|
You will never
understand history -- especially those aspects of history which are used
to make Christianity -- above all, the Catholic Church or Catholic confessional
states -- appear "anti-semitic," unless you come to understand Judaism and
the concept of the Kingship of Christ. It is as simple as that. And without
understanding history, you will understand neither the present -- its confusion,
its decadence, our powerlessness -- nor the future.
Now, to speak of the things I am going to write about is to be labelled an
"anti-semite." I fully expect to be so labelled, and there is no way around
the slurs until Jewish leadership examines its "collective conscience" (as
it were), rejects both Talmudism and Bolshevism (whatever flavors they come
in, including the push for One World Government), and comes to know Christ
as Moshiach Whose coming was foretold by the Prophets. I am no longer concerned
with that "ant-semite" label per se except insofar as it would damage
my "apostolate," but I most certainly want to cause no harm to the Hebrew
people, especially those who are "innocent but ignorant," led to their beliefs
by their more conscious leadership and their sense of solidarity with their
ethnic brothers. My options, however, are to be bullied into silence out
of "fear of the Jews," or to simply follow Christ and speak what is so
in charity. I choose the latter, and the sooner other Christians choose the
same, the better off Christendom will be.
"Anti-semite" (or "self-hating Jew") is a label used to slur anyone who disagrees
with Zionism, who speaks the Truth about the Jewish religion and aspects
of history that Jewish leadership would rather you not know about, or who
dares to offer social criticism of the Jewish community in any way. As soon
as one is labelled an "anti-semite," he is out of the game, a bigot, a Nazi,
a fascist, a hater, a nutter. His ideas can be written off, he will never
hold political office or be taken seriously again by "decent people." That
slur, though, is usually hurled by one who, ironically, is the true hater
and bigot (not that there are not true racially-motivated anti-semites out
there in the world, to be sure). Writer Joe Sobran sums it up by saying:
"An 'anti-semite'
in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews than a man certain Jews
hate. The word expresses the emotional explosion that occurs in people who
simply can't bear critical discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience
criticism as profanation and blasphemy. The term 'anti-semitism' doesn't
stand for any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational
discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and ritual
ostracisms." (National Review, March 16, l992).
Have a problem
with Eretz Israel's policies? You're an "anti-semite."
Know what is contained in Jewish "holy" books and dare to even mention their
true contents? You're an anti-semite.
Dare to compare the 20,000,000 Christians dead at the hands of Jewish Bolsheviks
in the Soviet Union to those Jews murdered in the Third Reich? Actually believe
that Jewish people haven't cornered the market on suffering? You're an
anti-semite.
Speak the truth that Jews speak among themselves concerning Jewish power
over the media and America's political system and culture? Not only are you
an anti-semite, you're a paranoid one who probably has an SS Uniform in your
closet.
Accusing one of being "anti-semitic" who speaks the Truth about Zionism,
the Jewish religion, and Jewish history conflates a reasoned commitment to
Truth and basic morality with irrational psychopathology or "racism." That
is the trick.
But the Jews are not a "race" 1 in the biological
sense (that is Hitler talk and Talmud talk), and any Jew is welcome to walk
away from Zionism and the Jewish religion and to face historical Truths;
many Jews have. I repeat the point and hope you read it three times: "race"
in the biological sense is not the issue, "ethnicity" per se is not
the issue, who one's mother and father are is not the issue;
idealogies are the issue. This paper will treat the issue of "the
Jews" as a religous and political one, not an ethnic one per se (outside
of how the Jewish sense of peoplehood affects Jews' political attitudes as
a group), and definitely not as a biologically "racial" one. In addition,
please be clear that "average Jew" is only culpable in the matters
I describe insofar as he, consciously and with full knowledge,
goes along with the idealogies of Jewish leadership and the Jewish religion.
Going along with these idealogies without knowledge and consent of the will
may well be materially, objectively sinful, but one cannot say that those
who commit these sins are necessarily culpable.
