Talmud. In the year 1240, the apostate Nicholas
Donin laid a charge before the authorities in Northern France that the
Talmud contained blasphemies against Jesus. The Jews were compelled
to surrender their copies of the Talmud pending clarification of the
charge; this took the form of the Disputation of Paris, at the end
of which Louis IX ordered that all copies of the Talmud be confiscated
and burned. Twenty-four cartloads were consigned to the flames in
1242. The occasion was commemorated in R. Me'ir ben Barukh of
Rothernburg's dirge Sha'ali Serufah be-'Esh, which was subsequently
included in the dirge of the Ashkenazi rite recited on 9 Av. The
precedent of 1242 was followed in later centuries; instances of Talmud
burning are recorded in Italy, Poland, and elsewhere. After 1242 the
popes continued to advocate burning the Talmud. In general, although
censored, the Talmud was not burned on a large scale until a renewed
order in 1552 by Pope Julius III led to a big bonfire in Rome
(commemorated thereafter by an annual fast among the Jews of Rome),
followed by many others in Italy under the instructions of the
Inquisition. It was reported that in Venice over a thousand copies of
the Talmud and other sacred literature were burned. The last such
public burning was held in Kamieniec-Podolski in Poland in 1757, when
a thousand copies were put into a pit and burned following a
disputation between the Jews and the Frankists (see Frank, Ya'aqov),
who played a leading role in hunting down copies of the Talmud for
incineration.
*Salo W. Barojn, "The Burning of the Talmud in 1553, in Light of
Sixteenth-Century Catholic Attitudes toward the Talmud,", in Essential
Papers on Judaism and Christianity in Conflict; From Late Antiquity to
the Reformation (New York, 1991). Solomon Grayzel, The Church and the
Jews in the XIIIth Century (New York, 1966).
Ninure Saunders
johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
<snip loes>
Two Questions:
(1) Can you say: In God's sight, a white man and a black man are equally
precious.
(2) Bam you say: If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all, or
almost all, the Jews, that would be a terrible sin.
Would you pause in your diatribes long enough to make these two statements?
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/ninure
The world's second most subversive document
http://www.geocities.com/ninure/declaration.html
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
> Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>
> >> John Knight has still failed to say where the article that
> >> he claims to be quoting from was posted -- and Google still
> >> showns no sign of the supposed original. Maybe JK realizes how
> >> weak his case is, so he's invented an imaginary ally to
> >> defend him. Only natural his pal would be handing out the same
> >> brand of misinformation.
>
>
> > Typical jewish claptrap. You know the Talmud is indefensible so you
> > create all kinds of diversionary tactics to attempt to sidetrack the
> > presentation.
>
> prefer sex with cows. In reply you quoted a seemingly invented
> friend who's unable to stay on-topic.
>
> > various books of "The Talmud."
>
> Dia" found there. Also no "Schulchan Aruch," "Choszen
> Hamiszpat," "Schabouth Hag.," "Simeon Haddarsen," and "Nidrasch
> Talpioth." Etc. It's obvious that you're merely
> cut-and-pasting propaganda without any idea what you're talking
> about.
>
> -- Moggin
You never did answser the question about what percent of the US population
Karl Pearlstein believes are Christians who "prefer sex with cows".
Why not? Don't you think this is at all important?
Karl claimed that 17% of Americans engage in this practice. You know that
93% of Americans claim to be Christians. As a min and a max, what
percentage of the Christians in this country do you believe Karl believes
engage in this practice?
John Knight
John Knight
> John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
>
> >>> This phrase of "Christian prefer sex with cows" isn't the only
> >>> statement of hatred that the Talmud makes about Christians.
>
>
> >> Note that John Knight has been unable to show anywhere the
> >> Talmud contends that "Christians prefer sex with cows."
> >> Seems as if he'd rather repeat his mistake than admit the truth.
>
> JK:
>
> > You just didn't pay attention, Moggin.
>
> I paid close attention. I even looked up the passage that
> you referred to, viz. Avodah Zarah 22a-22b. It didn't have
> the statement "Christians prefer sex with cows." It quoted one
> rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi who claimed something
> along those lines was true of heathens, meaning idolators. And
> it quoted other rabbis who disagreed.
Let's answer the question for you, Moggin-the-Talmud-Denier.
Karl Pearlstein claims that 17% of Americans engage in this practice.
93% of Americans claim to be Christians.
As a max, he could be claiming that all 17% of Americans who engage in this
practice are Christians. As a min, he could be claiming that 7% of this 17%
are the non-Christians, and that the other 10% is made up of Christians.
This is 29 million to 49 million Christians whom Karl believes engage in
this practice.
Now, I really do NOT care what the Talmud says, nor how effectively you jews
have managed to mangle the English language. What I DO care is that at
least one of you 6 million jews, who are guests in this putative Christian
nation, "think" that 29-49 million of my fellow Christians "engage in this
practice".
You can weasel word until the cows come home, Moggin-the-Talmud-Denier, but
absolutely nothing you ever say about the Talmud will EVER make sense,
UNLESS you explain how Karl got this attitude about the citizens in his host
Christian nation.
John Knight
John Knight
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@user-105nes6.dialup.mindspring.
com...
> In article <ed80adae.02050...@posting.google.com>,
> johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
> Two Questions:
>
>
> (1) Can you say: In God's sight, a white man and a black man are equally
> precious.
>
Not being God, Ninure, we're certainly not going to second guess what He
might think, but Christians in this putative Christian nation certainly can
asssure you that we demand our God given right to associate freely with
whomever we choose to associate, and we don't like niggers and jews and DO
NOT choose to associate with them.
On what basis do you believe you can deny us that right?
"You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor
or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor",
Leviticus 19:15
"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well
as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the
judgment is God's", Deuteronomy 1:17
"...we command you, brethren, on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which he received of us", 2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship
hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
> (2) Bam you say: If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all, or
> almost all, the Jews, that would be a terrible sin.
>
> Would you pause in your diatribes long enough to make these two
statements?
>
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
A far greater sin is the jewish mass hysteria media hype about why this
putative Christian nation should participate in the slaughter of fellow
Christians and Muslims in Palestine, or bomb the children of innocent dirt
farmers in Afghanistan to oblivion because they might know someone who heard
something about somebody wanting to drop the WTC, or why we should engage in
WWIII on behalf of the jews to fight THEIR eternal enemies.
It is a fact of life, something way, way beyond the control of any
individual or country, that jews have NEVER, and will NEVER, comprehend that
for every act like this that they perpetrate against others, it comes back
at them 100 fold.
This is exactly why 86 nations before us finally got FED UP with the jews
and scatted them out.
John Knight
John Knight
colors );
Sincerely,
John
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Willie Martin
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:46 AM
Subject: Fact Sheet about Talmud
John he is just a damn jew doing what they do and that is trying to get
you off on to something else. He knows you are right but he is too much of a
child of the devil to admit it.
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-F969CD....@netnews.attbi.com...
> John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
>
> > Here is an update from the previous post
>
> John Knight has still failed to say where the article that
> he claims to be quoting from was posted -- and Google still
> showns no sign of the supposed original. Maybe JK realizes how
> weak his case is, so he's invented an imaginary ally to
> defend him. Only natural his pal would be handing out the same
> brand of misinformation.
>
> -- Moggin
Typical jewish claptrap. You know the Talmud is indefensible so you create
all kinds of diversionary tactics to attempt to sidetrack the presentation.
ho, hum.
So, back to the subject at hand: The facts about the Talmud. Following is
a slightly different perspective from another member of the forum.
John Knight
Like you, at one time I believed that the essential difference between Jews
and Christians was that the Jews believed in the Old Testament and the
Christians believed in the New Testament. The truth is that their "real
bible" is The Talmud. The Jewish book "The Mitzbeach" states that "there is
nothing superior to 'Holy Talmud'." While the Jews profess to be attached to
the Old Testament to the outside world, the real essence of the Jewish creed
is not the Old Testament as such, not the books of Moses, but The Talmud.
There are several branches of Jewry such as the Orthodox, Reform, Liberal,
Conservative, Sephardim, Ashkanazim, Zionist, etc., but they all use The
Talmud in their synagogues, just as all different branches of Christians use
the same Bible. The Talmud is made up of 63 books in 524 chapters and is
often printed in 18 large volumes. It was written by Rabbis between the
years 200AD and 500AD. It basically contains all the Jewish laws in their
relationships between each other, and also in relationship of the Jews
towards the Gentiles. Eight Catholic popes condemned the Talmud. Martin
Luther, founder of the Protestant Church, ordered it burned. Pope Clement
VIII declared, "The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of
the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned
and prohibited and this law must be perpetually observed." The Talmud holds
that only Jews are true human beings and Gentiles are "goyim" (meaning
cattle or beast). The following are shocking but exact quotes from the
various books of "The Talmud."
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
Royce Buehler
In article <3cd0c...@nopics.sjc>,
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
>
> My, my, Royce, suddenly you as a "born again Christian" sure do seem to
> "know" a lot about the Talmud.
This time, the lies you reposted were a repeat of a piece I'd
already seen, and therefore had a chance to research, a few years back.
I notice that you weren't able to back up a single one of the
claims I designated as lies with an actual quote from the Talmud.
Your sole defense of your lies is your assertion that I am Jewish
(a lie in its own right), and therefore not to be trusted. Even
when you are lying, and I am telling the truth, you believe people
should trust you, for the sole reason that no one has "accused" you
of being Jewish.
*You* claim to "know" a lot about the Talmud. Your motivation is
that you want to kill millions of innocent people. I don't know
much about the Talmud - but I do know enough to refute a representative
sample of your lies. My motivation is that I want to defend those
innocent people from slander.
My motivation is the motivation of a born again Christian. Your
motivation is the motivation of a servant of Satan. Saint Paul
assures you in I Corinthians that no murderer will enter the kingdom
of heaven.
> After you claimed that Ruth's descendants are no longer subject to Israeli
> law because Ruth was a woman it's REALLY going to be a tough choice between
> you and Rev. Pranaitis, eh?
Again, you're lying about what I said. Let me say it one more time,
really slow.
Ruth was a Moabite, just as the Bible says. Ruth converted to Judaism.
The law that no Moabite shall enter the congregation applied to her.
She did not enter the congregation - only males were members of the
congregation.
Once she converted to Judaism, she became an Israelite. Her children
were therefore Israelites. The law that no Moabite shall enter the
congregation applied to them - but was irrelevant, since they were
born Jews, Israelites, not Moabites, on account of their mother's
conversion.
Now, if Ruth had been the Israelite to begin with, and her husband
Boaz had been the Moabite, the law would *also* have applied. In
that case, Boaz being male, neither Boaz nor his descendants to
the tenth generation would have been permitted to join the congregation.
So, contrary to your continual misrepresentation, I have been saying
all along that Ruth and her descendants *were* subject to Israelite
law. I just have a different view than you have of the particular
set of persons to which a particular law was intended to apply.
My view is consistent with the biblical fact that Ruth was a Moabite
who converted to Judaism. Yours is not consistent with those
biblical facts.
> Which do you think I'm going to trust?
You will trust no one unless they give you permission to kill
millions of Jews, and enslave billions of people with darker
skin than yours. So of course you will not trust me - any more
than you will trust Jesus, who doesn't give you permission to
commit those crimes, either.
That is foolish on your part. You ought to turn your back on
the Identity death cult, and begin trusting Jesus.
Royce Buehler
In article <3cd0c4d4$1...@nopics.sjc>,
> proceedings during the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 concerning the
> statement of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN at the convention concerning Jewish
> immigration. (Original in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia.)
This "quote" is a complete fabrication.
Notice that he says it's "in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia".
He isn't going to tell you where to find it in Franklin's complete
works, which can probably be found at your local library - because
it isn't in Franklin's complete works.
No, it's supposedly hiding out under lock and key in a remote city.
This is a clever way of making it very difficult to check up on
your lie, John. But if Franklin really said it, it would be in
his published works.
He didn't really say it. This quotation is a forgery which first
appeared in the 1930s.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_intro.html
John Knight is a slanderer, a compulsive liar, and a would-be
mass murderer. Anyone who has any doubt about whether he is
spreading lies is invited to write to the Franklin Institute in
Philadelphia, and ask whether they have a copy of a 1789
document in which Franklin warned against Jewish immigration.
They are at:
Franklin Institute Science Museum.
222 North 20th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-1194
Observe that John Knight didn't tell you how to contact them.
He hasn't contacted them. He has never seen this non-existent
document. He doesn't want you to contact them. He doesn't want
you to know the truth. I do.
Mr. Knight will now explain that the Franklin Institute has been
secretly taken over by an attack squad of evil Jooooooooz,
and is therefore hiding this document from you. <Shrug> Just
like he thinks the evil Joooooooz re-wrote the Bible so that it
talks about the Jew Jesus, and the Jews Peter and Paul, and the
Jews Esther and Mordecai.
If we didn't have Mr. Knight around to tell us so, none of us would
ever know that the Joooooooz are more powerful than God, and secretly
in control of the banking system, and the White House, and all
Bible publishing houses back to the second century, and all
the Bible commentators from Augustine to Moody. Somehow, darn it,
they've managed to sneak into my library, and change the text of
the Talmud, so that it doesn't say "Christians prefer sex with cows"
anymore. And somehow, darn it, they've managed to sneak into the
copy of the Talmud in your library and change it, too. But "John
Knight" and "Rice Chek" have the only copies of the Talmud left around
that haven't been secretly tampered with, and *their* copies, he
tells us, have the words "Christians prefer sex with cows" in them.
Well, whoop de doo. Since John thinks the Jews are in control of essentially
everything, and all his "evidence" gets mysteriously and secretly
destroyed just before anyone (except him and his let's-kill-the-
Jews-and-enslave-the-niggers buddies) looks at it -- how are we to
know, Mr. Knight, that *you* are not controlled by the Jews?
Maybe you are really a Jewish plant, put here to make such ridiculously
stupid anti-Semitic statements, that anti-Semitism itself winds up
looking even dorkier than it is. Maybe they are controlling your
brain waves even now, without your realizing it!
Be afraid, Mr. "Knight." Be very afraid. LOL!
John Knight
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:3cd0c4d4$1...@nopics.sjc...
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
news:3cd18e36$0$3935$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> > proceedings during the drafting of the Constitution in 1789 concerning
the
> > statement of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN at the convention concerning Jewish
> > immigration. (Original in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia.)
>
> This "quote" is a complete fabrication.
>
> Notice that he says it's "in the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia".
> He isn't going to tell you where to find it in Franklin's complete
> works, which can probably be found at your local library - because
> it isn't in Franklin's complete works.
>
> No, it's supposedly hiding out under lock and key in a remote city.
> This is a clever way of making it very difficult to check up on
> your lie, John. But if Franklin really said it, it would be in
> his published works.
<snip>
> Maybe you are really a Jewish plant, put here to make such ridiculously
> stupid anti-Semitic statements, that anti-Semitism itself winds up
> looking even dorkier than it is. Maybe they are controlling your
> brain waves even now, without your realizing it!
>
> Be afraid, Mr. "Knight." Be very afraid. LOL!
The problem, Royce, is that what Mr. Franklin wrote about the jews is
entirely consistent with what Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Washington wrote about
them
John Knight
http://christianparty.net/tj.htm
Thomas Jefferson on the Talmud
"What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed
before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to
collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield,
B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals
which Jesus undertook.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on Calvinism
"Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of
the Jews."
"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those
calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the
structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any
foundation in his genuine words."
"Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of
the Jews. But the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and
substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the
chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the
Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of
the 1st. chapter of John, in these words, `{en arche en o logos, kai o logos
en pros ton Theon kai Theos en o logos. `otos en en arche pros ton Theon.
Panta de ayto egeneto, kai choris ayto egeneto ode en, o gegonen}. Which
truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind)
was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All
things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was
made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the
world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by
modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a
mistranslation of the word {logos}."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on Quakerism
Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there stated;
that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the
Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who
professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for
enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State;
that the purest system of morals ever before preached to man, has been
adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions, into a mere
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not
being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down
their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves
are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of
Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on Christianity
Because of his influence, the Virginia Constitution contains, to this day,
the direct reference to Christianity
http://legis.state.va.us/vaonline/li1a.htm
"That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force
or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free
exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it
is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and
charity towards each other."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on jews
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES OF JESUS, COMPARED
WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God.
But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.
2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with
the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with
those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations.
They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on the First Amendment
"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had,
to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of
reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in
the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that
it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble
declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of
our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus
Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ,
the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great
majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's
protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the
Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on exiling the slaves
But as this would be no punishment or change of condition to slaves (me
miserum!) let them be sent to other countries. By these means we should be
freed from the wickedness of the latter, & the former would be living
monuments of public vengeance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on the degraded state of jews
JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS, To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Washington, Apr. 9,
1803, 1803040
DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from
you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself
of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had
in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the
subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with
Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter
giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it
since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a
general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient
philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an
estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca,
Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated
well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient.
should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in
what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a
reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines
of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of
morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and
juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to
the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief
of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his
divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary
to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been
committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by
memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten,
much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the
fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of
morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever
taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient
philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury
from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured
and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest,
so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system
in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the
most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been
exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less
the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in
contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best,
and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together
with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole
subject. I have not heard particularly what is the state of your health; but
as it has been equal to the journey to Philadelphia, perhaps it might
encourage the curiosity you must feel to see for once this place, which
nature has formed on a beautiful scale, and circumstances destine for a
great one. As yet we are but a cluster of villages; we cannot offer you the
learned society of Philadelphia; but you will have that of a few characters
whom you esteem, & a bed & hearty welcome with one who will rejoice in every
opportunity of testifying to you his high veneration & affectionate
attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson on the degraded state of jews
THE CODE OF JESUS, To John Adams, Monticello, Oct. 12, 1813, 1813101
DEAR SIR -- Since mine of Aug. 22. I have recieved your favors of Aug. 16.
Sep. 2. 14. 15. and -- and Mrs. Adams's of Sep. 20. I now send you,
according to your request a copy of the Syllabus. To fill up this skeleton
with arteries, with veins, with nerves, muscles and flesh, is really beyond
my time and information. Whoever could undertake it would find great aid in
Enfield's judicious abridgment of Brucker's history of Philosophy, in which
he has reduced 5. or 6. quarto vols. of 1000. pages each of Latin closely
printed, to two moderate 8 vos. of English, open, type.
To compare the morals of the old, with those of the new testament, would
require an attentive study of the former, a search thro' all it's books for
it's precepts, and through all it's history for it's practices, and the
principles they prove. Ascommentaries too on these, the philosophy of the
Hebrews must be enquired into, their Mishna, their Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah,
Sohar, Cosri, and their Talmud must be examined and understood, in order to
do them full justice. Brucker, it should seem, has gone deeply into these
Repositories of their ethics, and Enfield, his epitomiser, concludes in
these words:
`Ethics were so little studied among the Jews, that, in their whole
compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects.
Their books of Morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties.
From the law of Moses were deduced 613. precepts, which were divided into
two classes, affirmative and negative, 248 in the former, and 365 in the
latter. It may serve to give the reader some idea of the low state of moral
philosophy among the Jews in the Middle age, to add, that of the 248.
affirmative precepts, only 3. were considered as obligatory upon women; and
that, in order to obtain salvation, it was judged sufficient to fulfill any
one single law in the hour of death; the observance of the rest being deemed
necessary, only to increase the felicity of the future life. What a wretched
depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt
maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these
writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3.
It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus
undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have
to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by
priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of
riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the
Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics,
their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons
male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at
once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists,
select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the
Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not
understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions
as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not
understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and
benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed
this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed
book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as
easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of
46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and
acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the
Christians of the (Page 1302) 1st. century. Their Platonising successors
indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they
had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow
the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of
Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They
excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the
opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Thomas Jefferson's excellent critique of jewish double talk
To John Adams, Monticello, Apr. 8, 1816, 1816040
I have been lately amusing myself with Levi's book in answer to Dr.
Priestley. It is a curious and tough work. His style is inelegant and
incorrect, harsh and petulent to his adversary, and his reasoning flimsey
enough. Some of his doctrines were new to me, particularly that of his two
resurrections: the first a particular one of all the dead, in body as well
as soul, who are to live over again, the Jews in a state of perfect
obedience to god, the other nations in a state of corporeal punishment for
the sufferings they have inflicted on the Jews. And he explains this
resurrection of bodies to be only of the original stamen of Leibnitz, or the
homunculus in semine masculino, considering that as a mathematical point,
insusceptible of separation, or division. The second resurrection a general
one of souls and bodies, eternally to enjoy divine glory in the presence of
the supreme being. He alledges that the Jews alone preserve the doctrine of
the unity of god.
Yet their god would be deemed a very indifferent man with us: and it was to
correct their Anamorphosis of the deity that Jesus preached, as well as to
establish the doctrine of a future state. However Levi insists that that was
taught in the old testament, and even by Moses himself and the prophets. He
agrees that an anointed prince was prophecied and promised: but denies that
the character and history of Jesus has any analogy with that of the person
promised. He must be fearfully embarrassing to the Hierophants of fabricated
Christianity; because it is their own armour in which he clothes himself for
the attack. For example, he takes passages of Scripture from their context
(which would give them a very different meaning) strings them together, and
makes them point towards what object he pleases; he interprets them
figuratively, typically, analogically, hyperbolically; he calls in the aid
of emendation, transposition, ellipsis, metonymy, and every other figure of
rhetoric; the name of one man is taken for another, one place for another,
days and weeks for months and years; and finally avails himself of all his
advantage over his adversaries by his superior knolege of the Hebrew,
speaking in the very language of the divine communication, while they can
only fumble on with conflicting and disputed translations.
Royce Buehler
In article <ed80adae.02050...@posting.google.com>,
johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) writes:
> > > * ex. gr. in Maien ieschua, fol. 66b
> > > ** cf. I. Buxtorf in Abbrev. Jeschu: "The jews among themselves do not say
> > > Jeschu, but Isschu,
> >
> > What are these texts you are quoting? (Or, more likely, misquoting?)
> > There is no "ex. gr." or "Maien ieschua", or "I. Buxtorf" in the
> > Talmud, so even if you were breaking with your training and
> > quoting *something* accurately, it has no bearing on the contents of
> > the Talmud, and no place in a post titled "Fact Sheet about Talmud."
I observe that John has no answer. He has, in fact, not the slightest
idea what text he is quoting, or pretending to quote. He is just
blindly re-posting random stuff he's found on anti-Semitic websites.
He doesn't care what they mean, he doesn't care where they're from, he
doesn't care whether they're true or false. So long as he gets to
say nasty things about Jews, he's happy.
> The question you will never answer, Royce, is why it is that a fellow
> jew Karl Pearlstein
Are you capable of typing a full sentence without interjecting lies?
Your sentence isn't even over and you've already lied three times.
First, I *will* answer your question, ONCE, and do so below. I will not
return to the topic, because what one Jew does or doesn't believe is
irrelevant to whether, as YOU believe, all Jews should be killed.
Second, I myself am not a Jew, by birth or by belief, but a born-again
Christian of mostly German ancestry.
Third, the gentleman's name is Carl, not Karl. Pearlston, not
Pearlstein. Refusing to call people by their given names (like your
occasional addresses to me as "Bryce") is a pretty childish way of
proving your desire to be obnoxious at all costs.
> believes that Christians DO prefer sex with cows?
The topic you are posting under is "Fact Sheet About Talmud." The
claim you are making is that all Jews believe that Christians prefer
sex with cows, because the Talmud tells them so. Whether one Jew
happens to believe those things is irrelevant to whether it's in
the Talmud (which it certainly isn't), and to whether Jews typically
believe it (which they certainly don't.)
I haven't bothered to answer, because it is totally irrelevant.
If you *really* want to start a new thread called "Somewhere there
is some Jew who thinks Christians prefer sex with cows", feel free.
If you want to explain why that would justify your agenda of
killing all the Jews, we'd all love to hear you expound on that.
