Archive for February, 2007

Walter Kasper’s Mentor: Hassidic Philosopher, Martin Buber

February 28, 2007

“I mention here only the [name] of … Martin Buber, from whom as a young student I learnt so much …” (Walter Cardinal Kasper)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html

Can Hassidic philosopher, Martin Buber be credited as one of the teachers of the philosophical error of immanentism to the generation of immanentists currently populating Rome?

What is well known is Buber’s racist, pantheist (rebadged “panentheist” by him) understanding of Shekinah which he associated with physical “Israel” (i.e. “the Jews”). It would come as no surprise then that Kasper, after having been properly mentored in Judaic self-worship, would turn out to be one of the most valuable Judaic assets in the Vatican working in his capacity as President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.

Religious relations with “the Jews” have been on the up since Kasper’s appointment as any Catholic schoolchild can tell you after being lectured on the horrible nature of the Christian “teaching of contempt” (see: the Gospel) by an ADL rabbi, an ADL indoctrinated school teacher or through Catholic school teaching material produced by Judaic bankers documented here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/01/judaics-preach-guilt-in-catholic.html

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/judaic-lawyerbanker-altering-curriculum.html

Kasper has spoken about Buber’s synthesis of “interfaith dialogue” which has proven so disastrous for Christianity:

“Dialogue” is a relatively new concept in philosophy and in theology as well. It has its roots in the personalistic philosophy of the first half of the 20th century, especially in the Jewish personalistic philosophy of Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Emanuel Levinas and others. (Walter Kasper, Communion Through Dialogue)

Kasper speaks lovingly of Buber’s diabolical “dialogical thinking”–change synthesized through dialogue–which is simply Hegelian dialectics by another name:

As Martin Buber, one of the most significant representatives of dialogical thinking, says, the truth is located not only in direct subject-object relations but in a “dia”, a “between” which is opened up between the dialogue partners and in which both have a share. Only in the “dia”, the between of a I-thou and a We-relation, do we “have” or, better, do we participate in the objective reality; the subject-object-reality is thus embedded in the subject-subject reality of communication and dialogue. (Walter Kasper, Communion Through Dialogue)

http://www.cmswr.org/nationalassembly/keynotespeaker.htm

With sublime Hassidic philosophical “truths” such as the above en vogue in Rome, it’s no wonder that there’s no longer any place for the clunky old thinking of St. Thomas.

How many of you knew how great the influence the thinking of Hassidic philospher, Martin Buber has been in the disastrous course the Vatican has taken in recent decades?

With that thought in mind, I have two questions for the writers and editors of Latin Mass magazine. I’ve seen that a series of articles has started in the recent edition of Latin Mass on the topic of the philosophical error of immanentism, the first article curiously citing virtually unknown “Hebrew Catholic,” Ronda Chervin as an authority for the Catholic side alongside St. Thomas, Pope St. Pius X and documents from the First Vatican Council.

Will the Judaic component of the subversion of Catholic thinking be addressed as it has been here, or will it continue to be studiously avoided as it traditionally has been in the past by Latin Mass magazine?

If it is the latter, who benefits from that arrangement?

Advertisements

Walter Kasper’s Mentor: Hassidic Philosopher, Martin Buber

February 28, 2007

“I mention here only the [name] of … Martin Buber, from whom as a young student I learnt so much …” (Walter Cardinal Kasper)

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html

Can Hassidic philosopher, Martin Buber be credited as one of the teachers of the philosophical error of immanentism to the generation of immanentists currently populating Rome?

What is well known is Buber’s racist, pantheist (rebadged “panentheist” by him) understanding of Shekinah which he associated with physical “Israel” (i.e. “the Jews”). It would come as no surprise then that Kasper, after having been properly mentored in Judaic self-worship, would turn out to be one of the most valuable Judaic assets in the Vatican working in his capacity as President of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews.

