"Judaism Discovered" ON SALE NOW!

“Judaism Discovered” ON SALE NOW!

Advertisements

25 Responses to “"Judaism Discovered" ON SALE NOW!”

  1. Jim K. Says:

    Yes,I ordered it over a week ago.And asked Texe Marrs to interview Hoffman and post it for free on Google video,as he needs the publicity.The llluminati completely controls virtually every form of mass media these days.And although we entered the Revelation of the Method era a few decades ago,there are some issues they simply will not allow in the open.So it is imperative to fight the Beast system with the independant and alternative press and whistleblowers.I noticed his Hoffman’s articles on Rense,but I’m not sure Jeff would stick his neck out on this one.This work goes beyond Zionism.We know that from the Strange Gods book that exposed so much.Haven’t seen the Alex Jones interview to date.Don’t know if it ever made it to Google or You Tube.The heated debate on that blog you had was unreal.Jones,Hoffman,Rense,Marrs,and others are doing the best they can exposing The Great llluminati Conspiracy.None of us are perfect.I hope this new book challenges Catholics to take an introspective look at their own lives as well as their religion.Judaism has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity,but alot to do with organized religion,both Catholic and Protestant.The time is short.Project Bluebeam and HAARP are designed to fool all the world,both pagan and Christian.Couple that with WW3 and the coming financial collapse and the world is in for a scary ride.All people need to understand the “chosen people” are not the people in Palestine aka Israel.And that the whole end-times scenario as viewed by pretribbers has a Judaic foundation in Millenial thought and master race nonsense.It is the Last Days,just not the script most of churchianity—catholic and protestant–are being sold on.I eagerly anticipate reading Hoffman’s new book.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    As of 9/1/08 the reviews and resellers have been pulled down again.

  3. René Says:

    Sorry to post something which has nothing to do with the book of Hoffmann.
    Could you post something on David Goldstein, the famous jew who converted to catholicism in the first part of the XX century and who had been knighted by Pope Pius XII ?
    Yours, in Christo Rege,
    René

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Maurice Pinay,

    Michael Hoffman appears to have some Protestant ideas about Catholicism, even though he claims to be a traditional Catholic. If in criticizing the Talmud for being the traditions of men, he is applying this idea across the board towards tradition in general, this would nullify the idea of tradition in our Traditional Catholic faith. Michael Hoffman sells an essay that appears to indict traditions that have crept into Christianity without basis in scripture(I am assuming this means Catholicism). I wasn’t aware Catholics (as Michael Hoffman claims to be) had latitude to apply the sola scriptura dogma to their faith. If we are to subject Catholic traditions to the sola scriptura rule we might as well become Baptists. One of the reasons I am commenting is that the whole principle of Hoffman’s critique of Talmudism could blow back and backfire on Traditional Catholicism, in principle, because people could just point the finger and say “Trad Catholics also follow the traditions of their elders” ie the Church Fathers, Sacred Tradition.

    Thanks,
    Anonymous

  5. Joe Shepherd Says:

    To “anonymous” above:

    You need to read his latest book along with his other writings. He specifically writes to expose those Pharisaic traditions which originate from paganism and contradict the religion of Moses. There are no attacks on Catholic Tradition. There are no attacks on following any generic “tradition of the elders” but rather only those specific Judaic beliefs which in the New Testament were called “tradition of the elders”. Any criticism of Catholics is reserved for those who betrayed Christ out of their fear or admiration of the rabbis.

  6. rev'd up Says:

    If what “anonymous” avers about Hoffman is true then it is only because it IS true. The Roman Catholic Church does have lots of “traditions” that are not traditional Catholicism. Their present notion that the Pope is their “Rock” is modernist phyco-babble “priestcraft.” The truth is modern “Trad” Catholics don’t “”follow the traditions of their elders” ie the Church Fathers, Sacred Tradition.” Instead they follow many of the traditions of their late medieval and Renaissance neoPlatonist Cabalists.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    If Michael Hoffman says so, it’s because IT IS SO. I get it now! Thanks for the Kool-Aid, “rev’d up”!— ooh, wait, I think I’ll take a cup of “joe shepherd” instead! (I will buy Hoffman’s article on [traditions of Christianity] first to see if he has my Imprimatur. Because if it is between Hoffman and the Rosary, I’m going to keep my beads.)