> Do you think he got this idea out of the Encyclopedia Britannica, or
> the Talmud?:
As your own post shows, not even Carl Pearlston believes that Christians
prefer sex with animals. He simply believes that many Gentiles sometimes
*have* sex with animals. Oddly enough, the Bible agrees with him.
It calls sex with animals an "abomination" - and in Deuteronomy it says
of the Gentiles "all these abominations they do for the sake of their
gods."
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> From: CARL PEARLSTON
> Subject: Kol Nidre
>
> The Guttmacher Institute study, which is the most credible, puts
> homosexuality around 3%; some estimate it a bit higher, some a bit
> lower.
> Everyone, including myself, discount the Kinsey 10% figure. I have no
> idea
> what percentage of males engages in sex relations with animals,
Get it? He "has no idea what percentage" of males engage in sex
with animals. He is only asserting that some do, and that the assertion
that a fair number do is widely believed by those who have done
research on human sexual behavior.
> If Kinsey says 17%, maybe its 3x too high, and the number is 5% or
> less--I
> have no idea.
So he is explicitly *disavowing* a belief in the 17% figure. And he
is not talking about how many "Christians prefer" the practice, but
how many Gentile males, whether Christians or not, have engaged in
the practice at one time or another. Presumably those farm boys
would much prefer a human partner, but the animal was handy.
> it cannot be an unknown practice as you suggest. The point
> is
> that the Encyclopedia Britannica gives the 17% figure. You choose not
> to
> believe it; fine, go argue with the Encyclopedia or the Kinsey
> Institute
Again, neither Pearlston nor the Encyclopedia Britannica claims
that *anyone* "prefers" sex with animals - only that they sometimes
engage in it. Neither Pearlstein nor the Encyclopedia Britannica
states that "Christians" engage in it - only that some not insignificant
percentage of Americans do so.
You are lying about what Mr. Pearlston actually said. That scarcely
matters, since no one Mr. Pearlston comes in contact with is likely
to believe you. And that's why I will not respond to further baiting
on the question. You are also lying about what the Talmud says. That
matters, since you intend to use those lies to recruit people to
your little Identity murder cult.
Abandon the murder cult. Let go of your hatred. You have to let go
of it sooner or later, because, like anyone else, if you are ever
going to come to Jesus, you are going to have to come to Him with
empty hands.
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
To: johnk...@usa.com
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Fact Sheet about Talmud
> "Joni Ferris" <jfe...@mindspring.com> stated:
> "And why? Here's why:
>
> Because they come from families who are Pagan idolaters, ones who
> worshiped rocks, lived in filth for centuries while Jewish people had
> civilization. Then their families got "converted" from worshiping
> rocks to worshiping a "jew" except these Stupid Pagans did not
> understand the Torah, so they didn't know what they were reading."
John, we're missing a perfect point in evidence by not pointing out Joni's
"expert" opinion of Jews calling Christians pagans. Therefore, the Talmud is
accurately translated as stating: "Christians prefer sex with cattle." She
then goes on to dictate to us Christians the following:
> "The smart righteous Gentiles do not act like Nazis. They are
> NOT Jealous. They keep the 7 Noachide Laws. They do NOT
> persecute Jews. It is the stupid gentiles who don't."
What more evidence do we need? Joni confirms everything we have been stating
and has given us admittance of the existence of Noachide Laws and a Jewish
conspiracy to replace our Ten Commandments with their ungodly laws. And
isn't quite interesting the Jews of this post want so much to know who I am?
They wish for another Bolshevik massacre. So, they're collecting names.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Excellent points, eh, Moggin? And this confirmation is STRAIGHT from a
fellow jew, too.
Does it all make sense to you now? Or is your fellow jew Joni a LIAR?
John Knight
John Knight
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
This was HIS reference, and he only quoted this reference to PROVE his
claim, which was "17% of American males are estimated to have practiced this
at least once".
From: "CARL PEARLSTON" <cbp...@access1.net>
To: "John Knight" <fathersm...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Bestiality and Kol Nidre
> John, where do you get your history? Haven't you ever heard the old Greek
> myths of Leda and the Swan, and
> Europa and the Bull? Where do you think those came from, if no one
> practiced bestiality? Note that 17% of American males are estimated to
have
> practiced this at least once. I've attached a few notes from the
> Encyclopedia Britannica, which should be authoritative enough for anyone.
> Why haven't you taken the trouble to check this out? Why do you consider
> this a slur on gentiles, when it is just a matter of historical fact that
> bestiality and homosexuality were fairly common in the Middle East, and
the
> Jews condemned both in their Bible and forbade the practice.
Did you catch that question, Royce? "Why do you consider this a slur on
gentiles, when it is just a matter of historical fact that bestiality and
homosexuality ..."?
So our question to you as a "born again Christian" would be: why you would
be soooooo upset that we would merely note that "it is just a matter of
historical fact that [jews always claim] that bestiality and homosexuality"
are a common trait of gentiles?
Who are "gentiles"? Why, Joni the jew has your answer all laid out for you
already, Royce.
John Knight
To: johnk...@usa.com
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 10:51 AM
Subject: Re:
Joni jfe...@mindspring.com stated:
John Knight
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
>
> > After you claimed that Ruth's descendants are no longer subject to
Israeli
> > law because Ruth was a woman it's REALLY going to be a tough choice
between
> > you and Rev. Pranaitis, eh?
>
> really slow.
>
> Ruth was a Moabite, just as the Bible says. Ruth converted to Judaism.
> The law that no Moabite shall enter the congregation applied to her.
> She did not enter the congregation - only males were members of the
> congregation.
>
> Once she converted to Judaism, she became an Israelite. Her children
> were therefore Israelites. The law that no Moabite shall enter the
> congregation applied to them - but was irrelevant, since they were
> born Jews, Israelites, not Moabites, on account of their mother's
> conversion.
>
Pastor Jones makes an excellent point about your STUPID claim that jews were
somehow associated with Israelites.
If jews think they are descendants of Moses, then why do they DEMAND that
the Ten Commandments that Moses delivered on stone tablets be REMOVED from
every building in this putative Christian nation that a STUPID jew ever
sees?
John Knight
--- Bob Jones <dragon...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> Gee, The 10 Commandments are "offensive to
> jews"!?!?!? To all the Brainwashed & Brain-dead jew
> lovers & jew worshiping jew-day-o/so called
> Christians let me ask you a "LOGICAL QUESTION", I
> KNOW THIS IS A BIG STRAIN ON YOUR LITTLE BOOZE
> SOAKED BRAIN, BUT HERE GOES, "If the jews are who
> they claim to be, (The True Hebrew & Israelites of
> the Scripture) & their God gave them the 10
> Commandments thru Moses, why are they offended by
> something their God gave them??? I know, it is too
> tough of a question, so I will give you the answer;
> the jews are "IMPOSTERS", "LIARS", "DECEIVERS", they
> are not the Hebrew & Israelites of the Scripture,
> but have stolen the Identity of the True Hebrews &
> Israelites which are the White Race!!! Logically,
> for the few jew-day-o's that would understand that,
> the next question would be "If the jews are not the
> Hebrews & Israelites of the Scripture, who are
> they??? Don't worry, I will give you the answer, as
> I know 2 questions in a row is way too much for the
> jew-day-o's to handle! The jews are the children of
> satan, (Yahshua said so in John 8:44!) & their god
> is really their father satan which is why the 10
> Commandments is "offensive" to the jews! Isn't that
> simple? I know you have to go to the nearest bar now
> & have a few 6 packs after that "Revelation", or go
> running down the street yelling & screaming to your
> local whore house church & ask the phony clergy to
> tell you that the TRUTH isn't so & you have been
> "living a lie" all this time & have been a
> "unwilling & unknowing" stooge of the jews!!! They
> say the TRUTH Hurts! True, BUT it is far better to
> know the TRUTH then to keep living a LIE!!! As far
> as the 10 Commandments being "offensive" to the
> jews, GOOD, & WHO CARES!!! I KNOW THEY ARE OFFENSIVE
> TO SATAN & HIS KIDS THE JEWS, GOOD! I HOPE THEY ALL
> COMMIT SUICIDE! MAY THEY ALL ROT IN HELL WITH THEIR
> FATHER SATAN FOREVER!!! ALL THIS ANTI-CHRIST GARBAGE
> OF THE JEWS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED LONG AGO BY
> WHATEVER MEANS! IF SATANS KIDS DIE, GOOD! THEY WILL
> ALL DIE SOON BY FIRE ANYWAY, THE SOONER THE
> BETTER!!! MBJ
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Plaintiffs Say Shocked By Posting Of 10 Commandments
>
> Judge Al Edgar To Issue Written Opinion
> posted April 29, 2002
>
> Several plaintiffs testifying in Federal Court on
> Monday said they were "shocked" that the Hamilton
> County Commission posted the 10 Commendments in
> three public buildings.
>
> "I was shocked. I felt like I had to do something to
> stop them," said Tracy Knauss, a local publisher and
> photographer who is one of the plaintiffs.
>
> Mr. Knauss said he is not a member of the American
> Civil Liberties Union, though many of the plaintiffs
> said they were.
>
> The ACLU and 14 individuals are seeking to have
> Judge Al Edgar ordered the plaques to be taken down.
>
> Hedy Weinberg, ACLU executive director for Tennessee
> since 1984, said the postings violate the separation
> of church and state.
>
> She said the ACLU has 131 members in Hamilton
> County.
>
> One of those is Rabbi Phillip Posner of Mizpah
> Congregation, who said the tablets "are offensive to
> me. I see it as a form of civic idolatry."
>
> He said the 10 Commandments were not meant "to cause
> a sense of rancor and divisiveness," and he said
> there are many different texts of the commandments.
>
> Dr. Tom Bibler, a UTC professor who is state
> treasurer of the ACLU, said, "I think it's a
> violation of the separation of church and state."
>
> Rev. Melanie Sullivan of the Unitarian Universalist
> Church, said her reaction to the posting was
> "sadness and anger and a feeling of being victimized
> at the courthouse. It makes me feel that we (members
> of her church) are not welcome there."
>
> Rev. John Mingus, pastor of the Pilgrim
> Congregational Church, said he received a "very
> shocking" letter from County Commission Chairman
> Bill Hullander asking him and other ministers to
> post the 10 Commandments in their churches.
>
> "I was deeply offended," he said.
>
> The tablets are posted at the county courthouse,
> courts building and the Juvenile Court.
>
> Judge Edgar took the matter under advisement and
> said he will issue a written opinion later.
>
> The trial was completed by 1 p.m. Monday.
>
> The county was represented by County Attorney
> Rheubin Taylor, Marty Lasley of the county
> attorney's office and local private attorneys Sam
> Elliott and Wayne Peters.
>
> Two ACLU lawyers represented the plaintiffs.
>
> Several County Commission members were present. They
> indicated they do not plan an appeal should the
> county lose.
>
Kater Moggin
>> The passage that
>> you referred to, viz. Avodah Zarah 22a-22b ... didn't have
>> the statement "Christians prefer sex with cows." It quoted one
>> rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi who claimed something
>> along those lines was true of heathens, meaning idolators. And
>> it quoted other rabbis who disagreed.
John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
> Let's answer the question for you ...
We already have. The question is whether it's true to say
that the Talmud -- specifically Avodah Zarah 22a-22b --
asserts "Christians prefer sex with cows." Answer: no. There
is no such statement in the passage. Again, it quotes one
rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi's remark on idolators, and
then quotes other rabbis who disagree.
> Karl Pearlstein claims that 17% of Americans engage in this practice.
You're lying again. According to the quote you gave, Carl
doesn't claim to know how many people do so.
Kater Moggin
>>> The following are shocking but exact quotes from the
>>> various books of "The Talmud."
Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>> Forget about accurate, dude -- most of them aren't even in
>> the Talmud. There's no "Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore
>> Dia" found there. Also no "Schulchan Aruch," "Choszen
>> Hamiszpat," "Schabouth Hag.," "Simeon Haddarsen," and "Nidrasch
>> Talpioth." Etc. It's obvious that you're merely
>> cut-and-pasting propaganda without any idea what you're talking
>> about.
JK:
> You never did answser the question ...
I sure did. You asked if the Talmud (specifically Abodah
Zarah 22a-22b) claims Christians prefer sex with cows.
Answer's no. It quotes one rabbi quoting another unnamed rabbi
saying something similar about idolators -- then quotes
several other rabbis who disagree. I'm sorry if that's not the
answer you wanted, but it's the truth.
Kater Moggin
> The facts about the Talmud.
It's almost funny how often John Knight's "facts" are lies
or distortions.
> The following are shocking but exact quotes from the
> various books of "The Talmud."
Many of the following are entirely missing from the Talmud.
The Talmud doesn't even have a "Schabouth Hag. 6d," a
"Choschen Hamm 388," a "Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D." Etc, etc.
The Talmud does have Abodah Zara 26b, but the passage does
_not_ say that "Even the best of the Gentiles should be
killed." It doesn't either suggest killing anybody or make any
comments about "the best of the Gentiles."
> Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
A complete fabrication. Sanhedrin 59a doesn't contain any
such assertion.
> Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is
> guilty of death."
That's another falsehood. Sanhedrin 59a gives the opinion
of one rabbi, named Johanan, who states, "A heathen who
studies the Torah deserves death." No indication he's speaking
literally, and in any case he's strongly disputed by several
other rabbis quoted in the same passage, one of whom -- a fella
called Rabbi Meier -- argues exactly the opposite. In his
view, "Even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest."
-- Moggin
Kater Moggin
>> Let's re-cap. You falsely suggested that according to the
>> Talmud, Christains prefer sex with cows. The passage you
>> pointed to, Avodah Zarah 22, offers one unnamed rabbi's opinion
>> about the sexual preferences of idolators, and then quotes
>> several other rabbis who disagree with him. If you gave a damn
>> about the truth, you'd admit you were wrong.
>> Instead you've decided to paste in reams of standard-issue
>> propaganda -- all of it easily available at anti-Semitic
>> websites -- claiming it's from an ally you've never named. The
>> cut-and-paste job is filled with bone-headed mistakes, like
>> for example the claim that "Iore Dea" and "Orach Chaiim" are in
>> the Talmud.
John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com>:
> Does it all make sense to you now?
Perfect sense. You're pasting in progaganda you've copied
from anti-Semitic websites, and you don't care that you're
offering lies and distortions, e.g. the false claim that Avodah
Zarah 22 insists Christians prefer sex with cows.
Ninure Saunders
-"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
-news:RainbowChristiannoh...@user-105nes6.dialup.mindspring.
-com...
-> In article <ed80adae.02050...@posting.google.com>,
-> johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
-> Two Questions:
->
->
-> (1) Can you say: In God's sight, a white man and a black man are equally
-> precious.
->
-
-Not being God, Ninure, we're certainly not going to second guess what He
-might think
<snip more rasict clap trap>
let's see...al od a sudden you can't understand what God "might
think"...yet you claim to be a Christian.
-
-"You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor
-or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor",
-Leviticus 19:15
-
-"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well
-as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the
-judgment is God's", Deuteronomy 1:17
-
-"...we command you, brethren, on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
-withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
-after the tradition which he received of us", 2 Thessalonians 3:6
-
-"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship
-hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
None iof these versus adress the issue of "race"...
Why are you quoting them?
Do you have a clue what they mean?
Somehow I doubt it.
-
-
-> (2) Can you say: If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all, or
-> almost all, the Jews, that would be a terrible sin.
->
-> Would you pause in your diatribes long enough to make these two
-statements?
->
<snip evasion of the question>
I ask you again:
Can you say: " If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all, or
almost all, the Jews, that would be a terrible sin."?
Can you, or can you not make this simple statement?
-
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
Why is it that you refuse to cite the ACTUAL passage from the Talmud if you
believe it's in error? You haven't done that one single time? Why not?
What are you trying to hide? Why can Christians cite numerous Scripture
from the Holy Bible without being embarassed about it, but all you jews can
do is whine "he haaaaaaaaaaaaates me" or "heeeeee's an anti-semiiiiiiiiiite"
or "he's a naaaaaaaaaaaaaazie", or "he's lyyyyyyyyyyyyying", like little
girls in a sandbox throwing sand at each other?
Where did jews learn to whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine so much? You whiiiiiiiiiiiiine
about Anne Frank who was some stupid jew who died of typhus in a FOREIGN
concentration camp half a century ago, but you utter not a single word about
the 7 WHITE American men who were killed by niggers yesterday (and the day
before that, and the day before that, ... ), in THIS country?
Do they teach whiiiiiiiiiiining in synagogue, or is it from the Talmud, or
jewish private schools, or do jewish parents actually encourage jewish
adults to grow up and behave in such a childish manner?
John Knight
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/comment/tr05thgtexp.html
Thought Experiment
By Bill Halvorsen
Suppose one day you opened your Sunday paper and found out that a bunch
of activist Christians had gotten together and taken out an ad declaring
that Judaism was not responsible for the Russian Revolution. You would
probably think they were a little bit crazy to even say that, the second
thing you might think is that it is a little patronizing for the exponents
of one great religion to be "excusing" the supposed transgressions of
another. Deep in your mind you might start thinking why someone would bring
this up in the first place, sort of like the political candidate who says,
"I have no doubts about the patriotism of my opponent" when of course what
he really wants is for you to start thinking along those lines.
I felt something similar the other day, when I opened up the New York
Times last Sunday and saw that a bunch of Jewish leaders had taken out an
ad, saying that Christianity was not responsible for the Holocaust. Well,
that's nice, I thought, now where's the ad saying that Islam is not
responsible for Hiroshima?
But after awhile I got to thinking about it. I can understand why Jews think
that Christianity might be to blame for the Holocaust. After all, isn't it
frequently said that the Holocaust represented the "culmination of two
millennia of Jew hatred"? The basis for that belief of course is because of
the disparaging treatments of Jews in the New Testament, for example,
because the Jews are portrayed as major players in the Crucifixion, and
because Martin Luther made some nasty remarks about Jews while sitting at
the dinner table, and because the Oberammergau passion play makes Jews out
to be mean, or at least, did, until the ADL got them to re-write the script.
It's interesting though that all of these presumed allegations about
Christianity being to blame for the Holocaust the critics rarely provide any
quotes. For example, they don't give us quotes like this one:
All Jewish children are animals.
Or this one:
Jewish girls are in a state of filth from birth.
Or this one:
Jews prefer sex with cows.
Or this one:
Jews and others who reject the Bible will go to hell and be punished
there for all generations.
I would bet if these types who are out to excuse Christianity for the
Holocaust quoted things like the above, everyone would immediately
understand why these Jewish people were being awfully big about letting
Christians off the hook for the Holocaust. After all, the above quotes are
demeaning, they are nasty, and and they seem to invite diminishing people
and maltreating people solely on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Yet there's a reason you won't see such quotes in any attacks on
Christianity. The reason is that all four of the above quotes are from the
Jewish Talmud, not any Christian writing, not even from the crumbs that fell
off Luther's table. Just substitute the word "Gentile" for "Jewish" or "Jew"
and "Talmud" for "Bible" to get the original sense. (To be specific, the
references are as follows: Yebamoth 98a, Abodah Zarah 36b, Abodah Zarah
22a-22b, Rosh Hashanah 17a)
Now let's just suppose I had a big hair up my nose about the Russian
Revolution, Joe Stalin, the GULAG, the Ukrainian Famine and all the rest of
it. I know a lot of Bolsheviks were from a Jewish background. So I could
construct an argument like this: Jewish writings say nasty things about
Christians, some people of Jewish background did nasty things to Christians,
therefore the Jews were responsible for the Russian Revolution and the whole
mess that came afterwards. And then I could get to the really good part. I
could forgive them. I could forgive the Jewish religion for what it did to
us filthy cow-lusting goyim.
Of course it would be a stupid argument to make. Trotsky and the rest may
have been from Jewish homes, but they weren't practicing Jews and they
weren't doing what they were doing so that they could keep the Sabbath. They
did it because they were in the grip of an ideology that said it was OK to
destroy the lives of millions to "make a better world." As a matter of fact,
they were a lot like the Nazis, of whom there was hardly a practicing or
believing Christian in the bunch.
So the question that I am sure is still going to come up is: what about
all these nasty remarks? My response to that would be: Who cares?
The historical fact is that for over a thousand years or more Jews and
Christians didn't get along very well. Sure, the Christians were in the
majority so when things got hot the Jews usually came out on the short end
of the stick, but any reading of history that pretends that the hostility
wasn't mutual between these religions just hasn't been paying attention. The
relics of Jew-hatred in medieval or reformation Christian writings, or even
from the days of the New Testament, have no more meaning than this, and
neither do the nasty anti-Christian writings that you can find scribbled in
the Talmud.
Christians and Jews get along today for a lot of reasons, one of them
being that no doubt few people pay attention to the fine-print anathemas in
religious books. And they will continue to get along, no matter how many
times someone comes up with centuries-old nasty remarks. They don't need
apologies. They don't need to be excused.
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
http://www.duke.org/awakening/chapter16_04.html
The Talmud: A Jewish-Supremacist Doctrine
In rejecting Jesus Christ and the love and tolerance he preached, Judaism
proceeded on its path of chauvinism. It culminated in the pages of the
Talmud, an encyclopedic exposition of Jewish law and custom, compiled by
hundreds of rabbis over the centuries. The American Heritage Dictionary
describes it as "constituting the basis of religious authority for
traditional Judaism." The Talmud was first transcribed in Babylonian times,
and the oral tradition is many centuries older. By the sixth century AD it
was put into written form, becoming the most important religious work of the
Jewish people, the chief canon of their religion. In it they finally
codified their most chauvinistic tendencies.
Herman Wouk, the very popular Jewish writer,1 illustrates the influence of
the Talmud as follows:
The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart's blood of the Jewish
religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe - whether we are
orthodox, Conservative, Reform or merely spasmodic sentimentalists - we
follow the Talmud. It is our common law.2
As a 16-year-old, during one of my visits to the Citizens Council offices, I
had found a book called The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by
Elizabeth Dilling.3 It interested me because the large format of the book
contained complete photocopied pages from parts of the Talmud officially
compiled by Jewish scholars. I remember skipping Dilling's commentary and
going right to the translations. One of the first passages I read really
surprised me. It said,
A heathen [Gentile] who pries into the Torah [and other Jewish Scriptures]
is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs.
(Sanhedrin 59a) 4
If a 16-year-old boy reads something forbidden like that, he is certain to
read on. The passage was completely alien to everything I had always
understood about religion. Why would they not want all men to read the holy
word the same way Christians want to "spread the good news?" Just what is in
these scriptures that would oblige the Jews to kill a Gentile that read
them? Why would public knowledge of Jewish scriptures be dangerous to Jews?
I went to the library and found some old translations of parts of the
Talmud. It was not long before I came across other, even more amazing
passages such as:
Balaam [Jesus] is raised from the dead and being punished in boiling hot
semen. Those who mock the words of the Jewish sages and sin against Israel
are boiled in hot excrement. (57a Gittin) 5
Because Christian scholars periodically obtained copies of the Talmud,
Talmudic scribes hoped to deceive them by using the name Balaam to denote
Jesus. In The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading "Balaam," it says, "?he
pseudonym 'Balaam' given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a."6 The
Talmud repeatedly uses obscure words to denote Gentiles with an assortment
of names such as Egyptian, heathen, Cuthean, and idolater. In the most
popular English-language translation of the Talmud, called the Soncino
edition, the practice is illustrated by the fifth footnote of the book of
Sanhedrin. It reads, "Cuthean (Samaritan) was here substituted for the
original goy..."7 Christians are sometimes referred to by the code word
"Min" or "Minim."8 The footnotes of the Soncino edition of the Talmud as
well as passages in the Jewish Encyclopedia blatantly mention this
deception. In other passages in the Talmud I discovered a possible reason
why some of the Talmud's writers had forbidden Gentiles to read it. The
Talmud's words are vitriolic:
Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)9
For murder, whether of a Cuthean [Gentile] by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite
by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite,
there is no death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)10
Even the best of the [Gentiles] should be killed. (Babylonian Talmud)11
If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known
and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)
Gentiles' flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue
of horses.12
If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew
is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)13
If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability;
but if an ox of a Canaanite [Gentile] gores an ox of an Israelite...the
payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)14
If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen [Gentile] it does not have to be
returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)15
God will not spare a Jew who 'marries his daughter to an old man or takes a
wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean [Gentile]...
