Archive for April, 2007

Craig Heimbichner Interview

April 23, 2007

Craig Heimbichner speaks on the double mind. At this link:

http://www.voiceofcatholicradio.com/walk,070422,craig_heimbichner.mp3

Some Insight from Benedict XVI’s Elder Brother in the Faith, Rabbi Jacob Neusner

April 23, 2007

Following up on the last blog entry I offer insight into Judaism from Rabbi Jacob Neusner whom Benedict XVI holds in such high regard.

Rabbi Neusner frankly states that Judaism traces it’s roots to the Pharisees:

“The Pharisees are important for two reasons. First, the Gospels portray them as one of the principle opposition groups to Jesus. Second, Judaism as we know it generally traces its roots back to the Pharisees.” (Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1984], p.45)

Rabbi Neusner offers a clear insight into one of the myriad of reasons why I must state that JPII and Benedict XVI do not speak for me when they call the rabbis “our elder brothers in the faith”:

The [Pharisaic-Rabbinic] schools believed that in heaven God and the angels studied Torah [ie. Talmud/Kabbalah] just as the rabbis did on earth. God donned phylacteries like a rabbi. He prayed in rabbinic mode … He guided the affairs of the world according to the rules of the Torah, like the rabbi in his court. One exegesis of the Creation-legend taught that God had looked into the Torah and therefrom had created the world. Moreover, heaven was aware above of what the rabbis in particular thought, said, and did below. The myth of the Torah was multi-dimensional. It included the striking detail that whenever the most recent rabbi was destined to discover through proper exegesis of the tradition was as much of a part of the way revealed to Moses as was a sentence of Scripture itself. It was therefore possible to participate in the giving of the law, as it were, by appropriate, logical inquiry into the law. God himself, studying and living by Torah, was believed to subject himself to these same rules of logical inquiry, so if an earthly court overruled the testimony, delivered through some natural miracles, of the heavenly one, God would rejoice, crying out, “My sons have conquered me! My sons have conquered me!”

… The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself. (Jacob Neusner “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1. [Feb., 1970], pp.3-4)

Keep in mind that Neusner speaks here as a scholar, but he is also himself a Rabbi of Orthodox Judaism–the so-called “religion” which teaches this extreme foolishness–precisely what Christ referred to when He stated that the Pharisaic tradition “makes God’s Word of no effect.”

And lest someone dismiss this as the theory of some wacky rabbi, the Talmud in Bava Metzia 59b states that a majority vote of the rabbis must be accepted, even when God Himself holds the opposite view. This is the Gemara which Neusner references above:

“God smiled and said:’My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!'” God’s sons “defeated him” with their arguments. Rabbi Yehoshua was correct in his contention that a view confirmed by majority vote must be accepted, even where God Himself holds the opposite view. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Metzia 59b, Steinsaltz Edition [NY: Random House 1990], Vol. III p.237)

Some Insight from Benedict XVI’s Elder Brother in the Faith, Rabbi Jacob Neusner

April 23, 2007

Following up on the last blog entry I offer insight into Judaism from Rabbi Jacob Neusner whom Benedict XVI holds in such high regard.

Rabbi Neusner frankly states that Judaism traces it’s roots to the Pharisees:

“The Pharisees are important for two reasons. First, the Gospels portray them as one of the principle opposition groups to Jesus. Second, Judaism as we know it generally traces its roots back to the Pharisees.” (Jacob Neusner, Judaism in the Beginning of Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1984], p.45)

Rabbi Neusner offers a clear insight into one of the myriad of reasons why I must state that JPII and Benedict XVI do not speak for me when they call the rabbis “our elder brothers in the faith”:

The [Pharisaic-Rabbinic] schools believed that in heaven God and the angels studied Torah [ie. Talmud/Kabbalah] just as the rabbis did on earth. God donned phylacteries like a rabbi. He prayed in rabbinic mode … He guided the affairs of the world according to the rules of the Torah, like the rabbi in his court. One exegesis of the Creation-legend taught that God had looked into the Torah and therefrom had created the world. Moreover, heaven was aware above of what the rabbis in particular thought, said, and did below. The myth of the Torah was multi-dimensional. It included the striking detail that whenever the most recent rabbi was destined to discover through proper exegesis of the tradition was as much of a part of the way revealed to Moses as was a sentence of Scripture itself. It was therefore possible to participate in the giving of the law, as it were, by appropriate, logical inquiry into the law. God himself, studying and living by Torah, was believed to subject himself to these same rules of logical inquiry, so if an earthly court overruled the testimony, delivered through some natural miracles, of the heavenly one, God would rejoice, crying out, “My sons have conquered me! My sons have conquered me!”