    – Anonymous

  8. Maurice Pinay Says:

    Because if it is between Hoffman and the Rosary, I’m going to keep my beads.

    I don’t speak for Michael Hoffman but I don’t think he wants to take your rosary beads away. But neither do the rabbis.

    You can take it light on the rabbis if you think your traditions would be better served by such avoidance, but I assure you, that would be a mistake. It’s not your traditions that the rabbis want to destroy, it’s the Gospel (which they say paved the road to genocide), the incarnation (which they say is idolatry), Calvary (which they’re replacing with Aushwitz) and the resurrection (which they’re replacing with the “resurrection” of counterfeit Israel). They want to replace the Ten Commandments with their “Noahide Laws.” They want to render you utterly alien from the Bible.

    The rabbis will let you keep your beads. They probably have already prepared the sorrowful mysteries of Auschwitz, the Glorious mysteries of Zion, and the joyful mysteries of Noachida. There will be novenas to Anne Frank, the Stations of the Gas Chambers …

  9. Anonymous Says:

    To Maurice Pinay,

    I would think the rabbis would want to take away the beads in the sense that they do not respect Mary, as she is insulted in the Talmud.

    My concern is in the possibility of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the course of prosecuting Judaism and its hostility to Christianity.

    I am glad to hear from two sources now that Mr. Hoffman is above reproach from a Catholic perspective.

    – Anonymous

  10. Maurice Pinay Says:

    I would think the rabbis would want to take away the beads in the sense that they do not respect Mary, as she is insulted in the Talmud.

    I don’t agree. They’re far more resourceful than that. They hate St. Paul among themselves but to us they say he was a teacher of the “Noahide Laws” to the Gentiles. Why get rid of him when he could serve some useful purpose with a bit of modification? They’ll just turn Mary into a type of the “Shekinah” for our consumption, but among themselves the real Mary will remain hated.

    My concern is in the possibility of throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the course of prosecuting Judaism and its hostility to Christianity.

    It’s not possible to cause damage to Christianity in the course of prosecuting Judaism. Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive.

    I am glad to hear from two sources now that Mr. Hoffman is above reproach from a Catholic perspective.

    I think it’s about time that Catholics gave Michael Hoffman consideration in his areas of research.

    The other commenters can speak for themselves but I don’t hold anyone to be above criticism when it’s warranted.

  11. Anonymous Says:

    It’s not possible to cause damage to Christianity in the course of prosecuting Judaism. Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive.

    They are both religions that hold traditions to be important, so if you were to criticize “traditions” as opposed to “bad traditions” you would end up damaging Catholicism, which holds that Scripture and Sacred Tradition are equal. And traditional Catholics believe Catholicism is true Christianity. That was the gist of my concern… “joe shepherd” said that Hoffman criticizes the bad traditions of Judaism, not traditions in general. If that is true Hoffman’s criticisms of Judaism would be acceptable to a trad-Catholic, as his foundational argument would not represent a double-edged sword.

    – Anonymous

  12. Maurice Pinay Says:

    I’m not attacking tradition as malum in se and I don’t believe that Michael Hoffman is either.

  13. Anonymous Says:

    I’m not attacking tradition as malum in se and I don’t believe that Michael Hoffman is either.

    Okay.

    Thank you for your comments.

    – Anonymous

  14. Anonymous Says:

    I have read just about everything that Hoffman has published in the last 20 years and a lot of what he had committed to audio disk. My review of the book Judaism Discovered was disseminated onto Rense.com although I wont provide further identifying information about me here:

    Hoffman to my knowledge, has never admitted what Christian denomination he adheres to, if any. He only recently told us what ethnic stock he came from – he’s an American mutt. Hoffman recently wrote that Protestants consider his writing too Catholic and Catholics consider him too Protestant. Hoffman has been invited and has spoken to SSPX groups and more fundamentalist Protestant groups.