Religious relations with “the Jews” have been on the up since Kasper’s appointment as any Catholic schoolchild can tell you after being lectured on the horrible nature of the Christian “teaching of contempt” (see: the Gospel) by an ADL rabbi, an ADL indoctrinated school teacher or through Catholic school teaching material produced by Judaic bankers documented here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/01/judaics-preach-guilt-in-catholic.html

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/02/judaic-lawyerbanker-altering-curriculum.html

Kasper has spoken about Buber’s synthesis of “interfaith dialogue” which has proven so disastrous for Christianity:

“Dialogue” is a relatively new concept in philosophy and in theology as well. It has its roots in the personalistic philosophy of the first half of the 20th century, especially in the Jewish personalistic philosophy of Martin Buber, Franz Rosenzweig, Emanuel Levinas and others. (Walter Kasper, Communion Through Dialogue)

Kasper speaks lovingly of Buber’s diabolical “dialogical thinking”–change synthesized through dialogue–which is simply Hegelian dialectics by another name:

As Martin Buber, one of the most significant representatives of dialogical thinking, says, the truth is located not only in direct subject-object relations but in a “dia”, a “between” which is opened up between the dialogue partners and in which both have a share. Only in the “dia”, the between of a I-thou and a We-relation, do we “have” or, better, do we participate in the objective reality; the subject-object-reality is thus embedded in the subject-subject reality of communication and dialogue. (Walter Kasper, Communion Through Dialogue)

http://www.cmswr.org/nationalassembly/keynotespeaker.htm

With sublime Hassidic philosophical “truths” such as the above en vogue in Rome, it’s no wonder that there’s no longer any place for the clunky old thinking of St. Thomas.

How many of you knew how great the influence the thinking of Hassidic philospher, Martin Buber has been in the disastrous course the Vatican has taken in recent decades?

With that thought in mind, I have two questions for the writers and editors of Latin Mass magazine. I’ve seen that a series of articles has started in the recent edition of Latin Mass on the topic of the philosophical error of immanentism, the first article curiously citing virtually unknown “Hebrew Catholic,” Ronda Chervin as an authority for the Catholic side alongside St. Thomas, Pope St. Pius X and documents from the First Vatican Council.

Will the Judaic component of the subversion of Catholic thinking be addressed as it has been here, or will it continue to be studiously avoided as it traditionally has been in the past by Latin Mass magazine?

If it is the latter, who benefits from that arrangement?

The Sound of Money Flowing Out Of Your Pockets Towards "Israel"

February 28, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE: Those who followed the Israeli massacre on Lebanon this past summer may recall Miri Eisin as the the very sincere young woman who relayed how regretful the Israelis were that women and children were “accidentally” killed during the Israeli bombing of homes in the civilian populated village of Qana. Mrs. Eisin has now returned to announce that “Israel” is seeking for the US to pick up the tab for their Kabbalistic 33 day-long slaughter of innocent civilians in Lebanon.

“Israel” is also looking for more cash to cover the cost of removing “Jewish settlers” from the West Bank land they illegally occupied. I was under the impression that we already paid for that. Apparently it wasn’t enough. The “settlers” must need new swimming pools, automatic weapons or something else much more important than relief for Hurricane Katrina victims, body armor for US troops in Iraq, or food and clothing for the growing poverty class in the U.S.

Israel negotiates new US military aid deal

JERUSALEM (AFP) – An Israeli delegation has left for the United States to negotiate a new aid deal from the Jewish state’s main ally and donor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s spokeswoman said Monday.

“A delegation headed by Bank of Israel chief Stanley Fischer left Tel Aviv overnight for Washington to negotiate a new deal to fix the amount of annual military aid from the United States for Israel for the next decade,” Miri Eisin told AFP.

Israeli officials are also hoping for extra aid to compensate for the cost of last summer’s 34-day Lebanon war and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August-September 2005, she said.

Israel withdrew troops and settlers from Gaza after a 38-year occupation, but it continues to be an occupying power under international law as it controls borders and de facto daily life in the coastal strip.

The existing military aid accord between Israel and the United States took effect in 1998 and expires this year.

“Military aid granted to Israel by the United States is currently 2.4 billion dollars per year, and is devoted entirely to purchases of equipment and armaments and to research projects in the US,” Eisin said.

The Israeli delegation also includes officials from the finance and foreign affairs ministries and the army, she said.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26022007/323/israel-negotiates-new-military-aid-deal.html

The Sound of Money Flowing Out Of Your Pockets Towards "Israel"

February 28, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE: Those who followed the Israeli massacre on Lebanon this past summer may recall Miri Eisin as the the very sincere young woman who relayed how regretful the Israelis were that women and children were “accidentally” killed during the Israeli bombing of homes in the civilian populated village of Qana. Mrs. Eisin has now returned to announce that “Israel” is seeking for the US to pick up the tab for their Kabbalistic 33 day-long slaughter of innocent civilians in Lebanon.