… The rabbi constituted the projection of the divine on earth. Honor was due him more than to the scroll of the Torah, for through his learning and logic he might alter the very content of Mosaic revelation. He was Torah, not merely because he lived by it, but because at his best he constituted as compelling an embodiment of the heavenly model as did a Torah scroll itself. (Jacob Neusner “The Phenomenon of the Rabbi in Late Antiquity: II The Ritual of ‘Being a Rabbi’ in Later Sasanian Babylonia,” Numen, Vol.17, Fasc. 1. [Feb., 1970], pp.3-4)

Keep in mind that Neusner speaks here as a scholar, but he is also himself a Rabbi of Orthodox Judaism–the so-called “religion” which teaches this extreme foolishness–precisely what Christ referred to when He stated that the Pharisaic tradition “makes God’s Word of no effect.”

And lest someone dismiss this as the theory of some wacky rabbi, the Talmud in Bava Metzia 59b states that a majority vote of the rabbis must be accepted, even when God Himself holds the opposite view. This is the Gemara which Neusner references above:

“God smiled and said:’My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me!'” God’s sons “defeated him” with their arguments. Rabbi Yehoshua was correct in his contention that a view confirmed by majority vote must be accepted, even where God Himself holds the opposite view. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Bava Metzia 59b, Steinsaltz Edition [NY: Random House 1990], Vol. III p.237)

Pope Engages The Rabbis in Dialectics Around Christ and the Gospel

April 19, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE: Astute Popes of the past critically analyzed rabbinic texts and subjected them to public debate in which the perverse idiocy of the rabbinic tradition was laid bare for all to see as is to be expected in any fair debate on the matter. Modern Popes brush the ugliness of Judaism under the rug and engage the rabbis in dialectical pilpul around Christ and the Gospel. This is the era of Judaic domination in which we live: when the backwards tradition of rabbinic Judaism which maintains that a man must put his mouth on a baby’s penis during the circumcision ritual in order for the circumcision to be valid is exalted while the liberating Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is subject to unrelenting Pharisaic scrutiny which the Pope responds to, not in the spirit with which Christ confronted the Pharisees but in the spirit of the Pharisees themselves–by engaging them in pilpul.

There will be no Christlike defense of the Gospel or rebuke of the rabbinic tradition from Pope Benedict XVI, a man whom papal Rabbi-Knight, David Rosen–whom Benedict himself appointed–described as being “aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church’s commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude.” No, Benedict VXI has nothing but respect for the depraved, so-called “religion,” but in fact, corrupt racket of Judaism, which will certainly be evident in his “dialogical thinking” around Christ with Rabbi Neusner whom he can’t seem to praise enough.

For your thoughtful comparison, here is how Pope Innocent IV described the rabbinic tradition of Judaism which Benedict XVI respects so highly:

The … Jews … omitting or scorning the Mosaic law and the prophets, follow certain traditions of their seniors concerning which the Lord rebukes them in the Gospel, saying: Why do you transgress the mandate of God and irritate Him by your traditions, teaching human doctrines and mandates? [Matthew 15;9]

Upon this sort of traditions, which in Hebrew are called the Talmud–and there is a great book among them exceeding the text of the Bible in length, in which are manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities–they nourish and teach their sons and render them utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets, fearing lest, if they knew the truth, which is in the law and the prophets, and which testifies openly that the only begotten son of God will come in the flesh, they would be converted to the faith and humbly return to their Redeemer. And not content with these things, they make Christian women nurses of their sons in contumely of the Christian faith, with whom they commit many shameful things. On which account the faithful should be afraid lest they incur divine wrath while they unworthily allow them to perpetrate acts which bring confusion upon our faith. (Pope Innocent IV, May 9, 1244 Letter to King Louis IX of France)