    I was baptized in the 1970’s by one of the only Catholic Priests in North America who was authorized by canonical exception to administer the sacraments in the Latin rite. I’ll buy you a dinner if you an figure out who he was. Yes you would call me a trad. Catholic.

    Catholic traditions such as saying the Rosary are not harmful or anti-bilbilical although they have no Biblical warrant. Ergo – even if you said Mary and Jesus ask that you say 1 rosary per day and more Sunday is not a harmful or anti-biblical statement.

    Should the Pope state that we must bow to the rabbis and believe that the apostles were spreading the Noahide laws to the masses – that is antibiblical and evil.

    Tradition is a wonderful thing and can be good and evil like anything. Hoffman is not anti-Cathilic – some of the biggest anti-catholics have neen Catholics – witness what happened to Fr. Charles Coughlin.

  15. Anonymous Says:

    The following quote from his latest book appears on Michael Hoffman’s homepage at revisionisthistory.org: ” . . . Let me impart to you a great secret: whoever hates Judaics perpetuates the rule of the rabbis. This secret is documented and explained in my book.” People should keep that quote in the back of their minds when focusing on the actions of Benedict XVI. Look closely. The strategy is simple: Let the rabbis speak for themselves and what they really think will emerge. Their lack of charity and perpetual obstinancy brims to the surface in a conciliatory envirnonment. If you invite someone to a luncheon they become very conspicuous when they vomit on the table. Did anyone notice the reaction at the rabbinic “disapproval” over the beatification of Pius XII? It led to the Catholic League taking out a full page ad in support of Pius XII’s beatification in the NY Times of all places. And now the unspoken question, “How many Christians were saved by rabbis during the Bolshevik Revolution?” is a weapon in the Catholic arsenal. It need not be used (indeed, it’s power in potency is dramatic), but the rabbis gave it to us, because they misread Benedict XVI’s courtesy as obsequiousness (indeed, the judaics, in their egotistical pretentiousness, still think Nostra Aetate was a victory for them, when in reality it’s given them the opportunity to become even more conspicuous). Benedict XVI knows what’s in the Talmud. He has navigated the judeomasonic minefield of the Vatican Curia for decades. Benedict XVI is syncretizing the syncretizers. *** As a side note to all “Trad Catholics” — and I was one — in the Eastern Churches the sacraments are called “mysteries”; consequently, in the new rite of ordination when the bishop asks the candidate “do you vow to celebrate Christ’s mysteries” the sacraments are clearly being referred to. Peter and his successors have the power to bind and to loose. To suggest they can forgive sins but not alter rites and rubrics is indeed Talmudic. Don’t try to outthink the Church. The Church gave us the incorruptible bodies of saints and eucharistic miracles — you can’t outthink the mind of God or the will of the Holy Ghost (and neither can the rabbis as much as they might try).

  16. Maurice Pinay Says:

    The following quote from his latest book appears on Michael Hoffman’s homepage at revisionisthistory.org: ” . . . Let me impart to you a great secret: whoever hates Judaics perpetuates the rule of the rabbis. This secret is documented and explained in my book.” People should keep that quote in the back of their minds when focusing on the actions of Benedict XVI.

    ***

    Jesus didn’t risk scandalizing the minds of the “little ones” or even the Apostles with such intrigue as you suggest Benedict XVI is involved in. There is no Gospel example for such behavior. Jesus ate with Pharisees, but He did not allow them to teach their errors to the disciples. He confronted the Pharisees on their errors directly in front of the disciples risking stoning and eventually being crucified for doing so. Jesus told His Apostles to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees. Benedict invites the rabbis to teach their doctrine to the bishops and the little ones alike.

    Criticizing a person’s errors does not equate hate of the person. Jesus Christ criticized the errors of the Pharisees but He did not hate them and He did not wish to drive the people deeper into Pharisaic control as the logic in your application of the quote from Judaism Discovered would seem to suggest.

    Neither Is Michael Hoffman’s criticism of the anti-Bible traditions of the rabbis evidence of hatred of Judaic people.