Now, all ethnic groups have members and aspects that are unsavory: I am Italian;
my acknowledging that some of my paesani were and are Mafiosi does not make
me any less of a human being, is not a denigration of my ethnicity per
se, and does not detract from all the gifts the Italian people have given
the world (opera, painting, sculpture, etc.). If I were to yell "Anti-Italian!"
at someone who pointed out the fact that some Italians were Mafiosi, it wouldn't
make the fact that some Italians were Mafiosi less true. If I were to follow
the leaders of some "Italian Defense League" that denied the historical Truths
about Italian involvement in organized crime, slurred anyone who dared disagree,
and had the political and economic power to destroy careers and reputations,
etc., then that would only add another layer to the problem and give true
bigots another reason to dislike me once my tactics of intimidation were
discovered (a lesson the average, every day Hebrew had better learn for his
own safety!).
As with any group, if that someone were to say that "all" Italians were Mafiosi,
or if he were to treat me with disdain only because I have an Italian
father, then we'd have a case of bigotry. But a statement such as "some Italians
are Mafiosi" (or even "most Italians are mafiosi," if it were true) and general
statements using general nouns, such as "Italians like pasta" or "Italians
tend to be very emotional people" -- these are not examples of "bigotry."
It's Truth.
And so, I will write of "the Jews", "Jews" being a general noun and meant
to describe not a biological "race," let alone every individual Hebrew, but
those who identify as "Jewish" and, as a group, follow various idealogies
promulgated by Jewish religious and political leaders.
If you are like me, though, and I hope you are in this regard, you are
concerned about true hatred of the Hebrew people as an ethnic group or
as people mistakenly perceived as belonging to a biological "race. This is
a serious concern, and I understand hesitance and an unwillingness to believe
or repeat some of the things I am compelled to write about for fear of bigots
using it as ammo for their twisted thinking. I conclude, however, that the
Truths I will write about are too important to ignore, and that any Truth
can be bent just so to make some evil person happy. This is the way of the
Father of Lies. I have tried, though, to be very careful with my information,
checking, double-checking, going to Jewish sources and to Hebrew Christian
sources, and the like. I encourage you to do the same, double-checking what
I write and never using only one source of information for such a sensitive
topic. I must warn you, though, that in researching such a subject, one is
almost forced to at least look at literature deemed "racist" because, sadly,
buried in that sort of garbage are at least kernels of truth which must be
sifted out and because any attempt to defend Western culture is often deemed
"racist" whether it truly is or not. In either case, to disregard a fact
because someone of an unsavory character -- say, a White Supremacist or someone
devoted to Nazism -- revealed it is a logical fallacy, and I only hope that
anyone reading this understands well the evil of racism and knows how to
separate messages from messengers.
Before I begin, two more issues must be addressed:
1) there exists the idea that a conspiratorial view of history is an outlook
that only "nutters, fruitcakes, and schizos" take seriously. But a conspiracy
is merely a plan made by two or more people, simple as that. To not
have a "conspiratorial view" of history is to ignore historical fact and
forego common sense. No battle could be planned without a "conspiracy," no
revolution could be planned without one. One couldn't even throw a decent
garden party without a plan. So, if you are immediately "turned off" by the
idea of "conspiracy" and chalk up such notions to the blatherings of paranoid
whackos, I ask you to ask yourself where this attitude comes from. Granted,
there are bizarre "conspiracy theories" out there, and there exist people
who feel the need to wear tinfoil hats to ward off the radio waves originating
from the Pentagon's Ultra-Secret "Project Derange Bob," but just because
some conspiracy theories are obviously insane and have no evidence doesn't
mean that all conspiracy theories are insane and have no evidence.