Both popes speak of the same rabbinic, Talmudic tradition which contains the same manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities as it did at the time of Innocent IV’s writing (and which Talmud, incidentally, Rabbi Jacob Neusner refers to as “the founding document of Judaism” (Jacob Neusner, How the Talmud Works (Boston: Brill, 2002) ix). But one Pope confronts the rabbinic tradition with the single mind of Christ, the other with the dialectical mind of the rabbis.

Note that Pope Innocent IV makes a direct connection between the Talmudic, rabbinic tradition and the Pharisaic “tradition of the elders” which Christ execrated throughout the Gospels. Innocent IV also plainly states the fact that the rabbis render their followers utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets. Benedict XVI tells us that the rabbinic tradition of the elders is a valid interpretation of biblical scripture; is what Christianity has “sprung from;” and encourages Christians to establish stronger religious relations with it. Could there possibly be greater disparity between the thinking and actions of these two Popes? Which position more closely reflects that of Christ towards the tradition of the elders? I seem to recall that Christ told His disciples to beware the Pharisaic tradition of the elders–“the leaven of the Pharisees”–and that the Apostles understood “leaven” to mean the doctrine of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:12). But here is Pope Benedict telling us precisely the opposite.

Benedict’s preaching of rabbis and popes who “love” and “respect” one another and each other’s traditions is nothing short of occult alchemy. What fellowship hath light with darkness? What did Christ speak more harshly against than the Pharisees and their tradition–the tradition which Rabbi Jacob Neusner carries on today? Benedict and his “elder brothers in the faith” apparently figure these difficulties in the Gospel are nothing that can’t be circumvented with a little pilpul. And they will likely bring confusion upon our faith to use Innocent IV’s words, but not without incurring divine wrath. God is not mocked.

If the Pope had true Christian love for Rabbi Neusner he would correct his errors, not praise them, if not only for the sake of Rabbi Neusner’s soul, for the sake of the millions of Christian souls who’s faith he brings confusion upon by failing to do so.

After saints, most-quoted author in pope’s new book is a U.S. rabbi

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — After the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul, the author most quoted in Pope Benedict XVI’s new book is Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a U.S. professor of religion and theology.

In his book, “Jesus of Nazareth,” released April 16 in Italian, German and Polish, Pope Benedict joined the literary dialogue that Rabbi Neusner invented for himself in his 1993 book, “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus.”

The pope said that Rabbi Neusner’s “profound respect for the Christian faith and his faithfulness to Judaism led him to seek a dialogue with Jesus.”

Imagining himself amid the crowd gathered on a Galilean hillside when Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, Rabbi Neusner “listens, confronts and speaks with Jesus himself,” the pope wrote.

“In the end, he decides not to follow Jesus,” the pope wrote. “He remains faithful to that which he calls the ‘eternal Israel.'”

Pope Benedict said Rabbi Neusner makes painfully clear the differences between Christianity and Judaism, but “in a climate of great love: The rabbi accepts the otherness of the message of Jesus and takes his leave with a detachment that knows no hatred.”

The pope praised Rabbi Neusner for taking the Gospel of Jesus seriously and, in fact, more seriously than many modern Christian scholars do.

Jesus is the Son of God, the unique savior, and not simply a social reformer, a liberal rabbi or the teacher of a new morality, the pope said.

Pope Benedict wrote that in trying to understand who Jesus was and his relationship with his Jewish faith and with the Torah, the law given to Moses, Rabbi Neusner’s book “was of great help.”

Rabbi Neusner, a prolific author and professor at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y., told Catholic News Service in Rome that he did not want to talk about the pope’s book until he had seen it. The English edition is scheduled for a May release.

In the introduction to the revised and expanded 2000 edition of his book, Rabbi Neusner wrote, “If I had been in the land of Israel in the first century, I would not have joined the circle of Jesus’ disciples. … If I heard what he said in the Sermon on the Mount, for good and substantive reasons I would not have followed him.

