Apologia: The Fullness of Christian Truth

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

Part I
Basic Concepts: The Talmud

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 revolutionary politics (whatever flavors they come in, including the push for One World Government), and comes to know Christ as Messiah 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 post-Temple 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-led) Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union to those Jews who died under 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 post-Temple 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; ideologies 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 the "average Jew" is only culpable in the matters I describe insofar as he, consciously and with full knowledge, goes along with the ideologies of Jewish leadership and the Jewish religion. Going along with these ideologies 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 paisani 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 -- which it definitely isn't) 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", with "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 ideologies 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 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" or that might actually be truly racist because, sadly, buried in that latter 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 neutral 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.)


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. Further, this gift of grace is open to all, no matter their race, no matter who their parents are. As the old song goes, "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight! Jesus loves the little children of the world!"

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. That average, secular Jew, though, has very little knowleldge of what the Talmud teaches.

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., Gentiles, 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.

  1. Christ in the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar (by Gustaf Dalman - Arno Press, 1973)
  2. Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (by Travers Herford - Ktav Publishing House, 1975)
  3. Jewish Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages (Daniel J. Lasker - Ktav Publishing,1977)
  4. 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
  5. 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)
  6. The Censorship of Hebrew Books (by William Popper - Ktav Publishing,1969)
  7. Censorship and Freedrom of Expression in Jewish History (by Moshe Carmilly Weinberger - Yeshiva University Press, 1977)
  8. 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 (never mind that modern Jews burned the New Testament in 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, fulfilled in Christianity, became, for Jews, Pharisaism. 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)

Note that he says that it is "the spirit of the ancient Pharisee" that survives, not the spirit of the Old Testament priests who were the ones who had true authority at that time, and whose authority passed on to Christian priests, not to Pharisaic rabbis, the very group Lord Christ took to task for their casuistry. 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, forbidden forms of 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, 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"...

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, a question answerable by the evidence of our senses, by science. One race, as a group, might have characteristics X, Y, and Z, while another has the characteristics A, B, and C (with, as always when speaking generally, the existence of outliers being a given). Those differences may, or may not, affect how harmoniously different groups can live together in a finite area -- but all people are created in the image of God and all are called to recover their likeness to Him through Baptism and metanoia, etc. Any talk of race that posits that one racial group is more or less ontologically superior to another, is more or less beloved by God than another, is more or less deserving of charity than another is evil and has no place in Catholic thinking.

Note, too, that there is an older sense of the word "race" which used to be used with regard to ethnic groups. Older literature might refer to "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).

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. 

Jews, the Church, and the History of the World Index
Back to For Catholics