(Sanhedrin 76a.)16
What a Jew obtains by theft from a Cuthean [Gentile] he may keep. (Sanhedrin
57a.)17
[Gentiles] are outside the protection of the law and God has 'exposed their
money to Israel.' (Baba Kamma 37b.)18
Jews may use lies ('subterfuges') to circumvent a [Gentile]. (Baba Kamma
113a.)19
All [Gentile] children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)20
[Gentiles] prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)21
The vessels of [Gentiles], do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food
cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Winds of War, War and Remembrance, and others.
New York Herald Tribune. (1959). Nov. 17.
Dilling, E. (1980). The Jewish Religion. Los Angeles: CDL Report (Renamed
From The Plot Against Christianity)
Talmud, Sanhedrin. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.400.
Simon, M. Trans. (1936). 57a Gittin. London. Soncino Press. p.261
Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Balaam. p.469.
Talmud, Sanhedrin. (1935). Soncino Edition. 5th footnote on p. 388.
Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1905). Min. p.594.
Talmud. (1935). Soncino Edition.
Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. p.388.
Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.617.
Talmud. (1935). Baba Mezia. Soncino Edition. 114a-114b.
Funk And Wagnalls Jewish Encyclopedia. (1907). Gentile. New York. p.621.
Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 58b. p.398.
Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.211.
Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.666.
Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 76a. p.470.
Talmud, Sanhedrin (1935). Soncino Edition. 57a. p.388.
Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. 37b.
Talmud, Baba Kamma. (1935). Soncino Edition. p.664-665.
Talmud, Yebamoth. (1936). Soncino Edition. 98a.
Talmud, Abodah Zarah. (1935). Soncino Edition. 22a-b.
Talmud, Abodah Zarah. (1935). Soncino Edition. 67b.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Table of Contents | Previous Page | Next Page | Download ORDER NOW!
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/judaism/talmud1.htm
THE TRUTH ABOUT
TALMUD
we used the Babylonian Talmud in our quotes.
Notice: The Yellow colored text is the quotes while the red colored one's
are comments.
Talmudic Doctrine: Non-Jews are not Human
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals,
and specifically dehumanizes gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We
will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic:
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are
beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the
the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form.
It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be
served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare
with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express
sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss',
just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to
the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the
same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
How dose a jew prepare for his crime?
Moed Kattan 17a . If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city
where he is not known and do the evil there.
Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be
killed.
O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him
for work.
Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there
is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an
Israelite...the payment is to be in full."
Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it
does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin
76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or
takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."
Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no
death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God
has "exposed their money to Israel."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Jews May Lie to Non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.
Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Insults Against Blessed Mary
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Mary was a whore: "She who was the descendant of
princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote
#2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the
"uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the
hairdresser," had sex with many men.
Horrible Blasphemy Against Jesus Christ
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is being boiled in "hot excrement."
Sanhedrin 43a. Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu
(Jesus) was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could
be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?"
Talmud Attacks Non jews beliefs
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will
go to hell and be punished there for all generations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New
Testament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned
hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980
(cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud
Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals
in the Garden of Eden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.
Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three
years "and a day" old).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less
than nine years old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is
nothing."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry
a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry
a Jewish priest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the
Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi
won the debate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between
two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special
dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a
crossroads.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer
every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Lies of a Roman Holocaust
Here are two early "Holocaust" tales from the Talmud: Gittin 57b. Claims
that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar.
Gittin 58a claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls
and burned alive by the Romans.(Ancient demography indicates that there were
not 16 million Jews in the entire world at that time, much less 16 million
Jewish children or four billion Jews.... that tells us about today's modern
jew's lies about those 6 million jews killed by Nazis.... Please visit The
Holocaust that never was
A Revealing Admission
Abodah Zarah 70a. The question was asked of the rabbi whether wine stolen in
Pumbeditha might be used or if it was defiled, due to the fact that the
thieves might have been gentiles (a gentile touching wine would make the
wine unclean). The rabbi says not to worry, that the wine is permissible for
Jewish use because the majority of the thieves in Pumbeditha, the place
where the wine was stolen, are Jews. (Also cf. Gemara Rosh Hashanah 25b).
Genocide Advocated by the Talmud
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben
Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be
killed").
This passage is from the original Hebrew of the Babylonian Talmud as quoted
by the 1907 Jewish Encyclopedia, published by Funk and Wagnalls and compiled
by Isidore Singer, under the entry, "Gentile," (p. 617).
This original Talmud passage has been concealed in translation. The Jewish
Encyclopedia states that, "...in the various versions the reading has been
altered, 'The best among the Egyptians' being generally substituted." In the
Soncino version: "the best of the heathens" (Minor Tractates, Soferim
41a-b].
Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to the grave of Simon
ben Yohai, to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews.
(Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B).
On Purim, Feb. 25, 1994, Israeli army officer Baruch Goldstein, an orthodox
Jew from Brooklyn, massacred 40 Palestinian civilians, including children,
while they knelt in prayer in a mosque. Goldstein was a disciple of the late
Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane, who told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs
are "dogs" is derived "from the Talmud." (CBS 60 Minutes, "Kahane").
University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein's
philosophy: "They believe it's God's will that they commit violence against
goyim, a Hebrew term for non-Jews." (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and
the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish
fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).
Moses Maimonides: Advocate of Extermination
"Moses Maimonides is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in
Jewish history. He is often affectionately referred to as the Rambam, after
the initials of his name and title, Rabenu Moshe Ben Maimon, "Our Rabbi,
Moses son of Maimon." [Maimonides' Principles, edited by Aryeh Kaplan, Union
of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,, p. 3].
Here is what Maimonides (Rambam) taught concerning saving people's lives,
especially concerning saving the lives of gentiles and Christians, or even
Jews who dared to deny the "divine inspiration" of the Talmud:
Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, (Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New
York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation), p. 184: "Accordingly, if we
see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we
should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not
save him." The Hebrew text of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah
states this as well.
Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to
save a drowning or perishing gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty of
Jews towards Goyim, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud. Maimonides,
Mishnah Torah, (Chapter 10), p. 184:
"It is a mitzvah [religious duty], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors,
minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of
destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people
away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok,
Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."
BACK
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
Why on Earth would you protect a jew who LIES? What's in it for you,
Moggin?
Karl was shocked, absolutely shocked, that we didn't know that "Christians
prefer sex with cows":
> John, where do you get your history? Haven't you ever heard the old Greek
> myths of Leda and the Swan, and
> Europa and the Bull? Where do you think those came from, if no one
> practiced bestiality?
When asked for a reference, he made a vague reference to the Encyclopedia
Britannica. When asked for a "specific" reference, he replied that it
reports that 17% of Americans "engage in this practice". When asked WHERE
in this encyclopedia this was, only then did he back down, prevaricate, and
suggest that "If Kinsey says 17%, maybe its 3x too high, and the number is
5% or less--I have no idea." We have YET to find this reference in any
version of that encyclopedia.
IF he has "NO IDEA", then why did he make this claim IN THE FIRST PLACE???
What in the world could possibly motivate one VERY STUPID JEW to insist that
it's TRUE that "Christians prefer sex with cows" anyway?
WHERE did he get this idea if not from the Talmud, Moggin? Synagogue?
Sunday School? Private jewish schools? His STUPID JEWISH PARENTS?
WHAT could possibly be the purpose of such inflammatory instruction? To
justify your hatred of the world? To make jews look like "gods"? To
justify killing Muslims in Palestine?
WHO do you think Carl thinks "prefers sex with cows"? GENTILES.
WHY do you think it makes a bit of difference whether or not this particular
passage says that, when it is a FACT that jews believe this irregardless of
where they learn it?
John Knight
John Knight
"Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
> Kater Moggin <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>
> >> The passage that
> >> you referred to, viz. Avodah Zarah 22a-22b ... didn't have
> >> the statement "Christians prefer sex with cows." It quoted one
> >> rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi who claimed something
> >> along those lines was true of heathens, meaning idolators. And
> >> it quoted other rabbis who disagreed.
>
> John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>:
>
> > Let's answer the question for you ...
>
> We already have. The question is whether it's true to say
> that the Talmud -- specifically Avodah Zarah 22a-22b --
> asserts "Christians prefer sex with cows." Answer: no. There
> is no such statement in the passage. Again, it quotes one
> rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi's remark on idolators, and
> then quotes other rabbis who disagree.
>
What follows is an admission by a jewish rabbi that it is TRUE that a jew is
permitted by the TALMUD to deceive others!
Of course jews will NEVER understand that this is completely contradictory
to everything Jesus Christ ever stood for. And of course jews will NEVER
understand why Christians like Thomas Jefferson DO live moral and upstanding
lives. And of course jews will NEVER understand why 86 nations before us
have kicked the jews out and burned the heinous Talmud.
It's right there, in black and white:
++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/askarabbi/askr4942.htm
The correct translation of Moed Kattan 17a is "If a Jew is overcome by his
sexual drive, he should go to a city where he is not known, put on sordid
clothes, S and do the sordid deed rather than profaning the name of heaven
openly. Clearly, the Talmud does not approve of using a prostitute in
another city, but the point is that it is better to sin secretly than
publicly.
++++++++++++++++++++++
John Knight
John Knight
John Knight
>
> <begin http://christianparty.net/talmud.htm >
> Confirmation of the Talmud from a Jewish defector
>
> http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/freedmn1.html
>
> "FACTS ARE FACTS"
>
> Benjamin H. Freedman
>
> THE TALMUD on Christians
>
> "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning
> Christians," was written by Rev. I.B. Pranaitis, Master of Theology and
> Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of
> the Roman Catholic Church in Old St. Petersburg, Russia. 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.
>
> The Rev. Pranaitis scrutinized the Talmud for passages referring to Jesus,
> Christians and the Christian faith. These passages were translated by him
> into Latin. Hebrew lends itself to translation into Latin better than it
> does directly into English. The translation of the passages of the Talmud
> referring to Jesus, Christians and Christian faith were printed in Latin
by
> the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg in 1893 with the
> Imprimatur of his Archbishop. The translation from the Latin into English
> was made by great Latin scholars in the United States in 1939 with funds
> provided by wealthy Americans for that purpose.
>
> In order not to leave any loose ends on the subject of the Talmud's
> reference to Jesus, to Christians and to the Christian faith I will below
> summarize translations into English from the Latin texts of Rev.
Pranaitis'
> "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning
> Christians". It would require too much space to quote these passages
> verbatim with their foot-notes form the Soncino Edition in English.
>
> First I will summarize the references by Rev. Pranaitis referring to Jesus
> in the Talmud in the original texts translated by him into Latin, and from
> Latin into English:
>
> Sanhedrin, 67a -- Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
>
> Kallah, 1b. (18b) -- Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
>
> Sanhedrin, 67a -- Hanged on the eve of Passover. Toldath Jeschu. Birth
> related in most shameful expressions
>
> Abhodah Zarah II -- Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
>
> Schabbath XIV. Again referred to as the son of Pandira, the Roman.
>
> Sanhedrin, 43a -- On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
>
> Schabbath, 104b -- Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
>
> Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
>
> Sanhedrin, 103a. -- Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
>
> Sanhedrin, 107b. -- Seduced, corrupted and destroyed Israel.
>
> Zohar III, (282) -- Died like a beast and buried in animal's dirt heap.
>
> Hilkoth Melakhim -- Attempted to prove Christians err in worship of Jesus
>
> Abhodah Zarah, 21a -- Reference to worship of Jesus in homes unwanted.
>
> Orach Chaiim, 113 -- Avoid appearance of paying respect to Jesus.
>
> Iore dea, 150,2 -- Do not appear to pay respect to Jesus by accident.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (6a) -- False teachings to worship on first day of Sabbath
>
> The above are a few selected from a very complicated arrangement in which
> many references are obscured by intricate reasoning. The following are a
few
> summarized references to Christians and the Christian faith although not
> always expressed in exactly that manner. There are eleven names used in
the
> Talmud for non-Talmud followers, by which Christians are meant. Besides
> Nostrim, from Jesus the Nazarene, Christians are called by all the names
> used in the Talmud to designate all non-"Jews": Minim, Edom, Abhodan
Zarah,
> Akum. Obhde Elilim, Nokrim, Amme Haarets, Kuthim, Apikorosim, and Goim.
> Besides supplying the names by which Christians are called in the Talmud,
> the passages quoted below indicate what kind of people the Talmud pictures
> the Christians to be, and what the Talmud says about the religious worship
> of Christians:
>
> Hilkhoth Maakhaloth -- Christians are idolators, must not associate.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Do not associate with gentiles, they shed blood.
>
> Iore Dea (153, 2). -- Must not associate with Christians, shed blood.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (25b). -- Beware of Christians when walking abroad with
them.
>
> Orach Chaiim (20, 2). -- Christians disguise themselves to kill Jews.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (15b) -- Suggest Christians have sex relations with animals.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (22a) -- Suspect Christians of intercourse with animals.
>
> Schabbath (145b) -- Christians unclean because they eat accordingly
>
> Abhodah Zarah (22b) -- Christians unclean because they not at Mount Sinai.
>
> Iore Dea (198, 48). -- Clean female Jews contaminated meeting Christians.
>
> Kerithuth (6b p. 78) -- Jews called men, Christians not called men.
>
> Makkoth (7b) -- Innocent of murder if intent was to kill Christian.
>
> Orach Chaiim(225, 10) -- Christians and animals grouped for comparisons.
>
> Midrasch Talpioth 225 -- Christians created to minister to Jews always.
>
> Orach Chaiim 57, 6a -- Christians to be pitied more than sick pigs.
>
> Zohar II (64b) -- Christian idolators likened to cows and asses.
>
> Kethuboth (110b). -- Psalmist compares Christians to unclean beasts.
>
> Sanhedrin (74b). Tos. -- Sexual intercourse of Christian like that of
beast.
>
> Kethuboth (3b) -- The seed of Christian is valued as seed of beast.
>
> Kidduschim (68a) -- Christians like the people of an ass.
>
> Eben Haezar (44,8) -- Marriages between Christian and Jews null.
>
> Zohar (II, 64b) -- Christian birth rate must be diminished materially.
>
> Zohar (I, 28b) -- Christian idolators children of Eve's serpent.
>
> Zohar (I, 131a) -- Idolatrous people (Christians) befoul the world.
>
> Emek Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews' souls come from death and death's
shadow.
>
> Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) -- Souls of gentiles have unclean divine origins.
>
> Rosch Haschanach(17a) -- Non-Jews souls go down to hell.
>
> Iore Dea (337, 1). -- Replace dead Christians like lost cow or ass.
>
> Iebhammoth (61a) -- Jews called men, but not Christians called men.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (14b) T -- Forbidden to sell religious works to Christians
>
> Abhodah Zarah (78) -- Christian churches are places of idolatry.
>
> Iore Dea (142, 10) -- Must keep far away physically from churches.
>
> Iore Dea (142, 15) -- Must not listen to church music or look at idols
>
> Iore Dea (143, 1) -- Must not rebuild homes destroyed near churches.
>
> Hilkoth Abh. Zar (10b) -- Jews must not resell broken chalices to
> Christians.
>
> Chullin (91b) -- Jews possess dignity even an angel cannot share.
>
> Sanhedrin, 58b -- To strike Israelite like slapping face of God.
>
> Chagigah, 15b -- A Jew considered good in spite of sins he commits.
>
> Gittin (62a) -- Jew stay away from Christian homes on holidays.
>
> Choschen Ham. (26,1) -- Jew must not sue before a Christian judge or laws.
>
> Choschen Ham (34,19) -- Christian or servant cannot become witnesses.
>
> Iore Dea (112, 1). -- Avoid eating with Christians, breeds familiarity.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (35b) -- Do not drink milk from a cow milked by Christian.
>
> Iore dea (178, 1) -- Never imitate customs of Christians, even hair-comb.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (72b) -- Wine touched by Christians must be thrown away.
>
> Iore Dea (120, 1) -- Bought-dishes from Christians must be thrown away.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (2a) -- For three days before Christian festivals, avoid
all.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (78c) -- Festivals of followers of Jesus regarded as
idolatry.
>
> Iore Dea (139, 1) -- Avoid things used by Christians in their worship.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (14b) -- Forbidden to sell Christians articles for worship.
>
> Iore Dea (151,1) H. -- Do not sell water to Christians articles for
> baptisms.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (2a, 1) -- Do not trade with Christians on their feast days.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (1,2) -- Now permitted to trade with Christians on such
days.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (2aT) -- Trade with Christians because they have money to
pay.
>
> Iore Dea (148, 5) -- If Christian is not devout, may send him gifts.
>
> Hilkoth Akum (IX,2) -- Send gifts to Christians only if they are
> irreligious.
>
> Iore Dea (81,7 Ha) -- Christian wet-nurses to be avoided because
dangerous.
>
> Iore Dea (153, 1 H) -- Christian nurse will lead children to heresy.
>
> Iore Dea (155,1). -- Avoid Christian doctors not well known to neighbors.
>
> Peaschim (25a) -- Avoid medical help from idolators, Christians meant.
>
> Iore Dea (156,1) -- Avoid Christian barbers unless escorted by Jews.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (26a). -- Avoid Christian midwives as dangerous when alone.
>
> Zohar (1,25b) -- Those who do good to Christians never rise when dead.
>
> Hilkoth Akum (X,6) -- Help needy Christians if it will promote peace.
>
> Iore Dea (148, 12H) -- Hide hatred for Christians at their celebrations.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (20a) -- Never praise Christians lest it be believed true.
>
> Iore Dea (151,14) -- Not allowed to praise Christians to add to glory.
>
> Hilkoth Akum (V, 12) -- Quote Scriptures to forbid mention of Christian
god.
>
> Iore Dea (146, 15) -- Refer to Christian religious articles with contempt.
>
> Iore Dea (147,5) -- Deride Christian religious articles without wishes.
>
> Hilkoth Akum (X,5) -- No gifts to Christians, gifts to converts.
>
> Iore Dea (151,11) -- Gifts forbidden to Christians, encourages friendship.
>
> Iore Dea (335,43) -- Exile for that Jew who sells farm to Christian.
>
> Iore Dea (154,2) -- Forbidden to teach a trade to a Christian
>
> Babha Bathra (54b) -- Christian property belongs to first person claiming.
>
> Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Keep what Christian overpays in error.
>
> Choschen Ham(226,1) -- Jew may keep lost property of Christian found by
Jew.
>
> Babha Kama (113b) -- It is permitted to deceive Christians.
>
> Choschen Ham(183,7) -- Jews must divide what they overcharge Christians.
>
> Choschen Ham(156,5) -- Jews must not take Christian customers from Jews.
>
> Iore Dea (157,2) H -- May deceive Christians that believe Christian
tenets.
>
> Abhodah Zarah (54a) --Usury may be practiced upon Christians or apostates.
>
> Iore Dea (159,1) -- Usury permitted now for any reason to Christians.
>
> Babha Kama (113a) -- Jew may lie and perjure to condemn a Christian.
>
> Babha Kama (113b) -- Name of God not profaned when lying to Christians.
>
> Kallah (1b, p.18) -- Jew may perjure himself with a clear conscience.
>
> Schabbouth Hag. (6d). -- Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge
> wording.
>
> Zohar (1,160a). -- Jews must always try to deceive Christians.
>
> Iore Dea (158,1) -- Do not cure Christians unless it makes enemies.
>
> Orach Cahiim (330,2) -- Do not assist Christian's childbirth on Saturday.
>
> Choschen Ham.(425,5) -- Unless believes in Torah do not prevent his death.
>
> Iore Dea (158,1) -- Christians not enemies must not be saved either.
>
> Hilkkoth Akum (X,1) -- Do not save Christians in danger of death.
>
> Choschen Ham(386,10) -- A spy may be killed even before he confesses.
>
> Abhodah Zorah (26b) -- Apostates to be thrown into well, not rescued.
>
> Choschen Ham(388,15) -- Kill those who give Israelites' money to
Christians
>
> Sanhedrin (59a) -- `Prying into Jews' "Law" to get death penalty
>
> Hilkhoth Akum(X,2) -- Baptized Jews are to be put to death
>
> Iore Dea(158,2)Hag. -- Kill renegades who turn to Christian rituals.
>
> Choschen Ham(425,5) -- Those who do not believe in Torah are to be killed.
>
> Hilkhoth tesch.III,8 -- Christians and others deny the "Law" of the Torah.
>
> Zohar (I,25a) -- Christians are to be destroyed as idolators.
>
> Zohar (II,19a) -- Captivity of Jews end when Christian princes die.
>
> Zohar (I,219b) -- Princes of Christians are idolators, must die.
>
> Obadiam -- When Rome is destroyed, Israel will be redeemed.
>
> Abhodah Zarah(26b) T. -- "Even the best of the Goim should be killed."
>
> Sepher Or Israel 177b -- If Jew kills Christian commits no sin.
>
> Ialkut Simoni (245c) -- Shedding blood of impious offers sacrifice to God.
>
> Zohar (II, 43a) -- Extermination of Christians necessary sacrifice.
>
> Zohar (L,28b,39a) -- High place in heaven for those who kill idolators.
>
> Hilkhoth Akum(X,1) -- Make no agreements and show no mercy to Christians
>
> Hilkhoth Akum (X,1) -- Either turn them away from their idols or kill.
>
> Hilkhoth Akum (X,7) -- Allow no idolators to remain where Jews are strong.
>
> Choschen Ham(388,16) -- All contribute to expense of killing traitor.
>
> Pesachim (49b) -- No need of prayers while beheading on Sabbath.
>
> Schabbath (118a). -- Prayers to save from punishment of coming Messiah.
>
> In the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library, unless
recently
> removed, you can find a copy of "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret
Rabbinical
> Teachings Concerning Christians" by the Rev. I. B. Pranaitis. A copy of
the
> original work printed in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1892 can be made
> available to you by our mutual friend if you are interested in reading the
> above passages in the original Hebrew text with their Latin translation. I
> trust my summaries correctly explain the original text. I believe they do.
> If I am in error in any way please be so kind as to let me know. It was
very
> difficult to reduce them to short summaries.
>
> The National Conference of Christians and Jews need not scrutinize the "63
> books" of the Talmud to discover all the anti- Christ, anti-Christian, and
> anti-Christian faith passages in the books which are "THE LEGAL CODE WHICH
> FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW" and which is "THE TEXTBOOK USED
IN
> THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". They can also keep that, as Rabbi Morris Kertzer
> also points out, as explained earlier, that "ADULTS STUDY ANCIENT WRITINGS
> TOO... IN... GROUP DISCUSSION OF TALMUD BEFORE EVENING PRAYER". If the
> National Conference of Christians and Jews are genuinely interested in
> "interfaith" and "brotherhood" do you not think, my dear Dr. Goldstein,
that
> they should compel a start at once to expunge from the Talmud the
> anti-Christ, anti- Christian, and anti-Christianity passages from the
Talmud
> in the "brotherly" way they expunged passages from the New Testament? Will
> you ask them?
>
> Throughout the world the Oxford English Dictionary is accepted as the most
> authoritative and authentic source for information on the origin,
definition
> and use of words in the English language. Authorities in all fields
> everywhere accept the Oxford English Dictionary brings out clearly that
> "Judaist" and "Judaic" are the correct forms for the improper and
incorrect
> misused and misleading "Jews" and "Jewish". You will agree completely with
> the Oxford English Dictionary if you consider the matter carefully.
> "Judaist" and "Judaic" are correct. "Jews" and "Jewish" are incorrect.
"Jew"
> and "Jewish" do not belong in the English language if the use of the
correct
> words is of interest to the English-speaking peoples.