“Where Jesus diverges from the revelation by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, he is wrong and Moses is right,” Rabbi Neusner wrote.

In Pope Benedict’s treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, 18 of the 25 pages refer to Rabbi Neusner’s book.

“More than any of the other interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount with which I am familiar, this debate between a believing Jew and Jesus, son of Abraham, conducted with respect and frankness, opened my eyes to the greatness of the word of Jesus and to the choice the Gospel places before us,” the pope wrote.

Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, presenting the pope’s book at an April 13 Vatican conference, said reading Rabbi Neusner’s book was “one of the reasons” Pope Benedict decided to write his.

“What Pope Benedict says about the book (by Rabbi Neusner) is so essential for understanding his own book about Jesus,” the cardinal said.

“More than discussions about exegetical methods” used to understand what the Scriptures say about Jesus, Cardinal Schonborn said, the pope has “at heart the discussion with the rabbi.”

“Rabbi Neusner is so important for the book of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI” precisely because he accepts what Jesus says about himself in the Gospels, the cardinal said.

German Father Joseph Sievers, director of the Cardinal Bea Center for Judaic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, where Rabbi Neusner has been a guest speaker, said the rabbi “takes very seriously the extraordinary claims of Jesus: He is not just a rabbi teaching the golden rule.”

Both Rabbi Neusner and Pope Benedict, Father Sievers said, “have a high Christology,” emphasizing the divinity of Christ even if Rabbi Neusner cannot accept Christ’s claim.

“(Rabbi) Neusner, even when he spoke here, did not try to find easy solutions or to bridge gaps” between Christians and Jews, Father Sievers said.

In his book, Rabbi Neusner said he hoped to contribute to Christian-Jewish dialogue by taking Christian teaching and Jewish teaching seriously.

“It is one model for a starting point for dialogue — to recognize differences and not try to make them disappear or to hide them,” Father Sievers said.

Father Sievers said Pope Benedict‘s new book is a further sign that he “is strong on Judaism, he respects it and he knows the contemporary scholarship.”

“Basically, he loves a good discussion and so does (Rabbi) Neusner,” he said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702134.htm

Pope Engages The Rabbis in Dialectics Around Christ and the Gospel

April 19, 2007

EDITOR’S NOTE: Astute Popes of the past critically analyzed rabbinic texts and subjected them to public debate in which the perverse idiocy of the rabbinic tradition was laid bare for all to see as is to be expected in any fair debate on the matter. Modern Popes brush the ugliness of Judaism under the rug and engage the rabbis in dialectical pilpul around Christ and the Gospel. This is the era of Judaic domination in which we live: when the backwards tradition of rabbinic Judaism which maintains that a man must put his mouth on a baby’s penis during the circumcision ritual in order for the circumcision to be valid is exalted while the liberating Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is subject to unrelenting Pharisaic scrutiny which the Pope responds to, not in the spirit with which Christ confronted the Pharisees but in the spirit of the Pharisees themselves–by engaging them in pilpul.

There will be no Christlike defense of the Gospel or rebuke of the rabbinic tradition from Pope Benedict XVI, a man whom papal Rabbi-Knight, David Rosen–whom Benedict himself appointed–described as being “aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church’s commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude.” No, Benedict VXI has nothing but respect for the depraved, so-called “religion,” but in fact, corrupt racket of Judaism, which will certainly be evident in his “dialogical thinking” around Christ with Rabbi Neusner whom he can’t seem to praise enough.

For your thoughtful comparison, here is how Pope Innocent IV described the rabbinic tradition of Judaism which Benedict XVI respects so highly:

The … Jews … omitting or scorning the Mosaic law and the prophets, follow certain traditions of their seniors concerning which the Lord rebukes them in the Gospel, saying: Why do you transgress the mandate of God and irritate Him by your traditions, teaching human doctrines and mandates? [Matthew 15;9]

Upon this sort of traditions, which in Hebrew are called the Talmud–and there is a great book among them exceeding the text of the Bible in length, in which are manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities–they nourish and teach their sons and render them utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets, fearing lest, if they knew the truth, which is in the law and the prophets, and which testifies openly that the only begotten son of God will come in the flesh, they would be converted to the faith and humbly return to their Redeemer. And not content with these things, they make Christian women nurses of their sons in contumely of the Christian faith, with whom they commit many shameful things. On which account the faithful should be afraid lest they incur divine wrath while they unworthily allow them to perpetrate acts which bring confusion upon our faith. (Pope Innocent IV, May 9, 1244 Letter to King Louis IX of France)

Both popes speak of the same rabbinic, Talmudic tradition which contains the same manifest blasphemies against God and Christ and the blessed Virgin, intricate fables, erroneous abuses, and unheard-of stupidities as it did when Innocent IV wrote, and then some (and which Talmud, incidentally, Rabbi Jacob Neusner refers to as “the founding document of Judaism” (Jacob Neusner, How the Talmud Works (Boston: Brill, 2002) ix). But one Pope confronts the rabbinic tradition with the single mind of Christ, the other with the dialectical mind of the rabbis.

Note that Pope Innocent IV makes a direct connection between the Talmudic, rabbinic tradition and the Pharisaic “tradition of the elders” which Christ execrated throughout the Gospels. Innocent IV also plainly states the fact that the rabbis render their followers utterly alien from the doctrine of the law and the prophets. Benedict XVI tells us that the rabbinic tradition of the elders is a valid interpretation of biblical scripture; is what Christianity has “sprung from;” and encourages Christians to establish stronger religious relations with it. Could there possibly be greater disparity between the thinking and actions of these two Popes? Which position more closely reflects that of Christ towards the tradition of the elders? I seem to recall that Christ told His disciples to beware the Pharisaic tradition of the elders–“the leaven of the Pharisees”–and that the Apostles understood “leaven” to mean the doctrine of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:12). But here is Pope Benedict telling us precisely the opposite.

Benedict’s preaching of rabbis and popes who “love” and “respect” one another and each other’s traditions is nothing short of occult alchemy. What fellowship hath light with darkness? What did Christ speak more harshly against than the Pharisees and their tradition–the tradition which Rabbi Jacob Neusner carries on today? Benedict and his “elder brothers in the faith” apparently figure these difficulties in the Gospel are nothing that can’t be circumvented with a little pilpul. And they will likely bring confusion upon our faith to use Innocent IV’s words, but not without incurring divine wrath. God is not mocked.

If the Pope had true Christian love for Rabbi Neusner he would correct his errors, not praise them, if not only for the sake of Rabbi Neusner’s soul, but for the sake of the millions of Christian souls who’s faith he brings confusion upon by failing to do so.

After saints, most-quoted author in pope’s new book is a U.S. rabbi

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — After the Gospel writers and the apostle Paul, the author most quoted in Pope Benedict XVI’s new book is Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a U.S. professor of religion and theology.

In his book, “Jesus of Nazareth,” released April 16 in Italian, German and Polish, Pope Benedict joined the literary dialogue that Rabbi Neusner invented for himself in his 1993 book, “A Rabbi Talks With Jesus.”

The pope said that Rabbi Neusner’s “profound respect for the Christian faith and his faithfulness to Judaism led him to seek a dialogue with Jesus.”

Imagining himself amid the crowd gathered on a Galilean hillside when Jesus gave his Sermon on the Mount, Rabbi Neusner “listens, confronts and speaks with Jesus himself,” the pope wrote.

“In the end, he decides not to follow Jesus,” the pope wrote. “He remains faithful to that which he calls the ‘eternal Israel.'”

Pope Benedict said Rabbi Neusner makes painfully clear the differences between Christianity and Judaism, but “in a climate of great love: The rabbi accepts the otherness of the message of Jesus and takes his leave with a detachment that knows no hatred.”

The pope praised Rabbi Neusner for taking the Gospel of Jesus seriously and, in fact, more seriously than many modern Christian scholars do.