“Israel” is also looking for more cash to cover the cost of removing “Jewish settlers” from the West Bank land they illegally occupied. I was under the impression that we already paid for that. Apparently it wasn’t enough. The “settlers” must need new swimming pools, automatic weapons or something else much more important than relief for Hurricane Katrina victims, body armor for US troops in Iraq, or food and clothing for the growing poverty class in the U.S.

Israel negotiates new US military aid deal

JERUSALEM (AFP) – An Israeli delegation has left for the United States to negotiate a new aid deal from the Jewish state’s main ally and donor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s spokeswoman said Monday.

“A delegation headed by Bank of Israel chief Stanley Fischer left Tel Aviv overnight for Washington to negotiate a new deal to fix the amount of annual military aid from the United States for Israel for the next decade,” Miri Eisin told AFP.

Israeli officials are also hoping for extra aid to compensate for the cost of last summer’s 34-day Lebanon war and the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August-September 2005, she said.

Israel withdrew troops and settlers from Gaza after a 38-year occupation, but it continues to be an occupying power under international law as it controls borders and de facto daily life in the coastal strip.

The existing military aid accord between Israel and the United States took effect in 1998 and expires this year.

“Military aid granted to Israel by the United States is currently 2.4 billion dollars per year, and is devoted entirely to purchases of equipment and armaments and to research projects in the US,” Eisin said.

The Israeli delegation also includes officials from the finance and foreign affairs ministries and the army, she said.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/26022007/323/israel-negotiates-new-military-aid-deal.html

"Lost Tomb of Jesus": The Talmud Makes its Way to the Discovery Channel

February 27, 2007

Essay by Michael A. Hoffman:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2007/02/lost-tomb-of-jesus-talmud-makes-its-way.html

"Lost Tomb of Jesus": The Talmud Makes its Way to the Discovery Channel

February 27, 2007

Essay by Michael A. Hoffman:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2007/02/lost-tomb-of-jesus-talmud-makes-its-way.html

Christian Exegetes and "The Jews"

February 27, 2007

I have some questions for all Christian exegetes who have joined in the controversy of late surrounding “the Jews.”

Why do you associate Biblical scripture and prophesy pertaining to Jews from 2000 or more years ago to the people who today call themselves “Jews”?

What proof have you seen from any one of these people who today call themselves “Jews” that they’re true blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Don’t you think that basing matters of faith and religion which, in turn, affect nearly every other aspect of our lives upon something so flimsy as a person or group’s verbal claim to be “Jews” is irresponsible to put it lightly?

Why do you refer to the terrorist-founded, racial supremacist, Old Testament negating, anti-Christ nation founded by self-styled “Jews” as “Israel”?

Are you a thinking person or a parrot?

If you answered “thinking person” to the above question, why do you parrot the terms “Jews” and “Israel” in reference to people who have no legitimate claim to either title? Because they said so? If so, don’t you think that’s a very foolish thing to do? I think it is.

Can you see the confusion that you create and the pitfalls which await your readers and listeners due to your unquestioning acceptance of the completely unsubstantiated claims of self-styled “Jews”?

Is there a more direct and clear prophesy in the entire book of Apocalypse than 2;9 or 3;9?

Shouldn’t we then be anticipating a people who say they are “Jews” and are not but do lie.?

Are you aware that the Judaic tradition permits lying to non-Judaics? If so, then why do you take Judaics at their word when they call themselves “Jews” and “Israel”?

Would your religion fall apart if you found out that the people who call themselves “Jews” aren’t really Jews? If so, would you consider the possibility that you’ve, perhaps, invested more capital into the role of “the Jews” in your religion than is prudent to do?

Are you willing to leave it in God’s very capable hands to preserve a remnant of true, blood Israel for the fulfilment of His prophesy that may not be identifiable to you or even themselves? Or must you be able to see and touch some “Jews” for your faith to remain unshaken?

Do you think that your readers and listeners would benefit immensely if you made clearer distinctions and used more precise language in dealing with matters pertaining to the religion of the Old Testament and rabbinic Judaism; the Jews of the Bible, and the people who call themselves “Jews” 2000 years later?

Who benefits from sloppy distinctions in these areas?