2) there also exists the idea that "historical revisionism" is inherently
evil, the very term "revisionism" having been tarnished by incessantly linking
it to Nazi apologists. "Revisionism," however, used to be a politically correct
term based on the Latin revisere, meaning "to look again." Historical
scholarship must be revisionist as we "look again" as more facts become
available to us. This is simply good history. While some who engage in historical
revisionism may have nefarious motives, these motives must be looked past
as they, in themselves, don't change facts. What is, is, and as Our Lord
said, the Truth shall set us free. If a capuchin monkey were to tell me Jesus
is God, I may write off the monkey as theologian or dinner date, but I will
still agree with him in that one gloriously true statement.
(It feels silly to have to point out these basic logical fallacies, but
apparently it's necessary: so many of the arguments against the things I
will write about amount to demagoguery, ad hominems, arguments of "guilt
by association," chalking things up to a "nutter conspiracy theory," or worrying
about the ramifications of speaking the Truth, only the last being
a legitimate concern.)
Judaism
In common with
religious Jews, true Catholics see themselves a "light unto the world." Catholics
see themselves heirs of the Truth of Christ's coming in the flesh, His redeeming
us with His Passion and Blood, and His coming again to judge the living and
the dead. What we, as members of the Church, bring to the world is not of
our own doing; it is relaying the Gospel to the world, the faith required
for which being entirely matter of our cooperating with His gift of
grace. Humility is a key virtue, the key virtue, and our elected-ness
('chosen-ness") is a gift we receive fully only when dying to ourselves and
taking on the yoke of Christ, which is a burden of charity, service, and
self-denial.
Jewish religion, on the other hand, sees Jews themselves as the source of
the light they are to bear to the world. Mordechai Nisan, a lecturer at Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, published an article in Kivvunim, the journal
of the World Zionist Congress, proclaiming
While it is true
that the Jews are a particular people, they nonetheless are designated as
a 'light unto the nations.' This function is imposed on the Jews who strive
to be a living aristocracy among the nations, a nation that has deeper
historical roots, greater spiritual obligation, higher moral standards, and
more powerful intellectual capacities than others. This vision which
diverges from the widely accepted egalitarianism approach, is not at all
based on an arbitrary hostility towards non-Jews, but rather on a
fundamental existential understanding of the quality of Jewish
peoplehood." [emphasis mine]
Norman Cantor,
a New York University professor, writes on his dedication page for "The Jewish
Experience" that a "world without Jews is a world devoid of humanity," and
goes on to say that Jews are "a uniquely superior group with an indomitable
drive for creativity and accomplishment...the time may be coming when the
genetic superiority of Jews can be calmly discussed."
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg and Rabbi Yaacov Perrin declare respectively, "We
have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same
thing" (NY Times, June 6, 1989) and "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish
fingernail." (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994). And this is how the "Lubavitcher
Rebbe," Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (see Part II
of this series), describes the difference between Jews and non-Jews:
We do not have
a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level.
Rather we have a case of…a totally different species…. The body
of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of of
all nations of the world…. The difference of the inner quality [of the
body]…is so great that the bodies would be considered as completely
different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is
an halachic difference [a legal difference] in attitude about the bodies
of non-Jews: “their bodies are in vain”…. An even greater
difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist,
a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul
stems from holiness. [Shahak and Mezvinsky 1999, 59–60].
These casual equations
of "Jewry" with humanity itself (or , rather, a Nazi-like "super-humanity"
or "ubermensch"), and evidence of belief in Jewish "racial" superiority are
recurrent themes in Jewish writing, showing themselves over and over again
because they spring from Mishna and the Talmud.
The Talmud
Most people,
including the average Jew, have no idea what the Talmud teaches.
Dispensationalist Protestants are taught that the "evil Catholic Church"
burned copies of the Talmud in the Middle Ages (true) for no good reason
(false), just to torment the poor Jews (false) who are still God's "Chosen
People" (false). The average Jew today, who is secular, sees history the
same way, and regards the Talmud as, at most, a collection of writings put
together by the wisest rabbis for the edification of his superstitious
ancestors.