>
> The so-called or self-styled "Jews" cannot truthfully describe themselves
as
> "Jews" because they are not in any sense "Judeans". They can correctly
> identify themselves by their religious belief if they so wish by
identifying
> themselves as "Judaists". A "Judaist" is a person who professes so-called
> "Judaism" as his religious belief, according to the Oxford English
> Dictionary. The origin of "Jew" has not its roots in "Judaism" as
explained.
> The adjective form of "Judaist" is "Judaic". "Jewish" as an adjective is
> just as incorrect as "Jew" is as a noun. "Jewish" has no reason to exist.
>
> Well-planned and well-financed publicity by so-called or self-styled
"Jews"
> in English-speaking countries in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries
created
> a wide acceptance and use for "Jewish". "Jewish" is being used today in
many
> ways that are no less fantastic and grotesque than incorrect and
inaccurate.
> "Jewish" is used today to describe everything from "Jewish blood",
whatever
> that may be, to "Jewish Rye Bread", strange as that may sound. The many
> implications, inferences and innuendoes of "Jewish" today resulting from
its
> commercial uses beggar description.
Royce Buehler
>
> Does Benjamin Freedman qualify as a "born again Christian"?
No. Born-again Christians are not compulsive, constant
liars. Born-again Christians have no interest in fomenting
mass murder. Born-again Christians have no interest in
enslaving two-thirds of mankind. These characteristics are
restricted to the unregenerate, such as Benjamin Freedman,
and to followers of Satanic death cults, such as you and
your Identity friends.
Your cut-and-snip of random lies from random anti-Semitic
websites is beginning to repeat itself, John. We already
spelled out what the first twenty or thirty lies in this
post were, just a couple of days ago. At best, these
"quotes" are loose paraphrases which distort the meaning
of the original. In most cases, they correspond to nothing
whatsoever in the Talmud, or directly contradict what is
actually in it.
Now, how about abandoning your agenda of mass murder and
mass slavery? As long as you advocate killing all the Jews,
and enslaving all the "non-white" races, genuine Christians
are going to notice that your agenda and Christianity have
nothing in common, and that nothing you say can be trusted.
You can start right now. Just say what several people have
already asked you a dozen times or so to say:
(1) In God's sight, a white man and a black man are equally
precious.
(2) If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all or
almost all the Jews, that would be a terrible sin.
You can't say either one, because enslaving the "inferior"
black people, whom you refer to as "muds," and killing the
Jews, are the heart of your "religion."
Since those hideous crimes don't afflict your conscience,
it's obvious that mere lying isn't going to bother your conscience
either. So your credibility is zero.
Kater Moggin
>> ... You asked if the Talmud (specifically Abodah
>> Zarah 22a-22b) claims Christians prefer sex with cows.
>> Answer's no. It quotes one rabbi quoting another unnamed rabbi
>> saying something similar about idolators -- then quotes
>> several other rabbis who disagree. I'm sorry if that's not the
>> answer you wanted, but it's the truth.
"John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com>:
[claims Yebamoth 98a states that "All Gentile children are
animals.]
Another lie. The statement that "All Gentile children are
animals" is missing from Yebamoth 98a.
[Claims Avodah Zarah 36b says that "Gentile girls are in a
state of filth from birth."]
Another distortion. The passage reports that according to
certain schools of thought, the daughters of heathens are
considered to be "in the state of niddah," which means ritually
unclean. The rabbis quoted discussing that idea say "the
purpose was to safeguard against idolatry," in keeping with the
OT laws against mingling with heathens.
[Claims Avodah Zarah 22a-22b says Gentiles prefer sex with
cows.]
Yet another distortion -- one that we've been over several
times by now. Avodah Zarah 22a-22b quotes one rabbi quoting
another unnamed rabbi making a remark like that about idolators
-- then quotes other rabbis who disagree.
[Claims Rosh Hashanah 17a states, "Gentiles and others who
reject the Bible will go to hell, and be punished there for all
generations."]
Yet another lie. Rosh HaShana 17a quotes a teaching which
says that certain wicked Jews -- not Gentiles -- will be
eternally punished in hell: heretics, scoffers, informers, etc.
Kater Moggin
>> ... You're pasting in progaganda you've copied
>> from anti-Semitic websites, and you don't care that you're
>> offering lies and distortions, e.g. the false claim that Avodah
>> Zarah 22 insists Christians prefer sex with cows.
John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com>:
[more of the same]
Thanks for proving my point. Here's a good example of the
lies you've pasted in:
> A heathen [Gentile] who pries into the Torah [and other Jewish Scriptures]
> is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not
> theirs. (Sanhedrin 59a) 4
A horrible distortion of the passage. Sanhedrin 59a gives
the opinion of a rabbi named Johanan, who thinks "A heathen
who studies the Torah deserves death." No indication that he's
speaking literally, and in any case he's disputed by several
other rabbis quoted in the same passage, one of whom -- a fella
called Rabbi Meier -- argues exactly the opposite. In his
view, "Even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest."
> Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)
Baba Metzia 114a-114b does not say anything like the above.
A rabbi quoted there argues with reference to ritual purity
that the term _Adam_ ("man") applies only to Jews, not Gentiles.
He doesn't claim Gentiles are animals. In fact the Talmud
refers to them with the terms _HaAdam_ (that is, "the man") and
_Bnei Adam_: "sons of Adam."
> Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . "Gentiles prefer sex with cows."
Given as the opinion of one unnamed rabbi, and disputed by
other rabbis quoted in the same passage.
> If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not
> known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)
Another distortion. The passage condemns evil by saying a
person who realizes he's in its grip -- not merely somebody
who feels tempted -- should dress all in black and do the black
thing somewhere nobody knows him, "rather than profane the
name of Heaven openly." In other words, the passage views evil
as something shameful.
> If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed.
> (Sanhedrin 58b.)13
False. A rabbi quoted in Sanhedrin 58b offers the opinion
that "If a heathen smites a Jew, he is worthy of death."
There is no statement that "the Gentile must be killed," and no
command to kill him.
Kater Moggin
> THE TRUTH ABOUT TALMUD
Lies about the Talmud, cut-and-pasted from a website, thus
proving my point about your tactics. "Jore dea 377" and
'Schene luchoth haberith" aren't even in the Talmud -- likewise
"Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425," etc.
Sanhedrin 74b is in the Talmud, but it doesn't say "Sexual
intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between
animals" or anything of the kind. That statement is completely
missing.
Abodah Zara 4b doesn't say "A heretic Gentile you may kill
outright with your own hands." Once again the supposed
quotation is missing. In fact the passage teaches the opposite:
"Neither is it good for the righteous to punish."
Sanhedrin 58b does not claim "If a heathen hits a Jew, the
gentile must be killed." It quotes a rabbi who says that he
would be worthy of death, but there isn't any command to go and
kill him or any assertion that's necessary.
Baba Metzia 114b doesn't state, "The Jews are called human
beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
The passage is about ritual purity, and says that only Jews are
called _Adam_ ("man") for those purposes. Nothing in the
passage claims that they're beasts. In fact other passages use
the expressions _Bnei Adam_ ("sons of Adam") and _HaAdam_
("the man") in reference to Gentiles, contradicting your notion
the Talmud considers them mere animals.
I go could on, but that's enough to show what kind of lies
and distortions you're offering.
Kater Moggin
> Why on Earth would you protect a jew who LIES?
The lies here are all coming from you, John. According to
you, Avodah Zarah 22a-22b says "Christians prefer sex with
cows." But that statement isn't there. An unnamed rabbi makes
a similar remark about idolators. Several other rabbis
immediately disagree. You plain lied about the contends of the
passage.
Kater Moggin
>>> The following are shocking but exact quotes from the
>>> various books of "The Talmud."
Kater Moggin" <mog...@attbiTHORN.com>:
>> Many of the following are entirely missing from the Talmud.
>> The Talmud doesn't even have a "Schabouth Hag. 6d," a
>> "Choschen Hamm 388," a "Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D." Etc, etc.
>> The Talmud does have Abodah Zara 26b, but the passage does
>> _not_ say that "Even the best of the Gentiles should be
>> killed." It doesn't either suggest killing anybody or make any
>> comments about "the best of the Gentiles."
>>> Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a
>>> wild animal."
>> A complete fabrication. Sanhedrin 59a doesn't contain any
>> such assertion.
>>> Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into
>>> The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
>> That's another falsehood. Sanhedrin 59a gives the opinion
>> of one rabbi, named Johanan, who states, "A heathen who
>> studies the Torah deserves death." No indication he's speaking
>> literally, and in any case he's strongly disputed by several
>> other rabbis quoted in the same passage, one of whom -- a fella
>> called Rabbi Meier -- argues exactly the opposite. In his
>> view, "Even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest."
JK:
> Why is it that you refuse to cite the ACTUAL passage from the Talmud
Why is it that you constantly offer blatant lies? I cited
two passages right there above -- Avodah Zarah 26b and
Sanhedrin 59a -- and I explained why your assertions about them
were false.
Kater Moggin
>> ... The question is whether it's true to say
>> that the Talmud -- specifically Avodah Zarah 22a-22b --
>> asserts "Christians prefer sex with cows." Answer: no. There
>> is no such statement in the passage. Again, it quotes one
>> rabbi quoting another, unnamed rabbi's remark on idolators, and
>> then quotes other rabbis who disagree.
John Knight <johnk...@usa.com>
> What follows ...
What follows is yet another of your attempts to switch the
topic. You're trying to divert attention from your lie
concerning Avodah Zarah 22a-22b by changing the subject to Moed
Kattan 17a. But what the hell.
JK:
> Moed Kattan 17a (p. 107). If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go
> to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
A distortion of the text, which refers to a rabbi who says
that if you realize you're under the sway of evil -- not
merely "tempted to do evil," but in its grip -- then you should
dress in black clothes, put on a black coat, and perform the
black action somewhere you're unknown, "rather than profane the
name of Heaven openly." That's a comment about the
shamefulness and profanity of evil -- not advice about where to
take one's next vacation.
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
Ezra 9: 1 - 3
The jews (israel) are sacred and other than jews (israel) are infilty
Leviticus: 25: 44 - 46
Other than jews (israel) are slaves and other than jews (israel) must be
slave of jews (israel) and must serve the jews (Israel)
I Corinthians 9: 20 - 24
mission can spread the faith with all the way, no worries about bad or
wrong way than win
Please Read: [Luke 7:1-10], [Mathews 18:21-35], dan [Luke 12:42-48],
[Ephesians 6:5] Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and
fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
[Colossians 3:22] Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything;
and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor,
but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
[1 Corrinthians 7:20-22] Each one should remain in the situation
which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were
called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your
freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord
is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was
called is Christ's slave.
[Genesis 9:20-27] Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a
vineyard. When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay
uncovered inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his
father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and
Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they
walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces
were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's
nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his
youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest
of slaves will he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the
LORD, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God
extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of
Shem, and may Canaan be his slave."
Adamas
followers of a modern day religion like judaism got to do with biblical
hebrew Israel?
Why not equally replace the bracketed "Israel" with "Jehovah's Witnesses" or
"Methodists" or "Bahai Faith"? It makes about as much sense?
So what if the adherents of the religion of Judaism are highly inclusive and
protectionist and teach stuff to their kids which you find objectionable. If
their teachings were harmful to their kids or society at large wouldn't the
authorities get involved and close them down like the japanese did with that
cult which released the nerve gas?
What makes them any worse than any other? What they do in the privacy of
their own religion is their own business?.
But I still dont see how you can justify identifying the followers of any
one modern day religion with historic Israel? Historic Israel never held
these values so I don't believe you have got it right. Is it possible you
have come across a sect within judaism who are not representative of the
whole? You get the same sort of thing within Christianity.
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" <adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:3CD6AB31...@centrin.net.id...
Blue Sky
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
>
> In article <3cd0c4d4$1...@nopics.sjc>,
> "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
> > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ON THE JEWS
>
> > proceedings during the drafting of the Constitution in 1789
concerning the
> > statement of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN at the convention concerning
Jewish
> > immigration. (Original in the Franklin Institute,
Philadelphia.)
>
> This "quote" is a complete fabrication.
>
<snip>
>
>
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_int
ro.html
>
Royce, based solely upon face value, it seems a real stretch
to believe these Franklin quotes. However, using the ADL as
a counter source does not add any factual credibility to your
viewpoint either. What John Knight needs to do is identify
contemporaneous texts about Franklin to corroborate his
statements. So, good luck hunting John. May you discover
the truth along the way.
Blue Sky
Royce Buehler
>
> "Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> news:3cd18e36$0$3935$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >
> > In article <3cd0c4d4$1...@nopics.sjc>,
> > "John Knight" <johnk...@usa.com> writes:
> > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ON THE JEWS
> >
> > > proceedings during the drafting of the Constitution in 1789
> concerning the
> > > statement of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN at the convention concerning
> Jewish
> > > immigration. (Original in the Franklin Institute,
> Philadelphia.)
> >
> > This "quote" is a complete fabrication.
> <snip>
> http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_int
> ro.html
>
> Royce, based solely upon face value, it seems a real stretch
> to believe these Franklin quotes. However, using the ADL as
> a counter source does not add any factual credibility to your
> viewpoint either.
To someone inclined to believe (or suspect) that most of the Jews
are wholesale liars, it doesn't add factual credibility. To
normal people, it may not be a clincher, but it adds quite a
bit of credibility.
The fact that "John Knight" wants all the Jews killed, and
two thirds of the world turned into slaves of the "white race"
damages *his* credibility past salvaging.
The *real* basis for "factual credibility" is, that further on
in that same post I gave the mailing address of the Franklin Institute
in Philadelphia, so that anyone who wanted could write and ask
them whether they have this supposed "original". "John Knight"
did not do this - and never will.
> What John Knight needs to do is identify
> contemporaneous texts about Franklin to corroborate his
> statements. So, good luck hunting John. May you discover
> the truth along the way.
There's an easy way for him to do that - write to the Franklin
Institute. When they tell him there's no such document, it
won't keep him from repeating the lie, anymore than direct
quotes from the Talmud showing what it actually says keep him
from repeating his lies about that. No quantity of mere
facts is going to help Mr. Knight. What he needs is a change
of heart.
> Blue Sky
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
BAzel Swiss on 1897 propose with 300 scholar directed with Theodore
Hertzel, that document propose to make world as jew slaves
Adamas
Elders of Zion"?
It is claimed that this was a Zionist political strategy and
blueprint for deliberately creating world wars so that members
of the club could invest their money with insider knowledge to become
fabulously rich and set up a new world order to control world
government. There are many theories about such a conspiracy.
Maybe it is true or maybe it is not true? For example many rich and powerful
Jewish bankers and politicians today are descended from Khazar peoples.
Khazars were a world power one time but never a part of any tribe of Israel.
Anybody who adopts the religion of Judaism is called a Jew. It is important
to realise that not all Israel were Jews. It is also true that not all Jews
are Israel. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that all Israel are wicked
people because of the actions of one group. There are wicked people in all
religions. Are there not laws in Islam to punish the wicked as also there
are similar laws within Christianity?
In my country we have a saying: "Man proposes but God disposes"
This saying means that men may try to carry out their wicked plans but
always there is God who is watching over His people to protect them. No
weapon that is formed against His People can prosper. He destroys the plans
of the wicked. It is God who is in final control - not conspirators!
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" <adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:3CD7D790...@centrin.net.id...
Celtic Power
"Adamas" <mi...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:3cd7...@clear.net.nz...
Royce Buehler
In article <3cd7...@clear.net.nz>,
"Adamas" <mi...@clear.net.nz> writes:
> You mean the controversial document called "The Protocols of the Learned
> Elders of Zion"?
There's nothing "controversial" about the document. It has been known for
eighty years to be a forgery. The only "controversy" is from neo-Nazi
propagandists, the same sort of people who claim that hardly any Jews
died during World War II, or from a few innocent dupes who read their
propaganda and pass it along without checking it out.
Here is the entire entry in the current Britannica Online for
"The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion":
fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for
anti-Semitism in the early 20th century. The document purports to
be a report of a series of 24 (in other versions, 27) meetings held
at Basel, Switz., in 1897, at the time of the first Zionist congress.
There Jews and Freemasons were said to have made plans to disrupt
Christian civilization and erect a world state under their joint rule.
Liberalism and socialism were to be the means of subverting
Christendom; if subversion failed, all the capitals of Europe
were to be sabotaged.
The Protocols were printed in Russia in abbreviated form in
1903 in the newspaper Znamia ("Banner") and subsequently (1905)
as an addendum to a religious tract by Serge Nilus, a tsarist
civil servant. They were translated into German, French, English,
and other European languages and soon came to be a classic of
anti-Semitic literature. In the United States Henry Ford's private
newspaper, Dearborn Independent, often cited them as evidence of
a Jewish threat.
The spurious character of the Protocols was first revealed in
1921 by Philip Graves of The Times (London), who demonstrated
their obvious resemblance to a satire by the French lawyer Maurice
Joly on Napoleon III published in 1864 and entitled Dialogue aux
Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ("Dialogue in Hell
between Machiavelli and Montesquieu"). Subsequent investigation,
particularly by the Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev, revealed
that the Protocols were forgeries compounded by officials of
the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly, a fantastic
novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche (1868), and other sources.
> It is claimed that this was a Zionist political strategy and
> blueprint for deliberately creating world wars so that members
> of the club could invest their money with insider knowledge to become
> fabulously rich and set up a new world order to control world
> government. There are many theories about such a conspiracy.
>
> Maybe it is true or maybe it is not true?
It is not true - unless you want to claim that the Times of London,
the entire French court system (which ruled the Protocols a forgery
in the 1930s), the Encyclopedia Britannica and every other major
encyclopedia, are secretly controlled by invisible "Elders of Zion."
> For example many rich and powerful
> Jewish bankers and politicians today are descended from Khazar peoples.
> Khazars were a world power one time but never a part of any tribe of Israel.
The Khazars were a major regional power in the early middle ages.
The royal family and the upper classes of Khazaria converted to
Judaism in the eighth century. Many European Jews, of Israelite descent,
emigrated to Khazaria over the next few centuries. Most Jews today
are descended from "Ashkenazi", the Jews who lived in Germany during
the time of the Khazars. Some of them, no doubt, are also descended
from those Khazars who practiced Judaism, and whose ancestry included
both Israelite and central Asian components.
Again, neo-Nazi propaganda claims that essentially all Ashkenazi have
no history in Europe before the Khazars, and have no Israelite ancestry.
The same propaganda claims that Yiddish is basically a Turkic language.
The first claim is completely false, though it takes a bit of research
to turn up the actual history. The second claim is absurd: anyone who
knows a smattering of either German or Hebrew will instantly recognize
Yiddish as a dialect of German with many Hebrew loan-words.
> Anybody who adopts the religion of Judaism is called a Jew. It is important
> to realise that not all Israel were Jews. It is also true that not all Jews
> are Israel. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that all Israel are wicked
> people because of the actions of one group. There are wicked people in all
> religions.
And here you speak very good sense. This was the main point of your
post, that we must judge individuals one by one. Judge them not by
the group they belong to, but, as Martin Luther King said, "by the
content of their character." Obviously you are not among the neo-
Nazis who have been busy spreading these falsehoods about the Jews.
But they've succeeded in getting you to half-believe some of those
falsehoods. I hope you'll be more careful in the future.
> Are there not laws in Islam to punish the wicked as also there
> are similar laws within Christianity?
>
> In my country we have a saying: "Man proposes but God disposes"
>
> This saying means that men may try to carry out their wicked plans but
> always there is God who is watching over His people to protect them. No
> weapon that is formed against His People can prosper. He destroys the plans
> of the wicked. It is God who is in final control - not conspirators!
True enough, and thank God He is.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu
"Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
-- Pierre Delalande
Adamas
never heard of the "Zionis Sages Protocols" . Can you point to any reference
material on the web?
"Celtic Power" <Ug...@ustink.org> wrote in message
news:TKTB8.12542$YP1.194...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Celtic Power
mention there are more than one version. The oldest Rabbi has never read the
entire thing.
"Adamas" <mi...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:3cd8...@clear.net.nz...
God
just a bunch of old stories? Sheesh!
Cheers,
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" <adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:3CD6AB31...@centrin.net.id...
Celtic Power
"God" <Ze...@Mount.Olympus> wrote in message
news:IwkC8.1124$J46.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
God
"Celtic Power" <UBU...@ustink.org> wrote in message
news:fMkC8.3170$C31.97...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Celtic Power
cover for their real law.
"God" <Ze...@Mount.Olympus> wrote in message
news:delC8.1296$J46.8...@news20.bellglobal.com...
God
As far as I'm concerned, be it the Tora, Talmud, Old Testament, New
Testament, Qu'aran, Buddist writings, the Bagavad Gita, the Illiad, the
Odyssey or anything others, they're just stories written by men and women.
Cultures grow by trying to understand them but not because they contain any
divine truth. Growth comes merely from the act of searching for truth.
There is no "divine truth" of course, though maybe it's necessary (in our
still primitive state as a species) for a society to collectively believe
their is. Is this a spur to growth and development of thought?
Just a few thoughts...
"Celtic Power" <IBR...@UBWrong.com> wrote in message
news:2wlC8.3189$qa3.97...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA
document, minimum read that copy, if you will be reading that copy, i
sure you say that document are controversial, i thing you are not that
document, are you???
Royce Buehler
>
> you are said not controversial, because you are not reading that
> document, minimum read that copy, if you will be reading that copy, i
> sure you say that document are controversial, i thing you are not that
> document, are you???
Yes, Adrian, I've read the "Protocols." Even if it had not been proven
in a court of law that they were fakes (and it has), even if we did
not have copies around of the various books they were copied from
(and we do), any fair minded person with a good knowledge of English
would be able to tell just from one reading that they were fakes.
The language of the "Protocols" is the language of heavy-handed
satire, not the language of serious planners.
No real conspirators write long documents bragging to one another
about how evil they are. Human beings, even thoroughly evil human
beings like Hitler or Osama bin Laden, nearly always think of
themselves as good guys. That's even more true of groups or committees
of human beings. So on internal evidence alone, the "Protocols"
must have been written by enemies of the Jews, not by Jews
themselves.
But we don't have to rely just on internal evidence. The Protocols
were copied from pre-existing documents, mainly from a satire on
the Emperor Napoleon. All historians know this. All encyclopedias
that mention the Protocols explain that they are forgeries.
People have been lying to you, Adrian. If you are smart, you will
not trust any further "information" you get from the people who
told you that the Protocols were really written by Jews. Whether
they were lying on purpose, or whether they were just foolish
enough to believe a lie because they wanted to believe that Jews
are evil, doesn't matter. Neither liars nor fools are good sources
of information.
Adamas
forest to set alight. Therefore a quiet factual response without calls to
emotive icons can actually do a lot of good. When you are aware of checkable
references which clarify errors you perceive in particular posts, it is
helpful to mention these. Many people just want to know the truth without
having to wade through reams of controversy.
I for one do not know what to think about many of the contemporary Jewish
issues. I admit I am floundering trying to come to grips with all the claims
and counter claims so I experiment in order to gauge reaction, hoping
thereby to gain understanding. I do live in the country which suffered the
greatest per capita population loss in a world war defending the Jewish
cause among other freedom issues but now I just groan when there is yet
another "Holocaust" movie re-run or another report of an old man being
persecuted for alleged war crimes or when I am no longer allowed to see my
city decorated with traditional Christmas lighting because some Jewish group
doesn't feel comfortable about it. The Japanese did us a lot of harm but we
are getting over it. The Russian communists who claimed to all be Jews or
married to one killed tens of millions of "Christians" in the process of
consolidating their minority regime control but we don't talk about that or
make endless movies. All I am saying is that the Jews are not doing
themselves any favours by their current PR strategies or these latest
pictures on TV of homes violated and bulldozed with women and children still
in them. I am not ignoring the atrocities being perpetrated on the Israeli
peoples either but the whole Israeli and by association Jewish, response
thing is a PR disaster. They should not be surprised at the rising feeling
of disquiet and attendant anti-Jewish sentiment being recorded in so many
nations including here, who previously gave so much to support them and to
guarantee them their right to an existence.