Christian Exegetes and "The Jews"

February 27, 2007

I have some questions for all Christian exegetes who have joined in the controversy of late surrounding “the Jews.”

Why do you associate Biblical scripture and prophesy pertaining to Jews from 2000 or more years ago to the people who today call themselves “Jews”?

What proof have you seen from any one of these people who today call themselves “Jews” that they’re true blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

Don’t you think that basing matters of faith and religion which, in turn, affect nearly every other aspect of our lives upon something so flimsy as a person or group’s verbal claim to be “Jews” is irresponsible to put it lightly?

Why do you refer to the terrorist-founded, racial supremacist, Old Testament negating, anti-Christ nation founded by self-styled “Jews” as “Israel”?

Are you a thinking person or a parrot?

If you answered “thinking person” to the above question, why do you parrot the terms “Jews” and “Israel” in reference to people who have no legitimate claim to either title? Because they said so? If so, don’t you think that’s a very foolish thing to do? I think it is.

Can you see the confusion that you create and the pitfalls which await your readers and listeners due to your unquestioning acceptance of the completely unsubstantiated claims of self-styled “Jews”?

Is there a more direct and clear prophesy in the entire book of Apocalypse than 2;9 or 3;9?

Shouldn’t we then be anticipating a people who say they are “Jews” and are not but do lie.?

Are you aware that the Judaic tradition permits lying to non-Judaics? If so, then why do you take Judaics at their word when they call themselves “Jews” and “Israel”?

Would your religion fall apart if you found out that the people who call themselves “Jews” aren’t really Jews? If so, would you consider the possibility that you’ve, perhaps, invested more capital into the role of “the Jews” in your religion than is prudent to do?

Are you willing to leave it in God’s very capable hands to preserve a remnant of true, blood Israel for the fulfilment of His prophesy that may not be identifiable to you or even themselves? Or must you be able to see and touch some “Jews” for your faith to remain unshaken?

Do you think that your readers and listeners would benefit immensely if you made clearer distinctions and used more precise language in dealing with matters pertaining to the religion of the Old Testament and rabbinic Judaism; the Jews of the Bible, and the people who call themselves “Jews” 2000 years later?

Who benefits from sloppy distinctions in these areas?

The Judaic Propensity to Have It Both Ways

February 25, 2007

While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran.

http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear-public-backlash-over-iran/

There is one very simple way for Judaic leaders to avoid accusations that they’re driving the U.S. into a war against Iran–stop driving the U.S. into a war with Iran.

But that simply won’t do. They want to drive the U.S. into war on Iran, and, they want to do so free of accusations that they’re driving the U.S. into a war on Iran, even though that’s exactly what they’re doing. They want it both ways.

It’s rather similar to how the rabbis lobby Christian leaders to revise the Gospel to state that the Romans–and not the judges of the Sanhedrin–were responsible for Christ’s execution, even as the rabbis’ own texts record their gloating over their forebears’ responsibility for Christ’s execution to the degree that they relieve the Romans completely of responsibility. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 43a).

The American Jewish Committee issued an “inter-office memo” on the topic on their website in 2003 and then removed it quickly afterwards.

Jesus in the Talmud

September 24, 2003 Steven Bayme, National Director, Contemporary Jewish Life Department

… Consider … the following text from the Talmud:

On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, “Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?” With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. (Sanhedrin 43a)

This text, long censored in editions of the Talmud, is concerned primarily with due process in capital crimes. Standard process requires that punishment be delayed for forty days in order to allow extenuating evidence to be presented. However, in extreme cases, such as seducing Israel into apostasy, this requirement is waived. The case of Jesus, according to the Talmud, constituted an exception to this rule. Although one who enticed Israel into apostasy is considered an extreme case, the Jews at the time waited forty days because of the close ties of Jesus to the Roman authorities. However, once the forty days elapsed without the presentation of favorable or extenuating comment about him, they proceeded to kill him on the eve of Passover.

… the Talmud is here offering a subtle commentary upon Jesus’ political connections. The Gospels portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as going to great lengths to spare Jesus (Mark 15: 6-15). Although this passage may well have been written to appease the Roman authorities and blame the Jews, the Talmudic passage points in the same direction: The Jews waited forty days, in a departure from the usual practice, only because Jesus was close to the ruling authorities.

Lastly, the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed …

The full article is still archived at this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20030925214732/http://www.ajc.org/inthemedia/RelatedArticles.asp?did=933

The article is not entirely honest, but it does make interesting reading, particularly in contrast with the one-sided “dialogue” taking place between the rabbis and Christian leaders: dialogue which has for nearly a century been directed towards rectification of the alleged Christian “teaching of contempt” but which never seems to get around to discussion of the very real and very contemptuous Judaic teachings of contempt. But since when have the rabbis ever applied standards evenly?

The objection inevitably arises that the Jesus of Nazareth mentioned in Sanhedrin 43a is not the Savior of Christianity but “some some other Jesus of Nazareth.” The Jewish Encyclopedia dismisses that silly notion handily:

“… some medieval apologists for Judaism, as Nachmanides and Salman Zebi, … [asserted] that the “Yeshu'” mentioned in the Talmud was not identical with Jesus; this, however, is merely a subterfuge. (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jesus of Nazareth”)

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus

The Judaic Propensity to Have It Both Ways

February 25, 2007

While Jewish communal leaders focus most of their current lobbying efforts on pressing the United States to take a tough line against Iran and its nuclear program, some are privately voicing fears that they will be accused of driving America into a war with the regime in Tehran.

http://www.forward.com/articles/groups-fear-public-backlash-over-iran/

There is one very simple way for Judaic leaders to avoid accusations that they’re driving the U.S. into a war against Iran–stop driving the U.S. into a war with Iran.

But that simply won’t do. They want to drive the U.S. into war on Iran, and, they want to do so free of accusations that they’re driving the U.S. into a war on Iran, even though that’s exactly what they’re doing. They want it both ways.

It’s rather similar to how the rabbis lobby Christian leaders to revise the Gospel to state that the Romans–and not the judges of the Sanhedrin–were responsible for Christ’s execution, even as the rabbis’ own texts record their gloating over their forebears’ responsibility for Christ’s execution to the degree that they relieve the Romans completely of responsibility. (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 43a).

The American Jewish Committee issued an “inter-office memo” on the topic on their website in 2003 and then removed it quickly afterwards.

Jesus in the Talmud

September 24, 2003 Steven Bayme, National Director, Contemporary Jewish Life Department

… Consider … the following text from the Talmud:

On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover. Ulla retorted: Do you suppose he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, “Neither shall thou spare nor shall thou conceal him?” With Jesus, however, it was different, for he was connected with the government. (Sanhedrin 43a)

This text, long censored in editions of the Talmud, is concerned primarily with due process in capital crimes. Standard process requires that punishment be delayed for forty days in order to allow extenuating evidence to be presented. However, in extreme cases, such as seducing Israel into apostasy, this requirement is waived. The case of Jesus, according to the Talmud, constituted an exception to this rule. Although one who enticed Israel into apostasy is considered an extreme case, the Jews at the time waited forty days because of the close ties of Jesus to the Roman authorities. However, once the forty days elapsed without the presentation of favorable or extenuating comment about him, they proceeded to kill him on the eve of Passover.

… the Talmud is here offering a subtle commentary upon Jesus’ political connections. The Gospels portray the Roman governor Pontius Pilate as going to great lengths to spare Jesus (Mark 15: 6-15). Although this passage may well have been written to appease the Roman authorities and blame the Jews, the Talmudic passage points in the same direction: The Jews waited forty days, in a departure from the usual practice, only because Jesus was close to the ruling authorities.

Lastly, the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed …

The full article is still archived at this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20030925214732/http://www.ajc.org/inthemedia/RelatedArticles.asp?did=933

The article is not entirely honest, but it does make interesting reading, particularly in contrast with the one-sided “dialogue” taking place between the rabbis and Christian leaders: dialogue which has for nearly a century been directed towards rectification of the alleged Christian “teaching of contempt” but which never seems to get around to discussion of the very real and very contemptuous Judaic teachings of contempt. But since when have the rabbis ever applied standards evenly?

The objection inevitably arises that the Jesus of Nazareth mentioned in Sanhedrin 43a is not the Savior of Christianity but “some some other Jesus of Nazareth.” The Jewish Encyclopedia dismisses that silly notion handily:

“… some medieval apologists for Judaism, as Nachmanides and Salman Zebi, … [asserted] that the “Yeshu'” mentioned in the Talmud was not identical with Jesus; this, however, is merely a subterfuge. (Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jesus of Nazareth”)

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=jesus