But religious Jews see it as their holiest collection of writings, holier
than Torah (the first five Books of the Old Testament) and the rest of Tanach
(Old Testament). The Talmud itself makes this clear:
Erubin 21b: "My
son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in
the words of the Torah"
It is used as the
lens through which Jews read Torah, even though it negates Torah. Rabbi Yehiel
ben Joseph said:
"Further, without
the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible... God
has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well
as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own... anyone who does
not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."
The Rabbi is wrong;
God did not hand authority to the "Sages"; He handed it to the Old Testament
priests:
Malachi 2-7: "For
the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the
law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts."
.. and when the
Messiah came, He passed that authority on to the New Covenant priests, giving
the Apostles, with Peter as the Chief Apostle, the power of binding and loosing
(John 20:21-23) and, to Peter alone, the Keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:15-19).
The Temple was torn down, Old Testament sacrifices ceased, having culminated
in the Sacrifice at Calvary, and the priesthood of the Old Testament has
been fulfilled in the priesthood of the New.
So, what does this most authoritative book in all of (modern) Judaism contain?
To be frank, it is a source of the grossest sort of "racism," vulgarity,
encouragement of criminal behavior against the out-group (i.e., the "goyim"),
and blasphemy possible.
The ex-Rabbi Drach, a 19th c. convert to Catholicism, honored by Popes Leo
XII, Pius VIII and Gregory XVI, tells us about it:
For a long time
it was my professional duty to teach the Talmud and explain its doctrines,
after having attended special courses for many years under the most renowned
of contemporary Jewish Doctors.... The judicious reader of the Talmud is
often saddened by the presence of many of those strange aberrations into
which the human mind falls when bereft of the true faith, and very frequently
rabbinical cynicism makes him blush with shame. The Christian is horrified
by the insane and atrocious calumnies which the impious hatred of the Pharisees
hurls at everything he holds sacred ... In the Ghemara there are at least
a hundred passages which are insulting to the memory of Our Adorable Savior,
the more-than-angelic purity of His Holy Mother, the Immaculate Queen of
Heaven, as well as the moral character of the Christian, whom the Talmud
represents as practicing the most abominable vices.
Jane Rachel Litman
writes that, when faced with the teachings of the ancient rabbis, some Jews
respond with out and out denial. She describes a class she taught on Talmud:
The background
sound in the small library is muted but intense. Pairs of scholars lean over
their talmudic texts whispering energetically, trying to puzzle out the meaning
of the particular sugya, passage. The teacher directs them back toward the
group and asks for questions.
One student raises a hand: "I don't understand verse 5:4 of the tractate
Niddah. What does the phrase 'it is like a finger in eye' mean?"
The teacher responds, "This refers to the hymen of a girl younger than three
years old. The Sages believed that in the case of toddler rape, the hymen
would fully grow back by the time the girl reached adulthood and married.
Therfore, though violated, she would still technically be counted as a virgin
and could marry a priest. It's an analogy: poking your finger in the eye
is uncomortable, but causes no lasting harm."
There is a collective gasp of breath among students. Their dismay is palpable.
They do not like this particular talmudic text or the men behind it. But
its authors, the talmudic rabbis, hardly wrote it with this particular group
of students in mind -- mostly thirty- and forty-year old women in suburban
Philadelphia taking a four-week class titled 'Women in Jewish Law' at their
Reform synagogue.
The questioner perists. 'I don't understand. Are you saying this refers to
the rape of a three year-old girl?'
"Or younger," the teacher responds dryly.
"I don't see how it says anything about rape and hymens. You must be mistaken.
I don't believe the rabbis are talking about rape at all. I think this statement
has nothing to do with the rest of the passage."
The teacher (I'll admit now that it was me, a second-year rabbinic student)
responds, "Well, that's the common understanding. What do you think it means?"
The woman is clearly agitated, "I don't know, but I do know that it couldn't
be about child rape." This is week three of the class. The woman does not
return for week four. Denial. 2
Any decent Jew
would go into denial momentarily upon discovering that the holiest
book of his religion taught:
Sanhedrin 58b.
If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed, hitting a
Jew is the same as hitting God.
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jewish man may marry a female child who has reached the
age of three years and one day and may consummate that marriage
Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him
for work.
Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no
death penalty, and what a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.
Yebamoth 98a. Gentiles, "whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose
issue is like the issue of horses," have children who are legally fatherless.
Abodah Zarah 22a-22b. Gentiles can't be trusted with cows because they do
immoral things with them, and they sexually prefer the cattle of Israelites
to their own wives.
Shabbath 116a. Jews should destroy Christian books [ironically].
Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. Even the best of the Gentiles should
be killed (Tob shebe goyyim harog).
Yebamoth 63a. Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden
of Eden.
Baba Mezia 59b. God admits a rabbi won a debate against Him.
The reaction of
the Talmud class students above isn't only a Jewish one, however; when I
was first confronted with the Talmud, I, too, didn't believe -- did not want
to believe -- what I was learning. I wrote to different Jews, asking
about those Talmud quotes the racists bandy about -- especially the ones
that accuse the Jewish religion of anti-Christian blasphemy. Examples:
Sanhedrin 43a.
Jesus was executed because he practiced sorcery.
Gittin 57a. Jesus is boiling in "hot excrement."
Sanhedrin 43a. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu [i.e., Jesus. Spelling His
name as "Yeshu" means "May His Name Be Blotted Out"] was hanged.Do you suppose
that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not an enticer
(Mesith)?"
Sanhedrin 106a. Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of
princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters."
Footnote to Shabbath 104b. Jesus' mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex
with many men.
When I asked Jews
about these quotes, I was given different answers. I heard everything from
an angry, defensive "no, there is no such thing in the Talmud" to "there
are words like that but they mean something else" to "those passages refer
to a different Jesus and Mary," to (seriously) "you don't want to know."
And, of course, throughout it all, I was accused of being an "anti-semite"
for even asking the questions.
Then I wrote to a Messianic Jew who sent me the following letter (his name
withheld):
While it is true
that there are many opinions and views on Jesus in the Talmud and in many
other reputed rabbinic sources, most Jews would tell you that the Talmud
either doesn't mention Jesus at all, or that he is portrayed not in a bad
way but as someone who didn't deserve either to be loved or hated by Jews.
They would claim that whatever the gentiles say concerning the contempt against
Jesus in the Talmud are just inventions, misunderstandings, or mistranslations.
They may even label any person who presents evidence of the insultative character
of the Talmud towards Jesus --a "Jew-hater" or an "anti-semite".
Many Jewish apologetes argue that the Talmud never spoke badly about Jesus
of Nazareth, but about a "different" Jesus. They go as far as to say that
there was a "Jesus of Nazareth" whose mother was called Mary and had disciples
with the same names of those of the Christian Jesus, but that this particular
"Jesus" was a disciple of a rabbi called Yehoshua ben Perachia who lived
about 100 years before the Christian Jesus (...too much of a coincidence
I think...). According to some Talmudic sources this other "Jesus" was a
wicked man who commited idolatry, witchcraft, and led Israel astray; therefore
he deserved to be executed by order of the bet-din (rabbinic judicial court),
and after he was dead, he was condemned to go to hell and been punished in
boiling excrement.
But a closer look at the sources clearly show that all those arguments are
a cheap effort to disguise what the Talmud REALLY say about Jesus. The problem
is that most non-Jews are not familiar either with the language in which
the original sources were written, or they don't have access to the sources
themselves. In my particular case I have most of the sources with me and
also I am able to read them in their original languages (Hebrew and Aramaic),
so I speak with confidence that whatever I say on this regard can be supported
with the evidence. Here I give you some titles in English that can help you
to understand this most interesting matter.
-
Christ in the Talmud,
Midrash, Zohar (by Gustaf Dalman - Arno Press, 1973)
-
Christianity in
Talmud and Midrash (by Travers Herford - Ktav Publishing House, 1975)
-
Jewish Polemics
Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (Daniel J. Lasker - Ktav Publishing,1977)
-
Das Leben Jesu
Nach Judischen Quellen (Samuel Krauss - S. Calvary & Co, 1902) this book
is in German, but it has many Hebrew texts taken directly from talmudic and
other rabbinic sources
-
The Jewish People
and Jesus Christ - A Study in the Relationship Between the Jewish People
and Jesus Christ (by Jakob Jocz, Ph.D. - S.P.C.K., 1949)
-
The Censorship
of Hebrew Books (by William Popper - Ktav Publishing,1969)
-
Censorship and
Freedrom of Expression in Jewish History (by Moshe Carmilly Weinberger -
Yeshiva University Press, 1977)
-
Judaism on Trial
- Jewish-Christian Disputation in the Middle Ages (by Hyam Maccoby - Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 1982)
And this is why
those "dastardly, anti-semitic medieval Popes" burned the Talmud (nevermind
that modern Jews burned the New Testament in Eretz Israel on March 23, 1980
(Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion). In reaction to this
reasonable censorship meant to protect the Christian order of society, stop
blasphemy of Our Lord, and protect the "goyim" from Jewish "racism," Jewish
rabbis began a censorship of their own, publishing edited versions of the
Talmud that might fall into Christian hands, and other versions for their
own eyes only. Some would publish the "racist" and blasphemous selections
separately while presenting the edited versions to Christians as "the Talmud."
Even now, in order to read the Talmud, one should either learn Hebrew or
rely on trustworthy, Christian Hebrew-speakers who have access to the
unedited versions, as most vernacular editions are heavily
expurgated.
(See
Chapter 5 of Israel Shahak's "Jewish History, Jewish
Religion: The Weight of 2,000 Years" for more on Jewish anti-Christianism
and "anti-goyism" in general)
The lesson from
all this must be understood, and understood very clearly and deeply: even
though the Old Testament religion is usually referred to as "Judaism," the
Old Testament religion is a vastly different religion than what we know today
as modern Judaism. The latter merely has some things in common with the Old
Testament religion because it is a broken branch thereof, in the same way
that Protestantism accepts the Creed (for the most part) but changes its
definitions and rejects the fullness of Christianity as passed down to us
by those who've been given priestly authority in the New Covenant.
... and with the
destruction of the Temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the
regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.
Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the
whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of
view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new
chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition. Pharisaism
shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all
the future. (Jewish Encyclopedia. Emphasis mine.)
This has been affirmed
over and over again by honest scholars. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Chief Rabbi
of the United States, wrote
The return from
Babylon, and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud, marks the end of Hebrewism,
and the beginning of Judaism.
The Old Testament
religion became Pharisaism, and then, as Rabbi Louis Finkelstein wrote
Pharisaism became
Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became
Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaption
of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives
unaltered." (Volume 1 of The Pharisees, the Sociological Background of their
Faith)
Rabbi Ben Zion
Bokser summed things up most succinctly when he wrote simply, "Judaism is
not the religion of the Bible." (Judaism and the Christian Predicament, 1966,
p.159)
During the Babylonian Captivity, the Old Testament religion became further
corrupted by pagan Babylonian-Chaldean practices -- by magic, astrology,
numerology, ideas of reincarnation, and ritual designed to draw on preternatural
forces (commonly, but mistakenly, referred to as "supernatural forces").
I say "further corrupted" because the Old Testament religion was constantly
tested by apostasy -- even by Solomon who built temples to pagan gods. These
corruptions gave rise to Pharisaism and its oral Talmud (Mishnah) and oral
Kabbalah, which were written down ca A.D. 450 and the 14th c. respectively
3. Luke, in Acts 7:43 writes:
Yea, ye took up
the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which
ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
These occultic
dabblings were spoken of as far back as Amos, too, who wrote of the apostasy
in verse 5:26:
But ye have borne
the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god,
which ye made to yourselves. [Remphan = Rephan or Raephan in the LLX = Moloch
= Saturn]
The promises of
universal dominion which the faithful practitioners of the Old Testament
religion saw as a fruit only of obedience to God, the Pharisees interpreted
as a license for domination to be imposed on the material world by the Jews
who see the Law only through the Mishnah/Talmud and who see themselves as
genetically, intellectually, and morally superior to the "goyim." They did
not and do not look for the dominion of the God of Moses, Abraham, and Isaac
-- the Triune God, as the fullness of revelation tells us -- in a spiritual
sense and with His dominion to be reflected in the social order by people
and governments obedient to the true Messiah; they looked instead for a
worldy king who would bring on the earthly reign of the Pharisees
under him, a group which has no Godly authority as that authority belonged
to priests alone and was passed to the New Covenant priests (Matthew 16),
and who see the Talmud rather than Torah as the basis of their rule. This
is why the Pharisees, looking for a temporal messiah, missed the true Messiah
and put Him to death.
(See
Chapter 3 of Israel Shahak's "Jewish History,
Jewish Religion: The Weight of 2,000 Years" for more on the differences
between Biblical, Old Testament Judaism and the modern religion called
"Judaism")
But there is so
much more to this "other side of the story"...
Footnotes:
1
Let's clear the "race thing" up once and for all. There are obviously "racial
differences" among general populations of people who've historically come
from various places of the world, i.e., some people are brown-colored, some
are white, some are reddish-brown, etc., and temperament, intelligence,
propensity for alcoholism, even the ability to metabolize alcholol, etc.
have some genetic influence. A group whose people have lived in area X under
conditions Y and Z for thousands of years, mating with people from that same
area, will pass on their successful genetic characteristics to their children
to the exclusion of passing on traits from other populations. Though it is
politically incorrect to speak of "racial differences" at all, that they
exist or don't exist is not a matter of bigotry, but a simple question of
fact -- fact which is of no ultimate concern to the Christian because, in
addition to the fact that there are few people of "pure race" (good luck,
in other words, determing how to categorize during that scientific experiment
that determines "racial characteristics"!), all people are created
in the image of God and all are called to recover their likeness to
Him through Baptism and metanoia, etc. There is no genetic trait that determines
one's potential to love God and there is no genetic trait that should make
a person of race X (wherever the lines of "race" are exactly) uncharitable
to a person of another race. Any talk of race being a determining factor
in politics (as in Nazism and Zionism), in religion (as in "Christian Identity"
or Judaism), or in whom we should love (as in everyday bigotry) is evil.
What is of concern to Christians are idealogy and
culture.
There is a sense of the word "race," though, which can be used with regard
to Jewish people in the same way that people speak of "the English race"
or "the Irish race" -- i.e., "race" is sometimes used to mean "a class or
kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics"
(Merriam-Webster) -- things that are important to Christians. Though
it isn't common to hear "race" used this way any longer, you might see it
in older
books.
2
Litman, Jane Rachel. Working with Words of Torah. Shma, April 2001
3
There are actually
two Talmuds, one being the Babylonian Talmud, also called the Bavli,
which was compiled ca. A.D. 430-560, the other being the Palestianian Talmud,
also called the Yerushalmi and codified ca. A.D. 400. When Jews speak
of "the Talmud," they refer to the Babylonian Talmud, and it is to this Talmud
that I refer in this paper. "Kabbalah" means "tradition," and it was to these
"traditions of men" Christ and Paul were referring in verses such as Mark
7:8 and Colossians 2:8, not to priestly authority and Sacred Tradition which
we are admonished to follow in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6,
etc.
 |
|