Of course there will be those who are stirred up easily and will dig deep
and find quotations from Jewish sources which are not flattering. The Talmud
is not exempt from statements of excess. It is not clear to me if in places
it advocates gross wickedness or if there are underlying soft explanations.
Being more familiar with the Christian Bible, I am aware that portions of
this can be approached in a climate of negativity and suspicion in the mind
of someone unfamiliar with its interpretation but I also know "how" to read
it to see the Truth it conveys in righteousness. I wonder if this approach
can also be applied in respect of the Talmud to explain the "difficult"
areas?
"Adrian Dharma Wijaya, MBA" <adri...@centrin.net.id> wrote in message
news:3CDA4446...@centrin.net.id...
Celtic Power
presents:
A Debate:
Is Spielberg Guilty of Falsifying the Talmud in his Movie "Schindler's
List"?
The Truth About the Racist, Chauvinist Talmud
Steven Spielberg's hallowed celluloid liturgy, Schindler's List not only
defames every soldier in the German military as a homicidal robot, it also
perpetrates a myth about the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion is based
upon the Talmud, one of the most racist and chauvinist works ever committed
to writing.
Of course Spielberg, being a cunning and deceptive propagandist, cannot
reveal the fact of the Talmud's racism to his audience. Instead, he portrays
it as a sort of manual for universal love. Hence, toward the end of the film
in a key tear-jerking scene, Schindler's Jews present Schindler with a ring
upon which is inscribed a quotation attributed to the Talmud, "He who saves
a single life, saves the entire world."
This quotation also appears on posters advertising Schindler's List in video
stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's motto, by
its promoters.
However, the actual Talmud verse referred to in the movie says no such
thing. Here is what the Talmud really says, "Whosoever preserves a single
soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete
world" (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a).
The Talmud only praises the saving of Jewish lives.
In response to our exposé of Spielberg's deceptive whitewash of the contents
of the Talmud, Dene Bebbington, who obviously knows nothing about the
Talmud, nevertheless decided to ignorantly repeat some obscurantist
propaganda contradicting our information. Bebbington is apparently convinced
that anything that emanates from a Zionist source in this area must be
infallible and with the kind of painfully blind faith many such naive and
easily duped people exhibit, repeated the propaganda around the Internet, as
a supposedly definitive confirmation of our error and the "truth" of
Spielberg's version.
Alan R. Critichley, the co-author of our original, critical review of
Spielberg's movie (to access that review, "Swindler's Mist," go to
http://www.hoffman-info.com/shindler.html ), has penned our rejoinder to
Bebbington's anonymous writer.
Mr. Bebbington's preface and then the argument of his anonymous writer
appear first. Mr. Critchley's rejoinder immediately follows.
--Michael A. Hoffman II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
From Dene Bebbington:
Subject: The "Swindler's Mist" article on your web site
I notice that .... you have a copy of Michael Hoffman's "Swindler's Mist"
article. Since you are interested in truth I would like to point out a
serious error in something that this article asserts. Hoffman charges that
Spielberg is falsifying the Talmud by using the quotation "He who saves a
single life saves the whole world", he then goes on to explain why he thinks
this is false by giving the quotation that instead refers to the life of a
Jewish person.
Unfortunately the truth is that there are actually two versions of this
quotation, including the one Spielberg uses, in different Talmudic books.
Thus it is wrong for Hoffman to accuse Spielberg of falsifying what the
Talmud says.
The information I have regarding this is attached below and comes from one
of several posts on Usenet regarding this quotation, other posts said
basically the same thing, but this one was the most detailed...
I make no opinion as to why Hoffman made this error, but would ask that you
consider changing the article to reflect the truth, certainly there should
be enough information in the attached post to facilitate any cross checking
that you may like to do.
Regards, Dene Bebbington
This question came up some time ago on scj. I cannot find my original post
on the subject in my files, so I will reproduce it in brief.
The source for this saying is in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5. It appears in
several versions:
1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is: "Whoever
destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh a`hat mi-bnei adam] ... it
is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of
a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved an entire world".
2. In the Talmud Bavli, where this mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the
wording is the same, except for the substitution of "life of a single Jew"
[nefesh a`hat \mi-yisrael] for "life of a single human being".
3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi, Mishnah 5 is divided into subsections
(Halakhot). In my edition the saying appears in Halakhot 12-13. Others
divide Mishnah 5 differently: e.g. MTR locates it in Halakhah 9. It reads
"destroys a single life" [ma'abed nefesh a`hat] and "preserves a single
life" [meqayem nefesh a`hat]. There is no specific mention of either "human
being" or "Jew", though the former is clearly implied.
The question is: Which is the original version? Was the limitation to Jewish
lives there to begin with, and then taken out as a result of Church
censorship? This is suggested in the book of corrigenda, Hesronot Ha-shas.
Alternatively, was the universal formulation the original one, and the
limitation to Jewish lives introduced into it at some later date, perhaps in
a period when particularly severe persecution of Jews generated a justified
feeling of xenophobia?
The answer would seem to be obvious from the context, which is the same in
all three versions. The citation is preceded by the words: "This is why Adam
was created alone. It is to teach us that ...". A bit father down it reads:
"When a man mints a number of coins from a single die, they are all
identical; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He,
minted every human being from the die of the primal Adam, and not one of
them is like any other".
Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation of Jewish lives
alone, the reference would have been to Abraham at the earliest. The
repeated reference to Adam, progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that
the original must have referred to the preservation of human life in
general.
This is aparently how the Rishonim (medieval commentators) understood it as
well. Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi version, (3.) slightly altered, in
Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also cites the Bavli version (2. above) briefly
in Hilkhot Rotzea`h 1:6. Hameiri too bases his commentary on the Yerushalmi
version, illustrating "the destruction of a whole world" by pointing out
that Cain's murder of Abel eliminated all of his victm's descendents at one
fell swoop. Abel, like Adam was not Jewish; he was not even the ancestor of
Jews.
The humanistic version was not universally accepted by the A`haronim (later
commentators). MaHaRSh"A, for example, in Hidushei Agadot on Sanh.37a, stays
with Version 2, and explains at some length why it is only important to save
Jewish lives, even though the Mishnah bases the dictum on Adam's being the
father of all mankind. I would be interested in learning what present-day
Orthodox Judaism regards as the authentic reading.
SEVERAL ROADS TO THE SAME PLACE
A response to Dene Bebbington and an unknown writer
by Alan R. Critchley
Copyright©1997. All Rights Reserved
Dene Bebbington states that Michael A. Hoffman II and this writer have
committed a "serious error" when we accuse Steven Spielberg of falsifying a
Talmud reference in his movie "Schindler's List.".
In the Internet edition of our article, "Swindler's Mist," we stated:
"Toward the end of the movie, Schindler is shown being presented with an
inscribed gold ring by the Jews he rescued. We are told that the inscription
is from the Talmud, `He who saves a single life, saves the entire world.'
(This quotation also appears on posters advertising Schindler's List in
video stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's
motto by its promoters). The saying has a nice, warm, humanistic tenor, but
there's just one problem: that's not what the Talmud says.
"The actual Talmud verse states, `Whosoever preserves a single soul of
Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world'
(Tractate Sanhedrin 37a). The Talmud only praises the saving of Jewish
lives. In Spielberg's non-stop deception, even the documented contents of
Jewish books are falsified."
Mr. Bebbington's response merely accuses us of being error. He presents no
original research to prove his point, basing his attack on another article
by an unknown author. Bebbington says that the unknown writer's article
concerning the preceding Talmud passage demonstrates that we are in error.
Since Bebbington has nothing more to say, this critique will focus on to the
unknown author.
OUR RESPONSE TO THE UNKNOWN AUTHOR
The unknown author's article is a combination of fact and fraud.
In spite of this, it contains enough evidence to exonerate us of the charge
of falsehood.
The Talmud is a two-part collection of the sayings of ancient Rabbis. These
two parts consist of the Mishnah ("Teaching") and the Gemara ("Completion").
The Mishnah contains the earlier Rabbinic material, and the Gemara is later
Rabbinic commentary on the Mishnah.
There are two editions of the Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud and the
Babylonian Talmud. Of these two, the Babylonian Talmud is authoritative for
Orthodox Judaism, which regards it as divinely inspired.
The superiority of the Babylonian Talmud is so great, that "...when people
now talk about the Talmud, they always mean the Babylonian Talmud. The
authority of the Babylonian Talmud is also greater than that of the
Jerusalem Talmud. In cases ofdoubt the former is decisive." (pg. 40, From
Torah to Kabbalah, by R.C. Musaph-Andriesse, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1982, emphasis in original text).
Further, "Thus the fuller Babylonian Talmud became the dominant work: when
reference is made to the Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud is meant..." (pg.
105, "The Sacred Books of the Jews," by Harry Gersh, Stein and Day, New
York, 1968).
Our article stated that the Talmud (i.e. the Babylonian Talmud) has:
"Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as
if he had preserved a complete world."
Bebbington's unknown author states, "2. In the Talmud Bavli [the Babylonian
Talmud; ARC], where this mishnah appears on Sanhedrin 37a, the wording is
the same, except for the substitution of `life of a single Jew' (nefesh
a'hat\mi-yisrael) for `life of a single human being'."
The unknown author cited by Mr. Bebbington thus says precisely the same
thing we said in our article, proving that what we wrote is correct.
This also proves that Mr. Bebbington himself knows very little about Jewish
literature, since he apparently is not even aware of basic Jewish terms or
what they mean. We doubt he would have attacked us using the unknown author
had he known that this author would agree with us.
Even though this point by itself is enough to prove us right, we shall
continue in order to thoroughly examine related issues.
The unknown author, apparently embarrassed by the Talmud's assertion of the
value of saving only Jewish life, attempts to cloud the issue by giving
various amounts of vague, unsupported and untranslated information. For
example:
1. He says that "1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is
`Whoever destroys the life of a single human being (nefesh a 'hat mi-bnei
adam) ... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever
preserves the life of a single human being ... it is as if he had preserved
an entire world".
There are several things wrong with the above statement. First, the unknown
author does not provide us with any specifications of what exactly is "the
standard edition of the Mishnayot [the Mishnah, the first part of the
Talmud; ARC]". The modern standard editions of the Mishnah in fact agree
with our article, as we shall see.
THE STANDARD EDITIONS OF THE MISHNAH AS CONTAINED IN THE ONLY COMPLETE
TRANSLATIONS OF THE TALMUD IN THIS CENTURY.
Mishnah 4.5, The Babylonian Talmud, Soncino English translation, translated
by Jacob Shachter, University Press, Oxford, 1935, pg. 234, Sanhedrin 37a:
"...whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to
him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a
single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had
preserved a complete world."
Mishnah 4.5, Der Babylonische Talmud, translated and provided with short
explanations by Lazarus Goldschmidt, German translation of the Babylonian
Talmud, Sanhedrin pgs. 169-170, Sanhedrin 37a: "...dass wenn jemand eine
jisraelitische Seele vernichtet, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hatte er
eine ganze Welt vernichtet, und wenn jemand eine jisraelitische Seele
erhalt, es ihm die Schrift anrechnet, als hatte er eine ganze Welt
erhalten."
This German passage, which may be translated much the same way as the
Soncino English cited above, also contains the restriction of a blessing
reserved only to saving an Israelite soul ("eine jisraelitische Seele").
To the best of my knowledge, this Goldschmidt translation was the only
complete, uncensored German translation of the Babylonian Talmud at the time
of World War Two. It is worth noting that Goldschmidt specifically made his
Talmud translation "according to the first uncensored Bromberg edition
(Venice 1520-23)," comparing it to the famous uncensored (and handwritten)
Munich Talmud text. Goldschmidt's Talmud for Sanhedrin was published in The
Hague and Berlin in 1933.
Mishnah 4.5, The Talmud of Babylonia; An American Translation, translated by
Jacob Neusner, Bavli Sanhedrin 4:5, Scholars Press, Chico, California, 1984,
pg. 35: "J. ...whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by
Scripture as if he had destroyed a whole world. K. And whoever saves a
single Israelite soul [sic; ARC] is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a
whole world."
Talmud Bavli, The Schottenstein Edition, The Art Scroll Series, Published by
Mesorah Publications, ltd. Brooklyn, New York, 1993 Tractate Sanhedrin, pg.
37a3: "...that whoever destroys a single life from Israel is considered by
Scripture as if he had destroyed an entire world; and that whoever preserves
a single life from Israel is considered by Scripture as if he had preserved
an entire world."
This version is translated from "the classic `Romm Edition' of the Talmud,
universally known as the Vilna Shas." (pgs. xxvi and xxvii) ("Shas" is a
name for the Talmud; see below.) This authoritative and handsome edition
presents the Talmud as the very word of God (pg. xxvi), and it does not even
mention the universal version used by Spielberg, in the notes on the text.
Mishnah 4.5, The Talmud of Babylonia XXIII, Bavli Tractate Sanhedrin, by
Jacob Neusner, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1994, pg. 183: "J.
...whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he
had destroyed a whole world. K. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul is
deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
STANDARD TRANSLATIONS OF THE MISHNAH ALONE
The Mishnah, translated by Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press, London,
1933, Sanhedrin 4.5, pg. 388:
"...if any man has caused a single soul to perish from Israel Scripture
imputes it to him as though he had caused a whole world to perish; and if
any man saves alive a single soul from Israel Scripture imputes it to him as
though he had saved alive a whole world."
For many years in this century, Danby's Mishnah was the standard English
translation of the Mishnah.
Gateway to the Mishnah, by Isidore Fishman, Jack Mazin Ltd, London 1955,
Sanhedrin 4.5, pg. 156:
"...he who destroys one human life of Israel, it is accounted to him by
Scripture as though he had destroyed a whole universe; and he who saves one
human life of Israel, it is accounted to him by Scripture as though he had
preserved a whole universe."
The Mishnah; A New Translation, by Jacob Neusner, Yale University Press, New
Haven and London, 1988, Sanhedrin 4.5, pg. 591:
"J. ...whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if
he had destroyed a whole world. K. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul
is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
THE JERUSALEM TALMUD
Though it only of peripheral interest to our article (since we were not
referring to the Jerusalem Talmud's version in the first place, and since it
is not authoritative for Judaism anyway), we would like to note that
although earlier translations and editions of the Jerusalem Talmud omit "of
Israel", yet the most recent edition of passages from the Jerusalem Talmud
has the version we listed.
The Two Talmuds Compared, by Jacob Neusner, III, Volume C, Tractate
Sanhedrin, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1996, Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 4:10
A, pg. 95:
"...whoever destroys a single Israelite soul is deemed by Scripture as if he
had destroyed a whole world. And whoever saves a single Israelite soul is
deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world."
THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATE TEXTS
Various editions of the Talmud mention that for many passages of the
Babylonian Talmud, there exist alternative texts. Though the editors of the
Talmud agree that the original text of Sanhedrin should read "a single soul
of Israel", yet textual notes in many mention that some texts of the Talmud
omit "of Israel", resulting in a text that universalizes the verse as
follows: "whoever destroys a single soul is deemed by Scripture as if he had
destroyed a whole world, etc."
That this rendering is disproved by the Talmud itself is obvious (see
below), but the proper explanation of how such an errant text exists is as
follows.
After the Talmud was finally committed to writing, some of its more
offensive passages eventually became known to those outside of Judaism. In
the 1400's the printing press was invented; and because the dominant
governments in Europe were mostly Christian (at least in profession), the
authorities became involved in more stringent censorship of the text of the
Talmud and other Rabbinic writings.
Permission had to be granted to print many Hebrew books, and this permission
was withheld unless the books were censored to bring them in line with
Christian beliefs.
Thus, passages in Jewish sacred writings which said Jesus the Christ was
heretical, or passages which insulted Mary, or Christians, or Gentiles, had
to be changed or omitted entirely. In some cases, editions of the Talmud
which contained offensive passages were destroyed by the Church.
At the same time, however, some Talmud manuscripts faithful to the
uncensored original, were saved from destruction (like the Munich Talmud,
for example), while other Rabbinic authorities marked new editions so that
readers would know something was omitted, printing the omitted sections
separately. In this way, they hoped to circumvent the censorship.
Mr. Bebbington's unknown author, knows about the publication of omitted
sections, yet he handles it in a deceitful manner, probably because of his
embarrassment for the Talmud.
Observe his comments: "The question is: Which is the original version? Was
the limitation to Jewish lives there to begin with, and then taken out as a
result of Church censorship? This is suggested in the book of corrigenda,
Hesronot Ha-shas."
Note that the unknown author does not translate "Hesronot Ha-shas".
A translation would be: "That which is removed from the six orders", or
"That which is removed from the Talmud."
Concerning Ha-shas (the shas), The Censorship of Hebrew Books, by William
Popper, KTAV Publishing House, Inc., New York, 1969, pg. 59 says, "In
Aramaic, `Shitta Sidhre', `six orders,' from the six divisions into which
the Mishnah is divided. The term is abbreviated sh''s (shas), and is often
used to designate the Talmud."
Hesronot Ha-shas has been recently reprinted in 1989 by Sinai Publishing of
Tel-Aviv. On page 44 of this antique reprint, Hesronot Ha-shas specifically
lists the original text of the ancient Babylonian Talmud as follows: "a soul
from Israel".
It specifically lists "from Israel" as having been removed due to
censorship. In the face of this Hebrew evidence, which proves us correct,
our unknown author feels the necessity to soften its factual listing into a
mere "suggestion".
Are there texts which have the universal version? Yes. But all modern
translations of the Talmud relegate the universal version to footnote status
in view of the Hebrew evidence on censorship. The Christian censors forced
the Jewish publishers to omit "of Israel", in order to give the Talmud a
less Jewish-chauvinistic, anti-Gentile meaning.
Popper's censorship information (above, pg. 58-59), states that an omission
like the one we are discussing is not at all unusual: "It was not always
that long passages, such as those instanced, were censored on these various
charges, but often single words alone were omitted; ...Often, in these
cases, another method of correction was used in place of
omission--substitution."
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the translator of the latest modern English version
of the Babylonian Talmud, says, "Indeed, almost every passage dealing with
non-Jews must be suspected of having undergone some change." (Talmud
Reference Guide, by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, Random House, New York, 1989, pg.
50)
To give a humorous example, we shall now list a Hebrew prayer: "Guardian of
the holy people, Guard the remnant of thy holy nation, Nor let a holy people
perish."
Because the word "people" in Hebrew is "goy", sometimes used negatively of
Gentiles, the censors made the later printed edition of the prayer to read
as follows: "Guardian of the holy Turks, Guard the remnant of the Turks, Nor
leave the holy Turks to perish!" (Popper, pg. 130)
In spite of the fact that Hebrew editions of this prayer exist praising the
Turks, no scholar believes they represent the true Hebrew text when the
evidence is presented. It is similar to the Sanhedrin passage under
discussion in our article; we are aware of no Jewish publisher or editor of
the Talmud who defends the universal text as the original.
THE REFERENCE TO ADAM IN ALL VERSIONS OF THE TALMUD
The unknown author makes the point of checking the context of the passage in
Sanhedrin 37a, and says the following:
"Which is the original version? Was the limitation to Jewish lives there to
begin with, and then taken out as a result of Church censorship?
...Alternatively, was the universal formulation the original one, and the
limitation to Jewish lives introduced into it at some later date...? The
answer would seem to be obvious from the context, which is the same in all
three versions.
The citation is preceded by the words:
`This is why Adam was created alone. It is to teach us that...'. A bit
father [sic] down it reads: `When a man mints a number of coins from a
single die, they are all identical; but the King of the kings of kings, the
Holy One blessed be He, minted every human being from the die of the primal
Adam, and not one of them is like any other'.
Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation of Jewish lives
alone, the reference would have been to Abraham at the earliest. The
repeated reference to Adam, progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that
the original must have referred to the preservation of human life in
general."
The above argument appears convincing, until other related Talmud verses are
scrutinized.
The fact is, the Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as
non-human animals, and specifically lists Gentiles as not being descendants
of Adam. We will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this
topic.
Kerithoth 6b:
OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of
anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles [Hebrew:
goyim] or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels
is right, for it is written: "Upon the flesh of man [Hebrew: adam] shall it
not be poured [Exodus 30:32]"; and cattle and vessels are not man [adam].
Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since
after death one is called corpse and not a man [adam]. But why is one exempt
in the case of gentiles [goyim]; are they not in the category of man
[adam]?--No, it is written: "And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are
man [adam] [Ezekiel 34:31]": Ye are called man [adam] but gentiles [goyim]
are not called man [adam].
In the above passage, the Rabbis are discussing the Mosaic law which forbids
applying holy oil to men. In the discussion, the Rabbis state that it is not
a sin to apply the holy oil to gentiles, since gentiles are not human beings
(literally, adam).
Yebamoth 61a: It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state [61a] that
the graves of gentiles [goyim] do not impart levitical uncleanness by an
ohel [standing or bending over a grave], for it is said, "And ye my sheep
the sheep of my pasture, are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men
[adam] but the idolaters are not called men [adam].
The Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or grave imparts
uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud here teaches that if a Jew
touches the grave of a gentile, it does not make him unclean, since gentiles
are not human (literally, adam).
Baba Mezia 114b: Said he [Rabbah] to him: Art thou not a priest: why then
dost thou stand in a cemetery?--He replied: Has the Master not studied the
laws of purity? For it has been taught: R. Simeon ben Yohai said: The graves
of gentiles [goyim] do not defile, for it is written, "And ye my flock, the
flock of my pastures, are men [adam]" [Ezekiel 34:31]; only ye are
designated men [adam].
A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing
there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was
permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with
the graves of humans [adam], and he was standing in a gentile graveyard.
Since the so-called Scriptural proof text (Ezekiel 34:31) repeatedly cited
in the above three Talmud passages in reality does not prove that only Jews
are human, it is self-evident that the Talmudic sages who asserted the
preceding absurdities about Gentiles were already anti-Gentile racists or
ideologues who, in desperate search of some proof of their position,
distorted an Old Testament passage in order to justify their bigotry. Their
ideology came first, their "proof" second.
Berakoth 58a
R. Shila administered lashes to a man who had intercourse with an Egyptian
woman. The man went and informed against him to the Government, saying:
There is a man among the Jews who passes judgment without the permission of
the Government. An official was sent to [summon] him. When he came he was
asked: Why did you flog that man? He replied: Because he had intercourse
with a she-ass.
They said to him: Have you witnesses? He replied: I have. Elijah thereupon
came in the form of a man and gave evidence. They said to him: If that is
the case he ought to be put to death! He replied: Since we have been exiled
from our land, we have no authority to put to death; do with him what you
please.
While they were considering his case, R. Shila exclaimed, "Thine, Oh Lord,
is the greatness and the power" [1 Chronicles 29:11] What are you saying?
they asked him. He replied: What I am saying is this: Blessed is the
All-Merciful who has made the earthly royalty on the model of the heavenly,
and has invested you with dominion, and made you lovers of justice.
They said to him: Are you so solicitous for the honor of the Government?
They handed him a staff and said to him: You may act as judge. When he went
out that man said to him: Does the All-Merciful perform miracles for liars?
He replied: Wretch! Are they not called asses? For it is written: "Whose
flesh is as the flesh of asses" [Ezekiel 23:20]. He noticed that the man was
about to inform them that he had called them asses. He said: This man is a
persecutor, and the Torah has said: If a man comes to kill you, rise early
and kill him first. So he struck him with the staff and killed him. He then
said: Since a miracle has been wrought for me through this verse, I will
expound it.
My apologies for subjecting our readers to the preceding lengthy drivel, but
it is best to include all of it to demonstrate its depravity. In addition to
having Elijah float down from heaven to deceive the gentile court, it
teaches that gentiles are in reality animals, so that Rabbi Shila (and
Elijah) did not really lie at all. It also teaches that anyone (even a
Jewish man) who reveals this great Talmud truth deserves execution, since
revealing it makes gentiles angry and causes persecution of Israel.
We can only rejoice that the vast majority of Jews today do not follow such
heinous teachings; only a few openly espouse the Talmud as divinely
inspired, (although unfortunately these few are sometimes to be found in
influential leadership positions).