    I do not hate Judaic people but I will continue to criticize the anti-Bible traditions of the rabbis, like Jesus did, and for the sake of the souls being led astray by the conciliar popes I pray that we may some day merit a pope who will follow Christ’s example in this regard.

  17. Michael Hoffman Says:

    I regret to say that I am not able to engage in any exchange with readers here at the Pinay blog due to intrusions of my personal life of late. However, as a one-time clarification, I will state that a footnote has been added to p. 221 in the forthcoming second edition of “Judaism Discovered” which should briefly clarify my position on what is claimed to be a Protestant doctrine, “sola Scriptura.” I will expand on that clarification here: Protestants have sought to establish a proprietary relationship with the interpretation of this bedrock Christian principle, upon which the Catholic Church is founded. Protestant interpretations can be faulty, but not the principle itself. “Sola Scriptura” is a kind of shorthand for the dictum that nothing a Christian believes can contradict the Bible. Certain self-appointed “super” Catholics who claim to speak for the Church, bring discredit to Catholicism when they imply or connote that Apostolic Tradition contradicts the Bible. Tradition that does not contradict Scripture is indeed valid (2 Thess. 2:15). Any tradition which runs counter to Scripture however, is indeed null and void. This is sola Scriptura in its true and unobscured form, whether applied to rabbinic, Protestant or Catholic traditions. For example, the Protestant tradition has it that one cannot ask Mary to intercede with Jesus. But John 2: 1-11 says otherwise. By the same token there is an unauthorized prayer (i.e. absent an imprimatur) used in some Catholic churches, which reads, “For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing…nor even from Jesus, my Judge Himself…(“Novena Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help,” p. 18). This connotes or implies a detraction from Jesus as Supreme Judge. Fear of God is a virtue. His mercy and goodness are paramount. The wording of this Novena prayer is unfortunate in that it suggests that Mary has greater power than God. Any notion that because a prayer or tradition is used in a church it is automatically consonant with the Word of God is clearly faulty. Tradition that contradicts the Word of God has no place in the Church. In my view, sola Scriptura is an abbreviated description of an over-arching principle that calls for a proper and mandatory test of traditions, not a nullification of all traditions, since as alluded to in the citation from Thessalonians, there are indeed traditions of the ecclesia that are founded in and derived from the Word of God. To hint that there is something suspect about being vigilant in distinguishing between the two kinds of tradition, reflects the mind not of the Church, but of Churchianity — the corrupt bureaucracy that brought us the sale of indulgences in the 16th century and the suppression of the Tridentine Mass in the 20th.

    –Michael Hoffman

  18. rev'd up Says:

    A 2 1/2 hour lecture featuring E. Michael Jones and Israel Shamir. Hoffman's new book is brought up in Jones' Q&A (about 1 hour in).

    http://www.archive.org/details/IsraelTheCatholicChurchAndAnti-semitism_471

  19. Steve in Vista Says:

    I was baptized in 1950. The only reason I mention that is it is before “trad” Catholics existed. There was only one Catholic Church then and Novus Ordo hadn’t been foisted on the Church yet and tradition simply meant what it had for 2,000 years – adherence to Apostolic teaching. Nothing in the Church Fathers can contradict Church teaching from the Apostles. Inclusion in the Church Fathers is based on the following (this is from Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, S.J. – “The Antichrist” page 62.): “First, the writer or teacher of Catholic Faith and morals had to persevere unto death in a life of orthodox communion with the Church. Second, that life had to be eminent for sanctity. … The teacher must enjoy a certain antiquity (looked at from the present day)…he could enjoy citation by a General Council:….” The last is a good example of Catholicity. In the 1950 Catholic Dictionary the four marks of the Fathers are: Antiquity (the first millenium) and Orthodoxy and Sanctity and Catholicity. Fr. Miceli’s definitions are very to the point. The 1950 Catholic Dictionary also adds, concerning Antiquity that St. Gregory the Great (604 A.D.) and St. Isadore of Seville (636 A.D.) are the last in the West and St. John Damascene (8th Century) is the last in the East. The Doctors of the Church include certain of the Church Fathers and also St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine and the first of the modern (5 centuries before ‘Vatican II’) Doctors namely St. Francis de Sales. The faith exposited by all of these has everything to do with the Apostles and the Scriptural record of God’s revelation to us, that is the Holy Bible; and has nothing to do with Apostate Judaism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Modernism, Freemasonry, Paganism – especially idolatry (see the Book of Wisdom for a condemnation thereof), Magic, Sorcery, Mohammedan heresy, Vatican II, synchretism with non-Christian religion, Evolution, Pantheism, Monism and any and every other form of Apostasy and blasphemy.