Jesus is the Son of God, the unique savior, and not simply a social reformer, a liberal rabbi or the teacher of a new morality, the pope said.

Pope Benedict wrote that in trying to understand who Jesus was and his relationship with his Jewish faith and with the Torah, the law given to Moses, Rabbi Neusner’s book “was of great help.”

Rabbi Neusner, a prolific author and professor at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y., told Catholic News Service in Rome that he did not want to talk about the pope’s book until he had seen it. The English edition is scheduled for a May release.

In the introduction to the revised and expanded 2000 edition of his book, Rabbi Neusner wrote, “If I had been in the land of Israel in the first century, I would not have joined the circle of Jesus’ disciples. … If I heard what he said in the Sermon on the Mount, for good and substantive reasons I would not have followed him.

“Where Jesus diverges from the revelation by God to Moses at Mount Sinai, he is wrong and Moses is right,” Rabbi Neusner wrote.

In Pope Benedict’s treatment of the Sermon on the Mount, 18 of the 25 pages refer to Rabbi Neusner’s book.

“More than any of the other interpretations of the Sermon on the Mount with which I am familiar, this debate between a believing Jew and Jesus, son of Abraham, conducted with respect and frankness, opened my eyes to the greatness of the word of Jesus and to the choice the Gospel places before us,” the pope wrote.

Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna, presenting the pope’s book at an April 13 Vatican conference, said reading Rabbi Neusner’s book was “one of the reasons” Pope Benedict decided to write his.

“What Pope Benedict says about the book (by Rabbi Neusner) is so essential for understanding his own book about Jesus,” the cardinal said.

“More than discussions about exegetical methods” used to understand what the Scriptures say about Jesus, Cardinal Schonborn said, the pope has “at heart the discussion with the rabbi.”

“Rabbi Neusner is so important for the book of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI” precisely because he accepts what Jesus says about himself in the Gospels, the cardinal said.

German Father Joseph Sievers, director of the Cardinal Bea Center for Judaic Studies at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, where Rabbi Neusner has been a guest speaker, said the rabbi “takes very seriously the extraordinary claims of Jesus: He is not just a rabbi teaching the golden rule.”

Both Rabbi Neusner and Pope Benedict, Father Sievers said, “have a high Christology,” emphasizing the divinity of Christ even if Rabbi Neusner cannot accept Christ’s claim.

“(Rabbi) Neusner, even when he spoke here, did not try to find easy solutions or to bridge gaps” between Christians and Jews, Father Sievers said.

In his book, Rabbi Neusner said he hoped to contribute to Christian-Jewish dialogue by taking Christian teaching and Jewish teaching seriously.

“It is one model for a starting point for dialogue — to recognize differences and not try to make them disappear or to hide them,” Father Sievers said.

Father Sievers said Pope Benedict‘s new book is a further sign that he “is strong on Judaism, he respects it and he knows the contemporary scholarship.”

“Basically, he loves a good discussion and so does (Rabbi) Neusner,” he said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702134.htm

Paul VI Portrait

April 18, 2007

One overt signal of occult infiltration in the Catholic Church came through a painting. In 1970 a German Lutheran received permission from Pope Paul VI to observe him during papal audiences in order to paint his portrait. Ernst Günter Hansing presented the Pope with the finished portrait in 1972. It was published in full color in the April 1972 edition of the Smithsonian, together with Paul VI’s cryptic commentary: the Pope stated that the portrait is “a mirror of the situation in the Church today,” and furthermore that “one almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of it’s context.”

The last comment is certainly no understatement, for the painting is pure Revelation-of-the-Method and portrays the pontiff as not only ugly, but even repellent and evil–clutching a dagger and destroying St. Peter’s Basilica …

The Pope’s ambiguity concerning the diabolical images [and] themes in the painting and his public acceptance of the portrait and it’s artist appear to be signals for those who could discern their meaning … (Craig Heimbichner, Blood on the Altar, pg. 106-107)

Paul VI Portrait

April 18, 2007

One overt signal of occult infiltration in the Catholic Church came through a painting. In 1970 a German Lutheran received permission from Pope Paul VI to observe him during papal audiences in order to paint his portrait. Ernst Günter Hansing presented the Pope with the finished portrait in 1972. It was published in full color in the April 1972 edition of the Smithsonian, together with Paul VI’s cryptic commentary: the Pope stated that the portrait is “a mirror of the situation in the Church today,” and furthermore that “one almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of it’s context.”