Parenthetically, the above Scripture proof-text does not prove that gentiles
are not human, being animals. The Ezekiel passage only says that some
Egyptians had large sex organs and copious emissions. This does not in any
way prove or even connote that the Egyptians referred to were animals.
Having sufficiently proven our point from the Talmud, namely that the Talmud
teaches that gentiles are not human [Hebrew: Adam], and are really animals,
we will list a few other passages which expound on the Ezekiel 23:20 "proof
text", allowing our readers to research them on their own: Arakin 19b,
Berakoth 25b, Niddah 45a, Shabbath 150a, Yebamoth 98a.
The original text of Sanhedrin 37a applies God's approval only to the saving
of Jewish lives. This is demonstrable by referring to Jewish books such as
the Hesronot Ha-shas.
But Bebbington's unknown author claims that the various Talmud texts
mentioning Adam, prove that the passage includes gentiles among those worthy
of having their lives saved, since gentiles are of Adam. This is not true
because Talmud itself teaches that gentiles are not human [Adam], but indeed
are only animals. So this line of reasoning is completely fallacious.
As another example of the unknown writer's deception, we will examine the
very first example of post-Talmudic commentators which he mentions: Rambam:
"Moses Maimonides is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in
Jewish history. He is often affectionately referred to as the Rambam, after
the initials of his name and title, Rabenu Moshe Ben Maimon (Our Rabbi,
Moses son of Maimon)." "(Maimonides' Principles," Edited by Aryeh Kaplan,
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, New York, 1975, pg. 3)
Here is what our unknown antagonist says: "Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi
version, (3.) slightly altered, in Hilkot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also cites the
Bavli version (2. above) briefly in Hilkot Rotzeach 1:6."
What Bebbington's unknown writer does not say however, is what Rambam
actually taught about saving people's lives, especially about saving the
lives of gentiles and Christians, or even Jews who dared to deny the divine
inspiration of the Talmud.
Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Moznaim Publishing Corporation, Brooklyn, New
York, 1990, Chapter 10, English Translation, pg. 184:
Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the
river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we
should not save him.
It is, however, forbidden to cause one of them to sink or push him into a
pit or the like, since he is not waging war against us. To whom does the
above apply? To gentiles [Hebrew: goyim, found on pg. 185]. The Hebrew text
of the Feldheim 1981 edition of Mishnah Torah has this also.
Immediately after Maimonides' admonition that it is a duty for Jews not to
save a drowning or perishing gentile, he informs us of the Talmudic duty for
Jews towards Christians, and also towards Jews who deny the Talmud.
Maimonides, Mishnah Torah, Chapter 10 English Translation, pg. 184 "It is a
mitzvah [religious duty; ARC], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors,
minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of
destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people
away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok,
Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot."
The commentary accompanying the preceding statement of Maimonides mentions
that Jesus was an example of a min (plural: minnim). The commentary also
states that the followers of Tzadok were defined as those Jews who deny the
truth of the Talmud and who uphold only the written law (the Pentateuch,
i.e. the Old Testament).
According to Maimonides' Principles, pg. 5, Maimonides "spent twelve years
extracting every decision and law from the Talmud, and arranging them all
into 14 systematic volumes. The work was finally completed in 1180, and was
called Mishnah Torah, or `Code of the Torah'."
Mr. Bebbington's unknown author is guilty of fraud, because he refers to
Maimonides, the greatest Talmud codifier, without stating what Maimonides
said the Talmud teaches concerning the duty to save life.
It is not at all surprising, though, that Maimonides said exactly the
opposite of what our unknown writer asserts concerning the Talmud.
Maimonides asserted that it is the duty of Jews to save only Jews. Ordinary
gentiles are to be allowed to perish, but not actively killed, except during
war; while Christians and Jewish so-called heretics are to be executed.
And there is more: "As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that
their lives must not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them
outright. The Talmud itself [Abodah Zarah 26b] expresses this in the maxim
`Gentiles are neither to be lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into
it]'.
Maimonides explains [in Mishnah Torah 4:11]: `As for Gentiles with whom we
are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to
save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is
seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written:
`neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow [Leviticus
19:16]'--but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow." (Jewish History, Jewish
Religion, by Israel Shahak, Pluto Press, London, Boulder, Colorado, pg. 80,
emphasis in original)
It is not too surprising that Maimonides would have taught this concerning
saving the lives of Gentiles.
Maimonides taught in another section of the Mishnah Torah that Gentiles are
not human: "Man alone, and not vessels, can contract uncleanness by
carriage. ...The corpse of a Gentile, however, does not convey uncleanness
by overshadowing. ...a Gentile does not contract corpse uncleanness; and if
a Gentile touches, carries, or overshadows a corpse he is as one who did not
touch it. To what is this like? It is like a beast which touches a corpse or
overshadows it. And this applies not to corpse uncleanness only but to any
other kind of uncleanness: neither Gentiles nor cattle are susceptible to
any uncleanness." (The Code of Maimonides, Book Ten, translated by Herbert
Danby, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1954, pgs. 8-9)
Small wonder, then, that our opponent, Bebbington's unknown author, speeds
past the greatest of all Talmud scholars without bothering to mention his
teachings on saving lives.
In conclusion:
1. Mr. Dene Bebbington says nothing to refute us; he leaves that to his
unknown writer.
2. Mr. Hoffman and this writer stated that the Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian
Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only
Jewish lives. The unknown writer says this very same thing, without Dene
Bebbington even being aware of it.
3. The censorship book, written by Jews (Hesronot Ha-shas), states that the
Talmud texts which have "Whoever destroys the life of a single human being
... it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the
life of a single human being ...it is as if he had preserved an entire
world," have been censored (tampered with). In other words, these are not
the authentic texts of the Talmud and what Steven Spielberg quoted in his
movie is not from the Talmud, and is precisely what we said it was,
falsification intended to give a humanistic gloss to the Talmud which is, in
its essence, racist and chauvinist.
The authentic, original Talmud text has "a single soul of Israel". This is
upheld by the modern editions of the Talmud.
4. The most recent translation of even the Jerusalem Talmud restricts the
blessing for saving life to saving only a Jewish life.
5. Though the Talmud passage at issue (Sanhedrin Mishnah 4.5/Sanhedrin 37a)
mentions Adam, this does not prove the passage's original intent was
universal, since the Talmud elsewhere teaches that gentiles are not Adam,
but are in fact animals.
6. The greatest of all Talmud codifiers, Moses Maimonides, taught the exact
opposite of Bebbington's unknown author: Gentiles on the point of death
should not be saved, and Christians and Jewish "apostates" should be
executed.
All roads in Talmud research lead to the same conclusion: the Talmud
absolutely repudiates the idea that saving Gentile lives is on the same
level as saving Jewish lives. Therefore it is apparent that Steven
Spielberg's movie "Schindler's List" falsifies the text and teaching of the
Talmud.
A DOUBLE STANDARD
I wish to add a comment on a subject mentioned by Bebbington's unknown
author while discussing the original text of Sanhedrin 37a. He states:
"The question is: Which is the original version? Was the limitation to
Jewish lives there to begin with, and then taken out as a result of Church
censorship? ...Alternatively, was the universal formulation the original
one, and the limitation to Jewish lives introduced into it at some later
date, perhaps in a period when particularly severe persecution of Jews
generated a justified feeling of xenophobia?"
I have reserved Mr. Bebbington's author's statement for my conclusion, to
demonstrate that the unknown author is guilty of upholding a double
standard,thus he is a hypocrite.
The unknown writer says that if the Jews being persecuted by Gentiles
decided that Gentiles no longer needed to be saved from death, this "feeling
of xenophobia" was "justified".
If Jews are persecuted, then they are "justified" in not saving the lives of
Gentiles they meet, as well as in teaching other Jews not to save the lives
of Gentiles. This most awful teaching is mentioned by our opponent, who in
the rest of his writings attempts to prove that the Talmud favors saving the
lives of Gentiles. His two-step reasoning is as follows:
1. The Talmud favors saving Gentile lives. 2. Even if it doesn't, it is
"justified", since the Gentiles were persecutors of the Jews.
Would our unknown writer or Mr. Bebbington adopt the same tack concerning
Gentiles persecuted by Jews?
For example, the Ukrainian hetman Boghdan Chmelnicki was persecuted by Poles
and their Jewish allies.
He lived peaceably with the Poles and Jews until he was horribly provoked
into war, when he mercilessly slaughtered Jews and Catholics within his
grasp.
Would Mr. Bebbington or his ally consider Chmelnicki's conduct as
"justified"? We think not.
For another example, it is a fact mentioned by a Jewish encyclopedia that
after Jews viciously murdered many Romans and Greeks c. 120 A.D. in North
Africa and the Mediterranean, many Gentiles retaliated by murdering
thousands of Jews. Is this conduct "justified"?
In WWII, when the German army occupied the city of Lvov, Poland, hundreds of
Ukrainians were found slaughtered by the Soviet Secret Police. Many of these
Communist secret police were observed to be Jewish. The inhabitants of Lvov
(and members of the German army too) immediately began to murder hundreds of
Jews living in the area. Is this conduct "justified" by Mr. Bebbington or
his unknown writer? The answer is obvious: neither of them would justify any
Gentile oppression of Jews, even if preceded by gross persecution. And
neither would we.
But if Gentiles persecute some Jews, and those Jews decide that Gentiles in
general are not worthy of being saved from death, that is just all right
with the unknown author. In addition to being in error, he is a hypocrite.
Celtic Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Entries based on the Oxford English Dictionary, and edited by Elliott Rabin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
(Use the following to go directly to specific terms:)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
C
Cabbala, Kabbala.
(1) From the beginning of the thirteenth century, the term used for Jewish
mysticism, comprising the study of the hidden workings of the Godhead.
(2) The name given in post-Biblical Hebrew to the oral tradition handed down
from Moses to the Rabbis of the Mishnah and the Talmud.
Chumash.
The five books of the Torah [i.e., the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy].
Return to Table of Contents
G
Gematria.
The method of interpreting the Bible by drawing inferences from the
numerical value of the Hebrew letters. For example, the fact that the Bible
begins with the letter bet, the second letter of the alphabet, indicated for
the Zohar the idea that creation occured on two levels, the physical level
of this world and higher divine realm.
Gemara.
The later of the two portions of the Talmud, consisting of a commentary on
the older part (the Mishnah).
Return to Table of Contents
H
Halachah, Halakhah.
(1) Any law, whether from the Torah or the Talmud.
(2) The system of rabbinic law as a whole.
Return to Table of Contents
K
Kabbala. See Cabbala.
Return to Table of Contents
M
Midrash.
An ancient Jewish homiletic commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures, in which
free use was made of moral, parables, and legendary illustration.
Collections of multiple authors, Midrashim are organized according to the
schedule of Scriptural readings in the synagogue. Also, the mode of
treatment characteristic of this class of commentaries.
Halakhic Midrashim.
Scriptural commentary in the style of Midrash, intended to establish legal
principles from the verses or passages being studied.
Aggadic Midrashim.
Scriptural commentary offering non-legal interpretations.
Mishnah, Mishna.
The first written collection of rabbinic law or halakhah which forms the
basis of the Talmud. The Mishnah was brought together and codified in the
second century.
Return to Table of Contents
R
Rambam-Mishneh Torah.
The Mishneh Torah was the first major law code in Judaism; it systematically
organized the whole of rabbinic law. It was written by Maimonides
(1135-1204), otherwise known as Rambam [Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon], a Spanish
rabbi, physician and philosopher who died in Egypt.
Rashi.
Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaqi (1040-1105), renowned medieval French scholar; his
work is the standard commentary on the Bible and Talmud.
Responsa.
Replies made by rabbinic scholars in answer to submitted questions about
Jewish law. These replies began to be written in the 6th century after the
final redaction of the Talmud, and they continue to be formulated.
Rishonim.
Literally "the first," or "the former," this term refers to the leading
rabbis who lived approximately from 1000 to 1500, before the writing of the
Shulkhan Arukh.
Return to Table of Contents
S
Shulkhan Arukh.
Literally, "prepared table," this work on Jewish religious practice, written
by R. Joseph Caro (1488-1575) and supplemented by R. Moses Isserks (d.
1572), is now accepted as the standard guide to Orthodox observance.
Return to Table of Contents
T
Talmud.
[Hebrew, study] A voluminous, comprehensive collection of wide-ranging
rabbinic discussions on Jewish law and belief. The Talmud is structured by
the classifications of the Mishnah; each section begins with a passage from
the Mishnah, followed by the Gemara [Aramaic for Talmud], a commentary
consisting of rabbinic teachings, stories, and arguments that diverges
freely to other subjects. There are two recensions of the Talmud, differing
in material and length: the Babylonian Talmud, the larger and more important
work, was compiled circa 500; the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Talmud was
compiled in the early fifth century. [Whenever one finds mention simply of
"the Talmud," the Bablyonian text is usually being indicated.] This is the
central text of rabbinic Judaism.
Talmud Bavli.
Hebrew name for the Babylonian Talmud.
Tanakh.
The Hebrew Scriptures. Tanakh is an acronym derived from the three major
divisions of Torah (the Penteteuch), Nevi'im (the Prophets), and Ketuvim
(the Writings, comprising Psalms through Chronicles).
Targum.
Each of several Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, often freely
rendered with interpretive supplements, made after the Babylonian captivity.
These were first preserved by oral transmission, then committed to writing
from circa 100 onwards. The extant Targums together comprise all the books
except Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel.
Tur.
Tur (aka Arba`a Turim, or simply Turim): the next major code of Jewish law
following the Mishneh Torah; compiled by R. Jacob b. Asher (ca. 1280-1340),
in 4 vols.
Return to Table of Contents
Z
Zohar.
The major text of Cabbala (mysticism). Composed pseudopigraphically in the
second half of the thirteenth century by R. Moses de Leon, it is a vast work
of many parts which contains an allegorical interpretation of the
Pentateuch.
Return to Table of Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
LETRS Home || About LETRS || Online Resources || Humanities Computing Lab
Resources
Victorian Women Writers Project || SGML/XML Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Last Updated: 4/30/96
URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~letrs/index.html
Comments: Library Electronic Texts Resource Service / LE...@indiana.edu.
Indiana University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Royce Buehler
In article <3cda...@clear.net.nz>,
"Adamas" <mi...@clear.net.nz> writes:
> Sometimes people are genuine posters and not flame throwers trolling for a
> forest to set alight. Therefore a quiet factual response without calls to
> emotive icons can actually do a lot of good. When you are aware of checkable
> references which clarify errors you perceive in particular posts, it is
> helpful to mention these. Many people just want to know the truth without
> having to wade through reams of controversy.
Understood, and I figured this was where you yourself were coming from,
which is why I posted the web address for ADL's comments on the
"Protocols", and the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica article
on them.
Calls to emotive icons aren't out of place, though, with respect
to several of the posters on these threads, who are in fact neo-Nazis,
and who do in fact believe that all the Jews should be slaughtered.
John Knight is one such person, and Celtic Power is another.
It's not "emotive" to point out what their goals are. It's relevant
to explaining why their propaganda shouldn't be trusted.
> I for one do not know what to think about many of the contemporary Jewish
> issues. I admit I am floundering trying to come to grips with all the claims
> and counter claims so I experiment in order to gauge reaction, hoping
> thereby to gain understanding.
Fair enough. I've researched a lot of these claims, and, where I
know something, I'd be happy to supply information on specific areas
where you have questions.
> I do live in the country which suffered the
> greatest per capita population loss in a world war defending the Jewish
> cause among other freedom issues
I think Russia may be higher on that list than New Zealand, but I
take your point.
> The Russian communists who claimed to all be Jews or
> married to one killed tens of millions of "Christians" in the process of
> consolidating their minority regime control but we don't talk about that or
> make endless movies.
Well, the anti-Semites claim the Russian Communists were all Jews.
It's one of those big falsehoods with a kernel of truth in it. Trotsky
for example was Jewish, Lenin and Stalin weren't. Of the three, guess which
two ruled Russia, and which one the Soviets had executed in exile.
> All I am saying is that the Jews are not doing
> themselves any favours by their current PR strategies or these latest
> pictures on TV of homes violated and bulldozed with women and children still
> in them.
I'm not going to attempt to defend the policies of the current Israeli
government, which IMHO are unjust and will ultimately prove self-defeating.
(The "with women and children still in them" charge is at this point
unproven, but the level of destruction and the siege conditions for
civilians were bad enough.) The Bible says that he who sows the wind
will reap the whirlwind. Sharon is busily sowing a whirlwind, and I
shudder to think what both Israelis and Palestinians are going to
reap as a result.
But there's a huge difference between disapproving of the Israeli
government and disapproving of Jews, as I'm sure you'd agree. The
*strongest* voices - almost the only non-Arab voices - in the United
States objecting to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are,
and have been for decades, Jewish voices. (For example, the editors of
Tikkun magazine.)
> Of course there will be those who are stirred up easily and will dig deep
> and find quotations from Jewish sources which are not flattering. The Talmud
> is not exempt from statements of excess. It is not clear to me if in places
> it advocates gross wickedness or if there are underlying soft explanations.
There are a couple of places where it directs insults at Mary; and several
places where one rabbi or another talks as if Jews are automatically
superior to non-Jews. Nowhere does it advocate wickedness, gross or
otherwise. Again, if there are specific allegations you're curious about,
I can dig up answers. I've learned that these long long lists of lies
about Talmud aren't worth refuting point by point, since the neo-Nazis
will just ignore the reply and post a fresh list of lies and
misrepresentations. But I'd be delighted to respond to honest
questions.
> Being more familiar with the Christian Bible, I am aware that portions of
> this can be approached in a climate of negativity and suspicion in the mind
> of someone unfamiliar with its interpretation but I also know "how" to read
> it to see the Truth it conveys in righteousness. I wonder if this approach
> can also be applied in respect of the Talmud to explain the "difficult"
> areas?
For almost all the allegations, and all the worst allegations, yes
it can. The majority of the "quotations from the Talmud" put out by
anti-Semites are not even just taken out of context. They are first
taken out of context, and then deliberately altered to make them
sound still worse. And a fair number of them just plain aren't there
in any form.
A major difference between Talmud and the Bible is, that Talmud is
primarily a record of the sayings of, and the arguments between,
three centuries of the more famous rabbis. They often contradict one
another. Just because Rabbi X or Rabbi Y is quoted as saying something
in the Talmud doesn't mean that the Talmud "teaches" it - any more than
a sentence in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion constitutes the law
of the land in the U.S. So taking things out of context is even more
likely to misrepresent the Talmud than it is to misrepresent the Bible.
Adamas
"Celtic Power" <IBR...@UBWrong.com> wrote in message
> This quotation also appears on posters advertising Schindler's List in
video
> stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's motto,
by
> its promoters.
>
> However, the actual Talmud verse referred to in the movie says no such
> thing. Here is what the Talmud really says, "Whosoever preserves a single
> soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a
complete
> world" (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a).
>
> The Talmud only praises the saving of Jewish lives.
>
Huh? How do you read that conclusion into it? The quoted reference to a
"soul of Israel" is more indicative of a very selfless and kindly statement
of concern on a level the Christian world would do well to emulate more
often. Here they are giving first priority to their neighbours of Israel
above themselves. Paul also longed for the day that all Israel would be
saved. Is this a bad thing to wish for?
Adamas
confusing.
One of these is the use of the term "anti-semitic". I have researched this
to the best of my ability only to come to the conclusion it is totally
meaningless term in reality because there are no provable "semites". The
typical modern (political) definition is "anti-Jewish" but nobody can tell
me what they mean by "Jew" (by race or by religion?) so that definition is
also meaningless. There is too much ignorance of history or too much
propagandised religious education with their related experts competing to
muddy the picture for me. As far as I can work it out, a Jew seems to be
absolutely anybody from anywhere who signs up to the religion of Judaism
which I equate to other religions like Catholicism, and Islam with their
proliferations of associated breakaways, sects and cults.
Accordingly the best definition for "anti-semitism" I have been able to put
together so far is that it is a local religious term conveniently applied by
militant followers of the religion of judaism to those who adhere to any
different religion. Therefore it seemed to me that all "Christians" and
their nations must be perceived as "anti-semitic" without exception despite
soft pedalling this view in the meantime. I then took my definition to a
number of predominantly Jewish newsgroups under a series of different
identities and took opportunities to have it debated where is was confirmed
with a vengeance by the "hard liners".
The wider picture I gained was that there is a hardcore to Judaism which
sees a responsibility to eliminate "anti-semitism" from the world so that
there can never be another "Holocaust". This is a gradual process being
played out at sustainable rates which can be tolerated/stomached by targeted
nations. The ultimate goal is to have the entire world conform to a "jew
friendly" condition. This means the removal of all forms of "discrimination"
in all member states and the UN is a convenient tool through which to
achieve this. In the US we now have the legislated removal of all visible
Christian icons from public places. The same laws are in the process of
being introduced in NZ. The process of educating the nations will continue
into all aspects of national life in the lives of the citizens of those
nations where Judaism is not the official national religion. I found
references from significant western chief Rabbis who saw Russian communism
as the implementation of "pure Judaism" and the model for application in
their respective nations.
I think this is the entry point for the Conspiracy Theorists. There are
those who perceive intuitively the process which is affecting their lives
(Father Christmas is now banned through Jewish action) and have a
corresponding increasingly anti-Jew knee-jerk reaction. They begin see the
process of educating "anti-semitism" out of a nations culture as a defacto
pogrom by the "Jews" extending to the ulimate goal of debt control of world
government through international finance (World bank and International
Monetary Fund) enforced by a co-opted US Military by which they may enforce
their will on all nations. (Give me control of a nations economy and I care
not who writes its laws). Attempts are made to define exactly who within
Jewry is driving this process and it is here that you find the various
suggestions that Jewry has been hi-jacked from within as a vehicle for
Satan's take-over of the planet with all those attendant theories such as
the Jews tried the first time when they murdered Christ, and the second time
when they bought the papacy and ordered the gullible Christian nations to
regain Jerusalem for them and the next time when they took over France and
tried to take over the world and again through Russian communism etc etc. it
rarely occurs to them that followers of Judaism are just people like they
are followers of whatever they believe in. They all get out of bed in the
morning, wash, have breakfast and have day by day problems without any
thought of world domination and killing all the non-Jews or infidels or
whatever.
My interest is in historic Israel of the Bible because I believe history
revolves around them. As far as I can see, the descendents of exiled Jacob
could just as easily be found in any and all of todays religions (or none of
them) but no one religious group can claim to represent Jacob exclusively. I
especially haven't been able to see any realtime correlation between modern
day "Jewry" and the two original nations of biblical Israel. In the morass
of confusion Christian populations are left to believe that it must be so
that the "Jews" are modern day Israel and therefore are entitled to all
these special considerations because of who they are. What worries me is
what will happen if and when they ever find out it aint necessarily so?
Where are the voices who can untangle the webs of deception and unmask the
masquerades? Who is who and what is what?
Beats me! You have a go!
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
news:3cdabd68$0$3940$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
Royce Buehler
>
> OK. I would like to take up your offer to explain some issues I find
> confusing.
All right. Some of these issues *are* complicated, and I don't want
to over-simplify. But I'll try my best to help clear things up.
> One of these is the use of the term "anti-semitic". I have researched this
> to the best of my ability only to come to the conclusion it is totally
> meaningless term in reality because there are no provable "semites". The
> typical modern (political) definition is "anti-Jewish"
Not only is it the typical modern definition, but it's been the
definition as long as the word "anti-Semitic" has been around.
The word was coined in the 19th century by certain European
writers who proudly labelled *themselves* "anti-Semites", because
they were against the Jews. For a number of reasons, the term
didn't make a lot of sense. But still, the term stuck. Like a lot
of other things in language, it means what it has come to mean by
common convention, and it doesn't have to bear a logical relationship
to the roots of the word. Arabs are also "Semitic", in that they
speak a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, and in that they
are traditionally believed, like the Jews, to be descendants of
Noah's son Shem. But the word has never been taken to apply to
people who are anti-Arab, because that's not what the people who
orginally coined the word, or the people who used the word for the
next century, meant by it.
Just over the past ten or fifteen years, anti-Jewish propagandists
have begun objecting to being called "anti-Semites" on two grounds.
First, that it isn't only Jews who are Semitic. And second, many
of them now hold to the loony Identity theory that today's Jews are
really descended from Ham, or from Japheth, or from the devil's
intercourse with Eve. (The same people will also claim that today's
Jews are descended from "Edom" - Jacob's brother - which would mean
they *are* Semitic. But consistency isn't their strong point.)
> but nobody can tell me what they mean by "Jew" (by race or by > religion?) so that definition is also meaningless.
Well, "Jew" certainly doesn't refer to a race. And there are always
going to be people (not just the loonies) with variant ideas about
what really makes someone a Jew, just as there are always going to
be people with variant ideas about what really makes someone a
Christian. But the generally accepted idea, which also happens to
correspond to the Old Testament idea of what makes someone an
Israelite, isn't that complicated.
(1) Jacob was an Israelite.
(2) Whoever is a descendant of an Israelite is an Israelite.
(According to orthodox Jews, the descent must be through
the maternal line. I'm unclear myself on where that idea
originated.)
(3) Whoever converts to Judaism, voluntarily enters into the
Sinai covenant, and (if male) is circumcized, is an
Israelite.
So you can be a Jew by being a descendant of Jacob, or by
being a convert, or by being a descendant of a convert.
The Israelites from the Northern Kingdom were dispersed into
Assyria, and never returned. According to the Bible, they moved
"beyond Babylon" (I.e., east to Iraq and Iran and maybe
further, see Acts 7:43). They're out of the picture, so far as
anyone knows. The Israelites from the Southern Kingdom of Judah,
known as "Jews", returned from exile in Babylon. They settled
down around Jerusalem and Galilee, rebuilt the temple, got
invaded by the Persians and then the Greeks and then the Romans.
They are the "Jews" of the New Testament, of whom Jesus and the
apostles were examples.
There were several major forms of Judaism at the time of Jesus.
The historian Josephus, writing at around the time the New
Testament was written, mentioned three: Sadducees, Pharisees, and
Essenes. Aside from a few small pockets, in Ethiopia and near the
Black Sea, of Jews who believed only in the Torah and not the rest
of the Old Testament, the only Jews who survived the Roman
sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 were the Pharisees. Modern Judaism
was the result.
> As far as I can work it out, a Jew seems to be
> absolutely anybody from anywhere who signs up to the religion of Judaism
Yes, anyone who converts is a full-blown Jew. (More is involved than
"signing up", though. Converting to Judaism is an arduous process
that takes a fair amount of perseverance.) There's some dispute
within Judaism as to who does and does not count as a convert;
many orthodox Jews don't consider a convert Jewish unless they were
converted under the direction of an orthodox rabbi. But everyone
agrees on the basic idea.
> Accordingly the best definition for "anti-semitism" I have been able to put
> together so far is that it is a local religious term conveniently applied by
> militant followers of the religion of judaism to those who adhere to any
> different religion.
It's certainly true that there are some Jews who are overly
sensitive, and respond to any criticism as if it were anti-Semitism.
That's not true of most. To qualify as an anti-Semite, someone has
to engage in prejudice or discrimination against individuals merely
because they are Jewish. People like John Knight and Celtic
Power, who want to kill all the Jews, definitely qualify. People
like yourself, who merely have worries and reservations about the
Jewish religion, don't - although I'm sure if you post in Jewish
newsgroups, you'll find some individuals willing to accuse you of it.
> I then took my definition to a
> number of predominantly Jewish newsgroups under a series of different
> identities and took opportunities to have it debated where is was confirmed
> with a vengeance by the "hard liners".
Generally speaking, debating with people who take any "hard line"
on any side is not a fruitful way to understand the usual meaning
of emotionally or politically loaded words. :-)
> The wider picture I gained was that there is a hardcore to Judaism which
> sees a responsibility to eliminate "anti-semitism" from the world so that
> there can never be another "Holocaust".
Most Jews and most non-Jews feel a responsibility to help
eliminate all forms of group hatred from the world, be it
anti-Semitism or any other. The only difference with the hardcore
is in how quick they are to perceive something as "anti-Semitic."
> The ultimate goal is to have the entire world conform to a "jew
> friendly" condition.
I would say the ultimate goal is to have the entire world conform
to a "people friendly" condition. Since Jews are one set of
people who have often encountered unfriendliness, it makes sense
to give friendliness to them (among others) some extra effort.
> In the US we now have the legislated removal of all visible
> Christian icons from public places.
Only from government property. That doesn't bother me. I can
cover my front porch with all the Christmas lights I want, as
publicly as I like. Or with a John 3:16 billboard. I haven't
heard anyone say boo to that, and if I did, I'd just wave a
copy of the Constitution in their face until they melted.
> I found
> references from significant western chief Rabbis who saw Russian communism
> as the implementation of "pure Judaism" and the model for application in
> their respective nations.
Early in the century, before Stalin got a head of steam and
killed off half the Ukraine, there were a lot of people of good
will who thought Communism was a good idea. Sharing what you have
with the poor is an idea that most religions think highly of -
and that's what Communism originally pretended to be about.
So it's possible (though I'd have to see the reference) that some
major Rabbi said such a thing way back when. I'll guarantee you
there have been no such statements from "chief Rabbis" since
World War II.
> I think this is the entry point for the Conspiracy Theorists.
Yeah, but if someone's really a Conspiracy Theorist, he'll
find entry points everywhere. :-)
> My interest is in historic Israel of the Bible because I believe history
> revolves around them. As far as I can see, the descendents of exiled Jacob
> could just as easily be found in any and all of todays religions (or none of
> them) but no one religious group can claim to represent Jacob exclusively.
Probably a quarter of the world are descendants of Jacob by one
line of ancestors or another. (Pick any individual who lived
three millenia ago, and probably a quarter of the world are
his descendants.) The Jews are just the ones who have
been able to more or less keep track of it along the way.
> I
> especially haven't been able to see any realtime correlation between modern
> day "Jewry" and the two original nations of biblical Israel.
The connection is just to Judah, the Southern Kingdom, which is
where the name "Jew" comes from. The history from Babylon, to Jerusalem
in the 7th century BC, to Persia in Daniel's time, to the Greek
conquest of Jerusalem and the Maccabean revolt, to the Roman
occupation, to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, to the dispersal
of the Jews of Palestine into Iraq and northern Africa and southern
Europe in the first centuries AD, to the growth of the Ashkenazi
tradition in Germany and Prussia in the middle ages, and the
composition of the Zohar in Spain in the high middle ages, and
the persecutions and expulsions that began with the Crusades and
continued through the Spanish Inquisition, to the eastward migration
of the German Jews into Slavic territory, taking Yiddish with them,
in the Rennaisance - is all well documented, and it's continuous.
It doesn't make today's Jews the same "race" as the folks who
went into exile into Babylon in II Kings; there's been a lot of
mingling and intermarriage. But it does make them the descendants
of those Israelites of Judah; and it does make them the same
people. A group can constitute a people without constituting
a "race" - just take Americans, for one example!
Prior to the middle of the 20th century, NO ONE ever doubted that
the Jewry of Europe was the same people as the ones in the Old
Testament. EVERYTHING you hear about them not really being
"Israelites" is a very recent invention. The Identity loons cannot
cite a single Christian writer from before 1940 or so who makes
that claim. (There have always been some who claimed that the
Scots, or the Irish, or some other bunch, are the "lost tribes"
of the northern kingdom of Israel, but none of them claimed
that the Jews were not the descendants of the southern kingdom.)
> In the morass
> of confusion Christian populations are left to believe that it must be so
> that the "Jews" are modern day Israel and therefore are entitled to all
> these special considerations because of who they are. What worries me is
> what will happen if and when they ever find out it aint necessarily so?
Well, that's an unnecessary worry, because it is so. They aren't
due special consideration because of who they are, but they are
due a basic honor and respect because, recent converts aside, they
are descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As Saint Paul writes,
"As touching the election, they are beloved for the sake of the
fathers." (Which is not to be confused with giving special consideration
to the state of Israel. Israel has earned its special
relationship with the U.S. by being a democracy, and to the
extent that it veers into undemocratic colonialism, as far
as I'm concerned, it unearns that special relationship.)
Adamas
"Royce Buehler" <fig...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3CDB391E...@earthlink.net...
> Adamas wrote:
> >
> Not only is it the typical modern definition, but it's been the
> definition as long as the word "anti-Semitic" has been around.
> The word was coined in the 19th century by certain European
> writers who proudly labelled *themselves* "anti-Semites", because
> they were against the Jews.
What was the basis for their hostility?
For a number of reasons, the term
> didn't make a lot of sense. But still, the term stuck. Like a lot
> of other things in language, it means what it has come to mean by
> common convention, and it doesn't have to bear a logical relationship
> to the roots of the word.
So by this definition, anti-semitism is to Judaism what anti-christian is to
Christianity? Therefore neither term should have any racial connotations
because the followers of each religion are multi-ethnic and multi-cultural.
However it does seem to assume a racial meaning for most people.
I read recently that the Russians currently are cracking down on followers
of the religion of Bahai Faith in their country. They have been breaking up
meetings with extreme violence and putting people in prison for practising
that religion. So do we need a modern English word equivalent to
anti-semitism and anti-christian which covers persecution of the members of
that religion?
> Just over the past ten or fifteen years, anti-Jewish propagandists
> have begun objecting to being called "anti-Semites" on two grounds.
> First, that it isn't only Jews who are Semitic.
But are the Jews actually Semites? Everybody assumes they must be because of
the association with ancient Israel. The following research is quite
interesting.
ACADEMIC AMERICAN ENCYCLOPEDIA (1985): "Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are one
of the two major divisions of the Jews, the other being the Shephardim."
ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA (1985): "Ashkenazim, the Ashkenazim are the Jews
whose ancestors lived in German lands...it was among Ashkenazi Jews that the
idea of political Zionism emerged, leading ultimately to the establishment
of the state of Israel...In the late 1960s, Ashkenazi Jews numbered some 11
million, about 84 percent of the world Jewish population."
THE UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA: "The primary meaning of Ashkenaz and
Ashkenazim in Hebrew is Germany and Germans. This may be due to the fact
that the home of the ancient ancestors of the Germans is Media, which is the
Biblical Ashkenaz...Krauss is of the opinion that in the early medieval ages
the Khazars were sometimes referred to as Ashkenazim...About 92 percent of
all Jews are Ashkenazim."
THE BIBLE: "Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham,
and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of
Japheth;...the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz..." (Genesis 10:1-3) Therefore, the
Bible indicates that the Ashkenaz Jews [Khazars] are not the descendants of
Shem and cannot be Semitic
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S ENCYCLOPEDIA for 1954 at 15-292 records the following
in reference to the Khazars: "IN THE YEAR 740 A.D. THE KHAZARS WERE
OFFICIALLY CONVERTED TO JUDAISM. A century later they were crushed by the
incoming Slavic-speaking people and were scattered over central Europe WHERE
THEY WERE KNOWN AS JEWS. It is from this grouping that most German, Polish
and Hungarian Jews are descended, and they likewise make up a considerable
part of that population now found in America. The term Askenazim is applied
to this round-headed, dark-complexioned division."
And second, many
> of them now hold to the loony Identity theory that today's Jews are
> really descended from Ham, or from Japheth, or from the devil's
> intercourse with Eve. (The same people will also claim that today's
> Jews are descended from "Edom" - Jacob's brother - which would mean
> they *are* Semitic. But consistency isn't their strong point.)
They say that todays Jewry are made up of a composite of peoples. This
cannot be denied (so are Christians). Some Jews are not Semitic. Some are.
Some are descended from Esau. The Conspiracists believe it is the Esau
complement who are driving militant Judaism and it is this element who
control the world banking scene by which they mean to attempt to control the
free nations (Mark of the Beast and all that). Some evangelicals believe it
is just poor old Esau still trying to buy back his birthright.
In fact many of these ideas are worthy of careful examination. It is not at
all certain that they can be dismissed out of hand as "loony" Many fine
scholars from many persuasions including Jewish have reached conclusions
that there is a case to answer on many of these questions. My jury is
certainly still out on many of them and I am not prepared to call anyone
"loony" because their research paints a picture different from mine. Do we
still burn people at the stake for claiming the world is round?
> (1) Jacob was an Israelite.
> (2) Whoever is a descendant of an Israelite is an Israelite.
> (According to orthodox Jews, the descent must be through
> the maternal line. I'm unclear myself on where that idea
> originated.)
As an aside are you aware of the results of the mitrocordial gene study (so
called mother-gene which only women carry which identifies their ancestral
parent line). The gene mutates through the centuries and by finding the same
gene mutation variant in different women it is possible to assume that they
once shared the same ancestral mother at that point in history where the
gene assumed that particular mutation. Research conducted on the Palestinian
and Israeli populations found many Jews and Palestinians falling within the
sample range have the identical mother gene. These gene investigations are
producing a large number of surprises worldwide not to mention an endless
run of wacko new theories about the origins of man. It is now known that
Neanderthal man was an independent unique human species which was not part
of any "evolutionary" chain. He existed and he died out. Period. No doubt
they will refine the process until it becomes more accurate and reliable.
> (3) Whoever converts to Judaism, voluntarily enters into the
> Sinai covenant, and (if male) is circumcized, is an
> Israelite.
The Sinai Covenant was in the time of Hebrewism. Judaism was a much later
invention and not the same thing. Is this Sinai Covenant the same Mosaic
code of Laws given to Israel?
> So you can be a Jew by being a descendant of Jacob, or by
> being a convert, or by being a descendant of a convert.
Is there a central register whereby a new member of the religion of Judaism
can check to see if he might be an original Hebrew? I tried looking up my
family genealogy one time. It became impossible beyond the 8th century AD.
It is very difficult to go far back. I know the Mormons are trying to create
a database of everybody in the world and that it must be a massive
undertaking. How do the Jews tell who you are?
>
> The Israelites from the Northern Kingdom were dispersed into
> Assyria, and never returned. According to the Bible, they moved
> "beyond Babylon" (I.e., east to Iraq and Iran and maybe
> further, see Acts 7:43). They're out of the picture, so far as
I read that "Iran" is a corruption of "Aryan" denoting its original
settlement, and that one branch of migratory Israel went through asia into
India where they set up the "caste" system as it still exists today.
Israel (Northern Kingdom) were settled around the Caspian and Black Sea
areas for centuries where they are recorded as a vast number. Best estimates
of the number forced from their homes into exile varies from 3 to 15 million
people. This seems to be based on a census taken 2 centuries earlier where
they were able to field an army of 600,000 registered soldiers within legal
age limts for conscription. The logistics of supporting such a field army
required a substantial population and this was not expected to have reduced
in the following 200 years.
They were known and recorded by their Assyrian captors as the tent dwelling
"House of Omri" after their "worst" king who had changed their identity for
ever. Later corrupted to be called "Beth Khumri" and other names at various
times through history. Ezekiels "whirlwind" vision identifies the presence
of a by-now-paganised Israel as a significant component part of the
Cimmerian invasion forces. It is quite clear from the OT that the elders of
the removed Israel and the captured Judah met frequently down through the
centuries and at some level maintained knowledge of their separate
identities. The apocryphal book 2 Esdras reveals them as a vast number
moving west at one time. In Maccabees there is an appeal to a Greek tribe
for military assistance on the basis that the Spartans of Greece were their
Israelite brethren.
> anyone knows. The Israelites from the Southern Kingdom of Judah,
> known as "Jews", returned from exile in Babylon. They settled
> down around Jerusalem and Galilee, rebuilt the temple, got
> invaded by the Persians and then the Greeks and then the Romans.
> They are the "Jews" of the New Testament, of whom Jesus and the
> apostles were examples.
Some of those who returned were from the original 3 tribes taken captive
from Jerusalem but only a small minority of the whole did return (The Bible
gives the exact numbers by tribe). There was a considerable percentage of
others accompanying them who were not Israelites. When they got back they
found their traditional lands and property had been occupied in their
absence by Edomite nomads from the south east and they were unable to move
back in. This is the acomplishment of the prohesied dividing point between
Judah and Benjamin as the Benjamites then moved northwards into Galilee.
Those from Judah and the mixed multitude accompanying them remained and
tried to rebuild the temple walls. Jesus entire ministry together with his
supporters revolved around Galilee up in the old territory of Israel. He
very rarely went anywhere near Jerusalem in Judea.
The Bible account involves the activity of these Edomites who became
assimilated into the new religion of Judaism and who then became known as
the Jews who had control over Jerusalem. It was these peoples who were the
"tenants" in Christs parable who killed the prophets and then the landlords
son thinking to retain possession of the "vineyard" for themselves and who
Christ spoke against so forcefully. They identified themselves as
Cain/Edomites in their conversations with Him.
Ezekiel 16: 1-3: "Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of
man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, and say thus saith the Lord
God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy Nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy
father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite." God was talking to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem who were obviously not Israelites because they did
not come from Hittites and Amorites. Later Jesus wept over the city for much
the same reasons (he was the same God).
> Yeah, but if someone's really a Conspiracy Theorist, he'll
> find entry points everywhere. :-)
I have found they are a response and not an initiative.
> that claim. (There have always been some who claimed that the
> Scots, or the Irish, or some other bunch, are the "lost tribes"
> of the northern kingdom of Israel, but none of them claimed
The Scottish Declaration of AD 1320 is very interesting. Have you seen a
copy? It was a request to the Pope to reign-in the English king who was
harassing them but with a warning that they were an independent soveriegn
nation under God able to handle their own affairs if he declined to deal
with the English king. It is signed by the Scottish King (the last of their
own Celtic line) and their ruling nobility and lists their travel history
since they left their homeland of Israel some 1200 years earlier. It is
written in Latin and I have seen a translation but was never sure what to
make of it. I often wondered who that makes them?
Thanks for your time :)
John Knight
> In article <3cda...@clear.net.nz>,
> "Adamas" <mi...@clear.net.nz> writes:
> > Sometimes people are genuine posters and not flame throwers trolling for a
> > forest to set alight. Therefore a quiet factual response without calls to
> > emotive icons can actually do a lot of good. When you are aware of checkable
> > references which clarify errors you perceive in particular posts, it is
> > helpful to mention these. Many people just want to know the truth without
> > having to wade through reams of controversy.
>
> Understood, and I figured this was where you yourself were coming from,
> which is why I posted the web address for ADL's comments on the
> "Protocols", and the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica article
> on them.
Are you referring to the ADL which is described by the FBI as one of
the worst terrorist organizations in the US? The one where the
founder has been indicted and will be convicted for a host of
terrorist activities? Is that the same ADL you use as a "reference",
Royce? Are you incapable of citing NON-terrorist sources when it
comes to disputing the Protocols, as Adamas requested? No.
>
> Calls to emotive icons aren't out of place, though, with respect
> to several of the posters on these threads, who are in fact neo-Nazis,
> and who do in fact believe that all the Jews should be slaughtered.
> John Knight is one such person, and Celtic Power is another.
> It's not "emotive" to point out what their goals are. It's relevant
> to explaining why their propaganda shouldn't be trusted.
As a confirmed LIAR and a jew, Royce, not one single word from you is
ever to be trusted, particularly when you exercise these emotive
icons.
>
> > I for one do not know what to think about many of the contemporary Jewish
> > issues. I admit I am floundering trying to come to grips with all the claims
> > and counter claims so I experiment in order to gauge reaction, hoping
> > thereby to gain understanding.
>
> Fair enough. I've researched a lot of these claims, and, where I
> know something, I'd be happy to supply information on specific areas
> where you have questions.
You rarely if ever do that, though. It's a nice thought, but your
typical jewish response is to resort to character assassination and ad
hominems, rather than address the issues. And of course we all
understand why you do that--the Talmud and the Protocols of the
Learned Elders of Zion are INDEFENSIBLE.
>
> > I do live in the country which suffered the
> > greatest per capita population loss in a world war defending the Jewish
> > cause among other freedom issues
>
> I think Russia may be higher on that list than New Zealand, but I
> take your point.
Actually, 48 million dead White Christians in Europe may be even
higher on the list than Russia. Either way, 6 million dead jews, IF
they were dead, is trivial by comparison to either, something jews
don't EVER acknowledge.
>
> > The Russian communists who claimed to all be Jews or
> > married to one killed tens of millions of "Christians" in the process of
> > consolidating their minority regime control but we don't talk about that or
> > make endless movies.
>
> Well, the anti-Semites claim the Russian Communists were all Jews.
> It's one of those big falsehoods with a kernel of truth in it. Trotsky
> for example was Jewish, Lenin and Stalin weren't. Of the three, guess which
> two ruled Russia, and which one the Soviets had executed in exile.
Lenin would have had enough jewish blood in him to qualify him for
"Right of Return" to Israel (a real oxymoron if there ever was one).
Lenin admitted (no, BRAGGED) that 87% of his staff of Bolshevist
leaders WERE jews.
Do you deny what Lenin admitted and what historians have confirmed?
http://christianparty.net/lenin.htm
>
> > All I am saying is that the Jews are not doing
> > themselves any favours by their current PR strategies or these latest
> > pictures on TV of homes violated and bulldozed with women and children still
> > in them.
>
> I'm not going to attempt to defend the policies of the current Israeli
> government, which IMHO are unjust and will ultimately prove self-defeating.
> (The "with women and children still in them" charge is at this point
> unproven, but the level of destruction and the siege conditions for
> civilians were bad enough.) The Bible says that he who sows the wind
> will reap the whirlwind. Sharon is busily sowing a whirlwind, and I
> shudder to think what both Israelis and Palestinians are going to
> reap as a result.
>
> But there's a huge difference between disapproving of the Israeli
> government and disapproving of Jews, as I'm sure you'd agree. The
> *strongest* voices - almost the only non-Arab voices - in the United
> States objecting to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank are,
> and have been for decades, Jewish voices. (For example, the editors of
> Tikkun magazine.)
Which ignores the fact that these "dissident" "Jewish voices" are
conveniently limited and serve only the purpose of making Christians
and Muslims think that jews aren't uniformly dangerous and amoral.
>
> > Of course there will be those who are stirred up easily and will dig deep
> > and find quotations from Jewish sources which are not flattering. The Talmud
> > is not exempt from statements of excess. It is not clear to me if in places
> > it advocates gross wickedness or if there are underlying soft explanations.
>
> There are a couple of places where it directs insults at Mary; and several
> places where one rabbi or another talks as if Jews are automatically
> superior to non-Jews. Nowhere does it advocate wickedness, gross or
> otherwise. Again, if there are specific allegations you're curious about,
> I can dig up answers. I've learned that these long long lists of lies
> about Talmud aren't worth refuting point by point, since the neo-Nazis
> will just ignore the reply and post a fresh list of lies and
> misrepresentations. But I'd be delighted to respond to honest
> questions.
You NEVER have responded to the honest question about exactly why it
is that Karl Pearlstein REALLY does believe that "Christians prefer
sex with cows", and instead prevaricated about whether or not this was
in the Talmud, whether or not this is where Karl got this idea,
whether or not YOU believe it to be true, nor whether or not most jews
believe such "religious" screeds.
So why should anyone believe that you will suddenly reply honestly to
any other honest question?
>
> > Being more familiar with the Christian Bible, I am aware that portions of
> > this can be approached in a climate of negativity and suspicion in the mind
> > of someone unfamiliar with its interpretation but I also know "how" to read
> > it to see the Truth it conveys in righteousness. I wonder if this approach
> > can also be applied in respect of the Talmud to explain the "difficult"
> > areas?
>
> For almost all the allegations, and all the worst allegations, yes
> it can. The majority of the "quotations from the Talmud" put out by
> anti-Semites are not even just taken out of context. They are first
> taken out of context, and then deliberately altered to make them
> sound still worse. And a fair number of them just plain aren't there
> in any form.
>
> A major difference between Talmud and the Bible is, that Talmud is
> primarily a record of the sayings of, and the arguments between,
> three centuries of the more famous rabbis. They often contradict one
> another. Just because Rabbi X or Rabbi Y is quoted as saying something
> in the Talmud doesn't mean that the Talmud "teaches" it - any more than
> a sentence in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion constitutes the law
> of the land in the U.S. So taking things out of context is even more
> likely to misrepresent the Talmud than it is to misrepresent the Bible.
Why don't you try to explain away the Kol Nidre Oath with the same
applomb?
http://christianparty.net/kolnidre.htm
John Knight
Royce Buehler
In article <ed80adae.0205...@posting.google.com>,
johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) writes:
> bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu (Royce Buehler) wrote in message news:<3cdabd68$0$3940$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
> > In article <3cda...@clear.net.nz>,
> > "Adamas" <mi...@clear.net.nz> writes:
> > > Sometimes people are genuine posters and not flame throwers trolling for a
> > > forest to set alight. Therefore a quiet factual response without calls to
> > > emotive icons can actually do a lot of good. When you are aware of checkable
> > > references which clarify errors you perceive in particular posts, it is
> > > helpful to mention these. Many people just want to know the truth without
> > > having to wade through reams of controversy.
> >
> > Understood, and I figured this was where you yourself were coming from,
> > which is why I posted the web address for ADL's comments on the
> > "Protocols", and the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica article
> > on them.
>
> Are you referring to the ADL which is described by the FBI as one of
> the worst terrorist organizations in the US? The one where the
> founder has been indicted and will be convicted for a host of
> terrorist activities? Is that the same ADL you use as a "reference",
> Royce?
No, I am referring to the Anti-Defamation League. You seem to be
thinking of Kahane's Jewish Defense League - which *is* a despicable
terrorist organization, regularly denounced by mainline Jewish
organizations like ADL.
> Are you incapable of citing NON-terrorist sources when it
> comes to disputing the Protocols, as Adamas requested? No.
I cited ADL, which is devoted to reducing hatreds and tensions,
and the Encyclopedia Britannica. If you consider the Encyclopedia
Britannica to be "a terrorist source," you are even crazier than
I thought. But I am confident you don't really think the EB is
a hothouse of terrorists, that you were just lying as usual.
> As a confirmed LIAR and a jew, Royce, not one single word from you is
> ever to be trusted, particularly when you exercise these emotive
> icons.
I am not a Jew, but a born-again Christian of primarily German
ancestry. The fact that you continually state, as if it were a
fact, that I am a Jew - a statement for which you have provided
zero evidence - demonstrates your contempt for truth.
The fact that you want all the Jews slaughtered, and three fourths
of the human race made into slaves of the "white race", demonstrates
your moral bankruptcy. Since you eagerly espouse both mass murder
and mass slavery, the fact that you are morally comfortable with
massive lying is hardly surprising.
Our readers have observed that you call me a "confirmed LIAR" - but you
haven't cited a single false statement on my part.
[snip boring repetitions]
> > Well, the anti-Semites claim the Russian Communists were all Jews.
> > It's one of those big falsehoods with a kernel of truth in it. Trotsky
> > for example was Jewish, Lenin and Stalin weren't. Of the three, guess which
> > two ruled Russia, and which one the Soviets had executed in exile.
>
> Lenin would have had enough jewish blood in him to qualify him for
> "Right of Return" to Israel (a real oxymoron if there ever was one).
> Lenin admitted (no, BRAGGED) that 87% of his staff of Bolshevist
> leaders WERE jews.
>
> Do you deny what Lenin admitted and what historians have confirmed?
> http://christianparty.net/lenin.htm
The Encyclopedia Britannica articles mentioned on that page
indicate, as I did, that Trotsky was Jewish. They say nothing to
confirm that Lenin's grandfather was Jewish. The links on your
page making that claim are all to anti-Semitic sources; in particular
the "Last of the Romanovs" book is from a publishing house that
specializes in Holocaust denial literature.
So far as I know at this point it's *possible* that Lenin's grandfather
was Jewish. But since his name was Alexander Blank, not (as your
anti-Semitic sources have told you) Israel Blank - and this fact is
confirmed by the fact that Lenin's mother was named Maria Alexandrovna
(i.e., Maria daughter of Alexander) - your sources are demonstrably
lying about the grandfather. If they lied about his name, the chances
are they are also lying about his being Jewish, but I'll have to do
a bit more research to know for sure.
As a racist, of course, YOU believe that anyone with "Jewish blood in
him" is a Jew. It wouldn't matter to you if it were a grandfather or
a seven-times-great grandfather; the "one drop of blood" rule applies.
The fact that your ancestry includes blacks and Asians and Jews, if
you look far enough back, would, in your own view, disqualify you
from being "white", and make you fit for extermination. You don't
happen to know about those particular ancestors, so you live in your
dream world of "racial purity."
> Which ignores the fact that these "dissident" "Jewish voices" are
> conveniently limited and serve only the purpose of making Christians
> and Muslims think that jews aren't uniformly dangerous and amoral.
A higher percentage of American Jews dissent from Israeli policy
than of Americans generally. (Partly that may just be because most
Americans aren't paying much attention, and most Jews are.)
But I won't debate Israeli politics with you. You are a neo-Nazi.
You don't just want to destroy the state of Israel: you want to murder
every Jew in it - and every Jew outside of it. That fact makes you unfit
to discuss the justices and injustices on either side of that nasty
conflict.
> You NEVER have responded to the honest question about exactly why it
> is that Karl Pearlstein REALLY does believe that "Christians prefer
> sex with cows",
Ho hum. Are you capable of exhaling a breath without exhaling a
lie along with it?
First, you are lying when you claim that an individual named "Karl
Pearlstein" even exists. The Internet exchange you are referring to
was between you and a guy named Carl Pearlston. You can't resist lying
about something as simple and as easily checked as the fellow's name -
why should anyone trust anything else you say?
Second, you are lying when you say I didn't respond to your question
about Mr. Pearlston's post. I responded *once*, at length and in detail.
I explained in that post that the question of what one particular Jew
does or doesn't believe about "whether Christians prefer sex with cows"
has absolutely no bearing on whether the Talmud says it (it does not),
or whether Jews in general believe it (they do not.) Mr. Pearlston
doesn't say it either, and doesn't believe it either, but you bring
him up only as a distraction from the FACT that you have repeatedly
lied about the contents of the Talmud.
My post was made on May 2, with the subject heading
Re: Slander about Carl Pearlston
Readers may check out Google archives and see that, once again,
you are lying and I am telling the truth.
> and instead prevaricated about whether or not this was
> in the Talmud.
No, YOU prevaricated. You said it was in the Talmud. It is not
there. Several others on these threads have checked. The ONLY ones
who say it is there are the same individuals who believe that all
the Jews should be killed - you and, IIRC, "Rice Chek".
> So why should anyone believe that you will suddenly reply honestly to
> any other honest question?
Because I have spoken honestly about each of these questions, and
you have, demonstrably, lied about them. Demonstrably, because
anyone can check our posts and see that you have lied about Carl
Pearlston's name. Anyone may check Google and see that I *did*
respond to each of your questions about him.
Anyone can check the Encyclopedia Britannica - or
any other encyclopedia - and discover that the Protocols are indeed
well known as a hoax. Anyone may write to the Franklin Institute
in Philadelphia, and discover that you were lying about your
supposed "quote" from Benjamin Franklin decrying Jewish immigration.
Anyone can read your posts and see that you have called me "a Jew"
repeatedly, when you obviously have no way of knowing whether I am
Jewish. And many of our readers, if so inclined, can check the Talmud
for any statement that "Christians prefer sex with cows;" Those who
have, have all learned that you were lying about that, too.
> > A major difference between Talmud and the Bible is, that Talmud is
> > primarily a record of the sayings of, and the arguments between,
> > three centuries of the more famous rabbis. They often contradict one
> > another. Just because Rabbi X or Rabbi Y is quoted as saying something
> > in the Talmud doesn't mean that the Talmud "teaches" it - any more than
> > a sentence in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion constitutes the law
> > of the land in the U.S. So taking things out of context is even more
> > likely to misrepresent the Talmud than it is to misrepresent the Bible.
>
>
> Why don't you try to explain away the Kol Nidre Oath with the same
> applomb?
> http://christianparty.net/kolnidre.htm
Why don't you first acknowledge that you were lying about the
contents of the Talmud? That it in fact nowhere contains a statement
that "Christians prefer sex with cows"? That the long lists of
supposed quotes from the Talmud that you posted were rife with
citations that had nothing whatsoever to do with Talmud at all?
That you were lying when you said your "quote" from Benjamin
Franklin was in the archives at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia?
Why don't you first acknowledge that:
(1) In the eyes of God, a white man and a black man are
equally precious
(2) If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all or
almost all the Jews, that would be a terrible sin?
You've been asked a dozen times to make those two simple statements.
You have refused to make them, a dozen times. Because in fact you
believe your "white" skin makes you superior to dark-skinned people,
and that they should be your slaves. Because in fact you would like
to exterminate the Jews. Now, ask yourself - why should people believe
the words of a die-hard racist and a would-be mass murderer like
yourself?
The actual story behind the Kol Nidre ("the Kol Nidre Oath" is
already bogus, since no oath is made in the course of this peculiar
old song) is somewhat complicated, and my research into the pieces of
the story is not complete. It's had a long history, and seems to have
had different significances at different times. Suffice it to say, it
has never at any time been about promises made between people, or about
civil oaths in court. In all its comings and goings, it has been
about oaths carelessly made *to God*. That's what Jews have always
taught to non-Jews, and that's what Jews have always taught to each
other.
John Knight
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> Why don't you first acknowledge that:
> (1) In the eyes of God, a white man and a black man are
> equally precious
> (2) If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all or
> almost all the Jews, that would be a terrible sin?
>
> You've been asked a dozen times to make those two simple statements.
> You have refused to make them, a dozen times. Because in fact you
> believe your "white" skin makes you superior to dark-skinned people,
> and that they should be your slaves. Because in fact you would like
> to exterminate the Jews. Now, ask yourself - why should people believe
> the words of a die-hard racist and a would-be mass murderer like
> yourself?
>
You've already gotten answers to those "two simple statements", but
evidently didn't agree with the answer, so it's posted again for your
edification, below.
To clarify this answer, most people, not just Whites, but Asians as well,
not only don't like to be around jews and niggers, but they INSIST on, and
MOST of them GET the right to free association. So why don't you answer the
simple question about why you jews and niggers "think" you can, or should,
deny other races those basic rights?
You never will. We know that already. But the simple fact is that you DO
NOT have any such right, and your continuing to think that you do will only
accelerate your departure.
John Knight
"Ninure Saunders" <RainbowChri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RainbowChristiannoh...@user-105nes6.dialup.mindspring.
com...
> In article <ed80adae.02050...@posting.google.com>,
> johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
> Two Questions:
>
>
> (1) Can you say: In God's sight, a white man and a black man are equally
> precious.
>
Not being God, Ninure, we're certainly not going to second guess what He
might think, but Christians in this putative Christian nation certainly can
asssure you that we demand our God given right to associate freely with
whomever we choose to associate, and we don't like niggers and jews and DO
NOT choose to associate with them.
On what basis do you believe you can deny us that right?
"You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor
or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor",
Leviticus 19:15
"You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well
as the great; you shall not be afraid in any man's presence, for the
judgment is God's", Deuteronomy 1:17
"...we command you, brethren, on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye
withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which he received of us", 2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship
hath righteousness with unrighteousness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14
> (2) Bam you say: If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all, or
> almost all, the Jews, that would be a terrible sin.
>
> Would you pause in your diatribes long enough to make these two
statements?
>
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
A far greater sin is the jewish mass hysteria media hype about why this
putative Christian nation should participate in the slaughter of fellow
Christians and Muslims in Palestine, or bomb the children of innocent dirt
farmers in Afghanistan to oblivion because they might know someone who heard
something about somebody wanting to drop the WTC, or why we should engage in
WWIII on behalf of the jews to fight THEIR eternal enemies.
It is a fact of life, something way, way beyond the control of any
individual or country, that jews have NEVER, and will NEVER, comprehend that
for every act like this that they perpetrate against others, it comes back
at them 100 fold.
This is exactly why 86 nations before us finally got FED UP with the jews
and scatted them out.
Royce Buehler
>
> "Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> news:3cdff471$0$3937$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>
> > Why don't you first acknowledge that:
> > (1) In the eyes of God, a white man and a black man are
> > equally precious
> > (2) If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all or
> > almost all the Jews, that would be a terrible sin?
> >
> > You've been asked a dozen times to make those two simple statements.
> > You have refused to make them, a dozen times. Because in fact you
> > believe your "white" skin makes you superior to dark-skinned people,
> > and that they should be your slaves. Because in fact you would like
> > to exterminate the Jews. Now, ask yourself - why should people believe
> > the words of a die-hard racist and a would-be mass murderer like
> > yourself?
> >
>
> You've already gotten answers to those "two simple statements", but
> evidently didn't agree with the answer, so it's posted again for your
> edification, below.
I didn't say you never "answered". I said you have always refused
to make the statements. As your post shows, you disagree with
both statements. As your post shows, you believe yourself superior
to "jews and niggers". As your post shows, you refused to say
anything against the murder of millions of Jews.
> To clarify this answer, most people, not just Whites, but Asians as well,
> not only don't like to be around jews and niggers,
You don't like to be around ordinary, decent people. You prefer
the company of virulent racists like yourself, preferably those
who also want to commit mass murder. "Most people" are not
virulent racists. "Most people" have no interest in committing
mass murder. Therefore, your small circle of friends, stripping
each night before full-length mirrors for the ritual admiration
of the whiteness of their hides, dreaming their sweet bloody
dreams of "RaHoWa", the Racial Holy War to come, are not typical
of "most people."
Nearly everyone I know is proud to associate with Jews and with
black people. You need to get out a little more, out of your
neo-Nazi ghetto.
> > In article <ed80adae.02050...@posting.google.com>,
> > johnk...@usa.com (John Knight) wrote:
> > Two Questions:
> >
> >
> > (1) Can you say: In God's sight, a white man and a black man are equally
> > precious.
> >
>
> Not being God, Ninure, we're certainly not going to second guess what He
> might think,
After telling us repeatedly how much your god hates Jews?
After telling us repeatedly how your god despises "race mixing"?
You constantly second guess what God might think. These words were
nothing more than your announcement that you would duck Ninure's
question.
> > (2) Can you say: If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all, or
> > almost all, the Jews, that would be a terrible sin.
> >
> > Would you pause in your diatribes long enough to make these two
> statements?
> >
> > Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
>
> A far greater sin is the jewish mass hysteria media hype
In other words, no, you cannot make the statement that the
deliberate slaughter of millions of Jewish men, women, and
children would be a terrible sin. You can't even make the
statement that it would be a sin.
So, John, your post to Ninure simply illustrates what I said
in the first place. You cannot make either statement - because
you actually believe that your white skin makes you superior to
three quarters of the human race. And because you actually believe
it would be heroic and virtuous to slaughter millions of Jews.
And, you actually believe that it would be a good thing to
enslave billions of dark skinned people, executing any who
refused to submit.
Try making simple, direct denials of those statements. You
can't. Because I am telling the truth about your beliefs, and
you are (foolishly and ever more desperately) trying to hide
your beliefs. You are ashamed to let your real beliefs, those
deformed children of your heart, be seen out here in public.
And, John, it is very wise of you to be so ashamed. You
wish to murder millions, and enslave billions, because the
god you worship is the one who was made to crawl out of Eden
on his belly; the god who Jesus said "was a murderer from the
beginning"; the god who has enslaved every human being except
One to the taskmaster, Sin. You are of your father, the Devil.
A shameful parentage indeed.
But Jesus loves you anyway. He wants you to be adopted by
a better Father. Jesus, that greatest of all the Jews, stands
ready to receive you, ready to lift the burden of all your
resentments and self-deceits from your shoulders. And the day
He does, there will be rejoicing in Heaven. But before
that happens, John, you are going to have to repent.
John Knight
> John Knight wrote:
> >
> > "Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> > news:3cdff471$0$3937$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >
> > > Why don't you first acknowledge that:
> > > (1) In the eyes of God, a white man and a black man are
> > > equally precious
> > > (2) If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all or
> > > almost all the Jews, that would be a terrible sin?
> > >
> > > You've been asked a dozen times to make those two simple statements.
> > > You have refused to make them, a dozen times. Because in fact you
> > > believe your "white" skin makes you superior to dark-skinned people,
> > > and that they should be your slaves. Because in fact you would like
> > > to exterminate the Jews. Now, ask yourself - why should people believe
> > > the words of a die-hard racist and a would-be mass murderer like
> > > yourself?
> > >
> >
> > You've already gotten answers to those "two simple statements", but
> > evidently didn't agree with the answer, so it's posted again for your
> > edification, below.
>
> I didn't say you never "answered". I said you have always refused
> to make the statements. As your post shows, you disagree with
> both statements. As your post shows, you believe yourself superior
> to "jews and niggers". As your post shows, you refused to say
> anything against the murder of millions of Jews.
What "millions of jews" are you talking about, Royce the Racist? The phony
baloney "holocaust" where 48 million WHITE CHRISTIANS ARE KNOWN TO HAVE
died, compared to some measly small number of you despicable jews? The
simple fact is that the worldwide population of jews in 1988 was 20% HIGHER
than it was in 1933, which means that jews fared FAR better than the 12% of
WHITE CHRISTIANS in Europe who were wiped out in conditions far worse than
cozy concentration camps (in which only half the population was jews
anyway). Are you talking about the "millions of jews" whom you idiots claim
were killed by Muslims in Israel? BUNK. For every dead jew, there are 30
dead Palestinians, so don't go looking for one OUNCE of sympathy from this
quarter.
http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm
>
> > To clarify this answer, most people, not just Whites, but Asians as
well,
> > not only don't like to be around jews and niggers,
>
> You don't like to be around ordinary, decent people. You prefer
> the company of virulent racists like yourself, preferably those
> who also want to commit mass murder. "Most people" are not
> virulent racists. "Most people" have no interest in committing
> mass murder. Therefore, your small circle of friends, stripping
> each night before full-length mirrors for the ritual admiration
> of the whiteness of their hides, dreaming their sweet bloody
> dreams of "RaHoWa", the Racial Holy War to come, are not typical
> of "most people."
>
> Nearly everyone I know is proud to associate with Jews and with
> black people. You need to get out a little more, out of your
> neo-Nazi ghetto.
Guess what? WHO CARES?! You and your nigger and Mexican and jew and other
mud friends can grovel on the floor with each other all you want, and not
one single Christian, or Israelite, or White Man, or Aryan could CARE LESS.
The question you REFUSED to answer is what exactly it is that you think
gives YOU the "right" to force your muddy selves on the 81% of the REST of
the American population who are *WHITE* and who will STAY that way, no
matter what you muds "think" about it or how much you denigrate them for
simple wanting to maintain their Race.
You have NO right to force miscegenation, multiculturalism, nigger music,
jewish pornography, and other racial trash on the moral upstanding WHITE
Americans in this country, and your continuing to "think" that you do will
only accelerate your speedy departure--for which we will thank you
profusely, posthumously.
You really don't understand how much the jews of the world are despised, do
you, Royce? Even long after your butt is firmly ensconced on Madagascar,
you will still be asking [yourself] the same questions, wont' you?
John Knight
John Knight
> >
> > "Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> > news:3cdff471$0$3937$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >
> > > Why don't you first acknowledge that:
> > > (1) In the eyes of God, a white man and a black man are
> > > equally precious
> > > (2) If Christians were to rise up tomorrow, and kill all or
> > > almost all the Jews, that would be a terrible sin?
> > >
> > > You've been asked a dozen times to make those two simple statements.
> > > You have refused to make them, a dozen times. Because in fact you
> > > believe your "white" skin makes you superior to dark-skinned people,
> > > and that they should be your slaves. Because in fact you would like
> > > to exterminate the Jews. Now, ask yourself - why should people believe
> > > the words of a die-hard racist and a would-be mass murderer like
> > > yourself?
> > >
> >
> > You've already gotten answers to those "two simple statements", but
> > evidently didn't agree with the answer, so it's posted again for your
> > edification, below.
>
> I didn't say you never "answered". I said you have always refused
> to make the statements. As your post shows, you disagree with
> both statements. As your post shows, you believe yourself superior
> to "jews and niggers". As your post shows, you refused to say
> anything against the murder of millions of Jews.
What "millions of jews" are you talking about, Royce the Racist? The phony
baloney "holocaust" where 48 million WHITE CHRISTIANS ARE KNOWN TO HAVE
died, compared to some measly small number of you despicable jews? The
simple fact is that the worldwide population of jews in 1988 was 20% HIGHER
than it was in 1933, which means that jews fared FAR better than the 12% of
WHITE CHRISTIANS in Europe who were wiped out in conditions far worse than
cozy concentration camps (in which only half the population was jews
anyway). Are you talking about the "millions of jews" whom you idiots claim
were killed by Muslims in Israel? BUNK. For every dead jew, there are 30
dead Palestinians, so don't go looking for one OUNCE of sympathy from this
quarter.
http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm
>
> > To clarify this answer, most people, not just Whites, but Asians as
well,
> > not only don't like to be around jews and niggers,
>
> You don't like to be around ordinary, decent people. You prefer
> the company of virulent racists like yourself, preferably those
> who also want to commit mass murder. "Most people" are not
> virulent racists. "Most people" have no interest in committing
> mass murder. Therefore, your small circle of friends, stripping
> each night before full-length mirrors for the ritual admiration
> of the whiteness of their hides, dreaming their sweet bloody
> dreams of "RaHoWa", the Racial Holy War to come, are not typical
> of "most people."
>
> Nearly everyone I know is proud to associate with Jews and with
> black people. You need to get out a little more, out of your
> neo-Nazi ghetto.
John Knight
"Royce Buehler" <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
news:3cdff471$0$3937$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> The Encyclopedia Britannica articles mentioned on that page
> indicate, as I did, that Trotsky was Jewish. They say nothing to
> confirm that Lenin's grandfather was Jewish. The links on your
> page making that claim are all to anti-Semitic sources; in particular
> the "Last of the Romanovs" book is from a publishing house that
> specializes in Holocaust denial literature.
>
> So far as I know at this point it's *possible* that Lenin's grandfather
> was Jewish. But since his name was Alexander Blank, not (as your
> anti-Semitic sources have told you) Israel Blank - and this fact is
> confirmed by the fact that Lenin's mother was named Maria Alexandrovna
> (i.e., Maria daughter of Alexander) - your sources are demonstrably
> lying about the grandfather. If they lied about his name, the chances
> are they are also lying about his being Jewish, but I'll have to do
> a bit more research to know for sure.
>
> As a racist, of course, YOU believe that anyone with "Jewish blood in
> him" is a Jew. It wouldn't matter to you if it were a grandfather or
> a seven-times-great grandfather; the "one drop of blood" rule applies.
> The fact that your ancestry includes blacks and Asians and Jews, if
> you look far enough back, would, in your own view, disqualify you
> from being "white", and make you fit for extermination. You don't
> happen to know about those particular ancestors, so you live in your
> dream world of "racial purity."
>
You don't seem to have any appreciation at all for the fact that the
Israelite prohibition against miscegenation with other races in Deu 23:2 HAS
done an excellent job of preserving the Race over the millennia, so your
belief that all other races are mud races is projection on your part. You
believe this only because jews are mongrel descendants of multiple races who
think that all other races are the same as them. Not even the various races
of Negroids have miscegenated with other races as often as the various
strains of jews have http://christianparty.net/bastard.htm
Recent jewish laws which prevent miscegenation of the current jewish
mongrels with other races is proof enough that even jews have finally
figured out the problems of miscegenation and "multiculturalism", though.
If they'd have figured this out several millennia ago, before all the
miscegenation, jews might not have the problems they have everywhere they
go.
But someone who thinks that the Book of Ruth is a story about how
miscegenation of Israelites was "normalized" or "legalized" (because
"Israelite law didn't apply to women") could hardly be expected to
appreciate racial purity of Israelites, could they?
John Knight