    Therefore the correct identification of a Catholic is in keeping with the faith exhibited by the Fathers and Doctors and not a label such as “trad”, as if it were only one version as opposed to another – namely the Novus Ordo. I am a Catholic not a “trad” and certainly not a Novus Ordo Apostate, which I have nothing to do with. My point is that the true faith is unchanged throughout the centuries and if certain very good modern writers such as Mr. Hoffman do not allow themselves to be pigeon-holed by ghetto-izing terms like “trad” — very good.

    Let us all confess the Catholic faith and not be mislead by the Freemasonic imitation vomited forth by “Vatican II”.

    God bless the remnant, which is the Church.

  20. Mike Says:

    Michael Hoffman deserves much gratitude for his work over the years. I believe he will be remembered for "revelation of the method" more than his labyrinthine investigations into Jewish perfidy, however.

    Reading his comment, I would be very curious to know where he goes to church. I am actually beginning to believe that he remains in Vatican II, since on his website he refers to Ratzinger as the Pope. Certainly if he were a sedevacantist we would have heard about it.

    I wish that Mr. Hoffman would be less enigmatic and shadowy. If he is indeed a Catholic, he is more reticent about his faith than any Catholic I've ever known, which goes against the whole point of the faith. You don't get to heaven by being against Jews — you get to heaven by being FOR Christ and His Church ( now the sedevacantists ), and for good works of prayer, penance, and trying to gather and harvest others. The exposure of the Jews should be subsidiary. St. Chrysostom for example was against the Jews but he was also a Catholic whose religious doctrine and spiritual insights we know.

    Hoffman's defense of the Germans is suspicious as well, as the Germans have been far from Catholic in recent centuries and cannot be numbered among the great Catholic nations any more than apostate England. Is it possible, Mr. Hoffman, that you can't see that the Germans and Jews actually work together to crush Catholics in a sort of sadomasochistic way? Think of what happened in Eastern Europe, in Poland, where the Nazis and then Communists converged. Recall that without Hitler, the Jews would not be in Israel today. Nesta Webster nearly a century ago figured out that the "pan-German" power and Judaism were secretly allied, were, in effect, part of an unconscious Hegelian dialectic. This is mirrored in the strange relationship of the Jewish Karol Woyjtla ( why do you never mention he was Jewish? ) and the German Ratzinger. Frankly it is also mirrored in your surname which could either be German or Jewish or both.

    I for one would like a clear statement from you, Mr. Hoffman, because you're acting like a Marrano, all shifty and shady. Try this: "I am a traditional/Novus Ordo/sedevacantist Catholic," or "I am a Mennonite crusader for the white race" or whatever the truth is ( because "white separatism" is absolutely contrary to Catholicism and a doctrine of hell ). No one asked your opinion about an obscure "unauthorized" Marian prayer.

    You are a Catholic believer of "sola scriptura," as you say. You then extend your mercy and say that Catholic traditions that don't contradict the Bible are OK. Sounds innocent enough… But the assumption behind that statement is that there are Catholic traditions that DO contradict the Bible. This is actually heresy. That means you must reject a dogma — which is it? Is that why you are so evasive?

    If I had to guess, I'd say that you are a libertarian type and against monarchy and Church "intrusion." That means you believe in the separation of Church and state as the ideal political system — that is heresy. Your sketchiness seems to come from your inability to reconcile Catholicism with your libertarian small-government small-Church white-power Americanist philosophy. That is because they cannot be reconciled.

    But anyway, if you know Scripture, then you will know Christ instructed us to answer with "Yes, yes and no, no, anything else is from the devil." So are you a Catholic, yes or no? Enough twilight language.