The last comment is certainly no understatement, for the painting is pure Revelation-of-the-Method and portrays the pontiff as not only ugly, but even repellent and evil–clutching a dagger and destroying St. Peter’s Basilica …

The Pope’s ambiguity concerning the diabolical images [and] themes in the painting and his public acceptance of the portrait and it’s artist appear to be signals for those who could discern their meaning … (Craig Heimbichner, Blood on the Altar, pg. 106-107)

Paul VI Portrait

April 18, 2007

One overt signal of occult infiltration in the Catholic Church came through a painting. In 1970 a German Lutheran received permission from Pope Paul VI to observe him during papal audiences in order to paint his portrait. Ernst Günter Hansing presented the Pope with the finished portrait in 1972. It was published in full color in the April 1972 edition of the Smithsonian, together with Paul VI’s cryptic commentary: the Pope stated that the portrait is “a mirror of the situation in the Church today,” and furthermore that “one almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of it’s context.”

The last comment is certainly no understatement, for the painting is pure Revelation-of-the-Method and portrays the pontiff as not only ugly, but even repellent and evil–clutching a dagger and destroying St. Peter’s Basilica …

The Pope’s ambiguity concerning the diabolical images [and] themes in the painting and his public acceptance of the portrait and it’s artist appear to be signals for those who could discern their meaning … (Craig Heimbichner, Blood on the Altar, pg. 106-107)

Judaic Papal Knight: "German" Pope Aware of "Special Responsibility to Reaffirm Church’s Commitment to a More Pro-Jewish Attitude"

April 13, 2007

This is the type of thinking typical of today’s Vatican knights:

[Rabbi, and Papal Knight, David] Rosen also said that as a German, Benedict was aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church’s commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude as set down in the (sic) Nostra Etate (sic), the 1965 declaration on the relation (sic) of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions. (Jerusalem Post, “Views mixed on pope’s use of Auschwitz diary in Easter ritual”)

Full Article

It seems hypocritical of Rabbi Knight Rosen to cite Nostra Aetate, the rabbinic document which presumes to absolve Judaics for the guilt of Deicide though their holy books state that Christ deserved to be executed, even as he holds all Germans responsible for “The Holocaust.” Rosen appeals to the establishment promulgated dogma that Christians must do penance for the charge of Deicide, even as he enforces the charge of Judeocide against Germans and prescribes their penance.

Rosen speaks of a “special responsibility” of the German Pope to change the Church’s attitude towards Judaics.

So, Judaics who did not take part in the execution of Christ, but who believe He deserved it anyway, share no guilt for that cosmic crime, but German Christians who did not take part in the Nazi atrocities and who denounce them at every opportunity have a “special responsibility” to not only do penance and pay reparations, but to radically change the 2000 year-old Gospel of Christ which is entirely unrelated to the Nazis to accommodate the desires of the rabbis. And for this hypocrisy and chutzpah; this direct attack against Christ and the Gospel, the rabbis are knighted by the Vatican.

If it’s wrong to make solely ethnicity-based charges against Judaics, it’s wrong to do so in the case of Germans. But that’s a very unpopular truth to state today under the harsh mental tyranny of the Judaic Imperium.

Most mind-bombed goys will go along with Rabbi Knight Rosen’s Talmudic logic. The Gospel account of the Pharisees’ plotting of Christ’s execution and the Jews’ crying out for His blood needs to be blotted out, for “it could lead to another ‘Holocaust’ of ‘The Jews’!” But are the rabbis concerned with what 60+ years of anti-German propaganda–which Rabbi Knight Rosen’s comment about the “German” Pope and his “special responsibility” is just one example of–causes Germans? Not in the rabbis’ twisted world of double standards. The fact that Germans are the most rapidly diminishing population in Europe is good news to them, but it’s no reason to relent, quite obviously.

If Germans were to become completely extinct and every Christian were to forsake the priceless gift of truth and salvation of Calvary for the hellish fool’s gold of Auschwitz, the “debt” would remain on the rabbis’ ledger. Debts to the rabbis, whether real or fictional, are never paid.

Rabbi David Rosen is the President of IJCIC, the International Jewish Committee that represents World Jewry in its relations with other world Religions.

He is Director of the Department for Interreligious Affairs and Director of the Heilbrunn Institute for International Interreligious Understanding of the American Jewish Committee, and is an Honorary President of the International Council of Christians and Jews, and an International President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

In November 2005, Rabbi Rosen was named a papal Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory the Great for his outstanding contributions to promoting Catholic-Jewish reconciliation.

http://rabbidavidrosen.net/

Judaic Papal Knight: "German" Pope Aware of "Special Responsibility to Reaffirm Church’s Commitment to a More Pro-Jewish Attitude"

April 13, 2007

This is the type of thinking typical of today’s Vatican knights:

[Rabbi, and Papal Knight, David] Rosen also said that as a German, Benedict was aware of his special responsibility to reaffirm the Church’s commitment to a more pro-Jewish attitude as set down in the (sic) Nostra Etate (sic), the 1965 declaration on the relation (sic) of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions. (Jerusalem Post, “Views mixed on pope’s use of Auschwitz diary in Easter ritual”)

Full Article

It seems hypocritical of Rabbi Knight Rosen to cite Nostra Aetate, the rabbinic document which presumes to absolve Judaics for the guilt of Deicide though their holy books state that Christ deserved to be executed, even as he holds all Germans responsible for “The Holocaust.” Rosen appeals to the establishment promulgated dogma that Christians must do penance for the charge of Deicide, even as he enforces the charge of Judeocide against Germans and prescribes their penance.

Rosen speaks of a “special responsibility” of the German Pope to change the Church’s attitude towards Judaics.

So, Judaics who did not take part in the execution of Christ, but who believe He deserved it anyway, share no guilt for that cosmic crime, but German Christians who did not take part in the Nazi atrocities and who denounce them at every opportunity have a “special responsibility” to not only do penance and pay reparations, but to radically change the 2000 year-old Gospel of Christ which is entirely unrelated to the Nazis to accommodate the desires of the rabbis. And for this hypocrisy and chutzpah; this direct attack against Christ and the Gospel, the rabbis are knighted by the Vatican.

If it’s wrong to make solely ethnicity-based charges against Judaics, it’s wrong to do so in the case of Germans. But that’s a very unpopular truth to state today under the harsh mental tyranny of the Judaic Imperium.

Most mind-bombed goys will go along with Rabbi Knight Rosen’s Talmudic logic. The Gospel account of the Pharisees’ plotting of Christ’s execution and the Jews’ crying out for His blood needs to be blotted out, for “it could lead to another ‘Holocaust’ of ‘The Jews’!” But are the rabbis concerned with what 60+ years of anti-German propaganda–which Rabbi Knight Rosen’s comment about the “German” Pope and his “special responsibility” is just one example of–causes Germans? Not in the rabbis’ twisted world of double standards. The fact that Germans are the most rapidly diminishing population in Europe is good news to them, but it’s no reason to relent, quite obviously.

If Germans were to become completely extinct and every Christian were to forsake the priceless gift of truth and salvation of Calvary for the hellish fool’s gold of Auschwitz, the “debt” would remain on the rabbis’ ledger. Debts to the rabbis, whether real or fictional, are never paid.

Rabbi David Rosen is the President of IJCIC, the International Jewish Committee that represents World Jewry in its relations with other world Religions.

He is Director of the Department for Interreligious Affairs and Director of the Heilbrunn Institute for International Interreligious Understanding of the American Jewish Committee, and is an Honorary President of the International Council of Christians and Jews, and an International President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.

In November 2005, Rabbi Rosen was named a papal Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory the Great for his outstanding contributions to promoting Catholic-Jewish reconciliation.

http://rabbidavidrosen.net/