    From a sedevacantist Catholic who doesn't want the rancher to send me to the Lutheran orphanage ( a cryptocratic Silence of the Lambs reference for you ),

    Michael de la Sota.

  21. Mike Says:

    Michael Hoffman deserves much gratitude for his work over the years. I believe he will be remembered for "revelation of the method" more than his labyrinthine investigations into Jewish perfidy, however.

    Reading his comment, I would be very curious to know where he goes to church. I am actually beginning to believe that he remains in Vatican II, since on his website he refers to Ratzinger as the Pope. Certainly if he were a sedevacantist we would have heard about it.

    I wish that Mr. Hoffman would be less enigmatic and shadowy. If he is indeed a Catholic, he is more reticent about his faith than any Catholic I've ever known, which goes against the whole point of the faith. You don't get to heaven by being against Jews — you get to heaven by being FOR Christ and His Church ( now the sedevacantists ), and for good works of prayer, penance, and trying to gather and harvest others. The exposure of the Jews should be subsidiary. St. Chrysostom for example was against the Jews but he was also a Catholic whose religious doctrine and spiritual insights we know.

    Hoffman's defense of the Germans is suspicious as well, as the Germans have been far from Catholic in recent centuries and cannot be numbered among the great Catholic nations any more than apostate England. Is it possible, Mr. Hoffman, that you can't see that the Germans and Jews actually work together to crush Catholics in a sort of sadomasochistic way? Think of what happened in Eastern Europe, in Poland, where the Nazis and then Communists converged. Recall that without Hitler, the Jews would not be in Israel today. Nesta Webster nearly a century ago figured out that the "pan-German" power and Judaism were secretly allied, were, in effect, part of an unconscious Hegelian dialectic. This is mirrored in the strange relationship of the Jewish Karol Woyjtla ( why do you never mention he was Jewish? ) and the German Ratzinger. Frankly it is also mirrored in your surname which could either be German or Jewish or both.

    I for one would like a clear statement from you, Mr. Hoffman, because you're acting like a Marrano, all shifty and shady. Try this: "I am a traditional/Novus Ordo/sedevacantist Catholic," or "I am a Mennonite crusader for the white race" or whatever the truth is ( because "white separatism" is absolutely contrary to Catholicism and a doctrine of hell ). No one asked your opinion about an obscure "unauthorized" Marian prayer.

    You are a Catholic believer of "sola scriptura," as you say. You then extend your mercy and say that Catholic traditions that don't contradict the Bible are OK. Sounds innocent enough… But the assumption behind that statement is that there are Catholic traditions that DO contradict the Bible. This is actually heresy. That means you must reject a dogma — which is it? Is that why you are so evasive?

    If I had to guess, I'd say that you are a libertarian type and against monarchy and Church "intrusion." That means you believe in the separation of Church and state as the ideal political system — that is heresy. Your sketchiness seems to come from your inability to reconcile Catholicism with your libertarian small-government small-Church white-power Americanist philosophy. That is because they cannot be reconciled.

    But anyway, if you know Scripture, then you will know Christ instructed us to answer with "Yes, yes and no, no, anything else is from the devil." So are you a Catholic, yes or no? Enough twilight language.

    From a sedevacantist Catholic who doesn't want the rancher to send me to the Lutheran orphanage ( a cryptocratic Silence of the Lambs reference for you ),

    Michael de la Sota.

  22. Stephen Hand Says:

    You do not think Jeff rense and Jim Marrs are New Age philosophical dupes? I mean, seriously?

    I trust you have read them? Or is simply being against Kabbalism enough for you?

  23. Stephen Hand Says:

    You do not think Jeff rense and Jim Marrs are New Age philosophical dupes? I mean, seriously?

    I trust you have read them? Or is simply being against Kabbalism enough for you?

  24. Anonymous Says:

    You've got it all wrong. Vatican II was a conspiracy by the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, who are forcing Catholics to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass, here, people…

  25. Anonymous Says:

    You've got it all wrong. Vatican II was a conspiracy by the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires, who are forcing Catholics to go to bed early in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner. We're through the looking glass, here, people…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: